See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304774027

Parking Demand for Residential Apartment Buildings in Jordan

Article · July 2016

CITATIONS READS
0 475

3 authors:

Khalid A. Ghuzlan Bashar Al-Omari

Jordan University of Science and Technology Jordan University of Science and Technology
43 PUBLICATIONS   421 CITATIONS    45 PUBLICATIONS   163 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohammad Ali Khasawneh

Jordan University of Science and Technology
38 PUBLICATIONS   140 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Effects of Driver and Vehicle Characteristics on Annual Vehicle Kilometers of Travel in Jordan View project

Parking Generation Rates for Schools in Irbid City View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Ali Khasawneh on 10 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CASE STUDY

Parking Demand
for Residential Apartment
Buildings in Jordan
By Khalid A. Ghuzlan, Bashar H. Al-Omari,
and Mohammad A. Khasawneh, P.E.

M
ost medium-size and large cities worldwide are suffering from
parking congestion. Severe parking problems in congested urban
areas have led to the use of nontraditional parking options such
as elevated parking in residential buildings in some countries.1
The residents’ choice of apartment is influenced by parking availability.2

A few decades ago, the majority of Jordanians were living in
separate houses. However, with the fast-growing population,
Jordanian main cities became congested and the majority of their
residents had no choice but to accept living in multistory apartment
buildings. This has led to residential areas with high population
densities that are suffering from traffic and parking congestion.
Parking congestion can be attributed to three main factors: high
population density, increased ownership of private vehicles, and
deficiency in transportation policies. 3 Jordan has witnessed large
increases in population and vehicle ownership during the last two
decades, where the vehicle ownership rate has increased from 7.4
vehicles/100 population in 1990 to 17.6 vehicles/100 population in
2010; however, this value is still much lower than that for the United
States (about 80 vehicles/100 population).4
This research was aimed at developing models for predicting
the weekday residential building parking demand and identifying
the significant influencing factors from the collected data, which
included the building age (years), number of floors, number of
apartments, gross floor area (square meters), average apartment floor
area (square meters), average apartment income, average current
apartment price, average apartment car ownership (number of cars
owned by the residents of the building/number of apartments in the
building), and building location class (suburban, urban non-central
business district (CBD), urban inner CBD, and urban outer CBD).

