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
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017
Abstract  On-street parking is a common form of parking,
known for its efficiency in terms of land use and conveni-
ence to motorists as it allows them to park their vehicles
nearer to their destinations. On-street parking has some
benefits as well as drawbacks which also keep varying
depending upon circumstances. Today, urban transport
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,
if it is allowed, query comes whether it should be a par-
allel parking or angled. Before allowing or restricting on-
street parking, one should need to delve into different cor-
ollaries of it. In this background, the present article is an
attempt to review global state-of-the-art covering various
consequences of on-street parking, positive and negative,
in urban road context and further explores how and up to
what extent these are effective. After an extensive review,
this study has arrived at the conclusion that on-street
parking should be restricted along major streets. It can be
allowed on minor streets as it has the potential to provide
a safer environment for road users in that context. When
allowed, on-street parking should be parallel, not angled,
because later is hazardous in all respects. The study also
* Subhadip Biswas
subhadipbiswas.in@gmail.com
Satish Chandra
satisfce@gmail.com
Indrajit Ghosh
indrajitghosh29@gmail.com
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute
of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247667, Uttarakhand, India
2
CSIR-Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi 110025,
India
recommends the prohibition of on-street parking near some
specific locations like designated pedestrian crossing, inter-
section, school etc.
Keywords  On-street parking · Urban roads · Economy ·
Safety · Capacity
Introduction
A Vehicle requires parking space at origin and destination
of each of its trip. The parking demand in urban areas has
amplified with the rapid increase in vehicular traffic in last
few decades. Even though designated parking lots have
increased in most of the metropolitans, parking spaces
are still failing to accommodate peak hours’ vehicles fre-
quently. As a consequence, many of the motorists park (and
more will park in the future) their vehicles on-street even
if it is unauthorised. For instance, vehicle population in
Great Britain will grow from 27 to 39  million as per the
prediction by the year 2030 and 2.8  million of them will
be parked on the streets [1]. 14,000  km of curbs will be
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
if parking policies are not gone over [2–4]. Parking is also
an under-researched area in transport [1, 5] though ‘auto-
mobiles spend over 95% of their time “parked” [6] every
day in three distinct parking places on an average [7]. In the
absence of sufficient specifications and research outcomes,
policy makers are facing difficulties to ponder over some
alternative parking strategies.
On-street parking is one of the most commonly observed
parking prototypes that comprises of all paid and unpaid
parking activities along the roadside. It allows parked
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 10   Page 2 of 14
vehicles to share the same road width with other vehicles
moving on the road. However, the parking can be parallel
or angled to the road alignment depending upon the cir-
cumstances. Popularity of on-street parking is attributed
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
extent. Commuters also prefer on-street parking where it is
under-priced or even illegal rather paying for parking off-
street [8–10]. Hence, the increase in the supply of off-street
parking spaces often cannot absorb the demand of on-street
parking [11]. Moreover, the availability of on-street park-
ing facility sometimes appears as one of the key criteria for
trip makers in choosing their destinations. As long as the
number of trips is associated with the profit of local mer-
chants, the economic development of a commercial area is
also correlated with the provision of on-street parking facil-
ity [12]. In spite of this, many transportation planners pre-
fer removal of on-street parking from urban corridors for
some of its immediate consequences. Frequent parking and
unparking manoeuvres create complex situations resulting
in congestion and become the reason of frustration for the
through motorists on a busy urban road [13]. Also, a higher
proportion of cruising traffic hunting for parking spaces
eventually demotes the mobility of the road [14]. Strips of
on-street parking bordering the traffic stream effectively
narrow down the road width as well and vehicles are forced
to move into this reduced width as a subsequence. This not
only causes the reduction in stream speed or capacity of the
road [3, 15, 16], safety of the road users also gets compro-
mised [17, 18]. Parked vehicles often obstruct the side view
of the road ahead and make it challenging for the driver to
perceive an oncoming pedestrian entry crossing the road.
On the contrary, few recent literature rather claimed that a
row of parked cars plays a role like a buffer between mov-
ing traffic and pedestrians walking along the road confirm-
ing safety to them [19, 20]. On-street parking which is also
a commonly used passive traffic calming measure, effec-
tively slows down the traffic speed ensuing safety to the
road users although ‘slower road is safer road’ is a debat-
able conception [21].
Discussion in the previous section suggests that the
effects of on-street parking are multi-faceted. On-street
parking has some positive effects as well as some nega-
tive effects. Therefore, the decision to provide the on-street
parking should be made after assessing its pros and cons.
However in the absence of proper guidelines, it is difficult
to know in what situation benefits are overweighing the
drawbacks. Further, if on-street parking is allowed, question
arises whether it should be a parallel or angled. In many
cases, these decisions are being made on ad hoc basis. In
this context, the present paper reviews both positive and
negative effects of on-street parking in urban context and
13
Transp. in Dev. Econ. (2017) 3:10
also explores how these effects can vary under different cir-
cumstances. Findings of the paper will be immensely help-
ful for urban transport planners in taking decisions related
to on-street parking.
Positive Effects of On‑Street Parking
Some positive consequences of on-street parking are dis-
cussed herein that promote its significance and thus,
strongly favour it in urban environs.
Effect on Economic Development of Commercial Area
Availability of on-street parking is a major component of
spot accessibility. It opens up the chances for street vendors
to interact with commuters and also makes road side retail
shops more reachable. It is unfeasible to have parking lots
for every small business along the street. Therefore, on-
street parking is their ‘life blood’ [22]. Conversely, restric-
tion of parking can harm the local merchants as it reduces
their number of customers and so their profits. Supply of
parking spaces near the commercial area is also a vital
aspect in this regard. Lesser supply compared to the park-
ing demand frustrates shoppers in finding an empty parking
space; consumer utility thence drops down and alternative
destinations might be prioritized. On-street parking is also
more convenient to the street shoppers rather park their
vehicles off-street far from their destinations. Because on
an average, people are reluctant to walk more than a radius
of 200 m from their parking locations [23].
