德国大城市的停车政策(外文翻译)

德国大城市的停车政策
关键词：非法停车，机动化，停车需求与供应，分区条例
摘要：这篇文章涉及高度机动化在德国大城市的西约20多万居民中，它通常提供了合理的公共交通系统。

非法拥有约40％至50％的股份总停车车位是在这些城市停车问题的领域广泛，特别是内城住宅及综合用途区。

停车位所要求的居民，员工，客户和参观者，并交付和服务的流量。

由不同的用户群体的不同特点停车需求进行了讨论。

总停车供给由公共和私人空间。

对私人空间所占的份额约为40％至50%的城市在德国车位。

汽车交通量的一个停车位的数量取决于停车时间和停车周转率，以及在搜索流量。

因此，从长期持续时间的一个员工使用空间的变化对短期客户的时间- 在停车场经常讨论的概念- 产生至少五倍的汽车流量。

停车测量和控制效果的公共场所以及在分区条例规定的停车场，在新的私人停车位和停泊及转乘建设的限制进行了讨论。

最后，停车概念的方法- 利用法兰克福am Main的例子- 进行了讨论。

1．停放的车辆已经占据了城市
汽车在西德拥有大约是每1000人495轿车- 这在大城市低一点，在农村地区微高。

对于东德，目前（1990年中期）的相应数字大约是每1000人235轿车。

在接下来的两三年内，我们将可能经历几乎在东德车队增加一倍。

这一急剧增长将在东德城市产生的问题可能比我们从西德知道的更为严重。

然而，这篇文章涉及到的具有高度机动的西德约20万或者更多居民的大城市中，通常提供合理的公共交通系统。

在这些城市的停车问题发生在市中心的住宅和混合使用区靠近市中心。

在城市中心本身，通常是足够的停车位，由于在七十年代建成的停车场大的扩展。

在城市中心的停车问题不太严重，这不仅是因为，而且还因为高质量的公共交通在城市，居民人数和去年高缺乏良好的停车规定，但并非最不重要的，因为强有力的执行停车法规。

在相邻的密集和混合用途的城市中心地区，但是，负担，制约因素和停放汽车造成的烦恼已经达到了这些方面的流动，干扰汽车交通造成的;甚至居民仅汽车不能根据生态安置，美观，而且功能上可以承受的条件。

在同一时间，在中部地区机动低于平均水平，由于公共交通，自行车和自己的脚，并经主管平均社会结构，它在这些领域的一些常见的引起很好的访问。

与居民的车的问题将继续增长。

停车问题往往出现在一辆汽车的司机谁不能很快找到他或她的目的地附近的廉价直接缩短停车位良心。

停车问题更为严重的是对其他道路使用者：行人被车停在行人路上恼火，由那些骑自行车的自行车道，步行不畅，得到的出路是通过行车危险，特别是对儿童和老人，公交车和电车受到阻碍，装卸区被封锁，并搜索流量株住宅和混合使用区街头。

非法泊车，拥有约40至50％的股份总停车，是在德国城市普遍。

关于罚款和27,000 383,000拖在法兰克福赠品，例如，在1989年或罚款，甚至对927,000 42,000拖赠品在慕尼黑改变这种情况很少（根据从城市的行政部门的信息）。

特别是对非法停车人行道和自行车道，不仅阻碍和其他道路使用者的危险，
这也箔的任何办法来控制城市汽车交通停车管理。

在它最后的结果减少到内无障碍城市。

2．不同用户群体的停车要求
居民，员工，客户和参观者要求停车空间，以及交货和交通服务也要求。

后者往往归结为交通和商业代表认为必要的机动车辆在城市或不可避免的一部分。

尽管它的重要性，交付和服务交通不是通常的停车平衡由于特定的空间要求和分歧的表现有着直接的一部分。

这四个不同的用户群体，根据停车需求的停车时间，一天的时间，停车在公共街道或偏好在一个停车场，目的地接近，愿意付停车费，在准备或变更为其他方法的输送。

居民停车规定，具有较高的优先权，即使在现有的城区街道。

凡居住功能要鼓励，居民停车必须是一个合理的距离内索取，并在同一时间，非住宅汽车交通应该远离。

在当今的条件和共同的行为，超过约200至300米的距离，一般不被接受，虽然，巴士和电车站距离往往较长。

下列商业交通和居民- - 在正常的停车需求层次三是那些客户和参观者。

这个用户群是非常不均匀，包括购物，商业和私人的访问。

对于这些主要是短时帕克费尔德，一些停车位接近目标，并应提供于市场利率收取。

最后，对于长期停车的员工，没有路边停车应提供和街道停车只在市场利率条件。

员工，因为谁的障碍，业务需要或缺乏合理的公共交通工具依靠他们的汽车，通常可以由他们公司提供停车位，自40至50％在德国城市总停车数量是民有民营使用。

白天不同时段不同停车泊车位的需求，并可根据用户群体和行程目的，造成占用时间特性曲线图显示可同时停放汽车的数量- 在同一时间白天- 无论是合法或非法的。

图2包含入住时间从法兰克福城区Nordend - Siid它代表了一种典型的市中心约40公顷，约180名居民和130每公顷面积的雇员mixeduse调查所得的图形。

居民的车的存在，如同与和之间的低谷形上午约35时所有车辆夜间停放％。

（这是假设汽车在大约上午03点00分属于居民。

停泊）约上午七时（录制的开始）约60％的各居民的汽车都存在，而在约下午七时00分约45％都存在。

通过员工的汽车占用的土地为山地与一个在约85％，所有已登记的停车场发生的最大存在午前形。

居民和雇员的图是非常占用时间在所有调查的城市地区相似。

对客户和游客的汽车在城市地区存在Nordend - Siid是在白天不断增加，由暗访为主。

在商业和购物的地方访问支配其他地区，跌幅接近傍晚曲线。

在一些城市地区的调查显示，居民和雇员的占用时间图相似（Retzko及托普顾问1988）极为相似。

这允许停车的模式转移到各区每区内，无广泛的调查。

该旅客入住的时间少图的相似性是由于不同的访问目的不同。

3.车位供应：路边和街道，公共场所和私人场所
一个城市的地区总停车数量由关于所有权，经营和可用性位不同类型的停车空间构成。

最重要的区别是“公私”相关的所有或某些群体和对控制城市停车政策程度的方便。

“大多数市民”是与正在为居民（或残疾人）偏好唯一的限制街头空间。

这些
空间是完全由市政府和控制，因此，他们通常是停车概念的发起者。

即使是那些公开操作- - 关于城市停车库的影响是有限的，因为有关，例如，购永久关税，让停车位或法律合同。

因为，例如，“Parkhaus Betriebs”在法兰克福经营总额约8000位12个车库- - 阿城市停车车库尽可能多的公司经营提供尽可能的影响力和创造机会的概念纳入停车位。

