ArticlePDF Available


Urban planners typically set minimum parking requirements to meet the peak demand for parking at each land use, without considering either the price motorists pay for parking or the cost of providing the required parking spaces. By reducing the market price of parking, minimum parking requirements provide subsidies that inflate parking demand, and this inflated demand is then used to set minimum parking requirements. When considered as an impact fee, minimum parking requirements can increase development costs by more than 10 times the impact fees for all other public purposes combined. Eliminating minimum parking requirements would reduce the cost of urban development, improve urban design, reduce automobile dependency, and restrain urban sprawl.
The High Cost of Free Parking
By Donald Shoup
Summarized by
Tri-State Transportation Campaign
350 W 31st Street, New York, NY 10001
p: (212) 268-7474 f: (212) 268-7333
The matter of parking is largely taken for granted, until you’re circling the block looking for that
elusive space. Even for many transportation professionals and urban planners, parking tends to
be little more than an afterthought. But a major new treatise by UCLA professor Donald Shoup
makes a strong case for more attention to parking. Shoup determines that in the United States,
off-street parking consumes an area roughly the size of Connecticut. If global car ownership
rates catch up with those in the U.S., and assuming just one off-street space per car, an area the
size of England would need to be paved to house the world’s car fleet (during the 95 percent of
the day when it’s not on the road).
Shoup contends that many of the woes associated with America’s car culture can be linked
directly to the lack of rational attention to parking. More specifically, he argues that the
oversupply of free parking (he estimates 99 percent of parking in the U.S. is free) is an
enormous public subsidy that makes driving less expensive than it should be, further skewing
travel choices. In fact, transportation suffers from the same “tragedy of the commons” relative to
parking observed with regard to fisheries and other free and un-owned resources. Zoning
requirements for overly-abundant off-street parking and failure to charge appropriately for curb
parking result in extra air pollution, higher oil consumption, traffic congestion, and sprawl.
Less obviously, parking requirements increase the cost of housing, as well as goods and
services. For urban areas, Shoup summarizes these effects quoting Mumford: “The right to have
access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such
a vehicle, is actually the right to destroy the city.”
For those who don’t have the time to read The High Cost of Free Parking’s hefty 700 pages, we
have summarized Shoup’s major findings into three sections following the outline of his book:
zoning codes’ influence on the proliferation of free parking, the cruising-for-parking
phenomenon, and Shoup’s policy recommendations.
The Problem With Zoning
According to the American Planning Association, cities set parking requirements for at least 662
different land uses – everything from “adult entertainment” establishments to nunneries (e.g. 1
space per patron, plus 1 space per employee on the largest working shift for adult entertainment
and 1 space per 10 nuns for the nunnery). Shoup says the requirements are often simply pulled
out of thin air. There are two primary sources for these requirements: the parking requirements
of neighboring communities and the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Parking
Generation manual. Both sources are problematic, but the second is all the more troubling in its
faults because it purports to be scientific.
Parking Generation recommends the exact number of parking spaces needed per square foot for
dozens of different land uses, and supports those figures with scatter plots and studies. But
Shoup shows that the recommendations are in fact derived from far too few studies to be
reliable. Half of the parking generation rates are based on four or fewer studies and 22 percent
are based on a single study. But even if an adequate number of studies had been analyzed, the
rates would still be skewed high because nearly all of the studies examine the demand for free
parking during times of peak demand in suburban locations with few, if any, alternatives to
driving. Shoup compares this to the demand for free pizza. The slices go a lot more quickly if
they are free than if they are sold at an appropriate price.
Shoup says “city planners sometimes mistake Pandora’s box for a toolkit.” With the best of
intentions, planners have “cured” parking shortages with a tonic that has made matters worse.
The practice of setting off-street parking requirements in city zoning codes has become fully
entrenched. Even for low-income housing projects where a majority of residents can’t afford a
private vehicle, zoning codes require vast parking lots to meet a demand that will never
materialize. Those lots not only add to the cost of a development, they also require that land
which could otherwise be used for housing (or landscaping, etc). Overall, parking requirements
increase the cost and diminish the supply of housing, and this effect is not limited just to low-
income developments. A San Francisco study found that requirements for off-street parking
increased housing prices by an average of $47,000 and increased the household income
necessary to purchase a house from $67,000 annually to $76,000.
