Transp. in Dev. Econ.

(2017) 3:10
DOI 10.1007/s40890-017-0040-2

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Effects of On-Street Parking in Urban Context: A Critical Review

Subhadip Biswas1 · Satish Chandra2 · Indrajit Ghosh1 

Received: 23 October 2016 / Accepted: 1 April 2017 / Published online: 9 April 2017
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Abstract  On-street parking is a common form of parking, recommends the prohibition of on-street parking near some
known for its efficiency in terms of land use and conveni- specific locations like designated pedestrian crossing, inter-
ence to motorists as it allows them to park their vehicles section, school etc.
nearer to their destinations. On-street parking has some
benefits as well as drawbacks which also keep varying Keywords  On-street parking · Urban roads · Economy ·
depending upon circumstances. Today, urban transport Safety · Capacity
planners are facing difficulties and want to know where
and when on-street parking should be allowed confirm-
ing that benefits are overweighing its drawbacks. Again, Introduction
if it is allowed, query comes whether it should be a par-
allel parking or angled. Before allowing or restricting on- A Vehicle requires parking space at origin and destination
street parking, one should need to delve into different cor- of each of its trip. The parking demand in urban areas has
ollaries of it. In this background, the present article is an amplified with the rapid increase in vehicular traffic in last
attempt to review global state-of-the-art covering various few decades. Even though designated parking lots have
consequences of on-street parking, positive and negative, increased in most of the metropolitans, parking spaces
in urban road context and further explores how and up to are still failing to accommodate peak hours’ vehicles fre-
what extent these are effective. After an extensive review, quently. As a consequence, many of the motorists park (and
this study has arrived at the conclusion that on-street more will park in the future) their vehicles on-street even
parking should be restricted along major streets. It can be if it is unauthorised. For instance, vehicle population in
allowed on minor streets as it has the potential to provide Great Britain will grow from 27 to 39  million as per the
a safer environment for road users in that context. When prediction by the year 2030 and 2.8  million of them will
allowed, on-street parking should be parallel, not angled, be parked on the streets [1]. 14,000  km of curbs will be
because later is hazardous in all respects. The study also needed to accommodate this increased number of parked
vehicles. This parking related problems are more alarm-
ing in developing countries and is going to be frightening
* Subhadip Biswas if parking policies are not gone over [2–4]. Parking is also
subhadipbiswas.in@gmail.com
an under-researched area in transport [1, 5] though ‘auto-
Satish Chandra mobiles spend over 95% of their time “parked” [6] every
satisfce@gmail.com
day in three distinct parking places on an average [7]. In the
Indrajit Ghosh absence of sufficient specifications and research outcomes,
indrajitghosh29@gmail.com
policy makers are facing difficulties to ponder over some
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute alternative parking strategies.
of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247667, Uttarakhand, India On-street parking is one of the most commonly observed
2
CSIR-Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi 110025, parking prototypes that comprises of all paid and unpaid
India parking activities along the roadside. It allows parked

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
10 
Page 2 of 14 Transp. in Dev. Econ. (2017) 3:10

vehicles to share the same road width with other vehicles also explores how these effects can vary under different cir-
moving on the road. However, the parking can be parallel cumstances. Findings of the paper will be immensely help-
or angled to the road alignment depending upon the cir- ful for urban transport planners in taking decisions related
cumstances. Popularity of on-street parking is attributed to on-street parking.
to the fact that it allows the motorists to park their vehi-
cles nearby their destinations. Sometimes it can relieve the
impact of insufficient off-street parking facilities to some Positive Effects of On‑Street Parking
extent. Commuters also prefer on-street parking where it is
under-priced or even illegal rather paying for parking off- Some positive consequences of on-street parking are dis-
street [8–10]. Hence, the increase in the supply of off-street cussed herein that promote its significance and thus,
parking spaces often cannot absorb the demand of on-street strongly favour it in urban environs.
parking [11]. Moreover, the availability of on-street park-
ing facility sometimes appears as one of the key criteria for Effect on Economic Development of Commercial Area
trip makers in choosing their destinations. As long as the
number of trips is associated with the profit of local mer- Availability of on-street parking is a major component of
chants, the economic development of a commercial area is spot accessibility. It opens up the chances for street vendors
also correlated with the provision of on-street parking facil- to interact with commuters and also makes road side retail
ity [12]. In spite of this, many transportation planners pre- shops more reachable. It is unfeasible to have parking lots
fer removal of on-street parking from urban corridors for for every small business along the street. Therefore, on-
some of its immediate consequences. Frequent parking and street parking is their ‘life blood’ [22]. Conversely, restric-
unparking manoeuvres create complex situations resulting tion of parking can harm the local merchants as it reduces
in congestion and become the reason of frustration for the their number of customers and so their profits. Supply of
through motorists on a busy urban road [13]. Also, a higher parking spaces near the commercial area is also a vital
proportion of cruising traffic hunting for parking spaces aspect in this regard. Lesser supply compared to the park-
eventually demotes the mobility of the road [14]. Strips of ing demand frustrates shoppers in finding an empty parking
on-street parking bordering the traffic stream effectively space; consumer utility thence drops down and alternative
narrow down the road width as well and vehicles are forced destinations might be prioritized. On-street parking is also
to move into this reduced width as a subsequence. This not more convenient to the street shoppers rather park their
only causes the reduction in stream speed or capacity of the vehicles off-street far from their destinations. Because on
road [3, 15, 16], safety of the road users also gets compro- an average, people are reluctant to walk more than a radius
mised [17, 18]. Parked vehicles often obstruct the side view of 200 m from their parking locations [23].
of the road ahead and make it challenging for the driver to Economy of a commercial area is dependent on the
perceive an oncoming pedestrian entry crossing the road. number of consumers which is roughly associated with
On the contrary, few recent literature rather claimed that a the number of trips. All the factors therefore, involved
row of parked cars plays a role like a buffer between mov- in destination choice criteria, have influence in econ-
ing traffic and pedestrians walking along the road confirm- omy of commercial area. However, most of the earlier
ing safety to them [19, 20]. On-street parking which is also researches postulating different destination choice mod-
a commonly used passive traffic calming measure, effec- els for shopping trips, did not include ‘on-street parking’
tively slows down the traffic speed ensuing safety to the in those factors [24–26]. Instead, the factors were lim-
road users although ‘slower road is safer road’ is a debat- ited only to quality and price of the products, size of the
able conception [21]. shopping area and distance to the destination. After the
Discussion in the previous section suggests that the Second World War, scenario was changing gradually as
effects of on-street parking are multi-faceted. On-street rapid growth in automobile industry had encouraged the
parking has some positive effects as well as some nega- car ownership resulting in an increased parking demand
tive effects. Therefore, the decision to provide the on-street near shopping areas. Thus, parking became one of the
parking should be made after assessing its pros and cons. key factors for the shoppers’ destination choice. Recker
However in the absence of proper guidelines, it is difficult and Kostyniuk [27] conducted a household questionnaire
to know in what situation benefits are overweighing the survey in New York and identified ‘on-street parking’ as
drawbacks. Further, if on-street parking is allowed, question a major influencing element to the shoppers’ destination
arises whether it should be a parallel or angled. In many choice. In a similar study [28], trip makers were asked to
cases, these decisions are being made on ad hoc basis. In identify and also to rate the attributes which they thought
this context, the present paper reviews both positive and playing role in their destination choice. ‘Ease to park at
negative effects of on-street parking in urban context and shopping area’ came out as a significant quality among

