AN ANALYSIS OF THE PARKING SITUATION IN

THE DOWNTOWN AREA OF WEST BERLIN

Yvo M. I. DIRKKX and L. PETER JENNERCREN

International Institute of Management, Griegstrasse 5.
1 Berlin 33. West Germany

Abstract-The parking situation in the Zoo district of West Berlin is considered. The demand for parkmg
places in diflcrent blocks and of different parking time classes is assigned to the supply of existing facilities
(parkhouses. public parklng lots. ctc) in such a manner that an expression for the societal costs associated
with the parking system is mmimized. Societal costs include among other things walking costs. when vehi-
clcs are assigned to blocks other than the final destination ones. Supply and demand are measured in
terms of physical parking places. not in terms of automobiles or trips. The minimization is carried out
in an L.P. model of the transportation type. This analysis gives an overview of what an optimal utiliza-
tion of existing parking facilities would look like. For example how far would drivers have to walk from
their vehicles to reach their final destinations? Where would there be empty places on the streets? The
paper concludes with some recommendations for a more effective parking system in downtown West Ber-
lin.

I. IKTRODLCTIOU
The parking problem is an important one in modern
large cities. One part of the problem is to insure that
existing parking facilities arc utilized as efficiently as
possible. This paper considers the following question:
If an optimal utilization of existing parking facili-
tics were possible. what would it look like? The
demand for parking places in different blocks and of
different parking time classes is assigned to existing
facilities (parkhouses. public parking lots. etc) in such
a manner that an expression for the societal costs asso-
ciated with the parking system is minimized. The mini-
mization is carried out in an L.P. model. The solution
gives answers to some different questions. such as:
How far do drivers have to walk b! foot from their
vehicles to reach their final destinations? Where are
there empty parking places on the street! What would
a theoretically correct parking fee structure look like?
It should be pointed out that thr analysis in this
paper is a limited and short-run one: How should
existing facilities be utilized to satisfy an existing
demand for parking places? In other words. long-run
considerations. such as where and when to construct
new parkhouses. are not discussed. It should be stated
here that the idea of assigning demand for parking
places to facilities by wan of linear programming is not
a new one [cf. for example. Trowhridge (196X)].
Browne and Lambc (1972) is an earlier investigation
similar to this one (for the tit) of Vancouver. Canada).
although the scope of their analysis is more limited
than the one in this paper. In particular. Brown and
I
Lambe use the same L.P. model as this paper. but they
are mainly interested in predicting parking fees in the
central business district. In contrast. this paper con-
siders a range of additional questions. a few of which
were just mentioned above.
The Zoo district is the central business and shopping
district of West Berlin consisting of 32 blocks and is
considered to be a well-defined and separate entity for
planning purposes by the city administration. It in-
cludes, for example. the major department stores and
the central railway station of West Berlin. See Fig. 1
for a map.
Section II states the theoretical model employed in
this paper. Section III gives the data used in the analy-
sis. Section IV gives results. The concluding Section V
contains some recommendations for a more efficient
parking system in downtown West Berlin.
II. THE MATHEMATICAL MODEL
There is given a city district consisting of blocks i =
I I. In every block there is a daily demand D,, for
parking places of class k = 1. . . K. where each class k
is a time length (c-1. 1-2 hr. etc). Demand is measured
in physical parking places, not in vehicles or in trips.
The statement there is a demand D, in block i for
parking places of class k is to be understood to mean
that somewhere Di, places must be reserved for vehi-
cles whose drivers and passengers have their final des-
tination in block i. It is not excluded that they ma}
have to park in some other block and hence proceed
 YLO M. I. DIKICIX and L. Ptznx J~NN~RGREN

