ARTICLE IN PRESS

Transport Policy 13 (2006) 487–495

www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol

Influence of varied parking tariffs on parking occupancy levels

by trip purpose
J. Andrew Kelly, J. Peter Clinch
Department of Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Richview, Clonskeagh, Dublin 14, Ireland
Available online 7 July 2006

Abstract

The potential impact of parking-pricing on trip generation and modal choice is gaining greater acknowledgement within transport
demand management research. However, although the aggregate effect of a transport demand management pricing measure is often
noted or estimated, the potential varied impact of pricing measures on specific subsets of the market are often overlooked in the policy
process. The variance of price impacts on different trip purposes, initially, and as tariffs increase progressively, is an important
consideration for policy makers. Using the results from a survey on 1007 on-street parkers in Dublin, Ireland, this paper shows a
progressively widening gap in price sensitivity between trips made for business purposes relative to non-business purposes, as the
suggested parking pricing scenarios are increased. The results highlight the complication that the varied price sensitivity of particular
market subsets can bring to development of a pricing policy and warns of threshold points where the gap between the price
responsiveness of specific market subsets become considerably more pronounced.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Parking; Tariff; Occupancy; Trip purpose

1. Introduction some degree of modal shift away from single-occupancy

The incidence of efforts in urban areas to manage and
reduce levels of congestion on road networks needs little
introduction in the field of transport policy. Congestion
and reliance on the private car in favour of alternate non-
motorised or higher capacity ‘sustainable’ modes present a
dilemma for many policy makers (Bonsall, 2000). The
provision of viable alternatives, with sufficient capacity and
reliability, alongside road and network planning improve-
ments, can alleviate somewhat the well-documented
externalities that can be associated with road transport
congestion (Button and Verhoef, 1998; Calthrop and
Proost, 1998; Johansson-Stenman 1999; Maddison et al.,
1996). However, there are an increasing number of
examples of transport demand management (TDM)
pricing measures being employed to ‘push’ users away
from private car use in order to ease the demand for road
space and encourage either a reduction in vehicle use or
Corresponding author. Tel.: +353 1 269 7988; fax: +353 1 283 2795.
E-mail address: andrew.kelly@ucd.ie (J. Andrew Kelly).
private car use. Road and congestion pricing are generally
considered the first best solutions in the area of TDM
pricing; however, parking policy and pricing can function
well both in tandem with such pricing measures or indeed
alone as a second-best pricing measure for affecting
transport demand (Calthrop, Proost and Van Dender,
2000).
However, in this regard, consideration should not only
be on the aggregate transport demand impacts that a price
may stimulate. If a given parking pricing option delivers a
certain degree of aggregate change in behaviour in the area
where price was altered, a shrewd policy maker will also be
concerned with the isolated impacts of the price on specific
subsets of the parking market. In other words, are certain
types of trips being forced out in favour of another? A city
manager may not be interested only in revenue and
occupancy levels but also in achieving or preserving a
particular mix of trip purposes. For example, the city
manager may wish to know if there are pricing threshold
points at which given subsets of the parking market will
react in substantially different ways, as this could be crucial

