Cambridge Parking Strategy Review Cambridgeshire County Council Report May 2017 Our ref: 23132601 Client ref: SH
Cambridge Parking Strategy Review Cambridgeshire County Council Report May 2017 Our ref: 23132601 Client ref: SH Prepared by: Prepared for: Steer Davies Gleave 67 Albion Street Leeds LS1 5AA +44 1133896400 www.steerdaviesgleave.com Cambridgeshire County Council Shire Hall Castle Hill Cambridge CB3 0AP Steer Davies Gleave has prepared this material for Cambridgeshire County Council. This material may only be used within the context and scope for which Steer Davies Gleave has prepared it and may not be relied upon in part or whole by any third party or be used for any other purpose. Any person choosing to use any part of this material without the express and written permission of Steer Davies Gleave shall be deemed to confirm their agreement to indemnify Steer Davies Gleave for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Steer Davies Gleave has prepared this material using professional practices and procedures using information available to it at the time and as such any new information could alter the validity of the results and conclusions made.
Contents Executive Summary... i Overview... i Conclusions and recommendations... iii 1 Introduction... 1 Structure of this report... 2 2 Method... 3 3 Understanding displaced commuter demand... 5 Assessment of origins of on-street parking demand... 6 Assessment of alternative travel options available to displaced commuters... 7 Assessment of Park and Ride capacity... 8 Future Park and Ride supply and demand... 9 4 Understanding displaced demand: interview survey results... 11 Introduction... 11 Results... 11 5 Conclusions and Recommendations... 14 May 2017
Figures Figure 4.1: Journey purpose... 11 Figure 4.2: Frequency of parking on-street... 12 Figure 4.3: Possibility of alternative options... 12 Figure 4.4: What respondents would do in response to the implementation of parking restrictions... 13 Figure 4.5: Respondent Origins... Error! Bookmark not defined. Tables Table 2.1: Assumptions for typology of cars... 3 Table 2.2: Zones surveyed... 4 Table 3.1: Zones not surveyed... 5 Table 3.2: Estimated origins of cars by area... 7 Table 3.3: Proportion of commuters to each area within walking/cycling/public transport catchments... 8 Table 3.4: Park and Ride capacity and capacity to absorb demand from outside public transport / walk / cycle catchments... 8 Table A.1: Approximate number of commuter cars originating from each MSOA in South Cambridgeshire, Cambridge and East Cambridgeshire.... 19 Appendices A Additional figures and tables May 2017
Executive Summary Overview This report builds on previously undertaken survey work into levels of on-street parking in areas of Cambridge to understand how many vehicles will be displaced if residents parking schemes are introduced. The on-street survey results were analysed and further analysis undertaken to categorise vehicles parked on-street into resident, commuter and non-resident, non-commuter vehicles. This work aims to provide an updated figure of the commuter displacement that parking restrictions would create and explores public transport (including Park and Ride options) and other alternatives for commuters currently parking on-street. In summary, the analysis found: An estimated 4,150 to 4,300 commuter cars across all 26 zones Of the 4,150 commuter cars to be displaced, we expect around 800 to 1,000 to have a reasonable walking or cycling alternative and around 2,600 to have a realistic public transport alternative. Around 38% of those parking on-street (approximately 1,500) are estimated to be outside of either the two mile catchment or 60 minute public transport catchment for this group Park and Ride would need to accommodate demand. In practice, we would expect this figure to be higher (upwards of 2,000) as Park and Ride is likely to be considered a more attractive option by many drivers. There is spare capacity within the Park and Ride system to absorb commuters outside of the 60 minute public transport catchment, but there are around twice as many commuters outside the 30 minute public transport catchment than can be accommodated by spare Park and Ride capacity. Cambridgeshire County Council has outline plans for an additional 7,100 Park and Ride spaces by 2020. Projections of the extent to which displaced demand can be accommodated within this additional capacity show that the projected future supply is likely to be sufficient to accommodate displaced demand. There is a short-term pinch point in 2019 at which point the additional spaces may struggle to accommodate displaced demand under either scenario. This is mitigated by the new Park and Ride sites becoming available from 2020. Interviews were completed with 89 people who park on-street in Cambridge of which 57% (43 respondents) were commuters. Of those 43 commuters: Nine out of ten (90%) park in the same location at least once a week people who park on-street are likely to know the area well and their alternative parking options, including other on-street parking options. Most did not consider there to be realistic alternative options for their car journey: the two most realistic options for commuters were cycling (14%) or bus (14%). 6% considered Park and Ride an option and 8% responded that they could travel by train instead and 8% stated that they could walk. The responses to this question are similar to responses obtained to this question in surveys that Steer Davies Gleave has conducted elsewhere most drivers do not consider there to be viable alternatives and may not be aware of them. Personal value judgements also influence perceptions of the suitability of alternatives. Respondents were asked what they would do if parking restrictions were introduced which meant that they were unable to park either in the street they had parked in that day or in the surrounding streets. May 2017 i
