KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2018) 22(1):330-340 Transportation Engineering

Copyright ⓒ2018 Korean Society of Civil Engineers

DOI 10.1007/s12205-017-1538-1 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

Level of Service for On-street Parking

Debasish Das* and Mokaddes Ali Ahmed**
Received September 5, 2016/Revised November 21, 2016/Accepted January 18, 2017/Published Online March 22, 2017

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

Parking of vehicle is one of the most important issues of the urban transportation system in any Central Business District (CBD). A
sharp rise in vehicular ownership and insufficient transit system give rise to the huge on-street parking demand leading to a reduction
in effective carriageway width, flow speed, creating unnecessary congestion, etc. The problems can be controlled by providing an
efficient parking system. The present study aims to estimate the Level of Service (LOS) of on-street parking. LOS is calculated based
on three parking selection criteria, viz. Parking Characteristic (PC), Safety Characteristic (SC) and Design Characteristic (DC). Four
CBDs of Kolkata Metropolitan Area (KMA) are selected as a case study area. The overall LOS equation is formulated by Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP). Cluster analysis and Zero dimension process are used to standardize the variables to designated LOS.
Various surveys are carried out for data collection. The data are analyzed using SPSS. Finally, the overall LOS for on-street parking is
estimated for all the selected CBDs.
Keywords: CBD, parking facility, AHP, Clustering analysis, Zero dimension process, LOS estimation
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction Keese (1964) described the level of service concept based on

Due to the increase of the personalized vehicle and lack of
sufficient parking spaces, the parking has become a major
problem in the urban transportation system. Mainly on-street
parking is observed in KMA area. The users are forced to park
their vehicles on-street due to the lack of off-street parking, and
this creates cruise of parking (Shoup, 2007).Cruising of parking
also has an adverse impact on the Environment. It is essential to
modify the operation system for parking based on user’s demand
and space availability. To modify an existing parking system, it is
important to understand the service quality of the on-street
parking i.e. the LOS of the on-street parking.
LOS concept is widely used for roadway safety and design, but
few works have been found applying the concept in the field of
on-street parking. The aim of the study is to evaluate the LOS of
on-street parking.
2. Literature Review
The importance of parking LOS as a component in the urban
transportation system has attracted many studies in the past. The
literature ranging more than four decades have been studied. The
literature divided into three paragraphs based on the year of
publication i.e. from 1965-1999, 2000-2010 and 2011-2016. The
detailed on the studies have been discussed below in subsequent
paragraphs.
demand and capacity for highway, and also discusses various
variables which affect the level of service for traffic engineering
as well as for pavements. Another study (Yu et al., 1973) established
a method to find the individual parking facility efficiency based
on the LOS concept. Their objective was to find the principal
variables which are significant for parking service and identifies
that parking availability and flow/capacity ratio as the important
variable. The concept of AHP was used for analytical planning
in later stage (Saaty et al., 1985). Parking standards developed
based on LOS idea for structured parking (Smith, 1985). Smith
(1996) defined the Crime Prevention through environmental
design in parking facilities and LOS approach based on safety
and security. The author also described various safety and
security tools like Lighting, Natural surveillance, Access control,
Stair towers and elevators, Panic buttons and emergency phones,
Sound surveillance, CCTV, Security personnel etc. for design a
parking lot. The effect of interventionist parking policy, high
parking price, limited parking supply, insufficient transit system
and a modal shift from private vehicles to transit ridership, on the
CBDs’ parking system have been discussed in a study (Mildner
et al., 1997). These parameters are also relevant while estimating
the on-street parking LOS.
In 2000 another level of service approach was developed by
Key et al. (2000). They interpreted LOS based on flow condition
and recommend four acceptable level of service A B C and D for
parking services from the best to the worst situation. Based on

*Ph.D. Scholar, Civil Engineering Dept., NIT Silchar, Assam 788010, India (Corresponding Author: E-mail: debasishd89@gmail.com)
**Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., NIT Silchar, Assam 788010, India (E-mail: ali.mokaddes@gmail.com)