Fig. 1. Map of Zoo district

by foot to block i. It is also not excluded that one place to (P) have the desirable integrality property. The
is used for several trips during 1 day. dual problem is:
In every block j = 1 I there are also supplies S,,.
(D) Maximize
111= 1 M. of parking facilities. 111indexes the type of
facility (for example. parkhouses). It is assumed that
i.A ,.I
XDi, < I&Y,, (this assumption holds for downtown
West Berlin). The variable .Y~~,~,,, denotes the amount of subject to:
the demand Di, that is covered by the supply S,,. With
l,A- t.,ru5 (,A.,,,, for all i, k, j, rn
the assignment (i, k) to (j, 1~) a cost cik.+,, is associated.
The eih.,m express societal costs associated with the I,,,, _> 0 (j = I I. III = 1 M).
parking system. How they are composed will be The dual variables r,,,, can be used to construct a
explained later. but they include among other things theoretical parking fee structure. Dhe theoretical
walking costs (when the driver and passengers must properties of the dual variables are well-known; cf. for
proceed by foot from their car to their final destina- instance. Dantzig (1963).]
tion). It will also be seen later that certain assignments
are not feasible because of institutional restrictions. In 111.DATA
such cases the relevant cik,,,,, are set very large.
The parking system is studied here for the daytime,
One obtains the following optimization problem:
i.e. between X.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. As already indi-
(P) Minimize catcd. the Zoo district consists of 32 blocks. However,
the numbering of the blocks used here is not the offi-
,,; .,,, (il.I.Yli.,, cial one. It is again emphasized that supply and
demand are measured in physical parking places.
subject to: With respect to the demand for parking places, the
(i= l...I, !i= l...K). following demand classes k are considered:
Y
i -\,A.,rli= D,,
101
Short Middle Long
_Y- \,A_,,,,I S ,,,, (.j = 1 . ..I. 111
= I ,111) parkers parkers parkers
i.!. /i=l kc2 Ii=3 k=4
.x,~,,,,,2 0 for all i, /~,.i.m. Parking duration in hours
@I l-2 323 3
The parking model (P) can be solved by the trans-
portationalgorithm. It isofcourse knob\ II that solutions Demand data are given in Table I.
 Parking analysis of downrown Berlin

Table I. Demand for parking places

Block Total demand Ii= I k=3 !i=4

- -
I 203 70 30 30 123
, 39 iY 59 237
; 959
3Y3 96 I43 144 575
4 55 6 x 8 33
5 79x 80 120 I20 47x
6 374 37 56 56 225
7 339 35 52 57 2 10
x 31X 32 4x 48 190
9 131 I3 20 20 7x
I0 I46 I5 22 22 87
II 43 4 6 6 26
12 II? II 17 I7 68
I? 14 I 2 , 9
14 274 27 3; 4; I65
I5 I 63 I6 24 4 99
I6 IX4 IX 28 28 II0
I7 571 57 86 86 341
IX 979 98 147 I47 587
I9 3x1 3x 57 57 230
20 434 43 65 65 261
21 x19 81 I23 I23 491
22 198 20 30 30 II8
23 1205 11 I81 IXI 72
24 I 04 IO I6 I6 62
5 3x4 3x 58 58 230
26 304 30 46 46 183
27 I9 2 3 3 II
38 54 5 8 8 33
29 493 49 74 74 296
30 625 63 94 94 374
31 341 44 66 66 265
32 I.131 133 700 200 798

Total 12860 12x3 1931 1931 7715

Note: Demand is measured in physical parking places.

The data were derived as follows: the West Berlin Club ADAC. of the parking situation in major West-
city government has made an estimate of the total German cities. it is reported that in these cities the
demand (i.e. for all k taken together) in each block in total amount of parking places is utilized to about 60
1980. This estimate was based on demographic. econo- per cent by long parkers (more than 3 hr), to about 30
mic and other considerations. That estimate \+xs for per cent by middle parkers (between 1 and 3 hr) and
the purpose of this paper deflated to a 197.1 level using to about IO per cent by short parkers (less than I hr).
a 5 per cent annual growth factor. The total demand For the purposes of this study the middle parkers
in each block was then split into the classes k = I. 2. demand category was split evenly over demand classes
3. 4 as follows: X = 2 and k = 3. This is of course an arbitrary
assumption. The total number of trips taken by short
k=l /i=2 I, = 3 li=4
parkers is obviously larger than the number of trips
1,,of total demand
taken by long parkers. The point to be stressed here is
IO 15 15 60
that a single parking place can be utilized by many
This method of splitting total demand into classes short parkers during 1 day but by relatively few middle
may seem somewhat arbitrary. but it is supported by and long parkers. This is the rationale behind the I&
investigations undertaken by the West Berlin city I5- I5 60 per cent division.
government. Also. in a survey carried out by Hedlcr On the supply side. the number of available parking
and Linde (1977) of the West-German Automobile places is known by physical counting. For the pur-
4 Yvo M. I. DIRICKX and L. PETER JENNERGR~N

