1 Best practice of integrating Mobility Management in Land Use Planning in the field of off street parking policy European Conference on Mobility Management Parma, Italy October 2005 Klementschitz Roman Stark Juliane University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences Vienna, Austria

2 Types of measures (1)Limiting the total number of private off-street parking spaces, (2)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 (3)defining and negotiating trip-contingents based on a mobility plan (including exit- metering).

3 Procedure of data collection (1)Screening-Phase:  Relevant cities  Relevant persons (experts) (2)Detailed Analysis:  Interview supported by questionnaire  Telephone or interviews

4 Case study cities Lyon Copenhagen London Newcastle Madrid Paris Helsinki Stockholm Berlin Stuttgart Munich Hamburg Bremen Erfurt Zurich Bern Amsterdam Rotterdam Salzburg Graz Innsbruck Thessalonica Athens Aalborg Rostock Linz Aachen

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 Lyon Copenhagen London Newcastle Madrid Paris Helsinki Stockholm Berlin Stuttgart Munich Hamburg Bremen Erfurt Zurich Bern Amsterdam Salzburg Graz Innsbruck Thessalonica Athens Aalborg Rostock (1) Limiting the number of private parking spaces Linz Rotterdam Aachen Measure exists … obligatory optional not at all

7 Regulation example: Hamburg Relation of upper limits of the number of private off street parking spaces and gross floor space in Hamburg:

8 Regulation example: Hamburg

9 Regulation 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 Comparison of the limits of the number of parking space for office buildings in city centres (1) Limiting the number of private parking spaces

11 Office building Sörnäisten rantatie 19 /Helsinki Sörnaisten rantatie Practice example: Helsinki

12  Office building  Central area  m² floor space  Requirement in building permit: 45 parking spaces maximum 345m² floor space /parking space Practice example: Helsinki

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 Lyon Kopenhagen London Newcastle Madrid Paris Helsinki Stockholm Berlin Stuttgart Munich Hamburg Bremen Erfurt Zurich Bern Amsterdam Salzburg Graz Innsbruck Thessalonica Athens Aalborg Rostock (2) Obligatory parking pricing Linz Rotterdam Aachen Measure exists … obligatory optional not at all

15 PROVINCEPROVINCE COMMUNITIESCOMMUNITIES for transport and enterprises Kantonal masterplan NATIONALNATIONAL Environmental Act (Umweltschutzgesetz) Traffic generating building Obligatory parking pricing Requirements in Building Permits Noise Act (Lärmschutz-VO)Emission Act (Luftreinhalte-VO) (2) Obligatory parking pricing Switzerland

16  Shopping mall and leisure centre Säntispark  12245m² sales floor  1022 parking spaces Practice example: Abtwil (Switzerland) Säntispark

17  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 Practice example: Abtwil (Switzerland)

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 Lyon Kopenhagen London Newcastle Madrid Paris Helsinki Stockholm Berlin Stuttgart München Hamburg Bremen Erfurt Bern Amsterdam Rotterdam Salzburg Graz Innsbruck Thessaloniki Athen Aalborg Rostock (3) Trip-contingents Linz Aachen Measure exists … obligatory voluntary basis not at all Zürich

20 PROVINCEPROVINCE COMMUNITIESCOMMUNITIES for transport and enterprises Kantonal masterplan NATIONALNATIONAL Environmental Act (Umweltschutzgesetz) Traffic generating building Trip contingents Requirements in Building Permits Noise Act (Lärmschutz-VO)Emission Act (Luftreinhalte-VO) (3) Trip-contingents Switzerland

21  m² floor space m² sales floor m² services m² cinema, food m² hotel, housing  Begin of construction: July 2003  Opening: 2007 Practice example: Zurich - Sihlcity

22 Practice example: Zurich - Sihlcity

23 Requirement in building permit:  850 parking spaces (limited) 175 m² floor space/parking space  Trip contingent 8800 daily car trips ca. 5 arrivals per parking space or 50% PT-share of visitors  Case of exceeding: - increasing parking fees - reduction of parking spaces Practice example: Zurich - Sihlcity

24  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). Conclusions

25 Best practice of integrating Mobility Management in Land Use Planning in the field of off street parking policy European Conference on Mobility Management Parma, Italy October 2005 Klementschitz Roman Stark Juliane University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences Vienna, Austria