− 330 −
 Level of Service for On-street Parking
LOS approach Smith recommends design criteria for structure
parking. A parking policy evaluation model was developed by
Shiftan et al. (2000). Very few works on parking studies have
been conducted in China. The fuzzy model used for performance
analysis of parking facility (Dong et al., 2009). Three aspects,
namely safety, convenience and efficiency, are considered in
their work. But for estimating the service quality of the parking
they did not perform any survey and analysis. The proposed
methodology was primarily based on experts’ objective evaluation.
Kononov et al. (2003) found out the LOS of safety for highway
using safety performance function. The analysis was done to
estimate total accident or fatality in roads. The LOS concept in
roads is a quite known process to calculate the accident statistics
and safety issues of roads. The idea of this study can be partially
considered for calculating the same while estimating the on-
street parking LOS. The walking distance to the destination is the
primary criteria for parking facility‘s performance evaluation,
i.e. the LOS (Smith et al., 2008). They have set some standard
walking distance for a different LOS. The parking service level
can be estimated by using the multivariate logit model (Yang et
al., 2010). The analysis used users’ survey data, but the result
gives a large gap compared to real world situation. A report by
Kolkata Municipal Corporation (2000) described the parking
condition and parking policy for Kolkata. The study indicates
some parameters on on-street parking areas under KMA like, on-
street parking locations, parking fee, parking duration, the
operational system of the parking areas which help to conduct
the present study.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2011) defined LOS by
taking the walking distance to the destination as the primary
criteria for parking facilities performance evaluation. They have
set some standard walking distance for different LOS. K-means
clustering analysis defined the four levels of service criteria,
taking four service variables, i.e. the ratio of peak-hour demand
to capacity, the average parking space occupying rate, parking
cost, and circulation time as the most effective parameters (He et
al., 2012). On-street parking level of service also evaluated based
on parking inventory and land use (Moeinaddinia et al., 2013).
Based on space utilization, no. of legal and illegal parking,
parking shades, accessible walking routes and accessible transit
station they evaluate the parking areas level of service. The LOS
of curb parking estimated based on parking accessibility (Ye et
Table 1. Calculation of Priority Vector
Preference Preference weightage
1st preference (P1) Pw1
2nd preference (P2) Pw2
3rd preference (P3) Pw3
Note: n= total number of respondents
Vol. 22, No. 1 / January 2018 − 331 −
al., 2013). By traffic conflict analysis technique and traffic
survey, they describe the relationship between events of the
conflicts and the velocity of parked vehicles and non-motorized
vehicles, bicycles, and e-bike volume, the width of the bicycle
lane, which designate the level of service of the curbside parking
facility. Smith (Smith, 2013) provides evidence that parking
demand is reduced along the light rail transit line. The minimum
parking demand in off-season also estimated from this study. The
result of parking demand helps the planner to construct or
improve any parking lot to maximize the efficiency of that lot.
Some particular area of concerns has been identified for
evaluating the parking problems in Kolkata. The condition of the
parking of the Kolkata also discussed is a study (Remo et al.,
2015). The performance on-street parking estimated based on
automated parking transaction data (Cats et al., 2016). They
introduce a survey methodology which measures the impacts of
on-street parking. The survey method compares variables, including
their temporary variables. Shaaban et al. (2016) carried out a
study on factors affecting parking choice in Qatar. The study
aims to find out the most significant parameters for selecting a
parking area using classification tree analysis. Four parking areas
have been considered, and the study shown walking distance
from the parking area to destination plays the most significant
role in selecting a parking area.
Very few works have been done till now worldwide in the field
of parking LOS estimation. This study aims to estimate LOS of
the on-street parking by in incorporating some new variable like
the distance between two consecutive parked vehicles (AS). The
detailed estimation methodology to find out LOS in discussed in
the next section.
3. Methodology
The overall LOS equation is developed using users’ perception
data. AHP process is used to estimate the co-efficient of PC, SC,
and DC and formulate an overall LOS equation. AHP is a
decision-making tool to find the weight of different elements
hierarchically. The responses for selecting a parking area based
on PC, SC, and DC are collected from a questionnaire survey.
Selecting a parking area based on PC, SC and DC priority wise
varies from respondents to respondents, which is shown in Table
4. The coefficient value for PC, SC and DC are found out in five
Priority vector
∑ n( Preference weightage of P1 )
Pw1 = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n
∑ n( Preference weightage of P2 )
Pw2 = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n
∑ n( Preference weightage of P3 )
Pw3 = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n
 Debasish Das and Mokaddes Ali Ahmed