13
Transp. in Dev. Econ. (2017) 3:10 Page 3 of 14  10

all 19 identified attributes contributing towards destina- Effect on Road Users Safety
tion choosing decision. However, the independency of
‘parking’ as an attribute is arguable since it may carry a Since long, transportation engineers have carried a convic-
high positive correlation with the size of shopping area tion that on-street parking should be restricted along urban
[29]. Moving to the other case where American central streets in order to sustain mobility and safety on the roads
business districts started losing their customers to suburb [17]. However within last few decades, some urban trans-
shopping areas from the late 1960s and it continued over portation planners rather have pointed out its need and con-
decades; investigation [30] revealed that the inadequate tribution to road users’ safety and claimed it as an integral
supply of on-street parking spaces is responsible for this part of a modern aged urban street. Despite a number of
shift along with some other factors like price and qual- available study records which clearly evidenced ‘on-street
ity of goods, hours of operation. As per the Dutch techni- parking triggers accident’, a few researchers [2, 19] rather
cal committee’s report [31], restriction of on-street park- believe that on-street parking has the potential to provide a
ing induces 25% of the customers to go elsewhere for safer environment for road users depending upon regional
shopping. population culture and attitude towards safety. On-street
Researchers have further observed that this influence of parking provides safety to road users through two leading
‘on-street parking’ may vary depending upon the type of means: (a) as a traffic calming tool—lowering the speed
goods to be shopped. A study [32] conducted in Nether- and enhancing the safety, and (b) as a buffer—separating
land included similar questionnaire survey with only addi- pedestrian activities from the vehicular flow.
tion that the respondents had to assign weightage values Slow streets and minimal noise, both are among the
(maximum weight 100) to different attributes for shopping desired criteria that inhabitants usually look for to live in
of daily and non-daily goods separately. Therefore, it was a residential province [34]. Vehicle dominating high speed
observed that on-street parking is more important for shop- streets create more noise, accelerate accident frequency and
ping of non-daily goods since overall weightage of park- severity as well and thus, cannot satisfy locals’ interest.
ing for non-daily goods was found 80.6 against 62.8 for There are some traffic calming tools which are employed
daily goods. This may be because of the fact that shopping or can be employed to control this pace so that pedestri-
of non-daily goods involves longer time compared to the ans can feel comfortable while walking along the road. A
daily goods and hence, availability of parking space is more number of studies [35, 36] evidenced that for urban roads,
crucial in that case. Shobeirinejad et  al. [29] also verified on-street parking is one of those effective tools which can
this ‘goods wise variation’ as it was noticed that for cloth slow down vehicular movement ensuing safety to the road
shopping, commuters prefer the market area having a larger users. Here the question arises that would these streets
parking opportunity. However for grocery shopping, com- loose workability to sustain walkability? On this concern,
muters may accept the minimal parking scope. Burden [34] visited two cities, Winter Park and Celebration
All these studies suggest that ‘parking’ is a significant in Florida where he found some residential streets as nar-
factor in destination choice of a trip maker. Increase in row as 5 m but working smoothly even after accommodat-
parking space availability or service improvement of park- ing on-street parking on one side. Therefore, the residen-
ing related operations increases the probability for shoppers tial street with on-street parking can have the potential to
to choose the commercial area as destination. As stated satisfy the both, walkability and workability. Conversely,
earlier, the number of shoppers is directly associated with wider streets designed to accommodate on-street parking
the profits of the merchants; therefore parking undoubtedly in a residential area result in a high speed and unsafe road
holds an implicit positive influence on economic develop- section for ‘no parked vehicle’ condition [37]. Other than
ment of a commercial area and even sometimes in large residential streets, parking can also be allowed on avenues
scale by playing a crucial role to encourage the business and boulevards (except high class arterial type of roads) in
in a city [33]. Meyer and McShane [12] mentioned one order to ensure a calm and safe traffic stream [34]. Like-
instance where parking policy was successfully employed wise, Duany [38] documented the contribution of on-street
as a tool for encouraging downtown economic develop- parking as a traffic calming measure however the author
ment. City of Baltimore had opened 1150 parking spaces acknowledged that its application is limited only to the cor-
to commuters since ‘inadequate parking supply’ had been ridors having speed limits 40  kmph or less. Arterials and
identified as the major problem of the city. Consequently, collector streets should be out of these calming means. Few
the city witnessed a significant development in the econ- German case studies [36] invariably witnessed prominent
omy. Nevertheless, it is to be acknowledged that the provi- speed reductions after enforcing on-street parking on arte-
sion of on-street parking cannot develop the economy of a rial roads as one of the traffic calming measures. How-
commercial area independently, but can play a significant ever, ‘slower speed reduces accident frequency’ was not
supporting role in development decisions. evidenced. Therefore, the result again sustains the opinion

13
10 
Page 4 of 14 Transp. in Dev. Econ. (2017) 3:10

that safety aspects of on-street parking are limited to minor citizens are the prime requirements to build up a safer road
streets only. On the other hand, Gattis and Watts [21] rather environment.
argued that minor streets are associated with higher crash
rate due to the presence of on-street parking. However, the
study considered the crash data of only four minor street
Negative Effects of On‑Street Parking
segments which are not enough to arrive at such general
conclusion. On the contrary, Zein et al. [39] forwarded the
“Theories about the benefits of on-street parking are as
Greater Vancouver model where on-street parking along
plentiful as the theories against” [9]. On-street parking can
with some other traffic calming measures had brought
be off-putting too in several ways. In this portion, previous
down successfully 40% of collision frequency of the town.
researches that showed its negative trade-offs and how it is
The fact is that “the success of traffic calming depends
affecting, are revisited and discussed concisely.
upon achieving consensus among the residents” [39].
In addition to traffic calming, on-street parking acts as
a buffer between moving vehicles and pedestrians walking Effect on Road Capacity
along the road; makes them feel more secured and relaxed
and overall, creates a safe environment for road users [9, On-street parking reduces the road capacity mainly in two
33, 40–42]. Gitelman et  al. [43] advocated a number of ways. Firstly, it narrows down the carriageway width by
infrastructural measures that could help to change the situa- means of bordering the traffic stream. Vehicles are forced
tion since Israeli cities had been suffering from high pedes- to move into this reduced width and it leads to a reduction
trian collision rate. One of the recommendations was the in overall stream speed. Secondly, frequent parking and
provision of on-street parking that would separate the side- unparking manoeuvres create complex situations result-
walk from the carriageway. On-street parking sometimes ing in congestion on busy urban roads. These two conse-
provides a shield to the bicyclists against the fast moving quences of on-street parking eventually contribute towards
motorized traffic and ensures their safety. Accordingly, the the capacity loss of urban roads. The following discussion
prohibition of parking can lead to a significant increase, as is devoted to exhibit various opinions and observations
much as 56%, in bicycle crashes observed in Copenhagen, about how and up to what extent the on-street parking can
Denmark [44]. reduce the road capacity. This discussion assumes sig-
Dumbaugh [19] collected 5 years’ (1999–2003) accident nificance as most of the developing countries do not have
data for two geometrically identical road segments; first one guidelines on this aspect of on-street parking and plan-
is a livable street having high roadside activities including ners are forced to make some ad hoc assumptions in many
on-street parking and the second one is free from all those cases. This part of the paper may provide some information
activities. He showed that “the livable section is safer in to researchers and planners of these countries as well.
all respects”. On livable street, 11% less crashes occurred An ample volume of studies [45–48] discussed about
compared to the other section. Interestingly, not even a sin- the stream speed reduction on urban roads as an immedi-
gle mid-block crash had been reached to fatality during this ate consequence of side friction generated by parked vehi-
5 years while it happened six times on the comparison sec- cles. Edquist et al. [45] measured average speed on straight
tion (Table 1). The author conveyed the justification for this mid-block segment in four distinct environments: (a) arte-
occurrence that it might be because of the extra conscious- rial with no parking, (b) street with no parking, (c) street
ness that the drivers are rendering while driving through a with empty parking bays marked on the kerbside lane and
crowded area thereby, causing less collisions. (d) street with full parking condition. A gradual reduction
A volume of work [19, 39, 43] therefore, has pointed in speed was witnessed with demotion in the hierarchy of
that the on-street parking holds some innate contribu- road condition from a to d. Other investigations [46, 49]
tions towards road users’ safety although parking itself revealed ‘parked and stopped vehicles’ as the most impor-
cannot improve the safety single-handedly. Lots of other tant side friction element on urban roads causing the maxi-
roadway features and mostly the safety culture among mum reduction in speed compared to other factors like
pedestrian movements, non-motorized vehicles and entry/
exit vehicles. Many studies [50, 51] witnessed this speed
Table 1  Mid-block crashes on Colonial Drive, 1999–2003 [19] diminishing phenomena of on-street parking however,
Mid-block crashes Livable Comparison Difference (%) could not prove to be effective in corresponding quantifica-
section section tion of the impact. On the other hand, few attempts got suc-
cess in quantifying this reduction in speed due to the pres-
Injurious 42 61 −31
ence of on-street parking. Major outcomes of these studies
Fatal 0 6 −100
are given in Table 2.