0967-070X/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2006.05.006
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
488 J. Andrew Kelly, J. Peter Clinch / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 487–495
to sustaining a desired mix of shoppers to business users in
a mixed use area. In general, however, it is difficult to price
discriminate directly, particularly in an on-street market.
With a case study of an on-street parking in Dublin,
Ireland, and using a stated preference survey to estimate
the varied effect of three localised ceteris paribus on-street
parking price increases, this paper examines the influence
of parking pricing on trips with different purposes.
2. Literature
Once a comparatively neglected area of research within
TDM policy, the study of parking is now receiving
considerable attention as policy makers and researchers
recognise the pivotal role that parking spaces and their
regulation play in urban form, mode choice, congestion,
the economy and our environment (Shoup, 2005).
Policy design research and modeling analysis of the key
factors in the parking process have been central to the
development of parking pricing as a ‘tool’ rather than
simply a revenue generating exercise. There have been a
number of studies which have considered the effectiveness
and issues surrounding parking policy as a TDM tool, both
in isolation (Feeney, 1989; Glazer and Niskanen, 1991;
Higgins, 1992; Verhoef et al., 1995; Arnott and Rowse,
1999; Hensher and King, 2001; Mackett, 2001; Ison and
Wall, 2002; Calthrop, 2002; Kelly and Clinch, 2003) and in
tandem with other TDM policies (Calthrop, Proost and
Van Dender, 2000; Marshall and Banister, 2000). These
studies examined the mechanics of the policy from the
potential variables for a pricing or non-pricing scheme and
their likely impact on traffic in the network to the possible
synergic effects of employing a strategic road and parking
pricing policy. In addition they raise related policy issues
such as acceptability and the role of revenue generated in
progressing the acceptability of measures. An interesting
angle in more recent work by D’Acierno et al. (2006)
considers parking policy design that optimises tariffs based
on the quality of modal alternatives for given origin–des-
tination pairings, thereby accounting somewhat for varied
response to price. The paper also alludes to work by Pucher
(1993) and the recognised need for research on the
constraints that parking pricing strategies can place on
urban mobility and accessibility, an aspect of which is
addressed in this paper.
Two important ‘auxiliary’ areas of parking research
relate specifically to the parking space search process and
the importance of parking enforcement. In relation to the
parking search process, research has examined how the
availability and indeed price of parking will affect driver
search patterns and, by extension, traffic congestion within
the network (Thomson and Richardson, 1998, Arnott and
Inci, 2005). Enforcement is also a key aspect of parking
policy as recognised by authors such as Cullinane (1993),
Thomson and Richardson (1998), and recently by Petiot
(2004). Their work identifies the importance of enforce-
ment for any given parking strategy to succeed in the long
run. The case study area for this project is central and
among the most strictly monitored areas in the city for
parking infringements. As such, the local authorities in
Dublin report a very high compliance rate in the area with
respect to the parking policy in place.
Alongside this research then, and critical to the choice of
tariff structure, there are numerous local studies on
parking price sensitivity to gauge some feeling for the
likely response of parkers to an altered policy. An up-to-
date and comparatively thorough inventory of parking
pricing elasticities and related research is available from the
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (Victoria Transport
Policy Institute, 2003).1 As distinct from such local
analyses of response to parking price, other studies have
employed stated preference methods to assess mixed
aspects of parking policy options. These studies range
from the potential for parking tariffs to influence
behaviour (Tsamboulas, 2001), to the effects of parking
restrictions and their associated influence on trip char-
acteristics (Shiftan, 1999, 2002), to workplace parking
strategies and incentives (Kuppam et al., 1995).
With much of the research examining how parking
policy will affect cars and congestion in the network,
clearly there is an individual impact which must also be
investigated. The non-differentiated pricing aspect of some
policies is regressive by nature and can lead to undesirable
outcomes that may or may not be masked by the overall
positive impact on traffic mitigation. Hu and Saleh (2005)
and Whitehead (2005) have explored whether such changes
could place a burden on retailers through a potential
‘‘choking off’’ of consumer supply to the area. However,
these pieces primarily examine the impacts on businesses or
retailers (revenues and relocation issues), and assume in
one case a ‘transitional’ phase for consumers to other
modes, with trade levels ultimately reverting to normal.
While the long-term impacts of any unchanged charging
measure are likely to diminish over time as the market
adapts, analyses centred on economic activity levels may
miss an important aspect of TDM pricing impacts—equity
impacts (Litman, 1996).
Related to the issues of equity in pricing measures is
welfare effect analysis, as there are a number of character-
istics beyond the parking area and tariff which will play a
role on the value and incidence of welfare effects within
society for a given TDM policy (Parry and Bento, 2002).
This work does not extend to a welfare analysis, but rather
offers evidence of additional possible concerns for the
impact of TDM charges; in this case, parking pricing for
specific trip purposes.
Thus, while Parry and Bento (2002) and Litman (1996)
have examined relevant welfare and equity issues of TDM
charging, the most relevant literature as regards this study
is that which considers the varied impacts of pricing
measures or policies on specific users or trip purposes.
Examples of such research include work by Anderson et al.
