Parking Policy in Bern, Switzerland
The case study reported here is taken from “Parking Policy Measures
and their Effects on Mobility and the Economy. Swiss Case Studies”
prepared by Ecoplan for the COST (European Co-operation in the Field of
Scientific and Technical Research) project Parking Policy Measures and
their Effects on Mobility and the Economy, number 342. The report was
produced in 2001.
Context
As in other major cities, Bern has experienced an increase in traffic
volumes and the associated negative impacts, which has shift transport
policy away from predict and provide towards demand management. The main
pillars of current transport policy in Bern are public transport and parking
policy, which is considered “the most important policy measure in
order to achieve a substantial reduction of traffic volume within the
urban area of Bern and especially within the city” (European Commission,
2001a). A reduction in traffic volume of 20% was desired from transport
policy in 1992. The guiding principles of the parking policy are:
“to restrict the quantity of provided public and private parking
spaces in order to reduce car use selectively
to follow a parking fee strategy in order to reduce motorised private
transport and to promote the switch to public transport and the use
of bicycles instead.”
(European Commission, 2001a)
Parking policy measures in Bern are summarised in “Parking Policy
Measures in the Urban Area of Bern”
Parking Policy Measures in the Urban Area of Bern
*Blue Zones are located in residential areas. On weekdays parking is
limited to 60 minutes between 8am and 6pm. Three hour parking is permitted
in the interpeak period. In areas with a lot of leisure traffic, restrictions
can be extended to weekends. Residents (including businesses within the
Blue Zones can purchase a parking permit at a cost of 240 francs per month.
Visitors and other users can purchase daily parking permits. New local
legislation was required to enact Blue Zones, and as with other parking
measures, was subject to initial opposition and appeal from the Automobile
Club and some residents, who claimed that the system contradicted federal
law. The system was introduced in 1999, including the removal of 10% of
public parking spaces.
Parking charges were to be increased from two Swiss francs in the central
business district to four and from one franc to two in outer districts,
plus the introduction of a one franc charge for park and ride spaces.
However, there was significant opposition from the business community.
As a compromise, only the charges in residential areas were increased;
one day permits rose from 8 francs to 15 and new four hour permit was
introduced fro 8 francs. Charges also became applicable 24 hours per day.
External costs are not incorporated into the charges, as the necessary
increases would be unacceptable in the current climate. It should also
be noted that as the increase to four francs for city centre spaces was
blocked, the local authority charge remains lower than that for privately
operated car parks.
There was also objection to the reduction in number of public parking
spaces. The “Action Plan on Air Pollution” of 1992 promoted
this, but the political will and legal basis was missing. A compromise
was reached in 1997, resulting in a plan to move 154 ground level spaces
from the old part of the city underground, to achieve a pedestrian friendly
environment. However, objections were raised against enlarging existing
subterranean car parks, resulting in no progress.
Objections against limitations on duration of stay are not reported.
thus, public spaces in the centre of Bern are subject to severe restrictions
to deter car commuters and provide for visitors. Maximum duration restrictions
vary between 15 and 60 minutes depending on charges and centrality. Many
central spaces are free, but restricted to 30 or 60 minutes.
It should also be noted that the introduction of a traffic management
system within the city also included a parking guidance system. The first
area-wide parking guidance system in Switzerland was introduced by the
operators of private car parks in Bern in 1997. The system was funded
by car users through a 0.10 franc per hour increase in charges. One year
on, more customers were using car parks, including park and ride facilities
on the outskirts, and revenues were higher than expected. The rest of
the traffic management system has been blocked due to opposition on cost
grounds, although discussions are on going.
More restrictive controls were introduced for visitor parking around
the exhibition centres and sports stadium, as the free public transport
(for those with tickets) was not enough to dissuade drivers due to the
plentiful free parking spaces. Consequently, fees of 5 francs per half
day were introduced. Additionally, legislation was introduced to allow
the introduction of White Zones with time limits applicable 24h hours
a day, seven days a week. In these areas around the exhibition centres
and stadium, parking is limited to 60 minutes unless special allowance
has been obtained. As with the Blue Zones, residents’ permits can
be purchased. A reservation system is also being investigated, such that
only those with a pre-paid parking ticket may access spaces.
On the outskirts of Bern, park and ride has become more important as
parking restrictions in the centre and residential areas have increased.
Park and ride facilities are operated privately (by a community or public
transport operator for example) with financial support from the local
authority. Support is dependent upon:
Park and ride facilities minimising the driving distance for car
traffic and being located at public transport access points in the surrounding
countryside,
Facilities should not compete with local public transport else modal
shift to the car may result,
The facilities must be managed in terms of a charging structure,
access limitations and surveillance,
New facilities must correspond with the goals of regional planning
and transport concepts.
Parking spaces on local authority premises are also subject to regulations:
Neither civil servants nor visitors have a right to a parking space
A fee is charged for use of a space
The fee should include the costs of land use, maintenance and investment
The fee is reduced if a private vehicle is used for official purposes.
Private non-residential parking is also subject to regulations, but there
is also substantial opposition. In some cases, this is from a canton disputing
Federal Court decisions, not from private companies. The Federal Court
ruled that the Canton of Bern must collect parking fees from the customers
of new and existing shopping centres, however, this obligation has been
dropped by the Canton. The handbook on “Implementation of Parking
Policy Measures” was introduced to persuade organisations of the
need for voluntary parking controls and explain how they should be planned,
introduced and managed. Whilst shopping centres suffering from the poor
image created by significant amounts of search traffic may introduce charges
(somewhat unwillingly) the lack of compulsory measures for shopping centres
is often used to argue against parking charges on public spaces in the
centre of Bern. Indeed, opposition from companies has been less, due to
the high opportunity cost they pay for their parking spaces, which is
not traditionally passed on to employees. Fritz Studer AG only provide
a parking space for employees living outside a certain area (i.e. beyond
the reach of public transport), and even then a fee is charged. The more
central the car park, the higher the charge. Revenues are used to maintain
the car park and promote public transport use amongst employees. Planning
regulations are also used to limit PNR around new developments, with the
number of spaces more limited where the destination is well served by
public transport. These measures are similar to the company travel plans
introduced elsewhere.
Impacts on demand and supply
Bern transport polices have resulted in a stabilisation in traffic growth
on arterial roads (although not on motorways), with levels below that
forecast as in “Traffic Growth in the Urban Area of Bern”.
However, it should be noted that the desired 20% reduction had not been
achieved by 2001. The parking policy is credited with much of this success,
as if a free parking space is guaranteed, 90% of commuters will drive.
Traffic Growth in the Urban Area of Bern
(European Commission, 2001a)
The Blue Zones have been the most successful element of the parking policy:
Traffic volumes decreased by 15% on average – 14% in the morning
peak, 21% in the evening peak and a 13% reduction in the number of vehicles
in restricted areas.
Demand for spaces dropped – the average occupancy of parking
spaces decreased by 13%. Residents had fewer problems finding a space
and search traffic was reduced.
There was displacement of commuters out of residential areas, as
in the short run there is little modal shift. Although, where high quality
alternatives exist, modal shift does result. In the northern residential
district of Bern, the Blue Zone resulted in the occupancy of the nearest
park and ride increasing from 150 to 600 spaces on average.
To counteract displacement and encourage modal shift the introduction
of Blue Zones in neighbouring areas should be co-ordinated.
Residential areas have become more appealing to shoppers as they
can find a space. Around shopping centres a time limit of 60 minutes
was introduced for public spaces, thus the Blue Zones have not caused
disadvantages for urban retailing compared to shopping centres.
Regular and strict enforcement is necessary for success. High fines
should be imposed if time restrictions are abused. In 2001 the fine
was 40 Swiss francs, with plans to increase it to 60 over the following
five years.
Parking fees applicable to public car parks and spaces around stadium
used for large events have been less successful:
· In the central business district charges have barely had any
impact on demand as they are not high enough. In some streets, as much
as 20% of the traffic is search traffic.
· With regard to spaces around large events, charges had only been
in place for 6 months in 2001 and demand for parking spaces was nearly
as high as the previous year. It is thought that there may be greater
change as time progresses and people become aware of the charges.
It was not possible in 2001 to assess other parking measures due to lack
of implementation.
Environmental Impacts
Again these are largely attributable to the Blue Zones. Nevertheless,
most people had not perceived a change in the levels of nuisance from
air pollution and noise, as illustrated by “Perception of Change
in Air Pollution and Noise in Residential Areas with Blue Zones”.
Perception of Change in Air Pollution and Noise in Residential Areas
with Blue Zones
(European Commission, 2001a)
Economic Impacts
The city centre parking charges are too low to be having any impact in
terms of covering full costs or revenue raising. Similarly, park and ride
charges cannot be set high enough to cover costs, as making them significantly
higher than city centre parking will dissuade people from using the facilities.
However, the Blue Zones are operating at a profit level. Purchase of permits
generated 6 million Swiss francs per year, whereas introduction and enforcement
costs amount to 2 million Swiss francs. These costs have been reduced
through the outsourcing of enforcement to a private company. This resulted
in a 20% drop in enforcement costs. Enforcement has also become more effective
as a dedicated team can perform regular checks that the police could previously
not manage. The surplus generated by the Blue Zones will be used to fund
traffic calming measures.
Policy contribution
Objective
Comment
The Blue zones have resulted in greater efficiency
in residential areas due to increased availability of parking
spaces and reductions in search traffic.