13
Transp. in Dev. Econ. (2017) 3:10 Page 5 of 14  10

Table 2  Reduction in the average speed due to the presence of on- (FFS) and were consequently merged together. The level
street parking on urban roads ‘a’ parking was also found to be trivial in influencing FFS.
Author(s) Reduction in Overall, the mean FFS of the streets without having on-
the average street parking (up to 30% parking occupancy) was found
speed 3.7  kmph higher in respect to the streets having on-street
Humphreys et al. [52] 15 to 42% parking. Parking parameter thus again became delimited to
Kladeftiras and Antoniou [47] 44% a categorical variable like earlier studies.
Ivan et al. [53] 21 kmph A number of recent studies [3, 58–60] came out with
Aronsson [54] 5.5 km/h further exploration how the speed reduction varies within
Wang et al. [55] 5.1 km/h a wide range of parking intensity. Reihani et  al. [59] esti-
mated average speed at different volume to capacity (v/c)
levels and witnessed a more or less gradual decrease in
As it is observed, the estimated speed reductions caused speed with increase in parking density in every case. The
by the presence of on-street parking fluctuate extremely study perceived but ignored a trend of certain upsurge in
from 15 to 44% or 5.1 to 21 km/h. Reason for this fluctua- speed at 75% parking density (Fig.  1). Thus, this unex-
tion is simply the existence of few other factors which also pected behaviour remains unexplained. Some other stud-
play a noteworthy role in determining the speed. A number ies also established relationships between the parking den-
of studies considered these factors and captured how the sity and the average speed. Daisa and Peers [61] observed
influence of on-street parking differs depending upon them the average speed dropping around 13  kmph with every
(given in Table 3). 100  veh/km increase in parking density. Yusuf [60] found
As may be seen in Table  3, Chiguma and Bang found a quadratic model as shown in Fig. 2 to describe the rela-
wider streets less susceptible to side friction which con- tionship between the parking intensity and the average
tradicts the findings of Praburam and Koorey [57]. Here, FFS. However, the study could not justify the behaviour
it should be mentioned that there are few limitations asso- why initially up to 29 parked cars, FFS is increasing with
ciated with the work conducted by Praburam and Koorey the increase in parking intensity (shown by dotted line in
[57]. First, as acknowledged by authors, the roadside envi- Fig. 2). Chiguma [3] defined average speed ‘V’ (km/h) as
ronment was not identical for each of the road categories. a function of ‘FLOW’ (lvu/h), carriageway width ‘CW’
Secondly, there were some issues regarding sample size (meter), shoulder width ‘SW’ (meter) and side friction
since traffic data were collected over a small period of time. ‘FRIC’ separately for two lane and four lane undivided
Also, the paper did not provide justification for such behav- urban roads as given by Eqs. 1 and 2 respectively.
iour of on-street parking given in Table 3.
V = 79.6 − 0.008 × FLOW − 0.028
The common deficiency in all these studies is the con- (1)
sideration of on-street parking as a categorical variable × FRIC − 6.058 × CW + 11.8 × SW
(either ‘presence’ or ‘absence’). Neither this influence V = 46.465 − 0.015 × FLOW − 0.011
was examined with varying intensity of parking nor was (2)
× FRIC + 1.36 × CW + 5.393 × SW
any mathematical model developed to quantify this influ-
ence. Marshall et al. [9] attempted to address this issue by The coefficient of CW in Eq. 1 is negative which seems
classifying roadside parking occupancy in three levels: (a) erroneous because the speed is expected to increase with
less than 30%, (b) 30–50% and (c) 50–100%. Later it was the increase in carriageway width. This is acknowledged
detected that the level ‘b’ and ‘c’ do not show any statis- by  the researcher also and the reason given for the oppo-
tical dissimilarity corresponding to the Free Flow Speed site sign of coefficient for CW in Eqs. 1 and 2, is the low

Table 3  Consideration of other factors while estimating the reduction in average speed due to the presence of on-street parking on urban roads
Author(s) Factor considered Major outcome

Reddy et al. [48] Traffic composition A 2.5 m wide on-street parking reduces 12 to 15% speed of trucks and buses whereas it is
below 12% for motor cycles and cars
Elliot et al. [56] Type of parking Perpendicular parking reduces speed by 11.27 kmph whereas it is 8.05 kmph for parallel
parking
Chiguma and Bang [46] Type of road Two lane roads are more susceptible to the frictional impact caused by on-street parking
compared to four lane undivided
Praburam and Koorey [57] Type of road Parking has the strongest effect on medium wide streets (10–11 m carriageway width), mod-
erate effect on wide streets (over 13 m) but insignificant on narrow streets (8–9 m)