1
http://www.vtpi.org, Transport elasticity section.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Andrew Kelly, J. Peter Clinch / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 487–495
(2006), Hu and Saleh (2005), Lam et al. (2006), Shiftan
(1999, 2002), Tsamboulas (2001). In each of these studies,
the authors considered the potential variation that a user or
trip category can have in terms of response to a TDM
pricing policy. However, these papers do not specifically
examine the on-street market or this particular aspect of
the variability of pricing impact.
The objective of this paper is to estimate the differential
impact of on-street parking pricing scenarios on trips with
different purposes in a mixed use area.
3. Methodology
The results in this paper are based upon a data set
derived from an on-street survey conducted in 2001 at
St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin. St. Stephen’s Green is located
just south of the river Liffey, a large river which separates
Dublin city into northern and southern halves. ‘The Green’
is a well-known and popular on-street parking area in the
city centre. Parking spaces flank each side of a large square
park and the area is convenient to a number of office
blocks as well as some of the most popular shopping and
entertainment areas of the city. As with all on-street
parking in the city centre area, parking is limited to 3 h
duration and is heavily policed by a commission-based
private enforcement agency. In addition to the on-street
parking facilities, there are two multi-storey car parks
(MSCPs) in the immediate area. The two MSCPs are
linked to a large shopping centre and offer parking for
extended periods of time up to 12 h.2 At the time of the
study, MSCP parking was priced at IR£1.70 (h2.15) per
hour, whereas on-street parking was priced at IR£1.50
(h1.90) per hour.
The goal of the study was to employ data from a case
study survey in this area to assess the ceteris paribus
influence of varied local on-street parking tariffs on
parking occupancy levels for trips with different purposes.
3.1. Survey methodology
Data for the purposes of this paper were drawn from a
face-to-face parking survey conducted over a period of 2
weeks in August 2001. The authors, with the advice from a
professional survey company, who was commissioned to
implement the survey, designed the questions and structure
of the questionnaire. The survey sampled users at St.
Stephen’s Green between Monday and Friday between
08:00 and 17:00 h. The effective sample size was 1007
parkers. Interviewers were positioned along different
sections of St. Stephen’s Green and they approached
people as they left or returned to their car. Each interview
lasted approximately 10 min from point of contact. An
appropriate pilot survey was conducted on-site at St.
Stephen’s Green to ensure interviewees were willing and
2 3
Additional arrangements can be made for extended duration stays and
some MSCP facilities lease spots to frequent customers.
489
capable of interpreting and responding accurately to the
survey questions.
The objective of the questionnaire was to gather a wide-
ranging set of data on people parking in the test area and
their attitudes and behavioural pattern with regard to
parking. The questionnaire contained a set of questions to
ascertain the profile of those people who park, i.e., the
population in question. The responses to these questions
allow for the assessment of reactions by any potential sub-
population, including trips for a certain purpose of visit.
Also included in the survey was a set of questions that
queried users on their most likely reaction to a series of
suggested local price increases. The questions suggested
some new hourly tariffs for the local area and obtained the
first stated reaction of parkers to each price. Although
additional variables are used in the development of the
model, the questions on trip purpose and response to the
three suggested hourly tariff levels are the key elements of
this paper.
With regard to possible concerns over the validity and
accuracy of stated preference methods, consideration was
given to the potential weaknesses of stated preference data,
both when designing the questions and interpreting the
results. As regards the survey-question design, the queries
were kept consistent with the Dillman (Dillman, 1978)
method in so far as they were kept clear and concise and as
uncomplicated as possible, given the objectives of the
study. As the sample consisted of parkers interviewed on
location, familiarity with the area and the concept of
paying for parking would have assisted in comprehension
and response to the price scenarios presented. The study
also draws on more contemporary research in the field of
stated preference techniques, including contingent valua-
tion, from Bateman et al. (2002).
With regard to interpretation of results, four common
biases put forward in challenging stated preference results
are interview bias, bid-level bias, information bias and
strategic behaviour (Arrow et al., 1993). Rather than
abstracting to a discussion of the more recent theory on the
use of stated preference data, we will explore independently
how these biases were considered in regard to this study3.
The two primary questions used in formulating the results
in this paper are the profile question, which ascertained the
user’s purpose of visit, and, secondly, the pricing scenario
question, which established a user’s reaction to three
suggested increases in local area parking tariffs.
The profiling question determined users’ primary pur-
pose of visit for trips to the area and ultimately their trip
classification as either ‘business’ or ‘non-business’. In
regard to interview bias, there is no reason why this would
affect the response. Numerous categories were provided for
describing their primary activity in the area, which then
were amalgamated into business or non-business trips. A
professional interviewer would not accidentally lead users
A useful discussion of the use of stated preference data can be found in
Carson et al. 1999 and 2001.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
490 J. Andrew Kelly, J. Peter Clinch / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 487–495

