Title: Projektmanagement Einf
1COST WATCH WG1WG2 meeting Piraeus, Greece 18
19 April 2006
Private car traffic demand and land use planning
steering tools in the field of private off street
parking results from a best practice study
Klementschitz Roman Stark Juliane
University of Natural Resources and Applied Life
Sciences Vienna, Austria
2Types of measures
- Limiting the total number of private off-street
parking spaces, - obligatory parking pricing for private off-street
car parks, either to be paid by the real estate
owner or the user of the car park (customer or
employee) and - defining and negotiating trip-contingents based
on a mobility plan (including exit-metering).
3Procedure of data collection
- Screening-Phase
- ? Relevant cities ? Relevant persons (experts)
- Detailed Analysis
- ? Interview supported by questionnaire ?
Telephone or email interviews
4Case study cities
Stockholm
Helsinki
Aalborg
Copenhagen
Newcastle
Hamburg
Rostock
London
Amsterdam
Berlin
Bremen
Rotterdam
Erfurt
Aachen
Paris
Stuttgart
Munich
Linz
Zurich
Bern
Salzburg
Graz
Lyon
Innsbruck
Madrid
Thessalonica
Athens
5(1) Limiting the number of private parking spaces
- In 21 out of 27 cities analysed the tool of
limiting the total number of private off-street
parking spaces is invented. - In 12 of these cities the measure is obligatory
at least for certain areas or for the whole city
and practice examples are demonstrating the
feasibility of the measure. - Generally spoken, it can be stated, this mobility
management tool is the most used one in the
cities analysed.
6(1) Limiting the number of private parking spaces
Stockholm
Helsinki
Aalborg
Copenhagen
Newcastle
Measure exists
Hamburg
Rostock
obligatory optional not at all
Amsterdam
London
Bremen
Berlin
Rotterdam
Erfurt
Aachen
Paris
Stuttgart
Munich
Linz
Zurich
Bern
Salzburg
Lyon
Innsbruck
Graz
Madrid
Thessalonica
Athens
7Regulation example Hamburg
Relation of upper limits of the number of private
off street parking spaces and gross floor space
in Hamburg
8Regulation example Hamburg
9Regulation example Helsinki
Relation of limits of the number of private
parking spaces, land use and floor space in
Helsinki (1 parking space / xx m² floor space)
10(1) Limiting the number of private parking spaces
Comparison of the limits of the number of parking
space for office buildings in city centres
11Practice example Helsinki
Office building Sörnäisten rantatie 19 /Helsinki
Sörnaisten rantatie
12Practice example Helsinki
- Office building
- Central area
- 15600 m² floor space
- Requirement in building permit45 parking spaces
maximum - 345m² floor space /parking space
13(2) Obligatory parking pricing
- Only one out of 27 cities implemented obligatory
parking pricing for private off street parking
spaces. - A legal basis for implementing the measure exists
in eight cities analysed.
14(2) Obligatory parking pricing
Stockholm
Helsinki
Aalborg
Kopenhagen
Newcastle
Measure exists
Hamburg
obligatory optional not at all
Rostock
Amsterdam
London
Bremen
Berlin
Rotterdam
Erfurt
Aachen
Paris
Stuttgart
Munich
Linz
Zurich
Bern
Salzburg
Graz
Lyon
Innsbruck
Madrid
Thessalonica
Athens
15(2) Obligatory parking pricing
Switzerland
Environmental Act (Umweltschutzgesetz)
Noise Act (Lärmschutz-VO)
Emission Act (Luftreinhalte-VO)
Kantonal masterplan
for transport and enterprises
Traffic generatingbuilding
Obligatory parking pricing
Requirements in Building Permits
16Practice example Abtwil (Switzerland)
- Shopping mall and leisure centre Säntispark
- 12245m² sales floor
- 1022 parking spaces
Säntispark
17Practice example Abtwil (Switzerland)
- Immissions exceeds thresholds
- Obligatory parking pricing in the building permit
(no refund) - CHF 1.00 first hour (0.66 ) CHF 0.50 further
hours (0.33 )no rebate for longer stays
18(3) Trip-contingents
- There are existing experiences with mobility
management plans including the reduction of the
number of trips in 19 out of 27 cities or regions
- basically on voluntary basis. - Such mobility plans are either agreed between
operators and authorities or operator internally.
- The only exception is Switzerland, where not
exceeding agreed trip contingents are causing
consequents (e. g. the operator must increase the
parking fees).
19(3) Trip-contingents
Stockholm
Helsinki
Aalborg
Kopenhagen
Newcastle
Measure exists
Hamburg
obligatory voluntary basis not at all
Rostock
London
Amsterdam
Bremen
Berlin
Rotterdam
Erfurt
Aachen
Paris
Stuttgart
München
Linz
Zürich
Bern
Salzburg
Graz
Lyon
Innsbruck
Madrid
Thessaloniki
Athen
20(3) Trip-contingents
Switzerland
Environmental Act (Umweltschutzgesetz)
Noise Act (Lärmschutz-VO)
Emission Act (Luftreinhalte-VO)
Kantonal masterplan
for transport and enterprises
Traffic generatingbuilding
Trip contingents
Requirements in Building Permits
21Practice example Zurich - Sihlcity
- 149038m² floor space - 35000m² sales floor -
30000m² services - 15000m² cinema, food -
20000m² hotel, housing - Begin of construction July 2003
- Opening 2007
22Practice example Zurich - Sihlcity
23Practice example Zurich - Sihlcity
- Requirement in building permit
- 850 parking spaces (limited) 175 m² floor
space/parking space - Trip contingent8800 daily car trips ca. 5
arrivals per parking space or 50 PT-share of
visitors - Case of exceeding - penalty per trip
exceeded - increasing parking fees - reduction
of parking spaces
24Conclusions
- Practice examples exist for all three types of
measures. - The experiences are generally positive and the
effects are supporting the traffic development
goals targeted. - The measures are transferable to other cities
easily. - To prevent inequity of competition, it should be
a goal to invent (and harmonize) the measures
throughout Europe (or at least within one
country).
25COST WATCH WG1WG2 meeting Piraeus, Greece 18
19 April 2006
Private car traffic demand and land use planning
steering tools in the field of private off street
parking results from a best practice study
Klementschitz Roman Stark Juliane
University of Natural Resources and Applied Life
Sciences Vienna, Austria