约有40％是永久的所有场所出租，即使在法兰克福muncipally经营车库。

私人空间不能被控制，市政停车的概念。

他们只能间接影响，例如，通过在没有停车规定所有雇员在公共领域，促使公司分发他们的私人空间给员工谁是汽车，因为缺陷，专业用的汽车的约束，又缺乏在公共交通工具。

从长远来看，私人空间的量可以控制分区条例。

对私人空间的总停车份额约为40至50％的德国城市。

显示的数字是法兰克福主。

停车空间，它是不能完全控制的停车管理措施是一个“过度饱和”制度：即停车场停车供给超过需求或者- 换一种方式- 吸引更多的额外空间的汽车。

即使这是真正的违法停车的可能性。

如何避免停车管理表明了这一点空余的地方在停车场完全由街道停放汽车拥挤的能力。

的停车位经常提到的赤字是经常暴露出他是一个“赤字”廉价和容易获得的空间接近真实的目的地。

这些都是在当今的法规，路边的空间- 法律以及非法的。

由于是在停车场备用容量显示- 除了在主要的购物日- 入住等于低于总余额是由停车价格实现。

因此，访问被授予而搜索流量是可以避免的。

在有关停车位在城市地区合理的供应多次讨论，停车赤字抱怨，尤其是在零售行业的代表。

这种“缺陷”往往溶解如果底层的泊车位标准发生了变化，即如果，例如，一个较长的停车和最终目的地之间的步行是假定的。

所以，当谈到停车赤字，我们必须增加在距离和成本方面的标准来定义它们。

顺便说一下，同样发生在其他领域的运输：因此，举例来说，一个路段或路口容量与速度的服务或等待时间表达水平有关。

汽车交通量的一个停车位产生依赖，以及对搜索流量的停车时间和停车周转率。

所以，举例来说，10居民％的汽车停在一个法兰克福市中心区的街道是不是在周日感动。

在慕尼黑市中心区，这种无动于衷车占有率上升至30％。

小区停车位以这种方式使用在白天产生的交通都没有车。

相反，从与一小时停车限制停车时至下午6点是执行，可能是被占领的10倍，从而产生10家汽车抵港及离港10。

粗糙余额往往是基于这一假设为顾客和游客短期车位被占用五倍，较居民或雇员的停车空间。

这意味着五倍汽车流量生成，如果一个停车位由长持续时间的居民或雇员使用转化为短期的客户持续时间，往往是在停车的概念讨论。

再加上，对公共交通服务的需求会在白天增加了经营成本的影响越来越不平衡。

更多汽车交通- 也出了交通高峰- 是不是因为空气污染的大城市忍受。

因此，必须扩展公式：用于代替长期持续时间空间的范围内，汽车交通总量将不会增加客户提供更短的时间空间。

是可以实现，例如，如果有五个长期持续时间为一个位员工，为客户持续时间短的空间和居民持续时间长，成沥青路面，自行车道，公交专用道或空间变化的树，其余转化。

因此，清洁空气方案的斯图加特市（Steierwald等。

1988）更喜欢短的时
间减少停车位长的时间。

法兰克福市（1988年）停车的概念是基于对员工的路边停车收费大幅减少，在为客户和适合在所考虑的地区公共交通服务质量游客温和停车供给。

Parking policies in large cities in Germany
University of Kaiserslautern, Paul-Ehrlich-Strasse 14, D-6750 Kaiserslauten, Germany
Key words: illegal parking, motorization, parking demand and supply, zoning ordinances Abstract. This article deals with highly motorized large West German cities of about 200,000 inhabitants and more, which usually provide reasonable public transport systems. Illegal parking with shares of about 40 to 50% of the total parking is widespread in the parking problem areas of those cities, especially in the inner-city residential and mixed-use areas. Parking spaces are demanded by residents, employees, customers and visitors, and by delivery and service traffic. The different characteristics of parking demands by different user groups are discussed. The total parking supply consists of public and private spaces. The share of private spaces is about 40 to 50% of the total parking spaces in German cities. The amount of car traffic generated by a parking space depends on parking duration and parking turnover, as well as on search traffic. So the change of a space from long-duration use of an employee to short-duration of customers --as often discussed in parking concepts --generates at least five-fold car traffic. The measurements and effects of parking control of public spaces as well as the parking regulations in zoning ordinances, restrictions on the construction of new private parking spaces and park-and-ride are discussed. Finally, a parking concept methodology -- using the example of Frankfurt am Main -- is discussed.
1.Parked cars have occupied the city
Car ownership in West Germany is about 495 passenger cars per 1,000 people --a little lower in the big cities and slightly higher in rural areas (see Table 1). The corresponding figure for East Germany at the moment (mid 1990) is about 235 passenger cars per 1,000 people. During the next two or three years, we will probably experience nearly a doubling of the car fleet in East Germany. This sharp increase will produce problems in East German cities which may be even more severe than those we know from West Germany. Nevertheless, this article deals with highly motorized large West German cities of about 200,000 inhabitants and more, which usually provide reasonable public transport systems.
The parking problems in those cities occur within the inner-city residential and mixed-use areas close to the city centre. In the city centres themselves, parking is usually sufficient due to large expansions of parking garages built during the seventies. Parking problems in the city centres are less severe, not only because of good parking provisions, but also because of high-quality public transport within the city, the lack of high numbers of residents and last, but not least, because of the strong enforcement of parking regulations. In the adjacent dense and mixed-use urban central areas, however, the burdens, hindrances and annoyances caused by parked cars have reached the dimensions of those caused by flowing and jamming car traffic; even the cars of residents alone cannot be accommodated under ecologically, aesthetically, and functionally bearable conditions.
At the same time, motorization in the central areas is below average due to good access by public transport, bike and one's own feet and also caused by the under-average social structure which is common in some of those areas. The problems with residents' cars will still grow.
The parking problem is often seen in the shortened conscience of a car driver who cannot quickly find a cheap parking space in the direct vicinity of his or her destination. Parking
problems are much more severe for other street users: pedestrians are annoyed by cars parked on pavements, cyclists by those on cycle lanes, walking is impeded, getting out of the way by using the carriageway is dangerous especially for children and elderly people, buses and trams are hindered, loading zones are blocked, and search traffic strains the streets in residential and mixed-use areas.
