You are on page 1of 12

MODELLING PARK AND RIDE O'Cinneide, D. and O. Casserly.

University College, Cork, Ireland


Park and ride is defined as parking at a custom built car park and transferring to public transport to travel onward to one's destination. It is a fundamental part of many city transport systems since it is a more acceptable alternative to the car than conventional public transport for many car users, particularly for city centre trips originating from outside built up areas. Park and ride modelling allows a structured examination of the probable success or failure of a proposed park and ride scheme. Modal split models based on generalised cost differences appear theoretically appropriate but the results to date have often been unreliable. In this paper a methodology for modelling and selecting park and ride locations is presented. It is based on previous experience with park and ride modelling and the results of studies into the Cork City park and ride services. 2. PARK AND RIDE EXPERIENCE Park and ride schemes have been in operation for many years in a number of countries. These schemes are mainly aimed at commuters but many schemes catering for shoppers have been introduced in recent years, particularly during the busy preChristmas period. Typically park and ride is associated with larger cities. There are significant differences between existing schemes; they vary in the type and frequency of public transport, in the quality and size of the parking facilities provided and in the amount and method of payment. A number of park and ride schemes have been abandoned due to lack of use, particularly in smaller cities. A recent Transport Research Laboratory report on park and ride in Scotland suggests the following reasons for success and failure (Wang 1999): Reasons for success: • reliable, frequent, high quality service • quicker than the car • parking in the city centre expensive and difficult • parking at the park and ride site is secure • park and ride charge less than that of city centre parking • site easily accessible Reasons for failure: • congestion not severe enough to influence change of mode • multiple interchanges (car-train-bus-walk) • city centre parking readily available (free or cheap)


and are college educated. a study into commuter based park and ride services in New Jersey (Goodman 1995) used two different methods of demand forecasting. If the generalised costs for travelling by car and by park and ride have been correctly modelled. have commutes in excess of 40minutes each way. demand prediction methods are not well established due to the many variables involved. 3. A generalised cost model includes the principal costs associated with a particular journey expressed either in money or time units. "the people who use park and ride lots are employed in administrative. Typically two approaches are used. Park and ride modelling can be divided into two complimentary parts. Demand predictions based solely on generalised cost differences do not appear to have been successful. with middle and upper middle level incomes. However. Most of them have vehicles available for commuting but choose to car pool or use public transportation from a park and ride lot. The generalised cost equations for a potential park and ride service can also be examined to determine what changes are required to shift the balance from car only travel to park and ride. a simple demographic approach which directly estimates the potential demand from the socio-economic characteristics of the origin area and a more sophisticated approach where the number of trips for a specific purpose (usually commuting) from an origin area to a destination area (usually the city centre) are divided by mode based on previous experience with park and ride services. Details of the modelling methods used are typically omitted from reports on park and ride services.1 Generalised Cost Modelling Generalised cost modelling is well established in transportation planning. generalised cost modelling which is based on the differences in generalised costs between car trips and park and ride trips and demand prediction models which estimate the likely number of park and ride users. It was found that. For example. The age of the park and riders is generally between 20 and the mid-40's. Few studies on demand prediction have been published to date and the authors were unable to locate any validated UK demand forecasting model. PARK AND RIDE MODELLING The above reasons for the success or failure of park and ride schemes indicate why modelling of potential park and ride schemes has proved particularly difficult (see for example Arezki and Boddy 1994).• • • facilities and service are poor inconvenient location of site not part of an integrated transport package 3.2 Demand Prediction Modelling The potential demand for park and ride is central in assessing the feasibility of such services. managerial and technical occupations. the mode with the cheapest generalised cost is more likely to be used. 3." Based on census information of the market areas the following formula was developed: 364 .

The potential demand for park and ride was then estimated using an empirical model. Overall indications from a number of US studies show that from 0.00 and $60. a of car users find it difficult to change mode because of actual or The principal variables which have been found to affect mode into three groups by the level of constraint involved: The decision to use substantial proportion perceived constraints. on the east of the city. Ireland (city population 130. choice can be divided Car Captive Variables: • Non-availability of other modes • Car necessary for work • Lack of information on alternative modes • Unsuitability of other modes Contributory Variables: (perceived constraints which may result in car captivity) • Activities arranged in conjunction with a trip • Car sharing/lift giving • Occupation/income 365 . It was concluded that substantial economic benefits accrued to the city centre as a result of these services. with an extended service again for the run up to Christmas 1998.Potential Demand = (Population) x (% CarpoolfBus Users) x (% with Incomes between $30. and that the factors of occupation. 4. A second service was also provided during this period from Tivoli. education and income will influence this percentage (Goodman 1995). length of commute. PARK AND RIDE IN CORK Park and ride has been in existence in Cork City. technical and administrative occupations) x (% with Commutes greater than 40 minutes each way). 5.000) since 1997 when a trial service was provided during the pre Christmas period from Victoria Cross in the western suburbs to the city centre. particularly from the additional shopping trips attracted. The second method used in this study estimated the volume of traffic from each market area to each attraction zone and then used the percentage of home-based work trips in the market area to determine the number of commuters. a generalised cost model to examine both the feasibility of park and ride and the suitability of specific sites and a demand prediction model for estimating the likely use of such services. However. Park and ride services in Cork to date have been reviewed elsewhere (O'Cinneide and Casserly 1999).000 annually) x (Average of% with more than High School Education and % Employed in professional.1 Identification of the Model Variables park and ride is influenced by many factors. THE DEVELOPMENT OF PARK AND RIDE MODELS FOR CORK Two models were developed. 5. This service was continued on Saturdays from the nearby County Hall car park.35% of all commuters will use park and ride.4% to 1.

the following factors must be determined: 1. he wiIl almost always use it. Choice Variables do not involve any modal constraint and are those included in the generalised cost model. 5. but it may be desirable to develop separate models for commuters and shoppers due to different parking charges. Contributory Variables are perceived constraints which may also result in car captivity. etc. 4. if even one of these variables applies to a traveller with an available car. Trip time data is required on the proposed routes both by car and by park and ride.• • • • Objects to be carried Age/health Perceived/actual quality of other modes Weather Choice Variables (no constraint involved) • Travel speed/time • Cost oftravellparking (income related) • Comfort/enjoyment • Accessibility (at origin and destination including parking) • Flexibility of modes • Number of transfers involved Car Captive Variables are those which constrain people to travel for their entire trip by car. The most difficult variable to quantify is the modal penalty. Modal penalty The monetary cost of travel and parking are relatively easy to estimate. Where a proposed park and ride service includes new bus priorities. restrictions may be required on traffic movements within the city centre. This allowed the likely success of a proposed park and ride scheme to be examined and to determine the actions to ensure its success. 5. safety. The weights assigned to each variable were generally accepted weights 366 . 3. Equations were developed for the generalised cost in minutes of both car trips and combined car and bus (or car and rail) trips. Cost of motoring Park and ride fare Travel time Wait time Cost of city centre parking Value of time 7. It is practically impossible to value attitudes to comfort. weather. etc. In order to shift the balance between car only trips and park and ride trips.2 The Cork Park and Ride Generalised Cost Mode] To model the above Choice Variables. the travel times must be assumed. 6. 2.

commuters £3 / day. The mean travel speeds to the city centre were assumed to be 30kmlh up to 6km. As can be seen from this figure.1 hour stay in the city centre by shoppers. = Trip time from park and ride site (k) to destination (j) An example of the generalised costs is shown in Figure 1 for various distances from the trip origin to a park and ride parking location.amended by the results of the detailed questionnaire surveys carried out during the Christmas 1998 park and ride services in Cork (O'Cinneide and Casserly 1999). • • • • • • • • • The variables in the generalised cost equation were weighted as follows: • The cost of motoring was weighted by 0. +3*(Wait Time) + Timeq + Modal Penalty where: GCt. Time. A maximum travel time of 10 minutes by bus to the city centre from the park and ride sites. 35kmlh from 7km to 13km.06 per hour (Steer Davies Gleave 1993). = Generalised cost of trip from origin (i) to destination (j). 367 . A modal penalty of 3 minutes.25 since 25 % of those questioned on the Christmas 1998 park and ride service took the cost of motoring into account in their decision to use park and ride. the car trip is always cheaper than the park and ride trip (a difference of 23. An average 3.7 minutes). and 40kmlh from 14km and up. shoppers 60 pence / hour.25*Cost of Motoring=Distancejj/Value oftime +(park and Ride fare)/Value of Time + Timea. 7.. The wait time for the bus was weighted by 3 (O'Flaherty 1997). The city centre parking charges were assigned a unit weight as the perceived cost of parking was generally correct or over estimated. The marginal cost of motoring is 6. = The trip time from origin (i) to destination (j) GCikj = Generalised cost from origin (i) to park and ride (k) to destination (j) Timej. The general assumptions made for the Cork Park and Ride Model were: • Park and ride sites are located 3km from the city centre.25*Cost of Motoring * Distancejj/Value of Time +(Cost of Parking in City)/Value of Time + Times GCikj = (O. Park and ride return fare of £2 per adult. • • The equations used to determine the generalised cost were as follows: GCij = (0. Mean city centre parking charges. An average wait time of 5 minutes.5 hours by commuters. = Trip time from origin (i) to park and ride site (k) Time. assuming a bus frequency of 10minutes. A value oftime of £3. this is the average distance from the boundary to the city centre and also where traffic congestion begins.84p per km (Steer Davies Gleave 1993).