Blue Zones have also made streets more liveable
as residents can find spaces and there is less search traffic.
The reduction in search traffic in Blue Zones also
reduces air and noise pollution.
There are no reported impacts on equity and social
inclusion.
The reduction in search traffic in Blue Zones also
reduces the risk of accidents, so long as speeds do not increase
significantly. Future traffic calming should prevent this.
The growth potential is not fully realised as charges
in the centre of Bern are not high enough to noticeably reduce
car traffic and improve the environment, making it more attractive
to shoppers and visitors.
The Blue Zones are operating at a considerable profit,
but charges in the centre, and park and ride facilities are not
covering full costs.
Parking Policy in Helsinki, Finland
The case study reported here is taken from “Parking Policy Measures
and their Effects on Mobility and the Economy. Case Studies - Finland”
prepared for the COST (European Co-operation in the Field of Scientific
and Technical Research) project Parking Policy Measures and their Effects
on Mobility and the Economy, number 342. The report was produced in
2001.
Context
Helsinki is a coastal metropolis and is the fastest growing in the
EU. The city centre is sited on a peninsula 12Km2.The
total population of the metropolitan area is 955,500, 65,000 of whom
live in the city centre. There are 480,000 workplaces within the metropolis,
100,000 of which are in the centre. As in other developed cities, car
use grew at the expense of other modes through out the 1970’s and 1980’s,
although car ownership decreased in the early 1990’s as a result of
economic depression. In 2001, car ownership stood at 360 per 1,000 inhabitants,
with 605 of households owning at least one vehicle. Whilst modal split
over the Helsinki metropolitan area indicates less car dependence than
is apparent in many cities, the limited land access to the peninsula
(9 streets) results in familiar problems resulting from car use. In
view of this and the rapid growth, increasing the modal share of public
transport is seen as essential.
Modal split of total trips in Helsinki
(European Commission, 2001b)
Modal split of total trips in Helsinki downtown
(European Commission, 2001b)
As in Bern, parking policy aims to ensure that using public transport
is more attractive than driving into the city. Public transport in Helsinki
consists of bus, tram, three rail lines for commuter trains and one
metro line. Over half of all public transport trips are by bus. In 2001
69% of motorised trips into the city centre in the morning rush hour
trips were by public transport. Over the whole day, the share is 62%.
The aim is to increase the morning peak share to 70% in the short term,
and 75% in the long term (short and long term are not defined). Nevertheless,
260,000 vehicles cross the city centre border each day.
Parking policy is designed to meet all non-commuter related demand
for parking spaces within the inner city and suburban regions. Long-term
parking in the city centre is discouraged. In the inner city area there
are approximately 93,200 parking places, 36,500 of these are in the
city centre and 4,000 of those are subject to a charge. Of the spaces
in the city centre, 45% are on street (including residential parking),
11% are in parking facilities and 44% are private. It is notable that
most parking facilities are located near to the main rail station in
the heart of the city.
The parking policy consists of the following measures:
Enforcement
A dynamic guidance system in the city centre
Reserved residential spaces for the City Car Club
Maximising the number of on-street spaces
Introduction of time restrictions for on-street parking
Introduction of charges for on-street parking
Designated unloading areas and times
Residents parking:
residents only areas
shared business and residents parking to reduce the number of
spaces below average in an area with good public transport access
A park and ride system catering for cars and bicycles, as well as
access to all forms of public transport:
4,000 passenger car spaces, used by 2,200 vehicles in 1996
Number of spaces to be increased to 12,000 by 2020
5,000 bicycles used the system in the summer and 1,000 in winter
in 1996
Number of bicycle spaces to be increased to 16,000 by 2020
Park and ride facilities at intervals along corridors entering
the centre of Helsinki
€33.61 million investment between 1996 and 2020, and
Parking standards for new private and residential developments (unfortunately,
the city cannot control existing off-street private and residential
parking).
The charges introduced for on-street parking vary according to centrality.
In the central business district the charge is €2 per hour, areas surrounding
the peninsula are €1 per hour, and the remainder of the inner city area
is €0.5 per hour. Charges apply from 08:00 to 17:00 on weekdays and
09:00 to 15:00 on Saturdays in the central business district. In the
central business district parking duration is restricted to one or two
hours. If there is a restriction in other zones it is four hours. The
highest charge for off-street parking facilities (mostly underground)
is €2 per hour, and there are usually empty spaces available at all
times of day and year. However, there are special rates for long-term
and regular parking. Additionally, customers of near by shops may get
price reductions or free parking if they spend enough on purchases.
Whilst this charging regime is not particularly unique, the means of
payment are novel. On-street parking can be paid for through conventional
metering, pre-paid scratch card tickets to be displayed in the windscreen,
or an in-car electronic meter with reloadable smart card. Use of this
later means of payment allows holders to park anywhere within their
designated zone, only pay the actual time they are parked and receive
a 20% reduction in parking charges, although there is a €90 fixed charge
for the meter and smart card. Approximately 25,000 in-car meters are
in use. A pilot project to collect parking fees by mobile phone is also
underway.
