Thursday, September 4, 2014
In Nelson, at the top of
Zealand's South Island or Te Waipounamu (Maori
name), there is a hive of activity around trying to solve a main street retail
parking problem. Regularly the sunniest
place in New Zealand, the issue is creating chills with some of the abuse
hurled at the poor old Enforcement Officers, so much so that nelson may be showing
it up as an unfriendly place. Why? Because they cant solve their retail parking
Retail parking is a very simple issue to solve. It’s straight up economics, not emotion, not traffic engineering, not planning, just economics. It’s the balance of supply and demand. Whether by time restriction or metered charging, its still just about economics. This fact eludes most people.
I’m not sure the Council and the retailers have actually defined the issues here, so that would be a great place to start, so I will have a go here.
1. Provide enough parking for shopping customers to come and stay as long as they are shopping, and no longer.
2. Provide some parking for the staff of those shops and commercial premises to park all day.
3. Its not really a number three but I thought I would throw this in - Council will get its revenues anyway, either by parking meter or by enforcement (due to the extra traffic generated by free parking)….its never free.
There, done it.
Firstly, you have to understand how to manage the parking resource in the city. It is limited. There are only so many car parks to go around. Generally, more people want them than there are car parks. This makes it a scarcity so you must actively manage it. But to what levels should you manage it?
In modern parking methodologies, the ‘occupancy rate’ is the Number 1 KPI in parking now. You must set up your system to ensure full utilisation of parking, that is a working occupancy rate of around 60% to 85%. Any higher, then the price should go up to control it (occupancies higher than 85% start to show signs of congestion). Any lower then the price should go down to improve utilisation.
There is a large amount of work now showing that people looking for car parks are up to 45% of the actual traffic in a busy city. The answer to that is to get the pricing or time restriction signals right and then communicate that in depth so that the parking decision is made before you leave home or work.
Price is a tool but not the main goal ….. occupancy is the main goal of retail parking although retailers will try to jam you into their car parks anyway because parking relates directly to footfall and they generally don’t care about you until you get into the mall (see most malls in the country).
These days we have a lot of modern tools & technologies in the tool box to set up a modern parking system, pay and display machines, pay by phone, barrier gates, licence plate readers, parking sensors, signs, paint on the road, education and finally, parking enforcement officers. You can use some or all of these together. Taupo uses an enforcement only model, which is say P60-P120 with sensors on the street to keep the cars turned over. Most big cities will use parking meters and pricing to turn cars over.
New modern methods of setting up your parking operation work very well around the world and will be in
New Zealand in no time, that is an
inverse pricing method. Most cities have
a price per hour where each hour costs the same amount, e.g. $3.00 per hour
plus a P120 time limit. The new approach
is to charge more for the extra hour and have no time limit. The affect appears to be people who want to
stay can – they don’t get forced out – but they must pay for the privilege. This might look like,
1. 1st Hour - $2
2. 2nd Hour - $3
3. 3rd Hour - $5
4. 4th Hour - $7
As you can see, the rates climb significantly at the time you want to turn the car park over. It also has the affect of being positive in nature versus the inherently negative enforcement and infringement approach; in fact it is proving around the world to reduce the need for enforcement significantly.
For staff and office workers, they can park in areas away from the parking for shoppers because, for a major proportion of them, if you can’t park shoppers, they wouldn’t have a job. In this case you make it cheaper or with longer time limits where you want them to park to incentivise them away from the main shopping areas.. You can always improve public transport to incentivise them on to the bus (see my article on TDM here).
Read the Article Here.....
These views are my own.
Monday, September 1, 2014
Is TDM designed to cause inefficiencies and now dated?
Most of my ‘parking’ working life has been primarily about trying to optimise a parking operation by getting as many people into a well run and attractive facility as possible. The single aim has been to achieve a high occupancy level, with a tipping point of too many customers demanding spaces, because the facility’s promotion and operations were too successful, then triggering a price rise. That tipping point meant I could then put prices up and start the process of marketing all over again. It doesn’t always work that way because occupancies and prices can go down too.
This is in a commercial environment and not a municipal environment that may not enjoy the freedoms from community outcomes that private facilities may. The commercial environment supposes you run each car park as a separate business and not as a single synchronous entity and I have found that this has more pros than cons.
Transport Demand Management (TDM) is about synchronising not only each individual car park space and facility but each and every part of the transport programme being, Public Transport, Road Corridors and Parking. This tends to run against the ethos of competition between car park sites and car park companies which means, it is doomed to failure straight away.
