Sustainable Parking Management: Practices, Policies, and Metrics 012815800X, 9780128158005

Table of contents :
Cover
Sustainable Parking Management:
Practices, Policies, and Metrics
Copyright
1
Introduction
2
Parking requirements
Defining parking standards
Concept of maximal standards
Monitoring and redefinition
Best practice examples
Exam questions
References
3
Parking demand
Spatial and temporal components of demand
Demand segments
User requirements toward quality of service
Exam questions
References
Web References
Further Reading
4
Parking dimensions
Parking bay
Organization and marking of on-street parking
Functional design of parking lots and garages
Disabled parking
Exam questions
References
Web References
Further Reading
5
Key parking performance characteristics
Parking purpose
Parking accumulation (A)
Parking volume (Vp)
Parking duration (d)
Parking turnover (K)
Walking time/distance (Lw)
Parking search time
Parameters of parking supply capacity
Exam questions
References
Further reading
6
Data collection
Types of survey
Elements of survey
Phase I: Deciding what to research
Phase II: Planning a research study
Establishing the research organization
Survey methodology
Phase III: Conducting a research study
Examples of specific survey methods
Parking database
If there is a parking enforcement operator(s) in the city, then it should be consulted during database designing whe ...
Exam questions
References
7
Parking strategy
Sustainable development
Sustainable transportation system
Parking position in sustainable transportation system
Creating a parking strategy
Parking policy
Exam questions
References
Web references
Further reading
8
Parking regulation
Parking regimes
Regulated parking duration regimes
Criteria for introducing limited parking duration regime into an area
Criteria for introducing limited parking duration regime in a street section of an area with no or low attractiv ...
Defining the attributes of limited duration parking regimes
Other parking regimes
Parking price management
Aggregate pricing and prediction models
Disaggregate pricing and prediction models
Parking tariff systems
Parking revenue
Financing public parking construction
Parking charge revenues
Parking revenue generated by visitors in cases when each commenced unit of time is charged
Parking charge revenue when visitors are charged for effective single parking duration
Exam questions
References
Web references
Further reading
9
Parking enforcement
Parking enforcement procedures
Parking payment methods
Technical devices for parking enforcement
Best practice
Exam questions
References
10
Mobility management
Park-and-ride
Types of PnR facilities
Expectations from introduction of PnR system
Selecting locations for PnR lots
PnR tariff system and ticketing
On-bus payment for bus service only, car parking free
On-site payment for bus service only, car parking free
On-site payment for both parking and bus service
On-site payment for parking only, bus service free
Pre-paid PnR ticket
Levels of PnR user information
Working hour schemes
Alternative transportation modes
Financial incentives for commuters
Road pricing
Street reclaiming
Accessibility management: Moving traffic regimes and parking
Marketing programs
Exam questions
References
Web References
Further Reading
11
Parking guidance and information system
Introduction into PGI systems
PGI system architecture
Monitoring equipment
Control room
Communications
Information display equipment
Other
User response to PGI system information
Preconditions for quality PGI system operation
Parking occupancy
Information characteristics
Contents of information
Quality of information
Time and place of information display
Temporal information aspect
Other
User and trip characteristics
Effects of PGI system implementation
Improved parking lot efficiency and utilization
Spatial redistribution of parking
Reduced queuing times in front of parking lots
Traffic smoothing
Decrease of parking search time
Reduction of illegal on-street parking
Mitigation of traffic congestions
Improved safety
Environmental improvements
Increased user satisfaction
Benefits for users
Utility and intention to use
Regional revitalization
PGI system application to on-street parking
Exam questions
References
Web references
Further reading
12
Communicating parking policies
Marketing and communication
General communication
Direct communication
Individual communication
Parking policy acceptance
Exam questions
References
Web References
13
Parking indicators
Selection of parking indicators
Interpretation of parking indicators
Indicators of service quality
Outcomes
Indicators of cost efficiency
User and nonuser satisfaction
Best practice examples
Exam questions
References
Index
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
Back Cover

Citation preview

Sustainable Parking Management

Sustainable Parking Management Practices, Policies, and Metrics

Nada Milosavljevic University of Belgrade, Serbia

Jelena Simicevic University of Belgrade, Serbia

Elsevier Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom 50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions. This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-0-12-815800-5 For information on all Elsevier publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Joe Hayton Acquisition Editor: Brian Romer Editorial Project Manager: Ana Claudia A. Garcia Production Project Manager: R.Vijay Bharath Cover Designer: Christian J. Bilbow Typeset by SPi Global, India

Chapter 1

Introduction Abstract The introduction shows the motivation for writing the book: from the occurrence of transport (parking) problems in cities and towns, through paradigm shift, to the need to apply sustainable parking management. Special attention is given to reasons behind the parking problem, to the need: the need to shift the parking management paradigm and to understanding the need to apply sustainable parking management. Importance is placed on parking management strategies and transportation demand management policies are promoted to support parking management policies. A new paradigm of meeting only the qualified demand in central and highly attractive areas is promoted and a set of measures required for implementation thereof is suggested. Moreover, the introduction defines the objectives and book topics. Keywords: Parking problem; Quality of life; Urban livability; Sustainable development; Sustainable transportation system; Parking management

In mid-20th century, the passenger car earned an important place in modal split. In addition to area for movement, each car needs space for parking. Any trip by car requires at least two parking spaces, at both ends of the trip (with minor exception of trips made just to pick up or drop off persons or objects). Hence, cars occupy space even when they are not moving, i.e., when parked, and cars are parked on average 23 h a day. In case of on-street parking, a parked car occupies on average 10 m2 and utilizes the adjacent traffic lane to enter/ leave the stall, while in off-street parking lots, the average area occupied is around 20 m2. Large surface areas required for car traffic (for both car movement and car parking) require more and more urban land to be allocated for traffic operations. However, a city where most surfaces are intended for roads and parking capacities can be neither human nor convenient for living. Increasing number of cars in the network affects positive car characteristics (high speed and short travel time) while reinforcing the negative ones (noise, pollution, etc.). In critical cases, when the number of vehicles in the network exceeds the network capacity, traffic congestions arise; traffic congestions have negative economic and social impacts not only upon individuals but also upon the society as a whole as well. Sustainable Parking Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815800-5.00001-X © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1

2 Sustainable Parking Management

Increase in the number of passenger cars (particularly in cities) and increase in the number of car trips underline the mismatch between spatial and functional traffic components. Population and intensity of social and private life in cities grew and developed. On the other hand, urban traffic infrastructure did not follow this population growth and their travel demand accordingly. The most pronounced traffic infrastructure mismatch is seen in parking. Parking problem is one of the problems integral to urban growth and is expressed through irrational use of urban spaces, irrational use of other urban resources, decrease in transportation service quality, negative environmental impacts, etc. The above problems arise to a great extent from the increase in passenger car numbers; increase in car trips; and, lately, increase in population’s dependence upon cars, particularly for movement at short distances. Possibilities for providing capacities to satisfy the population’s parking needs are limited by organizational, spatial, and financial factors. These needs grow indefinitely, leading to a situation when parking requests exceed available parking spaces. This mismatch is the birthplace of elements of urban chaos, which is the subject and the starting point in planning. In other words, parking problems originate from all the spatial elements of urban structures and people in these urban structures. In particular, the following are the two important causes of parking problems: l

l

The mismatch between spatial needs and capacities to accommodate parking. Disadvantages or deliberate omissions when programming, planning, and constructing new or rehabilitating existing urban structures and facilities, either as consequence of inadequate consideration of the immediate or distant future or as a consequence of insufficient funds required to implement urban planning concepts in full.

Both these causes are particularly characteristic of central urban areas1 and highly attractive areas, while the second cause is related to primarily singleuse class activities. In all countries worldwide (particularly in those countries with car manufacturing industries, such as Italy), national economies emphasized the car industry as a position of distinction for participation in the international division of labor. Each car—either imported or from the national car industry’s assembly lines—is most often owned by residents of cities and built-up areas. In parallel, these national economies could not invest the same amount of funds into construction of necessary roads, while parking capacities have been at the very end of investment allocations ever since, with minimum or no parking investments at all. Over the last few decades, this has been evidenced by the degradation of the traditional streetscape due to parked cars. This is why provision of parking capacities and parking problem solution are set as the starting 1. Central urban area is the core of the urban territory, most often the heart of business, commercial, financial and administrative activities of a city.

Introduction Chapter

1

3

condition to enable any urban transportation system to operate properly. Whenever new traffic infrastructure, including parking infrastructure, was constructed, this resulted in new demand, so the supply could never manage to satisfy this demand. The mismatch between the number of cars and surfaces where cars move or remain stationary has been growing; until only a few decades ago, it seemed that it was not possible to contain the problem even within the existing situation. This increased demand process is ongoing, while the mismatch between the number of cars and surfaces prescribed by moving traffic and parking requirements is growing. In addition, changes in the societal environmental awareness, increasing noise and air pollution in highly urbanized areas, and poorer financial situation in many cities/areas led to the transformation of parking issues from civil construction regulations (with the primary objective to construct parking spaces) into urban and transportation planning aspects—with emphasis on considerations of the connection between transportation and other urban aspects. The pronounced mismatch between the number of transportation requests (demand) and transportation infrastructure capacities (supply), with all its negative implications, generated a change in the attitude toward solving traffic problems and consequently parking problems, in cities and particularly in central and highly attractive areas. In order to match parking demand and supply, previous concept of adjusting the city to the traffic was replaced with the concept of adjusting the traffic to the city. The concept of adjusting the traffic to the city should provide for realization of population mobility, but it entails controlled car use. To implement this concept, it is required to, inter alia, manage parking properly in terms of managing parking demand on the one hand and managing available parking capacity operation on the other hand. Reasons for the change in the attitude toward this basic conception lie in the following: in the last decades, cities of developed countries have been paying more attention to the quality of life or urban livability concept. Urban livability is not possible to neither define precisely nor measure quantitatively; it has to be accepted as a concept for considering and solving modern society problems. According to the United Nations and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), urban suitability, rather generally, includes the following elements: housing, immediate surroundings, safety, economic possibilities, healthy living, mobility, recreation and leisure, etc. The position of transportation or traffic as an integrator of all activities in a city is proportional to its significance for performing main urban functions. In terms of transportation, quality of life in cities, again rather generally, may be defined as enabling mobility of the population with controlled car use. In order to implement this concept that prioritizes the quality of life in a city or area, cities/areas strategize toward sustainable development concept. In essence, this concept strives toward balancing social, economic, and technological development with the existing environment. The concept was created in the

4 Sustainable Parking Management

second half of the previous century by spreading concerns about the accelerated degradation of the environment and consumption of natural resources due to economic and social development. Since sustainable development prioritizes transportation system (it has an important role in the economy due to its omnipresence in the production chain and other human activities), increase of negative impacts generated by transportation activities gave rise to the awareness about the necessity to apply solutions that promote sustainability, including sustainable transportation systems. Implementation of “sustainable transportation system” emphasizes improvements in managing urban resources, managing the modal split,2 and investments into development of a selected transportation subsystem (alternative to car travel). Parking management strategy has to constitute an integral part of the sustainable urban transportation system. Parking management strategy has to embody the basic methodological step for commitments and actions in order to regulate the state of parking aimed at developing a sustainable urban transportation system and, beyond, a sustainable city on the whole. In this regard, the approach to defining parking requirements has also changed. Until recently (and in many cities around the world, this is still the case), requirements were interpreted as minimum parking requirements (MPR) for the whole urban territory, i.e., MPR governed the minimum number of parking spaces that a developer had to provide on-site for a particular use class development. However, parking requirements have to be interpreted flexibly, prioritizing maximum possible requirement implementation in central and highly attractive urban areas. These areas, as a rule, are characterized by high transportation demand that needs to be limited, as they are well supplied with public transit or some other alternative modes of transportation. In addition, it has been recognized that the number of and the manner of providing parking spaces can be used as a considerable influence upon selection of destination and transportation mode, upon the quality of traffic flow, partly upon the land use in various urban areas, and consequently upon the quality of the environment. To achieve this with this modern concept, general parking demand (parking requests posed by all parking users) is replaced with “qualified demand.” Qualified demand is defined as traffic required for regular operation of activities in urban areas. This demand is granted privileges in most parking concepts with management characteristics. Qualified demand, besides passenger cars, includes light-duty vehicles (with technically permissible maximum laden mass of 2.8 or 3.5 tonnes, depending on the national regulations), which are used to supply the activities in these areas and to dispose waste, goods, or other materials. On the other hand, in a sense, deliveries represent a problem as well, because it is not possible that delivery 2. Modal split is the percentual distribution of the total realized movement within 1 day or year, within a defined area, into modes of transportation used, i.e., mass transit, individual cars, walking, and other types of transportation existing/available in the area.

Introduction Chapter

1

5

vehicles park immediately next to all facilities that need delivery. Numerous stakeholders (delivery companies, transportation companies, customer companies, city representatives, etc.) with conflicting demands complicate this problem, hence it has to be solved within city logistics. Application of the modern concept (satisfying only the qualified demand in highly attractive areas) means there is a need to utilize management measures to maintain balance between the supply and qualified demand in order to use the finite number of parking spaces as efficiently as possible. This is the reason why parking regulations were developed to define regulations that control who, when, and how long vehicles may park at a particular location in order to prioritize parking facility use and can be considered as the very heart of parking policy/management. In other words, parking regulation is a set of administrative measures and engineering interventions aimed at more efficient utilization of available parking capacities. They typically include time restrictions, users’ restrictions, and pricing parking. In areas where parking charge is planned, parking regulations need to include a properly defined tariff system. Efficient application of parking regulations is supported by efficient parking enforcement. Parking enforcement includes activities to ensure that key metrics of performance established for the on-street parking subsystem are met as much as possible. Control of parking violations serves to sanction the violators appropriately so as to properly address their behavior toward parking management measures. Reduced number of violators leads to better parking management effects and vice versa; too many violators degrade the parking enforcement level and reduce the expected outcomes. Therefore enforcement system is considered the foundation of a good parking management. Even though sound parking enforcement is vital, a certain degree of flexibility is necessary in its application as well, so that users do not perceive it as unfriendly. In this respect, parking management authorities need to define the level of compliance with parking controls that they want to achieve and, based on that, the level of enforcement necessary to get such compliance. Parking enforcement should be consistent and fair. If, due to limitations, parking policies cannot achieve all goals defined in a parking management strategy, parking demand is reduced by selecting mobility management policy(ies). If urban development plans did not anticipate application of mobility management policy(ies) (which would lead to reduced parking demand as well), the parking subsystem alone can initiate introduction of some mobility management policies. In other words, mobility management supports and is supported by parking management. Mobility management favors public transit and other alternative transportation modes over cars. Mobility management increases the assortment of transportation supply and incites users to take the most efficient mode of transportation for each trip. Mobility management does not eliminate car travel, since cars are the best transportation mode for some trips, but it does tend to

6 Sustainable Parking Management

decrease car use significantly. Improving the quality of alternative transportation modes and limiting the car use can benefit everybody. Since mobility management is characterized by low implementation costs and multiple benefits, this should be recognized especially by cities in developing countries where streets are often narrow and congested and parking capacities are limited. It is estimated that efficient mobility management in early urban development stages would prevent problems that occur when the society becomes too car-dependent. As explained, a constant mismatch between transportation demand (including parking demand) and capacities, reflected through traffic congestions (and high level of illegal parking), created the need for transportation management. The goal of transportation management is to utilize capacities of the existing infrastructure as rationally and efficiently as possible. This means that new construction, as a road capacity (and parking capacity) improvement measure, cannot be relied upon to rationally address the growing transportation demand. Development of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and their integration into traffic management helped address the constant need for real-time decision-making that stems from the nature of the traffic flow. Providing the parking user with information on alternative parking lots and their current occupancies pretrip and on trip may influence the driver’s decisions about travel times and parking lots to use. Providing this kind of information to users is enabled through parking guidance and information (PGI) system application. PGI systems inform drivers about the state of parking in technically equipped and monitored areas or parking lots/garages in real-time and guide users to vacant parking spaces. PGI systems are typically designed for central and other highly attractive areas with several parking lots available. Since recently, PGI systems are being applied to guide users to on-street parking as well. Because parking policy measures mainly require changes in user behavior, in order to produce positive effects, measures applied need to be accepted by parking users. Therefore, “marketing” has to be ceaselessly applied, so as to define and implement activities that will, through communication, encourage users to adopt more sustainable behavior, which will contribute to implementation and positive effects of adopted parking policies. Communication is directly related to user acceptance, and it needs to have a key role in parking policies. Parking management is a continual (uninterrupted) process. As soon as parking policies for parking management strategy are selected and measures for their implementation take effect, it is required to supervise and monitor the parking subsystem state, i.e., to establish the effects of measures applied. This is required for the timely adjustment (redefinition of measures or their attributes) in order to achieve effects of their application as much as possible. Detailed evaluation of effects is an important component of sustainable transportation planning.

Introduction Chapter

1

7

The city, as a complex spatial and operational system, interrelates with both its macro and micro surroundings. Car parking, as a technological traffic phase between the origin and the destination, is governed by corresponding system laws. And yet, urban car parking is a far more complex phenomenon than the legislation could possibly regulate. A prerequisite for positive legislative effects is to communicate with users and to win user acceptance, i.e., to educate users and hence to create an ambiance in which users will understand and accept parking policies and thus comply with legal regulations. In order to regulate parking as precisely as possible, city/local authorities in charge of parking management adopt decisions and parking rule books. These documents integrate specificities of the urban environment and parking conditions therein and elaborate in more detail on parking issues of the city or the built-up area in general, particularly in their centers or highly attractive areas. Characteristically, these parking documents are tailored to local parking conditions and needs, so as a result of this approach, visitors from other cities may experience problems. Therefore, a “unique parking management language” in all cities should be the aim, in order to ensure understanding for all visitors. Construction and regulation of parking spaces in parking lots and parking facilities require considerable funds to be allocated by city authorities and developers. To provide required and sufficient number of parking spaces, one has to find stable (sustainable) funding sources. It is very important that before the city/local authorities choose to construct and regulate parking lots and parking facilities from defined funding sources, there is a clear commitment toward parking strategy in highly attractive centers. Urban car parking has grown into a very complex and spatially diluted problem. This consequently entails the need to study and monitor the problem in order to apply modern procedures and methods to contain it. As an area of study, parking phenomenon would belong to the group of technical and technological sciences, while its complexity between the traffic and the space and cities and built-up areas suggests its duality in transportation and urban planning. If it is true that car parking and the study of car parking belong to technical and technological sciences, then surely, this book and its contents meet the basic requirements of these sciences: to bring spatial, technical, and technological systems and their subsystems into accord with the programmed, planned, and designed technologies of use according to human needs. This book focuses on the study and methods to solve passenger car parking problems in cities and built-up areas, particularly in their central and highly attractive areas.

Chapter 2

Parking requirements Abstract This chapter deals with the definition, calculation methods, and application of parking standards. The concept of maximal standards is particularly promoted, as they encourage the use of alternative transport modes (such as public transit) instead of car travel, which is in accordance with principles of sustainable transportation system. Parking standards are employed with respect to public transport service coverage of the area where the facility is located and its attractiveness. Residential parking requirements are specifically elaborated, due to the specificity of this use and the status of its users. We suggest measures for mitigation of negative impacts of conventional residential parking requirements on costs, urban land, and transport. Examples of how to determine standards in relevant cities are presented. Keywords: Parking requirements; Parking supply; Maximal parking requirements; Car-free neighborhoods; “In-lieu” fees; Unbundled parking

Parking requirements are also known as parking standards or parking norms. Parking requirements are used to calculate the number of parking spaces that the developer must supply for an area or development of a certain use class (Litman, 2006; p. 272). Parking requirements are applied exclusively in cases when new developments are to be constructed, or when an existing development is to be regulated or extended, or its use is to be changed. Parking requirements do not affect the existing parking arrangements (they are not applied retroactively). Parking requirements are a policy that is directly used to influence the key elements of parking supply. They can be set up on a national, regional, or local level and in some cases on a local level based on a national guidance paper. Guidelines for urban planning of cities and their transportation systems that, inter alia, include parking requirements are usually published within national planning documents (development strategies), while specific parking requirements are issued in national, regional, or local planning documents. To date—and only in few cities worldwide until recently—the practice has been to interpret the existing parking requirements as minimum parking requirements (MPRs) for the territory of the whole city, i.e., they were seen as the minimum number of parking spaces Sustainable Parking Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815800-5.00002-1 © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

9

10 Sustainable Parking Management

that developers need to provide when constructing a development intended for certain use. These requirements were mostly applied inflexibly, with some or no considerations for and adjustments to local specificities and management practices that might affect the required number of parking spaces. History of MPRs goes back to the 1930s Germany (Donovan and Nunns, 2016). Subsequently, they were adopted in California and elsewhere from the 1950s onward. Since the middle 1990s, a growing body of research has called into question the merits of MPRs (Shoup, 2005). Nowadays, the interest in the effects of minimum parking requirements (MPRs) on transportation and land use outcomes has been renewed. Modern sustainable transportation concept requires modifications in the methods for both calculation and interpretation of parking requirements, especially in central areas and other areas of high attractiveness. As framework for new spatial development, key transportation policies focus on using the public transit system and other transportation modes as alternatives to cars. Under such spatial development, parking capacities should be limited correspondingly, so as to maximize utilization of transportation modes alternative to car transportation, to minimize car use and consequently traffic congestion, and hence to contribute to environmental protection. All these efforts resulted in defining the concept of maximum parking requirements. Maximum parking requirements prescribe the maximum number of parking spaces that may be constructed at a development for certain use. Such a concept is surely in line with sustainability principles. Under this new concept, requirements are flexible, considering the specific characteristics of each site and activity. Their advantages include also a more efficient utilization of space as a limited resource (Mingardo et al., 2015). In practice, parking standards could be interpreted as both minimum and maximum requirements. Minimum parking standards are used typically in areas where cars do not have proper transportation alternatives, so sufficient parking capacities near a development are to be provided in order to meet the general demand and prevent parking spillover to neighboring areas. On the other hand, maximum parking standards are applied mainly in central areas and other areas of high attractiveness that are well served by either public transit or some other alternative transportation modes but where transportation supply should be limited.

2.1 Defining parking standards Urban planning requirements are expressed as the required number of parking spaces per corresponding facility parameter unit (gross floor area (GFA), number of employees, etc.) (Shoup, 1999). Most requirements refer to GFA. For example, when parking requirements regulate one parking space per 25 m2 GFA and the corresponding usable area of a facility amounts to 185 m2, by calculating 25 into 185, we get 7.4 parking spaces, and the resulting figure should be rounded to the nearest full higher

Parking requirements Chapter

2

11

number; hence, the total resulting parking requirement amounts to eight parking spaces. However, this parameter is not suitable for all land uses; therefore, adequate parameters need to be established (e.g., the number of seats in movie theaters/theaters and number of beds in hospitals). In addition, in transition countries where change of facility use occurs frequently, spaces not originally designed according to certain use class standards happen to now perform some other functions. Such cases also need to be treated separately, meaning that corresponding parameters need to be selected. In most cases, regulations stipulate that developers who construct a new development are obliged to provide the site with the number of parking spaces as defined in planning requirements for that use class and size of the development expressed by a corresponding parameter. In order to obtain construction permit, the developer is obliged to plan the required number of parking spaces for the disabled and to prove that there are spaces available for loading, unloading, and maneuvering delivery vehicles. When a development covers two or more use classes to which different parking requirements apply, parking requirements that refer to each use class have to be applied simultaneously in the corresponding ratio. In such a situation, three cases are possible: 1. When maximum attractiveness times of each use class overlap. In this case, the required numbers of parking spaces are calculated for both/all use classes and added up. 2. When periods of attractiveness of the use classes are completely separated (e.g., business offices with 9 AM–5 PM attractiveness and a theater in the evening hours). When feasible, the most convenient solution in this case is to apply shared use of the parking area without conflict. Conflict should not occur so long as the shared use developments operate at differing times of day or days of the week. Hereby, the reduction of parking spaces to be provided by the developer can be achieved. In this case, the numbers of parking spaces according to both use class requirements are calculated, but the larger number will be adopted. 3. When periods of maximum attractiveness of use classes do not overlap (e.g., a residential and business building, since some of the residents leave and come back to the parking space at differing times during the day). In such cases, the required number of parking spaces cannot be calculated by applying parking requirements for each of the use classes; rather, a separate study has to be elaborated, and a special methodology is to be applied. Such a study has to define new parking requirements for a so-called mixed-use class, or a relevant share for each of the existing use classes has to be defined (not maximum parking demand, but rather relevant parking demand for each of the use classes) in maximum accumulation based on which the requirement will be calculated (for this case, an example of how to calculate the required number of parking spaces for a multiuse development is given in Section 3.2).

12 Sustainable Parking Management

If a development has occasional attractiveness (e.g., museums and sport stadiums/arenas), parking requirements should define the number of parking spaces that have to be constructed on-site and the number of parking spaces that have to be available in the development’s influential area during the high attractiveness period. This type of developments requires a separate study that will define the required number of parking spaces on-site and in its influential area. Exceptionally, if foreseen at the strategic level or if due to objective reasons the developer cannot provide on-site parking supply defined by the parking requirements, the developer can be allowed or asked to collect in-lieu fees instead of constructing all or a portion of parking places. Funds collected hereby can be used for the following: l

l

l

Construction/leasing a certain number of parking spaces in a private or public facility located in the influential area Developing alternative subsystems (so as to contribute to improvements in local transportation infrastructure within the corresponding planning requirements) Contribution in operating costs of the parking regime applicable in the development’s influential area

Flexibility of parking requirements expressed as application of alternative solutions is good for both local authorities (reduction of car traffic) and private developers (reduction of construction costs). All the above methods that represent alternatives to stringent application of parking requirements should be supported with corresponding traffic analyses and studies that will define the required number of parking spaces. Selection of the proper alternative solution for the developer when construction of on-site parking spaces is either forbidden or limited (by applying maximum parking requirements) requires additional analyses.

2.2 Concept of maximal standards In conventional planning practices and conventional methods for managing parking when the primary goal was to meet the general demand, minimum parking requirements (MPRs) played the key role. Such an approach was conducive to car ownership and use, leading to traffic congestion and increasing environmental pollution. It is estimated that MPRs increase the urban vehicle ownership by approximately 14% (Litman, 2016). On the other hand, MPRs considerably increase construction costs for new developments and dictate the ways the land is used. For example, in Los Angeles, California, and the United States, construction of aboveground parking for office buildings increases construction costs by 27%, while construction of underground parking garages increases the construction costs by even 67% (Shoup, 1999). Changes in transportation planning and land use manner, together with the emergence of the modern management approach, defined the maximum parking

Parking requirements Chapter

2

13

requirement concept. Hereby, the number of parking spaces in a development or an area is administratively limited. Since parking policies embody a notably efficient instrument for managing urban mobility, most countries opted to define a framework for better integration of traffic and urban land use. In this sense, the authorities are expected to adopt maximum parking requirements in highly attractive areas as a measure conducive to sustainability, thus enabling parking requirements to be applied in land use management as well. Unlike the old concept that applied the same parking requirements for a single facility use class on the whole urban territory, nowadays, there is a tendency to apply a set of various requirements for areas with differing levels of accessibility to mass transit or an alternative dominant urban transportation subsystem. In other words, one use class will imply different parking requirements depending on the accessibility to mass transit or other alternative transportation subsystems in the given area. When defining parking requirements, the focus is placed mainly on the mass transit accessibility of the given area, since mass transit is the most used alternative to private cars in cities and towns of large and medium sizes. Accessibility is evaluated according to accessibility maps to be elaborated for each specified urban area for which the requirement is defined. Accessibility maps should be prepared by applying numerous parameters depending on the selected dominant transportation mode. For certain use class facilities located in areas with better mass transit accessibility, a lower number of parking spaces to be provided by the developer will be required in comparison with the facilities of the same use class and size but located in an area with lower public transit accessibility. Reduction in the number of parking spaces available to users of a certain use class facility located in an area with better mass transit accessibility helps prevent unnecessary land occupation, underlines recommendations for transportation mode selection, and manages transportation demand. Application of the above concept implies that the transportation policy of a city or any built-up area includes basic assumptions for the definition of parking requirements (Marsden, 2006). It should be noted that parking requirements are very complex to apply and that a level flexibility in application has to be provided, due to numerous specific cases. Flexibility means that parking requirements in central and other highly attractive areas may be interpreted as maximum requirements, while in peripheral areas, these are interpreted as minimum requirements, except for whole or parts of central areas for which it is strategically decided not to build parking spaces for nonresidential uses, due to high supply of alternative transportation modes and high attractiveness of these areas (the example of London, United Kingdom, Section 2.4). Furthermore, there are many alternative measures that may be applied when desired instead of strict application of parking requirements. In addition to the above reasons, alternative solutions could be applied in cases when the site has a specific position or specific size.

14 Sustainable Parking Management

In other words, even in cases of reduction or even complete abolition of mandatory parking requirements at some sites or in cases when the site has a specific position or form, it is required to unambiguously define conditions under which the defined parking requirements could be abandoned. Even in cases when not a single general parking space is to be constructed (due to either restrictions or application of alternative measure), disabled parking spaces must be provided on-site. The number of disabled parking spaces typically amounts from 2% to 6% of the total parking spaces either calculated by applying corresponding parking requirements or based on separate analyses (see Section 2.4). Residential parking requirements represent a special issue due to the specificity of this use and the status of its users (for car-owning residents, it is implied that there is a parking space at the origin site, i.e., in the areas of their homes). Both in Europe and in the United States, current or recent residential parking requirements have been criticized as inflexible and generous, typically amounting from one to two parking spaces and, in some cases, even up to three parking spaces per residential unit. The same parking requirements are usually applied for the whole territory of the city, regardless of the area specificities, such as accessibility to transportation modes other than cars, often even in cases when these parameters have been considered during defining of parking requirements for other uses. Parking spaces calculated according to parking requirements are as a rule of thumb attached to residential units and have to be bought/rented together with a residential unit, regardless of the household needs. Due to all the above, such residential parking requirements: l

l

Increase car ownership and usage. The household is forced to buy/rent a parking space, even if it does not own a car or has less cars than the numbers of parking spaces allocated thereto. Owning a parking space stimulates purchase and later use of the car, which has negative effects upon sustainable development. Increase costs of buying/renting a house and reduce housing affordability especially for lower-income households, thus additionally widening the gap between the rich and the poor. Illustratively, Litman (2016) finds that parking typically represents 10%–20% of the total cost of housing.

In this regard, nowadays, it is advised to apply measures that will mitigate negative impacts of conventional residential parking requirements upon costs, urban land, and transport. Some of these measures are the following (Litman, 2016): l

l

Parking requirements may become more accurate and flexible, in order to reflect the actual parking demand better. They may vary across the city depending on management- and area-specific factors. Instead of building on-site parking spaces required by parking requirements, developers could be allowed to pay “in-lieu” fees, in order to finance construction of shared parking off-site.

Parking requirements Chapter

l

l

l

2

15

Parking spaces could be unbundled from residential units, i.e., be bought/ rented separately. In facilities where unbundled parking is planned, parking requirements should be lower, because it is assumed that requirements of residents will be lower too. Incentives for using car-sharing services, because it has been proved that car sharing decreases car ownership level, hence decreasing residential parking demand. Lately, car-free buildings and areas, without a single parking space, have been planned and built. This enables households who do not own and do not plan to own a car to enjoy in their environment with less traffic.

2.3 Monitoring and redefinition Monitoring over the use of constructed parking spaces as defined by parking requirements is a very important activity that needs to be performed for two main reasons: l

l

To avoid changes of use of parking spaces or parking areas upon technical acceptance of the constructed development To follow up their suitability

This sphere should be supported with a unified information system that should include data representing the basis of urban parking supply management process, without any improvisations whatsoever in any of the segments, starting from planning to implementation and the actual use of parking spaces. Data on infrastructure available for parking at any facility (link, facility—number of parking spaces constructed and user/resident ID) would constitute an important segment of this integrated information system. Monitoring of spatial changes that imply changes of land use, built-up occupancy coefficients at a given area, changes in mass transit system, and other alternative transportation modes that may result in changes in accessibility maps requires coordinated monitoring, information processing, and making these available to working teams to be in charge of monitoring the parking requirement implementation. Information flow needs to be institutionalized, thus enabling verification of both suitability and binding levels for submission/reporting of any change and processing of available data. Since parking requirements refer exclusively to parking related to planning, construction, regulation and/or extension, and change of facility use (requirements do not apply to already constructed facilities), suitability of suggested requirements and possibly their redefinition/revisiting should be done on new developments. As with any policy and guidance, it is recommended to review regularly to ensure that the document is still serving its purpose. Monitoring should be performed periodically in strategically determined time intervals (e.g., 3–5 years). At these times, it would be required to perform surveys on a sample of new

16 Sustainable Parking Management

developments located in areas within a single accessibility level, in order to determine relevant simultaneous parking demand used for calculation of requirements. Hereby, pertinence of the existing parking requirements would be verified, and possibly, their values could be modified for application in future developments. In addition, redefinition of parking requirements is necessary if considerable changes occur in the following: l

l

l

l

l

Accessibility of one or more areas to mass transit and other alternative transportation modes. In case the level of accessibility in an area changes, for each use class, it is required to add accessibility level requirements of the new accessibility coefficient to the given area. Planned car ownership level: Then, it is necessary (1) to redefine standards for residential use and (2) to conduct a survey on a sample of new developments of certain use, located in areas belonging to a single accessibility level in order to establish relevant simultaneous parking demand of development users based on which parking requirements are calculated, which would thereby verify the pertinence of the applied parking requirements as well. In case there is no simultaneous change in both area’s accessibility and percentage of private car drivers, it is required to calculate new requirement values for the surveyed area and to revisit parking requirements for other areas pursuant to the adopted requirement definition methodology (see, e.g., Section 2.4). In both area accessibility and in planned car ownership level: It is required to examine the need to redefine parking requirements and to conduct the full procedure for the definition of parking requirements. In strategic commitments (strategic documents or guidelines) in terms of introducing a level of parking restrictions. In case none of the above parameters change, restriction coefficients can be applied directly to requirements that have been already defined. In other specific cases that might affect the values of parking requirements.

It is advisable to investigate parameters relevant for verification of the existing parking requirement suitability using the same methodology as applied for the original parking requirement definition (the so-called before and after survey).

2.4 Best practice examples See Examples 2.1–2.3 EXAMPLE 2.1 The Netherlands introduced the ABC location policy in 1989 (Martens and Griethuysen, 2007). It was firstly introduced in the Fourth Report on Physical Planning in 1988. The policy aims to reduce car use and to reinforce the urban vitality

Parking requirements Chapter

2

17

through matching the mobility needs of businesses with the accessibility of different locations, once the parking problems at these locations have been identified. ABC policy application implied classification of locations and businesses. Locations were classified according to their accessibility by public transit and by car into A, B, and C categories as follows: l A-locations are very accessible by transit and very poorly accessible by car (typically central areas). l B-locations are both reasonably well accessible by transit and car. l C-locations are very accessible by car and very poorly accessible by transit (e.g., suburban areas). On the other hand, businesses were divided based on their mobility characteristics, such as the work intensity (the number of employees by surface unit), the mobility of employees (the dependency on the car while doing business activities), the visitors’ intensity (the number of visitors by surface unit), and the dependency on the transportation of goods. ABC policy allocates each business at a location with an accessibility profile that suits its mobility characteristics. In addition, to reinforce the effects, the number of parking spaces at A- and B-locations is limited, due to their very good transit accessibility, while at C-locations, it is unlimited. The policy took positive effects approximately a decade after it had been introduced (European Union, 2005).

EXAMPLE 2.2 In the United Kingdom, parking standards are set by local authorities based on national guidelines. The Greater London Development Plan from 1976 was the first to promote transition from minimum to maximum standards in the central area of London, the United Kingdom. In 2004, the good practice was transposed to the whole city. As expected, this reform considerably reduced parking supply in residential areas. The London reform was mainly promoted by national guidance: the Planning Policy Guidelines 13—Transport (DCLG, 2001a) and the Planning Policy Guidelines 3—Housing (DCLG, 2001b). Maximum parking standards in London were based on Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs) and on the analysis of the existing parking demand (i.e., percentages of car use) for developments of various uses. In the first step, accessibility maps were prepared, i.e., London was divided into areas based on PTALs. In total, six areas were defined: PTAL 1 area with the poorest transit accessibility, which increases, respectively, up to PTAL 6 area. Based on the available data on percentages of car use per PTAL for each land use, the percentage of car use in relation to the percentage of car use in PTAL 1 area was adopted, Table 2.1. The base case requirement is calculated for PTAL 1 area, and it is then calculated for other areas based on the percentage of car use as compared with the percentage of car use in PTAL 1 area, Table 2.2.

18 Sustainable Parking Management

EXAMPLE 2.2—cont’d TABLE 2.1 Adopted percentages of car use per areas in relation to the percentage of car use in PTAL 1 area PTAL

% of parking capacities to be met in relation to PTAL 1 area

1

100%

2

85%

3

75%

4

60%

5

40%

6

40%

Data from Greater London Authority, 2002. SDS maximum parking standards: derivation of PTAL-based parking restraint. In: SDS Technical Report Twenty. Greater London Authority, London. ISBN 1 85261 412 9.

TABLE 2.2 Examples of proposed maximum car parking standards for retail land use in London PTAL Retail land use

6 central

6 others &5

4

3

2

1

1 space per X m2 GFA smaller foodstore (up to 500 m2 GFA)

N/A

75

50

40

35

30

food supermarket (up to 2500 m2 RFA / c4000m2 GFA)

N/A

45

30

24

21

18

food superstore (over 2500 m2 rfa)

N/A

38

25

20

18

15

local center/shopping mall

N/A

75

50

40

35

30

... Adapted from Greater London Authority, 2002. SDS maximum parking standards: derivation of PTAL-based parking restraint. In: SDS Technical Report Twenty. Greater London Authority, London. ISBN 1 85261 412 9.

EXAMPLE 2.3 In 2008, a study (Milosavljevic et al., 2008) was elaborated in Belgrade, Serbia, with a view to revisiting the existing parking requirements. The main assumption was that parking requirements for the same land use depended on the mass transit accessibility in the zone. Accessibility was expressed using transit accessibility coefficients. Urban territory of Belgrade is divided in 22 zones. Mass transit accessibility coefficients of Belgrade’s urban zones were taken from the 2006 study “Zoning of Belgrade according to accessibility.” According to their respective mass transit accessibility, the 22 urban zones of Belgrade were grouped into four levels of mass transit accessibility: very high, high, medium, and low accessibility. A survey was conducted to investigate how users reach a development, and it was used to calculate the relation between parking requirements per zones, as follows: l Developments are grouped into “use classes” and then into “subuse classes” within the scope of a specific use. For each subuse class, the researchers define its specific dependency of the share of users who reachthe development by car as drivers (hereinafter the percentage of car drivers) in relation to the total number of users who visit the development and to the mass transit accessibility coefficient. Then, l The surveyed developments within the same use class are grouped per zones with corresponding accessibility coefficient. l Average percentage of users who are traveling to the surveyed developments by car as the drivers (percentage of car drivers) is calculated for each accessibility level. l Average percentage of car drivers obtained by surveying the developments in the zone with the lowest level (coefficient) of accessibility is considered the “basic value.” l Average values of car driver percentages in the remaining zones are recalculated related to the basic value (hereinafter referred to as relative car driver percentage), as follows: If the average car driver percentage obtained in the survey is marked as. “a” for the I zone per accessibility level “b” for the II zone per accessibility level “c” for the III zone per accessibility level “d” for the IV zone per accessibility level then “relative car driver percentage” will be a/d, b/d, c/d, and 1, respectively, Table 2.3.

TABLE 2.3 Procedure of defining correlation between standards per zones with certain transit accessibility level Car driver % relation (p)

Accessibility level

% car driver

Actual

Modified

Relation of parking requirements per zones

Very high (I)

a

a/d

p1

p1

High (II)

b

b/d

p2

p2

Medium (III)

c

c/d

p3

p3

Low (IV)

d

1

1

1

Data from Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J., & Maletic, G. (2010). Vehicle parking standards as a support to sustainable transport system: Belgrade case study. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(3), 380–396.

20 Sustainable Parking Management

EXAMPLE 2.3—cont’d 1. Correlation between “relative car driver percentage” and accessibility coefficient of the zone is calculated, as shown in Fig. 2.1, and the resulting correlation coefficient is then analyzed. If it is not satisfactory, the sample of surveyed developments has to be increased. If/when satisfactory, the below procedure is applied. In general, the survey confirmed high correlation between “the relation of car driver percentage” and accessibility coefficients in the zones.

FIG. 2.1 Definition of adjusted relative % car driver.

2. Based on the correlative curve, “relative car driver percentage” is adjusted as follows: l “Relative car driver percentage” for certain zone that, in the existing state, is higher than the value obtained through correlative relation is adjusted to the value obtained by the correlation (decreases). l “Relative car driver percentage” that, in the existing state, is lower than the value obtained through correlative relation remains at the same level that was established on the basis of the surveyed maximum parking demands (not increasing)—in order not to stimulate arrival of new car drivers. l “Relative car driver percentage” for the zone with lower accessibility must have value that is higher than or identical to the zone with higher accessibility. If this is not the case, the value of relative car driver percentage for the zone with higher accessibility is adjusted to the value of the zone with lower accessibility. This step secures observance of the main principle that the number of parking demands decreases with the increase in zone accessibility.

Parking requirements Chapter

2

21

Adjusted relative car driver percentage per zone is the correlation between standards per zones with certain accessibility level, Table 2.3. Table 2.4 shows an example of calculated maximum parking standards for retail use class and subuse class: shopping centers in Belgrade, Serbia. It should be noted that the relation between parking requirements per zones was calculated using the correlative curve for relation between car driver percentage and accessibility coefficients in the zones where the correlation coefficient is 0.90.

TABLE 2.4 Parking requirements in shopping centers in Belgrade, Serbia Zone acc. to transit accessibility level

Relation of requirements per zones (%)

Requirements per zones: 1 parking space per x m2 GFA

I

42

60

II

42

60

III

71

35

IV

100

25

Data from Milosavljevic, N., Culjkovic, V., Krstic, P., et al., 2008. Urbanisticki normativi za parkiranje [Vehicle Parking Standards]. Institute of the Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Belgrade, Serbia.

Exam questions 1. How are parking requirements defined, and in what cases are they applied? 2. Explain the difference between the old and the new, modern definition of parking requirements. Explain in particular the reasons to abandon the old concept. 3. Enumerate and explain how to apply parking requirements when a facility belongs to two or more use classes to which different parking requirements apply. 4. Explain the procedure when a developer cannot provide parking supply prescribed by the parking requirements within the facility site due to strategic or objective reasons. 5. Explain the concept of maximum parking standards. 6. Explain residential parking requirements. 7. Enumerate and explain some of the measures to mitigate negative impacts of conventional residential parking requirements on costs, urban land use, and transport.

22 Sustainable Parking Management

8. Explain why it is important to monitor the use of constructed parking spaces as defined by the parking requirements. Enumerate and explain preconditions for efficient monitoring. 9. Enumerate and explain in what cases it is required to investigate the need to redefine parking requirements. 10. Enumerate and comment on one best practice example of how parking requirements are defined.

References Department of Communities and Local Government, 2001a. Planning Policy Guidelines 13–Transport. DCLG, London. Department of Communities and Local Government, 2001b. Planning Policy Guidelines 3–Housing. DCLG, London. Donovan, S., Nunns, P., 2016. An economic framework for analyzing parking requirements. In: International Workshop on the Economics of Parking, Barcelona, 28 November 2016. European Union, 2005. Parking policies and the effects on economy and mobility. In: Technical Committee on Transport, Report on COST Action. 342. Greater London Authority, 2002. SDS maximum parking standards: derivation of PTAL-based parking restraint. In: SDS Technical Report Twenty. Greater London Authority, London. ISBN 1 85261 412 9. Litman, T., 2006. Parking Management Best Practices. American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois. Litman, T., 2016. Parking requirement impacts on housing affordability. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Marsden, G., 2006. The evidence base for parking policies—a review. Transp. Policy 13 (6), 447–457. Martens, M.J., Griethuysen, S.V., 2007. The ABC location policy in the Netherlands. TNO Inro Report. Milosavljevic, N., Culjkovic, V., Krstic, P., et al., 2008. Urbanisticˇki normativi za parkiranje [Vehicle Parking Standards]. Institute of the Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Belgrade, Serbia. Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J., Maletic, G., 2010. Vehicle parking standards as a support to sustainable transport system: Belgrade case study. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 16 (3), 380–396. Mingardo, G., van Wee, B., Rye, T., 2015. Urban parking policy in Europe: a conceptualization of past and possible future trends. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 74, 268–281. Shoup, D.C., 1999. The trouble with minimum parking requirements. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 33 (7), 549–574. Shoup, D.C., 2005. The High Cost of Free Parking. Planners Press, Chicago, Illinois.

Chapter 3

Parking demand Abstract The main topic of this chapter is car parking demand in cities. The chapter deals with basic attributes of demand (spatial and temporal components) and user categories with their specificities and parameters that impact parking demand. The time component of requirements of various user categories is highlighted as the reason to develop shared parking. In this regard, we analyze conditions for implementation of shared parking. In addition to the parking demand characteristics, we analyze special user requests toward parking quality of service, regardless of the category they belong to. Moreover, we define parameters of parking quality of service, including user satisfaction. Keywords: Parking demand; Demand spatial components; Demand temporal components; Demand segments; User requirements; Parking service quality

In order to live, to run, and to address the living and working needs of its individuals, each urban area has to be served by transportation. The term “transportation service” should be understood as the fact that any location and any facility thereat can and have to be connected to any other location and facility thereat, so as to enable them to operate. This gives accessibility quality to that location and facilities thereat. The range of modes, purposes, and forms of travel represents a function of certain agglomeration structures (Tomic, 1995). Direction and uniformity of travel depend largely on the location and spatial organization of certain urban activities. In addition to walking, being the basic form of moving, travel can be also realized by transportation modes—vehicles. “Vehicles do not naturally run on roads and streets for their own, unclear reasons. Vehicles move only because people want them to move in relation to activities those people perform. Therefore, traffic is a function of activity. This explains why there is so much traffic in towns, because a lot of activities are focused in towns. There are numerous activities, but there are only four main groups of purposes that initiate motor vehicle traffic related to human activities: l l

Transportation of materials, goods, and food (delivery vehicles and trucks) Transportation of individual passengers or smaller groups (passenger vehicles or motorbikes)

Sustainable Parking Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815800-5.00003-3 © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

23

24

Sustainable Parking Management l l

Transportation of larger groups of persons (public transit) Mobile services, i.e., public and utility services (firefighting vehicles, hospital vehicles, postal vehicle, etc.)” (Buchanan et al., 1975).

Travel, as an element of functioning, is complemented with inaction. Relative stationariness is related to human activities at places where the movement starts, origins (O), and at places where the movement ends, destinations (I). Urban activity is characterized by concentration in buildings of various uses; therefore, urban transportation is, basically, a function of buildings. It is mainly correct if we say that overall movement of vehicles along urban streets starts and ends in front of a building. Spatial demands for car parking are placed in immediate surroundings of buildings, i.e., in areas intended for certain uses. This is exactly the reason why many city authorities around the world require trip generation and parking generation studies as mandatory elements of construction permit documents when structures expected to generate large amounts of users are built. Activities accommodated in urban spatial structures (areas) are characterized by the following: l l

Degree of attractiveness Duration of attractiveness

From the parking perspective, degree of attractiveness in an area can be measured by the ratio between maximum simultaneous parking demand generated in that area within the attractiveness duration period and maximum simultaneous demand generated outside the attractiveness duration. Duration of attractiveness is a period of time during the day (24 h) in which visitors of the activities in an area satisfy their needs. Parking demand depends directly on the attractiveness level and time duration. Parking demand is expressed by the number of cars cruising for a vacant parking space in a certain area or zone in a certain period of time—typically in the peak hour. Demand depends upon several parameters: l l l l

l l

Urban population and their socioeconomic characteristics Car ownership level Land use State of the urban transportation system (existence of alternative transportation modes) Parking supply (parking availability generates parking demand) Current transportation/parking management, etc.

Parking demand is a parameter that is very difficult to determine directly. It is determined indirectly, using ends of travel (the origin-destination (OD) matrix), usually by household survey.

Parking demand Chapter

3

25

3.1 Spatial and temporal components of demand Spatial component of parking demand can be explained by analyzing the movement and the type of travel. Movement as discussed herein is a result of the need to undertake human activities. Travel happens between the trip starting point, the origin (O), the trip completion point, and the destination (D), and it is characterized by the following: l l l

Travel mode (walking or using transportation means) Trip purpose (intention—why the trip is made—intended) Travel form (type, i.e., whether the trip is elementary in form or it is made in a travel chain—set—so it can be classified into a form of travel)

In the general case, the following forms of travel can be systematized: a. Elementary trip: it is just a theoretical form of travel, implying a uniform trip made using transportation modes exclusively, without complementary walking (Fig. 3.1). b. Type I trip: it is a complex form of travel made in combination with walking. In practice, this type of travel can occur in two asymmetrical forms depending on the length of complementary walking (Fig. 3.2). c. Type II trip is a form of travel that employs two transportation modes or a single mode for the realization of purposes at two locations (Fig. 3.3). d. N-type trip appears as a multiplication of the above trip types (Fig. 3.4).

FIG. 3.1 Elementary trip.

FIG. 3.2 Type I trip.

FIG. 3.3 Type II trip.

FIG. 3.4 N-type trip.

26

Sustainable Parking Management

According to the selected transportation mode, trip types can be uniform or complex, depending on the number of transportation modes used to make more complex trips (I, II, or N type). Cars are usually used for I and II type trips, while other forms of trips are relatively less present. As there is always initial and final walking in all types of travel, except in elementary trips, analysis of passenger car travel of a certain type may serve for drawing conclusions important for understanding spatial issues of parking. It is of special importance that car parking demand appears at places where initial and final walking happens and at places where people change transportation modes. In other words, each trip made by car requires at least two parking acts, at the origin and at the destination of the trip, or three parking acts on average—with minor exception of trips made just to pick up or drop off persons or objects. Further travel type analysis shows that major car parking demand is generated: l l

l

In residential areas In city centers or at locations with great trip generators (work zones, trade centers, etc.) At those points in cities where people change transportation modes, such as bus stops and train stations, airports and ports, and passenger terminals

For a comprehensive consideration of the spatial component of parking, one should bear in mind that a parked car requires an average area of around 20–30 m2 at both trip ends. For example, it is estimated that almost one-half of the overall urban area in the United States is under transportation infrastructure, out of which one-half is the parking area.1 In order to understand the extent and importance of the parking issue, in addition to the spatial component, it is also important to consider the temporal component of parking demand. It can be considered by analyzing an example of double type I car trip for commuting to work. We will analyze partial times of car users and cars in order to consider the relationship between stationary time and car usage time. Fig. 3.5 shows a synthetized and simplified space-time diagram of this trip. The diagram can be used to analyze partial activities of car users and the car itself. The analysis of the double type I trip, as shown in Fig. 3.5, leads to the following conclusions and statements: t1 ¼ During the initial stationary state (s1) and activities in the residential building (a1), the car and the car user are both stationary; the car occupies a

1. Melosi (n.d.).

Parking demand Chapter

3

27

FIG. 3.5 Space–time diagram of double type I trip, purpose: commute to work.

parking space on the street, at a parking lot or in a parking facility in the building’s vicinity; the car user is in a relative stationary state in relation to the building t2 ¼ The car user decides to use his/her own car to commute to work. This requires initial walking (w1) from the building to the parked car. In this step, the car is still stationary t3 ¼ If we disregard a relatively short time (Δt) to prepare the car for driving (assuming that the car is technically operational and able to drive), this step consists of active car movement—driving (d1) along the road at the average speed v1; in this step, the car takes part in the traffic as a unit of traffic flow; the car user drives the car t4 ¼ When the car has reached close to the final trip destination, the car again becomes stationary on the street, at a parking lot, or at a parking facility (s2). To reach the final trip destination, the car user has to perform the final walking (w2), from the place where the car is parked to the final destination where the planned activity (a2) will be performed t5 ¼ The car is stationary (s2); the car user performs the planned activity (a2) t6 ¼ Upon completion of the activity (a2), the car user performs another initial walking (w3) to reach the place where the car is parked. In this step, the car is still stationary (s2) t7 ¼ In this step, the car user again drives the car along the trip route. The car user enters the traffic flow driving the car (d2) at the average speed v2 until the next destination. If this destination is the original starting point— the apartment—then the trip ends by closing the double type I trip circle t8 ¼ It covers the time the car user needs for final walking (w4), from the place where the car is parked in the vicinity of the apartment building, at the lot or parking facility, until entering the apartment building (a1)

28

Sustainable Parking Management

t9 ¼ The car is parked and stationary (s3); the car user is in the building and relatively stationary If the above described trip of the car user, including an overview of relations between the states of the car and the car user, is presented in a tabular form, such a table will most simply show the complementarity of certain times within the travel and at the same time indicate the times when a car is stationary—parked (Table 3.1). As seen from Fig. 3.5 and Table 3.1, the car is in total used as transportation mode only in t3 and t7 time intervals, while the remaining time during the day the car is stationary at the parking space. Based on the above analysis, we can define and calculate the following: l

Daily stationary car factor (fs) shows the amount of time during the day (24 h) when the car is in the stationary state (parked), Formula 3.1: k X

fs ¼

ts

s¼1

24

 100 ¼

Ts ð% Þ 24

(3.1)

where ts ¼ time duration of the s car stationary state during the day (h), k ¼ number of stationary states during the day, Ts ¼ car stationary time during the day (h). l Daily car usage factor (fd) shows the amount of time during the day (24 h) spent using (driving) the car, Formula 3.2: n X

fd ¼

td

d¼1

24

 100 ¼

Td ð% Þ 24

(3.2)

TABLE 3.1 States of car and car user during double type I trip Time interval

Car

Car user

t1

Stationary (s1)

Stationary (a1)

t2

Stationary (s1)

Walking (w1)

t3

In motion (v1)

Driving (v1)

t4

Stationary (s2)

Walking (w2)

t5

Stationary (s2)

Stationary (a2)

t6

Stationary (s2)

Walking (w3)

t7

In motion (v2)

Driving (v2)

t8

Stationary (s3)

Walking (w4)

t9

Stationary (s3)

Stationary (a1)

Parking demand Chapter

3

29

where td ¼ the time duration of the d drive during the day (h), n ¼ the number of drives during the day, Td ¼ is time when the car is used (driven) during the day (h). From all the cities studied so far, it can be concluded that the car is in motion for only a small portion of time, around 1 h within 24 h, so the daily car usage factor can be said to amount to around 4%. In the remaining time (around 96%), the car is stationary. Such a statement can be confirmed by the results of the British National Travel Survey, which found that the average car is parked at home for about 80% of the time, parked elsewhere for about 16.5% of the time, and only actually used for the remaining 3.5% (Bates, 2014). In addition, Zahavi (1974) obtained interesting results showing that the average time during the day that residents of world metropoles spend in traffic is everywhere the same and amounts to approximately 1 h. This is the “time budget” people are willing to allocate for this purpose. It is believed that this time remains unchanged for six full centuries! Emergence of transportation modes that developed larger movement speed for the constant acceptable travel time increased the distance traveled. A number of methods that jointly analyze the spatial and temporal aspects of parking demand have been developed in order to understand this issue better. One of the methods uses the time-area concept, which consists of calculating the area the vehicle uses: (1) while in motion and (2) while in motion and while stationary; these areas are then multiplied with times of movement (and stationary times) of the vehicle and then divided by the average vehicle occupancy, resulting in the time-area consumption per single trip of a single passenger. Such a concept is suitable because it considers two important elements: the area occupied and the period of time when this area is occupied (Vuchic, 1999). It is not possible to give a uniform overview of time-area consumption per transportation modes because it depends on numerous factors, such as the time during the day, the vehicle occupancy, and the vehicle speed. In this regard, below is a comparison of the time-area required for one person to take the same trip by car, bus, and rapid transit under the assumed, typical conditions in (1) the peak period and (2) off-peak period. The comparison is made for a 4 km (around 2.5 mi.) trip, in a city, under the conditions given in Table 3.2. The product of the trip duration values and the area that a single passenger occupies when using the above transportation modes represents the time-area consumed. Even though the trip by car requires shorter time, time-area is considerably larger. This is especially true for a trip in the peak period, when a trip by car requires up to 25 times larger time-area than the same trip taken by bus and up to 60 larger time-area than a rapid transit trip. The reason is the low occupancy of passenger cars as compared with large utilization of bus and rapid transit capacities. Although it reduces in off-peak periods, this difference is still substantial. Since the car needs parking space when the trip is completed, one can get a real picture only when this time-area is included. When the analysis of

30

Sustainable Parking Management

TABLE 3.2 Assumed conditions required to analyze the time-area used for a trip made by car, bus, and rapid transit Peak period Transportation mode

Off-peak period Occupancy

Speed (km/h)

Access distance (m)

20

4

30

100

60

15

15

20

100

1200

30

300

30

200

Occupancy

Speed (km/h)

Car

1.2

Bus Rapid transit

the time-area required for commuting to work and back to the apartment includes the working hours (duration of parking), it is not surprising that time-areas required for bus and rapid transit traveling are insignificant in relation to car traveling. More details on the analysis and results can be found in Vuchic (1999). A more detailed analysis would entail the time-area required for the initial and final walks, for waiting at the public transit stop, and for transfer. However, their inclusion would not lead to significant changes, so for the purpose of simplicity, these were excluded from the analysis. If one considers both the spatial and the time components of parking, it is clear why parking collocates with problem. This is also one of the reasons why parking is in the forefront of urban spatial planning and urban sustainability and consequently the sustainability of urban transportation systems. In addition, one should not forget the fact that although the car is parked even 96% of the time, car usage has global environmental implications, as demonstrated best by its share in the greenhouse effects of around 44.5% in the total road transportation emissions in the EU.2 However, a private car offers certain positive attributes (a certain power, freedom and intimacy of travel, dispersity of movement, comfort, etc.), keeping its appeal as a very attractive transportation mode. These are the facts that place car parking into the economies of scale and large numbers, consequently attaching importance to this socioeconomic phenomenon.

3.2 Demand segments Parking is one of the main transportation and technological requirements that vehicles impose, which is a direct result of operational connection with requirements of their owners. When in motion, private cars reflect the variety of needs 2. European Environmental Agency (2017).

Parking demand Chapter

3

31

(trip purposes) of their owners—car users—ranging from everyday commutes, to work, to trips to other cities, for shopping, visiting friends, health institutions, recreation purposes, etc. This diversity of needs implies very different parking requests at final trip destinations. A car requires a parking space in area where the car owners lives and in the vicinity of each final trip destination. Proper definition of the required and sufficient number of parking spaces in an area and the manner of their use require understanding all user categories. Main categories of parking space users are as follows: l l

Residents Visitors of a given area

Research (Bates, 2014) shows that parking demand from residents and the place where parking actually occurs depend largely on the type of the area (relating to urban/rural status), which can be expressed as residential density in persons per hectare (ppHa) (Table 3.3). As residential density increases, the need and the possibility to own a car reduce, brought on by the possibility of providing various and good-quality alternatives to cars in high-population-density areas due to high concentration of parking demand. On the other hand, such areas show a more articulate lack of parking spaces, and parking availability is well recognized as one of the key factors affecting levels of car ownership. In this respect, the proportion of cars parked on street increases with the increase of population density. Facilities located in the areas intended for certain purposes generate a certain number of visitor movements, so in their zones of influence, parking

TABLE 3.3 Impact of area type on the level of car ownership and proportion of cars parked on street Population density (ppHa)

Average cars per household

% of cars parked on street

60

0.64

58

(Bates, J., 2014. Parking demand. In: Parking Issues and Policies. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. pp. 57–86.)

32

Sustainable Parking Management

demand is generated and parking spaces are provided. Visitors (i.e., nonresidential users) who satisfy some of their needs in these facilities are required so that the area could operate properly. The number of visitors depends on the attractiveness of a facility or an area. For the so-called nonresidential parking, the dominance of commuter parking causes particular problems both in terms of space provision and its impact on mode choice. In order to harmonize specific characteristics of these demands (e.g., different parking durations) with usable capacity of parking lots, it is often required to manage these issues by applying appropriate measures (e.g., pricing policy). The problem of managing parking lot use is further complicated when the same lot is used by both residents and visitors. As each parking request is defined by: l l l

The place of occurrence The time of occurrence The purpose of car user’s trip, i.e., the parking duration

it is important to know where, when, and for how long parking acts occur (Bates, 2014). In this respect, if a 24 h time period is considered, users (residents and visitor) can be further divided according to the specificity of their demand and requests into the following categories: 1. Fix residents: residents of a given area who do not use their cars during 24 h: reasons for not using their cars during the day can be various, ranging from not having the need to use the car every day to the fear over losing a parking space and the inconvenience of finding another (due to parking congestion) (Marsden, 2006). They would like to have a reserved parking space in the vicinity of their homes. 2. Mobile residents: residents of a given area who do use their cars during the day: if they do not own a parking space, then such residents have to park at different parking spaces in the vicinity of their homes during the day. Mobile residents seek to find a long-term parking space during the day, if possible without parking charge, in the vicinity of their homes. 3. Fix commuters: employees in a given area who do need to use their vehicles during the working hours: these are the long-term parking users. For example, according to the data from the British National Travel Survey over the period 2002–08, average parking duration of fixed commuters is 7.63 h (Bates, 2014). They want to park their cars in the vicinity of their work, but they are also willing to park their cars at a certain distance from their destination. For example, a study of 111 cities in the United States found that individuals parking for over 5 h walked on average between 3 and 7 min to access work, with the time tolerated increasing broadly with the size of urban area (Marsden, 2006). Some fix commuters are also willing to pay for parking; nevertheless, numerous studies claim that they are more sensitive to parking price than other user categories, primarily due to long

Parking demand Chapter

3

33

parking duration (see, e.g., Simicevic et al. 2013).The evidence also suggests that some commuters are willing to walk substantially further in order to avoid parking charge (Rye et al., 2004). 4. Mobile commuters: employees in a given area who have to use their cars during the working hours for business purposes. Mobile commuters are medium-term parking users, which depend on the specificities of their jobs. They want parking spaces as close to their work as possible. 5. Daytime visitors whose trip purposes include shopping, private business, and recreation: such visitors have short-term parking requests, typically between 1 and 3 h (Bates, 2014; Milosavljevic and Simicevic, 2018). Daily visitors want to park their cars as close to the destination as possible and are willing to pay the parking charge if the tariff is not too high. 6. Nighttime visitors whose trip purposes include leisure and recreation: These are also short-term parking users, but their parking demand time differs from the previous parking user category. Different categories of users have different distributions of demand intensity during the day. This stems from different facility usage intensities during the day. In this respect, in mixed-use areas and mixed-use developments, it is not justified to provide the number of parking spaces according to the maximum simultaneous parking demand for each facility or purpose. It is required to analyze planned or realized demand from individual facilities in time sections during the day, while the number of parking spaces should be defined according to the maximum simultaneous demand for all facilities (Table 3.4). Local authorities may insist on restrictions (reduction) upon the number of parking spaces

TABLE 3.4 Example of calculation of the required number of parking spaces for a mixed-use development (Montgomery County, Maryland, United States) Weekday Development Office Retail Entertainment Total a

Weekend

Nighttime

9 AM– 4 PM

6– 12 PM

30

30

15

15

168

252

a

196

14

40

a

80

a

10

382

390

311

39

9–4 PM a

300

508

6 PM–12 AM

100

280

100

12–06 AM

Peak demand by use. (EPA, 2006. Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions. Development, Community, and Environment Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.)

34

Sustainable Parking Management

TABLE 3.5 Examples of acceptable walking distances Vicinity (Lp < 30 m)

Short (Lp < 250 m)

Medium (Lp < 370 m)

People with disabilities Emergency services

Shops Health facilities Residents

Restaurants Employees Religious institutions

Long (Lp < 500 m) Airports Facilities with occasional attractiveness

Adapted from Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2015). Shared Parking: Sharing Parking Facilities Among Multiple Users. TDM Encyclopedia http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm89.htm. Accessed 01.04.2017.

thus calculated if the development is located in an area with good public transit accessibility or high level of attractiveness (Chapter 2). Preconditions for the above defining of the required number of parking spaces are having either public or shared parking system and an acceptable walking distance between the parking lot and all the facilities. Acceptable distance depends, inter alia (see Chapter 5), on the use class of the facility and user characteristics (Table 3.5). A shared parking lot (VTPI, 2015) means that parking spaces are shared between several users (of various categories), which enables more efficient use. A shared parking lot employs the fact that parking spaces of one use class are used only one portion at a time, which is exactly the consequence of different user requests and demand characteristics. Section 2.1 deals with possibilities for shared parking. In addition to the above categories, if an area applies restrictive parking measures (parking charge with or without time limitations), it is useful to distinguish between categories according to the status assigned thereto in the tariff system, e.g., categories of the following: l

l l

l

Users exempted from parking charges for any reason (e.g., certain categories of people with disabilities) Parking permit holders (e.g., residents in an area) Users of parking spaces where special regimes apply (e.g., users of reserved parking spaces) Visitors, who pay for parking per pricing time unit (e.g., per hour)

More details on user categories as defined by tariff systems are given in Section 8.3.

