The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of increasing parking charges at park-and-ride stations on mode choice for current park-and-ride users. To address this objective, a stated preference (SP) survey was designed to study commuters’ willingness to pay for parking at park-and-ride transit stations. The SP survey was conducted at the 14 busiest park-and-ride transit stations in Greater Vancouver in British Columbia, Canada. The survey data were then used to model mode choice for longer-distance commuting trips by considering three major options: automobile all-way, transit all-way, and park-and-ride. A heteroscedastic multinomial logit model for stated preference of modal choices was estimated. The model included several major factors that were found to influence mode choice at park-and-ride stations. The estimated model parameters were then used to investigate direct and cross elasticities of parking charges at park-and-ride stations to mode choices. The model results show that an increase in parking charges at park-and-ride stations is more likely to divert current park-and-ride users to the transit all-way option compared with the private car all-way option.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CairnsM. R.The Development of Park-and-Ride in Scotland. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 6, No. 4, 1998, pp. 295–307.
2.
GarcíaR., and MarínA.Parking Capacity and Pricing in Park'n Ride Trips: A Continuous Equilibrium Network Design Problem. Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 116, No. 1, 2002, pp. 153–178.
3.
FooteP. J.Chicago Transit Authority Weekday Park-and-Ride Users: Choice Market with Ridership Growth Potential. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1735, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 158–168.
4.
BosI., van der HeijdenR., MolinE. J. E., and TimmermansH. J. P.Traveler Preference for Park-and-Ride Facilities: Empirical Evidence of Generalizability. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1926, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 126–134.
5.
LiaoF., ArentzeT., and TimmermansH.Supernetwork Approach for Multimodal and Multiactivity Travel Planning. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2175, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 38–46.
6.
VijayakumarN., El-GeneidyA. M., and PattersonZ.Driving to Suburban Rail Stations: Understanding Variables That Affect Driving Distance and Station Demand. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2219, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 97–103.
7.
SupernakJ., GolobJ., GolobT. F., KaschadeC., KazimiC., SchrefflerE., and SteffeyD.San Diego's Interstate 15 Congestion Pricing Project: Attitudinal, Behavioral, and Institutional Issues. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1812, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 78–86.
8.
MeekS., IsonS., and EnochM.Stakeholder Perspectives on the Current and Future Roles of UK Bus-Based Park-and-Ride. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 17, No. 6, 2009, pp. 468–475.
9.
WellsS. S.Analysis of the Differential Impacts of Transport Modes on Travel Behaviour in the Greater Toronto Area. Transportation Research: Part A, Policy and Practice, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2004, pp.
10.
Van der WaerdenP. J. H. J., de BruinM., TimmermansH., and van LooonP.Travelers’ Willingness to Use Park-and-Ride Facilities and Additional Transport in the Context of Commuting and Shopping Trips to City Centers. Presented at 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011.
11.
HendricksS., and OutwaterM.Demand Forecasting Model for Park-and-Ride Lots in King County, Washington. In Transportation Research Record 1623, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 80–87.
12.
ParkhurstG.Influence of Bus-Based Park-and-Ride Facilities on Users’ Car Traffic. Transport Policy, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2000, p. 159.
13.
TsangF. W. K., ShalabyA. S., and MillerE. J.Improved Modeling of Park-and-Ride Transfer Time: Capturing the Within-Day Dynamics. Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2005, pp. 117–137.
14.
WashbrookK., HaiderW., and JaccardM.Estimating Commuter Mode Choice: A Discrete Choice Analysis of the Impact of Road Pricing and Parking Charges. Transportation, Vol. 33, No. 6, 2006, pp. 621–639.
15.
LiZ.-C., LamW. H. K., WongS. C., ZhuD.-L., and HuangH.-J.Modeling Park-and-Ride Services in a Multimodal Transport Network with Elastic Demand. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1994, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 101–109.
16.
FanK.-S., MillerE. J., and BadoeD.Modeling Rail Access Mode and Station Choice. In Transportation Research Record 1413, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 49–59.
17.
FlorianM., and LosM.Impact of the Supply of Parking Spaces on Parking Lot Choice. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 14, No. 1/2, 1980, pp. 155–163.
18.
MerrimanD.How Many Parking Spaces Does It Take to Create One Additional Transit Passenger?Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 28, No. 5, 1998, pp. 565–584.
19.
BosI., MolinE., TimmermansH., and van der HeijdenR.Cognition and Relative Importance Underlying Consumer Valuation of Park-and-Ride Facilities. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1835, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 121–127.
20.
OlssonA. L. L.Factors That Influence Choice of Travel Mode in Major Urban Areas: The Attractiveness of Park & Ride. TRITA-INFRA 03-048. Department of Infrastructure, Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan, Royal Institute of Technology–Sweden, 2003.
21.
BosI., Van der HeijdenR., MolinE., and TimmermansH. J. P.The Choice of Park-and-Ride Facilities: An Analysis Using a Context-Dependent Hierarchical Choice Experiment. Environment and Planning A, Vol. 36, No. 9, 2004, pp. 1673–1686.
22.
BosI., van der HeijdenR., MolinE., and TimmermansH. J. P.The Impact of Policy Measures on Park-and-Ride Choice: Simulations Based on a Park-and-Ride Choice Model. Presented at 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005.
23.
ShirgaokarM., and DeakinE.Study of Park-and-Ride Facilities and Their Use in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1927, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 46–54.
24.
KellyA., and ClinchP.Influence of Varied Parking Tariffs on Parking Occupancy Levels by Trip Purpose. Transport Policy, Vol. 13, No. 6, 2006, pp. 487–495.
25.
SyedS., GolubA., and DeakinE.Response of Regional Rail Park-and-Ride Users to Parking Price Changes: Systemwide Results and a Detailed Study of Two Stations. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2110, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 155–162.
26.
XiongP.Model Analysis of Parking Price of Park-and-Ride Facilities with Price Sensitivity Measurement. Presented at Third International Conference on Transportation Engineering (ICTE), Chengdu, China, July 23–25, 2011, pp. 253–258.
27.
Holguin-VerasJ., ReillyJ., Aros-VeraF., YushimitoW., and IsaJ.Park-and-Ride Facilities in New York City: Economic Analysis of Alternative Locations. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2276, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 123–130.
28.
Ben-AkivaM. E., and LermanS. R.Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand.MIT Press, Cambridge, 1985.
HabibK. M. N., SwaitJ., and SalemS.Investigating Structural Changes in Commuting Mode Choice Preferences with Repeated Crossectional Travel Survey Data: The Contexts of Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). Presented at 13th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, July 15–20, 2012.
31.
SwaitJ., and LouviereJ.The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models. Journal of Marketing Research, 1993, pp. 305–314.