Table 2. Supply of parking places

Total
Block SUPPlY ,,t = I ,,I = 2 ,I, = 3 ,,I = 4 01 = 5 ,?I = 6 W= 7
- -
I 406 235 26 43 5 97
2 1162 113 13 683 238 115
3 256 173 19 64
4 226 16 8 40 4 9X
5 523 395 44 31 3 50
6 299 155 17 I6 1 IO)
7 644 67 8 64 7 464 3-l
X 560 254 28 -I,,
___ 56
9 6 5
10 104 67 8 22 3 4
II 103 45 5 13 1 39
12 54 38 4 12
13 104 36 4 40 4 20
14 686 78 9 Xl 9 356 153
15 305 49 6 39 4 150 57
16 231 162 18 51
17 822 94 IO 632 50 36
18 353 188 21 61 7 76
19 191 102 11 IO I 67
20 284 81 9 31 4 159
I 1754 45 5 56 6 1535 107
22 435 85 9 I24 14 I38 65
23 982 21 2 12 I 849 97
24 142 25 3 114
25 609 45 5 412 137
26 258 93 10 52 97
27 II7 44 5 68
28 108 30 3 22 50
29 628 I18 13 476 21
30 290 X4 06
31 378 65 238 68
32 1102 58 6 36 91 I 87

Total 14122 3042 337 793 8X 5818 1630 2414

Note: Supply is measured in physical parking places.

poses of this paper, the following facility types ~1 = designated vehicles and are not available to the general
1 . . .7 are distinguished: public. There may. however. be a few places for
visitors. For that reason. the supply of places in court-
VI = I Courtyards for long parkers
yards and garages was broken down into cate-
111= 2 Courtyards for all parkers
gories: 90 per cent was reserved for long parkers (777 =
111= 3 Garages for long parkers
I and 177= 3). since specifically designated vehicles are
HI = 4 Garages for all parkers
parked there all day. The remaining 10 per cent (177 = 2
177= 5 Parkhouses
and 177= 4) are considered freely available to all
777= 6 Public parking lots
demand classes (for example, for use by visitors).
177= 7 On the street
The places on the street (777 = 7) include some places
An explanation of the first four categories is called withrestrictionsonthedurationoftimconcisallowed to
for. Courtyards and garages are private facilities which park (enforced with parking meters or parking dials).?
are mainly reserved for employees or delivery trucks of These restrictions are not incorporated in the park-
specific businesses. Most of the places in courtyards ing model. since they may be waived in the short run
and garages are hence occupied daily by specificall) and hence need not be taken as givens. Indeed, the
analysis undertaken here will indicate whether or not
? A parking dial is a device that is exposed through the
these restrictions are reasonable ones.
windshleld. The driver sets the dial on the time that he
arrived to the parking place. The police can then check that The supply of various parking facilities in different
the vehicle has not been parked longer than allowed. blocks is given in Table 2.
 Turning next to the costs cik,_,. these arc measured These assumptions with respect to the average
in DM (West-German Marks) and arc the sum of four number of persons in a vehicle are supported by data
clemrnts: collected by the West Berlin city Government.
(a) walking costs; Maintenance costs for parkhouses were determined
(b) maintcnancc costs for parking facilities: on the basis of discussions with parkhouse operators.
(c) opportunity costs: and Annual costs for salaries. electricity. telephone etc.
(d) infeasibility costs. were divided by 365 to arrive at a 24-h? cost. One
Walking costs arc detcrmincd in accordance with third of this 24-h? cost was assigned to the night
the formuli~: hours. the remaining two thirds to the hours 8.00 a.m.-
6.00p.m.t The relevant amount was thus found to be
17x 0.15 x (distance Ill IOU m between
0.46 DM!day and place. Note that construction costs
blocks i and j) x ((lowthrough factor) x
and real estate value are not included here. The park-
(average number of persons in vehicle).
houses have been built and the costs for real estate and
The 2 at the beginning of the formula arisrs since construction cannot be affected in the short run-they
one walks twice. i.c. back and forth. The cost incurred are sunk. Similarly. maintenance costs for garages were
through time loss when walking is apparently set at set to 0.13 DMiday and place. Maintenance costs for
0.15 DMI 100 m. Assuming a man walks 5 kmhr. that courtyards and public parking lots were set to
would mean an hourly cost of 7.50 DM. It may be 0.04 DM/day and place. Maintenance costs for places
montioned that Lambc (1969). using revealed prefer- on the street were set to 0.02DMjday and place (a
cncc theory. derived the figure 60.16~1000 ft (1000 ft = place on the street requires somewhat less than half the
305 m: JO.16 = 0.45 DM). The distances were mea- amount of space of a place in a public parking lot). The
sured along the streets (i.e. not across blocks) on a map maintenance costs for parking places in public parking
similar to the one in Fig. I. although of a larger scale. lots and on the street were estimated from West Berlin
For i = j. Lo. when the demand for parking place with city statistics. In all of these cases. the cost figures were
a final destination in block i is assigned to a facility in arrived at by taking 2/3 of a computed 24-h? cost.
that block. the walking distance was set to 50m. To Opportunity costs are applicable to parking places
conserve space the distance table is not reproduced in public parking lots and on the street and purport to
here. reflect the fact that society foregoes certain alternatives
The tlowthrough factor. or average number of trips. by allowing parking in these facilities. A public parking
place. reflects the fact that a given place may be used lot could be sold or developed for alternative purposes.
more than once during the period X.OOa.m.-6.00p.m. The real estate value of a m2 was estimated at
How many times depends on whether the place is used 2000 DM in downtown West Berlin. Taking an interest
for short. middle or long parkers. The following rateof loper cent, dividing by 365 to arrive at a 24-h?
flowthrough factors were used: figure, multiplying by 213 for the time period 8.00 a.m.-
I,=1 k=:! k=! !i=4 6.00p.m. and multiplying by 27 (which is the number
Flowthrough factor of m2 needed for one place in a public parking lot) one
8 4 3 I.25 arrives at an opportunity cost of 9.76 DMiday and
That is. it is assumed that a parking place utilized b> place. The opportunity cost for parking places on the
short parkers can be used on the average for eight dif- street is harder to determine. There is no market price
ferent trips during the da!. etc.+ The average numbers for street space-yet street space clearly has a value.
of persons in a vehicle were set as follo\vs: For example. it can be used to plant trees or provide
a lane for collective traffic. Also. congestion is reduced
k=l iI=2 I, = 3 k=4
if people do not park on the street. The opportunity
Average number of persons in a vehicle
cost day and place was here set to 10.00 DM/day and
I4 I4 I ,3 I.1
place. One justification for this figure is that the city
of West Berlin is obviously willing to incur the oppor-
tunity cost of 9.76 DM/day in order to provide one
place in a public parking lot (rather than close the lot
and sell it and hence force some people to park on the
street instead). Cities are also willing to incur very high
construction costs to provide places in parkhouses,
hence reducing the parking pressure on the streets.
From this type of revealed preference argument one
can infer that the opportunity cost for parking on the
6 Yvo M. 1. DIRICKX and L. PEER JENNERGRI:Y

Table 3. Assignment of demand class to facility types

Demand class /C = I (sum over ail blocks = 1283 places)

Assigned to facilities:
I,, = I ,,I = 2 w= 3 ,?I = 4 111= 5 111 = 6 11, = 7
167 32 547 79 448
(13:;) (3,,1 (43,,) (6,,) (35,,)

Demand class k = 2 (sum over all blocks = 1931 places)

Assigned to facilities:
II, = 1 n, = 2 ,,I = 3 ,,, = 4 111= 5 ill = 6 111= 7
25 I088 19 511
(& ( 1J (56,,) (1I,,) )
(27 <I

Demand class k = 3 (sum over all blocks = 1931 places)

Assigned to facilities:

,?I = I n, = 2 ,,I = 3 111= 4 11, = 5 ,,I = 6 111= 7

1156 468 256
(I& CIQ (ho,) (24Y,,) (137,)

Demand class I, = 4 (sum over all blocks = 7715 places)

Assigned to facilities:

111= 1 m= 2 m = 3 ,n = 4 171= 5 ,,I = 6 I,, = 7

3042 46 793 6 3027 491 310
(40;) (1%) (I OY)
, (39,,) (6,,) (4,)