3.3 User requirements toward quality of service In terms of parking service quality, in addition to all the above analyzed parking demand characteristics, parking users, regardless of the category

Parking demand Chapter

3

35

they belong to, have some special requests. Typically, users evaluate the parking service quality by evaluating their own satisfaction of the service rendered. There are various definitions of user satisfaction. One of them (Sureshchandar et al., 2002) reads as follows: “Customer satisfaction is a response (emotional or cognitive), pertains to a particular focus (expectations, product, and consumption experience), and occurs at a particular moment in time (after experience or consumption).” Several authors established the empirical relationship between user satisfaction and loyalty. Users who are satisfied with a service or a product will largely repeat the experience. User satisfaction is considered one of the main factors of user loyalty contributing to fine reputation. When it comes to parking, user satisfaction contributes to increasing confidence in decisions made by parking management authorities, which is of cardinal importance to gain measure acceptance among users; see Chapter 12. In terms of parking, user satisfaction is considered to be the key factor for successfully solved parking in an area or a city or any built-up area (Es, 2012). Surveys of parking user satisfaction contribute to the following (ERP and Ancillary Services, 2014; Hawke-Wareha, 2013): l l

l l l

Better understanding of users’ opinion about the state of parking in an area Identification of key factors in user satisfaction so as to determine directions for user satisfaction improvements (improved quality of parking services) Defining priorities when selecting parking improvement measures Evaluation if user satisfaction is in line with the expectations adopted Identification of quality parameters that the researcher did not include (by leaving the respondents the option to propose methods for parking service quality improvements)

Quality parameters selected for evaluation by users in terms of their personal satisfaction depend on the following: l l

l l

Parking type (on-street parking, off-street parking, and parking garage) Current state of parking (measures applied and the state of parking operations) User categories Users’ understanding of the parking management concept

Based on the above and based on the research goal and previous findings, the researcher selects parameters to be investigated. Review of the relevant literature (see, e.g., Hawke-Wareha, 2013; TEC, 2013) helps identify typical parking service quality parameters, namely, l

l l l

Ease of finding a vacant parking space (in general or at certain periods during the day or on certain days during the week) Vicinity of the final trip destination Safety (personal safety and vehicle safety) Parking price

36 l

l

l l

Sustainable Parking Management

Ease of parking (lane width and dimensions of parking space—which affect the ease of parking maneuver) Parking enforcement operations (in terms of reducing the number of users who violate traffic signage, thus hindering parking for other users, who park illegally, who occupy two parking spaces, etc.) Available parking payment methods Ease of using the selected payment method

If the survey is conducted in a parking garage, in addition to the above parameters, it also frequently covers the following parameters related to3: l l l

The structural design (curve radii, ramp gradient, etc.) Appearance (lighting, cleanliness, ventilation, brightness, etc.) Orientation (finding way back to the parking space, guidance system, etc.)

User satisfaction is measured by conducting a survey among service users. The example shown in Fig. 3.6 comes from a survey of user satisfaction with one of the parking management measures. Statistical processing of answers given by users to each of the questions and an analysis of their answers are used for the evaluation of user satisfaction with the actual solutions in the area surveyed. Hereby, measure-specific user requirements are determined. In the above example, if it turns out that a high percentage of users are dissatisfied with the parking enforcement, this would mean that further survey is required to establish the reasons for such dissatisfaction and adopt adequate measures. A disadvantage of this quality parameter evaluation method is the fact that it cannot directly consider what parameters the user finds more important than others (i.e., ranking of quality parameters). The task of researchers is to find a way to apply the research methodology and how to process and analyze the data collected in the survey in order to establish by themselves the ranking

FIG. 3.6 Example of a survey question aimed at measuring user satisfaction.

3. University of Applied Sciences Berlin (2007).

Parking demand Chapter

3

37

of quality parameters, which is of capital importance in the cases when new policies and measures are selected to solve (mitigate) the parking problem in an area, especially if not all the (surveyed) user requests can be met for parking service quality considerations. One of the methods to determine parameter ranking is that the researcher offers to the respondents a set of quality parameters within the survey and asks the respondents to rank the parameters according to their importance (to the respondent). Hereby, the parking space users show their attitude in terms of parking service quality. This method could be applied when the researcher has previous knowledge in parking service quality parameters (based on “before” or pilot study). The example below shows a survey question designed to establish the user’s/respondent’s ranking of the quality parameters offered (Fig. 3.7). Data collected in the survey are then used to calculate the average score for each parameter and consequently to rank their importance, as well (Fig. 3.8). In this example, the users consider finding a vacant parking space to be the most important. Reasons for this could be objective, such as the lack of parking

FIG. 3.7 Example of a survey question aimed at establishing the user’s ranking of parking quality parameters.

FIG. 3.8 Distribution of surveyed users according to parking quality requests.

38

Sustainable Parking Management

space or poor parking management, or subjective, such as poor understanding of the parking management concept. Such a result implies further research to establish the cause of user dissatisfaction with finding a vacant parking space. The disadvantage of this method is the limited number of parameters to be offered because for a user, it is difficult to perceive the importance of too many parameters.

Exam questions 1. What are the characteristics of activities accommodated in urban spatial structures (areas)? Explain each of the parameters. 2. How do we define and express parking demand, i.e., the total number of parking requests? What parameters does it depend on? 3. What conclusions can be drawn from the space-time diagram of double type I trip, when the trip purpose is “work”? Draw the space-time diagram of double type I trip. 4. Enumerate parking user categories. Explain the characteristic of each user category through “user categories and illustration of temporal parking demand characteristic” diagram. 5. Explain spatial and temporal aspects to parking problems. 6. If restrictive parking measures (parking charge with or without time limits) are applied, what categories should be defined according to the status assigned thereto in the tariff system? 7. Enumerate and explain user requirements toward parking service quality, i.e., typical parking service quality parameters. 8. Define “parking user satisfaction.” Why is it important to periodically survey user satisfaction with the parking state, i.e., parking measures applied? 9. What methods are applied to determine parking user satisfaction? 10. Explain why it is important to establish quality parameter ranking and explain how to determine the ranking.

References Bates, J., 2014. Parking demand. In: Ison, S., Mulley, C. (Ed.), Parking Issues and Policies. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, England, pp. 57–86. Buchanan, C., et al., 1975. Saobracaj u gradovima—studija dugorocnih problema saobracaja u naseljima. [Urban Traffic—A Study of Long-Term Traffic Problems in Cities and Towns]. Gradjevinska knjiga, Serbia, Belgrade. Educational Research and Planning and Ancillary Services, 2014. Getting here: Results of the Fall 2013 Transportation and Parking Survey. Camosun College. Es, R.A.J., 2012. The relationship between service quality and customer loyalty, and its influence on business model design—a study in the Dutch automotive industry. In: Master’s Thesis, University of Twente. Enschede, Netherlands. Hawke-Wareha, D., 2013. On Street Parking Customer Satisfaction Survey. (Southampton City Council).

Parking demand Chapter

3

39

Marsden, G., 2006. The evidence base for parking policy—a review. Transp. Policy 13 (6), 447–457. Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J., 2018. Parkiranje [Parking]. University of Belgrade, Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Serbia, Belgrade. Rye, T., Cowan, T., Ison, S., 2004, January. Expansion of a controlled parking zone (CPZ) and its influence on modal split: the case study of Edinburgh, Scotland and its relevance to elsewhere. In: 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. Simicevic, J., Vukanovic, S., Milosavljevic, N., 2013. The effect of parking charges and time limit to car usage and parking behaviour. Transp. Policy 30, 125–131. Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C., Anantharaman, R.N., 2002. The relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction—a factor specific approach. J. Serv. Mark. 16 (4), 363–379. Tomic, M., 1995. Parkiranje i parkiralisˇta. [Parking and Parking Lots]. University of Belgrade, Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Serbia: Belgrade. Transport and Environment Committee, 2013. Parking Satisfaction Survey 2013—The Results. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2015). Shared Parking: Sharing Parking Facilities Among Multiple Users. TDM Encyclopedia http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm89.htm Accessed 01.04.2017. Vuchic, V., 1999. Transportation for Livable Cities. Center for Urban Policy Research, New Jersey. Zahavi, Y., 1974. Travel Time Budgets and Mobility in Urban Areas, (No. FHWA-PL-8183). Federal Highway Administration, United States.

Web References European Environmental Agency (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions from transport. https://www. eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/transport-emissions-of-greenhouse-gases/transportemissions-of-greenhouse-gases-10 (Accessed 25.04.18). Melosi (n.d.). The Footprint of the Automobile on the American city. Automobile in American Life and Society http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/ Accessed 26.03.2017. University of Applied Sciences Berlin (2007). City Parking in Europe: the users’ point of view http:// www.city-parking-in-europe.eu/Bilder/pdf/_documents/studies/Studie_user_CityParking_eng. pdf Access: 02/08/2015.

Further Reading EPA, 2006. Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions. Development, Community, and Environment Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Chapter 4

Parking dimensions Abstract In this chapter, we present the basic elements for functional design of parking lots and parking garages. We give criteria for site organization and examples of site plans. In addition, for parking garages, we provide criteria for ramp selection and requirements for other designers (such as lighting designers and ventilation designers). Additionally, we deal with on-street parking space organization and marking, at locations where parking is allowed, in compliance with relevant national and local legislation and guidelines. The principles of organization will be analyzed through hands-on examples. We pay special attention to the design of parking spaces for disabled persons. Keywords: Parking bay; On-street parking; Off-street parking; Parking garage; Module; Ramps; Disabled parking

Parking infrastructure comprises physical components of the parking subsystem. These are areas and facilities intended and technically equipped for vehicle parking, and they consist of several parking spaces (parking bays). When designing such infrastructure, the main criterion is to provide maximum number of parking spaces at a defined area, thus ensuring the desired level of service users. Therefore, this chapter will focus especially on parking dimensions that directly affect the utilization of the available yet limited spatial capacities for parking facility construction. Parking spaces in cities and built-up areas occur in two main spatial forms: l l

As on-street parking lots As off-street parking lots (which include off-street parking lots and parking garages)

There is a dependency between the size of a city (expressed as population numbers) and distribution of the total number of available parking spaces in central areas into on-street, off-street, and garage parking spaces. This dependency is shown in Table 4.1 (Highway Research Board, 1971) and Fig. 4.1, which give an example of central areas in 111 cities in the United States. The share of on-street parking spaces in total parking supply rapidly decreases as the size of the cities grows and the share of garage spaces increases, while the share of off-street parking spaces has slightly decreasing values. Reasons for such shares lie in specificities of spatial possibilities in urban centers Sustainable Parking Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815800-5.00004-5 © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

41

42 Sustainable Parking Management

TABLE 4.1 Share of total parking spaces classified by type of facility Parking spaces On-street

Off-street

Garage

Population in these cities (103)

No.

%

10–25

1090

41

1530

58

10

0

25–50

1430

36

2420

61

140

4

50–100

1610

35

2790

60

260

6

100–250

2130

28

4760

62

820

11

250–500

2450

20

7910

64

1940

16

500–1000

3200

14

12,500

55

6900

31

Over 1000

8000

14

32,200

55

18,600

32

No.

%

No.

%

Highway Research Board, 1971. Special report no. 125: Parking Principles. National Research Council, Washington, DC (Table 2.3, pp. 9). Reproduced with permission of the Transportation Research Board.

FIG. 4.1 Share of total parking spaces classified by type of facility. (Highway Research Board, 1971. Special report no. 125: Parking Principles. National Research Council, Washington, DC (Table 2.3, pp. 9).)

and their attractiveness that grows with the increase of cities. On the one hand, high demand that comes from high attractiveness of centers in large cities requires considerable parking supply that cannot be realized only on street. And on the other hand, attractiveness of large city centers should, whenever possible, favor pedestrian movement and experiencing the city center visually. Even though the share of on-street parking spaces in large city centers is lower, on-street parking spaces often accommodate higher parking turnover

Parking dimensions Chapter

4

43

than off-street parking, which results from application of on-street parking measures (e.g., time limitation and parking charge) that limit parking duration. In cities in developing and underdeveloped countries, on-street parking is the primary parking type. Many cities do not even have parking garages. Having in mind that parking garages are financially demanding structures and economic power of these cities is low, this state of affairs will persevere for a long time, and the share of this parking type in the total number of parking spaces will change rather slowly. However, authorities in charge of managing the transportation system and its parking subsystem should use these shares per parking type depending on the city size as guidelines for construction of off-street parking spaces and parking garages. Whether on street, off street, or in parking garages, parking spaces can be divided according to the method of their management/operation (use) into l l

Public (intended for public use, for the so-called unknown users) Private (others, for known users of certain developments or certain parking purposes)

4.1 Parking bay Parking bay is part of the space that is intended, technically equipped, and regulated for parking of a single vehicle (Milosavljevic, 2007). This space consists of (Fig. 4.2) the following: l l

Area occupied by the vehicle while parked (hereinafter, the stall) Area for maneuvering the vehicle in order to enter and exit the stall (hereinafter, the maneuvering area or the aisle)

Area of a single parking bay is defined by the following: l

l

l

l

Parking angle (α), which is the angle between the longitudinal axis of the stall and the longitudinal axis of the maneuvering area Stall width (F), which depends on the width of the design vehicle (vehicle relevant for dimensioning) (Bv), door opening clearance (a), and parking bay angle (α) Stall length (A), which depends on the length of the design vehicle (L), distance from the fender of a parked vehicle to the end of the stall (c), and parking bay angle (α) Aisle width (D), which depends on dimensions and maneuvering capabilities of design vehicle, parking bay angle (α), distance from the fender of a moving vehicle to the spatial constraints, method of entering the stall (forward or backward parking), etc. Additionally, there is interdependency between aisle width and stall width. If the aisle is wider, the stall can be narrower and vice versa, provided the same ease of entering/leaving the parking bay

Parking bay area is calculated according to Formula 4.1:

44 Sustainable Parking Management

FIG. 4.2 Area of a single parking bay.

 S ¼ ðBv + aÞ L + c + ðBv + aÞ  ctgα +


D m2 =parking bay 2 sin α

(4.1)

Dimensions of parking bays are defined by national or local regulations. It is important that each country adopt its own regulations in line with the different brands and types of cars (i.e., different dimensions and maneuvering capabilities). In cases when there are no national regulations in place, designers tend to apply regulations from another country, which may lead to remarkably negative consequences when using parking bays thus dimensioned. Separating parking bays per car size (e.g., into parking bays for “small,” “medium,” and “large” cars) in public parking in central urban areas with heterogeneous car characteristics would inflict even more damage than benefits. Even though such dimensioning approach could generate spatial savings, shares

Parking dimensions Chapter

4

45

of certain vehicle groups during the day are variable, and it might happen that in certain intervals during the day, there is higher demand for one of the vehicle size groups than foreseen by the number of corresponding parking bays and vice versa. Therefore, public parking bays should always be designed in universal sizes, as also corroborated by the fact that in US cities, sales levels for small vehicles have been decreasing in the past years and it has been recommended to abandon the concept of parking shares according to vehicle size (PCC and NPA, 2002). However, at specific parking areas for special purposes or at small portions of public parking locations that cannot be used otherwise (except for a few parking bays), this principle could be compromised. Parking bay dimensions depend on car dimensional characteristics and radii and on users’ service quality requirements during parking maneuver. When dimensioning a parking bay, the first task is to define the design vehicle (vehicle relevant for dimensioning), the dimensions and radii of which will be used for parking bay dimensioning. Selecting such design vehicle (not the vehicle of the biggest dimensions) is justified by the need to provide balance between comfort and cost efficiency. There are two approaches when defining design vehicle. First is defining the so-called theoretical vehicle that does not have to correspond to any brand or type, but has to have dimensions and radii that are representative of the whole set of vehicles driven by potential parking users (the so-called phantom vehicle). The second approach is to define a corresponding percentage of vehicles that will completely match the dimensions of parking bays (e.g., 85% of vehicles (PCC and NPA, 2002)). It is necessary to not only match the parking bay dimensions with the dimensions of the design vehicle but also accommodate parking bay dimensions to the service quality required by parking users. Drivers (parking users) evaluate the service quality through: l

l

Safety and comfort aspects when maneuvering the vehicle in order to enter/ leave the parking stall Comfort when entering/leaving the parked vehicle

Both above parameters could be directly correlated to parking duration. For this purpose, parking users could be divided into two groups: short-term parking users (with parking duration less than 3 h) and long-term parking users (with parking duration longer than 3 h). Requirements of short-term parking users are more rigorous than requirements of long-term users for both above criteria. Driver’s safety and comfort when maneuvering the entering/exiting vehicle are directly related to stall width and aisle width. These widths are interdependent: the wider the stall, the narrower aisle is required and vice versa. For shortterm parking, it is required to provide easier entering/exiting from the parking bay, i.e., shorter maneuver duration, because parking duration is shorter. Table 4.2 shows maneuver duration depending on different conditions that may be important when selecting the parking angle and parking method affecting the parking bay dimensions.

Maneuver duration(s) 0 (degree)

45 (degrees)

60 (degrees)

75 (degrees)

90 (degrees)

Method of entering parking stall

Enter

Exit

Enter

Exit

Enter

Exit

Enter

Exit

Enter

Exit

Forward

3.40

6.30

5.44

12.45

9.78

12.40

10.68

13.89

11.48

14.70

Backward

21.20

6.30

11.57

6.26

16.36

7.77

Data from Putnik, N. (2010). Autobaze i autostanice [Road Terminals]. University of Belgrade, Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering.

46 Sustainable Parking Management

TABLE 4.2 Time required for vehicle maneuver when entering and exiting parking stall

Parking dimensions Chapter

4

47

Survey results indicate that in forward parking, during the parking maneuver, larger angles require longer times for parking. Exit maneuver requires longer time than enter maneuver, and this time also increases in larger parking angles. This is the reason why forward parking (and backward parking for exit) is used when designing on-street parking bays. Hereby, the duration of traffic flow delay behind an entering vehicle is shorter, and the moving traffic is less affected. When exiting the parking bay, which in this case lasts longer than entering, the driver can start the exit maneuver when there are no vehicles in the adjacent traffic lane used for maneuver and thus avoids affecting or affects less the traffic flow of the adjacent lane. Because large parking angles require larger maneuver time, the 90 degrees and even 75 degrees parking angles should be avoided, except in, e.g., residential streets where parking turnover and traffic intensities are very low. For off-street parking lots, both parking angle and entering method should be selected so as to ensure the highest utilization of areas available for parking (the largest number of parking bays). In order to achieve the highest utilization of public parking areas, it is recommended to design forward parking for parking angles of 30 degrees, 45 degrees, 60 degrees, and 75 degrees, while backward parking should be used for 90 degrees parking angles. Emergency vehicles (military, police, ambulance, firefighters, etc.) entail special requirements because the speed at which they leave a parking space has to be higher. For this reason, their parking bays should be dimensioned using backward parking, regardless of the parking angle, because for these vehicles, the main parking criterion is not the minimum parking area but the speed of exiting the parking bay. With backward parking, exit maneuver is considerably shorter, almost by half, than entry maneuver. Safety and comfort of short-term parking users during entry/exit parking maneuver are achieved by providing wider stalls or wider aisles in comparison with long-term parking requirements. Hereby, the maneuver time is shorter, and consequently, the moving traffic is less affected. Comfort of drivers and passengers when entering/leaving a parked vehicle is typically associated with stall width. Stall width should include the space required for drivers and passengers to enter/exit parked vehicles, and it depends on the level of comfort required by parking users. The driver and passengers can exit the vehicle and step into the area between the first stop and full opening of the door. The size of this area desired by parking users is determined mainly through on-site surveys (see, e.g., Damen and Huband, 2006). Typically, short-term parking users require more comfort, i.e., wider stalls. Some countries prescribe parking bay dimensioning recommendations depending on parking duration, i.e., parking turnover. Table 4.3 shows an example of recommended parking bay width in the United States depending on the parking turnover. When it comes to aisle width, it is recommended to apply minimum width required for single maneuver entry and exit and sometimes even wider.

48 Sustainable Parking Management

TABLE 4.3 Recommended parking bay width Recommended parking bay width

Typical parking characteristics Low turnover for employees, students, etc.

2.50–2.60 m (80 300 – 80 600 )

Low to medium turnover for visitors in business meetings, for long-term parking users at airports, etc.

2.60–2.70 m (80 600 – 80 900 )

Medium to high turnover for trade, health institution visitors, short-term parking users at airports, etc.

2.70 –2.75 m (80 600 – 80 900 )

Urban Land Institute (ULI) and National Parking Association (NPA), 2010. The Dimensions of Parking, fifth ed. Urban Land Institute, Washington.

TABLE 4.4 Excerpt from Australian on-street parking with at 90-degree angle Category

Stall width (m)

Stall length (m)

Aisle width (m)

1, 1A

2.4

5.4

6.2

2

2.5

5.4

5.8

3

2.6

5.4

5.8

3A

2.6

5.4

6.6

4

3.2

5.4

5.8

Data from Damen, P., Huband, A., 2006. Technical note: design of angled parking bays. Road Transport Res. 15 (3), 84–88.

The following excerpt from the Australian on-street parking requirements at 90-degree angle (Table 4.4) is more illustrative of the set criteria. Regardless of the fact that wider parking stalls require narrower aisles, due to different combinations of the defining criteria, these two values are not correlated. That is why, for example, categories 3 and 3А for short-term parking have the same stall width, but parking stalls with higher parking turnover have wider aisles. Similarly, identical aisle width for categories 2 and 3 is defined, but this entails different levels of comfort when entering/exiting the vehicles. Classification of car parking facilities according to which Australian onstreet parking standards are defined is based on the required door opening, as follows: for long-term parking (user classes 1 and 1A) it is foreseen to open only the front door until the first stop, while for medium-term parking (user class 2)

Parking dimensions Chapter

4

49

FIG. 4.3 Parking spaces (parallel and angle parking) in street cross section (dimensions should be in line with local regulations).

and short-term parking (user class 3 and 3A) full opening of all doors is foreseen. Aisle width is defined as minimum width required for single maneuver entry and exit. The exception is made for 90 degree parking spaces for user class 1A, which allows an additional maneuver, and for user class 3A which allows more than minimum aisle width. User class 4 describes a specific case, namely parking for people with disabilities.

4.2 Organization and marking of on-street parking On-street parking spaces comprise all parking spaces regulated or constructed so as to enable entering from the roadway, mostly from the secondary street network. When assigning street profile widths, the area should be properly divided into the roadway, parking spaces, and sideway for pedestrians (Fig. 4.3) and into infrastructure for other transportation modes, if any. However, in many cities, especially in their historically formed centers, parking spaces are usually realized: l l l

On the roadway On the sidewalk Half and half (partly on the roadway and partly on the sidewalk) (Fig. 4.4)

50 Sustainable Parking Management

FIG. 4.4 On-street parking.

FIG. 4.5 Tandem parking.

When it comes to manner of on-street parking, in practice, parallel parking is most widely applied, mainly because central city areas usually offer no possibilities for street rehabilitation and extension, and the existing street profile has to be allocated, as mentioned above, to all road users: for movement and for parking. In addition to the above, one of the ways to organize and mark parallel parking stalls is the so-called tandem parking. Parking stalls can be organized in this way in order to reduce the duration of stall entering maneuver, consequently reducing the effects upon road capacity and safety. Tandem parking is implemented as follows: in front of and behind two consecutive parking stalls, a 16 ft (4.8 m) gap is provided (Iowa DOT, 2002) (Fig. 4.5). Vehicles pull into the first (out of the two consecutive) parking stalls by forward parking, without stopping in the traffic lane. Vehicles can enter the second parking stall by backward parking, without stopping in the traffic lane. Surveys showed that such parallel parking manner reduces the time required for parking maneuver (to 4 s, and 6 s, respectively) (Iowa DOT, 2002). Angle parking increases the number of parking spaces up to 2.5 times in comparison with parallel parking. Angle parking requires wider roads in comparison with parallel parking, and furthermore, the remaining traffic lanes are used for parking maneuver (to enter/exit the stall). Even though angle parking has its advantages, it should be avoided wherever possible because it is not in line with safety requirements and efficient utilization of limited spatial capacities available for traffic on primary roads. Especially, the 90-degree angle should be avoided due to corresponding entry and exit maneuver durations. When organizing and marking parking stalls in street sections, all legal regulations related to the definition of micro location of each parking bay and their dimensioning standards have to be complied with. Table 4.5 shows passenger car parking standards in Melton City (Australia). For a parking stall at a 90degree angle, different combinations of aisle width and stall width are prescribed for on-street parking when there are constraints in the lane from which the car enters the parking stall.

Parking dimensions Chapter

4

51

TABLE 4.5 Parking standards for passenger cars, example from Melton City Angle (degrees)

Access way width (m)

Stall width (m)

Minimum stall length (m)

Desirable stall length (m)

0

3.6

2.3

6.7

6.7

45

3.5

2.6

4.9

5.4

60

4.9

2.6

4.9

5.4

90

6.4

2.6

4.9

5.4

5.8

2.8

4.9

5.4

5.2

3.0

4.9

5.4

4.8

3.2

4.9

5.4

Data from Melton City Council, 2015. Off-Street Car Parking Guidelines. (City of Melton).

Parking stalls are usually marked with 10 cm white lines. The manner of stall marking is regulated by national or local regulations and can be done in multiple ways. Fig. 4.6 shows typical markings for parking stalls. On-street parking is often considered undesirable due to its negative effects upon moving traffic and safety. On-street parking reduces road capacity in three ways: l

l

l

Traffic lane used for parking would otherwise be used by moving vehicles (when on-street parking is implemented on the roadway). Parking maneuvers require certain time during which the traffic lanes are occupied and the road capacity is reduced. Even when there is no entry and exit maneuver from the parking stall, road capacity is lower if it accommodates on-street parking because drivers expect somebody might start a maneuver.

Each maneuver affects capacity. When the flow is low and the gap is large, this influence is not significant. However, as the traffic flow intensifies, even a moderate number of parking maneuvers can lead to capacity reduction. Exceptionally, when traffic flow and vehicle speed are low and roadways are wider, angle parking can be applied. On-street parking is acceptable in most streets where vehicle speed is less than 30 mph (50 km/h) and the flow is lower than 15,000 vehicles per day (Kraft et al., 2009). Criteria for selecting the manner to implement parking depending on the traffic flow parameters can be found in Kraft et al., 2009. Since on-street parking affects safety, the number of conflicts between moving vehicles and drivers who park their cars and then become pedestrians has to

52 Sustainable Parking Management

FIG. 4.6 Different ways to mark a parking stall.

be minimized. One way to do so is to include in parking organization consideration the time the driver needs to enter and leave the vehicle. For example, in the case of parallel parking, the driver needs 4 s to exit the vehicle and close the door, which is almost equal to a 3.6 s gap, at the flow of 20,000 vehicles per day (both directions). As the gap increases, possibilities of implementing on-street parking are higher, because drivers have more time to leave their vehicle safely. When it comes to on-street angle parking, the time drivers need to exit their vehicles and close the doors will depend on parking stall width. In the case of on-street angle parking, the safety of drivers is not compromised, so this time will affect comfort only (as mentioned above), i.e., the quality of parking service. Vehicles parked in intersection zones reduce the visibility for other road users, thus reducing safety, as well. It is estimated that around 20% of road accidents that happen in urban areas are associated to on-street parking. Pedestrians accessing the roadway between parked vehicles took part in 5% of road accidents with fatalities (Sisiopiku, 2001). An extensive study was conducted in 10 US cities (5 states) in order to establish the influence of on-street parking upon road accident occurrence. The study dealt with the gravity and characteristics of road accidents depending on parking configuration, land use, roadway width, and road categorization. The study concludes that: l

Increase of parking space occupancy, expressed as the number of hours on an annual basis when the parking space at the given mile is occupied, increases the number of road accidents.

Parking dimensions Chapter

l

4

53

As the land attractiveness grows, the number of road accidents also increases; as expected in attractive (business) areas when parking turnover increases, it consequently raises the number of road accidents.

The literature also considers the effects of parking bay positions and parking angles onto the occurrence of road accidents. Most researches verified that angle parking is more dangerous than parallel parking, due to reduced visibility when exiting the parking stall (Box, 2004). Because it is needed to reduce parking effects upon traffic flow and upon safety improvements, i.e., to reduce parking-related road accident prospects, attention should be given to the following: l

l l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

Designing requirements need to be precisely defined, and designers need to be obliged to comply with these requirement. Strict compliance with and application of measure foreseen by the law. As many garages as possible should be planned and constructed, and onstreet parking should be minimized. On-street parking should be stimulated where there are no adverse effects upon the environment and other transportation modes, and it should be eliminated wherever it proves to have negative effects. In streets where there is parallel parking implemented, it would be desirable to form groups consisting of two to three parking stalls (Fig. 4.5). Using city furniture, install barriers, borders, and protective fencing for pedestrians at all critical points. The reason is twofold: On the one hand, it increases pedestrian safety, and on the other hand, it a priori reduces illegal parking, hence increasing the efficiency of parking enforcement (by reducing the volume for enforcement). Places where children stay and play have to be particularly secured. Reducing the speed in streets with curb parking by intercepting the traffic flow with light signage. Residential areas may accommodate curb parking only when through traffic shares are not significant. Wherever required, retroreflective materials should be used so that during the night and in dusk, pedestrians, especially children, could be seen more easily. All user categories (drivers and pedestrians alike) need to be educated through traffic safety courses, actions, and campaigns. Traffic culture needs to improve. Drivers need to pay maximum attention when parking and to adjust their car speed, thus reducing the risk of road accidents. More precise records on parking-related accidents should be maintained, and problematic accident situations should be defined in order to improve designing criteria. Combining all the above measures.

To examine whether on-street parking bays can be organized (and on-street parking allowed) and to mark these parking stalls, each (part of the) street section should first be analyzed in terms of the following:

54 Sustainable Parking Management l

l l

l

l

l

Land use and attractiveness of developments in the vicinity of that street section: facilities of certain use class and attractiveness (e.g., in defined areas around schools) parking should not be allowed for children’s safety reasons. Mass transit line routes and intensities in the given street. The state and physical characteristics of street profiles: longitudinal and cross sections in order to test the options to design parking bays, to decide the parking angle and the number of bays. Intensity of the pedestrian flows: not only minimum sidewalk width but also the required sidewalk width depending on the pedestrian flow intensity should be defined. Traffic flow intensity: analyze traffic flow intensity data and service levels in the given street section. Limitations arising from corresponding legal regulations: existing of bus stops, pedestrian crossings, tree lines, manholes for urgent utility interventions, etc.

When selecting the location for parking bays in street sections in central city areas and highly attractive areas, the following general criteria should be complied: l l

Parking is not allowed in streets with intensive moving traffic. Parking is not allowed in streets where mass transit lines run.

Bearing in mind the lack of parking spaces and off-street parking capacities in particular, especially in cities in underdeveloped and developing countries, one has to assert that, as abovementioned, on-street parking will be the prevalent and the most used parking type for quite some time. Therefore, some of the above criteria may be mitigated but only with prior consent by city authorities that manage traffic affairs. If adverse effects of on-street parking are considered, a need to limit this parking type arises. Any decision to ban parking must be based on a study of volume, peak flow of the street, or the nearest intersection. Parking and stopping ban can increase bus speed by 7.5%, car speed by almost 50%, while accidents can drop by around 10%. Parking ban during some hours occurs as the result of reduced road capacities caused by parked vehicles in peak load times. At these times, it is required to ban vehicle parking and stopping in favor of the moving traffic.

4.3 Functional design of parking lots and garages Larger capacities and single entrance and exit point (integrated entrance and exit) or several such points (separated entrance and exit points or several entrance and exit points), mostly along secondary streets within the street network, are characteristic of off-street parking lots and parking garages. While off-street parking lots (Fig. 4.7) can be implemented only on the surface, parking garages can be constructed on the surface, above the ground with

Parking dimensions Chapter

4

55

FIG. 4.7 Off-street parking lot.

FIG. 4.8 Example of combined (underground/aboveground) parking garage.

several levels, under the ground with several levels, or as combination of these two options (underground/aboveground) (Fig. 4.8). Parking garages (parking structures) could be implemented as permanent or temporary facilities. Parking garages also differ by how levels are connected, namely, parking garages with ramps (Fig. 4.9) and parking garages with elevators (automated/mechanical) (Fig. 4.10), but garages with ramps are more frequently used. Ramps can be installed indoors or outdoors. The disadvantage of indoor ramps is that they occupy a part of the available space that could be used for

56 Sustainable Parking Management

FIG. 4.9 Examples of parking garages with ramps.

parking, while outdoor ramps have to be heated in areas with lower temperatures and snowfall. Ramps are divided into the following: l l l

Straight ramps Curved ramps (circular ramps) Parking ramps

The main characteristic of straight ramps is that they enable simultaneous parking search in the parking process, while vehicles move along the parking garages. In comparison with curved ramps, straight ramps are less suitable for outbound traffic because it is required to travel long distances inside the parking garage, from one level to the other, in order to reach the exit point. Another disadvantage is that after each exit from the ramp, there is a sharp turn into the aisle, which decelerates movement and adversely affects drivers (Fig. 4.11). Even though there are disadvantages, straight ramps are often used because certain types of straight ramps require small areas for ramp accommodation, while combinations of several ramps enable increased throughput and remove disadvantages when exiting the parking garage. Straight ramps are suitable because proper distribution of these ramps enables one-way traffic to be

Parking dimensions Chapter 4

FIG. 4.10 Examples of automated parking garages.

57

58 Sustainable Parking Management

FIG. 4.11 Example of parking garage with straight ramps.

introduced, which should be strived to when organizing parking garages. Straight ramps are divided according to the following: 1. Their direction (Fig. 4.12) into l parallel ramp system, i.e., up ramp is parallel with down ramp, l opposite ramp system, meaning that up and down ramps have opposite slopes. 2. Their relative position (Fig. 4.12) into l up and down ramps that can be installed next to each other or detached. 3. Their levels rise l ramps that rise a full level,

Parking dimensions Chapter

4

59

FIG. 4.12 Straight ramps.

l

ramps that rise only half of a level; these ramps are also called half-ramp and they require special construction methods to be applied when building such a parking garage (Fig. 4.13); they are suitable for locations with steeper slopes.

Unlike straight ramps, curved ramps (Fig. 4.9) are suitable for outbound traffic, because minimum movement is required in the garage in order to reach the exit. Curved ramps are less favorable when cruising for a vacant parking space, unless there is parking guidance and information system (Chapter 11) that will guide the parking user from the entrance until a vacant space. Another disadvantage of this type is that they occupy a lot of space. Parking ramps are seldom in use, because they offer lower capacities. In this case, ramps serve for both entering and exiting and for vehicle movement and parking (Fig. 4.14). Bearing in mind the advantages and disadvantages of each of the above ramp type, frequently, combinations of ramp types are used. For example, for cruising up and down the garage levels for a vacant parking space, straight ramps or (seldom) parking ramps are used, while curved ramps are typically applied for outbound traffic (Fig. 4.15). When organizing parking bays at an available area of an off-street parking lot location or when organizing levels in a parking garage, special attention should be given to the utilization of the available area. In developing the design

60 Sustainable Parking Management

FIG. 4.13 Straight half-ramps.

FIG. 4.14 Examples of parking ramps.

FIG. 4.15 Example of combination of straight and curved ramps.

of a parking facility, it is customary to work with stalls, aisles, and combinations called “modules.” A module, Fig. 4.16, can be complex or partial. A complex module consists of one aisle that serves two lines of parked vehicles (one line at each side of the aisle), and this module should be used for off-street parking organization whenever possible (module or module 1, Fig. 4.16). A partial

Parking dimensions Chapter

4

61

FIG. 4.16 Stall and aisle Dimensions—Module.

module consists of a single aisle that serves only one line of parked vehicles (module 2, Fig. 4.16). This arrangement is inefficient and should be avoided where possible. Parking bays are typically organized at an angle, with 90-degree angle being most commonly used. In public parking garage design, when dimensioning the aisle, backward parking into a stall should be adopted. For private parking lots, in the vicinity of certain use class developments, such as shopping malls, also forward parking could be foreseen for easier access to the trunk, so the aisle should dimensioned accordingly. According to service type, parking garages can be attendant parking, selfparking, or combined type. Service type indicates the manner the vehicle is left and retrieved from a parking garage. In cases of attendant parking, the driver drives the car until the parking garage entrance and hands the car over to the staff. The staff driver drives the vehicle to the first vacant stall. This type of service offers full comfort to parking garage users, it enables smaller dimensions of parking stalls and narrower aisles (because professional drivers drive the vehicles), and higher safety during in-garage driving is achieved. Disadvantages of attendant parking include costs (due to many staff required), frequent delays at entrance and exit points (users find any delay to be too long), and spatial requirements (space for retrieving vehicles at the entrance and the exit need to be provided, which consequently increase construction costs for such a parking garage).

62 Sustainable Parking Management

In self-parking, drivers drive the car themselves until the parking garage entrance and when unparking from a stall until the exit point. In comparison with the previous service type, self-parking advantages include minimum staff requirements, and consequently, cheaper parking service is possible. Since drivers park and retrieve their cars by themselves, no spare space for handover and retrieval of cars at the entrance/exit is required (except for waiting lines), unlike with attendant parking. The disadvantage of this service type in comparison with attendant parking is the spatial requirements; it is required to provide parking stalls of larger dimensions (suitable for the average driver). Combined type: this service type implies a combination of attendant parking and self-parking. Drivers drive their vehicles until each of the levels and then level staff takes over the vehicle. Self-parking could be applied for regular subscribers. In the first case, the advantage is that it is not required to construct designated areas at the entrance/exit but smaller areas for vehicle retrieval at each level; also, smaller parking bay dimensions could be designed. When making functional design of parking lots and garages, the following should be taken care of: l

l

l

l

l l

l l

Size, form, and possible spatial constraints of the location (long-distance lines for electricity supply, buildings, etc.). Selection of parking module enabling the best utilization of the available location and creating possibilities to optimize duration of traffic inside the parking garage when cruising for a vacant space and when leaving the garage as well. Relation between the location and the street network, in order to define potential entrance and exit positions. Urban planning and technical requirements that might require entrance/exit to be located at a specific section of the street network and might affect the number of levels (in cases of parking garages), etc. Regulations pertaining to the dimensions of parking bays. Regulations pertaining to the number, location, and dimensions of parking bays for persons with disabilities (see Section 4.4). Selection of suitable parking schemes and pedestrian flows. Pedestrian and vehicle safety (minimizing the number of conflict points): accidents that happen during parking in garages mostly happened during maneuvers, i.e., during stall entry/exit. The reason behind is primarily the fact that parking garages are spaces intended strictly for parking and there are not so many pedestrians as on the street.

In the case of a parking lot/garage with larger capacities, it is required to be aware of the following as well: l

Traffic flows in its influential area in order to analyze the effects of constructing a parking lot/garage on the street network level of service in its influential area.

Parking dimensions Chapter

4

63

In addition to the above parameters, prior to designing, it is required to adopt (anticipate) the following: l

l

l

l

l

Arrival directions and intensities of potential users in order to evaluate the ease of vehicle access to a parking lot/garage. Expected entry and exit intensities in time sections during the day in order to define the required number of entrances and exits on the one hand and to analyze the influence of service level into the street network of the influential zone, as abovementioned, in cases of parking lots/garage in the other hand. Service type: self-parking, attendant parking, or combined service type. As mentioned above, in the case of self-parking (which happens more often), when defining entrance point, waiting area needs to be taken into consideration. In addition, customer waiting area can be allocated (typically immediately after the vehicle leaves the garage). In attendant and combined parking, parking stall dimensions could be smaller than in self-parking (because in this case, vehicles are parked by professional drivers), but spatial provisions have to be made for a collection of vehicles at the parking lot/ garage entrance or at each level depending on the operating method of this service type. Type of users (long vs short term, high vs low turnover, and event), which can be used for dimensioning of parking bays (see Section 4.1). Payment method, which can be important in terms of selecting the equipment for parking enforcement and parking charge collection and for such equipment positioning.

Functional design needs to provide the following: l l l

l

l

One-way movement with as less conflict points as possible (if possible). Circular movement, i.e., possibility of returning to any of the aisles. When searching for parking, it should be possible to pass by all the parking spaces. When leaving the parking lot, from the parking stall until the very exit point, the footway needs to be as short as possible. Driving scheme inside the parking lot needs to be supported with adequate horizontal and vertical signals, etc.

In addition to functional design of parking lots and garages, other designing requirements (lighting, possible heating, ventilation, and fire protection) need to be precisely defined as well. In addition to functional design requirements for these systems, the main requirement is not to install all the corresponding equipment at areas that could be used for parking stalls. In this respect, minimum parking garage floor clearance between the parking garage floor and the lowest point of the equipment installed below the ceiling and the module width (width of two lines of parked vehicles and one aisle) have to be defined. Lightening: Electricity is used to provide lighting. In lighting design, the strongest intensity should be used at entry and exit points, payment points,

64 Sustainable Parking Management

all points where vertical slopes and horizontal curves change, pedestrian communication and waiting areas in front of the cash desk, elevators, or entrances into mechanical parking devices. Parking bays are customarily lightened with lower light intensities, while ramps require higher light intensities than parking bays. Light intensities are defined in local parking garage designing regulations. Preferably, a backup lighting system should be provided, while pedestrians that exist in case of emergencies need to be mandatorily lightened. Heating: It is not required in parking garages, except in place where people stay. Where heating is required (in cases of outdoor ramps), it is sufficient to heat the parking facility until +5°C temperature. Ventilation: In the case of open and automated parking garages, natural ventilation is provided, i.e., air draft provides ventilation. In order to provide continuous lateral ventilation, it is required to construct openings at opposite external walls depending on the area of the garage level, which should be defined by local regulations. For automated parking garages where entering vehicles’ engines are not running, it is sufficient to provide smaller ventilation openings that also need to be defined by regulations. In closed and underground parking garages, mechanical ventilation is required. Typically, outflows are constructed to provide for certain air amount to be ventilated per hour for each 1.0 m2 of usable area (as defined by local regulations). Since gasoline steam is heavier than air and the hazardous carbon monoxide is only slightly lighter, hazardous gases are then collected at lowest spots in parking garages. This is the reason why suction holes of the ventilation system need be installed as close to the floor. Fire protection: A parking garage needs to be equipped with tools to extinguish fire involving any type of flammable materials. In addition, typically, firefighting requirements include the following: l

l

l

Bearing elements of the parking garage need to be made of fire-retardant materials. This requirement applies to closed parking garages and open parking garages, the height of which exceeds certain values or which have usable floor area of certain size, as defined by regulations. For lower and smaller open parking garages, it can be required to construct load-bearing columns of nonflammable materials. Underground parking garages need to have special fire-extinguishing devices. Water pipe networks that automatically open when the temperature exceeds 72°C should be installed inside the walls. Moreover, hydrants with proper hose length need to be installed.

Lately, when designing and constructing or rehabilitating the existing parking garages and afterward when garages become operational, compliance with sustainability goals needs to be ensured. In this regard, Parksmart1 (formerly Green Garage Certification) was created; it is the world’s rating system

1. Parksmart (n.d.)

Parking dimensions Chapter

4

65

created to help in achieving sustainable transportation through smarter parking garage design and operation. Parksmart results in reduction of operating costs, improved energy efficiency, and better lighting and ventilation of parking garages. Compliance with parking garage certification conditions is evaluated on the multicriterion basis; for parking garage design and operation evaluation, the following criteria are evaluated: l

l

Design: Are reused, repurposed, or recycled materials used for construction/ rehabilitation? Is there bicycle parking existing? Are there electric vehicle charging stations? Type of ventilation system (preferably natural ventilation)? What kind of lighting is used (preferably at least 75% of lighting fixtures should be controlled by occupancy sensors)? etc. Operation: Is parking pricing applied? Are shared parking programs applied? Is there PGI system (external and internal) existing? Are carshare and rideshare programs applied? Is it possible to rent bicycles? etc.

So far, 20 certified parking garages have been found around the world; the vast majority is located in the United States. The first certified parking garage in Europe is located in Belgrade, Serbia, and the first such garage is Asia is located in Chengdu, Sichuan, China.

4.4 Disabled parking As pedestrians, many disabled people will have a limited mobility range and will require specially designated parking bays closer to the places they wish to visit. Parking for the disabled is regulated by national or local regulations in order to enable full access and inclusion of persons with disabilities, as one of the important elements of socially sustainable development. Disabled parking regulations need to govern the following: 1. Minimum share of parking bays for persons with disabilities within total parking supply. This often depends on the installed parking capacity: For parking lots with lower number of parking stalls, higher percentage of bays for disabled people is required and vice versa; however, in general, it can be stated that the share of disabled parking bays ranges between 2% and 6% of the total number of parking bays. It should be noted that generally, a larger number of spaces are required at facilities where a higher proportion of users/visitors with disabilities is expected, such as medical, health, and care facilities, as illustrated in Table 4.6, which shows Americans with disabilities act (ADA) standards (U.S. Department of Justice, 2010) related to the required number of bays for disabled. It is also stated that one in every eight bays for the disabled, but not less than one, shall be designated as “van accessible” In some cases, such as the DfTs Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/95: “Parking for Disabled People,” which is applicable in England, Wales, and Scotland

66 Sustainable Parking Management

TABLE 4.6 Example of required number of bays for the disabled Total number of parking spaces provided in parking facility

Minimum number of required parking bays for disabled

1–25

1

26–50

2

51–75

3

76–100

4

101–150

5

151–200

6

201–300

7

301–400

8

401–500

9

501–1000

2% of total

1001 and over

20 plus 1 for each 100 or fraction thereof, over 1000

Note: Medical facilities have higher requirements. U.S. Department of Justice, 2010. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards. https://www. access-board.gov/attachments/article/983/ADA-Standards.pdf Accessed 6 May 2018.

TABLE 4.7 Example of required number of bays for the disabled depending on use classes Car park size Car park used for

Up to 200 bays

Over 200 bays

Employees and visitors to business premises

Individual bays for each disabled employee plus two bays or 5% of total capacity, whichever is greater

Six bays plus 2% of total capacity

Shopping, recreation, and leisure

Three bays or 6% of total capacity, whichever is greater

Four bays plus 4% of total capacity

Department for Transport, 1995. Parking for disabled people. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/95.

(see Table 4.7), the number of spaces required for people with disabilities varies between use classes. In all car parks, use of reserved bays should be regularly monitored and the number adjusted to ensure the needs of disabled people are fully met.

Parking dimensions Chapter

4

67

FIG. 4.17 Example of horizontal signage for disabled parking bays.

2. Dimensioning and marking of disabled parking bays. Parking bays for disabled people should be designed so that drivers and passengers, either of whom may be disabled, can get in and out of the car easily and safely. They should ensure easy access from the side and the rear for those with wheelchairs and protect disabled people from moving traffic. Therefore, bays should be longer and wider than normal. This is customarily solved by adding the area that complies with the above requirements to parking bays of standard dimensions. In cases when parking bays are parallel to the curb, this shared area is designed to the rear and optionally (if it is not possible to access the sidewalk directly from the vehicle) to one side. In cases of angled and perpendicular parking bays, additional area is designed on one (or both) lateral sides. Ideally, parking bays for the disabled should be grouped, in order to utilize shared lateral areas and achieve spatial savings. It is typically screwed, and the bay is marked with the international wheelchair symbol; see fig. 4.17 3. Location: Whether on street or off street, parking bays for disabled people should not be further from major destinations (e.g., bank, post office, large store, and supermarket). In general, the following rule is applied: Disabled parking bays need to be located on the shortest accessible route from parking to an entrance. Some regulations (e.g., DfT, 1995) define recommended maximum walking distance from a parking bay to the final destination according to disability Finally, it should be noted that, since recently, there are parking spaces at both on-street and off-street parking lots equipped with charging stations for electric vehicles (EV) (Fig. 4.18).

68 Sustainable Parking Management

FIG. 4.18 EV charging equipment installed at parking space.

Exam questions 1. Explain the dependency between the size of a city (expressed as city population) and the distribution of total available parking spaces in central urban areas into on street, off street, and parking garages. 2. Explain the difference between the shares of total available on-street, offstreet, and garage parking spaces and parking volume per parking types. 3. How do we define parking bays? What does the area of a single parking bay depend on (outline the area of a single parking bay)? 4. What are the parameters used by drivers (parking users) to evaluate parking service quality? Explain each parameter. 5. What are the criteria for organization and marking of on-street parking? Enumerate what needs to be analyzed for each street section in order to allow on-street parking and mark on-street parking spaces. 6. Enumerate parking garage classification according to parking service type. Explain each service type. 7. What should precede functional design of parking lots and garages? What criteria have to be complied with prior to the designing phase? 8. Explain basic characteristics of ramps between garage levels: straight ramps, curved ramps (circular ramps), and parking ramps.

Parking dimensions Chapter

4

69

9. Enumerate other main designing requirements (lighting, heating, ventilation, fire protection, etc.). Why is it important to define these requirements? 10. What needs to be governed by national or local disabled parking regulations?

References Box, P.C., 2004. Curb-parking problems: overview. J. Transp. Eng. 130 (1), 1–5. Damen, P., Huband, A., 2006. Technical note: design of angled parking bays. Road Transport Res. 15 (3), 84–88. Department for Transport, 1995. Parking for disabled people. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5, 95. Highway Research Board, 1971. Parking Principles. National Research Council, Washington, DC. Special report no. 125. Iowa DOT, 2002. Parking on urban primary highways. In: Design Manual: Geometric Design. Iowa Department of Transportation Office of Design. Kraft, W.H., Homburger, W.S., Pline, J.L., 2009. Traffic Engineering Handbook, sixth ed. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC. Milosavljevic, N., 2007. Elementi za tehnolosˇko projektovanje objekata u saobracaju i transportu [Elements for Technological Design of Traffic and Transport Objects]. University of Belgrade, Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering. Parking Consultants Council (PCC) and National Parking Association, 2002. Guidelines for Parking Geometrics. National Parking Association, USA. Putnik, N., 2010. Autobaze i autostanice [Road Terminals]. University of Belgrade, Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering. Sisiopiku, V.P., 2001. On-street parking on state roads. In: ITE Annual Meeting Compendium. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC. August.

Web References Parksmart (n.d.). Smarter parking structures. http://parksmart.gbci.org/ Access: 09.08.2018 U.S. Department of Justice (2010) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards. https://www. access-board.gov/attachments/article/983/ADA-Standards.pdf Access: 06.05.2018

Further Reading Melton City Council, 2015. Off-Street Car Parking Guidelines. (City of Melton). Urban Land Institute (ULI) and National Parking Association (NPA), 2010. The Dimensions of Parking, fifth ed. Urban Land Institute, Washington.

Chapter 5

Key parking performance characteristics Abstract This chapter covers the basic characteristics that describe parking operation in an area and parking lot/garage: from parking accumulation, volume, turnover, and duration to purpose, walking distance, and parking search time. To better understand parking performances, a basic parking performance diagram with certain number of parking spaces in certain time period is introduced. The chapter gives definitions, calculation formulas, and significance of each parking characteristic for understanding the state of parking. The interdependencies of the characteristics and their relation with relevant city features (e.g., population) are demonstrated. Finally, parameters of parking supply capacity are presented, both in terms of parking space occupancy and in terms of utilization of available parking time. Keywords: Parking purpose; Parking duration; Parking accumulation; Parking volume; Parking turnover; Walking distance; Parking search time; Parking capacity

Parking characteristics can be divided into parking infrastructure characteristics (Chapter 4) and parking performance characteristics. The latter are dealt within this chapter. Parking as an activity implies leaving your car at a parking space, during an uninterrupted stationary time interval defined by the arrival time (t1) and the departure time (t2) (Fig. 5.1); a parked car has no driver and no passengers. Parking is a technological element of transportation. This definition explains a single act of parking, by imposing temporal and operating limitations thereto: anything that does not comply with the given requirements cannot be deemed parking. In some countries, national traffic enforcement regulations define the minimum time period starting from which the activity can be deemed parking (typically between 3 and 15 min). Activities of shorter duration are deemed stopping. Parking performance characteristics always refer to a specific area that can be expressed as the number of parking spaces (M) and a specific time period

Sustainable Parking Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815800-5.00005-7 © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

71

72 Sustainable Parking Management

FIG. 5.1 Parking a car (temporal component).

during the day (T0) that typically implies a 24 h period, a time period during the day when parking is charged or duration of attractiveness in the given area. To understand parking performances, a basic parking performance diagram with M parking spaces in the period T0, Fig. 5.2, is needed. A single vehicle parking act is characterized by the arrival time (t1) and the departure time (t2). The remaining indexes in t1ij and t2ij denote i—sequential number of the parking space, j—sequential number of the vehicle parking act at the i parking space. As shown in Fig. 5.2, cars park and unpark during the time period T0. In terms of efficient parking space utilization (which is the goal), ideally, cars would alternate at each parking space instantaneously during the whole period of time. However, this is not possible in practice. Even in cases when parking demand is continual, minimum loss of parking space utilization occurs due to times required for a car to perform entry and exit maneuvers from the parking stall. Consequently, values of parking performance characteristics are easier to understand when parking performance is presented in a basic performance diagram. In order to examine and evaluate the existing state of parking, we need to know the values of parking performance characteristics, and this is considered the first (mandatory) step when addressing parking problems in a given area. M

kM

M M−1 t1(M−1)1

t2(M−1)1 1

i

t2i2

t211

t112

t2iki

t1iki

k1

2

1 t111

ki

2 t2i1 t1i2

t1i1

4 3 2 1

t2MkM

t1MkM

1

t212

t11k1

FIG. 5.2 Basic parking performance diagram for M parking spaces.

t21k1

t

Key parking performance characteristics Chapter

5

73

Main parking performance characteristics comprise: l l l l l l l l

parking purpose (motive) parking accumulation parking volume parking duration parking turnover parking search time walking time/distance capacity of parking supply

5.1 Parking purpose Parking purpose is actually the primary reason why car users park their cars in a given area or at a parking lot. Users of an area may park for many different purposes, with main parking purposes being: l l l l l l l

residence work business private business shopping leisure and recreation others

Residence: when parking users park their cars and go to their residence address (a place where one sleeps and spends time). Work: when parking users park their cars on a daily basis at their employer’s address. Business: when parking users park their cars in order to visit other companies, not the one they work for, but when the visit is related to their work (business meetings, provision of professional services to another company or an individual, etc.) Private business: when parking users park their cars in order to run some private errands, such as paying bills in banks/post offices, collecting documents from a local institution, and visits to the doctor. Shopping: when parking users visit a trade facility. Leisure and recreation: when parking users park their cars in order to visit facilities for the purpose of leisure (museums, galleries, cultural events, lectures outside of official education, libraries, theaters/movie theaters, restaurants, going for a walk, visiting friends and family in their homes, etc.) or recreation (visiting sport facilities for occasional sport activities, such as going to the gym, aerobic classes, and all other amateur sport activities of parking users). Other purposes: visits that cannot be classified under any of the above categories.

74 Sustainable Parking Management

9% 36%

Non-work Work

64% 91%

Between 6 AM and 8 PM

At noon

FIG. 5.3 Example of visitor distribution according to parking purposes.

Moreover, researchers themselves can systematize and define parking purposes depending on the research goal and specificities of land use in the research area (e.g., in university campuses, parking purposes could be education and work (e.g., Melia and Clark, 2017)). In addition, it might be required to further distinguish between some purposes, e.g., visiting friends and relatives and going to the beach, or to group other parking purposes, e.g., business and nonbusiness (Kelly and Clinch, 2006;Bates, 2014). In order to evaluate the state of parking and to define parking management measures, it is important to determine distribution of vehicle parking act percentages by purpose in a given area or at M parking spaces in the survey period (T0) and/or in characteristic time sections. Fig. 5.3 shows a realistic example of visitor distributions by the following parking purposes: work and nonwork in the surveyed period (from 6 AM to 8 PM) and at noon (at maximum parking accumulation).

5.2 Parking accumulation (A) Parking accumulation is the total number of cars parked inside a defined space or area or at M parking spaces in a (simultaneous) time section. It is determined by counting cars parked in the time section. It is typically expressed with accumulation curve. Accumulation curve is a diagram that shows the number of parked cars in relation to time (Fig. 5.4).

Accumulation (car)

25 20 15 10 5 0

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Time (h)

FIG. 5.4 Example of accumulation curve (bolded).

Key parking performance characteristics Chapter

5

75

Accumulation at the end of a period can be calculated when to the number of parked cars encountered at the beginning of that period we add the surveyed number of incoming cars and, from it, deduct the number of outgoing cars in the same period (e.g., on an hourly basis). It is calculated according to the Formula 5.1: A ¼Ae + In  Out ðvehicleÞ

(5.1)

whereAe ¼ Parking accumulation at the beginning of the period for which end parking accumulation is calculated (“encountered”), In ¼ Number of incoming cars—parked in the calculation period, Out ¼ Number of outgoing cars from the parking lot in the calculation period. Table 5.1 and Fig. 5.5 show how to calculate and present parking accumulation. Presenting parking accumulation as shown in Fig. 5.5 can be useful for analyzing both car entry and exit intensities in some shorter periods within the survey period and accumulation at the end of these periods, at the same time. Additional definitions of parking accumulations, if required for special analyses, are also possible, as exemplified below: Parking accumulation “noon” (Anoon) is the number of cars parked simultaneously in an area or at available parking spaces in the time section around noon. This accumulation could be determined because numerous surveys confirm that the highest parking accumulation in central areas happens around noon (Bates, 2014; Milosavljevic and Simicevic, 2018).

TABLE 5.1 Example of parking accumulation at the end of hourly intervals within survey period Hour

In

Out

Encountered

Accumulation 7

6–7

0

0

7

7–8

4

0

11

8–9

14

9

16

9–10

14

9

21

10–11

13

14

20

11–12

8

8

20

12–13

14

14

20

…

…

…

…

76 Sustainable Parking Management In

Out

Accumulation

No. of cars

30 20

11

7

10

21

16

20

20

20

0 –10

7

8

9

10

–20

11

12

13

Time (h)

FIG. 5.5 Example of parking accumulation at the end of hourly intervals within survey period. Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J., 2018. Parkiranje [Parking]. University of Belgrade -Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering.

Parking accumulation “morning” (Amorning) is the number of cars parked simultaneously in an area or at available parking spaces in the time section immediately before the area’s attractiveness starts. This is at the same time also time section with the highest demand generated by the residents of that area (because later, during the day, some residents use their cars, i.e., leave their parking spaces). Historical data for mix-use areas established that accumulation “noon” represents the maximum accumulation (Amax), while accumulation “morning” represents the minimum parking accumulation (Amin). However, in residential areas, it could be vice versa; therefore, it would be wrong to use Amax as an expression for Anoon and Amin for Amorning. Average accumulation (Aavg) is the average number of cars parked in an area or at available parking spaces during the survey period (Formula 5.2): Aavg ¼

Σm j¼1 Aj m

ðvehicleÞ

(5.2)

where Aj ¼ Parking accumulation in j time section, m ¼ Number of time sections for which parking accumulation is determined. Once established, parking accumulations can be used to calculate the level of attractiveness in an area and the occupancy coefficient for a given number of parking spaces. Since the level of area’s attractiveness is difficult to establish (Chapter 3), to evaluate the attractiveness, we typically use the area’s attractiveness level in terms of realized parking demand (katr) (Formula 5.3): katr ¼

Anoon Amorning

(5.3)

Key parking performance characteristics Chapter

5

77

Occupancy coefficient for the given number of parking spaces represents the ratio between the corresponding parking accumulation (Ai) and the total number of parking spaces (M) (Formula 5.4): Occ ¼

Ai ð%Þ M

(5.4)

Depending on the objective of the analysis, maximum and minimum occupancy coefficients or noon and morning occupancy coefficients are most commonly used. Average occupancy coefficient is calculated using the Formula 5.5: Occavg ¼

Aavg ð% Þ M

(5.5)

5.3 Parking volume (Vp) Parking volume represents the total number of performed vehicles (parking acts) within a defined area or at M parking spaces during a given period of time T0. Parking volume is calculated when the surveyed number of incoming cars that enter the survey area within a certain period of time during the survey period (Table 5.2 and Fig. 5.6) is added to the number of cars parked and encountered at the beginning of the survey period. It is calculated according to the Formula 5.6: Vp ¼ Ae + In ðvehicleÞ

(5.6)

TABLE 5.2 Parking volume Volume Time

In

Out

Encountered

Accumulation

Hourly

For period

30

6–7

0

0

30

30

30

7–8

2

5

27

32

32

8–9

7

5

29

34

39

9–10

6

4

31

35

45

10–11

7

7

31

38

52

11–12

5

10

26

36

57

12–13

17

11

32

43

74

Total

44

42

74

78 Sustainable Parking Management

FIG. 5.6 Parking volume.

where Ae ¼ Parking accumulation at the beginning of the calculation period (“encountered”), In ¼ Number of incoming cars in the calculation period. When parking volume has to be established for each of the M parking spaces, which is not suitable for parking lots with high number of parking spaces, Formula 5.7 could be used as well: M

Vp ¼ Σ ki ðvehicleÞ i¼1

(5.7)

where M ¼ Number of parking spaces, ki ¼ Number of vehicles at the i parking space in a period of time. Parking volume could be calculated for the overall survey period (T0) or a certain period within the overall survey period (15 min, 1 h, etc.). For the purpose of analyzing parking performance in the overall survey period (in order to define parking management measures), the following definitions are used: Maximum hourly parking volume (Vphavg): maximum established number of vehicles (parking acts) in 1 h within the survey period. Average hourly parking volume (Vphavg): average number of vehicles (parking acts) in 1 h within the survey period is calculated using Formula 5.8: n

Vphavg ¼

Σ Vphi

i¼1

n

ðvehicleÞ

(5.8)

where Vphi ¼ Parking volume in the i hour of the survey period, n ¼ Number of hours of the survey period. Peak hourly coefficients of parking volume, kh: the ratio between maximum hourly and average hourly parking volumes (Formula 5.9): kh ¼

Vphmax Vphavg

(5.9)

Key parking performance characteristics Chapter

5

79

Parking volume within a certain period of time at the M parking spaces or in a given area depends on the area’s level of attractiveness (land use class and parking purposes and consequently parking duration); in areas where parking is managed, parking volume depends additionally on the implemented parking regime and tariff system.

5.4 Parking duration (d) Parking duration is the time interval from the time when the car started the parking act (t1) until the time it left the parking space (t2), expressed in units of time (minutes or hours). To gain better understanding of parking duration, average parking duration and distribution of vehicles according to parking duration (relative and cumulative) are analyzed. Average parking duration at M parking spaces represents the average parked time of a single vehicle at one of the parking spaces in the given time interval (T0), and it is calculated according to Formula 5.10: h i M i Σ Σkj¼1 ðt2 Þij  ðt1 Þij i¼1 d¼ ðhour=vehicleÞ (5.10) M Σ ki i¼1

where M ¼ Number of parking spaces, (t1)ij ¼ Arrival time of the j car at the i parking space (hour and minute), (t2)ij ¼ Departure time of the j car from the i parking space (hour and minute), ki ¼ Number of vehicles (i.e., performed parking acts) at the i parking space during the T0 period. The above formula can be used when parking duration is surveyed for each of the M parking spaces, which is not suitable for parking lots with too many parking spaces. Average parking duration can be defined as the ratio between the number of hours when all cars are parked in the T0 time interval at M parking spaces and the total number of cars parked in the T0 period for which we are calculating the average parking duration; the formula is as follows (Formula 5.11): ðV p Þ Σp¼1 dp ðhour=vehicleÞ d¼ Vp

(5.11)

where dp ¼ Parking duration of the p car (hour). Distribution of vehicles according to parking duration represents the share percentage of vehicles in the defined duration classes (Table 5.3 and Fig. 5.7).

80 Sustainable Parking Management

TABLE 5.3 Examples of relative and cumulative vehicle distributions according to parking duration No. of vehicles

Relative distribution (%)

Cumulative distribution (%)

14

0

0

100

Total

106

100

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

100 Vehicles (%)

Vehicles (%)

Duration (h)

1

3

5 7 9 11 13 >14 Duration (h)

80 60 40 20 0

1

3

5

7 9 11 13 >14 Duration (h)

FIG. 5.7 Examples of relative and cumulative vehicle distributions according to parking duration.

In the case of public parking, parking duration depends on the size of the city and parking purpose. In case parking in an area is managed, parking duration will depend also on the measures applied, i.e., parking regime (manner of parking space use) and the tariff system. Size of the city: results of a parking duration study for central areas in 111 cities of various sizes in the United States where no parking management measures were applied indicated that duration increased with the size of the city (Table 5.4 and Fig. 5.8) (Highway Research Board, 1971). Reasons for this should be attributed to the fact that larger cities have more pronounced parking problems in central areas than smaller cities (a vacant parking space is more challenging to find). This leads to less frequent visits paid by visitors of these

Key parking performance characteristics Chapter

5

81

TABLE 5.4 Parking duration distribution depending on the city size, classified in time intervals, in US cities Length of time parked (%)

Population group of urbanized area (103)

0–1 h

1–2 h

2–5 h

>5 h

10–25

74

10

10

6

25–50

74

10

9

7

50–100

75

10

10

5

100–250

60

11

13

16

250–500

53

17

15

15

500–1000

36

13

18

33

over 1000

28

20

12

40

Highway Research Board, 1971. Special report no. 125: “Parking Principles”, National Research Council: Washington, D.C. (Table 2.10, pp. 14). Reproduced with permission of the Transportation Research Board.

