Search results

This chapter defines and describes the different types of carfree and low-car development found in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, analysing the benefits and problems they bring and their implications for parking policy.

The chapter draws on the literature on UK and European carfree developments, including primary research conducted by the author into the potential for carfree development in the United Kingdom. It is also informed by a series of observational visits to some of the principal carfree developments around Europe.

The UK concepts of car-free and low-car housing are limited in scope, defined by the absence or reduced level of parking. The European concept of carfree development is broader, bringing greater benefits to the immediate residents. All have led to lower traffic generation. European carfree developments bring other benefits to their residents such as more socialisation between neighbours and earlier independence for children. The potential demand for car-free and low-car housing is greatest in the inner areas of larger cities. These are also the places which offer the most suitable development locations. The most common problems encountered relate to parking and/or management of vehicular access. To avoid overspill problems, parking needs to be controlled on the streets surrounding carfree or low-car developments.

The benefits of carfree development are greatest in urban areas where road capacity and/or parking are under the greatest pressure. Thus carfree development is a useful tool for cities undergoing urban intensification.

The chapter is the first to analyse carfree and low-car development from a parking perspective and to demonstrate their implications for parking policy.

The purpose of this study is to measure the supply and demand for parking in London to determine whether there is sufficient provision for night-time residential needs and to determine whether policies designed at controlling car ownership by restricting residential parking are effective.

The history of parking controls and early studies of parking in Central London are reviewed to put into context recent surveys of parking supply undertaken by MVA. Data from the National Travel Survey, the English Housing Survey and various travel demand surveys by Transport for London have been analysed to determine the overnight demand for parking and the supply both off-street and on-street.

The study shows that there appears to be saturation in inner London for controlled on-street parking (which is the majority of available parking) and high utilisation for off-street parking. In outer London, there is more spare capacity. The evidence suggests that restricting residential parking space does not limit the growth in car ownership especially in outer London where the car is an essential part of modern living.

Restrictive policies on parking supply in new developments leads to unsightly and dangerous parking on streets not designed for parking or illegal parking on footways. Policy makers must appreciate that car ownership will continue to rise and that parking spaces must be provided, if necessary, underground.

The study uses several different sources of data to investigate the under-researched area of parking availability which is of considerable importance to transport planners and policy makers.

This chapter explains how and why local parking policies are developed, the sometimes conflicting relationship between parking, revenue raising and economic development and the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to use parking policy as a demand management tool.

This chapter offers a review of prior research and literature on the topic parking management and further explores the impacts and difficulties of parking management. Moreover, empirical data in this chapter comes from the authors’ own survey study of southern, eastern and southeastern European cities about their parking problems and policies.

The findings of this chapter show that there is a need to consider what parking solutions cities may choose and what solutions might work for them. It is difficult to say that very different solutions will suit cities of different sizes, but rather that the level of implementation of the solutions must be related to the scale of the problem in each city, and its citizens’ demands. In addition, each city must work within its particular legislative context, which is why certain solutions might not work in some cities.

Parking policy and parking management are key to urban mobility and to managing its negative effects. It is possible to develop a car parking policy that will manage the negative impacts of urban car use whilst also supporting business and the economy; but this is a balancing act, which is why it is important to learn from the experience of other places, as we have shown in this chapter. Parking demand and the response of different cities to it are very important when considering the rise of car use in Europe and other parts of the world. Future solutions for parking problems are detailed at the end of this chapter.

This chapter offers a comprehensive overview of prior research in parking management and connects this overview to findings of the authors own survey in south, eastern and southeastern European cities. Very few studies have made similar connections and provided in-depth insights into parking management in European cities. Moreover, the research provides useful information for planners and professionals dealing with parking issues and what solutions might work in their city.

This study aims investigate the status of applying technology in car parking facilities. It also examines the factors affecting the deployment of these technologies as they improve the efficiency and convenience of car parking facilities amidst changing transport needs in Asian smart cities.

A comprehensive literature review informs the relationships between car park provisions and the traffic congestion problem. A typology covering different technological solutions is then formulated. The factors affecting the use of two such common technologies (i.e. mechanical car parks and intelligent information systems) are examined in two emerging smart cities in Asia with the aid of a desk-top study for Singapore and a survey covering over 600 samples (including users and non-users, as both groups are important to derive influencing factors) in Hong Kong.

The extent to which mechanical car parks may help relieve the space shortage problem depends on their relative costs and the facility management performance. For real-time vacancy information systems, their wide spread use depends on drivers’ age and past parking experience.