- 58% would continue to drive and would look for either other on-street parking (29%) or an off-street carpark (29%). - 15% would use alternative transport while 8% would not make the journey in the first place and 4% would go elsewhere to other destinations. May 2017 ii
Conclusions and recommendations The following recommendations are made relating to communications with displaced drivers and provision of alternative travel options: Further interview survey work to better understand potential behaviours of drivers displaced from parking on-street, particularly relating to perceptions of Park and Ride; A direct communications campaign aimed at drivers to be displaced from the phase 1 zones, using Cambridgeshire County Council staff to pilot approaches; Short term supporting measures include, within the first year of implementation including: Identification of the least sensitive unrestricted on-street parking areas in other zones which could provide an alternative parking option in the short term. Expansion of existing Park and Ride sites, particularly at Madingley Road and Trumpington. Review of Park and Ride service intermediate stops with regard to potential increased demand for commuting to non-central workplaces. Identification of potential temporary parking locations on the edge of the city close to frequent bus routes and / or cycle routes into Cambridge which could act as small scale temporary Park and Ride sites. Improvements to the presentation of alternative travel options, particularly online. In the second to fifth years of implementation, the following actions are recommended: Additional Park and Ride supply including new sites as proposed by the City Deal and new sites to fill the gaps in the Park and Ride network on approach roads from the west and north west (subject to feasibility studies). Introduction of cycle hire at Park and Ride sites as an additional journey option for commuters who work at non-central locations which are not well served by Park and Ride buses. Exploration of the potential for employee shuttle options linking Park and Ride sites to non-central workplaces to include flexible on-demand services with Smartphone booking. May 2017 iii
1 Introduction 1.1 Steer Davies Gleave was commissioned by Cambridgeshire County Council to explore the potential impact of the proposed introduction of 26 residential parking schemes across Cambridge. 1.2 This report builds on the work undertaken on behalf of Cambridgeshire County Council 1 to understand the current level of demand for on-street parking in the areas where parking schemes are proposed. 1.3 Using the on-street parking survey results for undertaken in areas where residential parking schemes are proposed, Cambridgeshire County Council officers prepared an estimate of the potential extent of any parking demand displaced as a result of the implementation of residential parking schemes. For areas which were not surveyed, an estimate of likely nonresidential parking was made. The analysis also assessed whether there was sufficient spare capacity in the Park and Ride service to absorb any displaced demand. This was reported in a short note to Councillors which noted: An estimated 6,000 vehicles may be displaced; and Capacity in the Park and Ride network to accommodate around 31% of the 6,000 displaced vehicles. 1.4 The analysis in this report re-visits the estimates of displaced demand and explores in more depth the nature of this displaced demand and the extent to which it could be accommodated by alternative travel modes including bus, rail, walking, cycling and car sharing as well as Park and Ride. 1.5 The key questions addressed in this report are: How much displacement of parking demand is likely to arise from the introduction of all 26 residential parking schemes? How accurate is the Cambridgeshire County Council estimate of 6,000 displaced vehicles across 26 zones? How much on-street parking is by commuters and how much by non-commuters? What is the potential for alternative modes to accommodate trip demand currently met by private car with on-street parking? 1.6 The following activities were undertaken: Further analysis of the stage 1 and stage 2 survey results to better understand the nature of the displaced demand; Verification of the stage 1 and stage 2 survey results by means of an additional occupancy survey Review of 2011 census travel to work data to better understand the likely travel options available to those who currently park on-street and may be displaced by a residential parking scheme; and Focused attitudinal surveys to gauge driver behaviour in response to the introduction of resident parking schemes. 1 Cambridge On-Street Residential Parking Study Stage 2 Survey Results, Mott MacDonald August 2016 May 2017 1
Structure of this report 1.7 Following this introduction: Section 2 outlines the method used to better understand potential displaced demand; Section 3 describes the findings; Section 4 describes the findings of the interview survey conducted; and Section 5 contains some conclusions and recommendations. May 2017 2