FIG. 5.8 Parking duration distribution depending on the city size. (After Highway Research Board, 1971. Special report no. 125: Parking Principles, National Research Council, Washington, DC (Table 2.10, p. 14).)

areas, i.e., one arrival to the area is used to perform several activities (purposes), thus directly affecting parking duration. Based on the data shown in Table 5.4 and Fig. 5.8, it can be concluded that the share of 1 h parking duration (short-term parking) reduces as the size of the city grows, while the share of above 5 h parking duration (long-term parking) increases. Other categories show slight fluctuations of shares depending on the size of the city. Similar interdependences were established in six cities in Serbia where parking characteristics were surveyed (Milosavljevic et al., 2002; Milosavljevic

82 Sustainable Parking Management

TABLE 5.5 Parking duration classified according to time intervals in cities in Serbia Vehicle distribution acc. to parking duration (%) City

Population

0–1 h

1–2 h

2–6 h

>6 h

Aleksinac

17,978

71.3

10.9

8.5

9.3

Ivanjica

18,110

68.5

12.4

9.7

9.4

Smederevo

77,651

65.1

10.1

6.6

18.2

Kragujevac

175,182

60.4

16.0

6.0

17.6

Nis

250,180

56.1

14.0

9.9

20.0

1,574,050

35.4

19.2

24.7

20.7

Belgrade

Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J., 2018. Parkiranje [Parking]. University of Belgrade–Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering.

FIG. 5.9 Parking duration classified according to time intervals in cities in Serbia. Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J., 2018. Parkiranje [Parking]. University of Belgrade–Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering.

et al., 2003; Milosavljevic et al., 2006; Milosavljevic et al., 2007a; Milosavljevic et al., 2013a, b) prior to introduction of parking management policies (Table 5.5 and Fig. 5.9). Parking purposes: parking purposes per se do require certain time for fulfillment (Table 5.6 and Fig. 5.10). Data shown in Table 5.6 and Fig. 5.8 lead to a conclusion that “work” parking purpose requires long-term parking, while other parking purposes indicate short-term parking. In addition, it can be concluded that parking duration for all parking purposes, except work, increases with the size of the city. The reason behind shorter parking duration for work purposes in larger cities is the higher share of employees who need to use cars for professional purposes during their working hours.

Key parking performance characteristics Chapter

5

83

TABLE 5.6 Parking duration depending on parking purpose and city size in Serbia Parking purpose Work

City

Population

Business

Shopping

Other

Average parking duration (h)

Aleksinac

17,978

7.3

0.6

0.3

1.6

Ivanjica

18,110

6.3

0.9

0.8

1.1

Smederevo

77,651

6.9

0.8

0.5

1.0

Kragujevac

175,182

6.1

1.3

0.7

1.0

Nis

250,180

6.0

1.1

0.8

1.1

1,574,050

5.7

1.8

1.2

1.3

Belgrade

Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J., 2018. Parkiranje [Parking]. University of Belgrade–Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering.

FIG. 5.10 Parking duration depending on parking purpose and city size in Serbia. Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J., 2018. Parkiranje [Parking]. University of Belgrade–Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering.

Parking regime: parking regime, i.e., the manner in which parking spaces are used, is one of the measures to manage parking (Section 8.1). If a certain area applies limited parking duration regime, average parking duration in such area is a priori shorter than in other areas. Such regimes are customarily applied for on-street parking, leading to shorter parking duration in on-street parking as compared with off-street parking. Tariff system: a tariff system can also be applied, as one of parking management measure (Section 8.3) to influence parking duration. As parking charge is introduced into an area, one segment of parking users tries to decrease parking duration in order to reduce car travel costs. A tariff system (e.g., higher price per time unit for the first hour or the first 2 h of parking) can

84 Sustainable Parking Management

stimulate long-term parking. Typically, such tariff systems are applied in off-street parking lots, which results in longer parking duration at these lots in comparison with on-street parking.

5.5 Parking turnover (K) Parking turnover represents the realized number of vehicles (parking acts) at one of the M parking space during the given T0 period. It is expressed as cars/space/time duration. Typically, time duration is the survey duration period (T0), or it is calculated for one of the hours within this period. Average parking turnover per single parking space (Kavg) at M available parking spaces is calculated using Formula 5.12 for the former case or Formula 5.13 for the latter: M

Σ ki

Kavg ¼ i¼1 ðvehicle=parking spaceÞ M

(5.12)

n

Khavg ¼

Σ Khj

j¼1

n

ðvehicle=parking space=hourÞ

(5.13)

where Kavg ¼ Average parking turnover in the T0 period, Khavg ¼ Average parking turnover per hour during the T0 period, ki ¼ Number of realized parking turnover at the i parking space, M ¼ Number of parking spaces, n ¼ Number of hours in the T0 period, Khj ¼ Turnover in the j hour of the T0 period. Depending on the objective of the survey, average parking turnover could be calculated also for the maximum accumulation instead of the number of parking spaces, as in cases when a survey is conducted for an area where parking is not technically regulated and the number of parking spaces that could be marked has not been evaluated. This is also applied in areas where illegal parking is common. Average parking turnover depends on the average parking duration and, consequently, on all the parameters that affect parking duration; on parking purposes and in areas with parking management policies in place; and on the parking regime and tariff system as well. In central urban areas and in highly attractive areas, due to the effects of all parameters of influence, there are conflicting requirements posed by parking users and parking management authorities. As the city size increases, users need longer parking (Section 5.4), and the authorities require higher parking turnover in order to enable parking for as many users as possible. The main task of parking management efforts in these areas is to balance these conflicting requirements; hence, parking regime and tariff system are used to affect directly the increase of parking turnover, thus reducing parking duration.

Key parking performance characteristics Chapter

5

85

5.6 Walking time/distance (Lw) Walking time/distance is the typical or the shortest distance from the parking space until the final destination (or vice versa) that the car user travels on foot. It is expressed in units of length (m) or time (min). The share of walking in Ntype trip (Chapter 3.1) is shown in Fig. 5.11. Walking distance is of great importance when selecting off-street parking lots or parking garages, i.e., when analyzing “the convenience of a location.” A location is deemed convenient if trip destinations of most users are at an acceptable walking distance. In order to comprehend the state and performance of the parking system, it is important to know walking distance values in relation to other important parking performance characteristics. Walking distance depends on the size of the city, parking purpose and duration, and parking space type; in areas where parking management policies are applied, it depends also on the parking regime and the tariff system. In addition, local conditions that may prevail in a certain area, such as major spatial constraints or a very pronounced parking problem, may increase the walking distance considerably (see Table 5.7, example of the city of Ivanjica).

FIG. 5.11 Share of walking in N-type trip.

TABLE 5.7 Walking distance depending on city size, examples of cities in Serbia City

Population

Average walking distance (m)

Aleksinac

17,978

71

Ivanjica

18,110

122

Smederevo

77,651

86

Kragujevac

175,182

77

Nis

250,180

144

1,574,050

251

Belgrade

Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J., 2018. Parkiranje [Parking]. University of Belgrade–Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering.

86 Sustainable Parking Management

FIG. 5.12 Walking distance depending on city size, example of cities in Serbia. Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J., 2018. Parkiranje [Parking]. University of Belgrade–Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering.

TABLE 5.8 Walking distance depending on trip purpose and city size, examples of cities in Serbia Trip purposes Work

City

Population

Business

Shopping

Other

Average walking distance (m)

Aleksinac

17,978

79

69

57

80

Ivanjica

18,110

109

96

129

124

Smederevo

77,651

84

99

85

88

Kragujevac

175,182

68

77

72

112

Nis

250,180

128

149

190

169

1,574,050

236

252

314

259

Belgrade

Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J., 2018. Parkiranje [Parking]. University of Belgrade–Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering.

In larger cities, acceptable walking distance is longer (Table 5.7 and Fig. 5.12). Influence of parking/trip purpose on walking distance from the place where the car is parked until the final destination, in cities of various sizes, is given in Table 5.8. Data from Table 5.8 show that walking distance depends mainly on the size of the city, while parking/trip purpose does not affect walking distance value to that extent. When analyzing walking distance data, it is very useful to correlate these values to parking duration (Table 5.9 and Fig. 5.13 (cities in the United States) and Table 5.10 (cities in Serbia)).

Key parking performance characteristics Chapter

5

87

TABLE 5.9 Average walking distance depending on parking duration, example of US cities Length of time parked Population group of urbanized area (103)

0.5–1 h

1–2 h

2–5 h

>5 h

Average walking distance (m)

10–25

67

76

85

101

25–50

82

88

113

152

50–100

95

107

113

131

100–250

128

116

152

134

250–500

134

155

180

225

500–1000

148

148

170

277

over 1000

159

170

207

274

Highway Research Board, 1971. Special report no. 125: Parking Principles, National Research Council, Washington, DC (Table 2.13, pp. 15). Reproduced with permission of the Transportation Research Board.

FIG. 5.13 Average walking distance depending on parking duration, example of US cities. (After Highway Research Board, 1971. Special report no. 125: Parking Principles, National Research Council, Washington, DC (Table 2.13, p. 15).)

Data shown in Tables 5.9 and 5.10, and Fig. 5.13 lead to a conclusion that acceptable walking distance depends on parking duration as well. Acceptable walking distance increases for longer parking durations, but in cities in Serbia, realized acceptable walking distance for parking duration longer than 6 h is shorter than acceptable walking distance for parking durations between 1 and 6 h. Reasons for this can also be attributed to the time when parking longer than 6 h starts (usually, parking purpose here is work, which is realized as soon as the area’s attractiveness starts, when there are more vacant parking spaces enabling cars to park closer to the destination).

88 Sustainable Parking Management

TABLE 5.10 Average walking distance depending on parking duration, example of cities in Serbia Parking duration 0–1 h

City

Population

1–2 h

2–6 h

>6 h

Average walking distance (m)

Aleksinac

17,978

67

65

73

70

Ivanjica

18,110

125

124

99

109

Smederevo

77,651

77

160

123

76

Kragujevac

175,182

87

107

149

40

Nis

250,180

151

218

173

133

1,574,050

215

312

313

220

Belgrade

Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J., 2018. Parkiranje [Parking]. University of Belgrade–Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering.

FIG. 5.14 Average walking distance in Belgrade, Serbia, depending on parking space type. Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J., 2018. Parkiranje [Parking]. University of Belgrade–Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering.

In addition, surveys show that off-street parking users accept longer walking distances than on-street parking users (see example of Belgrade, Serbia, in Fig. 5.14 (Milosavljevic et al., 2003; Milosavljevic et al., 2007b)). When a restrictive parking regime is introduced, parking users are willing to accept longer walking distances. In other words, parking users are willing to walk longer in order to park at locations with longer time limits and/or lower parking price.

5.7 Parking search time Parking search time is the time interval from the moment users (drivers) start cruising for a vacant parking space until the moment they find one. It is expressed in units of time (minutes).

Key parking performance characteristics Chapter

5

89

If a trip destination area has high parking space occupancy, drivers have to drive additionally, i.e., to cruise in order to find a vacant parking space. Searching for a vacant parking space for users means further loss of time and financial costs and additionally causes the feelings of frustration and uncertainty, hence reducing trust into the transportation system and competent authorities. However, negative effects are felt not only by direct users who have to search for parking but also by the whole society. Cars cruising for vacant parking spaces increase traffic volume on urban streets. Increased traffic volume leads to further speed decrease, increase of travel time, and decrease of street network level of service. Thereby, cruising cars contribute to traffic congestions and exert adverse effects upon economy, environment, and quality of urban life (Simicevic and Vukanovic, 2013). SARECO study is useful for understanding the amount and importance of parking search time. This study estimates that in France, around 70 million hours are lost each year during parking search. In terms of the value of time, one could argue that the time spent on parking search alone is worth EUR 700 million (Gantelet and Lefauconnier, 2006), and to this value, at least additional fuel consumption costs should be undoubtedly added. Moreover, Van Ommeren et al. (2011) show that cruising cost for residents in Amsterdam amounts to about EUR 1 per day. However, little is known yet about the associated external cost of cruising due to increased level of emissions during that search and through traffic congestion, which suggests that its total welfare impact is much larger. Available literature (Shoup, 2006) indicates that average parking search time in central areas of metropolises around the world ranges between 3.5 and 14 min (8 min on average) and that 8%–74% (30% on average) of traffic volume is cruising for vacant parking spaces at any moment. Illustratively, only in a small Los Angeles business, district cars searching for a vacant parking space travel the distance corresponding to 38 trips around the world, spending around 47,000 gal (around 1500 tons) of gasoline and emitting around 730 tons of CO2 (Shoup, 2005). The most significant parameters influencing parking search time are (Simicevic and Milosavljevic, 2012; Simicevic and Vukanovic, 2013) as follows: l

l

l

Parking occupancy (Section 5.2) at the moment of search: the higher the occupancy, the longer the parking search time. Most typically, targeted on-street parking occupancy amounts to 85%, because it is considered that in this case, there is no parking search (on average, every seventh parking space is vacant) (Shoup, 2006). Knowledge of local parking situation: as parameters of local circumstances awareness, parking frequency, and trip length, the more aware of local circumstances the users are (when they park in an area more often or travel shorter), the shorter the parking search time is. Personal preferences that can be expressed by ranking quality service parameters (Section 3.3): e.g., parking price, destination vicinity, willingness to commit a violation (to park illegally), and user and car safety.

90 Sustainable Parking Management

FIG. 5.15 Parameters affecting parking search time. Simicevic, J., Milosavljevic, N., 2012. Parking Search Problem, Transport Research Arena, Athens.

Research shows that the last two parameters are contained in parking search strategies (Simicevic and Vukanovic, 2013) (Fig. 5.15). The term “parking search strategy” is used to denote the set of behavioral rules adopted by a driver to find a parking space for a particular activity on a particular day (Polak and Axhausen, 1990). Different parking search strategies are possible depending on the specificities of the corresponding area. A study conducted in the central area of Karlsruhe, Germany (Axhausen, 1989), where there is both on-street parking and off-street of various types, led to as much as seven search strategies: l

l

l

l

Strategy I: The drivers go directly (mostly without search) to an almost guaranteed parking place (inside tip), which is generally near the final destination. The inside tip is either based on incomplete enforcement of regulations or on reserved but uncontrolled parking stocks. Strategy II: The drivers concentrate on a fixed number of opportunities, which in total (almost always) guarantee a parking space without additional search. The drivers are willing to accept long walking distances or long queuing times to avoid the search for the parking space. This strategy was used by drivers directly approaching an off-street facility and those searching in the fringe areas around the core. Strategy III: The search is anchored to a parking facility always offering a parking space, but the drivers make use of available on-street opportunities if these are presented. The drivers do not engage in random circling. The drivers using this strategy do not in principle object to the off-street facility. Strategy IV: The drivers have a fixed sequence of on-street and cheaper offstreet opportunities, which in the aggregate assure a parking space. Short walking times to the final destination are not essential for the structure of the sequence. The drivers in general do not vary the sequence. The drivers

Key parking performance characteristics Chapter

l

l

l

5

91

do not use the more expensive off-street facilities and reject multistory and underground facilities. Strategy V: The drivers approach their destination on a variable search route adapted to trip purpose and duration of stay (in contrast to strategy III). If the search is unsuccessful, the drivers use illegal parking in close vicinity to their destination (especially for short stays). The search times associated with this strategy can be long. Strategy VI: The drivers start circling around their destination. The radius of the resulting spiral remains small. Long search times are combined with short walking distances. Off-street facilities are considered to be the last resort after extremely long unsuccessful searches. Strategy VII: For short stays, the drivers park after a short search in illegal spaces. The risk of a fine is accepted in exchange for short search and walking times. One respondent even described the possibility of faking a malfunction in order to double park.

On the other hand, Technische Universit€at Berlin has suggested that there are four key behavioral routines (Polak and Axhausen, 1990): l l l l

Circling (similar to the above Strategy VI) Directed search for on-street parking Parking in off-street facilities (similar to the above Strategy II) Illegal parking

It is important to identify parameters considerably influencing parking search in order to be able to reduce parking search time and accompanying adverse effects through such parameters. Parking occupancy is most frequently influenced by applying restrictive parking policies (parking regime and tariff system). In order to steer parking users to select those parking search strategies that will result in shorter parking search time, it is important to know parameters influencing strategy selection. For example, selection of parking search strategy to be employed by parking users who have to cruise because they are not familiar with local parking situation can be influenced by providing users with information on vacant parking spaces, which is typically done by introducing a parking guidance and information system (PGI system) (see Chapter 11). On the other hand, in order to reduce consequences of parking search strategies that include illegal parking, it is required to improve parking enforcement (see Chapter 9), etc.

5.8 Parameters of parking supply capacity Parking infrastructure is described by the type (on-street, off-street, garage) and by the number of parking spaces per type (M). However, in order to asses parking performance, it is required to define capacity of parking supply with M spaces in the T0 period.

92 Sustainable Parking Management

There are two approaches to define capacity of parking supply: 1. In terms of parking space occupancy 2. In terms of utilization of available parking time In both approaches, there should be a distinction between theoretical, expected, and realized parking capacity. 1. In terms of parking space occupancy, capacity of parking supply with M parking spaces applies to the number of vehicle parking acts in a given time interval, T0 Theoretical (maximal) capacity of parking supply with M spaces is defined as maximum possible number of vehicle parking acts at M parking spaces in T0 period. It is calculated using Formula 5.14: Pt ¼

MT0 ðvehicleÞ d

(5.14)

where M ¼ Number of parking spaces, T0 ¼ Time interval (hours), d ¼ Average parking duration expressed in hours/vehicle and determined by previous surveys for parking spaces included in capacity calculation. Expected capacity of parking supply, Pe, of a parking lot with M parking spaces is defined as the number of actually feasible vehicle parking acts at M parking spaces in T0 time period. It is calculated by forecasting the effects of parking measures, based on the previously calculated theoretical (maximal) capacity of parking supply and the evaluation of their utilization—r (Formula 5.15): Pe ¼

MT0 r ðvehicleÞ τ

(5.15)

where r ¼ Utilization coefficient of theoretical (maximal) capacity of parking supply, which is determined empirically based on previous surveys. Realized capacity of parking supply, Pr, is defined as the number of realized vehicle parking acts at M parking spaces in T0 time period. It is established through surveys. Congruence between thus defined parking lot capacity and corresponding parking volume in T0 is apparent. 2. In terms of utilizing the time available for parking at a parking lot with M parking spaces in the given time interval T0, there are as follows Theoretical capacity of parking supply—parking capacity, Pc, is defined as the total number of available parking hours at M parking spaces in the T0 period (Mathew, 2014). It is calculated according to Formula 5.16: Pc ¼ MT 0 ðvehicle hoursÞ

(5.16)

Key parking performance characteristics Chapter

5

93

Expected capacity of parking supply—expected parking load, Ple, is defined as the expected overall time during the T0 period when parking spaces will be occupied. It is calculated using the previously calculated parking capacity and the empirical estimation of the available parking time utilization coefficient (marked as pindex, using Formula 5.17): Ple ¼ MT0 pindex ðvehiclehoursÞ

(5.17)

Realized capacity of parking supply—parking load, Pl, (Mathew, 2014) is the total time within the T0 period when parking spaces are occupied. It is calculated using data collected through survey. When processing results of main parking performance characteristics studies, parking load can be calculated using Formula 5.18. It is calculated by simply multiplying the number of cars occupying the parking area at each time interval with the “simultaneous” time interval (gray part below the accumulation curve, Fig. 5.3). It is expressed as vehicle hours: m

Pl ¼ Σ Aj t1 ðvehicle hoursÞ j¼1

(5.18)

where Aj ¼ Number of simultaneously parked cars in j-time section of the survey period, t1 ¼ Duration of the “simultaneous” time period that depends on the applied survey method, e.g., 15 min (Section 6.2.2), m ¼ Number of “simultaneous” time periods during the survey period. It can be also calculated according to Formula 5.19: Pl ¼ Vp dðvehicle hoursÞ

(5.19)

where Vp ¼ Parking volume, Section 5.3, Formula 5.6, or Formula 5.7 d ¼ Average parking duration, Section 5.4, Formula 5.10, or Formula 5.11 Both expected and realized capacities of parking supply are lower than theoretical capacity, because in practice, a parking space is almost never occupied the whole period of time. As shown in the borderline case, a parking space is vacant at least during the times required for entering and leaving the parking stall (see Fig. 5.2). The goal of transportation engineers is to find measures to approximate the achievable capacity with the theoretical capacity as much as possible. In addition, the difference between expected and realized capacity should be minimal (thus confirming the suitability of the process applied for definition and application of measures).

94 Sustainable Parking Management

To evaluate the efficiency of parking capacity utilization, one can use l l

average parking occupancy, Occavg, calculated according to Formula 5.5 parking index, pindex, (Mathew, 2014) that represents the utilization coefficient of the time available for parking, T0. It is actually an aggregate measure of how effectively the parking space is used. It is calculated as the ratio between parking load and parking capacity at M parking spaces in the T0 period (Formula 5.20 or Formula 5.21): pindex ¼

m pl Σj¼1 Aj t1 ¼ ð% Þ pc MT 0

(5.20)

p l Vp d ¼ ð% Þ pc MT 0

(5.21)

pindex ¼

Values of both capacity utilization parameters, i.e., average parking occupancy and parking index, are the same. The following exercise demonstrates how to calculate values of parking performance characteristics. Fig. 5.16 shows a basic performance diagram of a parking lot with four parking spaces during a 2 h period; the diagram shows periods during which each parking space is occupied (gray diagram cells). Time interval for parking count is 15 min. Draw parking accumulation diagrams at the end of each 15 min interval and to calculate parking volume in this period; average hourly parking volume; peak hourly coefficients of the parking volume; maximum, minimum, and average parking accumulation; average parking duration; relative and cumulative parking distribution per parking duration; parking turnover; and parameters of parking supply capacity, parking occupancy (maximum, minimum, and average), and parking index. Accumulations at the end of 15 min intervals and turnovers (in the period, in 1 h, and at 15 min intervals) are calculated as shown in Table 5.11.

FIG. 5.16 Caption: Basic parking performance diagram and parking accumulation diagram at the end of 15 min intervals.

Key parking performance characteristics Chapter

5

95

TABLE 5.11 Parking accumulation and volume calculation Volume Time section

In

Out

Accumulation

15 min

For the period

5

Hour

Encountered

First

00–15

1

0

3

3

15–30

0

1

2

3

30–45

1

2

1

3

45–60

1

0

2

2

60–75

2

0

4

4

75–90

0

2

2

4

90–105

1

2

1

3

105–120

2

0

3

3

8

7

Second

Total for 2 h

2

7

10

Parking volume: Vp ¼ 10 vehicles (Formula 5.7). Average hourly parking volume: Vpavg ¼ (5 + 7)/2 ¼ 6 vehicles (Formula 5.8). Peak hourly coefficients of parking volume: kh ¼ 7/6 ¼ 1.17 (Formula 5.9). Maximum accumulation: Amax ¼ 4 vehicles. Minimum accumulation: Amin ¼ 1 vehicle. Average accumulation: Aavg ¼ (3 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 4 + 2 + 1 + 3)/8 ¼ 2.25 vehicles (Formula 5.2) (Note that initial accumulation (2) is not taken into account as it happened before T0.) Average parking duration: d ¼ (30 + 30 + 30 + 30 + 30 + 15 + 45 + 15 + 30 + 15)/10 ¼ 27 min/vehicle, i.e., d ¼ (3 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 4 + 2 + 1 + 3)15/ 10 ¼ 27 min/vehicle or 0.45 h/vehicle (Formula 5.11). Calculate relative and cumulative parking duration distribution (Table 5.12). Average parking turnover in the period: Kavg ¼ 10/4 ¼ 2.5 vehicle/parking space (Formula 5.12). Average parking turnover per period hour: Khavg ¼ (5/4 + 7/4)/2 ¼ 1.5 vehicle/parking space/hour (Formula 5.13). Theoretical capacity of supply: Pt ¼ 42/0.5 ¼ 16 vehicles in 2 h period (Formula 5.14). Parking capacity: Pc ¼ 42 ¼ 8 vehicle hours (Formula 5.16). Realized capacity of supply: Pr ¼ 10 vehicles.

96 Sustainable Parking Management

TABLE 5.12 Relative and cumulative distribution of parking duration Duration (h)

No. of vehicles

Relative distribution (%)

Cumulative distribution (%)

15

3

30

30

30

6

60

90

45

1

10

100

60

0

0

100

…

0

0

100

Total

10

100

Parking load: Ple ¼ (3 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 4 + 2 + 1 + 3)15/60 ¼ 4.50 vehicle hour (Formula 5.18). Maximal parking occupancy: Occmax ¼ 4/4 ¼ 1(Formula 5.4). Minimal parking occupancy: Occmin ¼ 1/4 ¼ 25% (Formula 5.4). Average parking occupancy: Occavg ¼ 2.25/4 ¼ 56% (Formula 5.5). Parking index: pindex ¼ 4.50/8 ¼ 56% (Formula 5.21).

Exam questions 1. Explain the basic parking performance diagram with M parking spaces. What conclusions can be drawn from the diagram? 2. Enumerate key parking performance characteristics. Explain parking purpose in particular. 3. Define parking turnover and explain to what period it applies and how to calculate it. 4. Define parking duration. What does parking duration depend on? In what ways? 5. Calculate parking accumulation and volume using surveyed data given in Table 5.1. 6. Define walking time/distance. What does walking time/distance depend on? In what ways? 7. Enumerate and explain the most important parameters that affect parking search. Outline a block diagram to show parameter positions in parking search strategies. 8. Enumerate main approaches to define capacity of parking supply. Explain how these approaches differ. 9. Define theoretical, expected, and realized parking capacity of parking supply. Explain how parking capacities are calculated in both approaches. 10. Enumerate and explain parameters used to evaluate the efficiency of parking capacity utilization.

Key parking performance characteristics Chapter

5

97

TABLE 5.13 Results of parking accumulation and parking volume survey Hour

In

Out

Accumulation

Encountered

1

06–07

0

0

1

07–08

9

1

9

08–09

25

11

23

09–10

18

13

28

Volume 2 h period

Hourly

Total

TABLE 5.14 Results of parking accumulation and parking volume survey Hour

In

Out

Accumulation

Volume

Encountered

0

0

6

06–07

1

0

7

7

07–08

12

3

16

19

08–09

27

13

30

43

09–10

22

18

34

52

Total

11. Calculate the following after Table 5.13: average hourly parking volume, peak hourly coefficient of parking volume, average accumulation, average parking turnover in the period, and average parking turnover per hour, for a parking lot with 40 parking spaces. 12. Calculate parameters of parking supply capacity, parking occupancy (maximum, minimum and average), and parking index for parking lot with 40 parking spaces and average parking duration of 2 h. Table 5.14 shows the required input data.

References Axhausen, K.W., 1989. Ortskenntnis und Parkplatzwahlverhalten. In: Report to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Institut f€ur Verkehrswesen, Universit€at (TH) Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe. Bates, J., 2014. Parking demand. In: Parking Issues and Policies. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 57–86. Gantelet, E., Lefauconnier, A., 2006. The time looking for a parking space: strategies, associated nuisances and stakes of parking management in France. In: SARECO research report, Association for European Transport and contributors.

98 Sustainable Parking Management Highway Research Board, 1971. Parking Principles. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Special report no. 125. Kelly, J.A., Clinch, J.P., 2006. Influence of varied parking tariffs on parking occupancy levels by trip purpose. Transp. Policy 13 (6), 487–495. Mathew, V.T., 2014. Chapter 41 Parking Studies. In: Engineering, Transportation Systems, IIT Bombay. Melia, S., Clark, B., 2017. What happens to travel behaviour when parking is removed? In: Universities Transport Study Group Conference, Dublin, Eire, 04–06 January 2017. Milosavljevic, N., Culjkovic, V., Putnik, N., Vujin, D., Stifanic, I., et al., 2007a. Studija stacionarnog saobracaja u Nisu [Parking Management Study for the City of Nis]. Institute of the Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Belgrade, Serbia. Milosavljevic, N., Culjkovic, V., Simicevic, J., Vujin, D., 2013a. Studija stacionarnog saobracaja za gradsko podrucˇje opsˇtine Aleksinac [Parking Management Study for the Urban Area of Aleksinac]. Institute of the Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Belgrade, Serbia. Milosavljevic, N., Culjkovic, V., Vujin, D., Stifanic, I., Maletic, G., Simicevic, J., 2007b. Analiza efekata uvođenja zonskog sistema parkiranja u Krugu dvojke—II faza [Analysis of the Effects of Restrictive Parking Regime Implementation in the Central Area of Belgrade, Stage 2]. Institute of the Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Belgrade, Serbia. Milosavljevic, N., Putnik, N., Babic, O., Netjasov, F., Culjkovic, V., Gavrilovic, S., Vujin, D., Todorovic, J., Stifanic, I., Pajkanovic, C., Rakic, S., et al., 2003. Istrazivanje karakteristika parkiranja u centralnoj zoni Baograda sa predlogom mera za poboljsanje uslova parkiranja [Research of Parking Characteristics in Belgrade Central Area With Proposition of Measures for Parking Improvement]. Institute of the Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Belgrade, Serbia. Milosavljevic, N., Putnik, N., Culjkovic, V., Stifanic, I., Vujin, D., Todorovic, J., et al., 2002. Parking Study in the Central Area of Smederevo. Institute of the Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Belgrade, Serbia. Milosavljevic, N., Putnik, N., Culjkovic, V., Vujin, D., Stifanic, I. et al. (2006). Studija izvodljivosti parkiranja u centralnoj zoni grada Kragujevca [Parking Feasibility Study in the Central Area of Kragujevac]. Institute of the Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Belgrade, Serbia Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J., 2018. Parkiranje [Parking]. University of Belgrade–Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering. Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J., Culjkovic, V., Vujin, D., 2013b. Studija kontrole i upravljanja parkiranjem u Ivanjici [Parking Management Study for the Town of Ivanjica]. Institute of the Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Belgrade, Serbia. Polak, J.W., Axhausen, K.W., 1990. Parking search behaviour: a review of current research and future prospects. Transport Studies Units, Working Paper, 540. Shoup, D.C., 2005. The High Cost of Free Parking. APA Planner Press. Shoup, D.C., 2006. Cruising for parking. Transp. Policy 13 (6), 479–486. Simicevic, J., Milosavljevic, N., 2012. Parking Search Problem. Transport Research Arena, Athens. Simicevic, J., Vukanovic, S., 2013. Determination of the parameters on which parking search time depends. Tehnika 68 (2), 295–301. Van Ommeren, J., Wentink, D., Dekkers, J., 2011. The real price of parking policy. J. Urban Econ. 70 (1), 25–31.

Further reading Direction Generale de la Mobilite, 2012. Guide du Stationnement Al’attention des Communes Genevoises.

Chapter 6

Data collection Abstract We define data that describe the current parking conditions and demonstrate possible ways to collect such data using the database of parking management entity, field surveys, and parking equipment (such as parking meters and parking sensors). The main topic of this chapter is field surveys. We define elements of the survey process: survey problem formulation, survey preparation and organization, survey methodology, operational plan of work in a survey area, collected data processing and results analysis, and final conclusions and recommendations. In addition to standard methodology, we give examples of several specific survey methods. Finally, we describe one possible way to form, update, and use the parking database. Keywords: Data collection; Survey types; Survey process; Survey methodology; In-out survey; License plate method of survey; “Park-and-visit” survey; “Vehicle following” survey; User survey; Database

In order to be able to manage parking, as a mass phenomenon, we need to familiarize with parameters of the existing parking state. Expert assessment can provide a global parking state overview. Expert assessment methods are as follows: l

l

l

Individual expert assessment is focused on considering individual opinion about a particular problem. Suitability of this method lies in employing individual skills, knowledge, and experience of parking experts. Collective expert assessment results from statistical processing of opinions of several experts about a specific problem. Expert commission is a task force of experts working jointly under an expert commission. Expert commission’s task is to prepare a document with their views on a particular issue inclusive of explanations required.

Assessment carried out in the above ways can be used only to systematize parking problems according to solution priorities, to decide about problem-solving directions, and to initiate problem-solving according to priorities adopted. For comprehensive assessment of the existing parking state, which is required for preparation of parking enforcement studies, it is necessary to conduct research according to one of the verified methodologies in order to Sustainable Parking Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815800-5.00006-9 © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

99

100

Sustainable Parking Management

determine values of all required parking characteristics. Some parameters can be taken from records (if any) maintained by the city authority and the parking operator. However, majority of parameter values can be determined only through surveys. Comprehensive parking state assessment serves as a baseline to identify problem causes, quantify parameter (parking characteristics) values required in order to select policies, and define a set of parking management measures and to define areas according to their priorities and frequently also to launch a reasoned initiative for parking problem-solving. “The word research is composed of two syllables, re and search. The dictionary defines the former as a prefix meaning again, anew, or over again, and the latter as a verb meaning to examine closely and carefully, to test and try, or to probe. Together they form a noun describing a careful, systematic, patient study and investigation in some field of knowledge, undertaken to establish facts or principles” (Richard and Grinnell, 1993).

In other words, research is a process for collecting data and analyzing and interpreting information to answer questions. But to qualify as research, the process must have certain characteristics: it must, as far as possible, be: 1. Controlled—in exploring causality in relation to two variables, a researcher needs to set up the study in a way that minimizes the external effects. 2. Rigorous—a researcher should be scrupulous in ensuring that the procedures followed to find answers to questions are relevant, appropriate, and justified. 3. Systematic—the procedures adopted to undertake an investigation follow a certain logical sequence. Some procedures must follow others. 4. Valid and verifiable—whatever is concluded on the basis of information analysis is correct and can be verified. 5. Empirical—any conclusions drawn are based upon hard evidence gathered from information collected from real-life experiences or observations. 6. Critical—the process of investigation must be foolproof and free from any drawbacks. The process adopted and the procedures used must be able to withstand critical scrutiny. Existing parking state is typically described with data about: l l

l l l

l

Location, type, and number of available parking spaces Manner of using parking spaces: parking regime, tariff system, and parking enforcement system Maximum and minimum parking accumulation per available parking type Parking performance characteristics (Chapter 5) Physical characteristics of the street network (cross and longitudinal profiles of roads and physical constraints) Planned parking infrastructure

Data collection Chapter

6

101

When defining parking management measures, the following data on the parking subsystem are also required, namely, l l

l

Assortment and state of other transportation subsystems General characteristics of the subject area (by traffic analysis zones, if any): population, number of households, number of employees (jobs), etc. Detailed introduction to best practices from cities worldwide

Values of existing parking state parameters can be taken from the city authority or the parking operator—if such records are maintained. These data can be either historical or real time, in cases when parking lots or spaces are equipped with “smart” equipment, such as parking sensors and smart parking meters. If such data are not available, they have to be collected by conducting the appropriate type of survey. This chapter deals with field parking surveys.

6.1 Types of survey Surveys are usually conducted within traffic studies or parking studies. A parking survey is a special type of traffic survey; it entails organized, systematic searching, recording, and storing of facts (parameters), i.e., characteristics that describe the state of the parking subsystem. According to the subject and the area of parking survey, parking studies are divided into the following types: l l l

Comprehensive studies or studies of general type Smaller-scale studies Custom studies

The type of study to be applied depends on the following: l l l

Set goal of the study Available information about the state of parking in the survey area Limitations, such as available financial resources required for survey and approvals to undertake surveys (user surveys in particular)

The existing parking database, if any, will largely contribute to revising the scope and decreasing the funds required to elaborate a parking study. Comprehensive parking studies are the most complex and the most complete type of studies but at the same time also the most expensive ones, because they require extensive data collection and detailed data analyses. This type of studies is applied for parking surveys and analyses that cover the whole territory of a city, urban (permanently inhabited) areas of a city, and central city areas. Smaller-scale parking studies are conducted mainly in smaller cities and built-up areas. These studies do not provide the same level of information details as comprehensive parking studies. The main difference between comprehensive and smaller-scale parking studies lies in survey data. Smaller cities and settlements may eliminate user

102

Sustainable Parking Management

surveys and employ other survey types, such as hourly parking accumulation counts. Moreover, smaller-scale user surveys could be conducted on a selected representative sample in order to obtain information that will help determine trip purpose, parking duration, walking distance, etc. Smaller-scale parking studies, in addition to being limited in the amount of information, can apply only to a part of the overall area covered by a previous survey but with larger scope of survey data within such limited area. Custom studies are elaborated in order to address specific issues. Goals of custom studies could be to determine suitability and need to regulate or construct parking spaces in given local conditions or to determine results of removing parking spaces from main urban roads, etc.. Moreover, these studies can serve to decide whether parking should be charged; to establish the scope and the consequences of illegal parking; and to decide whether limited parking duration should be introduced in some parts of a city, such as industrial areas, leisure and recreation areas, hospital complexes, and residential areas. Application of parking studies is not limited. Such studies are sometimes conducted in order to analyze parking for various objectives. These studies can be aimed at defining parking demand in an area that developed rapidly. The most comprehensive parking studies are conducted for cities and their general urban centers or for urban planning purposes, as part of urban planning documents. Parking studies are aimed at establishing the number of parking spaces required and the manner of their use, i.e., at establishing what is required to enable transportation planners to determine the required and sufficient number of parking spaces in the study area. Almost each parking study type requires continuous data update in order to ensure latest information on the state of parking in the survey area. Data older than 3 years are considered outdated. Urban transportation policies and parking management strategy should define the data update procedure and frequency. There are five basic elements required for preparation of parking studies; regardless of the scope of study (i.e., parking study type), these five elements have to be considered, namely, 1. Preparation: planning and organizing a study 2. Data collection: data on parking supply, parking performance characteristics in existing state of parking and general characteristics of the area, and relevant data on state of other transportation subsystems (moving traffic, mass transit, pedestrian traffic, etc.) 3. Data analyses: assessment of existing state of parking 4. Estimation/forecast: assessment of needs and development possibilities, estimation of parking space shortfall, etc. 5. Selection of improvement program: assessment of effects of each proposed variant and recommendations on how to implement the selected improvement program

Data collection Chapter

6

103

6.2 Elements of survey The most important set of data to be used for analysis, estimation/forecast, and selection of an improvement program in the parking study area come from parking performance data that can be obtained only through field surveys. Therefore, elements of survey process refer to data collection through field surveys (hereinafter, survey). Each survey should be characterized by clear formulation of the problem to be surveyed and inclination toward a certain conclusion. Customarily, survey process, both in general and in transportation and parking terms, consists of three phases (Kumar, 2011): l l l

Phase I: deciding what to research Phase II: planning a research study Phase III: conducting a research study

Phase I implies formulating the research problem to be surveyed; Phase II covers research preparation and methodology, while Phase III covers the operating work plan, processing and analyses of data collected through survey, methods of presenting the data, and concluding considerations and recommendations (Curcic, 1996, Fig. 6.1).

What is the subject of research?

Problem formulation

Organization of research

Research preparation

How to collect information? Methodology Data collection technique?

Who does what?

Work plan

How to follow up collected data?

Processing & analysis

How to present results?

Method of presentation

How to use results?

Concluding remarks and recommendations

* Dark grey — Phase I, light grey — Phase II, white — Phase III FIG. 6.1 Phases of research process.

104

Sustainable Parking Management

6.2.1 Phase I: Deciding what to research The task of this phase is to define the problem to be researched (subject of the research) and to explain why the problem needs to be researched. Research problem is formulated by: l l

Identifying the problem Identifying problem-solving priorities

The problem should be formulated as precisely as possible. The more specific and clearer the researcher is, the better, as everything that follows in the research process is greatly influenced by the way in which research problem is formulated.

6.2.2 Phase II: Planning a research study In order to prepare a research study, it is required to set up the research organization and to define research methodology.

6.2.2.1 Establishing the research organization In order to set up a transportation research organization, it is required to formulate financial plan (available budget) and required resources (people and equipment). In order to persist, the organization needs to have basic functions, as shown in Fig. 6.2. External requirements

Organize

Manage

Goals

Internal requirements

– Define work technology – Set up a plan – Provide basic components

Administrate

Results

Control

Actions

Tasks Requirements Advice

Execute

FIG. 6.2 Basic functions of research study organization. (After: Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J. (2018) Parkiranje [Parking]. University of Belgrade—Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering.)

Data collection Chapter

6

105

Comparison of the theoretical algorithm of relations between basic functions of an organization (Fig. 6.2) with elements of transportation research organization leads to the following conclusions: l l l l l

Investor-commissioner initiates organization Expert team manages the research Methodology author administrates the research Surveyors, counters, and interviewers perform the survey Supervisors perform control activities

When performing management function, internal and external requirements need to be taken care of. External requirements may refer to conditions that need to be fulfilled by the expert team members or request that the investor monitors research during all phases, etc.. Internal criteria may refer to requirements to comply with the given timeline and communication methods with the monitoring team, compliance with requirements prescribed for the monitoring team and/or the investor during the research that directly influence the management function, etc. Fig. 6.3 shows transportation research organization based on theoretical requirements and research organization relations in general. Each block represents an operational unit or responsible individuals. Links between the blocks are also representative of the communication lines between these operating units (in order to give advice, requests, and tasks) and responsible individuals.

Commissioner Group — team of expert consultants Methodology Author

Dispatcher center Main Dispatcher

Dispatcher

Dispatcher

Counters

Interviewers

Supervisors FIG. 6.3 Organization of traffic research study. (After: Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J. (2018) Parkiranje [Parking]. University of Belgrade—Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering.)

106

Sustainable Parking Management

In practice, this basic organizational structure scheme is tailored to the set tasks and available staff and material resources, so one operator performs several functions.

6.2.2.2 Survey methodology Survey methodology is a professional operating procedure applied to establish the state of a system or subsystem. It has to be previously verified, at least through a pilot study. The purpose of a pilot study is to investigate the possibility of undertaking the study methodology on a larger scale and to streamline methods and procedures for the main study. In other words, the scope of a pilot study is typically smaller than the scope of the main study, and the goal is to demonstrate whether the planned methodology is feasible and whether data collected can be used to meet the survey goals. If not, the basic methodology has to be modified. Pilot study is also sometimes called a feasibility study. Survey methodology covers the following steps: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Define survey goals and subject of survey Define area of survey Select and define unambiguous status indicators: what to survey Define survey constraints and requirements Select survey methods Define survey units Define survey time frame Design survey tools (forms to record data during the survey)

Survey goal and subject. Survey goal is defined based on terms of reference for a particular parking enforcement study or project. Survey goal has to aim at enabling specific conclusions to be drawn about the analysis and appraisal of the state of parking in the survey area. As mentioned before, survey discussed herein aims at establishing parameters that describe the existing state of parking (Section 6.1). Area of survey. Area of survey is the part of a city or any built-up area where a parking study is conducted. Dimensional characteristics of some parking parameters are reduced to a spatial unit (urban territory, central urban area, or influential areas of some attractive areas or developments). In case of comprehensive studies, area of survey implies a continually developed part of the city or any built-up area or its central area including its fringes. “Fringe” typically means an area where parking problems of the surveyed area may be reflected. For smaller-scale studies, area of survey means a part of the urban territory or the whole urban territory, as defined in the survey problem formulation, i.e., the goal of the survey.

Data collection Chapter

6

107

For custom studies, area of survey is the development itself and its influential area. Influential area is determined either conventionally based on the 5 minute walking from the development or area to be surveyed or based on the average walking distance acceptable for development/area users. Selection and unambiguous definition of survey parameters. Data to be recorded through the survey stem from the survey goal. Survey parameters need to be unambiguously defined in order to collect desired data as precisely as possible, to avoid any dilemmas about expressions used that survey participants might have, and to facilitate classification of collected data in the data processing and analyzing phase, but most importantly, data usability must be taken care of in the process. The researcher is entitled to form derived definitions of surveyed data. Data collected at any level of research have to be comparable, which means that the adopted survey methodology has to be strictly complied with in all segments, for various time sections and periods, thus enabling the same data in different time series. This will enable development trends to be observed for one or all parking indicators together. Survey constraints and requirements. Survey constraints and requirements can arise from willingness of the competent authorities to approve the proposed survey methodology and financial, temporal, spatial, or technological requirements. This mainly applies to defining those cases when specific survey methods are applied that differ from the main procedures defined in the survey methodology. Survey methods. Survey method is a complex process (technique) of measuring or recording data by applying a defined procedure. Two main survey methods are used to survey existing parking state parameters: Independent survey method implies all statistical surveys that can be conducted within the area of survey independently from parking users (drivers). The following main independent survey methods are applied in practice: l

l

l

Inventory (and mapping) of existing parking spaces in the area of survey (inventory of all regulated parking spaces according to their location and type: on-street sections, off-street parking lots, parking garages, etc.). These data, if available, can be taken from competent authorities. Counting of cars parked in the area of survey and/or at existing parking spaces in a time section (parking accumulation). Time section counts can be conducted for the overall survey area or for a typical sample of street sections and off-street parking lots. If a survey is conducted for the whole area, the area needs to be divided into sectors. Size of a single sector has to ensure that counters (typically two counter per sector) can count and record in the survey form (protocol) all cars parked in that sector for as short time as possible in order to meet the simultaneousness requirement (typically 15–30min). Counting of cars parked in the survey area within a time period or the so-called in-out survey. This method does not require many counters (often

108

l

l

l

l

Sustainable Parking Management

only 1–2 counters). However, the disadvantage is that it does not provide data on parking duration and parking turnover, only data about parking accumulation and volume. Some or all of the above data can be taken from the parking operator if parking spaces are equipped with parking occupancy sensors, access control equipment, or modern parking charge equipment. Survey of parking duration for cars at existing parking spaces within survey area, called license plate method of survey. For off-street parking lots, this type of survey is conducted rather simply with not as many counters; counters record license plates and entry and exit times. For on-street parking, this type of survey is conducted at continuous intervals of 15 min or some other intervals (10 min, 20 min, 1 h, etc.), and license plate numbers are noted down. If the time interval is shorter, then there are less chances of missing short-term parkers. This will give the data regarding the duration for which a particular vehicle was using the parking space. Typically, this method is used to determine parking duration, volume, and accumulation, while the parking turnover value is derived from the surveyed data. If parking spaces are equipped with access control equipment or modern parking charge equipment, these data can be taken from the parking operator. Survey of parking search time and trip purposes within an area of survey. The methods applied are “park and visit” and “vehicle following.” Inventory of brands and types of cars parked in survey area in order to determine dimensional characteristics of a design car (the so-called phantom vehicle) relevant for parking space dimensioning (Chapter 4). Moving traffic counts in the survey area and in entry/exit directions and nodes of the survey area in order to evaluate influence of parking (parking demand and cruising for parking) upon the level of service in the street network. This type of survey is also applicable when selecting off-street parking locations.

Dependent survey method implies statistical surveys conducted directly with parking users, i.e., drivers, in the area of survey. This method determines most precisely those parking parameters that are not determinable through independent surveys but are important for the existing parking state. Dependent surveys determine: l l l l l

Type of parking users Parking purpose Walking distance Parking duration1 Parking search time

1. Even though parking duration can be determined more precisely with independent survey methods, dependent survey methods are applied when parking duration needs to be correlated to some other parking characteristic determinable by dependent survey methods (e.g., purpose and walking distance).

Data collection Chapter

6

109

If a survey should result in a parking study, i.e., selection of parking management measures, in this case, dependent survey may also determine: l l l l

Origin of movement Parking frequency Ranking/evaluation of service quality parameters by parking users Opinions of parking users about matters relevant for parking management decision making (e.g., their opinion about acceptable parking rates and (non)user satisfaction with the state of parking)

When analyzing survey results, surveyed parking parameters are often correlated to social and economic parameters (gender, age, income, etc.), so a survey should determine these parameters as well. Dependent surveys of parking parameters are practically conducted through user surveys. According to their methodology, user surveys are divided into direct user surveys (interviews) or indirect user surveys. A direct user survey (aka face-to-face user survey or interview) is a form of dependent survey when the interviewer and the respondent communicate in the survey area and thus determine the required data. An indirect user survey is a special form of survey; it implies indirect delivery of survey form to parking users: a survey form is either left between the wiper and windshield or sent to owners’ addresses by post, internet, employer, etc. Response rate percentage for indirect user surveys is usually low; therefore, direct user surveys are recommended. For the sake of response quality, in direct user surveys, it is recommended to interview drivers who are about to leave their parking spaces and when parking is over, and the interviewees can provide precise data on parking duration, walking distance, etc. In order to determine the state of parking in an area typically, several “types” of survey are conducted. In order to evaluate parking state in general, first, the morning and noon parking accumulations (see Exercise 6.1) are surveyed, and if there is no database in place, marked parking spaces are counted and mapped. This survey is conducted comprehensively—every car parked/parking space in the survey area is recorded, for all locations and parking types. These surveys should provide answers to the following questions: “Are there enough parking spaces in the area?” and “Is there a parking problem?” Upon such initial evaluation, if required, other parking characteristics in the survey area are surveyed (see Exercises 6.2 and 6.3). Unlike the previous survey, this survey is not comprehensive, as it would be money consuming and unnecessary. Survey conducted on a typical sample of parking spaces, both on-street and off-street, offers sufficiently precise data with considerably lower material costs, but special attention should be paid when selecting typical street sections and off-street parking lots to be surveyed. The following needs to be taken into consideration: sample size, locations, attractiveness, and occupancy (resulting from the comprehensive parking accumulation survey), as well as

110

Sustainable Parking Management

land use of nearby developments (because of characteristics of parking users who are expected to park), etc. Once the sample is surveyed, the results need to be extrapolated, i.e., reflected onto the whole area. For this purpose, comprehensive morning and noon parking accumulations and number of parking spaces in the survey area are used, as well as other parking characteristics for the surveyed sample. Values of all characteristics expressed “per one parking space” (e.g., parking turnover) or “per one vehicle” (e.g., average duration) or expressed as percentages (e.g., distribution of visitors according to purposes) are adopted from the sample, while other values (e.g., volume) are derived by calculation (see Exercise 6.4). Average parking accumulation and hourly parking volume for the surveyed area are also calculated using corresponding peak coefficients determined on the surveyed sample. Data are extrapolated separately for each parking type (on-street/off-street/garage or publicly/privately owned). Units of survey. Surveyed parking characteristics are expressed using corresponding measurement values—units of measure. Therefore, parking characteristic surveys boil down to units of measurement: l

l

l l l

l

l

l

Inventory unit is a one parking space (systematized into on-street spaces, off-street spaces, garage spaces, etc.). Parking volume and accumulation unit is one parked car within a period of time, i.e., in a time section. Parking duration unit is 1 min or 1 h. Parking search time unit is 1 min. Car-type unit is one parked car systematized according to car brand and type. Moving traffic unit is any road vehicle assigned to typical vehicle categories (bicycle, motor bike, passenger car, bus, light-duty vehicle, heavy-duty vehicle, car train, etc.). Parking user-type unit is percentage (%) or the share of one category in the total number of parking users. Walking distance/time unit is 1 m/min.

In order to conduct analyses and draw conclusions, all survey results are presented in the above units of measurements and correlated to a specific area and time period. Survey time. Survey time means time interval during the day when parking parameter survey is to be conducted. All surveyed parking characteristics refer to the survey time (Chapter 5). Survey time needs to include the attractiveness period of an area or a development or of the previously determined survey area. Most commonly, survey time includes working daytime hours of the survey area, i.e., period of the day when parking is most intensive. If a restrictive parking regime is applied in the survey area, survey time can include the period when that parking regime is applicable. In special cases, survey time can cover a 24 h period, especially when there are no previous data or measurements available for the survey area and parking therein.

Data collection Chapter

6

111

Surveys are conducted on a relevant day in a relevant month. Survey instruments. Survey instruments include documents (count and user survey form) that serve to record surveyed parking characteristics. A survey form is a specially designed document used by trained and prepared surveyors (counters or interviewers) to record parking parameters observed and determined. Design of survey forms should enable recording and simple processing of all required data. This document has to contain three main parts: 1. Identification of the entity that conducts or on behalf of which the survey is conducted and data are collected 2. Type of survey and survey times 3. Surveyed indicators and respondents’ replies with regard to observed parking phenomena, presented according to a plan or questions and answers offered Figs. 6.4–6.7 show examples of user survey and counting forms.

Logo

1. Gender: 2. Age:

Parking characteristics survey in...

Interview

Venue:_______________________

Protocol no.

Time: ____________________

______

1) male 1) 18-30,

2) female 2) 30-45,

3. Are you : 1) residing in this area

3) 45-60,

4) above 60

2) visiting the area

4. Where are you traveling to (by car)? __________________________________ 5. Where are you coming from (on foot)? ________________________________ 6. How long did you stay at the parking place? ___________________________ 7. Why did you park here? 1) residence

2) shopping

3) work

4) leisure

5) business

6) private business

7) other ________________

8. How long did you search for parking? 1) I did not

2) up to 5 minutes

3) 5 to 10 minutes

4) longer than 10 minutes

........... Surveyor: _____________________

Supervisor:___________________

FIG. 6.4 Example user survey form. (After: Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J. (2018) Parkiranje [Parking]. University of Belgrade—Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering.)

FIG. 6.5 Example of counting protocol for comprehensive parking accumulation survey in an area.

Parking characteristics survey in ...

On-street count

Logo

No.

Venue:____________________________

Form no.

Time:_______________________________

_______

Hour and

from____

from____

from____

from____

minute

to____

to____

to____

to____

License plates

0 15 30 45 0 15 30 45 0 15 30 45 0 15 30 45 0

Surveyor: FIG. 6.6 Example of count form for parking volume, accumulation, and duration survey in street sections.

Data collection Chapter

Parking characteristics survey in ...

6

113

Off-street count

Logo

No.

Venue:____________________________

Form no.

Time:_____________

_______

License plates

Entry time

No.

License plates

Exit time

Surveyor: FIG. 6.7 Example of count form for parking volume, accumulation, and duration survey at off-street parking lots.

In cases when direct parking user surveys are conducted, the number of questions and survey time needs to be limited so that respondents do not give up on taking the survey. Recently, in addition to typical count and user survey forms, technical devices are also used: manual counters, cameras, video cameras, equipment for parking charge, GPS devices, mobile phones, tablets, drones, etc. Such devices can improve the data collection process. However, if new techniques and technologies are introduced, methodological approach has to be tailored as well. Devices are used in order to improve the methodology, i.e., to simplify data collection, since comprehensive data are often needed in a short period of time, which consequently requires many surveyors and considerable funds.

6.2.3

Phase III: Conducting a research study

Planning of a research study (second phase of the survey process) ends when the survey methodology is formulated. The third phase involves conducting a research study, i.e., operational execution of the planned methodology. It is

114

Sustainable Parking Management

conducted in the area of survey and at the time of survey pursuant to operating plans and operating instructions for each survey separately. Operating arrangements in the area of survey. Depending on the survey type, surveys have to be conducted according to survey goals, units, and time. The whole survey technology has to be developed and implemented in full, pursuant to general and particular instructions defined, which is essential for quality and reliability of surveyed data. Patrolling sectors. Area of survey is divided into patrolling sectors. One patrolling sector stands for one survey zone. Patrolling sector size is determined on the basis of time units adopted for that particular parking characteristics survey, with due care taken to ensure that surveyors fail to record only as less shortterm parking cars as possible. The number and size of patrolling sectors determine the number of surveyors (interviewers and/or counters and supervisors) for each survey and define operating arrangements in the survey area. Operating instructions. In addition to verbal training on the manners of data collection, surveyors (interviewers, counters, and supervisors) have to be presented with corresponding written instructions inclusive of all operating suggestions and tasks for each of the planned surveys. Preparation of the instructions is a delicate task that requires special attention. Quality of collected data will depend on the quality of instructions. Basically, each operating instruction has to include three separate sections: 1. The goal of parking parameter survey 2. General regulations and instructions to define behavior of counters and interviewers as researches in the survey area 3. Particular regulations or actual instructions how to conduct each of the planned parking characteristics surveys. Instructions need to define the survey parameter recording procedure in detail. The following examples show how to collect data about (a) comprehensive parking accumulation; (b) parking volume and accumulation; (c) parking volume, accumulation, and duration of an off-street parking lot. Moreover, examples of operating technologies for parking search time surveyors are also shown below (e–g) (Polak and Axhausen, 1990): a) Comprehensive parking accumulation survey: The counting area is located within the survey area (Fig. 6.5). Counters (ideally two, in order to count both sides of the street faster) patrol the area according to the schedule and count parked vehicles; they observe and record the counts using L for vehicles parked legally on-street in a street section and Ill for illegally parked vehicles, i.e., vehicles parked where parking is not allowed. Parked vehicle counts at an off-street parking lot are marked P, while parked vehicles counts in a parking garage are marked G (see Example 6.1).

Data collection Chapter

6

115

b) If only parking volume and accumulation are surveyed, as mentioned above, a simple data collection method is applied (the so-called in-out survey): Immediately before the commencement of the survey, the counter at the entrance counts and records the number of vehicles encountered at the parking lot (the initial count). From the moment the shift starts until it ends, the counter at the entrance counts the entering vehicles, and the counter at the exit counts the exiting vehicles. The counts cover a defined time period (e.g., 15 min to 1 h). At the end of the survey period, for control purposes, the counter at the exit may count all the remaining vehicles. If the entrance and the exit are located at a single point and inbound and outbound traffic is not intensive, only one counter can conduct the survey. c) Survey of parking volume, accumulation, and duration in street sections, the so-called license plate method of survey: Immediately before the commencement of the survey, the counter walks around her/his patrolling sector and records (Fig. 6.6) license plates of parked vehicles (these are the vehicles encountered) in the count form; having counted the vehicles, the counter marks them separately (draws a line below the last vehicle recorded in the protocol). This is called the initial count. At the moment when the first time interval of the survey starts, the counter again walks the same route in the same direction and records if the previously recorded cars are still parked (+) and simultaneously records license plates of any new coming vehicles and marks (+) in the corresponding cell (time). For vehicles that unparked, time cells are left empty. This procedure is repeated for each time interval within the planned survey time. Third kind of survey can cover only a few parking spaces (e.g., in a single section) of an off-street parking lot with many parking spaces, and then, data surveyed for the parking lot sample are extrapolated for the whole lot. d) Survey of parking volume, accumulation, and duration at an off-street parking lot: Immediately before the survey starts, the counter of the initial count records license plates of encountered vehicles into the count form (Fig. 6.7). When the survey period starts, the entrance counter records license plates and entry times for all vehicle entering the off-street parking lot, and the exit counter records license plates and times for all exiting vehicles. When the survey period ends, the exit counter may record license plates of the remaining vehicles for control purposes. If the entrance and the exit from the parking lot are located at the same point and the intensity of inbound and outbound traffic is not high, then these surveys can be conducted by a single counter. e) “Park-and-visit” survey of parking search time:

116

Sustainable Parking Management

Test driver starts from a given point and drives to the selected address in the survey area and records the time required to find a vacant parking spot. If required, time needed to park the vehicle can be measured and recorded. These surveys provide data on parking search times, data on routes used for the parking search process, etc. The disadvantage is that only the behavior of the test driver is surveyed; therefore, the representativeness of driver’s knowledge and behavior and consequently the validity of survey results could be challenged. f) “Vehicle following” survey: It is a parking search time survey that implies following a randomly selected vehicle in the survey area until it parks. Likewise the previous method, this survey enables parking search time and actual routes used for parking search to be surveyed, but the drawback is the issue how to define the sample and the moment when the driver actually started searching for parking. g) Survey of parking search time through face-to-face interviews with parking users (Fig. 6.4, question no. 8): The disadvantage of this method is that collected times have declarative (subjective) values, which are not necessarily true. In addition to interviews, drivers can be asked to keep trip diaries, i.e., to survey and record various aspects of their behavior when searching for parking (e.g., parking search times and walking times from parking places to trip destination, routes used, characteristics of selected parking lots, etc.). Disadvantages of parking search time survey methods can be offset by applying the same survey methodology in “before” and “after” surveys. Data collection protocols and documents. Whatever counters and interviewers do in the survey area has to be recorded. Before heading to the survey area, each counter and interviewer receives in the dispatcher center the work schedule and the authorization to conduct the survey. The purpose of these documents is to ensure implementation of organizational tasks and transparency of survey for public authorities and citizens. Promotion and marketing. Informing the general public about the goal and method of parking characteristic survey is one of the vital preconditions to conduct planned surveys properly. This is especially applicable in cases when faceto-face interviews are to be conducted. Public awareness is ensured through series of actions, and it covers two main courses of actions: l

l

Preparatory activities, such as providing information through radio, television, internet, and other public media, 10–15 days before the survey Announcements, as basic components of media content within parking study documentation material. These include texts that accompany interview and count forms and leaflets disseminated in the survey area. The objective is to inform parking users about the survey and to underline the importance and methods in which they will contribute to the success of survey.

Data collection Chapter

6

117

The scope and structure of these information materials have to be tailored to the particular survey area, mentality of parking users, and applied parking characteristic survey technologies and techniques. Material for each of the (public) media (daily newspapers, radio, television, internet, etc.) has to be designed as short informative media content that will, when communicated, subconsciously prepare parking users in advance to voluntarily and understandingly answer the questions asked and thus enable proper survey. Success of surveys planned within parking studies depends largely on the quality of generated publicity. Collecting and storing surveyed data. Upon completion of fieldwork, interviewers and counters deliver the surveyed material (field forms) to the dispatcher center. When the surveys are completed, interviewers and counters go through the collected material together with the dispatcher and sign the billing lists. This marks the end to the tasks of interviewers and counters, and the surveyed material is stored according to a defined schedule. All valid documents have to be properly stored in the corresponding material group. If this is not done at this point, later on, it might happen that some forms have to be discarded as unusable if some of the data are missing. This is why it is required to include in the survey operating plans and to organize a dispatcher center, both when assigning tasks to each of the surveyors and for submission of surveyed materials. Follow-up survey documents. Survey of parking parameters is supported with appropriate operating documents. Once the surveyed material is systematized and when the data processing starts, it is required to form two groups of the survey documents: l

l

The first group refers to lists of surveys conducted; these lists should include remarks and comments about planned vs actual tasks. The second group comprises data on surveyors and their survey engagement times. This data group is required for verification of illogical observations, if any, in surveyed materials, which can be redressed together with the surveyors, and for billing of survey costs.

In practice, upon such consultations with surveyors, the amount of correct data can increase. Processing of surveyed material. In order to obtain preliminary information about a parking parameter surveyed, it is necessary to process the surveyed data. Data processing implies arranging and grouping of surveyed materials according to previously defined study requirements. Nowadays, modern statistical research enables data to be processed manually and digitally, depending on the amount of surveyed material. Which data processing method will be applied has to be decided as early as in the research preparation, because data collection protocols that will be used have to be adjusted with the method of data collection.

118

Sustainable Parking Management

If it is planned to process surveyed data digitally, survey protocols need to be adjusted for coding. In addition, it is required to prepare tables with processing requirements in line with the research study goals as early as in this stage (Tables 6.1 and 6.2). In parallel with the above, a codebook and computer data processing program (appropriate software) should be prepared. Upon completion of the survey, collected data are coded using the codebook, meaning that surveyed data are translated into numerical values—codes. Hereby, documents are prepared for data import into the computer. Before the data processing starts, a logical check of collected data has to be made in order to eliminate incorrect and illogical answers or data. Finally, requirement tables transform into data processing results. These tables can indicate absolute values, relative values, or weighted values (when weights are applied). In addition to quick data processing, computers enable more data to be processed and ensure quality of processing requirements, providing more extensive information about the surveyed characteristics. Manual data processing could be applicable for smaller-scale surveys and when processing requirements are rather low. Manual processing of surveyed data is similar to computer data processing—it starts with arrangement of documents until output tables are produced—but there is one very important difference: Data processing is much slower, and possibilities to cover a wider range of requirements are lower. Manual data processing requires trained staff. Analysis of surveyed data. Analysis of surveyed data offers information on the state of certain parking characteristics surveyed in the area of survey. Analysis transforms surveyed data into information. Basically, there are two levels of analyses: l

l

First, global level offers preliminary information about some of the parameters upon the preliminary data processing. Second, more detailed or higher level of analysis, when each surveyed parameter is processed according to the defined survey goals, in order to determine rules behind changes in each of the surveyed parking characteristics.

Presentation of survey results. Survey results can be tabulated as direct survey results or analyzed. This is the higher level of surveyed data processing that employs comparisons or additional analytic calculations and adjustments. In addition to overview tables that facilitate comparison of relations between survey parameters, survey results can be presented graphically, depending on the level of processing and programs applied. Figs. 5.3–5.5 show examples of how to present survey results. Examples of survey data processing are given through Exercises 6.1–6.4. Concluding considerations and remarks. Processed parking (independent or dependent) survey results constitute the basis for further expert input. The

TABLE 6.1 Accumulation, attractiveness, and occupancy of parking spaces per parking types in survey area Area

Inner central area

Type of parking facility

Accumulation Noon

Morning

Realized attractiveness

No. of parking spaces

Occupancy Noon

Morning

On-street Parking lot Garages Total On-street Parking lot Garages Total

Data collection Chapter

Remaining survey area

6

119

120

Sustainable Parking Management

TABLE 6.2 Parking purposes of visitors in survey area Parking purposes

No. of parking acts

%

Shopping Work Leisure and recreation Business Private business Other Total

100

Exercise 6.1 Survey of accumulation (comprehensive survey in an area) Survey parking accumulation at noon (Anoon) in the area is shown in Fig. 6.8.

FIG. 6.8 Results of parking accumulation survey in one area.

Using survey results, calculate shares of each parking type in the total number of parking acts and average parking occupancy (Occavg) at each parking type. The number of parking spaces for each parking type is given in Table 6.3.

Data collection Chapter

6

121

TABLE 6.3 Parking occupancy at noon (Anoon) Type of parking facility

No. of p. spaces

Anoon (vehicles)

Occavg (%)

AnoonL

AnoonIl

Sum

L

L + Il

On-street

33

32

12

44

97

133

Off-street

42

34

–

34

81

81

Garage

40

23

–

23

58

58

Total

115

89

12

101

77

88

Record the results according to instructions shown in Fig. 6.5, Section 6.2.3. Table 6.4 shows data processing results for surveyed parking types, for each street section and overall for the whole area.