Economy of a commercial area is dependent on the
number of consumers which is roughly associated with
the number of trips. All the factors therefore, involved
in destination choice criteria, have influence in econ-
omy of commercial area. However, most of the earlier
researches postulating different destination choice mod-
els for shopping trips, did not include ‘on-street parking’
in those factors [24–26]. Instead, the factors were lim-
ited only to quality and price of the products, size of the
shopping area and distance to the destination. After the
Second World War, scenario was changing gradually as
rapid growth in automobile industry had encouraged the
car ownership resulting in an increased parking demand
near shopping areas. Thus, parking became one of the
key factors for the shoppers’ destination choice. Recker
and Kostyniuk [27] conducted a household questionnaire
survey in New York and identified ‘on-street parking’ as
a major influencing element to the shoppers’ destination
choice. In a similar study [28], trip makers were asked to
identify and also to rate the attributes which they thought
playing role in their destination choice. ‘Ease to park at
shopping area’ came out as a significant quality among
Transp. in Dev. Econ. (2017) 3:10 Page 3 of 14  10
all 19 identified attributes contributing towards destina-
tion choosing decision. However, the independency of
‘parking’ as an attribute is arguable since it may carry a
high positive correlation with the size of shopping area
[29]. Moving to the other case where American central
business districts started losing their customers to suburb
shopping areas from the late 1960s and it continued over
decades; investigation [30] revealed that the inadequate
supply of on-street parking spaces is responsible for this
shift along with some other factors like price and qual-
ity of goods, hours of operation. As per the Dutch techni-
cal committee’s report [31], restriction of on-street park-
ing induces 25% of the customers to go elsewhere for
shopping.
Researchers have further observed that this influence of
‘on-street parking’ may vary depending upon the type of
goods to be shopped. A study [32] conducted in Nether-
land included similar questionnaire survey with only addi-
tion that the respondents had to assign weightage values
(maximum weight 100) to different attributes for shopping
of daily and non-daily goods separately. Therefore, it was
observed that on-street parking is more important for shop-
ping of non-daily goods since overall weightage of park-
ing for non-daily goods was found 80.6 against 62.8 for
daily goods. This may be because of the fact that shopping
of non-daily goods involves longer time compared to the
daily goods and hence, availability of parking space is more
crucial in that case. Shobeirinejad et  al. [29] also verified
this ‘goods wise variation’ as it was noticed that for cloth
shopping, commuters prefer the market area having a larger
parking opportunity. However for grocery shopping, com-
muters may accept the minimal parking scope.
All these studies suggest that ‘parking’ is a significant
factor in destination choice of a trip maker. Increase in
parking space availability or service improvement of park-
ing related operations increases the probability for shoppers
to choose the commercial area as destination. As stated
earlier, the number of shoppers is directly associated with
the profits of the merchants; therefore parking undoubtedly
holds an implicit positive influence on economic develop-
ment of a commercial area and even sometimes in large
scale by playing a crucial role to encourage the business
in a city [33]. Meyer and McShane [12] mentioned one
instance where parking policy was successfully employed
as a tool for encouraging downtown economic develop-
ment. City of Baltimore had opened 1150 parking spaces
to commuters since ‘inadequate parking supply’ had been
identified as the major problem of the city. Consequently,
the city witnessed a significant development in the econ-
omy. Nevertheless, it is to be acknowledged that the provi-
sion of on-street parking cannot develop the economy of a
commercial area independently, but can play a significant
supporting role in development decisions.
Effect on Road Users Safety
Since long, transportation engineers have carried a convic-
tion that on-street parking should be restricted along urban
streets in order to sustain mobility and safety on the roads
[17]. However within last few decades, some urban trans-
portation planners rather have pointed out its need and con-
tribution to road users’ safety and claimed it as an integral
part of a modern aged urban street. Despite a number of
available study records which clearly evidenced ‘on-street
parking triggers accident’, a few researchers [2, 19] rather
believe that on-street parking has the potential to provide a
safer environment for road users depending upon regional
population culture and attitude towards safety. On-street
parking provides safety to road users through two leading
means: (a) as a traffic calming tool—lowering the speed
and enhancing the safety, and (b) as a buffer—separating
pedestrian activities from the vehicular flow.
Slow streets and minimal noise, both are among the
desired criteria that inhabitants usually look for to live in
a residential province [34]. Vehicle dominating high speed
streets create more noise, accelerate accident frequency and
severity as well and thus, cannot satisfy locals’ interest.
There are some traffic calming tools which are employed
or can be employed to control this pace so that pedestri-
ans can feel comfortable while walking along the road. A
number of studies [35, 36] evidenced that for urban roads,
on-street parking is one of those effective tools which can
slow down vehicular movement ensuing safety to the road
users. Here the question arises that would these streets
loose workability to sustain walkability? On this concern,
Burden [34] visited two cities, Winter Park and Celebration
in Florida where he found some residential streets as nar-
row as 5 m but working smoothly even after accommodat-
ing on-street parking on one side. Therefore, the residen-
tial street with on-street parking can have the potential to
satisfy the both, walkability and workability. Conversely,
wider streets designed to accommodate on-street parking
in a residential area result in a high speed and unsafe road
section for ‘no parked vehicle’ condition [37]. Other than
residential streets, parking can also be allowed on avenues
and boulevards (except high class arterial type of roads) in
order to ensure a calm and safe traffic stream [34]. Like-
wise, Duany [38] documented the contribution of on-street
parking as a traffic calming measure however the author
acknowledged that its application is limited only to the cor-
ridors having speed limits 40  kmph or less. Arterials and
collector streets should be out of these calming means. Few
German case studies [36] invariably witnessed prominent
speed reductions after enforcing on-street parking on arte-
rial roads as one of the traffic calming measures. How-
ever, ‘slower speed reduces accident frequency’ was not
evidenced. Therefore, the result again sustains the opinion
13
 10   Page 4 of 14
that safety aspects of on-street parking are limited to minor
streets only. On the other hand, Gattis and Watts [21] rather
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
segments which are not enough to arrive at such general
conclusion. On the contrary, Zein et al. [39] forwarded the
Greater Vancouver model where on-street parking along
with some other traffic calming measures had brought
down successfully 40% of collision frequency of the town.