2 Method 2.1 The review included analysis of existing data, including parking occupancy survey data collected by Mott MacDonald, 2011 census data and public transport journey times (using the Tracc analysis tool). It was also informed by primary data collection which included an additional occupancy survey of a proposed residential parking zone that was not previously surveyed, and on-street interview surveys conducted with drivers who parked on-street in Cambridge. 2.2 In summary, the activities undertaken included: An additional occupancy survey of an area of Cambridge (Walpole) where residential parking is proposed but which was not surveyed in stages 1 or 2. Analysis of this survey data sought to understand the extent to which stage 1 and stage 2 survey results (which covered only some of the proposed parking zone areas) provide appropriate estimates of displaced demand for the neighbouring areas that were not surveyed. Further analysis of the stage 1 and stage 2 survey results to better understand the nature of the displaced demand. The analysis sought to better determine the split between non-residential cars parked which were likely to be commuter cars and which were less likely to be commuter cars. This was achieved by re-visiting the stage 1 and stage 2 survey data and making assumptions about the nature of parking based on the times that vehicles were observed as parked. The assumptions made are summarised in Table 2.1. Table 2.1: Assumptions for typology of cars Time observed Resident 05.30 06:30 Commuter Assumed type Non-residential, non-commuter 10:00 11:00 x x x 14:00 13:00 x x x 18:00 19:00* x X x *Not all surveys had a 18:00 beat Review of 2011 census data to better understand the likely travel options available to those who currently park on-street and may be displaced by a residential parking scheme. To understand the likely origins of commuter journeys to workplaces in each area, 2011 UK Census data were analysed. Census data includes the origin, destination and mode of travel to work journeys. From reviewing the journey origins of commuters who gave a destination within the Medium Super Output Area in each of the five areas, we can estimate the likely origins of commuter cars parked in each area. In some areas, commuters may park on-street then walk into another area (such as Cambridge city centre) to access employment. There were no data available on the extent to which this happens in each of the areas surveyed so vehicles parked in an area were assumed to belong to people who work within that same area. Focused attitudinal surveys near key employment sites to gauge driver behaviour confirming origin, destination, journey purpose, time and frequency of journey; whether drivers would seek to park elsewhere, or change mode and the ease of alternatives. May 2017 3
2.3 The zones which were surveyed as part of the Mott Macdonald report are shown in Table 2.2. Table 2.2: Zones surveyed Number Name Surveyed? 1 Newnham Partial 2 Accordia X 3 Coleridge West 4 Coleridge East 5 Elizabeth Partial 5 Elizabeth Partial 6 Victoria Partial 7 Romsey West 8 Romsey East 9 York 11 Stretten 12 Benson North 13 Wilberforce Partial 14 Chaucer X 15 Trumpington North X 16 Trumpington South X 17 Perse 18 Glebe 19 Nightingale 20 Wulfstan 21 Walpole 22 Chesterton West X 23 Chesterton East X 24 Chesterton South X 25 Stourbridge 26 Staffordshire X May 2017 4
3 Understanding displaced commuter demand 3.1 The estimates of displaced demand by Cambridgeshire County Council have been refined in the following ways: further analysis of the survey results to distinguish commuter cars from other nonresident cars; greater consideration given to the location and nature of the non-surveyed zones. This included identification of zones which are most likely to have a level similar generation of on-street commuter parking, based on their location and proximity to employment sites and city centre. 3.2 Using the typology outlined in the previous section, an estimated 2,400 commuter cars were identified. A further 129 commuter cars were identified in the additional survey of the Walpole zone. 3.3 To provide estimates of the number of commuter cars in the non-surveyed zones, the ratio of commuter cars per household in similar zones was applied to the number of households in each survey zone. (The method used for the original calculation by Cambridgeshire County Council, which provided an estimated 6,000 total displaced cars, used a factor of nonresidential cars per household in the surveyed zones (0.2) which was applied across all nonsurveyed zones). 3.4 The non-surveyed zones comprise some which were partially surveyed for the Mott Macdonald report and some which have not been surveyed at all. Table 3.1 shows the zones in which occupancy surveys were not carried out and lists alongside them the most similar zone which has been surveyed, from which estimates could be made about commuter displacement. Table 3.1: Zones not surveyed Zones not surveyed Similar zone, used to factor up the estimate of commuter cars 14 Chaucer 21 Walpole 0.09 15 Trumpington North 19/20 Nightingale and Wulfstan Ratio of commuter cars: household 0.23 16 Trumpington South 21 Walpole 0.09 22 Chesterton West 25 - Stourbridge 0.13 23 Chesterton East 19/20 - Nightingale and Wulfstan 0.23 24 Chesterton South 25 - Stourbridge 0.13 Rationale High residential, not close to major employment sites or city centre Similar proximity to trip generation at Addenbrookes High residential, not close to major employment sites or city centre High residential, not close to major employment sites or city centre Similar proximity to trip generation at science park High residential, not close to major employment sites or city centre May 2017 5