Due to geographical constraints, only two Asian cities (Singapore and Hong Kong), where the use of smart technologies is flourishing, are included in the study. The survey on car parking apps is preliminary due to their relative short deployment in Asia. It is expected that the phenomena will quickly spread in the region as more smart cities are developed.

By expounding on the development of modern parking technologies in smart cities, the important influence of car parks as a strategic facility toward solving traffic congestion and environmental problems is brought to the attention of policy makers, in particular the influencing factors affecting strategies to promote the use of parking apps.

The purpose of this paper is to find a real-time parking location for a four-wheeler.

Real-time parking availability using specific infrastructure requires a high cost of installation and maintenance cost, which is not affordable to all urban cities. The authors present statistical block matching algorithm (SBMA) for real-time parking management in small-town cities such as Bhavnagar using an in-built surveillance CCTV system, which is not installed for parking application. In particular, data from a camera situated in a mall was used to detect the parking status of some specific parking places using a region of interest (ROI). The method proposed computes the mean value of the pixels inside the ROI using blocks of different sizes (8 × 10 and 20 × 35), and the values were compared among different frames. When the difference between frames is more significant than a threshold, the process generates “no parking space for that place.” Otherwise, the method yields “parking place available.” Then, this information is used to print a bounding box on the parking places with the color green/red to show the availability of the parking place.

The real-time feedback loop (car parking positions) helps the presented model and dynamically refines the parking strategy and parking position to the users. A whole-day experiment/validation is shown in this paper, where the evaluation of the method is performed using pattern recognition metrics for classification: precision, recall and F1 score.

The authors found real-time parking availability for Himalaya Mall situated in Bhavnagar, Gujarat, for 18th June 2018 video using the SBMA method with accountable computational time for finding parking slots. The limitations of the presented method with future implementation are discussed at the end of this paper.

This chapter examines the primary factors affecting the demand for parking, distinguishing between residential demands and parking at other destinations. The demand for parking relates not only to where people may want to park, but also at what time and for how long.

This chapter is largely based on an analysis of the Great Britain National Travel Survey (NTS), over the period 2002–2010. While data on residential parking is straightforward to obtain, extracting data for non-residential parking involves ‘following’ successive trips made by the same vehicle and deriving the duration of parking, using the NTS 7-day trip diary.

At the home end, the main variations in parking demand are related to housing type and residential density: the issues associated with residential parking are essentially an urban problem. At the destination end, commuting parking dominates because (a) it is the largest single purpose category; (b) with the minor exception of Holiday parking, it has the greatest duration; and (c) the onset of working time is more concentrated than that for other purposes. Nonetheless, at the peak of destination parking activity (around 12 noon), other purposes add about 44% to the base demand due to workplace parking.

The analysis also reveals that only a small percentage of destination parking acts make any payment, and that for those that do, the average is under £2 per stay. On an annual basis, it is suggested that parking consumes about 3% of motoring expenditure but 97% of motoring time (on average).

Residential Parking is only a significant problem at higher densities (above 45 ppHa, say) where the housing types required to support the population density result in competition for on-street parking. For non-residential parking, the dominance of commuter parking causes particular problems both in terms of space provision and its impact on mode choice. Neither form of parking capacity appears to be well managed by current pricing policy, at least on the basis of the British evidence.

To the author’s knowledge, diary travel surveys have not previously been analysed to investigate parking demand. While the technique is most relevant to multiple-day diaries like NTS, the approach opens up the possibility of more extensive analysis of other surveys to reveal the patterns of parking, and duration in particular.

The pricing of parking is a common tool used by governments to facilitate the efficient movement of traffic, raise revenue and, more recently, influence travel behaviour. An important and under-researched by-product of parking pricing schemes is the impact of these schemes on parking supply.

This chapter offers a review of prior research and literature, and explores: who pays the parking levy, the impact of the Congestion Levy on the provision of parking and an overview of the transport impacts of the levy.

The direction of the levy at parking operators and owners rather than the vehicle drivers does not provide a direct link between users and the levy and results in many parking providers not passing the levy onto commuters. The study of parking supply impact shows that, since the introduction of the levy, the supply of commercial off-street parking spaces has declined while the growth in private, non-residential, parking spaces has slowed. Over the same period, there has been a decrease in the number of parking spaces provided for long-stay parking (which attract the parking levy), and an increase in the number of spaces provided for other uses. Understanding these parking supply impacts are important, not only because a reduction in the number of long-stay car parking spaces is an objective of the levy, but also because any such reduction could magnify the travel behaviour impacts that may have occurred solely as a result of an increase in parking price. Investigation of the overall transport impacts of the levy indicate that the parking levy did have an impact on mode choice. However the extent of this impact was not clear due to a large number of associated changes in policy and economic conditions that took place at the same time as the levy.