TABLE 6.4 Maximum parking accumulation distribution per parking type On-street Street

L

Ill

Sum

Off-street Garage

Sum

Name

Side

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

100

Left

10

67

5

33

15

28

16

30

23

43

54

Right

5

83

1

17

6

100

0

0

0

0

6

Left

4

67

2

33

6

100

0

0

0

0

6

Right

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

0

102

Left

7

64

4

36

11

100

0

0

0

0

11

103

Left

6

100

–

–

6

25

18

0

0

0

24

32

73

12

27

44

43

34

34

23

23

101

101

Total

If illegal parking is also included in parking occupancy calculation (L + Ill), then Occavg ¼ (32 + 12)/33 ¼ 133%. In any case, data analysis needs to consider that 27% of the total on-street parking accumulation accounted for illegally parked vehicles (Table 6.4).

122

Sustainable Parking Management

Exercise 6.2 In-out survey An in-out 2-h survey for 30 parking spaces showed the initial count of nine parked vehicles (encountered) when the survey period started. Survey results are presented in Table 6.5. Calculate the parking accumulation, average occupancy, parking volume, parking turnover in the period and average hourly turnover, total parking load, and parking index.

TABLE 6.5 In-out survey data

l

l

l

Accumulation at the end of each time interval is calculated as follows: the number of vehicles encountered (accumulation at the end of previous time interval) plus the number of incoming vehicles during the calculation interval, minus the number of outgoing vehicles in the same time interval (Formula 5.1) (Section 5.2). For example, at the end of the first 15 min time interval calculated, accumulation amounts to 9 + 25–11 ¼ 23 and at the end of the second 15 min time interval 23 + 18–13 ¼ 28. Occupancy is calculated according to the Formula 5.4 (Section 5.2); for the 15 min first time interval, the occupancy amounts to Occ ¼ 23/30 ¼ 70% Average occupancy is the average of the occupancy values for each time interval: Occavg ¼ (77 + 93 + 93 + 90 + 90 + 97 + 63 + 20)/8 ¼ 78%. Additionally, average occupancy can be calculated according to Formula 5.5 (Section 5.2): Occavg ¼ ((23 + 28 + 28 + 27 + 27 + 29 + 19 + 6)/8)/30 ¼ 78%.

Data collection Chapter

l

l

l

l

l

l

6

123

Parking volume calculated according to Formula 5.7 (Section 5.3) is the sum of the encountered vehicle counts and entering vehicle counts in the calculation period. For the first 15 min time interval, parking volume is calculated as follows, 9 + 25 ¼ 34, and for the whole 2-h period, Vp ¼ 9 + 122 ¼ 131. Average turnover, as per Formula 5.12(Section 5.5), amounts to Kavg ¼ 131/ 30 ¼ 4.37 of parking acts per single parking space for the 2 h time interval. Average turnover per hour, Formula 5.13(Section 5.5), amounts to Khavg ¼ (84/ 30 + 74/30)/2 ¼ 2.65 vehicles/h/parking space. Parking load is calculated by multiplying parking accumulation with time interval duration expressed in minutes (Formula 5.18) (Section 5.8). For example, for the first time interval, the parking load amounts to Pl ¼ 23 15/60 ¼ 5.75 vehicle hours. Total parking load is the sum of parking loads for all time intervals in the survey period, and it amounts to Pl ¼ 2805/60 ¼ 46.75 vehicle hours. Parking capacity, according to Formula 5.16 (Section 5.8), amounts to Pc ¼ 30 2 ¼ 60 vehicle hours. Parking index, i.e., available parking time utilization coefficient, calculated according to Formula 5.19 (Section 5.8) amounts to pindex ¼ 46.75/60 ¼ 78%.

Exercise 6.3 License plate method of survey A survey was conducted to collect data about a parking lot with 15 parking spaces used by both residents and visitors. For the survey, license plate data were recorded. The survey was conducted in the period from 6 to 9 AM, and counting interval was every 15 min (Table 6.6). License plates above the line (from A to G) show parked vehicles encountered at the beginning of the survey period (vehicles of residents). Calculate the values of main parking performance characteristics: parking accumulation, volume, average duration, and relative and cumulative distribution of parking duration, turnover, average occupancy, parking load, parking capacity and parking index, as well as distribution of times when residential vehicles unpark. l Accumulation is calculated by counting the number of vehicles parked at the end of every 15 min interval, including the vehicles encountered at the beginning of the survey. When survey data are tabulated (Table 6.7), parking accumulation at the end of the time interval can be calculated as follows: vehicles encountered at the parking lot (accumulation at the end of the previous time interval) plus incoming vehicles in the same time interval, minus outgoing vehicles for the same time period. For example, at the end of the first 15 min time interval, parking accumulation is calculated as 7 + 2–0 ¼ 9 while at the end of the whole survey period as A ¼ 7 + 21–17 ¼ 11. l Amax ¼ 14; Amin ¼ 9; Aavg ¼ 12.08. l Parking volume is calculated by counting all the vehicles, the license plates of which have been recorded, or based on data given in Table 6.7 as the sum of the initial vehicle count (vehicles encountered) and the incoming vehicle count for the calculation period. For example, for the first 15 min interval, the volume is calculated as 7 + 2 ¼ 9 and for the whole 2-h period as Vp ¼ 7 + 21 ¼ 28. Continued

124

TABLE 6.6 Survey data for license plate method of survey

Sustainable Parking Management

TABLE 6.6 Survey data for license plate method of survey—cont’d

Data collection Chapter 6

125

126

Sustainable Parking Management

Exercise 6.3 License plate method of survey—cont’d

TABLE 6.7 Parking accumulation, volumes, average occupancy, and parking load

Average occupancy is calculated as arithmetic mean of average occupancies in each 15 min time interval and amounting to Occavg ¼ (60 + 80 + 93 + 87 + 87 + 87 + 80 + 87 + 80 + 73 + 80 + 73)/12 ¼ 81% (Table 6.7). Average occupancy is also calculated as 12.08/15 ¼ 81%. Average parking durations for parking users are calculated as the arithmetic mean of parking durations for each of the parking users, and it amounts to 78 min (Table 6.6). Average parking duration for visitor category is calculated separately, and it amounts to 69 min. Visitors are those parking users who entered and left the parking lot in the period for which duration is calculated or during a sample period, because it is not possible to determine with high reliability whether the users who remained parked at the end of the period are visitors or residents. In cases when the research commissioner can provide researchers with the database of residents’ license plates (residents and/or businesses holding parking permit businesses), this problem can be solved. In addition, Table 6.8 shows relative and cumulative distributions of parking according to duration for all user and visitor categories. l

Data collection Chapter

6

127

TABLE 6.8 Relative and cumulative parking duration distribution Users Parking

Visitors

(min)

No.

Relative distribution (%)

15

1

4

4

0

0

0

30

2

7

11

1

8

8

45

9

32

43

5

42

50

60

2

7

50

1

8

58

75

3

11

61

1

8

67

90

3

11

71

1

8

75

105

2

7

79

1

8

83

120

3

11

89

2

17

100

135

0

0

89

0

0

100

150

1

4

93

0

0

100

165

0

0

93

0

0

100

180

2

7

100

0

0

100

Total

28

100

12

100

duration

Cumulative distribution (%)

No.

Relative distribution (%)

Cumulative distribution (%)

Average turnover amounts to Kavg ¼ 28/15 ¼ 1.87 of parking acts per single parking space for 3-h time interval. l Average hourly turnover amounts to Khavg ¼ (16/15 + 20/15 + 18/15)/3 ¼ 1.2 vehicles per hour per parking space. Table 6.9 shows main parking performance characteristics calculated for 15 parking spaces in the period from 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM. l For example, parking load for the first time interval amounts to 9 15 ¼ 135 vehicle minutes or 2.25 vehicle hours. Total parking load is calculated as the sum of parking load values for each time interval, and it amounts to Pl ¼ 2175/ 60 ¼ 36.25 vehicle hours. l Parking capacity expressed as available number of parking hours for 15 parking spaces amounts to Pc ¼ 15  3 ¼ 45 vehicle hours. l Parking index is calculated as pindex ¼ 36.25/45 ¼ 81%, and it confirms the average parking space occupancy (81%). Distribution of residential vehicles leaving their parking spaces is an important piece of data obtained in the initial count. This is required in order to determine how many parking spaces out of the total parking space in the area remain available for visitors in certain periods of time for which measures intended to solve (mitigate) the parking problem are typically defined (Table 6.10). l

Continued

Exercise 6.3 License plate method of survey—cont’d

TABLE 6.9 Main parking performance characteristics for 15 parking spaces from 6 AM to 9 AM Parking characteristics

Users

Volume For period

28

Maximum per hour

20

Minimum per hour

16

Average hourly

18

Peak hourly coefficients (Formula 5.9, Section 5.3)

1.11

Turnover Average for T0

1.87

Average for 1 h

1.2

Accumulation Maximum

14

Minimum

9

Average

12.08

Parking duration (min.) Users

78

Visitors

69

Occupancy (%)

81

TABLE 6.10 Distribution of residential vehicles leaving the parking space Time

No. of unparked vehicles

Relative distribution (%)

Cumulative distribution (%)

Until 7

2

29

29

From 7 to 8

3

43

71

From 8 to 9

0

0

71

Still parked

2

29

100

Total

7

100

Data collection Chapter

6

129

Exercise 6.4 There is a total of 75 parking spaces in the survey area; comprehensive parking survey for the period from 7:00 AM to 10:00 AM shows that maximum accumulation amounts to 70 parked vehicles, while accumulation Amorning amounts to 48. There is no illegal parking. Table 6.9 (Exercise 6.3) shows surveyed and calculated main parking performance characteristics for a representative street section with 15 parking spaces in the same period between 7:00 and 10:00 AM. Calculate the main parking performance characteristics for the whole area. Values surveyed in the representative street section are taken as main parking performance characteristics in that area; these are the values expressed per one parking space, one user, or in percentages, such as parking turnover, parking duration, peak hourly coefficients for parking turnover, and average occupancy per parking space. Maximum accumulation and morning accumulation for the area are taken from the comprehensive parking accumulation survey in the area. Peak coefficients for the sample street section are used to calculate average parking turnover and parking accumulation values. Table 6.11 shows calculated main parking performance characteristics for the overall area.

TABLE 6.11 Parking performance characteristics in the area Parking characteristics

Representative street section

Area

For period

28

751.87 ¼ 140

Maximum per hour

20

100 1.11 ¼ 111

Minimum per hour

16

–

Average per hour

18

75 1.2 ¼ 90

Peak hourly coefficient

1.11

1.11

Average for T0

1.87

1.87

Average per hour

1.2

1.20

Maximum

14

70

Minimum

9

48

Average

12

61

Users

78

78

Visitors

69

69

Occupancy (%)

81

81

Volume

Turnover

Accumulation

Parking duration (min.)

130

Sustainable Parking Management

starting point when analyzing surveyed results is to determine objectively all parking facts in the area of survey area. Upon preliminary analyses, when the first general information is available, further analyses are conducted; defined survey goals are the starting points for further analyses. If a survey is initiated for general needs, then analyses serve to determine strategic possibilities; for smaller-scale survey goals, facts for smaller-scale solutions need to be established, while custom surveys seek to reach exactly those conclusions that are defined as specific goals. Depending on the required analytic level, the analysis process can employ statistical operators, weight factors, various adjusted models, etc. Finally, analytic conclusions serve primarily to evaluate future short-term and long-term parking development needs and possibilities based on the determined state of parking and critical analysis thereof. Concluding considerations have to be based on comparative analyses of parking state survey results and data from l l

Database that provides general spatial characteristics, Relevant data about the state of other transportation subsystems (moving traffic, mass transit, pedestrian traffic, and others)

Data on general spatial characteristics and the state of other transportation subsystems can be obtained from the respective institutions/entities.

6.3 Examples of specific survey methods In addition to standard methodology explained in more detail in Phase II (Section 6.2), below are examples of several data collection models and techniques, which have to be defined within the research methodology, see examples 6.1 and 6.2. Constraints (financial, time, etc.), availability of modern equipment, and the very goal of the survey are reasons why sometimes specific survey methodologies are applied.

6.4 Parking database Data collected through existing parking state research need to be stored in a parking database (hereinafter, the database). The database is a set of data about the state of the parking infrastructure and parking performance characteristics. Parking database should be a part of a larger-scale utility infrastructure database of a city or any built-up area or urban transportation models. Urban transportation models require data representative of the overall transportation system to be collected and systematized. Databases are modern tools for monitoring the state of parking and managing available public parking spaces. Database contents can be extended to

Data collection Chapter

6

131

EXAMPLE 6.1 The City of Stockholm, Sweden, introduced a new parking scheme in the inner-city area in the fall of 2013 (Cats et al., 2016). The new scheme was designed to include some of the goals defined by the city in its comprehensive mobility program. One of the goals is to reach the targeted parking occupancy coefficient of 85% as compared with the then 90% measured within 2011 parking survey. The main measure to achieve this goal was the adjustment of parking fees. The effects of measures taken to reach this goal had to be determined within a realized parking accumulation survey for the new price as compared with the 90% occupancy parking fee. Since comprehensive parking surveys were required and the time period was short and this consequently entailed many surveyors and high costs, methodology for determining the realized parking accumulation (in the area where the measures were applied) was improved—data collection was simplified. The ultimate goal of the survey and the result analysis was to estimate the implications of on-street parking policies (the “before and after” survey). This methodology combined three sources: (a) transactions from on-street parking meters, (b) floating car video films, and (c) on-street parking supply repository. On-street parking meters were the primary method to collect parking fees, enabling visitors of the inner-city Stockholm to pay for parking using their debit or credit cards. Pricing zones cover the entire survey area of inner-city Stockholm with multispace vending machines (parking meters). During the survey period, 1185 parking meters were installed in the inner-city Stockholm, so their availability was very high, particularly in the central areas. Certainly, parking occupancy calculated from parking meters does not reflect the actual real parking load in the corresponding block of streets (parking meter data do not include information about vehicles exempted from parking charge, e.g., residents living in those streets, hybrid vehicles, and parking paid by other payment methods, e.g., pay-by-phone and illegal parking). In addition, it contains the time stamps corresponding to the ticket issuing and the expected departure time, which may differ from the actual departure time. These were the reasons why an additional survey method was applied—data collection from videos made by a floating vehicle equipped with a data logger and GPS system. Data from the floating vehicle were used to calibrate data collected by parking meters at the on-street parking sample. In the first step, parking meter data were processed to calculate momentary parking load on each surveyed street segment. The actual number of vehicles parked on each street block is then obtained from video films collected by the floating vehicle on several weekdays. Correction of the parking load obtained from parking meter data for the respective street block and timeof-day periods is determined by comparing the load from parking meter data and the load from the floating vehicle on the block, and it is applied to the whole survey areas. The corresponding parking supply database includes the total parking length available in meters converted into the number of vehicles based on an average vehicle length. It serves to calculate parking space occupancy coefficients, together with the surveyed parking accumulation data.

132

Sustainable Parking Management

EXAMPLE 6.2 In 2003, time limits and parking fees were introduced in the central city area of Belgrade, Serbia; the goal was to balance parking supply and demand. The effects of the measures introduced were not sufficiently good, and this was the reason to redefine the measures. In order to redefine parking measures and anticipate their effects, it is required to understand and quantify user response to parking policy intervention. This data can be collected through a “before and after” study in policy intervention (i.e., by revealed preference (RP) technique). Nevertheless, examples of studies based on RP data are rare. The reason for the limited number of such studies is the absence of parking policy changes or, if there was any, the absence of parking data before the change. Therefore, for this purpose typically, stated preference (SP) technique is applied, as was the case in this Belgrade parking study. Stated preference technique implies hypothetical scenarios that are composed of different alternative attribute values. The attributes of the options are varied over experiments to provide the variation needed for estimation of underlying preference parameters (Train and Wilson, 2007). During the interview, parking users are presented with these scenarios (one by one) and asked to state how they would react in each of the hypothetical situations by selecting one of the alternatives offered. Therefore, a survey was conducted, and the goal was to determine user attitudes to parking price and time limits (parking regime attributes). Parking users in the central Belgrade area were interviewed in a sample of representative street sections and off-street parking lots (Simicevic et al., 2013). Different scenarios with hypothetical situations defined by varied regime attribute values were formulated and presented to parking users; the users were asked to state what alternative they would select, i.e., on-street parking, off-street parking, or others (Fig. 6.9). The number of scenarios shown to the respondent needs to be limited (in this case, four scenarios were presented), because too many scenarios would disturb respondent’s concentration and respondents might give “incorrect” answers. Additionally, parking regime attribute values varied across scenarios need to be kept within reasonable limits, because for parking users it is difficult to perceive considerable variations from the existing values. Boundary values of parking regime attributed were determined in a pilot survey. Along with gathered SP data, in order to better explain the response of users faced with parking policy changes, a wide set of parameters proved to have a strong impact on the travel decision were gathered. These are some socioeconomic characteristics of the users and trip characteristics, such as age, gender, income, parking purpose, and parking frequency. Section 8.2 elaborates in more detail on processing and using of data collected thereby. Even though it is widely used, finally, it should be mentioned that this method entails some dilemmas inseparable from the way in which the data are collected: users need not necessarily behave in the way they stated they would. Furthermore, respondents can be led by the interviewers to give an expected answer, or they give a wrong answer on purpose, realizing that such answer could affect price formation (Kelly and Clinch, 2006).

Data collection Chapter

6

133

EXAMPLE 6.2 —cont’d 19a. IF THE SITUATION IN THE RED 19a. IF THE SITUATION IN THE RED ZONE WAS THE FOLLOWING:

ZONE WAS THE FOLLOWING:

Parking price (on- and off-street):

Parking price (on- and off-street):

30 RSD/h

100 RSD/h

Time limitation (on-street):

Time limitation (on-street):

½ hour

2 hours

YOU WOULD:

YOU WOULD:

1) park on-street

6) park on-street

2) park off-street

7) park off-street

3) park at the fringe of the zone

8) park at the fringe of the zone

4) switch to public transport

9) switch to public transport

5) other: ___________

other: ___________

19a. IF THE SITUATION IN THE RED 19a. IF THE SITUATION IN THE RED ZONE WAS THE FOLLOWING:

ZONE WAS THE FOLLOWING:

Parking price (on- and off-street):

Parking price (on- and off-street):

150 RSD/h

200 RSD/h

Time limitation (on-street):

Time limitation (on-street):

½ hour

1 hour

YOU WOULD:

YOU WOULD:

10) park on-street

14) park on-street

11) park off-street

15) park off-street

12) park at the fringe of the zone

16) park at the fringe of the zone

13) switch to public transport

17) switch to public transport

other: ___________

other: ___________

FIG. 6.9 Example of SP scenarios. (Simicevic, J., Vukanovic, S., Milosavljevic, N., 2013. The effect of parking charges and time limit to car usage and parking behaviour. Transp. Policy 30, 125–131.)

134

Sustainable Parking Management

include private parking spaces, in which case the importance of parking databases rises, especially for spatial and urban planning. A properly established database enables fast and efficient use of parking data that may be important for making decision in parking subsystems or other transportation subsystems, urban planning systems, and utility systems. Database preparation needs to be initiated by city/local authorities, professional and scientific organizations, and parking operator(s). In the parking management process, each of the above stakeholder groups has its own tasks: 1. City/local authorities commission professional and scientific organizations to formulate methodology and design a parking database based on the parking management strategy and the official parking ordinance. In addition, city/local authorities need to provide funds to cover the costs of database design preparation and the costs for technical preconditions required to establish and operate the database organization. In cities where ownership over parking spaces is divided between the city and the private sector, both entities need to be involved in this process. In order to implement the parking management process properly, these entities need to initiate database update procedures (“before and after” surveys) periodically or when required. Parking management strategy should define regular database update intervals, which will ensure up-to-date data, while irregular database updates may be required should significant changes in parking intensities, land use, quality of service in other transportation subsystems, etc. occur. 2. Based on the above initiatives, professional and scientific organization develop l l l l

database design, methodology for data collection required to form the database, procedure for operating and systematic parking data collection organization of parking database unit and its working procedures. To design a parking database, the following needs to be defined: data to be fed into the database, data storing methods, update procedures, how to present the data, how to use the data, etc. Methodology for collecting data needed to form a parking database and to monitor the state of parking implies defining procedures to collect each data item contained in the database. Operating and systematic urban parking data collection requires parking data collection methodology to be applied. When developing a database design, the final outcome of the process is to devise the organization and parking database department, as well as department sectors and technical equipment required. Parking database department can be established as an independent entity or annexed to any of the stakeholders (e.g., parking enforcement entity and corresponding city/local department).

Data collection Chapter

6

135

6.5 If there is a parking enforcement operator(s) in the city, then it should be consulted during database designing when required Data from the database have to be available to all users: city/local authorities, parking operator(s), parking enforcement operator(s), judicial bodies that sanction parking violations, professional and scientific institutions dealing with parking problem calculations or problems affected by the parking subsystem, and finally parking users. Each category of data users needs different types of data; therefore, data organization needs to enable simple retrieval of data per user categories, which will not be burdened with other unnecessary data. Quality of a parking database and its usability depend on the quality of data fed into the database. Parking characteristics change over time, so data which were relevant at some point of time have to be updated with latest data reflecting the actual parking situation up to date. Using the geographic information system (hereinafter, GIS) to form a database is one quality solution. Digital maps where traffic roads within the state coordinate system are drawn in are the main precondition to apply GIS technology. When using GIS to form a parking database, the procedure is as follows: l

l

l

Street network is coded in the digital map by allocating an ID or a code to each node (intersection) and each section (between two nodes). The code is then used to link the location on the map with the data from the database. This means that various data from different databases can be collected for a certain section, but the unique code will enable that all these data are later on linked together. The database is then formed. Tables, i.e., databases, need to be linked to different data categories. The first column in each table shows a code used to link the data from the database with the location on the map. Once the database is formed, the software establishes the link between the database and the graphics (Fig. 6.10).

The advantage of GIS technology is that databases are formed only once and then linked to the graphics. When the database is formed, it is required only to update the data at certain time intervals. Data can be gathered from various sources, because if under the same code, data are easily linked, which simplifies monitoring, analyses, verification, and management and enables faster and better solutions for problems in this field.

Exam questions 1. Define the research process. Enumerate and explain characteristics that a research process should have. 2. What data typically describe the existing parking state in an area/city? 3. Enumerate and explain types of parking studies.

136

Sustainable Parking Management

FIG. 6.10 Example of data graphics: data from database formed in GIS. (After: Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J. (2018) Parkiranje [Parking]. University of Belgrade—Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering.)

4. Enumerate elements of survey process, i.e., collection of data through field surveys (outline the block diagram). 5. Outline and explain traffic research organization. 6. Define survey methodology and enumerate main steps. 7. Enumerate and explain survey methods. 8. Explain the area of survey and survey time. What do they depend on? 9. Give examples of survey forms for parking volume, accumulation, and duration survey for a street section. Compose operating instructions for counters. 10. What survey method is used to determine parking duration? Comment the reasons to apply this survey method. 11. Enumerate and comment parking search survey methods. Compose basis operating instructions for surveyors.

TABLE 6.12 In-out survey data

Data collection Chapter 6

137

138

Sustainable Parking Management

12. An in-out survey was conducted for 1 h and 30 parking spaces. The initial counts showed that at the beginning of survey period, 10 vehicles were parked (encountered). Table 6.12 shows survey results. Calculate parking accumulation, average occupancy, parking volume, parking turnover, total parking load, and parking index.

References Cats, O., Zhang, C., Nissan, A., 2016. Survey methodology for measuring parking occupancy: Impacts of an on-street parking pricing scheme in an urban center. Transp. Policy 47, 55–63. Curcic, V., 1996. Osnovi metodologije naucˇnog istrazˇivanja. [Fundamentals of the Scientific Research Methodology]. Nauka, Serbia. Kelly, J.A., Clinch, J.P., 2006. Influence of varied parking tariffs on parking occupancy levels by trip purpose. Transp. Policy 13 (6), 487–495. Kumar, R., 2011. Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners, third ed. SAGE Publications. Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J., 2018. Parkiranje [Parking]. University of Belgrade—Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering. Polak, J.W., Axhausen, K.W., 1990. Parking search behaviour: a review of current research and future prospects. In: Transport Studies Units, Working Paper, 540. Richard, M., Grinnell, J., 1993. Social Work Research and Evaluation. FE Peacock, Illinois. Simicevic, J., Vukanovic, S., Milosavljevic, N., 2013. The effect of parking charges and time limit to car usage and parking behaviour. Transp. Policy 30, 125–131. Train, K., Wilson, W.W., 2007. Estimation on stated-preference experiments constructed from revealed-preference choices. Transp. Res. B 42, 191–203.

Chapter 7

Parking strategy Abstract This chapter presents the process of creating parking strategy, which is a precondition for effective parking management. To define parking management strategy, we start from the sustainable development concept and highlight its multidimensionality. Further, we define the position and role of sustainable transportation system, emphasizing its objectives and principles, which assist in proper understanding of parking position in sustainable transportation system. This created preconditions for sustainability to be incorporated into the parking strategy. In addition to the procedure for defining parking strategy, the chapter deals with the basics of the selection of parking policies, as a set of parking management measures that support the adopted parking strategy. Keywords: Sustainable development; Sustainable transportation system; Parking management; Parking strategy; Parking policy

In the second half of the 20th century, concern about accelerated environmental degradation and consumption of natural resources, due to economic and social development, outspreaded. In this regard, the idea of sustainability also expanded, almost 50 years ago, which later directly impacted cities’ and their systems’ management strategies (including transportation system and parking—as its integral subsystem). The well-known phrase “sustainable development” is one of the most frequently used syntaxes nowadays, and it is almost inseparable from the flows of modern politics and economics. It is a normative development concept of our time and our future. This concept in principle aims to balance social, economic, and technological development with existing environment. Sustainable development theory depicts one new paradigm, which seeks to protect the longevity of humans and other species. No human activity happens without certain environmental impact. Numerous studies underline that we have to choose those actions that will not significantly or not at all impact the environment. Transportation system is among priority areas for sustainable development (Litman, 2017a). It has an important role in the economy with its everlasting presence in the production chain and in facilitating other human activities. However, transportation is also considered one of the main causes of

Sustainable Parking Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815800-5.00007-0 © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

139

140

Sustainable parking management

environmental pollution (right after energy production and industrial processing). With the increase of transportation-related negative impacts, awareness of the need to implement solutions that promote sustainability also grows (Dobranskyte-Niskota et al., 2007).

7.1 Sustainable development Considering the great interest in sustainability today, it is important at the very beginning to recall the idea itself and its development. The first major international debate on environmental issues was held in Stockholm in 1972, at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (aka Stockholm Conference). It is a milestone in the international environmental protection policy. The main conclusion of the conference (which today many see as overly optimistic) was that it is possible to achieve economic growth and industrialization, without harmful impact on nature. The raise of awareness regarding the sustainable development concept was also confirmed 20 years later at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (aka Earth Summit), which took place in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Among the central messages, the ones related to transportation system took an important place: favor alternative energy resources that should eventually completely replace fossil fuels and encourage alternative transportation modes in order to reduce traffic congestion and associated negative impacts. Even though from 1972 to the present day the awareness of the need for applying sustainability principles has increased progressively, the results are almost negligible. Obviously, this is the result of poor adoption of sustainability principles. It is believed that in recent years of our lives, decisions and practical steps must be taken in implementing sustainable development principles (Meadows et al., 2005). This has led to the latest planetary event related to the topic: the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit, held in New York in 2015. The output of the conference is the document that emphasizes a new plan for securing better future—Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The document represents a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets.1 The way to achieve the set of SDGs is depicted in Fig. 7.1. There are many ways to define sustainability. Although often seen as unspecified, the most cited definition is one given in Brundtland Report in 1987: Sustainable development is the kind of development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

The simplest definition of this term could be that a sustainable society is “one that can persist over generations, one that is farseeing enough, flexible enough, 1. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform (n.d.).

Parking strategy Chapter

7

141

FIG. 7.1 Achieving SDGs. (Adapted from Geoghegan, T., 2013. Post 2015: Framing a New Approach to Sustainable Development, a Briefing Note by the on a Post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda. In Independent Research Forum.)

and wise enough not to undermine either its physical or its social systems of support” (Meadows et al., 2005). Sustainability can also be seen as follows (Hill, 2009): “An overarching conceptual framework that describes a desirable, healthy, and dynamic balance between human and natural systems” or “a system of policies, beliefs, and best practices that will protect the diversity and richness of the planet’s ecosystems, foster economic vitality and opportunity, and create a high quality of life for people.” Generally, three aspects of sustainability are recognized (Harris, 2000): 1. Economic: An economically sustainable system must be able to produce goods and provide services on a regular basis, to maintain an acceptable level of external debt and to avoid extreme sectoral imbalances that damage agricultural or industrial production. 2. Environmental: An environmentally sustainable system must maintain a stable resource base, maintain biodiversity, and secure atmospheric stability and other ecosystem functions that are not normally classified into economic resources.

142

Sustainable parking management

3. Social: A socially sustainable system must achieve equality in the provision of all social services, gender equality, political responsibility, and inclusion of all social groups in all segments of life. In other words, economic, environmental, and social factors should be determined taking into account indirect and long-term impacts—but at the same time, this is “the ultimate goal or endpoint of planning activities” (Litman, 2011). Given the three elements of sustainability, its objectives are explicitly or implicitly multidimensional, imposing questions on how to provide balance and assess their success or failure. Fig. 7.2 gives a general graphic presentation of sustainability aspects and their interdependence. The system’s sustainability lies in the final cross section of three mentioned sets. Defining the concept of sustainability implies key changes in planning and decision-making process from conventional to sustainable: l

In conventional decision-making, each problem is addressed within one sector with narrow specialization, ignoring the impact of the solution on other interrelated sectors. For example, parking problems are addressed within this transportation subsystem alone, although parking measures influence also importantly the operation of other transportation subsystems (transit, dynamic traffic, walking, etc.) and other urban systems—and vice versa.

FIG. 7.2 Presentation of the sustainable development multidimensionality. (Based on https://com mons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sustainable_development.svg.)

Parking strategy Chapter

l

7

143

This is supported by the fact that in many cities and towns, no single organization is responsible for managing roads, transit, and car parking. Such an approach is often ineffective. To identify a truly optimal solution, planning must become comprehensive, sophisticated, and integrated with other decision-making sectors (Litman, 2003). Conventional planning is short term and mainly relates to a period from 5 to 20 years, which is shorter than a life span of one human generation. Sustainability planning is long term and takes care of “intergenerational equity,” i.e., it is fair to future generations. Conventional planning tends to ask, ‘Does it work?’ Sustainability planning tends to ask, ‘Does it fit?’ That is, sustainability planning places greater emphasis on how individual decisions fit into the overall context of total long-term goals and objectives (Litman, 2003).

7.2 Sustainable transportation system Transportation plays major role in sustainable development, since today’s movement of people and goods is a process that requires a great amount of resources and high external costs. For example, the share of transportation sector in total energy consumption in the European Union was 31.6%2 in 2013, while in the last two decades, it has slightly increased. At the same time, this share in the United States amounts to around 28%.3 Additionally, on the world stage nowadays, transportation sector consumes around 57% of the total oil produced and its derivates,4 in spite of many current tendencies of decision-makers worldwide to encourage technological replacements that would reduce oil consumption, aimed at achieving sustainability. During 2016, oil and its derivates covered around 92% of the US energy needs.5 Only a minor remainder was covered by resources such as biomass, compressed natural gas, and electricity. Finally, an increase in car ownership, mobility level, and car dependence has led to enormous traffic problems around the world. This is supported by recent results of Eurobarometer survey, which indicates that congestion (76%), air quality (81%), and accidents (73%) are serious challenges facing cities (European Commission, 2013). Although the last United Nations Sustainable Development Summit did not define a special and independent SDG for transportation area, since it is present in most social activities, it can be noted that transportation itself directly or

2. 3. 4. 5.

European Environment Agency (n.d.). U.S. Energy Information Administration (2017). The Statistics Portal Statista (n.d.). US Energy Information Administration (2017).

144

Sustainable parking management

indirectly affects several SDGs: health, gender equality, water, affordable and clean energy, sustainable cities and local communities, climate, industry and infrastructure, and responsible consumption and production. There is no single generally accepted definition of sustainable transportation system. Some of them are as follows: “A sustainable transport system is one that is accessible, safe, environmentally friendly, and affordable” according to the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT, 2004). A sustainable transportation system is “one in which fuel consumption, vehicle emissions, safety, congestion, and social and economic access are of such levels that they can be sustained into the indefinite future without causing great or irreparable harm to future generations of people throughout the world” (Richardson, 1999). Each definition put the basic goal of sustainable transportation system first, which means inclusion of economic, social, and environmental considerations into the transportation-related decision-making process. To better understand the concept of sustainable transportation system, it will be compared with the conventional transportation system management concept. The conventional concept, which prevailed over the decades, put the passenger car first enabling the unconditional realization of general car demand, not taking into account all negative impacts of such behavior. The principle that predominated in addressing traffic problems referred exclusively to building and expanding of traffic and parking infrastructure. Such attitude dramatically added to the increase in car ownership levels. Building a new road or expanding its capacity doesn’t necessarily imply congestion alleviation. New capacity almost always attracts new users generating more traffic. Many users can make a trip that wouldn’t otherwise, because new capacity exists. This is a well-known phenomenon called generated traffic. In addition, travel time may increase with the appearance of new links on the street (road) network. Provision of new infrastructure is of course a short-term solution, precisely because of the abovementioned effect. The inability to solve transportation problems in the long-term, expensive construction, as well as problems of development in the conditions of limited resources and an increasing concern related to environmental protection, has led to the abandonment of the old concept and shift to the sustainable transportation system concept. In sustainable transportation system, the emphasis is put on accessibility rather than on mobility,6 existing capacities are more efficiently used, and transportation demand is managed.

6. While mobility expresses only the physical extent of movement, accessibility expresses the ease of access to activities and services.

Parking strategy Chapter

7

145

The following objectives of sustainable transportation system may be found in the literature7: 1. Economic efficiency: generating maximal total welfare from the available resources 2. Environmental protection: reducing pollution, reducing consumption of nonrenewable resources, safeguarding biodiversity, etc. 3. Livable streets and neighborhoods: which among other things imply an environment where walking, cycling, and transiting are the best choices for most trips 4. Road safety: reducing the number and consequences of traffic accidents for all transportation modes 5. Health: both through reduced pollution and increased physical activity of people due to the greater reliance on nonmotorized transportation modes 6. Equity and social inclusion: transportation options and policies tailored so as to suit the needs of all social groups, including female, elderly, and disabled population, which can be achieved by public involvement when creating a transportation policy 7. Contribution to economic development: supporting community development plans 8. Intergenerational equity: that is achieved by reducing the negative environmental impact for future generations, primarily through reducing greenhouse gas emissions (causing climate change), land depletion, and consumption of nonrenewable resources To achieve above-stated objectives, the Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP) has defined 10 principles for sustainable urban transportation8: 1. Planning dense and human-scale cities: integrate urban and transportation development, prioritize human-scale modes, etc. 2. Developing transit-oriented cities: place office space and high-density apartments close to transit stations, provide bike parking facilities at transit stations, etc. 3. Optimizing the road network and its use: provide traffic information, enforce traffic rules, etc. 4. Encouraging walking and cycling: high-quality street design standards for sidewalks, cycle paths and complete streets, etc. 5. Implementing transit improvements: ensure high service quality in transit based on performance indicators, simple and fair ticketing, etc. 6. Controlling vehicle use: telework and flexible working hours, incentives to commute by bike or transit, etc.

7. Knowledge base on Sustainable Urban Land use and Transport (KonSULT) (n.d.). 8. Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP) (n.d.).

146

Sustainable parking management

7. Managing parking: clear marking of on-street parking, balancing parking supply, parking regulations, parking time limits, parking fees, enforcing parking rules, and parking information 8. Promoting clean vehicles: low emission zones, promote clean fuels, etc. 9. Communicating solutions: marketing campaigns for cycling, rideshare programs, etc. 10. Approaching the challenges comprehensively: develop, implement, and communicate comprehensive sustainable urban mobility plans; start stakeholder process to assess and discuss measures; and monitor implementation and performance of measures Abovementioned objectives and principles clearly indicate that the objectives of other urban systems are integrated into the sustainable transportation system.

7.3 Parking position in sustainable transportation system Based on the analysis of abovementioned SUTP principles, it can be concluded that parking should be treated in relation to land use, transportation, economy, and environment (Fig. 7.3). Land use: Traffic in a city and buildings in it are not two separate things, but two facades of the same problem. If there were no buildings, there would be no city and hence no traffic, and if there wasn’t traffic, only a few houses could sustain. Buildings that generate traffic must be integrated into traffic solutions, as an essential element in creating a comprehensive urban planning concept. Classical town planning theories define a settlement as a structure of four basic functions: residence, work, leisure and traffic, and their spatial manifestations. As urban space is not homogeneous, complex problems of movement

FIG. 7.3 Parking position in urban systems.

Parking strategy Chapter

7

147

FIG. 7.4 Interaction between land use, transportation demand, and parking. (Adapted from Kosarev, I., Irmsher, I., Stens, K., 2006. Methods and tools for parking space planning and parking space management. Study within the framework of the EU project: City Parking in Europe. € Innovative Verkehrs Technologien mbH.) Gesellschaft fur

and parking are directly influenced by complex physical structures of its areas and their various functions. The consequence is also the interaction between land use, transportation demand, and parking, as presented in Fig. 7.4. Integration of land use and transportation policies has been recognized as an efficient approach in achieving sustainable transportation system objectives. Controlling land use through location, use, size, and density can lead to reduced travel needs, especially driving. The most important policies that integrate land use and transportation demand (including parking demand) are smart growth and transit-oriented development (TOD). Many planners see TOD as a variant of smart growth. Smart growth implies an integrated transportation and land use planning. It represents a good alternative to sprawling land development, which is a consequence of the free market. Sprawl is dispersed, single land use, car-dependent, and impossible to walk to your daily needs; hence, it encourages mobility. Smart growth, on the other hand, insists on accessibility through compact building design, mixed land use, a variety of transportation options, and pedestrianfriendly street design.

148

Sustainable parking management

The basic planning unit in smart growth is the local community, neighborhood, or “village,” from 800 to 1600 m in diameter (about from 0.5 to 1.0 mile). Land use within local community is mixed and contains all facilities that are used often or on a daily basis: apartments, shops, kindergarten, school, offices, parks, etc. This way, most trips can be realized by nonmotorized transportation modes. Users are additionally encouraged to use alternative transportation modes by providing pedestrian and bicycle paths, pleasant ambient, and longer trips—a high-quality transit (Litman, 2017b), which all together improve quality of life for citizens. TOD refers to certain parts of urban territory (usually residential and commercial centers) designed to maximize accessibility of transit and nonmotorized transport forms. TOD applies basic principles of smart growth; therefore, most daily activities are best to reach by walking, while transit use is encouraged when traveling outside the TOD. The latter is achieved by concentrating the high-density development around a transit station or within a transit corridor (Fig. 7.5). High density of development (high transportation demand) allows high frequency and high quality of transit. Affordable, frequent, and comfortable transit contributes to the reduction of car trips—by up to 85%.9 It was also found that car ownership is significantly lower in TOD than in “traditional” neighborhoods, because the need and desire to possess a car is reduced (Litman, 2017c). A recent HNTB survey shows that Americans recognize the benefits of TOD and support this kind of planning (Fig. 7.6). In this regard, in the urban planning process, integrated models for forecasting the land use and transportation demand should further be developed. Better coordination of land use and transportation planning process is a key for addressing traffic congestion problems. Estimation of how much traffic a new development will create, known as a trip generation analysis, is common in almost all

FIG. 7.5 A draft of TOD.

9. Transit Oriented Development Institute (n.d.).

Parking strategy Chapter

7

149

FIG. 7.6 Perceived benefits of TOD. (Adapted from HNTB’s America THINKS, 2016. Transit Oriented Development in America—survey. http://www.hntb.com/getattachment/Newsroom/ Press-Kits/America-THINKS-surveys-(1)/AThinks_TOD_Factsheet_516.pdf.aspx.)

cities of developed countries today and often represents an integral part of the documentation for obtaining approval for building construction. In addition, from recently, it is recommended to apply maximal parking standards (see Chapter 2), which, apart from determining the necessary number of parking spaces, also affect the promotion or demotion of certain land use in certain urban area. For example, those uses attracting too much parking should be located in areas of lower attractiveness, rather than in central areas. Transportation: Parking is a subsystem of urban transportation system. In this regard, parking management should be an integral part of transportation management, that is, it must rely on transportation management. Economy: The availability of parking spaces is a very important factor for local economy. The way users respond to parking policies and measures (derived from parking strategy) directly impacts the local economy. Therefore, discussions about parking policies, unless this means increasing parking supply, are always heavily affected by opinions on what this influence might be. Local businesses and especially retailers should be informed and included in parking management process: from definition of parking strategy to policies and measures. Coordination of parking measures in terms of taking proper measures at the right place will avoid negative consequences in retail transactions. Environment: Traffic volume plays an important role in production and concentration of air and noise pollution. In low-density areas with low traffic volume, the negative impact of traffic on pollution is usually minor or negligible. However, it increases in big cities, usually reaching the highest levels during peak hours. In some areas, such state is chronic. In order to minimize negative environmental impact of car traffic, environmental policy suggests measures aimed to reduce car use. These measures usually have greater impact on traffic planning and control than most other traffic regulations do. This way, many cities in a critical moment impose urgent restrictions on car use. In this regard, parking is increasingly seen as a significant tool affecting urban mobility. More precisely, air quality regulations have led to measures

150

Sustainable parking management

aimed at reducing car use or vehicle miles traveled. For this purpose, all parking demand management measures can be used, especially parking charge, park and ride, and parking guidance and information system. Properly viewing the relationship between land use, transportation, economy, and environment directly reflects the definition of parking management strategy in a city or area.

7.4 Creating a parking strategy The parking management strategy is a basic methodological step that sets the commitments and actions for managing parking with the aim to develop sustainable transportation system. This strategy is an integral part of the sustainable transportation strategy of a city. In accordance with parking position in an urban system, there are two basic roles of parking strategy: l

l

To determine the way in which parking management is used to meet the objectives of sustainable transportation To determine the way in which parking management is used to meet the objectives of the parking subsystem

Strategies that define the relationship between city and cars can be grouped into three basic categories (Vuchic, 1999). One strategy encourages unlimited car use, while the opposite one takes into account the fact that cities have great social and historical value, none of which should be neglected to provide unlimited driving in urban areas. Between these two extremes, there is a “balanced development” strategy, which seeks to establish an optimal relationship between city and transportation demand. The modern concept of transportation management sets basic principles of transportation policy that affirm the development of sustainable urban mobility, which depends on the achievement of the optimal balance among all transportation modes. This implies the use of every transportation mode in the domain that it is best suited for. This typically means reliance on nonmotorized transportation modes and on transit or, in other words, enabling mobility with controlling car use. In recent decades, cities have been opting for balanced development strategy, as a consequence of sustainability requirements. The answer to the question “how to implement the adopted strategy?” cities find in the selection of transportation policy, which balances transportation system mainly through: l l l

Proper approach in urban resource management Modal split management10 Investments in the selected subsystem (a carrier) of the transportation system, which is usually a transit

10. Priority is typically given to transit, but in small towns, it can be given to nonmotorized transportation forms.

Parking strategy Chapter

7

151

Special emphasis is put on modal split management, which directly reflects on transportation demand management of each transportation subsystem, including parking. Parking demand in certain area is the result of a car share in modal split. It should be maintained at a level of spatial capabilities of the area, if there are enough parking spaces for user categories that should park there. When this condition is met, this is achieved by proper parking management, i.e., by parking supply and demand management. In return, parking supply and an adequate way of its use, integrated with measures in other transportation subsystems, should contribute to reaching the targeted modal split, that is, the development of sustainable transportation system. Strategy is defined and conditioned by: l l l l l

The area where it is implemented Land use in the area Assortment and state of transportation options in the city Available space in the city that could be dedicated to parking Planned development of urban systems, primarily of transportation system

There can be three levels of parking strategy: Comprehensive, in a larger spatial settlement (city or town). It gives guidelines for management, based on set objectives. A comprehensive level of management gives tasks to lower hierarchy levels. Partial or limited level can be conducted in two ways: l l

When it is defined for parking management in a limited area When the application of only limited procedures and measures for addressing parking problems in a wider or limited area is prejudiced

Level of specific requirements, which relates to parking regulation for special events (such as fairs and sport events). Hierarchy levels of parking strategy assume that lower levels are integral part of the above (comprehensive) level. An exception may be the level of specific requirements, which could disregard the concept of comprehensive level, but only during special events. For example, even comprehensive or partial level has adopted balanced development strategy, the level of specific requirements may adopt the strategy, which supports the unlimited car use. Main challenges in creating parking strategy are shared competences for management at public and private parking spaces and the “sectoral” management mode applied in most cities worldwide. Typically, city authorities are in charge of public parking spaces only (both on and off street) and owners themselves at private off-street parking. Private parking operators usually run their operations separately, setting prices and policies to maximize revenue. The shortcoming of the sectoral management mode, as stated earlier, is that it doesn’t consider parking strategy comprehensively (Section 7.2). Therefore, the first step in creating parking strategy must be to gather a team of stakeholders—individuals and organizations with a stake in parking management. It is expected that each of them,

152

Sustainable parking management

with full responsibility and possibly with professional knowledge, will be involved in this task in urban transportation policy domain: 1. Making the team of stakeholders implies identification and involvement of those individuals and organization that play a role or experience the consequences of parking management. This includes (Wilson, 2015): l

l

l

l

Local government stakeholders (public work/engineering, planning department, police, etc.) Private sector stakeholders (building owners, parking operators, employers, business, sports and entertainment venues, etc.) Nonprofit stakeholders (neighborhood groups (within the area and adjacent to it), chamber of commerce, transport management organizations, etc.) Individual parkers

2. Make a database. This means gathering data on current parking state, parking plans, and other relevant data (methods for data collection are elaborated in Chapter 6): l

l

l l

l

l l

l

Parking space inventory and mapping (all existing parking types should be included: public and private, on and off street, parking for bicycles, and motorcycles). Gathering data from town planning documents on future parking lots, which construction is planned with high degree of certainty or that are under construction at the moment of strategy creation. Examining possibilities to engage new free areas for parking. Collecting data on parking measures, which are in use. This includes policies, guidelines, and regulations of all entities in the subject area. Parking performance characteristics, such as parking accumulation (of both legally and illegally parked cars), turnover, duration, and purpose. Assortment and state of other transportation subsystems. General characteristics of the subject area (by traffic analysis zones, if exist): population, number of households, number of employees (jobs), etc. Detailed introduction to best practices from cities worldwide.

In this step, stakeholders are involved through the collection of their perceptions of problems and parking management. 3. Define vision, goals, and outcome metrics Vision is a far-reaching idea of the desired or predictable developments or endeavors in parking subsystem. It is typically expressed by one simple sentence. For example, the vision might be “Ensuring accessibility for all social groups, with high quality of service and minimal environmental impact.” When a vision is articulated, planners can invite stakeholders to evaluate and interpret existing data and projections in further work on the strategy. Based on the adopted vision, parking strategy goals are defined, taking into account the following (European Union, 2005): l

Strategy of higher level (urban transportation policy)

Parking strategy Chapter

l

7

153

Transportation policy goals are often similar in European and North American cities, and they are oriented to addressing the following issues (European Union, 2005): l Reducing car use to minimize traffic congestion, through encouraging the use of transit and nonmotorized transportation modes l Protecting the environment l Ensuring accessibility for all social groups The operation of parking subsystem itself

Therefore, parking strategy goals can be classified into two groups: l l

General goals, aimed at the realization of transportation policy Direct goals, aimed at improving parking condition

The general goals of parking strategy can include transportation policy goals allocated to the parking subsystem: l l

Support the realization of targeted car share in the modal split Provide (construct) parking supply only for qualified demand (rather than for general demand)

Qualified demand in one highly attractive area consists of those user categories that are critical for normal operation of the area (priority users). For central and other highly attractive areas, it is typically defined as shown in Table 7.1: Defining a parking strategy is a complex and sensitive issue, even when requirements of a higher level are known. The most sensitive problem occurs when defining direct goals of parking management, when it is necessary to TABLE 7.1 Priority for parking Priority

User class

Who must park Who may park Who shouldn’t park Who mustn’t park

Residents and short-term loading/unloading Short- and medium-term parkers Some categories of employees Wide-spectrum employees, almost all long-term parkers All other vehicles (trucks, trailers, etc.)

balance completely opposite demands on a limited supply. On the one hand, there are residents and commuters, who are normally long-term parkers, and on the other hand, there are shoppers and other visitors, who are short-term parkers. Direct goals of parking strategy are directed toward spatial and operational parking regulation in a way to ensure high level of service in parking for qualified demand. Direct goals can be summarized as follows: l l

Balancing parking supply and qualified demand Ensuring high level of service in parking

154

Sustainable parking management

Goals should be followed by expected outcome metrics: e.g., targeted car share in modal split, targeted parking occupancy, and targeted values of the quality of parking service indicators (see Chapter 13). 4. Select policies and actions, which include the following l

l

Identification of possible policies and policy packages that could help in the realization of goals. Evaluation of policies and policy packages. After the selection, policies and packages are discussed among members of the team of stakeholders, on the basis of data and best practices. If needed, they are revised in order to find a solution that is most suited for all stakeholders. For such selected and defined policies, evaluation is carried out according to the following aspects: l Effectiveness. Policy impacts are evaluated against the set objectives, e.g., targeted parking occupancy. l Financial performance—estimation of costs and revenues. l Administrative and legislative feasibility—that is, assessment of the possibility to implement defined strategy. l Political feasibility. Nowadays, parking policies are typically restrictive, as they require a change in user behavior. Therefore, they often face disapproval by politicians, who see them as a danger for their body of voters.

“Strategic parking management draws from best practice measures, considers them in terms of the vision and existing conditions, seeks innovation, and evaluates a package of measures for suitability. These elements create a robust parking management strategy” (Wilson, 2015). Parking management strategy should be contained in a program document of a city or town, and its long-term stability should be provided, which means that the strategy must be inert to the change of persons in charge for parking management. 5. Phased implementation plan There are three main problems that can be an obstacle to the adoption and implementation of a parking strategy: l

l l

Insufficient awareness and knowledge of those in charge for parking management on the advantages of integrated transportation system management, which is based on definition, planning, and implementation of innovative policies Institutional and legislative barriers The lack of public and political support Experts worldwide highlight the latter as a big issue. This statement is supported by the results of survey of city authorities, experts, and users in four European cities: Lisbon, Pisa, Belgrade, and Skopje.11 In the surveyed cities, the impact of politics on transportation decision-making is given

11. The survey was conducted for the need of the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 project proposal on the topic “Strengthening the knowledge and capacities of local authorities.”

Parking strategy Chapter

7

155

an average score of 3.5 (on a scale from 1 to 5, with 5 being the strongest impact). Only one of all surveyed cities undertakes activities focused on enhancing user education. All the above problems can be eliminated in the following way: 1. Raising awareness (education) on the importance of parking management strategy implementation. Target groups for education are l local authority professionals and managerial staff to enhance knowledge/ capability, l politicians to ensure evidence-based policy making and addressing institutional/legislative barriers, l general public and business community seeking to influence acceptability of measures 2. Ensuring the capacity of city authority (trained human resources and technical equipment) to plan and implement parking management strategy. After the adoption of strategy, the following activities of the body in charge should precede its implementation: l

l l

l

l l

l

Conducting training programs for employees in charge for the strategy implementation and for monitoring its outcomes Appointment of the group (team) for implementation Adoption of parking strategy action plan, which is typically a table that summarizes the goals and activities with milestones for their realization Establish mechanisms for monitoring strategy realization and procedures of formal strategy revision Defining and adopting a set of indicators that will assist monitoring Since the realization of some strategy objectives requires new activities and an active role of executors, it is also necessary to adopt the following: Develop and conduct training programs for all entities and individuals regarding the way of implementing certain activities and monitoring results of the implemented parking strategy.

6. Monitoring The parking management process doesn’t end with strategy definition and implementation. On the contrary, permanent monitoring and evaluation of outcomes are needed, in order to assess success or failure and if desirable to adjust measures, policy, or strategy. City authorities are in charge of monitoring. For this purpose, they should form a team. For the purpose of monitoring, database on parking infrastructure, performance, and measures is used, made, or updated using the data collected when creating the strategy. This is the starting point that should be continuously updated over time. Monitoring is carried out at regular intervals and after any significant change in urban and socioeconomic system, which could influence parking

156

Sustainable parking management

(e.g., introduction of new transit line, significant change in land use, car ownership, and income). Only selected characteristics—indicators—which can provide general assessment of conditions and success, are monitored (surveyed) then. The survey is conducted on a representative sample or comprehensively, applying the same survey methodology as the first time, in order for results to be comparable (“before and after” study). If results are unsatisfactory, further survey is conducted, to determine the causes of the problem and to adjust measures or policies. More detail on key performance indicators and evaluation is provided in Chapter 13. Achieved results (good and bad) and parking strategy adjustments should be reported on a regular basis. Communication with stakeholders (including users) is essential for gaining the trust, sense of inclusion, and greater acceptance of parking strategy (see Chapter 12). The process of creating parking strategy is presented in Fig. 7.7.

7.5 Parking policy Parking policy is a set of parking management measures that support the adopted parking strategy. Parking management, which is realized by the selection of certain policies, can affect (Valleley et al., 1997): l l l l

Parking supply Parking location Parking price Access

Parking supply management embraces a variety of policies that seek either to reduce the number of parking spaces needed or to use parking spaces more efficiently. Some of common parking supply management policies are presented below: l

l

l

l

Car parking standards (requirements) determine how many parking spaces should be provided for a facility. In recent years, the concept of maximum parking standards has been promoted, as a measure for reducing parking supply and promoting the use of alternative transportation modes (see Chapter 2). Shared parking is a concept where two or more land uses use a common parking lot, since they have different periods of attractiveness (see Chapter 3). Parking supply reduction directly reduces parking demand and decreases negative car use impact. The availability of parking spaces is considered the most important factor to make a decision to use a car. Parking freezes, that is, keeping the supply at the existing level, do not exclude changes in the percentage distribution of on-street parking, offstreet parking, and parking garages. For example, even though the number

Parking strategy Chapter

FIG. 7.7 Creating parking management strategy.

7

157

158

l

Sustainable parking management

of parking spaces is frozen, new parking garages can be built, but the same number of parking spaces must be eliminated from the streets in the influential area of the garages. This should especially be the case if on-street parking spaces are provided in the way to reduce the quality of service in other transportation subsystems (transit, dynamic traffic, walking, etc.). Parking guidance and information system provides users with real-time information on vacant parking spaces, which contributes to the better use of parking supply and reduction in parking search time (see Chapter 11).

Managing parking locations includes the following policies: l

l

l

Park-and-walk policy promotes peripheral parking (at the edge of the central area and on an acceptable walking distance). Park and ride promotes parking at a greater distance from the city center and transfer to transit (see Chapter 10). Parking in-lieu fee presents a fee paid instead of providing parking defined by parking standards. The money is used for the construction of public parking or other access services.

Parking price management can relate to price increase in order to achieve targeted parking occupancy, introduction of demand-responsive price, etc. (see Chapter 8). Access control can imply the introduction of parking scheme that will discourage or prohibit parking access to some user categories and provide a privileged status to residents (see Chapter 8). Lately, a coordinated parking policy has been encouraged by using a combination (package) of appropriate parking policies. Parking management policies and measures should be selected based on the analysis and assessment of the existing parking conditions in the area (i.e., evidence-based policy making) and in accordance with general and direct goals of parking management strategy. Bearing in mind the complexity of parking problems, parking management should be carried out in two stages: l

Stage I: Spatial regulation Spatial regulation involves the provision of parking spaces needed for qualified demand (e.g., for residents, suppliers, and short-term visitors), including marking of on-street spaces. Marking should comply with national and local relevant legislation and guidelines, in the way that won’t jeopardize the quality of service of other transportation subsystems. Spatial regulation should precede the operational regulation. The main reason lies in the fact that the unregulated system cannot be managed. Only after the spatial regulation the number of parking spaces in the area is known, which is crucial to assess the supply-to-demand ratio.

Parking strategy Chapter

l

7

159

Stage II: Operational regulation Operational regulation should enable efficient use of parking spaces, in order to meet the needs of qualified demand. It involves parking and transportation demand management policies.

The need for parking management has emerged almost as early as the first car appeared or when their somewhat more massive use began, at the beginning of the last century. From that time on, the view on parking management (and hence on parking policies) has been changing. Almost all cities in the world where parking is managed followed the same dynamics of policy introduction (European Union, 2005). When a passenger car appeared, it caused the biggest changes to the transportation system. A car provides great personal convenience, excellent comfort, high speed, and independence in time and direction. Initially, the number of cars was small, and no formal parking measure was needed. The tendency for greater mobility and independence caused an increasing need for car which, along with the rise of living standard, led to an increase in car ownership. This process was supported by numerous subsidies by a state, through tax policy, fast construction of street/road network, and low fuel price. Subsidies are especially characteristic for countries with their own car industry, so they used cars as means to achieve favorable economic development. Obviously, favoring this transportation mode was often explained by the argument that in the car and related manufacturing (fuel, steel, glass, tire, road construction, etc.), a great number of people were employed, with an additional argument that car manufacturing is characterized by an extremely high profit rate. At this stage (stage I), parking management also supported the favoring of car use by building parking spaces for everyone, both public and dedicated parking spaces (through minimal parking standards). The main task of parking policy was to determine current and predict future parking demand (general demand) and to provide sufficient capacity. This paradigm is known as “predict and provide.” Parking enforcement was carried out for illegally parked cars. However, with this approach, parking problems are solved only in the short term. Namely, any increase in supply, due to a range of various responses in behavior of surroundings, generates new transportation demand, which implies further construction of capacity (Litman, 2017d). Becoming aware that transportation (parking) problems cannot be solved in a long term in this way, the “predict and provide” paradigm was abandoned. That happened in America in the first half of 20th century12 and in Europe sometime later. The new concept satisfies qualified rather than general demand. Priority is given to alternative transportation modes, and car use is limited. In the parking subsystem, this is achieved by limiting supply and better use of 12. Time limits in the United States emerged in the 1910s and 1920s, while the first on-street parking meter appeared in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, in 1935 (Wilson, 2015).

160

Sustainable parking management

existing one. For the latter, primarily parking demand management policies are used, which were introduced in the following order: l l

l

Introduction of time limits (initially without and later with parking charge) Introduction of “parking only for residents” scheme in areas affected by parking spillover Parking price management (stage II)

The policies were introduced as a response to the increase in parking demand, that is, after the parking problem had occurred. Since the beginning of 2000, urban transportation policy has been giving more and more importance to demand management, while parking management has become an integral part of transportation demand management policies. The main differences compared with the previous concept of management are in the approach (Mingardo et al., 2015), which emphasizes the following principles: l

l l

Policies are based on transportation demand management, rather than only parking demand management. The sectoral management mode is replaced with the integrated one. Policies are preventive, not reactive. The policy selection depends on local conditions, i.e., it doesn’t apply uniformly.

Parking management is considered the core tool for improving accessibility, stimulating local economy and environmental protection, and achieving better quality of life—which are all attributes of sustainable development. At this stage, parking is increasingly integrated with general urban goals through sustainable transportation goals. Mobility management policies are applied, such as the following: l l l l l l

Park and ride Smart growth Car sharing Transit improvements Working hour schemes Financial incentives for commuters

City authorities better manage parking demand, while parking management becomes an integral part of the transportation demand management practice and gets a high rank in the urban transportation policy (Mingardo et al., 2015). It should be noted that transportation demand management is also supported by the shift to maximum parking standards. Additionally, the period from 2000 to the present day is characterized by massive use of IT to inform and guide users. Based on the experience related to the implementation of policies in the described way, it can be concluded that the process of modern parking management should get going in the following ways (Fig. 7.8):

Parking strategy Chapter

7

161

FIG. 7.8 The process of modern parking management.

1. Parking is spatially regulated, that is, parking supply is defined, which depends on the spatial possibilities of the area on one hand and meets the criteria for management on the other hand. 2. General parking demand, i.e., demand that would appear if parking wasn’t managed and alternative transportation options were poor, is reduced by the selection of mobility management policy/policies. 3. Parking policy or policy package is selected to balance demand with limited parking supply, with high quality of service. 4. Parking policy or policy package impacts are evaluated, both on parking subsystem and on realization of sustainable transportation system objectives. 5. If parking management cannot achieve all the objectives defined by parking management strategy, the process returns to step 2. Of course, the context for parking management is still expected to evolve. It is assumed that it will be caused by fast technical and technological developments, changes in car ownership levels, car dimensions, and more massive use of driverless vehicles (Wilson, 2015).

Exam questions 1. List and explain the reasons that led to the concept of sustainability. 2. Explain the position and role of transportation in sustainable urban development.

162

Sustainable parking management

3. List and comment on the sustainable transportation system objectives. 4. List the principles of sustainable urban transportation and highlight the integration with other urban systems’ objectives. 5. Explain the parking position in sustainable transportation system. 6. List and explain basic roles of parking strategy. 7. Why is it important to properly form the parking strategy team? List and explain what it includes. 8. Define and explain qualified demand. 9. What are the criteria for parking policy evaluation? 10. What problems may appear relating to parking strategy adoption and implementation? How can they be overcome? 11. What is parking supply management? List and describe some policies from this group. 12. Describe the process of modern parking management.

References Dobranskyte-Niskota, A., Perujo, A., Pregl, M., 2007. Indicators to Assess Sustainability of Transport Activities. Part 1: Review of the Existing Transport Sustainability Indicators Initiatives and Development of an Indicator Set to Assess Transport Sustainability Performance. European Commission, Joint Research Centre. ECMT, 2004. In: Assessment and Decision Making for Sustainable Transport. European Conference of Ministers of Transportation, Organization of Economic Coordination and Development. www.oecd.org. European Commission, 2013. Attitudes of Europeans towards urban mobility. In: Eurobarameter 406/2013 Report. Special Eurobarameter 406/Wave EB79.4—TNS Opinion & Social. European Union, 2005. Parking policies and the effects on economy and mobility. In: Technical Committee on Transport, Report on COST Action, 342. Harris, J.M., 2000. Basic Principles of Sustainable Development (Working paper No. 00-04). Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University, Medford, MA. Hill, C. (2009). Transportation and Sustainability Best Practices Background. Proceedings, AASHTO Sustainability Peer Exchange, Washington, DC, 32. https://environment. transportation.org/pdf/sustainability_peer_exchange/AASHTO_SustPeerExh_BriefingPaper. pdf accessed 19.01.17. HNTB’s America THINKS, 2016. Transit Oriented Development in America—Survey. http://www. hntb.com/getattachment/Newsroom/Press-Kits/America-THINKS-surveys-(1)/AThinks_ TOD_Factsheet_516.pdf.aspx. Litman, T., 2003. Reinventing Transportation: Exploring the Paradigm Shift Needed to Reconcile Transportation and Sustainability Objectives. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. http://www. vtpi.org/reinvent.pdf. Litman, T. (2011). Sustainability and Livability: Summary of Definitions, Goals, Objectives and Performance Indicators. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. http://www.vtpi.org/sus_liv.pdf accessed 12.01.17. Litman, T. (2017a). Sustainable Transportation and TDM: Planning that Balances Economic, Social and Ecological Objectives. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. http://www.vtpi.org/ tdm/tdm67.htm accessed 12.01.18.

Parking strategy Chapter

7

163

Litman, T. (2017b). Smart Growth: More Efficient Land Use Management. TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm38.htm accessed 01.09.17. Litman, T. (2017c). Transit Oriented Development: Using Public Transit to Create More Accessible and Livable Neighborhoods. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/ tdm38.htm accessed 01.09.17. Litman, T., 2017d. Generated Traffic and Induced Travel: Implications for Transport Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Meadows, D., Randers, J., Meadows, D., 2005. Limits to Growth, the 30 Year Update. James and James Ltd, London. Mingardo, G., van Wee, B., Rye, T., 2015. Urban parking policy in Europe: a conceptualization of past and possible future trends. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 74, 268–281. Ontario Round Table on the Environment and the Economy in co-sponsored with the National Round Table, 1995. A Strategy for Sustainable Transportation in Ontario. Richardson, B., 1999. Towards a policy on a sustainable transportation system. Transport. Res. Rec. 1670, 27–34. Valleley, M., Garland, R., Jones, P.J., Macmillan, A., 1997. Parking Perspectives. Landor Publishing, London. Vuchic, V., 1999. Transportation for Livable Cities. Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick, NJ. Wilson, R.W., 2015. Parking Management for Smart Growth. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Web references European Environment Agency (n.d.). Energy statistics–supply, transformation and consumption. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/external/energy-statistics-supplytransformation-and-consumption Accessed 14.04.17. Knowledge base on Sustainable Urban Land use and Transport (KonSULT) (n.d.). Decision Maker’s Guidebook: Objectives, indicators and targets. http://www.konsult.leeds.ac.uk/dmg/ 07/ Accessed 25.01.18. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform (n.d.) United Nations Sustainable Development Summit 2015. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/summit Accessed 14.04.17. Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP) (n.d.). 10 Principles for Sustainable Urban Transport. Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP) Accessed 25.01.18. The Statistics Portal Statista (n.d.). Distribution of oil demand worldwide as of 2016 by sector. https://www.statista.com/statistics/307194/top-oil-consuming-sectors-worldwide Accessed 14.04.17. Transit Oriented Development Institute (n.d.). www.tod.org Accessed 25.01.18. U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2017. Use of energy in the United States. https://www.eia. gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page¼us_energy_use.

