AITPM presentation

1. Parking Policy and Sustainable Transport and Land
Use PlanningAITPM 2014
Emmerson Richardson and Scott Elaurant

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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%

7. 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
1996
2001
2006
2011
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Adelaide
Brisbane
Melbourne
Perth
Sydney
MedianWeeklyIncome
1996
2001
2006
2011

8. Case Study: Adelaide

9. Area of interest
City of Adelaide

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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.

13. Case Study: Brisbane

14. Area of interest
CBD, Spring Hill, Valley, South Brisbane

15. 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

16. 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)

17. 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.

18. Case Study: Perth

19. Perth Area of interest

20. 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

21. 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 Place
Location CBD adjacent to central railway
station
West Perth (Periphery of CBD)
Type of development 20 storey office with ground floor retail 8 storey office
Site area 0.84 Ha 0.21 Ha
Maximum 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)

22. Parking Supply and Travel to the City
Central Perth Non Residential
Parking Supply
Travel to/from Perth City

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. www.jacobs.com | worldwide
Parking Policy and Sustainable Transport and
Land Use Planning
AITPM 2014
Emmerson Richardson and Scott Elaurant