Paying for parking: Improving stated-preference surveys

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Transport

Volumn 162, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 39-45

  Dell'Olio, L ^a   Ibeas, A ^a   Moura, J L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANTABRIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Car parks; Town city planning; Transport planning

Indexed keywords

AVERAGE VALUES; CAR PARKS; ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS; MULTINOMIAL LOGIT MODEL; STATED PREFERENCE SURVEYS; TRANSPORT PLANNING; USER BEHAVIOUR; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

GARAGES (PARKING); PARKS; PLANNING; REGIONAL PLANNING; SURVEYS; URBAN PLANNING;

PARKING;

CALIBRATION; DESIGN; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; MODELING; PARK AND RIDE; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

EID: 67649538011     PISSN: 0965092X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1680/tran.2009.162.1.39     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Axhausen K. W. and Polak J. W. Choice of parking - stated preference approach. Transportation, 1991, 18, No. 1, 59-81.
2. Hensher D. A. and King J. Parking demand and responsiveness to supply, pricing and location in the Sydney central business district. Transportation Research Part A - Policy and Practice, 2001, 35, No. 3, 177-196.
3. Van der Goot D. A model to describe the choice of parking places. Transportation Research Part A - Policy and Practice, 1982, 16, No. 2, 109-115.
4. Hunt J. D. Parking location choice: insights and representations based on observed behaviour and hierarchical logit modelling formulation. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Vancouver. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., USA, 1988, pp. 439-446.
5. Ergü n G. Development of a downtown parking model. Highway Research Record 1971, 369, 118-134.
6. Gillen D. W. Parking policy, parking location decisions and distribution of congestion. Transportation, 1978, 7, No. 1, 69-85.
7. Kuppam A. R., Pendyala R. M. and Gollakoti M. A. V. Stated response analysis of the effectiveness of parking pricing strategies for transportation control. Transportation Finance, Economics, and Management, 1998, 1649, 39-46.
8. Bianco M. J. Effective transportation demand management - combining parking pricing, transit incentives, and transportation management in a commercial district of Portland, Oregon. High-Occupancy Vehicle Systems and Demand Management, 2000, 1711, 46-54.
9. Hess D. B. Effect of free parking on commuter mode choice - Evidence from travel diary data. Transit Planning, Intermodal Facilities, and Marketing, 2001, 1753, 35-42.
10. Shiftan Y. and Burd-Eden R. Modeling response to parking policy. High-Occupancy Vehicle Systems and Demand Management, 2001, 1765, 27-34.
11. Van der Waerden P., Timmermans H. and Borgers A. PAMELA - Parking analysis model for predicting effects in local areas. High-Occupancy Vehicle Systems and Demand Management, 2002, 1781, 10-18.
12. Sattayhatewa P. and Smith R. L. Development of parking choice models for special events. Transportation Planning and Analysis, 2003, 1858, 31-38.
13. Ferguson E. Parking and accessibility. In Access to Destinations (Levinson D. and Krizek K. J. (eds)). Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 2005, pp. 377-406.
14. Hess S. and Polak J. W. Mixed logit estimation of parking type choice. Proceedings of the 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., USA, 2004, pp. 35-43.
15. Ibeas A., dell'Olio L. and Moura J. L. Willingness to pay for better access to final destination by using an underground car park. Proceedings of the 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., USA, 2007, pp. 1-13.
16. Ibeas A., dell'Olio L. and Moura J. L. Willingness to pay for access time saving: some evidences. Proceedings of Euro Working Group on Transportation, Bari, Italy, 2006, pp. 322-327.
17. Louviere J., Hensher D. and Swait J. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001.
18. Sandor Z. and Wedel M. Profile construction in experimental choice designs for mixed logit models. Marketing Science, 2002, 21, No. 4, 455-475.
19. Sandor Z. and Wedel M. Heterogeneous conjoint choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 2005, 42, No. 2, 210-218.
20. Huber J. and Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 1996, 33, No. 3, 307-317.
21. Street D. J., Burgess L. and Louviere J. J. Quick and easy choice sets: constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2005, 22, No. 4, 459-470.
22. Kocur G., Adler T., Hyman W. and Aunet B. Guide to Forecasting Travel Demand with Direct Utility Assessment. US Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 1982, Report No. UMTA-NH-11-1-82.
23. Jara-Diaz S. and Videla J. Detection of income effect in mode choice-theory and application. Transportation Research Part B - Methodological, 1989, 23, No. 6, 393- 400.
24. Armstrong P., Garrido R. and Ortuzar J. D. Confidence intervals to bound the value of time. Transportation Research Part E - Logistics and Transportation Review, 2001, 37, No. 2-3, 143-161.
25. Espino R., Ortuzar J. D. and Roman C. Confidence interval for willingness to pay measures in mode choice models. Networks and Spatial Economics, 2006, 6, No. 2, 81-96.
26. Hensher D. A. The valuation of commuter travel time savings for car drivers: evaluating alternative model specifications. Transportation, 2001, 28, No. 2, 101-118.
27. Hensher D. A. Measurement of the valuation of travel time savings. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 2001, 35, No. 1, 71-98.
28. Train K. E. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics, 1998, 74, No. 2, 230-239.
29. Carlsson F. The demand for intercity public transport: the case of business passengers. Applied Economics, 2003, 35, No. 1, 41-50.