Further reading Geoghegan, T., 2013. Post 2015: Framing a New Approach to Sustainable Development, a Briefing Note by the on a Post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda. In Independent Research Forum. Kosarev, I., Irmsher, I., Stens, K., 2006. Methods and tools for parking space planning and parking space management. Study within the framework of the EU project. City Parking in Europe. Gesellschaft f€ ur Innovative Verkehrs Technologien mbH.

Chapter 8

Parking regulation Abstract This chapter deals with parking regulation, which is considered the core of parking management in central and other highly attractive areas. Parking regulation aims, through increased turnover, to achieve targeted parking occupancy and maximize the number of visitors. Most cities worldwide apply this policy measure. It typically includes time restriction, users’ restriction, and parking charge. This chapter presents the criteria for parking regulation introduction in an area, the methodology for determination of measures (time limit, parking price, period of regime validity, etc.), and tariff system definition. This chapter pays special attention to price management. The chapter elaborates methodologies for definition of parking price that will lead to realization of parking management objectives. Generally, it could be said that selected methodologies for price definition are based on user attitudes toward parking prices (revealed or stated) and that they relate user attributes with their response to the price increase. Keywords: Parking regulation; Time restrictions; Parking tariff system; Price management; Price elasticity coefficient; Discrete choice models; Other parking restrictions; Targeted occupancy

Car parking is defined by requirements of car users (parking demand) on the one hand and limited spatial capacities, i.e., finite number of parking spaces (parking supply), on the other hand. Persisting mismatch between parking demand and supply creates the need for parking management. Parking regulation is actually important because it reflects the possibilities to take managing measures to keep the balance between supply and demand with an efficient use of finite parking capacities as possible. Parking regulations are defined as “regulations that control who, when, and how long vehicles may park at a particular location in order to prioritize parking facility use” (Litman, 2006; p. 272) and can be considered as the very heart of parking management. They typically include time restrictions, users’ restrictions, and pricing parking. In policy instruments, literature regulations are often presented as opposed to pricing (Mingardo et al., 2015); however, recently, parking pricing has been increasingly applied in parking regulation. Efficient parking enforcement operation supports parking regulation.

Sustainable Parking Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815800-5.00008-2 © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

165

166

Sustainable Parking Management

In other words, parking regulation is a set of administrative measures and engineering interventions aimed at more efficient utilization of available parking capacities. These sets of parking regulation measures are defined through parking studies. Terms of reference for preparation of parking studies are formulated after previously defined parking management strategy and policies (Section 7). As a feedback process, effects of applied parking regulation can be used, if required, to modify parking policy or even parking strategy, to the extent that help achieve results of better quality. One of the main preconditions for preparation of a parking study and for efficient decision-making during its implementation is to have up-to-date data about the parking subsystem state and performance. These data need to be systematized into a parking database (see Section 6.4). It should not be forgotten that relevant legislation has to be complied with during the process—from strategy selection to definition of measures.

8.1 Parking regimes Parking regime is a measure or a set of measures that govern how available parking capacities will be used. Cities and areas with very strong parking demand resort to various policies to regulate parking duration; namely, various administrative and technical methods are applied in order to match the existing demand with possibilities at the existing parking spaces and to redistribute the parking demand spatially and temporally, which is achieved through application of corresponding parking regimes.

8.1.1 Regulated parking duration regimes Regimes that regulate parking duration are applied in order to enable as many users to park at the existing parking spaces. The shorter the parking duration, the higher the turnover, meaning that more visitors will be able to use the finite number of parking spaces. In order to produce positive effects, this parking regime has to be accepted by parking users; parking users have to change their behavior, i.e., their traveling and parking habits. This is why these regimes are often called restrictive parking regimes. Customarily, residents of a zone, as a category of users who have to park in the zone (in the influential area of their home), should not be subject to restrictive regimes. Residents are treated as parking permit holders (more in Section 8.3). Users who will be discouraged or disenabled to park in a restrictive parking regime zone have to be given a good-quality alternative to reach the zone. While in larger cities, alternative transportation modes typically include public transit and/or park-and-ride systems; in cities with lower population density, these

Parking regulation Chapter

8

167

options, due to their characteristics, are not adequate alternatives to car travel. Instead, users could be enabled to park, for example, at the fringe of the zone, at acceptable walking distance. It should be noted that acceptable walking distance may be rather longer than realized walking distance (as discussed in Chapter 5), which means that users might be willing to walk longer but they actually walk shorter distances because they manage to find a vacant parking space. In addition, acceptable walking distance is inversely proportional to parking price (or any other restrictive parking measure). In other words, users are willing to walk longer to avoid parking charges or to pay lower prices. Illustratively, before on-street parking charge introduction in the central area of Ivanjica town, Serbia, average walking distance of users whose parking purpose was “work” was 115 m, while 99% stated that they were willing to walk 5 min (equivalent to 400 m) in order to avoid parking charge (Milosavljevic et al., 2013). There are two methods to apply limited parking duration regimes: l l

With time limits and with or without parking fees Without time limits but with parking fees

Proper parking enforcement supports limited parking duration regimes, and in parking regimes with parking charge, a well-regulated tariff system provides additional support. For this reason, parking regimes with limited parking duration, tariff system (Section 8.3), and parking enforcement (Chapter 9) are often seen as a set of measures (if there is no efficient parking enforcement, there will be no positive effects of the parking regime in place). Limited parking duration regimes mean that users utilize parking capacities for a predefined period of time; after the defined period expires, users have to leave their parking spaces. Time period during which vehicles in a given zone may remain parked is defined administratively. Regimes of unlimited parking duration and parking fee enable users to utilize the existing parking capacities for unlimited periods of time, but depending on the parking duration, users are charged a defined parking fee. Most European cities first introduced parking regimes with time limits but without parking fees (Section 7.4). Later on, parking fees were introduced for two main reasons: to render regimes additionally restrictive (i.e., to discourage more users from parking in the zone) and to facilitate control of time-limit compliance (i.e., to reduce misuse). Limited parking regimes are introduced into continued areas of high attractiveness, the boundaries of which are clearly defined by traffic roads with intensive moving traffic. Exceptionally, this regime could be introduced into single street sections with marked parking problems located in an area of no or low attractiveness. In order to start dealing with the parking problem, it has to be defined who has to, who should, who may, who should not, and who must not park in a particular zone (see Section 7.4).

168

Sustainable Parking Management

8.1.1.1 Criteria for introducing limited parking duration regime into an area Limited parking duration regime is introduced into an area for which the analysis and the evaluation of the existing parking state show the following (Fig. 8.1): 1. Maximum parking accumulation (Anoon) is higher than the targeted accumulation (TAcc). This condition proves that there is a parking problem Targeted accumulation is calculated as the multiplication of the number of parking spaces and targeted occupancy (TOcc). Empirical data show that targeted occupancy ranges from 85% (to eliminate parking search) to as much as 110% (in underdeveloped and developing countries that still do not have sufficient parking spaces available). 2. Maximum residential vehicle accumulation (Amorning) is lower or equal to the number of available parking spaces, meaning that all residential parking demand can be accommodated It should be noted that in this case, targeted occupancy should not be lower than 100%, because residents are long-term parking users so they tolerate slightly longer parking search times in the influential areas of their apartments. Otherwise, providing more parking spaces than required by the demand could motivate car ownership and hence increase car ownership level.

FIG. 8.1 Criteria for introducing limited parking duration regime into a zone.

Parking regulation Chapter

8

169

In addition to the above requirements related to introduction of unlimited parking duration regimes with parking fee, when deciding to introduce regime with limited parking duration with or without parking fee, there is one additional requirement. 3. The share of parking users who “should not” park in the zone should be rather high. Compliance with this criterion is tested as distribution of users according to their parking duration and/or purpose. Parking users who “should not” park in the zone are long-term users (with “work” parking purpose, i.e., commuters), so restricted parking duration prevents them from parking in the zone, and this creates possibilities to balance parking demand and supply. If the above criteria are complied with, limited parking duration regime can be introduced into an area. The regime has to be defined with regime attributes (which is elaborated in more detail below). Exercise 8.1 should help understand how to test compliance with criteria for limited parking duration regime introduction into a zone:

EXERCISE 8.1 In the inner central zone of one town, all parking spaces are marked; the total number of parking spaces is M ¼ 267. The city authorities decided to set the targeted parking space occupancy to TOcc ¼ 85%. Comprehensive parking accumulation survey in two characteristic time sections during a relevant day showed the following: l Morning (minimum) parking accumulation: Amorning ¼ 160 l Noon (maximum) parking accumulation: Anoon ¼ 443 Parking user survey conducted in the period between 8 and 9 PM established that the share of parking users whose parking purpose is “work” (the category that typically should not park in an inner city area) in the total number of visitors amounts to 9% in the survey period and 64% at maximum parking accumulation. Examine if it is justified to introduce one of the limited parking duration regimes. The procedure shown in Fig. 8.1 leads to the following conclusions: 1. There is a (pronounced) parking problem: 443 > 267 85%. 2. There are sufficient parking spaces for residents: 160 < 267. This complies with criteria to introduce parking regime with unlimited parking duration but with parking fee. Further, justification of time limits has to be tested. 3. Even though the share of users whose parking purpose is “work” in the total number of visitors is relatively low (9%), their share at maximum accumulation is as much as 64%. This means that relatively few users aggravate the parking problem most because of their long-term parking, and this complies with the requirement for introducing time limits.

170

Sustainable Parking Management

8.1.1.2 Criteria for introducing limited parking duration regime in a street section of an area with no or low attractiveness Limited parking duration regimes can be introduced unconditionally in street sections for which the existing parking state analysis and evaluation establish the following (Fig. 8.2): 1. Maximum parking accumulation in the street section (AnoonSTR) is higher than the targeted accumulation (TAccSTR), which proves that there is a parking problem Targeted parking accumulation is calculated as multiplication of the number of parking spaces and targeted occupancy (which is typically in the range between 85 and 110%). 2. Maximum accumulation for residential parking in the street section (AmorningSTR) is almost zero, meaning that there are no residential parking requests If the second criterion is not complied with, it is required to investigate (Algorithm 2, Fig. 8.3) the following: l

Whether it is possible to relocate residential parking demand from the given street into its influential area, meaning that if AmorningZ + AmorningSTR  MZ, then a parking charge regime could be introduced.

FIG. 8.2 Criteria for introducing limited parking duration regime in a street section.

Parking regulation Chapter

8

171

FIG. 8.3 Algorithm 2—testing the possibilities to accommodate/realize residential parking demand in street section.

If it is not possible to implement the above, then it should be analyzed: l

Whether it is possible to grant parking permit holder status to residents. If a known number of residential vehicles gravitate to the considered area, i.e., if it is possible to clearly define boundaries of the zones, streets or street sections the residents of which could enjoy parking permits, provided that their number is lower than the number of technically regulated parking spaces (AmorningSTR  MSTR), parking charge regime can be introduced.

If none of the above conditions is fulfilled, it is not technologically justified to introduce parking charge regime. In addition to the above requirements for introduction of unlimited parking duration regimes with parking charge, there is one additional requirement when deciding whether to introduce limited parking duration regimes with or without parking fees: 3. The share of parking users who “should not” park there should be rather high. Compliance with this criterion is shown by the distribution of users according to their parking duration and/or purpose. Parking users who “should not” park there are long-term parking users (with “work” parking purpose, i.e., commuters), so restricted parking duration prevents them to park in the area, and this creates possibilities to balance parking demand and supply (Exercise 8.2).

172

Sustainable Parking Management

EXERCISE 8.2 Expert assessment in an area of low attractiveness showed that there is a pronounced parking problem in a single street section. Investigate the justification for introducing parking charge in this street section in order to solve the problem and enable maximum targeted occupancy (TOcc) of 90%. All required surveys were conducted in the given street section and in its influential area (hereinafter, the area), and the results were as follows: l Number of parking spaces in the street section: MSTR ¼ 60 l Number of parking spaces in the zone: MZ ¼ 116 l Noon accumulation in the street section: AnoonSTR ¼ 76 l Morning accumulation in the street section: AmorningSTR ¼ 19 l Morning accumulation in the zone (excl. STR): AmorningZ ¼ 31 The procedure shown in Fig. 8.2 leads to the following conclusions: 1. There is a parking problem in the given street section: 76 > 60%–90%. 2. There is residential parking demand in the street section (residents are users who have to park in the influential areas of their homes, which has to be taken care of): 19 6¼ 0. Hence, the procedure shown in Fig. 8.3 should be applied: 1. In the existing parking state, there are sufficient parking spaces for residential vehicles: 31  116. 2. The area can accommodate additional residential demand coming from the given street section: 19 + 31  116. This complies with criteria to introduce parking regime without time limits but with parking fees.

8.1.1.3 Defining the attributes of limited duration parking regimes Attributes of limited parking duration regimes are period of regime application during the day, time limits imposed on parking duration, pricing time units, and pricing time unit rate. l

l

Period of regime application during the day is the period when realized parking accumulation is higher than the available number of parking spaces. It is determined based on parking accumulations at the end of hourly intervals during the survey period, the number of parking spaces, and the targeted parking occupancy (Fig. 8.4). Limited parking duration.1 Establishing time limits for parking regimes is a complex task. The text below describes a procedure that can be applied as a guideline for defining time limits; the procedure is the result of the authors’ wish to formalize this process.

1. Note that zones with various time limits and parking rates can be introduced into areas complying.

Parking regulation Chapter

8

173

FIG. 8.4 Defining period of regime application during the day.

The procedure for defining time limits is applied for the time section when maximum parking accumulation is realized. First, it is required to determine residential parking accumulation in the maximum parking accumulation, based on the distribution of unparked residential vehicles, and to determine maximum visitor parking accumulation at that time. On the other hand, the number of parking spaces, their targeted occupancy, and calculated residential parking accumulation are used to calculate the number of parking spaces that can be intended for visitors. When visitor parking accumulation in maximum parking accumulation and the number of parking spaces that could be allocated to visitors are known, it is possible to calculate the level of parking accumulation realization. Cumulative distribution of visitor parking duration in maximum parking user accumulation defines the time limits that will ensure required level of visitor demand realization/satisfaction (Fig. 8.5). Finally, the above procedure is used to analyze possible effects of thus calculated time limits in other time sections during the survey period (e.g., at the ends of hourly intervals of the survey period) (Fig. 8.6). However, attention should be paid not only to the maximum occupancy but also to the average occupancy in the survey areas. The analysis should serve as the final decision-making tool for time-limit duration. It should be noted that, for the sake of simplicity, it was not considered that users might shorten their parking duration so as to fit into the time limit (which happens in reality, especially in situations when parking duration is slightly higher than the time limit, and the parking purposes are casual, e.g., shopping or leisure). The above procedure could complexify to include this phenomenon. l

Pricing time unit is defined based on the cumulative distribution of visitors according to their parking durations. Pricing time unit for visitor parking is typically 1 h. However, if the share of users who park up to 1 h is high, it

174

Sustainable Parking Management

FIG. 8.5 Cumulative distribution of visitor parking duration in maximum parking accumulation.

FIG. 8.6 Analysis of 2 h time-limit impact upon targeted parking occupancy in the survey period.

l

becomes required to define shorter pricing units or even grace periods. Lately, payment systems that enable effective time charge (per minute) have been increasingly employed, so 1 h as pricing time unit is not as important. Rate of the pricing time unit, as support to time limit, is aimed to discourage additional visitors from parking in the zone, thus reaching the targeted occupancy (to fine-tune the regime). The rate should be defined to enable cost recovery for the pricing operator.

If the stakeholders put forward different requests, evidence-based calculated values of parking regime attributes should serve to facilitate and bring more arguments into the discussion (Chapter 7). Below is an example how to determine parking time limit (Exercise 8.3).

Parking regulation Chapter

8

175

EXERCISE 8.3 In Exercise 8.1, it was established that the zone complies with requirements to introduce limited parking duration regime. Define the time limit. For this purpose, in addition to previously surveyed morning and noon accumulation in the area, all other parking characteristics required were surveyed in a sample of representative street sections. The survey showed the following: l Number of available parking spaces: M ¼ 267 l Targeted occupancy: TOcc ¼ 85% targeted accumulation: TAcc ¼ M TOcc ¼ 267 85% ¼ 227 l Morning (minimum accumulation): Amorning ¼ 160 l Noon (maximum) accumulation: Anoon ¼ 443 l Distribution of residents’ departures: Fig. 8.7 l Cumulative visitor parking duration in maximum accumulation: Fig. 8.5

FIG. 8.7 Distribution of residential departures.

Defining time limits (for 13 h, i.e., at maximum accumulation) Residential parking accumulation at 1 PM: 160 66% ¼ 107 Visitor parking accumulation at maximum accumulation: 443–107 ¼ 336 Level of visitor demand realization: (227–107)/336 ¼ 36%. Time limit of 2 h was selected based on the analysis of cumulative visitor duration at maximum accumulation (Fig. 8.5) in view of the visitor demand realization level. Before reaching the final decision, it is required to analyze effects in other time sections during the day, as shown in Fig. 8.6. In order to enable 2 h time limits to accommodate accumulation slightly higher than targeted, it is possible to fine-tune the regime with corresponding parking rates (Section 8.2). Finally, it should be noted that it is also acceptable to adopt 3 h time limits or unlimited parking duration regime with parking fees, but in these cases, parking rates would have to be higher. Note: For the sake of simplicity, the analysis of effects was simplified to include only the effects upon accumulation (occupancy). In real world, this is a complex task and involves many other aspects as well.

176

Sustainable Parking Management

When defining parking regime attributes, it is not sufficient only to analyze parameters and evaluate effects within the parking subsystem; rather, it is required to investigate possible effects of the given regime upon other transportation subsystem, primarily moving traffic. Parking regime impact upon moving traffic: Moving traffic on the street and roads and parking are correlated. Since these two traffic phenomena embody the transportation system as a whole, their operating manifestations are mutually dependent and affected. Level of service in the traffic network is a representative indicator to demonstrate the impact of certain parking policies upon moving traffic. Level of service is a qualitative measure of traffic network conditions. It is expressed with corresponding indicators (travel speed or time, flow density, ratio flow/ capacity, and time losses in the flow). Level of service in signalized intersections according to Highway Capacity Manual (hereinafter, HCM) (HCM, 2010) is affected by parking through the following: 1. Changed capacities of signalized intersections due to on-street parking Capacity of signalized intersections is defined according to groups of lanes, and it represents the maximum flow that may run through the intersection along the considered groups of lanes in prevailing characteristics of the traffic flow, the road, and the signage. When determining the capacity of signalized intersections, one of the factors modifying the initial capacity is the parking adjustment factor, fp. It is evaluated in relation to the effective number of approaching lanes and average number of parking maneuvers during 1 h (Formula 8.1). The formula was developed under the assumption that each parking maneuver (either entry or exit parking maneuver) blocks the traffic in the adjacent lane by 18 s on average:
fp ¼ N  0:1  18Nm 3600 (8.1) N where N ¼ number of lanes, Nm ¼ number of parking maneuvers per hour. The number of parking maneuvers represents the total vehicle turnover at parking spaces approaching the intersection at 250 ft. ( 76 m) distance upstream from the stop line. Fig. 8.8 shows the formula and illustrates its application. It proves that the more lanes in the given group, the lower the parking impact upon the capacity. On the other hand, the more parking maneuvers, the greater the parking impact is (Fig. 8.8). It should be noted that situations when there is no parking are treated differently from the situation where parking is possible but the hourly number of parking maneuvers is 0. If there is no parking, fp ¼ 1, meaning there is no impact upon capacity. However, if there is parking but Nm ¼ 0, it is

Parking regulation Chapter

8

177

FIG. 8.8 Cars performing parking maneuvers block the traffic flow in the adjacent lane.

considered that parked vehicles do affect the traffic flow in the adjacent lane due to the so-called frictional effect of on-street parking upon the traffic flow in the adjacent groups of lanes (Fig. 8.9). Frictional effect is difficult to explain. Frictional effect is produced by the need of a driver operating next to parked cars to compensate for several factors not present in a “clean” lane. These include (Box, 2000) potential for a preceding driver to slow down unexpectedly to park, occupants exiting parked vehicles on the street side, and reduced sight distance.

FIG. 8.9 “Frictional effect” of on-street parking.

178

Sustainable Parking Management

1 lane/dir

2 lanes/dir

3 lanes/dir

1 0.9 fp

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 No parking

0

10

20

30

40

Nm FIG. 8.10 Impact of the number of parking maneuvers upon traffic-light intersections, after Formula 8.1. Data from: HCM, 2010. Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, USA.

Fig. 8.10 shows that correction factors are very pronounced and that the impact of the number of maneuvers is rather high—even up to 30% of the initial capacity values. Comparison with other corrective factors shows that the parked vehicle impact factor, in addition to turning vehicle impact, is a dominant correction factor. The number of parking maneuvers is proportional to the parking turnover; therefore, it is also dependent upon the parking regime (parking regime, tariff system, day and period during the day when the regime applies, etc.). HCM (2010) does not explicitly consider parking impact for unsignalized intersections, which may seem surprising at first glance, because this type of intersections often accommodates parking. Introduction of critical gaps implicitly includes the parked vehicle impact upon traffic capacity in unsignalized intersections. 2. Changed traffic load Traffic in an area comprises of the traffic that ends (parks) in the area, cruising traffic, and through traffic (Arnott and Inci, 2006). Traffic that ends in the area is related to parking demand in that area, which depends on the parking demand management policy. Parking regulation disenables or discourages certain categories of parking users (long-term parking users) to park in that area; hence, the volume reduces, and the level of service improves. However, these measures may generate additional parking (transportation) demand of other users (short-term parking users) due to better parking performances and higher probability of finding a vacant space due to the higher parking turnover that favors short-term parking. Thus, the parking volume increases, while the level of service decreases. Traffic due to parking search: Analysis of 16 studies from 11 cities worldwide (Shoup, 2006, b) concluded that around 30% of traffic volume was the result of parking search, which reduced the level of service in the traffic network.

Parking regulation Chapter

8

179

Even though it is accepted that parking policies do not affect the through traffic (Saleh and Sammer, 2009), some authors believe that improvement of traffic state due to parking regulation may even increase through traffic of the area (Shiftan and Burd-Eden, 2001). Due to all the above, it can be concluded that parking regulation should be treated as a level-of-service measure in the traffic network and that defining parking measures should also depend on the possibilities of the traffic network to accept parking operation changes in a given area within the targeted level of service. The extent and significance of the described issue is further supported by the research that tested the inner central area of Belgrade, Serbia. It was found that in the signalized intersection with parallel parking spaces and one lane in each direction (which is typical for this area) depending on the parking price and time limits, parking adjustment factor varied from 0.70 to 0.85. This means that, depending on the parking regime, the intersection capacity differs by up to 22%. More details on the methodology and results can be found in Simicevic, 2014.

8.1.2

Other parking regimes

Users’ restriction regime: This parking regime enables one category of parking users (with a certain parking purpose) to park in the zone as priority parking users, while other categories are disenabled to park. These parking regimes employ traffic signage with information boards saying “parking only” (e.g., “student parking only” or “employee parking only”) and corresponding vehicle identification labels, placards, or stickers. This parking regulation regime is most often applied in private parking spaces. In addition, introduction of a specific parking duration regulation regime, which are by their nature restrictive, in one (central) area may lead to parking spillover to surrounding areas that are often residential (see Section 7.4). In these cases and in these areas, users’ restriction regimes, i.e., parking only for residents, could be introduced. These regimes imply that residents pay a certain fee and are granted parking permits or given the “zone resident” status in some other way. Limited parking duration during the day or season: This parking regime is introduced in cities or parts of cities where it is required during one period of the day (e.g., in the evening hours) or during one season (summer season in tourist cities and their areas) to limit car access and parking duration in order to enable smooth operation and utilization of that particular area for some more important purposes. Limited parking duration during one period of the day or season is enforced by parking enforcement officers and traffic inspectors, while in more complex conditions, provisional or permanent barriers and obstacles to prevent parking are additionally used.

180

Sustainable Parking Management

In some cases, residents of these areas need to be enabled to reach and park there. In these parking regimes, resident are granted ID label stickers. If required, the above parking regimes (Section 8.1.1 and Section 8.1.2) can be combined to achieve better parking management effects.

8.2 Parking price management Parking price has been recognized as a powerful tool to manage parking demand and transportation demand in general. Drivers are particularly sensitive to parking fees because for parking users, these are “direct trip costs.” Moreover, parking costs have higher impact upon users than other direct costs, such as costs of fuel or transit fares. For example, surveys (Litman, 2010) show that an increase in parking costs by USD 1 per trip will produce reduction in the number of car trips equivalent to the reduction due to fuel price increase of USD 1.5–2.0 per trip. Studies conducted in the United Kingdom forecast that a decrease in transit fare by 50% would decrease car travel by only 1–2%, while 100% increase in parking prices would reduce car travel by 20% (Rye et al., 2006). Possible drivers’ reactions to parking charge are complex and different. These reactions involve changes in parking type, parking location, transportation mode, car occupancy, trip destination, frequency and time (with possible impact upon parking duration), and route. This mechanism of impacts enables parking charges to be employed to achieve management goals even beyond the parking subsystem. Studies show that the most significant individual factor to reduce car travel is the parking price. Hence, parking price may be the most efficient policy to achieve targeted modal split and targeted car travel share in total travel. Parking charge is considered the second best measure for solving traffic congestions, preceded only by congestion charging, but it is much more commonly used because it is relatively easy to apply and is better accepted by users in comparison with other restrictive measures. Parking charge can efficiently solve/mitigate parking problems, through reduced number of parking requests and their redistribution across the given area, parking types, and time. In addition, user categories can be managed (in order to serve only the qualified demand), because customarily long-term parking users (who “should not” park in central areas) are sensitive to price, so they give up on parking more often. Defining parking prices is still a very topical issue in expert and academic considerations. In practice, urban parking policies should take economic aspects of parking into consideration as well (the value of a single parking space and its actual costs, parking revenues, area’s economic attractiveness, etc.), acknowledging the fact that this is one of the engineering tools that may solve parking problems in central urban areas and consequently affect car share level in the modal split.

Parking regulation Chapter

8

181

When deciding about the parking price, the following should be considered: parking price ratio to transit fare governs the distribution of transportation modes that visitors will use to reach an area (modal split). The reason for this is that the greatest impact when selecting a transportation mode comes from comparing direct costs of travel using different transportation modes. Therefore, parking prices should be set to render car travel more expensive than transit travel (see, e.g., Simicevic et al., 2012). Nowadays, both literature and practice show various methods to define parking prices. Sometimes, parking prices are defined by expert assessment, meaning that an institution or individual competent for this sphere adopts and applies parking fees. Parking prices defined in this way should be seen only as initial prices, while subsequent analyses of effects achieved should be used to modify (adjust once or several time) the prices to better suit the defined goals. For example, in Zagreb, Croatia, hourly parking rate in the city center was increased from EUR 1 to 2.2 by Mayor’s decree.2 Resulting parking demand decrease of 19% was reported. Liberal economists believe that market parking prices could be the ultimate solution. As early as in the 1950s, Vickrey emphasized that parking should be priced at its social marginal cost just like any other commodity (Vickrey, 1954). According to Shoup and Manville (2004), a parking space may have negative implications upon central urban areas due to high and very visible opportunity cost. It is often suggested that parking price should serve as an instrument to internalize external parking costs in an area/zone. A single parked car occupies around 25 m2 of highly expensive central urban area land, while parking search inflicts damage upon third parties due to its contribution in traffic congestions, air pollution, etc. These costs should be borne by parking users themselves (Anderson and de Palma, 2004; Arnott and Rowse, 1999). However, such approach should additionally integrate parking management goals—as a typical reason for parking charge introduction. In terms of parking management, parking price is defined to enable realization of targeted parking occupancy—which is typically the occupancy that aims to eliminate parking search, without parking getting unsaturated. In this regard, targeted parking occupancy is usually set at 85% (Shoup, 2006, b), which practically means that each seventh parking space is vacant, i.e., that there are 1–2 vacant parking spaces per block. Parking price that will achieve targeted occupancy should be determined by applying demand prediction methods based on theoretical models, microsimulations, and empirical estimations (Inci, 2015). Here, we will focus on the latter, i.e., the empirically determined stated or revealed price sensitivity. This approach treats parking demand on aggregate or disaggregate level.

2. Official Gazette of the City of Zagreb [Sluzˇbeni glasnik Grada Zagreba] 20/05 and 21/05 (n.d.).

182

Sustainable Parking Management

8.2.1 Aggregate pricing and prediction models The early models indented to define parking price and predict pricing effects were aggregated, i.e., total parking demand was modeled. Impact of parking price upon parking demand is typically measured through price elasticity coefficient. Price elasticity coefficient is defined as the percentage of change in using a good or service caused by a single percent of its price change. For example, elasticity coefficient of 0.3 means that each price increase percent reduces the demand for that particular good or services by 0.3%. Negative sign means that the price and the demand are inversely proportional: when the former increases the latter decreases (TCRP, 2005). When the elasticity coefficient is known, it is possible to predict changes in demand caused by price changes. To predict traveler behavior (including parking behavior), most typically, arc elasticity is used (Formula 8.2). η¼

ΔQ ΔP ΔQðP1 + P2 Þ ðQ2  Q1 ÞðP1 + P2 Þ ¼ ¼  Q1 + Q2 P1 + P2 ΔPðQ1 + Q2 Þ ðP2  P1 ÞðQ1 + Q2 Þ 2 2

(8.2)

where η ¼ elasticity coefficient, P1 ¼ existing parking price, P2 ¼ new parking price, Q1 ¼ existing parking demand/requests (at price P1), Q2 ¼ new parking demand/request at price P2. User response to price change or future demand (P2) and elasticity coefficient (η) are very complicated to predict. However, difficulties in fixing the demand response to price changes do not mean that demand elasticity is not estimated in practice. When predicting user response to price changes, three methods are typically applied: l

l

Statistically measured elasticity: based on the experience with regard to previous price increases and demand changes. For example, on-street parking price in central Dublin, Ireland, was increased by 50%. By using revealed preference parking trend data from parking meters before and after the price rise, it was concluded that this price increase caused a decrease in the demand for parking by 15% and shortened the parking duration by 16.5% (Kelly and Clinch, 2009). Experimental/piloting method: this method is applied in one or several smaller areas where the price is either increased or decreased, so the user response to price changes serves to measure demand elasticity. The best illustration for this would be the SFpark—an experiment that has received lot of attention worldwide. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) launched a pilot study aiming to define spatially varied parking prices in order to achieve targeted occupancy. Targeted

Parking regulation Chapter

l

8

183

occupancy ranged between 60% and 80%. The piloting included around 7000 parking spaces (on-street and publicly operated off-street and garages). Parking prices were initially set, parking spaces were monitored (on blockby-block basis), and prices were adjusted in response to the occupancy rates once every 6 weeks. The price was decreased by 50 cents per hour if the occupancy rate in the previous period was below 30%, decreased by 25 cents per hour if occupancy rate was 30%–60%, kept unchanged if the occupancy rate was 60%–80%, and increased by 25 cents per hour if the occupancy rate was above 80%. Already in the first year, there were 5294 price changes (Pierce and Shoup, 2013). User surveys.

The first two methods refer to “before and after” studies and are rarely found in the literature, because there are no previous price changes or no data before the price change required for comparison, in the first case, and because the research team may not experimentally change prices, in the second case. In addition, problems with these approaches include difficulties to isolate effects achieved exclusively by parking policies and not by some other external factors. There are some other drawbacks in the second case, i.e., specifically of the SFpark: “These experiments are reactive in that they adjust prices after demand realizations and continue to iterate (and reiterate) from there until the target is achieved. This is costly. After all, if a price of a good is changed too frequently, there will be menu costs, frustration among customers, and the experiment may not achieve its desired results simply because people cannot follow the current prices and react optimally to them” (Inci, 2015). Due to all the above problems with previously mentioned approaches, data required to calculate elasticity coefficients are typically obtained by applying the third method—user surveys. This implies user surveys about their probable reactions to potential parking prices, the so-called Stated Preference method (Section 6.3). Previous research shows that parking demand elasticity due to parking price ranges between 0.1 and 0.6, with 0.3 being the most cited value. However, there are also examples of rather higher coefficients (see, e.g., Milosavljevic and Simicevic, 2016; Albert and Mahalel, 2006). This shows that parking price elasticity varies on a case-to-case basis, depending on such factors as the quality of travel alternatives, alternative destinations, and users’ socioeconomic characteristics; therefore, the results may not be transferable. Elasticities should not be taken or employed as a precise prediction measure. Elasticities serve simply to indicate potential scope of response to changes in a system. However, elasticities can be very useful when it is required to give initial evaluation of changes in demand expected to result from price change. In view of the above, parking price can be defined in the following way: Data on user attitudes to parking price are collected by surveying parking users in the zone/area where potential price is to be defined. Users are, inter alia,

184

Sustainable Parking Management

asked the following question: “What would you do if the parking price increased to X?” The proposed parking price should be high enough to cause a reaction, but it should not be set too high (e.g., three times higher than the existing price) because this situation is difficult to conceive, and the stated response would be questionable (Hensher and King, 2001). Distribution of users according to the hypothetical price (accepted or not accepted, i.e., users either continue to park or give up on parking there), the existing price, and the existing demand (parking accumulation at the end of hourly intervals) are inputs for the parking price calculation. These inputs are used to estimate user response to price changes, i.e., to calculate price elasticity coefficient (Formula 8.2). In the next step, for the calculated elasticity coefficient and targeted parking demand calculated based on the targeted parking occupancy, parking price is calculated (Pt) (Formula 8.3): Pt ¼

ðη  1Þ  P1  Q1 + ðη + 1Þ  P1  Qt η  ðQ1 + Qt Þ + Q1  Qt

(8.3)

where Qt ¼ targeted number of parking requests, calculated based on targeted parking occupancy, Pt ¼ parking price, which will correspond to targeted number of parking requests (Qt). In addition to the above parking price setting method, where price elasticity coefficient is calculated as general—overall demand for all users—it can be calculated for demand segments as well. Demand segmentation could be conducted according to, e.g., parking purpose or parking duration, since parking users with different parking purposes/duration show different sensitivity and are differently distributed throughout the day. Thus, more accurate data are obtained, and it is possible to predict demand distribution per segments depending on the parking price (see, e.g., Simicevic et al., 2012). Exercise 8.4 may serve to understand the above parking price calculation method better.

EXERCISE 8.4 For a parking lot with 250 parking spaces, parking is charged at USD 2.00 per commenced hour. A survey showed that all parking spaces are occupied at maximum parking accumulation. In addition, 10 vehicles are queuing to enter the parking lot. This off-street parking lot is the only parking option in the neighborhood. The parking operator decided to increase the parking price in order to achieve targeted parking occupancy of 95%. For this reason, users were surveyed; one of the questions was to state (hypothetically speaking) their response in case parking price increased to 3.00 USD/h (Fig. 8.11). Processing of user answers showed that 80% of users would accept the proposed price and continue to park in the garage.

Parking regulation Chapter

8

185

EXERCISE 8.4 —cont’d ... 5. What would you do if parking price increased to 3.00 USD/h? 1) park here

2) switch to transit

3) other_____________

... FIG. 8.11 Example of user survey form.

These data were used to define the new parking price for this parking lot: Existing parking price: P1 ¼ 2.00 USD/h l Existing parking demand: Q1 ¼ 250 + 10 ¼ 260 l Proposed (hypothetical) parking price: P2 ¼ 3.00 USD/h l Parking demand at P2: Q2 ¼ 26080% ¼ 208 l Targeted parking demand: Qt ¼ 250 95% ¼ 238 ð208  260Þð2 + 3Þ ¼ 0:56, Formula 8.1. Price elasticity coefficient: η ¼ ð3  2Þð260 + 208Þ New parking price: ð0:56  1Þ  2  260 + ð0:56 + 1Þ  2  238 ¼ 2:35 USD/h, Formula 8.2. Pt ¼ 0:56  ð260 + 238Þ + 260  238 Note: For the sake of simplicity, parking price was defined only at maximum accumulation. If this were a real case, it would be required to survey the effects of this price upon parking occupancy in other periods during the day and if required to modify the price, because not only maximum parking occupancy but also average occupancy should be taken into account. l

8.2.2

Disaggregate pricing and prediction models

Numerous surveys dealing with effects of parking policies upon car travel and traffic congestions indicate that there is individual impact that needs to be surveyed as well. In the modern parking management concept, it is not sufficient to just balance parking demand and supply; rather, types of users who will park in the area (qualified demand) also have to be taken into account and those users who will be diverted with applied parking measures. Due to all the above, disaggregate demand models have been developed lately in order to provide more insight into user response when faced with different parking policies, primarily parking charges. Disaggregate models do not make any physical analogies, so they are more reliable and stable than conventional aggregate models. In addition, since disaggregate models predict using individual passenger data, these models are more information-efficient than aggregate models and allow all intrinsic information variabilities to be used. Due to all the above, disaggregate framework enables more realistic models to be developed (De Dios Ortuzar and Willumsen, 2000).

186

Sustainable Parking Management

In this regard, nowadays, discrete choice models, based on random utility theory are often applied. Discrete choice models reflect the situation when each decision-maker (n) faces a choice among J set of alternatives, i.e., to choose only one alternative. The set of alternatives is predefined by the researcher and characterized by the following: 1. Alternatives have to be mutually exclusive from the decision-maker’s perspective—choosing one alternative necessarily implies not choosing any of the other alternatives. 2. The set of alternatives needs to be exhaustive, meaning that all possible alternatives are included. 3. The number of alternatives has to be finite (Train, 2002). The second requirement is often complied with by introducing “other” category that covers all possible alternatives that could not be predicted by the researcher. Assuming that the information available is perfect, each decision-maker chooses one alternative that will provide the highest utility. Alternatives per se do not produce utilities; rather, utilities are derived from their attributes and attributes of decision-makers. Even though at first glance it may seem unclear why decision-maker attributes are included when these are not characteristic of alternatives, the reason for this is that these attributes may influence the decision-maker to choose various alternatives. However, the researcher, who observes the system, does not have the complete information about all elements that decision-makers take into consideration and is not able to determine some of these elements. Therefore, the utility that the decision-maker n may gain from alternative i, Uni, is decomposed as follows (Formula 8.4): Uni ¼ Vni + εni

(8.4)

where Vni ¼ part observed by the researcher, measurable or systematic aspects or the representative utility, εni ¼ part not known to the researcher, random or unsurveyed part. Representative utility serves measured alternative and decision-maker attributes. Representative utility is usually specified to be linear in form and includes a constant (Formula (8.5)) that implies there is no interaction between attributes: Vni ¼ αi + xn βi

(8.5)

where αi ¼ intercept (also called constant) for alternative i, xn ¼ vector of variables for the decision-maker n, βi ¼ regression coefficient (also called parameter estimate) for alternative i.

Parking regulation Chapter

8

187

The constant αi and regression coefficient βi are not known in advance, but have to be estimated by fitting the model to the surveyed data. On the other hand, random part of utility helps describe two evident behavioral “irrationalities”: 1. Two decision-makers with the same attributes and given with the same set of alternatives may choose different options. 2. Some decision-makers will not choose the best (from the researcher’s point of view, i.e., based on attributes deemed representative by the researcher) alternative. In order to predict whether an alternative will be chosen, its utility value has to be contrasted to utility value of other alternatives and transformed into probability of 0–1. Moreover, the scale of utility is arbitrary and only differences in utilities matter not their absolute values. Up to now, logit model has been most often used as discrete choice model to describe user behavior depending on the parking price and for further price definition and prediction of its effects. Logit models are obtained by assuming that random part of utility has Gumbel distribution for each alternative. It is widely applied because of the closed-form expression of probability and because it is easy to interpret. When surveying parking price impact upon user behavior (and demand), a single alternative stands for user’s choice in response to the measure (e.g., no changes in behavior and shift to transit). Its utility is determined based on previously established socioeconomic characteristics of users, trip (parking) characteristics, and alternatives. One of the most demanding tasks in logit modeling is to identify those characteristics that affect choices made by user. These are determined based on theoretical expectations and previous experience—using trial-and-error method. For instance, these can be the following characteristics: l

l

l

Gender (socioeconomic user characteristic): experience shows that there are gender differences in travel behavior and further in their attitude toward transportation demand management measures (including parking pricing); thus, male parking users are expected to be more inert to parking price increases (see, e.g., Simicevic et al., 2016; Khodaii et al., 2010; Van der Waerden et al., 2006; Polk, 2004). Parking purpose (trip characteristic): response to parking price changes differs depending on whether the parking purpose is compulsory (e.g., work) or casual (e.g., shopping), whether it could be delayed or realized elsewhere, whether parking duration could be shortened, etc. (see, e.g., Simicevic et al., 2013; Coppola, 2002). Parking price (characteristic of “parking” alternative): parking price has been repeatedly reaffirmed as a hugely important characteristic for parking and travel behavior. Parking price rise reduces the probability of parking at that particular parking space (see, e.g., Simicevic et al., 2013; Khodaii et al., 2010; Washbrook et al., 2006).

188

Sustainable Parking Management

19. What would you do if the price (both on-and off-street parking price) changes to: 2.00

2.25

2.50

2.75

3.00

USD/h

USD/h

USD/h

USD/h

USD/h

Park on-street

1

1

1

1

1

Park off-street

3

3

3

3

3

Switch to transit

4

4

4

4

4

Other________________

5

5

5

5

5

FIG. 8.12 Example of questionnaire section for establishing user response to price.

User response to parking price is surveyed with hypothetical scenarios (Stated Preference (SP) technique, Section 6.3). Scenarios offer different parking prices and respondents state how they would react in the given situation (Fig. 8.12). At the end of the modeling process, it is required to aggregate the demand in order to analyze results and effects on the general level. The most direct and so far the most popular approach to obtain aggregated output variable is to enumerate the sample. Under this approach, the number of decision-makers who will choose the alternative i, Ni, is calculated by adding up the probability of choosing the alternative i for each single decision-maker P n: Ni ¼ n Pni . The second approach in solving this task is to split the sample into segments; decision-makers in one segment will have the same characteristics. In this case, the number of decision-makers to choose the alternative i amounts to the weighted sum P of the probabilities to choose the alternative i for each of the segments s: Ni ¼ s ws Psi ,where ws is the number of decision-makers within that particular segment s. This approach is constrained by the required number of segments, meaning that it is rational to apply it only in case there are not many attributes and their categories. Fig. 8.13 shows an example of price-dependent parking demand prediction, pursuant to the above procedure. The figure shows that parking price increase leads to reduction in on-street and off-street parking demand, while percentage of visitors who will be discouraged from car travel to that particular area increases. In addition to the above example that defines a single price for the survey area during the parking charge period, logit models can be used to define spatially or temporally varied parking prices. The need for this demand-responsive parking pricing arises due to fixed parking supply (constant number of parking spaces) on the one hand and spatially and temporally varied parking demand on

Parking regulation Chapter

On-street

Off-street

8

189

Not parking

Demand (%)

60 40 20 0

2

2.5

3

3.5

Price (USD/h) FIG. 8.13 Example of logit model output results for parking price impact upon parking demand.

the other hand. For example, parking demand varies during the day: typically, there is one to two peak periods during the day when the demand is higher, while in the remaining periods, it is considerably lower. To motivate users to visit the area in off-peak instead of peak periods, lower off-peak and higher peak prices could be introduced. This pricing method is called variable pricing. Additionally, in order to address temporally variable parking demand, dynamic pricing could be applied as well. This type of variable parking scheme implies that prices are calibrated dynamically to meet the targeted occupancy. Its application requires the support of intelligent transport system (ITS) for gathering realtime occupancy data in order to calculate the price and to communicate it to users (Maternini et al., 2017). The disadvantage of dynamic pricing is that users are not informed in advance (i.e., pretrip) about parking prices, so they are not able to make travel decisions accordingly. Frequent parking price changes, as already mentioned, confuse and frustrate parking users. Similar to the above, parking price at a highly attractive parking lot could be higher than the price at another underutilized parking lot in the influential area, as exemplified by the relation between on-street and off-street parking spaces. Namely, users by nature prefer on-street parking, because it implies shorter walking distances and payment time, resulting in over demanded on-street parking and under demanded off-street parking. Yet, it is the interest of the city to relocate vehicles parked on street into parking lots and garages, because onstreet parking hinders regular operation of other transportation subsystems (moving traffic, pedestrian traffic, public transit, etc.), reduces traffic safety, and aggravates the urban chaos. Moreover, parking garages are expensive investments, so if a city already managed to fund a parking garage and invested into its construction, it should not remain underutilized. Therefore, users need to be motivated with lower off-street and garage parking prices to park therein. It should be noted that the situation is typically the opposite: in general, it is considered that on-street parking is underpriced (or free), while off-street and garage parking prices are deemed higher (especially if privately owned, so the price is defined in view of profit maximization only). This results in

190

Sustainable Parking Management

If parking price were: on-street: off-street:

If parking price were: X USD/h

Y USD/h

You would:

10 am - 3 pm: otherwise:

X USD/h Y USD/h

You would:

1) park on-street

1) park 10 AM - 3 PM

2) park off-street

2) park outside this period

3) other _________________

3) other _________________

FIG. 8.14 Example of SP scenarios to define spatially (left) and temporally (right) varied price.

underutilized off-street parking capacities and overutilized on-street parking capacities, which further entails numerous negative implications such as long parking search, traffic congestions, increased fuel consumption, and pollution. SP scenarios shown in Fig. 8.14 are applicable when defining variable pricing and spatially (including parking type) varied parking price. Logit models are likewise used to define time limits and parking fees in areas where criteria for this regime are complied with. Unlike the approach that first defines the time limit and then the price (Section 8.1.1), the logit model considers both measures at the same time (it actually considers their synergistic effect), which gives better results. Synergistic effects of parking price and time limit could be explained as follows: some users would accept only introduction/ increase of parking price or only introduction/tightening of time limits; however, when both are applied, user tolerance “threshold” breaks and users give up on parking. The procedure for simultaneously definition of parking prices and time limits implies that both measures (the price and the time limit) include on-street parking alternative characteristics. In hypothetical scenarios, values of these characteristics are varied (i.e., parking measures are varied), and the respondents are asked to decide their behavior in this situation (Fig. 8.15). It is possible to fit the model and aggregate the results for any parking price and time-limit value in order to predict parking demand and thus decide on the combination of measures to meet the objectives of parking regulation introduction or correction. It should be noted once again that the above methodologies are just some of the possible ways to set the parking price. Finally, it should be noted that even though parking charge has been introduced in most cities worldwide, the area covered by these parking zones is rather small and typically concentrated only to central areas. Moreover, the general public opposes to parking

Parking regulation Chapter

A. If the situation was the

B. If the situation was the

Following:

Following:

parking price (on- and off-street): 1.40

parking price (on- and off-street): 1.90

EUR/h

EUR/h

time limitation (on-street):

½ hour

You would:

time limitation (on-street):

8

191

1 hour

You would:

1) park on-street

1) park on-street

2) park off-street

2) park off-street

3) park at the fringe of the zone*

3) park at the fringe of the zone*

4) switch to transit**

4) switch to transit**

5) other_________________

5) other_________________

* This answer is important for estimating the effects of the defined measures upon the state of parking in the influential area (see Section 8.1.2.). ** This answer is important for estimating the possibility of mass transit to accommodate additional demand generated by the parking measures. FIG. 8.15 Example of SP scenarios for definition of time limitation and parking price. (Simicevic, J., Vukanovic, S., Milosavljevic, N., 2013. The effect of parking charges and time limit to car usage and parking behaviour. Transp. Policy, 30, 125–131.)

price management (i.e., more pronounced increases of parking prices), and therefore, this is not a politically popular measure, because members of the general public constitute the electoral body. This results in generally underpriced on-street parking, i.e., there is no parking price management whatsoever. This hurdle can be mitigated by educating both parking users and politicians who have influence upon parking decision-making so as to benefit from parking price management as an acknowledged powerful instrument for transportation and parking demand management. Illustratively, data from the National Travel Survey (NTS) from the United Kingdom show that “94% of all parking acts in the NTS record there is no charge. Of the remaining 6% that do pay something, over 82% pay less than GBP 3 per parking act, and almost half pay less than GBP 1.” This results in the following paradox: the car is on average driven only 4% of the time, while remaining parked as much as 96%; yet, parking costs account for only around 3%–4% of the total direct travel costs, while the share of fuel costs is around 96%–97% (Bates, 2014).

192

Sustainable Parking Management

8.3 Parking tariff systems As above mentioned, parking charge is introduced in order to: l

l

Solve/mitigate parking problems in highly attractive areas/parking lots and consequently to mitigate traffic congestions Generate revenues that will be further used for local community development projects

Charges for public parking are introduced based on a defined parking tariff system. Tariff system is one of the measures used to manage area’s: l l l l l

Number of parking requests Utilization of available parking spaces per type Spatial distribution of parking demand Temporal distribution of parking demand Parking user types

Parking tariff system should define the following: 1. Categories of parking users. Highly attractive areas typically accommodate the following parking user categories: l “Visitors” of the area with their day-to-day or occasional parking requests (occasional parking users). Measures (attributes) of the parking duration regimes (Section 8.1), i.e., parking time limits and fees, are aimed at these parking users, so one could argue that visitors were the actual subject of this chapter up to now. l User categories “exempted from parking charges” on any basis. Local regulations may define who may fall under to this category. In the United Kingdom, for example, this user category includes disabled people who have severe mobility problems. They are granted blue badge. It allows blue badge holders, when traveling either as a driver or passenger, “to park without charge or time limit in places such as on-street disabled bays and at on-street parking meters and pay and display machines. Badge holders can also park on yellow lines for up to 3 hours, unless a ban on loading or unloading is in force” (DfT, 2013). l “Parking permit holder” category that may include persons with disabilities, residents of the zone and, in exceptional cases, businesses seated in the area. Parking permits (PP) do not guarantee vacant parking spaces to their holders; rather, once PP holders find vacant parking spaces, they can park there without any time limitation and at discounted price. l Users of parking spaces where special parking regimes apply. This user category may include users of reserved parking spaces, delivery vehicles, and utility vehicles.

Parking regulation Chapter

8

193

2. Criteria for obtaining particular user status. This particularly refers to user categories exempted from charge and PP holders. 3. Parking fee for each of the foreseen parking user categories. Here, it is necessary to define the following: l Pricing time unit. For zone visitors to whom the designed parking regime applies, this is typically 1 h, but other periods are also possible (Section 8.1) depending on the visitor demand characteristics (parking duration distribution). For other user categories subject to parking charge, this is typically 1 month. l Rate applied to the pricing time unit. As above mentioned, parking rate should be regulatory, provided that it generates sufficient revenues to cover the costs of the parking charge operator. The main reason to introduce parking charge is to manage parking demand, i.e., to enable targeted parking occupancy to be achieved. Exceptionally, charges can be introduced to generate revenues that will be invested in further development of local communities (even in case when there is no parking problem). Methods of defining parking rates were elaborated in more detail in Section 8.2. l Type, validity, and rate of parking subscription. Subscription may apply to all or some parking user categories under predefined conditions. Due to the (priority) status of residents (as users who “have to” park in the influential areas of their apartments (see Chapter 7)), customarily, residential parking permit fee is not regulatory; rather, its rate is aimed to cover administrative costs. Yet, in some cities, residential PP rates are linked to vehicle pollutant emissions to contribute to sustainability goals by inciting eco-friendly vehicle purchase. For other subscribers (PP for business and reserved parking spaces), rates should be defined so as to limit their parking demand,3 which is achieved to a certain extent by tightening PP requirements. This is necessary in order to keep the number of subscribed parking spaces to the level defined by parking policies. On the other hand, parking subscription revenues should be higher than revenues possibly generated by visitors. In this case, the price can be defined according to vehicle pollutant emissions. Table 8.1 shows examples of residential and business parking permits in the London borough of Hackney,4 the United Kingdom. In addition to the above, the tariff system should define parking fine rates. Citation revenue should cover all costs for maintaining existing enforcement operations (which include administration, personnel, back office, and equipment) and future enforcement system needs (e.g., new 3. Gragera and Albalate (2016) tested the sensitivity of subscribers to monthly subscription cost parking garages in Barcelona, Spain, and concluded that subscribers’ demand is fairly elastic (an average elasticity amounts to 1.11, meaning that it can be managed with tariff policies. 4. Hackney (2017).

194

Sustainable Parking Management

TABLE 8.1 Example of emission-based (CO2) charging of parking permits per 12 months Business Permit type

Residential

Zones A + B only

Standard rate (All other zones)

1

No local emissions

GBP 10.00

GBP 20.00

GBP 20.00

2

Up to 120 g/km

GBP 61.00

GBP 540.00

GBP 280.00

Price including diesel supplement

GBP 111.00

GBP 590.00

GBP 330.00

121–185 g/km, or under 1200 cca

GBP 112.00

GBP 1080.00

GBP 540.00

Price including diesel supplement

GBP 162.00

GBP 1130.00

GBP 590.00

186–225 g/km, or 1200–2000 cca

GBP 163.00

GBP 1580.00

GBP 800.00

Price including diesel supplement

GBP 213.00

GBP 1630.00

GBP 850.00

226 g/km+, or 2001 cca +

GBP 214.00

GBP 1580.00

GBP 1060.00

Price including diesel supplement

GBP 264.00

GBP 1630.00

GBP 1110.00

3

4

5

a

Where no information is held on a vehicle’s CO2 emissions, price will be calculated on engine size. There is a GBP 10/20 discount when purchasing resident/business permits online or by post. The diesel supplement will be GBP 50 per year and is prorated for 3- and 6-month permits. Data from Hackney (2017) Parking permit price list 2017–2018 https://www.hackney.gov.uk/...list/.../ parkingpermit-price-list.

personnel, technology improvements, and system replacements). This actually means that users who obey parking rules should not, through the parking price, pay for enforcing those who violate the rules. To enable and facilitate this, expenses and revenues of parking enforcement should be carried as a separate line item—even when part of parking or mobility fund. Fines should be adjusted according to the target compliance level (Wilson, 2015).

8.4 Parking revenue As explained in Chapter 4, urban and area parking is divided into private and public. Accordingly, economic aspects of parking could be treated differently. For private parking, economic indicators are predominantly the consequence of the need to provide private parking spaces next to developments

Parking regulation Chapter

8

195

and activities of certain use classes. As already mentioned (Chapter 2), any used class facility should include the required number of on-site parking spaces for its users or exceptionally in its influential area. Construction of these parking spaces is financed with the investment funds used for the facility. To put it simply, in terms of financing, private parking is objectively solvable. Moreover, private parking spaces are integral parts of the location, and parking there is not customarily charged. The exception could be when the facility is located in a highly attractive area, so private parking spaces are misused by other users as well. In this case, a carefully tailored tariff model could be applied to ensure facility users to park at private parking spaces and to discourage others from parking there. For example, in case a shopping mall parking lot is used by employees from surrounding facilities, a parking pricing scheme could be introduced with first 2 h (typical duration of “shopping” parking purpose) free of charge. For public parking, economic parameters are far more complex; there are two problem solving phases: l

l

Setting up a parking strategy in highly attractive areas and defining therein how to finance these public structures Setting up a public parking tariff system pursuant to the adopted parking strategy and setting up parking revenues accordingly

In addition, public parking is correlated to causal economic indicators that define the size and the importance of material and other losses due to unregulated parking. The losses are borne by the car users and city, city authority, and all other urban structural systems and subsystems the operation of which depends on car parking. Due to insufficient number of parking spaces, drivers are willing to pay a reasonable market price for parking or willing to accept alternatives to car travel to reach an area, such as public transit, park-and-ride system, or parking at the fringes of a highly attractive area at acceptable walking distance to their final trip destinations. In terms of parking management, parking charging is aimed to contribute to the realization of targeted parking occupancy. As recently as some years ago, parking problem was deemed to require heavy investments. Yet, nowadays, parking may generate profits. When parking is properly addressed, it becomes a valuable economic benefit for the local community. If parking is properly managed, all this may lead to parking revenue being spent, aside from recovering the costs of parking charge operations (equipment and its maintenance, staffing, energy costs, water costs, and parking enforcement, providing information to parking users) to the following (Litman, 2011): l l

Recover construction costs Invest into parking and transportation management programs, including programs for car travel reduction and alternative mode improvements

196

l

Sustainable Parking Management

For example, in Barcelona, Spain, 100% of profit is invested into bike rental system operation. Several boroughs of London, the United Kingdom, use parking profits to subsidize free transit fares for the elderly and the disabled. Investments into local development programs, e.g., in commercial areas revenues could be used to improve pedestrian communications and safety, while in residential areas, revenues could be used to improve parks or schools or to reduce property taxes. Once again, the main reason for parking pricing could also be funding of local development programs For example, in Boulder, Colorado, the United States, parking revenues were used, in addition to building parking structures and to pay for streetscape improvements to make the downtown more attractive (Weinberger et al., 2010).

In addition, as mentioned earlier, parking enforcement revenues should be used to cover the operating costs and future needs within the enforcement system (Wilson, 2015). Transparent distribution of parking revenue is an important element of parking management, because it raises user awareness about the importance of parking management and reinforces user acceptance of parking policies (Section 12.2).

8.4.1 Financing public parking construction Financing of on-street parking capacities comes from their definition—parking capacities belong to the traffic surfaces, i.e., public infrastructure built on public land. Authority in charge of building the public infrastructure is in charge of building parking spaces as well. The above refers to all new construction and capital rehabilitation of public roads. Relevant regulations define financing sources for construction of public infrastructure including on-street parking lots located in the regulated road profile, while funds are provided through various charges and fees: l l

Budget funds Loan funds extended to the city authorities, etc.

Construction of off-street parking lots and parking garages is also financed pursuant to national/local regulations, but financing may take different forms. Analysis of parking facility construction financing worldwide shows that a range of financing methods are possible, from completely public to completely private funding: l l

Public sector (city authorities) own and use funds Public-private partnership (PPP): implies a wide range of arrangements, from public infrastructure/service management contracts to various forms of concession

Parking regulation Chapter

l

8

197

PPP implies joint investment of state or city authorities and business(es) on the grounds of shared responsibilities (investments), benefits (revenue), and risks (exceeded investment values, reduced revenues, etc.). Concession is a form of financing when private sector is entrusted with infrastructure design and construction and later on with the infrastructure operation and maintenance for a defined period of time; after that period, the infrastructure is returned to the public sector. During this defined period of time, the private sector owns the infrastructure and retains all revenues generated therefrom and is mostly responsible for all risks and obliged to pay a concession fee to the concession grantor—the concedent, as regulated by the law. Exceptions are possible when the revenue is not certain. In this case, the state or the city authorities may guarantee minimum revenues and compensate for the missing funds if revenues are lower than minimal. Private sector owns and uses built parking capacities

A special case of parking construction financing is construction of parking garages for parking space hire (as monthly, annual, or multiannual leases). These are not parking capacities intended for public purposes (there is no turnover). This is a typical case of investment when the city authorities have no major influence, except upon designating the location and all other regulatory conditions (safety, environmental protection, etc.). However, these investments may considerably contribute to parking problem solution in residential and business areas and in mix-use areas (by removing vehicles parked along roadways, sidewalks, etc.); in addition, this would help improve overall urban traffic and living conditions. City authority should find proper incentives for these investments—it should at least provide guarantees and similar investment security instruments.

8.4.2

Parking charge revenues

This section focuses on forecasting/calculating parking revenues generated by visitors, because revenues from other parking user categories are fairly easy to forecast/calculate. When parking prices applicable to visitors are defined, public parking spaces may include the following: l

l

l

Linear tariffs: a single price rate per unit of time regardless of parking duration. Progressive tariff according to parking duration: lower rates could apply for the first or the first two pricing time units and then higher rates for subsequent pricing time units. Degressive tariff according to parking duration: higher rates could apply for the first or the first two pricing time units and then lower rates for subsequent pricing time units.

198

Sustainable Parking Management

A single zone may combine the above tariffs. This approach can be applied twofold: when parking is charged per commenced time unit applied for parking charge or when effective parking duration is charged. For example, if pricing time unit is 1 hour, for parking of 1 h and 18 min, in the first case, two hourly parking rates will be charged and 1.3 h in the second case. Regimes with limited parking duration and parking charge typically apply linear tariffs. To estimate or calculate generated parking revenues, the following data are required: l l l l

Capacity of parking supply Pricing time unit (typically 1 h) Rate per pricing time unit Average number of pricing time units per visitor (in case commenced pricing time units are charged) or average visitor parking duration (in case effective parking duration is charged) in the period when parking charges apply. These data are obtained either empirically or in surveys (Section 5.8).

Revenue is typically forecasted or calculated for one pricing day. If revenues are forecasted or calculated on a monthly or on an annual basis, the calculations need to take into account daily peak coefficients of the corresponding parking capacities (corresponding parking volumes) during the month and monthly peak coefficients of the corresponding parking capacities during 1 year. When defining capacity of parking supply, two approaches can be applied (Section 5.8): (1) in terms of parking space occupancy and (2) in terms of utilizing available time for parking and both are exemplified below. The goal of those who manage parking is to use parking price and other parking management measures to match the expected/realized revenues as close as possible to the maximum achievable (theoretical) revenue. This will help use parking capacities more efficiently and contribute to solving parking problems in that area.

8.4.2.1 Parking revenue generated by visitors in cases when each commenced unit of time is charged 1. Maximum achievable parking charge revenues If parking occupancy is used to calculate theoretical capacities, Formula 8.6 is the first step to estimate maximum achievable revenues5: Dt ¼ Pt  d1  p ðUSD=dayÞ 5. Or another currency.

(8.6)

Parking regulation Chapter

199

8

where Dt ¼ theoretically achievable parking charge revenue (USD/day), Pt ¼ theoretical capacity of parking supply (see Section 5.8), d1 ¼ average number of pricing time units per single user, determined empirically based on “before” surveys (Section 5.8), p ¼ parking price (USD/pricing time unit of time). Since theoretical capacity of parking supply (Formula 5.14) amounts to: Pt ¼

M  T0 ðvehiclesÞ d

maximum achievable revenue is calculated as follows (Formula 8.7): Dt ¼

MT 0 d1 pðUSD=dayÞ d

(8.7)

where M ¼ number of charged parking spaces, T0 ¼ charge duration—number of hours during the day when parking is charged, d ¼ average parking duration per single user (hour/vehicle). Since theoretical (maximum achievable) average number of vehicles (parking acts) per single parking space amounts to (Formula 8.8): Ktavg ¼

T0 d

(8.8)

maximum achievable daily revenue can be calculated using Formula 8.9: Dt ¼ MK tavg d1 pðUSD=dayÞ

(8.9)

In terms of available parking time utilization, i.e., parking capacity, Pc, is calculated according to the following formula (Formula 5.16, Section 5.8): Pc ¼ M  T0 ðvehicle hoursÞ: Since parking is charged per commenced pricing time unit, parking capacity has to be calculated using the following formula: Pc ¼ MT 0

d1 ðvehicle hoursÞ d

(8.10)

Hence, in this approach, theoretical revenues are also calculated using Formula 8.7; Formulas 8.7 and 8.9 define maximum available revenues, under the assumption that all parking spaces are occupied during the whole period when the parking charge applies (Fig. 8.16). In case pricing time unit is 1 h, the total number of pricing units for parking charge could be higher or equal to the multiplication of the number of parking spaces and the number of hours in the period of time when parking is charged (T0).

200

Sustainable Parking Management

FIG. 8.16 Parking performance diagram (maximum achievable utilization possible).

Tariff system may define various rates for pricing time units (commenced hour of parking) depending on the area where parking spaces are located, time limits in the parking zone, parking type (on-street, off-street, or garage), etc. In this case, total maximum achievable parking revenue in terms of parking occupancy is calculated using Formula 8.11: Dt ¼

n X

Mj Ktavgj d1j pj ðUSD=dayÞ

(8.11)

j¼1

or, in terms of utilizing the time available for parking, using Formula 8.12: Dt ¼

n X

M j  T0 

j¼1

d1j  pj ðUSD=dayÞ dj

(8.12)

where Mj ¼ number of parking space where price j applies, Ktavgj ¼ maximal possible number of vehicles (parking acts) at parking spaces where rate j applies in T0, d1j ¼ average number of pricing time units per single vehicle at parking spaces where j rate applies, dj ¼ average parking duration per single vehicle (hour/vehicle), at parking spaces where j rate applies, pj ¼ j parking rate (USD/pricing time unit), n ¼ number of zones with different rates per for pricing time units. 2. Expected (realizable) revenue Expected (realizable) revenue is lower than theoretical revenue because not all parking spaces are occupied during the whole period of time when parking is charged (at best, parking spaces are vacant when the vehicle enters/leaves the parking stall) (Fig. 8.17). Expression for expected capacity of parking supply (in terms of parking occupancy (Formula 5.15 and Section 5.8)) or expected parking load (in terms of utilizing time available for parking (Formula 5.17 and Section 5.8)) for M parking spaces can be used to estimate realistic parking lot revenue from parking charges (expected revenue), using Formula 8.13 or Formula 8.14: De ¼ Dt r ðUSD=dayÞ

(8.13)

Parking regulation Chapter

8

201

FIG. 8.17 Parking performance diagram (realizable occupancy).