Shoup calculates that parking requirements impose a public subsidy for drivers that came to at
least $127 billion in 2002 (total annual land, capital and operating costs of U.S. off-street
parking) and may be closer to $374 billion. For comparison, in 2002 federal Medicare spending
was $231 billion and for the military was $349 billion. Shoup calculates that the value of off-
street parking, at approximately $12,000 per vehicle, roughly equals the total capital cost of all
vehicles plus all roads in the U.S..
On a per-mile driven basis, the subsidy for parking amounts to between 5 and 14 cents. Shoup
calculates that gasoline taxes would have to be raised by $1.27 to $3.74 per gallon to offset this
subsidy, and notes that charging appropriately for parking may be as, or even more effective, not
to mention technologically simpler, than other pricing techniques aimed at reducing driving. He
cites a study of Boston finds that a $1 parking surcharge would roughly double the average
traffic speed in the central business district, the same benefit that would result from a $1
congestion fee.
Although part three of The High Cost of Free Parking is dedicated to Shoup’s recommendations,
in part one he discusses two solutions which could be implemented relatively easily in the near
term: fees in lieu of parking requirements, and offering developers the option to reduce travel
demand as an alternative to building a portion of required parking. Fees in lieu of parking
requirements allow cities to collect funds from developers to build shared parking facilities. The
idea has significant benefits for urban design, largely because it would consolidate parking rather
than requiring each establishment to provide a separate lot. Further, because different land uses
require parking during different times of the day, a smaller amount of parking can be shared
among several establishments.
The second solution, reducing demand, offers developers a cost-effective alternative to building
more parking. Shoup suggests that employers or developers can offer “eco-passes” as a way to
encourage transit use, walking, or bicycling instead of driving. Other demand reduction options
are “cash-out parking” (a travel demand management technique which Shoup conceived of years
ago) whereby employers offer workers cash in lieu of a free parking space (the employee can
spend it to park, or pocket it if another commuting means is available) and car-sharing. Beyond
the obvious benefit of diminishing the need for parking and freeing up land for higher end uses,
this approach reduces vehicle trips, cutting air pollution, lowering oil consumption, and easing
Cruising for Parking
Parking has been getting attention recently in New York City. First was the July city council
vote to make parking free on Sundays and Mayor Bloomberg’s subsequent veto. In August,
some city parking meters began accepting parking cards for payment. Meanwhile, the Tri-State
Campaign and some Bronx groups have expressed concern over plans to build thousands of
additional parking spaces around Yankee Stadium, a change which will encourage more fans to
In Part 2 of his book, Professor Shoup explores the trials and tribulations of cruising for free curb
parking. This is an experience car-owning New Yorkers, facing alternate-side-of-the-street rules,
not to mention visitors to the city, are very familiar with. Shoup asserts that cruising for parking
is much more than just run-of-the-mill aggravation. In fact, cruising for parking results in a
tremendous amount of excess driving and all of its concomitant ills — air pollution, crashes
and traffic congestion.
Because it is available to drivers on a “first-come, first-served” basis, free parking suffers the
problem of communal ownership. Once drivers secure a space, they have no incentive to give it
up in a timely fashion.
Based on review of 16 mostly American and European studies of cruising conducted between
1927 and 2001, Shoup concludes that cars searching for free parking contribute to over 8% of
total traffic. The relevant New York City study was conducted in 1995 by John Falcocchio, Joe
Darsin and Elena Prassas. They concluded the average time drivers took to find a curb space
between 8 and 10 a.m. was 7.3 minutes, increasing to 10.6 minutes between 11a.m. and 2 p.m.
According to their research, cruising for curb parking created about 8 percent of the total vehicle
miles traveled in west Midtown.
Shoup has developed a model to explain why a driver would choose to cruise for free curb
parking rather than pay for off-street parking (interested readers can turn to page 323 of his book
for the equation). He says the decision to seek free parking is based on the price of off-street
parking, the amount of time a driver intends to park for, the time spent searching, the cost of gas
burned while cruising, the number of people in the car, and the value of the driver and his
passengers’ time. If the cost of off-street parking outweighs all of those other variables, the
driver will cruise for parking at the curb.
Some will likely disagree that all time-wasting, gridlock-contributing motorists indulge in such
an involved calculus, but it at least provides a baseline for how some drivers may approach
The most compelling chapter in this section examines the impacts of cruising for parking. Shoup
uses UCLA’s Westwood Village and its backwards pricing policy as his example. Westwood has
plenty of moderately priced off-street parking available, but metered curb spaces are free in the
evening when the district sees its highest traffic levels.