SHOW CARD ‘5’

Q.20 And which of the following statements best describes how often you would park here if the
price increased to ….. INTERVIEWER: Please read out, starting with upper or lower
price, rotate order of reading out between interviews and tick start.

READ OUT - START >

IR£2 IR£4 IR£7
per hour per hour per hour

I wouldn’t change my behaviour at all I would park

here as often as I do currently ……………………………..1……………………...1……………………..1

I would park here less often than I do

currently…………………….…………………….………...2……………………..2……………………..2

I wouldn’t park here at all………...………………………..3……………………...3……………………..3

Don’t Know……………….………………………………..4……………………...4……………………..4

Fig. 1. Question from the 2001 survey as it appeared on the showcard.

in a particular direction nor is it seen why users would seek
to mislead in their response. As for information bias, users
were capable of classifying their primary purpose of visit to
the parking area with relative ease. In regard to the other
two biases and the profile question, bid-level bias is not
relevant to the profile questions, nor could strategic
behaviour come into play when identifying the primary
purpose of visit to an area.
The question on local parking pricing change scenario is,
by its nature, more susceptible to the weaknesses of these
biases. However, steps were taken to limit the possible
influence. Firstly, interview bias was reduced somewhat by
giving users a showcard from which they read and then
replied to the question. Thus interviewers did not involve
themselves in leading or probing with regard to this
question. In relation to bid-level bias, the preset pricing
scenarios were presented in alternate orders so that users
were not always presented with an appreciating or
depreciating set of alternate tariff scenarios. Tests for
ordering influence were conducted and no ordering effect
was detected.
Finally, with regard to strategic behaviour, in addition to
the usual precautions in survey design, interviewers were
instructed carefully on how to introduce themselves and
the survey. As it was felt that users may react differently
to a perceived government-backed survey, the survey
was presented to users as a university research project, to
allay suspicions that perhaps their responses may lead to a
policy shift.
3.2. Pricing scenarios
The pricing scenarios used in the survey form the basis
for the testing of price sensitivity by a specific trip purpose
type. Using the responses to the pricing scenario questions,
the comparative levels of certain price responses for a
number of subsets are tested. In Fig. 1, the question from
the 2001 survey is presented as it appeared on the showcard
that was presented to interviewees. The question shows the
pricing scenario, which asked users how they would change
their parking frequency behaviour when faced with local
hourly parking charge increases from the base price of
IR£1.50 (h1.90) to IR£2 (h2.54), IR£4 (h5.07) and IR£7
(h8.89) per hour.
3.3. Statistical analysis—ordered probit modelling
Ordered probit regression analysis is used on the
responses of parkers in the survey to the series of suggested
increases in localised on-street parking tariffs. Ordered
probit modelling was chosen due to the non-binary nature
of the price responses. Although not strictly ordinal, the
price responses do vary in sensitivity from no response (no
change in behaviour), to a partial reduction in parking in
the area (park less) to zero tolerance for the price change
(cease all parking activity in the area).
A separate model was run for each of the three pricing
scenarios to assess progressive impacts at increasing tariff
levels. The dependent variable in each model was the
pricing scenario, and the three options upon which
independent variables were assessed were whether the
reaction as a result of a given tariff would be:
(1) no change in parking behaviour,
(2) park less often in the area as a result of the local price
change and
(3) cease all parking activity in the area as a result of the
local price change.
Using this approach, the model analyses the categories
of business and non-business trips in order to assess the
degree of variance, if any, between the price responses for
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Andrew Kelly, J. Peter Clinch / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 487–495 491

Table 1
Description of variables

Variable type Variable title Description

Journey origin Dublin county The location at which the given car journey originated prior to parking in the test area.
Outside Dublin Variables relative to those travelling from the city or suburbs.
Parking frequency Heavy use The frequency of parking in the test location. Heavy is three or more times per week, medium is
Medium use once or twice per week. Variables are relative to light use of less than once a month.
Engine size 1 L and below The size of the car engine for each responding parker in the test area. They are used as a rough
1.1–1.2 L proxy for income. Variables are relative to 2 L-plus engines.
1.3–1.4 L
1.5–1.6 L
1.7–1.8 L
1.9–2.0 L
Trip purpose Business The primary trip purpose for which the respondent travelled to the area was business
orientated. Variable is relative to those traveling for shopping or social reasons.

trips with different purposes. An important note is that the
purpose of visit is related to whether individuals pay for
their parking—approximately 25% of the total sample and
approximately 50% of surveyed business trips4 users did
not pay for their own parking. In addition, it was presumed
that business trips with associated work obligations
and perhaps greater time constraints would be less sensitive
to price and less flexible in terms of parking location
than those travelling for social or shopping reasons.
Consequently, this paper seeks to investigate whether
there is evidence to support the hypothesis that price has
a significantly varied influence on trips for different
purposes.
Variables other than purpose of visit (business and non-
business) that were included in the modelling were origin of
journey (city, county, outside of county), frequency of
parking in the area (heavy, medium and light users of
parking) and engine sizes (included as a proxy for income).
These variables were chosen as they would constitute key
elements of price sensitivity and thereby help explain
reactions to pricing scenarios.
Origin of journey was included, as the total distance
travelled by an individual would play a role in their
willingness to pay for parking. Proportionally, the in-
cidence of a higher tariff on those travelling a shorter
distance would be greater; hence they would be expected to
be more price sensitive than those travelling long distances
to the area.
Frequency of parking in the area was included as a
variable, as it was expected that those who park more often
in the area would be more price sensitive than those who
visit the area less frequently. Finally engine size was
included as a rough proxy variable for income of the
respondents, with clear implications for their price
sensitivity. Although the results from this proxy variable
deliver broadly expected results, accurate income data
would of course be preferable. This would enable future
research to examine a broader set of issues with a greater
4
Approximately 47% of the sample were making a business trip and
53% were parking for a non-business trip.
degree of confidence. Table 1 presents the variables
considered.
4. Results
Table 2 presents the results of the ordered probit
regression analysis from the on-street parking survey. For
the first pricing scenario, which represented a 33% hourly
tariff increase, the econometric model shows almost no
significant results, with only two engine size categories
coming through as significant. For the owners of vehicles
with an engine size of 1 L or below, the indication is that
users with these smaller cars are more likely to cease all
parking in the area as a result of a 50% increase in the
hourly on-street parking tariff, from IR£1 (h1.27) to
IR£1.50 (h1.90). In the case of those driving cars
with1.7–1.8 L engines, the results suggest these users are
less likely to cease all parking in the area as a result of the
price change relative to owners of cars with 2 L or above
engines. This latter result is somewhat counter-intuitive
and is not repeated at higher pricing levels. It is restated,
however, that engine size is only a rough proxy for income
in these models.
The second price scenario, IR£4 (h5.08), which repre-
sented a 167% increase in hourly tariff, highlights some
interesting price response variations. At this tariff level, the
model shows marked distinctions between heavy parking
users relative to light parking users, numerous categories of
engine size relative to a 2 L-plus engine, and business trips
relative to non-business trips.
With regard to heavy users relative to light users, the
former are less likely to cease all parking in the area as a
result of the price increase to the IR£4 (h5.08) tariff. This
result seems contrary to what standard economic theory
would predict. One would expect that those who use the
service frequently, and therefore face a higher tariff
burden, would be more likely to respond to the price and
alter their behaviour. However, this result is explained
somewhat from a further analysis of the survey sample. Of
the 145 ‘heavy users’, 72% claim their parking fees as work
expenses and 75% were parking on a business-related trip.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
492 J. Andrew Kelly, J. Peter Clinch / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 487–495

