Costcase_342-18-ch

European Co-operation in the Field of Scientific and

Technical Research

COST 342/18/CH

COST Secretariat

30 May 2001

Management Committee COST 342

Parking Policy Measures and their Effects on Mobility and the Economy

Subject: Swiss Case Studies

COST 342/18/CH

COST 342/18/CH: Overview 2

A Overview

A Overview 2

B Contents 3

C Introduction 9

D Case Study 1: Parking Policy of the city of Bern 10

E Case Study 2: Parking Fee Policy of the city of Zurich 45

F Case Study 3: New Access Contingent Model (Fahrtenbegrenzungsmodell) in the Zurich North Development Area 74

G Case Study 4: Parking Policy in the canton of Thurgau 78

H Case Study 5: Parking Policy for Leisure Traffic 101

COST 342/18/CH: Contents 3

B Contents

A Overview 2

B Contents 3

C Introduction 9

D Case Study 1: Parking Policy of the city of Bern 10

1 Introduction 10

2 Local Context 11

2.1 Historical background 11

2.2 Main pillars of Bern’s transport policy: Public transport and parking policy 14 2.2.1 Public Transport 14 2.2.2 Parking Policy 15

2.3 Transport policy: Problem perception and acceptance 15

3 Local Situation 16

3.1 The city of Bern: the historic capital of Switzerland 16

3.2 The region of Bern: structural data and commuter analysis 16

3.3 Transport system 20 3.3.1 Road Network 20 3.3.2 Public transport means 21

3.4 Traffic in the city and region of Bern 21 3.4.1 Car-ownership 21 3.4.2 Transport demand 22

a) Modal Split 22 b) Traffic volume 23

4 Parking policy in the urban area of Bern 24

4.1 Overview 24

4.2 Public parking spaces in central districts 25 a) Parking fees 25 b) Reduction of the number of public parking places provided 26 c) Parking time limitations 27 d) Traffic management system 27


4.3 Parking spaces for visitors of large events 28

4.4 Public parking space in residential areas 29

4.5 Park and Ride facilities 29

4.6 Parking space of public administration 31

4.7 Parking space of private firms 31

5 Impact of the strategy 34

5.1 Introduction 34

5.2 Impact on traffic volume and modal split 35

5.3 Impact on the environment 38

5.4 Impact on the local economy 38 a) Commuter traffic 39 b) Shoppers and visitors 39

5.5 Costs and revenues of the different policy measures 41 a) Parking fees on public parking spaces in central districts and for visitors of

large events 41 b) Blue Zones with park cards for residents 42 c) P+R facilities 42

6 Summary 42

7 References 43

E Case Study 2: Parking Fee Policy of the city of Zurich 45

1 Introduction 45

2 The city of Zurich 46

2.1 Geography 46

2.2 Inhabitants 46

2.3 Politics 46

2.4 Economy 47

2.5 Function 47 2.5.1 City 47 2.5.2 City centre 47

2.6 Mode of Transport 48 2.6.1 Trams and Busses 48 2.6.2 Trains 48 2.6.3 Airport 49 2.6.4 Motor vehicles 49 2.6.5 Bike and Pedestrian Areas 49

2.7 General Traffic Policy of the City of Zurich 50 2.7.1 Transport Demand Policies 50


2.7.2 Network Policies 50 2.7.3 Political acceptance of traffic reduction 51

2.8 Parking Policy 52 2.8.1 Private parking spaces 52 2.8.2 Public parking spaces 53

a) City centre 53 b) Living areas 53

2.9 Analysis of Statistical Data 54 2.9.1 Number of Inhabitants 54 2.9.2 Age structure 54 2.9.3 Working population 55 2.9.4 Car ownership 56

3 Measures Implemented: Rise of the parking fees 57

3.1 Measure 57

3.2 The Media Analysis 58 3.2.1 Preparatory / decision making phase 58

a) Arguments of the supporters 59 b) Arguments of the opponents 59 c) Legal view 60

3.2.2 Pre-implementation phase 60 3.2.3 Post-Implementation phase 61

3.3 Parking Space Survey 61

3.4 Results of the Survey of the TA-Media about the Shopping Frequency in the City of Zurich 65

3.5 Interviews with Representatives of Shop Owners and Inhabitants 66 3.5.1 Robert Ober - President of the "City-Vereinigung" 66 3.5.2 Martin Brogli - President of the "Quartierverein Zürich 1 rechts der

Limmat" 66 3.5.3 Madeleine Bächler - President of the "Rennweg-Quartierverein" 66

3.6 Questionnaire to the Shop Owners 67

4 Results 67

4.1 Effects on Mobility 67 4.1.1 Effect on the whole traffic volume 67 4.1.2 Effect on the utilization of the parking spaces 68 4.1.3 Other reasons for the change in the utilization of the parking spaces 68

a) Prolongation of the opening hours of the shops in the city centre 1998 69 b) Parking space survey 2000 in June instead of March 69 c) Amelioration of the public transport system 69 d) Increased preference to shop in the shopping centres outside of town 70 e) More parking in parking garages 70 f) Blue zone 70 g) Shorter use of parking spaces 70 h) Prices of public / motorized individual transportation 71 i) Rise of the parking fines 1996 71

4.2 Effects on the Economy 72

4.3 Conclusion 72


5 Contacts - Bibliography 72

5.1 Contacts 72

5.2 Bibliography 73

F Case Study 3: New Access Contingent Model (Fahrtenbegrenzungsmodell) in the Zurich North Development Area 74

1 The development project for "Zurich North" 74

2 Innovation with regard to parking in Area D 75

3 The policy behind it - and the details 76

4 Organization 77

5 Overall assessment: A win-win model 77

G Case Study 4: Parking Policy in the canton of Thurgau 78

1 Introduction 78

2 Local Situation 79

2.1 Central Administration 79 2.1.1 Characteristics 79 2.1.2 Parking levy 79

2.2 Cantonal Hospital, Frauenfeld 79 2.2.1 Characteristics 79 2.2.2 Parking levy 79

2.3 Cantonal Hospital, Münsterlingen 80 2.3.1 Characteristics 80 2.3.2 Parking levy 80

3 Survey method 80

3.1 Employees 80

3.2 Visitors of hospitals 81

4 Survey results 81

4.1 Employees of the Central Administration 81 4.1.1 Present travel behaviour 82

a) Modal split 82 b) Car users 82 c) Non-car users 83

4.1.2 Effect of parking levies on travel behaviour 84 4.1.3 Stated response to an abolition of parking levies 85


4.2 Employees of Hospital in Frauenfeld 86 4.2.1 Present travel behaviour 86


4.2.2 Hospital in Frauenfeld; Effect of parking levy on travel behaviour 88 4.2.3 Hospital in Frauenfeld; Stated response to an abolition of parking levies 89

4.3 Employees of Hospital in Münsterlingen 90 4.3.1 Present travel behaviour 91


4.3.2 Hospital in Münsterlingen; Effect of present parking levy on travel behaviour 92

4.3.3 Hospital in Münsterlingen; Stated response to a doubling of parking levies 93

4.4 Visitors of the hospital in Frauenfeld 94 4.4.1 Mode of travel 94 4.4.2 Influence of parking fees on travel behaviour 94

a) Assessment of parking fee 94 b) Trade-off between parking fee and access distance 94 c) Stated response to a doubling of the parking fee 95

4.5 Visitors of the hospital in Münsterlingen 95 4.5.1 Mode of travel 95 4.5.2 Influence of parking fees on travel behaviour 95

a) Assessment of parking fee 95 b) Trade-off between parking fee and access distance 95 c) Stated response to a doubling of the parking fee 96

5 Summary and Conclusions 96

5.1 Employees of central Administration and of hospitals 96

5.2 Hospital visitors 96

5.3 Conclusions 97

H Case Study 5: Parking Policy for Leisure Traffic 101

1 Local Context 101

2 Interregional Situation 102

2.1 Case Studies: Adelboden – Saanenmöser 102

2.2 The players: their interests and objectives 103

2.3 Parking facilities - Fees 104

3 Measures implemented – future measures: ex ante analysis 105

3.1 Drivers' awareness of special public transport offers 105

3.2 Parking fees at cableway stations: responses to the survey 105


3.3 Attitudes and behaviour of transport operators 106 3.3.1 Transport operators in Saanenmöser (SnowParadise) 106 3.3.2 Transport operators in Adelboden 107

3.4 Costing parking places 107 3.4.1 Parking place costs depend on a number of factors 108 3.4.2 Open air car parks in mountain regions are cost-effective 108 3.4.3 No cross-subsidies for private motor vehicles through free parking 109 3.4.4 Uncovered costs for multi-storey car parks in Lauterbrunnen and

Beatenberg 109 3.4.5 Inclusion of external costs – disfiguring the landscape: yes, traffic costs:

no 109

4 Conclusion: parking fees should be introduced as an instrument with limited scope 110

5 References 111

COST 342/18/CH: Introduction 9

C Introduction As in many other European countries, parking policy in Switzerland is subject to change: In the 1960s and 70s the main goal of parking policy was to provide a sufficient amount of parking space to meet the rising demand. Environmental damages, congestion and the growing scarcity of open space have led to a rethink in recent years. Starting from the latest findings that the amount of free parking places is a main determinant for road traffic, experts now propose reductions of available parking places and improved parking management as appropriate measures in order to slow down traffic growth. The following five case studies all deal with different innovative approaches to parking policy issues in different regions and set-ups in Switzerland. The effects of such parking policy measures on mobility and the economy are taken into consideration as far as possible. Case study 1 (Parking policy of the city of Bern) will discuss the parking policy of the city of Bern as a whole, thereby presenting the different measures taken, imbedding them in the whole transport policy of the city, and assessing as far as possible the impacts on traffic volume and modal split, on the environment as well as on the local economy. Case study 2 (Parking fee policy of the city of Zurich) focuses on the parking fee policy of the city of Zurich. The measure focused on in this case study is the rise of parking fees in Zurich’s city centre in 1994. The measure itself will be described in detail, as well as the causes that led to this measure. Political targets, public acceptance and its effects on traffic plans and other political actions will be discussed. The case study provides information on the impact on mobility (modal split and traffic volume) and local economy caused by the parking fee measure. In case study 3 (New access contingent model in the Zurich North development area), an innovative approach for parking regulations concerning large new development areas is discussed. Instead of fixing a minimum or maximum number of parking lots, a maximum number of accesses to the whole area is defined. This approach allows the landowner to regulate the use of the parking lots directly with the companies or inhabitants who settle in the area. Since this area is still under construction, no ex-post analysis can be given at the moment. Case study 4 (Parking policy in the canton of Thurgau) deals with the recent introduction of parking fees for all governmental facilities (administration, hospitals, colleges, museums etc.) in this rural canton. In this case study the effects on travel behaviour (mode choice, number of trips, duration of stay etc.) of employees and visitors are examined. In Case study 5 (Parking policy for leisure traffic), the author examines the state-of-the-art and future possibilities of parking policy measures in Swiss winter sports resorts. Due to the large amount of motorized individual transport involved, day-trippers generate a number of negative side effects. The study presents several approaches of parking policy measures that should help to shift leisure traffic from private motor to public transport. Interviews with tourists and operators give an idea of expected changes in behaviour as a reaction to these measures.

COST 342/18/CH: Case Study 1: Parking Policy of the city of Bern 10

D Case Study 1: Parking Policy of the city of Bern

René Neuenschwander, Silvia Strub, David Kramer ECOPLAN Economic and Environmental Studies Thunstr. 22, CH-3005 Bern Tel. +41.31.356.61.61 Fax. +41.31.356.61.60 www.ecoplan.ch 24 October 2000

1 Introduction The present case study deals with the parking policy of the city of Bern and its agglomeration, the region of Bern. Thereby, different measures taken are discussed, imbedding them into the whole transport policy of the city. As far as possible, emerging impacts of this policy on mobility and the economy are assessed. The main topic of Chapter 2 is a brief introduction into the local context, including a short review of the historical background and the 1995 ”Traffic Concept” of the city of Bern. Furthermore, the main pillars of Bern’s transport policy, the public transport and parking policy system, as well as problem perception and acceptance of transport policy are presented in this chapter. Chapter 3 summarises the local situation of Bern and its surrounding municipalities, including a map of the region of Bern (city and agglomeration) and a description of the overall transport system (all means of transport). The most relevant socio-economic figures are described and data on commuter flows, car-ownership and transport demand are provided. The main topic of chapter 4 is a detailed description of parking policy measures implemented in Bern. In Chapter 5, the impacts of the presented measures on traffic volume and modal split, on the environment as well as the local economy will be assessed as far as possible. Furthermore, costs and revenues of these measures and their acceptance will be discussed. The present case study ends with a short summary in chapter 6.


2 Local Context

2.1 Historical background In the last decades, Bern experienced - just as many other urban areas - a transformation of transport planning principles. Up to the seventies, the transport planning process was mostly demand oriented. If there was a bottleneck one tried to enhance the capacity. Limiting factor of this strategy were the financial means available as well as limited space in cities. This demand-oriented strategy initiated some kind of vicious circle: With improved transport infrastructure, distances travelled between home, work and leisure activities increases. As a consequence, traffic volumes rise, noise and air pollution turn into serious problems, especially in cities. Due to the decreasing quality of life, the incentive to move out of the city is strengthened. This sub-urbanisation process was quite strong in Bern: Between 1970 and 1990 the population of Bern dropped from 160'000 to 135'000 residents. During the same period of time the number of places of work increased from 118'000 to 126'000 and the number of people commuting from suburbs to the city increased from about 40'000 to 60'000. In his traffic concept of 1983, the government of the city of Bern introduced new transport planning principles.(1) They did not ask for more road capacity but for a reduction of harmful traffic impacts. The new objectives were:

• to promote public transport with the objective of encouraging as many drivers as possible to switch to public transport means

• to channel motorised traffic into the main road network in order to bypass residential areas

• to calm and reduce traffic in residential areas

• to set up new park and ride (P+R) facilities at the periphery of Bern and in the region, accompanied by a strict control of inner city parking rules.

Seven years later, in 1990, the majority of the people entitled to vote accepted an initiative demanding more restrictive parking policy measures in order to reduce the flow of car commuters entering the city each day. The main parking regulations demanded by the initiative were as follows:

• New multi-storey car parks must not be built in or close to the city centre. Possible locations on the outskirts of the settlement area or at motorway exits must be well opened up by public transport. Furthermore, builders of new multi-storey car parks must provide evidence that a similar number of existing parking spaces is removed in the city centre.

• According to the state building act the provision of a minimum number of parking spaces must be planned to get the building permission for a building project. The initiative intended to set maximum limits for new parking spaces in areas that are well opened up by public transport and where the air quality would be jeopardised by any higher car traffic

1 See Gemeinderat der Stadt Bern (1993), Kurzbericht zur Parkraumplanung der Stadt Bern, as well as Hoppe

K. und Spacek P. (1983), Umwelt, Stadt und Verkehr.


volume. An example: The state building act demanded that an industrial group had to provide one parking space per 3 workplaces. The initiative wanted to change this requirement to a maximum limit of one parking space per 10 workplaces.

The initiative was launched by the social democratic party. Strong opposition came from representatives of the local economy and especially of the Chamber of Commerce and of the associations of retailers. In the years following this voting, both sides have launched new and - with regard to the content - contradictory initiatives. The main point of the controversy was always the number of public parking spaces in the city centre. In spring of 1994, an agreement to elaborate a "traffic-compromise" was eventually reached due to this unsatisfactory situation. Before the resulting compromise was finally reached in 1997, a traffic concept for the city of Bern was elaborated in 1995. The background of this concept is a spatial development concept (“Räumliches Stadtentwicklungskonzept Bern 1995”) passed by the government of the city of Bern (Gemeinderat). This concept comprises an urban planning concept (“Siedlungskonzept 1995”) and a traffic concept (“Verkehrskonzept 1995”). The latter includes objectives and measures for every mode of transport and differentiates between infrastructure and traffic management. The main objectives of the Traffic Concept 1995 are as follows:

• to improve the quality of life and the environment

• to keep the operational functionality of the overall transport system intact

• to increase safety and efficiency

• to maintain urbanity Starting from these general goals, specific objectives for public transport, motorised private road transport (including parking), bicycle and walking policies were formulated.2 The main objectives for motorised road transport were:

• to define a hierarchically structured road network and to assign a traffic regime in order to reduce motorised road traffic

• to introduce a traffic management system in order to influence road traffic flows

• to get transport more constant in order to reduce air pollution and energy use As mentioned above, a "traffic-compromise" was eventually reached in 1997. Its essence was that the overall number of public parking spaces should remain unchanged, whereas in the old part of town, public parking spaces above ground were to be reduced. At the same time, the capacity of multi-storey car parks was planned to be increased. Despite this “historic compromise”, debates about parking policy in Bern have not stopped ever since. It was, however, not the local politicians but cantonal regulations that brought down the compromise when at the end of 1999 the government enacted new parking regulations for the canton of Bern. These regulations have come into effect in March 2000 and they state that regulations of municipalities that are stricter than the cantonal ones – such

2 For a description of objectives and measures for public transport, bicycle and walking see also Gemeinderat

der Stadt Bern (1995), Räumliches Stadtentwicklungskonzept, Verkehrskonzept.


as the ones in the city of Bern - will cease to be valid after a transitional period of three years.(3) Today, the urban transport policy in Bern is not only concerned with financial and space limits. It is also faced with the challenge to keep up to the standards of air quality and noise levels which were set by federal law. The “Traffic Concept” of 1995 was an attempt to meet these requirements and indicated ways how to realise the objectives mentioned above.

Excursus: The action plans on clean air, 1985 and 2000: (4)

The action plan of 1985: In the act on air pollution of 1985 the national government charged the cantonal authorities to elaborate air pollution action plans for areas not meeting national air quality targets for different air pollutants (e.g. NOx, ozone, SO2). Seven years later the air pollution action plan

(APAP) for the urban area of Bern(5) was published.

As the emissions of transport are a major source of air pollution the APAP named a large number of policy measures concerning car and heavy vehicle traffic. Parking policy and technical measures were the dominant instruments to reduce exhaust emissions from private car traffic. The reduction targets of the air pollution plan were ambitious: NOx emissions of transport were to be reduced by 60% until

the year 2005.(6) The same reduction target was applied to the emissions of volatile organic

compounds (VOC).(7) Today, the APAP is the most important base of parking policy in the urban area of Bern. Most of the policy measures described in the forthcoming sections are part of it. A new action plan on clean air is actually being in the development stage (see the following paragraph

The action plan of 2000: Experiences from the execution of measures implemented by the previous action plan on clean air in Bern have shown that while technical measures in heating, industry and automobile technology had been successful to help reduce air pollution and energy consumption, these improvements had been lowered by the ongoing growth of traffic volume and energy consumption. Although this problem had been known before, the necessary steps to implement the corresponding measures accordingly had not been undertaken in a sufficient way so far. The new Action Plan on clean air of May 2000 is an attempt to implement an overall approach by not only concentrating on those areas which suffer from bad air quality (Massnahmenplangebiete) as before, but by extending the measures on the whole Canton of Bern. Furthermore the new action plan provides for an improved co-ordination of clean air policy with land use planning by adjusting the planning horizon to 15 years.

To implement the new overall approach and the improved co-ordination with land use planning, the new action plan provides for ”Road performance models”, as they have already been applied for the

3 Amt für Gemeinden und Raumordnung (2000), Leitfaden für Abstellplätze. 4 Volkswirtschaftsdirektion des Kantons Bern (2000), Lufthygienischer Massnahmenplan für den Kanton Bern

(Vernehmlassungsentwurf). 5 See Volkswirtschaftsdirektion des Kantons Bern, Kantonales Amt für Industrie, Gewerbe und Arbeit (1992),

Massnahmenplan zur Luftreinhaltung in der Region Bern. 6 The reduction targets should have been attained by the year 1994 but no Swiss canton was capable to meet

this objective in time (see Volkswirtschaftsdirektion des Kantons Bern, Kantonales Amt für Industrie, Gewerbe und Arbeit (1992), Massnahmenplan zur Luftreinhaltung in der Region Bern, Schlussbericht: Allgemeiner Teil, p. 9).


region of Bern and the region of Thun: According to the cantonal “balance of emissions” of 1995, road performance of motorised passenger traffic (measured as daily vehicle kilometres) may not rise by more than 8% on average from 2000 to 2015 to meet the aims of the policies on clean air and climate

protection.(8) The biggest share of this growth potential is to be used by the cities and agglomerations (max. 11% compared to 8% on average growth). In the region of Thun for example, five municipalities have developed such a regional road performance model: 40% of the additional road performance are allocated to the actual locations with big traffic volumes, the rest should apply to the whole region. The planning authorities welcome the new gained flexibility - but no one knows how to control “road performance”! On that score, this new concept thus means a loosening of the previous policy.

Furthermore, since the limitation of the maximum number of parking places allowed was heavily opposed by pressure groups of trade and industry, this regulation has been replaced in the new cantonal Construction Decree (enacted in March 2000) by a range of the number of allowed parking places. This maximal allowed number is no longer determined by the accessibility of the location by

public transport means, but by the will of the investors.(9)

Since in Switzerland, parking management is mostly a matter of the municipalities (and not of the cantons), measures may vary within an agglomeration that contains several municipalities and drivers can evade them by stationing their car in the streets of a neighbouring community with unmanaged

parking places. The Canton of Bern’s new Action Plan on clean air(10) therefore provides for implementing an area-wide parking management across political boundaries: municipalities and communities within one regional centre or agglomeration will have to work out parking master plans

jointly by 2003.

The aims for public transport and parking policy, the main pillars of today’s transport policy in Bern, are presented in the following chapter.

2.2 Main pillars of Bern’s transport policy: Public transport and parking policy

2.2.1 Public Transport The guiding principle of Bern’s transport policy is “to promote traffic adapted to the city rather than to adapt the city to traffic”.11 Thereby, the first and most essential element of Bern’s urban traffic planning is public transportation. The city and region of Bern have an intricate network of tramway, bus, trolley bus, light rail transit and urban railway lines. Almost all of these lines feed directly into the city centre and offer frequent services. Not

7 84% of the whole NOx emissions in the urban area of Bern are emitted by transport. In the case of VOC the

share of transport amounts to 21%. 8 This number takes into account the rehabilitation requirements on the different polluting substances on the

one hand, as well as the most recent forecasts on improvements in engine technologies on the other hand. 9 Amt für Gemeinden und Raumordnung (2000), Abstellplätze für Fahrzeuge. 10 Volkswirtschaftsdirektion des Kantons Bern (2000), Lufthygienischer Massnahmenplan für den Kanton Bern

(Vernehmlassungsentwurf), Massnahme P3. 11 Hoppe K. (undated), The importance of Public Transport in a Strongly Ecological Orientated Traffic Policy:

The Case of Berne.


surprisingly, the SESAME project of the EU shows that Bern has - together with Zurich and Barcelona - the highest modal share of public transport regarding trips to the city centre. The advantages offered by public transportation - a well-developed system, frequent services, excellent rolling stock - are complemented by effective promotional measures, and an integrated regional fare system. P+R facilities at rail terminals located throughout the region or at bus or tramway stops situated at the periphery encourage motorists not to drive into the very centre of the city.

2.2.2 Parking Policy Bern has an active and well-documented parking policy strategy, which will be discussed extensively in chapter 4).12 It can be considered as an outstanding example of a comprehensive policy strategy as it comprises many types of possible parking policy measures. As far as parking policy is concerned, the general guiding principles formulated in the 1995 traffic concept are as follows:

• to restrict the quantity of provided public and private parking spaces in order to reduce car use selectively

• to follow a parking fee strategy in order to reduce motorised private transport and to promote the switch to public transport and the use of bicycles instead.

2.3 Transport policy: Problem perception and acceptance In 1996, the inhabitants of the city of Bern were questioned about their perception of traffic problems.13 Some of the results are as follows:

• The most important problem for pedestrians are noise and air pollution. 50% of the pedestrians estimate this problem to be “rather big” or “very big”.

• Around 60% of questioned cyclists judge the following items as “rather big” or “very big” problem: noise and air pollution, missing bicycle lanes, accident risk and fear of theft.

• The most important problem for users of public transport are the fares. 60% of all questioned public transport users estimate this problem to be “rather big” or “very big”.

• 60% of all questioned motorists judge missing parking spaces as a “rather big” or “very big” problem and 50% of them say the same is true for parking fees.

• Asked about problems in the residential area, 50% of questioned residents estimate the problem of air pollution as “rather big” or “very big”, 40% have the same judgement about noise annoyance and about the missing room to move because of road traffic.

12 See ECOPLAN (1994), Parking policy, ECOPLAN (1997), Kombiniertes Road Pricing- /

Parkplatzabgaben-System für die Stadt Bern. 13 See Amt für Statistik der Stadt Bern (1997), Stadt Bern: Einwohnerbefragung 1996.


3 Local Situation

3.1 The city of Bern: the historic capital of Switzerland The city of Bern was founded in 1191 by Berchtold V, Duke of Zähringen(14), and became the eighth member of the Swiss Federation in 1353. Between the 14th and 16th centuries it reached the zenith of its power by enlarging its territory and gaining great political influence. 1798 saw the invasion of French troops and the collapse of the Ancien Régime of Bern. In 1803 the city became the capital of the canton of Bern, in 1848 federal capital of Switzerland. As the capital of Switzerland, Bern is the seat of the diplomatic corps and international organisations including the Universal Postal Union (a specialised agency of the United Nations). Thanks to its largely preserved medieval architecture, Bern has been listed as a UNESCO World Heritage. Bern has excellent air, rail and road connections to both the rest of Switzerland and Europe (see section 3.2 for details). Furthermore, there are lots of shopping and entertainment facilities as well as theatres, cinemas, a varied music scene, museums, exhibitions, sports events etc. attracting domestic visitors as well as tourists from all around the world. This holds particularly for the picturesque old part of town.

3.2 The region of Bern: structural data and commuter analysis The region of Bern is composed of 35 municipalities (see figure 3-1). About 328'000 residents live in this area and more than 200'000 persons work in it. The city of Bern counts 136’0000 inhabitants. More than 140’000, i.e. two out of three jobs are located in the city. Another 33’000 are concentrated in Ittigen, Köniz, Muri, Ostermundigen and Zollikofen, which form - together with the city - the central municipalities of Bern.(15) The other municipalities are of more or less rural character.

14 The Zähringers came from a Swabian family of noble descent, rulers of the dukedom of Breisgau (now the German

region north of the Rhine bordering Switzerland). The German Emperor appointed them Chancellors of Burgundy (roughly present-day Burgundy in France as well as the territory west of the River Aare in today's French-speaking Switzerland). As chancellors they were entrusted with representing the Emperor and protecting his interests against rebellious nobles, as well as ensuring safe access to the strategically important alpine passes in the Burgundy region, which were vital to the Emperor's rule over north and south, running as they did from present-day Germany to present-day Italy.

15 Most of the parking policy measures described in this report refer to these five municipalities and the city of Bern, the so-called "Zentrumsgemeinden" (= central municipalities).


Figure 3-1: The urban region of Bern(16)

Mühleberg

W ohlen

Meikirch

Frauenkappelen

Bern

Köniz

Neuenegg

W ünnewil-Flam att

Oberbalm

Zim m erwald

Englis-berg

Belp

Münsingen

Trim -steinRubigen

W orb

Vechigen

Muri

All-m en-dingen

Oster-m undigen Stettlen

BolligenIttigenBrem-garten

Zollikofen

M ünchen-buchsee

Diem ers-w il

M ünchen-buchsee

M oos-see-dorf

Bäris-w il

M att-stetten

Zuzw ilJegens-torf

Urtenen

Kehr-satz

Subregion"Agglo West"

Subregion"Agglo South"

Subregion"Aare Valley"

Subregion"Worblen Valley"

Subregion"Agglo North"

City of Bern

Inner ring of urban areaOuter ring of urban area

The structural data of the urban area of Bern are summarised in the following table 3-2. For each corridor and its respective municipalities given in figure 3-1, the surface as well as the number of inhabitants and workplaces is given. The analysis underlying these findings stem from the European research project PRIMA on pricing measures acceptance. Due to the high concentration of jobs in the city, commuter traffic into the city centre has increased considerably in the past decades. Between 1960 and 1990 the number of people living outside but working within the city of Bern has increased by about 300%. In 1990 almost 80'000 commuter trips to the city of Bern were undertaken each day. The largest part of these trips is undertaken by public transport means (see figure 3-3).

16 European research project PRIMA on pricing measures acceptance, Workpackage 1, City characteristics,

Annex.


Table 3-2: Urban area of Bern: surface, inhabitants and number of workplaces per municipality and corridors (1990)

Inhabitants

surface (ha) 0-14 15-64 65+ total employment

Berne 5'161 14'161 93'751 28'426 136'338 143'774

Corridor "Worblen Valley" Inhabitants


Bolligen 1'657 1'174 4'475 691 6'340 1'343Ittigen 420 1'909 8'295 1177 11'381 4'555Ostermundigen 596 2'564 12'348 1792 16'704 4'724Stettlen 352 577 1'952 215 2'744 659Vechigen 2'482 769 2'867 604 4'240 736Worb 2'110 2'240 8'146 1218 11'604 2'805total 7'617 9'233 38'083 5'697 53'013 14'822

Corridor "Aare Valley" Inhabitants


Muri 763 1'938 8'495 2247 12'680 5'611Rubigen 693 401 1'518 248 2'167 677Allmendingen 380 100 377 61 538 47Trimstein 363 86 325 53 464 74Münsingen 849 1'791 7'010 1300 10'101 4'883total 3'048 4'316 17'725 3'909 25'950 11'292

Corridor "Agglo South" Inhabitants


Kehrsatz 444 655 2'789 351 3'795 823Belp 1'759 1'455 5'780 869 8'104 3'249Englisberg 453 44 189 177 410 190Zimmerwald 895 188 601 143 932 190Köniz 5'098 5'747 25'654 5908 37'309 13'565Oberbalm 1'242 184 523 140 847 77total 9'891 8'273 35'536 7'588 51'397 18'094

Corrdor "Agglo West" Inhabitants


Wünnewil-Flamatt 1'322 757 2'998 456 4'211 n.a.Neuenegg 2'187 755 2'965 544 4'264 1'329Mühleberg 2'621 501 1'931 336 2'768 926Frauenkappelen 931 239 779 108 1'126 312Wohlen 3'633 1'809 6'239 955 9'003 1'270Meikirch 1'022 99 354 49 502 391Kirchlindach 1'197 442 1'912 274 2'628 528Bremgarten 191 660 2'606 476 3'742 431total 13'104 5'262 19'784 3'198 28'244 5'187

Corridor "Agglo North" Inhabitants


Jegenstorf 748 805 2'749 406 3'960 1'679Zuzwil 346 99 354 49 502 54Mattstetten 381 107 448 55 610 105Urtenen 718 1'020 3'761 427 5'208 1'986Bärsiwil 272 220 642 68 930 134Moosseedorf 634 687 2'585 222 3'494 3'906Münchenbuchsee 882 1'700 6'419 759 8'878 3'772Diemerswil 287 41 112 18 171 9Zollikofen 538 1'449 6'580 1213 9'242 4'242total 4'806 6'128 23'650 3'217 32'995 15'887

Summary Inhabitants


total Region Berne 43'627 47'373 228'529 52'035 327'937 209'056


Figure 3-3: Development and modal split of commuters (17)

0

20'0

00

40'0

00

60'0

00

80'0

00

100'

000

120'

000

140'

000

1960

1970

1980

1990

persons living andworking in the city ofBern

commuters fromoutside of the city ofBern

publictrans-port

privatecar

cycling walking

59%

37%

<1%3%

commuters to the city of Bern

From the PRIMA project, the share of commuters for inhabitants aged between 15 and 65 years is given in Figure 3-4. Figure 3-4: Commuters in % of inhabitants aged between 15 and 65 years

More details with reference to commuters from and to the city of Bern are available from corresponding surveys carried out periodically (Eidgenössische Pendlerstatistik). The

17 Eidgenössische Volkszählung 1960 - 1990, Auswertungen des Amtes für Statistik der Stadt Bern.

Mühleberg

W ohlen

M eikirch

Frauenkappelen

Bern

Köniz

Neuenegg

W ünnewil-F lam att

Oberbalm

Zim m erwald

Englis-berg

Belp

M ünsingen

Trim -steinRubigen

W orb

Vechigen

M uri

All-m en-dingen

Oster-m undigen Stettlen

BolligenIttigenBrem-garten

Zollikofen

München-buchsee

Diem ers-wil

M ünchen-buchsee

M oos-see-dorf

Bäris-w il

M att-stetten

ZuzwilJegens-torf

Urtenen

Kehr-satz

Subregion"Agglo West"

Subregion"Agglo South"

Subregion"Aare Valley"

Subregion"Worblen Valley"

Subregion"Agglo North"

40 - 50%

30 - 40%20 - 30%< 20%


responsible administration office of the city of Bern analysed these surveys in order to gain a detailed view of commuting in the urban area of Bern.(18)

3.3 Transport system 3.3.1 Road Network Due to its favourable geographic position on the main road axles crossing Switzerland, Bern is very well connected to both the rest of Switzerland and Europe. Bern, being an important motorway intersection point, has direct connections with the European E4 network. The yellow marked national highways lead from Bern to Zurich, Basel, Luzern and St. Gallen in the direction of Germany, Austria and Italy (north-east); to Biel in the direction of France (north-west), to Lausanne, Geneva in the direction of France (west), to Montreux, the Great St. Bernhard, Lausanne and Geneva in the direction of France and Italy (south-west) and to Thun, Interlaken and the Lötschberg/Simplon route in the direction of Italy (south). Figure 3-5: The road network of the region of Bern

18 Amt für Statistik der Stadt Bern (1990), Das PendlerInnenverhalten der Beschäftigten in der Stadt Bern 1980

und 1990 (Auswertung der eidgenössischen Pendlerstatistiken 1980 und 1990).


3.3.2 Public transport means The public transportation system of Bern can be divided into:

• The tram/bus/trolley system of the “Städtische Verkehrsbetriebe - SVB” of Bern.

• The urban railway lines (Berner S-Bahn) connecting the municipalities of the agglomeration with the city centre of Bern.

• Additional bus lines operated by the post connecting the small municipalities of the agglomeration with the city centre of Bern.

• The inter-city railway lines connecting Bern with other towns of Switzerland.

• Furthermore, direct connections with the international rail network are available: Bern is the only European capital with direct connections to four different high-speed trains (TGV to Paris; ICE to Frankfurt and Berlin; Pendolino-Cisalpino to Milan). Apart these connections, the following main connections can be named: TALGO to Barcelona; EURONIGHT to Rome and Firenze; TENDA to Ventimiglia and Turin; EC Albert Einstein to Vienna and Prague; EC Vauban to Brussels and Milan; EC Monteverdi to Venezia; EC Berner Oberland to Amsterdam and the EC Matterhorn to Mannheim.

• International connections are also offered from the airport Bern-Belp, with direct international flights to Amsterdam, Brussels, London, Munich, Vienna, Paris as well as domestic flights to Zurich, Basel and Geneva.

As the public transportation system in Bern is very well developed, it is not surprising that there are only a few projects in the field of public transport on the political agenda. The main issues are namely:

• the change of some lines of the SVB from trolley bus to tram. This is the case for the western lines 13 and 14 (project “Tram Bern West”) and also for the bus line number 10 connecting Bern with Ostermundigen

• the introduction of a more frequent service (every half an hour) for the urban railway lines.

3.4 Traffic in the city and region of Bern 3.4.1 Car-ownership The number of cars per 1’000 residents is shown in table 1 for the city and region of Bern in comparison over time and with the national average:


Table 3-6: Car-ownership in the city and region of Bern and in Switzerland(19)

Year City of Bern Region of Bern Switzerland

Number

of cars

Car-

ownersh

ip (per

1'000

residen

ts)

Number

of cars

Car-

ownersh

ip (per

1'000

residen

ts)

Number

of cars

Car-

ownersh

ip (per

1'000

residen

ts)

1960 16'560 102 - - - - 72'900 90 1970 33'220 204 59'930 206 201'700 221 1980 45'930 314 100'730 337 303'700 352 1990 48'180 359 117'020 388 383'100 440 1995 47'414 360 118'195 398 399'943 460

In the city of Bern, every third person owns a car, compared to almost every second in the national average. The table shows that the degree of motorization has not grown any further in the city of Bern in the beginning of the 1990ies in contrast to the region and the rest of the country.

In the city, one out of two households owns one or more cars, while this figure amounts to almost 80% if adopted to the whole region.(20)

3.4.2 Transport demand

a) Modal Split Most journeys in the city of Bern are undertaken on foot, followed by private motorised vehicles and public transport. Looking at these shares with respect to the distance covered, it is obvious that cars and motorbikes are used for long trips whereas short distances are covered on foot or by public transport means. It is not surprising that the same holds if the whole region of Bern is analysed. The share of private motorised vehicles is even higher as compared to the figures for the city. In table 3-7, the corresponding figures for different means of transport are given with respect to distances and journeys in the city and the region of Bern respectively.

19 Verkehrsinspektorat der Stadt Bern (1996), Verkehrserhebungen 1994/95 Stadt Bern, S. 9. 20 Finanzverwaltung/Statistikdienste der Stadt Bern (1998), Mikrozensus 1994 Verkehr.


Table 3-7: Modal split in the city and region of Bern(21) Share of means of transport, 1994, all day, people over 6 years by distance (in %) by journeys (in %)

City of Bern Region of Bern City of Bern Region of Bern

On foot

Bicycle/moped

Car/motorcycle

Rail

Bus/tram/post bus

Others

3.9

3.1

52.2

25.6

9

6.2

3.2

2.6

64.9

20.9

5.4

3.0

33.5

9.8

30.5

5.4

20.1

0.8

26.8

8.9

46.6

8.1

8.1

1.5

b) Traffic volume

The city of Bern experiences an average weekly private vehicle traffic volume of 12.5 million kilometres. Table 3-3 illustrates the distribution of traffic volume according to the purpose of the journey during low volume and peak times. 12% of private traffic kilometres in the city are driven in the morning peak hours, 18% in the evening peak hours. During the morning rush hour approximately 88% of private vehicle traffic is generated by commuters as opposed to 74% during the evening rush hour. Table 3-8 illustrates the time related traffic volume by purpose of the journey.

Table 3-8: Time related traffic volume by purpose of journey(22)

Low volume Morning Peak (6.45 - 8.15)

Evening Peak (16.30 - 18.30)

Commuters 50% 22% 28%

Leisure 88% 3% 9%

Shopping 89% 2% 9%

Tourism 86% 5% 9%

Total 70% 12% 18%

21 Finanzverwaltung/Statistikdienste der Stadt Bern (1998), Mikrozensus 1994 Verkehr. 22 Ecoplan (1997), Kombiniertes Road-Pricing- / Parkplatzabgaben-System für die Stadt Bern.


4 Parking policy in the urban area of Bern

4.1 Overview Figure 4-1: Parking policy measures in the urban area of Bern

Figure 4-1 summarises the parking policy measures in the urban area of Bern. The following characteristics of the parking strategy have to be emphasised:

• Public and private parking spaces are affected Parking concepts and strategies do often not cover the private sector though it is well

known that a large part of car trips - especially commuter and shopping traffic - ends on private car parks. Parking policy of the city of Bern contains instruments dealing with private parking spaces as well as with public ones.

• New and existing parking spaces Most instruments refer to existing car parks. The regulations in the parking policy decree

and the P+R concept apply particularly to planned parking spaces. • Different types of policy measures


The Bernese parking policy includes policy measures of all types, i.e. one can find quantity, time, price and user oriented policy measures.

The concrete features of the instruments shown in figure 4-1 will be discussed in the following sections.

4.2 Public parking spaces in central districts For central districts, different types of parking policy measures have been discussed for a long time. In the urban area of Bern the status of implementation is as follows:

a) Parking fees have been introduced in some parts of the urban area. b) The reduction of the number of existing parking spaces is a point of controversy, but

still in discussion. c) Many parking spaces have severe parking time limitations. d) Parts of an electronic traffic management system have successfully been installed.

a) Parking fees In Switzerland, parking fees on public parking spaces must be based on municipal acts. In the last years, most central municipalities of the urban area of Bern enacted such local acts allowing new or higher parking fees.(23) The introduction of these acts and the future parking fee policy has been subject to controversial discussions. Except of the city of Bern and one other municipality, parking fees in central districts have not been implemented so far. The city of Bern had to take the leadership by introducing a differentiated parking fee system with respect to the centrality of the corresponding parking spaces. During daytime, parking fees on public parking spaces add up to the following level (during the night

there are no fees at all):

• central business district (CBD): 2 CHF/h • other districts: 1 CHF/h Compared to private car parks, these are rather low prices: as it is known from economic theory prices should be differentiated according to their scarcity. In Bern's central business district (CBD), the scarcest parking spaces are the highly central outdoor spaces. They should have higher fees than the private multi-storey car parks. But the opposite is true: 5 out of 6 private multi-storey car parks in the city centre have prices of 2.80 to 3.20 CHF/h during the day. A comparison of fees between on- and off-street parking places in Bern thus shows that on-street parking is too cheap. At the beginning of the 1990ies, local authorities of the central municipalities ("Zentrumsgemeinden") agreed to introduce a spatially co-ordinated parking fee system in the urban area of Bern. Therefore and as a first step the city of Bern should have raised the

23 In Bern for example this act is called "Reglement über die Gebühren der Stadtpolizei" and in the last version

is dated from March 1993. A revised version has been passed by the city council in June 2000.


parking fees in the CBD to 4 CHF/h. Parking spaces in the suburban centres should have cost around 2 CHF/h and those of Park and Ride facilities at the most 1 CHF/h.(24) In the city of Bern, there was also some political pressure to raise the fees at least to a level that would cover the common costs of the car parks (i.e. land use, cost of building and of parking meters, variable cost such as controlling and cleaning). However, until to date, plans to introduce fees corresponding to market prices have been both heavily and effectively opposed by representatives of the local economy: In 1999, the green-left parties made provisions for a general raise of parking fees: in residential areas from CHF 1 to CHF 2 and in the city centre from CHF 2 per hour to CHF 3. Furthermore, it was proposed to apply the new fees in the city centre not only during the day, but also by night. Since exponents of the local business were opposed to these changes, a ”parking fee compromise” was eventually reached in 2000: Parking fees will only be raised in residential areas, and parking places in the city centre will as well be subject to the parking fee during the night (in contrast to other cities, such as Zurich). Exceptions are made for residents and hotel guests. Furthermore, the fee for park cards in so-called ”Blue zones” will be increased (see chapter 4. 4 for details).

External costs

A further element of parking fees could be an extra charge for external costs. In the beginning of the 1990ies, this argument appeared in discussions in Bern, but until today political will for an implementation of such an extra charge is not strong enough. Representatives of retailers and their organisations fear that this would induce car users to orient themselves away from the city centre towards the urban fringe shopping centre, although experience shows the contrary (see section 5.4).

b) Reduction of the number of public parking places provided The removal of existing public parking places is a very difficult task. In Bern, two main attempts to reduce the number of public parking places have been undertaken in recent years (see also section 2-1 of this case study):

• The Action Plan on Air Pollution of 1992 contained a concept to determine the number of existing parking spaces to be removed. However, the responsible authorities have not applied this concept. Main reason for the difficulties to realise the reduction concept are insufficient legal bases for such a venture, as well as missing political acceptance.

• In 1997, a ”Traffic Compromise” was accepted, stating that 154 public parking places above ground in the old part of the city shall be removed and replaced by parking places in subterranean car parks in order to realise the aim of a pedestrian-friendly city centre within the next three years. However, the implementation of the compromise is not an easy task: objection was raised against the projects for enlarging the existing subterranean car parks. As long as these projects are being blocked, no parking places above ground will be removed.

24 See KIGA (1993), Parkplatzmassnahmen Zentrumsgemeinden - Rahmenkonzept, p. 25.


c) Parking time limitations In the CBD of Bern, public parking places are subject to severe time restrictions in order to keep away car commuters from parking facilities in central zones and to reserve parking space for visitors of the city centre. Time restrictions vary between 15 minutes and 2 hours and depend on the level of the parking fees and on the centrality of the parking place. Many parking places in central streets have no fees but time restrictions of 30 or 60 minutes.

d) Traffic management system With the implementation of an Integral Traffic Management System (TMS), the city of Bern hopes to achieve the objectives of avoiding, shifting and guiding motorised traffic: It is the objective that with the TMS, traffic can be measured out at the outskirts of town already, residential areas can be protected from foreign commuters, traffic flows on the basis network can be maintained and parking places in the pedestrian areas of the CBD can be shifted to car parks.

Conceivable measures in this context are as follows:

• to extend the traffic control system on the whole basic road network and to give priority to public transport over private motorised traffic.

• to introduce a parking guiding system. • to introduce a system of so called “virtual entry gates” in order to optimise the network

capacity management. 25

• to realise a traffic management system on the motorways around and through Bern. • to introduce a road pricing system able to levy differentiated fees according to area, road,

time and level of congestion.

The state of implementation can be summarised as follows:

• The first area-wide parking guidance system of Switzerland was successfully installed in 1997 by private owners of the city car parks: the 2.5 million CHF project is financed by car users by an increase of parking fees in public car-parks by 0.10 CHF per hour. One year later, the car park owners were very happy with the resulting situation: more customers use the car parks (including the park and ride facilities at the outskirts) and revenues are higher than expected.

• The realisation of a comprehensive electronic traffic management system for the city of Bern would have amounted to CHF 3.7 million and was rejected by the city council

25 In peak periods private traffic is so heavy that it must be confined by means of virtual entry gates, to avoid

traffic congestion’s in the city centre. All “Traffic” signal-time plans are calculated based on those entry gates. These are strategically chosen points where signal timing are set in such a way that only as much private traffic is admitted into a certain area as can be managed successfully in the network. Public transport is not to be affected by these measures. Therefore separate bus lanes or separate tracks for trams are required on the approach of these entry gates.


(Stadtrat) in 1998. Main reasons stated by opponents were the high costs of the project as well as the risk of the system to be ineffective.

• The local authorities approved a slim version of the originally planned electronic TMS in February 2000 to solve Bern’s biggest traffic problems in the eastern part of town.

• Introduction of a road pricing scheme: without a given time schedule and milestones for the implementation of the urban road pricing scheme and given the not ending debates about traffic and parking policies, it is not surprising that this strategic goal has not been put in concrete terms until now.

4.3 Parking spaces for visitors of large events In Bern, as in other cities, large events often create congestion problems on the access roads. Events in the exhibition centres and sport events in the main stadium of Bern, both located very close to each other, are the main causes for traffic jams and the respective noise and air pollution. An improved public transport system is the perhaps most important instrument to prevent traffic jams caused by large public events. Free buses and trams (if you have an entry ticket to the respective event) and higher frequencies at peak loads were quite successful, but with the high quantity of free parking places available, it never turned out to be enough. Therefore, in 1994, parking fees were introduced around the exhibition centre. The fees amount to 5 CHF per half day and 10 CHF per day. Moreover, a new instrument to prevent traffic jams in the most strained residential areas around the exhibition centre and the stadiums was introduced in March 2000:

Bern’s first ”Euro-Parking Zone”(26)

For the first time ever, the city of Bern makes use of the EU-Decree on Parking Management: parking places near the exhibition centre and the stadiums will be subject to time restrictions 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. This means that cars without special allowance may not be stationed for more than one hour at any time. Residents can buy park cards similar to the park cards for the so-called Blue Zones (see chapter 4.4). The introduction of this new regulation – a White Zone with time limits - was possible due to the revision of the Signalling Decree (Signalisationsverordnung) by the Swiss Federal Council in 1998. In the Blue Zones, such a comprehensive time regulation is not possible (see next Chapter).

Another new measure is being examined in Bern for the Wankdorf area, where heavy debates about parking places for big events have taken place: a study will examine the possibility of implementing a system similar to the one in use at the World Exposition 2000 in Hannover, Germany: In Hannover, a reservation system for parking places was installed, so as to guarantee access to parking place only to the owners of pre-paid park cards.(27)

26 Der Bund (2000), Berns erste weisse Euro-Parkierzone. 27 Der Bund (2000), Gibts auf dem Zentareal ein neues Parkhaus?


4.4 Public parking space in residential areas Perhaps the most important instrument of parking policy in the urban area of Bern is the introduction of Blue Zones in residential areas. Most important features of Blue Zones are as follows:

• At weekdays from 8.00 a.m. to 6 p.m., parking time is restricted to 60 minutes. During noon the permitted parking time is 3 hours. In areas with much leisure traffic, parking time restrictions can be extended to the weekends.

• Residents (e.g. inhabitants, firms that are located within the respective area(28)) can buy park cards allowing unlimited parking in their district. The price of the park card is 20 CHF per month or 240 CHF a year.

