car parking, retailers and consumer

8/8/2019 CAR PARKING, RETAILERS AND CONSUMER

1/31

Not for quotation or ISSN 0265 9778

citation with the express

permission of the author.

Steven Burt is a Lecturer at the Institute for Retail Studies

Leigh Sparks is a Senior Lecturer and Acting Head of Department at the Institute for Retail

Studies

Institute for Retail Studies Working Paper 9102

CAR PARKING, RETAILERS

AND CONSUMERS

Steven Burt and

Leigh Sparks

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this Working Paper are strictly the responsibility of the

authors.


2/31

Institute for Retail Studies. All rights reserved.

2

INTRODUCTION

Car parking provision is a major factor in consumer choice of where to shop. Higher levels of

car ownership and use have lessened shopper dependence on public transport and reduced the

importance of walking trips to the shop for many customers. As car ownership rises, the

number of people to whom a discretionary choice of shopping by car is available increases. As

the demand, and potential demand, for car borne shopping rises, concern has been voiced

about the adequacy of car parking provision to support retailing. This concern involves both

the quantitative and the qualitative aspects of adequacy. At the same time public transport

provision is widely held to be inadequate in many locations, again both in quantitative and

qualitative terms. With increased congestion in many urban centres attention has also been

focused on the whole issue of private motor car use and the seeming inevitability of its

increase. Transport in its widest sense is now high on the political agenda. With retailing as a

focus of many trips, the relationship between retailing and car parking is a major issue.

As retailing has changed so too has its location and also the requirements of retailers and

consumers. Off-centre retail facilities such as food and non-food superstores, which are

deemed to be more attractive to car-borne shoppers, have been perceived as more successful

than 'traditional' town centres, where access with the car can be difficult and congestion levels

are high. Consumers compare and contrast facilities, environments, and the overall shopping

trip experience and have often 'voted' with their cars. The decentralisation of retailing has

been 'pulled' by this desire to use the car at convenient environments as well as 'pushed' by the

congestion levels and difficulty of using cars in existing centres. Those who can use cars to

choose amongst shopping centres and destinations have done so.

With competition between off-centre and in-centre locations, and competition for mobile

consumers amongst towns, the question has been posed as to the 'correct' level and nature of

car parking to support retailing and to attract customers to these various locations. Should

shopping accommodate the modern car-borne consumer? How can this be achieved in various

locations? What is the optimum level of parking provision off-centre or in-town? How

attractive are different types of car parks to consumers? A major component of the provision

of parking facilities is the planning policy adopted in relation to car parking


3/31


3

standards at various localities and types of shop. A main research question is therefore how

actual provision relates to planned standards. This can be seen as a quantitative approach to

car parking provision.

In addition to quantitative aspects of car parking provision there are also qualitative aspects.

When shopping involves using a car as a vehicle for journey-to-shop, then the quality of the

shopping experience becomes inextricably bound up with what happens to the car at the

shopping destination. The shopping trip can become memorable if parking the car proves

either difficult or expensive, or both. Shoppers have a number of requirements for a car park

facility other than simply the physical use of a car parking space. For example it has been

stated that:

"What matters to them (car-users) is the accessibility of the ultimate destination,

measured in time, money and convenience; their opinion of a parking place reflects its

accessibility by car and all the efforts between leaving the car and returning" (Hilton

1986).

All aspects of car parking supply ranging from location, to design, management and payment

systems have qualitative meanings for shoppers and influence their perceptions of a car park,

and the associated retail facility or town centre. Quality means more than simply landscaping

or safety. If the best landscaped car park is the wrong location, or if the payment systems in

operation are unpopular, then consumer perceptions of that facility will be poor.

Retailers located in town and city centres are concerned about car parking provision partly

because, unlike retailers in off-centre locations, the provision and management of car parking

used by their shoppers is largely out of their control. With increasing car ownership, highly

visible signs of central area congestion, and increasing competition from off-centre retailing

with extensive, convenient and free car parking, this concern has grown. It is clear that car

parking problems and issues in town centres can not be solved simply by adding more spaces.

To some extent this is the 'solution' usually adopted in off-centre retail locations where it is a

more plausible option, if the wider externalities are ignored. The physical quality and

management of car parking in such off-centre locations is also normally under the control of

the retailer. In town and city centres however this is not the case, and the simple addition of


4/31


4

more spaces is generally not feasible and in many instances would not solve the perceived

problems. It is not simply the number of car parking spaces that is important, but the type,

cost, standard, quality and location of parking.

Town centre retailers and local authorities are sometimes blamed for providing insufficient

parking of an inadequate standard at an over-inflated price. In many instances these elements

are beyond the individual control of either retailers or local authorities. Ultimately, however,

the retailer will suffer commercially and the local authority indirectly from inadequate, in either

quantitative or qualitative terms, provision. Outside the town centre, the retailer may be

wholly responsible for the provision of car parking. These facilities become effectively an

extension of the shop and are managed as such. Consumers may then make (unfair)

comparisons between town centre and off-centre experiences, mainly to the detriment of town

centres.