steps using AHP as discussed below: against each preference, and the result is shown in Table 7.
Step I: The first step is to evaluate the priority vector of the
ai j
preferences indicated by the users. The users are also asked to xij = -----------------
3
(5)
rank their preferences. The priority vector for a particular ∑ i = 1aij
preference is evaluated by taking the average of priority of all the Where, i = parking selection criteria
data which is shown in Table 1. The result is shown in Table 5. j = Parking preference
Step II: The second step is to create the comparison matrix xij = (i,j)th element of normalized matrix
[Ai] for each preference from Eq. (1). The result is indicated in aij = (i, j)th element of Eigenvector
Table 6. The questionnaire survey record preference wise For example: the elements of the normalized matrix for P1, i.e.
selecting a parking are by the respondents. j = 1 are obtained using the following steps
a
11
wi 1 w i 1 w i 1 When, i = 1, x11 = -----------------------------
-
------- ------- ------- a11 + a21 + a31
wi 1 w i 2 w i 3
a
w
Ai = ------i-2 w w
------i-2 ------i-2 (1) 21
When, i = 2, x21 = -----------------------------
-
wi 1 w i 2 w i 3 a11 + a21 + a31
wi 3 w i 3 w i 3
------- ------- ------- a
wi 1 w i 2 w i 3 31
When, i = 3, x31 = -----------------------------
-
a11 + a21 + a31
Where, i = preference sequence
When, Similarly, the element of the normalized matrix for P2 (j = 2)
i = 1, i.e. at P1 and P3 (j = 3) also estimated and shown in Table 8.
W11 = Frequency of choosing PC as first preference Consistence Index (CI) and Consistence Ratio (CR) are calculated
W12 = Frequency of choosing SC as first preference to validate the AHP result. CI for each variable and overall
W13 = Frequency of choosing DC as first preference hierarchy can be obtained by hand calculation. Initially, each
Similarly, column of the judgment matrix is added. Then multiplication of
i = 2, the sum of the first column with the value of the first component
W21 = Frequency of choosing PC as second preference of the normalized priority vector, the sum of the second column
W22 = Frequency of choosing SC as second preference by that of the second component and so on. CI is divided by the
W23 = Frequency of choosing DC as second preference Random Consistence (RC) to obtain CR. The CR value should
i= 3, be around 10% or less to be acceptable. But in some cases the
W31 = Frequency of choosing PC as third preference CR value 20% may also be acceptable, but above 20% is not
W32 = Frequency of choosing SC as third preference acceptable. In this case, the calculation needs to be revised. The
W33 = Frequency of choosing DC as third preference result is shown in Table 9.
Step III: The third step is to calculate the Eigenvector [ Xik ] Step V: the global priority matrix is obtained from the matrix
component for each parking preference by the following multiplication of the normalized matrix in step IV for each
equations. Eq. (2), Eq. (3) and Eq. (4) are used to find out the facility and priority vector matrix in step I. The result is indicated
Eigenvector for P1, P2 and P3 respectively, and the result is shown in Section 7.
in Table 7. The global priority matrix is the values for the coefficients PC,
SC, and DC. The overall LOS is computed using Eq. (6).
w w w
ai 1 = 3 ------i-1 × ------i-1 × ------i-1 (2) Variable selection: The variables, like volume to capacity ratio
w i 1 wi 2 w i 3
(V/C ratio), Average Parking Space Utilization Rate (APSUR),
w w w Average Parking Fee (APF), Average Ease Time (AET), Parking
ai 2 = 3 ------i-2 × ------i-2 × ------i-2 (3)
w i 2 wi 2 w i 3 Turnover Rate (PTR); Number of Vehicles Per Fee Collector
(VPFC), availability of lighting (L); Average Spacing (AS) are
w w w
ai 3 = 3 ------i-3 × ------i-3 × ------i-3 (4) considered to estimate PC, SC and DC respectively. For on-street
w i 1 wi 2 w i 3
parking, quality of the parking facility largely depends on space
Where, i = parking criteria availability, the capacity of the parking area and the number of
When, i =1, indicates PC fee collector. It is observed that the distance between two
And similarly i = 2, indicates SC and i = 3, indicates DC consecutive parked vehicles is not maintained in the study area.
Where, Khanna and Justo (1991) recommended AS of 0.9 m. Due to
ai1 = Eigenvector of P1, ai2 = Eigenvector of P2, ai3 = Eigenvector lack of space, AS sometimes reduces even up to 0.05 meter. The
of P3 state government has assigned some private organizations to
Step IV: The fourth step is to compute the normalized matrix manage the on-street parking in KMA. These organizations
for each preference from Eq. (5). The normalized matrix is formed appointed fee collectors to collect the revenue for parking. As
to estimate the individual weightage value for each parking criteria most of the parking areas are parallel parking, so distance