Slack places (total in entire Zoo district = 1262)

Assigned to facilities:
,I, = I In=2 ,,I = 3 111= 4 111= 5 ,,I = 6 ,,I = 7
373 889

street from a societal point of view is fairly high. The
assumption of lO.OODM/day and place is obviously
the most crucial assumption in this whole paper. One
can of course argue that these opportunity costs force
the street side and public parking lots to be underuti-
lized in an optimal solution; this effect was considered
to be desirable from a policy point of view. The rele-
vant questions here are what demand classes are
assigned to various parking facilities, how demand and
supply can be balanced without extensive walking dis-
tance and in which blocks the slack on the supply side
appears. These points will be taken up in the next sec-
tions.
Since short and middle parkers (k = 1, 2 and 3) may
not be assigned to the facility types 1~1= 1 and 111= 3.
corresponding infeasibility costs were set large to eli-
minate the possibility of such assignments (in other
cases. infeasibility costs are zero).
IV. RESULTS
The parking model (P) was run with the data for the
West Berlin Zoo district given in Section III. To state
the solution explicitly would apparently imply repro-
ducing a 129 x 224 matrix which is not practical. In-
stead. the most interesting features of the solution will
be summarized here.
The general structure of the solution may be de-
scribed by considering the two questions: (1) To which
types of facilities do the different demand classes get
assigned? (2) How far do drivers and passengers have
to walk from the block where they are assigned to park
to their destination blocks?
Considering now the first question, the answer is
contained in Table 3.
As an example of the interpretation of Table 3. con-
sider demand class k = I (short parkers). There is a
demand for 1283 short parking places in the entire Zoo
district. One hundred and sixty-seven units of this
demand wcrc assigned to parking facilities of type 2
(courtyards for all parkers). etc. At the end of the table,
the assignment of slack places is also given. There are
1262 excess places in the Zoo district (as can also be
verified from Tables 1 and 2). The solution assigns 373
of these to public parking lots (al = 6) and 889 to the
street (1~1= 7). Looking at Table 3. it can be seen that
long parkers (demand class k = 4) first of all fill up the
reserved places in courtyards and garages. The remain-
ing demand by long parkers is assigned to parkhouses.
A rather small part of demand by long parkers is
 Parking analysis of do\lntown Berlin

Table 4. Occupant! of facility types hq demand classes

Facilit! type UE = 5 (supply summed over all blocks = MIX places)

Occuplcd h! demand clnsws:
L=I k=2 i=? L=4 Slack
547 I oxs II56 3077
(),,I ( I Y,,1 IZO,,I (2 <I)

Facillt! type 111= 6 (supply summed over all blocks = 1630 places)
Occupied h> demand classes:
I,=1 IX=? k=3 lC=4 Slack
79 219 46X 4Yl 373
(I,,) ( 1i,,) (29,,) LW,,) (3 II)

Facility thpr ~1 = 7 (supply summed over all blocks = 2414 places)

Occupied h> demand cI;~sscs:
I< = I L=2 L=3 !i=4 Slack
438 511 256 310 889
I lY,,l (I,,1 (1I,,) ( I3,,1 (36)

assigned to public parking lots and to the street. Short parking duration. the larger is the part of demand that
and middle parkers (I, = I. 2 and 3) are mainly is covered by places on the street. The reverse holds for
assigned to parkhouscs. public parking lots and to the parkhouses and public parking lots.
street. For li = I. ?. and 3. it is seen that the shorter the The fact that the excess supply of parking places is

Table 5. Assignment of demands to facilities. by blocks

Total demand Assigned to nearh! To further-aua!

in block No. blocks No. blocks No.

