RETHINKING THE CURB AND TRADITIONAL PARKING POLICIES

There are two basic problems associated with on-street parking: too much demand (high occupancy) and insufficient enforcement of existing regulations. Since parking policy is so highly political, new parking innovations are often as much a response to political constraints as they are to practical issues.

The following tools described by Weinberger et al in 2010 may help cities and practitioners built better parking policies.

Measuring turnover versus measuring occupancy

Turnover measures how many vehicles occupy a parking spot in a given time period. A fundamental conceit of current parking practice is that 100 percent curb occupancy is attainable if the right turnover is established. While in the­ory full occupancy has some appeal, in practice it is impossible to achieve. One hundred percent occupancy would require a perfect choreography between the arrival and departure of motorists or a queue of waiting vehicles standing ready to occupy each newly vacated space.

In the real world, 100 percent occupancy, typically even 90 percent, results in cruising, double parking and other illegal parking. Turnover is difficult to mea­sure, so when turnover is the basic measure of success, it is difficult to know whether or not policy objectives are being met.

In contrast, curbside occupancy targets are easy to measure. Keeping one open spot per block ensures motorists do not need to circle or park illegally. It is also relatively easy to gradually increase or decrease meter rates until this rate is achieved. Different prices can also be set to address the different levels of demand experienced at different times of day. Cities are experimenting with variable meter rates, in which higher meter prices are charged during periods of highest demand.

Illegal curbside parking is a big portion of all parking

Cities with high curb demand, poor enforcement and underpriced curb space combine to produce large scale illegal parking. There is strong evi­dence to suggest that a large share of all curb parkers overstay their time or fail to put money in the meters.

Double parked vehicles significantly degrade available street capac­ity, delay buses and endanger cyclists and pedestrians. Vehicles parked in bus stops force buses to stop in traffic lanes also degrading street capacity. Vehicles parked in loading zones prevent trucks from accessing the curbs, and vehicles in fire hydrants cause unnecessary risk where cities have attempted to maintain safety standards.

The airport model

Sometimes high occupancy results from the poor distribution of the demand. This can take place when there is a poor match between supply and demand when the excess supply may be relatively near-by. A nearly universal airport model of parking management parcels parking into short-, mid-, and long- term parking. The supply is managed by pricing the lots to distribute parkers among them. There is a huge amount of variation in the actual rates but the general principal is that the daily maximum cost of short-term parking is typically three or four times the daily maximum for long-term parking. The pricing mechanism rations the parking in such a way that travelers wanting to leave their vehicles for several days are encouraged to park remotely and use a shuttle to arrive at the terminal, while people who are simply dropping off or picking up passengers and only need a half hour or an hour of time will be able to easily access the terminal.

The urban analog is commuters and other all-day parkers versus parkers who are making deliveries, shopping, picking up an item or attending a meeting. From a space rationing perspective it makes more sense to have employees of an establishment — who will be there for several hours a day — park somewhat more remotely and walk or take public transportation to their destination rather than have someone else walk a block or two to perform a short task.

Increasing metering opportunities

There is usually local political opposition to metering more parking. Even in areas with high spillover and very high curbside parking demand, the political cost of metering more parking is perceived to outweigh the public benefit. Metering is, therefore, typically constrained to spots directly in front of retail store fronts and on arterial streets. As a result there is often a high level of curb dysfunc­tion in dense neighborhoods with mixed land-uses, because only a small share of total curbside parking is metered. This encourages cruising for free parking on non-metered side streets.

Parking enforcement: technological transformations

Urban parking managers agree that consistent, frequent parking enforcement is essential if curbside rules and meters are to be effective. However, they also agree that illegal parking is rampant, and enforcement, especially in big cities, is grossly inadequate, sporadic, and not well distributed. Parking enforcement is unpopular. In turn, reliable enforcement has been shown to significantly increase available parking and turnover. Parking enforcement can be divided into four tasks — detection, ticketing, collection and adjudication — all of which are being transformed by technology.

Curb pricing technology

This is important to policy makers because new, credit card and cash capable, meters and pay-by-phone systems make variable meter pricing and higher meter rates much easier to implement than coin only meters. All of these technologies have to be used: Parking meters, pay-by-phone, pay by web, SMS text messag­ing or other digital systems are the means to make the payment.