Shoup and his assistants conducted 160 park-and-visit tests by bicycle and found that the average
search time for parking is 3.3 minutes for all times, but is nearly 10 minutes during evening
hours. The average search time of 3.3 minutes may seem insignificant, but added up across all
of Westwood’s drivers, it amounts to 426 hours per day (a little more than 10 work weeks).
Shoup found that the average distance driven while cruising for a free parking space in
Westwood was half a mile. Added across all cruising drivers, the behavior contributes 3,600
vehicle miles traveled in the district each day. Over the year, that totals 945,000 extra miles
traveled, or two round trips to the moon, using 47,000 gallons of gasoline and producing 728
tons of CO2. The cumulative impact of cruising across all commercial districts in the U.S. is
obviously far higher.
Beyond zoning requirements that cause overbuilding of off-street parking, many areas deal with
parking shortages by setting time limits. These are ineffective because drivers routinely violate
the rules. (A Seattle survey found the average parking duration in 1-hour spots was 2.1 hours.)
Some areas have explored providing information measures to broadcast locations of available
But Shoup asserts that the most appropriate way for cities to address curbside parking shortages
is to price the spaces – he says that would result in 14 percent (about 1 in 7) of spaces being
open. Like congestion pricing schemes, rates could vary throughout the day depending on
demand (enabled by new technology like NYC’s muni-meters).
But pricing free curbside parking isn’t rocket science. Indeed, the parking meter, first introduced
in Oklahoma in 1935, is the obvious example. Shoup suggests political hurdles to introducing or
hiking prices can be overcome by shifting responsibility for setting rates from politicians to
bureaucrats, though this may seem to be a fairly ivory-tower, or at least Californian, point of
Shoup’s Parking Policy Recommendations
In the third and final section of his opus, The High Cost of Free Parking, UCLA Professor
Donald Shoup identifies ways to overcome technological and political barriers in the way of
charging market-priced rates for parking.
The first obstacle is relatively easy to address. Shoup describes several new takes on the
traditional parking meter, which was invented by a member of the Oklahoma City Chamber of
Commerce in 1935. Most American parking meters haven’t changed much in the 70 years since.
But recent years have seen significant advances.
Pay-and-display and pay-by-space meters are used in New York City, Aspen and Berkeley and
differ from traditional meters in that they control multiple spaces. They also have the benefit of
allowing cash, credit card, smart card and even cell phone payments. Personal in-vehicle meters,
also employed by Aspen and in Arlington, VA, allow parkers to pay without stepping out of their
cars. Drivers key the appropriate parking zone, insert their parking smart card, and display the
meter in the windshield. Payment is deducted until the driver returns and switches off the meter.
In several European cities, drivers pay for parking with their cell phones by calling a city parking
number and keying in license plate and parking zone (cell payment is also a popular way to pay
London’s congestion charge). An in-vehicle transponder allows control officers to determine if
the car is paying and parked legally. The EU is also exploring using Global Positioning System
satellites to pay for parking.
Beyond their convenience, the principal advantages of modern payment methods is that parking
rates can be adjusted to respond to demand. During peak parking periods, rates can be adjusted
upward to ensure a rough balance between supply and demand, reducing some trips and also
cutting back on cruising for parking.
Of course the bigger obstacle to charging for parking (evident in the recent tempest over NYC
metered Sunday parking) is politics. Resistance to increasing parking rates and putting a price
on previously free parking is strong. Shoup says it can be overcome via parking benefit
Under such a plan, the district would receive some or all of parking revenue, rather than see it
disappear into a city’s general fund coffers. The district would use the funds for transportation
and community improvements such as sidewalk cleaning, landscaping, storefront facades,
bicycle and walking paths, etc. The establishment of parking benefit districts helps make
metered parking more palatable to curbside shop owners and residents. Both groups can see a
clear link between the coins deposited in parking meters and improvements in their districts.
Two southern California cities currently employ parking benefit districts: Old Pasadena and
San Diego. Old Pasadena’s Parking Meter Zone (PMZ) brought in $1.3 million in 2001 and
helped transform a dying commercial district into a vibrant and popular destination for shoppers
and diners. The PMZ chair credits parking revenue for turning Old Pasadena around, saying,
“This might seem silly to some people, but if not for our parking meters, it’s hard to imagine that
we’d have the kind of success we’re enjoying. They’ve made a huge difference. At first it was a
struggle to get people to agree with the meters. But when we figured out that the money would
stay here, that the money would be used to improve the amenities, it was an easy sell.”