A residents parking scheme has been in operation in Helsinki since
1983. A zone-specific residential licence is displayed in vehicles,
allowing drivers to ignore time restrictions and charges (applicable
to everybody else) within their designated zone. Licences are granted
for a year at a time, but each individual may hold a licence for two
vehicles. Since 1992, local businesses have been able to hold licences
as well, and have parking priority. Firms can hold three permits per
office. There are seven residential zones, with 15,200 spaces for 20,000
residential permit holders and 1,500 business permits. Residents pay
€25.51 per annum, whilst businesses pay €252.10. Change in occupancy
rates over time is reported for the period 10:00 to 14:00 in “Residential
Parking Occupancy”
(European Commission, 2001b)
The notable drop between 1994 and 1995 and consequent rise in occupancy
rates is unlikely to be a result of the parking policy given that it
pre-dated the surveys reported. It is possible that the pattern is a
consequence of fewer shoppers using spaces due to the recession. Regardless
the occupancy rates for other time periods throughout the day in 2000
suggest that demand is not exceeding supply at any point in the day.
Inner Zone Occupancy Rates – Spring 2000
Time period
Occupancy Rate
Before 08:00
30%
08:00 to 10:00
54% (fee charged, one hour parking limit)
10:00 to 17:00
86% (fee charged, one hour parking limit)
17:00 to 21:00
96%
(European Commission, 2001b)
Illegal parking is a problem in Helsinki. Almost 10% of on street and
other public parking in the city centre is illegally parked. Unfortunately,
the €35 fine is low compared to the cost of long-stay parking, but raising
the fine requires legislation. (In time restricted free spaces a parking
disc must be used). Revenue from parking meter and ticket sales, plus
parking fines was €12.83 million.
Impacts on Demand and Supply
Impacts reported here are based on stated preference modelling, which
included a 30% increase in the parking charges. This increase resulted
in modal shift representing an 8 to 10% reduction in the share of trips
made by car. The change is greatest for trips between the home and workplace.
Unsurprisingly, the greater the increase in parking charges, the greater
the modal shift. Doubling the increase in charges approximately doubles
the modal shift.
It was also established that if parking costs and public transport
fares were equal [i.e. parking charges were increased] for equivalent
journeys, then the share of car trips would decrease by 8%. The change
is quite small as the resulting parking charge would be €2.60 per day,
which is small for the stated preference survey respondents, especially
if the employer covers the cost. If public transport fares were reduced
by 30%, then the modal share of the car would only decrease by 2%, suggesting
that cheaper public transport does not induce significant modal shift
and that parking charges are more effective. If the public transport
fares were altered to equal the fuel cost of the equivalent journey
by car, then there would be a 2% shift from car to public transport.
Whilst these models suggest that small changes in parking charges do
reduce car use, the effectives are not substantial. It was concluded
that regulating the location of parking facilities would be more effective,
as drivers do not like to walk. However, lack of control over existing
private non-residential and off-street residential parking makes this
option difficult. A walking distance of 400 metres between parking space
and destination would result in a 9% decrease in the car share. If the
walk distance were the same as that for the public transport alternative
(based on routes that do not include transfers as people avoid this
eventuality), then car share would decrease by 13%.
Other Impacts
Contribution to Objectives
Objective
Comment
If the increases in public transport modal share
targets are achieved, then there should be an efficiency gain.
Occupancy in the zoned residential areas is never
100%, thus search traffic and inability to park for residents
must be minimised.
The availability of parking suggests that search
traffic and the negative impacts this has are minimised.
There is no evidence on this, although public transport
fares appear to be higher than parking charges. Thus, there could
be a negative impact on low income car owners, as alternatives
may be unaffordable.
Minimal search traffic will minimise accidents
involving such traffic.
Ample parking availability is likely to promote
economic growth so long as negative congestion and pollution impacts
do not become significant.
The financial outcome of the parking policy is unclear,
but it is thought to be negative. It is not clear how much is spent
enforcing parking controls, or whether parking and ride is funded
from the same revenue stream, but regardless, the cost of park and
ride investment is substantially more than generated by charges
and fines.
Gaps and Weaknesses
Whilst there is evidence on the effect of car parking controls, the
body of evidence is not large. Additionally, the evidence on specific
controls is not always seperated out – a wholistic approach to multiple
controls is often taken.
With regard to the Bern and Helsinki examples cited here; the controls
appear to be under performing. In Bern parking charges form part of
the controls package and they do not appear to be high enough. In Helsinki
the supply of parking appears to be too great.
Text edited at the Institute for
Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT