- Email: [email protected]
Car parking management at airports: A special case?
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521 www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol
Car parking management at airports: A special case? K. Aldridgea, M. Carrenob, S. Isona, T. Ryeb,, I. Strakera a
Transport Studies Group, Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK b Transport Research Institute, Napier University, 10 Colinton Rd, Edinburgh, EH10 5DT, Scotland, UK Available online 4 August 2006
Abstract The number of employees who daily commute to an airport represents, on average, one quarter to one half of the daily number of passengers. At UK airports it is rare for employees to pay for their car parking, with most employers absorbing the charges imposed by the airport authority. This paper details the main issues with offering free parking to employees drawing comparisons between a selection of case studies where parking management measures for employees have been introduced, and the airport sector. The paper then reports on a survey and a series of focus groups that were conducted with employees at a large UK airport in order to gauge their attitudes and likely behavioural responses to potential parking management strategies. Key findings are presented to show how airports may be able to learn from the experiences of others in the successful introduction of parking management strategies, but that there are also key barriers that are specific to airports that would need to be overcome. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Parking; Management; Airports; Charges
1. Introduction The provision of car parking is an essential element of airport operations. The convenience and flexibility of the private car means that it is the principal method of accessing airports for passengers, employees, visitors, meeters and greeters (Ashford et al., 1997). As a consequence, airports must incorporate a large parking capacity into their design and operation. The literature relating to parking at airports focus on passengers and seldom considers the importance of employees. Employees, however, account for a large proportion of the airport population, in the region of one quarter to one half of the number of daily passengers and their impact must not be disregarded (Kazda and Caves, 2000). Research has shown that a higher percentage of employees choose to travel by private car, as opposed to other modes, than the percentage of passengers who travel to the airport by private car (Humphreys and Ison, 2005). In the non-airport sector, the use of parking management strategies, including employee parking charges is more Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 131 455 2477.
E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Rye). 0967-070X/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2006.05.002
common and helps to overcome the problems associated with offering free parking to employees (Rye and Ison, 2005). There are, however, many issues with the implementation of car parking management strategies for employees most notably in terms of gaining acceptance from staff. The aim of this paper is to analyse the issues connected with the implementation of airport employee car parking, and to show what airports could learn from nonairport organisations that have introduced successful parking management schemes. The paper first introduces the current literature on employee car parking at airports and the problems that may arise from the availability of free car parking. It then considers the experience of four non-airport case study employers that have introduced parking management, looking in particular at factors that were key to the implementation process, as well as employee reaction. It then goes on to report, briefly, on survey and focus group work undertaken with staff from various employers at a large UK airport, to ascertain likely employee response to possible parking management measures. It then reviews the key aspects of the implementation process at the other case study organisations to see whether they are in any way satisfied at the airport or, if not, how they could be.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 512
K. Aldridge et al. / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521
Finally, the paper concludes with a number of recommendations. In this paper, the term parking management (scheme or strategy) is used to refer to a variety of mechanisms to reduce or manage parking demand at the workplace. These include rationing, pricing and/or parking cashout (for a definition of the latter see Shoup (1997). Much of the research for this paper was carried out as part of a wider study of travel plans, and so the paper refers to these as well as to parking management strategies. This is because it is the researchers, experience that the latter are most frequently introduced as part of the former. 2. Employee car parking at airports—a review of the literature Research in the field of airport surface access has tended to focus on passengers rather than employees. Employees, however, are a more accessible group for airports to target to decrease travel demand for surface access because, in theory at least, their employer knows more about them, and they do not have the inconvenience of luggage, unlike passengers. Airports may be reluctant to dissuade passengers from travelling by car because of the revenues generated from passenger car parking and because it could possibly give advantage to a competing airport (de Neufville and Odoni, 2003). Staff parking provision is broadly related to airport size and passenger throughput and generally ranges from 25–45% of the number of airport employees (de Neufville and Odoni, 2003). Staff have high parking requirements due largely to shift working, meaning that many employees arrive at similar times. Parking spaces cannot be vacated until previous shift workers have finished and so capacity is required to facilitate the overlap. Arrival and departure times also depend on shift changes and parking duration is usually between 8 and 12 h, the main exception to this being aircraft crews. The accumulation of staff parking varies with the number of employees per shift and also changes in employee numbers due to weekly and seasonal fluctuations (Ashford et al., 1997). Where airports are constrained on site, a commonly employed strategy is to use off-airport parking to add extra capacity (Caves and Gosling, 1999). Research suggests that employees more readily accept remote parking than do passengers because the uncertainty of shuttle bus schedules from the car park to the airport is less critical for them, and because employees do not have the added burden of luggage or the anxiety of catching their flight (FHA and FAA, 1995). While this may be true in some cases, the certainty of arriving at work on time is often critical and continuing employment may depend on it. In the UK, Government Policy contains measures which could potentially reduce demand for airport parking and restrict new parking provision at or around airports. Government Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG13 on Transport calls for reduced parking requirements for new
development in locations with good access via modes other than the private car and for parking requirements in general to be kept to the operational minimum (DETR, 2001). However, airports in the UK are to an extent exempted from these regulations as they have special planning status under what are called Permitted Development rights within their boundaries. 2.1. Charging for employee parking at airports In the UK, most employee parking at airports is paid for by the employer. For example, BAA plc, the airport operator at London Heathrow, charges between £400 and £1000 per annum for a staff permit, depending on location, but most employers bear the cost rather than passing it onto employees (Matthews, 2000), who are consequently unaware of its real cost. This highlights an important issue in managing employee travel demand to airports generally: most staff on the airport are not employed by the airport operator, but by other businesses located there—primarily airlines. This makes it difficult for the airport operator to influence them. One example of a more innovative approach than at Heathrow exists at Amsterdam Schiphol airport where the main employer KLM introduced an employee car parking charge in 1995 as a response to rapid growth in airport activity and parking capacity problems. Each employee received a one-time salary increase of h18 a month, which was equivalent to the amount KLM had paid Schiphol Airport for employee parking passes, but was required to pay for their own parking, if they used the space. Coupled with the parking charges were improvements to other modes of transport (Schreffler and de Vreede, 2000). 2.2. Problems with offering free parking to employees Employers often choose to subsidise employee parking because it offers sound economic benefits. First, the subsidised car parking space is cheaper than giving the employee a larger salary because it does not incur tax or social security liability. Secondly, it might enable staff to work additional and more flexible hours. Thirdly, any increase in an employee’s salary increases the base against which future living cost adjustments are applied, whereas fringe benefits such as free parking do not. Finally, benefits such as free parking are potentially easier to cut than salary levels (Williams, 1992). Research in the non-airport sector has highlighted the problems with offering employees free parking at the workplace. Shoup (1997) found that the subsidy for free parking at work was triple the vehicle operating costs for driving to work. This means that commuters do not consider the cost of parking when choosing their travel mode and thus they drive alone more frequently (Shoup and Willson, 1992). A further problem is that employer paid parking is usually a ‘take it or leave it’, offer with no alternatives available. Employees who value the parking at less than it
ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Aldridge et al. / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521
costs the employer to provide it will often take the parking subsidy rather than nothing. Many employees, however, do not think that their parking spaces are worth what it costs their employer to provide them because studies show that when employees have to pay for their own parking, many stop driving to work alone (Williams, 1992; Shoup and Willson, 1992). 2.3. Introducing employee parking charges In the airport sector, directly charging employees to park has very rarely been introduced as a strategy to manage the demand for car parking. In the non-airport sector, employee car parking charges are a little more common and have received academic attention (Rye and Ison, 2005). Parking charges are regarded as being a ‘first-best’ solution for dealing with the issue of efficiently allocating a scarce number of spaces (Verhoef et al., 1995). The implementation and acceptance issues related to the introduction of a parking charge are, however, important. The instruments regarded as being the most effective at reducing traffic congestion, such as parking charges, are also those which people are most opposed to and are often avoided except in the face of heavy policing, making them difficult to introduce (Button and Verhoef, 1998; Enoch, 2002). It is argued, however, that because parking policies already exist in many cities, their extension to the workplace may be easier than introducing a completely new system, for example electronic road pricing (Verhoef et al., 1995). A potential way around acceptance difficulties is to utilise a traffic restraint measure as an integral part of a wider package of measures (Jones, 1991; Thorpe et al., 2000; Ison and Wall, 2002). Jones found that this approach significantly increased public willingness to contemplate traffic restraint and highlighted three elements to the package approach:
A simple but fair method of vehicle restriction. Improvements in public transport. Some re-allocation of roadspace to non-sustainable modes.
Rye and Ison (2005) offer six factors to assist the implementation of parking charges at the workplace. They are:
The need for clear, site specific reasons for parking charges. Consultation will take some time and it should not be expected that it will resolve all opposition; however, opposition will reduce, after the scheme is introduced. Significant investment is required in parking control systems, but this will be recouped through the revenue raised within 1 to 2 years. Charges are relatively low, income related and applied with few exemptions.
513
Those exemptions that are made are justified by clear and transparent criteria, and The funds raised are ring-fenced for improvements in parking, security and alternative transport to the site.