• Visitors or other users may purchase daily park cards. To date they cost CHF 8. In 2000, the fee will be increased from CHF 8 to CHF 15 per day, with the new possibility to buy 4-hour-cards at a price of CHF 8.

The legal bases for the introduction of Blue Zones are local acts on Blue Zones with park cards for residents. In the city of Bern, the first local act was enacted in April 1986, the actual one dates from March 1994. Starting point of the history of the Blue Zone in Bern is 1987, when the Blue Zone was introduced in a little district with around 800 public parking spaces. At the same time, more than 100 parking spaces were removed. As this test was a full success (see section 5.2), public authorities set up a plan to introduce the Blue Zone in all residential areas of Bern until 1995. However, the realisation of the Blue Zones in some parts of the city (Mattenhof, Weissenbühl) was delayed until 1999, when the Swiss Federal Council decided that the new regulation would not contradict federal law as was claimed in an appeal by the Automobile Club (ACS) and some residents.

4.5 Park and Ride facilities The realisation of major public transport projects such as the S-Bahn in Bern in the 1990ies has increased the importance of P+R facilities(29) as their main task is to promote the use of the associated public transport services. Another reason for the growing importance of P+R facilities is the introduction of parking policy measures in the inner part of the urban areas (especially the realisation of Blue Zones in residential areas) that raise the demand for parking places in P+R facilities. The Canton of Bern supports Park and Ride facilities with financial contributions to the realisation of such projects. However, planning and construction of these facilities are a matter

28 Commuters do not receive park cards unless they provide evidence that they urgently depend on car use to

carry out their job. 29 As well as Bike + Ride facilities to promote the use of bicycles.


of the so-called “planning regions“, the municipalities and the transport contractors.(30) In view of this situation the state government of Bern enacted principles for P+R facilities.(31) If these principles are not fulfilled by the operators of P+R facilities (e.g. a community or a public transport operator) the state authorities do not subsidise the erecting of the P+R facility. The principles are as follows:

• P+R facilities should minimise the driving distance of car traffic (i.e. a decentralised structure of P+R facilities is preferred(32)). They should not be located close to the city of Bern but at the junctions of public transport in the surrounding countryside.

• P+R facilities should not compete with local public transport. Otherwise, former users of public transport may switch to car use to drive to the P+R facility.

• The owner must elaborate operation directions that define the management of the P+R facility (level and structure of user charges(33), access limitations, surveillance of the parking spaces).

• New P+R facilities must correspond with the goals of regional planning and transport concepts.

For the urban area of Bern, such a regional P+R concept has been worked out by a working group including representatives of local and state administrations and of public transport operators. The P+R concept for the urban area of Bern is an integrated part of the regional traffic and urban planning. The P+R concept for the urban area of Bern covers the following points:(34) • Present situation: In a first step, the working group took stock of the existing P+R parking facilities

in the year 1992. It turned out that the 2'935 parking places were well occupied with the relatively high degree of 62% on average. Based on a questionnaire the working group also defined a profile of the actual users of the P+R car parks according to criteria like origin and destination of the journeys, the purpose of the rides, the frequency and the duration of use.

• Demand for P+R parking space in the future: In a next step the demand for P+R car parks along the different lines of the "Berner S-Bahn" was assessed for the year 2000. The assessment distinguished between commuter traffic and traffic from visitors, tourists and shoppers and took account of the parking policy measures that will be introduced in the city of Bern (i.e. Blue Zones and parking fees). The demand for the year 2000 was estimated at 6'000 parking spaces.

• Defining the location of new P+R facilities: Proceeding from the assessed future demand, the objectives of the state transport policy and the existing transport infrastructure, three different types of P+R facilities have been defined by the working group. Type A are P+R facilities along the lines of the Berner S-Bahn in rural areas. P+R facilities at the junctions of main roads and lines of public transport belong to type B, municipal P+R facilities at the outskirts of the inner city of Bern

30 Furthermore, every P+R project related to a railroad station must be approved by the federal office of

transport (Amt für Gemeinden und Raumordnung (1995), Arbeitshilfe Park+Ride/Bike+Ride). 31 See Baudirektion des Kantons Bern (1992), Grundsätze für P+R-Anlagen im Kanton Bern. 32 In contrast to B+R facilities which may be promoted at central locations as well. 33 The charges must be higher the nearer the P+R facility is to the city centre. 34 Verein für die Zusammenarbeit in der Region Bern (1993), Park + Ride – Konzept.


to type C. For every type the future need and the location of the new facilities have been determined. According to the principles mentioned above, the government of the Canton of Bern grants subsidies only to P+R facilities of the types A and B.

• Project organisation and financing of the planned P+R facilities: The concept makes propositions on how to organise and finance the planning and building of new P+R facilities. The whole costs of the 3'065 P+R parking spaces to be built up to 2000 were assessed to sum up to about EURO 28 millions. The probable subsidies from the government of the Canton of Bern amounts to EURO 14.7 millions.

• Realisation of the concept: Finally, the P+R concept makes suggestions about different steps of a possible realisation strategy.

4.6 Parking space of public administration According to the 1992 Action Plan on Air Pollution (APAP) the public administration challenged to play the role of a good example with regard to the implementation of restrictive parking policy measures. Therefore, a working group has been charged to work out propositions how an environmentally friendlier commuter and visitor traffic can be promoted within the public administration. The resulting propositions have been tested in several pilot projects: On the car parks of hospitals, a school and of buildings of the public administration, visitors and employees have to pay a parking fee. Basing on these and other experiences as well as on the mandate of the APAP, the state government has drawn up principles for the management of parking space owned by the Canton of Bern. The principles entered into force on January 1, 1995, comprising the following items: ο There is no claim for a parking space, neither for the civil servants nor for visitors. ο For the use of a parking space, a parking fee is charged. ο The parking fee should include the costs of land use and maintenance and the investment

costs. ο The fee is reduced if a private car is often used for official purposes. In the year 1992, the municipality of the city of Bern has enacted a decree regulating the use of parking spaces by the civil servants. The charges proposed are below the market price for comparable private parking spaces.

4.7 Parking space of private firms Car use of commuters strongly depends on the availability of a parking space at the corresponding workplace. A large number of these parking places are provided by private


firms: In the city of Bern, the private car parks cover about 70% of the whole supply of parking places!(35) Today, the public authorities might force private companies to realise parking policy measures on existing car parks. The required legal basis for such an intervention exist since 1999 – however, as the following example shows, realising such interventions is a politically delicate subject:

The Case of Belp(36)

In March 1999, the Swiss Federal Court decided that the Canton of Bern may oblige a shopping centre to charge parking fees on its parking places for customers. It further stated that in the long run such fees must not be restricted to new shopping centres, but that existing shopping centres will also have to be obliged to levying fees in the near future. However, the cantonal authorities were not really pleased by this decision: in October 1999 the administrative tribunal had to urge the Canton to finally set the fee accepted by the federal court. Yet this order hasn’t been put into action and in the end, the canton of Bern dropped the obligation to charge parking fees by shopping centres in the outline of the

new Action Plan on clean air of May 2000(37). The relevant authorities say it is disputed whether parking fees have a positive or a negative influence on the environment.

Nevertheless, it was and still is an objective of the state authorities to introduce parking policy measures on this type of parking places. Facing this background, the representatives of the Canton of Bern intend to sign voluntary agreements on parking policy measures with private companies and especially with shopping centres at the outskirts of Bern. In Switzerland some private firms have already realised more or less restrictive parking policy measures like parking fees and the use of special criteria to allot the available parking places. The main reasons for these actions were

• the high opportunity costs of parking places - the surface could be used alternatively - that are borne by the company and not by the commuters

• the intention to contribute to environmentally friendlier commuter traffic. An example of such a voluntary agreement is given below:

Parking guidelines of the "Fritz Studer AG":

The parking guidelines of the engineering company "Fritz Studer AG"(38) are the result of a co-operation between representatives of the company and of the state authorities. The elaboration of the

35 See KIGA (1994), Erfolgskontrolle von Luftreinhaltemassnahmen im Kanton Bern, p. 51. The whole

number of parking places amounts to ca. 95'000 (see Volkswirtschaftsdirektion des Kantons Bern, KIGA (1991), Massnahmenplan zur Luftreinhaltung in der Region Bern, Teilmassnahmenplan Verkehr, p. 71).

36 Lauber F. (2000), Bern holt Atem für die Lufthygiene – Der Fall Belp bleibt auf Eis. 37 Volkswirtschaftsdirektion des Kantons Bern (2000), Lufthygienischer Massnahmenplan für den Kanton Bern

(Vernehmlassungsentwurf). 38 A producer of grinding-machines with about 500 employees.


guidelines is based on a comprehensive collection of data concerning the traffic behaviour of the employees and the existing alternatives to car use. The questionnaires used for the data collection were evaluated with a special computer programme. The evaluation showed that 17-22% of the present car rides could easily be avoided. Only employees living outside a certain area can claim a chargeable parking space. The more central the car park is the higher is the charge (14 - 28 EURO/month). The revenues are used to finance land use and the maintenance of the car park and to promote the use of public transport within the employees.

It is obvious that it will be much more difficult to convince the owners of shopping centres to implement restrictive parking policy measures on their car parks for the customers. According to the experiences of the state authorities the readiness to sign voluntary agreements is the highest when the capacity limits of the car parks are attained and search traffic impairs the image of the shopping centre. Nevertheless, the weak position of the public authorities and the little possibilities of action are the most significant weak spots of the parking policy strategy in the urban area of Bern. The lack of compulsory parking policy measures for shopping centres is one of the most frequently used arguments against the introduction of parking fees on public parking places in central districts. The idea to work out a handbook on the "Implementation of parking policy measures" arose from the fact that many private companies (industry and services) are interested in feasible solutions but they do not know how a suitable parking policy strategy can be evaluated and implemented. With the handbook, this deficiency should be removed. The target groups of the handbook are the management of companies and those who (will) deal with parking policy measures in practice (for details see box below). The handbook presents a possible and useful procedure to introduce parking policy measures. It distinguishes between the following steps:

• Internal organisation: The first step is the installation of an internal project organisation. According to the handbook a working group including representatives of the different departments of the company should be responsible for the implementation of parking policy measures.

• Planning of the project: The working group elaborates a project plan that defines the different steps of the project, the tasks of each step and a time schedule.

• Information: Information events and information sheets present the parking policy project to the employees.

• Analysis of the present parking situation: The handbook points out the required information to plan the parking policy measures and makes proposes methods to gather this information. The stock-taking of the present situation should yield the following information:

– motives of the employees to chose a certain mean of transport (e.g. travel time, travel cost) – attitudes of employees towards the use of alternative means of transport – demand for parking spaces of the employees – present supply of parking spaces for cars – existing alternatives for car commuters – parking possibilities and parking policy in the neighbourhood – the legal regulations and requirements.


• Objectives of the parking policy: The handbook suggests to work out a checklist describing the most urgent problems of the current parking situation. The objectives of the parking policy measures should be derived from this checklist.

• Choice of the instrument(s): To facilitate the choice, the handbook gives an overview of the different possible instruments (e.g. installation of mechanical or electronic parking meters, fixed allocation of parking spaces etc.) and comprises a portrait of each instrument in form of a fact sheet. The fact sheets summarise some important features of the different instruments like the cost of investment, the running expenses, the flexibility, the user-friendliness, the legal requirements etc.

• Implementation of the parking policy strategy: This chapter of the handbook outlines the various details that must be taken into account when the parking policy measures are to be implemented (e.g. attaching signals, elaborating using regulations, installation of parking meters etc.)

• Evaluation: The last step consists of an evaluation of the impacts of the parking policy.

With regard to the possibilities for action, the situation of the public authorities is much more comfortable when private companies plan to construct a new or to rebuild an existing building: The necessary planning and building permission is only given if the number of new parking places does not exceed the number determined by the parking policy decree. The parking policy decree is applied to any building project that will provide new parking places for customers, visitors and/or employees. The basis of this concept was the former parking policy decree which was in force until February 2000. It determined the number of permissible parking spaces for new buildings. This number crucially depended on the quality of public transport at the respective location of the building. The parking policy decree was not only to be applied to new buildings and their parking spaces but also to existing ones. However, the outline of a new Action Plan on clean air of May 2000 as well as the new Cantonal Construction Decree, which entered into force in March 2000, has loosened the previous regulations.

5 Impact of the strategy

5.1 Introduction The objective of this chapter is to assess the impacts of the parking policy measures described in the preceding chapter on

• the traffic volume and on the modal split • the emissions of traffic and their repercussion on the environment and human health • the urban economy. Furthermore, costs and revenues of these measures and their acceptance will be discussed.

Due to the following reasons this impact assessment of the parking policy strategy is very difficult:


• Different status of implementation: Some of the instruments have been introduced years ago, some in the recent past and some have only been subject to discussion so far, and some have been changed meanwhile.

• Short and long term effectiveness: The instruments that influence the building of new car parks will only be effective in the long term whereas parking period limitations for example are of immediate effect.

• Short and long term effects: Parking policy measures intend to change traffic behaviour. Normally the adjustment of behaviour is stronger in the long term than in the short term. People need some time to face and to respond to the new situation.

Correspondingly, it is too early to judge whether the parking policy strategy in the urban area of Bern was a success or a failure with regard to its different impacts. Beside these "time related" difficulties there are further problems that render the impact assessment more difficult:

• Impact of other traffic policy measures: Parking policy measures are only one part of a comprehensive traffic policy strategy in the urban area of Bern. Other instruments (e.g. traffic calming and access limitations in residential areas, speed limits and the promotion of public transport) also affect car use and the emissions from motor vehicles. The same is true with regard to policy measures on the national level (e.g. the increase of the duty on fuel in 1993).

• Impact of developments outside the transport sector: Car use is also influenced by developments outside the transport sector like for instance economic growth.

In view of these difficulties it is not astonishing that the local authorities were not capable to assess the quantitative impacts of the different traffic policy measures on air pollution when they evaluated the implementation of the air pollution action plan in December 1993.(39) Due to this situation, the following sections will concentrate on some examples of impact assessment that have been carried out for pilot projects and on theoretical considerations.

5.2 Impact on traffic volume and modal split In 1991, public authorities declared parking policy to be the most important policy measure in order to achieve a substantial reduction of traffic volume within the urban area of Bern and especially within the city of Bern. The reduction target stated in the air pollution action plan for the city centre is ambitious: Traffic volume should be reduced by about 20%.(40) In 1994 the success of the implementation of the air pollution action plan has been evaluated. The results of this evaluation with regard to traffic volume are shown in figure 5-1.(41)

39 See KIGA (1994), Erfolgskontrolle von Luftreinhaltemassnahmen im Kanton Bern. 40 See Volkswirtschaftsdirektion des Kantons Bern, KIGA (1991), Massnahmenplan zur Luftreinhaltung in der

Region Bern, Teilmassnahmenplan Bern, p. 43. 41 KIGA (1994), Erfolgskontrolle von Luftreinhaltemassnahmen im Kanton Bern, p. 30 and 31.


Figure 5-1: Traffic growth in the urban area of Bern

motorwaysmotorwaysmotorwaysmotorways

rela

tive

traf

fic g

row

th (1

990

= 1

00)

7580

859095

100105

110115120

125

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

actual trafficgrowth

forecast of trafficgrowth 1990 -1995

arterial roadsarterial roadsarterial roadsarterial roads

rela

tive

traf

fic g

row

th (1

990

= 1

00)

75

80

85

90

95

100

105110

115120

125

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

actual trafficgrowth

forecast of trafficgrowth 1990 -1995

On motorways, traffic is still growing with a rate of about 3.3% per year on average. On the other hand, a stabilisation of the traffic volume has been achieved on the arterial roads. Taking into account the strong position of parking policy in the Bernese transport policy, the stabilisation of traffic volume can be considered as an evidence for the effectiveness of parking policy measures. Commuters working in the city of Bern are the most important target group of the different parking policy measures described in chapter 4, though the share of car commuters is already rather low. Within the city of Bern, the share amounts to 27%, in the other communities of the urban area to 44%. In many European cities the share of car commuters is above 50%.(42) With regard to the potential impact of the parking policy measures on car commuter traffic the following facts are of importance:

• Origin of commuter traffic: The large majority of the commuters working in the city of Bern live in the area that will be opened up by the Berner S-Bahn. Once introduced this improvement of public transport and the realisation of the P+R concept will create excellent conditions for commuters to switch from private car use to public transport.

• Parking space and modal split: One of the reasons explaining the low share of car commuters are the parking policy measures in the city of Bern. There is a strong relation between car use and the availability of a parking place at the destination (place of employment): If a free parking space is guaranteed, 90% of the commuters choose the private car as mean of transport.(43) This result reveals the high potential of parking policy measures to influence traffic behaviour patterns, i.e. modal split.

42 See for example Apel D. (1992), Verkehrskonzepte in europäischen Städten, p. 62. 43 See Volkswirtschaftsdirektion des Kantons Bern, KIGA (1991), Massnahmenplan zur Luftreinhaltung in der

Region Bern, Teilmassnahmenplan Verkehr, p. 45.


If there has been success in the field of parking policy in the urban area of Bern, it has to be attributed to the Blue Zones in residential areas (see section 4.4). Though the introduction of this instrument was only completed in 1999, the results in some particular districts underline the effectiveness of this part of the parking policy strategy in Bern. The most important experiences that have been made in these districts can be summarised as follows:(44)

• Traffic volumes decreased by 15% on average, by 14% in the morning peak and by 21% in the evening peak. The number of motor vehicles within the respective area was reduced by 13%. This decrease is also a consequence of the removal of 10% of public parking places when the Blue Zone was introduced.

• Demand for parking places decreased after the introduction of the Blue Zone: the average occupancy of the parking places decreased by 13%. The residents had fewer problems to find a parking space and search traffic was reduced.

• The Blue Zones led first of all to a displacement of commuters out of residential areas. On the other hand, the residential areas have become more attractive for shoppers as their chance to find a free parking space has grown. In addition, in the surroundings of shopping centres time restrictions of 60 minutes were introduced on public parking spaces. Therefore, the introduction of Blue Zones did not cause any disadvantages for urban retailing in comparison to shopping centres.

• Blue Zones should be introduced in a co-ordinated way over all residential districts of an urban area: in Bern, one third of the commuters that used to park in the respective residential area looked for parking possibility in the neighbourhood. More or less every year one new residential district got the Blue Zone. This led to a shift of commuters demand for parking space from the districts with Blue Zones to those without a Blue Zone.

• Necessary conditions for a successful implementation of Blue Zones are regular and strict controls of time restrictions. High fines should be imposed if time restrictions are not followed. Today, the fine is 40 CHF, which is very low. In the next years fines will increase to probably 60 CHF.

• In the short run at least, the introduction of Blue Zones does not change mobility demand of commuters. Alternatives to satisfy this demand must be offered. Most important are a good public transport system and the creation of P+R-facilities. An example: When the Blue Zone was introduced in the northern residential district of Bern, the occupancy of the nearest P+R-facility increased from 150 to 600 parking spaces on average.

In comparison to the Blue Zones, the parking fees on public car parks in central districts and for parking spaces of large events were less successful so far:

• In the CBD of Bern, the actual parking fees do hardly influence mobility behaviour simply because they are not high enough. Therefore, it is not astonishing that in some streets of the city centre more than 20% of total car traffic is search traffic.

• It is too early to estimate the effects of the parking fees for large events as these fees have been introduced only half a year ago. In the short run, it seems that they do not influence the choice of the means of transport used by the visitors: Demand for parking space was nearly as high as in the years before.

44 See Stadtpolizei und Stadplanungsamt der Stadt Bern (ed.), Planungsbüro Jud (1988), Pilotversuch Bern -

Muesmattquartier and KIGA (1993), Parkplatzmassnahmen Zentrumsgemeinden - Rahmenkonzept, p. 8-9.


As the implementation status of the other instruments of the Bernese parking policy strategy is rather low, an assessment of the effects on car use is not yet possible.

5.3 Impact on the environment Despite the stabilisation of traffic volume on arterial roads shown in section 5.2, the reduction target of 20% has not been achieved so far. Viewing this fact it is not astonishing that emission reduction does not comply with the ambitious objectives of the air pollution action plan either (i.e. a reduction of NOx and VOC emissions of transport by 60%). Due to technical measures (more cars with catalytic converters, more restrictive standards for heavy duty vehicles) the exhaust emissions of transport can be reduced considerably. Nevertheless, the technical measures alone will not be sufficient to attain the objectives. It is assessed that technical measures will reduce emissions by approximately 30%. The other 30% must be contributed by speed limits, traffic management and - in the case of emissions from passenger cars - particularly by parking policy measures. An opinion poll among people living in residential areas with Blues Zones showed that 35% felt a reduction of the nuisance by air pollution and noise. The majority did not perceive any change of the nuisance. The results of the poll are given in figure 5-2. Figure 5-2: Perception of change in air pollution and noise in residential areas with Blue

Zones(45)

decrease of thenuisance

increase of the nuisance

no change of thenuisance

rest

3%

59%35%

3%

5.4 Impact on the local economy Whenever public authorities plan to introduce more restrictive parking policy measures, strong opposition can be expected. Representatives of the local economy and their organisations frequently believe that parking policy will deteriorate the attractiveness of a location for private companies. On the other side, ecologists and often a majority of the residents are in favour of such measures. 45 See Stadtpolizei und Stadplanungsamt der Stadt Bern (ed.), Planungsbüro Jud (1988), Pilotversuch Bern -

Muesmattquartier, p. 30.


In the urban area of Bern, opponents of the parking policy maintain that

• restrictive parking policy measures on public and private commuter car parks impair the position of private companies on the labour market in comparison to firms that are not affected by the policy measures;

• any reduction of the accessibility of retailing facilities and industrial firms will result in less customers and therefore less turnover.

There are several reasons why these potential disadvantages did not prevent the politicians to introduce the different policy measures.

a) Commuter traffic In the case of commuter traffic the following points have to be mentioned:

• In the urban area of Bern, parking policy measures are part of a comprehensive traffic and land use planning strategy: The realisation of the “Berner S-Bahn“ and of the P+R concept will considerably improve the possibilities of car commuters to switch to public transport. Further growth of industry and especially of services will be concentrated on locations close to the stations of the Berner S-Bahn.

• A large part of industry and services is located in the city of Bern. Today, no other part of the urban area of Bern is better opened up by public transport.

• Commuter traffic is suitable for the organisation of car pools (same destination, acquaintance of the employers, existing internal information channels etc.).

• Other factors like the unemployment rate, the wages and the working conditions have more influence on the attractiveness of a job than the availability of a parking space at the place of employment.

• In the urban area of Bern it is up to the firms to introduce parking policy measures on their car parks. No private firm will introduce voluntarily parking policy measures that deteriorate its competitiveness on the labour market.

b) Shoppers and visitors In the city of Bern - as probably in every urban area - retailers and their organisations are among the strongest opponents of parking policy measures (especially parking fees and the removal of existing parking spaces). They emphasise the strong competition between retail trade in the city centre and shopping centres at the outskirts of the city. The usual conclusion is that parking policy measures in the city centres weaken the position of urban retail trade and destroy jobs. These arguments are of importance insofar as the parking fees have only been increased in a modes way during the last years. On the other side, the “traffic compromise” mentioned at the beginning of this chapter shows that retailers are aware of the fact that the attractiveness of shopping in retail facilities in the


city centre depends on a set of factors; accessibility for car users being just one of them. Therefore, the following points are of importance when discussing this subject:

• Accessibility: Usually, if opponents of parking policy measures speak of accessibility they only think of private car traffic. The importance of public transport and of the infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists is often underestimated.

• Attractiveness of public space: Parking policy measures - especially the removal of existing parking places - can offer a chance to redesign urban public space (e.g. by planting trees, benches, sculptures). Streets can be developed more creatively if there is no need to accommodate rows of stationary cars.

Public opinion polls in several Swiss cities (i.e. Zurich, Bern, Biel, Solothurn) have shown that visitors rate the attractiveness of public space higher than, for example, the availability of parking spaces.(46) With regard to the political acceptance of parking policy measures it is a major problem that the rating of the important pull-factors by the owners of retail facilities is in contradiction to the public opinion. The results of a German study give an example of such differences (see figure 5-3).(47)

Figure 5-3: Assessment of the need for on-street parking spaces

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

all visitors shoppers retailers(daily goods)

retailers(specialised

goods)

raised

left unchanged

reduced

The number of on-street

parking spaces should be

• Environmental quality: Visitors and shoppers appreciate the better air quality, the

reduced noise pollution and the improved safety for pedestrians and cyclists in areas with less traffic volume. The importance of environmental pull-factors has grown in the last years.