The chapter shows that the parking levy was positive in its impact on transport use, however there were a number of improvements that could be made to the way the levy was implemented that could improve these. Interestingly, there have been a number of recent changes in the implementation of the levy that address some of these issues. Most importantly, following its own investigation into the impact of the levy, from January 2014 the cost of the levy was increased by 40% to $1,300 per annum, and its coverage extended (Victorian State Revenue Office, 2013). The impact of this change has not been considered in this research.

The uniqueness of the chapter lies in its exploration of how increased prices of parking has influenced supply and how the levy, as a new form of congestion pricing, has influenced the supply of parking in the context of the case study of the Melbourne parking levy in Australia.

Recent studies on commuter parking in an age of fully autonomous vehicles (FAVs) suggest, that the number of parking spaces close to the workplace demanded by commuters will decline because of the capability of FAVs to return home, to seek out (free) parking elsewhere or just cruise. This would be good news because, as of today, parking is one of the largest consumers of urban land and is associated with substantial costs to society. None of the studies, however, is concerned with the special case of employer-provided parking, although workplace parking is a widespread phenomenon and, in many instances, the dominant form of commuter parking. The purpose of this paper is to analyze whether commuter parking will decline with the advent of self-driving cars when parking is provided by the employer.

This study looks at commuter parking from the perspective of both the employer and the employee because in the case of employer-provided parking, the firm’s decision to offer a parking space and the incentive of employees to accept that offer are closely interrelated because of the fringe benefit character of workplace parking. This study develops an economic equilibrium model that explicitly maps the employer–employee relationship, considering the treatment of parking provision and parking policy in the income tax code and accounting for adverse effects from commuting, parking and public transit. This study determines the market level of employer-provided parking in the absence and presence of FAVs and identifies the factors that drive the difference. This study then approximates the magnitude of each factor, relying on recent (first) empirical evidence on the impacts of FAVs.

This paper’s analysis suggests that as long as distortive (tax) policy favors employer-provided parking, FAVs are no guarantee to end up with less commuter parking.

This study’s findings imply that in a world of self-driving cars, policy intervention related to work commuting (e.g. fringe benefit taxation or transport pricing) might be even more warranted than today.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the process benefits and findings of a functional benchmarking exercise. It explores the issues surrounding the potential introduction of a direct employee car parking financial incentive or disincentive measure at an airport, drawing on best practice from specific non‐airport organisations.

A case study approach is taken in which three different organisations are considered from a functional benchmarking perspective.

There are direct findings in terms of how to develop employee parking strategies/policies.

This paper adds to the practical literature on functional benchmarking by presenting evidence from a benchmarking exercise of three case study organisations.

There are practical findings in terms of the potential benefits and limitations from a functional benchmarking exercise. There are also practical recommendations in terms of organisations seeking to develop and implement staff car parking strategies.

The paper provides an illustration of functional benchmarking in practice.

This chapter provides an overview of parking policy. The chapter takes as its start point that parking is first and foremost a land-use issue. It looks at the conflicts and synergies between parking policy for the purposes of traffic management and parking policy to support various key land-uses and policy objectives.

This chapter discusses the main practice-oriented viewpoints on what is meant by parking policy and what it aims to achieve. It then provides a state-of-art review of the evidence base on residential, retail and workplace parking as the three key parking destinations before drawing together these findings.

The reviews reveal that there has been an overemphasis on the importance of the impact of parking pricing to trip frequency, destination and walk times in the literature. Much greater emphasis should be given to establishing the extent to which parking restraint supports the economy, the environment and social equity. Only then will we be able to develop a consistent policy framing within which good parking management policy can play out and make a long-term difference to travel patterns and the quality of life in our cities.

If parking policy is to work well as part of an overall package of demand restraint, it needs to be applied in conjunction with land-use planning. In transport terms, this means connecting parking policy to non-car accessibility. If the overarching land-use and transport accessibility policies are right, then there is a greater possibility for other parking management policies to be effectively applied and integrated in broader transport strategies.

This chapter suggests that without a clear understanding of the broader objectives that parking policy supports it will not be possible to design effective parking management approaches.