Table 2
Models for local area parking price responsea,b

Variable Price 1 (IR£2) Price 2 (IR£4) Price 3 (IR£7)

Dublin county .068166 .133831 .151899

(.098317) (.098857) (.105776)
Outside Dublin .126931 .117285 .331625**
(.105451) (.101973) (.113602)
Heavy use .609143E-02 .339713** .392750**
(.148443) (.143138) (.151121)
Medium use .016496 .014240 .034494
(.107036) (.105533) (.116759)
1 L and below .426804** .232294 .209320
(.194003) (.201608) (.212578)
1.1–1.2 L .265073 .544889** .528394**
(.166475) (.175106) (.189352)
1.3–1.4 L .110331 .441587** .389285**
(.138120) (.138466) (.148560)
1.5–1.6 L .106385 .244417* .280313**
(.136291) (.132265) (.141472)
1.7–1.8 L .278886* .338749** .589299**
(.149177) (.142262) (.159157)
1.9–2.0 L .180093 .046498 .081033
(.154782) (.146901) (.152565)
Business .127880 .554600*** .625457***
(.086412) (.084441) (.093243)
Constant .407042** .773724*** 1.10577***
(.152763) (.152250) (.163635)
N 970 944 938
Pseudo R2 .033773 .103048 .120110

Mean marginal effects dP1 dP2 dP3

dBus dBus dBus
No change in behaviour .044193 .15376 .13062
Park less often in area .0053049 .050776 .094032
Cease all parking area .049498 .20454 .22465
a
The dependent variable in all regressions is the suggested increase in local area parking price from the base price of IR£1.50 (h1.90) per hour of on-
street parking. There are three regressions for each of the three suggested prices—IR£2 (h2.54), IR£4 (h5.08) and IR£7 (h8.89). Standard errors are in
parentheses.
b
*significance at the 10% level; **at the 5% level; ***at the 1% level.

