Willingness to Pay for Parking in Residential Areas in the Netherlands

Willingness to Pay for Parking in Residential Areas in the Netherlands Peter van der Waerden, Marloes de Bruin 2, Harry Timmermans, & Paul van Loon 2 Urban Planning Group, Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 53, 56 MB Eindhoven, the Netherlands 2 Empaction B.V. Consultants in Parking Strategy and Marketing, Stratumsedijk 2, 56 ND Eindhoven, the Netherlands Abstract This paper describes a study concerning residents willingness to pay for parking related benefits. In fact three groups of benefits are investigated in more detail: a higher chance on a free parking space, a secured parking space, and extra facilities such as lighting and electricity. The willingness to pay for the benefits is investigated using data from the Dutch National Parking panel. The relation between residents willingness to pay and several context variables is investigated using a logistic regression analysis. It appears that most respondents do not understand the introduction of paid parking in their residential area. Most expected benefits of the introduction of paid parking are less cars and higher chance of free space. Residents are willing to pay for a free space close to home and a secured parking space. The probability of willing to pay for parking related benefits is influenced mostly by gender, age, and education.. Introduction In many European countries, including the Netherlands, the number of cars and therefore the demand for parking space in residential areas is still growing. Increasingly more households own one or more cars and have to find space to park their cars. In residential areas, most residents park their car at their own property or at one of the available private or public parking facilities in the vicinity of their dwellings. Because of the high demand for parking and the limited space in residential environments (most residential areas were designed with lower parking norms in mind), both municipalities and residents committees are interested in parking measures that organize parking in residential areas more efficiently. One of the suggested measures concerns the introduction of paid parking in residential areas to finance new parking solutions, to remove cars of non-residents from neighborhoods, and/or to stimulate a lower car ownership rate of residents and/or a higher parking rate at their own property. This paper describes the findings of a study concerning residents willingness to pay for parking in their residential area. Residents are asked to indicate if they are willing to pay for parking in their residential area in general and if they are willing to

2 pay for specific parking-related benefits. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. First attention is paid to previous studies concerning parking in residential areas. Next, the adopted research approach and the data collection are explained. The section also includes some details about the sample. In the next section the results of the analyses are presented. The paper ends with the conclusions and suggestion for future research. 2. Parking in residential areas In the past, little attention has been paid to residential parking. In many countries, the situation was not problematic; the supply of parking facilities was sufficient to accommodate the demand. This situation has changed dramatically (e.g., Broaddus, 29). The literature describes three important developments that resulted in the current parking problems in residential areas (e.g., CROW, 26). The first development concerns an increase in car ownership. For example, in the Netherlands the number of cars per household increased from.86 in 995 to.5 in 2. The second development concerns the availability of parking spaces in residential areas. The number of parking spaces is not increasing and many existing parking spaces are removed in favor of other land uses such as buildings or bus stops. This holds also for private areas where parking space is often sacrificed for an extension of the dwelling. The third development concerns the spill-over demand for parking from other areas where restricted parking policies have been introduced such as central business and shopping areas. The intensity of parking problems strongly depends on the type and location of the area (e.g, Van de Coevering, 28). In Europe, problems tend to be most intense in pre-war neighborhoods where in most cases planners did not take into account the presence of cars. The parking problem in newer neighborhoods is mainly caused by an increase in car ownership rates. In his literature review about the UK, Marsden (26) mentioned an increase of 2 million cars by 23 in the UK. Approximately a quarter of these cars have to be parked on-street. Cities already face several parking problems in residential areas such as high occupancy rates, long walking distances between parking and dwellings, and vandalism at parking facilities. The increase of parking problems in residential areas causes a growing interest in the effects of residential parking on residents behavior including the choice of home location and various travel choices such as travel mode and parking location. Previous studies show some evidence of existing relations between residential parking and residents preferences. In 993 Balcombe and York investigated the effects of parking measures in residential areas in England that experienced severe parking problems. They found that residents reduce car use because they are afraid of losing a close parking place. In addition, residents fear vandalism when the car is parked at some distance from their home. Empirical evidence on the importance of distance between home and parking, and security for the design of parking facilities in residential areas was also found by Stubbs (22). He investigated the effect of the layout of parking in residential areas on residents preferences. He found that if parking provision is not satisfactory regarding distance and security, residents are unlikely to purchase a house in the neighborhood. Borgers et al (28) investigated residents preferences for residential areas with restrained car access. In a stated choice experiment, residents were invited to evaluate hypothetical plans for residential neighborhoods. The plans were defined using different transport-related 2