One of the most important elements when introducing a parking charge is considered to be that the finance raised should be used to improve alternative modes and the physical environment (Jones, 1991; Ison and Wall, 2002). In surveys in Newcastle and Cambridge in the UK, the level of acceptance when increasing parking charges was much greater when there was a guarantee that the revenue generated was allocated to projects which improved transport (Thorpe et al., 2000). 2.4. Airport car park revenue generation The revenues generated from public car parking facilities are an important source of income for an airport, sometimes in the region of one-fifth of total revenue at the largest airports (Ashford et al., 1997, Maise, 1997). The average for European airports is 14% (Canaday, 1999). This reveals that employee parking at some airports represents a major opportunity cost, as some or all of it could generate additional retail revenue. However, there are limits to the extent to which certain airports in the UK are able to do this. For example, there are regulatory caps on the amount that BAA can charge organisations located at its airports for various services, including car parking for staff. This review of the literature relating to employee parking at airports has shown that it is a complex area and one of significant importance to both the operation and the economics of the business. The paper now goes on to describe the employers that were used as case studies of the introduction of parking management, and an analysis of the key aspects of its implementation. It also briefly reviews the methodology employed in the rest of the paper. 3. Methodology The selection of the non-airport organisation case studies was based on a number of criteria, namely:
Comparability with the airport case study, with regard to: J constrained location; J congestion problem; J range of car park users (employees, visitors and customers); J shift work patterns; J location of numerous employers on site; J type of organisation (i.e. private sector, blue-chip company); Effectiveness of travel planning in reducing car use; and The use of both incentives and disincentives.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 514
K. Aldridge et al. / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521
The four organisations that were selected for detailed investigation were a:
Large out-of-town shopping centre located in the South east of England. Multinational pharmaceutical company. NHS Trust Hospital, located in the East of England. University, located in West of England.
The justification for the choice of the four case studies is outlined below. Firstly, each of the four case studies selected are restricted and constrained by their location due to varying types of surrounding land use. They have all been successful in managing travel demand to their sites (see DfT, 2002). Congestion is an issue at all case study sites and has often been the main focus of each organisation’s travel plan. Each organisation has a variety of users accessing the site, including employees, visitors, customers (the out-of-town shopping centre), patients (NHS Trust), students (University) and/or delivery vehicles. The employment characteristics typical of the large UK airport, most notably shift patterns, have been identified in most of the case studies (in particular the out-of-town shopping centre, the hospital and the pharmaceutical company). The case studies also reflect a range of employment characteristics similar in terms of the level of pay. The selected airport is a multi-organisation site and the case studies were selected to represent this. The out-oftown shopping centre, for example, is the site for 330 shops and leisure providers and the hospital houses six major employers. The University has a dispersed location and is, therefore, in close vicinity of many different organisations. 3.1. Research methodology at case study sites Face-to-face interviews were undertaken with a number of key personnel within each organisation between 19 January 2004 and 4 March 2004. In each case these personnel were those responsible for parking management and the travel plan at each site. They were the people in charge of developing and implementing the organisation’s travel management strategy, although they were of course dependent on senior management support for the allocation of resources to do their job. Each interviewee was asked a number of questions based around the following six main themes:
The site and overview of the travel plan’s aims and scope. Incentives used to bring about mode shift from car. Disincentives: this focused on each organisation’s parking strategy—be that charging, rationing, cash-out or a mixture—and was a major component of the interviews. Management and administration of the travel plan. Travel plan effectiveness.
3.2. Research methodology at the airport In order to explore airport employees’ attitudes and likely reactions to a range of potential disincentive measures, a survey was also carried out with a total of 1362 staff from a range of on-airport employers. An example of the scales used to measure behavioural reactions is presented in Appendix 1. (It is planned to present a full analysis of the survey results in a subsequent paper.) As a follow up to the survey, a series of focus groups was conducted with seven employee groups. The aim was to explore the findings of the earlier survey in greater depth, focussing on employees’ current perceptions of staff parking and their views of, and likely reactions towards, potential parking management strategies. All bar one of the focus groups were held in a central location on the airport to allow a wide cross-section of employees from many different on-airport employers to attend. Employees were selected through the survey that was carried out earlier: all respondents were asked whether they would be willing to take part in a focus group and, from those that agreed, a random sample was selected. Between 5 and 10 people took part in each focus group. The group that was held elsewhere contained only employees from the airport management company itself—this was convenient because of the location of their office, offairport. 4. Parking management strategies at the non-airport case studies, employee reaction and key factors in terms of implementation The parking management strategies employed by the non-airport case studies are set in Table 1, below. This also shows the effect of these strategies on mode shift, but it should be noted that this refers to the overall impact of the travel plan of which parking management was only one— albeit important—element. Table 1 shows that, perhaps with the exception of the University and to an extent the Hospital, the parking management strategies were introduced as part of a wider package of measures. This begs the question as to what could have been achieved without parking management; or without the other measures (i.e., by parking management alone). DfT (2002:7) answer this to some extent when they conclude, on the basis of 21 detailed case studies of travel plans, that Parking restraint is a hallmark of high achieving travel plansy Charging for parking also operates as a form of parking restraint. In our study, the travel plans with the lowest car use used either parking restrictions, parking charges, or a combination of the two. This question may also be answered to an extent by some reference to the literature on parking and modal choice— although this is sparse, as acknowledged by Kuzmyak et al.
ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Aldridge et al. / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521
515
Table 1 Comparison of non-airport case studies Case study
Parking management strategy and wider strategy within which it fits
Mode shift reduction
The out-of-town shopping center—13,000 car parking spaces on site. 2000 allocated to staff. Total of 8500 staff, with 3000–5500 commuting each day.
Car parking spaces allocated by individual retailers, although advised by the out-of-town shopping centre to allocate on need, rather than seniority. Unofficial redline rule whereby employees park in these areas only. Regulated by number plate recognition software. Three strikes-and-out enforcement operates, two warnings and then employee vehicles are clamped if park out of red-line area. Wider demand management measures include a branded travel plan communication strategy, car sharing scheme, extensive bus services initially subsidised by the developer, bus priority, walking and cycle routes, cycle parking, a shuttle bus to the nearest station and local recruitment targeted on areas with good public transport links. Parking management an important element but public transport and local recruitment key to travel plan success. Parking cash out payment of £2 per day. All employees permitted to park, entry and egress from parks controlled by electronic barriers activated via staff ID cards. Wider demand management measures very similar to those of the shopping centre with the exception of local recruitment strategies. Bus priority planned but not implemented. Parking cash out central to the travel plan although all elements designed to be mutually supportive. Parking charge introduced in 1992, currently at 60 p per day deducted at egress from car park from staff at end of day via electronic smartcard, or via salary for those employed directly by Trust. No reserved spaces for any individual members of staff, although staff allocated to designated car park groups and car parks according to status and need which increases chances of finding a space. Wider demand management measures include car park security, car share matching, improved public transport and information about it, and a park and ride. Parking management central to travel plan. Revised permit scheme introduces in 2001 based on employee needs. Category A (disabled employees, car sharers and departmental vehicles), Category B ¼ staff with caring responsibilities, or poor access to PT)—both guaranteed parking spaces, and Category C, other employees not eligible for Category A or B permits (‘License to hunt’)—not guaranteed parking spaces. In summer 2004, the distinction between Category B and C was reduced as holders of each type of permit were allowed to park in each other’s car park, to enhance utilisation. Also car parking charge of £10 per annum, plus 0.006% of gross salary per day. Enforced by car park security attendants resulting in fines and/or clamping. Parking management central to travel plan, though other elements include changing and parking facilities for cyclists, a free daytime shuttle bus to the city centre, and bicycle and season ticket loans, also introduced.
36% reduction in employees travelling to work by car and 25% increase travelling by PT, compared with local average travel to work mode split.
The pharmaceutical company—3800 car parking spaces onsite for staff use. Total of 7000 staff with approximately 5000 commuting each day.
The NHS Trust—3000 parking spaces on site, 2100 allocated to staff. In total 9000 staff with approximately 6000 commuting per day.
The University—1000 parking spaces. A total of 3710 staff at main site, no figures on daily commute journeys.
(2003). The available literature does however reveal, through both empirical studies and modelling, that parking policy measures are likely to be relatively more important than many other traffic management measures in influen-
11.8% reduction in the SOV between 1998 and 2001. No data available since inception of parking cash out.
14% reduction in SOV and 19% increase in bus use from 1993 to 2003.
11% reduction in SOV from 1998 to 2003.
cing mode choice. More specifically, in the limited studies undertaken, the decision to use a car for the journey to work is greatly influenced by the availability and cost of parking at the destination.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 516
K. Aldridge et al. / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521
For example, Feeney (1989) suggested that decreased availability and increased costs may have five major effects on car drivers. They may:
management strategies, including how employees responded. Quotes from interviews are used to illustrate the points made.
4.1. Driver for change
change their parking location; change the starting time of their journey; change the mode used; change their destination; or abandon the trip.
However, the last two effects are less relevant to commuters, at least in the short term. Several empirical studies and models have determined various influences on mode choice for the journey to work, and the relative importance of parking provision. In central London, over 80% of car commuters have free parking in the work place vicinity (NEDO, 1991) and this is accompanied by a correspondingly high car usage for commuting by these travellers. In a study of parking availability in Paris (Young et al., 1991), it was found that 75% of car commuters to the city centre have a companyprovided parking space. When asked what action they would take if that space was no longer available, the replies can be summarised as follows:
40% would look for a free on-street space further out; 20% would switch to bus or rail; 20% would walk or cycle; 15% would attempt to form a car pool; 5% would pay for parking.
