Park and ride (P&R) facilities have been proposed in several countries to alleviate the accessibility problems in cities. Despite growing accessibility problems, these facilities do not seem to attract the expected number of car drivers and are underused. In an attempt to measure consumer evaluations of the attributes of P&R facilities, a stated choice experiment, based on the method of hierarchical information integration, was conducted in the city of Nijmegen, The Netherlands. This paper documents the major results of this study, which differs from previous research in that a large range of attributes is examined, including accessibility of the facility, the quality of the facility, and the features of connecting transport. In addition, context variables affect the decisionmaking process of car drivers such as weather, having heavy luggage and travel purpose were incorporated in the study design. The results indicate that social safety, quality of the connecting public transport and relative travel times by transport modes are key attributes to the success of P&R facilities. Contextual variables seem to have only a minor impact.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BosD MMolinE J EVan der HeijdenR E C M, 2002, “User-based definition of higher order decision constructs to model preferences for P&R transfer points”, in Urban Transport VIII. Proceedings of Urban Transport and the Environment in the 21st Century Eds SucharovL JBrebbiaC ABenitezF (WIT Press, Southampton) pp 417–426
2.
BosD MMolinE J ETimmermansH J PVan der HeijdenR E C M, 2003, “Cognitions and relative importances underlying consumer valuation of park and ride facilities”Transportation Research Record number 1835, 121–127
3.
BradleyM AKroesEHinloopenE, 1993, “A joint model of mode/parking type choice with supply-constrained application: Transportation planning methods”, in Proceedings of Seminar D held at the PTRC European Transport Highways and Planning 21st Summer Annual Meeting, 13–17 September, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (PTRC, London) volume P363, pp 61–73
4.
GhaliM OPursulaMMilneDKeranenMDalenoMVougiokasM, 1997, “Assessing the impact of integrated trans modal urban transport pricing on modal split: Transportation planning methods, volume 1”, in Proceedings of Seminar E held at PTRC European Transport Forum, Brunel University, England, 1–5 September (PTRC, London) volume P414, 1997/09, pp 341–352
5.
GuanH ZNishiiK, 2000, “A modelling method for estimating the P&BR demand”, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Traffic and Transportation Studies (ICTTS 2000), No jiaotong University, Beijing, Peoples Republic of China, 31 July – 2 August (American Society of Civil Engineers, Preston, VA)
6.
LoH PLamW, 2001, “A latent class model applied to stated preference data, in Travel Behaviour Research: The Leading Edge Ed. HensherD A (Pergamon Press, Oxford) pp 425–438
7.
LouviereJ J, 1984, “Hierarchical information integration: A new method for the design and analysis of complex multiattribute judgement problems”Advances in Consumer Research11148–155
8.
LouviereJ JGaethG J, 1987, “Decomposing the determinants of supermarket choice: A hierarchical information integration approach”Journal of Retailing63(1) 25–48
9.
LouviereJ JTimmermansH J P, 1990, “Using hierarchical information integration to model consumer responses to possible planning actions: Recreation destination choice illustration”Environment and Planning A22291–308
10.
LouviereJ JTimmermansH J P, 1992, “Testing the external validity of hierarchical conjoint analysis models of recreational destination choice”Leisure Science14179–194
11.
Ministry of Transport, 2000Transferia: Een handreiking bij voorbereiding en realisatie [P&R facilities: Assistance in preparation and realization] Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, The Hague
12.
MolinE J E, 1999 Conjoint Modeling Approaches for Residential Group Preferences dissertation, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven
13.
MolinE J EOppewalHTimmermansH J P, 2003, “Conjoint modeling of residential group preferences: A comparison of hierarchical information integration approaches”Journal of Geographical Systems14343–358
PolydoropoulouABen-AkivaM, 2001, “Combined revealed and stated preference nested logit access and mode choice model for multiple mass transit technologies”Transportation Research Record number 1771, 38–45
17.
TimmermansH J P, 1989, “Een decompositioneel hierarchisch model voor woningkeuze: Theorie en illustratie” [A decompositional hierarchical model for residential choices: Theory and illustration], in Methoden voor Woning en Woonmilieubehoefte Onderzoek Ed. MusterdJ (SISWO, Amsterdam) pp 46–72
18.
Van der HeijdenR E C MMolinE J E, 2002, “Locating P&R facilities based on travel behaviour: A Dutch case study”, in Urban Transport VIII. Proceedings of Urban Transport and the Environment in the 21st century Eds SucharovL JBrebbiaC ABeritezF (WIT Press, Southampton) pp 733–742
19.
Van der HeijdenR E C MMolinE J EBosD M, 2000, “Parking at a distance: Option for reducing traffic and parking pressure in urban areas?”, in Urban Transport VI. Proceedings of Urban Transport and the Environment for the 21st Century (WIT Press, Southampton) pp 145–177
20.
Van der WaerdenPBorgersAVan SchaijkE, 1997, Parkeergelegenheden met overstapfaciliteiten in het stedelijk verkeer” [Parking lots with transfer facilities in urban transportation], in Colloquium Vervoersplanologisch Speurwerk 1997. Sprong in het duister? Lange termijn ontwikkelingen in het vervoersplanologisch onderzoek, Amsterdam, 27–28 November 1997 Part III (Transportation Planning Research Colloquium, Amsterdam) pp 1523–1540
21.
WardmanM, 2001, “A review of British evidence on time and service quality valuations”Transportation Research, Part E37107–128
