fl I - Metro Vancouver - Home€¦ · 1.4 TDM and Parking Policy ..... 2 Present Parking Conditi ... The project wishes to thank the participants in a workshop held in January 1993

May 1993 TRANSPORT 2021 Tec-liniail Report

'fl I

Table of Contents

Preface .................................................... ......................................................... i

Acknowledgments ....................................... ....................................................... 111

Executive Summary. .................. .......... : ....................................... ES-1

...

1 .

2.

3 .

4.

Introduction.. ......... .; ......................... ....................................................... 1

1 . 1 Background ............................... ....................................................... 1

1.2 Study Purpose .......... ....................................................................... 1

1 .3 Literature Research.. .. .......................................................................... 1

1.4 TDM and Parking Policy ........................................................................ 2

Present Parking Conditi ....................................................... 3 2.1 Supply ....................... ......................................... ; ............................. 3

2.2 Ownership ................. ....................................................................... 3

2.3 Requirements.. ....... .................................................................

2.5 Municipal Parking Policies ............................................

Parking Policy Considerations.. ............................

3.1 Non-Residential Parking ................... .:. .......................

3.2 Area and Land Use Characteristics .............................. .................... 9

3 .3 Parking Cost and Travel Cost ..................................... ........................... 1 1

3.4 Parking Subsidies.. ...................................................... .................... 14

3.6 Ownership .................................................................. ............................... 19

Parking Policy Formulation.. .................................................................................. .20

4.1 Policy Criteria ................................................................. ............. 20

4.2 Price-Increasing Policies ...................................................................... 21

4.3 Supply-Limiting Policies .. .................................................................

4.4 Complementary Policy Considerations ............................................................ .23

4.5 Policy Formulation ...................................................................................... 24

4.6 Recommended Policies ................................................................................... .26

4.7 Institutional Change.. . ...................................................................... 27

2.4 Pricing ...... ....................................................... 4

....................... 6

............................................. 8

3 .5 Modal Choice Behaviour ............................................

References,, .................................................................................................................. .29

Appendix 1 - Experience of Other Cities ........................................................................ 39

List of Figures

Figure 3.1

Figure 3.2

Figure 3.3

Figure 3.4

Figure 4.1

Figure 4.2

. . Government Policies and Parking ................................................................ 15

Traditional Travel Cost/Modal Choice Curve .............................................. 17

Hysteresis Travel CostModal Choice Curve ................................................. 17

Transport Facility Ownership ...................................................................... 19

Effective Transportation Policy Elements .................................................... 25

Institutional Change Concept ....................................................................... 28

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Relative Comparison of Travel Costs ........................................................... 13

PREFACE

1. TRANSPORT 2021

This working paper is part of the output of TRANSPORT 2021, a joint project of the Province of British Columbia and the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The District comprises 18 member municipalities from the Lower Mainland of B.C.

The paper was prepared to help achieve the objectives of the project, which are as follows:

"based on the Greater Vancouver Regional District's Creating Our Future action

its Livable Region Strategy and the mission statements of

the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Highways and BC Transit,

to recommend, by the end of 1993,

a long-range transportation plan for Greater Vancouver, with associated policies, demand management measures

and priorities for transportation investment."

plan,

In particular TRANSPORT 2021 is instructed, in part, to "examine measures affecting transport demand and supply such as land-use policies, road pricing, flex-time hours, parking controls and technological advances. 'I

2. Related PaDer

The project has published related working papers on transportation demand management. They are:

0 Transportation Demand Management Measures and Their Potential Application in Greater Vancouver, January 1993

Transportation Demand Management: A Forecast Modelling Approach, March 1993

0 The Cost of Transporting People in the British Columbia Lower Mainland, March 1993

Tfi TRANSPORT 202 1 1

0 A Qualitative Research Study on Transportation Demand Management Measures, March 1993

3. Acknow1edg;ments

The paper was prepared for TRANSPORT 2021 by G.D. Hamilton Associates Consulting Ltd., Engineers and Planning Consultants. The work was steered by a committee of staff from the GVRD, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and BC Transit, whose names are listed in the paper.

The paper has been approved for release into the public domain by the TRANSPORT 202 1 Steering Committee. This release is not intended to imply endorsement by the TRANSPORT 2021 Steering Committee of the paper's contents and recommendations, which remain the responsibility of the Consultant.

The project wishes to thank the participants in a workshop held in January 1993 in connection with the paper.

4. Additional Copies

Copies of the paper can be obtained at a cost of $5.50 each. Call or fax :

GVRD Communications and Education 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, B.C.

V5H 4G8

Telephone: (604) 432-6339 Fax: (604) 432-6399

11 rfi TRANSPORT 202 1

. .

PARKING, MOBILITY, AND ACCESSIBILITY IN GREATER VANCOUVER

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

As part of this study, a workshop was held on January 13, 1993. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss the various experiences and viewpoints of the participants. The frank discussions during the workshop contributed to the knowledge base of this report. The study team also wishes to thank the Steering Committee members for providing timely guidance and direction during this study.

Steering Committee Members

Mr. Martin Crilly Project Director, TRANSPORT 2021

Ms. Susan O'Connor Senior Policy Advisor Ministry of Transportation and Highways

Mr. Richard Krowchuk Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer B.C. Transit

Mr. Gordon Chan, P.Eng. Transportation Engineering Manager B.C. Transit

Mr. Gary Vlieg, P.Eng. Transportation Planner, Strategic Planning Department, GVRD

Wo r ks hop Participants

Mr. Les Birks Vice President Metro Parking Ltd.

HAMILTON ASSOCIATES ... 111


Mr. Don Bridgman, P.Eng. Deputy Engineer City of North Vancouver

Mr. Kenji Ito Senior Planner City of Burnaby

Mr. Gordon Chan, P.Eng. Transportation Engineering Manager B.C. Transit

Mr. Brian Lees President Downtown Parking Corporation

Mr. Robert McDonald, P.Eng. Parking Engineer City of Vancouver

Mr. Rob Hodgins, P.Eng. Transportation Engineer City of Vancouver

Mr. John Rogers Past President Downtown Vancouver Association

Mr. Peter Galbraith, P.Eng. for Mr. R. Thompson Chair, Community Affairs Vancouver Board of Trade

HAMILTON ASSOC'IATES iv


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As part of the "Creating Our Future" project, the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways are in the process of developing a transportation plan called TRANSPORT 2021. The objectives of TRANSPORT 2021 include the recommendation of "a long range transportation plan for Greater Vancouver, with associated policies, demand management m e as u re s an d p r i or i t i e s f o r t r an s p o rt at i o n i nves t m e n t 'I, i n c I u d i n g ac h i evi n g efficient use of existing facilities. The TRANSPORT 2021 plan is formulating strategies and policies in transportation systems management, and has identified parking as a major element of Transportation Demand Management plans. The relationship between parking and transportation demand management in Greater Vancouver needed examination. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to formulate and evaluate various non-residential parking policies which could potentially be implemented as part of Transportation Demand Management plans. The aim of the parking measures is to reduce congestion and air pollution in the Greater Vancouver Regional District by reducing single occupant vehicle travel.

An extensive review of recent literature addressing the impact of parking policies on travel demand management was undertaken for this study. The relevant publications identified during the review are listed in the REFERENCES section. Summaries of parking policy impact experiences in selected cities are included in the APPENDIX. Transportation Demand Management experience in other cities indicated that parking policies should be an integral part of a Transportation Demand Management plan, and that their implementation and effectiveness can be best measured by long term success. Parking policies were found to be generally ineffective as a short term measure.

Effective parking policies require the synergy of the following four major policy elements: policies to affect changes in social attitude towards owning a vehicle and using it for commuting; policies addressing the economics of transport systems and the cost of commuting, income levels and economic growth; policies addressing land uses which are vehicle trip generators; and policies for transportation demand management. The relationship of these four policy groups is schematically shown in FIGURE S-1.

HAMILTON ASSOCIATES ES-1


Policies which include only the n economic and transportation de- TRANSPORT2021

mand management elements would be difficult to implement because of "inertia" to change and the need to overcome transportation "habit thresholds". Social attitude policies are therefore required to identify and to overcome these two difficulties. Social attitude change is a long term process, and requires consistent and persistent goals, strategies and

CunentTDM

Other Cmes

implementation plans similar to FIGURE S-1

those implemented for seatbelt use, smoking, and drinking and driving.

EFFECTIVE TRANSPORTATION POLICY ELEMENTS

Vehicle travel requires a trip origin and a trip destination, which are closely related to land use issues. Land use policies are therefore required to include consideration for the region's economic, business and industrial development goals. For a transport system to function efficiently and effectively, the region must maintain mobility and accessibility. Such a system will require the four major policy elements to work in concert, and to be compatible and complementary to each other. Based on these concepts, the following long term policy statements are recommended for consideration:

1. All on-street and off-street parking spaces shall be considered as an integral part of the transport system.

2. The long term goal of parking policies is to augment other transportation system management policies.

3. Parking policies shall be used to support, firstly, transit ridership goals; and secondly, once the above-mentioned goals are met, to support high occupancy travel plans with specific modal change goals.



4.

5.

6.

7.

Recognizing the often unique characteristics of different areas of the Regional District, both parking price increasing policies and supply limiting policies shall be considered to achieve the transportation goals of that area.