3.5 Aside from the areas in Table 3.2, the other areas which have not been surveyed include those zones which were only partially surveyed for the Mott Macdonald study. For those areas, the average commuter cars per household figure (0.14) across all zones surveyed was used. 3.6 The revised calculation provides an estimate of between 4,150 to 4,300 commuter cars. Non-residential, non-commuter cars 3.7 By applying the ratio of non-residential, non-commuter cars to the number of un-surveyed households (using the same similar zones on which to base estimates), there is a further 4,600 non-residential, non-commuter cars. These cars, which were observed at either of the 10:00 to 11:00 or 14:00 to 15:00 beats (but not both) may include: visitors to households, shops or businesses; or part-time workers. 3.8 Following the introduction of residential parking permit schemes, visitors to households may use a visitor permit provided the resident they are visiting. Short stay visits to shops or businesses may be facilitated by inclusion of spaces for short stay parking (such as maximum one hour bays) within each residential permit zone. Assessment of origins of on-street parking demand 3.9 Using census travel to work data, an estimate of journey origins of commuters who park on street was made. This analysis was undertaken using the Mott Macdonald survey areas, which group the proposed residential parking zones. 3.10 Table 3.2 shows, for each survey area, the proportion of journeys originating in South Cambridgeshire, Cambridge, Huntingdonshire and East Cambridgeshire, local authority areas which were the top five origins for car commuter trips to each of the areas. 3.11 The table highlights a high proportion of trips originating in South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge. Commuter trips from South Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire and East Cambridgeshire. will include a mix of locations where there are good public transport or Park and Ride options and more rural areas where public transport options are less readily available this is assessed later in this section. 3.12 For journeys originating in Cambridge, commuters who currently travel by car are more likely to be able to make journeys by walking or cycling, given the relatively short distances involved. In particular, there is a high proportion of car trips (37%) to Area 5 to the south of the city (near Cambridge Station and Addenbrokes Hospital) and to Area 2 (24%) to the east of the city which originate in Cambridge which may be shifted from car to walking or cycling. May 2017 6
Table 3.2: Estimated origins of cars by area Area 1 (to the north west of the city centre including Elizabeth, Victoria, Stretten and Benson North) Area 2 (to the east of the city centre including Romsey West, Romsey East, York, Stourbridge and Staffordshire) Area 3 (to the west of the city centre including Newnham and Wilberforce) Area 4 (to the southeast of the city centre including Coleridge West and Coleridge East) Area 5 (to the south of the city centre including Chaucer, Perse, Glebe, Nightingale, Wulfstan and Walpole) Estimated origins of cars South Cambridgeshire Cambridge Huntingdonshire East Cambridgeshire Other 37% 16% 13% 11% 13% 32% 24% 7% 13% 24% 31% 19% 8% 14% 28% 36% 18% 6% 10% 30% 17% 37% 7% 10% 29% Assessment of alternative travel options available to displaced commuters 3.13 Using the TRACC public transport accessibility tool, an estimate of the proportion of journeys made to each area which could be made by public transport was made. This was based on the availability of a public transport option operating in the morning peak which provides a journey time of less than thirty minutes and less than sixty minutes, based on timetable information. Park and Ride services are included in the assessment but the journey time analysis only includes journeys made by walking to Park and Ride stops, not car journeys to Park and Ride. The table also shows the approximate proportion of car trips which are under two miles and may be within walking or cycling distance. 3.14 The figures provided in Table 3.3 give a broad indication of the likely availability of alternative travel options available to commuters travelling by car who park on-street in each area. 2 3.15 Overall around a fifth of commuters parking on-street are estimated to be travelling from within a two-mile catchment (which could be walked or cycled), almost two thirds are 2 The journey origins provided by the census for travel to work are at Multiple Super Output Area (MSOA) level only. MSOAs vary in geographic extent and are smaller in size in the urban areas of Cambridge but significantly larger in the more rural areas of South Cambs. MSOAs, particularly in rural areas, will include a mix of residents who live close to public transport stops / stations and those who live further away. More precise journey origin data (such as home postcodes of commuters travelling by car), which would allow assessment of this proximity to public transport, is not available. Commuters are assumed to be travelling from a central point within each MSOA to a central point within the survey zone. May 2017 7
