Activity Centre Parking Demand; a Novel Forecasting Model, its Applications and Extensions

AITPM CONFERENCE, SYDNEY 2016

Activity Centre Parking DemandA Novel Forecasting Model,Applications and Extensions

Jacob MartinTeam Leader - Transport PlanningCardno, Traffic and Transportation, WA

Overview

˃ Context or “Why this Model was Developed”˃ Parking is an essential component of the transport system˃ Activity Centres – Towards a “People Centric” Development˃ Importance of Parking Demand Assessment

˃ The New Model for Parking Assessment˃ Concept of Shared and Reciprocal Parking˃ Intricacies, Assumptions and Limitations

˃ Model Applications˃ Integrated Transport Assessment˃ Transport Needs Assessment˃ Transition Frameworks˃ Land Use Parking Ratio – Justification or Policy Development˃ Cash-in-lieu Policy˃ Public Parking Business Case Development˃ Allocation of a Scarce Resource

Why this Model was Developed

˃Parking: Driver for change˃Activity Centres: People-

centric development˃Parking Demand: How

much does the public want? (and when to provide less)

The New Model for Parking AssessmentThe Methodology

> Determine unrestrained demand without

shared or reciprocal parking

> Include impacts of sharing parking across

the broad land-use categories

> Include consideration for reciprocal parking

(internal trip capture)

> Derive reasonable targets for mode shift

> Test options for improvement to try to meet

target parking provision

> Assess feasibility and infrastructure

requirements

Shared Parking> A single bay used by multiple land uses across the day, according to need.> ‘temporal use of parking’

Reciprocal Parking (Internal Capture)> Where a single bay is consumed for a trip chain across multiple land uses.> ‘spatial use of parking’

Concepts of Shared and Reciprocal Parking

Shared Parking: Midland Activity Centre

Data Source: ITE, Parking Generation, 4th edition

12:00 AM

1:00 AM

2:00 AM

3:00 AM

4:00 AM

5:00 AM

6:00 AM

7:00 AM

8:00 AM

9:00 AM

10:00 AM

11:00 AM

12:00 PM

1:00 PM

2:00 PM

3:00 PM

4:00 PM

5:00 PM

6:00 PM

7:00 PM

8:00 PM

9:00 PM

10:00 PM

11:00 PM0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Retail Supermarket Commercial/Office/Police Food Residential Academic Health

Constituents of Parking Demand

6:00

AM

7:00

AM

8:00

AM

9:00

AM

10:0

0 AM

11:0

0 AM

12:0

0 PM

1:00

PM

2:00

PM

3:00

PM

4:00

PM

5:00

PM

6:00

PM

7:00

PM

8:00

PM

9:00

PM

10:0

0 PM

11:0

0 PM

12:0

0 AM

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000 Overall Parking Supply Efficiency

Visitor shared Occupied

Entertainment Occupied

Hotel Occupied

Restaurant Occupied

Retail Occupied

Office Reserve Supply Efficiency

Office Reserve Empty

Office Occupied

Visitor Empty

Visitor Occupied

Residential Empty

Residential Occupied

Proportional Impact of Analysis Components

6:00

AM

7:00

AM

8:00

AM

9:00

AM

10:0

0 AM

11:0

0 AM

12:0

0 PM

1:00

PM

2:00

PM

3:00

PM

4:00

PM

5:00

PM

6:00

PM

7:00

PM

8:00

PM

9:00

PM

10:0

0 PM

11:0

0 PM

12:0

0 AM

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

MAX DEMAND

MONTH ADJUSTMENT

SHARED PARKING

ISOLATED SITE

INTERNAL-EXTERNAL

Public/Shared Parking Supply Requirements

6:00

AM

7:00

AM

8:00

AM

9:00

AM

10:0

0 AM

11:0

0 AM

12:0

0 PM

1:00

PM

2:00

PM

3:00

PM

4:00

PM

5:00

PM

6:00

PM

7:00

PM

8:00

PM

9:00

PM

10:0

0 PM

11:0

0 PM

12:0

0 AM

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Supply Efficiency Requirement

Visitor Shared Occupied

Entertainment Occupied

Hotel Occupied

Restaurant Occupied

Retail Occupied

Office Non-reserve Oc-cupied

Intricacies• Reciprocity benefits for ‘Exclusive’

parking only• Internal-External Interactions

(allocation of parking)• Mode share effects• Park ‘n’ ride and visitor parking• Spatial effects (multiple internal

and external Zones)• Efficiency factors for private and

public

Intricacies, Assumptions and Limitations

Assumptions and Limitations• People hypothecated to cars• Mixed use behaviour assumed

from US samples• Behaviour extended to City

Centre scales• Broad land use assumptions• No synergy within categories• Synergies assumed between

categories• Sensitive to data inputs – relies

on a detailed understanding of City Centre land uses

Mitigation:• Observation and Calibration

Application

Midland

Midland Oval

Merrylands

Busselton

Campbelltown

Transport Needs Assessment

Transition Framework

Parking Ratios

Cash-in-lieu/ Developer ContributionsPublic Parking Business Cases

Parking Allocation

Model Applications

Midland Activity Centre

Transport Needs

Assessment

PV Mode Share – 65%

Public Transport

Cycling and Walking

Statutory Parking Ratios

Cash-in-lieu

Parking Allocation

13,000

Short Stay Private5,000

Long Stay Public2,000

Long Stay Private4,000

Short Stay Public1,000

Park ‘n’ Ride1,000

Model Application to a City Centre

Midland Oval Re-Development

Model Application to an Activity Centre Precinct

Residential High density residential development

Commercial Constituting private office spaces,

Civic Government and Administration

Retail Constituting shops and supermarkets

Restaurants Small bars and quality restaurants

Night Clubs Small bars and club facility functioning mostly during the late hours in the night

Entertainment Spaces

Constituting cinemas

Hotels In the form of serviced apartments and hotels.

Recreational Public Library, Art Gallery

Summary of Parking Assessment : Critical Weekday Total Visitor/Employee Only

 Isolated Site

Theoretical Parking Demand Total Reduction Total Reduction

Un-Restrained Exclusive Parking Demand 6,619   % 5,642   %

Shared Parking Demand 4,681 1,939 29 4,485 1,157 21

Parking Demand: Shared + Reciprocal 4,139 2,480 37 3,924 1,718 30

Site with Internal -External

Interaction

With Internal-External Reciprocity (Existing) 3,583 3,036 46 3,339 2,304 41

With Internal-External Reciprocity (2031) 3,553 3,085 46 3,308 2,352 41

Model Cash–in–lieu scheme = 25% of maximum development parking requirement

Staged Build-out:Stage 1:˃ 815 bays publically accessible ‘private’ parking˃ 150 bays public on-street parking˃ 132 bays public at-grade parking ˃ 349 bays equivalent cash-in-lieuStage 2:˃ 1,862 bays exclusive ‘private’ parking˃ 500 bays replacement multi-deck parking˃ 798 bays equivalent cash-in-lieu

Informing Policy and Planning

Thank you…

Conclusion

This model incorporates many of the real effects of mode share, land use and spatial behaviour to

determine the future need for parking.

Outputs are detailed and present an understanding of the various parts of the parking system.

The model can be calibrated to observed behaviour.

But, the model is sensitive to the inputs and can be used only as a benchmark for parking demand.