Transport Policy 73 (2019) 41–50

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transport Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol

The effectiveness of parking policies to reduce parking demand pressure and T

car use
Xiang Yana,∗, Jonathan Levinea, Robert Maransb
a
Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Michigan, 2000 Bonisteel Blvd, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2069, USA
b
Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 426 Thompson Street, 3330 ISR, Ann Arbor, MI, 48106-1248, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Evaluating the effectiveness of parking policies to relieve parking demand pressure in central areas and to reduce
Parking policy car use requires an investigation of traveler responses to different parking attributes, including the money and
Parking price elasticity time costs associated with parking. Existing parking studies on this topic are inadequate in two ways. First, few
Time cost of parking studies have modeled parking choice and mode choice simultaneously, thus ignoring the interaction between
Car use
these two choice realms. Second, existing studies of travel choice behavior have largely focused on the money
Joint parking and mode choice model
cost of parking while giving less attention to non-price-related variables such as parking search time and egress
time from parking lot to destination. To address these issues, this paper calibrates a joint model of travel mode
and parking location choice, using revealed-preference survey data on commuters to the University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, a large university campus. Key policy variables examined include parking cost, parking search time,
and egress time. A comparison of elasticity estimates suggested that travelers were very sensitive to changes in
egress time, even more so than parking cost, but they were less sensitive to changes in search time. Travelers
responded to parking policies primarily by shifting parking locations rather than switching travel mode. Finally,
our policy simulation results imply some synergistic effects between policy measures; that is, when pricing and
policy measures that reduce search and egress time are combined, they shape parking demand more than the
sum of their individual effects if implemented in isolation.

1. Introduction
As a major component of travel-demand-management strategies,
parking policies have been widely used across cities to pursue two
important goals—relieving parking demand pressure in central areas
and reducing car use. The effectiveness of any parking measure in
achieving these goals depends on the extent to which it can influence
individuals' travel decisions, e.g. their parking destination and travel-
mode choices. To support policy in this regard, empirical evidence on
individuals’ behavioral responsiveness to parking strategies needs im-
provement.
This notion is supported by two observations. First, travelers may
respond to parking policy in various ways, such as change of parking
behavior, change of travel mode, change of trip destination, change of
trip schedule, and change or cancel of trip activities, but most parking
studies have only considered one aspect of these choice behaviors, ra-
ther than tradeoffs among them. Accounting for traveler responses
beyond one choice realm is necessary because failing to do so would
likely to lead to biased model results and misleading policy implica-
tions. For example, in cases where increased parking cost mainly trig-
gers parking relocation instead of modal switch, a mode-choice study
may find the parking price elasticity (with respect to car use) to be quite
low and thus may wrongly conclude that parking price schemes are
only moderately effective. Moreover, parking strategies can imply
policy trade-offs, as when efforts to enhance access between satellite
parking and employment centers relieve parking pressure in central
areas but encourage car use; in this case, a joint modeling of parking
and travel mode choices can help evaluate the nature and magnitude of
these tradeoffs and thus better inform the desirability of each strategy.
Second, while numerous empirical studies have shown that the cost
of parking significantly affects individuals’ travel choices, there seems
to be a dearth of information on traveler responses to non-price-related
parking attributes, such as the time costs of parking. After summarizing
empirical evidence on traveler responses to parking costs, Marsden
(2006, p.449) concluded that “less evidence is available on observed
responses to excess-time, particularly the time taken between parking

∗
Corresponding author. Postal address: Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Michigan, 2000 Bonisteel Blvd, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109,
USA.
E-mail addresses: jacobyan@umich.edu (X. Yan), jnthnlvn@umich.edu (J. Levine), marans@umich.edu (R. Marans).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.10.009
Received 30 May 2018; Received in revised form 5 September 2018; Accepted 30 October 2018
Available online 30 October 2018
0967-070X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Yan et al.
vehicle and the final destination for commute trips.” Madsen et al.
(2013) and Inci (2015) noted that most parking studies estimated the
price elasticity of demand for parking without accounting for cruising
for parking (i.e. search time), which would lead to a biased price
elasticity estimate. Beyond the threat of omitted variable bias, ex-
amining the impacts of non-price-related parking attributes on travel
behavior matters for at least two reasons. First, where political will to
raise parking prices is lacking, supply constraints and the parking-time
costs they generate may amount to a second-best policy. Second, where
policy seeks to reduce car use and/or to relieve parking pressure and
strategies that alter the time costs of parking are considered as alter-
natives to pricing schemes, there is a need to understand their relative
effectiveness.
To explore these issues, this paper builds a joint model, based on
revealed-preference survey data, of travel-mode and parking-location
choice for commuters to the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor campus,
which hosts over 70,000 students, faculty, and staff in an area of nearly
13 square miles. The model features three major parking attribute-
s—parking cost, search time for parking, and egress time from parking
to destination. We found a parking price elasticity higher than those
reported by many previous studies. The results also showed that tra-
velers were more sensitive to changes in egress time than changes in
parking cost, and their sensitivity to changes in search time was lower
than the other two variables. In general, parking policies would lead to
more incidents of parking relocation than modal switches. Finally, the
policy simulation results imply some synergistic effects between
parking pricing and parking measures that alter the time costs of
parking, i.e. their combined effect is larger than the sum of individual
effects.
2. Literature review
2.1. Parking and auto use
Parking-related studies started to emerge around the 1970s as a part
of the booming individual travel-behavior literature (McGillivray,
1970; Gillen, 1977). A major research interest of parking studies has
been the impact of the monetary cost of parking on travel demand and
travel behavior, especially the problems associated with free and un-
derpriced parking (Shoup, 2005). The common finding was that tra-
velers would significantly reduce their car use if parking were more
expensive. For example, Willson (1992) predicted a reduction of 25–34
percent car use if free parking were not offered to employees working in
downtown Los Angeles. Willson and Shoup (1990) summarized em-
pirical evidence on how employer-paid parking affects employees’
travel choices and concluded that 19 to 81 percent fewer employees
would drive to work alone if free parking at the workplace were
eliminated. Other studies generally reported similar findings, except
that the degree of influence may differ (e.g. Hess, 2001; Tsamboulas,
2001).
While researchers generally recognize that time-cost variables as-
sociated with parking such as travel time between parking and desti-
nation (commonly referred to as egress time) and search time for a
parking spot can also affect the decision to drive, few mode choice
studies have incorporated these variables; see discussions in review
articles by Feeney (1989), Young et al. (1991), Marsden (2006) and Inci
(2015). The failure to account for these time-cost variables represents a
potential misspecification in mode-choice modeling. For example, the
parameter estimate of parking cost may have an upward bias since
parking cost and search time are often positively correlated. Practically,
it also means less evidence is available on traveler responses to time
costs of parking, and so policymakers have little knowledge on the ef-
fectiveness of parking measures that affect total travel time in reducing
car use.
42
Transport Policy 73 (2019) 41–50
2.2. Parking location choice studies
Besides switching travel mode, travelers may also respond to
parking-policy measures by changing their parking locational decisions.
For example, travelers may park at a more remote location when faced
with increased parking charges. The change in parking locations is also
a desirable policy goal if it helps relieve demand pressure for parking in
activity centers and if it reduces drivers’ behavior of cruising for
parking (Shoup, 2006; Van Ommeren et al., 2012). Some researchers
have thus calibrated parking location choice models to examine the
influences of different parking attributes on parking decisions. Various
parking variables, including parking price, walk time between parking
and destination, search time for parking spots, and parking time limits
were shown to significantly affect parking choices (Gillen, 1978; Van
der Goot, 1982; Axhausen and Polak, 1991; Tsamboulas, 2001; Golias
et al., 2002; Chaniotakis and Pel, 2015). Regarding the time-cost vari-
ables associated with parking, Axhausen and Polak (1991) suggested
that drivers value walking time to the destination more than search
time for a parking space, which is in turn valued more than other in-
vehicle travel time.
Although parking-choice studies (more than mode-choice studies)
have often incorporated parking variables beyond parking cost, the
focus of policy analysis remains on parking-charge-related measures.
That is, researchers rarely apply their model results to evaluate the
relative effectiveness of non-pricing strategies in influencing travel
decisions.1 Accordingly, while dozens of parking management and
supply strategies have been proposed in practice to tackle parking-re-
lated problems, the academic literature has generated little satisfactory
information regarding their impacts on parking and travel choice be-
havior (Kuzmyak et al., 2003; Litman, 2018). Up until now, parking
pricing schemes appear to be the most popular parking policy, and they
are usually regarded as the most effective policy measure (Higgins,
1992; Golias et al., 2002); however, several studies have found that
travelers are more responsive to parking availability and walk time than
to parking cost, particularly in more central locations such as the cen-
tral business district (Gillen, 1978; Chaniotakis and Pel, 2015).
2.3. The interaction between parking choice and travel-mode choice
To facilitate the comparison of study results and allow transfer-
ability of research findings from one research setting to other contexts,
researchers often summarize demand response to parking attributes in
the form of elasticities. An elasticity measure indicates the percentage
changes in the demand variable (e.g. parking volumes at a specific site)
in response to a one percent change in the attribute of interest (e.g.
parking price). While a wide range of elasticity estimates—generally
between −0.1 and −0.6 but as high as −1.2 (Albert and Mahalel,
2006)—has been reported in the literature, the most cited value for the
price elasticity of parking demand (number of cars parking) was −0.3
(Vaca and Kuzmyak, 2005). The parking price elasticity of car use was
less clearly estimated, since modal responses are highly sensitive to
local conditions such as the availability and convenience of competing
travel modes, especially public transit. In general, researchers believe
that a shift in parking location is a more probable behavioral response
to parking interventions than a shift in travel mode (Shiftan, 2002;
Marsden, 2006), a finding that would presumably hold more for se-
lective or localized parking-price increases than in pricing-policy shifts
that affect broader swaths of territory.
While early parking studies were mostly aggregate in nature, ex-
amining overall travel and parking demand responses to parking pri-
cing changes, more recent work has focused on investigating individual
1
One of such exceptions is Simićević et al. (2013), where the authors con-
cluded that parking prices would affect car usage while parking time limit
would affect the type of parking used (on-street versus off-street).
X. Yan et al. Transport Policy 73 (2019) 41–50