estimated to be within a 60 minute public transport journey during the am peak and around 16% within 30 minute public transport journey time. Table 3.3: Proportion of commuters to each area within public transport, walking and cycling catchments Area % within two mile walking / cycling catchment % within 30 minute am peak public transport catchment % within 60 minute am peak public transport catchment % outside any catchment 1 18% 20% 79% 21% 2 29% 25% 68% 32% 3 10% 12% 56% 44% 4 20% 14% 59% 41% 5 20% 15% 58% 42% Total 19% 16% 62% 38% Assessment of Park and Ride capacity 3.16 For commuters who are outside of the public transport or walking catchment the option of Park and Ride may be available. The extent to which Park and Ride services offer a viable option is dependent on the final destination of the journey. For the commuter cars parked in each proposed residential parking zone, we do not know the final journey destination some may be to employment sites within the same area, some may continue their journey on foot (or by bicycle carried in the vehicle) to Cambridge city centre or other employment sites. 3.17 As Park and Ride may also be a more attractive option than local bus services to those who currently commute by car (given its high frequency and convenience), the table below considers two scenarios: Scenario 1: All commuters outside of the walk / cycle catchment are displaced to Park and Ride. Scenario 2: All commuters outside of the 30 minute public transport catchment are displaced to Park and Ride. 3.18 It should be noted that these scenarios are indicative it is not suggested or likely that any will occur in practice. Both scenarios, there would be a shortage of supply of Park and Ride spaces. Table 3.4: Park and Ride capacity and capacity to absorb demand from outside public transport, walking and cycling catchments Total Park and Ride capacity* 3. Average free spaces Scenario 1: All commuters outside of the walk / cycle catchment are displaced to Park and Ride Scenario 3: All commuters outside of the 30 minute public transport catchment are displaced to Park and Ride 6,821 1,850 3,350 3,485 3.19 Park and Ride may intercept commuter journeys for each area some are served directly by Park and Ride services. The route from Milton runs to Areas 1 and 2 and captures demand from north. 3 From surveys in June 2016, taken from Cambridge Bus Network, Option Development and Assessment Report (January 2017) May 2017 8
The facility at Newmarket Road is best placed to intercept demand for Area 2 from the east. Milton Road and Newmarket Road are also well placed to capture demand for Area 3 though the bus route currently does not run to area 3. Madingley Road would intercept demand from the east. The only facility which currently runs a route to Area 4 is Babraham Road. This could capture demand from the south and southeast but does little for the large numbers coming from the north. Babraham Road is the best placed facility for Area 5 as it is nearby with a bus route running through the Area meaning it could capture demand from the south. Trumpington could also capture demand from the south but is currently over-utilised. Future Park and Ride supply and demand 3.20 Cambridgeshire County Council has outline plans for additional Park and Ride supply during the period of implementation of residential parking schemes (2018-2020). The outline proposed sites are summarised in Table 3.5. Table 3.5: Outline future Park and Ride supply Future Additional spaces Location Year 1-2018 200 Trumpington Year 2-2019 400 Trumpington Year 3/4-2020/21 6,500 Total 7,100 2,500 at Hauxton Road 2,000 at A428 corridor 2,000 ata1307 corridor at Fourwentways 3.21 Table 3.6 shows projections of future supply and demand for Park and Ride spaces over the implementation period (2018-2020). The projection of displaced demand shows two scenarios: Scenario 1: All commuter on-street parking in residential parking zones is displaced to Park and Ride. Scenario 2: Only commuter on-street parking that is estimated to originate from outside of Cambridge is displaced to Park and Ride, on the basis that Park and Ride is less convenient to commuters based within Cambridge who would be more likely to use public transport, walk, cycle or use off-street parking. 3.22 Under each scenario the projected future supply is sufficient to accommodate displaced demand. There is a short-term pinch point in 2019 at which point the additional spaces may struggle to accommodate displaced demand under either scenario. This is mitigated by the new Park and Ride sites becoming available from 2020. Table 3.6: Future Park and Ride supply and demand Year Additional Total Supply Spare capacity Displaced commuter demand Assume all new supply available to absorb displacement Scenario 1: All commuters displaced to P&R Scenario 2: Commuters outside Cambridge displaced to P&R May 2017 9
2018 200 7,000 2,000 900 700 2019 400 7,400 2,400 2,400 2,000 2020/21 6,500 13,900 8,900 4,300 2,900 May 2017 10
