Parking controls first principles assessment

Why introduce car parking controls?
Parking controls are implemented for a number of reasons. Firstly, to reduce the impacts of excess demand for parking:

Secondly, to allocate scarce space according to priority needs. The order in which priorities are ranked will vary between local authorities and their overall transport policy objectives, and the type of area. For example, in residential areas residents may receive priority over other users, or in areas seeking to develop their retail centre shoppers may receive high priority. The following users need to be catered for in a parking policy:

Thirdly, to manage the level and location of car use within an area to meet wide goals regarding reductions in the negative impacts of car use.

However, it should be noted that in areas where the negative impacts of car use are largely derived from through traffic, control of parking would have little impact. Where on-street parking controls can be used to maintain traffic flow there may be some benefit from controls, but they will not tackle the underlying problem.

Parking is a service product, the demand for which is always derived from the act of driving. Thus, demand responses are a result of changes in the demand for car use.

Short and long run demand responses

Response	-	1^st year	2-4 years	5 years	10+ years
	-	-	-	-	-
	-	or	or	or	or
	Change job location	-
-	Shop elsewhere
	Compress working week	-	-	-	-
-	Trip chain	-	-	-	-
-	Work from home
-	Shop from home
	Ride share
-	Public transport
-	Walk/cycle
	-	-	-	-	-
	-	-	-	-	-

	= Weakest possible response,		= strongest possible positive response
	= Weakest possible negative response,		= strongest possible negative response

= No response

Changes in destination will occur where this allows drivers to avoid restrictive parking controls and usually results in longer journey distances.

Supply impacts

Supply impacts will vary according to type of parking. A reduction in on street parking will increase road capacity, which may be dedicated to public transport, cyclists or pedestrians. Parking bans combined with time of day controls will also vary parking supply at different times, so a day time ban will maximise road capacity when traffic flows are highest. Changes in volume of off street parking will not alter the supply of road space or public transport infrastructure. As reductions in total parking supply are often politically unpopular, it is common to influence the location of parking through controls and the planning system with regard to off-street parking. The location of supply of parking may not change the total number of journeys, but can influence where the journeys terminate. Nevertheless, small reductions over time may be possible, or merely not increasing supply as car use increases. Conversely, some areas seeking to attract inward investment may seek to increase parking supply. However, such policies need to be balanced against the negative impacts of the likely increased traffic volumes in the area.

Financing requirements

The financial commitment needed to operate parking controls can be substantial. Where technology is necessary, this is a substantial cost. Whilst the manufacturers of the technology do not make their costs public (as it is likely to be custom designed and therefore vary between installations), the cost is likely to be higher than income generated by parking controls (fine charges). Even where technology is not required, there will be enforcement and administration costs.

Expected impact on key policy objectives

Objective	Scale of contribution	Comment
		By reducing delays and improving reliability.
		By ensuring residents have parking spaces and social areas, and streets are not congested with other traffic – parked or searching for spaces.
		By reducing air and noise pollution, and visual intrusion.
		Controls that restrict supply mean that demand is satisfied on a first come first served basis, which may not coincide with priority of need. Duration and time of day controls may also exclude those with important needs. Permit only areas exclude those without, which can be problematic where no alternatives are provided.
		Control of parking in unsafe locations.
		Where reduced congestion and pollution improves environmental quality, and neighbouring parking policies are not contradictory.
		Cost of operations. Revenue may be generated throuspan style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Palatino Linotype"; color:#3366FF'>parking charges.

	= Weakest possible positive contribution,		= strongest possible positive contribution
	= Weakest possible negative contribution		= strongest possible negative contribution

= No contribution

Expected impact on problems

Contribution to alleviation of key problems

Problem	Scale of contribution	Comment
Congestion-related delay		Where search traffic is reduced and/or alternative modes are easier to use
Congestion-related unreliability		Where search traffic is reduced and/or alternative modes are easier to use
Community severance		Where search traffic is reduced
Visual intrusion	or	Less on-street parking will have a positive contribution. More off-street parking at a new out of town site or multistorey will have a negative impact.*
Lack of amenity		Where it becomes easier to access amenities and hence, more worth while providing them
Global warming
Local air pollution
Noise
Reduction of green space		Where new off street parking is provided out of town
Damage to environmentally sensitive sites		Where new off street parking is provided out of town
Poor accessibility for those without a car and those with mobility impairments		Both groups should benefit where parking controls are well designed – i.e. non-essential traffic is kept of the road making access by alternative means easier, and there is more and better located provision for disabled drivers.
Disproportionate disadvantaging of particular social or geographic groups		Anybody with an urgent or important need to park in a restricted area where insufficient provision is made, e.g. disabled drivers.
Number, severity and risk of accidents		Through less search traffic, as drivers searching for spaces may be on unfamiliar roads or have their attention districted by the search.
Suppression of the potential for economic activity in the area		Where neighbouring parking policies are not contradictory

	= Weakest possible positive contribution,		= strongest possible positive contribution
	= Weakest possible negative contribution		= strongest possible negative contribution

= No contribution

*This is unlikely to be significantly higher than surrounding buildings due to planning regulations preventing this. Where such regulations are weak, visual intrusion may be greater.

Expected winners and losers

Winners and losers

Group	Winners / losers	Comment
Large scale freight and commercial traffic		Through less congestion in centres when making deliveries and times periods when free access is allowed.
Small businesses		Through reduced congestion
High income car-users		Through reduced congestion and availability of parking spaces near to destinations.
People with a low income	-
People with poor access to public transport
All existing public transport users		Where public transport is subject to less congestion related delay
People living adjacent to the area targeted		If parking problems are merely shifted to their streets
People making high value, important journeys		Through reduced congestion and availability of parking spaces near to destinations.
The average car user		Suitable car parking or alternatives should be available where and when needed.

	= weakest possible benefit,		= strongest benefit
	= weakest possible disbenefet,		= strongest possible disbenefit

= neither wins nor loses

Barriers to implementation