RyeandKoglin2014 ParkingManagement
RyeandKoglin2014 ParkingManagement
RyeandKoglin2014 ParkingManagement
net/publication/272295947
Parking Management
CITATIONS READS
14 12,383
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Institutional frameworks for integrated mobility services in future cities View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Till Koglin on 16 February 2015.
PARKING MANAGEMENT
ABSTRACT
Purpose This chapter explains how and why local parking policies are
developed, the sometimes conflicting relationship between parking, rev-
enue raising and economic development and the circumstances in which it
may be appropriate to use parking policy as a demand management tool.
Methodology/approach This chapter offers a review of prior research
and literature on the topic parking management and further explores the
impacts and difficulties of parking management. Moreover, empirical
data in this chapter comes from the authors’ own survey study of south-
ern, eastern and southeastern European cities about their parking pro-
blems and policies.
Findings The findings of this chapter show that there is a need to con-
sider what parking solutions cities may choose and what solutions might
work for them. It is difficult to say that very different solutions will suit
cities of different sizes, but rather that the level of implementation of the
solutions must be related to the scale of the problem in each city, and its
citizens’ demands. In addition, each city must work within its particular
legislative context, which is why certain solutions might not work in
some cities.
INTRODUCTION
Whilst parking controls and prices are rarely popular with the public,
they are a policy option that is relatively well-known and, certainly in larger
towns and cities, accepted if there is an obvious shortage of parking
spaces then many people may accept that there is a need for parking
controls. Parking controls and pricing are the transport demand manage-
ment measure that is most frequently implemented by local authorities, yet
little of the academic literature deals with experience of this policy, prefer-
ring instead to concentrate on the ‘sexier’ topic of congestion charging. This
chapter attempts to redress that balance a little. By the time you have
finished reading it, you should (better) understand:
• how and why local parking policies are developed, and be able to
critically apply your understanding to a case study
• the sometimes conflicting relationship between parking, revenue raising
and economic development
• the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to use parking policy
as a demand management tool.
Car parking is an issue of significance both at the local and at the
strategic level of planning. Parking policy and supply play a major role in
the management of transportation systems in dense urban areas. In order
for parking policy decisions to be well founded, the analysis of parking
behaviour and the effect of parking policies should be fully integrated with
the other elements of the transport planning process (Coombe, Guest,
Bates, & Le Masurier, 1997).
Parking Demand
Users of parking facilities constitute more than half the population and this
proportion is growing: the EUROSTAT online transport statistics database
shows that the number of cars per 1,000 population in the EEA30 countries
rose from 321 in 1995 to 411 in 2009 (a rise of 30%). The car is the
dominant mode of transport accounting for 84% of all surface passenger
kilometres in the EEA30. However, these figures mask considerable
variations: whilst growth rates in car ownership per 1,000 people were
around 20% in most northern and western European countries during this
period, in southern and eastern European countries they were closer to and
160 TOM RYE AND TILL KOGLIN
in some cases (e.g. Lithuania) well over 100%. This means that, for exam-
ple, Slovenia and Cyprus now have more cars per 1,000 people than the
United Kingdom or Sweden. These huge growth rates have put enormous
pressure on existing formal and informal parking stock in these countries.
They also may make parking management less acceptable than in countries
and cities with lower rates of car ownership. For example, car ownership in
the City of Copenhagen in 2010 was 236 cars per 1,000 people (Koglin,
2013) with car owners clearly in the minority, this may make it politically
easier to manage parking.
In 2009 there were more than 242 million cars in the EEA30, up from
over 177 million in 1995 (European Environment Agency, 2010). There are
only two places where these vehicles can be found: they are either on-street
or off-street. If they are on-street, they can be considered to be parked,
searching for parking or in transit. Almost all cars that are off-street will
be parked. Estimates show that cars spend more than 95% of their lives
parked (RAC, 2005).
