德國大城市的停車政策（外文翻譯）.doc

德國大城市的停車政策關(guān)鍵詞：非法停車，機動化，停車需求與供應(yīng)，分區(qū)條例摘要：這篇文章涉及高度機動化在德國大城市的西約20多萬居民中，它通常提供了合理的公共交通系統(tǒng)。非法擁有約40至50的股份總停車車位是在這些城市停車問題的領(lǐng)域廣泛，特別是內(nèi)城住宅及綜合用途區(qū)。停車位所要求的居民，員工，客戶和參觀者，并交付和服務(wù)的流量。由不同的用戶群體的不同特點停車需求進行了討論?？偼＼嚬┙o由公共和私人空間。對私人空間所占的份額約為40至50%的城市在德國車位。汽車交通量的一個停車位的數(shù)量取決于停車時間和停車周轉(zhuǎn)率，以及在搜索流量。因此，從長期持續(xù)時間的一個員工使用空間的變化對短期客戶的時間 - 在停車場經(jīng)常討論的概念 - 產(chǎn)生至少五倍的汽車流量。停車測量和控制效果的公共場所以及在分區(qū)條例規(guī)定的停車場，在新的私人停車位和停泊及轉(zhuǎn)乘建設(shè)的限制進行了討論。最后，停車概念的方法 - 利用法蘭克福am Main的例子 - 進行了討論。 1 停放的車輛已經(jīng)占據(jù)了城市汽車在西德?lián)碛写蠹s是每1000人495轎車 - 這在大城市低一點，在農(nóng)村地區(qū)微高。對于東德，目前（1990年中期）的相應(yīng)數(shù)字大約是每1000人235轎車。在接下來的兩三年內(nèi)，我們將可能經(jīng)歷幾乎在東德車隊增加一倍。這一急劇增長將在東德城市產(chǎn)生的問題可能比我們從西德知道的更為嚴(yán)重。然而，這篇文章涉及到的具有高度機動的西德約20萬或者更多居民的大城市中，通常提供合理的公共交通系統(tǒng)。 在這些城市的停車問題發(fā)生在市中心的住宅和混合使用區(qū)靠近市中心。在城市中心本身，通常是足夠的停車位，由于在七十年代建成的停車場大的擴展。在城市中心的停車問題不太嚴(yán)重，這不僅是因為，而且還因為高質(zhì)量的公共交通在城市，居民人數(shù)和去年高缺乏良好的停車規(guī)定，但并非最不重要的，因為強有力的執(zhí)行停車法規(guī)。在相鄰的密集和混合用途的城市中心地區(qū)，但是，負擔(dān)，制約因素和停放汽車造成的煩惱已經(jīng)達到了這些方面的流動，干擾汽車交通造成的;甚至居民僅汽車不能根據(jù)生態(tài)安置，美觀，而且功能上可以承受的條件。 在同一時間，在中部地區(qū)機動低于平均水平，由于公共交通，自行車和自己的腳，并經(jīng)主管平均社會結(jié)構(gòu)，它在這些領(lǐng)域的一些常見的引起很好的訪問。與居民的車的問題將繼續(xù)增長。 停車問題往往出現(xiàn)在一輛汽車的司機誰不能很快找到他或她的目的地附近的廉價直接縮短停車位良心。停車問題更為嚴(yán)重的是對其他道路使用者：行人被車停在行人路上惱火，由那些騎自行車的自行車道，步行不暢，得到的出路是通過行車危險，特別是對兒童和老人，公交車和電車受到阻礙，裝卸區(qū)被封鎖，并搜索流量株住宅和混合使用區(qū)街頭。非法泊車，擁有約40至50的股份總停車，是在德國城市普遍。關(guān)于罰款和27,000 383,000拖在法蘭克福贈品，例如，在1989年或罰款，甚至對927,000 42,000拖贈品在慕尼黑改變這種情況很少（根據(jù)從城市的行政部門的信息）。特別是對非法停車人行道和自行車道，不僅阻礙和其他道路使用者的危險，這也箔的任何辦法來控制城市汽車交通停車管理。在它最后的結(jié)果減少到內(nèi)無障礙城市。 2 不同用戶群體的停車要求居民，員工，客戶和參觀者要求停車空間，以及交貨和交通服務(wù)也要求。后者往往歸結(jié)為交通和商業(yè)代表認為必要的機動車輛在城市或不可避免的一部分。