All existing parking spaces within the Greater Vancouver Regional District shall be regulated by one entity as part of the implementation of any Transportation Demand Management plan.

All parking subsidies shall be eliminated.

The Greater Vancouver Regional District, and other participating governments and agencies, shall provide leadership by implementing the adopted parking policies.

The recommended policy statements are based on the principle that parking is an integral and major element of the transportation system. In order for these policy statements to be efficiently and effectively implemented in the Regional District, parking facilities should be regulated and operated in a manner similar to that of public roads and highways. It is recommended that a single entity be established to oversee the Transportation Demand Management plan and parking policies. This entity should be responsible for, and empowered to set parking supply and pricing regulations for privately and publicly owned parking facilities. This entity could be a part of a Provincial Ministry, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, a Crown Corporation, a private organization, a parking and transport industry association, or other organizations.

Any institutional changes required for the parking policies shall be complementary to and part of the institutional changes recommended for the Transportation Demand Management plan. The entity would be responsible for the administration and co-ordination of the Transportation Demand Management plan for Greater Vancouver. It will require the inputs shown in FIGURE S-2, which are: traffic and transportation; land use; social and educational plans aimed at changing public attitudes towards owning a vehicle for commuting; finance and economics; transit; and parking plans.



The importance of the parking input should be raised to the same level as the input for transit and highway planning. It is important that the parking supply and pricing characteristics of various areas of Greater Vancouver be understood, so that equitable policies can be formulated and implemented to achieve the Transportation Demand Management plan objectives.

The implementation of parking policies should also be an important and integral part of the Transportation Demand Management plan administration entity. It is critical for the successful implementation of effective and efficient parking policies that the entity be empowered to impose changes for all the municipalities of the Regional District. It is through the synergy of the effective and equitable implementation of the four policy elements that the parking policies could help in the achievement of the Transportation Demand Management objectives.

FIGURE S.2 INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE CONCEPT



1 .o INTRODUCTION

1 .I Background

The TRANSPORT 2021 project is a joint effort by the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) and the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Highways to develop a transportation plan as part of the Regional District's Livable Region Plan. The objectives of TRANSPORT 2021 include recom- mending "a long range transportation plan for Greater Vancouver, with associated policies, demand management measures and priorities for transportation investment", including achieving efficient use of existing facilities. The goals and objectives of the "Creating Our Future" project, and the 'mission statements of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and BC Transit, are also part of the TRANSPORT 2021 mandate.

1.2 Study Purpose

The purpose of this study is to formulate and evaluate various non-residential parking policies which could potentially be implemented as Transportation Demand Management measures to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution in the Greater Vancouver Regional District by reducing single occupant vehicle travel.

1.3 Lit er at u r e Research

An extensive review of the available literature addressing parking policies and travel demand management was conducted for this study. The relevant publications identified by this review are listed in the REFERENCES section at the end of this report. Summaries of parking policies implemented in various cities are included in the APPENDIX.

i

HAMILTON ASSOCIATES 1


1.4 TDM and Parking Policies

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans are typically designed to discourage single occupant vehicle (SOV) travel, particularly during periods of severe traffic congestion, such as the morning and afternoon peak periods. TDM plans are usually aimed at commuter travel, since this relatively homogeneous traffic component accounts for a significant portion of total traffic during the peak periods. In general, the strategies of TDM plans are designed to encourage a shift from single occupant vehicle travel to high occupancy vehicle (HOV) travel, such as transit, car pools and van pools (ridesharing); as well as to encourage a shift from travel during the peak periods to travel during the non-peak periods.

Transportation Demand Management plans usually consist of two basic types of policies:

Policies which encourage drivers to use non-single occupant vehicle modes. These are considered "carrot" policies.

Policies which discourage drivers from using single occupant vehicles, or "stick" policies.

"Carrot" policies typically include the provision of improved transit service; the provision of priority travel lanes for high occupancy vehicles; and the provision of various financial and convenience incentives to encourage high occupancy vehicle travel.

In contrast, "stick" policies attempt to increase the cost and inconvenience of single occupant vehicle travel. "Stick" policies include the imposition of road pricing measures such as road tolls, gas taxes and licence areas; the implementation of parking management to increase the cost and decrease the availability of parking; and the imposition of trip reduction ordinances. Parking pricing policies are generally considered to be in the "stick" category. Some parking supply policies, such as the provision of preferential parking for high occupancy vehicle users, are considered "carrot" initiatives.

HAMILTON ASSOCUTES 2


2.0 PRESENT PARKING CONDITIONS IN THE GVRD

This section is a general descriptive summary of the present non-residential parking conditions in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, including parking supply, ownership, requirements, pricing and policies. The description of current conditions is drawn from recent experience, and is not meant to be an exhaustive research of local conditions.

An accurate estimate of the total non-residential parking supply in the Regional District is unavailable. However, a study commissioned by BC Transit in October, 1992, included a limited inventory of the number of off-street non- residential parking spaces in the Regional District. The survey concluded that there are approximately 200,000 off-street non-residential parking spaces. Allowing for on-street parking and other parking areas omitted from this inventory, it is estimated that the number of non-residential parking spaces in the Regional District is between 300,000 and 400,000.

2.2 Ownership

Parking spaces in the Regional District are owned either publicly or privately. All on-street parking is publicly owned and managed by local municipal governments. Off-street parking facilities are generally owned by private entities and are often operated by privately owned parking management companies. Some off-street parking facilities are owned and operated by local governments or government owned corporations such as the Downtown Parking Corporation of the City of Vancouver. Estimates of the portion of privately owned parking spaces in the Regional District are unavailable; however experience in other cities indicates that privately-owned non-residential parking spaces typically account for between 75 and 95 percent of all parking spaces. Local experience appears to indicate that the proportions in the Regional District are within this range.

. .

HAMILTON ASSOCMTES 3


2.3 Requirements

The provision of parking at new developments is generally required by municipal by-laws. Developments which require the approval of the Ministry of Trans- portation and Highways are also expected to meet the Ministry's parking requirements. Municipal by-laws typically identify the minimum number of parking spaces that a development needs to provide. This requirement varies depending on the land use, the development density and the municipality.

Research has indicated that parking requirements for the same land use vary significantly in different municipalities within the Regional District. For example, the parking requirement for an office development per 100 square metres of floor area is 2.15 spaces in New Westminster and Vancouver outside of the downtown area, 2.17 spaces in Burnaby, 2.5 spaces in Coquitlam, 2.69 spaces in West Vancouver, and 4.0 spaces in Richmond. Municipalities in the Regional District generally establish minimum parking requirements without a maximum limit.

In the downtown area of the City of Vancouver, parking requirements are typically less than the parking requirements elsewhere, due to the availability of frequent bus and SkyTrain transit service, increased pedestrian activity in the downtown core, and limited land area. In some downtown Vancouver areas, maximum as well as minimum parking requirements are specified for some land uses. In other downtown Vancouver areas, parking requirements are waived for certain land uses. The maximum parking requirement for office developments in downtown Vancouver varies by location, but is in the range of one space per 100 square metres. By establishing maximum parking requirements, a "cap" is placed on the number of parking spaces which can be provided for a particular development. By waiving parking requirements for some locations, developments can proceed without providing parking, which increases the viability of developments where land area is limited but off-site parking is generally available.

The City of Vancouver also provides a "cash-in-lieu" program, where developers can contribute to a downtown parking fund instead of providing on-site parking. The Downtown Parking Corporation then pools these contributions to build and operate parkades in the downtown area.



2.4 Pricing

For the purpose of this report, the price of parking is defined as the fee paid for the use of a parking space. Non-residential parking prices in the Regional District is presently dictated by market forces and the interaction between supply and demand. In general terms, the price of parking increases with proximity to downtown Vancouver, also referred to as the Central Business District (CBD).

In the Central Business District, non-residential parking is available at paid parking facilities. All on-street parking is metered, and a fee is charged for all off-street parking, including parking at shopping centres. Both the on-street and off-street prices increase with proximity to the central core area, the centre of which is approximately at the intersection of Georgia and Granville Streets. Monthly off-street parking rates of up to $150 per month are common at office developments. At the Pacific Centre shopping centre, four hours of parking during the day cost approximately $10.

Most of the off-street parking facilities are operated by privately owned management firms. These firms usually maximize their revenue by using various pricing strategies. Pricing strategies provide different rates for short term transient parking (usually less than three hours), long term parking (three to eight hours) and for evening parking. On-street metered parking is priced to discourage long term parkers.

In areas of Vancouver outside the Central Business District, and in the surrounding municipalities of Burnaby, New Westminster, Richmond, and the North Shore, free on-street parking is increasingly available, but metered parking spaces remain common in commercial areas. Parking at major shopping centres, such as Oakridge Centre in Vancouver, Metrotown in Burnaby and Richmond Centre, is generally provided without charge for at least the first four hours. Parking at office developments is significantly less expensive outside of the Central Business District, since free on-street parking is typically available in nearby residential neighbourhoods. For example, office parking in the Metrotown area of Burnaby ranges between $60 and $80 per month.

HAMILTON ASSOCXATES 5


In the remaining municipalities east and south of Burnaby, New Westminster and Richmond, on-street parking is generally provided without metering. All non-residential parking is typically available to shoppers and employees without charge. The major shopping centres providing free parking include Guildford Centre in Surrey and Coquitlam Centre.