− 332 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Level of Service for On-street Parking

Table 2. Selected Variables for Each Parking Criteria

Parking selection criteria Variables Unit
Volume to capacity ratio (V/C ratio) Unit less
Average parking space utilization rate (APSUR) Unit less
PC Average parking fee (APF) INR
Average ease time (AET) Minute
Parking turnover rate (PTR) Vehicle/hour/bay
Number of vehicles per fee collector (VPFC) Vehicle per fee collector
SC
Availability of lighting (L) LUX
DC Average spacing (AS) Meter

covered by per fee collector is in terms of no. of vehicles. In
actual scenario, the fee collectors operate the parking area and
instruct the drivers to park their vehicles. The fee collectors try to
increase the no. of vehicle parked in their designated area by
reducing the distance between two successive vehicles to
generate more revenue. Many times it is observed that the fee
collectors used to adjust the parked vehicle manually to
accommodate more vehicles. While taking out the vehicles,
sometimes it is observed that the vehicle used to collide with the
front or the rear vehicles. This decreases the safety of the parked
vehicle and also reduces the LOS of the parking area. So this
parameter is taken as safety parameter. Parking fee is more or
less fixed throughout the day in the study area. But in some
locations, it varies during peak demand hours and festival times.
The summary of the selected variables is indicated in Table 2.
The data of each variable selected under each parking
characteristics (Table 2) are grouped into four categories/ranges.
This is done by K-Means Clustering Analysis in SPSS. The
boundary values that are obtained from the cluster analysis are
used to establish the range of each LOS category. These clustered

Fig. 1. Methodology Flow Chart

Vol. 22, No. 1 / January 2018 − 333 −

 Debasish Das and Mokaddes Ali Ahmed
Fig. 2. Survey Locations and Study Area
values are then converted to dimensionless values (described in
section 7.3). The mean of the dimensionless values of the
variables for each parking characteristics are used as PC value,
SC value and the DC value in the AHP equation (Eq. (6)).
Finally, the overall LOS of the on-street parking is estimated.
Various types of survey viz. parking inventory survey, In-out
survey, License plate survey and questionnaire surveys are
conducted for data collection of the above mentioned variables.
The detailed of survey techniques are discussed in Section 6.
5. Study Area Selection
Four locations in the KMA are chosen as the case study areas
on the basis of the intensity and type of land use and on-street
parking scenario. The CBD in Kolkata is distributed over a large
space and not concentrated in a particular location like other
cities. Keeping the fact in mind, on-street parking is considered
based on work trips and shopping trips. Four major CBDs from
KMA are selected based on trip purpose. Dalhousie is primarily
office areas, Gariahat is shopping area and Park Street and
Camac Street are a combination of work and shopping trips. The
locations of the CBDs are indicated in Fig. 2.
6. Survey Techniques
Four types of surveys were carried out in this study. Parking
inventory survey, in-out survey, license plate survey and
− 334 −
questionnaire surveys are carried out at each location to collect
the data of selected variables. The following survey techniques
have been conducted for data collection.
The parking inventory survey: It is a method to study the
existing scenario of the on-street parking viz. parking facility, the
capacity of the area, etc. Distometer is used to estimate the
existing parking area in the parking lot.
In-out survey: This technique is used to determine the
accumulation and the occupancy of the parking area. This survey
is used to determine the occupancy of the parking lot. Initial
occupancy of the parking lot is taken. The number of vehicles
entering and leaving for a particular time interval is counted.
Finally, occupancy of that lot is also taken. The labour required
for this survey is very less. Only one person is enough to conduct
this survey.
Initially, a parking area is chosen. The area is divided into
subsequent sections for easiness in conducting the survey. The
parking bays are marked as 1, 2, 3,…., n, for each section. After
setting up, the survey is conducted both manually and video
graphically. The data obtained are transferred to Excel sheet and
the parking accumulation and occupancy are obtained from the
excel sheet.
License plate survey: Parking duration, parking turnover, and
parking fee are estimated from this survey. Each parking bay is
to be monitored at a continuous interval of 15 minutes, and the
license plate number is noted. If the time interval is minimized,
the chances of missing short-term parkers will be lessened. But
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Level of Service for On-street Parking

