Attachment F - Carparking Evaluation -Noosa Carparking Study - McGagney report

                                                                                                            Noosa Council
                                                                                       Noosa Car Parking Study 2017 - 2032
                                                                                                              Final Report


The price elasticity of vehicle trips with respect to parking price is typically –0.1 to –0.3 (a 10% increase in parking
fees reduces vehicle trips by 1-3%), depending on conditions (Vaca and Kuzmyak, 2005; Litman 2008). In the
short run, cost-recovery parking pricing (fees set to recover full parking facility costs) typically reduces the
number of spaces needed to serve a destination by 10-30%. For example, if parking is unpriced, 100 employees
typically demand about 90 parking spaces, but cost recovery pricing can reduce this to 70 spaces. Larger
reductions are possible if implemented with other management strategies, such as pricing with improvements
to alternative modes and more sharing of parking facilities. (Litman, 2010)

Where priced parking is implemented, those discouraged from travelling by single occupant vehicle (in the main)
may respond in a variety of ways, as indicated in Table C-1.

Table C-1: Short-Term and Long-Term Response to Priced Parking
 Short term                                             Long term
 Car-pooling
 Switch to alternative mode
 Travel outside of peak times                           Move home or work to be more accessible to town
 Link trips with other errands                          centre by alternative modes.

 Trip avoidance
 Trip diverted to alternative location


It is important to emphasise that these responses are not necessarily constant over time. In many instances the
short-term impacts of those who are discouraged from visiting the commercial centre reduces over time as new
behavioural patterns emerge. These delayed adjustments can be as simple as allowing time for people to
familiarise themselves with public transport (PT) timetables or coordinate car-pooling. For this reason, the
number of people discouraged from visiting the shops due to parking prices may reduce over time.


C.2: Time Limits and other Priority Controls
Priority controls set rules to ensure the efficient and equitable use of parking resources. These rules typically
aim to govern the type of use, such as loading bays, mobility spaces, and taxi stands, and / or the length of stay,
such as 1P, 2P, 3P, etc. These controls typically reflect priorities associated with different types of vehicle traffic.

Demand for public parking is often managed through the use of time limits. These limits are often seen as a way
to increase turnover and discourage long-stay parking and to this end they are somewhat effective. On the
downside, however, time limits can constrain the types of activities that can be undertaken.

For example, limits of less than 1-2 hours are likely to discriminate against activities that require longer time to
prepare and serve food, such as high-quality restaurants. Similarly, people looking to make major retail
purchases may be discouraged. Time limits are also relatively expensive and ineffective to enforce (because
officers must mark and subsequently return to vehicles) however new parking technologies such as number
plate recognition have the potential to reduce operating costs.

For these reasons time limits are a “second best” parking solution that is appropriate only in those situations
where prices are unlikely to be effective. Such situations might include areas where the implementation of pricing
would simply shift demand elsewhere, leaving Council having to pay for the costs of installing meters and
administration. In almost all other situations, priced parking is preferred.