Illegal parking, with shares of about 40 to 50% of the total parking, is widespread in German cities. About 383,000 fines and 27,000 tow-aways in Frankfurt, for instance, in 1989 or even about 927,000 fines and 42,000 tow-aways-in Munich change little of this situation (according to information from the cities' administrations).
Illegal parking, especially on pavements and cycle lanes, is not only impeding and dangerous for other street users, it also foils any approach to control urban motor traffic by parking management. It finally results in reduced accessibility to inner cities.
2. Parking demand by different user groups
Parking spaces are demanded by residents, employees, customers and visitors, and by delivery and service traffic. The latter is often summed up as commercial traffic and considered to represent the necessary or unavoidable part of motor traffic in a city. Despite its importance, delivery and service traffic is not usually a direct part of the parking balance due to specific space requirements and diverging performance.
The parking demand of these four user groups differs according to parking duration, time of day, preference of parking in public streets or in a parking garage, proximity of destination, willingness to pay for parking, or in the readiness to change to other means of transporation.
Parking provisions for residents have a high priority, even within streets of existing city districts. Where residential functions are to be encouraged, parking for residents must be obtainable within a reasonable distance and, at the same time, non-residential car traffic should be kept away. Under present-day conditions and common behaviour, distances of more than about 200 to 300 meters are generally not accepted although, distances to bus and tram stops are often longer.
Third in the usual hierarchy of parking demands --following commercial traffic and residents --are those of customers and visitors. This user group is very heterogeneous and includes shopping, business and private visits. For these mainly short-time parkers, some parking spaces close to the destination should be provided and charged for at the market rate.
Finally, for long-parking employeeS, no on-street parking should be available and off-street parking only at market-rate conditions. Employees who rely on their cars because of handicaps, business needs or lack of reasonable public transport alternatives, can usually be provided with parking spaces by their firms, since 40 to 50% of the total parking volume in German cities is privately owned and privately used.
Different parking demand during the day and different parking durations, according to user groups and trip purposes, cause characteristic occupancy time graphs showing the number of simultaneously parked cars --either legally or illegally --at the same time during the day. contains occupancy time graphs derived from investigations in the Frankfurt city district Nordend-Siid which represents a typical inner city mixeduse area of about 40 hectares with some 180 residents and 130 employees per hectare.
The presence of residents' cars is shaped like a valley with a minimum between 11.00 and
11.30 a.m. of about 35% of all cars parked during the night. (It is assumed that cars parked at about 3.00 a.m. belong to residents.) At about 7.00 a.m. (start of the recording) about 60% of all residents' cars are present, while at about 7.00 p.m. about 45% are present. The occupancy by employees' cars is mountain-shaped with a maximum presence in the forenoon of about 85% of all registered parking occurrences. The occupancy time graphs of residents and employees are very similar in all investigated city districts.
The presence of customers' and visitors' cars in the city district Nordend-Siid is continously increasing during the day and is dominated by private visits. In other districts where business and shopping visits dominate, the curve decreases towards the evening.
Investigations in several city districts show a close similarity of occupancy time graphs for residents and employees alike (Retzko & Topp Consultants 1988). This allows the transfer of parking patterns from district to district without extensive surveys within each district. The similarity of the occupancy time graphs for visitors is less distinct because of the different purposes of visits.
3.Parking supply: On-street and off-street, public and private
The total parking volume of a city district consists of different types of parking spaces concerning ownership, operation and usability. The most important distinction is "public or private" related to accessibility for all or for certain groups and to the degree of control by municipal parking policy.
"Most public" are on-street spaces with the only restrictions being preferences for residents (or handicapped). These spaces are totally
controlled by the municipality and, therefore, they are usually the starting point of parking concepts.