This paper considers both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of car parking provision. On

the quantitative side it considers the development of car parking standards and their

application in different locations and retail situations. This necessitates a consideration of

actual car parking provision as against proposed car parking standards. On the qualitative

side, this paper considers the main criteria which are believed to influence consumers'

perception of car parking facilities, and which to some extent can be controlled or managed by

local authorities and other providers. The focus of this section of the paper is on the

management of the car parking facilities rather than an investigation of consumers'

perceptions. The widespread perception of town centre car parking facilities is that they are

generally poor and inadequate. Rather than simply adding to the strength of this perception

this paper tries instead to provide some pointers as to how this perception could begin to be

tackled. The aim is therefore to raise issues about the management and operation of car

parking facilities in improving the current position.

The paper is therefore structured into a number of sections. First, an examination of the

quantitative aspects of car parking is presented focusing in particular on car parking standards

in theory and practice. Secondly, the qualitative aspects are presented focusing on the

approaches to charging for parking and payment systems, and operational management issues.

Thirdly, a number of issues, particularly on the qualitative side are illustrated by reference to a


5/31


5

small number of case studies. Finally, conclusions and recommendations are provided. The

rationale for this structure is that these topic areas are those that wider research identified as

being crucial for car parking provision in town centres.

The research methodology consisted of a series of linked surveys, involving both desk based

and primary research, which were undertaken as part of a project commissioned by Marks and

Spencer plc. It must be reiterated that the opinions and views expressed here are those of the

authors alone. The research work consisted of reviews of existing literature, a number of

surveys into standards for parking and details of provision, a questionnaire survey of the

Councils of the fifty largest towns in Britain, and in-depth case studies of seven town centres

chosen to illustrate a range of provision levels and management issues.

QUANTITATIVE CAR PARKING STANDARDS FOR RETAILING

Car parking provision and the setting of standards have received reasonable coverage in the

academic and trade literature (Department of Environment 1982; URPI 1988). Of particular

importance are the seminars convened by the British Parking Association (eg BPA 1976,

1978, 1980, 1981), UMIST (Hilton 1983) and the Unit for Retail Planning Information (URPI

1979). Retailers too have sought to present their views widely (eg Sainsbury 1982).

The introduction of car parking standards (generally a set number of places per area of

floorspace) as a means of controlling levels of provision is a post war development, instigated

initially by the desire to solve road congestion problems arising from on-street car parking

(Hilton 1983). Standards were implemented through the relevant local authority setting the

number of car parking places to be provided to support any new development. At the same

time 'composite' car parking schemes were also built in town centres in an attempt to

accommodate vehicles in a centrally co-ordinated fashion and to control piecemeal provision

related to individually provided places.

It is generally recognised that three sets of national standards have influenced the setting of

local authority standards for car parking for retailing in the United Kingdom (Table 1). What

is clear from Table 1 is that there is no real consensus about the level of car parking provision

that is required. Furthermore, local authorities are 'prisoners of the past' in that the built


6/31


6

environment in historical terms and more recent decisions about development and parking

provision are legacies which have to be considered in modern concerns over car parking.

Table 2 provides details of modern standards proposed as the result of research over a number

of years. The table reports research findings from a variety of types of centres and from

across the country. The standards proposed in the table are essentially refinements and

variations on the more general standards in Table 1. A number of general conclusions may be

drawn from Table 2. First, it is clear that work has concentrated on suggesting standards for

new forms of development, such as hypermarkets, superstores and 'retail warehouses' (DIY

stores) rather than on car parking provision in town centres. This clearly reflects the concern

local authorities and researchers have over new forms of retail development affecting the

existing retail hierarchy and provision. The application of standards to such developments

particularly in off-centre sites where land is more freely available is also somewhat easier than

in town centres. Secondly, common to the derivation of these standards is the recognition of

local circumstances such as car ownership, usage rates, trading performance and circulation

considerations. These local factors are found by researchers to affect considerably the

requirements to meet any nationally proposed standards. The effect is well demonstrated in

Table 2 in that the standards proposed for similar retail developments vary considerably.

The consensus view from this literature appears to be that standards should be regarded as

guidelines, with allowances being made for local conditions. In practice, no fixed national

standard is really appropriate. Instead, a target guideline on the basis of experience elsewhere

is more useful. Thirdly, it is clear from Table 2 that there are considerable basic definitional

problems. Some standards are couched in square feet and others in square metres; some refer

to retail floor space, others to gross floorspace and still more to gross leasable area. There is

also an assumption that car parking spaces are of standard dimensions. These definitional

problems highlight the confusion that car parking standards create in developers', retailers',

local authorities and probably public, minds.


7/31


7

Car Parking Standards and Practice

A research programme was undertaken to attempt to close gaps in the information about

standards adopted and the effects of the standards on car parking provision in practice. This

comprised basically a series of linked surveys into varying aspects of the topic. The research

work concentrated on two areas : the proposed local authority standards adopted and the

actual car parking provision in practice.

Standards are mainly the responsibility of the district authority in the local authority system.