Table 3. Types of Surveys for Data Collection of Selected Variables

Sl. No Name of the survey
1 Parking inventory survey
2 In-out survey
3 License plate survey
4 Questionnaire survey
Data collected for Variables
Number of vehicles per fee collector (VPFC), Availability of lightning (L)
Volume to capacity ratio (V/C ratio), Parking turnover rate (PTR), Average spacing (AS)
Average parking space utilization rate (APSUR)
Average parking fee (APF), Average ease time (AET)

Table 4. Number of Respondents’ Response for Selecting a Park-
ing Lot
Parking PC SC DC
P1 285(W11) 91(W12) 24(W13)
P2 83(W21) 168(W22) 149(W23)
P3 32(W31) 141(W32) 227(W33)
Note: 285, 91, 24 are assigned as W11,W12, W13 respectively, and so on
for easy to understand the calculations in later stages.
this method is very labor intensive. The parking duration for a
particular vehicle in a bay is estimated. The parking fee is
estimated based on the parking duration.
Questionnaire survey: The questionnaire survey is conducted
in all the survey locations. A qualitative and quantitative analysis
is carried out to understand the situation of the existing parking
and mode choice. Willingness to pay survey is also conducted to
understand the users’ requirement for mode shift from private
vehicle to public transit. The questionnaire consists of 4 major
groups such as Personal Details, Trip Characteristics, Parking
Characteristics and Parking Location Choice. The data are
arranged on Excel and the analyses are carried out by using
SPSS.
Survey method(s) for collecting data for above mentioned
variables are shown in Table 3.
The questionnaire survey is conducted to get a glimpse of
parkers’ characteristics for choosing a parking area on the basis
of PC, SC, and DC (Section 4). Collected data from all locations
are grouped together. The respondents’ response is recorded and
presented in Table 4.
7. Result and Discussion
The estimated results from AHP, Clustering analysis, and zero
dimension process are shown in this section.
Result from AHP analysis: Stepwise (Section 4) result from
AHP analysis is shown below.
Step I: The weightage given by the respondents to their
preference for selecting a parking area on the basis of PC, SC
Table 5. Result of Priority Vector
Preference weightage Priority vector
Pw1 0.75
Pw2 0.19
Pw3 0.06
and DC. The result of priority vector is shown below in Table 5.
It is observed from Table 5 that the total weightage to first
preference is 75 percent, i.e the weightage given by the
respondents for P1 while selecting a parking area on the basis of
PC, SC, and DC is 75 percent. Similarly, it is 19 percent and 6
percent for P2 and P3 respectively.
Step II: The computed comparison matrix is shown in Table 6.
It is observed from Table 6 that the users prefer the PC,
approximately 3.1 and 11.87 times more than SC and DC
respectively as their first preference. It is found from Table 6 that
for P2, SC is more significant than PC and DC. Preference of SC
is 2.02 and 1.13 times more than that of the PC and DC
respectively.
Step III: Eigenvector for each PC, SC and DC are calculated
against each parking preference. The calculated result is shown
in Table 7.
Step four: The elements of the normalized matrix for each
preference is estimated from Eq. (5) and the result are shown
below in Table 8.
It is observed from Table 8, a weightage of 0.7125 is given to
PC against P1, where a weightage of 0.2075 and 0.0800 is given
for P2 and P3. Similarly, the weightage value is also found for SC
and DC for respective P1, P2 and P3.
CR is needed to be estimated and validate to justify the
estimation from AHP analysis. The result is shown below.
Where,
lmax = largest Eigen value
n = no of elements being compared (here, n = 3, i.e. PC, SC
and DC)
CI = Consistency Index
CR = Consistency Ratio

Table 6. Comparison Matrix for Each Parking Selected Criteria Against Each Preference
Parking selection P1 P2 P3
criteria PC SC DC PC SC DC PC SC DC
PC 1 3.1319 11.875 1 0.494 0.55705 1 0.227 0.14097
SC 0.3193 1 3.79167 2.0241 1 1.12752 4.4063 1 0.62115
DC 0.0842 0.2637 1 1.7952 0.8869 1 7.0938 1.6099 1