• Attractiveness of shopping, number of shoppers: The accessibility of the city centre for the different modes of transport, the attractiveness of the shopping area, the environmental quality and product characteristics of the range of the retail facilities jointly determine the attractiveness of shopping. In other words: restrictions of car use do not necessary lead to a

46 See ECOPLAN (1993), Strukturelle Auswirkungen von Parkplatzmassnahmen, p. 116. 47 Monheim R. (1992), Die Bedeutung der Verkehrserschliessung für den Innenstadt-Einzelhandel und ihre

Einschätzung durch den Einzelhändler und Besucher, p. 47.


decrease of the number of visitors and shoppers as the restrictions can be compensated by other policy measures. Therefore, a restrictive parking policy strategy should be accompanied by a "street layout plan" that shows the measures to improve the quality of public space.

• Attractiveness of location: The more visitors and shoppers are attracted, the more attractive is the location for public oriented services and retail trade. If demand for offices and shops rises an increase of the rents can be expected. This again affects the structure of the local economy (incl. retail trade) in favour of firms with a high value added.

• Product characteristics / range of retail trade: The increase of the number of visitors is often caused by passer-by visitors. For this segment of customers "fun-shopping" is more important than "run-shopping". This shift in demand will favour certain retailing functions and shops (e.g. boutiques, art galleries etc.).

5.5 Costs and revenues of the different policy measures In comparison to other instruments of a green urban transport policy (e.g. the improvement of public transport) the revenue raising function of parking policy measures speak in favour of this instrument as the revenues are collected according to the "user-" and the "polluter-pays-principle". The way the revenues are used is subject to political discussions. For example, they can be used to finance infrastructure of other modes of transport or policy measures to improve the quality of public space. Given the costs of the car parks, the cost/revenue ratio(48) of parking policy measures depends on the level of parking fees paid by the car users. The higher the readiness of the responsible authorities to include all the costs related to the building and maintenance of a parking space in the fees the higher is the cost/revenue ratio. In the case of the parking policy strategy of the urban area of Bern, the costs and revenues of the different instruments are the following:

a) Parking fees on public parking spaces in central districts and for visitors of large events

The parking fees of 2 CHF/h during the day are too low to cover common cost (i.e. cost of land use, cost of planning and building, cost of parking meters, variable cost such as controlling and cleaning). To meat this objective, they should be increased by 1 CHF/h at least. Revenues of parking fees for large events (exhibition centre, stadiums) are not yet known. First estimates show that they will be higher than the cost of providing the parking spaces.

48 It should be noticed that we only consider the costs and the revenues of the different policy measures but we

will not carry out a cost / benefit analysis, i.e. we do not discuss the efficiency of the different policy measures.


b) Blue Zones with park cards for residents The realisation of the Blue Zones has been finished by the end of 1999. At that time, a yearly number of park cards sold of around 25'000 is expected, which yields revenues of around 6 million CHF per year. On the other hand, the former head of section of the Bernese traffic police says that the costs of introduction and control of the Blue Zones in Bern are estimated to be around 2 million CHF per year. Furthermore, revenue surplus shall be used to cover the cost of traffic calming measures. The example of Bern also shows that a privatisation of parking controls can be an efficient measure. Today, the control of the time restrictions in the Blue Zones is enforced by approximately 20 people of a private company. This led to a reduction of control cost of more than 20%. Furthermore, parking discipline has become much better, since controls are made periodically – while the police never had the capacity to fulfil this task on a regular basis. According to the good experience with the outsourcing of control and enforcement of parking regulations in Bern, other cities will probably follow (e.g. Biel).(49)

c) P+R facilities Today, the costs of land use, building and of running P+R facilities exceed the revenues paid by the users. Due to the low parking fees in the city centre and the lack of parking fees on car parks of private firms it is not possible to raise the charges in P+R facilities without risking a substantial decrease in the number of users. The cost/revenue ratio will be improved when the principles for P+R facilities of the state government will be applied by the operators of P+R facilities. Charges should then take into consideration the different costs of building and running a P+R facility.

6 Summary Bern has an active and well-documented parking policy strategy as shown in chapter 4. It can be considered as a good example of a comprehensive policy strategy as it comprises many types of possible parking policy measures:

• In the central districts of the city of Bern parking fees of 2 CHF/h are levied. Local authorities agree that in the next years a spatially differentiated parking fee system should be introduced including a doubling of the parking fees. Beside parking fees parking time restrictions are the other main instrument of parking policy in the central districts of Bern.

• Visitors of large events in the main sports stadium or in the exhibition centre have to pay parking fees of 5 CHF per half day and of 10 CHF per day.

49 Demmler (1999), Biel: Mehr Bussen.


• Public authorities introduced the Blue Zone in almost all residential areas. Parking time for non-residents is limited to 90 minutes; residents can buy a park card for 20 CHF per month or 240 CHF a year.

• A P+R concept describes management schemes to be kept by the operators of P+R facilities and locations criteria that should be taken into consideration when the provision of new P+R facilities is planned.

• The government of the Canton of Bern has drawn up guidelines for parking policy measures (e.g. introduction of parking fees that include the cost of land use and maintenance and the investment cost) of the car parks of the public administration.

• As there is no legal basis to force private firms to realise parking policy measures on existing car parks, the public authorities have worked out the handbook "Implementation of parking policy measures" to make available useful information for firms intending to introduce voluntarily parking policy measures.

With regard to the different parking policy instruments the following conclusions can be drawn:

• Parking fees combined with a removal of car parks can substantially reduce traffic volume in central districts: in Bern, the objective is to reduce car traffic by 20%, mainly by eliminating search traffic.

• Parking time restrictions increase the turnover of parking spaces and therefore normally result in a higher traffic volume. The removal of existing car parks can compensate this undesirable effect.

• In Bern, Blue Zones have lead to a considerable decrease of traffic in residential areas, particularly during morning (-14%) and evening peaks (-21%).

• A handbook describing a useful implementation procedure can induce private companies to introduce voluntarily parking policy measures on their car parks.

• P+R facilities contribute to a reduction of car use if certain principles are not ignored. • Regulations restricting the building of new parking spaces should be part of a parking

policy strategy though this instrument is effective only in the long term.

7 References

Der Bund (2000) Berns erste weisse Euro-Parkierzone. In: “Der Bund” vom 27.01.2000.

Der Bund (2000) Gibts auf dem Zentareal ein neues Parkhaus? In: “Der Bund” vom 03.06.2000.

ECOPLAN (1994) Parking Policy. Sub-report of the project Green Urban Transport of the European Federation for Transport & Environment (T&E). Final Version. Bern.

ECOPLAN (1997) Kombiniertes Road-Pricing- / Parkplatzabgaben-System für die Stadt Bern, Umwelt-Materialien Nr. 87 / Luft, herausgegeben vom Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (BUWAL), Bern.


ECOPLAN (1999) City descriptions – Case of Bern. PRIMA – Workpackage 1, Research Project for the Commission of the European Communities. Version No 1. Bern.

Finanzverwaltung / Statistikdienst der Stadt Bern (1998) Mikrozensus 1994 Verkehr, Das Verkehrsverhalten in der Stadt und Region Bern, Bern.

Gemeinderat der Stadt Bern (1983) Kurzbericht zur Parkraumplanung der Stadt Bern, Bern.

Hoppe K. und Spacek P. (1983) Umwelt, Stadt und Verkehr: Verkehrskonzepte und Parkraumplanung der Stadt Bern, Bern.

Verein für die Zusammenarbeit in der Region Bern (1993). Park + Ride – Konzept, 3. Phase. GVA-Bericht.

COST 342/18/CH: Case Study 2: Parking Fee Policy of the city of Zurich 45

E Case Study 2: Parking Fee Policy of the city of Zurich

Eugen Meier, Yvonne Züst Abay & Meier - Traffic Planning and Transport Economics P.O. Box, CH-8034 Zurich Phone: +41 1 381 46 87 Fax: +41 1 381 49 80 [email protected] 20 October 2000

1 Introduction The case study "Parking Fee Policy of the City of Zurich" is part of the Swiss contribution to the project COST 342 "Parking measures and their influence on mobility and the economy". It analyses the influence of raising the parking fees in the city centre of Zurich on mobility and the economy. Chapter 2 gives a general introduction to the city of Zurich with a special emphasis on the subjects transportation systems in the region and the traffic and parking policies of the city of Zurich. An analysis of statistical data of the whole city of Zurich as well as of the city centre of the last ten years can also be found in this chapter. In chapter 3 the measure itself is described as well as the different methods that have been used to measure the effects of the rise of the parking fees. Articles of the newspapers of Zurich treating the parking fee policy are summarized in a media analysis. The opinions of the different stakeholders before and after the implementation of the higher parking fees and the legal process until the rise of the parking fees was effectuated are described in this analysis. The city of Zurich has carried out two parking space surveys in the city centre of Zurich (1977 and 1987) to evaluate the utilization of the parking spaces in the city centre. Abay & Meier repeated this survey in June 2000. The results of this survey as well as a comparison with the two previous surveys are presented in this chapter. Questionnaires were sent to 25 shop owners of shops in the city centre of Zurich. In this chapter the answers of the seven returned questionnaires are summarized. In chapter 4 the impacts of the rise of the parking fees on mobility and the economy are discussed and the conclusions from the analysis summarized. A list of other factors that could have had an additional influence on mobility and the economy and their discussion rounds up this case study.


2 The city of Zurich

2.1 Geography The city of Zurich is situated 409 meters above sea level at the northern end of the 27 km long lake of Zurich on the Swiss central plateau. Its well-preserved old town is to be found on both banks of the river Limmat which flows out of the lake in a northerly direction. The city covers an area of 92 sq. km and its highest point is the Uetliberg/Uto Kulm 871 meters above sea level. The city of Zurich is divided into following 12 districts ("Stadtkreise"):

Figure 2-1 Map showing the districts of the city of Zurich

2.2 Inhabitants The city of Zurich counts around 360,000 inhabitants and is thus the largest city in Switzerland. The city of Zurich is the centre of an agglomeration with around 1 million inhabitants and the capital of the canton of Zurich (1.2 million inhabitants).

2.3 Politics The municipal authority of Zurich is one of 171 municipal authorities in the canton of Zurich. It belongs to the county of Zurich, which is one of 12 counties in the canton of Zurich. For the municipal and the cantonal level there are an executive and a legislative council. The county has merely an administrative council. To avoid misunderstandings by translating the names of the councils, the German names will be used in this report. The following table gives a short description of each council.


Table 2-1 Description of the different councils

German name Description

"Stadtrat" executive body of the municipality of Zurich. 9 members including a mayor.

City "Gemeinderat" legislative council of the municipality of Zurich. 125 members.

County "Bezirksrat" administration of the county of Zurich with controlling functions over the

"Stadtrat", first stage for appeals against the "Stadtrat". 5 members.

"Regierungsrat" executive council of the canton. 7 members.

Canton "Kantonsrat" legislative council of the canton. 180 members.

The members of all of these councils are elected by the people every four years.

2.4 Economy Zurich, with its banks, insurance companies, machine and textile industry, tourism, trade and industry, is Switzerland’s most important business centre. The founding of the Zurich Stock Exchange in 1877 constituted a significant step in this regard. Comparing the total turnover from domestic shares alone Zurich ranks fourth in the world after New York, London and Tokyo. Zurich is also the largest trading centre for gold in the world. Most of the Swiss major banks, as well as the Swiss National Bank, have their head offices in Zurich. Zurich is also home to around 350 branches of foreign banks from all over the world.50 In the city of Zurich around 25,000 employers employ about 317,000 people. 85% of them work in the tertiary sector, the other 15% in the secondary sector.

2.5 Function 2.5.1 City Zurich cannot be looked at just as the city by itself. It is the centre of an agglomeration with almost a million inhabitants. About 160,00051 persons commute every day into town for work. Zurich also has a big offer of shops, restaurants, theatres and other entertainment opportunities and therefore is also often the goal for leisure time activities for the whole agglomeration.

2.5.2 City centre The city centre has a big variety of shops in the attractive surroundings of the old town of Zurich, which lies at the banks of the lake of Zurich and the river Limmat. This attracts many shoppers from the city itself and its agglomeration as well as many tourists. There are also many restaurants, cinemas and other entertainment possibilities situated in this area. Furthermore the city centre is home to many banks and offices and therefore the workplace of many inhabitants of Zurich or its agglomeration.

50 www.zuerich.ch 51 Statistisches Amt der Stadt Zürich. Statistisches Jahrbuch der Stadt Zürich. Zürich: 1999. (figure from 1990).


In the study "The city centre of Zurich from the view of its visitors"52 the visitors were asked about the advantages and disadvantages of the city centre of Zurich. The atmosphere, the old town, the lake and the Limmat, the shops and the townscape were named by 25 to 30% of the visitors as the biggest advantages of the city centre of Zurich. The by far most often named disadvantage was traffic; it was named by 40% of the visitors. The study showed further that the most popular modes of transport to reach the city centre are tram and bus. About a third of the interviewed people chose the bus or tram, another fourth chose the train and only 19% came by car to the city centre. The car was chosen mostly by people living in the agglomeration of Zurich or the rest of Switzerland while of the inhabitants of the city of Zurich only nine percent came by car to the city centre.

2.6 Mode of Transport The city of Zurich has a vast offer of public transportation:

2.6.1 Trams and Busses The city of Zurich Public Transport System (VBZ Züri-Linie) a partner of the Zurich Public Transport System (ZVV) operates a comprehensive modern tram and bus network. It serves all the districts of the city with a frequency of at least 6 busses or trams per hour, during rush hours even 8 vehicles per hour. As can be seen from the Figure 2-2 the number passengers transported per year increased from 1980 until 1990 by about 25%. In the last ten years the figures have been stagnating at around 275 million passengers per year.

Figure 2-2 Number of Passengers of the Zurich Public Transportation System53

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Mio

Pas

seng

ers

2.6.2 Trains Zurich's train station is situated in the centre of town. It offers trains to almost every major European city and hourly trains to all the bigger Swiss towns. The S-Bahn is serving the agglomeration as regional transport and is used especially by commuters.

52 Vereinigung Züricher Bahnhofstrasse und Präsidialdepartement der Stadt Zürich. "Die Zürcher Innenstadt

aus der Sicht ihrer Besucherinnen und Besucher: Bericht einer Passantenbefragung, durchgeführt im Juni 1996". Leitbild Züricher Innenstadt. Zürich, September 1996.

53 Statistisches Amt der Stadt Zürich. Statistisches Jahrbuch der Stadt Zürich. Zürich: 1990 - 1999.


2.6.3 Airport The international Zurich-Kloten Airport is situated just 11 km from the city centre and can be reached by train in 10 minutes. As a key transportation hub it is served by over 150 airlines from all over the world.

2.6.4 Motor vehicles The city of Zurich is well integrated in the main street and highway net, which is illustrated in Figure 2-3. The black lines are existing main streets or highways, the white ones are only partly existing: some are planned to be built, others are planned to be enlarged. A highway leads off in every direction from Zurich. The road in the direction of Lucerne and the Gotthard is an exception since it is still a main road that has not yet been enlarged to a highway. The city of Zurich is still burdened by lots of transit traffic since the bypass-ring around Zurich is not completed. A tunnel underneath the lake and the completion of the bypass-ring are planned. The remaining transit traffic should be led through a tunnel underneath the city in order to relieve the inhabitants of the town from the negative effects of traffic.

Figure 2-3 Map of main streets and highways in the canton of Zurich

Rafz

Eglisau

Glattfelden

Bülach

Andelfingen

BassersdorfGlattal /Flughafen

Brüttisellen

Uster

Wetzikon

Pfäffikon

Rüti

Rapperswil

Esslingen

Forch

Meilen

Horgen

Affoltern a.A.

Zürich

Winterthur

Schaffhausen

A4

A7

A1

A50

A51

A1A1

A3

A3A4

A53

A52

A53

2.6.5 Bike and Pedestrian Areas Bicycle paths throughout the whole city enable getting around by bike easily. The bike is a very popular mode of transport in Zurich. The main road network has been cut back at some points in the last decade to provide cycle tracks. Big parts of the city centre are pedestrian areas. This makes the centre of Zurich a very attractive shopping area, which attracts customers from the whole region.

planned to build or to enlarge

existing

Constance

Saint Gall

Bern

Chur Lucerne


2.7 General Traffic Policy of the City of Zurich54 In 1994 the city of Zurich stated their five basic principles of future traffic planning in the publication "Transport politics of the city of Zurich55": - Support public transport mode. - Support and secure ecological mobility (walking, cycling). - Reduction of motorized traffic. - Canalisation of motorized traffic – calming living areas. - Freeze the number of parking spaces or even reduce them, especially for commuters.

2.7.1 Transport Demand Policies The main aims of transport policy in Zurich are to improve mobility while curbing the use of the private car, enhance the image of the city, improve the quality of urban life and reduce air pollution and noise, while still catering for the needs of industry and commerce. The means of achieving these aims are mainly through public transport improvements – the use of dedicated tram tracks and bus lanes; preferential treatment of traffic signals; the S-Bahn and central transport authority (ZVV) to coordinate all public transport services. The number of public parking spaces in the city centre has been reduced and attempts are being made to cut down the number of private spaces in the whole town (these have trebled over the last 20 years). The trust of planning policy is to encourage new development along existing populated corridors which are well-served by public transport and to channel as much traffic as possible on the main road network, leaving residential areas relatively free from traffic. Extensive 30 km/h speed limit zones have been introduced in almost all residential areas. With over 300 mio passengers a year, public transport has retained the role as the predominant mode of travel in the region of Zurich. From 1985 to 1990 (when the S-Bahn was inaugurated) ridership on municipal services alone increased by over 30% to a level of 470 public passenger transport trips per inhabitant per year (about twice the level of that in most comparable cities). The authorities intend not only to maintain this high level of usage, but also to raise ridership by a further one percent per year through continued improvements of the system. The improvement of public transport was not, however, an end in itself, but was intended to increase mobility within the region and to combat the growth in car-trip making, in order to reduce some of the more damaging effects caused by road traffic. The policy has certainly improved mobility, but despite everything that has been done, there has been no change in the volume of car traffic in Zurich itself, nor in any of the radial corridors along which the new S-Bahn lines run. Car traffic has remained constant during peak hours since the mid-1980s and has actually risen during off-peak hours. In the canton in general though, as well as in the neighbouring districts, car traffic has been increasing steadily over the years.

2.7.2 Network Policies For years the local government of Zurich has refrained from developing the main road network in order to prevent traffic from increasing and having an undesirable effect on the

54 Güller, Peter. "Comparison of Transport System in Case Cities and State of the Art Regarding Acceptability

and Barriers, Case Zurich". Zürich: 1999. 55 Bauamt Zürich. "Verkehrspolitik der Stadt Zürich, Stand März 1994". Zürich: 1994.


modal split. This principle was, however, ignored in 1985 with the opening of two national road segments, the northern by-pass and a radial tunnel leading close to the core of the city. By means of accompanying measures to curb traffic, such as reducing the number of lanes, shortening green light times, restraining traffic on unofficial roads and on the main road network, a balance was achieved to a large extent in the case of the radial urban tunnel and to some extent in that of the northern by-pass, so that the capacity increase remained within limits. The experience, i.e. the difficulties experienced when implementing the accompanying measures, showed however that in the case of similar road building projects in the future - especially when a by-pass is to be built – the measures must be included in the project from the outset if an effective and lasting transfer of traffic is to be ensured. Furthermore, the main road network has been cut back at some points in the last decade by providing cycle tracks, pedestrian crossings, banning night driving on motorway access roads through residential areas, etc. Just now the western highway ring around the city is under construction. The whole by-pass will thus consist of a 3/4 ring and it will link traffic from eastern, northern, western and southern parts of the canton and whole Switzerland, even without a tunnel under the lake of Zurich (southern by-pass), which is being kept as an option in the cantonal master plan for the road network.

2.7.3 Political acceptance of traffic reduction Clear majorities in all opinion polls regularly approve the objectives of municipal transport policy. More particularly, a proportion of about 65% of the population is also in favour of reducing car traffic in the town. However, conflicting results were obtained in two referendums: - In June 1988, Zurich's sovereign rejected a credit package of CHF 42 million, proposed by

the municipal government. It was intended as a technical and organisational measure in support of the regional S-Bahn system and should have secured and increased the transfer of traffic from the car to this mode. However, the opponents of this proposal, who obtained 56% of the votes, had as the main argument that the credit package was too vague; and that although they could fully appreciate the desire for traffic restraint, the individual measures had to be stated in detail with reference to their location and organisation.

- In November 1989, however, the local population decided along the lines of the government's transport policy: voters rejected clearly (70% "no") an underground road construction project which had been proposed in a "people's initiative" and was strongly supported by trade and industry, car user groups and non-socialist parties. This verdict swept aside the claim by the opponents of municipal transport that the solution was not to restrain private car traffic but to develop the main roads substantially (underground and therefore in an environment-friendly way) in order to make car traffic more fluid.

Following the 1988 referendum, the cantonal government rejected traffic restraint measures on cantonal, i.e. main roads. Construction work involving changes to cantonal roads is subject to approval by the cantonal authorities, as well as other structural changes, any markings, signs and signals that might reduce capacity on cantonal roads. Even if there is growing understanding for Zurich's attitude in the districts around the town, especially in the nearest municipalities, possibilities of conflict still exist. A survey in connection with the German research project entitled "Urban Transport and Changing Values" covering Berlin, Cologne, Krefeld and Zurich shows that the population of Zurich (town and


surrounding area) includes a higher proportion of "anti-car" types and a lower proportion of "pro-car" types than the population of the German towns56. However, since the proportion of the inhabitants living around Zurich roughly corresponds to the average for all four conurbations, the case of the actual Zurich townspeople stands out even more clearly: 47% of the inhabitants of Zurich are anti-car types and 18% are pro-car types - in the surrounding area only 29% are anti-car types and 26% are pro-car types.

2.8 Parking Policy The individual choice of the transport mode depends largely on the fact if there is a parking space available at the destination. If not, public transportation is rather chosen, maybe even the bicycle or walking. Many discover the excellent quality of public transportation like this. This is the reason why parking limitations belong to the most important tools to influence the attractiveness of the daily trip by car to work and encourage the change to public transportation. Parking spaces are a scarce commodity. With or without restrictions: Zurich would never have the space to give unlimited parking spaces to all the people living, working or visiting Zurich. Therefore the parking spaces have to be assigned to the different users. Securing parking spaces for inhabitants and ensuring economical traffic (e.g. unloading goods) have the first priority.

2.8.1 Private parking spaces As can be seen in Figure 2-4 there are four times as many parking spaces on private ground than on public ground (1998: 218,871 parking spaces on private ground, 47,697 on public ground) in the city of Zurich. The authorities influence on those parking spaces has been very little until the revision of the cantonal planning and construction law in 1991: for new buildings there is no more minimum number of parking lots, which should be provided, but a maximum number. The latter varies with the location of the area and available public transport facilities. If the number of parking spaces of an existing building is higher than the maximum number, the number has to be reduced if there is a major renovation of the building.

Figure 2-4 Comparing parking spaces on public and private ground (1970-1990)

0

50'000

100'000

150'000

200'000

250'000

1970 1980 1990

public groundprivate ground

56 The inhabitants were broken down into four categories: the other two were "no opinion either way" and

"rational and tolerant users".