The fact is that “the success of traffic calming depends
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
along the road; makes them feel more secured and relaxed
and overall, creates a safe environment for road users [9,
33, 40–42]. Gitelman et  al. [43] advocated a number of
infrastructural measures that could help to change the situa-
tion since Israeli cities had been suffering from high pedes-
trian collision rate. One of the recommendations was the
provision of on-street parking that would separate the side-
walk from the carriageway. On-street parking sometimes
provides a shield to the bicyclists against the fast moving
motorized traffic and ensures their safety. Accordingly, the
prohibition of parking can lead to a significant increase, as
much as 56%, in bicycle crashes observed in Copenhagen,
Denmark [44].
Dumbaugh [19] collected 5 years’ (1999–2003) accident
data for two geometrically identical road segments; first one
is a livable street having high roadside activities including
on-street parking and the second one is free from all those
activities. He showed that “the livable section is safer in
all respects”. On livable street, 11% less crashes occurred
compared to the other section. Interestingly, not even a sin-
gle mid-block crash had been reached to fatality during this
5 years while it happened six times on the comparison sec-
tion (Table 1). The author conveyed the justification for this
occurrence that it might be because of the extra conscious-
ness that the drivers are rendering while driving through a
crowded area thereby, causing less collisions.
A volume of work [19, 39, 43] therefore, has pointed
that the on-street parking holds some innate contribu-
tions towards road users’ safety although parking itself
cannot improve the safety single-handedly. Lots of other
roadway features and mostly the safety culture among
Table 1  Mid-block crashes on Colonial Drive, 1999–2003 [19]
Mid-block crashes Livable Comparison Difference (%)
section section
Injurious 42 61 −31
Fatal 0 6 −100
13
Transp. in Dev. Econ. (2017) 3:10
citizens are the prime requirements to build up a safer road
environment.
Negative Effects of On‑Street Parking
“Theories about the benefits of on-street parking are as
plentiful as the theories against” [9]. On-street parking can
be off-putting too in several ways. In this portion, previous
researches that showed its negative trade-offs and how it is
affecting, are revisited and discussed concisely.
Effect on Road Capacity
On-street parking reduces the road capacity mainly in two
ways. Firstly, it narrows down the carriageway width by
means of bordering the traffic stream. Vehicles are forced
to move into this reduced width and it leads to a reduction
in overall stream speed. Secondly, frequent parking and
unparking manoeuvres create complex situations result-
ing in congestion on busy urban roads. These two conse-
quences of on-street parking eventually contribute towards
the capacity loss of urban roads. The following discussion
is devoted to exhibit various opinions and observations
about how and up to what extent the on-street parking can
reduce the road capacity. This discussion assumes sig-
nificance as most of the developing countries do not have
guidelines on this aspect of on-street parking and plan-
ners are forced to make some ad hoc assumptions in many
cases. This part of the paper may provide some information
to researchers and planners of these countries as well.
An ample volume of studies [45–48] discussed about
the stream speed reduction on urban roads as an immedi-
ate consequence of side friction generated by parked vehi-
cles. Edquist et al. [45] measured average speed on straight
mid-block segment in four distinct environments: (a) arte-
rial with no parking, (b) street with no parking, (c) street
with empty parking bays marked on the kerbside lane and
(d) street with full parking condition. A gradual reduction
in speed was witnessed with demotion in the hierarchy of
road condition from a to d. Other investigations [46, 49]
revealed ‘parked and stopped vehicles’ as the most impor-
tant side friction element on urban roads causing the maxi-
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
diminishing phenomena of on-street parking however,
could not prove to be effective in corresponding quantifica-
tion of the impact. On the other hand, few attempts got suc-
cess in quantifying this reduction in speed due to the pres-
ence of on-street parking. Major outcomes of these studies
are given in Table 2.
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-
street parking on urban roads
Author(s) Reduction in
the average
speed
Humphreys et al. [52] 15 to 42%
Kladeftiras and Antoniou [47] 44%
Ivan et al. [53] 21 kmph
Aronsson [54] 5.5 km/h
Wang et al. [55] 5.1 km/h
As it is observed, the estimated speed reductions caused
by the presence of on-street parking fluctuate extremely
from 15 to 44% or 5.1 to 21 km/h. Reason for this fluctua-
tion is simply the existence of few other factors which also
play a noteworthy role in determining the speed. A number
of studies considered these factors and captured how the
influence of on-street parking differs depending upon them
(given in Table 3).
As may be seen in Table  3, Chiguma and Bang found
wider streets less susceptible to side friction which con-
tradicts the findings of Praburam and Koorey [57]. Here,
it should be mentioned that there are few limitations asso-
ciated with the work conducted by Praburam and Koorey
[57]. First, as acknowledged by authors, the roadside envi-
ronment was not identical for each of the road categories.
Secondly, there were some issues regarding sample size
since traffic data were collected over a small period of time.
Also, the paper did not provide justification for such behav-
iour of on-street parking given in Table 3.
The common deficiency in all these studies is the con-
sideration of on-street parking as a categorical variable
(either ‘presence’ or ‘absence’). Neither this influence
was examined with varying intensity of parking nor was
any mathematical model developed to quantify this influ-
ence. Marshall et al. [9] attempted to address this issue by
classifying roadside parking occupancy in three levels: (a)
less than 30%, (b) 30–50% and (c) 50–100%. Later it was
detected that the level ‘b’ and ‘c’ do not show any statis-
tical dissimilarity corresponding to the Free Flow Speed
(FFS) and were consequently merged together. The level
‘a’ parking was also found to be trivial in influencing FFS.
Overall, the mean FFS of the streets without having on-
street parking (up to 30% parking occupancy) was found
3.7  kmph higher in respect to the streets having on-street
parking. Parking parameter thus again became delimited to
a categorical variable like earlier studies.