3 characteristics including parking. The parking situation was represented by a combined variable describing distance from home to parking facility and presence of security. They found a negative effect of parking at distance from home on the residents preferences. The negative effect is partly compensated by the presence of security. The studies described in this section focus on two characteristics of the parking situation in residential areas: distance between parking and home location, and presence of security. To set up an appropriate parking policy for residential areas including guidelines for parking layout more characteristics related to the replacement of parking lots by parking garages could be considered (e.g., Bos et al, 24); introduction of double use of parking facilities (e.g., Lamens et al, 28); parking at some distance from home (e.g., Van Luipen et al, 28); and introduction of parking costs for residents (e.g., Van Luipen & Bos, 27). In practice there is a great interest in information concerning the effects of suggested measure, especially when it concerns sensitive parking measures like the introduction of paid parking. 3. Research approach and data collection To investigate the willingness to pay for parking in residential areas a survey was developed. The survey included questions concerning residents current parking situation, residents understanding of the introduction of paid parking and their expectations regarding the effects of the introduction, and residents reactions on benefits that could be achieved by the introduction of paid parking. Table shows an overview of investigated benefits. Residents could indicate whether they are willing to pay for the benefits. All questions were included in an internet-based questionnaire (Figure ). Table : Overview of investigated benefits of paid parking Number Description of the benefits High chance on a free parking space in front of home 2 High chance on a free space at a distance of approximately 5 meters from home 3 High chance on free space in a parking garage close to home 4 High chance on free space at a parking lot at some distance close to home 5 A secured parking space close to home 6 Extra facilities at the parking such as lighting, electricity, and water 3

4 Figure : Part of the internet-based questionnaire The data used to estimate the models were collected using the Dutch National Parking Panel [www.parkeerpanel.nl]. This panel is an initiative of the Eindhoven University of Technology and parking consultant Empaction BV. The aim of the panel is to create a platform of people that are interested in parking and are willing to participate in different parking related studies (not from a professional point of view, but as individual who uses and/or faces parking facilities). The panel is consulted approximately 4 times per year for different subjects such as introduction of paid parking in residential areas, car drivers willingness to use P&R, and car drivers familiarity with the city s parking situation. Participants of various studies (not only parking studies) were invited to become a member of the panel. This group was extended by means of personal invitation of family, colleagues, and acquaintances. The panel was also promoted in journals and on WebPages. At the moment of the data collection for this study, the panel consisted of 532 participants. The data of 439 participants could be used for the analyses described in this paper. Some details of the participants are presented in Table 2. Regarding the personal characteristics it appears that compared to general figures of the Netherlands, some groups are more present than others: more male respondents, more highly educated respondents, and more respondents living in highly urbanized areas. The composition of the sample does not reflect the Dutch population which has to be taken into account when interpreting the outcomes of this study. Table 2: Personal characteristics and parking situation of participants (N=439) Groups Characteristics Levels Percentage Coding Personal characteristics Male Female 6.7 38.3 4