choice behavior. Researchers generally consider disaggregate studies to

be more methodologically satisfactory than aggregate studies (Feeney,
1989). However, most choice-behavior studies have modeled travel
mode and parking choices separately, an approach that may lead to
specification errors and biased results. Mode-choice studies often found
a lower-than-expectation parking price elasticity of car use, since higher
parking fees trigger not only modal shift but also parking relocation
(Gillen, 1977). Westin and Gillen (1978) provided an early finding on
this idea by modeling parking cost as an endogenous variable in a mode
choice model. Similarly, parking choice studies could underestimate the
effects of parking policies on travel behavior if their impacts on modal
responses are not accounted for. In order to have a more accurate
evaluation of parking policies, therefore, parking studies should ac-
count for parking and mode choice simultaneously.
Our study contributes to the literature by accounting for both
money and time costs of parking in a joint choice model of parking
location and travel mode, which was calibrated on commuting-trip data
collected on a large university campus. Choice models that account for
the interaction between parking location choice and mode choice have
rarely been applied in the existing literature, with a limited few ex-
ceptions such as Westin and Gillen (1978), Hensher and King (2001),
and Simićević et al. (2013). However, the Westin and Gillen study
specified a sophisticated econometric model which is difficult to re-
plicate. The other two papers relied on stated-preference (SP) data,
often extracted from hypothetical choice experiments, instead of re-
vealed-preference (RP) data which reflect actual market behavior. Fig. 1. Location of university parking lots by permit type required.
While SP data have been widely used in transportation research, re-
searchers generally consider that the results obtained from SP data are
less reliable than those from RP data (Hensher et al., 2005). alternatives available; that is, individuals are more likely to choose to
drive if parking is cheap and convenient. Consequently, when faced
3. Modeling framework with parking policy measures (on a specific parking location), motorists
may respond by not only parking at a different destination but also
Our research approach employs the discrete choice modeling tech- switching to a different travel mode. For certain individuals, however,
nique, which is commonly used to examine consumer choice, in which driving may be the only viable travel option and so they can only react
individuals are assumed to maximize their utility stemming from the to parking changes by changing parking locations.
alternative chosen. To account for the unobserved factors influencing
individuals’ choice decisions, economists have specified discrete choice 4. The data
models based on random utility theory (McFadden, 1981; Ben-Akiva
and Lerman, 1985). The utility of alternative i for individual n Uin is The data used to fit the NL model in this study are commuting-trip
assumed to be made up of a systematic component Vin and a random data collected from faculty and staff at the University of Michigan, Ann
component εin . The former is a function of observed attributes, and the Arbor. This campus provides a natural experiment to examine the im-
latter is an unobserved error term. The most commonly used discrete pact of parking charges and constraints on mode choice. The university
choice model is the multinomial logit model (MNL), in which the error issues several types of parking permits to faculty and staff, including
term εin is assumed to be identically and independently distributed Gold, Blue, Yellow, and Orange, each of which has an annual cost of
across alternatives (IIA) and across observations following a type I ex- $1809, $736, $161, and $80 respectively in 2018 (prices were slightly
treme distribution. While MNL has widespread applications, it is often lower in survey years). Parking spaces that are associated with cheaper
inadequate when some of its basic assumptions are violated, among permits are usually either more constrained or located at more distant
which the IIA assumption violation is most common. sites from university buildings (see Fig. 1). Therefore, faculty and staff
A variety of model extensions have been developed to address this who desire to drive can choose to buy either a cheaper permit at the
issue, and the nested logit (NL) model is the simplest and most widely expense of parking at more constrained and distant space or vice versa.
used (Koppelman and Wen, 1998). The NL model is characterized by Or, when neither alternative is desirable, they may choose non-driving
grouping subsets of alternatives that are similar to each into different travel modes.
nests. This modeling structure assumes that decision makers would be The commuting-trip data came from the University of Michigan
more likely to switch alternatives within a nest instead of across nests. Sustainability Cultural Indicators Program (SCIP) 2012–2015.
The NL model is particularly appealing when the choice decision (Callewaert and Marans, 2017). The SCIP is an annual online survey
modeled can be conceptualized as a hierarchical choice process (e.g. administrated to a cross-sectional sample of faculty, staff, and students
choosing a type of neighborhood and a house) or a sequential one (e.g. (students were excluded from the analysis in this study because they
choosing a job location first and then a residence location). have very limited parking options), and it yields responses from more
This study conceives of travelers as simultaneously deciding on a than 1000 faculty and staff members every year. The original purpose
travel mode and parking destination. When choosing a parking desti- of the SCIP surveys was to assess sustainability knowledge, behaviors,
nation, individuals face tradeoffs among parking cost, search time for a and attitudes—on a broad range of topics such as travel and transpor-
parking space, and travel time from parking to the destination. Decision tation, food, waste prevention and climate change—across university
makers also need to evaluate the desirability of travel modes based on populations over time. The survey asked participants to report their
their respective attributes (e.g. money and time cost, comfort, safety) usual travel mode for commuting trips, parking-permit ownership,
and attribute levels. The two choice decisions interact because the de- work address (department buildings), and home address (nearest in-
sirability of the driving mode is affected by the desirability of parking tersection to their residence). Other information extracted from the

