Contemporary parking policy, practice, and outcomes in three large Australian cities

IF 5 1区 经济学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Progress in Planning Pub Date : 2021-11-01 DOI:10.1016/j.progress.2020.100506
Anthony Kimpton , Dorina Pojani , Connor Ryan , Lisha Ouyang , Neil Sipe , Jonathan Corcoran
{"title":"Contemporary parking policy, practice, and outcomes in three large Australian cities","authors":"Anthony Kimpton ,&nbsp;Dorina Pojani ,&nbsp;Connor Ryan ,&nbsp;Lisha Ouyang ,&nbsp;Neil Sipe ,&nbsp;Jonathan Corcoran","doi":"10.1016/j.progress.2020.100506","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Together, globalisation and urbanisation are accelerating the densification of cities while disruptive technologies such as micro-mobility and ride-hailing are transforming urban mobility. Amidst this change, urban planning officials and practitioners typically remain constrained to the same urban footprint, left to grapple with earlier car-oriented development, and yet must accommodate a growing population and variety of travel modes operating within the same space. Further, they must operate alongside government officials whose re-election could depend upon appeasing suburban residents that are <em>unable</em> or <em>unwilling</em> to relocate along active transport corridors, near public transit nodes, or forgo the flexibility and comfort of private automobiles. As a result, private automobiles can become necessary for traversing urban forms already enlarged by parking, driveways, roads, highways, and flyovers. Likewise, alternatives such as public and active transport can become impractical and dangerous within urban forms that are fragmented by congestion or fast traffic. Given that urban mobility research typically focuses on keeping our pre-existing modal choices moving rather than the side-effects, daily commutes have remained unchanged for decades, and planners are better equipped to continually <em>accommodate</em> rather than <em>influence</em> our modal choices. This volume of <em>Progress in Planning</em> aims to strengthen the evidence base for influencing modal choice by developing a comparative framework of urban mobility, and by examining how parking policy has influenced modal choice within the three largest Australian cities: Brisbane, Sydney, and Melbourne. In addition, it provides reproducible methods for estimating parking supply using land use audits, parking demand using a population census, and geo-statistical modelling for determining <em>whether</em> and <em>where</em> parking policy can explain more sustainable modal choices. As such, this volume sets a research agenda for metropolitan-scale examination and coordination of transport and land use planning for sustainable rather than temporary urban mobility.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47399,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Planning","volume":"153 ","pages":"Article 100506"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.progress.2020.100506","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Planning","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305900620300271","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Together, globalisation and urbanisation are accelerating the densification of cities while disruptive technologies such as micro-mobility and ride-hailing are transforming urban mobility. Amidst this change, urban planning officials and practitioners typically remain constrained to the same urban footprint, left to grapple with earlier car-oriented development, and yet must accommodate a growing population and variety of travel modes operating within the same space. Further, they must operate alongside government officials whose re-election could depend upon appeasing suburban residents that are unable or unwilling to relocate along active transport corridors, near public transit nodes, or forgo the flexibility and comfort of private automobiles. As a result, private automobiles can become necessary for traversing urban forms already enlarged by parking, driveways, roads, highways, and flyovers. Likewise, alternatives such as public and active transport can become impractical and dangerous within urban forms that are fragmented by congestion or fast traffic. Given that urban mobility research typically focuses on keeping our pre-existing modal choices moving rather than the side-effects, daily commutes have remained unchanged for decades, and planners are better equipped to continually accommodate rather than influence our modal choices. This volume of Progress in Planning aims to strengthen the evidence base for influencing modal choice by developing a comparative framework of urban mobility, and by examining how parking policy has influenced modal choice within the three largest Australian cities: Brisbane, Sydney, and Melbourne. In addition, it provides reproducible methods for estimating parking supply using land use audits, parking demand using a population census, and geo-statistical modelling for determining whether and where parking policy can explain more sustainable modal choices. As such, this volume sets a research agenda for metropolitan-scale examination and coordination of transport and land use planning for sustainable rather than temporary urban mobility.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
澳大利亚三大城市的现代停车政策、实践和成果
全球化和城市化共同加速了城市的高密度化,而微出行和网约车等颠覆性技术正在改变城市出行方式。在这种变化中,城市规划官员和实践者通常仍然受到相同的城市足迹的限制,留下与早期以汽车为导向的发展作斗争,但必须在同一空间内适应不断增长的人口和各种旅行模式。此外,他们必须与政府官员合作,这些官员的连任可能取决于安抚郊区居民,这些居民不能或不愿沿着活跃的交通走廊、公共交通节点附近搬迁,或者放弃私家车的灵活性和舒适性。因此,私家车在已经被停车场、车道、道路、高速公路和立交桥扩大了的城市形态中变得必不可少。同样,公共交通和主动交通等替代方案在城市形式中可能变得不切实际和危险,因为城市形式被拥堵或快速交通分散。考虑到城市交通研究通常侧重于保持我们已有的交通方式选择的移动,而不是副作用,日常通勤几十年来一直保持不变,规划者有更好的装备来不断适应而不是影响我们的交通方式选择。本卷《规划进展》旨在通过建立城市交通的比较框架,并通过研究停车政策如何影响澳大利亚三大城市布里斯班、悉尼和墨尔本的交通方式选择,来加强影响交通方式选择的证据基础。此外,它还提供了可重复的方法,利用土地使用审计来估计停车供应,利用人口普查来估计停车需求,并通过地理统计模型来确定停车政策是否以及在哪里可以解释更可持续的模式选择。因此,本卷为大都市规模的交通和土地利用规划的可持续而非临时城市流动性的检查和协调设定了研究议程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
1.60%
发文量
26
审稿时长
34 days
期刊介绍: Progress in Planning is a multidisciplinary journal of research monographs offering a convenient and rapid outlet for extended papers in the field of spatial and environmental planning. Each issue comprises a single monograph of between 25,000 and 35,000 words. The journal is fully peer reviewed, has a global readership, and has been in publication since 1972.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Editorial Board Editorial Board Immigrants, slums, and housing policy: The spatial dispersal of the Ethiopian population in Israel Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1