The trip origin was assumed to be 7.Skm from the city centre as the highest proportion of park and ride users (approx. car trips became more expensive in terms of generalised cost than park and ride trips by 5.The model elements were next examined to identify feasible changes which would decrease the difference in generalised costs between car only and park and ride trips. Car/bus trip times The impact of changing the relative trip times by car and by park and ride is next examined. this fare was considered unlikely to generate enough revenue to cover the cost of operating the park and ride buses. Wait time The average wait time for the park and ride buses was assumed to be 5 minutes.7 minutes between the car only trip and the park and ride trip. The city centre parking charge was then increased to examine its impact on the difference in generalised costs between car only trips and park and ride trips. Since there was a generalised cost difference of23. A £2 return fare was assumed for the initial examination of park and ride services as this was the fare charged in Cork since Christmas 1998. any feasible reduction in waiting time would have little or no effect on the attractiveness of a service but could significantly increase costs. The cost of city centre parking An average city centre parking charge of 60pence per hour was assumed for the park and ride generalised cost model. the wait time and the bus trip time. In order to make tne park and ride generalised cost less than that of the car only trip. A time saving of at least 5 minutes is sometimes considered necessary to encourage a transfer from car only trips to park and ride trips. the park and ride fare. The introduction of bus priorities usually results in increased car trip times. 5. one third) during the Christmas 1998 service travelled between 5 and 10 km. the park and ride site was again assumed to be located 3km from the city centre. the car trip time. Park and ride fare The charge for a park and ride service is always controversiaL For maximum use there should be no charge but the high operating costs of such services normally require fares to be charged. The impact of doubling the parking charge is presented in Figure 2. For the purpose of examination. particularly should an extra bus be required. The model output suggests that it does not appear feasible to make park and ride trips more attractive by solely changing the trip times. 368 . However.3 Examination of the Generalised Cost Model Sensitivity The most significant factors in the generalised cost equations are the cost of city centre parking. priority bus signals and bus lanes decrease the total bus trip time but increase the car trip time. the fare would have to be reduced to 80p.6 minutes.

When this data is entered into the generalised cost model. 5. a difference of 6. Application of the Park and Ride Generalised Cost Model When examining a potential park and ride site.5 Identification of the Demand Model Variables The variables used in the Cork demand model included the principal demographic and socio-economic factors identified elsewhere amended by the results of the studies carried out on both users and non-users of the park and ride service in Cork.4 An increase in the average city centre parking charge to 95pence per hour. A reduction in the wait time at the park and ride site of 1 minute.5 minutes would result from assuming the following: • • • • 5. the following data is required: • • • • Park and ride fare The bus frequency Distance from the park and ride site to the city centre The cost of city centre parking per hour The other model parameters were assumed to remain constant irrespective of location. 2. Ex-urban Ex-urban Suburban Suburban commuters (originating from outside the urban area) shoppers (originating from outside the urban area) shoppers commuters 369 . A decrease in the bus journey time to 7 minutes. The following variables were considered the most significant: • • • • • • • • Population (both ex-urban and suburban) Car availability Proportion of constrained users Parking availability and charges Number working in the attraction zone Gender Socio-economic status Education level Population: The population used in the Cork model was divided into four groups: 1.Combined changes Although single changes can be used to make the generalised cost of travelling by park and ride cheaper than by car. a combination of changes may be more feasible. An increase in the car journey time of3 minutes. 4. 3. the output indicates if the site is likely to be attractive to potential users. For example.