Thus, while it would be expected that those parking most
frequently would respond strongly to price increases, other
explanatory characteristics of this subset suggest reasons
why the group was less price responsive.
The proxy for income—engine size—is significant for
vehicles with an engine size in the range of 1.1–1.8 L
(relative to 2 L and above) in the ‘Price 2’ model. The
effects generally diminish as engine size increases, reflecting
a lower likelihood for users to change their behaviour in
response to a price change. If engine size is serving as a
proxy for income this would suggest, as expected, that the
likelihood of users changing their behaviour in response to
a price change is reduced as income increases.
The final result in the ‘Price 2’ model is business trips
relative to non-business trips, which is significant at the 1%
level and has a strongly negative coefficient, indicating that
those trips made for business purposes are far less likely to
stop all parking activity in the area in response to the new
suggested tariff. An examination of the relevant marginal
effects in Table 2 shows that at this suggested tariff, the
probability of business users ceasing all parking activity in
the area is 20% lower than for trips made for non-business
purposes. Similarly, those travelling for business purposes
are 15% more likely to have no change in their behaviour
and 5% more likely to park less often in the area at this
tariff level. While the latter result may seem confusing, it
must be considered in the context of the alternatives of
making no alteration to parking behaviour or cancelling all
parking activity in the area. One perspective on the result is
that those making business trips are more likely to reduce
their parking behaviour rather than to cancel all parking
trips to the affected location.
The third price increase scenario to IR£7 (h8.88) per
hour of parking represented a large increase (367%) from
the base price of IR£1.50 (h1.90). At this level distinctive
population characteristics and responses are most clearly
elucidated. In the final model, users travelling from outside
Dublin relative to those travelling from within the city and
suburbs, heavy parking users relative to light users, a
number of engine sizes relative to 2 L-plus engines and
business trips relative to non-business trips, all exhibited
significant results.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Andrew Kelly, J. Peter Clinch / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 487–495
With respect to users travelling from outside of Dublin
County, they are shown to be more likely to change their
behaviour in response to the suggested tariff than those
travelling from within the city and suburbs of Dublin.
Whilst it would be expected that those travelling longer
distances would be less price sensitive due to the parking
tariff constituting a smaller proportion of the overall
journey cost, perhaps the increased price responsiveness is
linked to the localised nature of the suggested price change.
It is possible that those spending a longer time travelling
are likely to park or visit the area for a longer amount of
time. Therefore they may be more willing to park in a
nearby adjacent area (thereby avoiding the higher tariff)
and add some time to their already long journey than pay a
heavily increased hourly tariff.
Engine size is also significant again and follows the same
trend as noted in the ‘Price 2’ model. This somewhat
reinforces the evidence—if engine size is serving as a proxy
for income—that as income increases, the likelihood for a
price change to alter your behaviour diminishes. In
addition, with respect to heavy users relative to light users,
the final model again follows the same trend as the ‘Price 2’
model. Presumably as a result of the population character-
istics mentioned earlier, heavy users in this study are shown
to be less likely to cease parking in the area as a result of
the price increase.
Finally, in the ‘Price 3’ model, we note that the business
variable is significant again at the 1% level. The marginal
effects for business trips relative to non-business trips for
each price model indicate that the distinction between trip
purposes with respect to price is insignificant at the lowest
suggested price change. At the second suggested tariff of
IR£4 (h5.07), however, the result is significant and a
noticeable gap emerged between the price response of
business and non-business trips. Specifically, people mak-
ing trips for non-business related trips are shown to be
20% more likely to cease all parking in the area as a result
of such a price increase. Thus there is a clear and
progressive distinction noted in the proportional likelihood
of these two types of trips to have varied reactions to
localised price increases. As price increases further, the
initial disparity between these subsets becomes more
pronounced. It is noted however, that at the third and
highest pricing scenario presented (IR£7 or h8.88), users
making non-business trips are 22% more likely to cease all
parking in the area for such trips. Thus, although IR£4
(h5.04) represents a 167% increase in price, and IR£7
(h8.89) represents a 367% increase in price, the added
difference in the proportional likelihood of users making
non-business trips to cease parking in the area compared to
those making business trips is just 2%.
5. Discussion
The results of this econometric modelling, based around
the three price scenarios as dependent variables, have
delivered a number of key results. Firstly, the distinctive
493
population reactions in this case do not pre-exist at a
consistent level for all pricing levels. Rather, they appear
triggered as prices increase and the effects are amplified
somewhat in tandem with price. The importance of this
finding is notable with regard to parking pricing policy
(and most likely other TDM pricing measures), as it
indicates certain price thresholds where varied price
response issues are either non-existent or marginal. The
price change from IR£1.50 (h1.90) to IR£2 (h2.54) seemed
to have comparatively little distinctive effect on the
measured subsets, so it would appear that large varied
impacts with regard to the purpose of visit of a customer at
this tariff level would be avoided. However, results from
the higher pricing scenarios indicate that, beyond certain
price levels, the variability between price responses
becomes far more pronounced in relation to purpose of
visit and other subsets.
In addition, although the difference in marginal effects
between business users and non-business users is insignif-
icant in relation to a suggested 33% price increase, and
significant in relation to a 167% price increase, there is
little added disparity at the highest tariff suggested, which
represented a 367% price increase. Thus, with regard to
purpose of visit, there is comparatively little difference in
terms of price response impact between a price increase of
