Title Parking Limitation Policies: The Influence of Car Parking Provision on Travel Mode Chris Coath Alexander Sheko Associate Director Consultant GTA Consultants GTA Consultants July 2016, AITPM National Conference
TitleParking Limitation Policies:The Influence of Car Parking Provision on Travel ModeChris Coath Alexander ShekoAssociate Director ConsultantGTA Consultants GTA Consultants
July 2016, AITPM National Conference
INTRODUCTION
Car parking indisputably plays a key role in modern transport systems,
facilitating the use of private motor vehicles. But to what extent does its
provision and pricing influence how we travel?
EVOLUTION OF PARKING CONTROLS
Minimum parking rate requirement
s
• Benchmark of most planning controls
Parking limitation policies
• Major CBD locations
No minimum approach
• ACT - Key CBD areas
“…the supply of car parking in the CBD must be more carefully managed to control traffic congestion…”
MCC, 1999
IMPORTANCE OF GETTING PARKING CONTROLS RIGHT
Car parking must be considered in a balanced manner to contribute to the liveability and
accessibility of communities
Providing an affordable community
Providing an environment that is
equitable to all
To appropriately protect the amenity of those within the
community
Providing an urban design which enhances the community
Provides a range of services to meet the
needs of the community
EXAMINATION OF CAR OWNERSHIP AND CAR USE RELATIONSHIPS
The relationship between car parking provision, car ownership and car use needs
to be understood in order to identify whether the appropriate parking policy tool to
achieve transport system, liveability and accessibility aspirations involves minimum,
maximum or indeed no car parking requirements.
RELATIONSHIPS
Household Car Ownership v Car Mode Share
Source: ABS Census Data, 2011
RELATIONSHIPSPerson Car
Ownership v Car Mode Share
Dwelling Type v Car Mode Share
Trip Distance v Car Mode Share
Distance to Train Station v
Car Mode Share
Source: ABS Census Data, 2011
RELATIONSHIPSPerson Car
Ownership v Car Mode Share
Dwelling Type v Car Mode Share
Trip Distance v Car Mode Share
Distance to Train Station v
Car Mode Share
Source: ABS Census Data, 2011
RELATIONSHIPSPerson Car
Ownership v Car Mode Share
Dwelling Type v Car Mode Share
Trip Distance v Car Mode Share
Distance to Train Station v
Car Mode ShareSource: Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel
and Activity
RELATIONSHIPSPerson Car
Ownership v Car Mode Share
Dwelling Type v Car Mode Share
Trip Distance v Car Mode Share
Distance to Train Station v
Car Mode Share
Source: Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity
RELATIONSHIPS
• Summary– Relationship does exist between car
ownership and car use– However, a range of inter-related factors
are in play– The relative magnitude of these factors
has not been determined
OTHER RESEARCH
• Other research documents identify a range of outcomes
No link
Link, however not the
only relationship of influence
Maximum policies
reduce car parking
provision
OTHER RESEARCH
• Land Use Impacts on Travel (Litman, 2015)
Network Connectivity
Parking Supply and
Management
Centredness (centricity)
Roadway Design
Transit Quality and Accessibility
Regional Accessibility
Active Transport
(Walking and Cycling)
Site Design
Density
Mix
Mobility Management
Integrated Smart Growth
Programs
MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM
• The use of car parking limitation policies could be supported as a means of managing road network congestion.
• This relationship is only one of many factors.
• Balance must be given the impact of reducing car ownership on development viability
Should other variables be managed before car ownership and parking provision?
CASE STUDY: VCAT P1969/2015
Development Plan Overlay
• 1.0 - 1-bedroom• 1.0 - 2-bedroom• 2.0 - 3- bedroom
Developer Provision
• 0.81 - 1-bedroom• 1.15 - 2-bedroom• 1.43 - 3-bedroom• 0.92 - Average
Responsible Authority
• 0.5 - 1-bedroom• 0.7 - 2-bedroom• 1.0 - 3- bedroom
• Spaces per dwelling
- 74 less parking spaces- 15 less vehicle movements
CASE STUDY: VCAT P1969/2015
Development Plan Overlay
• 1.0 - 1-bedroom• 1.0 - 2-bedroom• 2.0 - 3- bedroom
Developer Provision
• 0.81 - 1-bedroom• 1.15 - 2-bedroom• 1.43 - 3-bedroom• 0.92 - Average
Responsible Authority
• 0.5 - 1-bedroom• 0.7 - 2-bedroom• 1.0 - 3- bedroom
• Spaces per dwelling
Does compromise to development viability out weigh the corresponding road network
impact?
WHERE TO FROM HERE
• Parking limitation policies have a place …but in what form– Restricting parking does influence car
use– Do not set rigidly so as to limit
development viability– Set to avoid gross over provision – Use other relationships to also control
car use– Consider limitation policies at the
destination
WHERE TO FROM HERE
• Parking controls must be introduced on a precinct wide basis– Ensure integrated approach to
transport planning for all modes of transport
– Coupled with area wide traffic management
– Allows better consideration of the interlocking stakeholder relationship
The Community
Development IndustryCouncil
WHERE TO FROM HERE
• Parking controls must be statutorily incorporated– Certainty and expectations must be
aligned between all stakeholders
Council Officers Councillors Developers
The Communit
y
PARKING LIMITATION POLICIES
Vehicle ownership influences vehicle use however this is not the only relationship of influence.
Parking Limitation Policies have a place however these should not be set so rigidly so as to limit development viability
Parking controls must be introduced on a precinct wide basis
Parking controls must be statutorily incorporated
The Community
Development IndustryCouncil