13
10 
Page 6 of 14 Transp. in Dev. Econ. (2017) 3:10

to model ‘FRIC’. Equations  1–3 could be useful to deter-

mine the speed in the context of developing country under
the influence of side frictional activities including on-street
parking.
FRIC = 1 × PED + 0.45 × BIC
(3)
+ 0.08 × NMV + 0.37 × PSV
Salini et  al. [58] showed that the number of parking
manoeuvres ­(nman) is the most significant parking param-
eters having a substantial impact on the average speed of
the through traffic. The study forwarded a combined model
(Eq  4) which describes the influences of n­ man along with
some other side friction factors on the average speed.
V = 43.53 − 0.39 × nman − 0.59 × td − 0.08
× nped − 0.18 × nc − 0.05 × n2w − 0.27 × n3w (4)
V is the average speed of the through vehicles (km/h).
­nc, ­n2w and ­ n3w are the hourly traffic volume of cars,
two-wheeler and three wheeler respectively. t­d and n­ped
are the average dwell time (second) of bus and the num-
ber of pedestrians walking along the roads per minute
respectively.
On-street parking also has a high association with the
traffic congestion. Nearly 14% of all congestion cases take
place on urban roads where parked or parking manoeuvring
vehicles are the prime reasons behind it [62]. Guo et  al.
[63] adopted a simulation based approach to measure FFS
on one way urban street and showed how on-street parking
Fig. 1  Average speeds at varying parking density and flow levels on can antedate traffic state transition from free flow to con-
a business arterial and b local street gested flow even at low density. A Monte Carlo simulation
was performed and the density of the traffic stream was kept
low in order to create free flow condition for through vehi-
cles. It was observed that when the proportion of parking
manoeuvres was increased, traffic volume decreases notice-
ably. In fact, 35% of the proportion of parking manoeuvres
can eventually reduce the capacity up to 35%. According
to Bulactial et al. [4], parked cars could have the potential
to create congestion on urban roads singlehandedly if park-
ing is irregular or in haphazard manner. Even a very small
number of vehicles, if they are parked in disruptive way for
a long duration, can cause a heavy congestion. Moreover,
a good proportion of drivers have an extreme preference
for on-street parking even in case when all the spaces are
almost occupied. They prefer to keep on searching until a
Fig. 2  Relationship between mean free slow speed and number of vacant space is found rather paying for parking off-street.
parked vehicles These park hunting vehicles when they are significant in
proportion, can effectively demote the stream mobility as
well as the capacity of urban roads [8, 14]. Many research-
sample size of data used to generate Eq. 1. ‘FRIC’ is fur-
ers quantified the reduction in capacity caused by the pres-
ther comprised of four frictional elements: Pedestrian cross
ence of on-street parking. Major outcomes of these studies
flow ‘PED’, Bicycle volume ‘BIC’, Parking and stopping
are given in Table 4.
vehicles ‘PSV’ and Non-motorized vehicle volume ‘NMV’.
Hence, a significant amount of capacity reduction (up
All these factors were retained in a common unit of Num-
to 90%) was reported in literature as a consequence of
ber/200 m/h to circumvent added complexity and exercised

13
Transp. in Dev. Econ. (2017) 3:10 Page 7 of 14  10

Table 4  Reduction in the Author(s) Extent of parking Reduction in

capacity due to the presence of the capacity
on-street parking on urban roads (%)

Rudjanakanoknad [15] Parking width wider than 4 m on six lane divided major street 20–25
Cao et al. [18] 1.9 m wide single side parking on two lane undivided street 22
Guo et al. [63] 35% proportion of the parking vehicles on one way major street 35
Jakle and Scull [64] Not available 45
AASHTO [65] Not available 50–80
Humphreys et al. [52] Both side parking on two lane undivided road 78–90
Weant and Levinson [66] Curb parking on four lane and six lane divided road 50, 40

the on-street parking. The common limitation of the stud-

ies mentioned in Table  4 is the consideration of on-street
parking as a categorical variable: either ‘absent’ or ‘pre-
sent’. The impact on the capacity was not examined with
varying intensity of parking. Inconsistency in the results
of these studies is because of the fact that parking intensity
plays a significant role in determining the capacity of the
road. An increase in the number parked cars occupies an
additional road space and subsequently causes a more acute
reduction in the capacity of the road. Wijayaratna [67] sug-
gested a multiplicative adjustment factor in order to capture
the influence of parked vehicles on the capacity of the road.
The model considers the length of the on-street parking
Fig. 3  Capacity loss at varying parking intensities
zone ­(LP) and the number of turnovers per parking space
per hour ­(NT) while formulating the adjustment factor ­(fP)
as given in Eq. 5. is required to verify this with a wide range of parking
conditions.
fP = 1 − 0.0012 LP NT (5)
On the other hand, a primeval technical report [68] con- Effects on Road Users’ Safety
tains something more interesting that the less number of
parked vehicles causes more intense loss to the capacity of In addition to the operational degradation, on-street park-
the road. The reduction rate decreases with the increase in ing causes hazards and increases risk of road users which
the parking concentration as shown in Fig. 3. The amount is consistently reported in many studies [17, 69–71]. Par-
of capacity reduction resulted due to presence of 300 ticularly, the collision with other vehicles while darting
parked cars, one-fourth of that, can be ensued only by 5 out between two parked cars and the collision while back-
cars. However, the pattern of parking whether it is parallel ing into the stream from parking space are the most risky
or angled, is not mentioned in the report. and commonly observed accident prototypes. In fact, most
All these studies hence, recognize the capacity reduc- of the transportation planners still consider removal of on-
tion aspect of on-street parking. Whatever the exact reason street parking as the most easy and economical method
may be, stationary or manoeuvring vehicles, in general, to enhance the capacity and the safety of an urban street.
on-street parking causes a substantial impact on the regular Nearly a half century ago, Farnsley [72] enlisted five kinds
traffic flow that was described in a number of cases. Spe- of crash that can occur due to the presence of on-street
cifically, heavy vehicles are more affected than other types parking.
of vehicles. Also, a higher proportion of cruising traffic was
caught doing sufficient damage to the stream mobility. It 1. Parked vehicles cause lane changing: side swipe, rear
was revealed that the higher angle of parking causes more end collisions;
damages and typically a narrow road is more vulnerable in 2. stopping or slowing down of vehicles entering curb
this regard compared to a multi-lane. Although majority of spaces: side swipe, rear end collisions;
the studies found that the impact on speed linearly varies 3. vehicles exiting parking spaces: side swipe, rear end
with the change in parking density, further investigation collisions;

13
10 
Page 8 of 14 Transp. in Dev. Econ. (2017) 3:10

4. street side door opening of parked vehicles: collisions Angeles pointed finger at visual impairments (e.g. stopped
having contact with door or exiting occupant; and buses, parked cars) due to which pedestrians unnoticed an
5. lack of visibility to drivers due to parking: collisions oncoming vehicle while crossing the road and became the
with pedestrians crossing the roads between parked cause of a number of deaths on crosswalks. Great Britain
vehicles. experience indicates that 3000–6700 pedestrians become
victims every year while crossing roads through the gaps
Humphreys et  al. [52] in an exhaustive study of over- between stationary vehicles and this particular crash type
all 4800 accident records in ten cities found the collision registered around 13–17% of overall pedestrian casual-
with parked vehicles and unparking manoeuvre related ties [74, 75]. However in general, parking related crashes
crashes [type (1) and (3)] were the most frequent in the list account for a significant proportion of total accidents
as shown in Table 5. Parking manoeuvre crashes [type (2)] occurred on urban roads as given in Table 6.
and open door collision [type (4)] were found less frequent All these reports hence, showed the inevitable influence
compared to the other two. One thing must be mentioned of on-street parking on road calamities. At the same time,
here that most of the unparking manoeuvre related crashes parking related crashes are least severe, hardly reaching to
[type (3)] occurred particularly in the case of angle parking the fatality that is documented as well.
where vehicles collide with other vehicles or objects dur- Literature substantiated that the intensity and the man-
ing backing into the main stream. This is further discussed ner of this vulnerability may differ depending upon the type
afterwards. of parking. In few cases, the angle parking was considered
Lack of visibility due to parked cars [type (5)] makes as a safer option compared to the other parking types. Actu-
drivers unaware about on-coming pedestrian entries into ally, the belief was that the cars parked at a certain angle
the roads thus, causing pedestrian-automobile conflicts and with the carriageway generate more friction and thus, pre-
even sometimes fatalities as well. This was diagnosed as vent motorists from driving fast [4]. Edwards [70] was also
one of the major contributing factors towards the increased in favour of angle type and provided instances of some low
rate of pedestrian fatalities in Israel and to ward off this, volume roads that were functioning satisfactorily adapting
Gitelman et  al. [43] advocated prohibition of street park- the angle parking with low crash rates. In addition, angle
ing near designated pedestrian crossings. Nevertheless, this parking can be more effective in increasing the area of the
visibility problem is also valid from pedestrian perspec- buffer zone between the pedestrians and the vehicular traf-
tive specifically, for children. An investigation [73] in Los fic compared to the parallel type [71]. Angle parking may
also have the potential to restrict the pedestrian dart-out to
some extent. On the other hand, there is a number of study
Table 5  Parking accident types for different road categories [52] records available as well standing against the provision of
Type of accidents Proportion of total accidents angle parking on urban roads.
A telephone survey [80] conducted with district traf-
Two way streets (%) One way
streets fic engineers and planners of Kentucky exposed that all
(%) of them deterred from permitting angle parking on city
streets. Because, safety was their foremost priority and
Open door 3.4 2.1
from their experiences, they were unwilling to compro-
Manoeuvre to park 4.7 7.8
mise it by allowing angle parking. Box [81] gave exam-
Stationary parked car 20.8 28.6
ples of several case studies where ravaging effect of angle
Manoeuvre to unpark 13.4 21.0
parking were clearly recognised and thereby suggested
Total 42.3 59.5
to provide parallel curb parking where necessary, rather