2.8.2 Public parking spaces

a) City centre For this report the city centre is defined as the area which was affected by the raise of the parking fees in 1997. The "Parking policy 1963/5"57 had the effect that long-term parking spaces in the centre were removed and the offer of short-term parking spaces (1 to 2 hours) was increased. Further four parking garages were built in the pedestrian area of the Bahnhofstrasse and a no parking zone was established in several streets. By popular vote of September 25, 1994 the municipal government has been empowered to implement a new policy with regard to parking fees: it consists in a completion of the so far operated system which has fixed the level of parking fees in a way to cover instalment and control cost, by considering newly also the scarcity of road space, problems with bringing goods to downtown businesses, congestion, air pollution and the high uncovered cost the municipality faces with the maintenance of its large urban road network. Car drivers from the fringe area of the agglomeration should pay for the use of the urban network, as the communities, in which they have their residence, do not participate in carrying the cost of urban roads. The actual implementation of the higher parking fees didn't take place until 1997 because of several complaints that have been settled by the Federal High Court in October 1996. In 1996 another important decision was taken, also known as the historical traffic compromise: parking facilities lost due to the creation of pedestrian areas can now be compensated in new underground parking garages. Proposals to create additional parking areas in the city centre and close-by areas have for long time faced political opposition. In the city of Zurich there are around 47,697 parking spaces on public ground (1998), 5,543 of them are situated in the area that was affected by the rise of the parking fees. In the city centre there are 19,802 parking spaces on private ground (2,260 in parking garages, 10,274 in other buildings and 7,268 outdoor)58. The parking time of the parking spaces in the city centre is in general limited to 30, 60 or 120 minutes depending on their location. 8% of the parking spaces have a time limit of 30 minutes, 59% one of 60 minutes and 28% one of 120 minutes. The rest are unlimited parking spaces and blue zone parking spaces. 17 parking garages in the city centre provide a total of 4,350 parking spaces. Some of those parking garages are owned by the city of Zurich, others are privately owned, but all the 4,350 parking spaces are accessible to the public.

b) Living areas In the living areas most of the public parking spaces are blue zone parking spaces. The blue zone gives the inhabitants in the living areas priority over the foreign parkers and thus prevents commuters from blocking parking spaces for whole days. Inhabitants have the possibility to buy a parking card that enables them to unlimited parking on blue zone parking 57 Stadtplanungsamt Zürich. "Parkraumplanung Zürich 1978". Zürich:1978 58 Statistisches Amt der Stadt Zürich. Statistisches Jahrbuch der Stadt Zürich. Zürich: 1999. (figures from

1998).


spaces without having the guarantee though for a free parking space. Foreign parkers can also use the blue zone parking spaces for free, but the parking time for them is limited to 90 minutes during the daytime. The test phase for the blue zone was already initiated in 1989, but it took until 1999 to establish the blue zone in all the living areas of Zurich because of numerous complaints. The last part of the blue zone was established in 1999.

2.9 Analysis of Statistical Data The data of this chapter has all been gathered from the statistical yearbooks of Zurich59 if nothing else is stated. The newest data available was from the yearbook of 1999, which listed the figures from 1998.

2.9.1 Number of Inhabitants Figure 2-5 shows the inhabitants and the part of them that work in Zurich. The population of the city of Zurich increased until 1962, was since then decreasing and is since 1980 stagnating at around 360,000 inhabitants. The graph for the inhabitants working in Zurich described almost the same curve, with the difference that there is no stagnation to be observed today. From 1950 to 1970 50% of the inhabitants of Zurich worked in town, 1990 it were only 42% anymore. In 1998 around 30,000 persons have been living in the city centre of Zurich, which is about 8% of the total population (1998: 359,073) of the city of Zurich.

Figure 2-5 Inhabitants of the City of Zurich, 1950 - 1998

0

100'000

200'000

300'000

400'000

500'000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Inhabitants

Inhabitants working in Zurich

2.9.2 Age structure The age structure of the population remained nearly constant over the last 10 years. The following figures show the age structure of the inhabitants in 1998. The main difference

59 Statistisches Amt der Stadt Zürich. Statistisches Jahrbuch der Stadt Zürich. Zürich: 1990 - 1999.


between the age structure of the whole town and the age structure of the city centre is to be observed in the group of the people aged 15 to 39 years which is about twelve percent points larger in the city centre.

Figure 2-6 Age structure 1998

whole city12%

39%30%

19%

city center9%

51%

29%

11%

<14 years15-39 years40-64 years>64 years

2.9.3 Working population Figure 2-7 shows the number of employees in the city of Zurich and their distribution to economic sectors. In 1998 more than 80% of the employees worked in the tertiary sector. Of all the 300,000 employees of Zurich about 30% or about 100,000 employees work in the city centre60. The fact that only about 8% of the inhabitants of the city of Zurich live in the city centre shows that the city centre is rather a working than a living area. Most of the people who work in the city centre do not live there; they are commuters from the rest of the city or from the agglomeration.

Figure 2-7 Number of employees, divided by economic sectors, 1985 - 1998 (figures for 1998 only for the whole town)

whole town

050'000

100'000150'000200'000250'000300'000350'000400'000

1985

1991

1995

1998

city center

020'00040'00060'00080'000

100'000120'000140'000

1985

1991

1995

Tertiary Sector

Secondary Sector

Since 1985 the part of employees in the secondary sector has been continuously decreasing from 11% in 1985 to 7% in 1995. 1995 about 93% of the employees in the city centre worked in the tertiary sector. The services sector has much more importance in the city centre than in the whole town (83% of the employees work in the tertiary sector). About 60% of the employees are male and 40% female. Only about 15% of the male employees are working part-time as opposed to about 45% of the women.

60 Figures from 1995.


Figure 2-8 Number of employees in the City of Zurich, divided by gender and full time/part time employees, 1985 - 1998

0

50'000

100'000

150'000

200'000

250'000

300'000

350'000

400'000

1985

1991

1995

1998

part time employedwomenfull time employedwomen

part time employedmenfull time employedmen

2.9.4 Car ownership The number of owned cars in the city of Zurich remained nearly constant (at about 140,000 cars) over the last ten years. 8.5% of those cars belong to a person or a corporate body in the city centre. There is a big difference in the ratio of private owned cars to corporate owned cars between the whole town and the city centre. In the city centre much less private people own a car than private people of the whole city. In the whole city only 20% of the cars belong to corporate bodies opposed to the city centre where 48% of the cars belong to corporate bodies (see Figure 2-9). In 1998 every 3.3rd person owned a motor vehicle in the city of Zurich, in the city centre it was only every 4.8th person61.

Figure 2-9 Car ownership in 1998 (figures almost unchanged since 1990)

city center

6'1265'600

motor vehicles ofindividuals

motor vehicles ofcorporate bodies

whole town

107'249

29'851

61 Only the private owned light motor vehicles (under 3.5 tons) were taken into account.


3 Measures Implemented: Rise of the parking fees

3.1 Measure In the beginning of the year 1997 the parking fees in the city centre of Zurich were raised. About 4,000 parking spaces were affected by this measure. The map in Figure 3-1 shows the areas in which the higher parking fees were implemented. For this report the centre of Oerlikon has been left aside and only the city centre of Zurich has been considered.

Figure 3-1 Area where the higher fees were implemented

In the following table the changes of the parking fees that were agreed to by the people in 1994 and implemented in the beginning of 1997 are listed.

Table 3-1 Rise of parking fees in the beginning of 1997

Parking Time [minutes] 30' 60' 90' 120'

Old Fee [CHF] -.50 1.- 1.50 2.-

New Fee [CHF] -.50 2.- 3.50 5.-

More information about the measure itself, the different propositions and opinions of the concerned, the steps and the reasons why it took so long until its implementation is given in chapter "3.2 The Media Analysis".


3.2 The Media Analysis The media analysis was done with regard to different phases before and after the implementation of the higher parking fees in the centre of Zurich and the centre of Oerlikon. For the media analysis articles of the "Neue Zürcher Zeitung" and the "Tages Anzeiger" were evaluated. - Preparatory / decision making phase: Discussions about parking fees, interaction

between local governments and stakeholders, arguments of supporters and opponents mirrored by the media before the vote of the people in September 1994.

- Pre-implementation phase: Referenda and complaints held up the implementation of the higher parking fees until January 1997.

- Post-implementation phase: Reactions to the implementation of the higher parking fees.

3.2.1 Preparatory / decision making phase In April 1993 the "Stadtrat62" makes the proposition of raising the parking fees in the city centre and in the centre of Oerlikon. In the affected areas parking would still cost a ground fee of CHF 0.50 per half hour. From the second hour on there would be an extra fee of CHF 2.50 per half hour.

Table 3-2 Original Proposition of the "Stadtrat"


Old Fee [CHF] -.50 1.- 1.50 2.-

Original Proposition [CHF] -.50 3.50 6.50 9.50

The proposition goes into notification and is then presented to the "Gemeinderat" for issuing of a regulation. The proposition is subject to an optional referendum. The "City-Vereinigung63" and the "Vereinigung Einkaufs- und Dienstleistungszentrum Oerlikon64" perceive this proposition as an offence and are evaluating legal steps against the rise of the parking fees if necessary. In October 1993 the preevaluation committee of the "Gemeinderat" finishes its discussions about the proposition of the "Stadtrat". Its red-green majority recommends approval of the proposition. A compromise proposition as well as a decision against the proposition, as favoured by the liberal members is left without a chance. The FDP threatens that they would take their right of referendum if the proposition will be agreed to. The automobile clubs (ACS and TCS) and the "City-Vereinigung" announce evaluation of legal steps in case of agreement with the proposition. In November 1993 the "Gemeinderat" discusses the proposition but doesn't come to a decision about the amount of the parking fees. In December 1993 the argument is given back to the preevalutation committee for working out the further procedure. The "Gemeinderat" takes up the discussion about the parking fees again in the end of January 1994. The preevaluation committee has made the following compromise proposition:

62 A short description of the different councils is given in section "2.3 Politics". 63 The "City-Vereinigung" is the union of shop owners in the city center of Zurich. 64 The "Vereinigung Einkaufs- und Dienstleistungszentrum Oerlikon" is the union of the shop owners of

Oerlikon.


Table 3-3 Compromise Proposition


Old Fee [CHF] -.50 1.- 1.50 2.-

Compromise Proposition [CHF] -.50 2.- 3.50 5.-

The supporters of the original proposition agree with this compromise because they fear that the whole proposition might fail in a people's vote because of the height of the fees. The conservative and the liberal party are still against this compromise because in their opinion it doesn't change anything about the basic problem. 78 members of the "Gemeinderat" are for the compromise proposition, 2 are for the original proposition. The compromise proposition is agreed on by the "Gemeinderat" with 77 against 27 votes. They also agree on letting the people vote about this proposition. The automobile clubs, the "City-Vereinigung", the "Gewerbeverband", four department stores and other parties make a complaint to the "Bezirksrat" against the "Gemeinderat" and its decision about the rise of the parking fees. At the end of September 1994 the people of the city of Zurich vote about the rise of the parking fees in the city centre. Almost all the political parties as well as the traffic club of Switzerland (VCS) suggest agreement with the proposition. The two automobile clubs (ACS and TCS) as well as the liberal and the conservative party are against the proposition.

a) Arguments of the supporters

- Strong demand of parking spaces in the centres which are served very well by public transports

- Prices for parking are too low compared with the prices for public transport, taxis or parking garages

- Economical measure to influence individual traffic - The degree of covered costs of individual traffic is insufficient; individual traffic causes

costs of CHF 330 Mio. per year, the income from individual traffic amounts only to CHF 128 Mio.

- Extra income for the city of Zurich of CHF 15 Mio. per year (original proposition) or CHF 3 Mio. (compromise proposition); CHF 3.5 Mio. are needed to change the parking meters to the new fees

- Improving the living situation in the area in the city centre (less cars) which has in the end positive impacts on the sales figures; attractive car-free city centres attract well paying clients

- About 75% of the clients don't go to the city centre by car; clients without a car spend in average more money than clients with a car

- More free parking spaces in the city centre

b) Arguments of the opponents - The height of the new parking fees: rise of the fees equals an increase in prize of 479%

(first proposition) or 150% (compromise proposition)


- Use of the extra income: money doesn't come back to those who don't use the parking spaces (non car-users) as in the sense of an ecological bonus

- Lacking legal base for the proposition - Fear of transition of customers from the city centre to shopping centres outside of the city

offering free parking spaces - Less customers in the centre areas - It is not sure if the measure has positive effects on mobility and environment; if the

changing rates of cars on the parking spaces is increasing, extra traffic will be generated - Individual traffic doesn't only cause costs; it also has an economical output that flows back

in the form of taxes. The "City-Vereinigung" calculated that a parking space in the city centre brings CHF 385,000.- turnover into town per year

- Moving away of firms from Zurich which causes a further loss in taxes - More illegally parked cars on the streets in the suburbs

c) Legal view Up to 1994 the parking fees in the city of Zurich covered only the controlling costs for the parking spaces. The proposition of the "Stadtrat" wants to charge also an extra fee for parking itself. But the constitution of Switzerland forbids to charge anything for regular common use of public grounds. It only allows demanding fees for an increased common use. The former jurisdiction of the Federal High Court draws the line between regular and increased common use for parking at 120 minutes. In contrary the "Stadtrat" holds the view that already parking for more than 15 minutes equals increased common use. If the Federal High Court wants to sanction the new parking fees it will have to deviate from its former principles.

3.2.2 Pre-implementation phase On September 25th 1994 54% of the people of the city of Zurich agree with the new regimentation of the parking- and parking meter fees and therefore to an increase of the parking fees in the city centre. The vote participation is 49.5%. Only two of the twelve city districts vote against the proposal. Even the more conservative city districts are in favour of the proposal. In the end of September 1994 the TCS appeals to the "Bezirksrat" against the decision about the new parking fees in the city of Zurich. The TCS holds the view that the new regulations are against the interpretation of the constitution by the Federal High Court. In October 1994 numerous trade unions, firms and private people appeal to the "Bezirksrat" against the implementation of the new parking fees. After the "Bezirksrat" rules in the summer of 1995 that the several complaints shouldn't hold up an implementation of the new parking fees, the "Stadtrat" decides to change the parking meters in the city centre and the centre of Oerlikon to the new fees in October 1995. After the changing of the parking meters is half done, the "Regierungsrat" of the canton Zurich overrules the decision of the "Bezirksrat" and orders the "Stadtrat" to change the meters back to the original fees. After this a long argument between the "Stadtrat" and the "Regierungsrat" starts while the parking situation in the centre of Zurich is confusing with half the parking meter showing the new fee and the rest still showing the old one. In the end the Federal High Court decides in January 1996 that the "Stadtrat" has to change the parking meters back to


the old fees because the "Stadtrat" can't just overrule a decision of the "Regierungsrat" and has to wait until the complaints are arranged in the official way. In October 1996 the Federal High Court rules the question about raising the parking fees in favour of the "Stadtrat". Their reasoning is that parking spaces are very rare in the city centre and the centre of Oerlikon. Therefore using a parking space for longer than 30 minutes already defines an increased common use. The Federal High Court has thus deviated from its former principle that defined the time limit for increased common use at 120 minutes.

3.2.3 Post-Implementation phase In January 1997 the changes of the parking meters for the implementation of the higher parking fees takes place. The police count on finishing this task by April. The debate about parking fees in Zurich goes into another round with the change of the closing hours of the shops in Zurich from 6:30 pm to 8 pm in January 1998. As a reaction the police department of Zurich wants to extend the time in which the parking fees are owed from 7 pm to 9 pm and announces this in the "Tagblatt", the official newspaper of the city of Zurich. The automobile clubs ACS and TCS make a complaint to the "Stadtrat" against this decision. The complaint goes through all the official channels and it is now the Federal High Court that has to decide if the parking fees in the centre of Zurich are to be paid until 7 or 9 pm.

3.3 Parking Space Survey65 The city of Zurich has carried out two parking space surveys in the city centre of Zurich: one in March 1977 and the other ten years later in March 1987. Abay & Meier repeated this survey in June 2000. Around 600 parking spaces in the city centre were observed from Monday to Friday. They were checked five times a day (9:00, 11:00, 13:00, 15:00 and 17:00) and it was noted if the parking space was free or occupied. In addition the signs in front of parking garages showing if there are any free parking spaces was checked as well at the same times for seven parking garages. As far as possible the same parking spaces were observed in all three surveys. Those surveys can be used to compare the utilization of the parking spaces in the centre of Zurich before and after the implementation of the higher parking fees. In table 3-4 the number of parking spaces observed in the respective surveys are specified as well as their parking time limitation. The deviations concerning the number of observed parking spaces between the three surveys are very little. After 1977 the parking spaces with a limitation of 180 minutes have mostly been changed into parking spaces with a time limitation of 120 minutes.

65 for more information:

- Stadtplanungsamt Zürich. "Parkieren in der City". Das Stadtplanungsamt informiert 6 (1987). - Abay & Meier. "Parkplatzbelegungserhebung 2000". Bericht für die Stadt Zürich. Zürich, 2000.


Table 3-4 Number of observed parking spaces per parking time

% % %180' 162 24.4 0 0.0 0 0.0120' 70 10.5 209 33.4 184 29.3

60' 330 49.6 338 54.0 341 54.430' 103 15.5 79 12.6 102 16.3

Total 665 100.0 626 100.0 627 100.0

2000No. Parking Spaces


Time Limi-tation [Min.]


Table 3-15 shows that also the number of observed parking spaces on the left respectively on the right side of the Limmat stayed for all three surveys in the same range.

Table 3-5 Number of parking spaces - on the left and the right side of the Limmat

Parking Time [Min.] Left Right Left Right Left Right180' 110 52 0 0 0 0120' 47 23 155 54 111 7360' 291 39 282 56 286 5530' 103 0 79 0 102 0

Total 551 114 516 110 499 128Total [%] 83 17 82 18 80 20

1987 20001977

In Table 3-6 the percentage of observed parking spaces in the survey of the year 2000 is stated. 17% of all parking spaces in the city centre have been considered.

Table 3-6 Percentage of observed parking spaces in the survey 2000

Number %30 Minutes 212 102 4860 Minutes 2097 341 16120 Minutes 1225 184 15180 Minutes 11 0 0Longer 94 0 0

Total 3639 627 17

Observed parking spaces

Total parking spaces in the

city center

Tim

e Li

mita

tion

For the comparison of the three surveys the location "Gessnerallee"66 must be treated separately since the access to the "Gessnerallee" was partially blocked by construction work in 1977. The assumption then was that this was the reason why the utilization of the parking spaces in the "Gessnerallee" was less than the average of the whole city centre. But also in

66 The "Gessnerallee" is located to the right of the river "Sihl", close to the main railway station.


1987 and 2000 the parking spaces in the "Gessnerallee" were much less used than the parking spaces at other locations in the city centre. In addition to the before mentioned parking spaces on the streets, seven parking garages were checked five times a day. It was noted if the sign in front of the parking garage was showing "free" or "occupied". The same parking garages as in the surveys in 1977 and 1987 were observed. 1'779 parking spaces or 63% of all the parking spaces in parking garages in the city centre were controlled in this manner. This method of controlling the utilization of parking spaces in parking garages is not very precise. It only shows if there are any free parking spaces in a parking house and not how many free parking spaces there are. If there is for example only one parking space available at the time when the sign in front is checked, it is marked down that there are free parking spaces available. But still this method allows to show a general tendency. As can be seen in Figure 3-2 in the morning at 9:00 the signs in front of the parking garages showed in 94% "free". The chance of finding a parking space in a parking garage in the morning is therefore very high. During the daytime the chance gets slimmer (only a 40% chance of finding a parking space in a parking garage at 13:00), at 17:00 though the chance lies again higher at 86%. A tendency can be noted that the parking garage closer to the very centre are better occupied than the ones which are a little bit further away. Significant differences between weekdays couldn't be detected. Over the whole duration of the survey, the chance of finding a free parking space in a parking garage was 66%.

Figure 3-2 Chances of finding parking spaces in parking garages (Average of Monday till Friday, June 2000)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

9 11 13 15 17

Time

Chance of not finding a free

parking space in a parking

garage

Chance of finding a free

parking space in a parking

garage

Figure 3-3 shows the results of the survey in June 2000. It can be seen that the chance of finding a parking space at 9:00 in the city centre of Zurich are still good (from 36 to 41%). After 11:00 the parking spaces are getting more and more occupied and the chance of finding a free parking space at 13:00 is only around 10%. An influence of the weekdays cannot be observed.


Figure 3-3 Percentage of free parking spaces per weekday and time, June 200067

0

10

20

30

40

50

9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00

[%]

MondayThuesdayWednesdayThursdayFriday

In Figure 3-4 the free parking spaces in 1977, 1987 and 2000 are compared. It can be presumed that the number of free parking spaces has increased in the last 20 years for all weekdays and for every time of the day.

Figure 3-4 Comparison between the three surveys from 1977, 1987, 2000 - Free parking spaces per weekdays and per daytime68

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Mon Thue Wed Thur Fri wholeweek

[%]

67 without location "Gessnerallee". 68 without location "Gessnerallee".


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

9:00 11:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 wholeweek

[%] 197719872000

The changes between the survey of 1987 and the survey of 2000 for all the examined weekdays and daytimes, except 13:00, as well as the change for the whole week are significant according to a t-test. The explanation for this change in the utilization of the parking spaces could have several reasons. It isn't necessarily a consequence of the implementation of the higher parking fees. It has to be noted that the surveys in 1977 and 1987 took place in the month of March and the survey of 2000 in June. Although the vacations have not begun in June, the weather in June 2000 has been mostly warm and sunny which could have caused car users to use public transportation instead. Other reasons that could have had an influence like the prolongation of the opening hours of the shops or the implementation of the "S-Bahn" are discussed in chapter 4.

3.4 Results of the Survey of the TA-Media about the Shopping Frequency in the City of Zurich The TA-Media has realized a survey with phone interviews in Mai 199669. A representative random sample of 602 people of the agglomeration of Zurich was interviewed. The results showed that one third of the interviewed people of the agglomeration of Zurich (including the inhabitants of the city itself) goes shopping in Zurich at least once a week and 11% even go shopping almost every day. Of the people that don't live in the city of Zurich only 17% go shopping into Zurich at least once a week. 44% of the people of the agglomeration (without inhabitants of Zurich) answered that they went shopping into town less often during the last year. Mostly people having a small income and people that go shopping in Zurich very little anyhow indicated that they went shopping less in Zurich than before. The main reasons why those people went less shopping in Zurich are: too little or no parking spaces (12%), Zurich is too far away / other shopping areas are closer (11%), everything can be bought in the neighbouring area (11%), no or not enough time (11%) and because of financial reasons/ Zurich is too expensive (9%).

69 Juchler, Maike. "Die Einkaufsfrequenz in der Stadt Zürich". TA-Media AG Marktforschung 2 (1996): 26-33.


Unfortunately this survey has not been repeated since the implementation of the higher parking fees. Therefore, changes effectuated by the rise of the parking fees can't be stated with this survey.

3.5 Interviews with Representatives of Shop Owners and Inhabitants

3.5.1 Robert Ober - President of the "City-Vereinigung" In the preliminaries of the vote about the rise of the parking fees, the "City-Vereinigung" was one of the main opponents of the proposition. Asked for the reasons for this fight against the rise of the parking fees, Robert Ober stated that the "City-Vereinigung" was of the opinion that the offer of parking spaces in the city centre is not sufficient. One of the duties of the "City-Vereinigung" is to create an attractive city centre for the customers. This includes the supply parking spaces for the customers in a sufficient number. In his opinion the customers would pay almost any price for a parking space in the city because parking spaces are such a scarce commodity and this doesn't correspond with the laws of free-market economy anymore. The other reasons against the rise of the parking fees that the "City-Vereinigung" stated before the vote in September 1994 were mainly political reasons. The "City-Vereinigung" was not really afraid that the income of the shop owners would decrease as a consequence of the implementation of the parking fees. It had taken into account that the parking spaces would still be occupied since the number of parking spaces in the city centre is small. The opinion of the "City-Vereinigung" hasn't changed since 1994. It still is in favour of an increase of the number of parking spaces in the city centre. This increase should be moderate in order not to disturb the atmosphere of the city centre. He agrees that the number of people coming to shop in the city centre by public transport modes increased in the last few years, but he says that people coming into town by car spend more money in the shops.

3.5.2 Martin Brogli - President of the "Quartierverein Zürich 1 rechts der Limmat70" In his opinion the parking spaces in the city centre seem to be occupied at all times as they were before the implementation of the higher parking fees. He hasn't heard any reactions of inhabitants. The "Quartierverein Zürich 1 r. d. L." was in favour of the implementation of the higher parking fees. Its goal is a reduction of the number of parking spaces as well as the reduction of traffic in the old town. He mentioned that the shop owners in the same area might be of a different opinion.

3.5.3 Madeleine Bächler - President of the "Rennweg-Quartierverein71" She didn't notice a difference in the utilization of the parking spaces between before and after the implementation of the higher parking fees. The parking spaces and the parking garages of 70 "Quartierverein Zürich 1 rechts der Limmat": Union of the area of the city center to right of the Limmat. 71 "Rennweg-Quartierverein": Union of the area of the "Rennweg" (street in the city center, leading off the

"Bahnhofstrasse").


the city centre seem to be occupied at all times. As far as she knows (she is the president of the "Rennweg-Quartierverein" only since a year) there weren't any reactions of the inhabitants. Certain shop owners state that their customers go more to the shopping centres outside of the town. The majority of the area of the "Rennweg" favours though the suspension of the parking spaces on the "Rennweg" and their substitution in a parking garage. The area of the "Rennweg" would after the suspension of the parking spaces be changed into a pedestrian area.