However it is to be expected that regional and county authorities collect information and

attempt to standardise across their constituent district authorities, as they also have interest

and responsibilities in the car parking area. A questionnaire survey was therefore mounted

covering all county and regional authorities in Great Britain and also the metropolitan and

London borough authorities. The purpose of the questionnaire survey was to ascertain the

standards adopted by local authorities and the rationale behind these standards. The survey

work was mounted in late summer/early autumn 1988 and produced response rates for

regional and county authorities of 71% (42/59), and for both metropolitan and London

boroughs of 47% (17/36 and 15/32 respectively). Details of the questionnaire are available

from the authors.

The results of the survey do not lend themselves to extensive quantitative analysis. Instead,

the approach here has been to synthesise the responses and to draw a number of general

findings or conclusions. Five of these are noted below.

i) Standards are viewed as guidelines rather than fixed rules. Many of the respondent

authorities indicated that the guidelines were there to assist developers in assessing the

parking need of the development and to help development control officers in reacting to

planning proposals. A common view was that the guidelines indicate a minimum number

of parking places to be provided and act as a basis for discussion. They were not

intended to be taken as rigid requirements.

ii) There is a fragmentation of responsibility for establishing car parking standards. Some

county authorities had adopted standards for car parking for retailing which they

recommended to their relevant district councils. Others had devolved the setting of


8/31


8

standards to the district authorities. The amount of co-operation between tiers of local

government varied. Apparently some county authorities simply set standards without

consultation with their constituent district authorities. Others painstakingly set up

working parties and groups that tried to produce acceptable standards across the

country.

iii) Three different approaches to deriving standards were found. Some authorities inherited

standards from the pre-1974 reorganisation of local government; others transferred or

'borrowed' standards from other authorities; others conducted detailed survey work on

which they developed their own standards. The first two options are potentially

worrying in that in some cases it means standards have remained unchanged for over 15

years or that possibly inappropriate standards are being 'borrowed'.

iv) There is a marked distinction between out-of-town and in-town sites, in the way in

which authorities devise and implement standards. This is borne out in the standards

themselves which are reviewed below. Basically standards for new forms of

development, and particularly those out-of-town or off-centre are substantially easier to

develop than those for central areas.

v) There is a varied quality and clarity of the published standards. Often standards were

incorporated into wider documents or guides on 'roads'; or into the local plan or

structure plan. Other authorities produced separate documents on parking standards.

In terms of the standards in force the survey showed that the common pattern was to

distinguish between different types of retail outlets. Not all authorities provided a standard for

every type of retail development. Although categories were by no means consistent, and a

mixture of metric and imperial units, and gross and retail floorspace was used, common

standards can be identified. Standards were related to either specific forms of retail

development or to general categories of retail development.

Table 3 illustrates the relative simplicity of developing standards for categories of retail

outlets, but it also shows some of the problems. Food superstores are now an established part

of the retail scene, and so standards can be expected. The sets of standards shown in the table

are commonly found. In many cases the respondent authorities commented that the metric

ratio was a simple conversion of the imperial one. In fact however, a strict conversion would

lead to a metric ratio of nearer 1 space/9m2. This 10% error margin is relatively important


9/31


9

when debating car parking for approximately 400 cars. Similarly, the 'common' standards

shown in Table 3 for retail warehouses and garden centres encompass an enormous range of

space provision and in fact reflect little real consistency.

In most cases the authorities noted that special circumstances arose in central areas and that

standards may well not apply. Where standards did exist they were based on a view of

'adequate' provision. In calculating adequacy of provision some local authorities used broad

floorspace ratios for the town centre and based rough calculations on these. The figures

produced and suggested as target standards varied considerably with little consistency. In

practice the number of spaces was generally open to negotiation with the developer.

In order to assess the relationship between proposed car parking standards and existing

provision, existing levels of provision were calculated from a variety of published data sources.

In addition a telephone survey of selected town and city centre authorities was undertaken.

The assessment of existing provision covered the two main areas of off-centre and town and

city centre locations.

In the case of individual retail developments, Institute of Grocery Distribution statistics allow

the provision of parking spaces to be analysed for food superstores (a sales area exceeding

2,500m2) and DIY stores (of over 15,000ft

2). Unit for Retail Planning Information data allow

similar analysis in the case of managed shopping centres with a gross leasable area of over

100,000ft2.

In the case of town and city centres, levels of provision were calculated from data published by

Goad, from a Marks and Spencer database, and from a telephone survey of selected local

authorities. The survey work concentrated on the fifty largest town and city centres as defined

by Hillier Parker rankings (Schiller and Jarrett 1985). The telephone survey produced a 92%

response rate in terms of identifying the number of car parking places available. Some data

were also available from the questionnaire survey of local authorities detailed above.

Given the disparate data sources, the definition of 'town centre' not surprisingly varies. The

data available from Goad and Marks and Spencer for the number of car parking spaces relate

to a similar geographical area, namely the 'core' town centre, although both of these companies


10/31


11/31


11

standards is particularly acute in the 'core' central areas. It might be argued that the car

parking is provided outside this 'core' frame and that users can be expected to accept this.