The municipal influence on parking garages --even those publicly operated --is limited because of legal contracts concerning, for instance, the share of permanently let spaces or parking tariffs. A municipal parking company operating as many garages as possible --as, for instance, the "Parkhaus Betriebs GmbH" in Frankfurt operating 12 garages with about 8,000 spaces in total --provides influence and creates a chance to integrate those spaces into parking concepts. About 40% of all spaces are permanently let, even in the muncipally operated garages in Frankfurt.
Private spaces cannot be controlled by municipal parking concepts. They can only be indirectly affected, for instance, by no parking provision at all for employees in the public realm, to induce firms to distribute their private spaces to employees who are car-bound because of handicaps, professional use of the car, and lacking in public transport alternatives. In the long term, the amount of private spaces can be controlled by zoning ordinances.
The share of private spaces in the total parking is about 40 to 50% in German cities. Table 3 shows the figures for Frankfurt am Main.
Parking space which is not completely controlled by parking management measures is an "over-saturated" system: that means parking demand exceeds parking supply or --to put it another way --additional spaces attract additional cars. That is even true with illegal parking possibilities.
How parking management can avoid this is indicated by spare capacities in parking lots where streets are totally crowded by parked cars. The often-cited deficit of parking spaces is often revealed as a "deficit" of cheap and easily accessible spaces near to the real destinations. These are, under present-day regulations, on-street spaces --legal as well as illegal. As is shown by spare capacities in parking lots --except during main shopping days -- an equal balance below total
occupancy is to be achieved by parking prices. So accessibility is granted while search traffic is avoided.
In many discussions about the reasonable supply of parking spaces in a city district, parking deficits are complained of, especially by representatives of the retail trade. Such "deficits" are often dissolved if the underlying parking standards are changed, i.e. if, for instance, a longer walk between parking and final destination is assumed. So when speaking about parking deficits, we have to add standards in terms of distances and costs to define them. By the way, the same occurs in other fields of transportation: so, for instance, the capacity of a road section or a junction is connected with the level of service expressed by speed or waiting times.
The amount of car traffic generated by a parking space depends on parking duration and parking turnover as well as on search traffic. So, for instance, 10% of the residents' cars parked on-street in a Frankfurt inner city district are not moved during a weekday. In Munich inner city districts, this share of unmoved cars rises to 30%. Residential parking spaces used in this way generate no car traffic during the day at all. On the contrary, a parking space with a one-hour parking limit from 8.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. which is enforced, may be occupied 10 times, thus generating 10 car arrivals and 10 departures.
Rough balances are often based on the assumption that a short-duration parking space for customers and visitors is occupied five-fold compared with a resident's or employee's parking space.
That means a five-fold car traffic generation if a parking space is transformed from long-duration use of residents or employees to short- duration of customers, as is often discussed in parking concepts. AdditionaUy, the imbalance of the demand for public transport services during the day will increase with the effect of growing operating costs.
More car traffic --also out of traffic peaks --is not bearable in the large cities because of air pollution. Therefore, the formula must be extended: more short-duration spaces for customers instead of long-duration spaces to the extent that car traffic will not increase in total. That could be achieved, for instance, if five long-duration spaces for employees are transformed into one short duration space for customers and one long duration for residents and the rest changed into pavement, cycle lane, bus lane or space for a tree.
Consequently, the Clean Air Program for the City of Stuttgart (Steierwald et al. 1988) prefers the reduction of short-duration parking spaces to those of long-duration. The parking concept of the City of Frankfurt (1988) is based on a drastic reduction of employees' on-street parking and on a moderate parking supply for customers and visitors suited to the service quality of public transport in the area considered.
4. Parking control of public spaces
Parking control of public spaces --usually called "Parkraumbewirtschaftung" or parking management --directly affects only about one half of the total parking volume. Apart from that, there are also indirect effects on private spaces, as mentioned in Section 3.
In Germany, the instruments of parking management were completed as late as 1980 with the legal introduction of residential parking permits. This is important, because residential parking permits are a prerequisite for extending the parking management schemes, successfully applied within the commercial city centres, into the fringe of usually dense mixed- use areas neighboring the city centre. So the early eighties saw the starting point of discussions about area-wide or even