3.6 Questionnaire to the Shop Owners Questionnaires were sent to 25 shop owners of the city centre of Zurich. There were different branches of the tertiary sector considered as well as different sizes of shops. 10 answers came back whereof 3 stated that they can't or don't want to answer the questionnaire. This leaves 7 questionnaires that were answered. In this chapter the answers of the questionnaires will be summarized qualitatively since the sample is too small to make exact statements. The number of employees and the annual turnover increased slightly during the last five years. The sales area stayed for most of the questioned shops the same. A change because of the implementation of the parking fees can't be noted from the figures. This agrees with the statement of the shop owners who say that they don't think that the turnover changed because of the implementation of the higher parking fees. Most of the shop owners were against the implementation of the higher parking fees before the vote in September 1994. The opinion about the subject isn't as strong anymore but most of the shop owners state that their opinion didn't change in the meantime. Half of the shop owners declare that their customers shop more in shopping centres outside of town since the implementation of the higher parking fees. Over half of the shop owners state that their customers use public transportation to come shopping and that it is possible to transport the goods they sell by public transportation.

4 Results The effects of the rise of the parking fees in the city centre of Zurich on mobility as well as on the economy will be discussed in this chapter.

4.1 Effects on Mobility 4.1.1 Effect on the whole traffic volume Hereafter will be elaborated why an effect of the rise of the parking fees on the whole traffic volume can't be detected. The difference in the number of car trips induced by the rise of the parking fees is very small, as the following estimation will show. Dietrich72 defines the trips induced per parking space per day in cars as listed in Table 4-1.

72 Dietrich K., and Spacek P. IVT, ETH Zürich. "Vorlesungsunterlagen: Verkehrsbeeinflussung". Zürich:

1996.


Table 4-1 Trips induced per parking space

Parking time [minutes]

Average trips per parking space and day [cars]*

30' 26

60' 22

120' 16

180' 14

* sum of the trips to and from the parking spaces per parking space and day

Therefore the 3,639 parking spaces in the area that was affected by the rise of the parking fees induce around 72,340 car trips. With the given parking space structure of the city of Zurich a parking space generates an average of around 20 trips per day. The parking space survey of 1987 and 2000 showed that the occupancy rate of the parking spaces was 91% in the year 1987 and 85% in the year 2000. The difference of car trips is therefore equal to about 4,400 trips per day. Compared with the whole traffic volume from and to the city centre of Zurich (1992: about 205,000 cars and motor cycles per day73) the difference between the years 1987 and 2000 amounts to around 2.1% of this traffic volume. A change of such a small percentage in the traffic volume between the surveys lies within the error range of the determination of the traffic volume. Therefore a change in traffic volume between the years 1987 and 2000 can't be explained by the rise of the parking fees in the city centre of Zurich.

4.1.2 Effect on the utilization of the parking spaces Since the effects of the rise of the parking fees are not detectable in the whole traffic volume, the effects on the mobility were studied through the utilization of the parking spaces. The parking space survey 2000 showed that the parking spaces were significantly less occupied in the year 2000 than in the year 1987. The smaller occupancy rate of the parking spaces led to a reduction of about 4,400 car trips per day. The rise of the parking fees in the beginning of 1997 is one reason for the change in the utilization of the parking spaces between the years 1987 and 2000. Other events and changes, which also took place in this same time period and which could have had an influence on the utilization of the parking spaces, have to be considered as well. They will be discussed in the following chapter.

4.1.3 Other reasons for the change in the utilization of the parking spaces Following events or changes, other than the rise of the parking fees, took place between the surveys of 1987 and 2000: - Prolongation of the opening hours of the shops in the city centre 1998

73 figure from:

- Stadtplanungsamt Zürich. "S-Bahn-Eröffnung und Verkehrsaufkommen". Das Stadtplanungsamt informiert 17 (1993). - Tiefbauamt der Stadt Zürich. "Beförderungskapazität City - Bestandesaufnahme". Die Verkehr splanung informiert... 2/97.


- Parking space survey 2000 in June instead of March - Amelioration of the public transport system - Increased preference to shop in the shopping centres outside of town - More parking in parking garages - Blue zone - Shorter use of parking spaces - Prices of public / motorized individual transportation - Rise of the parking fines

a) Prolongation of the opening hours of the shops in the city centre 1998 In 1998 the opening hours of the shops in the city centre were extended from 18:30 to 20:00. As a reaction the city of Zurich tried to charge parking fees on the public parking spaces not only until 19:00 but until 21:00. There were several complaints against this measure and the decision in this matter is now pending at the Swiss Federal High Court. The prolongation of the opening hours of the shops caused a change in the shopping behaviour. The clients shop over a longer time period than before and therefore also the utilization of the parking spaces is spread over a longer time period.

b) Parking space survey 2000 in June instead of March The surveys in the years 1977 and 1987 took both place in the month of March. The survey in the year 2000 on the other hand was carried out in the end of June due to the dates of the COST 342 project. The weather in June 2000 was mostly nice and warm, which could have led people to rather use public transportation or their bicycle instead of their car. The comparison of the monthly average of the traffic for 24 hours of the months March and June of the years 1997 until 1999 for several traffic counters in the city of Zurich shows that the traffic volume of the compared months is almost the same. Therefore the different time period for the survey to be carried out can't be the reason why there were more free parking spaces counted in the year 2000. The survey in the year 2000 took place before the summer vacation therefore the vacation couldn't have had an influence on the utilization of the parking spaces.

c) Amelioration of the public transport system The S-Bahn and the Zurich Public Transport System (ZVV)74 were inaugurated in 1990. This induced considerable improvements in the supply of public transportation in the whole region of Zurich. A goal of the ZVV was to change the traffic behaviour in order to increase the modal split. The evaluation of the "Mikrozensus Verkehr 199475" showed that the most important transport mode in 1994 was, as well as in 1989, the car. Although a bigger part of the population had access to a car in 1994, the car wasn't used more often than in 1989. The increase in mobility, especially in the centres, was covered mostly by public transportation. The amelioration of the public transportation system didn't induce the expected transfer from motorized traffic to public transportation, but it stopped the further increase of car traffic. The

74 Union of all the public transportation providers in the canton of Zurich. 75 Davatz, Felix, and Kuhn, Fredy. "Verkehrsverhalten im Kanton Zürich 1994". Statistische Berichte des

Kanton Zürich. 1 (1996): 8-28.


modal split of the chosen transport mode to reach the city centre of Zurich shifted thus towards public transportation. During peak hours in 1992 it was 55.7% compared with 53.1% in 198976.

d) Increased preference to shop in the shopping centres outside of town The parking and traffic situation in the city of Zurich cause people, who want to go shopping by car, to prefer more and more the shopping centres outside of town. This could influence the occupancy rate of the parking spaces in the city centre. This assumption is often heard from shop owners of the city centre who are in favour of more parking spaces in the city centre. According to a study of the TA-Media AG77 4 of 10 inhabitants of the bigger agglomeration of Zurich go more shopping in the shopping centres at the town boundaries instead of shopping in the city centre of Zurich than before. Interesting is that 46% of the inhabitants stating this use their car daily or once or twice a week, 53% of them own two or more cars per household. 37% of the inhabitants of the city of Zurich, who use the car less than the cantonal average, don't go shopping more often in the shopping centres than before.

e) More parking in parking garages Through the implementation of the higher parking fees in the beginning of 1997 parking in parking garages got, relatively to the parking spaces on the streets, cheaper. This is why we suppose that the utilization of the parking spaces in the parking garages has increased. Since the occupancy rate of the parking garages was already high in the years before the implementation of the higher parking fees, it is assumed that the increase is rather small and that the occupancy rate mainly increased in the off-peak hours. In addition the parking garages that belong to the city of Zurich raised their fees in the middle of 1998, which probably lessened the above-mentioned effect. Since we didn't get enough data from the carriers of the parking garages, it is not possible to either confirm or reject our assumption.

f) Blue zone In the last years most of the parking spaces in the living areas of the city centre of Zurich were changed into blue zone parking spaces (see also chapter 2.8.2). It is possible that the scarce supply of parking spaces and the high parking fees in the city centre of Zurich conveys the visitors to park their cars in a nearby blue zone. The aspect of the blue zone could not be examined. We assume though that the implementation of the blue zones didn't have an influence on the utilization of the parking spaces in the city centre.

g) Shorter use of parking spaces The parking fees for the longer parking times got increased disproportionally (see Table 3-3). This is why we assumed that the average parking times have decreased. If the parking spaces with a time limitation of for example 120 minutes would suddenly be used just 30 or 60 minutes, the chance of a parking space being free increases. For this reason

76 Stadtplanungsamt Zürich. "S-Bahn-Eröffnung und Verkehrsaufkommen". Das Stadtplanungsamt informiert

17 (1993). 77 Juchler, Maike. "Die Einkaufsfrequenz in der Stadt Zürich". TA-Media AG Marktforschung 2 (1996): 26-33.


the examined parking spaces were evaluated according to the different parking time limitations. In the following figure the surveys of the years 1977, 1987 and 2000 are compared emphasizing the parking time limitations. To confirm our assumption the chance to find a free parking place with a parking time limitation of 120 minutes should have increased significantly. From the Figure 4-1 it can be deducted that this is not the case and therefore we have to reject our assumption.

Figure 4-1 Comparison of the surveys 1977, 1987 and 2000: free parking spaces according to their parking time limitation

05

1015202530354045

30' 60' 120' 180' parking time

%

197719872000

h) Prices of public / motorized individual transportation The use of the car got rather cheaper compared with public transportation. The real prices of gasoline have decreased since 1987 while those for public transportation increased. The fact that there are more and more traffic jams and thus the travel times by car have increased relatively to the travel times by public transportation has probably neutralized this effect which would have supported an assumption that motorized individual traffic got more attractive. The prices for motorized individual transportation didn't decrease in the same range as the parking fees in the city centre of Zurich increased. Therefore the effect of the cheaper prices for gasoline doesn't compensate the effect of the raised parking fees. For this reasons the change of prices can't be the explanation for the smaller occupancy rate of the parking places in the city centre in the year 2000 compared with 1987.

i) Rise of the parking fines 1996 In the beginning of September 1996 the parking fines were raised in Switzerland. Before this rise, a parking fine for parking until two hours longer than the allowed time period cost CHF 20.- which could have led automobilists to take the risk of a parking fine and park longer than allowed. With the rise of the fine for the same offence to CHF 40.- we assume that the parking time limitation is more respected and thus the average parking time reduced. The police of the city of Zurich noted in September 1996 a reduction of 19% for parking fines78. Therefore the parking time limitation is better observed since the rise of the parking fines and thus the chance of finding a free parking space are bigger.

78 Müller, Karin. "Jetzt fallen Raser noch mehr auf". Tages Anzeiger 23.10.1996: page 25.


4.2 Effects on the Economy Before the rise of the parking fees the opponents of this measure stated that the higher parking fees would have a negative effect on the sales figures of the shops in the city centre. A questioning of the shop owners of the city centre was conducted in order to find out if this effect took place (see chapter 3.6). The questioning and an interview with the president of the "City Vereinigung" (see chapter 3.5.1) led to the conclusion that the sales figures of the shops in the city centre have not decreased since the beginning of 1997 when the higher parking fees were implemented. The rise of the parking fees did therefore not have a negative effect on the economy of the shops in the city centre as was feared before the rise.

4.3 Conclusion With the available data it is not possible to detect an influence of the rise of the parking fees in the city centre of Zurich on the traffic volume itself. Therefore the effects of the measure were examined with the comparison of parking space surveys from before and after the implementation of the higher parking fees. This comparison of the parking space survey 2000 with the similarly conducted survey of 1987 showed that there are significantly more free parking spaces available in the city centre of Zurich. The reasons for this change in the occupancy rate of the parking spaces in the city centre of Zurich cannot be exactly determined. In our opinion the most reasonable explanations for this change are the following:

- rise of the higher parking fees - prolongation of the opening hours of the shops - implementation of the S-Bahn

Since the two surveys lay 13 years apart and the general conditions have changed it is not possible to estimate the exact effect of the rise of the parking fees on mobility. An effect on the economy could not be noted. The shop owners as well as the president of the "City Vereinigung" stated that the sales figures of the shops in the city centre did not decrease since the implementation of the higher parking fees.

5 Contacts - Bibliography

5.1 Contacts Abay & Meier Traffic Planning and Transport Economics P.O. Box CH - 8034 Zurich Phone: +41 1 381 46 87 Fax: +41 1 381 49 80 email: [email protected] [email protected]


5.2 Bibliography

Abay & Meier. "Parkplatzbelegungserhebung 2000". Bericht für die Stadt Zürich. Zürich, 2000.

Bauamt Zürich. "Verkehrspolitik der Stadt Zürich, Stand März 1994". Zürich: 1994.

Davatz, Felix, and Kuhn, Fredy. "Verkehrsverhalten im Kanton Zürich 1994". Statistische Berichte des Kanton Zürich. 1 (1996): 8-28

Dietrich K., and Spacek P. IVT, ETH Zürich "Vorlesungsunterlagen: Verkehrsbeeinflussung". Zürich: 1996.

Güller, Peter. "Comparison of Transport System in Case Cities and State of the Art Regarding Acceptability and Barriers, Case Zurich". Zürich: 1999.

Juchler, Maike. "Die Einkaufsfrequenz in der Stadt Zürich". TA-Media AG Marktforschung 2 (1996): 26-33.

Müller, Karin. "Jetzt fallen Raser noch mehr auf". Tages Anzeiger 23.10.1996: page 25

Stadtplanungsamt Zürich. "Parkieren in der City". Das Stadtplanungsamt informiert 6 (1987).

Stadtplanungsamt Zürich. "S-Bahn-Eröffnung und Verkehrsaufkommen". Das Stadtplanungsamt informiert 17 (1993).

Stadtplanungsamt Zürich. "Parkraumplanung Zürich 1978". Zürich: 1978

Statistisches Amt der Stadt Zürich. Statistisches Jahrbuch der Stadt Zürich. Zürich: 1990 - 1999.

Tiefbauamt der Stadt Zürich. "Beförderungskapazität City - Bestandesaufnahme". Die Verkehrsplanung informiert... 2/97.

Vereinigung Züricher Bahnhofstrasse und Präsidialdepartement der Stadt Zürich. "Die Zürcher Innenstadt aus der Sicht ihrer Besucherinnen und Besucher: Bericht einer Passantenbefragung, durchgeführt im Juni 1996". Leitbild Züricher Innenstadt. Zürich, September 1996.

COST 342/18/CH: Case Study 3: New Access Contingent Model (Fahrtenbegrenzungsmodell) in the Zurich North Development Area 74

F Case Study 3: New Access Contingent Model (Fahrtenbegrenzungsmodell) in the Zurich North Development Area

Peter Güller Synergo P.O. Box 4925, CH-8022 Zürich Tel.: ++41-1-2114012 Fax: ++41-1-2123907 www.synergo.ch 25 May 2001

1 The development project for "Zurich North"79 Zurich North (Zentrum Zürich Nord, ZZN) is one of the two large urban renewal projects within the area of the City (municipality) of Zurich. The aim of these projects is to convert large former industrial areas into a mixed-use system within new urban structures. The site of ZZN lies in the immediate vicinity of one of the most important railway and rapid transit stations, right across the existing central business district of Zurich Oerlikon, one of the Zurich's three main business centres. The project is the result of a co-operative planning procedure, combining the interests of the municipal government and administration with those of the property owners (primarily ABB) and the Swiss Federal Railways. In 1998, the municipal council approved the site development plan and a special building ordinance, which equals a partial revision of the construction and zoning ordinance of the city of Zurich. The concept comprises residential and business buildings, a shopping centre, parks, squares and alleys. The size of the planning area is 61 ha. Total investment costs (land acquisition80 excluded) are in total roughly 2'300 million SFr.; the share of ABB is about 1'000 million SFr. Out of this something more than 50% are till today already realised or in process.

79 Source: ABB Real Estate Ltd, Zentrum Zürich Nord, March 2000. 80 Land acquisition some 700 Mio SFr.


2 Innovation with regard to parking in Area D Parking regulations in Switzerland had for many decades been based on fixing a minimum number of parking lots per unit of floor area for living, work, shopping purposes etc. that were to be realised in new buildings. The meaning was that house owners should look for parking space in their own compound instead of depending on car parking on the roadside. Since many years now, local governments try to fix also maximum levels of parking. The maximum is defined in relation to the local conditions, such as accessibility by public transport. The reasoning behind is an environmental one (keep the number of car trips as low as possible) and a functional one (relate the amount of parking facilities to the carrying capacity of the surrounding road network). Parking policy has thus become a tool of traffic demand management. In the view of landowners and developers, these regulations are not only difficult to accept due to the impact they may have on the attractiveness of a site, but the also due to possible impartial conditions to different landowners. Today it may well be that a firm located since ever in the city centre has more parking allowance per sqm floor area than a newly established firm ten years ago in a more peripheral location, closer to a highway. And that latter firm may have more parking allowance than a new building realised these days. Another peculiarity of parking regulations known so far in Switzerland is that demand for parking lots is defined in relation to each type of function of a project hosts (residential, business, industrial use etc). What should, however, be done in an area that has a priory a multifunctional scope, whereby there are certain land uses for which parking is needed over day time, others for which evening or night time parking is relevant? ABB Real Estate Ltd. has conceived, for Area D in Zurich North, a new innovative concept for dealing with such a situation, the so-called Fahrtenbegrenzungs-Modell (access contingent model)81. Area D measures roughly 24 ha and is located directly besides the important railway interchange of Zurich Oerlikon. ABB is the largest landowner in the ZZN area. Instead of providing each of the buildings that should be erected with parking facilities, ABB will act as a the operator of all parking provided in Area D, in a total of 9 well placed park houses. But instead of letting parking space for good to those settling down in Area D, ABB attributes a kind of park space "user rights". A user right fixes the number of car rides in and out of the area and the time frame in which these trips can be done. Tenants and visitors get these rights in the form of badges, whereas people coming for shopping pay as usual with short-term parking fees. Badges have to be renewed every year. Tariffs relate to the intensity of using parking space. ABB operates also a parking guidance scheme that leads car drivers as close as possible to their destination. The 9 park houses are organised in a parking network. In this way a maximum of capacity handling is achieved and search traffic is reduced to a minimum.

81 Source: Interview with and documents provided by Mr. A. Beck. ABB Real Estate Ltd. Promotion and project

development.


3 The policy behind it - and the details With a few exceptions, no tenants have "their own parking space", and most do not have it for an unlimited time-span. Almost all parking lots are thus "public". One and the same parking lot can be used for different purposes (multifunctional use). In an ecological and traffic planning perspective, the question is thus no more one of fixing a number of parking lots but a number of in and out-going cars/day. At the same time the capacity of the surrounding road network is considered. ABB has developed this model together with the Traffic Planning Agency of the Municipality of Zurich. The model was approved by the bureau that is responsible for the environment, too. According to the contract, once all buildings are established altogether 9'800 car rides per day (24hrs) into and out of the 9 park houses of Area D are allowed. The number of available parking lots is 2'000. In the mean time numbers relate to realised construction. The number of parking lots corresponds with the number that would have been possible without applying the new solution. No growth clause is adopted, as the number admissible cars is directly related to the number of parking lots. On this base and considering the pattern of tenants that will occupy Area D, the number and timely distribution of car rides in and out during was calculated with a simulation model. During daytime parking of employees in businesses will prevail by large, followed by shopping. Towards the evening the situation starts to change and at night both residential parking and parking for entertainment (cinema, casino etc) prevail. The final number of admissible car rides in and out has been negotiated between ABB and the municipality. The original request of ABB was some 20-25% above the level that the municipality was willing to accept. Monitoring of car rides is done in permanence, but the measuring results are only consolidated every six months. The limit for this period is thus 1,8 million car rides. What happens if the number of car rides is higher than the limit? If the given limit of the accounting period is exceeded, ABB - as the general operator - has to pay to the municipality initially a penalty of 3.50 SFr. for each trip that is beyond the fixed total per semester. The minimum charge is, however, SFr. 50'000 SFr. This latter penalty is becoming active independently of the size of the exceeding. In case the exceeding is repeated later, the sum of the penalty is increased. Yet if the operator can keep the limit, he will gradually get a bonus out of the sum paid as a penalty. As the operator is responsible for keeping the limits, he will have an eye on the single landowners and tenants. He will also organise a service of mobility management to the firms that settle down in Zurich North, in view of careful handling of mobility needs. The contract for applying the model has been signed by ABB, all other landowners and the municipality. As the model is new in kind, an initial trial period is foreseen in which the limit of the number of car rides in and out is 10% higher. And for the first two years of operation, there will be no penalty in the case of exceeding.


4 Organization The scheme is organised in the following way:

1. ABB Real Estate Ltd acts as "General tenant of parking space" in Zurich North, for a maximum of 10 years. Its main task is to make sure the contract regarding the access contingent scheme is fulfilled, and that rents for admissible car rides in and out are paid.

2. A special management organisation fixes the tariffs and the distribution of the user rights of landowners and tenants.

3. The bureau for parking guidance informs car drivers on road about free parking space, and it exercises control over the number of car rides.

Not all of the projects that will be realised in Zurich North will have parking lots. But the access to parking lots in Zurich North is for all landowners fixed in the real estate register.

5 Overall assessment: A win-win model The development of parking policy - including the access contingent model (Fahrtenbegrenzungs-Modell) - for Zurich North has evoked a great many emotions from the side of the municipality, ABB and the other landowners. But today all partners are of the view that the model meets the needs of the landowners, investors and customers best. There is a lot of flexibility with regard to the expected types of land use and tenants and in the use of available parking space. Investors get best possible returns for the investment in parking space they have to do, as this space gets used in an optimal way. After the first years the contracting parties will reconsider the feasibility of the regulation. The municipality has been able to implement its environmental policy in one of the large development areas of the city. The number of car rides in and out is a better key to combat nuisances than the mere number of parking lots. In the eye of ABB Real Estate Ltd, this model is tailor-made. It cannot simply be transferred to other sites. Its main characteristic is that it especially suits to multifunctional areas and hereby areas with good accessibility by public transport, for commuters.

COST 342/18/CH: Case Study 4: Parking Policy in the canton of Thurgau 78

G Case Study 4: Parking Policy in the canton of Thurgau

Paul Widmer Büro Widmer, Beratende Ingenieure für Verkehr, Umwelt, GIS Bahnhofplatz 76, CH-8500 Frauenfeld Tel.: ++41-52-7221684 Fax: ++41-52-7218922 [email protected] 20 October 2000

1 Introduction In the year 1997 the government of the canton of Thurgau82, Switzerland, decided to levy parking fees on all of its governmental properties (administration, hospitals, colleges, museums etc.), where parking was free previously. The main motivation for this decision was to cover at least part of the costs incurred by providing the parking facilities and to eliminate an inequity between employees in the public and private sector; respectively; the latter had to pay for parking at the workplace in most cases. Besides that, parking charges are also part of a package of measures to improve air quality, adopted by the government in 199583. This case study focuses on the impacts on travel behaviour of those affected by this decision and on the rating of the attractiveness of the workplace. Three facilities have been chosen as examples for this study, namely: � Facilities of the central administration in Frauenfeld (employees only) � Hospital in Frauenfeld (employees and visitors) � Hospital in Münsterlingen (employees and visitors).

To analyse the before/after travel behaviour of employees, a mail back questionnaire survey was conducted at each of these facilities. To survey travel behaviour of visitors of the two hospitals, on-site interviews were held. This paper begins by providing a short description of the relevant characteristics of each of the three facilities. This is followed by the presentation of the chosen survey methods and the

82 Situated in the north-eastern part of Switzerland, area: 1'000 km2, population: 227'000 inhabitants 83 In Frauenfeld, contribution of traffic to NO2-emissions was 56%


survey instruments used. Attention is then directed toward the analysis of the survey results. Finally, a summary of the findings is given along with concluding remarks.

2 Local Situation

2.1 Central Administration 2.1.1 Characteristics The number of employees of the canton's central administration is approx. 1'100. Its buildings and parking spaces are located in the centre of Frauenfeld, a small town with approx. 22'000 inhabitants. Since several years, all public parking spaces within the town centre are equipped with parking meters. The average fee is SFr 1.00 per hour and the allowed parking time usually is limited to 2 hours. Frauenfeld is easily accessible from the surrounding region by two railway lines, 7 regional bus lines and 2 dial-a-bus services. Local buses running at 15 minute-intervals connect all major residential areas with the town centre. The central administration's buildings are all within easy walking distance from the train station, where the terminal of the regional buses is located, too.