A number of recent studies [3, 58–60] came out with
further exploration how the speed reduction varies within
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
speed with increase in parking density in every case. The
study perceived but ignored a trend of certain upsurge in
speed at 75% parking density (Fig.  1). Thus, this unex-
pected behaviour remains unexplained. Some other stud-
ies also established relationships between the parking den-
sity and the average speed. Daisa and Peers [61] observed
the average speed dropping around 13  kmph with every
100  veh/km increase in parking density. Yusuf [60] found
a quadratic model as shown in Fig. 2 to describe the rela-
tionship between the parking intensity and the average
FFS. However, the study could not justify the behaviour
why initially up to 29 parked cars, FFS is increasing with
the increase in parking intensity (shown by dotted line in
Fig. 2). Chiguma [3] defined average speed ‘V’ (km/h) as
a function of ‘FLOW’ (lvu/h), carriageway width ‘CW’
(meter), shoulder width ‘SW’ (meter) and side friction
‘FRIC’ separately for two lane and four lane undivided
urban roads as given by Eqs. 1 and 2 respectively.
V = 79.6 − 0.008 × FLOW − 0.028
(1)
× FRIC − 6.058 × CW + 11.8 × SW
V = 46.465 − 0.015 × FLOW − 0.011
(2)
× FRIC + 1.36 × CW + 5.393 × SW
The coefficient of CW in Eq. 1 is negative which seems
erroneous because the speed is expected to increase with
the increase in carriageway width. This is acknowledged
by  the researcher also and the reason given for the oppo-
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
having contact with door or exiting occupant; and
5. lack of visibility to drivers due to parking: collisions
with pedestrians crossing the roads between parked
vehicles.
Humphreys et  al. [52] in an exhaustive study of over-
all 4800 accident records in ten cities found the collision
with parked vehicles and unparking manoeuvre related
crashes [type (1) and (3)] were the most frequent in the list
as shown in Table 5. Parking manoeuvre crashes [type (2)]
and open door collision [type (4)] were found less frequent
compared to the other two. One thing must be mentioned
here that most of the unparking manoeuvre related crashes
[type (3)] occurred particularly in the case of angle parking
where vehicles collide with other vehicles or objects dur-
ing backing into the main stream. This is further discussed
afterwards.
Lack of visibility due to parked cars [type (5)] makes
drivers unaware about on-coming pedestrian entries into
the roads thus, causing pedestrian-automobile conflicts and
even sometimes fatalities as well. This was diagnosed as
one of the major contributing factors towards the increased
rate of pedestrian fatalities in Israel and to ward off this,
Gitelman et  al. [43] advocated prohibition of street park-
ing near designated pedestrian crossings. Nevertheless, this
visibility problem is also valid from pedestrian perspec-
tive specifically, for children. An investigation [73] in Los
Table 5  Parking accident types for different road categories [52]
Type of accidents Proportion of total accidents
Two way streets (%) One way
streets
(%)
Open door 3.4 2.1
Manoeuvre to park 4.7 7.8
Stationary parked car 20.8 28.6
Manoeuvre to unpark 13.4 21.0
Total 42.3 59.5
Angeles pointed finger at visual impairments (e.g. stopped
buses, parked cars) due to which pedestrians unnoticed an
oncoming vehicle while crossing the road and became the
cause of a number of deaths on crosswalks. Great Britain
experience indicates that 3000–6700 pedestrians become
victims every year while crossing roads through the gaps
between stationary vehicles and this particular crash type
registered around 13–17% of overall pedestrian casual-
ties [74, 75]. However in general, parking related crashes
account for a significant proportion of total accidents
occurred on urban roads as given in Table 6.
All these reports hence, showed the inevitable influence
of on-street parking on road calamities. At the same time,
parking related crashes are least severe, hardly reaching to
the fatality that is documented as well.
Literature substantiated that the intensity and the man-
ner of this vulnerability may differ depending upon the type
of parking. In few cases, the angle parking was considered
as a safer option compared to the other parking types. Actu-
ally, the belief was that the cars parked at a certain angle
with the carriageway generate more friction and thus, pre-
vent motorists from driving fast [4]. Edwards [70] was also
in favour of angle type and provided instances of some low
volume roads that were functioning satisfactorily adapting
the angle parking with low crash rates. In addition, angle
parking can be more effective in increasing the area of the
buffer zone between the pedestrians and the vehicular traf-
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
records available as well standing against the provision of
angle parking on urban roads.
A telephone survey [80] conducted with district traf-
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
from their experiences, they were unwilling to compro-
mise it by allowing angle parking. Box [81] gave exam-
ples of several case studies where ravaging effect of angle
parking were clearly recognised and thereby suggested
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
this regard reported by McCoy et  al. [76] exhibited the
potential of angle parking in contributing towards the
road crash proximity. On-street angle parking appeared as
destructive as associating nearly double crash rate com-
pared to the parallel whenever it was painted and even
much more ahead of that for unpainted parking spaces
(Table 7).
Weant and Levinson [66] mentioned four definite
problems that are associated with the angle parking: (a)
requirement of more manoeuvring space, (b) inadequate
visibility while backing into the traffic, (c) stopping of
oncoming vehicles for the vehicle leaving angle park-
ing space and (d) slower proceeding of vehicles to find
a vacant parking space. Furthermore, few case studies
were presented as well where transformation of on-street
parking fashion from the angle to the parallel, had led
to successful reduction in the accidents rate up to 63%
(Table 8).
Inadequate visibility while backing into the traffic can
be the most dangerous phenomenon in the list since some
studies [7, 82] found that 50–75% all parking related
crashes took place where vehicles backing from an angu-
lar parking space had collided with the moving vehicles.
Pigman and Jones [80] observed that “a driver attempt-
ing to back from angle parking space is often placed
in the position of having to back blindly into the traffic
stream and are at the mercy of approaching vehicles to
provide right-of-way or offer a gap for the backing vehi-
cle”. In this regard, parallel parking is quite safer as back-
ing manoeuvre is least required. Thus, “where parking is
permitted, parallel parking is desirable. Angle parking
is inconsistent with the safe and efficient use of the lim-
ited space available for travel on major roadways, and its
application should be minimized” [17].