San Diego returns 45 percent of parking meter revenues (amounting to almost $2.2 million in
2002) to three Parking Meter Districts. An Uptown District uses its funds to revitalize
commercial streets, improve the walking environment, establish focal points for transit services
and increase off-street parking. San Diego’s meters carry the mantra: “Small Change for Big
In residential areas, concerns about charging for curb parking can be ameliorated by giving
residents the right to park for free. In this way, only “outsiders” are paying for parking, and their
contributions go toward improving the neighborhood.
NYC recently introduced new parking meters which accept pre-paid smart cards for payment.
This makes parking more convenient. But unfortunately, peak premiums seem a distant prospect
while NYCDOT promotes cheap and easy curb parking. A new ad on its website invites
Manhattan motoring: “Driving to the Theater District? Use On-Street Parking – Only $2.00 per
That said, Mayor Bloomberg, in announcing the new meters, noted that the new technology
could allow DOT to one day charge variable, demand-driven parking rates.

Supplementary resource (1)

... Minimum parking standards have been criticised for leading to urban sprawl, extensive land use, increased construction and living costs, fewer flats, as well as to increased car use and consequently higher CO 2 emissions (Shoup, 1997;Marsden, 2014;Liljenström et al., 2015;Andersson et al., 2016;Christiansen et al., 2017;Millard-Ball et al., 2020;Franko, 2020). For instance, Millard-Ball et al. (2020) show that more on-site parking spaces lead to higher car ownership and car driving in San Francisco, and that these effects are not due to self-selection biases. ...
... For instance, Millard-Ball et al. (2020) show that more on-site parking spaces lead to higher car ownership and car driving in San Francisco, and that these effects are not due to self-selection biases. Shoup (1997) and Franko (2020) argue that the cost of free parking is paid either through higher living costs, or through higher retail prices. Liljenström et al. (2015) further show that building parking spaces in garages causes considerable CO 2 emissions. ...
... One of the arguments against minimum parking standards is that they lead to parking being subsidized by those not owning a car (Shoup, 1997: Franko, 2020Andersson et al. 2016). Minimum standards steer towards an increased supply of parking, which leads to lower parking fees. ...
Full-text available
Current European parking policies do not seem to steer towards a future where urban transport meets the climate goals. Prominent in current housing and parking policies are the so-called minimum parking standards. Recent research has shown that they contribute to increased car use and consequently to higher CO2 emissions. This is because they contribute to urban sprawl, extensive land use, increased housing and infrastructure construction costs, and that they restrict the number of flats per urban land unit. Other recent research shows that the construction of underground garages causes considerable CO2 emissions. This paper is based on previous research on the development of the transport sector to be in line with climate targets (i.e., the Paris Agreement). It intends to fill a research gap regarding how parking management can be designed to be consistent with these targets. Through a future study approach with Stockholm as a case example, this paper illustrates a policy shift in parking policies considered to be in line with national climate targets. The article presents concrete indicators to quantify the scope of change needed (e.g., removing 60,000 residential parking spaces and providing vehicle sharing with 7,500 cars and at least 7,500 bikes). The focus shift goes from providing physical parking spaces to providing satisfactory mobility and accessibility. We outline a pathway towards a future scenario of parking and mobility in Stockholm, with a combination of mobility services, parking restrictions (e.g., cap on parking spaces, removal of minimum parking standards), and citizen participation. The pathway is also analysed regarding equity, feasibility, and acceptance.
... Si on cumule TIC et autonomisation, on peut donc conclure que d'une part, commander un taxi est bien plus ergonomique qu'avant, et que d'autre part, utiliser un taxi sera moins cher qu'aujourd'hui. [Shoup, 2005] estime que les véhicules personnels passent 95% de leur temps en stationnement. Ce chiffre est relativement stable d'un pays à l'autre. ...
... Concernant le stationnement, il peut être intéressant d'augmenter le nombre de taxis dans les villes où il s'agit d'un problème critique. En effet, [Shoup, 2005] montre que, sur 16 études menées en centre-ville entre 1927 et 2001, en moyenne 30% des véhicules sont à la recherche d'une place de stationnement. Bien que ces chiffres soient à la fois anciens et discutables, ils montrent que la recherche d'une place est un facteur significatif pour expliquer la congestion urbaine. ...