In transport terms, demand is usually measured by observing activity:
for example, traffic flows along a route, or parking acts at a site. In
‘uncontested’ conditions, where the space available equals or exceeds the
demand, then demand is equal to the observed consumption. In ‘contested’
conditions, where there is competition for space, the observed activity or
consumption is constrained; it does not measure the potential demand
because some drivers have either been priced out of the market or physically
excluded by a shortage of space. It is in this second contested context that
controls must most often be introduced.
Types of Parking
There are four main types of parking places that you can park a car
(TRL, 2010). These are:
• On-street. As its name suggests, a parking space on the public road.
• Public off-street. A car park not on the public road, in which any member
of the public can park their car, subject to complying with any regulations
(e.g. maximum stay (in hours), or paying a fee). This kind of car park
may be owned and/or operated by the public and/or private sector.
• Private non-residential off-street. This is car parking that is associated
with a particular building or land use parking for a shopping centre,
or an office-building. Only people who are connected with that building
or land use should, in theory, be able to use the parking, and the land-
Parking Management 161
owner has control over this use (within legal constraints in the member-
state concerned).
• Private residential parking off-street parking associated with houses or
flats. In theory, only the residents of these houses or flats should be able
to use the parking.
The pattern of parking supply in our towns and cities in recent years has
been in a state of continuous evolution as parking demand has increased.
From the outset, this has been influenced by the public and private
organisations involved in providing parking infrastructure. It is worth
remembering the basic types of parking and the degree to which local
authorities have control over them. The major distinction when considering
parking supply is that between parking provided on-street and that
provided off-street as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Parking Type and the Sector Controlling and/or Supplying it.
Location On-Street Off-Street
Type Free Priced Permit Duration Control Free Priced Priced Free Priced
On-Street Parking
On-street parking is all publicly owned and is provided by local authorities
in Europe, often under the general guidance and legal framework set by
central government. Local authorities determine which restrictions should
apply in specified streets, within central government guidelines, taking into
account the national and local pressures for road safety, traffic flow, public
transport provision and movement, the functioning of the local economy,
the needs of residents and access for emergency services. In the many coun-
tries, they must involve the local community in the process of introducing
parking restrictions, and communicate the changes effectively to local road
users; we return to this topic later in the chapter when we consider how to
build acceptance for parking policy changes.
Off-Street Parking
Off-street parking will, in the average European medium to large-sized city,
provide the majority of the parking space available in and around the city
162 TOM RYE AND TILL KOGLIN
may mean favouring short stay shoppers in place of longer stay commuters.
However, this may generate more vehicle miles as one space will be used by
a greater number of cars per day for shopping than for commuting. A
main concern of a private operator of an off-street car park will be to maxi-
mise profits, but a local authority may have a range of other objectives.
They may wish to provide public off-street parking, simply to make sure
that visitors to their town or city have somewhere to park. They may also
wish to control the price of such parking perhaps to make it relatively
more expensive for long-stay commuters (to reduce peak hour traffic) but
cheaper for shoppers, who tend to travel in the off-peak. The revenue-
raising objective may also conflict with policies to reduce car traffic to
city centres when on-street parking, controlled by the local authority, is
considered. Parking policy objectives at the level of the individual street
(‘maximise supply’) may conflict with those at the city level (‘preferential
parking for certain user groups’) and at the regional level (‘parking policy
should support sustainable land use planning’). Parking policy cannot fully
resolve these conflicts but it should at least set out a rationale for choosing
one policy option over another.
How Much Does it Cost to Park on-street in Different Countries in the EU?
First of all, it is worth noting that residents who live in CPZs are usually
provided with a permit at a preferential (cheap) rate. For example, in the
centre of the City of Edinburgh in the United Kingdom, for someone to
park all day for the whole year in a public parking bay on-street would cost
around about h6,000 (if there were no time limit), and a similar price for
parking in a public off-street car-park. A resident living in that area obtains
a permit providing the same service but for h280 per year and in many EU
cities, permits for residents to park on-street are much cheaper still. In those
countries where municipalities have been active in building and operating
off-street car parks, they may also offer their residents preferential rates in
these h120 per month for a space in central Lyon, for example.
