Objective	Comment
	The reduction in city centre traffic is likely to have a larger positive impact on congestion than the negative impact on congestion from an increase in traffic beside the ring road.  There is therefore likely to be an efficiency gain.
	The reductions in car use will have contributed to a liveability improvement within the city centre.
	The reductions in car use will have contributed to a reduction in environmental impacts globally and locally within the city centre.
	There was no discernable impact on equity and social inclusion.
	There was no discernable impact on safety.
	Efficiency improvements might support economic growth. However, the relocation of firms away from the CBD would suggest that any efficiency improvements are outweighed.
	The scheme was self-financing and more than covered the costs of implementation and enforcement.

Case Study Two - California

Context

The development of ‘cash-out’ schemes for workplace parking has largely been stimulated by the 1992 parking cash-out law in California, introduced on congestion and air quality grounds. Essentially, free parking at the workplace is viewed as a subsidy and employees are given the option of keeping their space or receiving the cash alternative. In California this is mandatory for firms with over 50 employees subject to a number of provisos – the most important of which is that cash-out only has to be provided for rented (and not company owned) spaces (Shoup, 1997).

Demand Impacts

A survey of eight firms implementing cash-out in California found that the number of single occupancy commuting vehicles fell by an average of 17% with vehicle miles falling by 12%. Research from the US has made some attempt to quantify the impacts of parking pricing schemes on workplace parking. In 1982, employees classed as non-essential drivers (70% of employees) at a company in Los Angeles were asked to pay $57.50 per month to carry on using their parking space. Car poolers parked for free and other drivers received $28.75 (50%) to park elsewhere. Single car occupancy dropped from 42% to 9% whilst car pooling rose from 17% to 58%. Public transport use fell. (Feeney, 1989). Higgins (1992) reports reductions in single car use of between 12 and 40% at employers instituting parking pricing for employees.

Supply Impacts

There was no direct reduction in the number of parking spaces.

Contribution to Objectives

Objective	Comment
	The reductions in car use will have contributed to an efficiency improvement.
	The reductions in car use may have contributed to a liveability improvement.
	The reductions in car use will have contributed to a reduction in environmental impacts both global and locally.
	There was no discernable impact on equity and social inclusion.
	The reductions in car use will have contributed to an improvement in safety.
	Efficiency improvements may support economic growth
	No cost information was given but it likely that the cost of implementation and enforcement were covered.

Case Study Three – UK (various)

Context:

In the UK, there is no formal requirement for such a scheme and no direct link between the provision of a car parking space and the sums offered for surrendering the right to that space. Enoch (2002) reviews a number of different parking cash-out schemes that have been introduced in the UK to varying effect. The main reasons cited for introducing such a scheme are: expansion of office space on a constrained site, limited parking provision as part of planning permission and concerns about staff retention in such constrained circumstances.

Demand Implications:

One option pursued with limited success is one off schemes to buy back parking spaces, tried by Derriford General Hospital and BAA. At Derriford General, regular parkers (3-4 days per week) were offered a one off £250 payment plus VAT to surrender their parking permit. Only 7 out of 3500 have taken up the option (although 25-30 have applied). In 1997, BAA offered employees £200 to forego their parking spaces at Heathrow. 33 employees (1%) took up the offer. In the summer of 2001, Stansted employees were offered £110 but again only a handful of employees took up the offer. The levels of financial rewards offered clearly fall short of employees valuation of their spaces.

Southampton General Hospital and Orange, Bristol, have tried annual incentive schemes to greater effect. At Southampton General, permit holders are given an initial £150 and an annual payment of £96 to surrender their space. Despite difficulties for shift workers in using alternative modes, take up is 9% (551 out of 5911). Orange was only allowed 105 spaces for 700 staff in its new offices in Bristol. Staff that worked at the previous office were offered a four year package to give up the car with £1200 in year one (reducing by £300 per year). The company budgeted £0.5m (~415 workers) for the measure in year 1. No data on travel responses to this is available.

Other, less permanent schemes are also in operation. Vodafone, Newbury introduced a monthly scheme in 2000 whereby any member of staff opting out of parking is given an extra £85 in their pay packet. So far, the incentive has attracted 1500 of the 4500 staff. The most flexible scheme in operation is the daily reward scheme offered by Pfizer, Kent. A £2 payment is given to staff for every day that they do not drive their car to work at the Sandwich site (£460 per year) [1] and £5 per day at the Walton Oaks site (£1150 per year). This is administered through the security card system. The estimated cost to the company is £0.5m annually. Around one-third of staff do not travel to work by car – however, it is not possible to correlate this directly with the parking cash-out scheme as it is part of a wider commuter travel plan.

