LinksGlossaryMessagesSitemapHelp


Home

Policy Instruments

Select
Search
Filter
 Parking Standards
SummaryTaxonomy and descriptionFirst principles assesmentEvidence on performancePolicy contributionComplementary instrumentsReferences
Policy contribution

Contribution to objectives and alleviation of problems

Objective

Robert Gordon University

Edinburgh Park

Ocean Terminal

Efficiency

2

1

2

Liveable streets

2

1

2

Protection of the environment

2

1

2

Equity and social inclusion

2

1

2

Safety

2

1

2

Economic growth

2

1

2

Finance

1

1

1

It should be noted that the assessment in this table is a guestimate due to the descriptive nature of the evidence.

Contribution to alleviation of key problems

  

Problem

Robert Gordon University

Edinburgh Park

Ocean Terminal

Congestion-related delay

2

1

1

Congestion-related unreliability

2

1

1

Community severance

2

1

1

Visual intrusion

1

1

1

Lack of amenity

-

-

-

Global warming

1

1

1

Local air pollution

1

1

1

Noise

1

1

1

Reduction of green space

2

1

1

Damage to environmentally sensitive sites

2

1

1

Poor accessibility for those without a car and those with mobility impairments*

2

1

1

Disproportionate disadvantaging of particular social or geographic groups

1

1

1

Number, severity and risk of accidents

2

1

1

Suppression of the potential for economic activity in the area

2

1

1

It should be noted that the assessment in this table is a guestimate due to the descriptive nature of the evidence.

Appropriate contexts
Whilst city centres may seem the obvious place to restrict parking provision due to high congestion levels and demand for land, the already high density of development will form a natural restriction. Although, where developers see underground provision as a viable option, this restriction will be partially negated. Thus, parking standards can be as important in city centres as they are in less densly developed areas, where avoiding congestion in the first place is an issue. However, objections to restrictions in less developed areas (where the need is less immediately obvious to road users) will be greater. Objections are likely to be based on fear that drivers will go else where if parking is available there and thus take trade with them.

Appropriate area-types

Area type

Suitability

  

City centre

5

  

Dense inner suburb

5

  

Medium density outer suburb

4

  

Less dense outer suburb

3

  

District centre

3

  

Corridor

3

  

Small town

3

  

Tourist town

3

  

Adverse side effects
There is considerable fear that restrictive PNR parking standards will prompt developers to relocate. Additionally, it is feared that if development does go ahead with restrictive PNR standards, then drivers may change destination where standards in neighbouring towns and regions are more liberal. Both of these actions can have significant negative economic consequences if mitigating actions are not taken. Such actions would have to make areas with minimal parking more attractive than neighbouring areas, despite the restricted parking. Thus, other means of access would need to be of very high standards. Shoppers are most likely to change destination immediately, but employees may in the longer term. However, the evidence of this is minimal. Changes in destination are more likely to be within an area between district centres.

 

Top of the page

Text edited at the Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT