IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/uctcwp/qt5nc6w2dj.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluating the Effects of Parking Cash Out: Eight Case Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Shoup, Donald C.

Abstract

In 1992, California enacted legislation (AB 2109, KATZ) that requires many employers offer employees the option to choose cash in lieu of any parking subsidy offered. This report presents eight case studies of employers who have complied with California’s cash-out requirement. One employer is a government agency, and the other seven are private firms, including three law firms, one accounting firm, one bank, one managed-care medical provider, and one video post-production company. They range in size from 120 to 300 employees, with a combined total of 1,694 employees. The price of parking at the worksites ranged from $36 to $165 a month. After cashing out, solo driving to work fell by 17 percent. Carpooling increased by 64 percent. Transit ridership increased by 50 percent. Walking and bicycling increased by 33 percent. Commuter parking demand fell by 11 percent. These mode shifts reduced total vehicle miles traveled for commuting by 12 percent, with a range from 5 to 24 percent for the eight firms. To put this reduction into perspective, reducing VMT for commuting by 12 percent is equivalent to removing from the road one of every eight automobiles used for driving to work. In total, cashing out reduced 1.1 million VMT per year. Cashing out reduced total vehicle emissions for commuting by 12 percent, with a range from 5 to 24 percent for the eight firms. To put this reduction into perspective, reducing vehicle emissions by 12 percent is equivalent to eliminating vehicle emissions for automobile commuting from January 1 to February 13 every year. The eight employers’ average commuting subsidy per employee increased from $72 a month before complying with the cash-out requirement to $74 a month after complying with the cash-out requirement. The employer’s commuting subsidy declined by $70 per employee per month at one firm, and increased by an average of $13 per employee per month at the other seven firms, with a range from $8 to $33 more per employee per month. Employers praised the cash option for its simplicity and fairness, and said that it helped to recruit and retain employees. In summary, these eight case studies show that cashing out employer-paid parking can benefit commuters, employers, taxpayers, and the environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Shoup, Donald C., 1997. "Evaluating the Effects of Parking Cash Out: Eight Case Studies," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt5nc6w2dj, University of California Transportation Center.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdl:uctcwp:qt5nc6w2dj
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/5nc6w2dj.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cdl:uctcwp:qt3256f490 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:cdl:uctcwp:qt2x6240jr is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:cdl:uctcwp:qt5w24532x is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Vinay Bhardwaj & Bruce Macnab, 1993. "Experiments on the Difference between Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(4), pages 416-427.
    5. repec:cdl:uctcwp:qt4548s6j5 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jan Hanousek & Randall K. Filer, 2001. "Consumers' Opinion of Inflation Bias Due to Quality Improvements in Transition in the Czech Republic," Development and Comp Systems 0110009, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Libor Dusek & Lubomir Lizal (ed.), 2011. "CERGE-EI Tackles Transition," CERGE-EI Books, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague, edition 1, number b05, May.
    3. Stern, David I., 1997. "Limits to substitution and irreversibility in production and consumption: A neoclassical interpretation of ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 197-215, June.
    4. Hanousek, Jan & Filer, Randall K, 2004. "Consumers' Opinion of Inflation Bias Due to Quality Improvements," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(1), pages 235-254, October.
    5. Oben K Bayrak & Bengt Kriström, 2016. "Is there a valuation gap? The case of interval valuations," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(1), pages 218-236.
    6. Moon, Wanki & Balasubramanian, Siva K. & Rimal, Arbindra, 2006. "WTP and WTA for Non-GM and GM Food: UK Consumers," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21057, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. William S. Neilson & Michael McKee & Robert P. Berrens, 2013. "Value and outcome uncertainty as explanations for the WTA vs WTP disparity," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 6, pages 171-189, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. John Ashworth & Peter Johnson, 1996. "Sources of “value for money” for museum visitors: Some survey evidence," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 20(1), pages 67-83, March.
    9. Andrea Isoni, 2011. "The willingness-to-accept/willingness-to-pay disparity in repeated markets: loss aversion or ‘bad-deal’ aversion?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 409-430, September.
    10. Willis, K. G. & Garrod, G. D., 1997. "Disamenity externalities from utility networks," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 35-41, March.
    11. Alexopoulos, Theodore & Šimleša, Milija & Francis, Mélanie, 2015. "Good self, bad self: Initial success and failure moderate the endowment effect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 32-40.
    12. Bernie J. O'Brien & Kirsten Gertsen & Andrew R. Willan & A. Faulkner, 2002. "Is there a kink in consumers' threshold value for cost‐effectiveness in health care?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 175-180, March.
    13. Halstead, John M. & Huang, Ju-Chin & Stevens, Thomas H. & Harper, Wendy, 2002. "Tinkering With Valuation Estimates: Is There A Future For Willingness To Accept Measures?," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19724, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Horowitz, John K. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 1999. "A Review of WTA/WTP Studies," Working Papers 197848, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    15. William Neilson & Michael McKee & Robert P. Berrens, 2008. "Value and Outcome Uncertainty as Explanations for the WTA vs WTP Disparity: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 08-07, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    16. Sayman, Serdar & Onculer, Ayse, 2005. "Effects of study design characteristics on the WTA-WTP disparity: A meta analytical framework," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 289-312, April.
    17. Dedeurwaerdere, Tom & Krishna, Vijesh V. & Pascual, Unai, 2005. "Biodiscovery And Intellectual Property Rights: A Dynamic Approach To Economic Efficiency," Environmental Economy and Policy Research Discussion Papers 31928, University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economy.
    18. Francisco Guijarro & Prodromos Tsinaslanidis, 2020. "Analysis of Academic Literature on Environmental Valuation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-14, March.
    19. Carol Mansfield, 1999. "Despairing Over Disparities: Explaining the Difference Between Willingness to Pay and Willingness to Accept," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(2), pages 219-234, March.
    20. Pascual, Unai & Dedeurwaerdere, Tom & Krishna, Vijesh V., 2006. "Bioprospection Beyond Intellectual Property Rights: The Kani Model of Access and Benefit Sharing," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25377, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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:cdl:uctcwp:qt5nc6w2dj. 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: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/itucbus.html .

    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.