Case Study: a Car Park Management System

1
Case Study a Car Park Management System
2
Summer 1996 we wouldnt start from here!

• No attention to cycling/walking
• No consideration of transport/travel issues
• No consultation with City Council
• No consultation with public transport providers
• No consideration of neighbourhood issues
• Car parking chaos

3
Consultation Strategy

• Comprehensive approach to transport issues
• Consultation on principles (Nov 96) 80
  support exceptcar parking!!
• Consultation on travel choices (Feb 97)
• 60 staff regularly use car to/from work
• 25 car users prepared to consider change of mode
• 70 support for improved car park management

4
Integrated Transport Strategy

• Introduced September 1997
• Promotion of public transport
• Facilities for Cycling
• Improved walking routes/CCTV
• Publicity, awareness, information
• Links to City Council, PTE, Operators etc
• Active Car Park Management

5
Car Park Management Analysis

• Dispersed central campus public access
• Many car parks
• Demand greatly exceeded supply
• Problems for essential users, visitors,
  contractors etc
• How to manage demand?

6
Who needs car parking?

• Essential Users (eg emergency staff)
• Disabled/mobility-impaired
• Visitors
• Contractors
• (Some) Staff and Students

7
How to Manage Demand for Permits?

• Cater for all classes of user
• Hierarchy of Users
• To charge or not charge?
• 70 considered some charge reasonable
• 69 supported restrictions on permit issue
• Criteria for allocation of permits

8
Options Considered

• Seniority
• Job-related (eg Head of Department)
• Ban student parking
• Distance home to University
• Equality of treatment for all

9
Eligibility Criteria for Staff and Students

• Essential User at work
• Distance home to work
• (Lack of) Public Transport alternative
• Hours of work (compulsory or by choice)
• Family circumstances (eg dropping off children)
• Health and other factors
• Leading to
• Points system No single factor (except first)
  will confer eligibility

10
Categorisation of Car Parks

• Staff and Students
• Category A guaranteed place in chosen car park
  at a price!
• Category B licence to hunt for place in any
  Category B car park
• Category C unrestricted issue pay-and-display
• Disabled places as required

11
Visitors and Contractors

• Restricted to Category C and marked Visitor
  places only
• Valid Permit and pay-and-display ticket must be
  displayed
• Hosts may pre-book and pay fee
• Strict limitations of contractors vehicles

12
Management and Enforcement

• Additional Car Park Staff
• Barrier control of major car parks
• Increased CCTV monitoring
• Improved signage (incl Warning Notices)
• External clamping company under contract

13
Problems? What Problems??

• Objections to charges
• Non-qualification
• Appeals Committee
• Clamping and Penalties
• Support of Senior Officers
• Lack of Resources

14
Outcomes

• Effective management of limited parking
• 8 switch to public transport
• 13.5 changed most frequent travel mode
• Car use reduced (32 driver, 8 passenger)
• 93 reduction in car theft
• Increase in cycling

15
2003 So what would we do differently?

• Review of first five years (W S Atkins)
• Management Resources
• Cost Imbalance between Public Transport and Car
• Daily parking fee (as opposed to annual charge)
• Continuing campaigning
• Ring-fencing of (car park) income

16
and the Future

• Travel/Transport Coordinator
• Partnership with City/Local Hospitals
• Standardise parking charges between partners
• Improve public transport infrastructure
• Reduction in on-site and street parking