Downloaded 18 times
More Related Content
Similar to Activity Centre Parking Demand; a Novel Forecasting Model, its Applications and Extensions
Activity Centre Parking Demand; a Novel Forecasting Model, its Applications and Extensions
- 1. AITPM CONFERENCE, SYDNEY2016 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 Modelwas 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 Modelfor 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 > Asingle 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: MidlandActivity 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 ParkingDemand - 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 ofAnalysis 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 SupplyRequirements 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 benefitsfor ‘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 NeedsAssessment Transition Framework Parking Ratios Cash-in-lieu/ Developer Contributions Public Parking Business Cases Parking Allocation Model Applications
- 12.
- 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.
- 15. Model Application toan 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 ParkingAssessment : 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 modelincorporates 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.