Evidence for this is beyond the scope of this present paper. Levels of provision at food

superstores and DIY superstores are close to the generally accepted standards, although slight

under-provision occurs. In the case of managed shopping centres, whilst there is no real

consensus of standards against which provision may be measured, existing levels of provision

are not much higher than those found in central areas.

QUALITATIVE ISSUES IN CAR PARKING PROVISION FOR RETAILING

Car park users have a number of requirements from car parking other than the physical use of

a space. All aspects of car park supply ranging from location, to design, management and

payment systems have qualitative meanings for consumers and influence their perceptions of

car parks, and any associated retailing. To examine these issues a literature review was

undertaken alongside a survey and supporting interviews with selected local authorities.

Interviews also took place with private car park operators.

Car Parking Design

A number of existing studies highlight the key considerations in relation to car park design.

With respect to the location and the functional design of car parks, research shows that the

general issues are well established (Dick 1971; Multiple Shops Federation 1973; J Sainsbury

1982; ACTO 1986):

- the location of the car park should ideally be within 200 yards of the shops it is to

serve, and location should be clearly indicated through signage etc;

- access to a car park should be from all directions and designed to remove traffic

from the main routes;

- internal access within the car park should take cars past the maximum number of

spaces and minimise exit times;

- pedestrian and car routes within car parks should avoid each other;


12/31


12

- surface level car parks are preferred but in town centres, multi-storey facilities are

inevitable;

- building regulations specify basic design standards for car parks.

The use of 'intelligent' sign posting to indicate the availability of spaces and to manage traffic

flows is increasing, and there are numerous examples of good design specifications.

McCluskey (1987) provides a range of specifications for car parking in general. Detailed

design specifications for multi-storey car parks are provided by Wilkinson (1978) and Roti

(1980). These latter authors provide specifications for features such as parking bays, lane

widths, pillars, ramps, and headroom, for a variety of multi-storey designs.

The existence of such specifications and the common recognition of the major considerations

involved in car park design are perhaps symptomatic of some of the problems that exist. The

general 'principles' as outlined above and the building specifications through which they are

controlled are logical, clear and in themselves highly necessary and desirable. The issue is that

in many town and city centres, the discussion and provision of car parking goes little beyond

these basic physical aspects and does not cover the wider qualitative and management aspects

of the problem. Car parks are built to a high technical and building standard but often cannot

be described as 'user-friendly' or inviting to use. In marketing terms, the car parks may cater

for the 'functional' needs of shoppers, but do little to satisfy their 'intangible' needs.

Although the argument that shoppers prefer surface car parks to multi-storey facilities appears

to be widely accepted, the high cost of land and lack of suitable sites means that multi-storey

car parks have become inevitable in town centres. Of the fifty town and city local authorities

surveyed in this project sixteen were able to provide full details of the number and type of

spaces in both their own and private operated car parks. Their responses (Table 5) show that

41% of all spaces were available in surface off-street car parks, with at least a further 15% of

spaces were on-street spaces. Many spaces were therefore found in multi-storey facilities.

The noticeable difference in the type of provision was that approximately a third of council

operated spaces were in multi-storey car parks, whilst two thirds of private operator spaces

were in multi-storey facilities. This variation no doubt reflects in part the respective ability of

councils and private developers to finance high-cost multi-storey constructions and the desire

to maximise returns on investment.


13/31


13

Given the seeming inevitability of multi-storey facilities in most town centres, the aim should

then be to reproduce the perceived benefits of surface car park conditions as far as possible, or

to minimise the perceived drawbacks of multi-storey facilities. Many multi-storey car parks

have a poor reputation with shoppers. To improve the service to consumers this problem has

to be tackled. Attention must be paid to the more qualitative aspects of car park design which

influence consumer perceptions. Consumers have perceptions of 'good' and 'bad' car parks

which are not simply based upon aspects such as size and cost. Users may be unaware of the

exact tariff structure within a car park, but satisfaction with past use allows them to perceive

the car park as a 'good' facility. Multi-storey car parks are often criticised for poor standards

of lighting, rough concrete appearances and a plethora of pillars, all of which can create an

unpleasant and even threatening atmosphere. In such circumstances the aesthetic elements of

car park design and operation are important in influencing consumer perceptions of a facility.

In this respect two broad areas can be regarded as of prime

importance:

- physical safety; perceptions of which are raised through improved lighting, security

cameras, the presence of staff, graffiti free walls, etc

- pleasantness of the parking experience; perceptions of which are raised through

landscaping, ventilation, attitudes of staff, and colour and quality of construction -

both internal and external.

One attempt to improve the aesthetics of multi-storey facilities is provided by Ratcliffe (1987),

who shows how qualitative aspects of car park design can be applied to the external

appearance of facilities. The merits of external landscaping for surface car parks have been

accepted for some time, but now the external appearance of multi-storey facilities are

receiving attention. The use of facing bricks to improve appearance and to allow the design to

fit the local environment is becoming common. Ashbourne (1985) provides a series of

examples of attempts to integrate the external appearance of car parks with their local

environments.