Table 8  Accident reductions due to the change in parking pattern
from angle to parallel [66]
Study location and date Accident
reduction
(%)
Minnesota city (1947) 41
Wichita (1950) 63
Utah (1966) 57
Grand Rapids, MI (1967) 19
Kansas City, MO (1967) 50
Presence of on-street parking also conveys an adverse
impact on the safety particularly for the child pedestri-
ans because of their limited ability to discern an oncom-
ing vehicle added to deficit in visibility due to parked
cars. A volume of studies [83–89] indicate that the child
injury on urban roads might have a considerable associa-
tion with the on-street parking. However being a subjective
term, ‘high’ could not spot how much amount of parking
density one should consider beyond which safety can be
hampered. According to Mueller et al. [90], the street with
more than 50% of curb side occupied by parked cars, can
have an increased risk to child pedestrians. Carsten et  al.
[91] interviewed the children who recently had got involved
in street crashes. Nearly 73% of children told that they
could not see the oncoming vehicle as they were masked
by the stationary cars. As per 3  years (1988–1990) police
reports, a record proportion, 69% of all mid-block pedes-
trian casualties in Long Beach area, Los Angeles occurred
where child pedestrians crossing the streets, became vic-
tims [71]. Remarkably, more than the half of these crashes
happened when children were darting out between parked
cars. Annual road casualty reports of Great Britain [74,
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
through traffic, are children aged below 15  years (Fig.  4).
In spite of a gradual decrease in the percentage of overall
child pedestrians’ injury that has been noticed over the
years, still today yearly around 1000 children, more than
50% of all age groups, become victims there while cross-
ing the streets between parked cars. All of these statistics
thus ensure the negative impact of on-street parking specifi-
cally on the safety of child pedestrians. From the driver’s
perspective, Gattis [35] realized that while manoeuvring
through a narrow road bordered by parked cars, the driver
has to pay an extra attention to control vehicle’s position
and thereby, other marginal activities (like children dart
outs) are neglected to some extent. Going further to road
wise severity, Christie et al. [92] noticed that the majority
of these parking related crashes had taken place on resi-
dential streets near children’s play area due to the lack of
proper supervision. In contrast, Rivara [93] found most
of fatal child injuries involving parked cars reported from
busy arterials or major streets as high speed has little for-
giveness on such dart outs. Therefore in absence of suffi-
cient documentations, it is difficult to deduce what street
categories are more vulnerable towards child pedestrians
when street parking exists. But overall, their safety doesn’t
go with the presence of on-street parking that can be said
for sure, based on sufficient proofs.
According to Peprah et al. [2], the population culture and
attitude matter the most behind these increased crash rates.
For instance, authors pointed out the tendency of drivers to
park at the wrong side of the streets as one of the awful
cultures that accelerate crash propensity. In fact, other road
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
type, they become aware about the violations and pay extra
consciousness to avoid its ill consequences. However, the
second category of drivers who are the major share in the
stream, pay less attention on the consequences of the viola-
tions and thus, are more likely to get involved in the acci-
dents. Parking in haphazard manner is also a very poor
culture. This increases the risk of other road users, makes
the area inaccessible and demotes the aesthetic value of the
road as well [94].
All these studies point at the significant fraction of urban
street casualties that are happening everyday only due to the
presence of on-street parking. Although most of these col-
lisions are far away from the fatality, but instigate a higher
degree of property damage. In a great number of occasions,
it takes place either by sticking to other vehicles while
backing into the main stream from the parking space or due
to pedestrian dart outs. Moreover, leaving few exceptional
cases, angle parking was thoroughly found more risky
compared to the parallel due to its hazardous unparking
manoeuvre. Also, on-street parking obstructs the discern-
ibility of the child pedestrian about an oncoming vehicle
and thus, triggers a high rate of child injuries. Therefore,
these heaps of substances that are revised in this section,
are enough to express the safety outlooks of on-street park-
ing on urban roads. However, as it may be observed that the
majority of these studies discussed here, are carried out in
developed country’s context. For under developed or devel-
oping countries, road injuries are massively under reported
and that is why crash records may not give the real safety
scenario which could be harsher than evidenced.
Transp. in Dev. Econ. (2017) 3:10 Page 11 of 14  10
On‑Street Parking: Safety Provider or Disruptor?
The above discussion indicates that the on-street park-
ing has some prominent positive and negative influences
respectively on the economy and the capacity of roads.
However coming to the safety consideration, picture is
less clear since ample volume of literature find this influ-
ence positive and there are significant evidences as well
going against it. Now to culminate in the discussions,
query comes instinctively ‘Does on-street parking go well
for safety, or not?’ Specifically, research outcomes of
Marshall et  al. [9] can be the answer in this regard. The
authors observed that our concerned ‘influence’ varies
depending upon the road environments: high speed or low
speed. 6  years’ (1998–2003) accident reports were stud-
ied separately for the high speed (FFS ranging from 35 to
40 mph) and also for the low speed roads (FFS <35 mph).
It was detected that for high speed streets, no doubt, park-
ing increases the crash rate entirely and even for individual
crash type (Table 9). But in the case of low speed streets,
although the overall crash rate is slightly higher for park-
ing condition, but serious crashes were noticeably fewer
compared to the without parking condition. In the presence
of parked cars, fatal and severe type accidents account for
only 11.1 crash rate before 28.0 at no parking condition.
The above result cannot be unique as few other studies
[82] also had similar experiences that most of the parking
related crashes take place on major urban roads. Therefore,
on-street parking can contribute towards the safety in low
speed environment while it is strictly unsafe in high speed.
Concluding Remarks
The present paper has highlighted the issues regarding the
effects of on-street parking on urban roads. On-street park-
ing has some natural contributions towards the economy
and the road users’ safety. But these are of course, quid pro
quos as on-street parking has some negative effects too.
It is to be noted that the effects of on-street parking vary
depending upon the road category. For major streets, on-
street parking is strictly unsafe. Literature indicate 93%
Table 9  Crash rates for different street types [9]
Parking condition No. of sites Total miles Crash rate/mile/site (1998–2003)
Low speed (<35 mph) Parking 13 3.06
No parking 13 2.36
High speed (35–40 mph) Parking 5 1.45
No parking 24 5.12
a
 PDO property damage only
more crashes take place on major streets only due to the
presence of on-street parking [9]. Therefore, the removal
of on-street parking would be justifiable at least for major
streets as negative trade-offs definitely outweigh its bene-
fits. Like Box [17] said; “Curb parking represents a poten-
tially hazardous and congestion causing use of public road
space. It should be restricted wherever practical especially
along major roadways.”