5 Parking situation Residents opinions * For details see Figure 2 Parking at own property Search for free space Parking at distance * 45 years and younger 46 years and older n-university level University level High urbanized area Low urbanized area or one car More than car 39.2 6.8 36.9 63. 7.8 28.2 57.6 42.4 55.4 44.6 56. 44. 63. 36.9 72.4 37.8 57.4 42.6 Regarding the respondents current parking situation and opinion concerning the introduction of paid parking in their residential area it appears that answers are more or less equally distributed across distinguished answer categories. Only the understandability of the introduction of paid parking shows a deviate distribution, almost 75 percent of the respondents doesn t understand the introduction of paid parking in their residential area. This result is remarkable considering that approximately 4 percent of the respondents sometimes has to search for a free parking space or has to park at some distance from their home. Finally, Figure 2 presents more detail concerning the respondents expectations concerning the effects of the introduction of paid parking in their residential area. Most respondents expect that the introduction has no effect at all. Approximately 2 percent of the respondents expect that the parking measure results into fewer cars in their residential area. Another 5 percent of the respondents expect that they can find a free space easier when paid parking is introduced. Only a few residents expect extra services or a change in use of travel mode. 7 6 5 Percentages 4 3 2 Less cars Easier to find free space Extra services More use of alternatives thing Answer categories Figure 2: Residents expectation concerning the effect of paid parking 5

6 4. Analyses In the survey respondents were asked to state for which parking related benefits they want to pay. It appears that overall residents are not willing to pay for specific parking related benefits. Approximately 52 percent of the respondents indicate that they do not want to pay for any of the suggested benefits. The highest willingness to pay is found for a high chance on a free parking space in front of home and a secured parking space close to home (Figure 3). 9 8 7 6 Percentages 5 4 3 2 FreeSpaceHome FreeSpace5Meters FreespaceGarage FreeSpaceLot Security Facilities Services Willing to pay t willing to pay Figure 3: Willingness to pay for parking in residential areas per benefit (N=439) The relation between residents reactions and context variables (personal and parking characteristics) is investigated using logistic regression analysis. For the regression analysis the suggested benefits are combined into three classes: (i) free parking close to home (see Table number ), (ii) free parking at some distance from home (2, 3, 4), and (iii) extra facilities (5, 6). The three classes result into 7 different combinations (Figure 4). An eight category is added consisting of respondents who do not want to pay for any benefit. This latter category is used as base category in the regression analysis. 6

7 35 3 25 Percentages 2 5 5 FreeSpaceHome(FH) FreeSpaceDistance(FD) Facilities(FA) FH-FD FH-FA FD-FA FH-FD-FA Combinations Figure 4: Willingness to pay for parking in residential areas per combination (N=22) The results of the nominal logistic regression analysis are presented in Table 3. The goodness-of-fit of the model proves that there is a relation between the investigated personal characteristics and opinions, and the probability of (combinations of) benefits. The in the survey included characteristics of the residents parking situation did not influence the probability. The log-likelihood ratio statistic shows that the estimated model outperforms the model with all coefficients equal to zero (null model). The model includes a variety of significant coefficients. The effect of the characteristics has to be considered in combination with the coding as presented in Table 2. A negative coefficient means a decrease of the probability of willing to pay for some benefits in relation to the base alternative (Do not want to pay), and a positive coefficient means an increase of the probability. For example, the probability of the benefit Free parking close to home increases in relation to the base alternative, in the case that residents understand the parking measure. In addition, the probability deceases when the resident is a woman, is older than 46 years, has a university level, and has more than one car available in the household. Overall it appears that gender, age, and education influence the probability of the (combination of) benefits mostly. It is remarkable that the residents home location, understandability and expectations of the introduction of paid parking, have a limited influence. Table 3: Results of nominal logistic regression analysis (Combination of) benefits Characteristics Coefficient Significance Free parking close to home (FH) -.739 -.485 -.847.2 -.85.53.635.26.2.8.25.8.88 7

