Residential parking: give up giving in

People are very good at parking where they want to, whatever 'the plan' intended

Last month I promised (indeed warned or threatened, depending on your point of view) that some further thoughts of mine concerning parking issues would be on their way in due course and I've decided to waste no further time in making good on that commitment.

My interest in exploring some of the urban design aspects of parking provision is largely driven by my experience over the past couple of years while working on two large housing regeneration projects.

Put simply, residential parking's a pig - and, yes, you may quote me on that. Somewhere out there the rather quaint phrase 'parking standards' still survives - but the more I've looked the less I've found in terms of standardised practices.

About the only thing I can count on finding is a disheartening mix of apprehension and confusion. This is by no means to say that there aren't plenty of good transport professionals out there who are clear about they want to achieve, and why.

But the ability of these fine folk to do what they want is often badly constrained by the Political (elected members) and political (punters) climate in which they operate.

Take the matter of residential parking standards themselves. (Incidentally, I think we ought really to refer to 'parking levels' instead but I won't go into that right now.) Even as generally understood the concept, especially when prefixed with the word 'maximum', seems currently to be in disarray. Some brave souls continue to see and apply maximum parking standards as part of the toolkit designed to encourage people to travel more sensibly (or 'sustainably', if you prefer). Others have, quite frankly, given up.

Normally this is simply because they're tired of trying to stand like Canute in front of the tide (or should that be backwash?) of members' and so-called popular opinion that doesn't bother itself with the practical and environmental ramifications of supplying parking to match more-or-less unfettered demand. At this point, let us reminding ourselves of the insight of John Norquist, the one-time mayor of Milwaukee, who observed that: 'It appears that the chief purpose of human endeavour is to park.'

Some authorities have yet to change their age-old parking standards from minima to maxima. But these guys are probably feeling pretty smug right now, as many of those who previously did what they were told to appear to be regretting their hastiness in doing so. The latter have started fudging their maximum standards, commonly in one of two ways. The first is to cite the top end of the range (ie the largest number of spaces) as THE standard.

The second involves what is known technically as 'a complete bottle job': namely, defaulting to the contents of Annex D to PPG13. This contains general standards, casually omits residential parking altogether and is national guidance that was never intended to be regurgitated verbatim by local authorities. In other words, it ain't fit for the purpose.

But the matter of what the residential parking standards are and how they're applied only addresses the first of four tricky questions that I think need to be answered in order to inform designs for new housing that put the parking in the right place. These questions are: (a) how much parking is to be provided? (b) where should the parking go? (c) what specific parking design challenges are there? and (d) how should the parking be managed?

Although I may seem already to have said enough about (a), I haven't mentioned the allocated vs unallocated debate or the differing views on provision for visitors, both of which matters tend to make getting a definitive answer to the question yet more tricky. As for question (b), the answers include such considerations as on- or off-plot, off- or on-street and surface, undercroft, underground or above-ground multi-storey.

There are often complex calculations related to cost at the heart of these decisions but not just of the 'cost of a space' variety. Structured parking is more costly per space to construct than open surface parking, of course, but in some areas land values may justify the former because the latter neutralises land that could otherwise be used for more units (ie more revenue).

The answers to question (c) are close related to those for question (b) and, indeed, for (d). In practice, several design iterations may be required to get the best deal overall. Any structured parking that has a street-level façade will create significant challenges concerning how to make the street attractive and safe, considerations of active frontages and passive surveillance coming into play.

Decisions to put parking at surface level risk the creation of either the dreaded 'sea of parking' that dominates the local built environment or obstacle courses that make getting to front doors too much of a trial. At heart, the design challenge is to ensure that the numbers of cars you're designing for will (and can only) actually park where they're supposed to. People are very good at parking where they want to, whatever 'the plan' intended. If there's a mis-match, chaos will almost certainly ensue.

As for (d), my experiences in relation to management cover new and extended CPZs, debates about who can and can't have a permit, the designation of different bays, the fine print of the difference between 'on-street' and 'on the public highway', the provision of 'private' areas of parking within the 'public' realm and the maintenance of the latter. These can be a real pain in the neck or good, clean fun, depending on how sad - sorry, committed - you are.

'Some brave souls continue to see and apply maximum parking standards as part of the toolkit designed to encourage people to travel more sensibly... Others have, quite frankly, given up'

I stick to my view that residential parking is a pig but that's really just another way of saying it's a proper challenge. I enjoy such things and, on the whole, I'm very glad to have learned what I have in recent times. There are almost no easy answers to residential parking but, as usual, I continue to urge you to struggle for the outcomes you want to achieve. You'll face opposition but, please, neither give up nor bottle out.