[sustran] Re: On vs off street parking or simply reducing on streetparking

[Walter Hook]

Todd, Eric, and Eric, 

If we assume a fixed number of parking spaces and we assume that those
parking spaces are charged at the full market rate and pricing is optimized,
and the only two options for the use of the roadway is a)parking and
b)facilities for non-motorized travel (sidewalks or bikeways) is it better
for the parking to be on the street or in garages?  

I vote for the garages.



-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+whook=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
Of K. Tsourlakis
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2006 6:53 PM
To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
Subject: [sustran] Re: On vs off street parking or simply reducing on
streetparking


The question whether on- or off-street parking is better from a
sustainability viewpoint is a difficult one to answer and depends (as many
other similar problems) on many localy defined parameters. My hypothesis is
that perhaps where land is cheap and sprawl pressures an imminent danger
(like in N. America) on-street parking is better, while in other cases (like
Knoflacher's Vienna) off-street parking brings about better results.

However i think there is one more parameter that still evades from the so
far presented analysis, and this is the general public mentality. On street
parking gives to the average and unquestioned layman the impression that it
is normal for motorised traffic to have priority over other uses on public
spaces, and cars (or at least motorcycles) the default transport medium in
the cities. Payment for the used space offers little help to alleviate this
mentality (if not deteriorating it) - this is one reason i don't consider
congestion charge a so good idea (for a more thorough discussion on this
topic look at http://www.geocities.com/pezosgr/LCC.htm). If we don't target
at this distorted mentality, both of the public opinion and the bureaucrats,
which leads to the adaptation of the cities and the human lives to the needs
of cars (instead of the opposite), i doubt if we shall ever reach to a
sustainable future.

>
>Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:33:47 -0700
>From: Todd Alexander Litman <litman at vtpi.org>
>Subject: [sustran] Re: On vs off street parking or simply reducing on
>	street	parking.
>To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
>	<sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>, 	Asia and the Pacific
sustainable
>	transport	<sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
>Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20060426194947.05dfa6c0 at mail.islandnet.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>There is no doubt that shifting from free to priced parking can 
>reduce vehicle ownership and use. Underpriced parking is the largest 
>subsidy of automobile travel - for each dollar a motorist spends 
>directly on their vehicle, somebody spends about $0.50 to subsidize 
>its parking. In typical situations, shifting from free to 
>cost-recovery priced parking (parking priced to cover its facility 
>and operating costs) reduces automobile ownership by 5-15% if applied 
>to residential parking, and reduces vehicle trips by 10-30% if 
>applied at destinations such as worksite and other commercial 
>destinations. This implies that about 20% of our traffic problems, 
>road and parking costs, traffic accidents, fuel consumption and 
>pollution emissions can be "explained" by vehicle parking 
>underpricing, or described more positively, correcting parking 
>underpricing can significantly improve transportation system 
>efficiency and address problems such as excessive traffic risk and 
>energy consumption.
>
>Pricing can even be revenue neutral, for example, by "unbundling" 
>residential parking (parking is sold and rented separately from 
>building space, so for example, rather than renting an apartment for 
>$1,000 per month with two "free" parking spaces, the apartment rents 
>for $800 per month, and each parking space is a separate $100 per 
>month) and "cashing out" subsidized employee parking (commuters can 
>choose between a subsidized parking space or its cash equivalent, 
>such as $100 per month).
>
>To be effective parking pricing must be correctly implemented. This 
>means appropriate price structures (preferably hourly and daily fees, 
>with higher rates during peak periods, and minimal exemptions and 
>discounts), effective enforcement, and good travel options (walking 
>and cycling conditions, good ridesharing and public transit services, 
>etc.). To effect vehicle ownership and use (rather than just parking 
>location) pricing must be implemented over an area, so motorists 
>cannot simply park for free nearby.
>
>Business people often demand parking subsidies to attract customers, 
>but their efforts are often misdirected. After all, people spend 
>money, not cars. While its true that if two businesses are otherwise 
>equally attractive, the one that offers free parking will tend to 
>attract more customers, there are other more important attributes, 
>and areas which focus only on cheap parking to attract customers 
>often fail. For example, if charging for parking reduces taxes and 
>prices, increases parking turnover, or funds transit services and 
>local street improvements, many people while choose an area where 
>they must pay for parking (see Douglas Kolozsvari and Donald Shoup, 
>"Turning Small Change Into Big Changes," Access 23, University of 
>California Transportation Center 
>(<http://www.uctc.net/>www.uctc.net), Fall 2003, pp. 2-7; 
><http://www.sppsr.ucla.edu/up/webfiles/SmallChange.pdf>www.sppsr.ucla.edu/u
p/webfiles/SmallChange.pdf 
>).  Similarly, many areas with limited and priced parking are 
>attractive places to live and work, because they have better 
>livability. Described differently, charging for parking improves the 
>quality of customers by weeding out the cheepskates who won't pay a 
>few cents to park, leaving better spenders.
>
>This is not anti-car. It recognizes that some trips will be made by 
>automobile and that we need to accommodate their need to park. But 
>charging for parking and using shared, public parking facilities 
>(including on-street and for-profit commercial parking) is far more 
>equitable and efficient, and significantly reduces the total amount 
>of parking supply needed compared with conventional parking planning 
>practices which result in generous amounts of parking at each destination.
>
>For more information see:
>
>Todd Litman, Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and Planning, 
>Victoria Transport Policy Institute 
>(<http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf>www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf), 2006.
>
>MRSC, Downtown Parking Solutions, Municipal Research and Service 
>Center of Washington 
>(<http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Transpo/Tpark/transsolut.aspx>www.mrsc.org/S
ubjects/Transpo/Tpark/transsolut.aspx), 
>2005.
>
>Nelson/Nygaard Consulting, Housing Shortage / Parking Surplus, 
>Transportation and Land Use Coalition 
>(<http://www.transcoalition.org/southbay/housing_study/index.html>www.trans
coalition.org/southbay/housing_study/index.html), 
>July 2002.
>
>Oregon Downtown Development Association, Parking Management Made 
>Easy: A Guide to Taming the Downtown Parking Beast, Transportation 
>and Growth Management Program, Oregon DOT and Dept. of Environmental 
>Quality 
>(<http://www.lcd.state.or.us/tgm/publications.htm>www.lcd.state.or.us/tgm/p
ublications.htm), 
>2001.
>
>Ryan Russo, Planning for Residential Parking: A Guide For Housing 
>Developers and Planners, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern 
>California 
>(<http://www.nonprofithousing.org/>www.nonprofithousing.org) and the 
>Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy 
>(<http://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu/>http://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu), 2001.
>
>USEPA, Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance Through 
>Smart Growth Solutions, Development, Community, and Environment 
>Division (DCED); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
>(<http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/parking.htm>www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/parkin
g.htm), 
>2006.
>
>
>At 11:14 AM 4/26/2006, Sunny wrote:
>
>>I really like Todd's idea of pricing the parking but implementing the
>>same is a bit difficult in the developing cities as there is a
>>increasing trend of vehicle ownership. In my opinion initially focussing
>>on limiting the available parking spaces and then going with the pricing
>>would be better as this firstly might control the ridership and then the
>>pricing would have the economic effect.
>>
>>On the other hand I doubt if parking pricing will really reduce the
>>ridership because I presume that parking pricing would make the car user
>>aware of the fact that they are being metered for the time they are
>>spending for shopping and thereby reduce their shopping time which can
>>tend to decrease the sales, yes they might shift to other modes but what
>>if the other modes are not as developed as driving a car like in
>>Bangkok. Secondly, providing priced or timed parking would allow the
>>other car driver to feel that they might get a place to park their car
>>and hence avoid them from shifting to other means. Correct me if I am
wrong.
>>
>>Off street parking is the worst case especially when it is free/very
>>very cheap like here in Bangkok and when the price is reducing with time
>>rather than increasing. but even here i have the same doubts mentioned
>>above. I would be glad if someone could clarify me.
>>
>>Sunny
>
>
>
>Sincerely,
>Todd Alexander Litman
>Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
>litman at vtpi.org
>Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
>1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
>"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
>
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL:
http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060426/8a260e4b
/attachment-0001.html
>



____________________________________________________________________________
_________
http://www.mailbox.gr ÁðïêôÞóôå äùñåÜí ôï ìïíáäéêü óáò e-mail.
http://www.superweb.gr ÏéêïíïìéêÜ êáé áîéüðéóôá ðáêÝôá web hosting ìå
áóöáëÝò Åëëçíéêü controlpanel
http://wwww.domains.gr Ôï üíïìÜ óáò óôï internet ìüíï ìå 10 Åõñþ.