De ¼ Dt rindex ðUSD=dayÞ

(8.14)

where De ¼ expected parking charge revenue (USD/day), Dt ¼ maximum achievable revenue (USD/day), r ¼ utilization coefficient of theoretical (maximum) capacity of parking supply, calculated empirically based on “before” surveys, pindex ¼ empirical estimation of available parking time utilization coefficient. Likewise, in the case of theoretical capacity, when parking tariff system defines different rates for pricing time units charged to certain groups of parking spaces (zones), expected parking charge revenues are calculated as the sum of expected revenues per parking zones. 3. Realized revenue Revenue realized from parking charges can be calculated if data on basic parking performance characteristics are available; these data are typically obtained through field surveys or records (if any) maintained by parking authorities, namely, in terms of parking space occupancy using Formula 8.15: Dr ¼ MK avg d1 pðUSD=dayÞ

(8.15)

or, in terms of utilization of available parking time, using Formula 8.16: D r ¼ pl

d1 pðUSD=dayÞ d

(8.16)

Pl is calculated depending on the P methodology applied to survey parking performance characteristics: Pl ¼ m j¼1 Aj  t1 (vehicle hours), Formula 5.18, Section 5.8, or as Pl ¼ Vpd(vehicle hours) (see Section 5.8), where Dr ¼ realized parking revenue (USD/day), Vp ¼ parking volume, Kavg ¼ average parking turnover, Pl ¼ parking load,

202

Sustainable Parking Management

d ¼ average visitor parking duration, d1 ¼ average number of pricing time units charged per single vehicle, p ¼ parking rates (USD/pricing time units). When parking tariff system defines different rates for pricing time units for certain groups of parking spaces (zones), realized parking charge revenues are calculated as the sum of realized revenues per parking zones.

8.4.2.2 Parking charge revenue when visitors are charged for effective single parking duration 1. Maximum achievable parking charge revenue When effective single parking duration is charged, d ¼ d1, maximum achievable revenue in terms of parking space occupancy amounts to (Formula 8.17): Dt ¼ MK tavg dpðUSD=dayÞ

(8.17)

and in terms of utilization of time available for parking (Formula 8.18): Dt ¼ MT 0 pðUSD=dayÞ

(8.18)

In cases when effective parking duration is charged, total time charged at all parking spaces can maximally amount to the revenue generated for the whole parking charge period (T0) at all parking space. This leads to the conclusions that higher revenue is possible when parking is charged per commenced pricing time unit compared with the effective parking duration charge. 2. Expected (realizable) revenue Expected revenue is calculated using Formula 8.13 (in terms of parking space occupancy) or Formula 8.14 (in terms of utilization of time available for parking). 3. Realized revenue Realized revenue in terms of parking space occupancy is calculated using Formula 8.19: Dr ¼ MK avg dpðUSD=dayÞ

(8.19)

and in terms of utilization of time available for parking using Formula 8.20: Dr ¼ Pl pðUSD=dayÞ

(8.20)

Exercise 8.5 shows how to estimate maximum and calculate realized visitor parking charge revenues per day.

Parking regulation Chapter

8

203

EXERCISE 8.5 An on-street parking lot with 55 parking spaces applies a parking regime with 3 h time limit and parking charge applicable from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. A survey was conducted to determine visitor parking duration distribution (Table 8.2).

TABLE 8.2 Distribution of visitor parking duration Duration (hour)

Number of vehicles

0–1

150

1–2

106

2–3

84

Total

340

Estimate maximum and calculate realized visitor parking charge revenues per day, in the period when the parking regime applies, in the following cases: a. Parking is charged per commenced hour b. Effective time spent at the parking lot is charged In the first case, pricing time unit is 1 hour. Pricing time unit rate, i.e., hourly parking rate, in both cases is 2 USD/h. a. Parking charge per commenced parking hour 0:5  150 + 1:5  106 + 2:5  84 ¼ 1:31 ðhour=vehicleÞ 340 1  150 + 2  106 + 3  84 ¼ 1:81ðtime unit=vehicleÞ d1 ¼ 340 T0 12 Ktavg ¼ ¼ ¼ 9:16 d 1:31

d¼

Maximum achievable revenues: In terms of parking space occupancy: Dt ¼ M  Ktavg  d1  p ¼ 55  9:16  1:81  2 ¼ 1823:76 ðUSD=dayÞ: In terms of utilizing time available for parking: Dt ¼ MT0

d1 1:81 p ¼ 55  12   2 ¼ 1823:82 ðUSD=dayÞ d 1:31

Realized revenues: In terms of parking space occupancy: Do ¼ M  Kavg  d1  p ¼ 55  6:18  1:81  2 ¼ 1230:44 ðUSD=dayÞ In terms of utilizing time available for parking: Dr ¼ Pl

d1 1:81 p ¼ 445:4   2 ¼ 1230:80 ðUSD=dayÞ d 1:31 Continued

204

Sustainable Parking Management

EXERCISE 8.5 —cont’d Pl ¼ Vp  d ¼ 340  1:31 ¼ 445:4 ðvehicle hourÞ b. Effective time spent at the parking lot Maximum achievable revenues: In terms of parking space occupancy: Dt ¼ M  Ktavg  d  p ¼ 55  9:16  1:31  2 ¼ 1320:00 ðUSD=dayÞ In terms of utilizing time available for parking: Dt ¼ M  T0  p ¼ 55  12  2 ¼ 1320:00 ðUSD=dayÞ Realized revenues: In terms of parking space occupancy: Dr ¼ M  Kavg  d  p ¼ 55  6:18  1:31  2 ¼ 891 ðUSD=dayÞ In terms of utilizing time available for parking: Dr ¼ Pl  p ¼ Vp  d  p ¼ 340  1:31  2 ¼ 891 ðUSD=dayÞ

Exam questions 1. Explain the reasons to introduce parking regulation. 2. What does parking regime imply? Enumerate and explain types of parking regimes. 3. Enumerate and explain criteria to be tested before introduction of limited duration parking regimes. 4. Test the compliance criteria to introduce limited parking duration into a zone with M ¼ 300 parking spaces. Targeted parking occupancy is TOcc ¼ 85%. Comprehensive accumulation survey in time characteristic time sections during a relevant day showed the following: l Morning (minimum) parking accumulation: Amorning ¼ 250 l Noon (maximum) parking accumulation: Anoon ¼ 380 User survey conducted in the period 8 AM–9 PM showed that the share of parking users whose parking purpose is “work” (commuters) in the total number of visitors is 10% in the survey period but 68% at maximum parking accumulation. 5. Test the compliance criteria to introduce unlimited parking duration with parking fee into a street section of an area with low attractiveness. The survey shows the following: number of parking spaces in the street section, MSTR ¼ 60; number of parking spaces in the zone, MZ ¼ 116; noon accumulation in the street section, AnoonSTR ¼ 76; morning accumulation in the street section, AmorningSTR ¼ 19; and morning accumulation in the zone (excluding street section), AmorningZ ¼ 31. Targeted occupancy is 90%.

Parking regulation Chapter

8

205

TABLE 8.3 Visitor parking duration distribution Duration (hour)

Number of vehicles

0–1

100

1–2

75

2–3

45

Total

220

In the first case, the pricing unit is 1 h. Pricing unit rate in both cases is 1.5 USD/h.

6. Explain how to define the attributes of limited parking duration regimes. 7. Explain parking regime impact upon moving traffic. 8. Explain parking price management as an instrument of parking and transportation demand management. 9. Aggregate pricing and prediction models. 10. Explain basic assumptions of disaggregate pricing and prediction models. 11. Explain parking tariff system. 12. Parking charge revenues. 13. Explain how to calculate revenues generated from visitor parking charges in cases when the charge is calculated per commence pricing time unit. 14. Explain how to calculate revenues generated from visitor parking charges in cases when effective parking duration is charged. 15. At an on-street parking lot with 40 parking spaces, parking is charged in the period from 8 AM until 8 PM. Surveyed distribution of visitor parking duration is shown in Table 8.3. Forecast maximum achievable revenue and calculate realized revenue from visitor parking charge per day, in the period when the regime is applied, for the following cases: a) when parking is charged per commenced hour b) when effective parking time is charged (or effective time spent on the parking lot)

References Albert, G., Mahalel, D., 2006. Congestion tolls and parking fees: a comparison of the potential effect on travel behavior. Transp. Policy 13 (6), 496–502. Anderson, S.P., de Palma, A., 2004. The economics of pricing parking. J. Urban Econ. 55, 1–20. Arnott, R., Inci, E., 2006. An integrated model of downtown parking and traffic congestion. J. Urban Econ. 60 (3), 418–442. Arnott, R., Rowse, J., 1999. Modelling parking. J. Urban Econ. 45 (1), 97–124. Bates, J., 2014. Parking demand. In: Parking Issues and Policies. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 57–86.

206

Sustainable Parking Management

Box, P.C., 2000. Curb parking findings revisited. Transportation Research E-Circular, Transportation Research Board, pp. 1–9. Coppola, P., 2002. A Joint Model of Mode/Parking Choice With Elastic Parking Demand, Chapter 6—Transportation Planning. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands. De Dios Ortuzar, J., Willumsen, L.G., 2000. Modelling Transport, econd ed. John Wiley & Sons, UK. Department for Transport (DfT) (2013), Can I get a Blue Badge? A guide from the Department for Transport for people living in England. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/197719/can-i-get-a-blue-badge.pdf Access 31.07.2018. Gragera, A., Albalate, D., 2016. The impact of curbside parking regulation on garage demand. Transp. Policy 47, 160–168. HCM, 2010. Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, USA. Hensher, D.A., King, J., 2001. Parking demand and responsiveness to supply, pricing and location in the Sydney central business district. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 35 (3), 177–196. Inci, E., 2015. A review of the economics of parking. Econ. Transp. 4 (1–2), 50–63. Kelly, J.A., Clinch, J.P., 2009. Temporal variance of revealed preference on-street parking price elasticity. Transp. Policy 16, 193–199. Khodaii, A., Aflaki, E., Moradkhani, A., 2010. Modeling the effect of parking fare on personal car use. Trans. A Civil Eng. 17 (3), 209–216. Litman, T., 2006. Parking Management Best Practices. American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois. Litman, T., 2010. Transportation Elasticities: How Prices and Other Factors Affect Travel Behaviour. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Litman, T., 2011. Parking Pricing Implementation Guidelines: How more Efficient Parking Pricing Can Help Solve Parking and Traffic Problems, Increase Revenue, and Achieve Other Planning Objectives. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Maternini, G., Ferrari, F., Guga, A., 2017. Application of variable parking pricing techniques to innovate parking strategies. The case study of Brescia. Case Stud. Transport Policy 5 (2), 425–437. Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J., 2016. User response to parking policy change: a comparison of stated and revealed preference data. Transp. Policy 46, 40–45. Milosavljevic, N., Simicevic, J., Culjkovic, V., Vujin, D., 2013. Parking Management Study for the Town of Ivanjica (in Serbian). Institute of the Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Belgrade. Client: Municipality of Ivanjica, Local Administration (05/2013-07/2013). Mingardo, G., van Wee, B., Rye, T., 2015. Urban parking policy in Europe: a conceptualization of past and possible future trends. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 74, 268–281. Pierce, G., Shoup, D.C., 2013. Getting the prices right. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 79, 67–81. Polk, M., 2004. The influence of gender on daily car use and on willingness to reduce car use in Sweden. J. Transp. Geogr. 12 (3), 185–195. Rye, T., Cowan, T., Ison, S., 2006. Expansion of a controlled parking zone (CPZ) and its influence on modal split: the case of Edinburgh. Transp. Plan. Technol. 29 (1), 75–89. Saleh, W., Sammer, G., 2009. Travel Demand Management and Road User Pricing: Success, Failure and Feasibility. Ashgate publishing Group. Shiftan, Y., Burd-Eden, R., 2001. Modeling the Response to Parking Policy, Transportation Research Record. Vols. 1765, pp.27-34. Transportation Research Board, Washington, USA. Shoup, D., 2006. Cruising for parking. Transp. Policy 13, 479–486. Shoup, D., Manville, M., 2004. People, parking and cities. Access Magazine 25 (Fall), 2–8.

Parking regulation Chapter

8

207

Simicevic, J., 2014. The influence of parking regime on intersection capacity. In: European Transport Conference 2014 Association for European Transport (AET). Simicevic, J., Milosavljevic, N., Maletic, G., Kaplanovic, S., 2012. Defining parking price based on users’ attitudes. Transp. Policy 23, 70–78. Simicevic, J., Vukanovic, S., Milosavljevic, N., 2013. The effect of parking charges and time limit to car usage and parking behaviour. Transp. Policy 30, 125–131. Train, K., 2002. Discrete Choice Methods With Simulation. Cambridge University Press. Transit Cooperative Research Program, 2005. Traveler response to transportation system changes. In: Chapter 13–Parking Pricing and Fees. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. Van der Waerden, P., Borgers, A., Timmermans, H., 2006. Attitudes and behavioral responses to parking measures. EJTIR 6 (4), 301–312. Vickrey, W.S.,1954.The economizing of curb parking space. Traffic Eng., 62–67 (Reprinted in J. Urban Econ. 36, 1994,42–65.). Washbrook, K., Haider, W., Jaccard, M., 2006. Estimating commuter mode choice: A discrete choice analysis of the impact of road pricing and parking charges. Transportation 33, 621–639. Weinberger, R., Kaehny, J., Rufo, M., 2010. US Parking Policies: An Overview of Management Strategies. Wilson, R.W., 2015. Parking Management for Smart Growth. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Web references Hackney (2017) Parking permit price list 2017–2018 https://www.hackney.gov.uk/...list/.../parkingpermit-price-list Accessed 08.06.2018. Official Gazette of the City of Zagreb [Sluzˇbeni glasnik Grada Zagreba] 20/05 and 21/05n.d. http:// www1.zagreb.hr/slglasnik/index.html#/akt?godina¼ 2006&broj ¼180&akt¼392EB57557F4 7FD8C1257252003818ED Accessed 30.05.2018.

Further reading Direction Generale de la Mobilite, 2012. Guide du Stationnement Al’ attention des Communes Genevoises. Simicevic, J., Milosavljevic, N., Djoric, V., 2016. Gender differences in travel behaviour and willingness to adopt sustainable behaviour. Transportation Planning Technol 39 (5), 527–537.

Chapter 9

Parking enforcement Abstract Parking management measures can achieve positive effects only if drivers obey the rules. The reduced number of violators leads to better parking management effects and vice versa; too many violators degrade the parking enforcement level and reduce the expected outcomes. Therefore, parking enforcement needs to be efficient yet not too strict so that users do not perceive it as unfriendly. Cities often experience problems in this field, ranging from the lack of physical barriers for prevention of illegal parking (which can be a failure of designers) to small capacity and motivation of parking enforcement operators. This chapter gives recommendations and presents good practice examples of parking enforcement implementation. Possible parking payment methods and technical devices for parking enforcement are also described. Keywords: Parking enforcement procedures; Prepaid parking vouchers; Parking meters; In-car parking meters; Pay by phone; Technical devices for parking enforcement; Physical barriers; Boots; Towing

Parking enforcement includes activities to ensure that key metrics of performance established for the on-street parking subsystem are met as much as possible. Control of parking violations serves to sanction the violators appropriately so as to properly address their behavior toward parking management measures. The reduced number of violators leads to better parking management effects and vice versa; too many violators degrade the parking enforcement level and reduce the expected outcomes. Therefore, enforcement system is considered the foundation of a good parking management. Even though sound parking enforcement is vital, a certain degree of flexibility is necessary in its application as well, so that users do not perceive it as unfriendly. In this respect, parking management authorities need to define the level of compliance with parking controls that they want to achieve, and based on that, the level of enforcement is necessary to get such compliance (DfT, 2015). Parking enforcement is considered proper if the total number of violations is between 5% and 7% of the total parking volume (Wilson, 2015). Parking enforcement should be consistent and fair.

Sustainable Parking Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815800-5.00009-4 © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

209

210 Sustainable Parking Management

9.1 Parking enforcement procedures On-street parking enforcement can be entrusted to national or local police, local authorities, and/or private company/operator—depending on national/local legislation. One of these bodies may perform all parking enforcement related affairs, or the competences can be split. Probably, the most frequent case is where national or local police is responsible for illegal parking, i.e., parking in a place where it is prohibited, which affects road safety, while a corresponding department of the local authority or a contracted private company is responsible for (non)compliance with parking regulations. For the insight in the allocation of power to enforce in European countries, see (EU, 2005, Table 4.4, pp. 30). Parking enforcement for off-street lots and parking garages is conducted using special equipment for parking access control and payment, which is the responsibility of the parking operator. Exceptionally, if a parking lot is not supplied with appropriate equipment, parking enforcement is conducted likewise for on-street parking lots (e.g., the city of Reggio Emilia, Italy). Traditionally, for regular parking spaces, parking enforcement officers (PEOs) only identify violations, issue tickets that are then either left beneath the wiper or sent by post, and possibly initiate car blocking procedure (using boots) in order to collect overdue penalties. In certain clearly defined situations (e.g., when an illegally parked car jeopardizes other traffic users or disenables urgent utility interventions), a police officer requests assistance of the department in charge of towing the illegally parked car with a tow truck. In many countries, parking enforcement is entrusted to traffic police. However, the experience (EU, 2005) shows that traffic police does not prioritize parking enforcement sufficiently or the scope of enforcement (possibility to commit parking violations) is such that it requires many officers more than available in the traffic police. This results in high numbers of illegally parked cars. That is why methods are sought to outsource parking enforcement or to additionally motivate the police (e.g., by concluding special agreements with local authorities) to deal with parking enforcement. There has tended to be a significant increase in enforcement levels where decriminalization has been introduced. The example of London, the United Kingdom (Transport Committee, 2005), speaks in favor of achieving better parking enforcement results in cases when the above method is applied. A study from 1980 confirmed that only each 100th vehicle that has made some kind of parking violation was served the fine, while less than 50% of the fines issued were collected. Therefore, in the United Kingdom, the Road Traffic Act 1991 introduced decriminalized parking. This led to parking enforcement in London being completely decriminalized in 1994. The local authorities, i.e., elected officials, were empowered to issue penalty charge notices (PCNs) and to authorize vehicles to be booted or removed using tow trucks. Selection of private parking enforcement operator is subject to compulsory competitive tendering. Tender requirements are set by the local authorities

Parking enforcement Chapter

9

211

and mostly refer to the required number of registered bidders so that tendering procedure could be deemed valid; eligible bidders are companies registered for this kind of activity, adequately staffed, preferably with previous experience in this field, with the highest score criterion being the amount of money collected from fines that the bidder will return to the local authorities on enforcement action. Changing the parking enforcement entity was more than fruitful. The good practice from London was introduced to the rest of the country in 2004. This method of parking enforcement has been suggested in the recommendations defined in the EU Report (2005), based on the positive experience for the United Kingdom. Apart from the United Kingdom and in other European countries as well (e.g., Austria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Serbia), local authorities are allowed to assume responsibility for enforcement instead of the police. But not everyone uses this possibility. As for the United States, privatization of parking operation and enforcement is a hot topic in large cities at the moment. Such arrangement, for example, has already been adopted in Chicago, Illinois. When parking enforcement is outsourced, city authorities verify the operating efficiency using predefined indicators. City authorities may require annual operating reports to be submitted by the parking enforcement operator. This is the case in London, the United Kingdom. The report has three parts (DfT, 2015): 1. Financial part contains data such as total surplus or deficit, action taken with respect to a surplus or deficit, and so on. 2. Statistical part contains data on the number of higher and lower PCNs served, number of PCN paid at regular and discount rate, number of PCN canceled, number of vehicles immobilized, and number of vehicles removed. 3. Performance against targets. As shown in the example above, parking enforcement decriminalization proved to be a good solution, because it considerably increased the number of violators fined, thus improving the state of parking and increasing the revenues. However, care must be taken that revenues do not become the ultimate goal for the private operator, which would lead to further dissatisfaction and unacceptance by parking users. Dissatisfaction may grow into parking rebellions, as was recently the case in Los Angeles, California, the United States, where a group named the Los Angeles Parking Freedom Initiative fought against what they called high parking fines (Wilson, 2015). Therefore, London’s Department for Transport (2015) emphasizes in its Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking Policy and Enforcement: “CPE1 provides a means by which an

1. Civil Parking Enforcement.

212 Sustainable Parking Management

authority can effectively deliver wider transport strategies and objectives. Enforcement authorities should not view CPE in isolation or as a way of raising revenue…For good governance, enforcement authorities need to forecast revenue and expenditure in advance. But raising revenue should not be an objective of CPE, nor should authorities set targets for revenue or the number of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) they issue.” At places where a restrictive parking regime is applied, parking enforcement depends on available methods of parking payment, characteristics of parking meters, and conditions provided for operation of all foreseen parking payment methods (network of parking ticket sales points, contract with mobile operators, etc.). Preconditions for parking enforcement are vertical and horizontal traffic signals installed to communicate the applicable parking regime to parking users and defined procedures for using each of the payment methods proposed. This actually means that drivers must be made aware of parking rules applicable in certain places so that any violation could be sanctioned. Parking enforcement consists of the following: l

l l l l

Outsourcing parking enforcement to a private company or insourcing it to a parking enforcement unit within either parking or traffic department or within a wider transportation management system governed by the city authorities Providing equipment for parking regime compliance control Defining enforcement beats and sectors that will be covered by a single PEO Defining operating procedures for PEOs Defining parking fine collection procedures

The question of how long a sector covered by a single parking enforcement officer (PEO) should be is particularly sensitive. Shorter sectors increase staff requirements and consequently operating costs of parking enforcement, while longer sectors reduce the probability for fining and consequently the revenues. In practice, the ratio of PEOs to control spaces significantly varies. For example, a study from 2002 showed that in the United States, it ranges from 1:43 (Toronto) to 1:237 (Portland), with the average of the six cities studied being 1:93 (Heffron Transportation Inc., 2002). Some cities face difficulties with regard to financing a sufficient number of full-time PEO enforcement staff. In this respect, it is important to underline that any kind of enforcement is better than none. If it is not possible that a city implements its parking regime enforcement during the whole period when the regime applies, then parking enforcement could be applied sporadically as well, e.g., only a few hours during the day. In this case, randomized parking enforcement hours are advised in order to be more effective (Wilson, 2015). Parking regulations are enforced in different manners and with different procedures. The simplest way to implement parking enforcement is to use trained staff—PEOs, who monitor given sectors (patrol sector) and enforce predefined enforcement procedures.

Parking enforcement Chapter

9

213

PEOs monitor the following: whether the parking user paid for parking (when parking charge regime with or without time limit is applied), compliance with time limits (in zones where parking duration is limited in time), trip/ parking purpose for users’ restriction regime, possibly compliance with the manner of parking defined by vertical and horizontal signals, etc. If a PEO established that a parked car committed a violation, the PEO issues a fine and either leaves it tucked under the wiper on the windshield or have it sent via post. The below example of London, the United Kingdom (DfT, 2015), illustrates what a penalty charge notice (PCN) should contain, namely, l l l l l l l

l

l

l

“the date of the notice, which must be the date on which it is posted the name of the enforcement authority the registration mark of the vehicle involved in the alleged contravention the date and time at which the alleged contravention occurred the amount of the penalty charge the manner in which the penalty charge must be paid the grounds on which the enforcement authority believes that a penalty charge is payable that the penalty charge must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the PCN is served that if the penalty charge is paid not later than the last day of the period of 21 days, beginning with the date on which the PCN was served, the penalty charge will be reduced by any applicable discount—currently 50% that if after the last day of the period of 28 days… the penalty charge has not been paid, the enforcement authority may increase the penalty charge by the amount of any applicable surcharge—currently 50%—and take steps to enforce payment of the charge as so increased.

…It is recommended that the PCN also gives l l l l l l

vehicle make and color (if evident) detailed location of vehicle (full street name) the contravention code observation start and finish times (where appropriate) PCN number (all PCNs should be uniquely identifiable) amount of penalty time (when relevant)”

Lately, modern technologies have been increasingly employed for parking enforcement. Application of modern technology greatly improved parking enforcement efficiency. In this regard, the following devices are used for parking enforcement and violation identification, identification of repeat scofflaws, stolen vehicles, and so on: l l

Handheld computers that provide access to databases Smart meters with occupancy sensors (providing real-time information on violations)

214 Sustainable Parking Management l

l

Scan vehicles, i.e., license plate recognition technology mounted on vehicles CCTV cameras (e.g., such cameras are used in London, United Kingdom, but since parking users might perceive such violation identification system as overzealous, it is recommended to use them to a moderate extent and to clearly inform users about traffic signals in that area where CCTV cameras are installed (DfT, 2015)) and so on

In addition, GPS-GIS data can be used to determine parking enforcement beats and to identify hot spots. If a car is illegally parked, taking digital camera photos of the car will help solve any later dispute about its position or condition. Fine collection rate increases when Web and mobile phone payments are enabled. Fine collection procedures can vary, but parking users have to be made aware in advance of the possibilities (payment procedures are typically indicated on the back of the fine form). If the car owner fails to pay the fine until the prescribed deadline, further procedure is initiated upon obtaining data about the car owner (name, surname, and address) based on the license plate number. In some case, the car owner is first sent a warning with a new payment deadline. All timescales must be precisely defined. Moreover, the user should have the possibility to contest the fine. Collections of fines issued to foreign nationals poses a considerable problem, especially in cities with many foreign registered vehicles, because these parking violators are difficult to trace. Cities and countries employ various methods to solve this problem. Some engage private debt-collection agencies that have local offices in other countries to trace owners and collect the charges (e.g., some Norwegian cities). Others ask foreign authorities to send data on the vehicle owner (e.g., London, United Kingdom). Cooperation among countries in cross border execution of fines (EU, 2005) is believed to be the solution. Parking management authorities need to monitor persistently the number of tickets issued daily to the total number of violating vehicles and the percentage of daily tickets collected to the total number of tickets issued. Too many unsanctioned violations or uncollected fines may encourage other users to disobey the parking regime in place, which could further aggravate the problem. Cities often experience problems in collecting fines, so various methods to ensure or encourage payment of fines have been developed, such as checking overdue ticket databases before issuing state income tax refund, prohibiting vehicle registration renewals for vehicles with outstanding fines, and booting vehicles. Some good practice examples are listed below: In Seattle, Washington, United States, vehicles having five or more violations are impounded. In order to retrieve the vehicles, the offender must pay the tickets, towing costs, and storage costs (Wilson, 2015). In Portugal, to renew a driving license or to take a car for inspection, the driver has to pay for all the unpaid fines. The introduction of this measure significantly increased the payment of parking charges and fines (EU, 2005). In London, the United Kingdom, payments are encouraged by 50% discount for penalty charges if paid within 14 days from issuing (payment deadline is 28 days) (DfT, 2015).

Parking enforcement Chapter

9

215

9.2 Parking payment methods This section describes the most common ways of paying for on-street parking. Parking payment methods available in a zone or a city dictate parking enforcement equipment and methods. Parking discs: First parking zones with time limits did not include parking charges, and the time limit was controlled with parking discs that each driver parked in the zone had to use. A parking disc (Fig. 9.1) is a simple handheld technical instrument for time limit control in zones with limited parking duration. When parking in time-limited zones, each user is obliged to display their arrival time to a parking space (hour and minute) using a clock face on the disc and to clearly position the wound clock (beneath the windshield). When patrolling the zone, PEOs monitor the time indicated on the parking ticket, i.e., the parking clock, and determined whether the time limit is exceeded or not. This method of checking the time limit compliance is simple and does not require

FIG. 9.1 Example of parking disc.

216 Sustainable Parking Management

any special equipment except for the parking clock. However, the drawback of this method stems from indiscipline of parking users who tend to misbehave in various ways (to set the wrong parking start time on the clock, to wind up the clock again without moving the car, etc.). Prepaid parking vouchers: Parking user needs to have a special ticket/ voucher (Fig. 9.2). When the car is parked, the user fills in the ticket (with parking date and time) and places it at a visible spot—inside the car and underneath the windshield, thus enabling PEOs to monitor the parking time limit and charge compliance.

FIG. 9.2 Example of prepaid parking voucher (Vienna, Austria).

Parking enforcement Chapter

9

217

Parking meters: Parking meters are technical tools that serve to control prescribed time limits at parking spaces. Parking meters in parallel serve as technical devices for collection of parking tickets in zones with time-limited charges. In addition, these devices signal to PEOs when time limits are exceeded. Structurally, parking meters can be single-space meters, double-space meters, and multispace meters. Multispace meters (i.e., pay-and-display payment systems) (Fig. 9.3) represent a state-of-the-art solution most used nowadays. A multispace meter is a technical tool-device, used to monitor time limit imposed on parking duration and parking payment with a single device for several parking spaces per block or lot. Multispace meters assume high level of users’ utility culture (awareness about the need and the obligation to pay for parking) and favorable position of the meter in relation to parking spaces allocated thereto. Multispace meter operates as follows: The user inserts money, payment card, or microprocessor (chip)-based smart card, and the meter then issues a receipt with the following details printed, arrival date and time and the amount paid. Such a receipt is then placed on a visible spot, inside the car underneath the windshield, so that the time limit can be monitored. The main drawback of multispace meters is their position to parking spaces assigned—not always are multispace meters installed at most favorable points

FIG. 9.3 Example of multispace meter (Amsterdam, the Netherlands).

218 Sustainable Parking Management

in relation to directions of footways, so reaching a multispace meter, payment, taking the ticket, and returning to the car to place the ticket below the windshield inside the car lasts long. All these activities annoy users, so they either avoid parking at such locations or avoid paying for parking, especially when parking enforcement is poor. To overcome this drawback, systems where all parking meters are connected to a central computer are used since recently. In addition to the above data, license plate numbers and sometimes reference number of the parking space are fed into the parking meter. Each PEO equipped with a required device (computer) can access the database of the central computer. The PEO sends a query (license plate number of the car in question) and receives all relevant data for that car. Data on parking space occupancy can be generated by specifying the parking space number, and this information can be used for monitoring on the one hand and for guiding to a vacant parking space on the other hand. In-car parking meters: This payment system implies that the driver owns an in-car meter. The device is charged with a monetary value. When the car is parked, the driver presses the button to select the parking zone and to mark the beginning of parking. An in-car meter has to be clearly displayed beneath the windshield, to enable a PEO to interrogate the meter by infrared reading device to determine that the parking act is being paid for. The amount of money available on the device is then deducted by the amount charged. If actual time at the parking space is to be charged, upon returning to the car, the driver presses the corresponding button and signals that the parking is over. Pay by phone (or pay by cell): Pay by phone is rapidly gaining popularity. Industry experts believe that remote payment will eventually replace meters (Weinberger et al., 2010). Paying for parking using mobile phones is possible in several ways: by sending an SMS, calling a designated phone number, or using an application. Payment by SMS is done as follows: the user sends an SMS to the operator, i.e., to a designated phone number. This number contains the code of the corresponding parking regime zone and is usually indicated on a sign or the parking meter. The SMS should contain the license plate number. The mobile operator replies (with an SMS) to confirm the payment receipt and indicates the time until when the parking user needs to leave the parking space. The corresponding amount of money is either deducted for prepaid mobile users or added to the bill of postpaid mobile users. If the vehicle is parked in a zone with limited parking duration, the mobile operator sends a warning SMS before the time limit expires to remind the user to leave the parking space (Fig. 9.4). If the car is parked in a zone where parking duration is not limited or in a zone with time limit consisting of several charging time units, the mobile operator offers the possibility, after receiving the first SMS and after the time for which the parking is paid has passed, to receive the second SMS likewise. If the user reports the second parking act for the period of time that exceeds the time limit of the parking zone,

Parking enforcement Chapter

9

219

FIG. 9.4 Pay-by-phone example (Dublin, Ireland).

the mobile operator will not accept the SMS and will inform the user thereupon (via SMS). Payment by placing a call is similar to payment by SMS; the only difference is that the user calls a designated number (usually located on a sign or the parking meter) instead of sending an SMS and follows the instructions of the interactive voice response: types in the license plate number and/or space number. Finally, for users with smartphones, some cities enable paying for parking via applications. This requires an initial, one-time setup to link the credit card number with the phone number. The system then uses caller ID to match the user with the account. In some cases, such applications can be used for guidance to the nearest parking space as well (more details on this are provided in Section 11.6). Parking users have to be informed on the spot about all possible parking payment methods. Moreover, equipment for enforcement personnel has to match possible parking payment methods.

9.3 Technical devices for parking enforcement Parking enforcement devices are applied in two directions. The first one implies using physical barriers to prevent illegal parking. This approach should be applied only to reduce the scope of violations and consequently the scope of parking enforcement. The second approach is when a car encountered in a clear parking violation is either immobilized with technical devices (Fig. 9.5) or dislocated from the violation location using a lifting vehicle—towed (Fig. 9.6). For the first approach, street furniture is used: ramps, stale or portable barriers and bollards, and similar structures. The second approach employs tools for locking drive wheels of the car, i.e., boots; the violator is thus forced to come to the competent department, to pay the fine so that the boots are removed. Lately, smart boots are used, which enable remote unlocking when the payment is received. Violating cars are towed from the place of violation with special vehicles—tow trucks.

220 Sustainable Parking Management

FIG. 9.5 Immobilization, i.e., blocking of illegally parked cars (Prijedor, Bosnia and Herzegovina).

FIG. 9.6 Towing the illegally parked car (Nis, Serbia).

Immobilization should only be used in limited circumstances such as dealing with persistent evaders. A persistent evader is a person who has a certain number (e.g., three) or more penalties outstanding after all opportunities to challenge those penalties have expired. Where parking is obstructive, removal should be preferred to immobilization (Parking Forum, 2008). What is crucially important for this type of parking enforcement is to provide very precise legal definitions who, when, and why may be locked and relocated. This act may be in conflict with citizens’ proprietary freedoms and rights guaranteed by the constitution.

Parking enforcement Chapter

9

221

9.4 Best practice Below are the examples of parking enforcement policies and methods in some cities/countries in Europe and the United States. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: The boroughs of Amsterdam outsourced parking enforcement to a company owned by the municipality. The amount of fine depends on the severity of violation. For parking violations at regular parking spaces (e.g., violation of time limit/failure to pay for parking), the fine is always EUR 50.90 increased by the price of 1 h parking (max EUR 5). Maximum fine of EUR 150 is prescribed for parking at disabled parking spaces (Kodransky and Hermann, 2011). Barcelona, Spain: Parking fines range between EUR 30 and EUR 100. In addition to around 370 PEOs who enforce parking regulations on foot, there are also around 40 motorized PEOs who monitor illegally parked cars. PEOs are not evenly assigned; rather, there are more PEOs in areas where parking problems are greater (Kodransky and Hermann, 2011). Dyon and Nantes, France: In order to solve/mitigate illegal parking problems that were aggravated by the lack of police capacity, the so-called parking hosts were introduced. Their role is to help parking users find a vacant parking space, provide information required, and thus prevent illegal parking and failure to comply with parking regimes. Both cities reported very positive impacts of these modified, positive relations to the public. Both compliance with parking regulations and parking revenue increased significantly (EU, 2005). Copenhagen, Denmark: The city has 115 PEOs who patrol on foot and verify parking compliance using electronic devices. The city issues approximately 350,000 fines per year: out of this number, approximately 100,000 fines are issued for unpaid parking. A standard fine for all types of violations amounts to EUR 69. When violators evade paying for fines, regulations enable collection of fines from tax returns. Moreover, it is possible that tax collection department contacts the driver’s employer directly to collect the fine directly through driver’s salary deductions (Kodransky and Hermann, 2011). London, the United Kingdom: As mentioned above, in order to motivate offenders to pay their parking penalty charge notices, a 50% discount is applied if the PCN is paid within 14 days from the date of serving. When this period expires, if the PCN is still outstanding, the offender receives a Notice to Owner, to remind him/her to pay the total penalty amount within further 28days. After this deadline, the authority can issue a charge certificate increasing the penalty by 50%. If the increased penalty is not paid within 14 days, it can be registered in court as a civil debt, and enforcement action can be taken against the owner to obtain payment. This may include possessions of property that is then sold to cover the debt. This system led to high collection rates of issued fines (DfT, 2015; EU, 2005). Stockholm, Sweden: Parking enforcement is decriminalized. Performance of the private parking enforcement operator is measured using the indicator that shows the number of cars parked legally. The target is to have 75% of car parked

222 Sustainable Parking Management

legally, and twice a year compliance with the target is measured, as this is the precondition for further contracting to the same private operator (Kodransky and Hermann, 2011). Monterey, California, the United States: Cameras installed on cars with license plate recognition technology (Wilson, 2015) are used to identify failure to meet time limits (even to identify stolen cars). San Francisco and Los Angeles, California, the United States: On-street parking spaces are equipped with occupancy sensors. They provide real-time data on parking violations and direct parking enforcement personnel, thus increasing the efficiency of parking enforcement (Wilson, 2015).

Exam questions 1. Explain the reasons to introduce parking enforcement. Explain in particular parking enforcement procedures. 2. What does parking enforcement include? 3. Who (entity/entities) enforces parking typically? 4. Enumerate parking enforcement problems faced by cities. 5. Enumerate and explain preconditions for parking enforcement. 6. What does parking enforcement for restrictive regime parking spaces depend on? What are the method and procedures for parking enforcement? 7. Enumerate and explain modern technologies applied for parking enforcement. 8. Enumerate payment methods. 9. Enumerate and explain technical devices for parking enforcement. 10. How can parking regulation reduce parking violations? 11. Give and explain a best practice example of parking enforcement.

References Department for Transport, 2015. Operational guidance to local authorities: parking policy and enforcement. Traffic Management Act 2004. European Union, (2005). Parking policies and the effects on economy and mobility. Technical Committee on Transport, Report on COST Action 342. Heffron Transportation Inc., 2002. Seattle Parking Management Study. http://www.hefftrans.com/ pdf/SeattleParkingStudyFinal.pdf. Kodransky, M., Hermann, G., 2011. European Parking U-Turn: From Accommodation to Regulation. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. Parking Forum, 2008. Civil parking enforcement. Position paper 18, http://www.britishparking.co.uk/ write/Documents/Library/position%20papers/ParkingForumpaper18.pdf Access: 20.06.2018. Transport Committee, 2005. Parking Enforcement in London, Investigation into Parking Controls and their Enforcement in London. (London on Assembly). Weinberger, R., Kaehny, J., Rufo, M., 2010. U.S. Parking Policies: An Overview of Management Strategies. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, New York. Wilson, R.W., 2015. Parking Management for Smart Growth. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Chapter 10

Mobility management Abstract Sustainability implies a comprehensive and integrated approach to problem-solving. Since parking is an integrated component of the transportation system, this chapter presents mobility management (also called transportation demand management) measures that, alongside parking management measures, can contribute to problem solution. These include park and ride, various schemes of working hours, alternative transportation modes, financial incentives for commuters, road pricing, street reclaiming, accessibility management, and marketing programs. A special attention is paid to park-and-ride policy, as it can be seen as a component of the parking subsystem. Effects of these policies when addressing parking problems in central urban and highly attractive areas are particularly highlighted. Keywords: Mobility management; Park and ride; Smart growth; Alternative transportation modes; Working-hour schemes; Road pricing; Street reclaiming; Financial incentives for commuters; Accessibility management; Marketing programs

Mobility management (also called transportation demand management— TDM) is a general term for policies that improve transportation system efficiency by changing travel behavior. Change of travel behavior may affect travel frequency, mode of transportation, trip destination, or travel time (e.g., switching from peak to off-peak periods) (Litman, 2003). Mobility management favors public transit and other alternative transportation modes over cars. Improving the quality of alternative transportation modes and limiting car use can benefit everybody. Even though there are objections to this approach, one should not forget that this approach originated from the definition of sustainable transportation in relation to urban life quality to enable mobility of people but restrain car use. Without this restraint of (restrictions upon) car use, car traffic would cause negative effects to congestions and the environment, aggravate the parking problem, and lead to risks of traffic accidents that would be difficult to contain. In view of uncontrolled car use consequences, mobility management is increasingly used to address transportation problems. Mobility management increases the assortment of transportation supply and incites users to take the most efficient mode of transportation for each trip. Mobility management does not eliminate car travel, since the cars are the best transportation mode for some trips, but it does tend to decrease car use significantly. Sustainable Parking Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815800-5.00010-0 © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

223

224 Sustainable Parking Management

Mobility management is characterized by low implementation costs and multiple benefits, which should be recognized especially by cities in developing countries where streets are often narrow and congested and parking capacities are limited. It is estimated that efficient mobility management in early urban development stages would prevent problems that occur when the society becomes too car-dependent. There are various mobility management policies existing, as summarized in Table 10.1. Mobility management policies can be applied independently, but a combination, i.e., a set of policies applied at the same time, is more fruitful. What set of mobility management policies will be applied depends on demographic, geographic, and political conditions. Majority of single policies have moderate effects and influence only some percentage of the total car traffic. On the other hand, a set of mobility management policies may have cumulative and synergistic effects (meaning that overall effects are larger than the sum of effects when single policies are applied). Efficient urban mobility management usually entails a combination of negative initiatives to demotivate car use (push) and positive initiatives to use alternative transportation modes (pull) (Fig. 10.1). Table 10.2 shows some push-and-pull policies. Mobility management supports and is supported by parking management. Mobility management programs, as a rule, reduce parking demand. On the other hand, parking management policies help reduce car traffic by creating more

TABLE 10.1 Mobility management policies

...

Improve transport options

Incentives to reduce driving

Integrated transportation and land use management

Programs and policy reforms

Alternative transportation modes improvements Working hour schemes Telework Traffic calming

Transportation charges Parking cash-out Workplace parking levy HOV lanes ...

Smart growth Transit oriented development (TOD) Street reclaiming ...

Accessibility management Special event management TDM marketing Communicating policies ...

Modifed from Litman, T., 2003. In: Mobility Management. Module 2b (Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook for Policy-Makers in Developing Cities). (GTZ Transport and Mobility Group).

FIG. 10.1 Illustration of “push-and-pull” combination of mobility management policies.

TABLE 10.2 Push-and-pull mobility management measures Measures

PUSH

PULL

Policy/regulatory/ economic

l

Restrict car access Road pricing l Congestion pricing l Parking pricing l Parking management l …

Improve transit services l Integrated system and fare structure l …

Physical/technical

Reduce car mobility l Reduce parking supply l Traffic calming l … Road space reallocation Restricted traffic zones

Incentives for commuters l Parking cash-out l … Improve quality of transit service Improve bus infrastructure Improve bicycle infrastructure Improve pedestrian infrastructure Improve mobility options

Plan/design

Integrated land use planning l Transit-oriented development l Car parking planning standards to complement transport policies l …

Planning for nonmotorized transportation

Support

Enforcement l Fines, tickets, and towing

Public awareness l Marketing transit/ explaining needs for TDM measures l Events like Car-Free Day

Adapted from Rye, T., 2010. Parking Management: A Contribution Towards Liveable Cities, Module 2c (Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook for Policy-Makers in Developing Cities). Eschborn, Germany.

226 Sustainable Parking Management

accessible land use models or by supporting other mobility management goals. If, due to limitations, parking policies cannot achieve all goals defined in a parking management strategy, parking demand is reduced by selecting mobility management policy(ies) (Section 7.4). In other words, in such cases, parking subsystem alone can initiate introduction of some mobility management policies. Several mobility management policies are described below in more details. Effects of these policies when addressing parking problems in central urban and highly attractive areas are particularly highlighted.

10.1 Park-and-ride Park-and-ride (PnR) concept was first mentioned in the 1940s (EU, 2005), but the idea of its importance become more widely spread only during the 1990s in view of the changed attitude toward addressing issues generated by the transportation process and in line with sustainable transportation development principles. PnR has grown into a mobility management policy that tends to manage transportation demand in order to transform modal split of movement, which is aimed at more mass transit-oriented users. PnR systems imply parking lots that enable private car drivers to switch to mass transit (mass transit includes bus transportation and high-capacity transportation, e.g., suburban rail, metro, and LRT networks). Spillar (1997) indicates that PnR facilities are a technological form of intermodal and multimodal transportation, which implies modal split between private cars and higher occupancy transportation modes to complete the trip, by supplying parking lots with direct access to mass transit. While in very car-oriented environments in the United States PnR has been used as a concept that serves inbound and outbound city sections (mostly relying on work commuters in peak periods), PnR system policies in Europe rely on protection of historically formed central urban areas from additional traffic and parking demand. Over time, transportation polices and decision-makers reflected the PnR concept most generally through integrated transportation, where switching from cars to other modes of transportation may lead to a range of benefits and savings. In terms of parking, selection of PnR policies focuses on partial dislocation of mass parking from the most expensive and economically most desired urban areas to the fringes of central areas or cities, by offering travel alternatives that may generate both time and money savings for both PnR users and city authorities. Therefore, PnR can be seen as a component of the parking subsystem, i.e., as a policy intended as a part of the parking problem solution in central urban areas. Even PnR goals thus defined promote sustainability. Example of PnR lot is given in Fig. 10.2.

Mobility management Chapter

10

227

FIG. 10.2 Example of PnR lot (Dublin, Ireland).

10.1.1 Types of PnR facilities PnR facilities can be grouped according to their location, manner of use, and design. According to their location, i.e., distance from the central urban area, PnR lots are classified into the following categories (Spillar, 1997): 1. Remote long-distance lots—In the United States, remote long-distance PnR lots are located between 40 and 80 miles (64.4 and even 128.7 km) from urban centers, while in Europe, this distance is considerably smaller, around 30 km, and PnR lots are closer to residential areas (trip origin). Transfer is often available in the wider area of a region or within a satellite settlement. 2. Suburban PnR lots—These are the type traditionally referred to when planning PnR facility construction. Suburban PnR lots are similar to the previous type but closer to the central areas: typically at 4 and 30 miles (6.4 and 48.3 km) distance from the central area. Here, car users most often switch to public transit or possibly cycling, walking, carpooling, etc. The problem with remote or satellite PnR lots, designed to abstract car traffic from entering congested urban centers, is that because of the remote location of the PnR lot from the center: l

Traffic congestion is not necessarily severe enough at the point of the lot location to encourage change from car to bus.

228 Sustainable Parking Management l

l

l

l

Traffic passing by the highway links close to the lot is less likely to have the urban center as their ultimate destination with increasing amounts of local and other traffic movements. Interception rates required to justify bespoke PnP provision need to be higher. The bus journey time element becomes more significant as a proportion of the total journey and less attractive to the car user. Bespoke service operation becomes uneconomic because of the resources required to operate a frequent enough service to attract car users.

Therefore, remote PnR lots rely on modifications of the existing transportation services in order to achieve reasonable frequency. The relative attractiveness of this option to the car user is heavily dependent on the complex relationship between travel time (especially if traveling by “stopping” service), effective frequency, and pricing. 3. Local urban PnR lots—Local urban PnR lots are located usually 1–4 miles (1.6–6.4 km) from the most inner-city areas and are mainly served by local and transit bus and rail express lines. Local urban PnR lots often serve as ridesharing locations and locations for passenger van transportation. Moreover, PnR lots are suitable for bicycle options Experience from the United Kingdom and other European countries indicates that there are consistent tolerance between distances from PnR lots served by bus transportation and urban centers. Even though acceptable distances (and hence acceptable bus travel times) vary depending on the size of a given urban area (TAS, 2002), the experience shows that successful PnR is characterized by the following: l Maximum bus travel length is 5 km l Maximum bus travel time is 15–20 min l Maximum overall PnR travel time (travel time plus average transport waiting time multiplied with 1.51) is 22.5 min, and it is shorter than overall car travel time inclusive of parking search/queue time and time for parking in an urban center Distance traveled by commuters can be higher, so tolerances for PnR travel time can also increase accordingly. 4. Peripheral PnR lots—These are PnR lots located at the fringes of central areas. They are often aimed at providing additional parking capacities in the vicinity of central business district (CBD) borders or at intercepting traffic toward CBD in the last travel stage (Meek et al., 2008). Some equate peripheral PnR lot with the park-and-walk concept (fringe parking) According to manner of use, PnR lots are classified into the following categories: 1. Because perceptions of travel time and waiting time differ.

Mobility management Chapter

10

229

1. PnR facilities intended only for transferring car passengers whose destination is the city center. 2. Shared facilities, such as large shopping malls, business facilities, and stadiums. These facilities can offer their parking capacities for PnR purposes in some periods during the day or under certain conditions. Shared parking lots are a particularly interesting support mechanisms to urban PnR, because these facilities may considerably reduce capital costs of new construction (which is in line with principles of both transportation sustainability and more effective utilization of resources) on the one hand; on the other hand, local commercial and sports centers, factories, or religious facilities may find their own interests in sharing their facilities within PnR projects, i.e., if they decide to share or even invest into extension of their own parking capacities. Their interest lies mainly not only in promoting their own activities but also in generating possible additional revenues in periods when some of the facilities are not working. In rare cases, partner companies contribute to shared and PnR concept and allow their own parking capacities to be shared solely for the purpose of social involvement into the local community. Design of PnR lot elements may differ by many criteria used for PnR planning and implementation or even by the whole program, i.e., network of facilities, such as access to facilities for various categories of potential users (exclusively for owners of large passenger cars or even for all interested users who would use public transit from the given location), parking methods, tariff policies and payment methods, transfer to other transportation modes, pedestrian communications, safety on the site, and design of technological units within terminals. In addition to stimulating and increasing public transit, PnR systems produce numerous positive effects for both urban transit systems and the city in general, as well for PnR users. Positive effects on urban transit system and the city itself: These can be formulated through goals to be achieved with support of PnR (EU, 2005): l

l l l l l l l l

Reduced congestions on access roads and, consequently, more certain travel times Reduced traffic in city centers Reduced travel time and hence reduced travel costs Energy savings Reduced air pollution Improved land use efficiency Improved city center attractiveness Reduced illegal parking in cities Reduces parking in city centers

230 Sustainable Parking Management

10.1.2 Expectations from introduction of PnR system The question whether, and if so, to what degree, PnR systems achieve expected goals is a very complex question. Achievement of desired goals and the effects of introducing PnR facilities largely depend on parking demand and available parking capacities in urban centers, attractiveness of the city center, PnR accessibility, and quality of transportation from PnR facilities to urban centers. In addition to all the above, a regulated parking system in central areas, i.e., application of “push” management measures, is a precondition for positive PnR effects. Due to parking charge and time restrictions together with the trouble of finding a vacant parking space in central areas, drivers are willing to accept alternative options, such as PnR. Furthermore, if one of the main reasons to introduce PnR is to reduce congestions, relevant literature often questions whether this is actually achieved in practice. On the one hand, there is a consensus about the fact that PnR contributes to the quality of city centers, by reducing congestions, improving air quality, and improving accessibility (EU, 2005; Pickett et al., 1996). On the other hand, some authors indicate that PnR lots, as new parking capacities, may even generate new car travel (Atkins, 1998) and thus contribute to higher traffic load in road networks of PnR influential areas. However, the latter happens on the outskirts where customary traffic problems are not so common and easier to solve than in central areas, so in general, the influence of PnR upon the state of traffic networks can be deemed positive. Improved land use efficiency: Over time, PnR induces better land use in urban centers, along existing public transit corridors and influential PnR site areas. As the number of public transit users increases over time due to improved accessibility and travel comfort, new users will appear in the influential areas of public transit lines (at destinations accessible on foot and by bicycles). Moreover, PnR facilities can develop into centers of surrounding neighborhoods and attract various commercial activities. All the above supports smart growth and integrates land use policies with transportation demand management policies (Foote, 2012). Furthermore, users who used to avoid going to central urban areas due to, among other reasons, parking issues will be encouraged with park and ride and will change their habit, thus contributing to the increase urban center attractiveness. Reduction of illegal and legal parking in urban centers is an obvious outcome of reduction in parking demand and needs not further elaboration. Good practice from the United Kingdom (TAS, 2002) underscores that capability of PnR to achieve the above goals is largely defined by its competitive position to other transportation modes available to users. This competitive position is mainly influenced by: l

relation between costs of using PnR and costs of further private car travel and parking in urban centers

Mobility management Chapter

l l l

10

231

availability of parking capacities in urban centers service quality offered by PnR facilities observed advantages and acceptability by potential clients

Therefore, achievement of positive effects for PnR system users is increasingly important. Positive effects on users: There are a number of PnR benefits for users, and these include travel time savings and reduced travel costs. In order to incite users to park their cars and continue their travel by public transit, users need to feel there are considerable advantages when using PnR system in comparison with car travel. These advantages improve quality of life and include the following: Travel time savings (Pickett, 1996): Due to increasing congestions and gridlocks, especially in central urban areas, PnR systems can be time saving for car drivers. PnR concept relieves drivers from day-to-day parking search pain by reducing their overall travel time. In addition, everyday travel can be realized considerably easier and with less stress. Travel time savings in PnR system are achieved by providing fast lanes for mass transit vehicles, giving priority to mass transit at intersections and other elements of traffic regulation, which enable public transit to avoid congestions and gridlocks on the road. Overall PnR travel time including transit waiting times should be shorter than private car travel, which includes parking search and maneuver times. This should be taken care of when selecting locations for PnR lots. Reduction of travel costs: When using public transit, drivers can achieve savings such as lower car mileage and consequently reduced car maintenance and fuel costs. Total PnR travel costs need to be lower than car travel and parking costs, and this has to be taken into account when defining parking tariff systems.

10.1.3 Selecting locations for PnR lots PnR systems are implemented by constructing new lots and/or improving existing parking lots at transit terminals (PnR lot can serve as starting/end stops for transit lines in case there are not any, but it proves justified to introduce them) and/or suitable locations when many transit lines meet. Methods of PnR lot implementation need to be taken into account when selecting parking lot locations to be introduced in the PnR system (Dublin Transportation Office, 2004). If a PnR lot is not located at a transit terminus but rather next to a transit stop, it might happen that existing bus users or PnR users cannot take a seat in the vehicle, especially in peak periods, which may decrease public transit attractiveness for both user groups. Conventional bus-based PnR can be distinguished from rail-based PnR by the approach taken to the parking lot location and use of dedicated or bespoke lines. Unlike rail-based capacities, which typically spread

232 Sustainable Parking Management

over multiple stations, practically, there are virtually no bus-based PnR operations with multiple bus collection points. For example, in Dublin, Ireland, over 97% of bus-based PnR users take bespoke lines that would not exist otherwise (TAS, 2002). Below are criteria typically used to evaluate the suitability of parking lot locations to be included in PnR: l

l

l

l

l

Lot accessibility for vehicles on inlet/outlet roads: Car accessibility should be made as suitable to PnR users as possible; shorter access times and higher comfort should be ensured. Whenever possible, the facility should be located on the right side of the road, in the direction of the urban center. This approach enables easy access to parking with minimal delays. Moreover, it is recommended to enable PnR lot access from main roads, not from side roads. Poor accessibility by car may lead to reduced PnR facility attractiveness. On-foot accessibility: It can be evaluated through distance between public transit stops and the PnR lot in both directions and the quality of pedestrian communication. Several studies concluded that distance to be traveled on foot is a major factor; therefore, it is required to study traffic routes and walkways (EU, 2005). In order to increase facility efficiency, an uninterrupted network of footways should be provided in order to enable good circulation within the PnR facility. Direct uninterrupted access between all parts of the PnR site should be enabled, including external points and points for switching to other transportation modes. Size of a PnR facility should minimize distances traveled on foot, from parking spaces to the points where users switch to another transportation mode. Maximum distance should be 100 m or 2 min walk (EU, 2005). In parallel, adequate space for expected pedestrian flow intensities should be provided and high pedestrian communications service level (EU, 2005). Public transit service quality is evaluated through the number of central area locations accessible without transfer, travel time to central areas, gaps at direct lines to central areas (a precondition for successful PnR is frequent transit service between a PnR site and activity center or trip destination), occupancy (comfort) of mass transit vehicles at PnR sites, fast lanes along mass transit route, possibilities to introduce fast lanes in case there are not any, etc. Parking capacity or probability of finding a vacant parking space at a PnR lot: PnR facilities reach upper efficiency threshold when 85% of the total parking spaces are occupied. Users lose confidence they will always find a vacant parking space if the occupancy is above this level. In addition, finding a vacant parking space will be difficult, so some users will avoid using PnR facility services. Visibility of PnR lot from the access road for user and car safety and visibility of vacant PnR parking spaces from access road: Higher visibility will

Mobility management Chapter

5 4 3 2 1 0

4.19 3.19

11.83%

3.44 2.15

1.74

233

Vehicle accessibility 21.69%

14.62% 28.48%

10

23.39%

On-foot accessibility Transit service quality Parking capacity

Evaluation of criteria

Weights of criteria

FIG. 10.3 Evaluation and weights for criteria.

reduce if the need to inform users about vacant parking spaces is not removed. For this reason, regardless of visibility, vacant PnR parking information should be provided on PnR access roads. It is desirable to use PGI systems to guide users to vacant parking spaces (Chapter 11). Because there are numerous criteria to evaluate suitability of a PnR site location, some of the multicriteria evaluation methods should be used. In order to apply multicriteria evaluation methods, weights for every criterion need to be determined. For example, in Belgrade, Serbia, a survey conducted among transportation experts was used to evaluate weights for each criterion. In this survey, respondents were asked to rank given criteria according to their importance (with 1 being least important to 5 being most important) (Maletic et al., 2009) (Fig. 10.3). Weights applied to criteria are calculated by normalizing their scores, as the share of score evaluated for each criterion in the overall score. For example, for public transit service quality, the weight is calculated as follows: 4:19=ð3:19 + 3:44 + 4:19 + 2:15 + 1:74Þ100% ¼ 28:46%:

10.1.4 PnR tariff system and ticketing Bearing in mind all the above positive effects for cities, cities should contrive ways to gain as many PnR users as possible. In this regard, PnR users (for both bus-based and rail-based PnR) are not always required to pay the full cost of PnR service. PnR systems often require subsidies, just like public transit. For instance, in the United Kingdom, there are only few completely commercial PnR lots (such as Cambridge, York, and Oxford). As much as 83% of PnR lots are subsidized with the majority of operations secured under contracts that require the sponsoring authority to accept commercial risk (TAS, 2002). Gaining PnR users is achieved through suitable location of a PnR lot and suitable tariff system. Tariff system should offer lower PnR costs in comparison with car travel (including parking costs) to users.

234 Sustainable Parking Management

The principal elements considered in the evaluation of potential PnR tariff systems and tariff rates are as follows (TAS, 2002): l l l l l

Ability of users to relate PnR charges to cost of parking in city center Operational efficiency Cost and availability of ticketing equipment Scope for and revenue implications of fraud, theft, and misuse Customer perceptions of service

Overall objectives for any ticketing system should include: l l l

l

Minimizing the delay associated with ticket purchase Providing a simple and easy to understand system Providing the maximum degree of flexibility to allow response to changing market conditions and allow promotional pricing Minimizing the risk of theft or fraudulent travel

There are five payment methods for bus-based PnR. Each of these payment methods enables user to compare PnR service costs with cost of parking in urban centers.

10.1.4.1 On-bus payment for bus service only, car parking free This payment method is possible only when the parking lot in the existing state of parking is free of charge and when there is a bespoke transit line to the lot. In this case, bus driver issues and charges bus tickets. The process of taking cash, giving change, and issuing tickets on a one-person-operated bus in principle takes time with implications on operational efficiency. On the other hand, the parking lot does not require access control, which reduces equipment and staff costs at the PnR lot. Advantages: it is not required to distinguish between PnR users and nonusers; no additional equipment required and payment on a “per person” basis. Disadvantages: theft and misuse during ticket issuing is possible and poor operating efficiency. Free parking at PnR lots is rare in practice, as verified by an overview of PnR system in the United Kingdom from 2004, which indicates that only three out of nine cities offered free parking at PnR lots. In other cities, there were control mechanisms, i.e., parking at PnR lots was priced (Dublin Transportation Office, 2004). 10.1.4.2 On-site payment for bus service only, car parking free Due to on-site payment, it is recommended to install ticket vending machines to enable users to prepurchase tickets before boarding but with the facility to also purchase tickets on the bus if required.

Mobility management Chapter

10

235

Advantages: it is not required to distinguish between PnR users and other users; payment is on a “per person” basis, not on a “per car” basis, with minimum possibility of fraud, theft, or misuse. Disadvantages: additional equipment for transit ticketing is required; operating procedures are slightly more complicated due to transit ticketing machines.

10.1.4.3 On-site payment for both parking and bus service This payment method is implemented in two ways: l

l

Single parking and transit ticket is issued at the entrance into PnR site. Payment on the bus is possible through two types of parking tickets at the lot entrance: regular parking ticket and PnR ticket; the price of PnR tickets should be higher by the bus fare. PnR ticket price could vary depending on the number of car passengers who intend to use mass transit, or in case of a single price, the parking ticket should indicate the number of persons applicable to the transit fare. Separate transit tickets enable misuse by other parking users. Parking tickets are issued at the entrance to the PnR site, while bus tickets are issued by ticket vending machines in the PnR lot. In this case, users get typical parking tickets at the entrance and inserted them into the bus ticket vending machines. The bus ticket vending machine validates the parking ticket, for the number of person who will continue traveling by bus transit and the transit fare is applied per person. Users ride the bus with validated parking tickets and then use the tickets to open the ramp at the PnR lot. Advantages: payment on a “per passenger” basis is possible. Disadvantages: operating procedure is somewhat more complicated, in the first case because there are several types of tickets and in the second case because of ticketing machines.

10.1.4.4 On-site payment for parking only, bus service free This payment method implies that all PnR users take parking tickets at the entrance into the PnR site and use them for bus transit. The same parking ticket is then used to exit the PnR site. Parking tickets need to contain parking time stamp (date and time of entering); when exiting the PnR site, the user inserts the ticket into the machine and validates it to open the exit ramp. Advantages: not required to distinguish between PnR service users and other users. Disadvantages: payment is on a “per car” basis; ticket does not contain information on the number of persons in the car, so it is possible to misuse the ticket on the bus; a single ticket is issued for several persons, requiring them to take the bus transit together.

236 Sustainable Parking Management

10.1.4.5 Pre-paid PnR ticket This payment method implies a single monthly ticket for both public transit and parking. The ticket fare should range somewhere between the monthly transit fare and the sum of parking fare for 22 working days. This should be a preferred payment method because it gains regular users. Advantages: no additional equipment required; payment on a “per person” basis; minimum fraud, theft, and misuse possibilities. Disadvantages: monthly transit and parking ticket procedure is somewhat more complex for users due to the monthly parking and transit ticket procedure. 10.1.5 Levels of PnR user information User information is provided at four levels: 1. Marketing material (printed and digital). The first information level is comprehensive—it should contain all relevant information that could help users decide to use PnR system: advantages of the PnR system, a list of PnR lots in the system, graphic display of PnR lot access by car, information about available public transit lines and gaps serving a particular PnR lot, travel time to the city center, parking regime, tariff system, and payment method. 2. Guiding drivers to PnR lots using standard vertical signage (Fig. 10.4). Since drivers are not capable of receiving too much information when driving, only information about PnR lot name and directions to reach should be shown and possibly information about vacant parking spaces (if the required equipment is in place, i.e., PGI system, Chapter 11)

FIG. 10.4 Example of guiding users to PnR lots

Mobility management Chapter

10

237

In cases when one corridor offers access to several PnR lots, drivers should be informed about PnR lot locations and vacant parking spaces at points where it is possible to decide what parking lot to use. 3. Information boards at the PnR lot with information on parking regime, tariff system, and payment method applicable. 4. Guiding users when walking from the PnR lot to the transit stops and vice versa, including information about mass transit lines. Boards with this type of information should be installed at suitable points, at locations where major pedestrian flows travel to mass transit boarding points and from mass transit unboarding points to the PnR lots and exists from the PnR lot, pedestrian crosswalks (possibly pedestrian bridges or subways), and other main pedestrian surfaces, as well as locations where passengers board/unboard mass transit vehicles. Third information level and main data from the fourth information level for the direction from the PnR lot to all possible transit stations can be presented in a single information board to be installed at a suitable PnR point (Fig. 10.5). For PnR lots of larger capacities, internal PGI systems can be installed at the entrance to the lot to guide users to vacant parking spaces (Chapter 11). When parking lots are introduced into PnR systems, it is required that parking operators monitor and evaluate the effects of the PnR system in order to improve and bring the system as close to central area users as possible. In order to evaluate effects of PnR system, the following should be provided: l l

Monitoring of demand from users who accepted PnR at PnR locations Surveying of users who did not accept the PnR system, i.e., what are their additional requirements in order to start using the PnR system in place

FIG. 10.5 Example of driver guidance to PnR lots.

238 Sustainable Parking Management

In addition to the above, it is required to permanently: l l

Promote the PnR system in place Survey opinions of PnR users about PnR service quality

If the number of PnR users upon its introduction is low, this should not discourage local/city authorities from further PnR system improvements. By their nature, bus-based PnR system is less effective than rail-based transit subsystems. However, each new PnR user is one central city area parking user less, which generates positive effects defined as reasons for PnR introduction, so the effects have to be deemed positive regardless of the number of PnR users.

10.2 Working hour schemes Alternative working hours can be introduced because congestions in peak periods are reduced. Some alternative working-hour schemes are listed below: Flextime implies that employees have a defined time period (of, e.g., 1.5 h) within which they should start working. Working hours end when they have spent a defined number of hours at their jobs. Hereby, instead of having all employees arriving and leaving the worksite at one time, their working hours are distributed within a given period. Compressed week means that employees may work fewer but longer days. For example, instead of the usual 5 work days of 8 work hours, the 40 h work week can be implemented as 4 work days of 10 work hours. Staggered shifts imply working in shifts organized so as to reduce the number of employees arriving and leaving a worksite at one time. This means that a company introduces more shifts (typically three) and that shift start times vary by short time periods (usually half an hour). This measure is similar to the previous measure, but it does not give individual employees as much control over their schedules. Thus, this measure produces similar effects—reduced congestion in peak hours, especially around large business centers. It should be noted that the above measure is not always possible to apply because of the nature of certain professions (VTPI, 2016). Travel for purposes other than work, the times of which are not strictly defined, could be delayed by offering incentives for off-peak travel (e.g., lower parking or road fees in off-peak periods).

10.3 Alternative transportation modes Mobility management favors modes of transportation alternative to cars. If an urban transportation system offers a wider range of transportation subsystems (assortment) for travel to a destination and if using these alternatives may contribute to reduced car use, transportation policies should stimulate all alternative subsystems.