... [Chester et al., 2010] estiment par exemple que le nombre de places de stationnement sur la voirie aux États-Unis se situe entre 105 millions et 2 milliards. Cette estimation est inspirée de [Delucchi, 1997] à l'aide des réglementations de construction américaine ; de [Shoup, 2005, Davis et al., 2010, qui utilisent des enquêtes ; et de [Akbari et al., 2003] qui utilisent des images satellites, entre autres. Toutes ces méthodes sont indirectes, limitées à une zone géographique, et ces articles utilisent différentes définitions de place de parking. ...
Full-text available
Le transport routier de personnes est actuellement en train de se transformer de multiples manières : automatisation des véhicules, électrification, intégration des Technologies de l'Information et de la Communication (TIC) aux systèmes de gestion, pour n'en nommer que trois. Ces transformations apportent de nouveaux challenges et de nouvelles opportunités dans le domaine de la mobilité individuelle. L'objectif de cette thèse est de mettre au point un service gérant de manière centralisée une flotte de taxis électriques, autonomes, et partagés traitant le plus de clients possible.Du point de vue de l'électrification, trois difficultés sont étudiées. 1) La distance pouvant être parcourue après chaque plein est plus faible que pour les véhicules à combustion. 2) La vitesse à laquelle un plein est effectué est plus faible. 3) L'usage de l'infrastructure de recharge est susceptible d'être limité. La gestion de la recharge des véhicules doit être la plus efficace possible, afin de maximiser le temps de fonctionnement utile des taxis. Nous étudions deux cas : statique et dynamique. Dans le cas statique, les requêtes des clients sont connus longtemps à l'avance, et le gestionnaire de la flotte de taxi peut choisir librement quel client traiter. Dans le cas dynamique, les clients sont découverts au fur et à mesure qu'ils réservent, et le gestionnaire doit indiquer en temps réel à chaque client qui réserve si sa demande est acceptée.Une approche holistique est utilisée dans cette thèse, afin d'intégrer cette gestion de la recharge dans un système complet. On considère ainsi l'impact du stationnement et du partage de course sur le comportement des taxis. Enfin, nos tests sont effectués sur des instances de grande taille, comptant des dizaines de milliers de clients, basées sur des données réelles.Pour résoudre ces instances, nous proposons une heuristique gloutonne myope, améliorée par deux méthode de recherche de voisinage. La première méthode est une montée de colline, et la seconde un recuit simulé. Nos résultats montrent que ces méthodes sont adaptés pour des instances comportant des dizaines de milliers de clients, mais que le temps de calcul requis par le recuit simulé est très élevé. Nos résultats montrent également comment ces méthodes doivent être paramétrées en fonction des caractéristiques de l'instance sur laquelle elles sont utilisées, et diverses pistes permettant d'obtenir de meilleurs résultats.
... This gap stems from the dearth of parking-related data, which makes it difficult to explore the influences of parking on vehicle demand (Currans et al. 2020a;Manville 2017). Although it is widely recognized in practice that parking regulations play an important role in managing vehicle demand (Shoup 1997), there is no practice-ready framework for incorporating parking into the development review process, even as impact assessment shifts from level of service (LOS) to vehicle miles traveled (VMT)-based metrics (Governor's Office of Planning and Research 2016). Transportation impact studies, for example, have conventionally ignored the influence of parking supply on vehicle demand (Currans et al. 2020b). ...
Full-text available
Parking supply is one of the most neglected elements of the built environment in travel behavior research, despite evidence linking parking with vehicle use. As transportation impacts of new development are increasingly measured by vehicle miles traveled (VMT), explicitly connecting parking characteristics with vehicle travel is necessary to better inform transportation and land use policy. In this paper, we begin to address this research gap and explore the relationship between constrained parking and household VMT. Utilizing the 2017 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) California add-on sample, we estimate residential parking constraint for households in Los Angeles County. Then, we develop a two-level model framework. Level 1 (Cost) models estimate travel costs, represented by vehicle ownership as a function of parking constraints, the built environment, and demographics. Level 2 (Demand) models regress household-level total and homebased-work VMT on predicted vehicle ownership, controlling for temporal and environmental characteristics. To further explore the relationship between parking and VMT by place type, we applied Level 1 and Level 2 models to develop a suite of scenarios for typical households in Los Angeles County. Our findings support the hypothesis that the built environment (including parking) influences VMT through travel costs (vehicle ownership). Results from scenarios analysis reveal constrained on-site residential parking (< 1 parking space per dwelling unit), accounts for an approximate 10–23 percentage-point decrease in VMT within each place type. Finally, implications for practice and future research are presented.
... This means that the emission levels per person per kilometre travelled remain high compared to an individual using active travel. Furthermore, cars are parked for~95% of their lifetime, which often results in the large numbers of poorly utilised vehicles in cities [44,45]. As a result, some countries have introduced car sharing schemes to reduce car usage by emphasising the benefits of access to a vehicle without the associated costs and responsibilities of ownership. ...
Full-text available
Even with technological advances, internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) are unlikely to meet net zero targets, whilst emitting high levels of greenhouse gas emissions in addition to impacting public health. Technological improvements of ICEVs are not enough to meet targets. Therefore, phasing out and banning the sale of new ICEVs as soon as possible could provide a stronger impetus to reduce transport emissions. The integration of low emission vehicles including battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles is often seen as a method to reduce transport emissions. Although these vehicles are often considered ‘zero emission’ at their point of use, their true environmental impact is dependent on the carbon intensity of electricity used to ‘fuel’ the vehicle. Therefore, without the decarbonisation of electricity generation, environmental benefits of low emission transport will be diminished. This chapter focuses on private vehicles and shows that transitioning to low emission transport faces many barriers including cost, range anxiety and charging infrastructure distribution, which need to be overcome for an effective transition to low emission vehicles. This has resulted in numerous monetary and non-monetary incentives being introduced to encourage this transition. However even with this transition, emission levels will remain high per person per kilometre travelled and other low carbon alternatives need to be considered.
... Free on-road parking, as one extreme, could lead to traffic congestion and thus longer journey times, and result in an overloaded parking system. Moreover, if all parking spaces are free of charge, society has to bear the cost, which might ultimately lead to a deterioration of the quality of the available parking and of the service provision (e.g., Shoup, 1997;2020). While it may be straightforward to charge for car parking homogeneously across a city, a more detailed fee policy has the potential to help adjust local situations and to create a better balance across the city. ...
... However, such measures are quite costly [1] and, sometimes, may even result in safety issues, especially within the multistory car parks [2]. Some other measures are also found to be effective, such as dynamic parking pricing [3][4][5] and residential parking permit regulations [6][7][8]. Such measures could reduce the parking demand among low-wage individuals, which may be deemed as unfair to them. ...
Full-text available
Making residential parking spots available to the public has become popularized in recent years. The sharing of residential parking spots can promote the further use of parking space and enhance the utility of parking resources in urban metropolitan areas. However, little is known about the relationship between spots’ physical or temporal factors and rental effects from practical experience. This study aims to evaluate the effects of residential parking spot sharing from both individual and social benefit perspectives. One-year real behavioral records concerning parking spots’ owners and borrowers were obtained, and the field survey of various parking spots’ physical characteristics was conducted. Two Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) models emphasizing the individual and societal points of view were adopted. Results revealed that the spots’ physical factors, including spot type, visibility, ease of parking, and distances to major surrounding buildings, along with owners’ sharing willingness and preferences, tend to pose significant influences on the rental effects from both individual and social benefit perspectives. Some differences were also discovered between the two models. For the individual model, owners’ sharing willingness was the dominant factor affecting the parking spots’ sharing effects, while for the social model, parking spots’ physical characteristics appear to be more important in determining the sharing effects. Based on these findings, suggestions were discussed to promote residential parking spot sharing and increase the benefits of sharing to individuals and society.
... The cost of parking provisions is significant. For example, the cost of public garage constructions in a sample of US cities averaged US$24,000 per space for aboveground and US$34,000 for underground garages (Shoup 2011). Even on-street parking represents a cost for annual deployment (repairs, maintenance, controls, administration). ...
Full-text available
Parking fees and fines represent contested issues in cities, as they conflict with vehicle owners' opinion over ‘rights’ to public space. As cities have moved to regulate vehicle density by introducing parking fees, a share of drivers may feel compelled to ‘cheat’, weighing the price of parking fees against the cost of fines, or to simply park illegally outside designated areas. To better understand these interrelationships, this paper considers negotiations of public space as an economic gamble that can be assessed on the basis of parking violations. The study is situated in Freiburg, Germany, and relies on a mixed-methods approach that investigates the views of the regulatory agency and its enforcement officers, as well as registered parking violations (n = 181,735, in 2019). Time-spatial probabilities of being fined when parking illegally are calculated as risks, defined as detection probability per “hexagon-hour”, an indicator integrating space and time. Results confirm that in the inner city, it is economically rational not to pay parking fees during 86.1% of hexagon-hours, and in surrounding areas during 99.9% of the time. Findings confirm that urban space can be negotiated in an equilibrium of fees, fines and controls. To make vehicle ownership and use less attractive, the price of parking needs to be high. Fines need to be high in relation to fees, and control densities need to constitute significant detection risks.