4 Understanding displaced demand: interview survey results Introduction 4.1 89 questionnaires were completed by respondents who drove a car and parked on-street: 76 interviews were carried out with people parking in the residential area near Cambridge Station face-to-face with a surveyor; and a further 13 completed surveys were received using a self-completion version. 4.2 Respondents were screened only respondents who had travelled by car and parked onstreet were interviewed or provided with a self-completion form. 4.3 The interviews asked about journey purpose, length of stay and how respondents would travel were the on-street parking they had used not available. Results Journey Purpose 4.4 Figure 4.1 illustrates the journey purposes of each of the respondents. Over half (57%) of respondents were commuting and a further 9% were parking to carry out work-related activities such as business meetings. 8% were visiting friends and family and another 8% were parking for shopping. The proportion of respondents who were commuters (just over half) is broadly similar to the proportion of non-resident cars parking on-street that are estimated to be commuter cars (just under half). Figure 4.1: Journey purpose The following results are for the 57% (43) respondents who stated that their main journey purpose was commuting. May 2017 11
Frequency of parking on-street 4.5 Respondents were asked how often they parked in the location that they had parked in that day. Figure 4.2 shows that over three fifths (61%) of commuting respondents park in that location at least 5 times a week. Nine out of ten (90%) park in the same location at least once a week and only 2% of respondents park in that location less than once a month. Figure 4.2: Frequency of parking on-street Alternative modes 4.6 Respondents were asked whether there were any realistic alternative modes for the journey that they had made by car. Figure 4.3 shows that the two most realistic options for commuters were cycling (14%) or bus (14%). 8% responded that they could walk; 8% responded that they could travel by train; and 6% considered Park and Ride an option. The responses to this question are similar to responses obtained to this question in surveys that Steer Davies Gleave has conducted elsewhere most drivers do not consider there to be viable alternatives and may not be aware of them. Personal value judgements also influence perceptions of the suitability of alternatives. Figure 4.3: Possibility of alternative options May 2017 12
Alternative Behaviours 4.7 Respondents were asked what they would do if parking restrictions were introduced which meant that they were unable to park either in the street they had parked in that day or in the surrounding streets. The responses of commuters are given in Figure 4.4. Nearly three fifths (58%) responded that they would continue to drive and would look for either other on-street parking or an off-street carpark. 15% would use alternative transport while 8% responded that they would not make the journey in the first place, and 4% would go elsewhere to other destinations. Of the 15% that answered other, answers included a respondent that would consider getting another job and others that could see no alternative but that would have to continue making the journey. 4.8 The responses, while based on a small sample, show that just under a third of drivers would try to find an on-street parking spaces in another area. This illustrates: the need for effective communication of residential parking zone implementation (to inform drivers where zones are to be implemented and their need to consider alternative modes, rather than alternative on-street parking locations); and phasing of implementation to avoid displacement of parking demand from newly implemented zones into neighbouring area where zones have not been implemented. Figure 4.4: What respondents would do in response to the implementation of parking restrictions 4.9 Those that responded that they would use alternative transport were then asked what transport they would use. Of the 17 that answered, the most popular answers were bus and cycling, with four responses for each, followed by three that said rail and two that said a lift or car sharing. Analysis of Origins 4.10 Information about origins of journeys was collected from respondents. Most provided a postcode and these have been mapped in Error! Reference source not found.. Many respondents were travelling from central Cambridge (CB1) though there were also a number travelling in from CB24, an area which covers locations within South Cambridgeshire including Histon and Oakington. May 2017 13
5 Conclusions and Recommendations 5.1 The analysis undertaken provides an estimate of around 4,150 to 4,300 commuter cars plus approximately 4,500 non-resident, non-commuter cars (i.e. short stay) parking on-street in the proposed residential parking scheme areas. Assessment of alternative options focused on the commuter cars and identified some potential for drivers who currently park on-street to switch to alternative modes including walking, cycling, public transport and Park and Ride. 5.2 Of the commuter cars that will be displaced, it is estimated that around a fifth of trips are likely to be less than two miles and around a quarter originate within Cambridge (based on 2011 Census travel to work data). For such journeys (around 800 to 1,000), commuters who currently travel by car are more likely to be able to make journeys by walking or cycling, given the relatively small distances involved. 5.3 It is estimated that two thirds of those parking on-street are likely to have a public transport option with a journey time of less than 60 minutes (around 2,600) but only 16% (660) have a public transport journey time of less than 30 minutes. 