Mobility management Chapter

10

239

Walking: In smaller cities and for shorter travel distances, pedestrian movement should be stimulated by constructing required infrastructure and providing pleasant walking environment. More walking means less parking, to a degree to which car users accept walking as an alternative. Bicycles/motorbikes: The number of bicycles and motorbikes has been increasing over the years. Illustratively, in 27 countries of the European Union (the EU 27), the number of bicycles increased by around 16% in the period between 2002 and 2011. In 2011, there were around 33 million bicycles,2 in the EU 27, which was around 12% of the EU 27 fleet (out of the total number of passenger cars3 and two wheelers). Due to increasing bicycle and motorbike number, providing infrastructure for their movement and parking will stimulate their use and consequently reduce car parking demand. Taxi: Taxi service of a city is a segment of urban transportation system. Introduction of taxi service enlarges available transportation assortment travel options of different quality. If well organized, with adjusted tariffs and even spatial distribution of taxi stations, taxi service contributes to reducing parking demand in key urban areas where parking demand is high (city centers, passenger terminals, etc.). When defining taxi spaces, roles, stations, and tariffs, it should be taken care to incorporate these into urban transportation policy provisions in line with their tasks, conformity, and elasticity. A well-devised and implemented taxi system contributes somewhat to reducing parking demand to a manageable level in some high-demand areas. When traveling by taxi, parking is required neither at the origin (O) nor at the destination (D), except at taxi stops. Share taxi: Some cities around the world defined share taxi transportation in their transportation policies in order to provide wider transportation assortment to all residents. A share taxi is a transportation subsystem used by several persons with different trip origins and destinations and tariff differing according to the distance traveled. Unlike taxi service, share taxi offers lower level of comfort and lower tariffs as well. If share taxi is available, operation of this transportation subsystem reduces parking demand in areas highly attractive to cars, when some passenger categories, even potential private cars users, decide to use share taxi. The impact of share taxi upon parking demand reduction depends on its attractiveness and fares. Carsharing is a car hire model; cars are hired for a short period of time, typically on a per hour basis and are used in a limited area—typically in urban areas. This model is attractive to users who need to use the car occasionally. In order to incite car sharing, users are offered numerous possibilities, such as free2. Motorcycle Industry in Europe (2017). 3. Eurostat (2017).

240 Sustainable Parking Management

of-charge parking in public garages, and shopping mall garages. When in place, this model may considerably contribute to parking demand reductions, because it reduces the desire to own a car, especially for those residents who rarely need to use it. In this regard, cities should stimulate car sharing by offering various incentives to car sharers. Carpooling: Lack of parking capacities in highly attractive urban areas and high public parking tariffs and road congestions compelled car users to find a way how not to give up on the comfort of the car and to use all its advantages. At first on own initiative and later in an organized form, carpooling is arranged as follows: one car is used by two or more users who have a common trip route. Hereby, the number of passengers in the car increases, leading to less cars to be parked on the one hand and on the other hand to reduced parking demand at the destination. This type of travel is particularly characteristics for commuters. To efficiently implement this transportation mode, it is required to: l

l l

Build awareness with the public and change general public opinion: people need to be made aware of this concept and to try it out—which is achieved by carpool marketing and communication. Support pooling of users in shared route sections and travel times. Offer incentives to carpoolers, such as carpool lanes (aka high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes). These lanes may be used only for vehicles carrying more than a specified minimum number of people. As a rule, traffic load in these lanes is much lower, so travel speed is much higher than in other lanes, meaning that in addition to obvious cost savings, carpoolers enjoy time savings as well.

Demand Responsive Transit (aka Demand Responsive Transport or Dial a Ride): Unlike traditional mass transit based on fixed lines and schedules, this system is flexible and adjusted to actual needs of its users. Namely, users book a trip in advance and indicate (provisional) travel time, origin, and destination. Time, route, and stops are defined by matching several requests. This transportation mode is especially attractive in areas with low population densities where providing high-quality mass transit is not possible (not economical) due to insufficient demand. Mass public transit: As the backbone of urban transportation system and primary transportation subsystem, mass transit is the most important alternative mode of urban population transportation. The degree to which it will be seen as an alternative to passenger cars depends on its attractiveness, i.e., routes (minimum walking), offered comfort, and attractive fares. A well-planned, well-implemented, and efficiently managed public transit system may contribute to reducing parking demand in highly attractive areas to the available parking supply. To make it competitive to cars, mass transit needs to offer desired service quality to its current and future users. In this regard, there are a number of activities to motivate users (who have the possibility to choose) to opt for mass transit instead of cars. These activities include the following:

Mobility management Chapter

l

l

l l l

10

241

Improved public transit service quality: higher frequency, speed, and more comfort in mass transit vehicles Improved comfort at mass transit stations: providing overhangs, information required, etc. Reduced transit fares (integrated parking and transit tariff system) User-friendly payment systems Marketing mass transit. Drivers, in general and especially those drivers who did not use mass transit in the past since they started using private cars for travel, have low opinion about public transit service quality. Reasons may be manifold: from their lack of actual knowledge since they do not use mass transit to the long queues of people they sometime see at the bus stations (Beirao and Cabral, 2007). Due to negative perception of car users, in addition to operating improvements, it is required to actively promote mass transit.

Finally, it should be noted that growing parking demand in some urban areas on a daily basis urges car users to find ways not to give up on the quality of car travel and yet to fit into regulated methods and measures. Each newly found method initiated by car users needs to be tested and integrated, if possible, into strategic parking management provisions. Integrated tariff system for all alternative urban transportation modes (for all transportation subsystems) including public parking may contribute to transportation policy and parking strategy implementation. Integrated public transit and parking system is deemed the most efficient instrument for managing mobility (managing modal split). To choose a transportation mode, users compare (direct—out of pocket) travel costs, travel times, and/or service levels of different transportation alternatives. Unless a tariff policy is applied, direct car travel costs (fuel costs) are usually much lower than transit travel costs. By introducing tariff policies such as parking charge, direct car travel costs increase (fuel costs + parking costs + etc.4). Integration of mass transit tariffs and unit prices for public parking creates a possibility to restrain some users from car travel and attract them to mass transit. This reduces parking demand and creates better parking conditions in highly attractive areas.

10.4 Financial incentives for commuters Financial incentives for commuters include several types of incentives that offer financial reward to commuters who use alternative transportation modes: l

Parking cash-out is a financial incentive for work commuters to give up on car travel and use alternative transportation modes. Commuters are given the possibility to get free prepaid transit ticket or to receive money instead

4. Note that users do not perceive these costs in the same way; rather, parking cost has higher influence upon travel behavior than fuel costs (Chapter 8).

242 Sustainable Parking Management

l

l

of free parking, which is good for employees who walk or travel by bicycle to work. Positive effects of this option are reduced car travel and parking demand (Weinberger et al., 2010a, b). For instance, parking cash-out results achieved in eight firms indicate that “the number of solo drivers to work fell by 17% after cashing out. The number of carpoolers increased by 64%, the number of transit riders increased by 50%, and the number who walk or bike to work increased by 39%. Vehicle-miles from commuting to the eight firms fell by 12%” (Shoup, 1997, p. 201). Transit and rideshare benefits are free or discounted transit fares provided to employees (Litman, 2003). A good practice example is the city of Boulder, Colorado, United States; in 1993, the city of Boulder offered free bus transportation for 7500 central city area commuters. The costs were partly subsidized by parking revenues, which resulted in parking demand reduction by 850 parking spaces (Weinberger et al., 2010a, b). Reduced parking subsidies for commuter parking mean that car commuters have to pay for parking by themselves, either in full or partly.

10.5 Road pricing Road pricing implies direct collection of charges from drivers when driving in a certain roadway or area (Litman, 2018a, b). Road pricing introduction motivates users to, when selecting travel time, route, and mode, compare and contrast all advantages of different alternatives to their disadvantages—travel costs. Under these circumstances, a segment of users who value their time highly (have high “time value”) will accept to pay road charges, while others will give up on using the priced network section or car travel in general. Road pricing is introduced for two main goals: to reduce traffic congestion (and accompanying negative effects) and to generate revenue, which is then typically further invested into other mobility management programs. Congestion is reduced through modal split changes (lower car travel share as compared with alternative transportation mode shares) and through better allocation of traffic flows in the roadway network. From the user’s perspective, this policy provides a chance to avoid high costs of recurrent delays and unreliable travel conditions that users currently pay for with their time—by paying with money. Users who accept to pay will in turn get faster, more reliable, and more predictable travel. Of course, not all users will accept to pay, and their number will largely depend on the amount charged (European Conference of Ministers of Transport, and Transport Research Centre, 2007). Economists advocate that road fares should be set so that private costs become equal to social costs, that is, the fare should cover the cost generated by a single vehicle taking the given roadway and participating in congestions. These costs consist of:

Mobility management Chapter

l

l l

10

243

Damage incurred to other users resulting from that travel (longer travel time) Infrastructure losses caused by infrastructure wear Adverse effect upon the environment

There is also an idea to define road prices by monitoring and calculating average monthly time losses. The basic tariff would amount to the value of time losses multiplied with average time value and divided by average vehicle occupancy. There are variations in road pricing: l

l

l

Corridor-based pricing refers to pricing of a particular roadway segment, such as motorways, bridges, or tunnels. It was originally applied to recover infrastructure costs, through a fixed tariff. Nowadays, it is applied also as a mobility management tool, especially when variable pricing schemes are applied: peak and off-peak tolls, known in the United States as “value pricing.” High-occupancy toll (HOT) is introduced when HOV lanes are not sufficiently used (see Section 10.2). HOV is still allowed to use these lanes without charge, but single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) are also allowed to use HOV lanes with a charge. Congestion pricing (aka area/cordon pricing) implies that users pay when their cars enter a particular area of the city. Implementation of congestion pricing has been enabled by the technological progress. The main item of equipment needed is the electronic fee collection (EFC) system, implementable through in-vehicle systems, dedicated short-range communication (DSRC) systems, collection centers, and so on. Tolls can vary based on a fixed schedule during the day (value pricing) or the congestion level (dynamic pricing). To apply the latter (dynamic pricing), it is required to collect real-time data about traffic flow characteristics that are then used to calculate the charge according to a predefined criterion. Thus, calculated charge is further transferred to users. London, the United Kingdom, was the first major European city to implement this policy, aiming to reduce congestion and to improve bus service and distribution of goods. It was evaluated that inner London area was very suitable for congestion charging, considering its limited road capacity and heavy travel demand leading to common congestion, as well as rich assortment and state of alternative transportation modes: taxi, bus, subway services, and so on. Congestion charging was introduced in the inner central area of the city (covering 22 km2) in February 2003. Charging period was from Monday to Friday (excluding public holidays) between 07:00 AM and 6:30 PM. Since its introduction, rates have increased from GBP 5 to GBP 8 in 2005. Some user categories enjoyed 90% discount, namely, area residents, motorcycles, licensed taxis, disabled people, some alternative fuel vehicles, buses, and emergency vehicles. Discount of 15% was granted for weekly, monthly, and annual passes. Payment options were manifold, by

244 Sustainable Parking Management

l

payment machines in the area, retail outlets, Internet, and phones. Video cameras that record license plate numbers of vehicles and compare them to the paid list (Litman, 2011) that was used for enforcement. Fine payment procedure is similar to parking notice charge payment procedure (Section 9.4). Positive effects of implemented policy were reported: The number of vehicles entering the area was reduced by 33%, alternative transportation modes were improved, and traffic congestion decreased by 30% (ECMT and TRC, 2007). Positive effects were reported in other cities that implemented congestion charging as well: in Singapore, Singapore, traffic volume toward the city center decreased by 30%, while in Stockholm, Sweden, traffic on the principal thoroughfares leading into the central area decreased by 22% during morning and afternoon peak periods (ECMT and TRC, 2007). Distance-based pricing is a charge paid by users depending on the distance traveled. Even though this “pay-as-you-drive” method is deemed more efficient in congestion reduction than fix pricing, it is more complicated to apply because it requires additional equipment. Apart from the equipment for collection and control mentioned above, distance-based pricing also requires Global and Vehicle Positioning Systems (GPS and VPS) to calculate the distance driven by the vehicles.

When introducing road pricing, there is a risk that traffic will redirect to roads free of charge, causing congestion elsewhere. Therefore, this strategy should be applied in combination with compatible measures aiming to prevent this effect. Finally, it should be noted that a common obstacle to this policy is that it is often not accepted (more than parking pricing) by politicians and the general public; another obstacle is the expensive capital investment or relatively high operating costs. Methods to overcome the former obstacles are described in Chapter 12.

10.6 Street reclaiming Street reclaiming aims to create “livable streets,” meaning that the focus is on environmental sustainability and that there is tendency to reclaim streets as centers of community life from their dominant car-oriented role (Fotel, 2009). Street reclaiming is a process of increasing social, cultural, recreational, and economic activities on local streets. Street reclaiming programs rely on involving residents and altering their behavior. Street reclaiming assumes that each resident should take responsibility for his/her share in traffic problems by reducing car use and car speed in his/her own and other neighborhood (Litman, 2015). Below are the examples of measures applied under this policy: l

Physical street reclaiming through the following:  Use of different construction materials (e.g., bricks instead of asphalt), installing urban furniture, and holding fairs

Mobility management Chapter

l

10

245

 Application of measure for traffic calming and traffic speed reduction programs: using physical design and other measures to improve safety for all road users alike (drivers, pedestrians, and cyclers), more responsible driving, and potential traffic flow reduction. These measures are typically applied in Australia and Europe and are less common in North America Psychological street reclaiming by educating and engaging residents and visitors in social and recreational activities:  By creating a more pleasant on-street environment; this includes painting the road surface and installation of benches.  Improving quality with more suitable and better street space design and equipment: creating local activity centers on the street and constructing and furnishing of pocket parks, bus shelters, and corner stores  Informing or even obliging (in written or verbally) residents to reduce car use and speed

Reclaiming streets supports virtually all mobility management goals: It leads to higher use of alternative transportation modes, especially for nonmotorized alternatives; it reduces motor traffic volumes, thus reducing the need to extend street and parking capacities, and increases traffic safety through traffic calming and/or speed reduction programs. In addition to all the above, it contributes to creating communities appealing for living. The social component gains importance. Reclaimed streets are potential social interaction points and places where residents meet their neighbors and hold celebrations, art exhibitions, flower gardens, etc.

10.7 Accessibility management: Moving traffic regimes and parking There is a strong functional relationship between moving traffic regime and parking enforcement. On the one hand, moving traffic regime can manage parking demand, and on the other hand, prescribed moving traffic regime ensures accessible parking spaces and affects their efficiency. Functional parking components in return affect the size of the traffic flow, which is the reason why spatial and operational parking arrangement is the key to regulate moving traffic. HOV lanes (lanes reserved exclusively for HOV, often only for mass transit): In streets and roads with several lanes for one direction, one lane, most typically curb lane, is reserved for HOV in order to increase the speed of mass transit vehicles (and/or other HOV). This regulatory intervention contributes to reduced car use and consequently to reduced parking demand, due to improvements in transit and/or carpooling. At the same time, it compromises on-street parking on that side of the regulated street. On-street parking is not possible, and access to parking lots created by regulated street extension would compromise vehicles in HOV lanes.

246 Sustainable Parking Management

Disincentive moving traffic regimes: In parts of a city where parking demand is higher due to many objective reasons, it is not possible to satisfy all the demand. One of the ways to reduce parking demand in attractive urban areas is to apply regimes that are disincentive to moving traffic. Moving traffic enforcement and management along roads that run to highly attractive urban areas and regulatory measures may restrain car accessibility through higher travel times. Longer travel routes to final destinations, unnaturally developed networks and routes toward urban centers, barriers to reduce inflow road capacities, etc., discourage car users from traveling by car to highly attractive areas, which reduces ends of travel to urban centers at least partly and, consequently, their parking demand.

10.8 Marketing programs The American Marketing Association (AMA) defines marketing as “the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large” (approved on July 2013).5 Marketing is also defined as a process that “involves determining consumer needs and preferences, creating appropriate products, providing useful information about products to consumers, and promoting their use” (Litman, 2018a, b). Since public knowledge and attitudes have a major impact on travel behavior, marketing is an important element of mobility management. Marketing may considerably increase the use of alternative transportation modes and reduce car travel, even though its effects can be limited. Precondition for positive marketing effects is the alternative transportation quality; otherwise, marketing programs could be even counterproductive. Below are some of marketing activities applied for mobility management: l

l

l

l l

l

Market research, i.e., surveying the knowledge and opinion of the existing and potential users about alternative transportation modes; this is achieved by surveys and market analyses Market segmentation and identification of those segments (user groups) who are most willing to change their behavior (to adopt more sustainable behavior) and incite them to do so by conveying targeted messages Educate local authorities and employers about mobility management measure they can apply Promote benefits of alternative transportation modes Local authorities should communicate alternative modes of transportation to a destination to users Train the disabled to use mass transit

5. AMA (2018).

Mobility management Chapter

l

10

247

Organize competitions between individuals, companies, or areas in reaching goals for travel mode changes

In order to ensure permanent support and incentives, implementation of mobility management marketing programs should be a ceaseless process.

Exam questions 1. Mobility management: definition and main characteristics. 2. Explain the relationship between mobility management (also called transportation demand management—TDM) and parking management. 3. Enumerate mobility management policies and systematize them according to possibilities for improvement of transportation options, incentives to reduce driving, land use management, and program and policy reforms. 4. Explain park-and-ride policy in terms of its application for solving parking problems in central urban areas or highly attractive urban areas. 5. Enumerate typical classification of PnR facilities. Explain local PnR lots in particular. 6. Explain expected effects of PnR system introduction, for the city and for users. 7. What criteria are typically used to evaluate PnR suitability of a parking lot location? Explain each criterion separately. 8. What elements are most important to consider when evaluating possible tariff systems and setting the PnR price? 9. Explain known payment methods in a bus-based PnR. 10. How are existing PnR systems used to provide information to PnR users? 11. Explain working-hour schemes. 12. Explain alternative transportation modes. 13. Explain the policy of financial incentives for commuters. 14. Explain street reclaiming. 15. Explain accessibility management. 16. Explain the relation between moving traffic and parking. 17. What sustainability aspects can be influenced by marketing programs? Enumerate marketing activities applicable in mobility management.

References Atkins, W.S., 1998. The Travel Effects of Park & Ride. (Report for the DETR). Beirao, G., Cabral, J.A., 2007. Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study. Transp. Policy 14, 478–489. Dublin Transportation Office, 2004. Rail park & ride strategy for the greater Dublin area. European Conference of Ministers of Transport, & Transport Research Centre, 2007. Managing urban traffic congestion. (Organization for Economic). European Union, 2005. Parking policies and the effects on economy and mobility. In: Technical Committee on Transport, Report on COST Action 342.

248 Sustainable Parking Management Foote, P., 2012. Policy goals and recommendations for park-and-ride system. Fotel, T., 2009. Marginalized or empowered? Street reclaiming strategies and the situated politics of children’s mobilities. Geogr. Compass 3 (3), 1267–1280. Litman, T., 2003. In: Mobility Management.Module 2b (Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook for Policy-Makers in Developing Cities). (GTZ Transport and Mobility Group). Litman T. (2011). London Congestion Pricing: Implications for Other Cities. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. https://www.vtpi.org/london.pdf Access: 03.08.2018. Litman, T. (2015). Street Reclaiming: Encouraging Community Interaction on Neighborhood Streets. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. https://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm30.htm Access: 13.06.2018. Litman, T. (2018a) TDM Marketing: Information and Encouragement Programs. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. https://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm23.htm Access: 17.08.2018. Litman, T. (2018b). Road Pricing: Congestion Pricing, Value Pricing, Toll Roads and HOT Lanes. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm35.htm Access: 17.08.2018. Maletic, G., Simicevic, J., Milosavljevic, N., 2009. Assessment of suitability of existing locations for inclusion into park and ride system. Tehnika 56 (3), 17–23. Meek, S., Ison, S.G., Enoch, M.P., 2008. Park and ride: lessons from the UK experience. In: Transportation Research Board 87th Annual Meeting, USA: Washington, DC. Pickett, M.W., Gray, S.M., 1996. The Effectiveness of Bus-Based Park and Ride. Transport Research Laboratory, London. Shoup, D.C., 1997. Evaluating the Effects of Cashing out Employer-Paid Parking: Eight Case Studies. University of California Transportation Center, Berkeley. Spillar, R., 1997. Park-and-Ride Planning and Design Guidelines. William Barclay Parsons Fellowship, Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc. TAS, 2002. Bus based park & Ride—a Pilot Scheme. A report to: Dublin Transportation Office. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2016. Alternative work schedules, flextime, compressed work week, staggered shifts. TDM encyclopedia; https://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm15.htm Access: 13.06.2018. Weinberger, R., Kaehny, J., Rufo, M., 2010a. U.S. Parking Policies: An Overview of Management Strategies. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, New York.

Web References American Marketing Association, 2018. https://www.ama.org/AboutAMA/Pages/Definition-ofMarketing.aspx Access: 26.06.2018. Eurostat (2017). Passenger cars in the EU. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index. php/Passenger_cars_in_the_EU Access: 05.11.2017. Motorcycle Industry in Europe (2017). Registrations and deliveries: circulating park Production Top 10 models. Statistical overview. https://www.svmc.se/smc_filer/SMC%20centralt/Statistik% 202013/MC%20och%20mopedstatistik%20EU.pdf Access: 05.11.2017.

Further Reading Rye, T., 2010. Parking Management: A Contribution Towards Liveable Cities, Module 2c (Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook for Policy-Makers in Developing Cities). Eschborn, Germany.

Chapter 11

Parking guidance and information system Abstract Imbalance between parking supply and demand is reflected, among others, in long parking search time. For drivers, cruising for parking represents additional time and money spent (costs). In addition, cruising for parking increases traffic volumes and contributes to traffic congestions and air and noise pollution. In this chapter, we present the possibilities of using modern information technology to solve or mitigate this problem. More specifically, we present the parking guidance and information (PGI) system, which provides real-time information on vacant parking spaces and guides drivers thereto. We present a typical PGI system architecture, criteria for its introduction, and expected/realized impacts. Keywords: PGI system; PGI system architecture; Monitoring equipment; Control room; Communications; Information display equipment; Criteria for PGI system introduction; PGI system impacts

As explained in more detail in previous chapters, a constant mismatch between transportation demand and capacities (reflected through traffic congestions and high level of illegal parking) created the need for transportation management. The goal of transportation management is to utilize capacities of the existing infrastructure as rationally and efficiently as possible in order to ensure quality supply of transportation demand. This goal is even more important bearing in mind that road networks in developed countries mostly reached their “final form” (configuration and capacity). This means that new construction, as a road capacity improvement measure, cannot be relied upon to rationally address the growing transportation demand. In earlier transportation management systems, most typically, management decisions were based on historical data. Development of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and their integration into traffic management helped address the constant need for real-time decision-making, which stems from the nature of the traffic flow. The essence of ITS is captured in several different definitions and explanations from the relevant literature (Vukanovic, 2010): Sustainable Parking Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815800-5.00011-2 © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

249

250 Sustainable Parking Management

1. Intelligent transportation systems imply any system or service that provides more efficient and rational movement of people and goods. 2. Intelligent transportation systems involve application of new technologies in order to reduce congestions, achieve material savings, improve safety, and reduce environmental implications of all transportation modes. These systems consist of many physical components, such as various types of sensors, cameras, and signalization elements, and their operation is supported with various management and telecommunication technologies, the main function of which is to provide operating management and control over transportation systems. 3. Intelligent transportation systems enable transportation systems to operate more efficiently and more rationally. ITS integrate users at various levels, transportation systems, or different countries and vehicles using communication technologies for real-time information transfer. 4. Intelligent information systems entail information and communication technology for traffic and transportation data collection, processing, and followup in the form of managing, informing, and guiding the users (Hoogendoorn and Van Lint, 2010). Integration of ITS and transportation management enables intelligent decisionmaking and implementation and enables more efficient and safer transportation and better utilization of existing capacities. Nowadays, the following ITSintegrated transportation management subsystems are most typically used for urban street and road networks (Vukanovic, 2010): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Traffic actuated or adaptive control Rerouting of traffic flows in the network Congestion management Ramp metering Dynamic lane and link control, tidal flow Speed control Systems for providing referent user pretrip and on-trip information aimed at travel planning and travel plan adjustments, etc.

Travel decision-making process (selection of route, parking lot, etc.) is based primarily on user habits and knowledge. However, users are often insufficiently aware of the traffic network or aware only of a smaller number of possible alternatives. Some studies indicate that users are on average aware of 2–4 (maximum 6) alternative options (Hoogendoorn and Van Lint, 2010). In addition, traffic conditions are by their nature uncertain: They considerably deviate from the usual traffic state on a day-to-day basis, and nonrecurrent congestions arise frequently. Due to all the above, there is a need to gather actual and reliable information in order to support the decision-making processes. ITS development or more specifically its subsystem, advanced traveler information system (ATIS), provides such information. ATIS is one of the very important ITS elements that is being intensively developed and studied in many research centers worldwide. Its main goal is

Parking guidance and information system Chapter

11

251

to provide drivers (users) with real-time information about the state of traffic on the road, expected delays due to traffic accidents, works on the road, directions of through traffic, availability of vacant parking spaces, etc., so as to provide more information to users when making travel decisions (Hoogendoorn and Van Lint, 2010; Lakshmanan and Anderson, 2001; Teodorovic et al., 1998). Hence, the following are driver benefits from ATIS: l l l

More or better knowledge about the current situation Less uncertainty about expected traffic conditions during travel Better decision-making efficiency

ATIS is beneficial not only for drivers but also for local transportation management authority, because ATIS implementation: l

l l

Improves operation of the existing infrastructure and reduces the number and duration of congestions Reduces environmental implications Improves transportation system and network reliability

ATIS is also applied in parking, through parking guidance and information system (PGI system) application, which provides information about vacant parking spaces and guides users thereto. Expected impacts of PGI system introduction include more efficient utilization of overall parking supply and reduction of parking search time and queue time in front of parking lots and garages. Reductions in the number of vehicles parked on street and reduction of parking cruising are expected to contribute to traffic smoothing and environmental improvements. Easier parking in urban centers may increase user satisfaction, so users will visit urban centers more frequently (in off-peak periods), thus contributing to central area vitalization.

11.1 Introduction into PGI systems Cruising for parking is caused by the mismatch between parking demand and supply. In some cases, this mismatch is due to an overall shortfall of parking supply relative to parking demand and can be effectively solved only by increasing the supply (short term) or by managing parking (transportation) demand. However, in other cases, the mismatch is more spatially and temporally specific; it is due to the fact that parking capacities are utilized unevenly, spatially, and temporally (or with regard to parking type) (Axhausen et al., 1993; Peng, 2008). This means that some parking lots are maximally utilized for longer time periods during the day and there are queues at their entry point, while other parking lots in the same area (that could be located in the vicinity of attractive parking lots) remain underutilized. On the other hand, some parking lots are fully utilized in some time periods and underutilized in others. The reasons behind this are that drivers are typically unaware of all available alternatives (subjective alternative set to select from is smaller than objective alternative set) and/or occupancy levels of alternative parking lots. This is

252 Sustainable Parking Management

why information on alternative parking lots and their current occupancies may influence driver’s decisions about travel times and parking lots to use. Providing this kind of information to users is enabled through ATIS, i.e., PGI system application. The first PGI system was installed in the German city of Aachen, Germany, in the early 1970s. By the mid-1990s, it was estimated that there are around 100 of these systems in place worldwide, primarily in Europe and Japan. In recent years, PGI systems have been widely used. PGI systems inform drivers about the state of parking in technically equipped and monitored areas or parking lots/garages in real time and guide users to vacant parking spaces. PGI systems are typically designed for central and other highly attractive areas with several parking lots available. In addition, this technology can be tailored for intensive application and improvements in park-and-ride systems when corresponding information solutions for mass transit are integrated (the so-called TIS). Hereby, users are informed, and quality of park-and-ride service is improved, which leads to better utilization of alternative transportation modes and consequently to sustainable transportation system development. Since recently, PGI systems are being applied to guide users to on-street parking, which will be elaborated in more detail in Section 11.6. PGI systems use variable message signs (hereinafter, VMSs) and other communication tools (Internet, GPRS, and radio links) to inform drivers in real time about parking occupancy at each parking site (lot) in the system. These systems can be internal or external. External PGI systems (Fig. 11.1) are used to guide users to parking facilities with vacant parking spaces, while

FIG. 11.1 Example of VMS in external PGI system.

Parking guidance and information system Chapter

11

253

FIG. 11.2 Examples of VMS in internal PGI systems.

internal PGI systems (Fig. 11.2) guide drivers from the parking lot entrance to the closest vacant parking space. Internal PGI systems are applied because traffic congestions and delay occur not only in urban streets but also in parking lots (Peng, 2008). Internal PGI systems are often introduced in private parking lots (e.g., shopping centers), in order to increase user satisfaction.

11.2 PGI system architecture Basic operating principles of any ITS, including any PGI system, consist of collecting relevant transportation system data, processing of collected data, and further information distribution. Users or transportation management authority then acts upon this information, which produces changes in the state of the transportation system (Fig. 11.3) (Ho, 2008).

FIG. 11.3 ITS information change.

254 Sustainable Parking Management

FIG. 11.4 Basic PGI system scheme.

In order to enable parking occupancy information generation and distribution, a most basic PGI system needs to consist of four major elements (Fig. 11.4) (DfT, 2003): monitoring equipment, control room, communication technologies, and information display equipment.

11.2.1 Monitoring equipment To produce parking occupancy, information requires, first of all, parking monitoring equipment. For this purpose, older systems used ramps intended primarily for parking charge. A ramp system that consists of entry ramp, ticketing mechanism, sensors, ticket validation mechanism, and exit ramp (Spencer, 1991) successfully separates and enumerates entering and exiting vehicles. For this purpose, newer systems use various types of sensors (most commonly inductive loops), installed at the parking lot entrance and exit points (Fig. 11.5, left). In addition to the above, presence sensors can be applied; these sensors are installed in each single parking space to detect occupancy (Fig. 11.5, right). This

Parking guidance and information system Chapter

11

255

FIG. 11.5 Examples of parking sensor installation positions.

method of parking lot monitoring implies higher installation and maintenance costs, but it is more suitable because it enables internal PGI systems to be introduced.

11.2.2 Control room Communication systems transfer monitoring equipment data to the control room, which is typically a standard computer. Control room processes sensor data and supervises and corrects counting errors, if any. In the first parking monitoring case (sensors installed at the entrance and at the exit), data are processed by deducting one vacant parking space for each incoming vehicle from the total number of parking spaces excluding reserved parking spaces and by adding one vacant parking space with each exiting vehicle. In the second case (sensors for each single parking space), all occupied parking spaces are deducted from the total number of unreserved parking spaces. The output is the number of vacant parking spaces in the lot, and this information has to be constantly updated (in very short time intervals). If a parking lot operates locally, information is displayed from the control room (again via communication technologies) to drivers using appropriate equipment. Otherwise, information is first sent to the data processing center that collects information from all parking lots in the area and then distributed therefrom (Spencer, 1991).

11.2.3 Communications As mentioned above, communication technologies are required to transfer data from occupancy sensors to the control room and to transfer information from the control room to VMSs. PGI systems do not typically require large data transfers; therefore, there are numerous options suitable for application. Basically, two main types of information carriers are used: cables or air (wireless transfers) as communication medium. Customarily, four types of data transfer cables are used: conventional cables, twisted pairs of cables, coaxial cables, and fiber optic cables. Wireless data transfer technologies include radio, microwave, satellite, and laser technologies.

256 Sustainable Parking Management

11.2.4 Information display equipment Various types of equipment are used to inform drivers, but PGI systems primarily use VMS. From the time when drivers enter a central area and see the first VMS until they reach a parking lot, drivers should see VMSs that are generally of the same form, design, and color. A combination of dynamic and static signs should convey the message about the location (direction) and parking occupancy. Dynamic signs provide real-time information about vacant parking spaces, while static signs help drivers find parking lots. Signage should make drivers realize in due time that they are reaching a point of decision, but still, drivers should not be burdened with too many signs so as not to lose the desired information (Spencer, 1991). In addition to VMS, other media have been increasingly used lately, e.g., mobile phones, tablets, iPads, in-car navigation devices, and Internet. Some of these devices can transfer the message pretrip. When message transfer to drivers is possible via different tools, it has to be taken care if those messages on all devices are consistent, because otherwise credibility of the PGI system would be compromised (McDonald and Chatterjee, 2000). In addition to providing information to users, information received can be archived in statistical database and used for permanent monitoring and corrective parking management measures when required.

11.2.5 Other In addition to the above basic elements, a PGI system may additionally include the following: l l

l

l

Cameras to monitor traffic situation in access streets Devices for electronic collection using electronic, inductive, or magnetic technologies or smart card technologies Electronic parking meters that are used for on-street parking enforcement, parking payment, and checking of availability Other data sources (see Section 11.6)

Drivers who use displayed information are the last link in the information ITS chain. However, messages from PGI systems are informative, not binding in nature, so user acceptance and response is fully voluntary, which is why it is uncertain to what extent the message will be used and how efficient the PGI system will be.

11.3 User response to PGI system information Whether information is received pretrip (at home) or on trip (in the vehicle) determines the trip planning level that the information can influence.

Parking guidance and information system Chapter

11

257

Information received pretrip may support decision-making at a strategic level, by affecting the following aspects of the trip: 1. Travel time: Pretrip information about high occupancy and/or growing trends of parking occupancy may make users postpone their planned trip until there are vacant parking spaces in the desired parking lot or in the destination area in general. 2. Travel destination: If users know that it would be difficult to find a vacant parking space, they might decide to change the planned destination. This usually means that instead of central area facilities, users will visit similar facilities on the outskirts of the city. 3. Selecting transportation mode can also be influenced by PGI system messages: Information on high parking occupancy may lead users to take public transit or another more sustainable transportation mode instead of cars. 4. Number of trips: If users are aware or know that there are no vacant parking spaces available, they may decide to fully give up on the planned trip. On the other hand, since PGI systems decrease uncertainty and improve car travel convenience, users could also be encouraged to use their cars and visit urban centers more frequently. If the information is received on trip, it may support decision-making on a tactical level, such as the following: 1. Information about central area parking occupancy and PnR site occupancy may influence drivers to switch to another transportation mode and continue their travel with public transit. 2. Finally, the information received may cause drivers to change the selected parking lot and consequently change the route, which is anyway considered to be the main task of PGI systems. Time and location of information display is negatively correlated to the freedom of choice; as time passes by, the objective set of alternatives (to select from) decreases more and more. That is why drivers who use PGI system before the trip may benefit more than others who use it solely on trip, as confirmed by a survey in Nottingham (Axhausen, et al., 1993).

11.4 Preconditions for quality PGI system operation Effects of PGI systems depend on the following: 1. Parking occupancy 2. Information characteristics 3. Travel and user characteristics

11.4.1 Parking occupancy Parking supply and demand need to be nearly matched.

258 Sustainable Parking Management

The more difficult it is to find a vacant parking space, the higher the benefits of PGI systems are. However, when parking demand is markedly higher than parking supply, PGI system will not lead to major benefits because almost the whole time, vehicles will be given information that there are no vacant parking spaces available. On the other hand, if parking demand is much lower than parking supply, benefits of PGI systems will also be low because a vacant parking space is easy to find even without the support of PGI system. Efficiency of PGI systems does depend solely not only on off-street parking demand and supply but also on the state of on-street parking. Namely, if users are not able to find vacant parking spaces in desired off-street parking lots, they will rather park on street than travel to another off-street parking lot (Peng, 2008). Based on all the above, it can be concluded that PGI system benefits can be maximized when off-street parking demand and supply almost match while onstreet parking occupancy is high.

11.4.2 Information characteristics Information describing transportation system may differ in many aspects, such as the contents of information, information quality, time and place of information display, and temporal aspects.

11.4.2.1 Contents of information Complete information contains all relevant expressions, principally data of prime relevance for decision-making. In view of the objectives of user information and guiding, users have to be provided with information on parking occupancy. In addition, technological and technical development enabled a wide range of additional information to be displayed in real time, which is the reason why lately extensive research is aimed at establishing user needs and what information should be contained additionally. Even though drivers are heterogeneous population and their additional information requirements depend on trip characteristics (purpose, frequency, trip duration, and parking), waymarks and parking prices in parking lots are seen as the most frequent requirement from their side. Moreover, it has been proved (Ling et al., 2004) that once a PGI system is introduced, types of information required by users alter to a certain extent, which demonstrates that the link between providing information to drivers and their requirements for additional information is dynamic and manifold and needs to be periodically surveyed. Yet, the number of items of information to be displayed to users via VMS should be limited, due to short time to notice the information and small possibilities to perceive them. On the other hand, information received pretrip (e.g., via Internet) can contain more details and cover all user requirements and wishes.

Parking guidance and information system Chapter

11

259

FIG. 11.6 Real-time parking occupancy information and occupancy trend forecasts.

In Internet presentations, it is customary to graphically display the map of a city with all the parking lots in the PGI system area and the number of vacant parking spaces in these lots, i.e., parking occupancy and occupancy trends. In addition, it is possible to zoom in and move the map so as to define the exact location of a parking lot. By clicking on the desired parking lot, more parking lot information is provided, such as working hours and rates, and sometimes even parking occupancy forecasts in a desired moment or parking occupancy trends (Fig. 11.6). Similar additional information could be provided via in-car navigation devices, namely, parking lot address and working hours and parking rate and possibly a photo of the access road. If the user is not familiar with the location, route guidance option is available. In addition to the contents of information, it is also important that the message is understandable so as to prevent different interpretations. For this reason, the style of the message should not include ambiguous and insufficiently clear expressions and terms, i.e., standard terms and pictographs should be used.

11.4.2.2 Quality of information Information quality parameters are up-to-dateness and accuracy. The essence of information up-to-dateness is to reduce the time between the event and the time when the corresponding information is disclosed. In cases of PGI systems, up-to-dateness is in function of various delays between data collection using monitoring equipment and information display. Delays include time required to process and update the data in the control room and delays in telecommunications. Accuracy is the most important information characteristic. The more accurate the information, the higher the probability that users will agree and act upon it. To be able to assess information accuracy, users need to use information at least once (or they can possibly judge the information accuracy based on somebody else’s experience). When users act upon the information displayed, their confidence in the information is reinforced.

260 Sustainable Parking Management

Accuracy of PGI system information depends on the accuracy of input data (and consequently on the detection method and equipment age and type) and on the distance between VMS and parking lots included. In case parking occupancy is high, users can be guided to a fully occupied parking lot despite being informed about the availability of vacant parking spaces. This issue could be solved by forecasting future parking lot status and displaying the expected status within average driving time from VMS to the parking lot.

11.4.2.3 Time and place of information display Time and place of information display determines its usability. If a VMS is installed too early, this may reduce accuracy of information transferred, while a VMS installed rather late (e.g., at the very entrance into the parking lot) disenables timely provision of information and thus timely decision-making. Hence, it is important to install VMSs at decision-making point in the network. 11.4.2.4 Temporal information aspect Temporal information aspects relate to the time frame on which the information is based. In this regard, parking state information can be as follows: 1. Historical, i.e., resulting from historical data on the state of parking 2. Real time, showing the current parking status 3. Forecasted, meaning that it refers to expected state of parking in some future period. This type of information is generated by various computer forecast algorithms, which use historical and real-time data

11.4.2.5 Other Other information characteristics typically refer to whether the information is collective or individual. All users passing by a VMS are able to see VMS information and make better decision, so this information is deemed collective. On the contrary, not all users have smartphones, Internet access, or in-car navigation systems, so information from these devices is considered individual information. 11.4.3 User and trip characteristics Numerous studies dealt with dependency between using PGI system messages and socioeconomic user characteristics and trip characteristics. These studies employed regression analyses to determine the importance and trends of certain characteristics to user response. Surveys (Ling et al., 2004) showed that users who value their time highly (able-bodied with high income rates) use PGI systems more often because they believe “searching for parking is a waste of time.” Users who are well aware of the local parking situation (who travel frequently to an area or live in area’s vicinity) seldom use PGI system, because they believe they can find a vacant parking space without PGI support.

Parking guidance and information system Chapter

11

261

Possibility of the user to alter trip purpose and/or time in response to PGI system information depends on the trip purpose. Hence, this reaction is expected when trip purpose is shopping and leisure and recreation—as these purposes are not strictly related to a specific time and area of realization—while this is less likely for users who travel for work and business purposes, as confirmed by data from Frankfurt, Germany, where PGI systems are mostly used by users who travel for shopping purposes, while users who travel for business purposes mainly rely to their knowledge and expectations (Axhausen et al., 1993). Positive effects of PGI systems will be higher if more users use the system.

11.5 Effects of PGI system implementation Expected effects from PGI system introduction include the following1: l l l l l

More efficient parking capacity utilization Traffic smoothing Environmental improvements Improved user satisfaction Revitalization of the given area

Below are the examples of all the above listed benefits illustrated with experience of mostly European and Japanese cities (KonSult, n.d.; McDonald and Chatterjee, 2000; Clausen, 2007; JICE, 2002). Quantification of these effects is the result of extensive research conducted under the same methodology before and after PGI system introduction. However, the below values should be taken with care because there are numerous local factors involved.

11.5.1 Improved parking lot efficiency and utilization Improved parking lot efficiency and utilization is reflected in spatial redistribution of parking and reduced queuing times at entrances to parking lots.

11.5.1.1 Spatial redistribution of parking PGI system implementation leads to a more evenly distributed utilization of offstreet parking capacities and contributes to better spatial parking management (Ling et al., 2004). Improved utilization of existing parking capacities decreases the need to construct new parking capacities. The Japanese city of Toyota determined that utilization of an attractive parking lot, Shin-Toyota, reduced from 130% to 111%. The decrease was the result of gradual, staged introduction of various information distribution devices: VMS, Internet, and mobile phones. Occupancy reduction is assumed to result from better utilization of less attractive parking garages in the influential area. 1. KonSult (n.d.).

262 Sustainable Parking Management

11.5.1.2 Reduced queuing times in front of parking lots Vehicles queuing in front of a parking lot are actually the additional parking demand. More evenly distributed utilization of parking lots reduced the number of queuing vehicles and queuing times. The above was verified in Toyota, Japan, where queuing time reduced by as much as 27 min: from 43 to 16 min, i.e., by 63%. As in the previous case, each new type of information distribution equipment additionally reduced the queuing time. Additionally, the number of cars queuing in Utsunomiya, Japan, decreased by 74%. 11.5.2 Traffic smoothing Numerous factors should lead to traffic smoothing.

11.5.2.1 Decrease of parking search time Guiding users directly to a parking lot with vacant parking spaces reduces cruising time and hence the overall travel time. A survey in Southampton, the United Kingdom, determined that the cruising time reduced on average by 50%, from 2.2 to 1.1 min. In Toyota, Japan, average time required for parking from the moment the vehicle reaches the central urban area until the moment it parks reduced from 12 to 6 min. The number of vehicle kilometers for vehicles using the central urban area parking lots reduced by 47% (from 115.7 to 61.2 km per day). In Aalborg, Denmark, average trip length from entering the central urban area until the trip destination reduced by 115 m, resulting in reduction of overall vehicle kilometers per day by 930. 11.5.2.2 Reduction of illegal on-street parking Better utilization of off-street parking lots may lead to lower on-street parking demand. It is desirable that parking accumulation distribution per parking type changes in favor of off-street parking, because this leads to improved quality and safety of other transportation subsystems. A survey conducted in Sapporo, Japan, showed that the large number of illegally parked cars reduced upon PGI system introduction by as much as 25% on weekdays and by 50% on weekends and holidays. 11.5.2.3 Mitigation of traffic congestions As elaborated in Section 8.1.1, vehicles cruising for parking increase traffic volume; it is believed that this reduction amounts to 30% on average (Shoup, 2006). In addition, (illegally) parked vehicles in street sections reduce roadway capacity. All the above leads to the decrease of the level of service in the transportation network and contributes consequently to traffic congestions.

Parking guidance and information system Chapter

11

263

As stated above, PGI systems influence both above parameters: They reduce parking search time and the number of vehicles parked on street, so positive effects upon traffic congestion are to be expected.

11.5.2.4 Improved safety There is no evidence of PGI system benefits to safety, but it is assumed there is a positive effect due to reduced on-street parking volume, travel time, and driver frustration. 11.5.3 Environmental improvements Reduced travel time and reduced number and level of traffic congestions decrease fuel consumption and consequently air pollution levels and smog levels and improve environment quality in general. Environmental implications of PGI systems are typically evaluated through reduced CO2 and NOx emission levels. In Toyota, Japan, levels of CO2 decreased from 35.2 to 18.5 g and level of NOx from 121.0 to 63.5 (kg-c). The survey in Southampton, the United Kingdom, was based on the difference in parking search times and off-street queuing times “before and after” PGI system implementation and other information such as relation of car speed to exhaust emissions. It was established that peak time fuel consumption and exhaust emissions decreased by 6% and 5% for travel lengths of 10 and 3 km, respectively.

11.5.4 Increased user satisfaction 11.5.4.1 Benefits for users From user’s perspective, one of the parameters of parking quality, and according to some research, the most important one is the parking search time (see Section 3.3). Hence, reduced parking search time increases user benefits and consequently user satisfaction with parking subsystem and their confidence in parking management authorities. However, since parking search time perception is subjective and each user experiences it differently, to evaluate this criterion, it is not sufficient to evaluate only the realized travel time savings achieved but “perceived” savings as well. Perceived savings are assessed by applying dependent survey methods (user surveys) when the respondent answers the following questions: “Did travel time/parking search time decrease after PGI system was introduced?” and if so, “By what time?” A survey conducted in Okayama, Japan, showed that more than 90% of PGI system users reported reduced parking search time and reduced queuing time at the entrance to the parking lots, whereby their frustrations were eliminated. To evaluate the level of recognized benefits, some authors ( JICE, 2002) recommend to determine the price that users are willing to pay to get the information. The higher the price, the higher the recognized benefit.

264 Sustainable Parking Management

11.5.4.2 Utility and intention to use Once a PGI system is introduced, it is customary to nominate a body to collect data on percentages of drivers who use the information provided, i.e., data on the system utilization level. Experience shows that this number increases as various types of information distribution equipment are introduced. Intentions to use a PGI system in the future depend on the present user experience, and it is determined through user surveys. Illustratively, a survey conducted 6 months after PGI system was introduced in Leeds, the United Kingdom, established that around 70% of drivers were aware of this system, while one of six drivers had used it at least once (Smith and Phillips, 1993).

11.5.5 Regional revitalization Poor parking state in central areas motivates drivers to change their destinations, but central areas hereby lose their competitiveness to peripheral areas. However, introduction of PGI systems facilitates parking search, which may encourage users to visit urban centers more frequently, thus revitalizing the specific area. Below are several good practice examples of PGI system introduction into a central area, at an airport parking lot, and at park-and-ride sites (Examples 11.1–11.4).

EXAMPLE 11.1 Frankfurt am Main, Germany (Axhausen et al., 1994). The City of Frankfurt, Germany, introduced PGI system into the central urban area in the early 1990s with a view to reduce parking search time and on-street parking demand and improve off-street parking utilization. The central urban area consisted of around 1900 on-street parking spaces, with 800 additionally used illegally. Moreover, in public off-street facilities, there were about 8800 spaces and about 8000 private spaces. PGI system applied was hierarchical: first, it led users to one of the five subareas and then to a parking lot in the selected subarea. Forecasted information about the number of parking spaces in subareas and in parking lots at the time of arrival was displayed to users. “Before and after” surveys, consisting of independent and dependent survey methods, showed that around 80% of users were aware of this system, but only a small number (especially on-street users) did really use the information available. The users were not willing to completely rely upon the PGI system; rather, they used the system to supplement their knowledge and to improve their assessment of the traffic situation. Still, even a relatively small number of users lead to considerable technical improvements of the parking state on shopping days (on Saturdays) when parking demand and congestion were higher.

EXAMPLE 11.2 Baltimore-Washington International Airport, Maryland, the United States (FHWA, 2007). Baltimore-Washington International Airport near Baltimore decided to deploy a PGI system aiming to improve travel experience and increase user satisfaction. Firstly, the PGI system was installed only at level 2 of the garage (about 1100 parking spaces), in order to estimate its effectiveness before commissioning a large capital investment. Effects evaluated through surveys and also e-mail comments were very positive. Apart from positive user attitude toward this system, the reduction of illegally parked vehicles in fire lanes and other no parking areas was also recorded. Due to all the above, Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA) decided to extend the system to the remaining four levels and to introduce it into parking garage under construction. Parking occupancy is monitored through ultrasonic sensors positioned over each parking space, and the information for each facility is presented to users via VMSs on the airport access road as “open” or “full” text. The facilities are equipped with internal PGI system as well, with billboard signs at the entry to each level indicating the number of spaces available on that floor, while billboard signs on ramps indicate the number of vacant spaces at lower and upper levels. Drivers are also informed about occupancy of each parking space via a light-emitting diode (LED) sign over each space. If there is a vacant parking space, the LED displays green; otherwise, it displays red. Disabled parking spaces are equipped with a blue LED display.

EXAMPLE 11.3 Montgomery, Maryland, the United States (Rephlo et al., 2008). This intelligent transportation system was activated in April 2007. The goal was to improve the availability of information for Glenmont transit center, which integrated a park-and-ride facility with 1738 parking spaces and the local subway system. ITS was implemented in order to encourage larger utilization of rail station in Maryland by work commuters by offering accurate and up-to-the-minute data on parking vacancies at the site. There were 32 disabled parking spaces, and 280 had reserved parking spaces until 10:00 AM. Glenmont station was operating at full capacity all week. The main goal of the system was to inform passengers at early stages of their travel about parking occupancy and to suggest alternative parking locations in case there had been few or no vacant parking spaces in Glenmont station. The upcoming station was Viton, some 5 km away; on weekdays, its load was lower, i.e., more parking spaces were vacant. In this case, ITS consisted of a counting application to detect vehicle presence in the parking lots, while the electronic system transferred occupancy information to VMS hardware located in the external network. In cases of high occupancy, VMS indicated and informed users on the expressway about vacant parking capacities at the next station 5 km away (at the next exit). Survey results indicated that users were more aware of the alternative parking lots, and a slight Viton station occupancy increase was recorded. In addition, it was observed that the number of vehicles leaving Glenmont station in the peak morning period because they could not find a vacant parking space decreased, proving that cruising for parking at the very lot decreased considerably. However, there is no evidence that the introduced system increased subway utilization.

266 Sustainable Parking Management

EXAMPLE 11.4 Monza, Italy (Vittoria, 2011). PGI system implementation program in Monza started in 2012 through CIVITAS program of the European Union. Until then, there was no electronic parking guidance system in Monza. Since this city is a very important transportation hub in northern Italy, it is characterized by numerous external flows toward the city, which is why it was selected for the pilot project. Most parking lots in Monza included in the program were located close to the city center. It should be noted that European park-and-ride practice does not require only large intermodal transit centers on the outskirts; rather, parking lots are often selected within the urban tissue close to regular bus stops. Objectives of the program included the following: providing new mobility options to users who did not have adequate access to mass transit lines at the origin of their trips by introducing a dynamic electronic system to inform users about parking occupancy and operating unification of all relevant services and agencies dealing with parking in the city. Adequate static and dynamic signage was positioned so as to provide information to as many users in the network as possible and to guide them to the nearest available parking lot avoiding guidance into the historical urban area. The impact of this project and compliance with objectives defined are yet to be evaluated because the system is relatively new and needs time to take effect.

11.6 PGI system application to on-street parking As already mentioned, over the last few decades, many cities worldwide have implemented PGI systems helping drivers find off-street parking space. Nevertheless, systems that combine both on-street and off-street parking availability are very rare. They would be of great interest for drivers to get a comprehensive picture on parking state in the subject area. City authorities would also benefit, not only through travel time reduction and more satisfied users but also through more efficient use of on- and off-street parking supply. Not to mention that vehicles cruising for on-street parking contribute more to traffic congestion than those queuing in front of the off-street parking lot. Only until recently, the implementation of on-street PGI system seemed very complicated and costly inefficient, mainly for the following reasons: l

l

l

Monitoring parking occupancy implied installation of sensors embedded in asphalt beneath each marked on-street parking space. Therefore, capital, installation, operating, and maintenance of sensor costs are very high and often raise cost-to-benefit ratio issues. With parking sensors, there is always an issue of their location on the streets where no parking spaces are marked, which is frequently the case in central urban areas (e.g., Downtown New York City) (Moini et al., 2012). Problems related to VMS installation, i.e., guiding and informing users during their travel, because, unlike off-street parking space, on-street parking

Parking guidance and information system Chapter

11

267

spaces are deconcentrated. This problem is nowadays easily overcome with mass application of information transfer tools. Due to all the above, until recently, examples of on-street PGI systems were rare. One of them is the SFpark project mentioned in previous chapters. Within this project, presence sensors were installed at each marked parking space in the central area of San Francisco, California, the United States. Even though the primary reason was parking monitoring and management (by varying parking prices depending on the recorded occupancy, as described in Section 8.2), sensor data were also used to inform and guide users to vacant parking spaces. Information was transferred wirelessly to the public via website, smartphone applications, and text message. In Europe, the inner London borough of Westminster, the United Kingdom, was the first to install parking sensors at 3000 on-street parking space for experimental purposes, with the main goal to inform users on parking occupancy. Note that in addition to presence, parking sensors could record parking duration, and these data can be used for parking enforcement improvement. Accelerated technological and technical development helped overcome difficulties in on-street PGI system application so one could argue that these systems are rapidly developing and being applied, which is most due to accessibility of real-time parking information, improved mapping technology and communications on smartphones, and more affordable digital signage. Nowadays, in many cities, there are applications that help drivers find vacant on-street and off-street parking spaces. Data collection methods differ depending on the application developer. Usually, data are collected from several data sources (in some cases even several tens of sources). Typically, first, each marked parking space is added in the inventory and mapped. Then, parking accumulation is surveyed during a whole day on several different weekdays and months. Survey is usually conducted using a scan vehicle with cameras installed. Collected historical data represent the basis that is then continuously updated with data from various data sources, such as the following: l

l

l

l l

Smart parking meters, wherein users insert the parking space number when paying for parking Payment transactions, when paid by phone (call, SMS, or parking application) Smartphones, iPads, and similar devices having GPS, when user location is turned on Occasional satellite snapshots Vehicle sensors.2 The higher the number of vehicles equipped with parking sensors, the more accurate the information from this data source is. Majority

2. For more details, see, e.g., Bosch (2018).

268 Sustainable Parking Management

of newer vehicles already have such sensors installed, and it is recommended that services that have to circulate around the city, such as taxi vehicles, police, and parking enforcement, use these vehicles. As a vehicle equipped with sensors and appropriate hardware drives by, sensors record potential parking spaces. As mentioned above, it is not required to use all the above data sources. Data collected from various sources are converted into special algorithms and evaluated online. Individual data are compared with historical data and data from other sources. As a result, parking space occupancy information is produced in the form of parking space maps, parking predictions, and/or real-time occupancy maps. Due to parking occupancy detection methods, information about on-street parking occupancy is probably not completely accurate, unlike information about off-street parking occupancy; it is rather a form of forecast of the current parking status, i.e., it indicates the probability of finding a vacant parking space in street sections. Note that accuracy is the most important information characteristic that determines whether users will use the information or not and consequently the effects of PGI system introduction. Information is displayed to users via mobile phone applications, via in-car navigation systems, etc. The procedure is as follows: the user enters the application, inserts desired destination, and as a result receives a map with influential areas of the destination including the probability indication of finding a vacant parking space in the influential area. Typically, these are the following indications: Red marks street sections with low chances of finding an on-street parking space; orange marks street sections with fair chances, while green indicates high chances of finding an on-street parking space. If the system integrates offstreet parking, the map also shows off-street parking lots in the influential area and the number of vacant parking spaces. Some applications offer additional relevant information, such as parking price, time limit, and regime validity period. Some applications can be used to pay for parking as well (see Section 9.2) or even to book a parking space. According to our knowledge, there is still no empirical evidence as to the effects of on-street PGI system implementation in terms of parking state, transportation system, and environmental improvements. The industry measures its success by the number of applications that installed and not deinstalled later, assuming that this means the user is satisfied and relies upon the application. They claim very positive effects. Finally, it should be noted that PGI systems need to be integrated into a larger regional ITS architecture. This will enable the use of the existing resources, such as communication channels and traveler information media. Moreover, it will enable broader trip information relevant for decision-making. For instance, when planning a trip, in addition to parking availability, users may get other important information, such as data about congestions in the network.

Parking guidance and information system Chapter

11

269

Exam questions 1. Explain reasons for introducing parking guidance and information system. What transportation management subsystems are nowadays most typically integrated into ITS in urban street and road networks? 2. Explain PGI system architecture. 3. Enumerate ATIS benefits for drivers and city transportation management authorities, respectively. Enumerate parking benefits in particular parking. 4. Explain user reactions to PGI system messages depending on whether the information is received pretrip (at home) or on trip (in the vehicles). 5. Enumerate preconditions for quality PGI system performance. Explain parking occupancy in particular. 6. Enumerate preconditions for quality PGI system performance. Explain information characteristics in particular. 7. Enumerate preconditions for quality PGI system performance. Explain user and trip characteristics in particular. 8. Enumerate effects of PGI system implementation. Explain improved parking lot efficiency and utilization in particular. 9. Enumerate effects of PGI system implementation. Explain traffic smoothing in particular. 10. Enumerate effects of PGI system implementation. Explain environmental improvements in particular. 11. Enumerate effects of PGI system implementation. Explain increased user satisfaction in particular. 12. Enumerate effects of PGI system implementation. Explain regional revitalization in particular. 13. Explain PGI system application to on-street parking. 14. Basic characteristics of parking applications (that help drivers find vacant parking on-street and off-street parking spaces) applied worldwide.

References Axhausen, K.W., Polak, J.W., Boltze, M., 1993. Effectiveness of Parking Guidance and Information Systems Recent Evidence from Nottingham and Frankfurt am Main. Axhausen, K.W., Polak, J.W., Boltze, M., Puzicha, J., 1994. Effectiveness of the parking guidance information system in Frankfurt am Main. Traffic Eng. Control 35 (5), 304–309. Clausen, N.U., 2007. ITS activities in the City of Aalborg. In: I2tern Conference, Aalborg. DfT, 2003. Parking Guidance and Information. Department for Transport, UK. Federal Highway Association, 2007. Advanced Parking Management Systems: a cross-cutting study. Ho, W.K., 2008. Advanced Traveler Information Systems: Six Criteria to Facilitate Public Participation. City University of Hong Kong. Hoogendoorn, S., Van Lint, H., 2010. Advanced traffic information services: User-response and network impact. Transportation and Planning Department. Delft University of Technology. JICE, 2002. Benefits from ITS Deployment in Japan. In: ITS Policy Program Division, R.B.M.O.L., Infrastructure and Transport, (Ed.), Japan Institute of Construction Engineering. http://www. jice.or.jp/itschiiki-e/benefits2002/html/t-03.html.

270 Sustainable Parking Management Lakshmanan, T.R., Anderson, W.P., 2001. Infrastructure capacity. In: Button, K.J., Hensher, D.A. (Eds.), Handbook of Transport Systems and Traffic Control. Pergamon. Ling, D.J., Tsopelas, I., McCarthy, T.J., 2004. The management of city centre parking traffic: driver’s information needs and effectiveness of parking guidance and information systems. In: Transport Conference. 2004, www. aetransport.org. McDonald, M., Chatterjee, K., 2000. VMS in Urban Areas. Results of Cross-Project Collaborative Study. Moini, N., Hill, D., Gruteser, M., 2012. Impact Analyses of Curb-Street Parking Guidance System on Mobility and Environment. (Final Report). Peng, W., 2008. Roles of Factors in Simulation of Parking Guidance and Information Systems. The University of New South Wales, Sydney. Rephlo, J., Haas, R., Feast, L., Newton, D., 2008. Evaluation of Transit Applications of Advanced Parking Management System-Final Evaluation Report. Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). Shoup, D.C., 2006. Cruising for parking. Transp. Policy 13 (6), 479–486. Smith, J., Phillips, S., 1993. Evaluation of the Leeds car-park guidance system. In: Project Report PR/TR/001/93, Transportation Research Laboratory. Spencer, M.E., 1991. San Jose’s Parking Guidance System: From Concept to Design. Teodorovic, D., Vukanovic, S., Obradovic, K., 1998. Modeling route choice with advanced traveler information by fuzzy logic. Transp. Plan. Technol. 22, 1–25. Vittoria, S., 2011. Park and Ride Parking Guidance system in Monza. In: Within the Project Achieving Real Change with Innovative Transport Measure Demonstrating Energy Savings (ARCHIMEDES), funded by European Commission, CIVITAS. Vukanovic, S., 2010. Inteligentni transportni sistemi (ITS) i upravljanje saobracajem—pregled [Intelligent Transportation System and Traffic Management—Review], part I. Tehnika 57 (1), 10–18. part II. Tehnika, 57(2), 19–26.

Web references Bosch (2018). Community-based parking: helping one another find the nearest available space more quickly. https://www.bosch-mobility-solutions.com/en/highlights/connectedmobility/community-based-parking/ Access: 18. 08.2018. KonSult (n.d.). Parking Guidance Systems. http://www.konsult.leeds.ac.uk/pg/40/ Access: 28.06.2018.

Further reading Parking Guidance and Information System, http://www.konsult.leeds.ac.uk/private/level2/ instruments/instrument040/l2_040summ.htm.

Chapter 12

Communicating parking policies Abstract Successful implementation of a parking policy in a city must be followed by adequate communication with users. Indeed, communication with users is needed to create a positive image and raise citizens’ awareness of the necessity to apply parking management as a concept of quality-of-life management through mobility management. Communication is typically carried out by the local authority and the entity in charge of operational management or marketing. However, it is believed that cities do not give sufficient credit to these activities nor communicate appropriately with service users. In this chapter, different levels of communication are examined, and recommendations for the extent of information at each level are given. General conditions to gain easier parking policy measure acceptance are presented. Keywords: Marketing; Marketing importance and tasks; Communication with users; General communication; Direct communication; Individual communication; Parking policy acceptance

Because parking policy measures mainly require changes in user behavior, in order to produce positive effects, measures applied need to be accepted by parking users. The term marketing in this chapter will imply activities related to persuading and encouraging users to accept more sustainable behavior that will contribute to positive effects of adopted parking policy. Travel behavior is not solely the product of rational processes. Upbringing, feelings, and habits play a considerable role therein. But upbringing, habits, and feelings can be influenced and, when applied appropriately, be used to change travel behavior. Therefore, “communication and acceptance” (EU, 2005) need to play a key role in parking policies.

12.1 Marketing and communication Successful urban parking policy implementation needs to be supported with adequate user communication. User communication is required so as to create a positive image and build awareness with the public that parking management is necessary as a concept of urban life quality management via mobility management. It is communicated by the city authority and the parking operator. Sustainable Parking Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815800-5.00012-4 © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

271

272 Sustainable Parking Management

However, it is believed that cities do not give sufficient credit to these activities nor communicate appropriately with service users, as exemplified by the following literature excerpt: The below excerpt from the literature helps understand the importance of communication (Mingardo et al., 2015): Marketing and communication must play a fundamental role within parking policy. Parking has often a bad image among drivers and retailers (both thinking it should be abundant and for free) and even among politicians (seeing it as a difficult portfolio for which to take responsibility). Often, the only communication about parking provided by the local authority is about how the system works— i.e., time restrictions, ticketing machines, permits, etc. Hardly any city communicates why the system is in place—that is, why the user should pay for parking, how parking income is utilized, and so on. The San Francisco parking scheme mentioned earlier is a good example of this: in the words of the authors ‘… SFpark helps to depoliticize parking by stating a clear principle for setting the prices for curb spaces’ (Pierce and Shoup, 2013, p. 69). Another interesting example is provided by the town of Roermond (the Netherlands) that has recently communicated that the extra income generated by the increase in parking fees goes to a so-called mobility fund that is used to improve the overall accessibility of the city. Fourteen English municipalities are now required (since 2008) to publish an annual report describing their parking operation, how much money they raised from parking charges and from fines, and what they have done with the money raised; however, how well the municipalities publicize this report is their own decision.

Communication should focus on the importance of mobility- and parkingrelated problems that are aimed to be solved and promoting the parking management concept and applicable policies. The perception of problems is a necessary precondition for understanding the importance of why some measure should be applied. It is believed that high problem awareness will lead to increased acceptance of solutions for the perceived problems (Schade and Schlag, 2003). Many studies confirmed that the public, as well as businesses and politicians, are very well aware of transportation/parking problems. For example, a survey conducted in four European cities, namely, Athens (Greece), Como (Italy), Oslo (Norway), and Dresden (Germany), showed that traffic-related air pollution (83%), traffic congestion (82%), and parking congestion (77%) are perceived as very important issues that a city needs to deal with. The study indicates that businesses and politicians acknowledge these problems likewise and that politicians generally give high priority to traffic problems when compared with other municipal problems (VATT, 2001). In addition to problem awareness, users need to be informed through evidence-based facts about their own contribution to the parking problem and how changes in their behavior can contribute to problem solving/ mitigation. Proposed solution, i.e., parking policy and measures, must be seen as very effective or even better—the only possible solution to perceived problems.