Contribution to Objectives

Large employers view parking as an important attraction to staff, part of the package of employment.  Employees also place a value on their parking spaces, as seen by the very poor take-up of the one off payment of up to £300.  Annual, monthly and schemes that provide daily flexibility appear to offer a greater incentive to drivers to surrender their spaces, the latter providing much greater flexibility for occasional ‘essential’ car drivers.  The decision of companies to offer incentives rather than to introduce parking charging is indicative of their likely reluctance to pass on workplace parking levy charges to employees were such a scheme to be introduced.  The table below concentrates on those schemes that have been successful in reducing car use.

Objective	Comment
	The reductions in car use will have contributed to an efficiency improvement.
	The reductions in car use may have contributed to a liveability improvement.
	The reductions in car use will have contributed to a reduction in environmental impacts both globally and locally.
	There was no discernable impact on equity and social inclusion.
	There was no direct evidence on safety but the reduction in car use would lead to a reduction in accident rates.
	Efficiency improvements may support economic growth.
	These schemes are not self-financing and the exact costs will vary according to the type implemented.  The studies reported here are mainly voluntary and as such will have cost money to implement.

Case Study Four (information purposes only) – Nottingham

Context:

A review of workplace parking charges in the UK was commissioned by Nottingham City Council (Rye and Ison, 2002). The study examined eleven large employers that have introduced parking charges for employees and visitors over the past decade. The sites are, without exception public sector sites with all but one being hospitals or universities. This perhaps reflects the more footloose nature of businesses and reflects the size (>1,500 employees) of the sites experiencing problems. The charges have been implemented for a variety of reasons:

· Parking crisis on site with demand outstripping supply

· Planning obligations

· Part of a wider transport strategy

· Raising revenues (one site)

The case studies are summarised in the Table below. However, the study throws up a number of different permit systems in operation. In some institutions, a higher fee guarantees you a parking space (often of higher quality). In many instances, the permit only allows a “license to hunt”. Most schemes operate with an annual charge with some spaces available on the day as pay and display. Some charges are also differentiated by income.

The authors point to irrefutable evidence of overspill parking effects and note that “There is anecdotal evidence that staff will walk as much as 20 minutes from free on-street parking to avoid paying a charge; however, this is not quantified”. In one instance, the employer was required to pay for the establishment of a CPZ around the site.

The authors conclude that whilst there is considerable opposition of parking charging in the first instance, most opposition dies away shortly after the scheme begins, echoing experiences in the Netherlands. Walters (1996) however reports on strong opposition to a scheme in York where employees were asked to contribute £16 per week to cover their parking costs. This is a substantially higher charge than the schemes reviewed by Rye and Ison.

The review above does not provide any quantification of impacts of the policies. However, given that the policies were almost entirely introduced to reduce parking pressure and, given the evidence on overspill effects, it can be assumed that the policies are impacting on mode choice and parking location choices.

Summary of case studies (Source: Rye and Ison, 2002)

N/k = not known

Vols. = volunteers

Case Study Five (information purposes only) – Cambridge, Norwich & York

Context:

In 2000, 152 businesses in the Cambridge, Norwich and York areas were surveyed about their likely reactions to the possible introduction of Road User Charging and Workplace Parking Levy schemes both for general conditions in the city and in terms of impacts on their own businesses. The survey also investigated likely future responses to such schemes (e.g. relocation). In general, businesses felt that the Workplace Parking Levy would have a smaller impact on citywide issues than Road User Charging. As with charging, an overwhelming majority of businesses (72%) expect a negative economic impact from the Workplace Parking Levy compared to only 7% with a positive expectation. Most businesses indicated that they would absorb the costs of a Workplace Parking Levy rather than pass it on to their employees and/or reduce the number of parking spaces. This would appear to support the findings from the evidence on cash-out and workplace charging schemes described above. Just over one half of businesses surveyed indicated that their next location decision would be influenced by the introduction of WPLs. Businesses in the retail and distribution sector are found to be less likely to respond by relocating (Gerrard et al., 2001)

The introduction of parking restraint measures is a contentious issue. Available evidence shows that the strength of the relationship between parking restraint and urban economic vitality varies strongly with methodology. Attitudinal and behavioural studies suggest large changes and aggregate data suggests very weak relationships (Still and Simmonds, 2000). The relationship between parking policies and economic vitality is an under researched area.

---

Based on a 5 day, 46 week year with no use of a car park space