IR£4 (h5.07) relative to a price increase to IR£7 (h8.89).
One interpretation of this finding is that the IR£4 (h5.07)
tariff represents a key threshold point, wherein there is a
broad range of prices that all maintain a similar level of
price impact on trips of different purpose.
These results complement the work of Anderson et al.
(2006) and Tsamboulas (2001), although the context of
these papers is somewhat different. Tsamboulas’s
(2001)study on the central business district of Athens
supports our findings of variations in response to tariff
price increases for mixed classifications of parker, but his
study does not make the same distinction in trip purpose,
so the results are not directly comparable. Similarly, in the
paper by Lam et al. (2006), while the model differentiates
between trip purposes (work and non-work), the categor-
isation is actually in terms of commuters or non-commu-
ters. Hu and Saleh (2005) touched on the area of varied
price impacts indirectly in their study on the impact of
congestion charging and other measures (including parking
policy) on shopping trips to the city centre. While there was
no investigation of corresponding changes for business-
related trips, their work offers some supporting evidence of
noticeable effects of pricing measures on non-business
trips. The most appropriate comparative research lies with
earlier work by Shiftan (1999, 2002), who examined the
stated response of parkers in a central business district area
of Haifa, Israel, to three scenarios of increase in localised
parking price. Although differences in survey make a direct
comparison inappropriate, a key outcome of the work was
to show that those travelling for non-business purposes
were consistently more likely to change their behaviour in
some way as a result of any suggested price increase relative
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
494 J. Andrew Kelly, J. Peter Clinch / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 487–495
to those travelling for business reasons. This supports the
findings of this paper.
In terms of the importance of the findings for policy, it is
useful to return to the example of the city manager who has
competing priorities in relation to on-street parking
management. Charging prices has the potential to alter
the revenue stream. It may also affect occupancy rates,
thereby affecting the efficiency of the system to provide
parking and optimise search time. However, a key concern
for many city managers is ensuring an appropriate mix of
different types of parkers. In the case of Dublin, in order to
have an on-street parking price increase accepted by the
Councilors, it was necessary to provide evidence that the
increase would not alter the mix of users; specifically the
proportion of shoppers using the parking resource. This
was due to concerns regarding the implications for the
economic vibrancy of the local area and the reaction of
local retailers. The final price increase sanctioned was
below the threshold identified by our analysis, at which
there would be a predicted impact on the mix of users of
the on-street parking service.
It is important to point out the limitations of this study.
Firstly, this is a short-run analysis. It may well be that
long-run elasticities would be quite different. In addition,
we undertake no analysis of the likely economic impact of
the price changes. Doing this would require a further
analysis of the impact of the price scenarios on modal
choice. The variables examined are only a selection of
possible factors influencing the willingness to pay for
parking. As noted by both Hensher and King (2001) and
Shoup (2005), value of time, search time, total journey cost,
availability of alternative modes and characteristics of
alternate parking will all play a role in influencing
willingness to pay for parking. In addition, it would be
useful to have reliable income data to enhance the analysis.
Also, this study deals specifically with a localised on-street
pricing change as opposed to a broader citywide parking
strategy, which would likely have significantly different
findings, given the elimination of any alternative parking
areas affected by the policy. Finally, we rely upon stated
responses to scenarios in a survey to estimate reactions to
price changes. Revealed preference data to assess the
accuracy of the predictions would be desirable.
6. Conclusions
This paper has highlighted an important consideration
for those seeking to implement TDM pricing measures,
specifically of parking pricing. In this case study it has been
predicted that, at the lower levels of increase in on-street
parking price, there is no differential effect of a price
change on business relative to non-business trips in the
short run. However, as the price increases, significant
results emerge, which show the two subsets becoming
progressively more disparate in terms of their responses,
with those users making trips for business purposes
generally less likely to cease parking in the area as a result
of a price change relative to those making non-business
trips.
Thus, this study suggests that attention should be paid to
the range of potential price scenarios, as the evidence
presented has shown that varied subset responses are not a
concern at all pricing levels and may become apparent only
as price is gradually increased. Thus, although one price
may not noticeably affect a given group disproportio-
nately, there may be a threshold point at which
pronounced varied effects between subsets occur. As many
pricing policies will have their tariffs adjusted upwards
over the long run, this could be an area for future concern,
given the growth in TDM pricing popularity as an antidote
to the urban traffic congestion issue.
In terms of further research, an important path to be
pursued is that of investigating a means of influencing
specific subsets and also further work on identifying the
classifications of users with significantly varied price
response. In this study we focus on business and non-
business trips; however, there may well be underlying
classifications with price response variations that we are
missing. Thus, while a policy maker may be able to
influence a greater number of a specific group, the effect of
the pricing measure will remain non-exclusive, and this
requires additional thought with regard to policy setting.
It could also be interesting to broaden the scale of the
proposed parking policy to a wider study area and to
develop and extend the range of variables employed in the
model. Furthermore, it is worth noting that parking pricing,
or in broader terms, parking policy has a number of
developed research strands that often overlap. It is
important to acknowledge the variety of parking types and
policies, which one can analyse or manipulate. Distinctions
between types of parking facility (e.g., on-street, multistorey,
private non-residential), localised factors (e.g., quality of
