Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Parking Limitation Policies: The Influence of Car Parking Provision on Travel Modes

197 views

Published on

Chris Coath, Alexander Sheko

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Parking Limitation Policies: The Influence of Car Parking Provision on Travel Modes

  1. 1. TitleParking 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
  2. 2. 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?
  3. 3. EVOLUTION OF PARKING CONTROLS Minimum parking rate requirements • 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
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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.
  6. 6. RELATIONSHIPS Household Car Ownership v Car Mode Share Source: ABS Census Data, 2011
  7. 7. RELATIONSHIPS Person 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
  8. 8. RELATIONSHIPS Person 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
  9. 9. RELATIONSHIPS Person 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 ofTravel and Activity
  10. 10. RELATIONSHIPS Person 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 ofTravel and Activity
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. OTHER RESEARCH • Land Use Impacts onTravel (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
  14. 14. 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?
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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?
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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 Industry Council
  19. 19. WHERE TO FROM HERE • Parking controls must be statutorily incorporated – Certainty and expectations must be aligned between all stakeholders Council Officers Councillors Developers The Community
  20. 20. 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 Industry Council

×