5.4 Cambridgeshire County Council has outline plans for an additional 7,100 Park and Ride spaces by 2020. Projections of the extent to which displaced demand can be accommodated within this additional capacity show that the projected future supply is likely to be sufficient to accommodate displaced demand. There is a short-term pinch point in 2019 at which point the additional spaces may struggle to accommodate displaced demand under either scenario. This is mitigated by the new Park and Ride sites becoming available from 2020. Potential behaviours 5.5 While the analysis identified opportunities for shift to alternative modes, interview survey results suggest that drivers who park on-street are unlikely to consider alternative modes as realistic options for their journey. The survey results also indicated that the most likely behaviours in response to the introduction of resident parking zones are to seek car parking elsewhere, either on-street or off-street. 5.6 The interview surveys were completed by a small sample so cannot be relied upon to be representative but the potential behaviours they suggest are similar to those we have found in surveys undertaken elsewhere by Steer Davies Gleave. 5.7 As such, in the short term, for the first zones to be implemented, the Council should expect initial displacement of vehicles into neighbouring zones. Most of the drivers interviewed as part of the survey parked on-street regularly. Drivers may seek out free on-street parking for various reasons including the cost of off-street parking, inability to park in workplace car parks (for example because there are no spaces or they don t qualify for a permit), or simply because on-street parking is the most convenient option for their journey. It is possible that there is a significant group for whom parking on-street is habitual so it can be expected that the initial response to residential parking zones is to continue the same behaviour but to seek parking in a different area. Perception of Park and Ride as an alternative journey option 5.8 From the interview survey results, there was a low proportion of respondents who considered that Park and Ride could be a realistic alternative travel option for their journey (only 6%, less May 2017 14
than for bus, walking and cycling). As over half of the respondents live within the CB1-CB5 postcode areas, they are less likely to find Park and Ride convenient. 5.9 For the non-cambridge based respondents, given the relatively comprehensive Park and Ride provision in Cambridge, it would be helpful to gain a greater understanding of why Park and Ride may not be perceived as a realistic alternative option and further surveying would be required to establish that. This would include gaining a better understanding of: The extent to which the parking fees and bus fares are a deterrent to using Park and Ride. The extent to which Park and Ride is viewed as a service predominantly for accessing Cambridge city centre and not for accessing workplaces in non-central parts Cambridge. Some workplaces may not be conveniently located within walking distance of city centre Park and Ride termini or the existing intermediate stops, hence commuters may not view Park and Ride as a feasible option. It would be helpful to understand awareness amongst drivers parking on-street of the intermediate stops served by Park and Ride buses and to review whether additional intermediate stops may support drivers displaced from onstreet parking. Communications with displaced commuters 5.10 A certain amount of short-term disruption needs to be expected and planned for. Communication of the proposed implementation of residential parking zones will be important. 5.11 The willingness to walk from parking location to the destination is higher amongst commuters who park on-street (much more so, for example, than for short stay shoppers). This brings both challenge and opportunity. The challenge is that parking on-street is an established behaviour finding an alternative parking location will be considered easier than changing mode, even if this means a longer walk. The opportunity is to provide drivers with information about public transport options, bus stop locations and walking distances it is likely that many public transport options will be more convenient and require less walking than would be required following the introduction of the residential parking zones. 5.12 The table below outlines some of the messages to communicate to drivers who currently park on-street and possible communication channels. There is a significant opportunity with the implementation of the first phase to pilot this communications approach using Council staff (who we understand to be amongst those who park on-street close to Shire Hall). Content of messages Extent of proposed zones: inform drivers of the full extent of all proposed zones clear message that on-street parking will not be possible in future. Timing of implementation Consider alternatives signposting to information about alternative options. This should include detailed information on the options most likely to be used initially by drivers: Park and Ride and off-street parking options, prices and likely availability of spaces On-street travel information staff and stalls parking support team to give information about alternatives. Using PTP approaches delivered extensively in Cambridgeshire to engage directly with drivers, explain the proposals and provide support / advice about alternative options Communication channels Local employers emails/posters/workplace events using Travel for Cambridgeshire channels Windscreen notices Local media May 2017 15