city-wide concepts of parking management.
Parking concepts pursue several objectives which are interconnected: one is to cover the parking demands of residents and commercial traffic and to provide some spaces for customers and visitors at market rates; next is to distribute scarce spaces according to priorities --derived from urban development policies; and last, but not least, to control urban traffic, to maintain an equilibrium between parking and circulating traffic and to affect modal choice, especially of the employees in favour of public transport.
Parking management encompasses the entity of all measurements to steer parking supply and parking demand. Four "adjusting screws" are available:
-the amount of parking supply,
-parking prices and charges,
-parking period limitations with or without parking charges,
-privileges for certain user groups, such as, for instance, deliveries and residents.
The success of all parking regulations within the public street depends strongly on their enforcement. According to its importance, enforcement could be called the fifth "adjusting screw" to steer parking.
In the meantime, it is generally agreed that intensified enforcement is self-financing through improved paying morals at meters and through incomes by fines. But it is not easy to recruit personnel because of low wages and poor image.
Parking management aims at balancing parking demand and supply by parking prices and by rationing the supply; it works with market tools as well as with planning and administrative tools. Parking permits for resi- dents, limited-period parking and parking charges are the most important instruments to control on-street parking. The charges at parking meters and parkomats (pay and display) are legally limited to DM 2 per hour, although most cities take DM 1. In general, parking prices at on-street spaces which are usually the most comfortable and nearest, should be clearly higher than those off-street in parking garages.
Although the instruments of area-wide parking management were completed with the introduction of residential parking permits 10 years ago, only a few cities have installed such concepts, among them Aachen, Heidelberg, Kassel and Saarbriicken. Despite frequent discussions about parking concepts among planners and politicians, only a few studies of the effects are available. A before-and-after study within the same year in Munich (ADAC, 1982) shows the effects of residential parking permits on the modal choice of employees. The share of car solo-drivers dropped from 44 to 32% and the traffic peaks and search traffic during the day were reduced. Spillover parking in neighbouring streets was not observed; it can usually be avoided by extending the area of a parking management concept.
5. Parking regulations in zoning ordinances
Originally, parking vehicles in the public street did not belong to the common uses of a street; vehicles had to be parked on private premises.
Since 1939 (Reichsgaragenordnung),in Germany building owners are legally obliged to provide parking space on their premises according to the type and amount of intended uses. In the meantime, parking within the public street has become common law. But nevertheless the Building Acts of the German States still formulate the parking space obligation.
The parking-space obligation comes into power when a building is newly erected, when it is rebuilt or extended or even when the uses of the building are changed. If, for instance, a flat is converted into an office, the parking space obligation is extended from 1 to 1.5 spaces per flat to 1 space per about 30 m 2 usable area; or if a flat is devided into two flats, the parking space obligation is doubled.
Basically, there are two ways of fulfilling the parking-space obligation: first, to build the spaces on one's own premises and, second, to pay a certain amount of money per space to the community. These pay-offs are used to provide spaces within an acceptable distance or to finance park- and-ride spaces within the community or even in neighbouring communities. Originally, the second way to discharge the obligation was limited to cases where the premises were not suited for providing parking spaces because of size, lack of access or reasons of urban protection and renewal.
In recent years, the application of discharges was extended and combined with a limitation or even prohibition of building new parking spaces in heavy trafficked areas with reasonable public transport alternatives. The communities were authorised by the Building Acts of the States to regulate the amount of private parking spaces by local ordinances. Basically, the parking-space obligation is maintained, but only a certain part (or no part) of it can be realised through parking-space provisions, whereas the rest must be payed off.
At the moment, parking space limiting ordinances are known from seven cities, several more are preparing such ordinances. Usually the limitations concern offices, whereas flats are handled differently.
The pay-off amount per space is limited to 60 to 80% of the real costs to build a space in the area concerned. The local ordinances fix the maximum amount which is mostly staggered according to city zones. The maximum pay-off amount varies between DM 10,000 and DM 30,000 per space.