Hence, very few of this group would be prepared to pay the full commercial price for city centre parking, and the vast majority would not drive into the city centre without the possibility of a free car parking space. Similarly, the introduction of a residents’ parking permit scheme in Munich (Topp, 1991), reduced car trips from 44% to 32% and public transport increased its market share from 40% to 47%. A TRL study (Dasgupta et al., 1994) compared the effect of parking restrictions and improved public transport on car use. A halving of public transport fares predicted a 1% to 2% decrease in car use but a doubling of parking charges reduced car use by a predicted 20%. Halving the number of parking spaces, however, had the greatest anticipated effect with a reduction in car use of over 30%. It appears then that the reductions in car use achieved in the four case study organisations are consistent with, or slightly less than, that which the literature predicts is possible. With that in mind, one could argue that parking management alone might achieve significant reductions in car use. However, packaging it as part of a travel plan is likely to increase its acceptability. It is this that the following sections of the paper go on to explore, by discussing the factors that the interviews revealed were key to the successful implementation of the parking
A driver, or reason, for change is paramount when introducing a travel plan, particularly if it includes a disincentive (such as a parking charge or parking restriction). Each case study organisation outlined the key objectives of their travel plan and these were essential in gaining support from both senior management and staff. The key drivers have tended to be the need to reduce or prevent congestion (the out-of-town shopping centre, the pharmaceutical company and the hospital). Unless we did something, the whole place was going to gridlock (Shopping Centre). The congestion was so bad in 1999, the staff were beginning to complain about it (Hospital). and/or the need to manage a limited number of parking spaces (the university and hospital). The parking situation was getting out of hand—it was a free-for-all with vehicles parked on the grass, on double yellow lines and what was worse blocking access routes (Hospital). Too may cars chasing too few spaces (University). Without the perception that there is a problem that needs to be solved, it is very difficult to implement any radical changes, such as parking management. 4.2. Package approach Each case study adopted a package, or holistic, approach to travel planning. There are however variations, but what is clear is that in each case study it was important to have a wide range of alternative transport modes available in order to achieve modal shift. The combined use of incentives with disincentives (carrots and sticks) has also proved extremely effective, whether the ‘sticks’ be financial (parking charge) or non-financial (parking restrictions). The majority of organisations also considered it important to provide competitive transport alternatives to the car, prior to implementing a disincentive. 4.3. Hypothecation of parking revenue The two case study organisations that introduced a parking charge (the hospital and university) argued that the hypothecation of parking revenue to transport is essential in gaining acceptance from staff. You have to be up front as to where the money is goingya lot of hospitals collect money from car parks and it goes straight into meeting the bottom line,
ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Aldridge et al. / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521
because they’re so heavily in debt. If you are going to implement a charge you have to ring-fence it (Hospital).
4.4. Incremental approach When introducing a disincentive (such as a parking charge or parking restriction), an incremental, or pragmatic, approach appears to be most acceptable to staff. At the hospital, for example, the parking charge for staff was originally introduced at a relatively low rate and has since been increased gradually. 4.5. Equity and exemptions Evidence from the case studies suggests that any Travel Plan must be seen to be equitable and must also provide special considerations for staff with specific travel requirements. This is often difficult to achieve because, whilst exemptions need to be made, they should be kept to a minimum in order to keep the Travel Plan relatively simple to understand and enforce. The various case study organisations have tackled this issue in differing ways, depending on their specific circumstances.
517
Delivering a sustainable and environmentally responsible company image to all stakeholders. Improved financial productivity of the existing site by reducing the need for large areas of land devoted to staff car parking. The need to satisfy official planning requirements in order for an organisation to expand.
4.7. Consultation and communication The value of communication and consultation was highlighted constantly throughout the case study interviews and is a crucial part of introducing any new travel planning activities, especially disincentives. Good consultation includes all stakeholder groups (senior management, business partners, staff members and customers), starts a long time before a change is enforced, then occurs at regular intervals and incorporates stakeholder views into the ideas and workings of any changes. After 18 months of consultation, everyone had accepted it (University). You have to share a partnership, share the risks, work with them and understand their issues (Shopping centre—in relation to local PT operators).
its all about being equitable, you can’t treat one group differently from another (Hospital).
4.8. Conclusion to case studies 4.6. Senior management and multi-organisational support Senior management support is essential if an organisation’s travel plan is to be effective, and especially if it is to contain disincentives. All of the case study organisation received buy-in from senior management or members of the Board and considered this one of the most important factors in the success of their activities. Unless the senior management support it, or it’s a priority for them, you might as well forget it (Hospital). Furthermore, for travel planning activities that cover multi-organisation sites, it is also important to gain support and cooperation from all organisations on site. At the out-of-town shopping centre, for example, this was successfully achieved. In this case, a forum was established to enable decisions and agreements to be made based on a common objective. The shopping centre used the Forum to come to an agreement with the business partners regarding how many parking permits were to be allocated to each company, and then it was left up to each company to decide how they would distribute those permits to their staff. The key method in gaining support from senior management and/or business partners appears to be the promotion of the business benefits of the travel plan. These business benefits may include:
Improved efficiency in terms of the movement of staff and goods onto/from the site.
All the case studies succeeded in implementing some form of parking management, which had the intended effect on mode shift, when combined with incentive measures. The most important factors in bringing about this change appeared to be:
Senior management and multi-organisational support. The perception of a serious problem with parking for staff.
5. Comparison of the airport experience with non-airport case studies In this section of the paper, survey and focus group research with staff at the large UK airport is detailed to assess the airport’s readiness to emulate the non-airport case studies in implementing parking management. Firstly, the employee transport situation at the UK airport is described in order to give some context to the efforts that have made over recent years to manage staff travel demand. The airport, like many other regional airports faces increasing challenges in managing its surface access transport, not least since air travel at the airport is forecast to grow by approximately one third over the next ten years. Unless action is taken, a major consequence of this growth will be increased congestion on the road network in and around the airport and deterioration in the quality of the environment. At specific locations, emissions from vehicles
ARTICLE IN PRESS 518
K. Aldridge et al. / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521
(both on roads surrounding the airport, and on the airport itself) can account for a significant proportion of total air pollution. Thus, managing surface access is important to the airport’s obligation to address air quality issues. Furthermore, the airport must comply with the Car Parking Cap as part of a planning decision, which limits controlled car parking spaces. The airport is currently regarded as an example of good practice in terms of incentive-based travel planning, and is active in providing and promoting sustainable transport modes, including public transport, cycling, walking and car share. The constrained nature of the airport site and growth in air transport, however, means that the airport is under continual pressure to reduce demand for car parking. Consequently, further action, including the introduction of disincentive based travel planning measures may be an option in order to achieve a greater modal split of sustainable surface access travel. 5.1. Survey results In terms of employee attitudes to parking management measures, the survey results indicate that they would be likely to have a significant impact on the way that staff travel-to-work. The value attached to free parking to employees was demonstrated in that 94% of car drivers indicated that free, or cheap parking was important to them in determining modal choice. Analysis of the survey also suggested that a relatively small parking charge of 25 p per day would make approximately 10% of current drivers stop driving to work. Changes in intended behaviour rise dramatically as the level of charge increases, with approximately 70% of current drivers indicating they would stop driving to work if a £5 per day parking charge was in place. Lesser reactions were obtained in response to the option of daily parking cash out payments. A payment of £1 per day or less is unlikely to have any dramatic effects. Only 1% of current drivers indicated that this would be incentive enough to stop them driving to work. The results obtained from this analysis suggest that for any significant reductions in car use, payments of £3 per day (over 11% of current drivers would stop driving), £5 per day (over 30%) and £10 per day (56%) would have to be paid. The questionnaire survey was designed so that respondents had a range of values of charge/payment from which they could choose and, as Appendix 1 shows, they were also asked the level of charge/payment that would lead them to consider changing mode, find out about alternatives and finally actually change mode. There is likely nonetheless to have been some overstatement of the level of response, but it can safely be concluded that the impact of such charges/payments on mode choice would not be insignificant. However, whilst it is clear from the survey that a parking charge or cashout payment would have an impact on the
way that staff choose to travel to work, the readiness of the organisations on the airport for such a major change is rather more in doubt, as the following sections of the paper go on to discuss. These sections return to the factors key to the implementation of parking management in the nonairport organisations, and conclude whether these are in place at the airport. 5.2. Focus group results 5.2.1. Driver for change The key drivers behind the airports attempts to reduce car use, most notably the EU NOx limits, were not acknowledged by the large majority of focus group participants. In addition, the majority of participants were generally satisfied with their car parking provision and very few had difficulties with finding a car parking space. It was stated that ‘‘The car park is conveniently located and there’s never any problem finding a space’’. This makes them less likely to accept, or understand the reasons for, any future changes to staff car parking arrangements. This represents a major challenge to the airport authority if it wishes to influence employee behaviour proactively before the problem becomes critical. A few participants from the focus groups commented on this issue: I don’t think there is a big enough problem yety at the moment I think the car parking is OK, and until it gets to not OK, you are not going to change people. People will keep their head in the sand until the situation gets really bady When it becomes painful for individuals, it will focus the minds. Essentially, though, employees with a greater awareness of the main transport problems facing the airport were more willing to discuss disincentive options to help solve some of these problems; but the bulk of employees do not appear to recognise the problem. 5.2.2. Package approach In discussions surrounding potential incentive/disincentive options, there was an overriding view amongst focus group participants for the need of a package, or mixed, approach to travel planning measures. Each of the three options, namely financial incentives, staff parking charges or reallocating permits, were viewed as having their inherent advantages and disadvantages and were thought each would only affect a certain proportion of the employees on-airport. It was stated that ‘‘All the things we have talked about all need to be used, but each one will only solve a small part of the problem- things that encourage me to use alternatives won’t encourage other people’’. A package approach in terms of the provision of both incentives and disincentives was also deemed an important
ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Aldridge et al. / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521
factor. The perceived lack of viable alternatives to the car was an overriding reason why many survey and focus group participants thought that the three proposed travel management options would not be effective or acceptable. Within the minority of participants that were willing to discuss the prospect of a parking charge in more detail, most agreed that, before a charge could be introduced, improvements to the alternatives to the car should be in place. As that ‘‘You can’t stop people driving their cars until you provide an alternative- it’s as simple as that- and currently those alternatives are not in place’’. Specifically in relation to the reliability, journey time, comfort and security of current bus services it was said that ‘‘the bus takes so long and I never know what time it will turn upy I can’t rely on that service so I will never use it’’ and ‘‘We’re living in an age now where time is absolutely precious- when I finish work I want to go home and see my family- not wait at a bus stop for an hour’’. The airport authorities have over the past 10 years put in place improvements to alternative modes aimed at staff, most notably improved bus services and some cycle facilities. This appears to have brought about some mode shift. Nonetheless, those at the focus groups and respondents to the survey still felt that these improvements were insufficient to compensate for the introduction of disincentives to car use. 5.2.3. Hypothecation of revenue The experience from other non-airport organisations showed that it is important that any revenue from parking charges is ring-fenced into travel related schemes (either to improving car parking facilities or the alternatives to the car). It was stated that ‘‘We need improvements to buses, but the money has to come from somewhere- so why not parking charges- that seems like a fair system’’. Within the focus group discussions, however, a considerable number of participants voiced some scepticism that this would indeed occur, were a charge to be introduced. Comments such as ‘‘The land they use for car parking is at a premium and they could probably make more money using it in other waysy They want to build more shops—that’s where their priorities lie’’ were made. It seems that the airport would, therefore, need to ensure that with any new staff car parking scheme that may be introduced, they generate a sense of trust amongst airport employees that the revenue will be returned to staff travel. 5.2.4. Equity and exemptions Several participants commented on the need for a ‘fair’ employee car parking strategy. Participants in the bus user focus group thought that a previous ‘cash-out’ scheme which offered staff the opportunity to sell their car park pass for a fixed price was unfair, as it was only offered to staff with a pass. One focus group participant stated that ‘‘When the airport bought back passes years ago, the people that did not have a car pass got nothing- we were
519
basically being penalised for being green already- it wasn’t fair’’. Consequently, for reasons of equity, in any future charging or cashout scheme, it would be important to reward all staff bar those who continue to drive alone. At the pharmaceutical company, the inclusion of both car and public transport users in the parking cash-out scheme was viewed as an important element in gaining acceptance from staff. Regarding car parking charges, it was expressed by a few focus group participants that an income-based parking charge as opposed to a flat rate charge would be more equitable. Ring fencing the revenue for public transport improvements was also viewed as desirable. Equity was also an important issue in discussions surrounding the reallocation of parking permits based on employee need. It was felt that shift workers, those with poor public transport access and to a lesser extent those with caring responsibilities should be entitled to priority parking. It was stated that ‘‘It sounds awful but office workers should be targeted first because they work regular hoursyPeople starting really early in the morning need a car, there’s no other way of getting to work’’. Conversely, the allocation of permits based on status was regarded as an unfair system by all participants who expressed an opinion—yet they also confirmed that some on-airport employers practice it. 5.2.5. Consultation and communication The focus groups carried out for this research constituted the first discussions with airport employees about the issues surrounding charging or other parking management. Clearly, then, in comparison with the non-airport organisations considered earlier, much more consultation would be required prior to the introduction of any scheme. 5.2.6. Negative impacts of incentive/disincentive options The issue of recruitment and retention was often mentioned by participants in discussion of the disincentive options. This is reinforced with statements such as ‘‘If you took office workers, permits away they would just leavethey’re professional people- they could get a job elsewhere’’ and ‘‘Parking is something you definitely consider when applying for a jobyit is likely to restrict the type of people we can employ’’. This is something that requires considerable attention if any new measures are introduced. In the research conducted at other UK organisations that have introduced a disincentive, however, it was revealed that recruitment and retention problems resulting from parking management strategies have largely not been experienced. The problem of possible overspill parking in streets around the airport that might result from different parking policies was not mentioned in interviews with on-airport organisations, but it is a possible impact of such policies, and one on which a ‘watching brief’ would have to be kept.
ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Aldridge et al. / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521
520
6. Conclusions The literature review highlighted a number of issues with employee car parking at airports and the problems that can sometimes be associated with offering free parking to employees. Many airports are currently facing capacity problems with employee car parking. As they continue to grow these problems will increase and more airports will begin to face the same issues. A potential way to help resolve the problems could be to charge employees for parking. The review of non-airport case studies showed that parking management can be introduced, but key factors must be in place, particularly senior management support and recognition across the organisation that parking is a problem. The survey with staff suggests that parking charging or cashout at the airport would have a significant effect on employee car use. But the focus groups also showed that the conditions identified at non-airport case studies are not in place at the airport, particularly senior management support, and the recognition of a problem with staff parking. These factors were key at the other organisations where parking charging was introduced. In addition, the airport is a highly complex multiorganisational environment where the relationship between airport operator and tenants is regulated by law. This
would make the introduction of charging for individual employees much more difficult because it would have to be mediated from the airport operator through other on-airport employers, and because (in the case of BAA airports at least) it would have to sit within the regulatory framework that governs the operator/employer relationship. Thus, whilst the two former ‘pre-conditions’ for the implementation of parking management might be considered to be generic to all types of employer, the latter is much more specific to airports and, for this reason, employee parking management at airports can be seen to be a special case. This may well be the key reason why there are as yet no airports in the UK that charge staff more than a very nominal fee for parking. Appendix 1 Q. 19 This question examines the effect of parking charges on your choice of travel mode to/from work. Please indicate (by placing a letter A, B and C) on the following scale above the point at which the daily parking fee would make you; A. Start thinking about using an alternative (to driving your car) to/from work (place a letter A above the appropriate value on the scale) e.g.
A **
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
25 p 50 p 75 p £1.00 £1.50 £2.00 £2.50 £3.00 £3.50 £4.00 £4.50 £5.00 £5.50 £6.00 £6.50 £7.00 £7.50 £8.00 £8.50
£9.00 £9.50 £10.00 £11.00 £12.00 £13.00 £14.00 £15.00 £16.00 £17.00 £18.00 £19.00 £20.00 More than £20.
On the same scale could you please indicate by writing a letter ‘B’ above the amount that you; B. Would actively start seeking information about alternative ways to get to/from work (place a letter B above the appropriate value on the scale). And a letter ‘C’ above the amount you; C. Would stop using my car to get to/from work (place a letter C above the appropriate value on the scale.
ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Aldridge et al. / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521
References Ashford, N., Stanton, H.P.M., Moore, C.A., 1997. Airport Operations, second ed. McGraw Hill, Boston. Button, K.J., Verhoef, E.T., 1998. Road Pricing, Traffic Congestion and the Environment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Canaday, H., 1999. Airport parking goes hi-tech. Airport World, December/January. 41–44. Caves, R.E., Gosling, G.D., 1999. Strategic Airport Planning. Pergamon, Oxford. de Neufville, R., Odoni, A., 2003. Airport Systems—Planning, Design, and Management. McGraw Hill, New York. Dasgupta, M., Oldfield, R., Sharman, K., Webster, V., 1994. The Impact of Transport Policies in Five Cities TRL Project Report. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, England. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 2001. The Heathrow Terminal Five and Associated Public Inquiries—Summary Report. The Stationery Office, London. Department for Transport (DfT), 2002. Making Travel Plans Work: Lessons from UK case studies. The Stationery Office, London. Enoch, M., 2002. UK parking cash out experience, and lessons from California. Traffic Engineering and Control, May. pp. 184–187. Federal Highway Administration and Federal Aviation Administration, 1995. Airport Ground Access Planning Guide. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Sourced through The National Transportation Library, http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/AGAPP.html. Accessed June 20, 2005. Feeney, B.P., 1989. A review of the impact of parking policy measures on travel demand. Transportation Planning and Technology vol. 13 (April), 229–244. Humphreys, I.M., Ison, S.G., 2005. Changing airport employee travel behaviour: the role of airport surface access strategies. Transport Policy 12 (1), 1–9.
521
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, 21–28. Jones, P., 1991. Gaining public support for road pricing through a package approach. Traffic Engineering and Control. April 194–196. Kazda, A., Caves, R.E., 2000. Airport Design and Operation. Pergamon, Oxford. Kuzmyak, J.R., Pratt, R.H., Douglas, G.B., 2003. Travelor response to transportation system changes, chapter 15—land use and site design, Transportation Research Board, TCRP Report 95. Maise, H., 1997. Hidden potential of airport car parks. ACI Europe Marketing and Commercial Strategy Handbook 5, 11. Matthews, P.J., 2000. Airport parking levies fund alternatives to car. Parking Review 21–23. National Economic Development Office, 1991. Company Car Parking. NEDO, London. Rye, T., Ison, S.G., 2005. Overcoming barriers to the implementation of car parking charges. Transport Policy 12 (1), 57–64. Schreffler, E.N., de Vreede, H., 2000. Dutch gain experience with employer TDM programs. TDM Review 12–24. Shoup, D.C., Willson, RW., 1992. Solving the parking problem. Transportation Planning XIX (2, Summer), 9–13. Shoup, D.C., 1997. The high cost of free parking. Access 10 (2), 2–9. Thorpe, N., Hills, P., Jaensirisak, S., 2000. Public attitudes to TDM measures: a comparative study. Transport Policy 7, 243–257. Topp, H.H, 1991. Parking policies to reduce car traffic in German cities. Transport Reviews 13 (1), 83–85. Verhoef, E., Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P., 1995. The economics of regulatory parking policies: the (im)possibilities of parking policies in traffic regulation. Transportation Research 29A (2), 141–156. Young, W., Thompson, R.G., Taylor, M.A., 1991. A review of urban car parking models. Transport Reviews 11 (1), 63–84. Williams, J., 1992. Free and paid commuter parking in the Washington DC region. Transportation Research Record 1346, 33–35.
Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521 www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol
Car parking management at airports: A special case? K. Aldridgea, M. Carrenob, S. Isona, T. Ryeb,, I. Strakera a
Transport Studies Group, Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK b Transport Research Institute, Napier University, 10 Colinton Rd, Edinburgh, EH10 5DT, Scotland, UK Available online 4 August 2006
Abstract The number of employees who daily commute to an airport represents, on average, one quarter to one half of the daily number of passengers. At UK airports it is rare for employees to pay for their car parking, with most employers absorbing the charges imposed by the airport authority. This paper details the main issues with offering free parking to employees drawing comparisons between a selection of case studies where parking management measures for employees have been introduced, and the airport sector. The paper then reports on a survey and a series of focus groups that were conducted with employees at a large UK airport in order to gauge their attitudes and likely behavioural responses to potential parking management strategies. Key findings are presented to show how airports may be able to learn from the experiences of others in the successful introduction of parking management strategies, but that there are also key barriers that are specific to airports that would need to be overcome. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Parking; Management; Airports; Charges
1. Introduction The provision of car parking is an essential element of airport operations. The convenience and flexibility of the private car means that it is the principal method of accessing airports for passengers, employees, visitors, meeters and greeters (Ashford et al., 1997). As a consequence, airports must incorporate a large parking capacity into their design and operation. The literature relating to parking at airports focus on passengers and seldom considers the importance of employees. Employees, however, account for a large proportion of the airport population, in the region of one quarter to one half of the number of daily passengers and their impact must not be disregarded (Kazda and Caves, 2000). Research has shown that a higher percentage of employees choose to travel by private car, as opposed to other modes, than the percentage of passengers who travel to the airport by private car (Humphreys and Ison, 2005). In the non-airport sector, the use of parking management strategies, including employee parking charges is more Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 131 455 2477.
E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Rye). 0967-070X/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2006.05.002
common and helps to overcome the problems associated with offering free parking to employees (Rye and Ison, 2005). There are, however, many issues with the implementation of car parking management strategies for employees most notably in terms of gaining acceptance from staff. The aim of this paper is to analyse the issues connected with the implementation of airport employee car parking, and to show what airports could learn from nonairport organisations that have introduced successful parking management schemes. The paper first introduces the current literature on employee car parking at airports and the problems that may arise from the availability of free car parking. It then considers the experience of four non-airport case study employers that have introduced parking management, looking in particular at factors that were key to the implementation process, as well as employee reaction. It then goes on to report, briefly, on survey and focus group work undertaken with staff from various employers at a large UK airport, to ascertain likely employee response to possible parking management measures. It then reviews the key aspects of the implementation process at the other case study organisations to see whether they are in any way satisfied at the airport or, if not, how they could be.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 512
K. Aldridge et al. / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521
Finally, the paper concludes with a number of recommendations. In this paper, the term parking management (scheme or strategy) is used to refer to a variety of mechanisms to reduce or manage parking demand at the workplace. These include rationing, pricing and/or parking cashout (for a definition of the latter see Shoup (1997). Much of the research for this paper was carried out as part of a wider study of travel plans, and so the paper refers to these as well as to parking management strategies. This is because it is the researchers, experience that the latter are most frequently introduced as part of the former. 2. Employee car parking at airports—a review of the literature Research in the field of airport surface access has tended to focus on passengers rather than employees. Employees, however, are a more accessible group for airports to target to decrease travel demand for surface access because, in theory at least, their employer knows more about them, and they do not have the inconvenience of luggage, unlike passengers. Airports may be reluctant to dissuade passengers from travelling by car because of the revenues generated from passenger car parking and because it could possibly give advantage to a competing airport (de Neufville and Odoni, 2003). Staff parking provision is broadly related to airport size and passenger throughput and generally ranges from 25–45% of the number of airport employees (de Neufville and Odoni, 2003). Staff have high parking requirements due largely to shift working, meaning that many employees arrive at similar times. Parking spaces cannot be vacated until previous shift workers have finished and so capacity is required to facilitate the overlap. Arrival and departure times also depend on shift changes and parking duration is usually between 8 and 12 h, the main exception to this being aircraft crews. The accumulation of staff parking varies with the number of employees per shift and also changes in employee numbers due to weekly and seasonal fluctuations (Ashford et al., 1997). Where airports are constrained on site, a commonly employed strategy is to use off-airport parking to add extra capacity (Caves and Gosling, 1999). Research suggests that employees more readily accept remote parking than do passengers because the uncertainty of shuttle bus schedules from the car park to the airport is less critical for them, and because employees do not have the added burden of luggage or the anxiety of catching their flight (FHA and FAA, 1995). While this may be true in some cases, the certainty of arriving at work on time is often critical and continuing employment may depend on it. In the UK, Government Policy contains measures which could potentially reduce demand for airport parking and restrict new parking provision at or around airports. Government Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG13 on Transport calls for reduced parking requirements for new
development in locations with good access via modes other than the private car and for parking requirements in general to be kept to the operational minimum (DETR, 2001). However, airports in the UK are to an extent exempted from these regulations as they have special planning status under what are called Permitted Development rights within their boundaries. 2.1. Charging for employee parking at airports In the UK, most employee parking at airports is paid for by the employer. For example, BAA plc, the airport operator at London Heathrow, charges between £400 and £1000 per annum for a staff permit, depending on location, but most employers bear the cost rather than passing it onto employees (Matthews, 2000), who are consequently unaware of its real cost. This highlights an important issue in managing employee travel demand to airports generally: most staff on the airport are not employed by the airport operator, but by other businesses located there—primarily airlines. This makes it difficult for the airport operator to influence them. One example of a more innovative approach than at Heathrow exists at Amsterdam Schiphol airport where the main employer KLM introduced an employee car parking charge in 1995 as a response to rapid growth in airport activity and parking capacity problems. Each employee received a one-time salary increase of h18 a month, which was equivalent to the amount KLM had paid Schiphol Airport for employee parking passes, but was required to pay for their own parking, if they used the space. Coupled with the parking charges were improvements to other modes of transport (Schreffler and de Vreede, 2000). 2.2. Problems with offering free parking to employees Employers often choose to subsidise employee parking because it offers sound economic benefits. First, the subsidised car parking space is cheaper than giving the employee a larger salary because it does not incur tax or social security liability. Secondly, it might enable staff to work additional and more flexible hours. Thirdly, any increase in an employee’s salary increases the base against which future living cost adjustments are applied, whereas fringe benefits such as free parking do not. Finally, benefits such as free parking are potentially easier to cut than salary levels (Williams, 1992). Research in the non-airport sector has highlighted the problems with offering employees free parking at the workplace. Shoup (1997) found that the subsidy for free parking at work was triple the vehicle operating costs for driving to work. This means that commuters do not consider the cost of parking when choosing their travel mode and thus they drive alone more frequently (Shoup and Willson, 1992). A further problem is that employer paid parking is usually a ‘take it or leave it’, offer with no alternatives available. Employees who value the parking at less than it
ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Aldridge et al. / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521
costs the employer to provide it will often take the parking subsidy rather than nothing. Many employees, however, do not think that their parking spaces are worth what it costs their employer to provide them because studies show that when employees have to pay for their own parking, many stop driving to work alone (Williams, 1992; Shoup and Willson, 1992). 2.3. Introducing employee parking charges In the airport sector, directly charging employees to park has very rarely been introduced as a strategy to manage the demand for car parking. In the non-airport sector, employee car parking charges are a little more common and have received academic attention (Rye and Ison, 2005). Parking charges are regarded as being a ‘first-best’ solution for dealing with the issue of efficiently allocating a scarce number of spaces (Verhoef et al., 1995). The implementation and acceptance issues related to the introduction of a parking charge are, however, important. The instruments regarded as being the most effective at reducing traffic congestion, such as parking charges, are also those which people are most opposed to and are often avoided except in the face of heavy policing, making them difficult to introduce (Button and Verhoef, 1998; Enoch, 2002). It is argued, however, that because parking policies already exist in many cities, their extension to the workplace may be easier than introducing a completely new system, for example electronic road pricing (Verhoef et al., 1995). A potential way around acceptance difficulties is to utilise a traffic restraint measure as an integral part of a wider package of measures (Jones, 1991; Thorpe et al., 2000; Ison and Wall, 2002). Jones found that this approach significantly increased public willingness to contemplate traffic restraint and highlighted three elements to the package approach:
A simple but fair method of vehicle restriction. Improvements in public transport. Some re-allocation of roadspace to non-sustainable modes.
Rye and Ison (2005) offer six factors to assist the implementation of parking charges at the workplace. They are:
The need for clear, site specific reasons for parking charges. Consultation will take some time and it should not be expected that it will resolve all opposition; however, opposition will reduce, after the scheme is introduced. Significant investment is required in parking control systems, but this will be recouped through the revenue raised within 1 to 2 years. Charges are relatively low, income related and applied with few exemptions.
513
Those exemptions that are made are justified by clear and transparent criteria, and The funds raised are ring-fenced for improvements in parking, security and alternative transport to the site.
