Parking Policy and Sustainable Transport and Land Use PlanningAITPM 2014

Emmerson Richardson and Scott Elaurant

Overview

1. Introduction

2. Context – Australian Capital City Centres

– Parking Supply– Parking Demand– System performance

3. Adelaide City Parking Policy and Development

4. Brisbane CBD Parking

5. Perth Parking Policy – Impacts on Transport and Development

6. Conclusions

Introduction

• Parking policy in city centre is a critical tool to manage demand

• How do we manage travel demand without harming the city centre economy?

• Which examples of city centre parking policy in Australia cities work best?

• We consider three case studies – Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth – to evaluate evidence for which policy approach works best

CBD Context – Parking Supply

• CBD definitions inconsistent; consider inner city

• Larger cities have more PT, less parking spaces/worker

• Adelaide has the highest parking supply rate; Sydney the lowest

Price Waterhouse Coopers for Business Council of Australia

City Centre 2011 Parking (non-resident)

2011 Workforce

Spaces per worker

Adelaide 82,000 118,000 0.69

Brisbane 44,000 117,000 0.38

Melbourne 95,959 289,000 0.33

Perth 58,000 125,000 0.46

Sydney 52.515 240,000 0.22

CBD Context – Parking Policy Constraints

• All capitals except Brisbane have/plan levy per parking space

• All capitals except Adelaide limit new spaces per development

• Only Perth levy revenue is statutorily tied to public transport

City Centre Development Parking Limit?

Public Parking Limit?

Parking Price Levy (2014)

Adelaide No No $750/yr proposed

Brisbane 1/100m2 of building 1/100m2 of building None

Melbourne 0.5/100m2 of building

0.5/100m2 of building

$1300/yr

Perth 80-200/Ha of land; depends on street

category

Zoning restricts long stay; Impact

study required

$631/yr short stay$729/yr long stay

Sydney Impact study required

Impact study required

$2210/yr

CBD Context – Parking Demand

• Assume parking demand related to city centre daily parking rate

• As demand exceeds supply, cost rises

• Also depends on capacity of public transport alternative

City Centre 2014 Daily Parking Rate?

% Private Car Mode Share

Adelaide $12/day 54%

Brisbane $24/day 29%

Melbourne $18/day 26%

Perth $20/day 46%

Sydney $30/day 17%

CBD Context – Economic Performance

• All City incomes have grown – Perth fastest, Sydney slowest

• No correlation between parking supply and income growth

• No correlation between parking restrictions and income growth

AdelaideBrisbane

MelbournePerth

Sydney

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1996

2001

2006

2011

1996

2001

2006

2011

Med

ian

Wee

kly

Inco

me

Case Study: Adelaide

Area of interest

City of Adelaide

Adelaide City Parking and Land Use Policy

• Least restrictive parking policy; supply very high

• Conflict with State and ACC owning and regulating car parks

• Now ACC Smart Move; State ITLUP; Levy to start from 2015

Parking Policy Measure Policy Position

2001 - 2011

Current Position

2014

Price mechanism/levy space

None Transport Development Levy ($750 per space) from 1 Jan 2015

Cap on total parking None None

Parking regulations for developments

Parking limits are specific to locations and land use. No overall limit.

State government now approves for developments >$10 million

Adelaide City Transport Performance

• CBD employment growing; PT Mode share growth slight

• Approach road congestion growing

• Average road speed dropped 16% in decade (32kph to 27 kph)

Adelaide – Economic Performance

• CBD employment share large and growing (25% of city total)

• Employment growth > population growth = income growth

Growth Parameter 2001 2006 2011 Growth

City Population 17,861 22,789 26,800 5% p.a.

City Employment   108,000 118,000 2% p.a.

Car Mode Share % 65% 59% 57% -13%

PT Mode Share % 30% 34% 36% +20%

Per Capita Income $354/week $446/week $554/week 5% p.a.

Case Study: Brisbane

Area of interest

CBD, Spring Hill, Valley, South Brisbane

Brisbane City Parking and Land Use Policy

• State and Council (BCC) plans to reduce car commuting

• Tight restrictions on parking supply increase now being eased

• Still no parking levy in CBD, yet high cost = windfall profit

Parking Policy Measure Policy Position

2001 - 2011

Current Position

2014

Price mechanism/levy space

None None

Cap on total parking No additional spaces guaranteed

No additional spaces guaranteed

Parking regulations for developments

Upper limit 1 space/200m2

Upper limit 1 space/100m2

Brisbane City Transport Performance

• Busways achieved major increase in PT capacity & mode share

• Subsequent toll road tunnels have not increased road speeds

• Average road speed dropped 11% in decade (31kph to 28 kph)

Brisbane – Economic Performance

• CBD compact and dense; growth spreading into fringe suburbs

• Employment & income growth 2nd highest in Australia

• Most employment growth in Valley, South Brisbane

Growth Parameter 2001 2006 2011 Growth

City Population 7,351 13,298 15,815 12% p.a.

City Employment   106,000 117,000 2% p.a.

Car Mode Share % 40% 34% 29% -27%

PT Mode Share % 55% 59% 63% +15%

Per Capita Income $389/week $513/week $628/week 6% p.a.

Case Study: Perth

Perth Area of interest

Integrated Policy Objectives and Mechanisms

Policy

• Enable city to grow - increased people movement

• Manage demand for cars – reduced car travel

Current mechanisms

• Manage car travel demand through parking policy

• Improve capacity and frequency of public transport

• Develop/improve bicycle and pedestrian networks

Perth Parking Policy Levels

• Strict maximum levels of parking for development / re-development based on ground floor space of land

Case study William Street 18-24 Parliament PlaceLocation CBD adjacent to central railway

stationWest Perth (Periphery of CBD)

Type of development 20 storey office with ground floor retail 8 storey officeSite area 0.84 Ha 0.21 HaMaximum parking allowance

168 bays 56 bays

Development yield and parking ratio

Approximately 40,000m2 GFA

0.42 bays / 100m2 GFA

Approximately 4280m2 GFA

1.3 bays / 100m2 GFA

• Levy on all non-residential on and off street parking

• Three parking zones for public parking

– pedestrian priority zone (no more parking)– short stay zone (no more long stay parking)– general parking zone (all public parking permitted)

Parking Supply and Travel to the City

Central Perth Non Residential Parking Supply

Travel to/from Perth City

Benefits from Perth Parking Policy

• Strong city growth and prosperity – from improved access

• Improved pedestrian amenity and vibrancy – from more people on the streets

• Better amenity/ more efficient transport – From less car traffic / wider footpaths / more bus priority

• More connected street network – from return to two way streets

• Decision makers recognise need / benefits of car restraint policies in busy central areas

Summary and Conclusions

• All Australian CBDs will grow 50% in next 20-40 years

• Continual growth in parking supply and corresponding car commuters is unsustainable in transport and economic terms

• Integrated land-use, parking and transport policy needed for CBD

• No evidence of economic dis-benefits from CBD parking policy

• Parking price will be charged at market rate regardless of levy

• Comparison of Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth shows need for consistency in parking policy over time to get long term benefits

• Statutory parking policy as in Perth provides most stability and economic and transport benefits

Conclusions ..continued

• Ability for City centres to grow and prosper depends on:

– increased capacity and service of public transport– reduced car travel along city streets (slow speeds)– safer, better environment for pedestrians (wider footpaths,

safer crossings)– Improved, safer movement network for cyclists

Need for Policy Consistency

• Based on clear rationale – more people / less costs

• No increase in car traffic means no need for more parking – maintain strict limits on parking supply for development

• Parking is expensive to provide and takes up valuable space – therefore logical the charge for parking should be substantial

• Use car space levies to help fund public transport and active transport improvement

Increased Car Access is Not a Requirement of City Growth and Prosperity

• 10-15 years ago many planners thought restraint on car assess to City centres would damage the economy

• No evidence to support this thesis

• Opposite is true – reduced car access is necessary to create good pedestrian amenity and efficient, higher capacity movement network for other modes

• Now accepted that successful cities require modern sustainable transport systems

www.jacobs.com | worldwide

Parking Policy and Sustainable Transport and Land Use Planning

AITPM 2014Emmerson Richardson and Scott Elaurant