盡管它的重要性，交付和服務(wù)交通不是通常的停車平衡由于特定的空間要求和分歧的表現(xiàn)有著直接的一部分。 這四個不同的用戶群體，根據(jù)停車需求的停車時間，一天的時間，停車在公共街道或偏好在一個停車場，目的地接近，愿意付停車費，在準(zhǔn)備或變更為其他方法的輸送。 居民停車規(guī)定，具有較高的優(yōu)先權(quán)，即使在現(xiàn)有的城區(qū)街道。凡居住功能要鼓勵，居民停車必須是一個合理的距離內(nèi)索取，并在同一時間，非住宅汽車交通應(yīng)該遠離。在當(dāng)今的條件和共同的行為，超過約200至300米的距離，一般不被接受，雖然，巴士和電車站距離往往較長。 下列商業(yè)交通和居民 - - 在正常的停車需求層次三是那些客戶和參觀者。這個用戶群是非常不均勻，包括購物，商業(yè)和私人的訪問。對于這些主要是短時帕克費爾德，一些停車位接近目標(biāo)，并應(yīng)提供于市場利率收取。最后，對于長期停車的員工，沒有路邊停車應(yīng)提供和街道停車只在市場利率條件。員工，因為誰的障礙，業(yè)務(wù)需要或缺乏合理的公共交通工具依靠他們的汽車，通?？梢杂伤麄児咎峁┩＼囄?，自40至50在德國城市總停車數(shù)量是民有民營使用。 白天不同時段不同停車泊車位的需求，并可根據(jù)用戶群體和行程目的，造成占用時間特性曲線圖顯示可同時停放汽車的數(shù)量 - 在同一時間白天 - 無論是合法或非法的。圖2包含入住時間從法蘭克福城區(qū)Nordend - Siid它代表了一種典型的市中心約40公頃，約180名居民和130每公頃面積的雇員mixeduse調(diào)查所得的圖形。居民的車的存在，如同與11.00和11.30之間的低谷形上午約35時所有車輛夜間停放。 （這是假設(shè)汽車在大約上午03點00分屬于居民。停泊）約上午七時（錄制的開始）約60的各居民的汽車都存在，而在約下午七時00分約45都存在。通過員工的汽車占用的土地為山地與一個在約85，所有已登記的停車場發(fā)生的最大存在午前形。居民和雇員的圖是非常占用時間在所有調(diào)查的城市地區(qū)相似。對客戶和游客的汽車在城市地區(qū)存在Nordend - Siid是在白天不斷增加，由暗訪為主。在商業(yè)和購物的地方訪問支配其他地區(qū)，跌幅接近傍晚曲線。 在一些城市地區(qū)的調(diào)查顯示，居民和雇員的占用時間圖相似（Retzko及托普顧問1988）極為相似。這允許停車的模式轉(zhuǎn)移到各區(qū)每區(qū)內(nèi)，無廣泛的調(diào)查。該旅客入住的時間少圖的相似性是由于不同的訪問目的不同。 3.車位供應(yīng)：路邊和街道，公共場所和私人場所一個城市的地區(qū)總停車數(shù)量由關(guān)于所有權(quán)，經(jīng)營和可用性位不同類型的停車空間構(gòu)成。最重要的區(qū)別是“公私”相關(guān)的所有或某些群體和對控制城市停車政策程度的方便。 “大多數(shù)市民”是與正在為居民（或殘疾人）偏好唯一的限制街頭空間。這些空間是完全由市政府和控制，因此，他們通常是停車概念的發(fā)起者。即使是那些公開操作 - - 關(guān)于城市停車庫的影響是有限的，因為有關(guān)，例如，購永久關(guān)稅，讓停車位或法律合同。因為，例如，“Parkhaus Betriebs有限公司”在法蘭克福經(jīng)營總額約8000位12個車庫 - - 阿城市停車車庫盡可能多的公司經(jīng)營提供盡可能的影響力和創(chuàng)造機會的概念納入停車位。約有40是永久的所有場所出租，即使在法蘭克福muncipally經(jīng)營車庫。 私人空間不能被控制，市政停車的概念。他們只能間接影響，例如，通過在沒有停車規(guī)定所有雇員在公共領(lǐng)域，促使公司分發(fā)他們的私人空間給員工誰是汽車，因為缺陷，專業(yè)用的汽車的約束，又缺乏在公共交通工具。