The research identified considerable discussion amongst local authorities, retailers, developers

and operators as to the importance of aesthetic factors and the need to manage the perception

of shoppers. In many respects there appears some consensus as to the factors which make a


14/31


14

'good' or 'bad' car parking experience. There is however limited evidence of consumers

actually being asked what they like or want from a car park. At best, changes in usage rates

are regarded as a surrogate measure of consumer satisfaction. This is obviously an area of

considerable importance and concern, and one which could benefit from further research. As

organisations in both the private and public sector have increasingly adopted a marketing

approach to their activities this apparent lack of research into consumer needs is perhaps

surprising.

Charging Policies and Payment Systems

A further group of factors which influence consumer perception of car parking is the tariff and

payment systems employed. Tariff charges are a source of conflict between retailers and local

authorities. The major conflict of interest arises over the need to charge for car parking at all.

Retailers may regard the free provision of car parking as a service for consumers, whilst for

local authorities changes in government policy towards financing have ensured that car parks

must be seen to cover their operating costs at least (Bullen 1979). For local authorities it is

now widely accepted that there is no such thing as "free" parking; someone - often ultimately

the ratepayers - must cover the costs.

Pricing has a key role to play in regulating use and is an important element in the role of car

parking in overall traffic management policy (OECD 1980). One aim is to use a space as often

as possible during the day. To this end, vehicle turnover can be seen as a measure of

productivity. Retailers often support this policy and are much less happy when car parks are

full of all-day parkers, as these are generally viewed as workers not shoppers. Any detailed

considerations of these issues clearly becomes part of a wider discussion on transport and

commuting policy which is beyond the scope of this article. The best way to achieve rapid

user turnover and maximum use of a space is by increasing hourly tariffs rather than any

excess stay penalty system. The common practice is for low charges for stays of under two

hours duration, with charges rising steeply thereafter. Different local conditions ensure that no

common tariff policy recommendations can be made. In choosing a tariff system, particularly

one designed to provide income, details of weekly and daily parking patterns and operating

costs are needed and local authorities can be expected to undertake research into this area.


15/31


15

It is not only the scale of charges but also the payment system in operation that influences

consumers. The choice of payment system varies by location and largely depends on the aims

and resources of operators (Butler 1981). Four main payment systems are common: attendant

operated manual systems; pay and display systems; fully automated barrier systems; and park

and ride systems. The benefits and drawbacks of these individual systems have been well

documented (British Parking Association 1977, Butler 1981), and require no further

explanation here.

The survey of local authorities allows consideration of the payment and operational systems in

use in a sample of car parks operated both by local authorities and private operators. The

results are given in Table 6 which also provides details by number of spaces as well as number

of car parks. A clear pattern of differentiation for payment systems appears to exist. Council

operated facilities tend to favour pay and display systems, both in terms of the number of local

authorities using the system, and the number of spaces concerned. Even in the case of multi-

storey facilities, local authorities exhibit a preference for pay and display. In contrast, private

operators appear to favour attendant operated manual systems. The retailer J. Sainsbury

(1982) has in the past also expressed a preference for attendant operated manual systems.

Although retailers would justify this view through the closer customer contact involved, it

should also be recognised (perhaps from the private operators view) that this system also

maximises revenue collection. The local authority is also in the difficult position that whilst

attendant operated systems maximise revenue collection they are expensive to operate,

particularly when compared to pay and display systems. The predominance of pay and display

systems in local authority car parks may be better expressed as a financial compulsion rather

than a preference.

Table 6 also suggests that there appears to be only limited interest in fully automated barrier

systems by both local authorities and private operators. Park and Ride systems are also

sparsely employed, although a growing number of local authorities introduce this type of

scheme in response to temporal surges in consumer demand, most notably during the pre-

Christmas shopping period.


16/31


16

Owing to clear differences in the objectives and expectations of those concerned, and to the

financial and political constraints in operation, national guidelines in relation to payment

systems are probably unachievable. Pricing and payment systems are however central

elements in the regulation of use and in wider traffic management schemes. Consequently

synergy between systems rather than conflict should be encouraged if the total facilities within

an area are to be utilized effectively and efficiently.

Operational Management

If car parking is regarded as being an integral element in the commercial viability of a town or

city centre, it should be managed efficiently. Whilst it has been argued in some quarters that

car parking should not be seen as crucial or important to town centre survival (eg TEST 1988;

Hass-Klau 1988), in the main this view is not currently sustainable. Given wide scale

improvements in the amount and quality public transport, it is probable that car parking

importance could be diminished, but in the current absence of such improvements in this

country, car parking remains important and therefore requires to be managed correctly.

Whilst switching shoppers from cars to public transport may be the goal of many for

ecological reasons, it is probable that many car users will resist such a move vehemently. A

full discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of this paper.

At a strategic level there is need for integrated management of car park provision within town

or city centres. However, given the unique problems of town centres such as the suitability of

sites and the cost of provision, and differing demands and needs of users, such strategic

management is not an easy task. For example, local authorities commonly complain about the

temporary nature of much of their car parking spaces stock. In the local authority survey

undertaken here, approximately 10% of all spaces identified by local authorities were in

temporary car parks. Such temporary provision hinders both the provision of good quality

service and the development of a long term management strategy for car parking provision.