Table 6  Proportion of parking related crashes and corresponding casualties

Author(s) Proportion of parking Casualties and property damage
related crashes

McCoy et al. [76] 37%

Chicago Police Department [77] 18 to 25% A higher level of property damage (20 to 30% of overall) with a
lower extent of injuries and fatalities (below 10%)
Marshall and Garrick [69] Significant No substantial connection between on-street parking and fatalities
London Road Safety Unit [78, 79] Significant 0.5 to 2% fatalities
Humphreys et al. [52] 42.3% for two way roads,
59.5% for one way roads

13
Transp. in Dev. Econ. (2017) 3:10 Page 9 of 14  10

than the angle type. One of the most significant works in Table 8  Accident reductions due to the change in parking pattern
this regard reported by McCoy et  al. [76] exhibited the from angle to parallel [66]
potential of angle parking in contributing towards the Study location and date Accident
road crash proximity. On-street angle parking appeared as reduction
destructive as associating nearly double crash rate com- (%)
pared to the parallel whenever it was painted and even Minnesota city (1947) 41
much more ahead of that for unpainted parking spaces Wichita (1950) 63
(Table 7). Utah (1966) 57
Weant and Levinson [66] mentioned four definite Grand Rapids, MI (1967) 19
problems that are associated with the angle parking: (a) Kansas City, MO (1967) 50
requirement of more manoeuvring space, (b) inadequate
visibility while backing into the traffic, (c) stopping of
oncoming vehicles for the vehicle leaving angle park- Presence of on-street parking also conveys an adverse
ing space and (d) slower proceeding of vehicles to find impact on the safety particularly for the child pedestri-
a vacant parking space. Furthermore, few case studies ans because of their limited ability to discern an oncom-
were presented as well where transformation of on-street ing vehicle added to deficit in visibility due to parked
parking fashion from the angle to the parallel, had led cars. A volume of studies [83–89] indicate that the child
to successful reduction in the accidents rate up to 63% injury on urban roads might have a considerable associa-
(Table 8). tion with the on-street parking. However being a subjective
Inadequate visibility while backing into the traffic can term, ‘high’ could not spot how much amount of parking
be the most dangerous phenomenon in the list since some density one should consider beyond which safety can be
studies [7, 82] found that 50–75% all parking related hampered. According to Mueller et al. [90], the street with
crashes took place where vehicles backing from an angu- more than 50% of curb side occupied by parked cars, can
lar parking space had collided with the moving vehicles. have an increased risk to child pedestrians. Carsten et  al.
Pigman and Jones [80] observed that “a driver attempt- [91] interviewed the children who recently had got involved
ing to back from angle parking space is often placed in street crashes. Nearly 73% of children told that they
in the position of having to back blindly into the traffic could not see the oncoming vehicle as they were masked
stream and are at the mercy of approaching vehicles to by the stationary cars. As per 3  years (1988–1990) police
provide right-of-way or offer a gap for the backing vehi- reports, a record proportion, 69% of all mid-block pedes-
cle”. In this regard, parallel parking is quite safer as back- trian casualties in Long Beach area, Los Angeles occurred
ing manoeuvre is least required. Thus, “where parking is where child pedestrians crossing the streets, became vic-
permitted, parallel parking is desirable. Angle parking tims [71]. Remarkably, more than the half of these crashes
is inconsistent with the safe and efficient use of the lim- happened when children were darting out between parked
ited space available for travel on major roadways, and its cars. Annual road casualty reports of Great Britain [74,
application should be minimized” [17]. 75] show that majority of pedestrians, 50–65% of overall,
who were masked by stationary vehicles and collided with

Table 7  Mid-block crash Type of parking Number of accidents Accident rates Ratio angle to
experience in Nebraska on two parallel parking
lane streets [17] accidents
Parking Other Total MVMa BVM/Sb MVMa BVMb

Painted
 Parallel 19 22 41 1.83 6.58
 Low angle 10 3 13 3.38 9.59 1.85 1.46
 High angle 68 16 84 3.59 12.9 1.96 1.96
Unpainted
 Parallel 51 79 130 0.67 5.44
 Angle 14 7 21 1.67 12.1 2.49 2.22
Total 162 127 289
a
 Per million vehicle-miles
b
 Per billion vehicle-miles/stall

13
10 
Page 10 of 14 Transp. in Dev. Econ. (2017) 3:10

through traffic, are children aged below 15  years (Fig.  4). type, they become aware about the violations and pay extra
In spite of a gradual decrease in the percentage of overall consciousness to avoid its ill consequences. However, the
child pedestrians’ injury that has been noticed over the second category of drivers who are the major share in the
years, still today yearly around 1000 children, more than stream, pay less attention on the consequences of the viola-
50% of all age groups, become victims there while cross- tions and thus, are more likely to get involved in the acci-
ing the streets between parked cars. All of these statistics dents. Parking in haphazard manner is also a very poor
thus ensure the negative impact of on-street parking specifi- culture. This increases the risk of other road users, makes
cally on the safety of child pedestrians. From the driver’s the area inaccessible and demotes the aesthetic value of the
perspective, Gattis [35] realized that while manoeuvring road as well [94].
through a narrow road bordered by parked cars, the driver All these studies point at the significant fraction of urban
has to pay an extra attention to control vehicle’s position street casualties that are happening everyday only due to the
and thereby, other marginal activities (like children dart presence of on-street parking. Although most of these col-
outs) are neglected to some extent. Going further to road lisions are far away from the fatality, but instigate a higher
wise severity, Christie et al. [92] noticed that the majority degree of property damage. In a great number of occasions,
of these parking related crashes had taken place on resi- it takes place either by sticking to other vehicles while
dential streets near children’s play area due to the lack of backing into the main stream from the parking space or due
proper supervision. In contrast, Rivara [93] found most to pedestrian dart outs. Moreover, leaving few exceptional
of fatal child injuries involving parked cars reported from cases, angle parking was thoroughly found more risky
busy arterials or major streets as high speed has little for- compared to the parallel due to its hazardous unparking
giveness on such dart outs. Therefore in absence of suffi- manoeuvre. Also, on-street parking obstructs the discern-
cient documentations, it is difficult to deduce what street ibility of the child pedestrian about an oncoming vehicle
categories are more vulnerable towards child pedestrians and thus, triggers a high rate of child injuries. Therefore,
when street parking exists. But overall, their safety doesn’t these heaps of substances that are revised in this section,
go with the presence of on-street parking that can be said are enough to express the safety outlooks of on-street park-
for sure, based on sufficient proofs. ing on urban roads. However, as it may be observed that the
According to Peprah et al. [2], the population culture and majority of these studies discussed here, are carried out in
attitude matter the most behind these increased crash rates. developed country’s context. For under developed or devel-
For instance, authors pointed out the tendency of drivers to oping countries, road injuries are massively under reported
park at the wrong side of the streets as one of the awful and that is why crash records may not give the real safety
cultures that accelerate crash propensity. In fact, other road scenario which could be harsher than evidenced.
users’ attitude in reacting to these violations also makes a
difference. They react generally in two ways. For the first

Fig. 4  Pedestrian age wise casualties occurred due to the obstruction by parked vehicles

13
Transp. in Dev. Econ. (2017) 3:10 Page 11 of 14  10

On‑Street Parking: Safety Provider or Disruptor? more crashes take place on major streets only due to the
presence of on-street parking [9]. Therefore, the removal
The above discussion indicates that the on-street park- of on-street parking would be justifiable at least for major
ing has some prominent positive and negative influences streets as negative trade-offs definitely outweigh its bene-
respectively on the economy and the capacity of roads. fits. Like Box [17] said; “Curb parking represents a poten-
However coming to the safety consideration, picture is tially hazardous and congestion causing use of public road
less clear since ample volume of literature find this influ- space. It should be restricted wherever practical especially
ence positive and there are significant evidences as well along major roadways.”
going against it. Now to culminate in the discussions, On the other hand, in absence or inadequacy of off-
query comes instinctively ‘Does on-street parking go well street parking spaces, parking can be allowed on minor
for safety, or not?’ Specifically, research outcomes of streets where less volume of traffic run at a lower speed.
Marshall et  al. [9] can be the answer in this regard. The Frequency of parking related crashes is significantly less
authors observed that our concerned ‘influence’ varies for undivided minor streets [52]. In fact, the absence of
depending upon the road environments: high speed or low on-street parking sometimes exposes the pedestrians and
speed. 6  years’ (1998–2003) accident reports were stud- increases the crash frequency (up to 11%) specifically on
ied separately for the high speed (FFS ranging from 35 to minor streets [19]. There is a very less chance of crashes to
40 mph) and also for the low speed roads (FFS <35 mph). reach its severity on minor streets as well [9]. Additionally,
It was detected that for high speed streets, no doubt, park- sometimes minor streets become more than just a facility
ing increases the crash rate entirely and even for individual for through traffic, rather a centre of business and cultural
crash type (Table 9). But in the case of low speed streets, activities. Provision of on-street parking in that case, may
although the overall crash rate is slightly higher for park- serve commuters’ as well as merchants’ benefits.
ing condition, but serious crashes were noticeably fewer When allowed, on-street parking should be parallel, not
compared to the without parking condition. In the presence angled, because later is hazardous in all respects. Angle
of parked cars, fatal and severe type accidents account for parking is associated with higher crash rate due to its prob-
only 11.1 crash rate before 28.0 at no parking condition. lematic manoeuvre. As per the crash records, angle parking
The above result cannot be unique as few other studies instigates more than double crashes per unit distance com-
[82] also had similar experiences that most of the parking pared to parallel parking [17]. In addition, angle parking
related crashes take place on major urban roads. Therefore, causes a greater reduction in the road capacity as well [56].
on-street parking can contribute towards the safety in low Hence, there is no point to consider angle on-street parking
speed environment while it is strictly unsafe in high speed. and it should be a thing of the past.
On-street parking must be prohibited near some specific
locations like designated pedestrian crossing, intersection,
Concluding Remarks etc. so that both the driver and the pedestrian could get an
obstruction free view while driving and crossing the roads
The present paper has highlighted the issues regarding the respectively. When the posted speed limit is 50  km/h or
effects of on-street parking on urban roads. On-street park- less, on-street parking should be restricted up to 10 m from
ing has some natural contributions towards the economy the designated pedestrian crossing or signal controlled
and the road users’ safety. But these are of course, quid pro intersection [95]. In the case of a roundabout or uncon-
quos as on-street parking has some negative effects too. trolled intersection, on-street parking should be set back
It is to be noted that the effects of on-street parking vary 23 m or more from the yield line. On-street parking should
depending upon the road category. For major streets, on- also be banned near school and playing area considering
street parking is strictly unsafe. Literature indicate 93% the child’s safety.

Table 9  Crash rates for different street types [9]

Parking condition No. of sites Total miles Crash rate/mile/site (1998–2003)
Fatal Severe Minor PDOa All

Low speed (<35 mph) Parking 13 3.06 0 (0%) 11.1 (3.8%) 47.7 (16.5%) 231.1 (79.7%) 289.9 (100%)
No parking 13 2.36 0 (0%) 28.0 (10.4%) 48.3 (18.0%) 192.0 (71.6%) 268.2 (100%)
High speed (35–40 mph) Parking 5 1.45 0.7 (0.2%) 29.0 (8.5%) 89.7 (26.2%) 222.8 (65.1%) 342.1 (100%)
No parking 24 5.12 0.2 (0.1%) 17.2 (9.7%) 44.7 (25.3%) 114.8 (64.9%) 177.0 (100%)
a
 PDO property damage only

13
10 
Page 12 of 14 Transp. in Dev. Econ. (2017) 3:10

On lower categories of road, on-street parking may 10. Spiliopoulou C, Antoniou C (2012) Analysis of illegal parking
have a good association with the street-vending activi- behavior in Greece. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 48:1622–1631.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1137
ties. A higher density of parking may attract more street- 11. Adiv A, Wang W (1987) On-Street Parking Meter Behav-

vendors. The increased number of street vendors and its ior. Center for TransitUniversity of Michigan Transportation
related activities yield an extra friction to through vehicles Research Institute, Springfield
and hence result in an additional reduction in the capacity 12. Meyer MD, McShane M (1983) Parking policy and downtown
economic development. J Urban Plan Dev ASCE 109:27–43.
of the road. While a few research on the effects of street- doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(1983)109:1(27))
vending activities on operating characteristics of the road 13. Yousif S, Purnawan (2004) Traffic operations at on-street