With regard to public on-street parking rates, which are normally set by
local authorities, some examples are shown in Fig. 1.
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Burgos
Treviso
Strasbourg
Bologna
Graz
Vienna
Breda
Hambourg
Gent
AVERAGE
Groningen
Eindhoven
Freiburg
Malmö
Nottingham
Antwerp
Munich
Barcelona
Edinburgh
Zurich
Copenhagen
Londons
Utrecht
Stockholm
Amsterdam
Fig. 1. On-Street Parking Tariffs per Hour, Various Central Cities (2011 2013).
Sources: City of Gent (2013); ITDP (2011).
authorities and found that, at that time, 25% were planning to cut the
number of parking spaces in their urban centres, with more than 50%
increasing parking charges in real terms.
However, there has been little evaluation of the effects of such policies,
with the exception of Canterbury’s (United Kingdom) policy of reducing
city centre parking and replacing it with park and ride. This has been
successful in reducing city centre traffic levels without negatively impacting
on city centre trade (Valleley, 1997). Kelly and Clinch (2009) found an
elasticity of −0.29 in response to a 50% price rise in on-street parking
charges in Dublin; whilst COST 342 (2006) cites the implementation of
parking pricing on-street in districts 5 9 of Vienna leading to a 30% reduc-
tion in trips by car to the areas affected.
Enforcement
If parking regulations are to be effective, they must be enforced other-
wise, they will fall into disrepute. The fine must also be in proportion to the
cost of hourly parking if it is not, parkers will risk the very low fine rather
than paying proportionately higher hourly parking charges (this is a signifi-
cant problem in France, where the fine is set by the national government.)
In some cases, as noted in COST 342 (2006, p. 30), and by the LEDA pro-
ject, local authorities are, at least partially, dependent on the police for
enforcing parking regulations. Increasingly, though, countries have changed
their legal framework such that the role of the police and judiciary is partly
or wholly removed from parking enforcement (including setting fines). In all
168 TOM RYE AND TILL KOGLIN
cases, this has significantly enhanced the quality of enforcement, and in the
United Kingdom it has also generated considerable income for some local
authorities leading to some public resentment (RAC, 2005; University of
Birmingham, 2005).
The quality of enforcement that decriminalised (or, as it is now known
in the United Kingdom, civil) parking arrangements in comparison to
police enforcement, is illustrated by the example of the City of Newcastle
in the United Kingdom, which in 2008 applied to national government for
permission to take over the enforcement of waiting restrictions on its main
roads from the police. At that time, the municipality enforced residents’
parking bays and off-street car parks only. The police selected the level of
enforcement for other locations, and issued around 10,000 fines per year on
main roads, compared to 60,000 issued by the municipality’s 60 parking
attendants in residents’ parking areas. The addition of 10 further enforce-
ment staff to work on main road enforcement was anticipated to increase
fines issued on main roads from 10,000 to 30,000 per year. (Newcastle City
Council, 2008)
The UK example is an interesting one to consider. Under the 1991 Road
Traffic Act, local authorities became able to take over responsibility for on-
street parking enforcement in their areas from the police, but such Special
Parking Areas (SPAs) must be self-funding, with operating costs paid for
from fines. If a parker contravenes any of the regulations, the local author-
ity (or its contracting company) can levy a fine. This varies greatly from
place to place in Edinburgh, United Kingdom, it is currently h90, drop-
ping to h45 if the fine is paid within two weeks. The fine is the same, what-
ever the contravention (e.g. staying 35 minutes when you have paid for 30
minutes gets the same fine as parking your car illegally in a bus lane and
blocking all the buses). In contrast, in many English cities, where legislation
from 2004 applies, there is a higher penalty for more obstructive parking,
and a lower penalty charge for, for example, overstaying on a metered bay.