As part of the Regional District's Livable Region plan, Regional Town Centres (RTCs) are presently evolving in several municipalities, including Metrotown in Burnaby, the Surrey Town Centre in Whalley, Lonsdale in North Vancouver, Richmond Town Centre, Coquitlam Town Centre, and Downtown New West- minster. With the continuous expansion of these town centres, the demand for parking will likely increase the price of parking. However, at the present time, free or low-cost parking remains generally available in these centres.

2.5 Municipal Parking Policies

Generally, municipal parking policies are based on the concept that parking is a "utility". This concept infers that every vehicle driver is entitled to a parking space at their trip origin and destination, either at a nominal price or at a fair market price.

The current objective of municipal on-street parking policies is to provide parking spaces in the business areas for "short term" parkers, such as shoppers and visitors of adjacent business activities, and to provide "turn over" of on- street parking spaces by imposing a time limit. The enforcement of the time limit is either by parking metres or by marking vehicle tires, with violating vehicles either issued a parking ticket or towed. Commuter and "long term" parkers are therefore discouraged from using on-street parking.

Municipal parking policies for off-street spaces are designed to ensure that self- sufficient parking is provided for each new development. Consequently, minimum parking requirements are established in the municipal by-laws. Downtown Vancouver is the only area in the Regional District where maximum parking requirements are imposed on developments. This policy was developed in 1985 by the City primarily in response to the available transit service to downtown.

' HAMILTON ASSOCIATES 6


The price of parking in the Vancouver Central Business District is moving towards the "commodity" concept in which parking price is based on supply and demand as well as what the market can bear. However, the price of parking in Regional Town Centres is still based on the "utility" concept.

Parking policies which discourage the provision of parking, or which provide incentives for developers to encourage non-single occupant vehicle travel modes, are uncommon in the Regional District. However, Vancouver and Surrey have recently investigated Transportation Demand Management policies.

The City of Vancouver, in addition to its policy of imposing maximum parking requirements on downtown developments, recently began to take steps towards encouraging non-single occupant vehicle travel modes. The completion of a bicycle path network, the provision of bicycle racks, the investigation of the potential for Transportation Demand Management plans at large employment centres, and efforts towards providing high occupancy vehicle lanes within Vancouver are examples of this trend. The City's report, Clouds of Chanqe (1 991), outlined some of the incentives and initiatives for implementing Transportation Demand Management plans in Vancouver.

The District of Surrey has investigated the potential of a new parking policy for the planned Surrey Town Centre in the Whalley area. Consideration was given to lowering the minimum parking requirements in this area due to the expected high density and mixed-use developments, in conjunction with frequent transit service. Consideration was also given to establishing a maximum parking requirement in addition to the minimum requirement. As well, an incentive program was considered which allows developers to provide less parking if a trip reduction program is implemented at the development.

In summary, current municipal parking supply policies within the Regional District are primarily used to determine minimum development parking requirements, to ensure that each development is self-sufficient in terms of parking supply. As well, parking pricing policies are designed to encourage short-term use of on-street parking, with long-term parking thereby being directed to use off-street parking facilities.

HAMILTON ASSOLUTES 7


3.0 PARKING POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 Non-Residential Parking

Transportation Demand Management plans are typically designed to alter the commuter's travel mode. However, the "blanket" application of parking policies as part of a Transportation Demand Management plan to all non-residential parking may impact the parking supply for various non-commuter trips. The following is a listing of the types of non-residential trips which are present in the Regional District:

Commuter Trips (Home to Work) Business Trips (Work to Work) Shopping Trips (Home or Work to Shopping) Educational Trips (Home to School, College or University) Medical Trips (Home or Work to Hospital or Clinic) Recreational Trips (Home to Park, Zoo or Beach) Sports Trips (Home to Stadium or Arena) Entertainment Trips (Home to Movies or Theatre) Cultural Trips (Home to Art Gallery) Religious Trips (Home to Place of Worship) Tourist Trips (Motel, Hotel Parking)

Due to the mixed-use nature of the Vancouver Central Business District and the proposed Regional Town Centres, parking supplies are provided without differentiation of trip purpose. The objectives and targets of any parking policy and Transportation Demand Management plan must be defined. The general goal of Transportation Demand Management plans is to reduce peak hour vehicular travel by encouraging the use of transit, high occupancy vehicles, bicycles and walking, while discouraging single occupant vehicle travel.

HAMILTON ASSOCUTFS 8

PARK1 NG, MOB1 LlTY, AND ACCESS1 BI LlTY IN GREATER VANCOUVER

Including the parking supply of non-commuter trips in parking policies requires that viable alternate modes to single occupant vehicles be available throughout the day as well as during the peak periods of commuter travel. Also, a high level of parking enforcement effort will be required if all non-residential trips are targeted. To reduce peak period vehicle travel, parking policies should be aimed at commuter trips.

3.2 Area and Land Use Characteristics

A parking policy may be applied to the Regional District as a whole, or it may be applied to selected areas within the Regional District. For the purpose of this study, the Regional District can be separated into three areas having relatively homogeneous land use characteristics: the Vancouver Central Business District; the Regional Town Centres; and other areas. In the future, the geographic definition of these areas can be revised as required.

A. Vancouver Central Business District

The Vancouver Central Business District (CBD) contains the highest density of development in the Regional District, and this is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. The Vancouver Central Business District is the main attractor of commuter trips, and consequently, is a prime candidate for the application of a parking policy as part of a Transportation Demand Management plan. The availability of concentrated transit service is another factor which encourages the application of a parking policy in the Vancouver CBD. However, the following mixed-use characteristics of the Vancouver Central Business District need to be considered:



The Vancouver CBD is in proximity to the West End area which contains the highest density of residential development in the Regional District. This area is already experiencing extreme shortages of parking for the local residents. The West End is used for parking by non-residents with business in the Central Business District, because of the proximity of the residential area to the business core, and the efficiency of the road network.

. The Vancouver CBD also contains a high density of major non-office developments, including shopping (Pacific Centre, Robson Street), entertainment (Queen Elizabeth Theatre, the Orpheum, the Granville Mall), sports (BC Place Stadium), culture (Vancouver Public Library, Robson Square, Art Gallery), tourism (several major hotels) and recreation (Stanley Park).

Therefore, the Vancouver Central Business District, unlike some other cities, is not a homogeneous "business" district, but. a thriving mixed-use area. Effective parking policies which are applied to the Vancouver CBD as part of a Trans- portation Demand Management Plan will impact the parking of a wide range of non-commuter trips.

B. Regional Town Centres

Six Regional Town Centres (RTCs) are being developed in the municipalities of Burnaby, North Vancouver, New Westminster, Richmond, Surrey and Coquitlam. Currently, only the Metrotown area of Burnaby has experienced significant growth as a Town Centre. Downtown New Westminster has experienced growth to a lesser degree, while the remaining centres are still in the early stages of planning development. At present the density of these Town Centres remains relatively low, and this is reflected in the general availability of parking either for free or at a nominal charge in these areas.

HARTETON ASSOCTATES 10


Notwithstanding current criteria, land use planning for the Regional Town Centres could include strategies for effective and efficient implementation of Transportation Demand Management plans. The implementation of a parking policy as part of a Transportation Demand Management plan in the Regional Town Centres may be considered in conjunction with the continued planning and densification of these centres, and their growth as a major commuter attractors.

C. Other Areas

The other areas of the Regional District generally contain sprawling commercial, industrial and residential developments, extending from Vancouver to Langley. There are isolated major employment centres throughout the Regional District. The long-term density of these areas is expected to remain relatively low. The application of a parking policy as part of a Transportation Demand Management plan in these other areas can be considered for concentrated and high activity centres, such as the Broadway Corridor in Vancouver and routes to the University of British Columbia.

3.3 Parking Cost and Travel Cost

The traditional aim of parking policies within a Transportation Demand Management plan is to discourage the use of the single occupant vehicle by increasing the cost of parking, among other measures. It is therefore important to consider the cost of parking in relation to the overall cost of travel, as perceived by the driver, and particularly the commuter.

The Regional District is presently an auto-dependant region, with approximately 90 percent of travel occurring by private vehicle, and this condition is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. The evolution and expansion of Van- couver's suburbs was based on automobile travel, and the Regional District is served mostly by a roadway system, rather than a transit system. In this regard, the Regional District is similar to most cities on the west coast of North America, and is unlike east coast and European cities.

HAMILTON ASSOCTATES 11


Recent research has indicated that drivers typically use vehicles to commute without rationalizing the associated costs. The cost of owning a car and commuting to work is considered an inherent and accepted "fact of life". Surveys of commuters indicated that drivers were typically unaware and disinterested in a detailed understanding of the cost of commuting. Research also indicated that commuters rarely quantify travel cost on a "dollars per kilometre" basis.

Whether or not it is acknowledged and understood by the driver, the costs and decisions associated with commuting are inherently dictated by the cost of owning and operating a vehicle. The cost of vehicle ownership, maintenance, operation, depreciation and insurance is a major expense for the owner, compared to which the cost of commuting is relatively cheap. The commuter's current attitude is that the car is paid for, insured, and maintained, and it is depreciating anyway; then why not use it for commuting? Transportation Demand Management plans need to acknowledge and address this attitude, and should be designed to provide a suitably attractive alternate option for the commuter.