On the other hand, in absence or inadequacy of off-
street parking spaces, parking can be allowed on minor
streets where less volume of traffic run at a lower speed.
Frequency of parking related crashes is significantly less
for undivided minor streets [52]. In fact, the absence of
on-street parking sometimes exposes the pedestrians and
increases the crash frequency (up to 11%) specifically on
minor streets [19]. There is a very less chance of crashes to
reach its severity on minor streets as well [9]. Additionally,
sometimes minor streets become more than just a facility
for through traffic, rather a centre of business and cultural
activities. Provision of on-street parking in that case, may
serve commuters’ as well as merchants’ benefits.
When allowed, on-street parking should be parallel, not
angled, because later is hazardous in all respects. Angle
parking is associated with higher crash rate due to its prob-
lematic manoeuvre. As per the crash records, angle parking
instigates more than double crashes per unit distance com-
pared to parallel parking [17]. In addition, angle parking
causes a greater reduction in the road capacity as well [56].
Hence, there is no point to consider angle on-street parking
and it should be a thing of the past.
On-street parking must be prohibited near some specific
locations like designated pedestrian crossing, intersection,
etc. so that both the driver and the pedestrian could get an
obstruction free view while driving and crossing the roads
respectively. When the posted speed limit is 50  km/h or
less, on-street parking should be restricted up to 10 m from
the designated pedestrian crossing or signal controlled
intersection [95]. In the case of a roundabout or uncon-
trolled intersection, on-street parking should be set back
23 m or more from the yield line. On-street parking should
also be banned near school and playing area considering
the child’s safety.
Fatal Severe Minor PDOa All
0 (0%) 11.1 (3.8%) 47.7 (16.5%) 231.1 (79.7%) 289.9 (100%)
0 (0%) 28.0 (10.4%) 48.3 (18.0%) 192.0 (71.6%) 268.2 (100%)
0.7 (0.2%) 29.0 (8.5%) 89.7 (26.2%) 222.8 (65.1%) 342.1 (100%)
0.2 (0.1%) 17.2 (9.7%) 44.7 (25.3%) 114.8 (64.9%) 177.0 (100%)
13
 10   Page 12 of 14
On lower categories of road, on-street parking may
have a good association with the street-vending activi-
ties. A higher density of parking may attract more street-
vendors. The increased number of street vendors and its
related activities yield an extra friction to through vehicles
and hence result in an additional reduction in the capacity
of the road. While a few research on the effects of street-
vending activities on operating characteristics of the road
is available [96], researches focusing on the influence of
on-street parking on the extent of street vending activities
are not found in literature. Therefore, it can be addressed in
future studies.
On-street parking problems are more serious in devel-
oping countries although limited research has been con-
ducted so far in their context. As a result, urban transpor-
tation planners in India and other developing nations are
facing difficulties in designing the roads due to the absence
of proper capacity guideline that would also consider the
influence of parking. There have been a few attempts to
assess the influence of on-street parking on capacity, but its
proper quantification is missing, which is more important
for the transportation planners. The present study highlights
these grey areas and further investigations in developing
countries are required to arrive at a precise quantification
of this influence by means of developing some models or
adjustment factors.
Acknowledgements  SB acknowledges the support of Ministry of
Human Resource Development (MHRD), Govt. of India.
References
1. Marsden G (2006) The evidence base for parking poli-
cies—a review. Transp Policy 13:447–457. doi:10.1016/j.
tranpol.2006.05.009
2. Peprah C, Oduro CY, Ocloo KA (2014) On-street parking and
pedestrian safety in the kumasi metropolis: issues of culture and
attitude. Dev Ctry Stud 4:85–95
3. Chiguma MLM (2007) Analysis of side friction impact on urban
road links; case study Dar-es-salaam. Royal Institute of Technol-
ogy Stockholm, Sweden
4. Bulactial A, Dizon F, Garcia MW et  al (2013) Comparison of
on-street parking management in Ermita-Malate Manila and
Makati central business district. Proc East Asia Soc Transp Stud
9 Impact of shopping centre attributes on the destination prefer-
5. Manville M, Shoup D, Bacon F (2005) Parking, people, and cit-
ies. J Urban Plan Dev ASCE 131:233–245
6. Ison S, Rye T (2006) Parking. Transp Policy 13:445–446.
doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2006.05.001
7. Cullinane B, Smith D, Green P (2004) Where, when, and how
well people park: a phone survey and field measurements.
UMTRI Rep 2004:18
8. Shoup DC (2006) Cruising for parking. Transp Policy 13:479–
486. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2006.05.005
9. Marshall W, Garrick N, Hansen G (2008) Reassessing on-street
parking. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2046:45–52.
doi:10.3141/2046-06
13
Transp. in Dev. Econ. (2017) 3:10
10. Spiliopoulou C, Antoniou C (2012) Analysis of illegal parking
behavior in Greece. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 48:1622–1631.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1137
11. Adiv A, Wang W (1987) On-Street Parking Meter Behav-
ior. Center for TransitUniversity of Michigan Transportation
Research Institute, Springfield
12. Meyer MD, McShane M (1983) Parking policy and downtown
economic development. J Urban Plan Dev ASCE 109:27–43.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(1983)109:1(27))
13. Yousif S, Purnawan (2004) Traffic operations at on-street
parking facilities. Proc Inst Civ Eng Transp 157:189–194.
doi:10.1680/tran.2004.157.3.189
14. Sykes P, De Falco J, Bradley R et  al (2010) Planning urban
car park provision using microsimulation. Traffic Eng Control
51:103–107
15. Rudjanakanoknad J (2010) Analysis of factors affecting street
bottleneck capacity through oblique cumulative plots. J East
Asia Soc Transp Stud 8:1621–1631
16. Chen J, Li Z, Jiang H et  al (2017) Simulating the impacts of
on-street vehicle parking on traffic operations on urban streets
using cellular automation. Phys A Stat Mech Appl 468:880–
891. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2016.11.060
17. Box PC (2004) Curb-parking problems: overview. J Transp
Eng ASCE 130:1–5
18. Cao Y, Yang ZZ, Zuo ZY (2017) The effect of curb parking on
road capacity and traffic safety. Eur Transp Res Rev 9(4):1–10.