park and ride users are mainly from the middle socio-economic classes. Socio-economic status: Many studies indicate the significance of socio-economic factors in park and ride demand. UK services are typically used by 60% commuters and 40% shoppers although there are wide variations. For example. Car availability: A park and ride service can only be used by those with an available car. 5. the above model was used to estimate the ex-urban demand and an additional 20% was added to account for the suburban demand. It was considered that census socio-economic Groups C and D were the most likely groups to use park and ride services.Groups 1 and 2 generally have no public transport alternative and were considered as the main demand market. Number working in the attraction zone: The number of commuters travelling to the city centre has a direct influence on the demand for a park and ride service. Since this information was not available. Over half of the car drivers were identified as mode captives and three quarters were subjected to an identified mode constraint (similar constraint levels have been reported in Continental European cities). Consequently. For example. the percentage of female users of the Cork services during December 1998 was approximately 75% although the proportion of female commuter users was lower. Groups 3 and 4 have city bus services as a public transport alternative and were considered as supplementary markets. Education Level: A number of studies have indicated that park and ride use is related to the percentage of the population with an education level at least equivalent to the Irish Leaving Certificate standard.6 The Cork Park and Ride Demand Prediction Model The suggested demand model was as follows: Demand Forecast = (population) x (% car ownership) x (% constrained drivers) x (mean % with Leaving Certificate education and % in socioeconomic groups C and D) x (% working in the attraction zone) x (% public transport users) The results of the detailed questionnaire surveys during the 1998 Christmas period indicated that approximately four fifths of park and ride trips originated in ex-urban areas. 370 . Proportion of constrained users: A detailed study into modifying peak hour traffic in Cork (O'Cinneide 1989) indicated that 77% of city centre car commuters were constrained to use the car for their trips. The high proportion of constrained drivers severely limits the park and ride market. Gender: Women tend to use park and ride services significantly more than men. it was assumed that the demand varied with the percentage car ownership in the park and ride origin zone.

269 0. Some data was only available at county level and therefore all of the park and ride origin zones had the following data in common. A recent survey indicated that in Cork peak hour traffic 63. and 11. the numbers of cars parked at park and ride sites were estimated using these values for commuters and shoppers respectively.289 Weighted Average = 0.2%) = 285 commuters (exurban areas only) = 356 commuters (including suburban areas) Since commuters are assumed to comprise 60% of park and ride users.131 0.Application of the Park and Ride Demand Prediction Model The most significant factors in the park and ride demand prediction model are population and car ownership. Origin Zone 1: West of Cork City (bus based park and ride) Table l: Statistical Data for Park and Ride Zone 1 Population District Ballincollig Blarney Bishopstown (rural) Carrigrohane Ovens Whitechurch Matehy 13760 3874 106 1666 976 1534 1820 Total = 23736 % in Socio-economic Groups C and D 0. An example of the use of the Cork Demand Prediction Model follows.738) x (0.282 0.438 + 0.8% population with Leaving Certificate or higher education level 73.331 The calculations for the commuter park and ride demand were: Demand Forecast = (23736) x (0.6) x [(0. This would depend on the city centre parking policy. 25.1 % have 2 people.1 % of the population travel between 6 km and 14 km to work or education It was assumed in the long term that the ratio of commuters to shoppers would be 60/40. Consequently.359 0.281) x (0. Also.331) + 2] x (0.8% of households with at least one car 24.6% of households without a car (assumed not able to use park and ride) 28.290 0.5% have 3 or more people.304 0. the Christmas 1998 park and ride service indicated a car occupancy of 2.4% of cars are driver only.246) = (23736) x (1.18. • • • • 43. Number of shoppers = 237 (suburban + exurban) 371 .