2.1.2 Parking levy Employees wishing to use the administration's parking have to buy a sticker for SFr. 20.00 per year. In addition to this base fee, either a season ticket for SFr. 30.00 per month or a value card for SFr. 50.00 valid for 300 hours of parking (in portions of 3 hours) is needed. With the sticker (base fee) the allowance is obtained to use the administrations parking, but there is no guarantee that a parking space is available. Compared to the fees on public parking spaces in Frauenfeld (SFr 1.00/h) or to the costs of renting a parking space (approx. SFr. 100.00/month), the fees levied by the administration are quite modest.

2.2 Cantonal Hospital, Frauenfeld 2.2.1 Characteristics The cantonal hospital in Frauenfeld has approx. 270 beds and 800 employees (medical staff 770, administration staff 30). 90% of the medical staff work irregular hours (e.g. at night when there is no public transportation). The hospital basically serves the western part of the canton with a population of approx. 120'000 inhabitants. It is estimated that on average there are some 300 visitors per day. The hospital is located outside the centre of Frauenfeld at a distance of approx. 1.5 km from the town centre and the train station, which at the same time is the terminal of the regional busses. The hospital is connected to the train station by a local bus at 15-minute intervals during peak hours and 30 minutes during off peak hours. There is a difference in altitude between the centre of Frauenfeld and the hospital of 70 Meters; therefore the accessibility of the hospital by bicycle is limited.

2.2.2 Parking levy For employees of the hospital the same regulations concerning parking fees apply as for those of the central administration, described in section 2.1.2.


For visitors parking is free for the first 30 minutes. Thereafter the fee is SFr. 0.50 per hour.

2.3 Cantonal Hospital, Münsterlingen 2.3.1 Characteristics The cantonal hospital in Münsterlingen has approx. 280 beds and 1'100 employees (of these approx. 50 belong to the administration staff). As at the hospital in Frauenfeld, approx. 90% of the medical staff work irregular hours (e.g. at night when there is no public transportation). The hospital basically serves the eastern part of the canton. Certain special services are provided for the whole canton and parts of southern Germany. It is estimated that on average there are 300 visitors per day. The hospital is located at the eastern border of the agglomeration of Kreuzlingen/Konstanz, at a distance of approx. 5 km from the town centre of Kreuzlingen (population: 16'800). The hospital has got it's own train station just recently (the train is running at 30 minutes intervals). In addition, there are a regional bus and a dial-a-bus service serving the hospital.

2.3.2 Parking levy The parking levy for employees and for visitors is the same as at the cantonal hospital in Frauenfeld (see section 2.2.2).

3 Survey method

3.1 Employees A questionnaire (see Annex) was sent to all employees of the central administration and the two hospitals. The following list summarizes the information that was asked for in the questionnaire:

Personal characteristics: - Location of residence - Age - Gender - Driving license - Availability of a car - Employment status (part- or full-time)

Present job related travel behaviour: - Usual mode for commuting - Usage of own car for trips on duty - Frequency of parking the car on governmental property - Location of usually used parking - Return home for lunch Job related travel behaviour before introduction of parking fees (if working at the same place at that time):


- Usual mode for commuting - Return home for lunch Change of attractiveness of the work place due to parking fees Anticipated job related travel behaviour in case parking fees were cancelled - Usual mode for commuting - Return home for lunch Anticipated change of attractiveness of work place in case parking fees were cancelled For hospital in Münsterlingen only: Anticipated job related travel behaviour in case parking fees were doubled - Usual mode for commuting - Return home for lunch For hospital in Münsterlingen only: Anticipated change of attractiveness of the workplace in case parking fees were doubled

3.2 Visitors of hospitals Direct personal interviews were held with a random sample of visitors entering the hospitals. The questions concerned the following information (see the questionnaire attached in the Annex):

Personal characteristics: Location of residence Age Gender Driving license Availability of a car

Mode used to get to the hospital In case car was used:

Location of chosen parking Awareness of parking fees Are fees considered to be fair, too high or too low?

What mode would be used if parking fees were doubled?

4 Survey results

4.1 Employees of the Central Administration Of the 1'045 questionnaires distributed a total of 670 or 64 % were mailed back. The characteristics of the sample are:

- Gender female: 37 % male: 63 %


- Age group < 20 years: 1 % 20 - 30: 14 % 31 - 40: 24 % 41 - 50: 29 % > 50 years 32 %

- Driving license yes: 98 % no: 2%

- Availability of a car always: 76 % by arrangement: 19 % no access: 5 %

- Employment full time: 78 % part time: 22 %

4.1.1 Present travel behaviour

a) Modal split Today, for home based work trips, 60% of the employees use the car most of the time, 21% come by foot or by bicycle to the workplace and 11% use public transportation. Details of today's modal split for home-based work trips are given in table 1.

Table 1: Central administration; modal split for home based work trips, today (with parking fees)

Mode mode shares [%] by foot 8 bicycle 13 motor bike 5 car, driver 60 car, passengera) 3 Bus 4 Train 7 Total 100

a) including car pooling

b) Car users The group of employees who use the car as the usual mode for home based work trips can be divided into "captive drivers" and "others". For "captive drivers"84 at least one of the following conditions apply:

84 Neglecting the possibility of car pooling


- The distance between home and workplace is too far for walking or bicycling and public transportation for home based work trips is very poor or non-existent

- Car is frequently needed for job related trips (trips on duty) According to these criteria, 84% of all employees are "captive drivers" and 16% could choose another mode than the car.

no alternative58%

need car for job26%

can choose16%

Figure 1: Central administration; categories of car users in terms of freedom to choose mode

c) Non-car users The group of employees who usually use other modes than the car for home based work trips can be divided into those with no access to a car (no driving license, no car available) and "others". As figure 2 shows, 57% of the non-car users could use the car without difficulty and 34% by arrangement. For 9% only using the car is no viable option.

no driver license 3%

no car available6%

car by arrangement

34%car always available

57%

Figure 2: Central administration; categories of non-car users in terms of freedom to choose car


4.1.2 Effect of parking levies on travel behaviour 80% of the respondents were working with the central government already before the introduction of the workplace parking levy. 60% of them used the car (as driver) for home based work trips. The analysis of the behaviour of this car-using group reveals, that just 2.6% have changed the mode and use public transportation, car-pooling or non-motorized modes today. On the other hand, some of those who previously used non-car modes switched to car mode; of course not because of the parking levy but for other reasons such as purchase of a car, more frequent need of the car for job related trips, change of residential location and so on. As a result, the modal split of those employees working with the central government already before the introduction of the parking levy stayed unchanged. (Having said that, it should be noted that without the parking levy the share of those using the car would probably have increased in total.) Most of those who switched to public transportation or car-pooling no longer return home for lunch as they did before. The modal split for home based work trips of all employees at the time before the introduction of parking fees is shown in table 2. The comparison with table 1 reveals that there is hardly any difference between today's and the earlier modal split. The slight increase in the share of car-drivers is attributable to the higher proportion of car users among those joining the central administration after the introduction of parking fees.

Table 2: Central administration; modal split for home based work trips, before introduction of workplace parking levy



Overall, there is no significant difference in modal split for commuting trips before and after the introduction of parking levies at the central administration. But, as mentioned above, it can be assumed that, today, the share of the car mode would be slightly higher without the parking charges. The influence of the parking levy on the attractiveness of the workplace perceived by the respondents is shown in table 3.


Table 3: Central administration; perceived change in attractiveness of workplace due to

parking levy

Perceived change in attractiveness

Percentage of respondents

very negative 15 fairly negative 31 no change 50 fairly positive 2 very positive 2 Total 100

46% of the respondents feel that the attractiveness of the workplace has been diminished due to the introduction of the workplace parking levy. Those who consider the change as positive do not commute by car. Many respondents commented that they conceive the parking levy as a reduction of their salary, some even complained bitterly about this.

4.1.3 Stated response to an abolition of parking levies To the question "what mode would you use if parking was free?" 1% of those using non-car modes today answered they would change to the car-driver mode. In addition, these respondents would return home for lunch (today they don't). The expected change in attractiveness of the workplace in case of an abolition of the parking levy is shown in table 4.

Table 4: Central administration; expected change in attractiveness of the workplace if parking levy were abolished




Half of the respondents think that an abolition of the parking levy would increase the attractiveness of the workplace; 31% expect a fairly positive and 19% a very positive change of the attractiveness of the workplace.


4.2 Employees of Hospital in Frauenfeld Of the 807 questionnaires distributed a total of 282 or 35 % were mailed back. The characteristics of the sample are:



- Driving license yes: 98 % no: 2 %




a) Modal split Since many of the employees at the hospital periodically are on duty at night – when there is no public transportation – the question about the usual mode taken for commuting is restricted to the situation when they work at daytime. Today, 68% of the employees usually commute by car. 21% walk or use the bicycle and 6% use public transportation. Details of today's modal split for commuting trips are given in table 5.


Table 5: Hospital in Frauenfeld, present modal split for home based work trips (with

parking levy)

Mode mode shares [%] by foot 11 bicycle 10 motor bike 2 car, driver 68 car, passenger 2 Bus 5 Train 2 Total 100

b) Car users According to the criteria mentioned in section 4.1.1, 60% of all employees using the car are "captive drivers" and 40% could choose another mode.

no alternative60%

can choose40%

Figure 3: Hospital in Frauenfeld; categories of car users in terms of freedom to choose mode

c) Non-car users The group of employees who usually use other modes than the car for commuting can be divided into those with no access to a car (no driving license, no car available) and "others". As figure 4 shows, 51% of the non-car users could use the car without difficulty and 35% by arrangement. 14% have either no driving license or no access to a car.



no car available8%

car by arrangement

35%

car always available

51%

Figure 4: Hospital in Frauenfeld; Categories of non-car users in terms of freedom to choose car

4.2.2 Hospital in Frauenfeld; Effect of parking levy on travel behaviour 62% of the respondents were working with the hospital already before the introduction of the workplace parking levy. 65% of them used the car (as driver) for home based work trips. The analysis of the behaviour of this car-using group reveals, that 9% changed the mode and use public transportation, car-pooling or non-motorized modes today. As in the case of the employees of the central administration (see section 4.1.2), some of those who previously used non-car modes switched to car mode. As a result, the modal split of the group of employees working with the hospital in Frauenfeld already before the introduction of the parking levy stayed more or less the same. Most of those who switched to public transportation or car-pooling no longer return home for lunch as they did before. The modal split for home based work trips of all employees at the time before the introduction of parking fees is shown in table 6. The comparison with table 5 reveals that there are small differences between today's and the previous modal split. Again, the slight increase in the share of car-drivers is attributable to the higher proportion of car users among those joining the hospital staff after the introduction of parking fees.


Table 6: Hospital in Frauenfeld; modal split for home based work trips, before introduction of workplace parking levy



The influence of the parking levy on the attractiveness of the workplace perceived by the respondents is shown in table 7.

Table 7: Hospital in Frauenfeld; perceived change in attractiveness of workplace due to parking levy




36% of the respondents feel that the attractiveness of the workplace has been diminished due to the introduction of the workplace parking levy. Those who consider the change as positive do not commute by car.

4.2.3 Hospital in Frauenfeld; Stated response to an abolition of parking levies To the question "what mode would you use if parking was free?" 12% of those using non-car modes today answered they would change to the car-driver mode. The expected change in attractiveness of the workplace in case of an abolition of the parking levy is shown in table 8.


Table 8: Hospital in Frauenfeld; expected change in attractiveness of the workplace if parking levies were abolished




46% of the respondents think that an abolition of the parking levy would increase the attractiveness of the workplace; 37% expect a fairly positive change whereas 9% think that such an improvement would be substantial.

4.3 Employees of Hospital in Münsterlingen Of the 1092 questionnaires distributed a total of 324 or 30 % were mailed back. The characteristics of the sample are:



- Driving license yes: 97 % no: 3 %





a) Modal split Since most of the employees at the hospital periodically are on duty at night – when there is no public transportation – the question about the usual mode taken for commuting is restricted to the situation when they work at daytime. Today, 68% of the employees usually commute by car or motor bike. 27% walk or bicycle and 3% use public transportation. Details of today's modal split for home based work trips are given in table 9.

Table 9: Hospital in Münsterlingen, modal split for home based work trips, today (with parking fees)

Mode mode shares [%] by foot 4 bicycle 23 motor bike 3 car, driver 65 car, passenger 2 Bus 1 Rail 2 Total 100

b) Car users According to the criteria mentioned in section 4.1.1, 46% of all employees are "captive drivers" and 54% could choose another mode than the car.

no alternative46%can choose

54%

Figure 5: Hospital in Münsterlingen; categories of car users in terms of freedom to choose mode


c) Non-car users The group of employees who usually use other modes than the car for commuting can be divided into those with no access to a car (no driving license, no car available) and "others". As figure 6 shows, 53% of the non-car users could use the car without difficulty and 31% by arrangement. 16% have either no driving license or no access to a car.


no car available8%

car by arrangement

31%

car always available

53%

Figure 6: Hospital in Münsterlingen; Categories of non-car users in terms of freedom to choose car

4.3.2 Hospital in Münsterlingen; Effect of present parking levy on travel behaviour 79% of the respondents had their job at the hospital since before the introduction of the workplace parking levy. 68% of them used the car (as driver) for home based work trips than. Since the introduction of parking levies 4.6% of this group have changed the mode and commute now by bicycle, motor bike or other non-car modes. On the other hand, for many different reasons, some employees switched from non-car modes to car. As a result, the share of the car mode has decreased slightly from 68% to 65%.

Table 10: Hospital in Münsterlingen; modal split for home based work trips, before introduction of workplace parking levy




The influence of the parking levy on the attractiveness of the workplace perceived by the respondents is shown in table 11.

Table 11: Hospital in Münsterlingen; perceived change in attractiveness of workplace due to parking levy




More than half of the respondents feel that the attractiveness of the workplace has been reduced due to the introduction of the workplace parking levy. Those who consider the change as positive do not usually commute by car.

4.3.3 Hospital in Münsterlingen; Stated response to a doubling of parking levies Instead of the question "what mode would you use if parking was free?" in the case of Münsterlingen the question asked was "what mode would you use if parking charges were doubled?". To this second question, 15% of those usually commuting by car today stated they would switch to non-car modes. The expected modal split for home based work trips of all employees for the hypothetical situation with doubled parking levies is shown in table 12.

Table 12: Hospital in Münsterlingen; hypothetical modal split for home based work trips with parking levies doubled (stated response)


The influence of a doubling of the parking levy on the attractiveness of the workplace perceived by the respondents is shown in table 13.


Table 13: Hospital in Münsterlingen; expected change in attractiveness of workplace if parking levies were doubled



very negative 51 fairly negative 28 no change 20 positive 1 Total 100

79% of the respondents stated that the attractiveness of the workplace would be negatively affected by doubling the parking levies, 51% think that this effect would even be very negative.

4.4 Visitors of the hospital in Frauenfeld 162 randomly chosen visitors of the hospital in Frauenfeld were interviewed.

4.4.1 Mode of travel 85% of the people visiting friends or relatives hospitalised in the hospital in Frauenfeld come by car, 8% of them as car passengers. The shares of the other modes are small, as shown in table 14. Table 14: Travel modes used by visitors of the hospital in Frauenfeld


4.4.2 Influence of parking fees on travel behaviour

a) Assessment of parking fee 73% of the respondents consider the parking fee (SFr. 0.50 per hour) to be adequate, while 27% think it is too high.

b) Trade-off between parking fee and access distance Parking supply for visitors at the hospital in Frauenfeld is divided into a part with free parking and a part with parking charges. Walking distance from the entrance to free parking is more


than 200 meters, to charged parking less than 100 meters. One third of the visitors chose to park free but to walk more. As mentioned in 2.2.2, the first half an hour of parking is free. About 87% of the visitors were aware of this fact and one third of the car users took it into account while timing the visit.

c) Stated response to a doubling of the parking fee According to the stated responses, doubling the parking fee would have a very limited impact on the modal split of the visitors; just 5% of those who came by car stated that they would change the mode of travel.

4.5 Visitors of the hospital in Münsterlingen A random sample of 196 visitors of the hospital in Münsterlingen was interviewed.

4.5.1 Mode of travel By far most, namely 88%, of the people visiting friends or relatives hospitalised in the hospital in Münsterlingen come by car, 7% of them as car passengers. 9% of the visitors come by train. The shares of the other modes are small, as shown in table 15. Table 15: Travel modes used by visitors of the hospital in Münsterlingen


4.5.2 Influence of parking fees on travel behaviour

a) Assessment of parking fee 72% of the respondents consider the parking fee (SFr. 0.50 per hour) to be adequate, 10% think it is too low and 18% think it is too high.

b) Trade-off between parking fee and access distance 7% of the visitors coming by car preferred to park somewhere further away in the neighbourhood in order to avoid the parking fee. As mentioned in 2.2.2, the first half an hour of parking is free. 83% of the visitors were aware of this fact and 45% of the car users took it into account while timing the visit.


c) Stated response to a doubling of the parking fee According to the stated responses, doubling the parking fee would motivate 11% of those using at present the car to switch to another mode of travel.

5 Summary and Conclusions

5.1 Employees of central Administration and of hospitals A few years ago, the government of the canton of Thurgau set into effect a workplace parking levy for the employees of its central administration and its two cantonal hospitals. The main goal of this measure was to generate revenues and to eliminate an inequity between employees in the public and private sector respectively; the latter had to pay for parking at the workplace in most cases. It was hoped, that the workplace parking levy would also influence the employee’s mode choice and reduce commuting by car, which in turn would contribute to an improvement in air quality. Has the first goal, the generation of revenues, been achieved? Yes. The same share of employees (60 to 70%) as before use the administration's parking and pay now the levy of SFr. 380.-- per year. This amounts to a total of more than SFr. 600'000.-- per year for the canton's treasury. (The costs of providing workplace parking by the government have never been estimated and can not be found in any budget. Therefore, it is not possible to tell what part of the costs are covered by the revenues.) Has the second goal, the reduction of car use, been achieved? No. The survey described in this paper reveals that the workplace parking levy imposed by the government of the canton of Thurgau is too low to have a substantial impact on the choice of mode for commuting by the employees. The measure taken therefore does hardly contribute to an improvement in air quality. At all three locations studied, a large proportion (between 30 and 50%) of those commuting by car today could easily use public transportation or even walk. It can be assumed, that an adequate parking levy would generate a shift in mode-choice in favour of less polluting travel modes. This assumption is supported by the fact that 15% of the respondents at the hospital stated they would stop using the car for commuting, if the parking levy was doubled. Even though the parking levy is quite low, in the opinion of many employees it has reduced the attractiveness of the workplace. Those expressing their emotions and even bitterness in the questionnaire generally conceive the parking levy conceived as a reduction in salary.

5.2 Hospital visitors Parking fees at the hospitals are modest and most respondents judge them as fair. Nonetheless, people try to avoid them by searching for free parking, putting up with longer access walking distances, or by limiting the duration of their visit to half an hour, for which there is no parking fee.


However, the parking fee does not seem to have influenced mode choice. The car is by far the most predominant mode of travel by visitors at the hospitals. The study shows, that even doubling the parking fee would hardly (some 5 to 10%) deter people from using the car for visits at the hospital.

5.3 Conclusions Parking levies are a proper mean to make users pay at least part of the costs incurred by the public (or a private owner) for providing and maintaining parking infrastructures. In the canton of Thurgau, a mainly rural area, even though service by public transportation is at a comparatively high level, a substantial part of travellers are "captive drivers". Therefore, in the cases studied, the effectiveness of parking levies as a measure to reduce travel by car is limited. To have a measurable effect, the levies had to be high (much higher than today) and service by public transportation had to be improved further, at considerable additional costs.

CO

ST

342/18/CH

: Case S

tudy 4: P

arking Policy in the canton of T

hurgau 98

Questionnaire for E

mployees

CO

ST StudieParking Policy M

easures and their Effects on Mobility and the Econom

y

Wie häufig brauchen Sie das A

uto für Dienstfahrten?

selten oder nie

weniger als 10 m

al pro Monat

mehr als 10 m

al pro Monat

8.

unter 20 Jahre

20 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

über 50

Alter:

2.

Geschlecht:

weiblich

männlich

3.

Besitzen Sie einen Führerausw

eis für‘s Auto?

janein

5.

Wie steht Ihnen ein A

uto zur Verfügung?

imm

er verfügbar

nach Absprache

nicht verfügbar

6. Ihr Wohnort?

1.

Wie ist Ihr A

nstellungsverhältnis?Vollzeit

Teilzeit7.

FRAG

EBOG

EN

Welches ist Ihr üblicher A

rbeitsort?

Regierungsgebäude

Schlossmühlestrasse

Marktplatz

Zürcherstr. 377

Zürcherstr. 325

Verwaltungsgebäude Prom

enade

Ringstrasse 21 / Spannerstr. 20

Bahnhofstr. 55

andere, welche?

4.W

enn Sie üblicherweise nicht m

it dem A

uto zur Arbeit fahren,

wie häufig benutzen Sie trotzdem

einen Parkplatz am A

rbeitsort ( z.B

. für Dienstfahrten, bei schlechtem

Wetter etc.)?

selten oder nie

2-3 mal pro M

onat

mehr als 4 m

al pro Monat

10.

Gehen Sie über M

ittag üblicherweise nach H

ause?

janein

12.

Waren Sie schon vor der Einführung der G

ebührenpflicht fürParkplätze der kant. Verw

altung beim K

anton angestellt?

janein bitte mit Frage 17 w

eiterfahren

13.

Wo parkieren Sie üblicherw

eise das Auto?

Parkplatz der kant. Verwaltung

anderer gebührenpflichtiger Parkplatz; wo?:

gebührenfreier Parkplatz; wo?:

11.

Welches Verkehrsm

ittel benützen Sie üblicherweise für den H

auptteilIhres A

rbeitsweges?

zu Fuss

Velo / Mofa

Motorrad

Auto - Selbstfahrer

Auto - Mitfahrer

Auto - Carpooling

Postauto / Stadtbus

Bahn

andere, welche?

9.

CO

ST

342/18/CH

: Case S

tudy 4: P


hurgau 99

Gingen Sie dam

als über Mittag üblicherw

eise nach Hause?

janein

15.

Wenn die Parkgebühren w

ieder aufgehoben würden, w

elchesVerkehrsm

ittel würden Sie üblicherw

eise für den Haupteil Ihres

Arbeitsw

eges benutzen?

zu Fuss

Velo / Mofa

Motorrad

Auto - Selbstfahrer

Auto - Mitfahrer

Auto - Carpooling

Postauto / Stadtbus

Bahn

andere, welche?

17.

Wenn die Parkgebühren w

ieder aufgehoben würden, gingen Sie

dann über Mittag üblicherw

eise nach Hause?

janein

18.

Wie hat die Einführung der G

ebührenpflicht für die Parkplätzeder kant. Verw

altung die Attraktivität Ihres A

rbeitsplatzes beeinflusst?

gar nicht

eher negativ

stark negativ

eher positiv

16.

stark positiv

Welches Verkehrsm

ittel benutzten Sie üblicherweise für

den Arbeitsw

eg vor der Einführung der Parkgebühren?

zu Fuss

Velo / Mofa

Motorrad

Auto - Selbstfahrer

Auto - Mitfahrer

Auto - Carpooling

Bus

Bahn

andere, welche?

14.

Bem

erkungen / Anregungen:

Bitte so rasch als m

öglich, spätestens bis 31. Juli mit interner

Post an das Am

t für Raum

planung zurücksenden.

Besten Dank für Ihre w

ertvolle Mitarbeit

büro widm

er, Bahnhofplatz 76, 8500 Frauenfeld, Tel. 052 / 722 16 84

Wie w

ürde die Aufhebung der Parkgebühren die A

ttraktivitätIhres A

rbeitsplatzes verändern?19.

gar nicht

eher negativ

stark negativ

eher positiv

stark positiv

CO

ST

342/18/CH

: Case S

tudy 4: P


hurgau 100

Questionnaire for V

isitors of Hospitals

C

OST S

tudieParking Policy M

easures and their Effects on Mobility and the Econom

y

Wie beurteilen Sie die Parkgebühren?

zu tief

angemessen

zu hoch

4.

Jung (18-30)

Mittel (31 - 65)

Alt (über 65)

Alter:

12.

Geschlecht:

weiblich

männlich

13.

Besitzen Sie einen Führerausw

eis für‘s Auto?

janein

8.

