There is relatively little evidence on the performance of parking standards as a transport policy instrument. The Scottish Executive in the United Kingdom has published a report, “The Effect of Maximum Car Parking Standards Including Inward Investment Implications” (Scottish Executive, 2002), but evidence is descriptive. Several case studies are included in the report, some of which are reported below. However, contribution of further evidence on performance from KonSULT users would be appreciated.

Context
Robert Gordon University is located in Aberdeen, Scotland and has 9000 students, many part time or non-residential. The University is spread over six sites in and around Aberdeen, three in the city centre, and three on the outskirts. Garthdee is on the outskirts. The catchment area for the University is a 90km radius. There is a shuttle bus (every 45 minutes) between two of the University’s sites on the outskirts of town – including Garthdee - and the city centre.

Development at Garthdee is in two phases. The first phase provided one car parking space per 15 students (equal to the suggested maximum standard in Scotland). Plentiful cycle parking and the shuttle bus (subsidised by the University – students pay 50p) were also provided. Ride sharing with 63 dedicated parking spaces was also introduced and a full Company Transport Plan forms part of phase two of the development.

Phase two car parking is more limited. 162 car parking spaces are to be provided including 7 disabled spaces and 21 car sharing spaces. The campus has 250 members of staff and 2600 students. The ratio of parking to gross floor area is 1:83m2. Additionally, a controlled parking zone with charges is to be implemented over a 500 metre area around the site, entry to the car park is to barrier controlled with another internal barrier to access the car share area. Parking charges will be introduced, although a number of essential users will have passes.

Impacts on demand
Actual changes in demand are not reported, although it seems that development was not complete when the report was written. Staff resistance to the company Transport Plan was noted, although students were said to be more receptive. This will clearly affect the magnitude of changes in demand.

Impacts on Supply
Clearly the supply of car parking provided in phase two is deemed to be restrictive. However, it is not clear whether supply on the Garthdee campus falls below demand, given that only 63% of staff drive to work. However, “the University has a financial bond with the local authority requiring that it fund infrastructure improvements if the targets within its Green Transport Plan are not met” (Scottish Executive, 2002). This suggests that car parking supply may well fall below demand to ensure that targets are met.

Overall Impacts
The report notes that, “the University does not feel that they are unfairly compromised by a lack of parking. Their closest competitor for students, Aberdeen University, has a restricted parking provision, due to its location in a Historic Conservation Area” (Scottish Executive, 2002). However, there is concern that staff and students will use nearby supermarket car parks. The University intends to tackle this issue in partnership with its neighbours.

Contribution to Objectives

Edinburgh Park, Scotland
Material taken from “The Effect of Maximum Car Parking Standards Including Inward Investment Implications” (Scottish Executive, 2002).

Context
Edinburgh Park is a business park southwest of Edinburgh. A number of developers are involved and 7000 staff (some working shifts) work in businesses on the site. The catchment area is a 60km radius around Edinburgh. Early development at the site was subject to a parking standard of one space per 25m2, but this will be reduced to 1:50m2 for future developments. Whilst the site is served by buses, and there is a nearby rail station on the Fife Circle line, the Council feel that roads in the area are overloaded; hence, the more restrictive parking standards for future development. Additionally, a new rail station is planned for the site, and the park management company have launched a ride share scheme. Despite the congestion, it should be noted that “the park has a reputation for being very well managed in parking terms with no overspill parking evident on the internal roads” (Scottish Executive, 2002).

Overall Impacts
The report notes that, “there are many prestigious buildings at Edinburgh Park and the park appears to have no trouble attracting new businesses. Plans to extend the park with stricter parking provisions suggest that they are confident that they can continue to attract more businesses into the area”.

Contribution to Objectives

Context
Ocean Terminal is a retail/leisure development in the old docklands area of Leith in Edinburgh. The development includes 41,250m2 of floor space (gross), and was started in 1997. Parking standards applied at the time were slightly more restrictive than the maximum recommended. Retail development was accompanied by 1,600 spaces in multi storey car parks. This is a ratio of 1:26m2, the proposed maximum for non-food retail was 1:20m2. The site is served by buses, which are perceived as very good. Forth Ports make a contribution to operation of the bus services, and have provided cycle parking and cycle paths on access roads. Additionally, retail outlets and car parks do not open until 09:30 (i.e. after the start of office hours at 09:00) to avoid use by employees of surrounding businesses. Edinburgh City Council are also implementing Road Orders to restrict parking on surrounding streets.

The development of Ocean Terminal has a key role in regeneration of a docklands area, which had been derelict for over a decade. The catchment area covers a 20km radius around Edinburgh. It is notable that a development clearly intended to help stimulate inward investment has been subject to restrictive parking standards, when many such developments are granted permission for more than ample parking for fear that lack of parking will deter economic growth.

Overall Impacts
The report notes that, “parking provision was felt to be adequate for the development although more would have been desirbale (e.g. 2000 spaces…)” (Socttish Executive, 2002). The developers seek flexibility in the application of maximum parking standards, to cope with “the varying quality of public transport provision” (Socttish Executive, 2002).

Contribution to Objectives

Gaps and Weaknesses
The key weakness in this evidence is the lack of evidence on user response. However, such data was not available at the time the report (Scottish Executive, 2002) was written. Evidence including data on changes in demand, inward investment and economic growth would be an important contribution.