Vol. 22, No. 1 / January 2018 − 335 −

 Debasish Das and Mokaddes Ali Ahmed

Table 7. Calculated Eigen Vectors Table 9. Validation by CI and CR Estimation

Parking selection Parking preference CI
Parking λmax – n CR = ------- in
criteria P1 P2 P3 λmax cI = ----------------
- RC
PC 3.4260 0.7520 0.1585
preference n–1
percentage
SC 1.0107 1.0170 2.3643 P1 3.0007 0.00035 0.06
DC 0.2888 1.3075 2.6670 P2 3.0002 0.00010 0.017
Table 8. Result of Normalized Matrix Calculation P3 3.0005 0.00025 0.043

Parking selection Parking preference

criteria P1 P2 P3
0.06 percent, 0.017 percent, and 0.043 percent respectively. As
PC 0.7125 0.2075 0.0800
the value of CR is less than 10 percent, this result is acceptable.
SC 0.2275 0.4200 0.3525
Step five:
DC 0.0600 0.3725 0.5675
0.7125 0.2075 0.0800 0.75 0.58
Y = 0.2275 0.4200 0.3525 × 0.19 = 0.27
RC = Random Consistency = 0.58 for n= 3
It is found from Table 9 that the CR value for P1, P2 and P3 is 0.0600 0.3725 0.5675 0.06 0.15

Table 10. Result of Clustering Analysis

Variable Unit Cluster center Boundary value
V/C ratio Unit less 0.40, 0.77, 1.07, 1.23 0.59, .92, 1.15
APSUR Unit less 0.29, 0.52, 0.71, 0.92 0.41, 0.62, 0.82
APF INR 20,55,89,121 38,72,105
AET Minute 2, 4, 6 10 3, 5, 8
PTR Vehicle/hour/bay 1.32,0.84, 0.58, 0.36 1.08,0.71,0.47
VPFC Vehicle/person 6,10,14,18 8,12,16
L Lux 3.87,12.23,27.55,38.33 8.05,19.89,32.94
AS Meter 0.16, 0.54, 1.06, 1.70 0.35, 0.80,1.38

Table 11. Results of K-S Analysis

Variables Classification K-S Z value Gradual significance both ends Test of difference
T1, T2 5.252 0.000 Significant
V/C ratio T2,T3 6.838 0.000 Significant
T3,T4 8.888 0.000 Significant
T1, T2 3.922 0.000 Significant
APSUR T2,T3 4.602 0.000 Significant
T3,T4 6.162 0.000 Significant
T1, T2 7.242 0.000 Significant
APF T2,T3 5.577 0.000 Significant
T3,T4 4.550 0.000 Significant
T1, T2 6.047 0.000 Significant
AET T2,T3 4.953 0.000 Significant
T3,T4 3.862 0.000 Significant
T1, T2 4.705 0.000 Significant
PTR T2,T3 8.776 0.000 Significant
T3,T4 8.615 0.000 Significant
T1, T2 3.606 0.000 Significant
VPFC T2,T3 3.950 0.000 Significant
T3,T4 4.721 0.000 Significant
T1,T2 8.832 0.000 Significant
L T2,T3 5.797 0.000 Significant
T3,T4 4.671 0.000 Significant
T1, T2 4.392 0.000 Significant
AS T2,T3 5.932 0.000 Significant
T3,T4 8.643 0.000 Significant

− 336 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Level of Service for On-street Parking

Table 12. Classification of LOS Based on Clustering Analysis

LOS classification
Parking selection criteria Variables
LOSA LOS B LOS C LOS D
V/C ratio 0-0.59 0.59-0.92 0.92-1.15 1.15-2
APSUR 0-0.41 0.41-0.62 0.62-0.82 0.82-1
PC APF 0-38 38-72 72-105 105-240
AET 0-3 3-5 5-8 8-20
PTR 3-1.08 1.08-0.71 0.71-0.47 0.47-0
VPFC 0-8 8-12 12-16 16-30
SC
L 100-32.94 32.94-19.89 19.89-8.05 8.05-0
DC AS 3-1.38 1.38-0.80 0.80-0.35 0.35-0