It supposes firstly that all car park companies will work together to achieve the lofty goals of TDM (they wont). Secondly, it supposes that all parts of the TDM paradigm are working efficiently (they aren’t). Thirdly, it supposes that TDM will deliver more benefits to the community than competition does (it doesn’t). TDM could be called a type of socialist transport (tongue in cheek).
I tend to think of TDM as a ‘flow’. It deals with the flow of people into the city each day, almost like a river. At its source the river starts quietly, gently working with gravity to go to a destination. As it picks up volume as more tributaries and estuaries join in, it is squeezed by its banks and forced to go where the banks want it to go. The river may get a blockage every now, causing all sorts of flooding and chaos, as the river works its way to its destination. It can’t be stopped without major construction or investment. At the destination the river is large and the combination of the collection of smaller flows, all settle into the vast peaceful ocean.
Imagine how surprised I was when I started to work in a city environment, being surrounded by traffic engineers and transport planners who spoke about using parking as a transport demand management tool. To the lay person, this speak means artificially fiddling with the price at a facility or destination to discourage customers to park and to consequently force them to take the bus, train, bicycle or suffer the fake prices. In other words, they want to dam up the river as it flows to the sea. Good luck with that.
Being a glass half full person, I could never understand how a city might try successfully to force people to travel by a mode through penalty and punishment rather than the positive outcome of enticement, incentive and motivation. People will always travel where the incentives point them. Penalties require enforcement automatically which means there will need to be a large administration of the punitive regime. Incentives require no such level of administration.
In Wikipedia, transportation demand management, traffic demand management or travel demand management (all TDM) is the application of strategies and policies to reduce travel demand (specifically that of single-occupancy private vehicles), or to redistribute this demand to other methods of travel. I get this. I really do. This should be about encouraging a different method of travel through incentives, attractiveness of the product and lifestyle or even competing values, not about hitting people over the head with the blunt mallet of pricing for parking.
In practical terms, this means that if people won’t use the bus service because it is a poor option, then the city will force us to use that bus service by hiking up parking prices by the advent of local taxes, the forced reduction of parking supply or redesigning Road Corridors to make car travel difficult. Whatever method used, this is not acceptable to most people.
The answer is very simple. Run an awesome bus and train service, reconfigure the on-street parking to allow for transport options to flow smoothly through the Road Corridors (no on-street parking impediments) and then let parking operations respond to the left-overs in a well run, efficient manner that offers a great service to those who must use a car. Incentivise those who use Public Transport with a faster, smoother and cheaper service where a person’s time-value is revered.
Symptoms of a poorly run and designed Public Transport system and poorly configured Road Corridors are easy to spot. They are spiralling parking costs due to rising parking demand, circulating and double parked traffic again due to rising parking demand and Road Corridors at a standstill during the peak hours again due to rising parking demand. Parking demand is the cleanest method of determining the how well your Public Transport system and Road Corridors are working and thought of by the public.
This is an issue that should be solved in other areas up-stream, such as Road Corridors design and operations or in Public Transport operations, not parking operations. It feels very much like the upstream road corridor, Public Transport design and traffic operations have not been able to do their jobs well enough and the result is to flush it on to parking operations to clean up! This is designing a system to run inefficiently on purpose! A city municipality owes it to the tax payers to run the parking operations well, not to artificially run it poorly …. on purpose.
Another challenge to TDM is the arrival of self driving cars and the now increasing growth of electric vehicles. Self driving cars may actually double the traffic into the city as the car parking in the city not only competes with the time values of sitting on Public transport, but also the costs of sending a car home or to a cheaper car park lot in the suburbs, awaiting the call to come into the city and pick up the owner. Cars could make four trips a day instead of the current two. On the other hand, electric vehicles should be encouraged as they don’t bellow greenhouse gases. TDM is a blunt instrument that will not filter out desired vehicles, rather punish them all, missing the chance to incentivise the right behaviours.
In the coming modern world, congestion charging or road tolling, where road users are charged based on when, where and how much they drive is a better way of controlling the travel demand. Why? Because electric vehicle can be singled out as those who can be incentivised to encourage this type of transport while four trip a day self driving cars or fossil fuelled cars will be discouraged.
However, the best method of encouraging the type of behaviour a city wants is to improve Public Transport, design better Road Corridors and allow the inner city parking stakeholders to compete and be run efficiently.
Be positive, do away with TDM.
Parking Operations Designer