A comparative example of present commuting costs as perceived by the commuter is shown in TABLE 3.1. This example assumes that the individual owns a vehicle, and has a choice between using the vehicle or riding transit. As shown in TABLE 3.1, the cost of commuter parking is one component out of many in the cost of travel as perceived by the driver. The costs of general car ownership and operation are relatively similar whether the individual commutes or not, and have to be paid in either case; the time costs and intangibles favour the use of the car, and tend to outweigh the cost savings achieved by using transit for commuting.

The cost of parking is therefore considered to be price inelastic for drivers choosing between vehicle and public transit modes. In order for parking policies to be a successful component of a Transportation Demand Manage- ment plan, the parking policies should aim to increase the relative costs associated with single occupant car commuting.



Gas Pays

Parking Pays

Maintenance and Operation Pays

TABLE 3.1 RELATIVE COMPARISON OF TRAVEL COSTS

Pays Fare

Does Not Pay

Does Not Pay

ITEM I COMMUTE BY CAR

Car Price Pays

Insurance Pays

COMMUTE BY TRANSIT I

Pays

Pays Less

Maintenance and Operation

Parking (non-work)

Depreciation I Pays

Pays Pays

Pays Pays

Pays

More Private

More Comfortable

Less Private

Less Comfortable

~~~~~

In-Vehicle Time

Transfer/Waiting Time

I NTANGl BLES

Privacy

Comfort

Pays More Pays I Does Not Pay I Pays

Social Status Traditionally Higher I Traditionally Lower I Environmental Impact Lower Impact I Higher Impact



3.4 Parking Subsidies

Another issue relating to the cost of parking is that of subsidy. Who is actually paying the parking cost? In order for parking policies which aim to increase the price of parking to be successful, the relationship between government policy, the commuter, and the parking price needs to be considered. This relationship is schematically shown in FIGURE 3.1.

Whereas government policies can influence the pricing and supply of parking, it is more difficult for these policies to determine who pays the parking price. Typically, the commuter's parking price can ultimately be paid for in three ways:

1. 2. 3.

The commuter directly pays the parking price. The employer of the commuter pays for or subsidizes the parking price. The parking price is written off as a business expense. Ultimately, it is paid by the client or customer of the commuter's business.

Studies in the United States'have indicated that more than 90 percent of all commuters park free at work. In Canada, Transport Canada estimated in the 1980's that 85 percent of all commuters in urban areas park free at work. Research in cities such as Los Angeles has confirmed that the vast majority of employers subsidize employee parking prices to some extent. It is reasonable to assume that parking policies which aim to increase the price of parking will have little impact if the commuters simply pass on the cost to their employers. Some researchers maintain that removing or reducing employer-paid parking subsidies could significantly increase the percentage of commuters who use non-single occupant vehicle modes.

Experiences in Ottawa and Washington D.C., as well as experiences at individual developments, tend to suggest that decreasing employer-paid parking subsidies may contribute to increased ride sharing and transit use. However, the extent and long-term sustainability of this mode shift is unpredictable. In September 1991, the Transportation Research Board called for concentrated research on this topic.



Currently, the provision of parking for employees is a non-taxable benefit as long as the employee needs the car for work. However, the government rarely pursues the matter of determining whether or not an employee actually requires the vehicle for work, and all parking subsidies are effectively untaxed.

In order for price-increasing parking policies to 'be successful in the Regional District, the present level of subsidized parking needs to be researched, and appropriate steps to discourage or eliminate parking subsidies need to be pursued.

~

Parklng Foclltly Operator Payment

t T #

.~

I -

. .

Parklng Lot By Employer

I

I

Government

Regulation and Policies

Vehicle and Owner

FIGURE 3.1 GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PARKING



3.5 Modal Choice Behaviour

Traditionally the relative cost of commuting has been perceived as an important component in the modal choice decision. For the purpose of this study, the cost of travel includes monetary as well as time and intangible costs associated with travelling, as discussed previously. As the cost of using a vehicle increases compared to the cost of using transit (or any other mode), traditional transportation planning modelling concepts forecast the shifting of commuters to transit.

The difference in generalized cost between the two modes is termed AC, and may be defined as follows:

where: AC is the difference in generalized cost; C,,, is the cost of single occupant vehicle commuting; and, CTransit is the cost of commuting by transit.

The general purpose of Transportation Demand Management plans is to increase AC by increasing C,,, and/or decreasing CTransi,. The anticipated consequence is to decrease single occupant vehicle travel. The traditional relationship between the cost of commuting and modal choice is graphically represented in FIGURE 3.2, which indicates that with increasing AC, the shift to transit increases along a smooth S-curve function. Experience has shown that such a relationship may be invalid.

More recent theories suggest that the relationship between AC and modal shift, as shown in FIGURE 3.3, is both less sensitive and less continuous. This model features "habit thresholds" which result in sudden large changes in modal choice. This is known as the "hysteresis model". Any policy relating to parking price which aims to increase AC in order to increase transit ridership will need to consider the habit threshold in order to be effective.



100

c 2 e 2 50

2

I-

a a a

General C in Suburbs

0 I Increasing AC A

FIGURE 3.2 TRADITIONAL TRAVEL COST/MODAL CHOICE CURVE

I

Increasing AC

FIGURE 3.3 HYSTERESIS TRAVEL COST/MODAL CHOICE CURVE

HAMCLTON ASSOCIATES 17


These thresholds are closely related to the social and economic attitudes of the public towards the environment and the ownership and use of vehicles, as well as disposable income and available travel alternatives.

The degree of sensitivity of both the traditional and hysteresis models may be dependent on non-transportation related factors such as household income and city structure. The basis for both models is primarily theoretical rather than robust experimental! data.

In addition to the habit threshold of the modal choice model, there are other observations as to why Transportation Demand Management plans which aim to increase AC have had difficulty in other cities. Traditionally, transportation forecast models use existing data and forecast into the future (or a certain end state), assuming that the driving behaviour relating to driving costs would hold constant over time; and the Transportation Demand Management models predict some outcome based on certain generalized cost. The models exclude the parameters as to "how" to get to the end state. This transient state is not well understood at this time, and could relate to the "inertia" to change. It could be this "inertia" to change and the "habit threshold" that caused some of the difficulties experienced by the Transportation Demand Management plans of other cities.

Another difficulty with many urban transportation models is that they incorrectly represent changes in some of the relationships between the variables used in the model, such as the travel time component. In most models, the generalized cost is simply a weighted sum of time and out of pocket costs for an average income group. The modelling should include the user social-economic characteristics of various modes, the land use and travel demand, and the inertia to change.


. .


3.6 Ownership

The ownership of parking facilities is also a critical element in the efficient implementation of Transportation Demand Management plans and parking policies. As shown in FIGURE 3.4, a commuter's vehicle trip starts from the parking space at home, which is privately owned. The vehicle then travels to work on roads which are government owned and operated. The trip then ends at a parking facility which is usually privately owned.

Transportation Demand Management plans affect the usage of the roads and are generally unrelated to the supply and the pricing of parking. In order for parking policies to be effective, the parking facilities should come under the same type of management as roads and transit to effect cohesive and consistent plans. Legislation could be enacted so that timely and consistent changes could be implemented. Parking for new developments could be constructed by developers and turned over to an agency for operation and maintenance similar to roads, water and sewers. Alternatively, a cash-in-lieu policy could be implemented so that an agency is responsible for the planning, construction and operation of parking facilities. The strategy is therefore to put the supply and operation of parking within Greater Vancouver under the overall control of one single agency.

Publicly Owned Road System \ /

/

Publicly Owned Translt Modes o n o a n \

I

Other Modes

ra rmg kaciiiTies at Work

at Home

FIGURE 3.4 TRANSPORT FACILITY OWNERSHIP

HAMILTON ASSOLUTES 19


4.0 PARKING POLICY FORM U LATlON

The goal of the parking policy in TRANSPORT 2021 is to reduce single occupant vehicle travel. There are principally two basic parking policies to consider: Price-Increasing Policies and Supply Limiting Policies. There is a range of policy options within each that have been tried elsewhere. This section examines the more feasible options and their applicability in Greater Vancouver.

4.1 Policy Criteria

The fundamental criteria for evaluating parking policies are effectiveness, efficiency and equity. These criteria, as presented below, incorporate the relevant goals of the "Creating Our Future" plan, as well as the mission statements of BC Transit and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

A. Effectiveness

The effectiveness of a parking policy is estimated by the policy's potential to reduce single occupant vehicle travel within the region. The effectiveness evaluation measures how well the policy supports Transportation Demand Management plans in meeting the following objectives:

Maximize non-single occupant vehicle travel. Optimize the use of the existing transportation infrastructure. Minimize traffic congestion and air pollution. Minimize the time required for the policy to achieve a reduction in single occupant travel.



B. Efficiency

The efficiency of a parking policy measures the level of effort required to implement the policy in comparison with the benefits derived from the policy. The efficiency evaluation estimates how well the policy performs in meeting the following objectives :