43
X. Yan et al.
SCIP dataset includes respondents’ demographic and socioeconomic
characteristics, how important they valued walkability, bikeability, and
transit availability when they decided where to live, and their en-
vironmental consciousness (how much they are concerned about the
impact of auto travel on the environment).
Although the survey asked participants to choose a usual commute
travel mode from a set of eight options (drive a car, walk, bike, ride the
bus, ride the bus and bike, rideshare, park and ride, and other), we have
aggregated them into four composite alternatives—drive a car, ride the
bus, walk, and bike—for analysis. The driving mode was then inter-
acted with the permit type variable to generate four driving and permit
type combinations. After a data cleaning process, a total of 2861 cases
were included in subsequent analysis. Among these respondents, shares
for each alternative to be modeled are: drive with a Gold
permit—14.1%, drive with a Blue permit—42.4%, drive with a Yellow
permit—13.4%, drive with an Orange permit—6.4%, walk—8.4%,
bike—6.4%, and ride the bus—8.8%.
4.1. Measuring level of service attributes for each travel mode
The most essential variables for a mode choice model are the level-
of-service attributes for each travel mode. To obtain these measures, we
first geocoded the home and work address information of respondents
into geographic coordinates. Then, we applied the Google Maps
Distance Matrix API to obtain home-to-work travel time estimates for
three travel modes: walking, biking, and transit (driving alternatives
will be discussed separately in the next paragraph). Compared to a
traditional network-analysis procedure, this technique is much more
efficient and can potentially increase the accuracy of travel time esti-
mates (Wang and Xu, 2011).2 There is only a single estimate for the
walking and biking mode at any time. For the transit mode, however,
the outputs depend on the specifications of departure/arrival time,
which accounts for transit schedules, and transit-routing preferences,
which includes two options—less walking and fewer transfers. Different
specifications could lead to somewhat different travel time estimates.
To account for such variability, the transit travel time estimates used in
this study are the average of eight estimates resulting from the com-
binations of four arrival-time points on a weekday (8:00 a.m., 9:00
a.m., 10:00 a.m., 10:30 a.m.) and two transit-routing-preference op-
tions (less walking and fewer transfers). In addition, since wait time for
the first leg of the transit trip is not accounted for by the Google Maps
API (wait time for transfer stops is included in the estimate), we have
added 10 min of wait time to all transit travel time estimates.
For each driving-plus-permit alternative, we assumed that in-
dividuals will park at the nearest parking lot that accepts this type of
permit. Then, again using the Google Maps API, we obtained travel time
estimates from home to parking lots for these alternatives. Similar to
travel time estimates for transit, these estimates are subject to specifi-
cations of the traffic model and departure/arrival time. We selected the
“best guess” option for the traffic model. Also, to account for travel-
time differences in peak hours versus nonpeak hours, we took the
average of travel-time estimates in four arrival-time points (8:00 a.m.,
9:00 a.m., 10:00 a.m., 10:30 a.m.) on a typical weekday. Finally, we
obtained the travel time estimates from parking lots to work destina-
tions by walking and by taking the bus. After adding 5 min of waiting to
the transit mode, the smaller value of these two is taken as the egress-
time estimate from a parking lot to someone's workplace.
2 2) For transit, Google Maps returned an output of “not applicable,” or
One limitation of Google Maps API is that it only generates travel time es-
timates based on the most updated road network and transit schedules. Our
data are from 2012 to 2015 and we obtain the home-to-work travel time esti-
mates in 2017. Since the years are pretty close and the transport systems in our
study area did not experience significant changes during those gap years, we
consider these travel time estimates to be reliable.
44
Transport Policy 73 (2019) 41–50
4.2. Measuring parking-related variables
Besides the access time from parking lots to workplaces estimated
above, other parking-related variables include parking cost (permit
cost) and search time for parking. Since this study models mode choice
in a one-way commute trip, parking cost was calculated by dividing
annual permit cost by 500 (assuming there 250 workdays and each one-
way trip shares half of the parking cost). Therefore, the parking costs
for driving with Gold, Blue, Yellow, and Orange permits are $3.62,
$1.47, $0.32, $0.16, respectively.
Following a procedure described below, we estimated the search
time for finding a parking spot from data on parking lots’ capacity and
vacancy rates. These data were obtained from the University of
Michigan Logistics, Transportation & Parking, which sends out staff
each year to record the number of vacant spaces in each parking lot,
every morning and afternoon on five consecutive weekdays. We ag-
gregated these data into a single indicator of parking constraint for each
parking lot, which is the average vacancy rate in the mornings.3 While
to our knowledge there have been no publications that estimate search
time for parking space from vacancy rates of parking structures/sur-
faces, empirical work on on-street parking shows that search time only
starts to rise above zero minutes when vacancy rate is below 15%, and
it rises exponentially when the vacancy rate approaches zero (Shoup,
2005; Levy et al., 2013; Inci et al., 2017). Apart from vacancy rate,
search time is also likely to be affected by parking lot capacity, espe-
cially when the vacancy rate is zero, since individuals are likely to
spend more time searching in larger lots.
We converted parking capacity and vacancy rates into search time
following a conceptual approach as follows. Let us denote search time
as t, parking lot capacity as C, vacancy rate as V, expected number of
parking space examined until a vacant space is located as N, vehicle
travel speed when searching for parking as v (set as eight miles per
hour), and width of a parking space as l (set as 10 feet). For on-street
parking, researchers often assume that vacancy parking spaces are
randomly distributed (see Inci et al., 2017). Therefore, the expected
number of spaces examined N = 1/V, and so search time t = N × l/v =
l/(V × v). However, in parking structures, parking spaces are usually
filled up sequentially and so drivers may have examined all occupied
space before locating a vacancy one. It thus follows that the expected
number of spaces examined N = (1-V) × C, and so search time t = N ×
l/v = (1-V) × C × l/v. For small lots, the two approaches would result
in similar search time estimates; for large lots, however, the first ap-
proach is likely to produce a search time estimate that is much smaller
than the second approach. In this study, we took the middle ground and
specified search time t = 0.5 × l/(V × v)+0.5 × (1-V) × C × l/v.
As discussed in Inci et al. (2017), this specification will be proble-
matic when a parking lot reaches full occupancy. The expected number
of parking spaces examined will be infinite for formula N = 1/V, which
in turn produces an infinitely large search-time estimate. To address
this issue, a constraint was imposed on search time. Adopting the ap-
proach of Inci et al. (2017), we set the expected number of parking
spaces examined in a parking lot as five times of its capacity when it
reaches full capacity. That is to say, the vacancy rate of any parking lot
was constrained to be no less than 1/(5 × C).
A final important step of data processing is to delete alternatives
within each individual's choice set that are either unavailable or un-
reasonable. In the current study, we removed the alternatives from an
individual's choice set under the following conditions:
1) For walking and biking, estimated travel time is larger than 90 min;
3
To reduce measurement error, some small parking lots (i.e. capacity is less
than 50) were grouped with their nearby lots to calculate an “areawide”
average vacancy rate.
X. Yan et al. Transport Policy 73 (2019) 41–50