Actually (Stadt Frankfurt am Main, 1990 and discussions about the amendment of the Berlin Building Act), the extended use of pay-offs for public transport is being discussed (and now, since September 1990, legally introduced in Berlin). Until now, use is limited to parking facilities including park-and-ride -- except in Berlin.
6. Park-and-ride concept of the City of Frankfurt
Park-and-ride is one of the most popular issues among traffic planners in Germany. Compared to this, the existing P&R facilities are rather modest in quantity as well as in quality. Only Hamburg and Munich may be excepted from the general situation.
The city of Frankfurt pursues an ambitious approach to multiply the number of park-and-ride spaces, preferably within the outer catchment area. Today, about 7,400 spaces are available for "official" park-and-ride and an unknown number of spaces around the railways stations of the neighbouring communities -- often within residential areas --are used in a similar way.
The investment costs of park-and-ride spaces are generally subsidised by the State of Hessen and the Federal State with 60%. The rest is financed by the City of Frankfurt out of the pay-off amounts collected through parking-space restrictions on private premises within the inner city. This financing model is applied in the same way in Frankfurt and in neighbouring and outlying communities.
The Frankfurt park-and-ride concept is based on three screen rings. The outer ring is a broad
area covering all communities with appropiate railway stations having easy car access. Car drivers heading for work are supposed to switch to public transport as early as possible, ideally within the area of their residential community. Parking is free of charge.
The second ring follows roughly the city border of Frankfurt with P&R-facilities at the terminus stations of the municipal U-Bahn or S-Bahn-stations where train capacities provide a good chance for the passenger to get a seat. P&R-information on the motorways tells about the parking conditions in the inner city, the nearest park-and-ride facility and the next train departure. Parking charges at the second ring are proposed to be moderate. Some 15 sites all around Frankfurt are planned or under study.
Finally, a third ring encompassing the inner city residential and mixed- use areas should snap up the rest of car drivers to work as well as shoppers and visitors to the city. These spaces are being considered to replace abolished spaces within the inner city. High progressive charges are proposed. Seven sites are planned or under study.
Of course, the success of this ambitious park-and-ride concept depends on two prerequisites. One is the city-wide consistent parking concept which is the responsibility of the city itself. The second is the cooperation of the other communities: some are more, some are less interested in getting park-and-ride facilities. Complicated negotiations concerning much more than park-and-ride have to be fought in the interests of the whole region.
7. Conclusions
Out of all measures to freeze or even reduce motor traffic in cities, improvements of public transport and city-wide parking concepts have key roles. One depends on the other: with public transport improvements alone, the car cannot be passed over and a high quality of public transport is a prerequisite for parking restrictions in inner cities combined with park-and-ride.
Motor traffic restrictions in urban areas use two approaches --parking restrictions and restrictions of traffic flow through capacity restraints at outlying junctions. Usually, both are combined. Parking restrictions are environmentally more favorable because they produce less noise, pollution and driver stress compared with traffic-flow restrictions. Additionally, parking restrictions work selectively, that means they address the different user groups --residents, employees, customers and visitors and commercial traffic --in different ways. So easy access for residents and commercial traffic can result from parking restrictions against employees who usually can most easily switch to public transport and park-and-ride.
Parking concepts distribute scarce parking spaces through administrative measurements as well as market rate measurements. Parking permits for residents, limited-period parking and parking charges are the most important instruments to control on-street parking. Private spaces are distributed by user-advantages for car pools, reservations, long-period rents and parking prices.
In German cities, parking management in the city centres is most common and has been successfully applied for many years. This has resulted in parked cars being shifted to the neighbouring residential and mixed-use areas, much to the detriment of those areas. The extension of parking management schemes from the centre to the whole inner city became possible with the legal introducton of residential parking permits in 1980.
Currently, only a few cities have installed area-wide parking concepts, although most have discussed it. But in the meantime, most politicians are convinced that parking concepts play a key role in preserving the urbanity of our cities.。