One of the most important elements when introducing a parking charge is considered to be that the finance raised should be used to improve alternative modes and the physical environment (Jones, 1991; Ison and Wall, 2002). In surveys in Newcastle and Cambridge in the UK, the level of acceptance when increasing parking charges was much greater when there was a guarantee that the revenue generated was allocated to projects which improved transport (Thorpe et al., 2000). 2.4. Airport car park revenue generation The revenues generated from public car parking facilities are an important source of income for an airport, sometimes in the region of one-fifth of total revenue at the largest airports (Ashford et al., 1997, Maise, 1997). The average for European airports is 14% (Canaday, 1999). This reveals that employee parking at some airports represents a major opportunity cost, as some or all of it could generate additional retail revenue. However, there are limits to the extent to which certain airports in the UK are able to do this. For example, there are regulatory caps on the amount that BAA can charge organisations located at its airports for various services, including car parking for staff. This review of the literature relating to employee parking at airports has shown that it is a complex area and one of significant importance to both the operation and the economics of the business. The paper now goes on to describe the employers that were used as case studies of the introduction of parking management, and an analysis of the key aspects of its implementation. It also briefly reviews the methodology employed in the rest of the paper. 3. Methodology The selection of the non-airport organisation case studies was based on a number of criteria, namely:
Comparability with the airport case study, with regard to: J constrained location; J congestion problem; J range of car park users (employees, visitors and customers); J shift work patterns; J location of numerous employers on site; J type of organisation (i.e. private sector, blue-chip company); Effectiveness of travel planning in reducing car use; and The use of both incentives and disincentives.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 514
K. Aldridge et al. / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521
The four organisations that were selected for detailed investigation were a:
Large out-of-town shopping centre located in the South east of England. Multinational pharmaceutical company. NHS Trust Hospital, located in the East of England. University, located in West of England.
The justification for the choice of the four case studies is outlined below. Firstly, each of the four case studies selected are restricted and constrained by their location due to varying types of surrounding land use. They have all been successful in managing travel demand to their sites (see DfT, 2002). Congestion is an issue at all case study sites and has often been the main focus of each organisation’s travel plan. Each organisation has a variety of users accessing the site, including employees, visitors, customers (the out-of-town shopping centre), patients (NHS Trust), students (University) and/or delivery vehicles. The employment characteristics typical of the large UK airport, most notably shift patterns, have been identified in most of the case studies (in particular the out-of-town shopping centre, the hospital and the pharmaceutical company). The case studies also reflect a range of employment characteristics similar in terms of the level of pay. The selected airport is a multi-organisation site and the case studies were selected to represent this. The out-oftown shopping centre, for example, is the site for 330 shops and leisure providers and the hospital houses six major employers. The University has a dispersed location and is, therefore, in close vicinity of many different organisations. 3.1. Research methodology at case study sites Face-to-face interviews were undertaken with a number of key personnel within each organisation between 19 January 2004 and 4 March 2004. In each case these personnel were those responsible for parking management and the travel plan at each site. They were the people in charge of developing and implementing the organisation’s travel management strategy, although they were of course dependent on senior management support for the allocation of resources to do their job. Each interviewee was asked a number of questions based around the following six main themes:
The site and overview of the travel plan’s aims and scope. Incentives used to bring about mode shift from car. Disincentives: this focused on each organisation’s parking strategy—be that charging, rationing, cash-out or a mixture—and was a major component of the interviews. Management and administration of the travel plan. Travel plan effectiveness.
3.2. Research methodology at the airport In order to explore airport employees’ attitudes and likely reactions to a range of potential disincentive measures, a survey was also carried out with a total of 1362 staff from a range of on-airport employers. An example of the scales used to measure behavioural reactions is presented in Appendix 1. (It is planned to present a full analysis of the survey results in a subsequent paper.) As a follow up to the survey, a series of focus groups was conducted with seven employee groups. The aim was to explore the findings of the earlier survey in greater depth, focussing on employees’ current perceptions of staff parking and their views of, and likely reactions towards, potential parking management strategies. All bar one of the focus groups were held in a central location on the airport to allow a wide cross-section of employees from many different on-airport employers to attend. Employees were selected through the survey that was carried out earlier: all respondents were asked whether they would be willing to take part in a focus group and, from those that agreed, a random sample was selected. Between 5 and 10 people took part in each focus group. The group that was held elsewhere contained only employees from the airport management company itself—this was convenient because of the location of their office, offairport. 4. Parking management strategies at the non-airport case studies, employee reaction and key factors in terms of implementation The parking management strategies employed by the non-airport case studies are set in Table 1, below. This also shows the effect of these strategies on mode shift, but it should be noted that this refers to the overall impact of the travel plan of which parking management was only one— albeit important—element. Table 1 shows that, perhaps with the exception of the University and to an extent the Hospital, the parking management strategies were introduced as part of a wider package of measures. This begs the question as to what could have been achieved without parking management; or without the other measures (i.e., by parking management alone). DfT (2002:7) answer this to some extent when they conclude, on the basis of 21 detailed case studies of travel plans, that Parking restraint is a hallmark of high achieving travel plansy Charging for parking also operates as a form of parking restraint. In our study, the travel plans with the lowest car use used either parking restrictions, parking charges, or a combination of the two. This question may also be answered to an extent by some reference to the literature on parking and modal choice— although this is sparse, as acknowledged by Kuzmyak et al.
ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Aldridge et al. / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521
515
Table 1 Comparison of non-airport case studies Case study
Parking management strategy and wider strategy within which it fits
Mode shift reduction
The out-of-town shopping center—13,000 car parking spaces on site. 2000 allocated to staff. Total of 8500 staff, with 3000–5500 commuting each day.
Car parking spaces allocated by individual retailers, although advised by the out-of-town shopping centre to allocate on need, rather than seniority. Unofficial redline rule whereby employees park in these areas only. Regulated by number plate recognition software. Three strikes-and-out enforcement operates, two warnings and then employee vehicles are clamped if park out of red-line area. Wider demand management measures include a branded travel plan communication strategy, car sharing scheme, extensive bus services initially subsidised by the developer, bus priority, walking and cycle routes, cycle parking, a shuttle bus to the nearest station and local recruitment targeted on areas with good public transport links. Parking management an important element but public transport and local recruitment key to travel plan success. Parking cash out payment of £2 per day. All employees permitted to park, entry and egress from parks controlled by electronic barriers activated via staff ID cards. Wider demand management measures very similar to those of the shopping centre with the exception of local recruitment strategies. Bus priority planned but not implemented. Parking cash out central to the travel plan although all elements designed to be mutually supportive. Parking charge introduced in 1992, currently at 60 p per day deducted at egress from car park from staff at end of day via electronic smartcard, or via salary for those employed directly by Trust. No reserved spaces for any individual members of staff, although staff allocated to designated car park groups and car parks according to status and need which increases chances of finding a space. Wider demand management measures include car park security, car share matching, improved public transport and information about it, and a park and ride. Parking management central to travel plan. Revised permit scheme introduces in 2001 based on employee needs. Category A (disabled employees, car sharers and departmental vehicles), Category B ¼ staff with caring responsibilities, or poor access to PT)—both guaranteed parking spaces, and Category C, other employees not eligible for Category A or B permits (‘License to hunt’)—not guaranteed parking spaces. In summer 2004, the distinction between Category B and C was reduced as holders of each type of permit were allowed to park in each other’s car park, to enhance utilisation. Also car parking charge of £10 per annum, plus 0.006% of gross salary per day. Enforced by car park security attendants resulting in fines and/or clamping. Parking management central to travel plan, though other elements include changing and parking facilities for cyclists, a free daytime shuttle bus to the city centre, and bicycle and season ticket loans, also introduced.
36% reduction in employees travelling to work by car and 25% increase travelling by PT, compared with local average travel to work mode split.
The pharmaceutical company—3800 car parking spaces onsite for staff use. Total of 7000 staff with approximately 5000 commuting each day.
The NHS Trust—3000 parking spaces on site, 2100 allocated to staff. In total 9000 staff with approximately 6000 commuting per day.
The University—1000 parking spaces. A total of 3710 staff at main site, no figures on daily commute journeys.
(2003). The available literature does however reveal, through both empirical studies and modelling, that parking policy measures are likely to be relatively more important than many other traffic management measures in influen-
11.8% reduction in the SOV between 1998 and 2001. No data available since inception of parking cash out.
14% reduction in SOV and 19% increase in bus use from 1993 to 2003.
11% reduction in SOV from 1998 to 2003.
cing mode choice. More specifically, in the limited studies undertaken, the decision to use a car for the journey to work is greatly influenced by the availability and cost of parking at the destination.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 516
K. Aldridge et al. / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521
For example, Feeney (1989) suggested that decreased availability and increased costs may have five major effects on car drivers. They may:
management strategies, including how employees responded. Quotes from interviews are used to illustrate the points made.
4.1. Driver for change
change their parking location; change the starting time of their journey; change the mode used; change their destination; or abandon the trip.
However, the last two effects are less relevant to commuters, at least in the short term. Several empirical studies and models have determined various influences on mode choice for the journey to work, and the relative importance of parking provision. In central London, over 80% of car commuters have free parking in the work place vicinity (NEDO, 1991) and this is accompanied by a correspondingly high car usage for commuting by these travellers. In a study of parking availability in Paris (Young et al., 1991), it was found that 75% of car commuters to the city centre have a companyprovided parking space. When asked what action they would take if that space was no longer available, the replies can be summarised as follows:
40% would look for a free on-street space further out; 20% would switch to bus or rail; 20% would walk or cycle; 15% would attempt to form a car pool; 5% would pay for parking.
