titlepage/contents pg 1-16 - British Parking Association

Formulating Parking Interventions 73potentially important urbandesign benefits due to reducedneed for access ways. Theavailability of communal parkingcan, therefore, serve objectivesof safety, environmental quality,and efficient use of land.New residentialdevelopmentThe extent to which reducing theavailability of parking inresidential development cancontribute to the objective ofoverall traffic restraint is animportant issue. It can start toimpact on car ownership as wellas influencing car use.Historically, both the tripfrequency and the distancetravelled by car are closely linkedwith car ownership. While it maybe unacceptable to limit carownership as a matter of policy,consideration should be given topolicies that will lead people tochoose to own cars less. Thismay involve, at the very least,ending practices that actuallyencourage car ownership.The strategy should seek todeliver the objectives set out inPPG3. This requires localplanning authorities to revisetheir car parking standards toallow for significantly lower levelsof off-street parking, particularlyfor developments in certainlocations. The strategy may alsoseek to achieve a reducedproportion of travel by car and ahigher proportion of travel bymodes other than the car. To theextent that this is achieved, thereis likely to be lower demand forcar ownership, and, therefore,lower demand for residentialparking space. This can be seenin the relationship betweenpublic transport use and carownership shown in Table 6.1below, albeit that it relates toGerman and Swiss examples.Some parking interventions mayencourage more or less carownership. Thus, moreownership can be facilitated by:●Providing parking spaceswithin the dwelling curtilage,especially provision of two ormore spaces; and● Uncontrolled or free parkingfor residents on-street.And less ownership encouragedby:●Parking spaces or garagessold separately fromdwellings;● Parking spaces leased orrented rather than sold;● Residents’ parking permitcharges; and●Table 6.1 Car ownership and public transport use in four cities.City Number of public transport trips Cars owned perper resident per year1,000 residentsBerne 500 360Zürich 500 390Karlsruhe 220 488Bonn 175 4911 Cars excluded Better use of existing standards, designed to provideareas on-site free of vehicles. Cars parked onperiphery or underground.2 Car reduced Less than 1:1 parking provided. Parking provided onsite(as level 1), or on-street or at other off-site facilities.3 Zero dedicated No parking provided exclusively for the housing.parkingParking on-street or off-street shared with otheractivities or developments. No legal restriction onownership.4 Car-free housing Car ownership neither provided for nor allowed. Thismeans zero general parking provision and legalrestrictions (voluntary or otherwise) on car ownershipby residents. However, there may be provision forNeighbourhood Car Fleet shared cars, and possiblydisabled persons vehicles.Source: Apel, D et al, 1997, “Kompact, mobil, urban: Stadtentwicklungskonzepte zurVerhehrsvermeidung im internationalen Vergleich, DIFU, Berlin (2).Restricted issue of residents’parking permits.Car-free and car-reducedhousingAs well as contributing to trafficrestraint, reducing the amount ofcar parking in residentialdevelopment can have othersignificant impacts. Research inLondon (3) concentrated on twokey impacts: allowing higherdensity housing and thusaccommodating morehouseholds, and improvedresidential quality. The studyidentified that between 25% and40% of total site area inresidential development isdevoted to access ways andparking. This inevitably placessevere constraints on thedensities and environmentalquality that can be achieved.Thus in housing as in all aspectsof physical urban structure,