... Over the past decade, car parking has been managed and regulated by transportation planners and policymakers (Shoup, 2011). Car parking rules and guidelines are well known and include zoning ordinances. ...
To enhance the effectiveness of dockless shared micromobility vehicle services, address challenges created by these services, and achieve better implementation performance, cities need efficacious strategies to tackle two major challenges: parking demand and infrastructure improvements. This paper offers two techniques for analyzing areas of high parking demand and roadway segments of high micromobility vehicle demand. The proposed processes support efforts to assign free-floating parking and reduce vehicle clutter across cities, and assist transportation planners in identifying locations for road infrastructure improvement and ordinance enforcement. An unsupervised learning approach using vendor launching site analysis is used to appropriately locate dockless vehicle parking zones. Furthermore, this paper compares three methods for identifying high-demand corridors. Two shortest path models are generated to predict trip paths for trip data without trajectories, considering rider route preferences and infrastructure types. A Simplified Matching Heuristic (SMH) that uses trip data with trajectories, is developed herein to match trip trajectory data to the network street links. These analytical processes are applied in a case study of Dallas, TX. Results show that methods using shortest path models may poorly predict the actual path taken by e-scooter users. A discussion of policy implications for micromobility planning and management and potential environmental impacts of emerging transportation technologies are also presented.
... The IRR values of the parking rate in both models indicate that a one-dollar increase in per hour parking price (sd: 0.34) is associated with around a 10 % increase in escooter demand. One potential explanation of this finding is that travelers significantly reduce their car use when parking is more expensive (Shoup, 2005;Yan et al., 2019), and modal responses are highly sensitive to local conditions such as the availability and convenience of competing travel modes (Gimenez and Molina, 2019). Since e-scooters are generally cheaper and environment-friendly alternatives, many travelers may ride e-scooters instead of personal cars where the parking cost is comparatively higher. ...
The rapid popularity growth of shared e-scooters creates the necessity of understanding the determinants of shared e-scooter usage. This paper estimates the impacts of temporal variables (weather data, weekday/weekend, and gasoline prices) and time-invariant variables (socio-demographic, built environment, and neighborhood characteristics) on the shared e-scooter demand by using four months (June 2019- October 2019) period of data from the shared e-scooter pilot program in Chicago. The study employs a random-effects negative binomial (RENB) model that effectively models shared e-scooter trip origin and destination count data with over-dispersion while capturing serial autocorrelation in the data. Results of temporal variables indicate that shared e-scooter demand is higher on days when the average temperature is higher, wind speed is lower, there is less precipitation (rain), weekly gasoline prices are higher, and during the weekend. Results related to time-invariant variables indicate that densely populated areas with higher median income, mixed land use, more parks and open spaces, public bike-sharing stations, higher parking rates, and fewer crime rates generate a higher number of e-scooter trips. Moreover, census tracts with a higher number of zero-car households and workers commuting by public transit generate more shared e-scooter trips. On the other hand, results reveal mixed relationships between shared e-scooter demand and public transportation supply variables. This study's findings will help planners and policymakers make decisions and policies related to shared e-scooter services.
University campuses are essentially a microcosm of a city. They comprise diverse facilities such as residences, sport centres, lecture theatres, parking spaces, and public transport stops. Universities are under constant pressure to improve efficiencies while offering a better experience to various stakeholders including students, staff, and visitors. Nonetheless, anecdotal evidence indicates that campus assets are not being utilised efficiently, often due to the lack of data collection and analysis, thereby limiting the ability to make informed decisions on the allocation and management of resources. Advances in the Internet of Things (IoT) technologies that can sense and communicate data from the physical world, coupled with data analytics and Artificial intelligence (AI) that can predict usage patterns, have opened up new opportunities for organisations to lower cost and improve user experience. This thesis explores this opportunity via theory and experimentation using UNSW Sydney as a living laboratory.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.