The basis of any management strategy is information. The amount of research and the type of

data collected appears to vary by location. Whilst a few authorities undertake some form of

consumer surveys, others simply measure consumer preferences by occupancy rates within

existing facilities. This does not measure preference, only use. Without accurate, up-to-date


17/31


17

information the management task is made difficult and planning is virtually impossible. Of the

twenty-five local authorities replying to the car park questionnaire survey, only nine could

identify a target number of car park spaces that they wished to see for their town or city

centre. Indeed as noted earlier only sixteen were able to provide full information on the

number of private operator spaces in the town or city. Again whilst it can be appreciated that

resources are tight and information collection can be expensive, the lack of such information is

hindering progress.

To the consumer the day-to-day management of a car park is often more important than its

provision. Generally, retailers seek to retain full control of any facility where possible, but

especially if the car park is likely to be associated with their stores. In town centres, however,

local authority regulations limit management control in favour of public operation or third

party operation through car park providers such as NCP or Europarks. In the case of the

sixteen local authorities providing complete responses in the survey, the local authority

maintained control over most car parking spaces (73%), particularly in the case of off-street

surface parking (79%). However, private management accounted for 42% of multi-storey

spaces in these town and city centres, further reinforcing earlier comments about the difficulty

for local authorities in providing multi-storey facilities.

Private management of facilities may improve operational management practices through the

adoption of particular standards or operating policies which are often beyond the scope of

local authorities because of financial or experiential constraints. Some local authorities, such

as Watford, are leasing the operation of their own car parks to private developers/operators.

The benefits of having all car parks in the town centre operated to the same standard, rather

than creating competition between facilities, underpin moves such as these and suggests the

emergence of a long-term customer focused strategy.

A growing number of private operators are prepared to manage existing facilities. These

companies often compete on the basis of the qualitative elements of operational management

with an emphasis upon improving levels of service and, in particular, the cleanliness of

facilities and the appearance and behaviour of personnel. It can be argued that the fact that

these considerations are the basis of competition, condemns current standards at many car

park facilities.


18/31


18

In general, whilst standards or guidelines may apparently exist for the qualitative level of

provision within a town, through technical standards, building regulations and health and

safety regulations, such basic guidelines offer little for the management and operation of car

parking. There is clearly further opportunity for all of those involved in the town centre and in

particular the local authority, retailers, operators and consumers, to determine new standards

for operation.

ISSUES RAISED IN THE CASE STUDIES

The review of existing literature and survey work highlights a number of broad areas of

concern. First, a belief on the part of suppliers and operators, that the basic functional and

qualitative requirements of car park users have been recognised, despite limited consultation

with these users, and limited mechanisms through which to address these requirements.

Secondly, the choice of tariff structures and payment systems appears to be governed by

financial and commercial or political objectives rather than consumer objectives. These

financial objectives may be both revenue maximisation (private operators) or least cost (local

authorities). Thirdly, limited strategic management and integrated operational management of

facilities exists at a town or city level. Whilst 'competition' may appear to exist between

operators, this is often in reality monopolistic competition as the barriers to entry are high.

In order to expand on a number of the issues raised within these broad areas, a number of case

studies were undertaken to examine current policy and practice towards car park provision in

town and city centres. Those chosen (Cheltenham, Dundee, Middlesborough, Milton Keynes,

Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, Oxford and Watford) were selected as representative of a range of

local circumstances such as varying levels of car park provision and the nature of the urban

environment. Full details of the case studies can be found in Institute for Retail Studies

(1990).

There was a complete awareness and acceptance of the need to improve the quality of car park

facilities at the design stage. This concern is reflected in a number of the new developments

underway, and involves both internal and external improvements. These case studies also

provided a number of examples of the apparent rejection of existing facilities by consumers

owing to poor design and location. Evidence also existed of a wider view of car parking


19/31


19

provision with improvements taking place in the whole parking system, such as the

introduction of intelligent signs. Concern about quality issues undoubtedly exists, and many of

the actions undertaken by individual authorities are laudable. However these improvements

are generally incremental rather than uniform, and implementation appears hindered by the

lack of clear guidelines or mechanisms to achieve the desired changes.

As far as the local authorities were concerned financial constraints are a major impediment to

their ability to develop and manage car parking facilities. These financial issues are reflected in

attitudes to tariff charges and payment systems. Most, although not all, of the case study

towns used pay and display systems for payment collection. Generally this was justified on

economic grounds, as a least cost system. Only one authority provided a 'positive' justification

for these systems - where it was felt to be more efficient, as it reduced queueing. Other

comments with respect to tariff structures included the need for some facilities to subsidise the

cost of under used facilities, and the political sensitivity of raising or changing tariffs. There

was little from the case studies to suggest that the choice of payment systems and tariff

charged were influenced by anything other than financial considerations.