Table 1 Table 2
A descriptive profile of the level of service variables. Nested logit model outputs.
Attribute Alternative Unit Total Sample Sample choosing this Alternatives coefficients t-stat
alternative
Constants
Mean Standard Mean Standard Walk Walk 1.191 8.38
deviation deviation Transit Transit 4.586 6.95
DriveGold DriveGold 9.996 15.09
Travel time1 DriveGold Minute 17.57 13.24 17.85 11.00 DriveBlue DriveBlue 9.951 15.16
DriveBlue 17.99 13.47 20.75 14.38 DriveYellow DriveYellow 9.305 15.00
DriveYellow 16.90 12.98 24.35 14.49 DriveOrange DriveOrange 9.180 14.89
DriveOrange 17.15 12.70 22.86 13.98
Walk 34.71 14.48 21.58 11.08 LOS variables
Bike 20.3 13.35 13.07 8.85 Travel time All alternatives −0.048 −8.88
Transit 49.62 19.55 44.66 13.65 Search time Driving alternatives −0.042 −6.15
Search time DriveGold Minute 0.53 0.72 1.20 0.71 Egress time Driving alternatives −0.102 −6.90
DriveBlue 7.71 7.65 4.99 5.69 Travel cost by household income Driving alternatives 0.126 1.60
DriveYellow 2.73 1.58 2.33 1.52 Parking cost by household income Driving alternatives −0.148 −6.75
DriveOrange 3.61 1.95 3.93 1.66
Egress time DriveGold Minute 4.09 3.17 4.90 2.68 Socioeconomic and demographic variables
DriveBlue 4.09 3.18 3.12 2.22 Household income Driving alternatives 0.117 2.10
DriveYellow 9.44 3.58 5.85 2.84 Vehicle per capita Driving alternatives 0.822 4.47
DriveOrange 11.21 2.81 10.02 3.41 Male Walk, Bike 0.410 2.67
Travel cost2 DriveGold Dollar 2.37 3.11 2.12 2.43
DriveBlue 2.41 3.14 3.00 3.62 Behavioral preference variables
DriveYellow 2.37 2.95 4.01 3.63 Bike- and walk-ability Walk, Bike 1.815 21.98
DriveOrange 2.39 2.93 3.58 3.41 Transit availability Transit 1.364 19.72
Parking cost DriveGold Dollar 3.62 0.00 3.62 0.00 Environmental consciousness Walk, Bike, Transit 0.306 2.55
DriveBlue 1.47 0.00 1.47 0.00
DriveYellow 0.32 0.00 0.32 0.00 IV parameters (RU2)
DriveOrange 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.00 Driving alternatives 0.376 6.76
Transit 1.000
Notes: 1. The travel time for non-driving alternatives is the one-way home-to- Walk, Bike 0.594 5.83
destination total trip time, and the travel time for driving alternatives excludes
search time and egress time. 2. Since the University provides free transit pass to Sample size 2861
Log likelihood (null model) −4289.95
all faculty and staff, the travel costs for Walk, Bike, and Transit are all equal to
Log likelihood −2912.53
zero. The travel costs for driving alternative are the product of the travel dis-
Adjusted McFadden psuedo R2 0.316
tance between an individual's home and the parking lots and the variable cost of Chi-squared vs. MNL model 95.290
driving, which is assumed to be 30 cents per mile. The fixed cost of car own- Rejection significance 0.000
ership is not accounted for here.

the distance between home and the nearest bus stop is larger than
one mile, or the travel time estimate is the same as walking.
3) For driving alternatives, the given individual owns no personal ve-
hicle. Also, a given permit type option is not available if the esti-
mated egress time is larger than 20 min or if the sum of search and
egress time is larger than that for a cheaper permit type.

After this procedure, among the 2861 individuals in our sample,

driving with Gold, Blue, Yellow, or Orange permit, walking, biking, and
riding the bus are available in 2784, 2808, 2117, 1886, 1245, 2260, and
1966 choice sets respectively; and the number of individuals choosing
each alternative is 438, 1078, 384, 168, 287, 222, and 284 respectively.
The mean and standard deviation of the level-of-service attributes in-
fluencing travel choices are shown in Table 1.
5. Empirical analysis
5.1. Model specification
Table 2 presents the results of the two-level nested model, estimated
by normalizing the level-2 scale parameter (i.e. RU2). The adjusted
McFadden's pseudo R-square for this model was 0.317, which indicates
satisfactory model fit. While not presented here, an MNL was specified
to be compared with the NL model, but it resulted in much worse model
fit, and a Hausman test showed that the independence of irrelevant
alternative assumption was violated. The nesting structure of the NL
model is shown in Fig. 2. We tested several other groupings of alter-
natives—for example, combining all non-driving alternatives—but they
resulted in worse model fit. The logsum parameters (often referred to as
inclusive value parameters) for the driving alternative alternatives and
Fig. 2. Two-level nest structure for the NL model.
non-motorized alternatives (i.e. walking and biking) were 0.372 and
0.604 respectively, both within the theoretical range of 0–1. A logsum
parameter value closer to zero indicates increased substitution among
alternatives in that nest, and so there is more substitution among
driving alternatives than that between walking and biking.
Building on prior research on travel behavior, we included five
groups of independent variables into the joint mode and parking choice
model, including alternative-specific constants (ASCs), level of service
(LOS) attributes associated with each alternative, socioeconomic and
demographic attributes associated with each individual, built-environ-
ment factors, and behavioral-preference-related variables. The meaning
of most variables should be self-explanatory and thus no detailed de-
finitions are presented. We computed the variance inflation factor (VIF)
value for all independent variables and found that all the variables have
a VIF value of smaller than 5, which indicates little multicollinearity in
the data. In specifying the model, a major decision involves de-
termining how each independent variable will enter the systematic
utility functions of alternatives. Once this decision is made, one should
decide if a variable will have the same or different coefficients for each