The purpose of this difference is to improve the acceptability of parking
enforcement, which is a problematic (political) issue for many cities.
Towns and cities often adopt park and ride as part of their strategy to
tackle traffic congestion, in the main on routes into town and city centres
(although there are examples of park and ride sites that serve major work-
places outside city centres). COST342 estimates that, between 1970 and
1990, the number of cities in Europe with park and ride sites increased by a
Parking Management 169
factor of three, to around 76, and the number of parking spaces available
by 337%.
Park and Ride works by diverting city centre-bound trips into a car
park en route and taking the drivers onwards from there by public trans-
port. For park and ride to be successful, it is vital that:
• In Vienna park and ride captures 12% of city centre-bound car traffic.
• In Chester, United Kingdom the corresponding figure is 20%.
170 TOM RYE AND TILL KOGLIN
• Madrid’s park and ride sites have 20,000 users per day, while there are
12,000 in Barcelona and 10,000 in Hanover.
• In Strasbourg park and ride has been a key element in the success of its two
tram lines. Some 43% of motorised trips now made by public transport.
• In Oxford, United Kingdom, park and ride sites are estimated to have
led to a 3 9% reduction in city centre-bound car traffic.
It should be noted, however, that there are some park and ride sites
whose costs far outweigh their benefits (including even environmental fac-
tors), and that even the best planned park and ride is likely where new
public transport services are implemented to serve it to attract users who
previously made their entire trip by public transport, but who switch to park
and ride because it is quicker and/or cheaper (Parkhurst, 2000). COST342
estimates that these can account for up to one-third of users of a new park
and ride. Another perverse effect can occur where a park and ride site is
built in one location but users drive to another (and make use of informal
parking opportunities, for example, on-street around a station) because the
public transport service level at the second location is much better. See chap-
ter 9 by Parkhurst and Meek for more detail on Park and Ride.
interesting to note that parking demand fell even outside the hours that
parking controls are in operation.
However, there are public acceptability issues that make the introduction
of further controls problematic, and the economics of a purely residential
on-street parking operation are not particularly attractive if manual enfor-
cement is to be used, since parking violations and ticket income are likely
to be too low to finance the enforcement operation (City of Edinburgh,
2011). If this is the case, one alternative is to use automatic enforcement as
implemented with success in Utrecht, Netherlands in the EU CIVITAS
MIMOSA project (CIVITAS MIMOSA, 2012). This uses a ‘scan car’
equipped with cameras to check the registration numbers of parked cars.
Since paid and residents’ parking is based on registration numbers, the
onboard computer in the car can quickly check whether a car is parked leg-
ally and, if not, enforcers can be dispatched. This reduces the number of
enforcement staff required.
Alternatively, car clubs can be promoted as a substitute to conventional
car ownership. One car club car is reported to replace up to 10 private cars,
so the potential to reduce on-street parking problems is significant. The dif-
ficulty however is to increase membership to a level where it is sufficient to
make a difference to on-street parking demand; in Great Britain, currently,
for example, only around 0.25% of the adult population are in a car club
(although this is the second highest level in Europe, MOMO EU Project,
2010).
by the author for 25 shopping centres in Britain and their off-street parking
supply and price came to a similar conclusion (Rye for City of Edinburgh,
2006): public off-street parking spaces per 100 sq metres of retail floor area,
and off-street parking price per hour, were plotted against the Experian
retail ranking for the shopping centre in question (most large shopping
centres in the ranking list are city centres as opposed to stand along malls).