The ability of local authorities to provide new facilities and to renovate existing ones is also

constrained by financial considerations. Competing demands for local authority funds, (and

the political implications of these demands), the cost of assembling land, and the system of

annual budgeting all placed constraints on the local authorities. Most new developments were

now joint venture projects with private developers or completely privately funded.

The third broad area of concern, that of strategic and operational management, was also

reinforced by the case study experiences. One common concern was the temporary nature of

much of the car parking stock. The continual flux in the level of provision within a town or

city made overall planning and management of the total car park system difficult. A number of

these local authorities also claimed that the issue was further exacerbated by the fact that, if

successful, the commercial development which often replaced a temporary car park not only

contributed to a loss in the number of spaces, but generated additional traffic in the town or

city concerned. There was also evidence of a desire for single control of the car parking

facilities within the centre. A number of authorities had established sole, or virtually sole,

control over car parking within their centre, whilst others had allowed a third party to assume


20/31


20

operational management of their car parks. It was felt that a single operator for all car parks

allowed for easier planning and management of the system and more efficient use of the total

car park resource.

CONCLUSIONS

Car parking facilities can no longer be divorced from considerations of retail change. The car

is a key factor in deciding where many people shop. Despite the current environmental

awareness lobbies and the rising petrol costs, it is likely that more people will want to use the

car as the mode of transport to shop in the near and medium future. Retailers require car

parking facilities that are at least adequate and support their target customers. Longer-term it

is possible that shopping facilities will become less dependent on car-borne shoppers, but this

clearly depends on re-thinking public transport provision (both qualitatively and quantitatively)

and probably retail location decision-making. It is possible to argue for example that retailing

locations should be both more numerous and more decentralised to reduce in-town

congestion.

The close relationship between retailing and car parking means that as centres and locations

come increasingly into competition an important differentiating facility will be car parking

provision. New centres on extensive sites will be better positioned to provide such car parking

than historical and other town centres, and whether in-town retailers like it or not comparisons

between facilities will be made by consumers. The issue is therefore whether such centres can

compete without such car parking through more imaginative schemes for public transport.

Whether appropriate public transport facilities exist is doubtful. If retailers want to attract car

borne shoppers they would appear to require car parking. Many customers may already be

frustrated by the congestion levels. The scene is set for problems between retailers,

consumers, local authorities and environmental lobbies over this issue. Resolving the issues

and finding a balance will be difficult.

The provision of car parking is a crucial area of interest for retailers and local authorities.

There are a number of key findings and suggestions from this paper:


21/31


21

i) There is an enormous confusion over the subject of car parking and standards which is

manifest in the various definitions and measures that are used. Standardisation is

needed to allow proper discussion of standards!

ii) Many local authorities have not really considered this topic in sufficient depth and have

instead relied on the past standards or have borrowed from other authorities. There

are dangers in this, particularly with a mobile consumer base and increasing

competition.

iii) The position in town and city centres is complex and would appear to be a big problem

for retailers. Current provision would appear to be less than the nationally proposed

standards, with local authorities in many cases being unable to control or provide car

parking in town centres. The problem seems to be that no group is really satisfied:

retailers, developers, public and local authorities.

iv) All local authorities, and indeed all those dependent upon a thriving town centre, need

a comprehensive strategy for traffic management and car parking in each town centre.

This strategy should consider:

- overall traffic management issues;

- the aims and objectives of town centres;

- public transport provision;

- the quality of car parking environments;

- the management of car park facilities.

v) It is suggested that in larger town centres a group - representing local government,

land users and consumers - should be formed to advise on the design and operation of

the strategy. The role of this body would be to ensure that local factors are

considered. Trade Associations may take the initiative in this process which may be

linked to wider town centre management issues.


22/31


22

vi) It is crucial to town centres and retailers therein that if motor cars are to be made less

welcome in central areas then efficient and effective public transport replaces them.

Simply attacking motorised consumers will drive them to other locations.


23/31


23

References

ACTO (1986) A Guide to Car Parking Management, ACTO : Guisborough.

Ashbourne D (1985) Car Park Design Often Runs Against the Grain, Surveyor, 18 July, 22-3.

British Parking Association (1976) Life or Death of the Town Centre. Seminar Proceedings.

BPA : St Albans.

British Parking Association (1977) Paying for Parking - Theory and Practice, BPA Seminar

Proceedings, BPA: St Albans.

British Parking Association (1980) Multi-Storey Car Parks in Shopping Centres and Office

Blocks. Seminar Proceedings.

BPA : St Albans.

British Parking Association (1981) Car Parking Control and the Consumer. Seminar

Proceedings. BPA : St Albans

Bullen D P (1976) Parking Near Shopping Centres : Local Authority Responsibilities in

Theory and Practice, in URPI, Car Parking and Retailing, URPI : Reading, 11-26.

Butler (1981) Payment for Parking - Which System? in British Parking Association Car Park

Control and the Consumer, BPA Seminar Proceedings, BPA : St Albans.

Department of the Environment (1982) Car Parking - a selected list of material based on

DoE/DTP Library. Bibliography 17E, Department of the Environment.

Dick A C (1971) Transportation Aspects of New Shopping Developments, Traffic

Engineering & Control, October, 249-251, 255.