is available [96], researches focusing on the influence of parking facilities. Proc Inst Civ Eng Transp 157:189–194.
on-street parking on the extent of street vending activities doi:10.1680/tran.2004.157.3.189
14. Sykes P, De Falco J, Bradley R et  al (2010) Planning urban
are not found in literature. Therefore, it can be addressed in car park provision using microsimulation. Traffic Eng Control
future studies. 51:103–107
On-street parking problems are more serious in devel- 15. Rudjanakanoknad J (2010) Analysis of factors affecting street
oping countries although limited research has been con- bottleneck capacity through oblique cumulative plots. J East
Asia Soc Transp Stud 8:1621–1631
ducted so far in their context. As a result, urban transpor- 16. Chen J, Li Z, Jiang H et  al (2017) Simulating the impacts of
tation planners in India and other developing nations are on-street vehicle parking on traffic operations on urban streets
facing difficulties in designing the roads due to the absence using cellular automation. Phys A Stat Mech Appl 468:880–
of proper capacity guideline that would also consider the 891. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2016.11.060
17. Box PC (2004) Curb-parking problems: overview. J Transp
influence of parking. There have been a few attempts to Eng ASCE 130:1–5
assess the influence of on-street parking on capacity, but its 18. Cao Y, Yang ZZ, Zuo ZY (2017) The effect of curb parking on
proper quantification is missing, which is more important road capacity and traffic safety. Eur Transp Res Rev 9(4):1–10.
for the transportation planners. The present study highlights doi:10.1007/s12544-016-0219-3
19. Dumbaugh E, Gattis JL (2005) Safe streets, livable streets. J
these grey areas and further investigations in developing Am Plan Assoc 71:283–300. doi:10.1080/01944360508976699
countries are required to arrive at a precise quantification 20. El-din RMMM (2015) The streets in a livable city 2. compre-
of this influence by means of developing some models or hensive approach to livable streets planning. Int Trans J Eng
adjustment factors. Manag Appl Sci Technol 6:125–134
21. Gattis JL, Watts A (1999) Urban street speed related to width
and functional class. J Tranportation Eng ASCE 125:193–200
Acknowledgements  SB acknowledges the support of Ministry of 22. Box PC (2000) Curb Parking Findings Revisited. TRB Circ
Human Resource Development (MHRD), Govt. of India. E-C019 Urban Str Symp 1–9
23. Baker RG V, Wood S (2010) Towards robust development

of retail planning policy: maintaining the viability and vital-
ity of main street shopping precincts. Geogr Res 48:65–74.
References doi:10.1111/j.1745-5871.2009.00622.x
24. Reilly WJ (1931) The laws of retail gravitation. Knickerbocker,
1. Marsden G (2006) The evidence base for parking poli- New York
cies—a review. Transp Policy 13:447–457. doi:10.1016/j. 25. Christaller W (1933) Central places in Southern Germany.

tranpol.2006.05.009 Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
2. Peprah C, Oduro CY, Ocloo KA (2014) On-street parking and 26. Huff DL (1963) A probabilistic analysis of shopping centre
pedestrian safety in the kumasi metropolis: issues of culture and trade areas. Land Econ 39:81–90
attitude. Dev Ctry Stud 4:85–95 27. Recker WW, Kostyniuk LP (1978) Factors influencing destina-
3. Chiguma MLM (2007) Analysis of side friction impact on urban tion choice for the urban grocery shopping trip. Transportation
road links; case study Dar-es-salaam. Royal Institute of Technol- (Amst) 7:19–33.
ogy Stockholm, Sweden 28. McCarthy PS (1980) A study of the importance of general-
4. Bulactial A, Dizon F, Garcia MW et  al (2013) Comparison of ized attributes in shopping choice behaviour. Environ Plan A
on-street parking management in Ermita-Malate Manila and 12:1269–1286
Makati central business district. Proc East Asia Soc Transp Stud 29. Shobeirinejad M, Smart JCR, Sipe N, Burke M (2013) The
9 Impact of shopping centre attributes on the destination prefer-
5. Manville M, Shoup D, Bacon F (2005) Parking, people, and cit- ences of trip makers in Brisbane. State Aust. Cities Conf
ies. J Urban Plan Dev ASCE 131:233–245 30. Innes J, Ircha M, Badoe D (1990) Factors affecting automo-
6. Ison S, Rye T (2006) Parking. Transp Policy 13:445–446. bile shopping trip destinations. J Urban Plan Dev ASCE
doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2006.05.001 116:126–136
7. Cullinane B, Smith D, Green P (2004) Where, when, and how 31. Technical Committee on Transport (2005) Parking policies

well people park: a phone survey and field measurements. and the effects on economy and mobility: Report on cost action
UMTRI Rep 2004:18 342. Dutch Ministry of Transport
8. Shoup DC (2006) Cruising for parking. Transp Policy 13:479– 32. Timmermans H, Rob VH, Hans W (1982) The identifica-

486. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2006.05.005 tion of factors influencing destination choice: an application
9. Marshall W, Garrick N, Hansen G (2008) Reassessing on-street of the repertory grid methodology. Transportation (Amst)
parking. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2046:45–52. 11:189–203
doi:10.3141/2046-06

13
Transp. in Dev. Econ. (2017) 3:10 Page 13 of 14  10

33. De Cerreño A (2004) Dynamics of on-street parking in large 55. Wang J, Dixon KK, Li H, Hunter M (2006) Operating speed
central cities. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1898:130– models for low speed urban environment based on in-vehicle
137. doi:10.3141/1898-16 GPS data. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1961
34. Burden D (1999) Street design guidelines for healthy neighbor- 56. Elliot MA, McColl VA, Kennedy JV (2003) Road design meas-
hoods. In: Urban Str. Symp. Symp. Conf. Proceedings, Dallas, ures to reduce drivers’ speed via “psychological” processes: a lit-
Texas. pp 1–15 erature review. Report No. TRL564, Transport Research Labora-
35. Gattis JL (2000) Urban Street Cross Section and Speed Issues. tory, Crowthorne, Berkshire, UK
TRB Circ E-C019 Urban Str Symp 1–17 57. Praburam G, Koorey G (2015) Effect of on-street parking on traf-
36. Gårder P, Ivan JN, Du J (2002) Traffic Calming of State High- fic speeds. IPENZ Transp. Gr. Conf. Christchurch
ways: Application New England. Technical Report, Project No. 58. Salini S, George S, Ashalatha R (2016) Effect of side frictions
UCNR13-5, New England University Transportation Center, on traffic characteristics of urban arterials. Transp Res Procedia
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 17:636–643. doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2016.11.118
37. Ewing R (1994) Residential street design: do the British and 59. Reihani SH, Naseri A, Sorkhabi RVP, Zehforoush K (2013)

Australians know something Americans do not? Transp. Res. Modelling the impact of on-street parking on main parameters
Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1455 on vehicular traffic. Life Sci J 10:1689–1699. doi:10.1017/
38. Duany A (1990) Suburban sprawl or livable neighborhood. Neo- CBO9781107415324.004
Traditional T. Planning, Am. Inst. Certif. Planners 60. Yusuf IT (2010) The factors for free flow speed on urban arteri-
39. Zein S, Geddes E, Hemsing S, Johnson M (1997) Safety benefits als—empirical evidences from Nigeria. J Am Sci 6:1487–1497.
of traffic calming. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1578:3– doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
10. doi:10.3141/1578-01 61. Daisa JM, Peers JB (1997) Narrow residential streets: do they
40. Lerner-lam E, Celniker SR, Halbert GW et al (1992) Neo-tradi- really slow down speeds? In: ITE Annu. Meet. Compend,
tional neighborhood design and lis implications for traffic engi- pp 546–551
neering. ITE J 62:17–25 62. Fadairo G (2013) Traffic congestion in Akure, Ondo State, Nige-
41. Szplett D, Sale L (1997) Some challenges in developing neotra- ria: using Federal University of Technology Akure Road as a
ditional neighborhood designs. ITE J 67:42–46 case study. Int J Arts Commer 2:67–76
42. Ossenbruggen PJ, Pendharkar J, Ivan J (2001) Roadway safety in 63. Guo H, Wang W, Guo W (2012) Micro-simulation study on
rural and small urbanized areas. Accid Anal Prev 33:485–498. the effect of on-street parking on vehicular flow. 15th Int IEEE
doi:10.1016/S0001-4575(00)00062-2 Conf Intell Transp Syst Anchorage, Alaska, USA 1840–1845.
43. Gitelman V, Balasha D, Carmel R et  al (2012) Characteriza- doi:10.1109/ITSC.2012.6338713
tion of pedestrian accidents and an examination of infrastructure 64. Jakle J, Sculle K (2004) Lots of parking. University of Virginia
measures to improve pedestrian safety in Israel. Accid Anal Prev Press, Charlottesville
44:63–73. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2010.11.017 65. AASHTO (1994) A policy on geometric design of highways and
44. Jensen SU, Rosenkilde C, Jensen N (2007) Road safety and per- streets. American Association of State Highway and Transporta-
ceived risk of cycle facilities in Copenhagen. Trafites Copenha- tion Officials, Washington D.C
gen, Denmark 1–9 66. Weant RA, Levinson HS (1990) Parking. Eno Foundation for
45. Edquist J, Rudin-Brown CM, Lenné MG (2012) The effects of Transportation
on-street parking and road environment visual complexity on 67. Wijayaratna S (2015) Impacts of on-street parking on road