Communicating parking policies Chapter

12

273

Therefore, communication is vital to parking measure acceptance by the public. Communication recommendations indicate that it is necessary to inform users and drivers about the following aspects: l l l

l

Overall idea of parking management Movement, trends, and parking survey results The fact that parking management does not mean additional taxation (EU, 2005) Use of parking revenues

Nowadays, there are three different ways of communication between parking authorities and users: l l l

General communication Direct communication Individual communication with public members

12.1.1 General communication General communication between the city/local parking authority and public members typically engages public media (local press, radio, television, website of the city/local authority, etc.). The city/local authority usually provides the following information to the public: who manages parking in the city, parking news, description of the current parking regime in the city, parking permit requirements, disabled parking requirements, how to book a parking space, parking enforcement information, parking legislation, etc. Because of the importance of communication in the parking management, contents of this information should be supplemented as recommended at the beginning of Section 12.1. Below is an example of general communication between the London Council and the members of the public. London Council’s website,1 in the services section, provides information about parking in the city. Information is divided according to the asker: professionals, public members, and blue badge holders (London Councils, n.d.). Information intended to general public includes the following: l

l

Park your car in London: this section lists general parking rules in London—where parking is allowed/not allowed, what payment methods are available, and how parking is enforced. Code of practice on Civil Parking Enforcement: this section provides basic information and downloads option for the full document of the London Council governing the sphere of parking.

1. https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/services/parking-services/parking-and-traffic/parkingadvice-members-public.

274 Sustainable Parking Management l

l

l

l

l l

Parking and traffic charges in London: this section shows current levels of penalty charge notices, discount for early payment, and other related charges. London Tribunals: this section receives and processes appeals against penalty charge notices (PCNs) and schedules of hearings. Understanding parking penalties: this section provides details on the procedure following after PVN is served including the possibility to appeal. Footway parking: this section describes the reasons for parking ban on sidewalks and exceptions to this rule. Frequently asked questions (FAQ) on parking. Parking band map illustrates the locations of the two parking penalty bands in use throughout London.

Parking operator’s website should provide information within its domain: the number of parking spaces charged by the parking operator, available parking payment methods, real-time or forecasted number of vacant parking spaces per locations (parking zones) (see Chapter 11), current parking tariff, conditions for granting and extension of parking permits for private individuals and legal entities, fine complaint options, locations and the number of parking spaces for blue badge holders, parking charge legislation, etc.

12.1.2 Direct communication The goal of direct communication is to present parking concept of a city (the whole parking management idea) and to involve all stakeholders in a dialogue aimed at finding adequate solutions for current parking issues. Direct communication is established through the following: l

l

l

l

Organized public discussions (forums) to establish direct contact with the public, share information, and discuss parking issues with all stakeholders Media conferences to present new projects, annual reports and plans, and relevant information to the general public Campaigns that may improve general awareness at the local or national level with certain target groups or individuals (e.g., park-and-ride promotion campaigns) Various brochures and leaflets disseminated to the general public that will contain basic information about parking in the city and improve public awareness about the importance of urban parking management

12.1.3 Individual communication Individual communication is a method of communication between city/local authorities and parking operator on the one side and general public on the other side. It is conducted on a daily basis via the following: l l l

E-mail Letters and fax letters Phone

Communicating parking policies Chapter

12

275

This method of communication provides general information about parking conditions in the city and enables filing of complaints. Usually, there is a separate department (information service) in charge of this type of communication with the public.

12.2 Parking policy acceptance A measure is deemed accepted if users approve it and are satisfied with its implementation. Practical experience from many European cities shows that there are certain general conditions to gain easier parking policy measure acceptance (VATT, 2001; Harsman et al., 2000). Acceptance depends on the following: l

l

l

l

l

Information received: Information is the basis for acceptance of transportation demand management policies. As already mentioned (Section 12.1), many cities often provide information limited to technical parameters (time restrictions, tariffs applicable, etc.). However, people need to be made aware of the transportation management goals (reduction of traffic congestions, environmental protection, road safety, etc.) and of particular cases— how measures are implemented in practice. The communication has to point out the positive sides of applied parking measures. The source of information is also very important. Message has to be communicated by very credible communicators—credible from the user point of view. Previous parking management experience: When positive effects of previously implemented parking measures in an area are evident to users (often also to those who are not direct parking users), acceptance of measures in a new area will be a priori higher. Observed benefits (improvements): When immediately upon introduction measures result in obvious positive effects for users. On the one hand, this relates to improvement of the parking situation for users who (still) park in that area primarily in terms of easier parking search and on the other hand to positive experience of users who shift to another transportation mode. Hence, it is recommended that improvements in alternative transportation options precede restrictive parking measures, as part of push-and-pull measure. Available alternative transportation modes: Users need to feel the freedom of choice and not to feel forced to make a decision. Practical experience shows that high service level of public transit or other alternatives to car should be a part of the overall package of mobility and parking management measures—which was also concluded in the former criterion. Use of parking revenues: Users want to know where the money they are charged goes and how it benefits them. After covering investments or loans (if any) and parking operation and maintenance costs, remaining revenues should be allocated to the transportation sector (e.g., for mass transit improvement and alternative transportation modes) based on clearly

276 Sustainable Parking Management

l

l

l

l

l

l

defined priorities and well-justified benefits that these priorities will bring to users. Confidence: People have to have confidence, among others, in the effectiveness of the marginal cost pricing, the use of the revenues, and the fairness and anonymity of the system. Fairness and equity: People need to perceive that measures applied are fair to them, i.e., that the cost-benefit ratio is positive for them. Moreover, they must not feel downgraded compared with other users. Enforcement levels: If some users are not convinced by means of communication to accept the package of measures, they can be enforced and punished. However, the share of such users should not be high, but rather, up to 20% or 30% of all the users targeted oppose the measures—which again underlines the importance of user communication. If parking is not enforced at a satisfactory level, this will result in high unacceptance levels manifested as illegal parking. Fine levels: If fines are not high or the probability of processing violators is low, the level of acceptance diminishes. Innovative projects: Innovative projects may lead to higher parking management acceptance levels resulting from more effective user behavior toward payment and time-limit regulations for both on-street and off-street parking (advanced payment methods using magnetic cards or contactless smart cards, automated barriers, etc.—as confirmed by experience from Helsinki, Finland; Bologna, Italy; Porto, Portugal; and Madrid, Spain (EU, 2005). Communication activities: Since users often do not understand the complexity of the parking process, restrictive measures may lead to general unacceptance of applied parking measure. To win user acceptance, it is important to establish communication between all parking stakeholders (city/local authorities, professional public, general public, and other stakeholders (see Section 7.4)), because this is the prerequisite for positive effects of parking improvement measures in an area or the whole city. Communication activities need to be initiated at the very beginning of the decisionmaking process and then to continue during the implementation of measures, which is done through regular provision of information about the effects achieved.

Parking charge rates do not influence acceptance levels to a considerable extent. Parking management institutions should systematically monitor measure acceptance levels by parking users and other nonusers in the areas where parking measures are applied. Both these groups sustain public funds directly or indirectly, so they have the right to discuss their spending. Nonusers of the public parking system need not have direct benefits from parking measures, but they should have indirect benefits. Section 13.3 provides more details on methods to monitor and evaluate (non)user satisfaction.

Communicating parking policies Chapter

12

277

Even though this chapter and the available literature deal mostly with public acceptability, it is equally important that business community and politicians accept parking measure as well. Acceptance by all these groups needs to be addressed in early planning stages; all groups need to be involved in definition and adoption of parking management strategies. This process needs to be supported by education based on the evidence (see Section 7.4).

Exam questions 1. What does “marketing” imply in parking? 2. Why is user communication important, and what are the basic aspects users should be informed about? 3. General communication with parking users: who communicates, about what, and how? 4. Direct communication with parking users: who communicates, about what, and how? 5. Individual communication with parking users: who communicates, about what, and how? 6. Enumerate and explain requirements for parking policy acceptance. 7. Who should take care about parking measure acceptance by users, and in what planning stages? What user categories are relevant for acceptance of parking policy and measures to implement the parking policy?

References European Union, 2005. Parking policies and the effects on economy and mobility. In: Technical Committee on Transport, Report on COST Action 342. Government Institute for Economic Research (VATT), 2001. Acceptability of Fiscal and Financial Measures and Organisational Requirements for Demand Management (AFFORD)—Final Report. Project funded by the European Commission. Harsman, B., Padam, S., Wijkmark, B., 2000. Pricing Measures Acceptance: Ways and Means to Increase the Acceptance of Urban Road Pricing. Project funded by the European Commission. Mingardo, G., van Wee, B., Rye, T., 2015. Urban parking policy in Europe: a conceptualization of past and possible future trends. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 74, 268–281. Pierce, G., Shoup, D., 2013. Getting the price right. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 79 (1), 67–81. Schade, J., Schlag, B., 2003. Acceptability of urban transport pricing strategies. Transport. Res. F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 6 (1), 45–61.

Web References London Councils (n.d.). Parking advice for members of the public: find advice and information in this section. https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/services/parking-services/parking-and-traffic/ parking-advice-members-public Access: 18.07.2018

Chapter 13

Parking indicators Abstract Assessment of expected effects during parking measure definition and monitoring the state of parking, i.e., realized effects of applied measures, is an integral part of the parking management process. Parking management effects are appraised according to trends in certain indicators in an actual period of time. In this chapter, we suggest the most relevant indicators, covering service quality, parking performance, and cost efficiency, and give recommendations for selection of a set of indicators depending on management objectives and interpretation of obtained indicator values. We dedicate special attention to “(non) user satisfaction,” which is a specific indicator of parking policy success. Finally, we present good practice examples. Keywords: Parking indicators; Service quality indicators; Parking performance indicators; Cost-efficiency indicators; User satisfaction; Nonuser satisfaction.

Supervision and monitoring over the parking subsystem and evaluation of effects generated by applied measures are integral parts of the parking management process. Detailed performance evaluation is an important component of sustainable transportation planning. The issue of performance indicators arises as early as in the sustainable transportation planning process, including parking planning, as its integral part. As already explained, the planning process has to be comprehensive and integrated. It has to start with defining the vision and goals and then continue with selection of methods to implement them (management policies and measures), defining targets as measurable goals we want to achieve with measures applied. Upon implementation of ultimate changes in activities and impacts created by applied measures, it is required to evaluate the suitability of these measures (Section 7.4) using performance indicators or measurable outcomes that serve to evaluate progress toward established goals and objectives (Litman, 2013). Ascertaining the effects generated by applied measures serves to evaluate how well strategies, policies, and measures for their implementation perform. The main goal when monitoring the effects is to adjust the applied measures and, if required, to define new measures in order to reach as much as possible the projected parameter values that guarantee that the parking subsystem will Sustainable Parking Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815800-5.00013-6 © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

279

280 Sustainable Parking Management

perform as desired. Urban or area parking management effects can be expressed as the following: 1. General effects 2. Direct effects General effects concur with parking management strategy goals. Goals of parking management strategies include objectives of adopted urban transportation policies related to the parking subsystem, namely, support realization of the desired (targeted) car travel share in the modal split and construct parking spaces required only for qualified (not general) parking demand with maximum compliance with sustainability principles for sustainable urban transportation (Section 7.4). Regardless of their, one could argue, cardinal importance (because they reflect efficiency of sustainable transportation system planning and sustainable urban planning in general), these effects are determined indirectly, by monitoring parking performance parameters with regard to parking measures applied; hence, general effects could be called indirect effects. These effects can differ, and therefore, they need to be analyzed as appropriate. Some of the general effects include: l l l l l l l l l

Effects upon modal share Effects upon traffic congestions Effects of rational urban space utilization Environmental effects Effects upon traffic safety Effects upon aesthetics and surrounding environment Energy effects Effects upon heritage preservation Effects upon economic activities of an area.

Direct effects are the results of parking policies applied in the parking subsystem. Achieved level of planned regulatory measures (regulatory measure realization coefficient) will determine direct effects. Ideally, this coefficient would be one, meaning that projected regulatory measure realization coefficients are fully achieved. However, in practice, this is never the case, due to either objective or subjective reasons. Those who design and implement the system would have to satisfy with minimum 60%–65% of projected parameter realization (EU, 2005). In addition, they have to monitor and react in due time to adapt, if required, some of the parking policy provisions. In addition to these interventions, enforcement bodies and parking enforcement officers are the weakest point in parking management, as they often do not fully perform. In parallel with these interventions, enforcement of penalties needs to be monitored, because penalties have to produce positive effects upon parking state improvements. Effects of selected parking strategy, policies, and measures for their implementation are evaluated against trends in values of some parking indicators

Parking indicators Chapter

13

281

within a defined period of time. “Indicators are things that we measure to evaluate progress toward goals and objectives” (Litman, 2018). In order to select and define parking indicators, it is required to understand the sustainability context in which parking strategy and policy are defined, as well as parking management measures: parking is an activity that results from interaction between parking demand and parking supply, which should serve socioeconomic factors, land use, transportation system, economy, and environment (Booz et al., 2006). The implication of this context is that, in general, evaluation of performance and effects of applied parking measures need to be based on indicators that enable evaluation of parking availability to users with parking purposes that need to and should be included in the areas of certain attractiveness, i.e., in the qualified parking demand. Typical transportation system performance indicators related to the parking subsystem should be seen in this context, i.e., “parking convenience and affordability (low price)” or “parking availability” as one of the multimodal indicators (VTPI, 2018). Namely, evaluation of parking indicators without considering the sustainability or qualified demand would justify expansion of parking capacities, which may lead to car-dependent transportation systems and land use, increasing per capita car travel and reducing the viability of public transit, walking, cycling, etc. Unreasonable expansion of car use would lead to increased consumption of urban resources and pollution emissions; in other words, the quality of urban life would diminish. In this regard, typical transportation indicators received criticism lately, because they neglect, i.e., do not evaluate the effects upon other objectives, cost effectiveness, sustainability, and quality of living spaces, and therefore, it has been suggested to develop more complex indicators to reflect differing objectives better (Litman, 2018).

13.1 Selection of parking indicators As mentioned above, “indicators are things that we measure to evaluate progress toward goals and objectives” (Litman, 2018). Indicators should be selected to reflect parking effects upon certain aspects, as required. In most cases, a single indicator is not sufficient; hence, a set of indicators to reflect various objectives and impacts should be selected. At the same time, too many indicators may reduce the ability of an organization to use the information effectively. In other words, parking indicators need to be carefully selected in order to enable various impacts to be analyzed. Inappropriate or incomplete indicator/set of indicators can misdiagnose problems and misdirect decision-making. For example, indicators that only consider quantity (level of overall parking demand realization) will encourage decision-makers to produce abundant but inferior output (leading to traffic congestions, decrease of quality in other urban transportation subsystems, and deterioration of the quality of urban life), while on the other hand,

282 Sustainable Parking Management

indicators that only consider quality can result in high urban parking quality and inadequate parking demand realization levels. To understand the above better, Sustainable and Conventional transportation system planning are compared and contrasted. “Conventional planning often evaluates transport system performance based primarily on mobility (using indicators such as traffic speed and vehicle operating costs), ignoring other accessibility factors and improvement options. For example, with mobility-based planning, the only practical solution to traffic congestion is to expand roadway capacity. Accessibility-based planning allows other solutions to be considered, including improvements to alternative modes, more accessible land use patterns, and improvement to mobility substitutes. Accessibility-based transport planning tends to support sustainability by expanding the scope of analysis and supporting more resource-efficient solutions. As a result, as much as possible, sustainable transportation indicators should reflect accessibility-based planning” (Litman, 2018). Due to all the above, it is of utmost importance to establish proper criteria when selecting indicators. The following principles should be applied when selecting transportation performance indicators as guidance for transportation program evaluation and strategic planning (VTPI, 2018): l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

Comprehensive—Indicators should reflect various economic, social, and environmental impacts and various transport activities (such as both personal and freight transport). Data quality—Data collection practices should reflect high standards to insure that information is accurate and consistent. Comparable—Data collection should be standardized, so the results are suitable for comparison between various jurisdictions, times, and groups. Indicators should be clearly defined. Easy to understand—Indicators must be useful to decision-makers and understandable to the general public. The more information condensed into a single index, the less meaning it has for specific policy targets (e.g., ecological footprint analysis incorporates many factors) and the greater the likelihood of double counting. Accessible and transparent—Indicators (and the raw data they are based on) and analysis details should be available to all stakeholders. Cost-effective—The suite of indicators should be cost-effective to collect. The decision-making worth of the indicators must outweigh the cost of collecting them. Net effects—Indicators should differentiate between net (total) impacts and shifts of impacts to different locations and times. Performance targets—Select indicators suitable for establishing usable performance targets.

Procedure for evaluation of effects generated by applied parking strategies, policies, and measures relies on sustainable transportation planning process and

Parking indicators Chapter

13

283

hence on sustainable parking planning as well, and it should contain the following steps: 1. Define objective(s) why parking management effects are to be measured (e.g., objectives related to local authorities, (non)users, and parking enforcement). 2. Select indicator/set of indicators to reflect the state, which is important for establishing the progress and achievement toward set objectives(s). 3. Investigate “before” parameter values (values of parameters before parking management measures are introduced) based on the selected indicators. 4. Define targets for each indicator, i.e., measurable objectives to be achieved with measures applied to reach the formulated objectives. Targets are defined as targeted indicator values or as indicator trends (upward or downward). 5. Investigate indicator values for the situation resulting from applied measures; these indicators will serve to reflect the achievement of set objective(s). Indicators of parking state are typically determined in surveys with the same methodology as applied before the parking management measure (“before and after” surveys). Indicators should be investigated only sometime after the introduction of measure, when measures have taken effect. Effect evaluation intervals can be defined strategically—e.g., each 3 years (since parking data older than 3 years may be deemed outdated) or whenever circumstances affecting parking change (land use change, mass transit network changes, etc.) arise. 6. Calculate performance (effects) indicators. Performance indicators are calculated as the ratio between selected (based on the parameter) indicator values for “before and after” parking state.

13.2 Interpretation of parking indicators There are three main types of parking indicators (Table 13.2) systematized after multimodal performance indicators (Table 13.1) (VTPI, 2018): l l l

Service quality: these reflect the quality of service experienced by users. Outcomes: these reflect outcomes, such as changes in parking operation. Cost efficiency: these reflect the ratio of parking operation costs to parking benefits.

Table 13.2 shows some (typical) parking indicators. Parking subsystem performance evaluation, regardless of specific evaluation objectives, has to be based on the comparison between all three types of indicators and on their interdependencies. Some of the indicators for all three types are explained below.

284 Sustainable Parking Management

TABLE 13.1 Examples of performance indicators for car mode Service Quality

Outcomes

Cost Efficiency

Roadway infrastructure Roadway Level of Service (LOS) Parking availability ⋯

Average travel time Car energy consumption

Cost per vehicle-km User cost per capita

Car pollution emissions ⋯

External cost per capita ⋯

Data from Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2018). Performance Evaluation: Practical Indicators for Evaluating Progress toward Planning Objectives. TDM Encyclopedia. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/ tdm131.htm Access: 31.05.2018.

TABLE 13.2 Indicators of parking subsystem Service quality

Outcomes

Cost efficiency


Parking dimensions
Types of residential parking supply
Types of visitor parking supply
Disabled parking supply
Parking time limits
Parked vehicle safety
Parking prices per parking type and location
⋯


Parking occupancy in time
Distribution of visitors per parking purpose and duration
Visitor parking volume in area attractiveness period/ parking turnover
Average walking distance from parking location to final destination
Parking search time
Share of car trips in modal split in the destination area
Share of illegal parking
Number of fines served to total number of violations
Number of fines collected
⋯


Operation costs per parking space
On-street and off-street parking revenues
Costs due to underutilized parking spaces during the day, month, etc.
Wasted fuel costs due to parking search
User’s cost due to parking search
Environmental costs
⋯

13.2.1 Indicators of service quality Parking dimensions: Parking bay dimensions have to comply not only with the design vehicle dimensions and to ensure best possible utilization of available spatial capacities expressed as the number of available parking spaces thereat; in addition, parking dimensions have to be tailored to service quality requirements of parking users and to ensure safety and convenience during parking maneuvers and convenience when drivers and passengers enter/leave parked vehicles, i.e., to ensure the required quality of parking service (Section 4.1).

Parking indicators Chapter

13

285

Types of parking supply: This indicator describes the state of parking infrastructure. Share of off-street parking in total parking supply should outnumber other types, increasingly so in larger cities (Chapter 4). Particularly, parking authorities in medium-sized and large cities should strive to higher off-street parking shares. This indicator is calculated based on parking supply distribution according to types, and the target can be either a growing or decreasing trend of a particular parking type. Disabled parking supply: This indicator refers to the share of disabled parking spaces in total parking supply. Targeted value of this indicator is defined in relevant regulations. It typically depends on the total number of parking spaces provided in a parking facility and/or user classes, ranging between 2% and 6% of the total parking spaces (Section 4.4). Parking time limits: In parking regimes with time limits, this is a direct outcome of the need to manage parking demand, and it should be harmonized with parking duration of visitors who belong to the qualified demand. Parked vehicle safety: For users, this is a parking service quality parameter. This parameter is often more important than the walking distance and parking price (Section 3.3). Parking prices: In parking regimes with parking charges, this is the direct outcome of the need to manage parking demand and a method to divert a defined number of parking requests. Since parking prices are typically defined based on user surveys, this indicator should be monitored over time so that prices could be modified accordingly. Prices should match prices acceptable for visitors who belong to the qualified parking demand.

13.2.2 Outcomes Parking occupancy in time: This indicator shows the match between parking demand and supply, which is the main goal of parking management. The value of this indicator should strive to reach the targeted coefficient of maximum parking capacity utilization, which may vary according to parking type. For example, for maximum targeted on-street parking occupancy, it could amount to 85%. Reaching this target would enable “elimination” of parking search. On the other hand, maximum targeted off-street parking occupancy may amount to as much as 95%, in order to provide high parking lot utilization in relation to the investment costs. In parallel, reaching this occupancy gives users confidence they will always be able to find a vacant parking space. Target values are defined on a strategic level. In addition to maximum occupancy, average occupancy during the attractiveness period should be monitored as well. As it cannot be expected that parking capacities will be occupied as much as maximal targeted occupancy during the whole period, an occupancy range should be defined for the period of time when the area is attractive. Setting a high occupancy rate of 80%–90% often entails a risk that 1 day or in some period of the

286 Sustainable Parking Management

TABLE 13.3 Effects of targeted maximum occupancy realization

Indicator Maximum parking occupancy

Indicator value (%)

Target (%)

Before

After

Effect (%)

85

98

88

77

day the occupancy reaches or exceeds 100%. In the words of Pierce and Shoup (2013): “…cities cannot aim for a consistently high occupancy rate of 80%– 90% without often reaching 100 percent occupancy. Fully occupied curb parking produces unwanted cruising, while a low average occupancy means fewer customers.” For example, targeted occupancy in SFpark (San Francisco, California, United States) is set to be 60%–80% to deal with the stochastic variation in parking demand and to balance the competing goals of reliable availability and high occupancy. Table 13.3 shows an example of maximum parking occupancy before and after restrictive parking measures were introduced and targeted parking occupancy and the resulting effects of applied measures. The effects, i.e., level of target (maximum occupancy of 85%) achievement, are positive, and it amounts to 77%. Instead of this indicator, another indicator with completely the same meaning could be used—targeted realized maximum accumulation (see Table 13.6). Distribution of visitors per parking purpose and duration is an indicator of the match between qualified parking demand and parking supply. In cases when parking policy is aimed at supplying qualified demand only, it is not sufficient to monitor only the “parking occupancy in time” indicator; types of users according to parking purposes and/or parking duration should be included as well. In parking regimes with limited parking duration, share of users who park longer than the prescribed time limit should be reduced to the values defined as target. Targeted value of this indicator should be 0. For example, Table 13.4 shows the distribution of parking duration of visitors to whom the 3 h time limit of that particular zone applies. The share of parking longer than the time limit (in this case 3 h) could also serve as an indicator. In the above simplified example, the effect is positive and amounts to 71%. If parking duration is not limited but parking is charged, effects can be measured through changes/trends in shares of visitors with “work” parking purpose (as they are the user category who “should not” park in highly attractive areas (Section 7.4.)), in maximum accumulation, and in parking volume. Targeted indicator values are set as “decreasing share” trends in relation to the “before” values.

Parking indicators Chapter

13

287

TABLE 13.4 Effects of realized targeted shares of users who park longer than the time limit

Indicator Parking duration distribution

Target—% of parking acts longer than 3 h 0

Indicator (%) Before

After

≤3 h

>3 h

≤3 h

>3 h

Effect (%)

76

24

93

7

71

Visitor parking volume in area attractiveness period: In areas where parking is managed, the most common goal of parking measures is to enable the steady number of parking spaces to accommodate as many parking users (short-term visitors) in the area. This is achieved by increasing the parking turnover, which results in increased parking volume. However, even though parking volume increase is deemed positive in terms of parking, parking volume threshold needs to be taken into account, as exceeded threshold can lead to decreased service levels in the access road networks and the area itself. Hence, parking volume trends can be further analyzed to calculate a complex indicator that should show the effects of parking measures upon network congestions (Section 8.1). Average walking distance of users from the parking location to their final destination: Average walking distance indicates suitability of the parking location (Section 5.6). Acceptable walking distance is an increasingly important indicator particularly in smaller cities where users are more sensitive to walking distances as compared with larger cities. The value of this indicator should be tailored to acceptable walking distance of qualified demand visitors. Targeted value of this indicator depends on the size of the city and parking duration and could be adopted based on empirical data (see, e.g., Tables 5.7–5.9). Parking search time: This indicator is calculated based on the ratio between changes in shares of users who did not search for parking to the total number of user before and after measure were introduced. Targeted value of this indicator should be a higher share of users who did not search for parking in relation to the same “before” value or 100%, although each new increase of the value against the “before” value must be deemed positive. Distribution of parking search time is a complex indicator and may serve to evaluate parking impact from different aspects (e.g., impact on the level of service in the road network, environment, and cost efficiency). Table 13.5 shows an example of parking measure effects expressed as the share of users who did not search for parking before and after the restrictive parking regime was introduced.

288 Sustainable Parking Management

TABLE 13.5 Effect of realized target shares of users who did not search for parking

Indicator Parking search time

Target— % of parkers who did not search

≤0 min

>0 min

≤0 min

>0 min

Effect (%)

100

40

60

61

39

35

Indicator (%) Before

After

Often and particularly when environmental impact of measures is evaluated, the effects generated by parking search time are more clearly demonstrated by trends in total parking search time of all users in the area. Any resulting reduction of total parking search time as compared with the “before” values is surely a positive effect (see Table 13.6). Share of car trips in modal split in the destination area: In the parking subsystem, this indicator is typically expressed as expected reduction of car trips to the area (expressed in percentages) resulting from parking measure(s) applied. Realized reduction of car travel share in the modal split in an area is determined indirectly, based on “before and after” surveys of how users come to an area. However, care must be taken to isolate possible external effects upon modal split shares, which most often is not possible. Therefore, due to high costs of these surveys, this method is rarely applied. Due to all the above, the value of this indicator is more often determined by stated preference (SP) techniques, based on statements given by the user before the measures are introduced, by processing their answers to the following question: “would you give up car travel to this zone if this measure was applied?” The main disadvantage of this method is that forecast is made based on car user statements, while new demand that might be generated by improved parking state in the area is not taken into account. The second disadvantage stems from the nature of this data collection technique: Data are collected as statements, but users do not have to act the same in reality (Chapter 6.3). In addition to the above disadvantages, it is recommended to use this technique, because it provides insight of parking measure impacts upon modal split. Targeted shares of car trips in the modal split are defined strategically and included in urban master plans. Impact of parking measures upon this target can

TABLE 13.6 Summary of effect of introduced measures Indicator value

Effect

After

Positive

Realized targeted maximum accumulation

6887

13,364

10,416

46%

Realized compliance with parking “ban”

0

57%

34%

40%

Realized reduction of “work” parking purpose

#

24.09%

12.75

*

Realized parking service quality level

No parking search

100%

40%

62%

37%

Total driving time due to parking search (h)

#

2802

2066

*

Average walking distance (m)

250 m

205

255

100%

Percentage of residential vehicles remaining parked during the dayb

#

36%

33%

*

“To find a vacant parking space”—first rank

0

51%

44%

14%c

Share of PPs and reserved parking spaces for business

At Amax 10% of M

–

22%

Share of reserved disabled parking spaces

5% of M

–

2%

40%

39%

*

Indicator

Realized shares of PP holders

Realized fine collection rate

Parameter and/or add. Explanation Share of illegal parking in Amax

100

a

Negative

*

...

c

289

See Section 5.6. This indicators show increased confidence of residents that they will find a vacant parking space when they return to their homes. Resulting from insufficient education of parking users who do not understand parking management concept and “qualified demand.” Data from Milosavljevic, N., Culjkovic, V., Vujin, D., Stifanic, I., Maletic, G., Simicevic, J., 2007. Analiza efekata uvodjenja zonskog Sistema parkiranja u Krugu dvojke-II faza [Analysis of the Effects of Restrictive Parking Regime Implementation in the Central Area of Belgrade, Stage 2]. Institute of the Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Belgrade, Serbia. b

13

a

Parking indicators Chapter

Target

Before

290 Sustainable Parking Management

be defined only as a trend (to reduce the share, i.e., higher number of uses who would give up car trip), due to many parameters of influence (in addition to parking measures) upon modal split. Share of illegal parking is expressed as the share of illegal parking acts to the total number of parking acts (both in volume and accumulation). High values of this indicator may result not only from inefficient parking enforcement but also from design drawbacks that leave the possibilities to park illegally (when the following measures are insufficiently applied: high curbs, various street furniture elements, etc. (Section 9.3)). This indicator is of special importance in cities where main parking infrastructure is on-street. Parking enforcement performance indicators: The importance of these indicators lies in the fact that they directly reflect the attitudes of users toward parking measure acceptance as part of their utility culture and as an absolute precondition for successful performance of parking measure. These typically include the following: l

l

l

l l

(Non)User satisfaction with parking enforcement, which is established through annual user surveys. The value of this indicator is calculated as the share of satisfied users to the total number of surveyed users. Total illegal parking time and number of illegal parking acts per unit of street network length at place where parking is not allowed: Values of these are determined once per year in a field survey, and the results are compared with the data from previous years. Number of fines served to total number of violations: To establish the data about the number of violating vehicle, a survey is conducted at the selected location in a single day. The survey is conducted by an independent agent so that collected data would reflect the actual situation. City authorities then compare the data on the number of fines served to the total number of parking violations. Total fines collected to total fines served. …

The need for more efficient parking enforcement prioritizes the issues of who should operate parking enforcement (see Section 9). City authorities in many European cities outsource parking enforcement to private sector in order to improve its efficiency (e.g., Austria, France, the Netherlands, Spain, and Great Britain), while there are only few cities in the United States where these issues have been topical lately (Wilson, 2015). To monitor the performance of a private parking enforcement operator, city authorities typically use the following indicators (Islington Council, 2009): l l l l l

Minimum frequency of street patrol by a PEO Number of parking enforcement hours Number of properly issued parking fines and warnings Number of fines canceled due to PEO mistake Fine complaint levels

Parking indicators Chapter

13

291

In addition to the above, parking enforcement departments could be obliged to report periodically (annually or semiannually) to the city authorities on their financial performance and statistics. The main goal is that city authorities evaluate their performance and on the other hand to offer insight into the operation of the city authorities to users. Reporting aimed at user information should include information to be assessed over time and measured against that of comparable authorities. City authorities should tailor a set of performance indicators to the local conditions that will serve to analyze achievement of set goals (see Example 13.3, Section 13.4). Note that compliance with parking and traffic regulations should be developed as a key performance indicator for parking operators.

13.2.3 Indicators of cost efficiency Indicators of cost efficiency serve to evaluate the ratio of revenues and costs generated by target-oriented parking operation. Operating costs per parking space and on-street and off-street parking revenues are indicators systematically determined and analyzed by city authorities or parking operators. The importance of these indicators is twofold: l

l

They evaluate if the parking subsystem operating costs are covered by parking revenues. They enable revenue management: in cases when a portion of revenues is used to finance development of alternatives to on-street parking in highly attractive areas (mass transit, construction of parking garages and lots, introduction or improvements of a park-and-ride system, etc.).

Costs incurred due to underutilized parking spaces: High value of this indicator in time may indicate that restrictive measures (charge and time limits) could be moderated in periods of low parking occupancy so that average 24 h occupancy of parking capacities would increase, as this is also one of the main parking management goals, particularly in management of parking garage operation. This indicator directly builds on “parking occupancy in time” indicator. Wasted fuel costs due to parking search: This indicator can be assessed relatively accurately; parking measure should of course strive to reduce these costs through parking search time reductions. User’s costs due to parking search: This indictor is relatively difficult to establish because of the problem to quantify user’s time, which varies across a number of parameters, such as trip purpose. Environmental costs: This is another indicator that is difficult to establish due to the complexity of environmental quality parameters. If seen only in relation to air and noise pollution, these costs can be quantified based on the traffic volume that ends in that particular area (“parking volume” indicator) and average parking search distance/time (“parking search time” indicator). Depending on the goals of evaluation and those who conduct the evaluation, additional indicators could be defined as well.

292 Sustainable Parking Management

13.3 User and nonuser satisfaction Any policy should be evaluated against (non)user satisfaction. Parking authorities should systematically monitor acceptance levels by visitors and by residents in areas where parking measures are introduced. Both these groups directly supply public funds hence they have the right to discuss their spending. Public parking (non)users need not have direct benefits from parking measure, but there should be indirect benefits for nonusers alike. Evaluation process and achievement of targeted (non)user satisfaction should be preceded by education of nonusers, i.e., (non)users should be familiarized with the main reasons, ideas, and objectives of parking management (see Chapter 12). Parking measure acceptance is typically evaluated using “user satisfaction level” indicator. Public parking user satisfaction is determined through surveys; two different approaches are applied (PATS, 2001). 1. Attitudinal acceptance A measure is deemed accepted if the target individual or group states they will accept the measures (their personal attitude). This definition is rather hypothetical and based on stated positive attitude toward a certain measure. Attitudinal acceptance is evaluated through survey based on questionnaires, interviews or group discussions, etc. This approach implies a number of different survey types and methods. 2. Behavioral acceptance According to a more rigid approach, it can be discussed whether a parking measure is accepted or not if the behavior (behavioral response) of the target individual or group verifies this acceptance (“before and after” surveys). Unlike attitudinal acceptance, this is an ex post approach, which defines targets and forecasted behavior model in advance. There are advantages and disadvantages to both above concepts, namely, “While the attitudinal acceptance is a rather hypothetical concept and has to rely on declared attitudes, choices and preferences, the behavioral acceptance can easily lead to a misunderstanding of behavioral responses as acceptance although the responses might rather reflect necessities or non-choice (i.e., capture) situations” (PATS, 2001). User satisfaction is determined through surveys, and questions should be designed so that answer may lead to conclusions about user satisfaction with applied parking measures. In other words, when discussing user acceptance, a clear distinction between various groups who declare their acceptance needs to be made. In this regard, there are two groups: on the one hand, individual interest of any citizen and their individual views about advantages and disadvantages of any policy, including parking policy, and on the other hand, organized stakeholders and their lobbying capacities, as well as lobbying by political decision-makers. To understand and respond to “user satisfaction” better, it is required to define a set of indicators to measure user satisfaction. The goals of city

Parking indicators Chapter

13

293

authorities should primarily be to define parking state indicators from user’s perspective and to define target values of indicators, and then to systematically (periodically) monitor these indicators. In case it is determined that indicators are lower than predefined targets, it is required to apply measures to increase values of such parking indicators but in efficient parking management timescales. Indicators should be carefully defined in order to reflect goals accurately and diagnose problems properly. It is believed that: l l l

Parking search time Walking distance Parking price acceptance

are parameters that best reflect user satisfaction and parking service quality from the user’s point of view. The reason behind this is that these parameters represent inconveniences for users, i.e., travel time and costs, that users tend to minimize. These indicators are described in more detail below but in context of a new goal: evaluation of user satisfaction (not parking performance): l

l

l

Parking search time, which stems from high occupancy of parking capacities, may increase travel times considerably. In addition, cars searching for parking increase traffic volumes in those areas that further leads to increased travel time and reduced service levels in the traffic network. Utilization of parking capacities and consequently parking search time may reduce if attributes of applied restrictive parking regime are tightened, through shorter parking time limits and increased parking rates (and stricter parking enforcement in the zone). In addition, parking guidance and information systems are on the rise lately. Experience from cities that implemented these systems shows that parking search time reduces by approximately 50% (see Section 11.5.2). Walking distance from the parking space to the final trip destination is an important parameter for users. It is believed that users find walking time to final trip destination to be more important than parking search time—which is yet more important than car trip time. Surveys conducted in Finland and France show that users are willing to pay by EUR 0.45-0.65 more in order to park 100 m closer to their destination (EPA, 2001). In addition, walking distance is conducive to parking occupancy; hence, it can be reduced by the above-described measures. Parking price acceptance: Reduced parking search time and walking distance values and hence improved levels of parking service increase the acceptability of parking rates. In addition, it may increase through parking rate reduction and campaigns where users will be informed about how parking revenues are used (improvements into parking subsystem, improvements into alternative transportation modes, etc.) (Chapter 12). Numerous factors that may influence price acceptability are actually outside the parking subsystem.

294 Sustainable Parking Management

Once parking indicator values are determined, defined, and established, the only method to evaluate their performance against planned (set) targets is to use the same survey methodology (“before and after” survey). Data need to be collected systematically in predefined time intervals. The most important step in evaluation of target performance through parking management measures is to accurately and precisely define target values or targeted trends of each single indicator. The experience shows that sustainable planning including parking planning is eventually a political decision (Renne, 2009). However, this does not diminish the importance of monitoring indicator values. Monitoring of indicator values should either verify or dismiss parking measure performance assumptions used by the local authorities based on their political sensibility. Monitoring and evaluation of indicator values, as mentioned repeatedly above, should contribute to improvement of management goals and eventually define a better management policy, which should then provide more sustainable results. From the city authorities’ perspective, positive effects, in particular user satisfaction, may contribute to increased confidence in decisions made by the city authorities, which is often a prerequisite for parking measure acceptance as yet again one of the most important prerequisite for good effects.

13.4 Best practice examples See Examples 13.1–13.3.

EXAMPLE 13.1 The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) launched a pilot study called SFpark, under the motto “Live more, circle less”; the goal of which was to reduce parking search and consequently all associated social, economic, and environmental impacts. Reduced parking search time should contribute to better state of the transportation system through higher street network level of service, more reliable transit, and safer walking and cycling. Before SFpark project was launched, the regime with time limitation and parking charge was in use in the central area of San Francisco. Regime attributes varied by zones: Time limit was either 1 or 2 h, and the price ranged between 2 and 3.50 USD. Off-street parking price was considerably higher, around three to five times. Parking prices were constant in time (charging the same price over day) and were rarely revised (Chatman and Manville, 2014). The pilot program began in April 2011 and covered seven zones containing about 7000 metered curb spaces and 14 public garages. Coin-operated meters were replaced with smart meters and sensors embedded in the pavement under parking spaces. This equipment was used for online occupancy monitoring. The initial

Parking indicators Chapter

13

295

EXAMPLE 13.1—cont’d prices in each zone simply carried over from the previous, uniform pricing scheme. Parking occupancies were monitored using abovementioned equipment and prices that were adjusted in response to the occupancy rates once every 6 weeks. Adopted targeted parking occupancy ranged between 60% and 80%. Therefore, the price is decreased by 50 cents per hour if the occupancy rate in the previous period was below 30%, decreased by 25 cents per hour if occupancy rate was between 30% and 60%, kept unchanged if the occupancy rate was between 60% and 80%, and increased by 25 cents per hour if the occupancy rate was above 80%. Prices were adjusted on block-by-block basis and by three time bands: (a) morning (from the beginning of parking regime hours (typically between 7 and 9 AM)) until noon, (b) midday (from noon to 3 PM), and (c) afternoon (from 3 PM until the end of parking regime hours, typically at 6 PM). Additionally, time limitation was relaxed: In some blocks, it was canceled, and in others, it was extended up to 4 h. Introduction of smart meters enabled remote payment and credit card payment. The first tariff adjustment happened in August 2011. In the first year, prices increased in 32% of the cases, declined in 31%, and remained the same in 37%, with almost no change in the average price (Pierce and Shoup, 2013). Many researchers endeavored to evaluate SFpark effects achieved. Below are some of these evaluations with special emphasis on selection of indicators to evaluate the SFpark program effects. Pierce and Shoup (2013) used the price elasticity of demand to measure how parking price changes affected parking occupancy. For this purpose, they used occupancy data collected with parking sensors on all project on-street parking spaces. For each of the 5294 price changes that happened in the first year of SFpark implementation (all zones and all time bands), old prices and average occupancy in 6-week period when the price was in force were compared with the new prices and average occupancy in the 6-week period of new prices. To evaluate effects of SFpark, Chatman and Manville (2014) selected the set of performance indicators consisting of the following: l Average occupancy, here defined as “the percent of available parking space minutes on a given block face.” This parameter is expected to indicate changes in parking search time. As mentioned above, this parameter was also monitored by SFMTA and used for price adjustment l Parking availability, here defined as “the share of time at least one space on the block face is vacant.” Even though parking availability correlated with average occupancy, the authors consider it the better metric of parking search time, as average occupancy might mislead (e.g., a block having average occupancy of 85% may be fully occupied for hours) l Average duration l Average hourly parking turnover l Car occupancy, to assess the impact of parking price change to carpooling l Frequency of double parking l Share of time cars are at meters but not paying l Share of time cars are illegally unpaid l Share of time occupied by cars with disabled placards Continued

296 Sustainable Parking Management

EXAMPLE 13.1—cont’d In order to collect all required data, surveys were conducted at three points in time during 2011 and 2012: l The first survey was conducted in May 2011. Until this time, time limitations were canceled/relaxed, and occupancy monitoring equipment was installed, but the prices were not changed. l The second survey was conducted in the period from October 2011 to January 2012. Between the first and the second survey, price was changed twice. l The third survey started in May 2012 after the price had changed earlier that month. The survey was conducted in 40 blocks included in the SFpark project and 9 control blocks. The authors acknowledged that the sample of surveyed blocks was small, but it was due to limited budget.

EXAMPLE 13.2 Belgrade, Serbia, is a city around 1,500,000 inhabitants; car ownership level is 362 passenger cars per 1000 residents. Public transit service quality was given the mark near 4 (on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)). The central urban areas have 8864 public parking spaces, out of which 78% are on-street, 2% in off-street parking lots, and 20% in parking garages. In 2003, a parking study was elaborated (Milosavljevic et al., 2003). The goals of study preparation were to “spatially and functionally manage parking in the central area of Belgrade so as to enable parking management aimed at balancing parking demand and supply; area residents should be enabled to receive parking permits, while one available parking space should be offered to as many visitors as possible who need to park in this area for regular operation of developments in the area. Adopt the on-street parking occupancy level of 100%.” Results of the 2003 study were the basis for application of the parking regime with limited parking duration and parking charge. In the central area, parking zones with parking duration of 1, 2, and 3 h were introduced. On-street parking spaces are used by both residents and visitors, but residents need to own residential parking permit (hereinafter, residential PP) applicable only for on-street parking. Parking permits can be granted to businesses as well (maximum of three parking permits), but business are also allowed to reserve a defined number of parking spaces following a defined procedure. Parking permit does not guarantee a vacant parking space, but it guarantees that once the PP holders find a vacant parking space, parking is possible without time restrictions. Limited parking duration regime is applicable from 7 AM to 9 PM on weekdays and from 7 AM to 2 PM on Saturdays. On-street parking is charged per commenced parking hour, and the hourly rate is low if compared with cities of the similar size in the region; when the regime was introduced, it amounted to RSD 30, 25, and 20 per hour (the exchange rate: EUR 1 ¼ RSD 65; USD

Parking indicators Chapter

13

297

EXAMPLE 13.2—cont’d 1 ¼ RSD 59). Parking was enforced by three entities: traffic police for illegal on-street parking, the parking operator for on-street parking where the new regime applied, and utility inspection for reserved on-street parking spaces and street sections where parking was not allowed. The study “Analysis of the effects of restrictive parking regime implementation in the central area of Belgrade” (Milosavljevic et al., 2007), which was made after the measures took effect, showed that considerable parking demand was still being realized illegally. At peak loads in zones with 6887 on-street parking spaces available, generated simultaneous user demand amounted to 10,416 parking requests. A set of indicators was adopted to evaluate the effects of measure adopted. Table 13.6 shows some of the most important indicators. Terms of reference defined targets for each of the indicators (Table 13.6) based on a comprehensive analysis of the existing state and parking management goals (objectives of the parking study). A high value (100%) of targeted on-street occupancy was set due to the low share of off-street parking lots in the total parking supply and high number of qualified demand requests. When drawing conclusions about realized positive effects, it should be taken into account that there is always a tendency to realize 100% of the adopted targets; however, due to the specificities of the problem and many parameters of influence that often do not stem from the parking subsystem, a 60%–65% target performance could also be deemed satisfactory. Results of comprehensive surveys conducted according to the methodology used for “before” surveys help quantify the indicators used, evaluate the effects, and propose parking improvement measures (Table 13.6). Analysis of effects of some indicators shows that the parking situation improved if compared with the “before” parking situation, but not to a sufficient degree. The main reason is inefficient parking enforcement and insufficient understanding of the parking management concepts by parking users. Therefore, in order to achieve even better (satisfactory) effects, it was proposed to introduce new measures and redefine attributes of the existing parking regimes, namely, 1. Redefine a tariff system in order to apply parking rates that will discourage some visitors to visit the central area and to increase nighttime parking occupancy in parking garages 2. Provide conditions for more efficient on-street parking enforcement (integrate parking enforcement on all basis) 3. Investigate the possibilities for further physical parking obstacles in streets where parking is not allowed (bollards, raised curbs, etc.) 4. Continue the tendency to reduce PP for businesses and reserved parking spaces 5. Form a single parking database 6. …

298 Sustainable Parking Management

EXAMPLE 13.3 Pursuant to Traffic Management Act 2004, in 2015, London’s Department for Transport defined Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking Policy and Enforcement (DfT, 2015). The objective of this document was to facilitate parking management for local authorities in all segments, particularly in parking enforcement. Within parking annual reports and based on best practice, it is recommended to monitor the following indicators integral to the report: Financial l Total income and expenditure on the parking account kept under the current legislation l Breakdown of income by source (i.e., on-street parking charges and penalty charges) l Total surplus or deficit on the parking account l Action taken with respect to a surplus or deficit on the parking account l Details of how any financial surplus has been or is to be spent, including the benefits that can be expected as a result of such expenditure Statistical l Number of higher-level parking charge notices (PCNs) served l Number of lower level PCNs served l Number of PCNs paid l Number of PCNs paid at discount rate l Number of PCNs against which an informal or formal representation was made l Number of PCNs canceled as a result of an informal or a formal representation l Number of PCNs written off for other reasons (e.g., civil enforcement officers (CEO) error or driver untraceable) l Number of vehicles immobilized l Number of vehicles removed Performance against targets l Performance against any parking or civil parking enforcement (CPE) targets. Authorities should note the recommendations throughout this guidance on the areas where such targets might be appropriate. As mentioned, this operational guidance is good practice guidance. The text is available in full on the department’s website.

Exam questions 1. What is the main goal when evaluating effects of parking strategy, policies, and measures for their implementation? Explain how these effects are expressed. 2. Definition of parking indicators. What criteria need to be complied with (after criteria for selection of transportation performance indicators)? 3. Explain the procedure for the evaluation of effects of applied parking strategy, policies, and measures.

Parking indicators Chapter

13

299

4. How can we systematize parking indicators? Systematize potential (typical) parking indicators. 5. Enumerate and explain typical indicators of service quality. 6. Enumerate indicators of parking measure outcomes. Explain the “parking occupancy in time” indicator in particular. 7. Enumerate indicators of parking measure outcomes. Explain the “distribution of visitors per parking purpose and duration” indicator in particular. 8. Enumerate indicators of parking measure outcomes. Explain the “visitor parking volume in area attractiveness period” and “average walking distance of users from the parking location to their final destination” indicators in particular. 9. Enumerate indicators of parking measure outcomes. Explain the “parking search time” indicator in particular. 10. Enumerate indicators of parking measure outcomes. Explain the “share of illegal parking” indicator in particular. 11. Enumerate and explain what indicators are typically monitored to evaluate parking enforcement performance. 12. Enumerate and explain indicators of cost efficiency. 13. Explain user and nonuser satisfaction. How is user satisfaction determined? Enumerate and explain in particular the indicators that serve to estimate user satisfaction.

References Booz, Allen, Hamilton, 2006. International Approaches to Tackling Transport Congestion: Parking Restraint Measures. Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission. Chatman, D.G., Manville, M., 2014. Theory versus implementation in congestion-priced parking: an evaluation of SFpark, 2011-2012. Res. Transp. Econ. 44, 52–60. Department for Transport, 2015. Operational guidance to local authorities: parking policy and enforcement. In: Traffic Management Act 2004. European Parking Association, 2001. Urban parking policy guide lines. In: Statement for COST Project 342. European Union, 2005. Parking policies and the effects on economy and mobility. In: Technical Committee on Transport, Report on COST Action 342. Islington Council, 2009. Civil enforcement of parking and moving traffic contraventions. In: Annual Report 2008/2009. Litman, T., 2013. Planning Principles and Practices. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Litman, T., 2018. Well Measured: Developing Indicators for Sustainable and Livable Transport Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Milosavljevic, N., Culjkovic, V., Vujin, D., Stifanic, I., Maletic, G., Simicevic, J., 2007. Analiza efekata uvodjenja zonskog Sistema parkiranja u Krugu dvojke-II faza [Analysis of the Effects of Restrictive Parking Regime Implementation in the Central Area of Belgrade, Stage 2]. Institute of the Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Belgrade, Serbia. Milosavljevic, N., Putnik, N., Babic, O., Netjasov, F., Culjkovic, V., Gavrilovic, S., Vujin, D., Todorovic, J., Stifanic, I., Pajkanovic, C., Rakic, S., et al., 2003. Istrazivanje karakteristika

300 Sustainable Parking Management parkiranja u centralnoj zoni Beograda sa predlogom mera za poboljsanje uslova parkiranja [Research of Parking Characteristics in Belgrade Central Area With Proposition of Measures for Parking Improvement]. Institute of the Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Belgrade, Serbia. Pierce, G., Shoup, D., 2013. Getting the prices right: an evaluation of pricing parking by demand in San Francisco. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 79 (1), 67–81. Policy Action Teams (PATS), (2001). Final Report, pp. 17–20. Renne, J.L., 2009. Evaluating transit-oriented development using a sustainability framework: lessons from Perth’s network city. In: Planning Sustainable Communities: Diversity of Approaches and Implementation Challenges. University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada, pp. 115–148. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2018). Performance Evaluation: Practical Indicators for Evaluating Progress toward Planning Objectives. TDM Encyclopedia. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/ tdm131.htm Access: 31.05.2018. Wilson, R.W., 2015. Parking Management for Smart Growth. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Index Note: Page numbers followed by f indicate figures, t indicate tables, and b indicate boxes.

A Accessibility-based planning, 281–282 Accessibility management disincentive moving traffic regimes, 246 HOV lanes, 245 Accumulation curve, 74, 74f Accumulation survey, 109 ADA. See Americans with disabilities act (ADA) Advanced traveler information system (ATIS), 250–252 Aisle Dimensions-Module, 61f Aisle width (D), 43 Alternative transportation modes, 238–241 Americans with disabilities act (ADA), 65 Amsterdam, 221 Angle parking, 50 Area of survey, 114 ATIS. See Advanced traveler information system (ATIS) Attitudinal acceptance, 292 Average occupancy, 295 Average parking duration, 79 Average walking distance, 287

B Balanced development strategy, 150 Baltimore-Washington International Airport, 265 Barcelona, 221 Behavioral acceptance, 292 Bicycles/motorbikes, 239 Boots, 210, 219 British National Travel Survey, 29

C California, 222 Car hire model, 239–240 traffic infrastructure, 2 traffic operations for, 1 Car-free neighborhoods, 15 Carpooling, 240

City of Frankfurt, Germany, 264 Civil parking enforcement (CPE), 211–212, 298 Classical town planning theories, 146–147, 147f Collective expert assessment, 99 Communication technologies, 255, 271–275 Complex module, 59–61 Comprehensive parking state assessment, 100 Compressed week, 238 Control room, 255 Conventional planning, 143, 281–282 Copenhagen, 221 Corridor-based pricing, 243 Cost efficiency, 283 indicators of, 291 Cumulative distribution, 174f Cumulative parking duration distribution, 127t Curved ramps, 56, 59, 60f Customer satisfaction, 35 Custom studies, 102, 107

D Database, 101, 109, 126–127, 130–131, 135 parking, 130–134 Data collection, 101–103, 113–115, 117, 130–131, 134 elements of survey, 103–118 parking enforcement operator(s), 135 protocols and documents, 116 survey methods, 130 survey types, 101–102 Data graphics, 135, 136f Decision-making process, 142–143 Degressive tariff, 197 Demand responsive transit, 240 Demand responsive transport, 240 Demand segments, 30–34 Demand spatial components, 25–30 Demand temporal components, 25–30 Dependent survey method, 108–109 Design vehicle, 45 Direct communication, 274 Direct effets, 280 Direct user survey, 109

301

302 Index Disabled parking, 65–67, 66t, 67f Discrete choice models, 186–187 Dyon, 221

E Electric vehicles (EV), 68f Elementary trip, 25, 25f Elements of survey process, 103–118 Emergency vehicles, 47 Environmental costs, 291 Environmental improvements of PGI, 263 EV. See Electric vehicles (EV) Expected revenue, 202 Experimental method, 182 Expert assessment, 99 Expert commission, 99

F Feasibility study, 106 Financial incentives for commuters, 241–242 Fire protection, 64 Flextime period, 238 Frictional effect, of on-street parking, 176–177, 177f Functional design, 63

G Garages, functional design of, 54–65 Gender, 187 General communication, 273–274 General effects, 280 GFA. See Gross floor area (GFA) GIS technology, 135, 136f GPS-GIS data, 214 Gross floor area (GFA), 10–11

H HCM. See Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Heating, 64 High-occupancy toll (HOT), 243 High-occupancy vehicle (HOV), 240, 245 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 176–179 HOT. See High-occupancy toll (HOT) HOV. See High-occupancy vehicle (HOV)

I Immobilization, 220, 220f In-car parking meters, 218 Independent survey method, 107–108

Indirect effects, 280 Indirect user survey, 109 Individual communication, 274–275 Individual expert assessment, 99 Information display equipment, 256 Inlet roads, accessibility for vehicles on, 232 In-lieu fees, 12, 14 In-out survey, 115, 122t, 137t Integrated tariff system, 241 Intelligent transportation system (ITS), 6, 188–189, 249–251, 253, 253f, 256, 265, 268 ITS. See Intelligent transportation systems (ITS)

K Key parking performance, 72f parameters of parking supply capacity, 91–96, 94f parking accumulation (A), 74–77, 75t, 76f, 97t parking duration (d), 79–84, 80–83f, 80–83t parking purpose, 73–74, 74f parking search time, 88–91 parking turnover (K), 84 parking volume (Vp), 77–79, 77t, 78f walking time/distance (Lw), 85–88, 85–88f, 85–88t

L License plate method of survey, 108, 115, 123–128b, 124–125t Lightening, 63–64 Limited parking duration regimes, 167 attributes of, 172–179, 173–175f, 177–178f criteria for, 168–171, 168f, 170f Linear tariffs, 197 Logit models, 190 London, 210–211, 221 Los Angeles, 222 Los Angeles Parking Freedom Initiative, 211–212

M Marketing, 271–275 programs, 246–247 Minimum parking requirements (MPR), 4, 12 concept of, 12–15 Mobility fund, 272 Mobility management, 5–6, 223–226, 224–225t, 225f

Index

accessibility management disincentive moving traffic regimes, 246 HOV lanes, 245 alternative transportation modes, 238–241 financial incentives for commuters, 241–242 marketing programs, 246–247 park-and-ride (PnR) policy, 226–238, 227f locations for, 231–233 tariff system and ticketing, 233–236 types of, 227–229 user information, 236–238 push-and-pull, 225f, 225t road pricing, 242–244 street reclaiming, 244–245 working hour schemes, 238 Modern management approach, 12–13 Modern sustainable transportation, 10 Modules, 59–61 Monitoring equipment of PGI systems, 254–255, 255f Monitoring of parking requirements, 15–16 Monterey, 222 Montgomery, 265 Monza, 266 MPRs. See Minimum parking requirements (MPR) Multispace meters, 217–218, 217f

N Nantes, 221 National Travel Survey (NTS), 191 Nonresidential parking, 31–32 Nonuser satisfaction, 292–294 NTS. See National Travel Survey (NTS) N-type trip, 25, 25f

O Off-street parking, 258, 261–262, 264, 266–268 lots, 47, 54–55, 55f On-foot accessibility, 232 On-site parking supply, 12 On-street angle parking, 52 On-street parking, 41–42, 50f, 252, 256, 258, 263–264 enforcement, 210 frictional effect of, 176–177, 177f organization and marking of, 49–54, 51t PGI system application to, 266–268 reduction of illegal, 262 spaces, 222

303

Operating instructions, 114 Outcomes, 283, 285–291, 287–289t Outlet roads, lot accessibility for vehicles on, 232

P Park-and-ride (PnR) policy, 226–238, 227f locations for, 231–233 system, 230–231 tariff system and ticketing, 233–236 types of, 227–229 user information, 236–238 Park-and-visit survey, 115 Parking accumulation (A), 74–77, 75t, 76f, 97t distribution, 121t, 126t calculation, 95t Parking angle (a), 43 Parking availability, 295 Parking bay, 43–49 area, 43–44 dimensions of, 44–45 width, 48t Parking capacity, 199, 232 Parking cash-out, 241 Parking charge, 180 revenues, 197–202 Parking database, 101, 109, 126–127, 130–134 Parking demand, 24 segments, 30–34 service quality, 34–38 spatial and temporal components of, 25–30 Parking dimensions, 284 disabled parking, 65–67, 66t, 67f functional design of parking lots and garages, 54–65 organization and marking of on-street parking, 49–54, 51t parking bay, 43–49 Parking discs, 215–216, 215f Parking duration (d), 79–84, 80–83f, 80–83t regimes, 166–179 relative and cumulative distribution of, 96t Parking enforcement, 5 operator, 135 parking payment methods, 215–219 performance indicators, 290 procedures, 210–214 technical devices for, 219–220 Parking enforcement officers (PEOs), 210, 213 Parking fee, 167

304 Index Parking garages, 55, 55f, 57f with ramps, 56f with straight ramps, 58f Parking guidance and information (PGI) system, 6 application to on-street parking, 266–268 architecture, 253–256, 253–254f effects of, 261–265 efficiency and utilization, 261–262 impacts of, 251 preconditions for quality, 257–261 user response to, 256–257 Parking hosts, 221 Parking index, pindex, 94 Parking indicators interpretation of, 283–291, 284t selection of, 281–283 user and nonuser satisfaction, 292–294 Parking lots, functional design of, 54–65 Parking management, 3–7, 181 process, 134–135 Parking management strategy, 150–156, 157f, 161f parking policy, 156–161 sustainable development, 139–143 sustainable transportation system, 143–146 Parking measure acceptance, 292 Parking meters, 217 Parking norms. See Parking standards Parking occupancies, 257–258, 259f, 294–295 Parking payment methods, 215–219 Parking performance, 200–201f characteristics, 128–129t Parking permit holder, 192 Parking permits (PP), 192 Parking policies, 156–161 acceptance, 275–277 marketing and communication, 271–275 Parking position, in sustainable transportation system, 146–150, 146–147f Parking price, 181–182, 187, 188–189f, 285 acceptance, 293 definition of, 180 Parking price management, 180–191 Parking problem, 2–3, 7 Parking problem-solving, 100 Parking purpose, 73–74, 74f, 187 Parking ramps, 59, 60f Parking regimes, 83, 166–180 Parking regulation, 212 definition of, 165 parking price management, 180–191

parking regimes, 166–180 parking revenue, 194–202 parking tariff systems, 192–194, 194t, 202, 203t Parking requirements, 9–16, 19–21, 21t concept of maximal standards, 12–15 monitoring and redefinition of, 15–16 parking standards, 10–12 Parking revenue, 194–202 Parking search strategy, 90 Parking search time, 88–91, 287, 293 Parking service quality, 34–37 Parking spaces, 42t, 49–50, 49f Parking stalls, 46t, 51, 52f Parking standards, 9–12, 17, 18t, 21, 21t, 75t Parking studies, 102 Parking subsystem, indicators of, 284t Parking supply, 9, 12, 15, 17 types of, 285 Parking supply capacity, parameters of, 91–96, 94f Parking system, 241 Parking tariff systems, 192–194, 194t, 202, 203t Parking turnover (K), 84 Parking users, categories of, 192 Parking volume (Vp), 77–79, 77t, 78f Parking volume survey, 97t Partial module, 59–61 Passenger car, 1–2 Patrolling sectors, 114 Pay by phone (or pay by cell), 218, 219f Payment by SMS, 218–219 Payment method, 63 PCNs. See Penalty charge notices (PCNs) Penalty charge notices (PCNs), 210–211, 213 PEOs. See Parking enforcement officers (PEOs) PGI system. See Parking guidance and information (PGI) system Phantom vehicle, 45 Physical barriers, 219 Physical street reclaiming, 244 Piloting method, 182 Pilot program, 294–295 Pilot study, 106 PP. See Parking permits (PP) PPP. See Public-private partnership (PPP) Prepaid parking vouchers, 216, 216f Pre-paid PnR ticket, 236 Price elasticity coefficient, 182, 184 Pricing method, 188–189 Pricing time unit, 173 rate of, 174

Index

Private parking, 194–195 Progressive tariff, 197 Psychological street reclaiming, 245 PTALs. See Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs) Public parking, 195 Public-private partnership (PPP), 196 Public transit service quality, 232 Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs), 17 Push-and-pull mobility management, 225f, 225t

Q Qualified demand, 4–5 Quality of life, 3–4

R Ramps, 55–56 parking garages with, 56f Realized revenue, 202 Reduced parking subsidies, for commuter parking, 242 Regional revitalization, 264–265 Relative parking duration distribution, 127t Research process, phases of, 103, 103f Residential parking requirements, 14 Residential vehicles distribution, 128t Revealed preference (RP), 132 Rideshare benefits, 242 Road pricing, 242–244 Road Traffic Act 1991, 210–211

S San Francisco, 222 San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), 182, 294 SARECO, 89 SDGs. See Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Sectoral management mode, 151–152 Service quality, 283 indicators of, 284–285 SFMTA. See San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) SFpark, 294–296 project, 267 Single parking bay, area of, 43, 44f Smaller-scale parking studies, 102 Smart growth, 230 SP. See Stated preference (SP) SP scenarios, 190, 190–191f

305

Staggered shifts, 238 Stall Dimensions-Module, 61f Stall length (A), 43 Stall width (F), 43 Stated preference (SP), 132, 133f, 288 Stockholm, 221–222 Straight half-ramps, 60f Straight ramps, 56–59, 59–60f parking garages with, 58f Street reclaiming, 244–245 Survey, 101–102 elements of, 103–118 goal, 106 instruments, 111 methodology, 106–114, 116 methods, 130 process, 103, 113–114 time, 110 types, 101–102, 114 Sustainable and Conventional transportation system, 281–282 Sustainable development, 3–4, 139–143, 142f Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 140, 141f, 143–144 Sustainable transportation system, 3–4, 143–146 parking position in, 146–150, 146–147f Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP), 145–146 SUTP. See Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP)

T Tandem parking, 50, 50f Targeted parking occupancy, 286t Tariff system, 83–84, 200 Taxi service, 239 Technische Universit€at Berlin, 91 Temporal information aspect, 260 Theoretical vehicle, 45 Ticketing system, PnR tariff system and, 233–236 Time restrictions, 165 TOD. See Transit-oriented development (TOD) Towing, 220f Traffic congestions, mitigation of, 262–263 Traffic regimes, disincentive moving, 246 Traffic smoothing, 262–263 decrease of parking, 262 mitigation of traffic congestions, 262–263 reduction of illegal on-street parking, 262 safety of PGI systems, 263

306 Index Traffic survey, 101 Transit benefits, 242 Transit-oriented development (TOD), 147–148, 148–149f Transportation demand management (TDM), 223, 247 Transportation management, 6, 249 Transportation modes, 238–241 Transportation research organization, 104–106, 104–105f Transportation service, 23 Transportation system, for sustainable development, 139–140, 143–146 Transportation system, 258–260 Travel costs, reduction of, 231 Travel decision-making process, 250 Travel time savings, 231 Type II trip, 25, 25f Type I trip, 25, 25f, 28t space–time diagram of double, 27f

U Unbundled parking, 15 Unique parking management language, 7 United Kingdom, 210–211 United Nations and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 3 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, 140 United Nations Sustainable Development Summit, 140, 143–144 Unlimited parking duration regimes, 167 Urban activity, 24 Urban car parking, 7 Urban livability, 3 Urban planning requirements, 10

Urban PnR lots, 228 Urban territory of Belgrade, 19 Urban transit system, positive effects on, 229–230 User and trip characteristics of PGI systems, 260–261 User communication, 271–272 User requirements, toward quality of service, 34–38, 36–37f User satisfaction, 263–264, 292–294 benefits for users, 263 utility and intention to use, 264 Users’ restriction regime, 179 User survey, 101–102, 109, 111, 111–113f, 113 form, 185f

V Van accessible, 65 Variable message signs (VMS), 252, 252–253f Variable pricing, 188–189 Vehicle following survey, 108, 116 Vehicles queuing, in front of parking lots, 262 Ventilation, 64 Visitor parking duration distribution, 203t, 205t Visitor parking volume, 287 VMS. See Variable message signs (VMS)

W Walking distance, 293 Walking environment, 239 Walking time/distance (Lw), 85–88, 85–88f, 85–88t Working hour schemes, 238