doi:10.1007/s12544-016-0219-3
19. Dumbaugh E, Gattis JL (2005) Safe streets, livable streets. J
Am Plan Assoc 71:283–300. doi:10.1080/01944360508976699
20. El-din RMMM (2015) The streets in a livable city 2. compre-
hensive approach to livable streets planning. Int Trans J Eng
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
22. Box PC (2000) Curb Parking Findings Revisited. TRB Circ
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.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-5871.2009.00622.x
24. Reilly WJ (1931) The laws of retail gravitation. Knickerbocker,
New York
25. Christaller W (1933) Central places in Southern Germany.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
26. Huff DL (1963) A probabilistic analysis of shopping centre
trade areas. Land Econ 39:81–90
27. Recker WW, Kostyniuk LP (1978) Factors influencing destina-
tion choice for the urban grocery shopping trip. Transportation
(Amst) 7:19–33.
28. McCarthy PS (1980) A study of the importance of general-
ized attributes in shopping choice behaviour. Environ Plan A
12:1269–1286
29. Shobeirinejad M, Smart JCR, Sipe N, Burke M (2013) The
ences of trip makers in Brisbane. State Aust. Cities Conf
30. Innes J, Ircha M, Badoe D (1990) Factors affecting automo-
bile shopping trip destinations. J Urban Plan Dev ASCE
116:126–136
31. Technical Committee on Transport (2005) Parking policies
and the effects on economy and mobility: Report on cost action
342. Dutch Ministry of Transport
32. Timmermans H, Rob VH, Hans W (1982) The identifica-
tion of factors influencing destination choice: an application
of the repertory grid methodology. Transportation (Amst)
11:189–203
Transp. in Dev. Econ. (2017) 3:10 Page 13 of 14  10
33. De Cerreño A (2004) Dynamics of on-street parking in large
central cities. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1898:130–
137. doi:10.3141/1898-16
34. Burden D (1999) Street design guidelines for healthy neighbor-
hoods. In: Urban Str. Symp. Symp. Conf. Proceedings, Dallas,
Texas. pp 1–15
35. Gattis JL (2000) Urban Street Cross Section and Speed Issues.
TRB Circ E-C019 Urban Str Symp 1–17
36. Gårder P, Ivan JN, Du J (2002) Traffic Calming of State High-
ways: Application New England. Technical Report, Project No.
UCNR13-5, New England University Transportation Center,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
37. Ewing R (1994) Residential street design: do the British and
Australians know something Americans do not? Transp. Res.
Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1455
38. Duany A (1990) Suburban sprawl or livable neighborhood. Neo-
Traditional T. Planning, Am. Inst. Certif. Planners
39. Zein S, Geddes E, Hemsing S, Johnson M (1997) Safety benefits
of traffic calming. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1578:3–
10. doi:10.3141/1578-01
40. Lerner-lam E, Celniker SR, Halbert GW et al (1992) Neo-tradi-
tional neighborhood design and lis implications for traffic engi-
neering. ITE J 62:17–25
41. Szplett D, Sale L (1997) Some challenges in developing neotra-
ditional neighborhood designs. ITE J 67:42–46
42. Ossenbruggen PJ, Pendharkar J, Ivan J (2001) Roadway safety in
rural and small urbanized areas. Accid Anal Prev 33:485–498.
doi:10.1016/S0001-4575(00)00062-2
43. Gitelman V, Balasha D, Carmel R et  al (2012) Characteriza-
tion of pedestrian accidents and an examination of infrastructure
measures to improve pedestrian safety in Israel. Accid Anal Prev
44:63–73. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2010.11.017
44. Jensen SU, Rosenkilde C, Jensen N (2007) Road safety and per-
ceived risk of cycle facilities in Copenhagen. Trafites Copenha-
gen, Denmark 1–9
45. Edquist J, Rudin-Brown CM, Lenné MG (2012) The effects of
on-street parking and road environment visual complexity on
travel speed and reaction time. Accid Anal Prev 45:759–765.
doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.10.001
46. Chiguma MLM, Bang K (2007) Impact of individual side fric-
tion factors on free-flow speed: case study on urban road links in
Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania. 86th Annu. Meet. Transp. Res. Board
(CD-ROM), Natl. Acad. Washingt. D.C.
47. Kladeftiras M, Antoniou C (2013) Simulation-based assess-
ment of double-parking impacts on traffic and environmental
conditions. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2390:121–130.
doi:10.3141/2390-13
48. Reddy IR, Rao SN, Rao CR (2008) Modelling and evaluation
patterns on the impact of on-street parking in reference to traffic
mobility. J Indian Roads Congr 69:101–109
49. Munawar A (2011) Speed and capacity for urban roads, Indone-
sian experience. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 16:382–387
50. Charlton SG, Baas PH (2006) Speed change management for
New Zealand roads
51. Lim MA, Hallare EL, Briones JG (2012) Modeling the impact of
on-street parking. 5th ATRANS Symp. Bangkok, Thail
52. Humphreys JB, Box PC, Sullivan TD, Wheeler DJ (1978) Safety
aspects of curb parking. Report No. FHWA-RD-79-76, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington D.C
53. Ivan JN, Garrick NW, Hanson G (2009) designing roads that
guide drivers to choose safer speeds. Report No. JHR-09-321,
Connecticut Transportation Institute, University of Connecticut,
Storrs, Connecticut
54. Aronsson KFM (2006) Speed characteristics of urban streets
based on driver behaviour studies and simulation. Royal Institute
of Technology Stockholm
55. Wang J, Dixon KK, Li H, Hunter M (2006) Operating speed
models for low speed urban environment based on in-vehicle
GPS data. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1961
56. Elliot MA, McColl VA, Kennedy JV (2003) Road design meas-
ures to reduce drivers’ speed via “psychological” processes: a lit-
erature review. Report No. TRL564, Transport Research Labora-
tory, Crowthorne, Berkshire, UK
57. Praburam G, Koorey G (2015) Effect of on-street parking on traf-
fic speeds. IPENZ Transp. Gr. Conf. Christchurch
58. Salini S, George S, Ashalatha R (2016) Effect of side frictions
on traffic characteristics of urban arterials. Transp Res Procedia
17:636–643. doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2016.11.118
59. Reihani SH, Naseri A, Sorkhabi RVP, Zehforoush K (2013)
Modelling the impact of on-street parking on main parameters
on vehicular traffic. Life Sci J 10:1689–1699. doi:10.1017/
CBO9781107415324.004
60. Yusuf IT (2010) The factors for free flow speed on urban arteri-
als—empirical evidences from Nigeria. J Am Sci 6:1487–1497.
doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
61. Daisa JM, Peers JB (1997) Narrow residential streets: do they
really slow down speeds? In: ITE Annu. Meet. Compend,
pp 546–551
62. Fadairo G (2013) Traffic congestion in Akure, Ondo State, Nige-
ria: using Federal University of Technology Akure Road as a
case study. Int J Arts Commer 2:67–76
63. Guo H, Wang W, Guo W (2012) Micro-simulation study on
the effect of on-street parking on vehicular flow. 15th Int IEEE
Conf Intell Transp Syst Anchorage, Alaska, USA 1840–1845.
doi:10.1109/ITSC.2012.6338713
64. Jakle J, Sculle K (2004) Lots of parking. University of Virginia
Press, Charlottesville
65. AASHTO (1994) A policy on geometric design of highways and
streets. American Association of State Highway and Transporta-
tion Officials, Washington D.C
66. Weant RA, Levinson HS (1990) Parking. Eno Foundation for
Transportation
67. Wijayaratna S (2015) Impacts of on-street parking on road
capacity. In: Australas. Transp. Res. Forum 2015. pp 1–15
68. Ministry of Transport (1965) Urban traffic engineering tech-
niques. United Kingdom
69. Marshall WE, Garrick NW (2011) Does street network design
affect traffic safety? Accid Anal Prev 43:769–781. doi:10.1016/j.
aap.2010.10.024
70. Edwards JD (2002) Changing on-Street parallel parking to angle
parking. ITE J 72:28
71. Kraus FJ, Hooten GE, Brown a K et al (1996) Child pedestrian
and bicyclist injuries: results of community surveillance and a
case-control study. Inj Prev 2:212–218
72. Farnsley CP (1966) Extension of Remarks, Kentucky Represent-
ative, Charles P. Farnsley. Congr. Rec. 112
73. Loukaitou-Sideris A, Liggett R, Sung HG (2007) death on the
crosswalk: a study of pedestrian-automobile collisions in Los
Angeles. J Plan Educ Res 26:338–351. doi:10.1177/07394
56X06297008
74. Transport D for Road casualties Great Britain (2001) Through
2007. London: The Stationary Office
75. Transport D for Reported road casualties Great Britain (2008)
Through 2013. London: The Stationary Office
76. McCoy PT, Ramanujam M, Moussavi M (1990) Safety compari-
son of types of parking on urban streets in Nebraska. 69th Annu.
Meet. Transp. Res. Board, Natl. Acad. Washingt. D.C.
77. Department CP Annual report: A year in review (2011) Reports/
Annual Reports. https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/
portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical
78. Unit LRS Collisions and casualties on London’s roads (2012).
Transport for London
13
 10   Page 14 of 14
7 9. Unit LAA (1995) Annual Report 1994. London Research Centre
80. Pigman JG, Jones SS (1996) Applicability of angle parking for
a major city street. Research Report KTC-96-31, University of
Kentucky
81. Box P (2002) Angle Parking Issues Revisited, 2001. ITE J
72:36–47
82. Green P (2006) Parking crashes and parking assistance system
design: evidence from crash databases, the literature, and insur-
ance agent interviews. SAE Tech. Pap. No. 2006-01-1685
83. Roberts I, Norton R, Jackson R et al (1995) Effects of environ-
mental factors on risk of injury of child pedestrians by motor
vehicles: a case-control study. Br Med J 310:91–94
84. Martin A (2012) Factors influencing pedestrian safety†¯: A lit-
erature review. Project Report PPR241, London, TRL Limited
85. Aoki M, Moore L (1996) Kidsafe: A young pedestrian safety
study. ITE J 66:36–45
86. Agran PF, Winn DG, Anderson CL et al The role of the physi-
cal and traffic environment in child pedestrian injuries. Pediatrics
98:1096–1103
87. Petch RO, Henson RR (2000) Child road safety in the urban
environment. J Transp Geogr 8:197–211. doi:10.1016/
S0966-6923(00)00006-5
88. DiMaggio C, Durkin M (2002) Child pedestrian injury in an
urban setting: descriptive epidemiology. Acad Emerg Med
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
Transp. in Dev. Econ. (2017) 3:10
J Lifestyle Med 6:292–302. doi:10.1016/j.micinf.2011.07.011.
Innate
90. Mueller B, Rivara F, Shyh-Mine L, Weiss N (1990) Environmen-
tal factors and the risk for childhood pedestrian-motor vehicle
collision occurrence. Am J Epidemiol 132:550–560
91. Carsten O, Tight M, Southwell M, Plows B (1989) Urban
accidents: Why do they happen? AA Found. Road Saf. Res.
Basingstoke
92. Christie N, Ward H, Kimberlee R et  al (2007) Understand-
ing high traffic injury risks for children in low socioeconomic
areas: a qualitative study of parents’ views. Inj Prev 13:394–397.
doi:10.1136/ip.2007.016659
93. Rivara FP (1990) Child pedestrian injuries in the United States:
Current status of the problem, potential interventions, and future
research needs. Am J Dis Child 144:692–696
94. Asiyanbola R a., Akinpelu AA (2012) The challenges of on-
street parking in Nigerian Cities’ transportation routes. Int J Dev
Sustain 1:476–489
95. Department of Transportation (2010) Wisconsin Guide to Pedes-
trian Best Practices. State of Wisconsin
96. Hidayati N, Liu R, Montgomery F (2012) The impact of
school safety zone and roadside activities on speed behaviour:
the Indonesian case. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 54:1339–1349.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.848