Minimize legislative changes required to implement the policy. Minimize the cost and effort required to manage and administer the policy. Minimize the number of government and private institutions required to cooperate on the implementation and management of the policy. Minimize adverse impact on the economic viability of the Regional District.

w

C. Equity

The equity of a parking policy measures the fairness of the policy to all user groups and geographic locations. The equity evaluation estimates how well the policy performs in meeting the following objectives:

Maximize the fairness of the policy to all areas of the Regional District. Maximize the fairness of the policy to all land uses within the Regional District. Maximize the fairness of the policy to all parking users in the Regional District.

w

w

4.2 Price-Increasing Policies

Parking price-increasing policies attempt to discourage vehicle use by directly increasing the overall cost of vehicle travelling, thereby making alternate modes more attractive. Notwithstanding the technical legality of parking taxes, a legislated increase in the price of parking can be achieved in one of two ways:



1. 2.

Through the imposition of a parking tax. Through the imposition of a minimum parking price.

The imposition of a parking tax generates additional revenue for government. Parking taxes require a high level of effort to implement and manage. Several cities have implemented parking taxes, primarily as a means of generating revenue rather than a means of transportation management. The imposition of a minimum parking price generates additional revenue for the parking owner, and requires significantly less effort to implement and manage. These options could also include the variation of taxes or parking price for:

.

. various parking duration

. various times of day

. various land uses

. various vehicle occupancies.

various areas in the Greater Vancouver Regional District

4.3 Supply-Limiting Policies

Supply-limiting policies are intended to discourage vehicle driving by creating a situation where the availability of a parking space may be in doubt. As well, by limiting the supply, the price of parking should increase. Parking supply can be limited either by imposing a ceiling on the number of parking spaces in an area, or by parking management.

A. Ceilings on Parking Supply

Policies which impose parking ceilings n ed to ensure that developm nt and business in the region will remain viable, and that the policy does not result in increased congestion and vehicle circulation as drivers search for a parking space.


PARK1 NG , MOB1 LlTY, AND ACCESS1 BI LlTY IN GREATER VANCOUVER

. .

. .

. -

The success of this policy concept will depend on the effectiveness of alternate travel modes, and the complementary land uses. This parking policy should be implemented cautiously in order to avoid the acceleration of traffic congestion and air pollution problems.

B. Parking Management

Parking supply can also be limited through management strategies which control the parking supply, and impose restrictions on parking use. The strategies could include the restriction of use by various times of day, days of week, vehicle occupancies, trip purpose and peripheral parking (park and ride).

Peripheral parking policies require the definition of "peripheral" locations, and the readiness on the part of the development community and/or transit to provide a greatly expanded shuttle bus service into the town centre areas. Peripheral parking services may not reduce the number of single occupant vehicles on the road beyond the peripheral areas, but could reduce the total kilometres travelled and town centre congestion.

4.4 Com plementa ry Policy Consider at ions

Transportation Management plans and parking policies need to overcome the "inertia" to change. Plans and policies should allow for changes in social, environmental and economic attitudes towards owning a vehicle and using it for commuting to work. Policy options must overcome the inertia resisting changes in these attitudes, and be an integral part of an overall transportation demand management plan to achieve success over the long term.

Based on the experience'of other cities and the results of the research conducted for this study, parking policies should be considered as supporting policies to augment Transportation Management Demand plans. The overall policies should aim at overcoming the inertia to change by altering public attitudes towards owning a vehicle and driving it to work.

HAMILTON ASSOC'IATH 23

PARK1 NG, MOB1 LlTY, AND ACCESS I BI LlTY IN GREATER VANCOUVER

Parking policies should firstly augment transit policies, and secondly augment high occupancy vehicle policies. A transit ridership goal should be established for various areas within Greater Vancouver, and parking policies should then be tailored for each area to augment the transit goals. Such an approach would therefore provide an alternate mode of travel for commuters.

In Downtown Vancouver where the peak period transit modal share is close to 50 percent, and some of the transit routes are operating close to capacity, the parking policies should augment the Transportation Demand Management plan for high occupancy vehicle travel. High occupancy lanes, perhaps together with toll pricing to encourage high occupancy vehicles, can be considered. Such an approach would therefore provide an alternate mode to the commuters. As well, any modelling for transportation planning and demand forecasting should include the social and economic characteristics of travel. It should be recognized that these characteristics are temporally dynamic and should be monitored regularly.

4.5 Policy Formulation

Effective parking policies requires the synergy of the four major policy elements:

= policies to affect changes in social attitudes towards owning a vehicle and using it for commuting;

policies addressing the economics of transport systems and the cost of commuting in relationship to income levels;

w economic growth policies addressing land use, which determines trip generation and attraction; and,

transportation demand management policies.

The relationship between these four policy elements is schematically shown in FIGURE 4.1.



Policies which include only the economic and transportation demand management elements are difficult to implement because of the "inertia" to change and the need to overcome the travel mode "habit thresholds". Social attitude policies should identify and overcome these "inertia" difficulties. Social attitude change is a long term process and requires consistent goals, strategies and persistent implementation plans, similar to the successful policies implemented for seatbelt use, anti-smoking, and drinking and driving.

Vehicle travel requires a trip origin and a trip destination which in turn are closely related to land use issues. Land use policies should therefore include consideration of the region's economic viability, business and industrial goals. For a transport system to function efficiently and effectively, the region must maintain mobility and accessibility. Such a system will require the four major policy elements to work in concert, as shown in the overlap area in FIGURE 4.1, and the policies should be compatible and complementary to each other.

Land Use Policies

TRANSPORT 202 1 TDM Policies \

Current TDM / Effective (Includlng Parklng Policies Pollcies of

Other Cities Policies)

FIGURE 4.1 EFFECTIVE TRANSPORTATION POLICY ELEMENTS



4.6 Recommended Policies

Based on the concepts and principles presented in this report and the results of the workshop and Steering Committee discussions, the following long term policy statements are recommended for consideration:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

All on-street and off-street parking spaces shall be considered as an integral part of the transport system.

The long term goal of parking policies is to augment other transportation system management policies.

Parking policies shall be used to support, firstly, transit ridership goals; and secondly, once the above-mentioned goals are met, to support high occupancy travel plans with specific modal change goals.

Recognizing the unique characteristics of different areas of the Regional District, both parking price increasing policies and supply limiting policies shall be considered to achieve the transportation goals of that area.

All existing parking spaces within the Greater Vancouver Regional District shall be regulated by one entity as part of the implementation of any Transportation Demand Management plan.

All parking subsidies shall be eliminated.

The Greater Vancouver Regional District, and other participating governments and agencies, shall provide leadership by implementing the adopted parking policies.



The recommended policy statements are based on the principle that parking is an integral and major element of the transportation system. In order for these policy statements to be efficiently and effectively implemented in the Regional District, parking facilities should be regulated and operated in a manner similar to that of public roads and highways. It is therefore critical for the successful implementation of parking policies as part of the Transportation Demand Management plan that there is one entity to administer these policies. Such an entity will then be able to ensure equity across the region by providing spatial and temporal balances between land use economics, viability of development and business, travel demand, infrastructure investment and utilization, and other impacts.

4.7 Institutional Change

It is recommended that a single entity be established to oversee the Transportation Demand Management plan and parking policies. This entity shall be responsible for, and empowered to set parking supply and pricing regulations for privately and publicly owned parking facilities. This entity could be a part of a Provincial Ministry, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, a Crown Corporation, a private organization, a parking and transport industry association, or other organizations.

Any institutional changes required for the parking policies shall be complementary to and part of the institutional changes recommended for the Transporta- tion Demand Management plan. The entity which would be responsible for the administration and co-ordination of the Transportation Demand Management plan for Greater Vancouver. It will require the inputs shown in FIGURE 4.2, which are: traffic and transportation; land use; social and educational plans aimed at changing public attitudes towards owning a vehicle for commuting; finance and economic; transit; and parking planning. The institutional change concept, as shown in FIGURE 4.2, integrates the various inputs into a Transportation Demand Management plan to produce coordinated policies dealing with socio-economic issues; parking, roads and highways; and transit.



As discussed in this report, parking is a crucial element in all vehicular trips, since each trip starts and ends at a parking space. Parking input to the Transportation Demand Management plan should therefore be raised to the same level of importance as transit and highway planning. It is important that the parking supply and pricing characteristics of various areas of the Regional District be understood, so that equitable policies can be formulated and implemented to achieve Transportation Demand Management plan objectives.

The implementation of parking policies should also be an important and integral part of the Transportation Demand Management plan administration entity. It is critical for the successful implementation of effective and efficient parking policies that the entity be empowered to impose changes throughout the Regional District. It is through the synergy of the effective and equitable implementation of the four policy elements that parking policies could help in the achievement of Transportation Demand Management objectives.

FIGURE 4.2 INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE CONCEPT

HAMKTON ASSOCXATES 28


HAMILTON ASSOLUTES

REFERENCES

29

PARK1 NG, MOB1 LITY, AND ACCESS1 BI LlTY IN GREATER VANCOUVER

REFERENCES

The following is a list of references of journal articles, reports and books which address parking policies and transportation demand management. The references are listed as Author (or editor), Title, Publisher, and Year. Book and report titles are underlined; journal names are shown in italics; journal article titles are shown between quotations. The references are listed in alphabetical order by author. For the same author, references are listed chronologically.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Aarts, Jan Alexander and Hamm, Jeffrey, "Effect of Ridesharing Programs on Suburban Employment Canter Parking Demand", Transportation Research Record 980, Washington, D.C., 1984.

Adiv, Aaron, "Commuter's Versus Analyst's Perception of Automobile Travel Cost", Transportation Research Record 890, Washington, D.C., 1982.

B.C. Transit, Local Funding for Transit, B.C. Transit, Vancouver, B.C., October 1992.

Beroldo, Steve J., "Duration of Carpool and Vanpool Usage by Clients of RIDES", Transportation Research Record 1130, Washington, D.C., 1987.

Beroldo, Steve J., "Improving the Effectiveness of a Transportation Demand Management Program Through Evaluation: A Case Study", Transportation Research Record 1280, Washington D.C., 1990.

Bajic, Vladimir, "Choice of Travel Mode for Work Trips: Some Findings for M et ro po I it an Tor o nt 0" , ln terna tional Journal of Transport Economics, Vol 11 No. 1, April 1984.

Blankson, Charles, and Wachs, Martin, "Preliminary Evaluation of the Coastal Transportation Corridor Ordinance in Los Angeles", Transportation Research Record 1280, Washington D.C., 1990.



. .

. .

r .

. .

. .

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Blase, J.H., "Hysteresis in Travel Demand", Transportation Planning and Technology Vol 6, United Kingdom, 1980.

Borins, F. Sandford, "Climbing Along a Plateau: The Effects of Economically Non-Optimal Transportation Pricing and Investment Policies", Transportation Planning and Technology Vol 10, United Kingdom, 1985.

Brog, Werner, "Subjective Perception of Car Costs", Transportation Research Record 858, Washington, D.C., 1982.

Button, K.J. and Pearman, A.D., I' Road Pricing - Some of the More Neglected Theoretical and Policy Implications", Transportation Planning and Technology Vol 8, United Kingdom, 1983.

Chang, Yong B., and Stopher, Peter R., "Defining the Perceived Attributes of Travel Modes for Urban Work Trips", Transportation Planning and Technology Vol 7, United Kingdom, 1981.

COMSIS Corporation, Evaluation of Travel Demand Manaqement Measures to Relieve Conaestion, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington D.C., February 1990.

Curry, David and Martin, Anne, "City of Los Angeles Parking Management Ordinance", Transportation Research Record 101 8, Washington, D.C., 1985.

Daniels, P.W., "Flexible Hours and the Journey to Work to Office Establishments", Transportation Planning and Technology Vol 6, United Kingdom, 1980.

Deakin, Elizabeth, "Land Use and Transportation Planning in Response to Congestion Problems: A Review and Critique", Transportation Research Record 1237, Washington D.C., 1237



17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

DeCorla-Souza, Patrick, and Gupta, Jiwan D., "Evaluation of Demand- Management Strategies for Toledo's Year 201 0 Transportation Plan",Transportation Research Record 1209, Washington D.C., 1989.

Direnzo, John F.; Cima, Bart; Barber, Edward; and Berman, Wayne, "Over vi e w of I m p I e men t e d Par ki n g M an ag em e n t Tact i cs " , Transporta tion Research Record 786, Washington, D.C., 1980.

Doherty, M.J., Sparrow, F.T. and Sinha, K.C., "Public Use of Autos: Mobility Enterprise Project", Journal of Transportation Engineering Vol 113, United Kingdom, 1987.

Donald, R.G., "Modal Split Models Based on Car Availability: The Application of Such Models in Studies of Medium Sized Towns", Transportation Planning and Technology Vol 6, United Kingdom, 1980.

Dunphy, Robert T., and Lin, Ben C., Transportation Manaqement Throuah Partnership, Urban Land Institute, Washington D.C., 1990.

Ellis, Raymond H.; Direnzo, John F; and Barber, Edward J., "New Directions in Central Business District Parking Policies", Transportation Research Record 845, Washington, D.C., 1982.

Else, P. K., "Road Pricing: Some Further Comments", Transportation Planning and Technology Vol 8, United Kingdom, 1984.

Feeney, Bernard P., "A Review of the Impact of Parking Policy Measures on Travel Demand", Transportation Pianning and Technology, United Kingdom, Vol 13, 1989.

Ferguson, Erik T., "Evaluation of Employer-Sponsored Ridesharing Programs in Southern California", Transportation Research Record 1280, Washington, D.C., 1990.

HAMILTON ASSOC'IATES 32


26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

Flannelly, Kevin J., and McLeod, Malcolm S. Jr., "Predicting Consumer Demand for Alternative Transportation Services Among Suburban Commuters", Transportation Research Record 1280, Washington D.C., 1990.

Flynn, Carolyn P. and Glazer, Lawrence Jesse, "Ten Cities' Strategies for Transportation Demand Management", Transportation Research Record 121 2, Washington D.C., 1989.

Gillen, David W., "Estimation and Specification of the Effects of Parking Costs on Urban Transport Mode Choice", Journal of Urban Economics 4, 1975.

Giuliano, Genevieve, and Golob, Thomas F., "Staggered Work Hours for Traffic Management: A Case Study", Transportation Research Record 1280, Washington D.C., 1990.

Giuliano, Genevieve and Wachs, Martin, "Managing Transportation Demand: Markets Versus Mandates", Policy Insight, Reason Foundation, Number 148, Los Angeles, CA., 1992.

Glazer, Jesse; Koval, Ann; and Gerard, Carol, "Part-Time Carpooling: A New Marketing Concept for Ridesharing", Transportation Research Record 1082, Washington D.C., 1986.

Glazer, Lawrence J. and Curry, David A., "A Ridesharing Market Analysis Survey of Commuter Attitudes and Behavior at Major Suburban Employment Canter", Transportation Research Record 1 130, Washington, D.C., 1987.

Greater Vancouver Regional District, Creatinq Our Future: Steps to a More Livable Reqion, GVRD publication, Burnaby, B.C., 1990.

Greater Vancouver Regional District, Choices 1, 2, & 3, GVRD Publications, Burnaby, B.C., 1992



35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

Hamilton Associates, Parking Policv Studv for Suburban Downtowns in Greater Vancouver, British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., 1983.

Hamilton Associates, Review of Parkinq and TriD Generation Rates, prepared for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Vancouver, B.C., March 1993.

Higgins, Thomas J., "Parking Management and Traffic Mitigation in Six Cities: Implications for Local Policy", Transportation Research Record 1232, Washington, D.C., 1989.

Higgins, T. H., "Guidelines for Developing Local Demand Management or Trip Reduction Policies", Transportation Research Record 1280, Washington D.C., 1990.

Hill Cooper, Sally, et al, "Research Problem Statements, Ridesharing and Transportation Demand Management " , Transportation Research Circular Number 379, Washington, D.C., September 1991.

Horowitz, Alan J., "Assessing Transportation User Benefits with Maximum Trip Lengths", Transportation Planning and Technology Vol 6, United Kingdom, 1980.

Jewel, Marta J.; Ellis, Raymond; and Oram, Richard L., "Status of Traffic Mitigation Ordinances", Transportation Research Record 1280, Washington D.C., 1990.

Johnson, Gary T. and Hoel, Lester A., "Review of Financing Options for Highways and Transit", Journal of Transportation Engineering Vol 113, United Kingdom, 1987.

Kadesh, Eileen and Elder, Laurie, "Guaranteed Ride Home: An Insurance Program for HOV Users", Transportation Research Record 121 2, Washington, D.C., 1989.

HAMILTON ASSOCIAlS 34


44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

Kenyon, Kay L., "Increasing Mode Split Through Parking Management: A Suburban Success Story", Transportation Research Record 980, Washington, D.C., 1984.

Kunze, Bob, Heramb, Cheri and Martin, Timothy, "Impacts of Municipal Parking-Fee Increases in Downtown Chicago", Transportation Research Record 786, Washington, D.C., 1980.

Lam, William H. K., "Optimization of Transport Investment and Pricing Policies: The Role of Transport Pricing in Network Design", Transportation Planning and Technology Vol 13, United Kingdom, 1989.

Levinson, Herbert S., "Whither Parking in the City Center?", Transportation Research Record 957, Washington, D.C., 1984.

Lo m ax , Ti m o t h y J . , I' Es t i m at i n g T r an s port at i on C o r r i d o r M o b i I it y " , Transportation Research Record 1280, Washington, D.C., 1990.

Loudon, William R., Coleman, Elsa and Suhrbier, John H., 'I Air Quality Offsets for Parking", Transportation Researeh Record 1232, Washington, D.C., 1989.

Mackett, R. L., "Modelling the Impact of Alternative Transport Strategies Upon Social Groups", Transportation Planning and Technology Vol 6, United Kingdom, 1981.

Mehranian, Maria, et al, "Parking Cost and Mode Choices Among Downtown Workers: A Case Study", Transportation Research Record 1130, Washington, D.C., 1987.

Miller, Gerald K. and Everett, Carol, "Raising Commuter Parking Prices-An Empirical Study", Transportation 11, Amsterdam, 1982.

Morris, Jennifer M. and Lane, Jack E., "Variations in Household Transport Expend i t u re With i n M aj o r Au s t r a I i an Cities " , Transportation Planning and Technology Vol 6, United Kingdom, 1980.



54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

Mowforth, M.R.N., "Trends in Accessibility to Employment in Greater London, 1971 -1 981 'I, Transportation Planning and Technology Vol 13, United Kingdom, 1989.

N i j k am p , Pet e r , I' F u t u re S pat i a I I m pacts of Te I e co m m u n i cat io n s " , Transportation P laming and Technology Vol 13, United Kingdom, 1989.

Pearlstein, Adele, "A Study of Staff a Faculty Commuters at the University of California, Los Angeles", Transportation Research Record 1082, Washington, D.C., 1986.

