IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2018i1p72-d192731.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Floating Charge Method Based on Shared Parking

Author

Listed:
  • Jun Hao

    (Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Urban ITS, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China
    Jiangsu Province Collaborative Innovation Center of Modern Urban Traffic Technologies, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China
    School of Transportation, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China)

  • Jun Chen

    (Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Urban ITS, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China
    Jiangsu Province Collaborative Innovation Center of Modern Urban Traffic Technologies, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China
    School of Transportation, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China)

  • Qin Chen

    (Qixia District Transportation Integrated Management Institute, Nanjing 211189, China)

Abstract

With the cultivation of the shared economy, shared parking provides a new solution to the urban parking resource shortage problem. In this paper, the shared parking mode is taken as the research object to improve the utilization efficiency of parking spaces. The stated preference (SP) survey is used to collect the intention of sharing parking behavior in a typical shared parking mode situation. The behavior selection characteristics of the person sharing parking are analyzed and a binary logit model is used to establish the parking behavior selection model. The key parameters of a floating charge are proposed. Based on the above research, a dynamic balance adjustment method for shared parking floating charges is proposed and an empirical analysis is carried out. The research results showed that compared with fixed fees, the floating charge method can improve the utilization rate of idle spaces by more than 60% and control the occupancy rate of spaces by 60–80%. The floating charge method not only guarantees its own parking demand but also exploits the potential of shard parking facilities, which is good for promoting the sustainable and healthy development of urban transportation.

Suggested Citation

  • Jun Hao & Jun Chen & Qin Chen, 2018. "Floating Charge Method Based on Shared Parking," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2018:i:1:p:72-:d:192731
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/1/72/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/1/72/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chatman, Daniel G. & Manville, Michael, 2014. "Theory versus implementation in congestion-priced parking: An evaluation of SFpark, 2011–2012," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 52-60.
    2. Shoup, Donald C., 1999. "The trouble with minimum parking requirements," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 33(7-8), pages 549-574.
    3. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth E. & Polak, John W., 2006. "On the use of a Modified Latin Hypercube Sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a Mixed Logit Model for vehicle choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 147-163, February.
    4. He, Fang & Yin, Yafeng & Chen, Zhibin & Zhou, Jing, 2015. "Pricing of parking games with atomic players," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 1-12.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lequn Zhu & Ran Zhou & Xiaojun Li & Linlin Zhang, 2023. "An Evolutionary Game Analysis of Shared Private Charging Pile Behavior in Low-Carbon Urban Traffic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-17, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yi LIU, 2020. "Impact Of Parking Fees On Social Benefits Based On The Emergence Of Shared Parking," Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 15(1), pages 54-74, February.
    2. Simona Mikšíková & David Ulčák & Dagmar Kutá, 2023. "Assessment of Automated Parking Garage Services as a Means to Sustainable Traffic Development in a Mid-Sized City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, January.
    3. Wang, Pengfei & Guan, Hongzhi & Liu, Peng, 2020. "Modeling and solving the optimal allocation-pricing of public parking resources problem in urban-scale network," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 74-98.
    4. Fabusuyi, Tayo & Hampshire, Robert C., 2018. "Rethinking performance based parking pricing: A case study of SFpark," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 90-101.
    5. Arnott, Richard & Inci, Eren & Rowse, John, 2015. "Downtown curbside parking capacity," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 83-97.
    6. Eren Inci & Jos van Ommeren & Martijn Kobus, 2017. "The external cruising costs of parking," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(6), pages 1301-1323.
    7. Inci, Eren, 2015. "A review of the economics of parking," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 50-63.
    8. Najmi, Ali & Bostanara, Maryam & Gu, Ziyuan & Rashidi, Taha H., 2021. "On-street parking management and pricing policies: An evaluation from a system enhancement perspective," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 128-151.
    9. Karaliopoulos, Merkouris & Katsikopoulos, Konstantinos & Lambrinos, Lambros, 2017. "Bounded rationality can make parking search more efficient: The power of lexicographic heuristics," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 28-50.
    10. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    11. van Cranenburgh, Sander & Bliemer, Michiel C.J., 2019. "Information theoretic-based sampling of observations," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 181-197.
    12. Wang, Rui & Yuan, Quan, 2013. "Parking practices and policies under rapid motorization: The case of China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 109-116.
    13. Carlos Madeira, 2019. "Adverse selection, loan access and default in the Chilean consumer debt market," Working Papers Central Bank of Chile 838, Central Bank of Chile.
    14. Friberg, Richard & Romahn, André, 2015. "Divestiture requirements as a tool for competition policy: A case from the Swedish beer market," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 1-18.
    15. Lu, Hui & Hess, Stephane & Daly, Andrew & Rohr, Charlene & Patruni, Bhanu & Vuk, Goran, 2021. "Using state-of-the-art models in applied work: Travellers willingness to pay for a toll tunnel in Copenhagen," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 37-52.
    16. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Granado-Díaz, Rubén, 2023. "Assessing the demand for hydrological drought insurance in irrigated agriculture," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    17. Soto, Jose J. & Macea, Luis F. & Cantillo, Victor, 2023. "Analysing a license plate-based vehicle restriction policy with optional exemption charge: The case in Cali, Colombia," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    18. Cerquera Dussán, Daniel & Ullrich, Hannes, 2010. "Consumer welfare and unobserved heterogeneity in discrete choice models: The value of alpine road tunnels," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-095, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    19. Koetse, Mark J. & Hoen, Anco, 2014. "Preferences for alternative fuel vehicles of company car drivers," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 279-301.
    20. Jia, Wenjian & Jiang, Zhiqiu & Wang, Qian & Xu, Bin & Xiao, Mei, 2023. "Preferences for zero-emission vehicle attributes: Comparing early adopters with mainstream consumers in California," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 21-32.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2018:i:1:p:72-:d:192731. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.