45
X. Yan et al.
utility function it enters. We constrained all coefficients to be the same
across alternatives, which means that the influence of each attribute on
the utility of each alternative is assumed to be the same.
We tested a variety of specifications before deciding on the final
form. The money-cost variables (travel and parking costs) were divided
by household income in order to account for the fact that lower-income
individuals tend to be sensitive to changes in them. The second column
of Table 2 lists the alternatives that each independent variable is as-
sociated with. Travel time and travel cost were specified as generic
variables across all alternatives. We attempted to model in-vehicle time
(IVT) and out-of-vehicle time (OVT) separately but obtained un-
satisfactory results (parameter estimate on IVT was insignificant and
positive). Parking-related variables, including search time, egress time
(from parking lot to workplace), and parking cost, only entered the
utility functions of the driving alternatives. They are the key variables
of interest in this study.
5.2. Coefficient estimates
In general, the coefficient estimates carried expected signs, and their
magnitudes were in reasonable range. We set the biking mode as the
reference alternative (i.e. the ASC for biking was set to zero), and so the
ASCs were relative in magnitude to biking. All ASCs were positive and
significant at a 95% of confidence level (except that the ASC for transit
is insignificant), which suggests that everything being equal, in-
dividuals in our survey prefer other travel modes over biking.
Consistent with theoretical prediction, coefficients on all LOS var-
iables—except travel cost (by household income)—were significant and
negative. While parking cost (by household income) was found to ne-
gatively affect the choice probability of driving alternatives, the coef-
ficient on travel cost was positive but not statistically significant. A
primary reason for this unexpected positive sign may be that our model
did not consider carpooling as an alternative. Statistically, to obtain a
negative coefficient on travel cost requires the choice probability of
certain alternatives to go down when they have become more expensive
than their competing alternatives. In the context of our data, we would
need to observe the choice probability of driving declining as in-
dividuals’ travel distance from home to work increases, because all non-
driving alternatives had a travel cost of zero. Yet the opposite was
observed because driving became the only viable travel mode as travel
distance increased. Introducing carpooling, a cheaper travel alternative
(compared to driving alone) whose choice probability is likely to in-
crease as travel distance increases, into the model may reverse the sign,
but our data did not allow it.
Comparing the magnitudes of time variable coefficients generates
several important insights. First of all, we found that individuals value
egress time more than travel time. Parking studies have consistently
reported that drivers have a strong inclination to park at places very
close to their destinations (Inci, 2015), and so it is reasonable for this
preference to partially translate into the valuation of egress time. The
value of egress time to travel time ratio was 2.13, which is close to the
values reported by early studies (Axhausen and Polak, 1991; Young
et al., 1991). Second, somewhat unexpectedly, our model implies that
the value of search time is less than that of travel time, resulting in a
value of time ratio of 0.88. This ratio is smaller than 1.38, the mean
value of search time to IVT ratio in the ten studies reviewed by
Wardman (2001). Besides a simple measurement error explanation, i.e.
search time in our study was not observed but estimated from data on
parking lot vacancy and capacity, it may also because our study com-
bined IVT and OVT into a single travel time variable. Since OVT is in
general valued more than both IVT and search time (Wardman, 2001;
Abrantes and Wardman, 2011), it is reasonable for the value of search
time to be smaller than the value of travel time.
Based on the coefficient estimates on the cost and time variables, we
calculated the implied willingness-to-pay for time reductions among the
study population. The coefficient estimate on the parking-cost
46
Transport Policy 73 (2019) 41–50
indicator, instead of that on the travel-cost indicator, was used here
because the latter was less reliable. Assuming that each individual earns
half of his/her annual household income and that the work hours for a
year is 2000 h, we found that individuals’ values of travel time, search
time, and egress time were 0.39, 0.34, and 0.83 times, respectively, of
their wage rate. In other words, for someone with an annual income of
$50,000 (wage rate is $25 per hour), our model showed that his/her
values of travel time, search time, and egress time were $9.73 per hour,
$8.51 per hour, and $20.68 per hour respectively.
Individuals' socioeconomic status and demographic characteristics
were found to correlate with their travel choices. Our model showed
that commuters who had a higher household income and better access
to personal vehicles were more likely to drive to work. In addition,
males were more inclined to use non-motorized modes than females.
While not shown here, we also tested the association between age and
travel-choice probabilities but found no statistically significant re-
lationships. Our study also showed that individuals’ residential pre-
ferences may shape their travel behavior. Those who preferred to live in
walkable/bikeable communities were more likely to travel on foot or
with their bicycles, and those who valued transit access at home were
more prone to take the bus. Finally, environmental consciousness, as
measured by how much people are concerned about auto and airplane
travel, was negatively associated with car use.
5.3. Elasticities
To assess the sensitivity of outcome variables in response to changes
in each independent variable, it is common practice to convert the
coefficients obtained from discrete-choice models into elasticities. An
elasticity measure shows the percentage changes in the choice prob-
ability of an alternative in response to a one percent change in a vari-
able. The measure is termed direct elasticity when evaluating how an
alternative's probability responds to a one percent change in its own
attribute, and is termed cross elasticity when evaluating responses to a
one percent change in other alternatives' attribute. Given that the pri-
mary focus of this study is to examine the impacts of parking policies,
we calculated elasticities with respect to following variables: parking
cost, search time, and egress time. Results are given in Table 3. Note
that the elasticities were obtained using the probability-weighted
sample enumeration technique rather than by averaging individual
elasticities directly (Louviere et al., 2000).
Note: Numbers in bold fond are direct elasticities and other numbers
are cross-elasticities. The elasticities are read by row, for example, the
first row for parking price (i.e. price change in Blue permit) shows that
a 1% increase in parking cost will lead to a 0.61% reduction in the
sample share choosing to drive with a Blue permit, a 0.61% increase in
choosing to drive with a Gold permit, …and a 0.16% increase in
choosing to take the bus.
The parking price elasticity rises with parking charges and ranged
from −0.21 to −1.89, and the choice probability-weighted average
was −0.78. Overall, these estimates are larger in magnitude than the
typical range of −0.1 to −0.6 reported in early parking studies (Vaca
and Kuzmyak, 2005) but are close to those reported by Hensher and
King (2001). Both the Hensher and King paper and our study calibrated
a joint mode and parking choice model, and most early parking studies
only modeled parking choices. Therefore, early parking studies may
have underestimated demand elasticity with respect to parking charges
due to the failure to account for modal responses. Another important
reason for the larger price elasticity estimates obtained here is that our
study examines parking and mode choice behavior of long-term com-
muters, while other studies often include other types of travelers such
as short-term visitors. Studies have shown that individuals who park
more frequently and at a longer duration at a place tend to be more
sensitive to price changes (Kelly and Clinch, 2006; Brooke et al., 2014).
Furthermore, existing parking studies often model parking locations at
a zonal level, such as groups of blocks (Van der Goot, 1982) and inside
X. Yan et al. Transport Policy 73 (2019) 41–50

Table 3
Direct and cross elasticities.
DriveGold DriveBlue DriveYellow DriveOrange Walk Bike Bus

Parking cost
DriveGold −1.89 0.57 0.30 0.29 0.06 0.08 0.07
DriveBlue 0.61 −0.61 0.50 0.62 0.08 0.13 0.16
DriveYellow 0.04 0.02 −0.26 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.02
DriveOrange 0.00 0.01 0.05 −0.21 0.00 0.00 0.01
Search time
DriveGold −0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
DriveBlue 0.41 −0.26 0.01 0.14 0.03 0.04 0.05
DriveYellow 0.03 0.02 −0.15 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.01
DriveOrange 0.02 0.02 0.06 −0.30 0.00 0.00 0.01
Egress time
DriveGold −0.61 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.02 0.03 0.02
DriveBlue 0.39 −0.33 0.23 0.29 0.04 0.06 0.06
DriveYellow 0.19 0.17 −1.09 0.64 0.03 0.04 0.06
DriveOrange 0.12 0.12 0.38 −2.07 0.02 0.03 0.05