32 July 2016 ite j o urn al

Literature Review
There are several international standards for predicting parking
demand for residential apartment buildings. The Institute of Trans-
portation Engineers (ITE) predicts parking demand for residential
apartment buildings per dwelling unit based on the building height
(low/medium-rise and high-rise), location (central city, urban, and
suburban), and day (weekday and Saturday), as follows:
ƒ High-rise apartment buildings (parking demand = 1.37 parking
spaces per dwelling unit);
ƒ Low/medium-rise apartment buildings, weekday, suburban
(parking demand = 1.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit);
ƒ Low/medium-rise apartment buildings, weekday, urban
(parking demand = 1.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit); and
ƒ Low/medium-rise apartment buildings, weekend, urban
(parking demand = 1.02 parking spaces per dwelling unit).5
Dubai Municipality predicts parking demand for residential
apartments per dwelling unit based on the building height (one
or two levels and three or more levels), location (inner CBD, outer
CBD, and non-CBD), and day (weekday and Saturday).6 In Jordan,
the Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA) issued
a regulation with a fixed parking requirement for residential
apartment buildings of one space per dwelling unit.7 Al-Masaeid,
et al. have developed the following empirical model for estimating
parking demand for residential apartment buildings (VPDA) as a
function of the number of dwelling units in the building (NDU) for
Jordanian conditions: 8
VPDA = 0.47 NDU 1.10 (1)
Parking demand standards depend on socioeconomic
characteristics that may change from one country to another, and
sometimes from one region to another within the same country.
Shatnawi suggested that Abu Dhabi parking rates should be
reduced as compared to Dubai rates for most land uses, although
they are two emirates in the same country.9 However, there are
some similarities between some Western countries, as mentioned by
Milne, et al., who compared parking demand between New Zealand
and the United Kingdom and found that they were similar for the
same land uses, including residential activities.10
Cutter and Franco have studied the parking requirements in Los
Angeles County, USA, and found that the parking demand is quite
close to the supplied parking following the local requirements.11
Another study in Sydney, Australia, found that parking code
requirements for flats, units, and apartments provide substantially
more parking supply than required.12
Some studies have investigated the factors that might affect
parking demand. Rowe, et al. have collected field data from King
County, WA, USA, and identified the influencing factors on the
residential parking demand, which included land use, transit
access, parking cost, population, and job density factors.13 Willson
and Roberts found a positive relationship between parking demand
and household income and suggested a rate structure considering
the number of household bedrooms.14
Transit service is believed to be a major determinant for parking
demand. Kelly and Pekol found that residential car parking demand
is strongly associated with the distance to transit.15 Rowe, et al.
found that parking demand has a strong relationship to transit
service in King County, WA.16
Not only does car ownership affect parking demand, but,
conversely, changing parking supply requirements also affects car
ownership. Based on a survey of 770 households from New York
City, USA, Guo has utilized the nested logit model and found
that residential parking supply significantly affects household car
ownership.17 Manville, et al. found that a 10 percent increase in the
minimum parking requirements in New York City has resulted in a
4 percent increase in vehicle ownership.18
Data Collection and Reduction
This research aims at identifying the main factors that affect
parking demand for residential apartment buildings based on field
surveys for randomly selected apartment buildings from different
cities in Jordan. Field surveys were conducted to collect comprehen-
sive data about parking demand for residential apartment buildings
and their expected major influencing factors. A total of 1,060
apartment buildings were surveyed from the major cities in Jordan:
Amman, Irbid, and Zarqa.
Data were collected in 2014 at night during the peak period.
Collected data included the weekday building parking demand
(which is defined as the maximum number of parked cars by
residents and visitors during weekdays), building age (years),
number of floors, number of apartments in the building, building
gross floor area (square meters (m2)), average apartment floor area
(square meters), average apartment income (Jordan Dollars (JD),
where 1 USD = 0.7 JD), average current apartment price (JD),
average apartment car ownership (number of cars owned by the
residents of the building/number of apartments in the building),
and building location (urban inner CBD, urban outer CBD, urban
non-CBD, suburban). Table 1 shows the characteristics of collected
data for suburban areas and urban non-CBD areas. Table 2 shows
the characteristics of collected data for urban inner and outer
CBD areas. Stepwise regression analysis was used to identify
the significant influencing factors and find the best model for
predicting the parking demand for residential apartment buildings.
Analysis and Model Development
Stepwise regression analysis (using the IBM SPSS Statistics 19
computer package) was used to identify the factors that significantly
www.ite.org July 2016 33
influence the parking demand for residential apartment buildings
during the weekdays for four location classes: suburban, urban
non-CBD, urban inner CBD, and urban outer CBD. The total
number of buildings surveyed in different areas is summarized as
follows: 189 buildings in suburban areas, 206 buildings in urban
non-CBD areas, 225 buildings in urban inner CBD areas, and
440 buildings in urban outer CBD areas. The stepwise regression
method was used to select the most significant variables for
estimating the building parking demand, producing the models
shown in Table 3 for different types of building locations, with the
adjusted R 2 and SEE for each model (the variables are as defined in
Table 1).
The relationships between the proposed model predictions
and the measured building parking demand values for the
suburban areas, urban non-CBD areas, urban inner CBD areas,
and urban outer CBD areas are shown in Figures 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d,
respectfully.
The two variables NA (number of apartments) and ACO
(average apartment car ownership) were found to be significant
in all models, while the AP (average current apartment price [JD]
was found to be significant in all models except the urban outer
CBD areas model. The BA (building age [years]) was found to
be significant in the suburban areas and urban outer CBD areas
models. The GFA (gross floor area) was found to be significant in
urban inner CBD areas. As shown in Table 3, the urban non-CBD
areas model has the highest R 2 adjusted at 83.5 percent, and the
urban inner CBD areas model has the lowest R 2 adjusted value at
70.2 percent; all models are significant at 95 percent confidence.
Comparison with Other Standards and Models
Some international standards considered only one variable (number
of dwelling units) in predicting the residential apartment building
parking demand, with separate models/rates for different categories
of building height, location, and day.5,6 Other standards and models
predicted parking demand for residential apartment buildings
per dwelling unit, ignoring different categories of building height,
location, and day.7,8
In this study, separate models were developed for different
categories of locations for weekday conditions. The building height
(number of floors) factor was not significant in this study. Instead,
and in addition to the number of apartments, new factors were
considered in the developed models, including average apartment
car ownership, average current apartment price, building age, and
building gross floor area.