Sensors and data integration

New meters can be networked with software which allows parking managers to easily assess revenue and parking activity at a glance following the IoT and the Smart Cities concept.

Information on space availability

To reduce pressure on curbside parking by directing more parkers to off-street parking garages via the large scale introduction of a real-time Electronic Guidance System which tells motorists via variable message signs and the web/app what parking is available in nearby garages.

Parking benefit districts and “revenue return” to neighborhoods

Parking meters were invented to open up curb space for short shopping visits to downtown retail areas. But as time passed, and suburbs rapidly expanded, the same downtown merchants who initially supported metering became afraid that metering would steer customers to free parking at suburban malls. As a result, meter prices in many cities remained unchanged for decades. Ironically, these artificially low curbside prices contributed to the exact parking shortages and inconvenience for shoppers so feared by downtown merchants. These fears of the draw of free suburban parking are still a major influence on urban parking policy.

Parking Benefit District (PBD) are locations closed to the commercial area where parking is concentrated and where meter rates would make curb parking more available, pay for parking structures, and pay for streetscape improvements to make the downtown more attractive. Merchants were persuaded that customers would pay more for parking, if they got more in return. A fundamental tenet is to create a “park once” area, where motorists could leave their cars and walk. Thus, PBD’s would help restore walkable neighborhoods in city and town centers.

Park & Ride facilities

Park & Ride facilities are commonly situated on the outskirts of urban areas, offering free or significantly cheaper parking compared to urban centers. These facilities enable commuters to park their vehicles and easily access public transportation to reach their destinations.

RETHINKING OFF STREET PARKING

Set Maximum requirements

When cities set minimum standards, they are requiring that parking be provided. Maximum standards allow parking to be supplied up to a certain level.

Maximums are often coupled with minimums, thus creating a range from which a developer may choose. Similar to minimums, maximum amounts are typically expressed according to square meters of built space in a city’s zoning code.

Appropriate limits to the number of off-street parking spaces landowners may develop can meet both city and developer interests. The cities gain environmental benefits from preserved open space, limited impervious surfaces, and more attractive and pedestrian-friendly urban design. In addition, the disincentive to single occupant auto use created by limiting parking availability encourages use of alternatives such as public transit, bicycling, walking and carpooling. Consequent reduction in private automobile use may improve mobility by reducing congestion, and improve air quality. When developers and their competitors each face parking restrictions, they gain from minimizing construction, maintenance and operation costs of typically low-revenue generating land use, and increased leasable space.

The most rational approach to setting maximums is to predetermine the desired levels of access by different modes and ensure adequate facilities for each. If high auto access is desired, large amounts of parking should be in place. If high transit access is preferred, more transit capacity and less parking should be made available, likewise for bicycle and pedestrian access. Parking provided in excess of the desired levels of auto access will likely impede the mode split goals.

Parking freezes

Cities can implement parking freezes to contain the negative impact of excessive off-street parking supplies on congestion, urban form and air quality, under the notion that excess parking enables additional vehicle km travelled.

Eliminate or reduce minimum requirements

The most straightforward parking policy reform that planners may pursue would be to eliminate minimum off-street parking regulations allowing developers and building owners to decide how many spaces to voluntarily provide. Proponents of deregulation argue that these parties are best qualified to make the case-by-case decision of how many parking spaces to provide, for it is in their best financial interest to provide enough parking to satisfy tenants and customers while avoiding a wasteful oversupply.

Reducing, rather than eliminating minimum requirements, however, may prove to be a more politically saleable method for lowering parking supply. It may also be a wise move on the part of planning agencies to rethink their parking management strategies in terms of reducing minimums, applying maximums or taking other actions rather than simply abdicate responsibility to the developer community.

Transit Zoning Overlays are special zones that supersede the use, density, design and parking requirements of a neighborhood’s previously existing regulations. Planners use this tool in areas served by regular, reliable transit, such as bus rapid transit or light rail, subway, or other service under the notion that neighborhoods well served by transit demand an urban form different from those more reliant on private automobile.

Shared parking

The most efficient way to use off-street parking is to share it. The driving rationale behind shared parking facilities is that different uses attract visitors at different times throughout the day; thus, spaces that are built to meet a maximum demand at the peak for one use would sit empty at other times of the day. Under typical zoning rules a hardware store and the restaurant next door must each provide the amount of parking prescribed for their use even though one business is used almost exclusively in the daytime and the other in the evening. Shared parking allows the same spaces to be used by both businesses.

