Initiative 8: Loading and Parking Restrictions

Loading and Parking Restrictions
Description: Implementation of parking and loading/unloading restrictions, prohibited parking on residential streets, and other time-related parking restrictions
Targeted mode: All traffic Geographic scope: Point
Type of initiative: Parking/loading areas management: on-street parking and loading Objectives: Reduce congestion
Expected costs and level of effort to implement: Multiple stakeholders may be involved to update current regulations, land use codes, and rezoning strategies. Careful planning and a thorough evaluation of positive and negative impacts to road users, commercial companies, and residents are required. Investment costs are relatively low, and restrictions can be implemented in a short amount of time. Time restrictions may require funds to provide incentives to receiver companies to switch operations to alternate hours.
Advantages:

  • Reduce congestion
  • Enhance safety
  • Enhance livability
  • Improve mobility
  • Improve operational efficiency
  • Environmental sustainability
Disadvantages:

  • Require enforcement
  • Require public and private-sector acceptance
  • High probability of unintended consequences
    • May create confusion among drivers
    • May impact logistics operations
  • May require additional incentives to receiver companies
Examples:

  • New York City, New York, United States (New York City 2012c)
Initiative-8 (1) image

Source: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute – CITE.

  •  San Francisco, California, United States (San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency 2013)
Initiative-8 (2) image
Source: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute – CITE.
Related alternatives: 1.Timesharing of Parking Spaces; 2. Upgrade Parking Areas and Loading Docks; 3. Parking Pricing; 4. Time-Slotting of Pick-Ups and Deliveries at Large-Traffic Generators
References: BESTUFS 2007; Cambridge Systematics 2007; Jones et al. 2009; New York City Department of Transportation 2009; San Francisco County Transportation Authority 2009; New York City Department of Transportation 2012; The City of New York 2012; San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency 2013

Printer Friendly Version

Previous   Home      Next    

1554 Total Views 1 Views Today