Apresentação no 5º Congresso Ibérico de Estacionamento e Mobilidade | 2014

1. Cars and Downtown
Peter Guest

2. The characteristics of Downtown
• The centre of social and economic activity, the city core or focus of
activity in a city
• It has mixed land uses (Commercial, retail, administrative,
entertainment, government (capital cities),education, residential.
• Dense high capacity, often multi-modal, PT networks
• High travel demand -Mass movement of people and goods,
• Congestion

3. Congestion is Not New, or Linked to Cars
• Lex Julia Municipalis banned wheeled traffic from
Rome c 45 BC
• Worshipful Company of Carmen formed in London in
1517 “For the Regulation of City Transport”
• "The King's Highway is not to be used as a stable
yard” Chief Justice Ellenborough 1812
• 1838 City of London licences carts and carriages to
stand and ply for hire in licensed standing places “the
world’s first controlled parking!”
• The first parking meter 1930’s
• Parking Restrictions (1950’s/60’s)
• Paris Axe Rouge/London Red Routes 1980’s

4. Prohibiting Cars
Cities don’t prohibit cars; they :
• Create pedestrian zones/ walking areas/bus, tram
only streets.
• Madrid - Barrio de las letras, Area de Prioridad
Residencial
• These have to be balanced with access needs of
businesses, homes etc.
• So either part time/all time service access

5. Pedestrian Streets
York (UK)
(largest pedestrian zone in Europe)
• Major tourist destination
• Major Retail Centre
• Regional employment centre
• Foot streets(part time access),
• Park and Ride and City centre parking
• Rail Hub
• Developed large system of foot-streets
linked to extensive P+R network

6. Pedestrian + Public Transport
Zagreb (Croatia)
Trg Ban Jelačić or Main
Square and environs
• Fully pedestrianised
• Tram access
• Service access to square and
surrounding streets

7. Prohibiting Cars
Downtown Manhattan NYC
(USA)
• For security not environment
• What happened to commerce -
100 shares index 2007- to date
+15%

8. Car free Downtown: Tourism
Mdina Malta
Dubrovnik Croatia

9. Cars and Commerce
London Retail Study
• More parking does not necessarily mean greater commercial success.
• Shopkeepers consistently overestimate the share of their customers
coming by car, by up to 400%. In cities, the share of those accessing
urban centres on foot or by public transport is much greater.
• Car drivers spend more on a single trip; walkers and bus users spend
more over a week or a month. In 2011, in London walkers spent £147
more per month than those travelling by car. Compared with 2004, spending
by public transport users and walkers has risen; spending by car users and
cyclists has decreased.

10. Cars and Commerce
London Congestion Charge
• C 20% reduction in downtown car traffic but,
• Car mode share about 15%, so
• Only about 3% of trips affected and
• More and better buses.
• London
is
doing
just
fine

11. Are Cars needed at all?
Some trips “need” cars and, for some trips, cars make financial
sense:
• Residents who want/need cars (note the slow growth of car clubs etc.)
• The disabled and those with restricted mobility
• High occupancy vehicles (economic sense for car users but 1 bus equals
3.5 cars in congestion terms)
• Multi-destination trips
• People carrying goods
• Trips made outside transit operating hours
• Trips made outside transit coverage or to places not linked by transit

12. Tourism
Tourists are “strangers” to the city who
• Do not know the way to their destination
• Do not know where to park
• Do not know how long they will be
• Need to be able to easily “dump” the car
So car use can be challenging
Car using tourists are better served by Park and Ride; the tourist
is intercepted at the edge of the city. The city centre is access by
fast bus or trains with fares that are less than city centre parking
costs.

13. How to provide parking
Parking
Type
+
-­‐
Side
street
• Short
term
visits/loading
• Residents
• Usually
not
good
for
all
day/commuter
parking
Main
street
• Serve
Frontage
Access
need/loading
• Obstruct
traffic
movement
on
main
routes.
• Inhibit
bus
movements/disrupts
cycling
Downtown
Municipal
off
street
• Allows
City
to
manage
supply
and
demand.
• Cost
of
building
• Cost
of
maintaining
Park
+
Ride
• Serves/aFracts
tourists
• Can
meet
long
stay
need
• OGen
not
directly
self-­‐funding
•
Perhaps
not
economically
viable
Downtown
Private
• No
direct
cost
to
city.
• No
financial
risk
to
city
• Allows
business
to
use
parking
to
help
sell
offer.
• City
planners
lose
control
of
this
element
of
the
transportaLon
system.
• Poor
to
zero
understanding
of
the
link
between
development
and
parking
need

14. What to build ?
Construc>on
types
+
-­‐
Surface
Car
park
• Cheap/Quick
• Easy
to
recycle
land
• Inefficient
land
use
• Visually
poor
Above
ground
(MSCP)
• Lower
construcLon
cost
• Lower
energy
operaLng
costs
• Independent
structure
• Building
form
• Occupies
site
(inhibits
other
land
use)
• Building
form
Underground
• Out
of
sight
• Allows
overburden
development,
• greater
building
density
• Higher
construcLon
costs
• Higher
operaLng
costs
• ConflicLng
design
needs
above
and
below
ground
• Interdependent
structures
Robo>c
• Smaller
space
requirement.
• May
be
only
feasible
soluLon
in
some
locaLons
• LimitaLons
on
use
• Higher
construcLon
cost
• Higher
operaLng
cost
• Proprietary
product
risk

15. And Finally - Charging?
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE
PARKING
So
the
quesLon
is
not
whether
or
not
to
charge
but
who
pays?

16. Charging – How Much?
Free
to
User
at
point
of
use
User
pays
subsidised
rate
User
pays
“cost”
User
pays
premium
Third
party
pays
or
cost
is
loaded
on
to
associated
services
or
acLviLes
“accidental”
subsidy
from
third
party
or
raLonal
decision
to
subsidise
to
aFract
traffic
Cost
recovery
(+”profit/
margin”)
with
no
financial
input
from
third
party
OpportunisLc
Surcharge
to
recognise
supply/demand
imbalance,
to
targeted
to
deter
demand

17. That’s All Folks !
Thank you for your attention
but remember

18. Cars can be fun too!