There was no relationship for parking availability, and a slightly negative
relationship for price, suggesting that parking costs more in the more popu-
lar centres. A study on the wider parking policy (in particular, restraint
based parking standards for new development) and economic performance
of four larger European cities (Martens, 2005) was also unable to find a link
between the level of parking restraint and the economy of the city as he
notes (p5):
‘The cities and city centers show an ongoing economic vitality after the introduction of
the restrictive parking norms’ and
‘The city centers remain the dominant office location in all case study cities’.
A CASE STUDY
city, where a ticket combining parking and unlimited daily public transport
travel for up to 5 people travelling together currently costs h4.50 per day.
One site is connected to the city by bus, one by busway, and the third by
rail. In comparison to on-street parking costs in town (over h4.00 per
hour), the park and rides offer good value, but their use remains limited
and so the city is trying to improve the quality of the park and ride offer
further (City of Gent, 2013).
Residents qualify for one or two permits per household at a heavily dis-
counted rate, whilst visitors must pay per hour for parking (residents’ visi-
tors pay less per hour). The number of residents’ permits available in
different areas of the city is capped, and in some areas there is a waiting list
for people who have moved in and want a permit; the total number issued
is just under 24,000. In terms of mobility patterns, about 50% of trips by
residents are made by car and the rest by cycling or public transport, and
car ownership lies at an average of 0.97 per household, with a third of
households having no car. This places Utrecht at around 500 cars per 1,000
population, or towards the higher end of the EU average.
Car parking policy is seen by the municipality as a key element in
improving the liveability and attractiveness of the city; there are also policy
objectives to reduce local and global pollution from transport, but of course
at the same time political pressure to ensure that the city (centre) remains
perceived to be accessible. Operationally, there are pressures to reduce the
unit costs of the parking operation (in part, so that it can be extended in
scope, and in part because of general pressures on city budgets); and to
make it more user-friendly. Thus, Utrecht’s parking related problems and
objectives are typical of many cities, but the way in which it is dealing with
them gives some pointers as to future opportunities within the field.
The main change that the City of Utrecht has implemented within its
parking operation in the recent past is the full digitalisation of on-street
parking payment and enforcement, together with an increase in the con-
trolled area. The digitalisation was carried out within the framework of the
CIVITAS MIMOSA project 2008 2012 (CIVITAS MIMOSA, 2012). On 1
January 2008, shortly but not as part of CIVITAS, the city took over park-
ing enforcement from the local police, and a year prior to that, significantly
raised parking charges.
The installation of 530 digital parking machines during 2010 and 2011,
together with digital enforcement, improved the efficiency of the operation.
For political and legal reasons, visitors are not obliged to enter their licence
plate number into the machine when parking, and all must still therefore
display a paper ticket issued by the machine. Residents and their visitors
180 TOM RYE AND TILL KOGLIN
must provide a licence plate number. Mobile phone parking was introduced
at the same time (no ticket needs to be displayed, and billing is monthly in
arrears) and around 20% of visitors now pay in this manner. A vehicle
carrying number plate recognition cameras is able to alert enforcement staff
to those parked cars not registered on the payment database, and appropri-
ate enforcement action can then be taken. The introduction of digital park-
ing was accompanied by a major publicity campaign and a re-vamp of the
city’s parking information website. Whilst the extent of the controlled area
increased by around 14% during the project period, the number of enforce-
ment officers fell from 63 to 45, but compliance with regulations (based on
the number of tickets sold, and fines issued) improved. User satisfaction
with parking in Utrecht was therefore also deemed to have improved.
Utrecht could of course go further in using new technology to address
its parking problems and objectives. User-friendliness of the system could
be improved by introducing real time monitoring of on-street parking occu-
pancy and guidance via signage or GPS to less occupied areas of parking.
This could be complemented by pay-per-minute parking and/or regular
adjustments in parking pricing in different areas (there are currently only
three zones of different parking prices) in order to ‘fine-tune’ occupancy in
relation to demand. The challenge in so doing would in part be one of com-
munication, since the system would become more complex and therefore
potentially more difficult to understand. It is also not certain that the
investment costs would be outweighed by measurable benefits; digital
parking as it has been introduced so far offers, in contrast, some very clear
benefits. Utrecht nonetheless remains an inspiring example as it has imple-
mented innovative payment and in particular enforcement systems to
improve its parking operation, and done so in a very short time period.