Peat Marwick Stevenson Kellogg, Determininq the Cost of TransDorting PeoDle in the British Columbia Lower Mainland, TRANSPORT 2021 Draft Project Report, Burnaby, B.C., December 1992.

Pickrell, Don H., and Shoup, Donald C., "Employer-Subsidized Parking and Work-Trip Mode Choice", Transportation Research Record 786, Washington, D.C., 1980.

Pickrell, Don H., and Shoup, Donald C., "Land Use Zoning as Transport at i o n Re g u I at i o n " , Transportation Research Record 786, Washington D.C., 1980

Pigman, J.G. and Crabtree, J.D., "Opportunities for Small-Car Parking", Transportation Research Record 845, Washington, D.C., 1982.

Powers, John C., "George Washington Bridge Bus-Carpool Lane: 1 -Year Operational Report", Transportation Research Record 121 2, Washington, D.C., 1989.

Pultz, Susan, "Key Considerations for Developing Local Government Transportation System Management Programs", Transportation Research Record 1212, Washington D.C., 1989.



63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

Reno, Arlee T. and Gellert, William A. and Verzosa, Alex, "Evaluation of Springfield Instant Carpooling", Transportation Research Record 121 2, Washington, D.C., 1989.

Shoup, Donald C. and Wilson, Richard W., "Parking Subsidies and the Drive-Alone Commuter: New Evidence and Implications", Transportation Research Record 1181, Washington, D.C., 1989.

Snow, Kathleen L., "First Hill Action Plan: A Unique Public/Private Approach to Tr a n s p o r t at i o n D e man d M an ag em e n t 'I, Transportation Research Record 121 2, Washington D.C., 1989.

Strathman, James G. and Dueker, Kenneth J., "Regional Economic Impacts of Local Transit Financing Alternatives: Input-Output Results for Portland", Transportation Research Record 11 16, Washington, D.C., 1987.

Surber, Monica; Shoup, Donald; and Wachs, Martin, "Effects of Ending Employer-Paid Parking for Solo Drivers", Transportation Research Record 957, Washington, D.C., 1984.

Talvitie, Aniti, "Transport System Management in San Francisco: An Assessment", Transportation Planning and Technology Vol 6, United Kingdom, 1980.

Tenhoor, Stuart J. and Smith, Steven A., "Parking Requirement Reduction Process for Ridesharing: Current Practices, Evolving Issues, and Future Directions", Transportation Research Record 940, Washington, D.C., 1984.

Torluemke, Donald A. and Rosemand, David, "Vanpools: Pricing and Market Penetration", Transportation Research Record 121 2, Washington, D.C., 1989.

TRANSPORT 2021, Transportation Demand Manaqement Measures and Their Potential for Application in Greater Vancouver, TRANSPORT 2021 Working Paper, Burnaby, B.C., 1992.

HAMILTON ASSOCUTE" 37


72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

Turnbull, Katherine, et al, "Development of a Short-Range Travel Demand Management Program: The I-35W Experience", Transportation Research Record 1280, Washington D.C., 1990.

Valdez, Roberta, and Wang, Judy, "Comparison of Transportation Demand Management Market Research Study Results and Transportation Management Association Development in Three Suburban Activity Centres", Transportation Research Record 121 2, Washington D.C., 1989.

Varaprasad, N. and Cordey-Hayes, M., "A Dynamic Urban Growth Model for Strategic Transport Planning", Transportation Planning and Technology Vol 7, United Kingdom, 1982.

Verster, A.C. P., "Towards an Informational System for lnterregional Relations Between Living and Working", Transportation Planing and Technology Vol 11, United Kingdom, 1986.

Wegmann, Frederick J., "Cost-Effectiveness of Private Employer R i d e s h a r i n g P r o g ram s : An E m p I o y e r 's Assess m e n t 'I, Transportation Research Record 121 2, Washington, D.C., 1989.

Wesemann, Larry; Duve, Paulette; and Roach, Nick, "Comparison of Travel Behavior Before and After the Opening of HOV Lanes in a Suburban Travel Corridor", Transportation Research Record 121 2, Washington, D.C., 1989.

Wilson, Richard W., "Employer-Paid Parking: The Problem and Proposed Solutions", Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 2, April 1992 (169-1 92), Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc., Westport, Connecticut.

Winters, Philip L., "Evaluation of Ridefinders and Central Richmond Ass o ci at i o n's Tr an s p o r t at i o n an d P ark i n g I n f o r m at i o n S e rvi ce 'I, Transportation Research Record 121 2, Washington D.C., 1989.

Zakaria, Thabet, "Employee Transportation Survey for Center City Phi I ade I p h i all, Transportation Research Record 1 067, Was hi n g to n D. C., 1 986.

HAMILTON ASSOCIATJLS 38


APPENDIX I

EXPERIENCE OF OTHER CITIES



EXPERIENCE OF OTHER CITIES

In the past few years, several cities have implemented parking policies as part of Transportation Demand Management plans in attempts to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution. The various policies implemented, and the resultant changes in travel behaviour, are described in this section.

1. Seattle, Washington

Seattle has implemented various parking policies to discourage single occupant vehicle travel, including the following:

A maximum parking supply requirement of 1 space per 1,000 square feet (93 square metres) for new developments is imposed, in addition to minimum requirements which vary depending on proximity to transit service.

At least 20 percent of all provided parking spaces are required to be reserved for carpools.

As an incentive to support carpooling, for each additional parking space which is provided for carpools, the minimum parking requirement is reduced by 1.9 parking spaces. As well, the minimum parking requirement is also reduced if parking for carpoolers is subsidized.

An in-lieu provision allows for all parking requirements to be waived in exchange for a contribution to the Downtown Parking Fund, which is then used to construct parking in the downtown and on the periphery.

Bicycle parking is required to be provided at the rate of 1 bicycle parking space for every 20 vehicle spaces.

700 City-owned off-street and on-street parking spaces are reserved for carpool use at discounted prices.

HAMILTON ASSOCUTIS 40


Other Transportation Demand Management policies in Seattle require that a transportation coordinator and a transportation information centre be maintained at every development larger than 10,000 square feet (930 square metres), in order to promote transit and ridesharing. Annual employee travel habit surveys are required to be conducted at such developments. Seattle also provides an extensive network of high occupancy vehicle priority and reversible lanes on the freeway system, and an underground transit tunnel allowing buses to bypass downtown traffic congestion. In addition, a regional ridesharing agency, called Commuter Pool, provides public vanpools, ridematching systems, parking management assistance, and rideshare marketing for King County, Washington.

A review of recent travel behaviour in Seattle indicated that the transit share to downtown has remained generally constant at approximately 45 percent of employees, although this share appears to be dropping. Parking spaces reserved for carpools appear to be under-utilized, and developers are unwilling to further reduce the parking requirements by providing additional carpool spaces or subsidies. It is estimated that 40 percent of new carpoolers switched from transit, rather than single occupant vehicles, and it is further estimated that 25 percent of those using carpool parking spaces are "cheating".

2. Portland, Oregon

Portland has set a ceiling of approximately 44,000 parking spaces in the Central Business District. Presently there are approximately 41,000 spaces in this area. A maximum parking requirement is specified for new developments, without a minimum requirement. The maximum requirement is typically 1 space per 1,000 square feet, but lower near transit service. There appears to be considerable pressure to increase the parking supply ceiling. Developers are required to provide priority parking for carpoolers, as well as bicycle racks and transit shelters. Portland also provides a carpool matching program, and provides subsidized parking for carpoolers at publicly-owned parking lots.

A review of recent travel behaviour in Portland indicated that the transit share to downtown has recently dropped from 48 to 43 percent, while approximately 17 percent of downtown commuters participate in a carpool.



3. San Francisco, California

In San Francisco, an "informal" lid is placed on the number of parking spaces allowed in the downtown area. Developments can provide a maximum number of parking spaces equivalent to seven percent of the development's gross floor area, and there is no minimum. New developments are required to obtain an approved parking plan prior to proceeding. Parking plans regulate supply and pricing, and typically favour short-term and carpool parking. Developers can also choose to provide peripheral parking lots with shuttle service to the downtown as an alternative to on-site parking.

In other Transportation Demand Management measures, San Francisco requires that developers provide traffic mitigation plans (TMP) and annual progress reports. Typically, the provision of an on-site transportation coordinator and information on ridesharing, as well as a bi-annual survey of employee travel habits are required to be provided as part of the traffic mitigation plan. The San Francisco area is also served by the RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, Inc., a company founded by CALTRANS in 1974 for the purposes of marketing, promoting and arranging ridesharing.

Recent surveys of the transit share in San Francisco are not available, although the available figures seem to indicate declining ridership. In terms of parking supply, developers have so far ignored the option of providing peripheral parking instead of on-site parking. Developers also appear to resent the regulation of parking pricing.

4. Los Angeles, California

In Los Angeles, the minimum parking requirement is typically 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet. However, in the downtown business district, this is reduced to 1 space per 1,000 square feet. For developments located adjacent to publicly owned parking lots, the parking requirements are waived.



Los Angeles allows 75 percent of the required parking supply to be provided off- site at a peripheral location, as long as shuttle or transit service is provided, and sufficient land area is reserved on-site to provide the full requirement if the City finds it necessary at a later date. As well, the parking requirements may be reduced by 40 percent if traffic mitigation programs are implemented at the site, and sufficient land area is reserved on-site to provide the full requirement if the City finds it necessary at a later date.

In certain locations of Los Angeles, between 20 and 40 percent of the parking supply is required to be provided in peripheral locations, and shuttle services to the site are required to operate at headways of no more than 10 minutes.