Shared parking encourages the centralization, consolidation and reduction of a neighborhood’s parking facilities, thus improving urban design and allowing more productive land uses.

In-lieu parking fees

Several cities allow developers to reduce minimum parking requirements in exchange for a fee paid to the city to fund construction of shared public parking facilities.

These “in-lieu parking fees” offers key benefits. First, they allow developers the flexibility to choose whether or not to build what can be an expensive amenity, particularly in urban infill locations. The subsequent reduction in construction costs makes affordable housing or historic preservation, for example, more financially viable. Second, by reducing and consolidating scattered off-street parking spaces, a city has the opportunity to significantly improve a district’s urban design (Weinberger et al., 2010).

LOWER DEMAND FOR PARKING

The following highlights some of the more common strategies for lowering parking demand.

Cash-Out programs

Work trips account for 33 percent of all vehicle km travelled in the U.S. Employers often provide free parking as a benefit to employees, regardless of their choice of transportation. Cash-out Programs give employees a choice to either accept the free parking or a tax-free transit subsidy or cash, which commuters who bicycle or walk to work may prefer.

Transit incentives

Employers, cities, residential property managers and other institutions may contribute to reduced demand for parking spaces by offering transit incentives to employees and residents. These often take the form of a subsidized bus or rail pass.

Boost Active Travelling and Transit

To promote active travel and encourage the use of public transportation, various interventions can be implemented. These interventions range from enhancing infrastructure to conducting campaigns that highlight the advantages of these modes of transportation. A few examples are:

Smart Growth

Smart growth (also called New Urbanism, Location Efficient Development and Transit Oriented Development) is a general term for development policies that result in more efficient transportation and land use patterns, by creating more compact, development with multi-modal transportation systems (Litman, 2006).

Walking and Cycling Improvements

Walking and Cycling improvements support parking management strategies in several ways (VTPI, 2005):

• Improving walkability (the quality of walking conditions) expands the range of parking facilities that serve a destination. It increases the feasibility of sharing parking facilities and use of remote parking facilities.
• Improving walkability increases “park once” trips, that is, parking in one location and walking rather than driving to other destinations, which reduces vehicle trips and the amount of parking required at each destination.
• Walking and cycling improvements allow these modes to substitute for some automobile trips.
• Walking and cycling improvements encourage transit use, since most transit trips involve walking or cycling links.

REFERENCES

Bates, J. (2014). Parking demand. In S. Ison & C. Mulley, Parking issues and policies (p. 57-

86). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Evans, J.E., 2005. Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes: Vanpools and Buspools (No. 95). Transportation Research Board.

Guo, Z. (2013), Does residential parking supply affect household car ownership? The case of

New York City, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 26, pp. 18-28.

Institution of Highways and Transportation, 2005. Parking Strategies and Management. Institution of Highways and Transportation, HQ Media Services Ltd., Essex.

Litman, T. 2006. Parking Management Strategies, Evaluation and Planning. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

Litman, T., 2018. Parking management best practices. Routledge.

Marsden, G., 2006. The evidence base for parking policies: a review. Transport Policy 13 (6), 447–457.

Mingardo, G., van Wee, B., Rye, T., 2015. Urban parking policy in Europe: A conceptualization of past and possible future trends. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 74, 268–281.

Mingardo, G., Vermeulen, S., & Bornioli, A. (2022). Parking pricing strategies and behaviour: Evidence from the Netherlands. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 157, 185-197. ISSN 0965-8564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.01.005.

Pierce, G., Shoup, D., 2013. Getting the prices right – An evaluation of pricing parking by demand in San Francisco. Journal of American Planning Association 79 (1), 67–81.

Shoup, D. (2005), The High Cost of Free Parking, American Planning Association, Chicago,

Illinois.

Shoup, D. (2014), The high cost of minimum parking requirements. In S. Ison & C. Mulley.

Parking issues and policies (p. 87-114). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

VTPI, Online TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org), 2005.

Warffemius, P. (2015), Effecten van veranderingen in reistijd en daaraan gerelateerde

kwaliteitsaspecten in het openbaar vervoer, Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteit (KiM), The

Hague, the Netherlands.

Weinberger, R., Kaehny, J., & Rufo, M. (2010). U.S. parking policies: An overview of management strategies. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy.