Emmerson Richardson
-
Upload
jumpingjaq -
Category
Business
-
view
118 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Emmerson Richardson
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