8 Free parking at some distance from home (FD) Extra facilities (FA) FH-FD FH-FA FD-FA FH-FD-FA Model goodness-of-fit -2 Log-likelihood Null model -2 Log-likelihood Optimal model Log-likelihood Ratio Statistic (LL null LL optimal) Degrees of freedom Significance -.73 -.624 -.25 -.74 -.953.88 -.5 -.233 -.965 -.22 -. -.258 -.5.79-2.294 -.28 -.449. -.56.848.859 -.682 -.877 -.925.635 -.654.53.48 -.66 -.38 -.823.627 -.3.926 -.4 -.774 -.243 -.829.446 -.97 2.259.86 286.696 75.762 572.933 49.6.9.2.73.9.858..465.42.433.928.643.98.75.38.37.33.6.77.445.44.3.2.38.39.299.2.8.228.4 5. Conclusions The introduction of paid parking in residential areas is a relative new phenomenon in the Netherlands. The increase in car ownership and the decrease of space to park the cars in residential areas forces planners to consider planning measures like paid parking, that optimizes the demand for parking in residential areas. Insights in residents response on suggested measures are necessary when evaluating different alternatives (e.g., Althuisius, et al, 27). This study shows that the majority of residents (75 percent) do not understand the introduction of paid parking in their residential area. Almost 6 percent of the residents also do not expect any effect of the introduction. Approximately 2 percent 8

9 of the residents expect that fewer cars are parked in their residential area, while almost 5 percent of the residents expect that they might find easier a free space close to their home. Residents are willing to pay for free space close to their home and extra facilities at the parking spaces. Most successful, however, will be a combination of different parking related benefits: free space close at home and at some distance, secured parking, and additional facilities such as lightning and electricity. When looking to the relation between (combination of) parking related benefits and context variables it appears that that gender, age, and education influence the probability of the (combination of) benefits mostly. It is remarkable that the residents home location, understandability and expectations of the introduction of paid parking, have a limited influence. 6. References Althuisius, R., Quee, J., Van der Hoeven, G. & De Poorter, J. (27) The Civilian as Policy Consultant (in Dutch), Verkeerskunde 58 (5), 22-27. Balcombe, R.J. & York, I.O. (993) The Future of Residential Parking, Project Report 22, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK. Borgers, A., Snellen, D., Poelman, J. & Timmermans, H. (28) Preferences for Car- Restrained Residential Areas, Journal of Urban Design 3, 257-267. Bos, P., Slieker, T., Smolders, L. Schepman, A. & Ter Avest, R. (24) Innovative Parking and Mobility Solutions (in Dutch), Verkeerskunde 55 55-57. Broaddus, A. (29) such Thing as a Free Spot: Pricing as a Demand Management Strategy for Parking. Compendium of Papers CD-ROM of the 88 th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, USA. CROW (26), Parking in Residential Areas, a new problem (in Dutch), Information and Technology Platform for Transport, Infrastructure, and Public Space, CROW, Ede, Netherlands. Lamens, P., Jongen, E. & Van der Heide, W. (28) Allowing Double Parking; Profit of better Use of Parking Facilities (in Dutch), Verkeerskunde 59, 44-48. Marsden, G. (26) The Evidence Base for Parking Policy, A Review, Transport Policy 3, 447-457. Stubbs, M. (22) Car Parking and Residential Development: Sustainability, Design and Planning Policy, and Public Perception of Parking Provision, Journal of Urban Design 7 (2), 23-237. Van de Coevering, P., Snellen, D. & Talens, H. (28) Fighting for the last Parking Space, Where can we park.5 million cars in 2? (in Dutch), Verkeerskunde 59 (9), 22-27. Van Luipen, B. & Bos, N. (27) Introducing Paid Parking? (in Dutch) Vexpansie 2, 6-9. Van Luipen, B., Stienstra, S. & Bongarts, J. (28) Parking Policy for the Medium Term: How to deal with an Increasing Parking Demand (in Dutch), Proceedings of the Colloquium Vervoersplanologisch Speurwerk, Santpoort, the Netherlands. 9