Table 1. Characteristics of Collected Data for Suburban Areas and Urban Non-CBD
Suburban Areas Urban Non-CBD
Variable Abbreviation
Min. Max. Mean Min. Max. Mean
Building parking demand BPD 4 25 12.96 1 35 13.35
Building age (years) BA 0 50 9.91 0 100 8.74
Number of floors NF 2 7 4.18 2 12 4.44
Number of apartments NA 2 16 8.54 2 24 10.05
Gross floor area (m2) GFA 113 1,442 1,292.80 130 2,000 442.05
Average apartment floor area (m2) AFA 85 790 203.00 90 500 170.45
Average apartment income (JD) AI 250 7,500 1,545.61 300 10,000 1,283.84
Average current apartment price (JD) AP 21,000 280,000 86,653 20,000 350,000 66,241
Average apartment car ownership ACO 0.33 3 1.27 0.17 2.50 1.09

Table 2. Characteristics of Collected Data for Urban Inner and Outer CBD Areas
Urban Inner CBD Urban Outer CBD
Variable Abbreviation
Min. Max. Mean Min. .Max Mean
Building parking demand BPD 3 25 12.63 3 28 11.89
Building age (years) BA 0 43 10.35 0 50 8.94
Number of floors NF 2 14 4.35 2 15 4.39
Number of apartments NA 3 20 10.05 2 24 9.55
Gross floor area (m2) GFA 100 2,990 543.10 100 1,973 424.79
Average apartment floor area (m2) AFA 50 600 167.29 40 760 177.68
Average apartment income (JD) AI 120 4,000 981.35 100 10,000 1,065
Average current apartment price (JD) AP 20,000 470,000 65,097 20,000 300,000 72,716
Average apartment car ownership ACO 0.06 3 1.01 0.10 2.25 1.07
34 July 2016 ite j o urn al
Table 3. . Proposed Models for Different Building Locations Table 4. Comparison between Parking Demand Produced by the
Building Model Description R2 SEE Developed Models and by the ITE Criteria
Location adjusted Building Parking Demand
Building Location
Suburban BPD = (0.476 + 0.161 NA + 0.947 ACO 74.7% 0.352 Proposed Models ITE Criteria
areas + 4.192E-6 AP + 0.012 BA) 2 Suburban areas 12.50 10.25
Urban non- BPD = (0.429 + 0.149 NA + 1.316 ACO 83.5% 0.334 Urban non-CBD areas 12.62 10.05
2
CBD areas + 2.901E-6 AP) Urban inner CBD areas 11.48 10.05
Urban inner BPD = (1.24 + 0.125 NA + 0.988 ACO 70.2% 0.420 Urban outer CBD areas 11.38 9.55
CBD areas – 2.457E-6 AP + 0.0001 GFA) 2
Urban outer BPD = (0.560 + 0.153 NA + 1.230 ACO 79.6% 0.333 significant influencing factors from collected data, which included
CBD areas + 0.004 BA) 2 the building age (years), number of floors, number of apartments,
gross floor area (m2), average apartment floor area (m2), average
A comparison was made between the parking demand produced apartment income (JD), average current apartment price (JD),
by the developed models and the parking demand obtained using average apartment car ownership (number of cars owned by the
the ITE criteria. As shown in Table 4, it is obvious that the proposed residents of the building/number of apartments in the building),
models always produce higher parking demand than the ITE and building location class (suburban, urban non-CBD, urban
criteria (by 15 to 20 percent). inner CBD, and urban outer CBD).
A total of 1,060 apartment buildings were surveyed from the
Summary and Conclusions major cities in Jordan: Amman, Irbid, and Zarqa. A separate
This research was aimed at developing models for predicting the regression model was developed for estimating the weekday
weekday residential building parking demand and identifying the residential building parking demand for each location class. It was

Fig. 1a Fig. 1b

Fig. 1c
Fig. 1d

Figure 1. Building Parking Demand Predictions Versus Measured Values: a. Suburban Areas, b. Urban Non-CBD Areas, c. Urban Inner CBD Areas, d.
Urban Outer CBD Areas.