or outside of a cordon zone (Azari et al., 2013), which can also lead to
underestimated price elasticity because these models are unable to
capture within-zone parking location change. Finally, while the daily
parking permit cost is low compared to urban downtown parking rates,
the purchase of a university parking permit is a lump-sum payment in
hundreds of dollars; individuals tend to be more sensitive to larger
expenses.
The cross elasticities with respect to parking price changes for
driving alternatives were significantly larger than those for non-driving
modes. For example, a 1 percent increase in the cost of a Blue permit
would be expected to yield a 0.62 percent increase in the use of range
lots, but only a 0.16 percent increase in the use of the bus. This suggests
that motorists respond to parking charges by primarily changing their
parking choices instead of switching to an alternative travel mode. To
achieve the goal of reducing car use, increasing the price of Blue per-
mits (the most popular and second-most expensive type) would be more
effective than charging more for other permits. In fact, these results
suggest that charging more for the cheaper permits (i.e. Yellow and
Orange) would create very little incentive for drivers to give up their
personal vehicles. Two plausible explanations may account for these
low cross-elasticity values. First, the parking permits are relatively
cheap compared to the convenience and travel-time savings offered by
personal vehicles against competing modes. University employees tend
to have a higher value of time than the general public, and driving is
mostly preferred. Second, in the study area, households with higher
income tend to live at places closer to campus where there is decent
transit service, whereas lower-income households tend to live further
away from where the only viable travel option is driving. Therefore, if
additional parking charges were introduced, higher-income individuals
will keep driving; on the other hand, the lower-income individuals who
are sensitive to parking pricing can only drive to a cheaper parking lot
instead of shifting to transit. This reasoning shows that parking pricing
schemes would have major equity implications (Chatman and Manville,
2018).
The elasticity estimates with respect to search time were in general
much smaller than those with respect to parking costs, which suggests
that travelers were much more sensitive to parking price than search
time. Those who spent more time on searching (mostly Blue permit
holders), however, were more responsive to additional search time. On
the other hand, individuals’ parking choice was found to be profoundly
affected by changes in egress time. The effect rose with distance, that is,
the elasticity estimate was higher for more remote lots (Yellow and
Orange) than nearby lots (Gold and Blue). The direct egress time
elasticity for drivers who parked at Orange lots was −2.07, which
means that a 1% decrease in the egress time from an Orange lot to
destination would lead to a 2.07% increase in parking volumes at an
Orange lot. This implies that measures to enhance connections between
distant parking lots and destinations are likely to significantly boost the
chances of these lots being utilized. Indeed, studies often report that
convenient transit/shuttle services between park-and-ride facilities and
popular destinations are essential gradients for the success of park-and-
ride schemes (e.g. Bos et al., 2004). Finally, the cross-elasticities of non-
driving modes with respect to time variables were small, which in-
dicates that non-pricing parking measures would primarily influence
the choice of parking destination rather than travel mode.
6. Policy simulations
Finally, we applied the model results to simulate market shares of
each alternative under different parking policy schemes in order to
evaluate their respective effectiveness in achieving different policy
goals. The effectiveness of different policy measures depends on not
only the sensitivity of traveler responses to each policy variable (i.e.
demand elasticity with respect to a variable), but also the practical
amount of change that each policy can effect on these variables. For
example, although parking demand elasticity with respect to egress
time may be much larger than with respect to parking cost, pricing
schemes (e.g. doubling the parking cost) are often more effective than
measures that reduce egress time (e.g. providing more frequently
shuttle services between parking lots and destinations) because there is
less room for improvements on egress time.
The most important goals of contemporary parking policies are two-
fold—relieving parking demand in central locations and reducing car
use. We thus considered three types of policy measures to achieve these
goals—higher pricing in central areas (i.e. more expensive Blue and
Gold permits), increasing capacity of popular distant parking lots (in
order to reduce search time in Yellow and Orange lots), and enhancing
transit connections between parking lots and destinations (to reduce
egress time from Yellow and Orange lots to destinations). The first
policy effects changes on the driving with Blue and Gold permit alter-
natives, and the other two influence driving with Yellow and Blue
permit alternatives. Implementing the first two policies is straightfor-
ward. As for the third policy, the university may consider running on-
demand ridesourcing shuttles instead of traditional buses in order to
maximize operating efficiency (Yan et al., 2018). Based on realistic
considerations of the local context, we assumed the following for each
policy:
1) Policy 1: Increase the cost of Blue and Gold permits by 50%;
2) Policy 2: Increase the capacity of Yellow and Orange lots to reduce
the maximum search time for these lots to 3 min, i.e. those who were
estimated to spend more than 3 min in searching for a Yellow or
Orange parking space would only spend 3 min. This amounts to an
overall 20% reduction in search time for Yellow lots and an overall

47
X. Yan et al. Transport Policy 73 (2019) 41–50

Table 4
Predicted demand change under different policy measures.
Drive Drive Drive Drive Walk Bike Transit Change of parking demand in Change in non-driving
Gold Blue Yellow Orange central areas modes

Current market share 15.31% 37.68% 13.42% 5.87% 10.03% 7.76% 9.93%

predicted market share 15.36% 37.65% 13.41% 5.86% 9.76% 8.03% 9.93%

Market share change

Policy 1: increase price of Blue and Gold −7.50% −2.12% 4.93% 2.52% 0.56% 0.70% 0.91% −9.62% 2.17%
permits by 50%
Policy 2: reduce search time in Yellow −0.19% −0.34% 0.13% 0.48% −0.02% −0.02% −0.04% −0.53% −0.07%
and Orange lots
Policy 3: reduce egress time from Yellow −0.69% −1.67% −0.04% 2.76% −0.08% −0.10% −0.19% −2.36% −0.37%
and Orange lots
Combining policy 1 and 2 −7.64% −2.60% 5.02% 3.14% 0.54% 0.66% 0.86% −10.23% 2.07%
Combining policy 1 and 3 −8.00% −4.50% 4.93% 5.93% 0.44% 0.55% 0.64% −12.50% 0.44%
Combining policy 1, 2, and 3 −8.54% −6.97% 6.59% 7.83% 0.32% 0.38% 0.39% −15.51% 1.09%

34% reduction in search time for Orange lots.
3) Policy 3: Enhance transit connections between Yellow and Orange
parking lots and destinations to improve the egress time for these
alternatives as follows. If the estimated egress time by walking was
no more than 5 min, individuals were assumed to walk and so the
egress time would be equal to walk time; otherwise, travelers were
assumed to take the transit instead and their egress time would be
3 min of wait time plus the in-vehicle travel time. Based on the as-
sumption that ridesourcing shuttles instead of traditional buses
would be operated to serve these connections, we set the in-vehicle
travel time to be the average of current car travel time and current
transit travel time. This amounts to an overall 13% reduction in
egress time for Yellow lots and an overall 20% reduction in egress
time for Orange lots.
and more convenient satellite parking create for car use. Moreover,
there appear to be significant synergies between policies. When in-
troduced together, these parking policies would produce a greater effect
on reducing the demand pressure in Gold and Blue lots than the sum of
their individual effects. Nonetheless, this synergistic effect would un-
dermine the incentive that higher pricing creates for non-driving al-
ternatives, understandably so because these measures have jointly
made driving to Yellow and Orange lots much more attractive. If re-
ducing car use is prioritized over parking relocation as a policy goal,
policymakers may consider measures that more directly affect mode
choice, such as expanding carpooling incentives and enhancing public-
transit services. However, these alternatives may face political chal-
lenges as they amount to diverting parking revenue to uses that neither
improve nor connect to parking facilities (Rye and Ison, 2005).

Table 4 presents the current market share, model-predicted market

share, and market-share changes under different policy measures for
the alternatives modeled in this paper. The last two columns present the
change of parking volume in central areas (i.e. the sum of changes in
driving with Blue and Gold permits) and the change in non-driving
modes (i.e. the sum of changes in walk, bike and transit), which are the
indicators of the major policy goals. A negative sign indicates a desir-
able change for the former and the opposite is true for the latter.
These results generate several important insights. First, they show
that while parking pricing can relieve parking pressure and reduce car
use simultaneously, policies that reduce search time and egress time in
satellite lots imply tradeoffs between the two goals: greater attractive-
ness of the remote lots can attract parkers from central areas, but it can
also encourage car use. Second, for all three policies, the magnitude of
change in parking volume in central areas was much larger than that in
the use of non-driving modes, suggesting that the primary effect of
parking policies is triggering parking relocation instead of modal
switch. Third, even though policy 2 assumed a higher percentage
change than policy 3 in their corresponding parking attributes, the
number of changes in parking and modal choice caused by policy 2 was
much more modest than that by policy 3. That is to say, enhancing the
connectivity between parking facilities and destinations would be more
effective than expanding the capacity of remote parking lots in
achieving policy goals; and so policymakers should prioritize parking
management strategies over increasing supply.
We also tested the effects of several policy combinations, and the
results are shown in the last three rows of Table 4. As expected, com-
bining pricing with measures that enhance the attractiveness of cheaper
and more distant parking facilities would lead to a greater impact on
parking demand reduction in central areas. In addition, the net effect on
travelers’ use of non-driving modes was positive, which indicates that
higher parking fees can effectively counter the incentives that easier
7. Conclusion
This paper developed a joint model of parking location and travel
mode choice based on faculty and staff commuters to the University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor. Key policy variables studied here include parking
cost, parking search time (cruising time), and egress time (the time
required to reach one's destination from a parking spot). The parking
price elasticity estimated in this study ranged from −0.21 to −1.89
with a choice-probability-weighted average of −0.78, which is larger
than the value of −0.3 often reported in parking studies. Two major
sources of discrepancy are the failure to account for modal responses in
early parking models and this study's focus on long-term commuting
trips, which are more sensitive to parking price changes than less-fre-
quent and shorter-duration trips. Of the time-cost variables, we found
that travelers were more sensitive to egress time than search time. With
the advent of intelligent parking services, which provide parking
availability information to travelers through internet and smartphone
apps, parking search time is likely to exert even less of an influence on
travelers' parking and mode choice decisions (Cao and Menendez,
2018). The parking demand elasticity with respect to egress time esti-
mated here was even larger than that to parking price, which suggests
that there may be great potential to encourage remote parking by im-
proving transit and shuttle connections with final destinations. The
advent of on-demand transportation ordered via smart devices—and
potentially self-driving vehicles—can expand policymakers' options in
improving this kind of access.
Our study shows that travelers tend to respond to parking policies
by relocating to a different parking lot instead of switching to an al-
ternative travel mode. This finding holds despite the fact that the uni-
versity provides free transit passes to all faculty and staff. The in-
effectiveness of parking strategies to promote transit use results from
two reasons. First, in the United States where both gas and parking

