Skip to content
allanninal.dev/build
Collaborate

Part 4 of 7 · Parking permit issuer series ~5 min read

What happens to a permit nobody uses

Circumstances change, people move house, start cycling, or change their working pattern, and a permit issued two years ago on the basis of a situation that no longer exists is capacity sitting idle.

Key takeaways

  • Measure usage crudely; a rough count is enough and needs no surveillance.
  • Warn, explain, then reclaim. Never reclaim without a conversation.
  • Reasons that are good: illness, leave, a working pattern that changed temporarily.
  • Reclaimed permits are the largest source of capacity available.
  • An annual reapplication achieves much of this with less machinery.

Measuring usage proportionately

Three ways of measuring parking permit usageThree boxes stacked on the left. Barrier or fob logs, if they already exist, labelled free. Periodic spot checks of which permits are present, labelled cheap. And Self-declared, asking whether somebody still needs it, labelled surprisingly effective. All three converge on Enough to identify permits used almost never, and that leads down to Not enough to track anybody's movements. A note says the goal is finding the unused rather than building a record of who came in when.Barrier or fob logsif they already existfreePeriodic spot checkswhich permits are herecheapSelf-declared'do you still need it?'surprisingly effectiveEnough to identifypermits used almost neverNot enough to trackanybody's movementsThe goal is finding the unused, not building a record of who came in when.
Fig 1. Three ways of measuring permit usage and the deliberate limit on all of them. The distinction in the last box shapes which method to prefer.
  • Security & identity
  • Analytics
  • Front-end & mobile
  • People

Just asking works

An annual message saying “you have a parking permit; do you still need it?” with two buttons reclaims a meaningful number with no measurement at all. People who have started cycling or moved closer are frequently happy to release it, and nobody had ever asked.

It is worth doing before building any usage tracking, because it is free, it is not surveillance, and it may solve most of the problem. If it does, the tracking is unnecessary.

If usage is tracked

Aggregate is enough: a count of days used per quarter per permit. There is no need to store which days, and storing which days creates a record of somebody’s attendance pattern that was collected for parking and will eventually be asked for by somebody else.

That restraint is worth building in deliberately: count and discard rather than store and count. It is barely more work and it removes an entire category of future question.

Warn, explain, reclaim

How an unused parking permit is reclaimedA vertical chain of five steps entered by a box labelled A permit used three days in a quarter. Step one sends a message rather than a decision: we noticed, is it still needed? Step two asks whether there was any reply within two weeks; if not it exits to Second message, and a person follows up. Step three asks whether a reason was given such as illness, leave or a changed pattern; if so it exits to Keep it, review next quarter. Step four asks whether it was released willingly, as most are; if so it exits to Straight to the list, thank them. Step five reclaims with notice and a right to reapply. A note says most permits are released voluntarily at the first message and the rest need a person.AWS ACCOUNTA permit used 3 daysin a quarterA message, not a decision'we noticed, is it still needed?'Any reply?two weeksSecond messageand a person follows upnoA reason given?illness, leave, patternKeep itreview next quarteryesReleased willingly?most areStraight to the listthank themyesReclaim, with noticeand a right to reapplyMost permits are released voluntarily at the first message. The rest need a person.
Fig 2. The reclaim process. Four opportunities to resolve it without anybody having something taken away, which is what makes the last step survivable.
  • App integration
  • Machine learning
  • Analytics
  • Front-end & mobile
  • People

Reasons that are good

Long-term sickness, parental leave, a secondment, a temporary change in working pattern, a period of working from home for a reason. All of these are situations where somebody will need the permit again and taking it away is both unkind and pointless.

The review-next-quarter outcome handles them properly: the permit is retained, the situation is noted, and it is looked at again rather than either forgotten or removed.

Where capacity comes from

Sources of additional parking permits over one yearA bar chart with four bars showing additional permits made available. Reclaimed permits: nine. Raised the ratio: six. Restriped the car park: three. New spaces built: none. A note says the cheapest option is also the largest and it needs no capital at all.05101520~9Reclaimed permits~6Raised the ratio~3Restriped the car park~0New spaces builtAdditional permits made available this yearThe cheapest option is also the largest, and it needs no capital at all.
Fig 3. Where a year’s additional permits came from. Reclaim outperforms every other option and costs nothing.

Restriping is worth mentioning because it occasionally produces real gains — a car park laid out for larger vehicles, or with awkward corners, can sometimes yield a few more bays — and it is a one-off with a modest cost.

Building new spaces is generally not available, is expensive where it is, and takes long enough that the working pattern will have changed before it opens.

The simpler alternative

Annual reapplication achieves much of what reclaim does with less machinery: everybody reapplies each year, the rule is applied afresh, and permits that are no longer needed simply are not applied for.

It is more disruptive — everybody faces uncertainty annually — and it is considerably simpler, and for a small organisation it is probably the better answer. Worth deciding deliberately rather than defaulting to the more complex option.

Next: the part that damages relationships.

All posts