Hence, very few of this group would be prepared to pay the full commercial price for city centre parking, and the vast majority would not drive into the city centre without the possibility of a free car parking space. Similarly, the introduction of a residents’ parking permit scheme in Munich (Topp, 1991), reduced car trips from 44% to 32% and public transport increased its market share from 40% to 47%. A TRL study (Dasgupta et al., 1994) compared the effect of parking restrictions and improved public transport on car use. A halving of public transport fares predicted a 1% to 2% decrease in car use but a doubling of parking charges reduced car use by a predicted 20%. Halving the number of parking spaces, however, had the greatest anticipated effect with a reduction in car use of over 30%. It appears then that the reductions in car use achieved in the four case study organisations are consistent with, or slightly less than, that which the literature predicts is possible. With that in mind, one could argue that parking management alone might achieve significant reductions in car use. However, packaging it as part of a travel plan is likely to increase its acceptability. It is this that the following sections of the paper go on to explore, by discussing the factors that the interviews revealed were key to the successful implementation of the parking
A driver, or reason, for change is paramount when introducing a travel plan, particularly if it includes a disincentive (such as a parking charge or parking restriction). Each case study organisation outlined the key objectives of their travel plan and these were essential in gaining support from both senior management and staff. The key drivers have tended to be the need to reduce or prevent congestion (the out-of-town shopping centre, the pharmaceutical company and the hospital). Unless we did something, the whole place was going to gridlock (Shopping Centre). The congestion was so bad in 1999, the staff were beginning to complain about it (Hospital). and/or the need to manage a limited number of parking spaces (the university and hospital). The parking situation was getting out of hand—it was a free-for-all with vehicles parked on the grass, on double yellow lines and what was worse blocking access routes (Hospital). Too may cars chasing too few spaces (University). Without the perception that there is a problem that needs to be solved, it is very difficult to implement any radical changes, such as parking management. 4.2. Package approach Each case study adopted a package, or holistic, approach to travel planning. There are however variations, but what is clear is that in each case study it was important to have a wide range of alternative transport modes available in order to achieve modal shift. The combined use of incentives with disincentives (carrots and sticks) has also proved extremely effective, whether the ‘sticks’ be financial (parking charge) or non-financial (parking restrictions). The majority of organisations also considered it important to provide competitive transport alternatives to the car, prior to implementing a disincentive. 4.3. Hypothecation of parking revenue The two case study organisations that introduced a parking charge (the hospital and university) argued that the hypothecation of parking revenue to transport is essential in gaining acceptance from staff. You have to be up front as to where the money is goingya lot of hospitals collect money from car parks and it goes straight into meeting the bottom line,
ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Aldridge et al. / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521
because they’re so heavily in debt. If you are going to implement a charge you have to ring-fence it (Hospital).
4.4. Incremental approach When introducing a disincentive (such as a parking charge or parking restriction), an incremental, or pragmatic, approach appears to be most acceptable to staff. At the hospital, for example, the parking charge for staff was originally introduced at a relatively low rate and has since been increased gradually. 4.5. Equity and exemptions Evidence from the case studies suggests that any Travel Plan must be seen to be equitable and must also provide special considerations for staff with specific travel requirements. This is often difficult to achieve because, whilst exemptions need to be made, they should be kept to a minimum in order to keep the Travel Plan relatively simple to understand and enforce. The various case study organisations have tackled this issue in differing ways, depending on their specific circumstances.
517
Delivering a sustainable and environmentally responsible company image to all stakeholders. Improved financial productivity of the existing site by reducing the need for large areas of land devoted to staff car parking. The need to satisfy official planning requirements in order for an organisation to expand.
4.7. Consultation and communication The value of communication and consultation was highlighted constantly throughout the case study interviews and is a crucial part of introducing any new travel planning activities, especially disincentives. Good consultation includes all stakeholder groups (senior management, business partners, staff members and customers), starts a long time before a change is enforced, then occurs at regular intervals and incorporates stakeholder views into the ideas and workings of any changes. After 18 months of consultation, everyone had accepted it (University). You have to share a partnership, share the risks, work with them and understand their issues (Shopping centre—in relation to local PT operators).
its all about being equitable, you can’t treat one group differently from another (Hospital).
4.8. Conclusion to case studies 4.6. Senior management and multi-organisational support Senior management support is essential if an organisation’s travel plan is to be effective, and especially if it is to contain disincentives. All of the case study organisation received buy-in from senior management or members of the Board and considered this one of the most important factors in the success of their activities. Unless the senior management support it, or it’s a priority for them, you might as well forget it (Hospital). Furthermore, for travel planning activities that cover multi-organisation sites, it is also important to gain support and cooperation from all organisations on site. At the out-of-town shopping centre, for example, this was successfully achieved. In this case, a forum was established to enable decisions and agreements to be made based on a common objective. The shopping centre used the Forum to come to an agreement with the business partners regarding how many parking permits were to be allocated to each company, and then it was left up to each company to decide how they would distribute those permits to their staff. The key method in gaining support from senior management and/or business partners appears to be the promotion of the business benefits of the travel plan. These business benefits may include:
Improved efficiency in terms of the movement of staff and goods onto/from the site.
All the case studies succeeded in implementing some form of parking management, which had the intended effect on mode shift, when combined with incentive measures. The most important factors in bringing about this change appeared to be:
Senior management and multi-organisational support. The perception of a serious problem with parking for staff.
5. Comparison of the airport experience with non-airport case studies In this section of the paper, survey and focus group research with staff at the large UK airport is detailed to assess the airport’s readiness to emulate the non-airport case studies in implementing parking management. Firstly, the employee transport situation at the UK airport is described in order to give some context to the efforts that have made over recent years to manage staff travel demand. The airport, like many other regional airports faces increasing challenges in managing its surface access transport, not least since air travel at the airport is forecast to grow by approximately one third over the next ten years. Unless action is taken, a major consequence of this growth will be increased congestion on the road network in and around the airport and deterioration in the quality of the environment. At specific locations, emissions from vehicles
ARTICLE IN PRESS 518
K. Aldridge et al. / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521
(both on roads surrounding the airport, and on the airport itself) can account for a significant proportion of total air pollution. Thus, managing surface access is important to the airport’s obligation to address air quality issues. Furthermore, the airport must comply with the Car Parking Cap as part of a planning decision, which limits controlled car parking spaces. The airport is currently regarded as an example of good practice in terms of incentive-based travel planning, and is active in providing and promoting sustainable transport modes, including public transport, cycling, walking and car share. The constrained nature of the airport site and growth in air transport, however, means that the airport is under continual pressure to reduce demand for car parking. Consequently, further action, including the introduction of disincentive based travel planning measures may be an option in order to achieve a greater modal split of sustainable surface access travel. 5.1. Survey results In terms of employee attitudes to parking management measures, the survey results indicate that they would be likely to have a significant impact on the way that staff travel-to-work. The value attached to free parking to employees was demonstrated in that 94% of car drivers indicated that free, or cheap parking was important to them in determining modal choice. Analysis of the survey also suggested that a relatively small parking charge of 25 p per day would make approximately 10% of current drivers stop driving to work. Changes in intended behaviour rise dramatically as the level of charge increases, with approximately 70% of current drivers indicating they would stop driving to work if a £5 per day parking charge was in place. Lesser reactions were obtained in response to the option of daily parking cash out payments. A payment of £1 per day or less is unlikely to have any dramatic effects. Only 1% of current drivers indicated that this would be incentive enough to stop them driving to work. The results obtained from this analysis suggest that for any significant reductions in car use, payments of £3 per day (over 11% of current drivers would stop driving), £5 per day (over 30%) and £10 per day (56%) would have to be paid. The questionnaire survey was designed so that respondents had a range of values of charge/payment from which they could choose and, as Appendix 1 shows, they were also asked the level of charge/payment that would lead them to consider changing mode, find out about alternatives and finally actually change mode. There is likely nonetheless to have been some overstatement of the level of response, but it can safely be concluded that the impact of such charges/payments on mode choice would not be insignificant. However, whilst it is clear from the survey that a parking charge or cashout payment would have an impact on the
way that staff choose to travel to work, the readiness of the organisations on the airport for such a major change is rather more in doubt, as the following sections of the paper go on to discuss. These sections return to the factors key to the implementation of parking management in the nonairport organisations, and conclude whether these are in place at the airport. 5.2. Focus group results 5.2.1. Driver for change The key drivers behind the airports attempts to reduce car use, most notably the EU NOx limits, were not acknowledged by the large majority of focus group participants. In addition, the majority of participants were generally satisfied with their car parking provision and very few had difficulties with finding a car parking space. It was stated that ‘‘The car park is conveniently located and there’s never any problem finding a space’’. This makes them less likely to accept, or understand the reasons for, any future changes to staff car parking arrangements. This represents a major challenge to the airport authority if it wishes to influence employee behaviour proactively before the problem becomes critical. A few participants from the focus groups commented on this issue: I don’t think there is a big enough problem yety at the moment I think the car parking is OK, and until it gets to not OK, you are not going to change people. People will keep their head in the sand until the situation gets really bady When it becomes painful for individuals, it will focus the minds. Essentially, though, employees with a greater awareness of the main transport problems facing the airport were more willing to discuss disincentive options to help solve some of these problems; but the bulk of employees do not appear to recognise the problem. 5.2.2. Package approach In discussions surrounding potential incentive/disincentive options, there was an overriding view amongst focus group participants for the need of a package, or mixed, approach to travel planning measures. Each of the three options, namely financial incentives, staff parking charges or reallocating permits, were viewed as having their inherent advantages and disadvantages and were thought each would only affect a certain proportion of the employees on-airport. It was stated that ‘‘All the things we have talked about all need to be used, but each one will only solve a small part of the problem- things that encourage me to use alternatives won’t encourage other people’’. A package approach in terms of the provision of both incentives and disincentives was also deemed an important
ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Aldridge et al. / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521
factor. The perceived lack of viable alternatives to the car was an overriding reason why many survey and focus group participants thought that the three proposed travel management options would not be effective or acceptable. Within the minority of participants that were willing to discuss the prospect of a parking charge in more detail, most agreed that, before a charge could be introduced, improvements to the alternatives to the car should be in place. As that ‘‘You can’t stop people driving their cars until you provide an alternative- it’s as simple as that- and currently those alternatives are not in place’’. Specifically in relation to the reliability, journey time, comfort and security of current bus services it was said that ‘‘the bus takes so long and I never know what time it will turn upy I can’t rely on that service so I will never use it’’ and ‘‘We’re living in an age now where time is absolutely precious- when I finish work I want to go home and see my family- not wait at a bus stop for an hour’’. The airport authorities have over the past 10 years put in place improvements to alternative modes aimed at staff, most notably improved bus services and some cycle facilities. This appears to have brought about some mode shift. Nonetheless, those at the focus groups and respondents to the survey still felt that these improvements were insufficient to compensate for the introduction of disincentives to car use. 5.2.3. Hypothecation of revenue The experience from other non-airport organisations showed that it is important that any revenue from parking charges is ring-fenced into travel related schemes (either to improving car parking facilities or the alternatives to the car). It was stated that ‘‘We need improvements to buses, but the money has to come from somewhere- so why not parking charges- that seems like a fair system’’. Within the focus group discussions, however, a considerable number of participants voiced some scepticism that this would indeed occur, were a charge to be introduced. Comments such as ‘‘The land they use for car parking is at a premium and they could probably make more money using it in other waysy They want to build more shops—that’s where their priorities lie’’ were made. It seems that the airport would, therefore, need to ensure that with any new staff car parking scheme that may be introduced, they generate a sense of trust amongst airport employees that the revenue will be returned to staff travel. 5.2.4. Equity and exemptions Several participants commented on the need for a ‘fair’ employee car parking strategy. Participants in the bus user focus group thought that a previous ‘cash-out’ scheme which offered staff the opportunity to sell their car park pass for a fixed price was unfair, as it was only offered to staff with a pass. One focus group participant stated that ‘‘When the airport bought back passes years ago, the people that did not have a car pass got nothing- we were
519
basically being penalised for being green already- it wasn’t fair’’. Consequently, for reasons of equity, in any future charging or cashout scheme, it would be important to reward all staff bar those who continue to drive alone. At the pharmaceutical company, the inclusion of both car and public transport users in the parking cash-out scheme was viewed as an important element in gaining acceptance from staff. Regarding car parking charges, it was expressed by a few focus group participants that an income-based parking charge as opposed to a flat rate charge would be more equitable. Ring fencing the revenue for public transport improvements was also viewed as desirable. Equity was also an important issue in discussions surrounding the reallocation of parking permits based on employee need. It was felt that shift workers, those with poor public transport access and to a lesser extent those with caring responsibilities should be entitled to priority parking. It was stated that ‘‘It sounds awful but office workers should be targeted first because they work regular hoursyPeople starting really early in the morning need a car, there’s no other way of getting to work’’. Conversely, the allocation of permits based on status was regarded as an unfair system by all participants who expressed an opinion—yet they also confirmed that some on-airport employers practice it. 5.2.5. Consultation and communication The focus groups carried out for this research constituted the first discussions with airport employees about the issues surrounding charging or other parking management. Clearly, then, in comparison with the non-airport organisations considered earlier, much more consultation would be required prior to the introduction of any scheme. 5.2.6. Negative impacts of incentive/disincentive options The issue of recruitment and retention was often mentioned by participants in discussion of the disincentive options. This is reinforced with statements such as ‘‘If you took office workers, permits away they would just leavethey’re professional people- they could get a job elsewhere’’ and ‘‘Parking is something you definitely consider when applying for a jobyit is likely to restrict the type of people we can employ’’. This is something that requires considerable attention if any new measures are introduced. In the research conducted at other UK organisations that have introduced a disincentive, however, it was revealed that recruitment and retention problems resulting from parking management strategies have largely not been experienced. The problem of possible overspill parking in streets around the airport that might result from different parking policies was not mentioned in interviews with on-airport organisations, but it is a possible impact of such policies, and one on which a ‘watching brief’ would have to be kept.
ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Aldridge et al. / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521
520
6. Conclusions The literature review highlighted a number of issues with employee car parking at airports and the problems that can sometimes be associated with offering free parking to employees. Many airports are currently facing capacity problems with employee car parking. As they continue to grow these problems will increase and more airports will begin to face the same issues. A potential way to help resolve the problems could be to charge employees for parking. The review of non-airport case studies showed that parking management can be introduced, but key factors must be in place, particularly senior management support and recognition across the organisation that parking is a problem. The survey with staff suggests that parking charging or cashout at the airport would have a significant effect on employee car use. But the focus groups also showed that the conditions identified at non-airport case studies are not in place at the airport, particularly senior management support, and the recognition of a problem with staff parking. These factors were key at the other organisations where parking charging was introduced. In addition, the airport is a highly complex multiorganisational environment where the relationship between airport operator and tenants is regulated by law. This
would make the introduction of charging for individual employees much more difficult because it would have to be mediated from the airport operator through other on-airport employers, and because (in the case of BAA airports at least) it would have to sit within the regulatory framework that governs the operator/employer relationship. Thus, whilst the two former ‘pre-conditions’ for the implementation of parking management might be considered to be generic to all types of employer, the latter is much more specific to airports and, for this reason, employee parking management at airports can be seen to be a special case. This may well be the key reason why there are as yet no airports in the UK that charge staff more than a very nominal fee for parking. Appendix 1 Q. 19 This question examines the effect of parking charges on your choice of travel mode to/from work. Please indicate (by placing a letter A, B and C) on the following scale above the point at which the daily parking fee would make you; A. Start thinking about using an alternative (to driving your car) to/from work (place a letter A above the appropriate value on the scale) e.g.
A **
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
25 p 50 p 75 p £1.00 £1.50 £2.00 £2.50 £3.00 £3.50 £4.00 £4.50 £5.00 £5.50 £6.00 £6.50 £7.00 £7.50 £8.00 £8.50
£9.00 £9.50 £10.00 £11.00 £12.00 £13.00 £14.00 £15.00 £16.00 £17.00 £18.00 £19.00 £20.00 More than £20.
On the same scale could you please indicate by writing a letter ‘B’ above the amount that you; B. Would actively start seeking information about alternative ways to get to/from work (place a letter B above the appropriate value on the scale). And a letter ‘C’ above the amount you; C. Would stop using my car to get to/from work (place a letter C above the appropriate value on the scale.
ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Aldridge et al. / Transport Policy 13 (2006) 511–521
References Ashford, N., Stanton, H.P.M., Moore, C.A., 1997. Airport Operations, second ed. McGraw Hill, Boston. Button, K.J., Verhoef, E.T., 1998. Road Pricing, Traffic Congestion and the Environment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Canaday, H., 1999. Airport parking goes hi-tech. Airport World, December/January. 41–44. Caves, R.E., Gosling, G.D., 1999. Strategic Airport Planning. Pergamon, Oxford. de Neufville, R., Odoni, A., 2003. Airport Systems—Planning, Design, and Management. McGraw Hill, New York. Dasgupta, M., Oldfield, R., Sharman, K., Webster, V., 1994. The Impact of Transport Policies in Five Cities TRL Project Report. Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, England. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 2001. The Heathrow Terminal Five and Associated Public Inquiries—Summary Report. The Stationery Office, London. Department for Transport (DfT), 2002. Making Travel Plans Work: Lessons from UK case studies. The Stationery Office, London. Enoch, M., 2002. UK parking cash out experience, and lessons from California. Traffic Engineering and Control, May. pp. 184–187. Federal Highway Administration and Federal Aviation Administration, 1995. Airport Ground Access Planning Guide. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Sourced through The National Transportation Library, http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/AGAPP.html. Accessed June 20, 2005. Feeney, B.P., 1989. A review of the impact of parking policy measures on travel demand. Transportation Planning and Technology vol. 13 (April), 229–244. Humphreys, I.M., Ison, S.G., 2005. Changing airport employee travel behaviour: the role of airport surface access strategies. Transport Policy 12 (1), 1–9.
521
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, 21–28. Jones, P., 1991. Gaining public support for road pricing through a package approach. Traffic Engineering and Control. April 194–196. Kazda, A., Caves, R.E., 2000. Airport Design and Operation. Pergamon, Oxford. Kuzmyak, J.R., Pratt, R.H., Douglas, G.B., 2003. Travelor response to transportation system changes, chapter 15—land use and site design, Transportation Research Board, TCRP Report 95. Maise, H., 1997. Hidden potential of airport car parks. ACI Europe Marketing and Commercial Strategy Handbook 5, 11. Matthews, P.J., 2000. Airport parking levies fund alternatives to car. Parking Review 21–23. National Economic Development Office, 1991. Company Car Parking. NEDO, London. Rye, T., Ison, S.G., 2005. Overcoming barriers to the implementation of car parking charges. Transport Policy 12 (1), 57–64. Schreffler, E.N., de Vreede, H., 2000. Dutch gain experience with employer TDM programs. TDM Review 12–24. Shoup, D.C., Willson, RW., 1992. Solving the parking problem. Transportation Planning XIX (2, Summer), 9–13. Shoup, D.C., 1997. The high cost of free parking. Access 10 (2), 2–9. Thorpe, N., Hills, P., Jaensirisak, S., 2000. Public attitudes to TDM measures: a comparative study. Transport Policy 7, 243–257. Topp, H.H, 1991. Parking policies to reduce car traffic in German cities. Transport Reviews 13 (1), 83–85. Verhoef, E., Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P., 1995. The economics of regulatory parking policies: the (im)possibilities of parking policies in traffic regulation. Transportation Research 29A (2), 141–156. Young, W., Thompson, R.G., Taylor, M.A., 1991. A review of urban car parking models. Transport Reviews 11 (1), 63–84. Williams, J., 1992. Free and paid commuter parking in the Washington DC region. Transportation Research Record 1346, 33–35.