Table 13. Variable Zero Dimensionless Process Based on LOS Classification

LOS category A B C D
Dimensionless Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min
Value 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.25 0
V/C ratio* 0 0.59 0.59 0.92 0.92 1.15 1.15 2
APSUR* 0 0.41 0.41 0.62 0.62 0.82 0.82 1
APF* 0 38 38 72 72 105 105 240
AET* 0 3 3 5 5 8 8 20
VPFC* 0 8 8 12 12 16 16 30
PTR** 3 1.08 1.08 0.71 0.71 0.47 .47 0
L** 100 32.94 32.94 19.89 19.89 8.05 8.05 0
AS** 3 1.38 1.38 0.80 0.80 0.35 0.35 0
Note: * = Smaller the value, better the LOS and ** = Larger the value, better the LOS

LOS of parking area =
( 0.58 × PC ) + ( 0.27 × SC ) + ( 0.15 × DC )
Result from Clustering analysis: Variables like, V/C ratio,
APSUR, APF, AET, PTR, VPFC, L and S are considered in
evaluating LOS of on-street parking. Various surveys are conducted
for collecting data for these variables (Table 3). The data collected
from all locations are clubbed together and K-Means Clustering
analysis is carried out with SPSS to standardize the range of the
individual variables. K-Means Clustering analysis is a process to
classify data in some groups based on their nearest mean. The
variables are classified in four groups viz. LOS A, LOS B, LOS
C and LOS D. Result of clustering analysis is given in Table 10.
Table 10 gives a result of clustering centers and boundary
value of individual variables. Clustering centers are the mean
value of individual cluster, i.e. for this study. LOS A, LOS B,
LOS C and LOS D are designated as excellent, good, fair and
poor. For example, the collected data to estimate the cluster
centers for APF, four clusters are generated based on input data
for the different cluster. INR 20, INR 55, INR 89 and INR 121
are four cluster centers for LOS A, LOS B, LOS C and LOS D
respectively. From this cluster center, three boundary values are
also generated, i.e. INR 38, INR 72 and INR 105. The subsequent
analyses have been conducted based on these boundary values.
The values are also used to standardize the APF for LOS
category.
After finding out the cluster centers and cluster boundary, K-S
(Kolmogorov-Smirnov) analysis is carried out to find out the
independence of each cluster class. The result of the K-S analysis
is indicated in Table 11.
(6)
Based on the cluster analysis result, the designated range of
each variable at each LOS level is set up. The result is shown in
Table 12.
It is observed from above table that, if the APF is less than INR
38 then it falls in LOS A category. If the APF is in the range of
INR 38 to INR 72, INR 72 to INR 105 and INR 105 to INR 240,
then it situated in LOS B, LOS C, and LOS D respectively.
Similarly, the range wise categorical class is set up in Table 12
for each variable.
7.2.1 LOS Classification and Zero Dimensional Process
Four LOS categories are assigned a range of values between 0
to 1 equally subdivided with an interval of 0.25 i.e., LOS A is
assigned a range of 1 to 0.75, LOS B has a range of 0.75 to 0.5
and so on which is termed as a zero dimension process. The
result is indicated in Table 13 (shown in the shaded portion). The
variables are converted to the unit less value using this process
and the clustering values for each variable are computed using
the interpolation method (Eq. (7)). The interpolation method is
used for a detailed estimation of each CBD.
( y 2 – y1 )
y = y1 + -----------------
- ( x – x1 ) (7)
( x 2 – x1 )
Where,
y = Computed dimensionless value
y1 = Minimum dimensionless value assigned for each LOS