www.ite.org July 2016 35

found that the number of apartments and the average apartment
car ownership are statistically significant factors in estimating
the weekday residential building parking demand for all location
classes. The average apartment price was a significant factor for
suburban, urban non-CBD, and urban inner CBD locations. The
building age was a significant factor for suburban and urban outer
CBD locations, while the building gross floor area was a significant
factor for only the urban inner CBD locations.
A comparison was made with other standards and models
regarding the factors considered in predicting the residential
apartment building parking demand. Some international standards
considered only one variable (number of dwelling units), with
separate models/rates for different categories of building height,
location, and day. Other standards and models considered the
number of dwelling units, ignoring different categories of building
height, location, and day. It was found that the proposed models
always produce higher parking demand than the ITE criteria.
Current parking demand standards such as MOMRA and ITE need
to be updated to consider variables that are found to be significant
in the developed models (such as the number of apartments and the
average apartment car ownership). The developed models in this
study were for weekdays, and further research is recommended to
develop models for weekend conditions. itej
References
1. Salzman, G. and D. Taxman. “Elevator Parking in Residential Buildings—Is
This a Trend?” Parking Today, Vol. 12, No. 11 (2007): 24–26.
2. Bina, M. and K.M. Kockelman. Household Location Choices: The Case
of Homebuyers and Apartment Dwellers in Austin, Texas. Report
SWUTC/06/167552-1. University of Texas, Austin, 2006.
3. Reddy, T.S., K. Chand, and P. Parida. “Parking Policy for Different Land
Uses in Delhi.” Urban Transport Policy: A Sustainable Development Tool.
Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1998.
4. Jordan Traffic Institute. Traffic Accidents in Jordan 2011. Amman, Jordan:
Jordan Traffic Institute, 2012.
5. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Parking Generation, 4th Edition.
Washington, DC, USA: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2010.
6. Dubai Municipality. Trip Generation & Parking Rates Manual, 1st Edition.
Dubai, UAE: Department of Transport, 1998.
7. MOMRA. Building Regulations. Jordan: Ministry of Municipal and Rural
Affairs, 1979.
8. Al-Masaeid, H.R., B. Al-Omari, and A. Al-Harahsheh. “Vehicle Parking
Demand for Different Land Uses in Jordan.” ITE Journal on the web (1999):
79–84.
9. Shatnawi, I.M. “Abu Dhabi Parking Rates Requirements.” ITE Journal, Vol. 80,
No. 9 (2010): 42–45.
10. Milne, A., S. Abley, and M. Douglass. Comparisons of NZ and UK Trips and
Parking Rates. New Zealand Transport Agency Research Report, Issue 374,
2009.
36 July 2016 ite j o urn al
View publication stats
11. Cutter, W.B. and S.F. Franco. “Do Parking Requirements Significantly
Increase the Area Dedicated to Parking? A Test of the Effect of Parking
Requirements Values in Los Angeles County.” Transportation Research Part
A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 46, No. 6 (2012): 901–925.
12. Brodie, D. and T. Longworth. “Adequacy of Car Parking Policies for Flats,
Units, and Apartments in the Sydney Region.” Australasian Transport
Research Forum (ATRF) Proceedings, 2010.
13. Rowe, D., R.S. McCourt, S. Morse, and P. Haas. “Do Land Use, Transit, and
Walk Access Affect Residential Parking Demand?” ITE Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2
(2013): 24–28.
14. Willson, R. and M. Roberts. “Parking Demand and Zoning Requirements
for Suburban Multifamily Housing.” Transportation Research Record, Vol.
2245 (2011): 49–55.
15. Kelly, A. and A. Pekol. “Transit Proximity and Car Parking Demand at
Medium/High Density Residential Developments.” Australasian Transport
Research Forum Proceedings, 2013.
16. Rowe, D., C.-H.C. Bae, and Q. Shen. “Evaluating the Impact of Transit
Service on Parking Demand and Requirements.” Transportation Research
Record, Vol. 2245 (2011): 56–62.
17. Guo, Z. “Does Residential Parking Supply Affect Household Car
Ownership? The Case of New York City.” Journal of Transport Geography,
Vol. 26 (2013): 18–28.
18. Manville, M., D.C. Shoup, and A. Beata. “Turning Housing into Driving:
Parking Requirements in Los Angeles and New York.” Transportation
Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, Paper 13-
1034, 2013.
Khalid A. Ghuzlan is associate professor of civil
engineering at the Jordan University of Science and
Technology. He holds a doctorate in transportation
engineering from the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign and has more than 15 years of academic
and practical experience in the United States and Jordan.
Bashar H. Al-Omari is a professor of civil engineering
at the Jordan University of Science and Technology.
He holds a Ph.D. in traffic engineering from the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and has
more than 20 years of academic and practical
experience in the United States, Jordan, and Saudi
Arabia. He is a member of ITE.
Mohammad A. Khasawneh, P.E. is assistant professor
of civil engineering at the Jordan University of Science
and Technology. He holds a doctorate in transportation
engineering from the University of Akron in Ohio and
has more than 7 years of academic experience in the
United States and Jordan. He is a Professional Engineer.