Hass-Klau C (ed) New Life for City Centres, Anglo-German Foundation : London.

Hilton I C (ed) (1983) Car Parking Standards in Development Control, University of

Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, Department of Structural and Civil

Engineering, 1983.

Hilton I C (1986) Parking, Lost Time and Productive Use of Parking Space to Facilitate

Activity, Traffic Engineering and Control, July/August, 27(7/8), 407-409.

Institute for Retail Studies (1990) Car Parking For Retailing, Institute for Retail Studies :

Stirling.

McCluskey J (1987) Parking : a Handbook of Environmental Design, Spon : London.

Multiple Shops Federation (1973) Car Parking for Shoppers.

MSF : London.


24/31


24

NEDO (1971) Future Pattern of Shopping. HMSO : London.

OECD (1980) Evaluation of Urban Parking Systems, OECD : Paris.

Ratcliffe J T (1987) Middlesborough BC Cuts Out the Flaws in Multi-Storey Design,

Surveyor, 15 January, 16-17

Roti R F (1980) Parking Structures - The Three Primary Aspects of Functional Design in

British Parking Association Multi-Storey Car Parks in Shopping Centres and Office Blocks,

BPA : St Albans.

Sainsbury J (1982) Car Parking for Supermarkets.

J Sainsbury : London.

Schiller R and A Jarrett (1985) A Ranking of Shopping Centres Using Multiple Branch

Numbers. Land Development Studies, 2, 53-100.

TEST (1988) Quality Streets, TEST : London.

Unit for Retail Planning Information (1979) Car Parking and Retailing. URPI : Reading.

Unit for Retail Planning Information (1988) Car Parking. Information Source Sheet 30.

URPI : Reading.

Urban Land Institute (1965) Parking Requirements for Shopping Centres, ULI Technical

Bulletin 53, Washington.

Urban Land Institute and National Parking Association (1983) The Dimensions of Planning,

2nd edition.

Wilkinson (1978) Design in Multi-Storey Car Parks. Concrete, 12/6, 1978, 22-6.


25/31


25

List of Tables

1 - National Car Parking Standards

2 - Selected Research on Car Parking Standards

3 - Common Car Parking Standards

4 - Existing Levels of Car Parking Provision5 - Car Parking Provision by Facility Type and Operator

6 - Payment Systems


26/31


26

Table 1 : National Car Parking Standards

i) The American Urban Land Institute (1965) which proposed standards of 5.5

places/1,000ft2

gross leasable area for shopping centres, and revised these figures

in 1983 (Urban Land Institute and National Parking Association 1983) to between

4.0 and 5.0 places depending on gross leasable area;

ii) The Distributive Trades EDC (NEDO 1971) suggestion of 5.75 places/1,000ft2

shopping area in central areas, and 8.5 places/1,000ft2

out-of-town;

iii) The Multiple Shops Federation (1973) which suggested standards for 1980

ranging from 4-6.5 places\100m2

(3.72-6.04 places/1,000ft2) of retail area,

depending upon the regional level of car ownership.


27/31


28/31


29/31


29

Table 4 : Existing Levels of Car Parking Provision

Type of Development Spaces/1,000ft2

Town/City Centres (core area) 2.2 - 2.9

Town/City Centres (wide area) 4.0 - 6.0

Food Superstores 11.15

DIY Stores (over 15,000ft2) 5.06

Managed Shopping Centres

(over 100,000ft2 GLA) 3.11

Source : Survey Data


30/31


30

Table 5 : Car Parking Provision by Facility Type and Operator

_____________________________________________________________

Type of Facility

(% of spaces)n = 16 Multi-Storey Off-Street On-Street

_____________________________________________________________

All Facilities 44.6 40.6 14.8+

Council Operated 36.9 42.9 20.2+

Private Operator 65.3 34.7 N/A

_____________________________________________________________

Source: Author Survey of Local Authorities


31/31

31

Table 6 : Payment Systems

Type of Payment System

Attendant Fully

Operated Pay and Automated Park & Parking Others

Type of Car Park Manual Systems Display Barrier System Ride Meter

1. Instances of Use

A)Council Operated (22)

- All Facilities 12 20 5 5 5 9

- Multi-Storey 10 14 5 1 1 2

- Off-Street Surface 5 19 1 3 1 2

B) Private Operated (17)

- All Facilities 17 2 3 - - -

- Multi-Storey 13 - 3 - - -

- Off-Street Surface 16 2 - 1 - -

2. Car Park Spaces

A)Council Operated (%)

- All Spaces 18.1 60.4 8.5 2.2 3.3

7.5

- Multi-Storey Spaces 32.9 40.5 17.6 - -

9.0

- Off-Street SurfaceSpaces 4.2 89.5 - 3.4 -

2.9

B) Private Operated (%)

- All Spaces 84.7 3.7 8.5 0.4 -

2.7

- Multi-Storey Spaces 87.3 - 12.7 - - -

- Off-Street Surface

Spaces 86.4 12.2 - 1.4 - -

Source: Author Survey of Local Authorities

car parking, retailers and consumer

Documents