Park and Ride - Benefits and Criticism

Benefits and Criticism

There is a relative paucity of research on the benefits and disadvantages of park-and-ride schemes, which are often marketed as a way to avoid the difficulties and cost of parking in the city centre, but it has also been suggested that there is "a lack of clear-cut evidence for park-and-ride's widely assumed impact in reducing congestion".

In theory, park-and-ride facilities allow commuters to avoid the stress of driving a congested part of their journey and facing scarce, expensive city-centre parking. They are meant to avoid congestion by encouraging people to use public transport as opposed to their own personal vehicles. They do so by making it easier for people to use public transport in an urban area with traffic congestion, and often to reduce the availability of car parks to encourage this behaviour.

Park-and-ride facilities serve the needs of commuters who live beyond practical walking distance from the railway station or bus stop which offers service to the city centre.

Park-and-ride facilities may suit commuters with alternative fuel vehicles, which often have reduced range, since the facility may be closer to home than the ultimate destination. They also are useful as a fixed meeting place for those carsharing or carpooling or using kiss and ride (see below). Also, some transit operators use park-and-ride facilities to encourage more efficient driving practices by reserving parking spaces for low emission designs, high-occupancy vehicles, or carsharing.

Most facilities provide services such as passenger waiting areas and toilets. Travel information, such as leaflets and posters, may be provided. At larger facilities, extra services such as a travel office, food shop, car wash, cafeteria, or other shops and services may be provided. These are often encouraged by municipal operators to improve the attraction of using park and ride.

However, British research suggests that the impact on congestion may be limited. Looking at both the UK policy background and evidence from an award-winning scheme in Cambridge, Jonathan Manns notes "an Hellerian 'Catch‑22' situation, whereby the survival of local politicians is dependent upon its continuation, irrespective of its actual successes". In Cambridge it is suggested that "there does not appear to be evidence of an overall drop in vehicle flow within the city" and thus that "while cars parked at the park-and-ride sites are themselves no longer contributing towards the congestion externality, traffic flows are being generated elsewhere – for example, flows between car parks and homes from locals at whom the park-and-ride was not targeted but who nevertheless are attempting to commute to the service. This is significant in that while certain cars are removed from the flow, new flows are stimulated net of other individuals, thereby significantly negating the overall impact of the service".

In Sweden, a tax has been introduced on the benefit of free or cheap parking paid by an employer, in situations in which workers would otherwise have to pay. The tax has reduced the number of workers driving into the inner city, and increased the usage of park-and-ride areas, especially in Stockholm. The introduction of a congestion tax in Stockholm has further increased the usage of park and ride.

In Prague, park-and-ride carparks are established near some metro and railway stations (ca 17 parks near 12 metro stations and 3 train stations, in 2011). These carparks offer low prices and all-day and return (2× 75 min) tickets including the fare for the public transport system.