48
X. Yan et al. Transport Policy 73 (2019) 41–50

prices are low (Shoup, 2005), driving is still much more attractive than
taking the bus given the travel-time savings, convenience, and flex-
ibility that it provides. Second, in the study area, higher-income
households tend to live close to campus, where better transit services
are provided, whereas lower-income households tend to live further
away where driving is the often only viable travel option. Therefore,
lower-income households who are more likely to take advantage of the
free transit pass end up not being able to do so but can only relocate to
more remote parking lots when parking charges are increased. Our
findings thus provide important lessons for cities that are considering
the promotion of non-driving travel modes by implementing parking-
related strategies.
The parking environment of the University of Michigan differs from
those of cities in major respects, notably in the parking charges that
commuters face. These differences present both a challenge and an
opportunity. The challenge is that the model results are not directly
transferable. Parameter estimates will surely vary between campus and
city—just as they would vary between cities with their variations in
regionwide parking conditions, parking enforcement, availability and
convenience of alternative travel mode, and local population char-
acteristics (Galbraith and Hensher, 1982). On the other hand, while
urban parkers often see themselves as tied to their specific employer's
site for parking, the integrated campus parking system described here
invites users to use lots at different convenience and price points
throughout the 13-square mile campus area, giving transportation re-
searchers a nearly ideal opportunity to study parking choice behavior
and its price and non-price determinants. In addition, the campus offers
a useful laboratory for modeling parking and travel-mode choices si-
multaneously because cycling, walking, and transit use are realistic
options for many commuters. Therefore, research presented here can
help identify relevant dimensions of parking and travel-mode decisions
and their interplay, which can advance parking-behavior research and
policies it supports in other locales.
Results of this study are based on commuting trips of faculty and
staff to a university campus. The findings presented here are most
suitable to inform parking policies that are intended to affect long-term
and long-duration parking, such as workplace and residential parking
policies. The results are less transferable to retail parking and down-
town parking that attracts travelers with various trip purposes, various
parking frequencies and duration, and less familiarity with local
parking conditions. More broadly, our study results have several im-
portant policy implications that are transferable to a wide range of
contexts. First, pricing remains the single most effective parking policy
to alter travel behavior. This is not only because individuals are highly
sensitive to parking cost, but also because other parking attributes have
much less room for change compared to parking price. Second, the
importance of egress time implies that strategies that alter egress time
can be effective policy tools when the political will for increased
parking charges is lacking. Third, when parking experiences localized
overcrowding despite adequate region-wide supply, parking demand
management strategies can be more effective (while in general more
desirable) than increasing parking supply. The fact that enhancing ac-
cess between remote parking lots and workplace has a greater impact
than increasing the capacity of crowded remote parking lots supports
this notion. Finally, considering the significant synergies between pri-
cing and policies that reduce search and egress time, parking strategies
are best implemented as a policy bundle. A “carrot and stick” im-
plementation may also result in greater acceptance of the parking
policy by local constituents.
Declarations of interest
None.
Acknowledgements
This study is a part of the "Reinventing Transportation and Urban
Mobility" project, funded by the Michigan Institute for Data Science. We
thank Lisa Solomon at the University of Michigan Logistics,
Transportation, and Parking for her staff support for this project.

Appendix. Robustness checks

A number of assumptions were made in order to estimate the parking search time in this study, which means that the search time variable may be
subject to large measurement errors. To check if our results are robust to alternative measurements of this variable, we re-fit the nested logit after
applying different sets of assumptions. Selected model outputs (coefficient estimates on level-of-service variables only) and the direct-elasticity
estimates on parking-related variables were presented in Table 5. In each column, only one assumption is different from the ones described in the
main text. Instead of specifying search time t = 0.5 × l/(V × v) + 0.5 × (1-V) × C × l/v, Column (1) and (2) specify t = l/(V × v) and t = (1-V)
× C × l/v respectively. Column (3) and (4) sets the cruising speed to be 5 mile/hour and 10 mile/hour respectively. Column (5) and (6) constraint
the vacancy rate of any parking lot to be no less than 1/(2 × C) and 1/(10 × C) respectively. The model outputs and elasticity estimates are close in
all six columns and so our results are robust to alternative measures of the parking search time variable.

Table 5
Selected model outputs and elasticity estimates.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

coefficient (t-stat) coefficient (t-stat) coefficient (t-stat) coefficient (t-stat) coefficient (t-stat) coefficient (t-stat)

Travel time −0.051** (−7.11) −0.056** (−10.12) −0.051** (−8.73) −0.049** (−9.25) −0.046** (−8.79) −0.051** (−9.39)
Search time −0.037** (−3.90) −0.024** (−3.91) −0.023** (−6.37) −0.042** (−5.95) −0.041** (−5.56) −0.030** (−6.04)
Egress time −0.052** (−3.72) −0.077** (−6.47) −0.098** (−6.89) −0.101** (−6.89) −0.100** (−6.70) −0.103** (−6.80)
Travel cost 0.103 (1.14) 0.066 (1.33) 0.163* (2.23) 0.081 (1.24) 0.131* (2.10) 0.075 (1.13)
Parking cost −0.142** (−4.11) −0.093** (−6.07) −0.164** (−6.89) −0.137** (−6.62) −0.134** (−6.46) −0.149** (−6.63)

Alternative Elasticity Elasticity Elasticity Elasticity Elasticity Elasticity

Parking cost DriveGold −1.67 −1.93 −1.84 −1.94 −1.95 −1.92

DriveBlue −0.57 −0.47 −0.65 −0.59 −0.58 −0.62
DriveYellow −0.34 −0.23 −0.27 −0.26 −0.26 −0.26
DriveOrange −0.19 −0.19 −0.21 −0.21 −0.21 −0.21
(continued on next page)

49
X. Yan et al. Transport Policy 73 (2019) 41–50

Table 5 (continued)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

coefficient (t-stat) coefficient (t-stat) coefficient (t-stat) coefficient (t-stat) coefficient (t-stat) coefficient (t-stat)