For those cities that currently do not have any system of charging for park-
ing, some of the technological solutions implemented by Utrecht offer the
opportunity to avoid investment in ‘old-tech’ (e.g. ticket machines) and
jump straight to a more advanced and user-friendly system.
CONCLUSIONS
but rather that the level of implementation of the solutions must be related
to the scale of the problem in each city, and its citizens’ demands. In addi-
tion, each city must work within its particular legislative context (as the
example of Utrecht shows, where paper tickets are still required because
there is no obligation to provide registration plate information) (Table 3).
This chapter has aimed to show that parking policy and parking man-
agement are key to urban mobility and to managing its negative effects. As
car ownership grows, so demand for parking will grow, and most towns
and cities will have to deal with many of the issues that have been outlined
in this chapter. It is possible to develop a car parking policy that will man-
age the negative impacts of urban car use whilst also supporting business
and the economy; but this is a careful balancing act, which is why it is
important to learn from the experience of other places, as we have shown
182 TOM RYE AND TILL KOGLIN
in this chapter. Parking demand and the response by the cities are very
important, when considering the rise of car use in Europe and other parts
of the world. If a sustainable transport system is the goal, balanced parking
policies and the tackling of parking problems becomes even more impor-
tant. This chapter has shown both problems and solutions for parking
demand. It is vital that transport planners and city officials deal with park-
ing properly in order to take a further step towards sustainable and attrac-
tive cities.
REFERENCES
Balcombe, R. J., & York, I. O. (1993). The future of residential parking. Project Report 22,
Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire, UK.
City of Edinburgh. (2011, August 2). Priority parking: Various areas, Edinburgh. Transport,
infrastructure and environment committee. Retrieved from www.edinburgh.gov.uk
City of Gent. (2013). Parkeerplan Gent 2020. Research Report: Part 2, Benchmarking. City of
Gent, Belgium.
CIVITAS MIMOSA. (2012). Measure evaluation results. Report UTR3.1 Innovation of the
system of parking permits and rates. European Commission, Utrecht.
Coombe, D., Guest, P., Bates, J., & Le Masurier, P. (1997). Study of parking and traffic
demand. Traffic Engineering & Control, 38(2), 62 75.
COST 342. (2006). Parking policy and the effects on economy and mobility. REPORT on COST
Action 342, August, 2005, Technical Committee on Transport, European Commission.
DfT. (1996). Parking perspectives. Report by MVA for DfT Department for Transport,
London, UK.
DfT. (2002). Making travel plans work. London: UK DfT.
DfT. (2008). Research into the use and effectiveness of maximum parking standards. Report by
Atkins to DfT, London.
European Environment Agency. (2010). Passenger car ownership in the EEA. Retrieved from
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/passenger-car-ownership-in-the-eea.
Accessed on January 6, 2014.
Faber Maunsell. (2002). The effect of maximum car parking standards including inward invest-
ment implications. Report to Scottish Executive. Retrieved from http://www.scotland.
gov.uk/Publications/2002/04/14550/3200
Feeney, B. P. (1989). A review of the impact of parking policy measures on travel demand.
Transportation Planning and Technology, 13, 229 234.
Ferilli, G. (2009). An analysis of the city centre car parking market: The supply side point of
view. PhD, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK.
Healey and Baker (Chartered Surveyors). (1998). Town centre accessibility. London: Healey
and Baker.
ITDP. (2011). Europe’s parking U-Turn: from accommodation to regulation. Retrieved from
http://www.itdp.org/documents/European_Parking_U-Turn.pdf
Kamali, F., & Potter, H. (1997). Do parking policies meet their objectives? Paper presented at
the European Transport Forum Annual Meeting, London.