;. 1. 3. 2x
4. 24
5. 7. 8. 30
6. 7. II

I( 8
Y 9. I!. I7
I0 IO. 17. 3 1 21
II II
I3 I I. 12. 16
I3 I?
I4 II
IS IS. I6
16 15. I6
I7 17
IX 13. 15. 18. 19 21
1) 0 21
20 20. 2I
21 71
1 3,
23 C-31. 22. 3
2-l 4. 23
25 23. 25
26 _.
-6
27 17
2s 27. 2x
29 29
30 8. 9. IO. 13.29.30
?I ?I. 31
>2 25. i2
8 Yvo M. I. DIRICKXand L. PETEK JENNERGREN

Table 6. Assignments to some strategic parkhouses and parking lots

Parkhouse in block 2 (683 places)

Occupied by demand classes:
k=I k=2 A=3 k=4 Slack Demand m which blocks?
39 144 144 456 2. 3

Parkhouse in block 2 I ( 1535 places)

Occupied by demand classes:
k=l k=2 k=3 A=4 Slack Demand in which blocks?
105 188 1X8 1054 18. 19. 20. 21. 23. 30. 31

Parkhouse in block 32 (911 places)

Occupied b! demand classes:
k=l /q=2 Ii=3 k=4 Slack Demand in which blocks?
127 196 200 388 32

Parking lot in block 7 (464 places)

Occupied by demand classes:
k=l k=2 1,=3 k=4 Slack Demand in which blocks?
34 52 65 101 212 6. 7

Parking lot in block 25 (422 places)

Occupied by demand classes:
k=I I, = 2 /X=3 I, = 4 Slack Demand in which blocks?
I2 58 352 25. 32

assigned to public parking lots and to places on the
street is of course not surprising-it is a consequence
of the opportunity costs associated with parking in
these types of facilities.
One can turn Table 3 around and study the pattern
of occupancy of the different facility types by demand
classes. Table 4 does so for parkhouses. public parking
lots and parking places on the street.
It is seen from Table 4 that the parkhouses are to a
large extent occupied by long parkers. Public parking
lots and places on the street are filled by short and
middle parkers. Empty places are found on the street
and in public parking lots. as already stated earlier.
The general tendency exhibited in Tables 3 and 4
may be summarized as follows: long parkers tend to
get assigned 10 courtyards. garages and parkhouses.
Short and middle parkers tend to get assigned to park-
houses. public parking lots and to the street. There are
places left empty in the streets and in public parking
lots. This general tendency is an eminently reasonable
and desirable one from a societal point of view. It con-
trasts sharply with the general parking situation in
downtown West Berlin on a typical day. It is known
from tit) government studies (and Can bc verified h!
t For example. on Thursday. Deccmbcr 2. 1971 aI
1.00 p.m. the public parking lot in block 25 HIS uttliIcd I14
per cent. The parkhouse in block 32 was 31 the same time
utilized 22 per cent.
casual observation) that parkhouses are usually at
most half to two thirds full, while streets and public
parking lots are severely overcongested.t
Turning next to the question how far drivers and
passengers have to walk from the block they are
assigned to park in to their destination blocks, the
answer is contained in Table 5.
To explain the meaning of Table 5. it is seen that
total demand in block 1 (i.e. for all demand classes)
gets covered by facilities in that block, whereas. for
example. the total demand in block 3 is covered by
facilities in blocks 1, 2, 3. and 28. Walking distances
are in general short. as evidenced by the fact that
demands can usually be assigned to facilities in the
same block or in nearby blocks. There are only four
exceptions. In all four cases. some long parkers are
assigned to the very large parkhouse in block 21 and
may have to walk I km or so.
It may now be interesting to examine some details
of the solution. As stated earlier. there are 1262 empty
parking places. The solution assigns I1 I of these to the
public parking lot in block 2 and 212 to the parking
lot in block 7. There are 889 empty places on the street
in blocks I. 2, 4. 7. 14. 15. 17. 21, 22 ,- 74,- 153 27 and 28.
This is interesting since blocks 14, I7 and 21 are all
lying on West-Berlins main shopping street Kurftir-
stendamm. suggesting that the supply of street side
parking could actually be reduced on this. under pres-
ent conditions. congested street.
 Parking analysis of downtown Berlin 0