Other Transportation Demand Management measures in Los Angeles require that work sites with more than 100 employees prepare and implement trip reduction plans which designate a transportation coordinator, list specific strategies that will be implemented to reduce single occupant vehicle travel, provide annual progress reports, and meet certain average vehicle employee ridership goals. These requirements were imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) under "Regulation 15", which took effect in July, 1988. This regulation covers the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino.

Los Angeles provides an extensive network of high occupancy vehicle priority lanes on the freeway system. Most recently, transit service to the downtown area was improved with the opening of the Metro Rail service corridor.

A recent survey of developments in Los Angeles indicated that developers have unanimously ignored the options of providing peripheral parking or reducing parking requirements by implementing traffic mitigation programs. The City's requirement to reserve on-site area for the full parking requirement appears to be the major deterrent in both cases.

It is estimated that in Los Angeles, 60 percent of employees drive alone to the downtown, while 25 percent use transit.



In July 1988, the price of parking for employees of the City of Los Angeles was increased from $5 to $25. However, the impact of this price increase on travel behaviour has not been documented. As well, the overall impact of "Regulation 15" on travel behaviour in the area has yet to be extensively researched, primarily due to the short time period which has elapsed since the widespread introduction of this regulation.

5. Hartford, Connecticut

Hartford has adopted several policies which encourage transit and ridesharing. The downtown parking requirement for offices is 1 space per 1,000 square feet, but this can be reduced by up to 30 percent with the provision of subsidized carpool parking, rideshare promotions, subsidized transit passes, and shuttle service from off-street parking.

All developments in specified downtown areas are required to prepare a transportation management plan (TMP) which encourages ridesharing and transit. As well, 14 large downtown employers have formed the Rideshare Company, which promotes ridesharing and transit, and encourages policies such as flextime and the reduction of employer subsidized parking in the downtown area. It is estimated that 70 percent of Hartford employees receive parking subsidies.

A review of recent developer behaviour has indicated that developers have disregarded the incentive to provide less parking in exchange for programs which promote ridesharing. It appears that parking is perceived as being in short supply, and that developers are seeking to maximize the available parking.

The Rideshare Company claims that single occupant vehicle travel has been reduced by between 12 and 15 percent at the 16 companies which it is servicing. These results are attributed to intensive, personalized rideshare services, including good support from company managers and fast carpooling matches. Overall, it is estimated that single occupant vehicle travel in downtown has recently increased by approximately 8 percent to 55 percent, with transit ridership decreasing by the same amount to 20 percent.



6. Bellevue, Washington

Bellevue is a rapidly developing city located approximately 8 kilometres east of Seattle. Bellevue has adopted a policy of encouraging ridesharing and transit use. The maximum parking requirement for downtown office developments is 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet, with a minimum of 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet. As a condition to obtaining a building permit, the City's planning department is authorized to develop a traffic mitigating plan with the developer. Developers are typically required to meet certain requirements, which could include:

A maximum of 30 percent of the development parking spaces may be used by single occupant vehicles.

Preferential parking spaces are to be reserved for carpool and vanpool users.

Parking rates are to favour carpools and vanpools.

Flexible working hours are to be arranged for as many employees as possible.

A permanent employee transportation coordinator is to be designated.

A transit/ridesharing centre is to be provided on-site as a source of information on available high occupancy vehicle modes.

High occupancy vehicle mode promotion days are to be conducted twice annually.

As well, Bellevue utilizes the services of Commuter Pool, the regional ridesharing agency described in the section on Seattle.

HAMnTON ASSOCIATES 45


Bellevue's policy of encouraging ridesharing and transit use is being applied on a building by building basis, as new developments are constructed in the downtown. Early experiences have met with some success, with for example 79 percent of employees at the new headquarters of Pacific Northwest Bell utilizing modes other than single occupant vehicles. The program has also been successfully applied at the offices of US West Communications, Puget Power, and the architecture/engineering firm of CH2M HILL.

7. Ottawa, Ontario

In 1975, the Canadian Government discontinued free parking for federal employees, and implemented parking charges corresponding to 70 percent of the commercial parking rates. Two months after this price increase, the percent of government employees using single occupant vehicles decreased from 35 percent to 28 percent, transit ridership among government employees increased from 42 to 49 percent, while the percent of employees using carpools decreased from 11 to 10 percent.

Whereas the Ottawa experience demonstrates the potential effectiveness of reducing or eliminating parking subsidies, the following points need to be considered prior to generalizing the results of this experience:

. The homogeneous nature of the affected commuters (government employees).

The improved transit service which occurred concurrently with the imposition of the parking charges.

. The response rate to the employee survey was low (less than 30 percent).

Follow-up surveys to assess the long-term impact on travel behaviour need to be conducted.


r .

L .


8. Washington, D.C.

In 1979, the government o the United States discontinued free parking for federal employees in the Washington D.C. area, and implemented parking charges corresponding to approximately 50 percent of the commercial rates. (The decision to discontinue free parking has since been revoked).

A before-and-after study was conducted at 15 government employment centres to measure the impact of the increase in parking pricing on employee travel behaviour. The results of the survey were reported separately for each employment centre, and are summarized as follows:

The change in the percent of employees driving alone to work varied between a decrease of 6 percent and an increase of 5 percent, depending on the location of the employment centre.

The change in the percent of employees using carpools varied between a decrease of 9 percent and an increase of 6 percent, depending on the location of the employment centre.

The change in the percent of employees using transit varied between a decrease of 3 percent and an increase of 11 percent, depending on the location of the employment centre.

The study determined that a variety of elements were associated with travel behaviour, including the location of the employment centre in an urban, suburban or rural setting; the availability of transit service; the availability of alternate parking choices; travel distance between home and work; and household income.



9. Mi n nea polis , Minnesota

In 1983, the City of Minneapolis initiated a program in which registered carpoolers could park for free at six publicly owned parking lots in the downtown fringe area. The aim of the program is to encourage high occupancy vehicle travel, in conjunction with the construction of high occupancy vehicle lanes on the surrounding freeway system.

The program has proven to be popular and well used. However, a study conducted on the registered carpoolers indicated that the carpool program was competing against transit as well as single occupant vehicle travel, resulting in a slight decrease or potential net increase in the number of vehicles on the road. Of those carpoolers registered in the free-parking program, 35 percent used to drive alone prior to the program, while 30 percent used to i d e transit or park and ride. The remaining program users used to rideshare prior to the program. The primary reason given for joining the program was the money saving, which was estimated to range between $30 and $200 per month.

10. Others

The cities of Orlando, Florida; Foster City, California; Sacramento, California and Schaumburg, Illinois, all adopted parking reduction policies which allowed developers to provide less parking than the municipal requirements if the developer provides assistance to ridesharing programs or contributes to a downtown parking fund. Orlando implemented this policy in 1982; Foster City in 1984, Sacramento in 1988 and Schaumburg in 1981. In all four cases, developers almost uniformly avoided the incentive to provide less parking, and the ordinances in Orlando, Foster City, Schaumburg were abandoned in the late 1 980's.

Discussions with a city planner in Sacramento indicated that developers who are subject to the ordinance are reluctant to reduce their parking supply, since such a reduction will place the development at a perceived disadvantage in comparison with other developments which provide more parking. The planner also indicated that due to present economic conditions, all measures which are seen to provide obstacles to the business community are politically unpopular.



. -

In 1990, it was estimated by the Urban Land Institute that in total, at least 35 cities and communities in the United States either had or were considering ordinances requiring the mandatory participation of developments in traffic mitigating programs. Of those, the cities of Sacrament0 and San Jose, California, North Brunswick, New Jersey, and Montgomery County, Maryland, among others, require that developers provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools.

Hacienda Business Park (near Pleasanton), Bishop Ranch Business Park (in Contra Costa County) and the Contra Costa Centre (also in Contra Costa County) are three major employment centres in northern California. Each of these centres has achieved a high level of non-single occupant vehicle travel through the application of customized and extensive Transportation Demand Management plans which emphasize ridesharing. At Hacienda Park, parking policies do not appear to have been a major component of the TDM plan. At Bishop Ranch, employers were encouraged to set aside preferential parking for carpools. At Contra Costa Centre, single occupant vehicle users were charged higher parking rates than carpool users, who were also provided with preferential parking spaces.

. .

HAMILTON ASSOCXATFS 49

Documents

fl I - Metro Vancouver - Home€¦ · 1.4 TDM and Parking Policy ..... 2 Present Parking Conditi ... The project wishes to thank the participants in a workshop held in January 1993