Wie steht Ihnen ein A

uto zur Verfügung?

imm

er verfügbar

nach Absprache

nicht verfügbar

9.

Mit w

elchem Verkehrsm

ittel sind Sie gekomm

en?

zu Fuss

Velo / Mofa

Motorrad

Auto - Selbstfahrer

Auto - Mitfahrer

Postauto / Stadtbus

Bahn / Bus

Bahn / zu Fuss

andere, welche?

1.

Ihr Wohnort?

11.

Wussten Sie von der G

ebührenpflicht?Ja

Nein

3. FRAG

EBOG

EN

Bei der doppelten Parkgebühr, m

it welchem

Verkehrsmittel

würden Sie dann kom

men?

zu Fuss

Velo / Mofa

Motorrad

Auto - Selbstfahrer

Auto - Mitfahrer

Postauto / Stadtbus

Bahn / Bus

Bahn / zu Fuss

andere, welche?

5.

Fanden Sie sofort einen Parkplatz?Ja

Nein

2.

Wo haben Sie parkiert?

gebührenpflichtiger Parkplatz

gebührenfreier Parkplatz; w

o?:

3.

Sind Sie alleine hier?

allein

mit Fam

ilie / Gruppe: Anzahl Pers?

10.

Wussten Sie von der 1/2h G

ratiszeit?

janein

6.

Ohne A

uto zu -> 8

Achten Sie darauf?

janein

7.

COST 342/18/CH: Case Study 5: Parking Policy for Leisure Traffic 101

H Case Study 5: Parking Policy for Leisure Traffic

Dr. Ruedi Meier Consulting Economist / Spatial Planner ETH/EDS Bolligenstr. 14b, CH-3006 Bern [email protected] www.ruedimeier.ch 31 January 2001

1 Local Context Skiing is a Swiss national sport since at least World War II. The relevant transport infrastructure today consists of approximately 1800 cableways and similar conveyor facilities, and about 12 000 km of ski runs allowing for an almost limitless skiing experience. On winter weekends thousands of city dwellers make their way from Switzerland's grey central plateau to the surrounding sunny slopes of the winter sports resorts. It is estimated that 1/3 of the population, i.e. somewhat more than 2 million people, are active skiers or snowboarders. The skiing industry, including day trips, constitutes a major economic resource, especially in the mountain regions. Day trips in particular, however, generate a number of negative side effects: traffic jams, noise, air pollution and other traffic-related environmental burdens such as damage to the landscape, land use to accommodate the expanding motorways and parking facilities, the parcelling up of habitats and biotopes. This makes it necessary for the parties involved to take steps ensuring a greater shift from private motor to public transport. The present study focuses on parking policy and its relationship to the authorisation of cableways and similar transport operations. The players have the following options: The federal authorities: Because it grants concessions for these facilities, the Confederation may link a concession for a cableway or similar installations to certain conditions – including conditions relating to traffic and car park volume. This ensures that the size of car parks adequately accounts for public transport. However, the right to freely choose the mode of transport must be guaranteed; the supply of car parks must not jeopardise the profitability of the cableway or other conveyor, nor lead to traffic congestion or chaos.


Canton Bern, the municipalities Adelboden, Saanenmöser: Basically, the size of parking facilities is settled at the discretion of the municipalities and the canton, which may call upon past experience. The private sector usually has a significant say in these matters. The canton, which in turn grants the planning permissions, may take more specific decisions during the relevant process. But in the end, transport management should be dealt with by the region and the municipality to avoid excessive cantonal interventionism. The conclusion: It would appear that transport-related considerations are not important for the processes by which cableways obtain concessions. Federal authorities largely refer to the canton, the regions and the municipalities. For the time being there are no coordinated interregional principles and guidelines, covering for example cost-covering parking fees, optimisation of public transport or other services).

2 Interregional Situation

2.1 Case Studies: Adelboden – Saanenmöser The selected examples "Adelboden" and "Saanenmöser" are located in the Bernese Oberland, canton Berne. Table 1 lists the most important data. Table 1: Profile of Adelboden and Saanenmöser case studies Adelboden Saanenmöser

Skiers/snowboarders85 Skiers: 71%, snowboarders: 35% From: Berne 69%, north-western Switzerland 23 %, others 8% Travel distance (return): 250 km (CH population only) Average age: 33.3 years From urban areas: 70% Female 39%, male 61%

Public transport Direct trains from Basle, Zurich, Berne to Frutigen; from Frutigen by post bus

Direct trains from Berne to Zweisimmen; from Zweisimmen by light railway

Special public transport offers

„Snow’nRail„ combined ticket 20 % reduction on cableway

„Snow’nRail„ combined ticket 30 % reduction on cableway

85 In total, 348 oral and 87 written interviews were conducted as part of the evaluation of a future-oriented

parking policy.


Access by private vehicle transport

Motorway until Spiez Trunk road until Frutigen Mountain road from Frutigen to Adelboden

Motorway until Spiez Valley road until Saanenmöser Detour roads already built and under construction

Offers targeting private motor vehicles on site: Parking places (PP)

290 PP to over 1500 PP (shuttle) Free

350 PP to unlimited Free

Modal Split Private vehicle: 80% Public transport: 14% Coach: 6%

Other offers Planned: ski rental on site, others Ski depots

Ski rental Ski depots

Length of activities Winter season from mid-December through early April

Adelboden and Saanenmöser are among the liveliest ski resorts in Switzerland. Day trippers come primarily from the canton Berne and north-western Switzerland. Foreigners were not taken into account. Access by public transport is relatively good. On weekends there are direct trains from Berne (part of the SnowParadise project). The most important public transport special offer is the combined "Snow‘nRail„ ticket with a 20 to 30 percent reduction on the cableway. Access by private motorcar is very good, only good on the last stretch before reaching the resorts. In principle, unlimited parking place is available free of charge. Until now no one has implemented a systematic parking policy. Both resorts already provide special offers, others are planned (ski rental on site, ski depots).

2.2 The players: their interests and objectives Various players are involved in the organisation and operation of winter sports as such, and of the transport to and from the resort. Cableway operators as direct service providers with direct business interests are certainly the major players. The public sector is in charge of road infrastructure, with shared federal, cantonal and municipal competence for financing, construction and maintenance. Public transport is provided by the Swiss national railway system (SBB/CFF) and the private Bern-Lötschberg-Simplon line (BLS), with state subsidies. Various associations at national and regional level are involved in planning and coordination. Only the railways (SBB and BLS) have a definite interest in a modal shift from private to public transport, accompanied by an active parking policy. Cooperation between the various parties is fragmentary, though discussions are under way. Due to the volume of business they generate, ski day trips and private vehicle transport are viewed as economic priorities. Cableway operators and their associations, as well as regional organisations, are primarily interested in an optimal use to capacity of the installations, and take only a secondary interest in how people reach them. There is no consensus on active and effective parking management.


2.3 Parking facilities - Fees The cableway stations in Adelboden and Saanenmöser both offer generous parking facilities free of charge. Below are some data on the type of parking facility, number of parking places, and fees levied by these and other cableways in the Bernese Oberland: Table 2: Parking management in the Bernese Oberland Station covered/open air car park Number of

parking places Fees in CHF per day

Case study Adelboden-Sillerenbahnen open air 290 (1300*) free

Saanenmöser open air 350** free

Other resorts in the Bernese Oberland

Grindelwald-Männlichenbahnen open air 1200 4.- CHF/day

Meiringen open air 280 free

Stechelberg-Schilthornbahnen open air 1200 5.- CHF/day

Lenk-Metschbahnen covered 1000 free

Beatenbucht covered 200 4.- CHF/day

Beatenberg open air 70 5.- CHF/day

Lauterbrunnen covered 1000 15.- CHF/day

Comments: *Besides the authorised 290 parking places, Adelboden provides a number of other parking places (500 in meadows, 400 in unauthorised areas, and further ones at the border of the village). **The number indicated corresponds to the parking facilities provided by the Saanenmöser cableway operator. For the whole area, the number of parking places is almost unlimited since additional car parks can be activated in case of shortage (e.g. at Zweisimmen airport). For the other resorts only authorised parking places are listed, without the numerous non-official ones. The resorts in the eastern Bernese Oberland have generally introduced parking fees. In Grindelwald, many tourists who stay overnight also use the Männlichenbahnen cableway car park. In the western Oberland no direct parking fees have been introduced at all. According to our interviews, there are no plans to do so in the near future. Smaller resorts such as Diemtigtal, Habkern, and Gurnigel refrain from doing so because of the costs involved - system investments, parking controls.


3 Measures implemented – future measures: ex ante analysis

3.1 Drivers' awareness of special public transport offers 30 percent of private vehicle users are well informed about public transport offers for winter sports tourists (‘Snow’n’Rail’/Skipass), a further 25 percent have heard of them, but lack precise information. 43 percent say they have never heard of such offers at all. Age plays a significant role: 33 percent of the 18 to 25 year olds have never heard of "Snow’n’Rail". Among 26 to 40 year olds this proportion rises to 43 percent, and further increases in the post 40 age group, to reach 55 percent. Approximately 40 percent of 18 to 25 year olds are quite well informed about "Snow’n’Rail", which proves that the marketing strategies of the SBB and the BLS are relatively successful in reaching the population that is their primary target. Information could nevertheless be improved to win more customers without too much expense, and improve the modal shift. Figure 1: Awareness of drivers of "Snow’n’Rail" or Skipass

never heard of43%

well informed 31%

heard of 26%

3.2 Parking fees at cableway stations: responses to the survey The graph below illustrates the reactions of interviewees to the suggested introduction of parking fees of 20 to 40 CHF per day:


Figure 2: Reactions of interviewees to the possible introduction of parking fees

25%

26%

55%

12

6%

29%

63%

24%

10

39%

31

3%

43%

38%

7%

0% 10 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100

no change

m ore p.t.

other stations

stay at home

no change

more p.t.

other stations

stay at home

publictrsp. users;n=72

privatevehicle users:n=343

Multiple replies

20 Fr.

40 Fr.

Reactions to the proposed introduction of parking fees are indeed striking: with the introduction of a 40 CHF fee, a majority of drivers (63 percent) would switch to another resort or resorts that have not introduced parking fees. At 20 CHF, 55 percent would still switch. Just under 30 percent of drivers would resort more often to public transport; this proportion hardly increases with rising fees (40 instead of 20 CHF): 28 percent would switch with a 20 CHF fee, just one percent more. i.e. 29 percent, if a 40 CHF fee were introduced. Apparently as of 20 CHF no higher modal switch to public transport may be achieved. The 30 percent of drivers who are willing to switch are likely to represent the maximum modal switch potential. The "stay at home reaction" cropped up in 12 percent of cases with a 20 CHF fee, and in 24 percent of cases with a 40 CHF fee. Whereas a considerable proportion of interviewees would not significantly change their options with a 20 CHF fee, (25 percent of drivers and 10 percent of train passengers), the proportion of such stalwarts grows minuscule with a 40 CHF fee. Certain interviewees reacted angrily to the sums quoted. Public transport passengers were also quite clearly against the proposition, though they reacted less violently. The only explanation for this is that they see themselves as motorists as well and do not want to be subject to extra charges the next time they use their car. Obviously they expect no significant advantages from incentive measures based on parking fees.

3.3 Attitudes and behaviour of transport operators Expert interviews gave rise to the following assessment of current and planned measures.

3.3.1 Transport operators in Saanenmöser (SnowParadise) As a result of the linking up of the Rinderberg and Saanenmösen skiing areas, the airport in Zweisimmen with a shuttle to the station in the valley is available in the winter months. More parking facilities for coaches are also planned. In spite of regular parking shortages, no expansion of the supply is planned for the immediate future, since the pressure in this area is expected to diminish somewhat thanks to the determined promotion of public transport. The idea of parking management was met with considerable restraint, although certain interviewees admitted that it might offer a plausible solution for some resorts. In view of the falling numbers of guests in the Saanenland it was not considered feasible there, at least for


the time being (1998/1999). High investment costs for parking management infrastructure were also feared; the example of the Saanenmöser municipality was mentioned as a case in point. These resources are more acutely needed for other purposes, interviewees said. The proportion of private vehicle users should not be diminished. Parking fees will become a viable proposition when all resorts in the Bernese Oberland introduce them.

3.3.2 Transport operators in Adelboden Detour routes are being built to alleviate the heavy volume of traffic in the villages of the Kandertal. Measures in transport telematics and systems to direct parking are being tested. When the Sillerenbahn was being built in 1991, the canton demanded the supply of parking places to be limited. Although new parking facilities have been provided in the meantime, there is still a shortage, especially when warm weather makes parking in fields or meadows impracticable. New car parks are being set up in the village and in industrial zones. In spite of the fact that at present, the various Sillerenbahn cableways can make use of 1300 parking places, the shortage is acute on about 40 days per year. Planning for a subterranean car park with 230 places is currently under way. The facilities built in 1991 were granted a one million CHF federal subsidy (Investitionshilfe-Gelder IHG), since the construction of the Sillerenbahn did a lot to alleviate traffic in the village of Adelboden. Parking management is not a subject on the agenda. In fact, the operators believe, that when parking fees were introduced in other resorts, including Grindelwald, Adelboden profited from a number of day-trippers who decided to change destinations. If parking fees were introduced throughout the Bernese Oberland, the Sillerenbahnen operators would still hesitate to participate. The overall mood is one of scepticism. Generally, the opinion is that the status quo should be maintained with reference to the number of parking places, and the introduction of direct parking fees meets with reticence. Improved public transport was the measure that met with the strongest support.

3.4 Costing parking places Costing criteria for parking facilities near cableways and similar transport installations involving active parking management are featured below. Table 3: Cost estimations: annual cost of construction and maintenance of parking places –

External costs – approximate daily fees for high frequency periods

Open air car park Covered car park/Multi-storey car park

Type of cost: estimated Minimum per CP Maximum per CP Minimum per CP Maximum per CP

Price of land: 25 m2 incl. access CHF 250.- CHF 10/m2

CHF 2500.- CHF100/m2

CHF 250.- CHF 10/m2

CHF 2500.- CHF100/m2

Ground rent (5% interest) CHF 12.50 CHF 125.- CHF 12.50 CHF 125.-

Building costs: buildings, surfacing, access, marking etc.

CHF 5'000.- CHF 10'000.- CHF 20'000.- CHF 50'000.-

Capital costs 8%/a CHf 400.- CHf 800.- CHF 1'600.- CHF 4'000.-


- Interest: 5%/a - Amortisation: 3%/a

Maintenance: cleaning, electricity, etc.

CHF 50.- CHF 500.- CHF 100.- CHF 1‘000.-

Total variable costs/year CHF 50.- CHF 500.- CHF 100.- CHF 1‘000.-

Total direct (variable/fixed) costs/year

CHF 462.50 CHF 1‘425.- CHF 1‘712.50 CHF 5‘125.-

Estimated basic fees with variable or full direct costs per day

Fees: variable costs for 180 days (50% use to capacity)

CHF 0.28 pro day CHF 2.80 per day CHF 0.56 per day CHF 5.60 per day

Fees at full cost: 180 days (50% use to capacity)

CHF 2.60 per day CHF 7.90 per day CHF 9.50 per day CHF 28.5 per day

External costs of damage to the landscape

CHF 6.25 CHF 6.25 Ca. CHF 3.- Ca. CHF 3.-

Fees (costs) total/day CHF 8.85 CHF 14.15 CHF 12.50 CHF 31.50

3.4.1 Parking place costs depend on a number of factors Land: the estimated basic price lies between 10 and 100 CHF per m2, with a 25 m2 surface per parking place. 10 CHF represent the estimated agricultural sales value. 100 CHF correspond to a relatively low price of building land in mountain regions. Cableways tend to assume that land is relatively cheap, since it has usually been the property of either the operators themselves, or the municipality for a long time. Opportunity costs are therefore rather underestimated. Construction costs: construction costs are assumed to be low for open-air car parks. Built on snow-covered, frozen meadows or areas lightly covered with gravel, their investments costs are low. Asphalt surfaced car parks are rare. These low construction costs show that unnecessary perfectionism is not the order of the day, which makes sense and may be viewed as a comparative advantage for cableways. There are cost indications for covered car parks belonging to cableways. The multi-storey car park next to the train station in Spiez required 70 000.- CHF per parking place, for example, a sum that probably represents the maximum limit. The 20 000 quoted in the table above is probably too low an estimation. Maintenance: The Sillerenbahn in Adelboden calculates annual maintenance costs of 20’000 – 70’000 CHF (300 parking places) for the facilities built in 1991, depending on snow conditions (snow only had to be cleared 3 times in 1997/98), corresponding to 65.- to 233.- CHF per parking place. Further operational costs (marking, traffic control) are probably not included. Saanenmöser assumes maintenance costs of 10’000 to 20’000 CHF (approximately 30 to 60 CHF per parking place). Car parks do not have to be maintained up to city standards, and thus generate lower maintenance costs. Available resources are carefully husbanded.

3.4.2 Open air car parks in mountain regions are cost-effective A decisive element when costing parking fees is to know whether one assumes variable or full direct costs as the basis for calculations.


If variable costs are taken as the basis, fees for open-air car parks are low to minimal. This approach is in fact the one that most cableway operators choose when estimating fees. Fixed costs are debited under general overheads or – if possible - covered by subsidies (for example the federal subsidy (Investitionshilfegesetz- lHG). With full costing, fees are still reasonable if calculated on the basis of a 50 percent use to capacity over the entire year (with possibly higher rates in the winter than in summer): rates are slightly higher than the ones used in Grindelwald (CHF 4.- per parking place per day) and Stechelberg-Schilthornbahn (CHF 5.- per parking place per day).

3.4.3 No cross-subsidies for private motor vehicles through free parking Cableway operators in Adelboden and Saanenmöser think it makes little sense to introduce explicit fees covering the relatively low direct costs of open-air car parks. These are debited directly through the cableway tickets, saving thereby the cost of collection and avoiding extra work selling parking tickets. They deny that drivers benefit from cross-subsidies if approximately 5 CHF per cableway ticket are credited to parking costs. Public transport users benefit from a 20 to 30 percent reduction, corresponding to approximately 10 to 15 CHF per ticket sold. This sum is higher than parking costs, so cross-subsidising is not an issue here. As for smaller cableways, which do not grant reductions to public transport passengers, most of their users arrive by car anyway, since they are too remote to be reached by public transport. In consequence, drivers pay the parking costs they generate themselves.

3.4.4 Uncovered costs for multi-storey car parks in Lauterbrunnen and Beatenberg Costs for the multi-storey car park in Lauterbrunnen are probably barely covered after subsidies have been deducted (CHF 15/day). It is likely that costs in Beatenberg (CHF 4/day) are massively underfunded, and that holidaymakers and day-trippers are subsidised to the extent of at least 20 CHF per day, a situation that is not justified from an economic point of view. It represents an obvious benefit for private motorists, taken in charge by the cableways or by the community.

3.4.5 Inclusion of external costs – disfiguring the landscape: yes, traffic costs: no The NRP 41 estimated readiness to pay for landscape protection at 0.25 CHF per m2 on average (per day)86. This means that the public would be willing to pay 6.25 CHF to keep a car park from being built. For full costing this means that approximately 6 CHF external costs for landscape protection should be added to the 5 CHF direct costs if parking is free, assuming that negative impact is considerable (above all when the number of visitors is high), with estimated average costs for peak days calculated at the lower limit. Overall full costs may thus be set at approximately 11 CHF, with a lower value or none set for multi-storey car parks. If external costs for damage to the landscape are included, it becomes apparent that private motor vehicle and public transport users are treated nearly the same. One may not say that cableways disproportionately benefit public transport.

86 Infraconsult AG, Kosten und Nutzen im Natur- und Landschaftsschutz, Bericht C1, NFP 41, Bern 1999.


However, there's not much sense in costing the external costs of traffic to car parks near ski resorts: average estimated fees would have to be set at approximately 250 km times approx. 17 centimes per vehicle kilometre (approx. CHF 40 per parking place). Those coming from nearby would be at a relative disadvantage. Surveys have shown that the fees would have a prohibitive effect, massively disadvantaging the skiing industry against other leisure activities. Also, controls would have to be introduced to avoid illicit parking in skiing areas. The only way to solve the problem of internalising external costs is to introduce such measures throughout Switzerland. Other solutions will have to be sought.

4 Conclusion: parking fees should be introduced as an instrument with limited scope

- The present study shows that the costs of open-air car parks affiliated to cableways are relatively low. Opportunity costs for land, construction and maintenance are low, at approximately 3 to 8 CHF per day and parking place. At best, they are almost paid for by drivers through their cableway tickets.

- If damage to the landscape by open-air car parks is prized with 0.25 CHF per m2, full costing comes to approximately 9 to 15 CHF, a sum currently not covered by their users. In order to satisfy the principle of full costing, parking fees should be raised by 5 to 10 CHF for vehicles with low occupancy (1 to 2 people). This might improve the use to capacity of private motor vehicles. A certain modal shift to public transport may be expected (approx. 2 to 5 percent), especially if public transport improves its services. Private motor transport may be expected to fall by approx. 5 percent, without causing losses to the cableways.

- External traffic costs generated by travelling to and from resorts are not costed as part of parking management by cableways, and rightly so. Car parks in peripheral regions do not offer an adequate basis for an assessment of these costs.

- Full costing should be demanded from all cableways. This would create transparent conditions, avoid distorted competition and achieve equal treatment of public and private motor vehicle transport. The full costing principle should be the cornerstone of federal and cantonal concession policy. Different parking costs will lead to different parking fees, giving peripheral installations with lower costs a justified comparative advantage. Consequently, parking fees should not be set centrally, only the tariffing principle should be regulated.

- How parking fees will be set on the basis of full costing is a technical issue that may generate various incentives. In principle, costs should be made transparent to cableway users. It might be sufficient to specify parking costs on cableway tickets and inform about the lower cost of public transport. This might motivate private motor vehicle users to shift, and it would abolish the cost of collecting parking fees. Three or more people travelling in one vehicle might receive a small reduction on their skipasses.87

- Regulating the volume of car parks near cableways through concession procedures is not recommended. This should be done independently, and jointly by operators and municipalities. Centralised solutions are not effective in this context, since case studies have shown that they are simply bypassed. More stringent controls are unlikely to change this. Instead, municipalities should be encouraged to undertake

87 Technically this could be achieved by the distribution of vouchers or tokens for fee reduction by the car park staff.


responsible, integrated parking management measures (covering the entire territory of the municipality, strictly delimiting unauthorised parking areas, etc.).

- Open or covert subsidies for car parks or multi-storey car parks do not make sense. If a cableway is in financial straits and the public sector wants to maintain it as a regional service provider, this should be clearly stated. However, this will hardly slow down the necessary structural changes. Adaptations should be left up to the market, without new regulations relative to market exit or contingent trading.

- If multi-storey car parks are built, they should be market-driven and not subsidised. They may present certain advantages, but these should be paid for by the users (they might include better access to and from the cableways, better security, protection from weather, etc.). There is no reason why the taxpayer should pay for them.

- The shift potential will only be realised by means of an effective mix that does not impair the fundamental interests of cableway operators and mountain regions, while accounting for the behaviour and requirements of private motor vehicle users. Parking policy is only one instrument here and should be implemented according to the subsidiarity principle. The following measures are at least as important: - Effective communication as an absolute prerequisite for further measures should

be able to achieve much at relatively low cost. - Major customer needs should be satisfied through the introduction of more direct

trains, better services with regard to luggage, ski rental and deposit, simplified e-tickets and reservation. They meet with an extensive consensus and may prove highly effective.

5 References Meier Ruedi (2000), Nachhaltiger Freizeitverkehr, Verlag Rüegger, Zürich/Chur, 139 Seiten. Meier Ruedi (2000), Freizeitverkehr: Analysen und Strategien, NFP-41, Bericht D5, EDMZ-Nr. 801.658.d., Bern. Meier Ruedi (2000), Daten zum Freizeitverkehr, NFP-41, Materialienband M19, EDMZ-Nr. 801.659.d., Bern. Meier Ruedi (1998), Sozioökonomische Aspekte von Klimaänderungen und Naturkatastrophen, Nationales Forschungsprogramm "Klimaänderungen und Naturkatastrophen" - NFP 31, vdf ETH-Zürich. Zürich 1998. Trösch Marc (1999), Verkehrsmittelwahl bei Ski- und Snowboardtagesausflügen. Modalsplitanalyse und Massnahmen-Evaluation, Diplomarbeit Geografisches Institut Uni Bern. Bern 1999.

Documents

Costcase_342-18-ch