Supporting measures 5.13 Further discussion of the findings of this report with the client is required to understand the existing or planned supporting measures that the Council has in place or proposes. Some ideas are suggested below. Short term (1 st year): Identify the least sensitive unrestricted on-street parking areas in other zones which could provide an alternative parking option in the short term. Such locations would include areas where on-street parking is not directly outside residential properties and in areas where residential properties are more likely to have off-street parking available. Promote and expand existing Park and Ride sites particularly at Madingley Road and Trumpington where there is limited available spare capacity to absorb increased demand from commuters. Review Park and Ride intermediate stops with regard to potential increased demand for commuting to non-central workplaces. Identify potential temporary parking locations on the edge of the city close to frequent bus routes and / or cycle routes into Cambridge which could act as small scale temporary Park and Ride sites (particularly to intercept journeys made from the West, where the Madingley Road and Trumpington sites have the least available capacity). Promote alternative travel options through Travel for Cambridgeshire channels and direct marketing to commuters who currently parking on-street. This may include personalised travel planning and general awareness raising within the proposed zones. Improvements to the presentation of alternative travel options. There are currently several websites providing journey planning information for Cambridge (e.g. Traveline, Stagecoach, micro sites for busway and Park and Ride, CycleStreets). To some degree, Cambridgeshire County Council website acts as a portal linking to this information but there is potential to provide a more seamless user experience that better sets out the various options available to commuters. This could include new journey planning apps including provision of live parking availability information for off-street car parks and Park and Ride sites. Communications as above. Medium term (years 2-5) Additional Park and Ride supply including new sites as proposed by the City Deal will be important. The analysis of alternative options included a significant number who do not have a public transport option with a journey time of less than 30+ minutes commuting from outlying areas. Park and Ride is therefore likely to be the most realistic and attractive option available to many. The existing network has some spare capacity but any additional capacity would help to absorb displaced demand. New sites should help fill the gaps in the Park and Ride network particularly approach roads from the west and north west. Introduce cycle hire at Park and Ride sites as an additional journey option for commuters who work at non-central locations which are not well served by Park and Ride buses. Explore employee shuttle options linking Park and Ride sites to non-central workplaces there are increasingly options for flexible on-demand services with smart phone booking that could provide a convenient cost effective option to link Park and Ride sites to some of the less central workplaces. Ongoing communications about residential parking zones in Cambridge. May 2017 16
A Additional figures and tables May 2017 17
Figure A.1: Proposed resident parking schemes May 2017 18
Table A.1: Approximate number of commuter cars originating from each MSOA in South Cambridgeshire, Cambridge and East Cambridgeshire. MSOA Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Cambridge 001 9 10 10 4 16 Cambridge 002 9 7 7 3 11 Cambridge 003 7 10 10 4 16 Cambridge 004 6 4 5 2 10 Cambridge 005 3 2 2 1 6 Cambridge 006 6 16 11 6 23 Cambridge 007 2 2 2 1 7 Cambridge 008 2 3 3 2 8 Cambridge 009 4 8 7 3 13 Cambridge 010 5 8 6 4 18 Cambridge 011 5 13 10 9 31 Cambridge 012 4 5 4 3 14 Cambridge 013 4 7 5 4 16 East Cambridgeshire 001 2 3 5 1 6 East Cambridgeshire 002 5 5 6 2 9 East Cambridgeshire 003 5 4 7 3 12 East Cambridgeshire 004 5 4 5 2 9 East Cambridgeshire 005 7 8 9 3 14 East Cambridgeshire 006 6 7 8 4 16 East Cambridgeshire 007 3 4 3 2 9 East Cambridgeshire 008 5 7 7 4 17 East Cambridgeshire 009 5 6 6 4 17 East Cambridgeshire 010 3 3 4 2 9 East Cambridgeshire 011 10 6 7 4 18 South Cambridgeshire 001 10 8 9 4 15 South Cambridgeshire 002 12 7 8 4 22 South Cambridgeshire 003 6 8 7 3 13 South Cambridgeshire 004 9 6 7 3 14 South Cambridgeshire 005 14 11 13 5 21 South Cambridgeshire 006 9 7 9 4 17 South Cambridgeshire 007 9 4 5 3 18 South Cambridgeshire 009 12 9 10 6 28 South Cambridgeshire 010 6 12 10 10 38 South Cambridgeshire 011 5 5 4 5 22 South Cambridgeshire 012 4 3 4 3 14 South Cambridgeshire 013 5 5 5 5 23 South Cambridgeshire 014 4 6 5 7 29 South Cambridgeshire 015 6 7 5 9 33 South Cambridgeshire 016 7 6 6 6 25 May 2017 19
South Cambridgeshire 017 4 4 4 4 18 South Cambridgeshire 018 3 3 3 3 12 South Cambridgeshire 019 9 6 8 6 22 South Cambridgeshire 020 8 5 6 4 17 May 2017 20
CONTROL INFORMATION Prepared by Steer Davies Gleave 67 Albion Street Leeds LS1 5AA +44 113 389 6400 www.steerdaviesgleave.com Prepared for Cambridgeshire County Council Shire Hall Castle Hill Cambridge CB3 0AP SDG project/proposal number 23132601 SH Client contract/project number Author/originator Ian Bewick Reviewer/approver Steve Bishop Other contributors Distribution Katie Watson Client: Sonia Hansen SDG: project team Version control/issue number Date 1.0 to client 17 May 2017 2.0 to client 31 May 2017 C:\Temp\fn300\Downloads\Cambridge Parking Strategy Review report v3 0.docx Control Information
steerdaviesgleave.com