Home › Private: Improving Freight System Performance in Metropolitan Areas: Planning Guide › Section 2 › Pricing, Incentives, and Taxation › Initiative 30: Parking Pricing

Initiative 30: Parking Pricing

Parking Pricing
Description: Charging for the use of curb-space, some based on fixed rates, while others involve variable or differentiated pricing schemes.
Targeted mode: All traffic, large traffic Geographic scope: City, area
Type of initiative: Pricing, Incentives and Taxation: Parking Pricing Primary objective: Reduce congestion 
Expected costs and level of effort to implement: Stakeholder engagement should play a part in the planning process, to analyze potential impacts in and out of the target area. To avoid overpricing large trucks, the differences between truck types should be considered.. These pricing strategies are effective when implemented as part of a group of strategies (e.g., to finance freight-related programs, to foster the use of environmental friendly vehicles).
Advantages:

  • Revenue generation: finance construction and maintenance of parking facilities
  • Enhance livability: protect historical areas
  • Reduce parking dwell times
  • If implemented as part of a broader parking program:
    • Reduce congestion
    • Environmental sustainability
    • Increase efficiency
    • Improve reliability
 Disadvantages:

  • Limited effectiveness as a freight demand management tool
  • Difficult to define the optimal charge  
  • Increase operational costs: operational constraints often result in parking violations
  • May not induce a shift to alternative modes: lack of alternative modes in the US
  • Require large curb-space to be allocated for freight vehicles
  • Potential for unintended consequences:
    • Increase congestion
Examples:

  • Copenhagen , Denmark: differential parking
  • Park Smart Program in New York City New York, US.
Related alternatives: 1. Freight Parking and Loading Zones; 2. Loading and Parking Restrictions; 3. Vehicle Parking Reservation Systems
References: City Ports 2005; Cambridge Systematics 2007; Holguín-Veras et al. 2007; Holguín-Veras et al. 2008b; PIARC 2011; Jaller et al. 2012

Printer Friendly Version

Previous   Home      Next    

2847 Total Views 1 Views Today