mode alternatives, price of alternate parking, transport
network layout) and parking policy types (e.g., pricing
alone, pricing with other measures) can dramatically alter
the outcome of a given strategy. Thus, an additional useful
path to pursue may be to examine the variability of price
response under some of these alternate criteria.
Acknowledgments
Financial support from the Irish Council for the Huma-
nities and Social Sciences and Dublin City Council is greatly
appreciated, as is the additional advice and support of Owen
Keegan, Director of Traffic Dublin City Council. We also
appreciate the assistance of Finbarr Brereton and Susana
Ferreira for their input on modelling, and the advice of the
editors and anonymous referees. The usual disclaimer applies.
References
Anderson, C., Das, C., Tyrrel, J., 2006. Parking preferences among
tourists in Newport, Rhode Island. Transportation Research Part A 40
(4), 334–353.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Andrew Kelly, J. Peter Clinch / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 487–495
Arnott, R., Inci, E., 2005. An integrated model of downtown parking and
traffic congestion. Boston College Working Papers in Economics, 608,
Boston College Department of Economics.
Arnott, R., Rowse, J., 1999. Modeling parking. Journal of Urban
Economics 45, 97–124.
Arrow, K., Solow, P., Portney, E., Leamer, E., Radner, R., Schuman, H.,
1993. Advance notice of proposed rulemaking, extension of comment
period and release of contingent valuation methodology report.
Federal Register 58, 4601–4614.
Bateman, I., et al., 2002. Economic valuation with stated preference
techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Bonsall, P., 2000. Legislating for modal shift: background to the UK’s
new transport act. Transport Policy 7, 179–184.
Button, K.J., Verhoef, E.T., 1998. Road pricing, traffic congestion and the
environment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Northhampton.
Calthrop, E., 2002. Evaluating on-street parking policy. Energy Transport
and the Environment working paper 2002–02. Centre for Economic
Studies, Catholic University of Leuven.
Calthrop, E., Proost, S., 1998. Road transport externalities. Environ-
mental and Resource Economics 11 (3–4), 335–348.
Calthrop, E., Proost, S., Van Dender, K., 2000. Parking policies and road
pricing. Urban Studies 37, 63–76.
Carson, R., Groves, T., Machina, M., 1999. Incentive and informational
properties of preference questions. Plenary address to the European
association of Environmental and Resource Economists, June 1999,
Oslo, Norway.
Carson, R., Flores, N., Meade, N., 2001. Contingent valuation:
controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics
19, 173–210.
Cullinane, K., 1993. An aggregate dynamic model of the parking
compliance decision. International Journal of Transport Economics
XX (1), 27–50.
D’Acierno, L., Gallo, M., Montella, B., 2006. Optimisation models for the
urban parking pricing problem. Transport Policy 13 (1), 34–48.
Dillman, D., 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method.
Wiley, New York.
Feeney, B.P., 1989. A review of the impact of parking policy measures on
travel demand. Transportation Planning and Technology 13, 229–334.
Glazer, A., Niskanen, E., 1991. Parking fees and congestion. Regional
Science and Urban Economics 22, 123–132.
Hensher, D., King, J., 2001. Parking demand and responsiveness to
supply, pricing and location in the Sydney CBD. Transportation
Research Part A 35, 177–196.
Higgins, D., 1992. Parking taxes: effectiveness, legality and implementa-
tion, some general considerations. Transportation 19 (3), 221–230.
Hu, S., Saleh, W., 2005. Impacts of congestion charging on shopping trips
in Edinburgh. Transport Policy 12 (5), 443–450.
Ison, S., Wall, S., 2002. Attitudes to traffic-related issues in urban areas of
the UK and the role of workplace parking charges. Journal of
Transport Geography 10 (1), 21–28.
495
Johansson-Stenman, O., 1999. Regulating road transport externalities:
pricing versus command and control. In: Sterner, T. (Ed.), The Market
and the Environment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Kelly, J.A., Clinch, J.P., 2003. Testing the sensitivity of parking behaviour
and modal choice to the price of on-street parking. Environmental
Studies Research Series (ESRS) Working Paper 03/3, Department of
Environmental Studies, University College Dublin.
Kuppam, A.R., Pendyala, R.M., Gollakoti, A.V., 1995. Stated response
analysis of the effectiveness of parking pricing strategies for
transportation control. Transportation Research Record 1649, 39–46.
Lam, W., Li, Z-C., Huang, H-J., Wong, S., 2006. Modeling time-
dependent travel choice problems in road networks with multiple user
classes and multiple parking facilities. Transportation Research Part B
40, 368–395.
Litman, T., 1996. Using road pricing revenue: economic efficiency and
equity considerations. Transportation Research Record 1558,
24–28.
Mackett, R., 2001. Policies to attract drivers out of their cars for short
trips. Transport Policy 8 (4), 295–306.
Maddison, D., Pearce, D., Johansson, O., Calthrop, E., Litman, T.,
Verhoef, E., 1996. The true costs of road transport. Earthscan,
London.
Marshall, S., Banister, D., 2000. Transport reduction strategies: intentions
and outcomes. Transportation Research Part A 34, 321–338.
Parry, I., Bento, A., 2002. Estimating the welfare effect of congestion
taxes: the critical importance of other distortions within the transport
system. Journal of Urban Economics 51 (2), 339–365.
Petiot, R., 2004. Parking enforcement and travel demand management.
Transport Policy 11, 399–411.
Pucher, J., 1993. Social and environmental cost of automobile driving.
Passenger Transport 51, 1–5.
Shiftan, Y., 1999. Responses to parking restrictions: lessons from a stated
preference survey in Haifa and their policy implications. World
Transport Policy and Practice 5 (4), 30–35.
Shiftan, Y., 2002. The effects of parking pricing and supply on travel
patterns to a major business district. In: Stern, E., Salomon, I., Bovy,
P.H.L. (Eds.), Travel Behaviour. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Shoup, D., 2005. The high cost of free parking. APA Planners Press,
Chicago.
Thomson, R.G., Richardson, A.J., 1998. A parking search model.
Transportation Research Part A 32, 159–170.
Tsamboulas, D., 2001. Parking fare thresholds: a policy tool. Transport
Policy 8, 115–124.
Verhoef, E., Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P., 1995. The economics of regulatory
parking policies: the (im)possibilities of parking policies in traffic
regulation. Transportation Research Part A 29, 141–156.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute 2003. Transportation elasticities.
Online encyclopedia http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm11.htm.
Whitehead, T., 2005. Transport charging interventions and economic
activity. Transport Policy 12 (5), 451–463.