Vol. 22, No. 1 / January 2018 − 337 −

 Debasish Das and Mokaddes Ali Ahmed

category values are then compared with the standardize values (Table 12
y2 = Maximum dimensionless value assigned for each LOS and Table 13) to determine the overall LOS. The LOS levels are
category varied from time to time of a day. The individual LOS for each
x1 = Lower limit of individual variable for each LOS category location is estimated at various times i.e. morning time (07:00 to
x2 = Upper limit of individual variable for each LOS category 12:00), afternoon time (12:00 to 18:00) and evening time (18:00
x = Estimated data for each variable from respective survey to 20:00) and indicated in Table 15.
The LOS category for the parking area in the Dalhousie area in
Table 13 shows that, the variables are converted into a fixed
the morning is B. As the office time starts, the parking demand
dimensionless maximum and minimum value for a particular
increases and the LOS reduce to category C and remain
level of service. For an example, if the V/ C ratio is 0.92, than the
unchanged throughout the afternoon. In the evening time when
dimensionless value will be 0.50, and if V/C ratio is 1.15 the
the office gets over, the LOS of the area again returns to B
dimensionless value is 0.25. Any value (for V/C ratio) lies
category. In Gariahat area, the maximum users are visiting this
between 0.92 and 1.15 V/C ratio, the dimensionless value is
area in the afternoon brings down the LOS of the parking area
calculated by interpolation method (Eq. (7)). Suppose, the V/C
from B to C category. It again returns to LOS B after 19:00
ratio is 1, the dimensionless value will be 0.413. Similarly, all the
hours. In the Park Street area, some schools are situated. All
clustering values for each variable are converted into dimension
schools are starting more or less the same time in the morning
less value. These results are used to determine the individual
time. In the morning time, due to less traffic, the LOS is found to
LOS for PC, SC, and DC.
be of A category. LOS B is reduced to LOS C in the afternoon
time due to the high demand of closing of schools and starting of
7.2.2 Average Value
the shopping season. The Camac Street is a combination of
Average of the dimensionless value of the variables for each
shopping and work trips. Though very few offices are located at
parking criteria is estimated to find out PC, SC, and DC which
this location, it still creates a huge parking demand in this CBD
are shown in Table 14.
area due to the insufficient transit system. Though LOS B is
The estimated average values of PC, SC and DC from the
observed in the morning time, but later, due to the closing of the
above table are used in Eq. (6) to get the overall LOS.
offices and starting of shopping hours, the LOS C is observed for
After setting up the standard value for each variable, the data
the rest of the day. A detailed calculation of LOS estimation of
set for individual location are estimated. The individual location
Dalhousie area is shown in Appendix A. Similarly, the LOS for
other CBDs is also estimated.
Table 14. Average Value Calculation
Parking selection 8. Conclusions
Average value
criteria
v A comprehensive parking LOS method is developed in this
-- ratio + APSUR + APF + AET + PTR
PC c study. The LOS is estimated by combining three parking
PC = -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 selection criteria, namely PC, SC and DC. Important variables
VPFC + L for each selection criteria are selected and evaluated to compare
SC SC = ------------------------
2 with the standardize table (Table 12 and Table 13). Four LOS
DC DC = AS categories viz. LOS A (excellent), LOS B (good), LOS C (fair)
and LOS D (poor) are defined based on the index value of each
Table 15. Overall Estimated LOS for All Selected Location’s Time variable, which are estimated based on the users’ perception
Wise data. AHP, clustering analysis, and zero dimension process are
Estimated overall tried to standardize the value for each variable. It is found from
Locations Time LOS value
LOS the study that the LOS is changing from CBD to CBD and from
07:00 to 12:00 0.63 LOS B time to time. The LOS of the Dalhousie is in the category of B in
Dalhousie 12:00 to 18:00 0.39 LOS C the morning and evening time. Whereas it is reduces to category
18:00 to 20:00 0.51 LOS B C in the afternoon time. Similarly, the LOS for others CBDs also
07:00 to 12:00 0.59 LOS B estimated on different time. The LOS estimation techniques used
Gariahat 12:00 to 18:00 0.44 LOS C in the study can be effectively used by the policy maker for
18:00 to 20:00 0.62 LOS B estimating the existing on-street parking LOS and accordingly
07:00 to 12:00 0.56 LOS B appropriate measures may be adopted for smooth service. The
Park street 12:00 to 18:00 0.37 LOS C on-street parking LOS varies with respect to location, time and
18:00 to 20:00 0.56 LOS B overall parking policy adopted for an urban CBD. The standard
07:00 to 12:00 0.57 LOS B AS is 0.9 m. But, due to lack of space, the calculated LOS is
Camac street 12:00 to 18:00 0.40 LOS C reduced which is the limitation of this study area. Some new
18:00 to 20:00 0.42 LOS C variables like, climatic condition, preference of car over transit,

− 338 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Level of Service for On-street Parking

mode shift from car to public transit etc. may also be considered Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 111-125.
for estimating the LOS, which have not been considered in the Moeinaddini, M., Asadi-Shekari, Z., Ismail, C. R., and Shah, M. Z.
present study. (2013). “A practical method for evaluating parking area level of
service.” Land Use Policy, