This final section will evaluate the effectiveness of various parking policies. The section will be structured in a similar way to the Policy Formulation section and will therefore cover information and exhortation; regulatory and fiscal measures. Once more the focus will primarily be on measures that address privately controlled parking.
2.7.1 Information and Exhortation
Local authorities can encourage private parking providers to share parking due to variations in demand for parking at different times of the day as well as to encourage employers to charge staff for parking at the workplace by furnishing providers with the true cost of parking. As commuters have historically experienced free parking however, introducing or increasing parking charges at the workplace is often seen as unfair and is therefore unpopular with business. This is because Shoup (2005, pp591-592) argued that parking feels like ‘a right rather than a privilege’ and that it would feel ‘not just wrong but illegal to suggest drivers should pay market prices for parking’, particularly at the workplace.
To this end, whilst encouraging car sharing as well as furnishing private parking operators with information is an attractive method for local authorities to attempt to manage private parking and an acceptable approach for employers, it has a low effectiveness of generating change (Enoch and Ison, 2004). This is because employees view parking as a right which make employers reluctant to become unpopular with their staff by removing or increasing the cost of parking.
2.7.2 Regulation
First, this section will cover parking that is controlled by local authorities. Whilst the availability of free parking can be seen to increase the attractiveness of a location (Rye et al, 2008), the issues associated with excessive parking highlighted in this chapter have meant that maximum parking requirements are now preferred to minimum parking requirements in many western cities (Al-Fouzan, 2012). This is in part because Weinberger (2012, p94) found that ‘there is little evidence to suggest that parking restraint in town centres is a major contributor to economic decline’ and instead an abundance of parking tracks closely with economic decline (Garrick and McCahill, 2009).
Despite this, Verhoef et al (1995) stated that if the supply of parking is reduced, it not only affects commuters but also visitors and shopping traffic. This is because it makes it difficult for all motorists to
40
find a parking space which can have a negative effect on urban vitality (Marsden, 2006) and can lead to cruising for parking as motorists may be unable to find a parking space (Shoup, 2005). For this reason, Verhoef et al (1995) suggested that increasing the cost for parking is more advantageous compared with reducing the supply; this will be covered in section 2.7.3.
Despite this view, a local authority may want to reduce parking in the urban centre and therefore shift where motorists park. To achieve this, P&R can be introduced at the periphery of urban centres with Table 2.4 presenting the advantages and disadvantages of P&R.
Table 2.4 – Advantages and Disadvantages of Park and Ride
Advantages Disadvantages
Increasing the volume of visitors to a centre without
increasing parking in the centre They may encourage people to drive part of the way instead of taking public transport all the way
Enabling a centre to serve a regional or sub regional catchment area that is predominantly car-dependent, without having to accommodate the cars in the centre itself
The car park may take land within the walking catchment of public transport stations or stops, thus pushing development further away
Enabling a reduction of parking in a centre relocating it to areas with lower land value and/or lower environmental sustainability
Car parks located at the edge-of-town or out-of-town may be environmentally intrusive, and may create pressure for car based development
Can serve a centre with high parking charges and/or
limited parking supply Can encourage people to drive to a P&R site, rather
than use public transport to reach an alternative centre Source: Adapted from IHT (2005, p 71)
One issue with P&R however is that although it may reduce traffic in city centres, car use can increase as travellers who would otherwise make the whole trip by public transport may instead choose to drive to the fringe of the city to use P&R (Meek et al, 2008; RAC, 2012). However, P&R can be effective at reducing the provision of parking in urban centres and can be used to increase the volume of visitors without increasing the quantity of parking in the urban centre. P&R can also be used to encourage commuters to change how they travel as journeys associated with P&R are typically associated with longer duration visits (RAC, 2012). However in order to change commuters travel behaviour, a deterrent for driving may also be required.
To address the issues caused by the high percentage of private parking in urban areas, local authorities now have increased control over proposed developments. By requiring developers to implement travel plans at new sites, it ensures the amount of parking is designed based on the
41
availability of parking in the local area, public transport availability and the estimated demand from staff.
This is expected to reduce the land allocated to parking in urban areas which can increase urban density as land becomes used for more productive purposes; this can make walking, cycling and public transport more attractive which will have a positive impact on both congestion and the environment.
This however had no impact on existing privately controlled parking.
To address this, Boston introduced a Parking Freeze plan which placed a physical limit on the total number of parking spaces, including privately controlled, in urban areas. The Boston Parking Freeze was introduced in order to address air pollution problems, to reduce the number of vehicle miles travelled in the city by limiting parking and to delay commuters from driving until after the rush hour (Cormier et al, 2007). Allard et al (2001, p1) stated that ‘the premise is simple: decreased parking availability results in decreased traffic volumes, while use of public transportation is increased and air quality is improved’. Despite this, the Boston scheme has had mixed results, in part because certain premise, such as certain employers have been made exempt. For this reason, Cormier et al (2007, pvi) found that whilst ‘the policy has been effective in getting some commuters to go to work later in the day’
the reduction in parking has meant drivers have queued up ‘idling their engines waiting for a parking spot’. This has reduced the effectiveness of addressing the air pollution problems.
Specifically to address private residential parking in Japan, a Parking Place Ownership Law was introduced which meant prospective car owners were required to have a parking space before they purchased a vehicle. Due to the cost of land, the scheme has effectively meant only wealthy residents can afford to purchase a parking space and has therefore been effective at curbing car use.
2.7.3 Fiscal
Verhoef et al (1995) argued there are three advantages of increasing the cost of parking as opposed to reducing the supply. The first argument is that by charging the market price, it will ensure a space will always be available if the motorist is prepared to pay the cost. Shoup (2005, p595) argued that charging the market price for parking will benefit all as ‘drivers can still park; they just have to pay’. SF park has attempted to reduce cruising by varying the price of on-street parking based on demand and
‘has reduced cruising for parking by about 50%’ which indicates the benefit of charging the market price (Millard-Ball et al, 2014). Moreover, Pierce and Shoup (2013, p80) argued that ‘SF park has shown that parking pricing is relatively simple and cheap [and that] cities can adopt programs like SF park even if they do not yet have all the resources and political will to adopt congestion pricing’. Despite this, the
42
novel nature of SF park was highlighted as a concern as Pierce and Shoup (2013, p80) stated
‘unfamiliarity may explain some scepticism about performance parking prices, and only the experience gained in pilot programs will change minds’. This indicates that unfamiliarity may lead to negativity and that policies are likely to be more attractive once pilot schemes have been introduced.
The second reason is an efficiency problem on the basis that increasing the cost of the parking closer to the market cost, ensures people with a higher value of time have parking available when required (Verhoef et al, 1995). Despite this economic approach towards willingness-to-pay based on the value of time, Hamer et al (2011) raised equity concerns as members of different classes are affected differently.
Pierce and Shoup (2013, p79) argued however that ‘using curb-parking revenue to pay for local public services is much fairer than keeping curb parking free, losing the revenue needed to pay for public services, creating chaotic parking problems on busy streets, and increasing traffic congestion caused by drivers who are searching for free parking. Claiming that performance-parking prices will harm the poor defends a narrow special interest by feigning a concern for the broad public interest’.
The third benefit is that the price of parking can be differentiated depending on the length of time spent in a particular place. Parking pricing can be structured to ensure parking is cheaper for shorter stays to attract visitors and shoppers and more expensive for longer stays to discourage commuters; this can be used to help retail commerce (Bonsall and Young, 2010). Furthermore, any revenue from the parking charges can deliver further benefits, something which is not attained if parking supply is reduced.
However, if the cost of the parking is increased, consideration is required for the cost set by local authority’s competitors such as private operators and neighbouring cities. This is because competitors may have a different strategy to the local authority which could mean motorists change where they park instead of paying the increased cost which could mean a local authority’s objectives are not achieved.
Local authorities also need to consider locations where motorists may instead park in their area on the basis that if a charge is introduced, motorists may search for other nearby free parking to avoid the charge which can reduce the effectiveness of the policy and lead to issues such as cruising. For this reason Litman (2013) described several ways in which spill-over can be managed including furnishing motorists with information on where they can and cannot park, regulations such as time limits or permit programs favouring a specific user or through pricing to encourage or discourage certain groups.
A common fiscal measure in the US which has been used to address all paid-for parking in an area is a parking tax which has the effect of making parking more expensive to discourage car use. Examples
43
include San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, Baltimore, Washington DC, Pittsburgh (all US) and Vancouver (Canada) (Ulberg et al, 1992 and KT Analytics, 1995, Litman, 2013). Whilst the tax rate varies between cities, parking taxes can raise significant amounts of revenue. For example, in San Francisco in 1970 a 25% tax was introduced on all commercial parking and today currently raises nearly $US50 million each year (Enoch and Ison, 2004). Whilst the revenue was originally used as additional Government revenue (Kulash, 1974), since 1993, 40% of the revenue raised from the charges goes directly into the Municipal Transportation Fund which is attractive as it can be used to achieve wider objectives. Despite this, parking that is provided free of charge or is bundled up in a leasing agreement is exempt from the tax which has meant parking taxes have little impact on free workplace parking.
Prior to introducing a sales tax on parking transactions, Vancouver had a Parking Site Tax which placed a charge on non-residential parking based on the size of the parking. Introduced in 2006, this tax placed an annual charge of $1.02 per square meter, typically $25-40 per space, although it was abandoned and replaced by the parking transaction tax one year later following criticism from suburban businesses (Litman, 2013).
‘Cash-out’ schemes have also been used to target a reduction in commuter car. The ‘Cash-out’ scheme in Santa Monica, California requires employers with 50 or more employees to offer staff the option of a cash allowance equal to the subsidy cost to the employer of providing each parking space for their employees (Shoup, 1997b). This scheme therefore allows commuters to consider the full costs associated with driving to the workplace including the cost of parking. Although it was recognised that the scheme contributed to a reduction in trips and a reduction in emissions as required by the Clean Air Laws, a list of criteria exempting employers meant that not all employers were affected. For an employer to be affected by the program they cannot own their own parking, parking for employees must be subsidised, the number of parking places that they lease can be reduced without a penalty, and the parking cost must be able to be calculated and therefore not bundled up within the lease cost of a building (Enoch and Ison, 2004). Although these exemptions were introduced to make the scheme equitable, it reduced the benefits of the scheme as many businesses were exempt.
In addition to taxation, parking levies can also be used to raise revenue and address the issue of private parking. The parking that is affected is dependent on the scheme; in Melbourne the charge applies to all types of parking, in Sydney only certain business districts are liable, whilst in Perth exemptions apply to residents and businesses with five or fewer parking spaces. The most expensive
44
levy was in Sydney as the annual charge was £1,335 per space which is hypothecated specifically to improve infrastructure and for maintenance purposes and not to subsidise services; this ensures the money is spent on infrastructure to achieve a long term investment. The schemes in Australia and UK have ring fenced the revenue to improve transport alternatives in attempt to encourage more sustainable travel; this has the added benefit of delivering an environmental improvement.
Enoch and Ison (2005, p12) however identified a concern with the ‘beggar my neighbour’ effect in that employers may be ‘encouraged to re-locate either to out-of-town locations, or to neighbouring towns that do not impose the levy to cut costs’. With regard to the impact of parking levies a common theme is the importance of the hypothecation of all or a portion of the revenue to subsidise or fund public transport improvements (Enoch and Ison, 2005; Parking and Traffic Consultants, 2011). The impact on congestion however is mixed. Two examples suggest parking levies have had no or little impact on car use (Property Council Australia, 2004; Enoch and Ison, 2005) whilst others have seen ‘a significant reduction in the number of people travelling to the city by car’ (Hamer et al, 2011, p14). Moreover, Enoch (2001) found that in one location there was a 10% reduction in the number of parking spaces in the first year which led to an increase in the availability of public short stay parking which although unpopular with commuters has led to an increase in visitors and shoppers. Furthermore despite a 10 fold increase in the cost per space in Perth over the past 12 years, the number of licensed spaces has remained relatively stable (Parking and Traffic Consultants, 2011). It was also identified that to maximise the effectiveness of the levy, it was important to pass the increased parking costs on to the motorists (Hamer et al, 2011).
Despite this information on the Australian schemes; there is very little coverage on the WPL in Nottingham. Moreover, the benefits associated with parking levies with respect to addressing private parking at the workplace makes understanding the impact of parking levies outside Australia an area of interest for further research. This is particularly importance because of the significant impact free workplace parking has on peak period congestion.
2.7.4 Summary
Although this section has described a number of parking policies, the schemes are often limited to certain locations due to the legislation required for an authority to introduce a scheme. Parking levies have been identified to have had relative success as they allow authorities to address the issues associated with free workplace parking. The importance of this is emphasised due to the influence free
45
workplace parking has on peak period congestion. Moreover, the revenue that has been generated from the schemes in Australia was also identified to deliver significant benefits.
Pierce and Shoup (2013) also provided an indication that pilot schemes could be expected to make schemes more familiar and therefore acceptable to other authorities. Proof of this could be demonstrated by the fact three cities in Australia now have parking levies (and a recently proposed scheme in Adelaide) as well as the introduction of the first parking levy in the UK. This is important because of the common problems associated with a lack of control over private parking for local authorities and therefore the potential to transfer this policy to other locations. This is because ‘the issues of congestion and traffic-related pollution in urban areas of the UK are likely to remain a problem for the foreseeable future and continued research and education are required in terms of the relative merits of the various policy options. Equally, a package of measures incorporating both the market and non-market based approaches are likely to be required in order to achieve significant improvements’
(Ison and Wall, 2003, p142). However, whilst it is thought the WPL can deliver a package of measures, there is an absence of research with respect to the Nottingham scheme which has therefore been identified as an area of interesting further research. This is to understand the introduction of the WPL in Nottingham as well as the potential wider role parking levies may have in the UK.