Search time DriveGold −0.04 −0.05 −0.05 −0.04 −0.05 −0.03

DriveBlue −0.29 −0.10 −0.28 −0.23 −0.23 −0.21
DriveYellow −0.26 −0.16 −0.16 −0.14 −0.15 −0.11
DriveOrange −0.36 −0.41 −0.32 −0.27 −0.32 −0.22
Egress time DriveGold −0.31 −0.75 −0.52 −0.69 −0.65 −0.62
DriveBlue −0.20 −0.32 −0.30 −0.34 −0.32 −0.34
DriveYellow −1.17 −1.19 −0.99 −1.14 −1.17 −1.10
DriveOrange −1.57 −2.22 −1.82 −2.22 −2.20 −2.09

References
Abrantes, P.A., Wardman, M.R., 2011. Meta-analysis of UK values of travel time: an
update. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 45 (1), 1–17.
Albert, G., Mahalel, D., 2006. Congestion tolls and parking fees: a comparison of the
potential effect on travel behavior. Transport Pol. 13 (6), 496–502.
Axhausen, K.W., Polak, J.W., 1991. Choice of parking: stated preference approach.
Transportation 18 (1), 59–81.
Azari, K.A., Arintono, S., Hamid, H., Rahmat, R.A.O., 2013. Modelling demand under
parking and cordon pricing policy. Transport Pol. 25, 1–9.
Ben-Akiva, M.E., Lerman, S.R., Lerman, S.R., 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and
Application to Travel Demand, vol. 9 MIT press.
Bos, I.D., Van der Heijden, R.E., Molin, E.J., Timmermans, H.J., 2004. The choice of park
and ride facilities: an analysis using a context-dependent hierarchical choice ex-
periment. Environ. Plann. 36 (9), 1673–1686.
Brooke, S.L., Ison, S.G., Quddus, M.A., 2014. Parking choice. In: In: Ison, S.G., Mulley, C.
(Eds.), Parking: Issues and Policies, Transport and Sustainability, vol. 5 Emerald
Group Publishing, Bingley, UK.
Callewaert, J., Marans, R.W., 2017. Measuring progress over time: the sustainability
cultural indicators program at the University of Michigan. In: Handbook of Theory
and Practice of Sustainable Development in Higher Education. Springer International
Publishing, pp. 173–187.
Cao, J., Menendez, M., 2018. Quantification of potential cruising time savings through
intelligent parking services. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 116, 151–165.
Chaniotakis, E., Pel, A.J., 2015. Drivers' parking location choice under uncertain parking
availability and search times: a stated preference experiment. Transport. Res. Pol.
Pract. 82, 228–239.
Chatman, D.G., Manville, M., 2018. Equity in congestion-priced parking: a study of
SFpark, 2011 to 2013. J. Transport Econ. Pol. (JTEP) 52 (3), 239–266.
Feeney, B.P., 1989. A review of the impact of parking policy measures on travel demand.
Transport. Plann. Technol. 13 (4), 229–244.
Galbraith, R.A., Hensher, D.A., 1982. Intra-metropolitan transferability of mode choice
models. J. Transport Econ. Pol. 7–29.
Gillen, D.W., 1977. Estimation and specification of the effects of parking costs on urban
transport mode choice. J. Urban Econ. 4 (2), 186–199.
Gillen, D.W., 1978. Parking policy, parking location decisions and the distribution of
congestion. Transportation 7 (1), 69–85.
Golias, J., Yannis, G., Harvatis, M., 2002. Off-street parking choice sensitivity. Transport.
Plann. Technol. 25 (4), 333–348.
Hensher, D.A., King, J., 2001. Parking demand and responsiveness to supply, pricing and
location in the Sydney central business district. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 35 (3),
177–196.
Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H., 2005. Applied Choice Analysis: a Primer.
Cambridge University Press.
Hess, D., 2001. Effect of free parking on commuter mode choice: evidence from travel
diary data. Transport. Res. Rec.: J. Transport. Res. Board (1753), 35–42.
Higgins, T.J., 1992. Parking taxes: effectiveness, legality and implementation, some
general considerations. Transportation 19 (3), 221–230.
Inci, E., 2015. A review of the economics of parking. Econ. Transport. 4 (1–2), 50–63.
Inci, E., Ommeren, J.V., Kobus, M., 2017. The external cruising costs of parking. J. Econ.
Geogr. 17 (6), 1301–1323.
Kelly, J.A., Clinch, J.P., 2006. Influence of varied parking tariffs on parking occupancy
levels by trip purpose. Transport Pol. 13 (6), 487–495.
Koppelman, F.S., Wen, C.H., 1998. Alternative nested logit models: structure, properties
and estimation. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 32 (5), 289–298.
Kuzmyak, R.J., Weinberger, R., Pratt, R.H., Levinson, H., 2003. Parks. Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC (Chapter 18).
Levy, N., Martens, K., Benenson, I., 2013. Exploring cruising using agent-based and
analytical models of parking. Transportmetrica: Transport. Sci. 9 (9), 773–797.
Litman, T., 2018. Parking Management Best Practices. Routledge.
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J.D., 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and
Applications. Cambridge university press.
Madsen, E., Mulalic, I., Pilegaard, N., 2013. A Model for Estimation of the Demand for On-
street Parking.
Marsden, G., 2006. The evidence base for parking policies—a review. Transport Pol. 13
(6), 447–457.
McGillivray, R.G., 1970. Demand and choice models of modal split. J. Transport Econ.
Pol. 192–207.
McFadden, D., 1981. Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In: Manski, C.,
McFadden, D. (Eds.), Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric
Applications. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 198–272.
Rye, T., Ison, S., 2005. Overcoming barriers to the implementation of car parking charges
at UK workplaces. Transport Pol. 12 (1), 57–64.
Shiftan, Y., 2002. The effects of parking pricing and supply on travel patterns to a major
business district. In: Travel Behaviour. Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 37–52.
Shoup, D.C., 2005. The High Cost of Free Parking. American Planning Association,
Chicago.
Shoup, D.C., 2006. Cruising for parking. Transport Pol. 13 (6), 479–486.
Simićević, J., Vukanović, S., Milosavljević, N., 2013. The effect of parking charges and
time limit to car usage and parking behaviour. Transport Pol. 30, 125–131.
Tsamboulas, D.A., 2001. Parking fare thresholds: a policy tool. Transport Pol. 8 (2),
115–124.
Vaca, E., Kuzmyak, J.R., 2005. TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation
System Changes: Chapter 13: Parking Prices and Fees. Transportation Research Board
of the National Academies, Washington, DC.
Van der Goot, D., 1982. A model to describe the choice of parking places. Transport. Res.
Gen. 16 (2), 109–115.
Van Ommeren, J.N., Wentink, D., Rietveld, P., 2012. Empirical evidence on cruising for
parking. Transport. Res. Pol. Pract. 46 (1), 123–130.
Wang, F., Xu, Y., 2011. Estimating O–D travel time matrix by Google Maps API: im-
plementation, advantages, and implications. Spatial Sci. 17 (4), 199–209.
Wardman, M., 2001. A review of British evidence on time and service quality valuations.
Transport. Res. E Logist. Transport. Rev. 37 (2–3), 107–128.
Westin, R.B., Gillen, D.W., 1978. Parking location and transit demand: a case study of
endogenous attributes in disaggregate mode choice models. J. Econom. 8 (1),
75–101.
Willson, R.W., Shoup, D.C., 1990. Parking subsidies and travel choices: assessing the
evidence. Transportation 17 (2), 141–157.
Willson, R.W., 1992. Estimating the travel and parking demand effects of employer-paid
parking. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 22 (1), 133–145.
Yan, X., Levine, J., Zhao, X., 2018. Integrating ridesourcing services with public transit:
an evaluation of traveler responses combining revealed and stated preference data.
Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.07.029. in
press.
Young, W., Thompson, R.G., Taylor, M.A., 1991. A review of urban car parking models.
Transport Rev. 11 (1), 63–84.

50