This document summarizes a presentation on a novel parking demand forecasting model developed by Jacob Martin of Cardno. The model accounts for shared parking across land uses, reciprocal parking from internal trips, and targets for mode shift. It can be applied to assess integrated transport, land use plans, and public parking business cases. The model was created to better understand parking demand in activity centers based on people's behaviors. It incorporates assumptions around shared use, internal capture, and mode shift that allow for reduced parking requirements compared to traditional approaches.

1. AITPM CONFERENCE, SYDNEY 2016
Activity Centre
Parking Demand
A Novel Forecasting Model,
Applications and Extensions
Jacob Martin
Team Leader - Transport Planning
Cardno, Traffic and Transportation, WA

2. 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

3. 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)

4. The New Model for Parking Assessment
The 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

5. 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

6. Shared Parking: Midland Activity Centre
Data Source: ITE, Parking Generation, 4th edition
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
12:00 AM 4:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM 4:00 PM 8:00 PM
Retail Supermarket Commercial/Office/Police Food Residential Academic Health

7. Constituents of Parking Demand
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
6:00AM
8:00AM
10:00AM
12:00PM
2:00PM
4:00PM
6:00PM
8:00PM
10:00PM
12:00AM
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

8. Proportional Impact of Analysis Components
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
6:00AM
8:00AM
10:00AM
12:00PM
2:00PM
4:00PM
6:00PM
8:00PM
10:00PM
12:00AM
MAX DEMAND
MONTH ADJUSTMENT
SHARED PARKING
ISOLATED SITE
INTERNAL-EXTERNAL

9. Public/Shared Parking Supply Requirements
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
6:00AM
7:00AM
8:00AM
9:00AM
10:00AM
11:00AM
12:00PM
1:00PM
2:00PM
3:00PM
4:00PM
5:00PM
6:00PM
7:00PM
8:00PM
9:00PM
10:00PM
11:00PM
12:00AM
Supply Efficiency
Requirement
Visitor Shared Occupied
Entertainment Occupied
Hotel Occupied
Restaurant Occupied
Retail Occupied
Office Non-reserve
Occupied

10. 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

11. Application Midland
MidlandOval
Merrylands
Busselton
Campbelltown
Transport Needs Assessment
Transition Framework
Parking Ratios
Cash-in-lieu/ Developer
Contributions
Public Parking Business Cases
Parking Allocation
Model Applications

12. Midland Activity Centre

13. Transport
Needs
Assessment
PV Mode
Share – 65%
Public
Transport
Cycling and
Walking
Statutory
Parking
Ratios
Cash-in-
lieu
Parking
Allocation
13,000
Short Stay
Private
5,000
Long Stay
Public
2,000
Long Stay
Private
4,000
Short Stay
Public
1,000
Park ‘n’ Ride
1,000
Model Application to a City Centre

14. Midland Oval Re-Development

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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-lieu
Stage 2:
˃ 1,862 bays exclusive ‘private’ parking
˃ 500 bays replacement multi-deck parking
˃ 798 bays equivalent cash-in-lieu
Informing Policy and Planning

18. 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.