direct bus routing to the city centre. Division of catchment area into park and ride zones: The ordnance survey map of the Greater Cork Area was examined to divide the area into park and ride origin zones for analysis purposes. Examination of zones: Each origin zone was examined to determine if there was a high enough population feeding into the main roads from the zone to support a park and ride service. if not feasible. Assuming a 50/50 split between commuters and shoppers would require an additional 54 car parking spaces. METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTING PARK AND RIDE SERVICES The methodology used for the selection and investigation of park and ride service locations is summarised as follows: 1. space for expansion.18. easy access (particularly at peak times).18. safe.5% (3 persons) = 14 cars Total = 285 cars Shoppers: Assuming a vehicle occupancy of2. clearly visible but not intrusive.Commuters: 63. 3. environmentally acceptable. 6. Inspection of approach routes: The main routes from each zone to the city centre were examined to identify possible park and ride sites (existing public transport services were also examined). This is similar to the predicted daily use of park and ride by shoppers (l09 cars).1% (2 persons) = 45 cars 11. 372 . Assuming a vehicle occupancy of 2. It was assumed that approximately four fifths of park and ride trips originate from beyond the suburban area (up to a distance of 30 km). Similar estimations were made for the other park and ride origin zones. number of cars = 109 Estimated total number of spaces required = 285 + 109 = 394 The Saturday service from Victoria Cross during 1998 had an average use of 246 passengers per day. the estimated number of cars at the site each Saturday was 113. 2. within about 100m of a direct route into the city centre. at a point before congestion begins.4% (driver only) = 226 cars 25. Ideally sites should meet the following criteria: • • • • • • • on the left hand side of an inbound route. These zones were based on the catchment areas for the main access routes to the city centre.

decreasing the park and ride fare. (1995) Planning park and ride for Interstate! HOV corridors in Northern New Jersey. D. Cork Q'Flaherty. (1999) A strategic view of park and ride in Scotland. 21st Annual Conference UrSG. London. These actions included relocating the park and ride site. Demand forecasting: Based on the results of the various questionnaire surveys carried out in Cork and on park and ride studies elsewhere. However. Bibliography Arezki. it was concluded that the main demand market areas in order of significance are: 1. Phase 2. C.. DC. London. 5. Traffic Research Unit. (1997). (1994) Modelling park-and-ride. the success of such services will largely depend on the implementation of the necessary complimentary city centre traffic management measures. 7Th Annual Seminar on Park and Ride: the latest developments. Use of the Park and Ride Generalised Cost Model: The generalised cost model was used to determine the required actions to ensure the success of a park and ride service for each zone. O'Cinneide. Dublin Transportation Initiative. increasing the city centre parking charges.. London. (1989) The Limits of Commuter Modal Choice in Smaller Cities. Compendium of Technical Papers. (1999) Park and ride in Cork. Wang. PTRC. Steer Davies Gleave. Casserly. Suburban commuters Forecasting the usage of park and ride schemes involved entering the relevant socioeconomic factors for each origin zone into the Demand Prediction Model. Most drivers will not use park and ride unless there are severe difficulties with either city centre car access or parking. Proceedings of the 22nd European Transport Forum.A. Q. The methodology presented in this paper provides a structured method for the examination of potential park and ride services based on current knowledge. Napier College. Edinburgh. O'Cinneide D. (1993) Technical Volume 1. Ex-urban shoppers (originating from outside the urban area) 3. D. Goodman. etc. Institute of Transportation Engineers 65th Annual Meeting. 7. Arnold Publishing. Suburban shoppers 4. Y. CONCLUSION Many mode choice studies show that drivers prefer to use the car rather than park and ride if at all possible. Transport Planning and Traffic Engineering. L.4. Boddy. University College. T. 373 . Washington. Ex-urban commuters (originating from outside the urban area) 2. PTRC. Transportation Planning Methods.

0 ! 100 80 60 40 20 0 I I . 1 !.. ! I I . : I ! II I ! I 9 i I I i I i i . I I ! I I I .. I ! j i. i . I I I I I I I I I i _. . i iI I i I II ~ ~ I I o 2 3 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 Distance to the Park and Ride(km) Figure 2:1ncreasing City Centre Parking Charges to.:.Comparison between car trips and park and ride trips 140 120 Ci) .- i .J.~ III .. i 1i i . I I I i ! I I . I I ! i ! i-+-P&R ! I--G-car I I I I 1 i I ! I I I o I 7 I 8 Ii I 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Distance to the park and ride site{km) Figure j : Generalised Cost Comparison between Car Trips and Park and Ride Trips City Centre Parking Charge of 120p/hour 120 g . j 20pence per Hour 374 .i ! i I 4 I I ... : I I I ii III I .._-v T I I I I I I i I I I '" ~ "C) III 40 ~~ 20 T III C ID I o 2 3 4 5 I!1 I I I I I ! I. I G III i I I ! I i I i . 80 60 iI"" I _.S '" 0 u "C ! §. ! I I i I I '" 't:' " 0 " .. i : I I ! I I i ! I I i I I 100 ! i I ! I I I I i ..