You are on page 1of 1

 

“Universities resemble small cities, thus innovations in transportation demand management at universities provide important lessons to cities.” – Schoup (2008)

Preliminary Observations
•  Campus residents have a 30-40% higher market as base S permit prices increases from $600 to $800. •  Campus residents are willing to pay more for premium access.

Analytical Approach
This study applied an analysis based on both economic and urban principles, focusing on the issue of policy equity and economic efficiency. This research analyzes the effect of applying a two-tier pricing structure to alleviate parking demand and identify an economically equitable solution.

 
Abstract
The University of California, San Diego is currently exploring strategies to mitigate the demand for campus parking. Thus, the transportation department is implementing a $6 overnight fee to increase the supply of main campus parking by deterring extended duration parking by campus residents. This research addresses the implications of this policy through survey questions assessing respondents willingness to pay for premium (on campus) parking through survey data. The study gathers the willingness to pay for premium access at various accessibility levels, and analyzes the results based on consumer types, such as commuter or campus resident. The research evaluates the effect of this policy in terms of parking equity across the student population, as well the opportunity to increase revenue by charging different prices for main campus access.

GIS Analysis
Key Findings •  Campus residents sustained stronger demand for premium access at a $200 price increase than commuters. •  Commuter demand rivaled that of residents, however when the price for parking increased to $800 it dropped off dramatically. •  Even as the probability of immediate premium access diminishes, the resident demand remains resilient.

Methods
Survey: Administered to 148 UCSD students through Facebook and direct distribution. Students indicated their commute mode and place of resident, either college for campus residents or ZIP code for commuters, as well as their willingness to pay for premium access. Geographic Information Systems (GIS): Respondents place of residence was coded as geographic data and used to map willingness to pay in a spatial context. Statistical Analysis: SPSS: Mean comparisons were applied to make preliminary comparisons between respondent subgroup demand across permit types. STATA: Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regressions allowed for the marginal effects of included explanatory variables, such as premium access and the base S permit price.

Figure 2: Respondents willingness to pay for premium access as S permit price increases and Premium Probability declines. (ZIP Code Base Map Provided by SANGIS)

Statistical Analysis
Mean Comparisons OLS Regression

Conclusions
•  The policy favors commuters by increasing peak hour parking, yet this group’s willingness to pay does not remain resilient given a $200 increase for this access. •  The resident market is willing to pay more for the access they currently maintain with an S Permit (free overnight parking and main campus access). •  Not charging commuters more for the increased access will lead to overconsumption, as seen by the significant reduction in demand for premium parking when the price decreases. •  Segmenting the market for high and low demand consumers by charging a higher price for premium access is a viable way to increase revenue and avoid overconsumption of premium parking by low valuation users. •  The research identifies a considerable demand for two unique permits, S Premium and S Premium Overnight, at two price levels.

Key Findings •  Commuter valuation for SP and SPO reduces to an average low of $12.50, given a $200 increase in the base permit option (80% and 84% decrease respectively). • 
Figure 1: The policy proposed in this study offers free overnight parking in peripheral Regents lot, accessible to campus via free shuttle service. The main campus parking is reserved for “Premium Permits” available in peak hour (9am-7pm) S Premium (SP) or 24/7 access S Premium Overnight. No S Permit spaces available on main campus.

Table 2: Coefficients on variables show the marginal effect of the presence of the variable on the average respondents willingness to pay for premium access holding all other factors constant.

Purpose
•  Determine the effect of this policy on population sub-groups, namely commuters and campus residents. •  Assess difference in sub-groups’ willingness to pay for guaranteed premium access. •  Follow the market demand through varying campus access price premiums and availability of premium access. •  Determine a threshold price that can segment the market into high and low value consumers. •  Establish whether the commuters benefitting from the displaced residents value this increased access at a higher price. •  Gather whether market equity would better be established by segmenting the market with multiple permit access types and associated prices.

Key Findings Resident valuation for SP and SPO reduces •  In both SP and SPO permits, Premium Probability to an average of $19.18 and $42.85 is a significant variable in estimating commuter and respectively, given a $200 increase in the residents willingness to pay for premium access. base permit option (50.2% and 50% decrease •   The constants indicate that residents are willing to respectively). pay significantly more for an SPO permit, and •  This indicates that the resident market is commuters are willing to pay significantly more for much more elastic, or resilient, to increases in SP permits. parking permit prices, and thus an opportunity •  The data indicates there is revenue to be gained to increase revenue. from increasing the occupancy of premium parking and a target market for SP and SPO access.
Survey Response Frequency Analysis

Key Findings •  Market drop-out rates are nearly identical given a $200 increase in both permits, as seen by the increase in frequency of respondents indicating a $0 willingness to pay for premium access.

Recommendations
•  Implement a parking permit system that excludes low valuation consumers from parking in high demand areas by charging a higher price for this access. •  Offer more versatile permit options that guarantee a level of availability for users with a high valuation for convenience.

Graphs1 & 2: The frequency distribution of respondent willingness to pay for SP (S Premium) and SPO (S Premium Overnight) access given a $200 increase in the S permit price, which indicates the market drop-out rate given increased parking costs. Market drop-out is seen by the far left bar, signifying an increase in respondents unwilling to purchase premium access at an additional $200. (Note: Only respondents owning S permits were included in these charts, in order to discern the demand for parking permits within existing market participants).

•  Demand for premium parking decreases by approximately 30% with a $200 base price increase. •  This data indicates a defined “high” and “low” valuation consumers of premium parking.