從長遠來看，私人空間的量可以控制分區(qū)條例。 對私人空間的總停車份額約為40至50的德國城市。顯示的數(shù)字是法蘭克福主。 停車空間，它是不能完全控制的停車管理措施是一個“過度飽和”制度：即停車場停車供給超過需求或者 - 換一種方式 - 吸引更多的額外空間的汽車。即使這是真正的違法停車的可能性。 如何避免停車管理表明了這一點空余的地方在停車場完全由街道停放汽車擁擠的能力。的停車位經(jīng)常提到的赤字是經(jīng)常暴露出他是一個“赤字”廉價和容易獲得的空間接近真實的目的地。這些都是在當(dāng)今的法規(guī)，路邊的空間 - 法律以及非法的。由于是在停車場備用容量顯示 - 除了在主要的購物日 - 入住等于低于總余額是由停車價格實現(xiàn)。因此，訪問被授予而搜索流量是可以避免的。在有關(guān)停車位在城市地區(qū)合理的供應(yīng)多次討論，停車赤字抱怨，尤其是在零售行業(yè)的代表。這種“缺陷”往往溶解如果底層的泊車位標(biāo)準(zhǔn)發(fā)生了變化，即如果，例如，一個較長的停車和最終目的地之間的步行是假定的。所以，當(dāng)談到停車赤字，我們必須增加在距離和成本方面的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來定義它們。順便說一下，同樣發(fā)生在其他領(lǐng)域的運輸：因此，舉例來說，一個路段或路口容量與速度的服務(wù)或等待時間表達水平有關(guān)。汽車交通量的一個停車位產(chǎn)生依賴，以及對搜索流量的停車時間和停車周轉(zhuǎn)率。所以，舉例來說，10居民的汽車停在一個法蘭克福市中心區(qū)的街道是不是在周日感動。在慕尼黑市中心區(qū)，這種無動于衷車占有率上升至30。小區(qū)停車位以這種方式使用在白天產(chǎn)生的交通都沒有車。相反，從8.00與一小時停車限制停車時至下午6點是執(zhí)行，可能是被占領(lǐng)的10倍，從而產(chǎn)生10家汽車抵港及離港10。 粗糙余額往往是基于這一假設(shè)為顧客和游客短期車位被占用五倍，較居民或雇員的停車空間。這意味著五倍汽車流量生成，如果一個停車位由長持續(xù)時間的居民或雇員使用轉(zhuǎn)化為短期的客戶持續(xù)時間，往往是在停車的概念討論。 再加上，對公共交通服務(wù)的需求會在白天增加了經(jīng)營成本的影響越來越不平衡。 更多汽車交通 - 也出了交通高峰 - 是不是因為空氣污染的大城市忍受。因此，必須擴展公式：用于代替長期持續(xù)時間空間的范圍內(nèi)，汽車交通總量將不會增加客戶提供更短的時間空間。是可以實現(xiàn)，例如，如果有五個長期持續(xù)時間為一個位員工，為客戶持續(xù)時間短的空間和居民持續(xù)時間長，成瀝青路面，自行車道，公交專用道或空間變化的樹，其余轉(zhuǎn)化。 因此，清潔空氣方案的斯圖加特市（Steierwald等。1988）更喜歡短的時間減少停車位長的時間。作者：法蘭克福市（1988年）停車的概念是基于對員工的路邊停車收費大幅減少，在為客戶和適合在所考慮的地區(qū)公共交通服務(wù)質(zhì)量游客溫和停車供給。 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 ones 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 groupsParking 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 residents or employees 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 contr