Parking Management 183
Kelly, J. A., & Clinch, P. (2009). Temporal variance of revealed preference on-street parking
price elasticity. Transport Policy, 16(4), 193 199.
Koglin, T. (2013). Ve´lomobility: A critical analysis of planning and space. Doctoral dissertation,
Lund University, Department of Technology and society, Traffic and Roads, Bulletin, 284.
Camden, L. B. (2007). Annual parking and enforcement report. London Borough of Camden,
Euston, London.
Litman, T. (2008). Parking management: Strategies, evaluation and planning. Victoria, Canada:
Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Retrieved from www.vtpi.org
Marsden G., & Mullen C. (2012). How does competition between cities influence demand
management? Paper to 44th Annual Universities Transport Study Group conference,
Aberdeen, UK.
Martens, K. (2005). The effects of restrictive parking policy on the development of city centers.
Report for the Israeli Ministry of Transport, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Mingardo, G. (2008a, March). Parkeren als schakel voor mobiliteit en leefbaarheid [Parking as
the link between mobility and livability]. Verkeer in Beeld, 2.
Mingardo, G. (2008b, September). Parkeren heeft weinig invloed op winkelomzet [Parking has
little influence on retail sales]. VExpansie 2, pp. 16 19.
Mingardo, G., Van Wee, B., & Rye, T. (forthcoming). Urban parking policy: a conceptualiza-
tion of past and possible future trends. Paper submitted for publication.
MOMO EU. Project. (2010, June). The state of European car-sharing. Final Report D 2.4
Work Package 2. Bundesverband CarSharing e. V., Willi Loose.
National Economic Development Office. (1991). Company car parking. London: NEDO.
Newcastle City Council. (2008). Application for Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE),
Planning & Transportation Strategy Committee 27 July, City of Newcastle.
Oxfordshire County Council. (2005). Local Transport Plan 2001 2006: Annual Progress Report.
Retrieved from http://portal.oxfordshire.gov.uk/content/publicnet/council_services/roads_
transport/plans_policies/local_transport_plan/apr5.pdf, Accessed on March 12, 2013.
Parkhurst, G. (2000). Influence of bus-based park and ride facilities on users’ car traffic.
Transport Policy, 7(2), 159 172.
Pratt, R. (2003). Parking management and supply: Traveler response to transportation system
changes, Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 95, Chapter 18, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
RAC Foundation. (2005). Motoring towards 2050: Parking in transport policy. London: RAC
Foundation.
Rye, T. (2006). Unpublished analysis of public off-street parking and retail performance in
UK cities. Edinburgh, UK.
Rye, T., & Ison, S. (2005). Overcoming barriers to the implementation of car parking charges
at UK workplaces. Transport Policy, 12(1), 57 64.
Sanderson, J. (1997). A response to SACTRA’s consultation: Transport investment, transport
intensity and economic growth. London Planning Advisory Committee, London, UK.
Shoup, D. (2006). Cruising for parking. Transport Policy, 13(6), 479 486.
Shoup, D., & Willson, R. (1992). Employer-paid parking: The problem and proposed
solutions. Working Paper No. 119. UC Transportation Research Centre, University of
California, Berkeley, CA.
Still, B., & Simmonds, D. (2000). Parking restraint policy and urban vitality. Transport
Reviews, 20(3), 291 316.
Sustrans. (2003). Traffic restraint and retail vitality. Bristol, UK: Sustrans.
184 TOM RYE AND TILL KOGLIN
TRL (2010). Parking measures and policies research review. London UK: Prepared for DfT.
University of Birmingham Institute of Local Government Studies, School of Public Policy.
(2005). Local authority parking enforcement defining quality-raising standards. Report to
British Parking Association, Birmingham.
Valleley, M. (1997). Parking perspectives. London: Landor.