Table 7. Theoretical parkmg fees (for one day = 10 hr) classes to parking places on the street in accordance
with existing traffic regulations. The objective function
Bloch ,I, = 5 1,~= 6 ,?I = 7
value was only slightly higher in this case
I 10.0 (49326.23 DM as opposed to 49286.87 DM for the case
7 9.80 9.80 IO.02 with no restrictions on street parking). This indicates
i 14.84 that the existing restrictions on street parking are
3 IO.02 probably fairly reasonable ones.
5 15.16
6 I I.56 Theoretical parking fees can be computed by means
7 9.80 10.02 of the dual problem (D) in Section II. They are con-
8 I I.56 1 I.56 structed as follows:
9
I0 14.41 Theoretical fee:day for one place in facilit!
II IO.61 type VI. blockj = I,, + maintenance cost +
12 13.97
opportunity cost.
I? IO.45
I4 1002 IO.02 Table 7 gives computed theoretical parking fees fat
15 IO.02 IO.02 parkhouses. public parking lots and parking places on
I6 IO.61
17 9.61 9.80 IO.02 the street (courtyards and garages are not very interest-
IX 16.76 ing since they are private facilities and hence fees are
19 14.22 not applicable to them).
20 12.14 It is seen that the fees vary between around 9 and
I 8.78 IO.02
16 DM!day. In most blocks. they lie between 10 and
12 9.20 IO.02
23 IO.23 IO.23 12 DM. This would mean an hourly fee of about I
24 10.02 1.20 DM. The theoretical fee schedule m Table 7 con-
25 IO.02 I002 trasts radically with actual parking fees. At the time of
76 I@39
this study places in parkhouses cost around
27 IO.02
28 IO.02 4DM1day.t Parking meter char_ees amount to
29 IO.23 IO.23 0.20 DM/hr. i.e. 2 DM!day (10 hr). All other places are
30 13.24 13.24 free: in particular. public parking lots and places
31 I I ,05 Il.05 requiring parking dials cost nothing. The fact that
32 IO.85 I@85
most parking fees in Table 7 lie around 1It I2 DM da!
and place is obviously a reflection of the assumed
As can be seen from Table 3. only 310 long parkers opportunity costs for places in public parking lots and
are assigned to the street. These assignments all occur on the street.
in four neighbourmg blocks: 23. 29. 31 and 32. One could speculate what would happen to demand
The assignments to some strategic facilities (large if parking places were priced at ICI2 DM day. in par-
parkhouses and public parking lots) are given in Table ticular would demand not decrease? This question falls
6. outside the scope of this paper. The most interesting
The large parkhouse in block 21 apparently has a aspect of Table 7 is however not the absolute hei@t of
large catchment area. as evidenced by the fact that the theoretical parking fees but that theoretical fees are
demands pertaining to seven different blocks are rather uniform across facilities in a particular block.
assigned to that facilit). This contrasts with the existing situation where street
As already stated. the 2414 places on the street in- and public parking lot parking is free. but parkhouses
clude some places with restricted parking duration. charge fees.
There are 592 such places. of which 306 are restricted An optimal utilization of parking facilities. as
to 3 hr by means of parking dials. 90 have 2-hr meters determined by the parking model (P). is obviously an
and 196 I-hr meters. As already indicated. the parking impossibility. Yet. this section indicates what an opti-
model (P) was solved without regard to these restric- mal utilization might look like in downtown West
tions. The solution results in a total of 170 violations Berlin.
of existing restrictions on street parking. a fairly low
figure. Moreover. the parking model (P) was also run
once with the existing restrictions incorporated. i.e. by A number of assumptions were made in deriving the
restricting the assignment of the different demand data in Section III. for example as regards the break-
down of total demand in a block into demand classes.
avcragc number of persons in a vehicle. etc. These
IO Yvo M. I. DIRICKX and L. PETERJENNERGRL~
assumptions were made on the basis of common-sense
considerations and data material collected by the city
government. To make more scientifically based
assumptions would have required an inordinate
amount of additional data collection work, and even
so it is not clear that the quality of the assumptions
would have improved a great deal. Moreover. the
results in Section IV are probably quite insensitive to
variations in the assumptions.
The one important exception to this statement is. of
course. the assumed opportunity cost of lODM/day
for places on the street. Main features of the results
were earlier stated as follows: long parkers tend to get
assigned to courtyards, garages. and parkhouses. Short
and middle parkers tend to get assigned to parkhouses.
public parking lots and to the street. There are empty
places on the street and in public parking lots. These
features depend on the IO-DM opportunity cost
assumption. In fact, some other computer runs of the
parking model (P) were made for different street
opportunity costs. For a zero opportunity cost. the
results turned out precisely as one could have pre-
