Fact sheet Parking policy

The authorities are also responsible for providing good signposting to (public) parking locations. Sound parking policy contributes to the accessibility of city centres, increasing the quality of public space and the environment. In addition to the authorities, employers also play a role in parking policy by facilitating or regulating (often free) parking at their own premises.

Accessibility effects - government measures

Within the topic of car parking, there are many conceivable measures that can be taken to regulate the provision and use of parking spaces. Management by means of parking fees and parking capacity are the two most important. The CROW publication Parking and Behaviour lists the following rules of thumb that apply with regard to the expected impact of a number of possible (government) parking measures:

• Price elasticity of demand: on average around -0.3. This means that a 10% tariff increase will result in a 3% reduction in use. However, price elasticity of demand is heavily dependent on various factors, such as the reason for parking, time, location, day of the week, parking duration, short versus medium term and, in the event of a tariff increase, the starting tariff (from € 0.00 to € 0.50 has a greater impact than from € 1.80 to €2.30 per hour).
• Price differentiation: by making street parking slightly more expensive than a parking garage, for example, the throughput of on-street parking spaces can be stimulated. When parking is free for the first two hours, there is more frequent short-stay parking at the location in question, thus facilitating the throughput of parking spaces, but this encourages car traffic. Parking can also result in rush-hour avoidance: by setting higher tariffs at rush-hour periods than during the off-peak period, a municipality, and certainly also employers, can influence the mobility behaviour of motorists.
• Prepayment versus paying on exit: On average, motorists who pay on exit park about 7% longer.
• Capacity measures:
  - At an occupancy rate of less than 83%, the addition or reduction of parking capacity has little or no impact on parking behaviour.
  - At an occupancy rate of 83% - 95%, the addition of one extra parking space will result in approximately 0.5 additional parked cars.
  - At an occupancy rate of > 95%, the addition of one extra parking space will result in approximately 1 additional parked car.
• 56% of motorists notice parking guidance systems and 12% of motorists are guided by them.
• Booking systems can reduce the average distance driven by cars looking for spaces by a factor of 2 compared to a 'blind search'.
• Parking facilitiesplay almost no part in the selection of a particular parking location. However, a sense of security is important.

The effect of a parking measure at regional level heavily depends on the measures to be taken and the location of the area in question in relation to competing destinations. Furthermore, little or no research has been conducted that shows the effect of such packages.

With regard to reducing the available parking capacity, the rule of thumb is that a reduction in parking surface area in an area with an occupancy rate higher than 95% results in one fewer parked car per day. With an occupancy rate of between 80% and 95%, this results in 0.5 fewer parked cars. There is no knowledge available about the behavioural response of these drivers.

Based on past experience figures, it can be assumed that 60% of these drivers find a different location in the same area or nearby, 20% choose a distant parking space and 20% do not make the journey or choose an alternative means of transport. At MIRT level (Multi-Year Programme for Infrastructure, Spatial Planning, and Transport.), this represents a reduction in road traffic (per day) equal to approximately 20% of the removed parking spaces if the occupancy rate is >95%. If the occupancy rate is 80-95%, the reduction in traffic intensity is approximately 10% of the removed parking spaces.

On the basis of a package of parking measures that do not reduce the physical parking area (price differentiation, open parking information, stimulation of P+R), the effect is even less clear. Based on the researchers’ expert opinion, it can be assumed that such a package of 'soft measures' would yield a quarter of the effect of reducing the available parking capacity (2.5% to 5% of avoided car journeys from/to the parking spaces in question) per parking space. Probably (but not demonstrated) the most effective measure is a combination of both. Therefore, in such a case, a sum of both effects is assumed (not of reduced added value from a wider package).

Accessibility effects - employers’ approach

The employers’ approach involves employers looking for ways to reduce the use of cars. For instance by adjusting employers’ schemes for mileage allowances, lease schemes and parking capacity (more information about this can be found in the fact sheet Employers’ approach). Employer incentives can be very effective at reducing car use. The provision or removal of free parking spaces has a major impact on the mobility and parking behaviour of employees. The same applies to parking regulations. One measure for consideration, for instance, could be withdrawing parking rights for those with a daily commute of under 10 km. Managed parking policy on the part of the employer is still relatively rare, as free parking is still often viewed as an employee benefit. Hospitals are at the forefront in terms of charging parking fees to their employees.

If employees are offered good alternatives, they are more likely to leave the car at home. Figures from Optimising Use and the clustered effect measurements from a number of regions show that a 5% to 10% modal shift from cars to alternatives can be achieved. This relates to the effect of the approach as a whole, both discouraging car use (e.g. through parking measures) and encouraging alternatives (different means of transport, flexible working hours or working from home).

Restrictions on free parking or the availability of only paid parking or alternative parking policies can lead to significant changes in the travel behaviour of car users. A European study shows that employers who provide guaranteed parking spaces account for twice as many drivers as employers who don’t provide guaranteed parking spaces.

Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC) is a good example of the effect of employer policy on travel behaviour. The centre introduced an innovative parking policy, under which employees pay less to park the further away from work they live. By including a fixed and variable component and introducing an allowance for people who cycle to work, even in bad weather, this approach has been successful. This has led to 40% fewer employees using parking spaces, and a rise in the use of bicycles. So here, it is not the case that people park in the surrounding area. This is an important aspect of this type of measure.

ASR in Utrecht is also a good example of this. Due to employees being centralised in the renovated office in Utrecht, ASR was faced with a shortage of parking spaces. As a solution, ASR therefore decided to introduce a parking policy (among other things), that only provides spaces for employees who live further away. Anyone who lives within 10 kilometres of the site is no longer entitled to a parking space. ASR later decided that, in principle, external staff should no longer be allowed to park. According to the ASR counts, after the introduction of the new parking policy the number of employees using the parking facilities decreased from 61% to 53%. In total, 16% of car drivers have switched to travelling by public transport or bicycle since the introduction of the 10 km zone limit.

Sustainability effects

Generally, it is not possible to determine the sustainability effects of parking policy. This will depend greatly on the objective of a parking measure and the type of measure used. If the aim is to reduce the number of vehicles looking for spaces (e.g. by installing parking guidance systems or introducing booking systems) then (local) sustainability effects can be achieved in terms of reducing congestion and emissions.

At the other end of the spectrum, a change in the means of transport for commuting (e.g. a reduction in parking spaces, or free parking spaces, at the employer’s premises) will result in cars avoiding rush-hour journeys along the entire distance of the commute, plus the corresponding reduction in emissions. Along an average commuting distance of 24 kilometres, the following emissions will be saved each time a rush-hour journey is avoided:

Variables influencing effects

Parking policy can be demand-driven (creation of required capacity) or supply-driven (distribution of available capacity). Parking policy often includes a combination of these two approaches. Parking policy tends to change the balance between demand and supply on the transport market. This results in a different way of using the infrastructure and parking capacity. The most important variables related to parking policy in general are:

• attraction value or the importance of the destination
• the time and distance to the destination and the quality of the
  route
• parking tariffs
• availability of parking spaces
• occupancy rate
• parking duration limitation
• nature and quality of the parking area (grounds/garage/street)
• feeling of security in and around the parking area
• ease of booking and payment
• likelihood of being caught and consequences of illegal parking

Costs

It is not possible to determine the costs and benefits of parking policy in general. This depends greatly on the type of measure used. For example, the construction of a parking facility, a change in parking fees or the introduction of parking guidance systems. The costs also depend on the (possible) revenue from parking fees or on another target variable, such as air quality and congestion, on the basis of which parking policy is implemented. Managed parking policies usually do not require significant investments and can therefore be implemented in a relatively short period of time.

Municipalities

Of municipalities with more than 25,000 inhabitants, more than 50% have parking regulations in the town centre. 20% of the public parking spaces are regulated and 30% of these generate parking revenue. 94% of public parking spaces therefore generate no revenue. Only 23% of the operating and management costs are borne by the user. The remaining 77% comes from the municipality’s budget.

Employers

The average cost to the employer for a parking space is €700 per year, in Amsterdam the average is €1,500 per year. This is because parking is free for employees almost everywhere.

More information

See https://wegwijs-beterbenutten.nl/pr-parkeren

Sources consulted

1. Parkeren en gedrag, Een totaaloverzicht van alle relevante kennis op het gebied van parkeren en gedrag (CROW, 2017) - https://www.crow.nl/kennis/bibliotheek-verkeeren-vervoer/kennisdocumenten/parkeren-en-gedrag

2. Parkeren en Mobiliteitsmanagement (KpVV, 2014) - https://wegwijs-beterbenutten.nl/assets/upload/Wegwijs%20Beter%20Benutten%20
-%20KpVV%20-%20Parkeren%20en%20mobiliteitsmanagement.pdf

3. Over Falend en Succesvol Parkeerbeleid (Jos van Ommeren, 2012) - https://sbe.vu.nl/en/Images/OverFalendEnSuccesvolParkeerbeleid_30_mei_gedrukte_versie_tcm258-274940.pdf

4. Push & pull, Parkeerbeleid en stimulansen als succesvolle en bewezen strategieën voor energiezuinig stadsvervoer 2015 (Europees onderzoeksproject Push&Pull, 2015) - https://www.swecobelgium.be/siteassets/projecten/infrastructure/parkconsult/parkconsult-goede-redenen-parkeerbeleid.pdf

5. Grip op gedrag (XTNT, &Morgen, Tabula Rasa, 2013) - http://www.beterbenutten.nl/assets/upload/files/Rapport%20Grip%20op%20Gedrag%205%2012%202013(1).pdf