travel speed and reaction time. Accid Anal Prev 45:759–765. capacity. In: Australas. Transp. Res. Forum 2015. pp 1–15
doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.10.001 68. Ministry of Transport (1965) Urban traffic engineering tech-

46. Chiguma MLM, Bang K (2007) Impact of individual side fric- niques. United Kingdom
tion factors on free-flow speed: case study on urban road links in 69. Marshall WE, Garrick NW (2011) Does street network design
Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania. 86th Annu. Meet. Transp. Res. Board affect traffic safety? Accid Anal Prev 43:769–781. doi:10.1016/j.
(CD-ROM), Natl. Acad. Washingt. D.C. aap.2010.10.024
47. Kladeftiras M, Antoniou C (2013) Simulation-based assess-
70. Edwards JD (2002) Changing on-Street parallel parking to angle
ment of double-parking impacts on traffic and environmental parking. ITE J 72:28
conditions. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2390:121–130. 71. Kraus FJ, Hooten GE, Brown a K et al (1996) Child pedestrian
doi:10.3141/2390-13 and bicyclist injuries: results of community surveillance and a
48. Reddy IR, Rao SN, Rao CR (2008) Modelling and evaluation case-control study. Inj Prev 2:212–218
patterns on the impact of on-street parking in reference to traffic 72. Farnsley CP (1966) Extension of Remarks, Kentucky Represent-
mobility. J Indian Roads Congr 69:101–109 ative, Charles P. Farnsley. Congr. Rec. 112
49. Munawar A (2011) Speed and capacity for urban roads, Indone- 73. Loukaitou-Sideris A, Liggett R, Sung HG (2007) death on the
sian experience. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 16:382–387 crosswalk: a study of pedestrian-automobile collisions in Los
50. Charlton SG, Baas PH (2006) Speed change management for Angeles. J Plan Educ Res 26:338–351. doi:10.1177/07394
New Zealand roads 56X06297008
51. Lim MA, Hallare EL, Briones JG (2012) Modeling the impact of 74. Transport D for Road casualties Great Britain (2001) Through
on-street parking. 5th ATRANS Symp. Bangkok, Thail 2007. London: The Stationary Office
52. Humphreys JB, Box PC, Sullivan TD, Wheeler DJ (1978) Safety 75. Transport D for Reported road casualties Great Britain (2008)
aspects of curb parking. Report No. FHWA-RD-79-76, Federal Through 2013. London: The Stationary Office
Highway Administration, Washington D.C 76. McCoy PT, Ramanujam M, Moussavi M (1990) Safety compari-
53. Ivan JN, Garrick NW, Hanson G (2009) designing roads that son of types of parking on urban streets in Nebraska. 69th Annu.
guide drivers to choose safer speeds. Report No. JHR-09-321, Meet. Transp. Res. Board, Natl. Acad. Washingt. D.C.
Connecticut Transportation Institute, University of Connecticut, 77. Department CP Annual report: A year in review (2011) Reports/
Storrs, Connecticut Annual Reports. https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/
54. Aronsson KFM (2006) Speed characteristics of urban streets
portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical
based on driver behaviour studies and simulation. Royal Institute 78. Unit LRS Collisions and casualties on London’s roads (2012).
of Technology Stockholm Transport for London

13
10 
Page 14 of 14 Transp. in Dev. Econ. (2017) 3:10

7 9. Unit LAA (1995) Annual Report 1994. London Research Centre J Lifestyle Med 6:292–302. doi:10.1016/j.micinf.2011.07.011.
80. Pigman JG, Jones SS (1996) Applicability of angle parking for Innate
a major city street. Research Report KTC-96-31, University of 90. Mueller B, Rivara F, Shyh-Mine L, Weiss N (1990) Environmen-
Kentucky tal factors and the risk for childhood pedestrian-motor vehicle
81. Box P (2002) Angle Parking Issues Revisited, 2001. ITE J
collision occurrence. Am J Epidemiol 132:550–560
72:36–47 91. Carsten O, Tight M, Southwell M, Plows B (1989) Urban

82. Green P (2006) Parking crashes and parking assistance system accidents: Why do they happen? AA Found. Road Saf. Res.
design: evidence from crash databases, the literature, and insur- Basingstoke
ance agent interviews. SAE Tech. Pap. No. 2006-01-1685 92. Christie N, Ward H, Kimberlee R et  al (2007) Understand-

83. Roberts I, Norton R, Jackson R et al (1995) Effects of environ- ing high traffic injury risks for children in low socioeconomic
mental factors on risk of injury of child pedestrians by motor areas: a qualitative study of parents’ views. Inj Prev 13:394–397.
vehicles: a case-control study. Br Med J 310:91–94 doi:10.1136/ip.2007.016659
84. Martin A (2012) Factors influencing pedestrian safety†¯: A lit- 93. Rivara FP (1990) Child pedestrian injuries in the United States:
erature review. Project Report PPR241, London, TRL Limited Current status of the problem, potential interventions, and future
85. Aoki M, Moore L (1996) Kidsafe: A young pedestrian safety research needs. Am J Dis Child 144:692–696
study. ITE J 66:36–45 94. Asiyanbola R a., Akinpelu AA (2012) The challenges of on-
86. Agran PF, Winn DG, Anderson CL et al The role of the physi- street parking in Nigerian Cities’ transportation routes. Int J Dev
cal and traffic environment in child pedestrian injuries. Pediatrics Sustain 1:476–489
98:1096–1103 95. Department of Transportation (2010) Wisconsin Guide to Pedes-
87. Petch RO, Henson RR (2000) Child road safety in the urban trian Best Practices. State of Wisconsin
environment. J Transp Geogr 8:197–211. doi:10.1016/ 96. Hidayati N, Liu R, Montgomery F (2012) The impact of

S0966-6923(00)00006-5 school safety zone and roadside activities on speed behaviour:
88. DiMaggio C, Durkin M (2002) Child pedestrian injury in an the Indonesian case. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 54:1339–1349.
urban setting: descriptive epidemiology. Acad Emerg Med doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.848
9:54–62
89. Schwebel DC, Davis AL, O’Neal EE (2012) Child pedestrian
injury: a review of behavioral risks and preventive strategies. Am

13