dicted: All available places in the streets are occupied
and all the slack materializes in the public parking lots.
This strikingly illustrates the difference between pri-
vate and social costs: individual drivers, who do not
incur the opportunity costs personally, will of course
park where it is the cheapest and most convenient. If
that is on the street. then that is where they will park.
Hence. it may be said that the assumption of a IO-
DM opportunity cost for street parking is a reasonable
once since it generates results which are reasonable
from a societal point of view. A lower opportunity cost
(for example. zero) does not generate results which are
reasonable from a societal point of view.
The analysis in this paper indicates that the parking
situation in downtown West Berlin is a fairly favorable
one: the demand for parking places can be satisfied by
existing facilities in such a manner that most drivers
and passengers do not have to walk very far by foot
from their parked vehicles to their final destinations. It
is comforting that the structure of the solution to the
parking model (P) agrees with ones intuitive notions
of an effective utilization of existing parking facilities.
However. the present actual utilization patterns can-
not be said to be effective from a societal point of view.
as evidenced by the fact that parkhouses are underuti-
lized and streets and public parking lots arc congested
by parkers, To conclude the paper. three recommenda-
tions. based on the results in Section IV. will therefore
be made.
In the first place. the present parking fees are
obviously incorrect. There is no reason why park-
houses. which are the most desirable facilities from a
societal point of view. should be the most expensive
ones to park in. It is not proposed here to adopt the
theoretical fee schedule in Table 7. The fees there are
rather high. reflecting social costs, Whether or not
parkers are to pay fees covering the social costs is a
political question and cannot be settled here. Table 7
does indicate, though. that all parking facilities in a
given block should be priced roughly the same. One
concrete proposal is to price all parking places in the
Zoo district at 0.30 DM/hr and place. enforceable. for
example. by parking meters, possibly with a somewhat
higher hourly charge in those blocks which exhibit the
highest theoretical fees in Table 7. If this should result
in deficits for some parkhouses. the city could then
subsidize parkhouse operators out of the revenue col-
lected for places in the streets and in public parking
lots. This should have the desirable effect of making
parkers more willing to park in parkhouses. In chang-
ing the fee structure one should consider the effects on
demand for parking places. Due to lack ofdata this has
been impossible here. It would seem, though. that the
proposal to price all the places at 0.30 DM;hr would.
if anything, tend to have a slight negative effect on
demand. This may not be undesirable from a societal
point of view.
In the second place, in Section IV very few long
parkers were assigned to parking places on the street.
Yet it is undoubtedly the case that many long parkers
do park on the street. for the reason that they arrive
early in the morning when there are places empty.
Hence they are able to monopolize cheap street places.
to the detriment of short and middle parkers. The city
government should therefore consider limiting street
parking in the Zoo district to at most three hours. This
could be done with parking dials or parking meters. In
order to make this arrangement more palatable for
long parkers. the city government could offer them
reduced all day parking rates in the very large park-
house in block 21 (which is owned by the city). It was
seen in the preceding section that this parkhouse has
a fairly large catchment area with regard to long
parkers; a reduced all-day parking fee would compcn-
sate for longer walking distances.
In the third place. a number of parking places on the
street were left empty in the solution to the parking
model (P). This indicates that the city government
could contemplate closing down some street parking
places. i.e. further limiting the number of permissible
parking places on the street. This would have the e&t
of further forcing parkers into the parkhouses and
reducing traffic congestion.
These recommendations, if followed, would prob-
ably result in a more effective parking system in down-
town West Berlin.
 Parking analysis of downtown Berlin II

HEFEKEhCES Schrifrcwcilw 121. ADAC Hauptabteilung Ycrhchr.

Brov,n S. A. und Lambc T. A. (1972) Parking prtces in the Miinchen.
Ccntral Busyness District. Socio-Ecou. Plan. %I. 6, 133. Lambc T. A. (1969) The choxc of parhing location h!
I-t-l. workers in the Central Business District. Tv~ffl(, Q. 23.
D;lnt/lg G. B. ( I Yh3) L~rwtrr~ Proqnuw~~~~q trd E\-rc,usiou\. 397 411.
Princeton Lnivcrs~t~ PI-css. Princeton. Trowbridge K. W. (196X) Stretch parking quccb with linear
Hcdler G. and Lindc K. (1972) PLII.!,OII i/l Sriitlrr~l (ADAC programming. PrrrLimq 24. Winter.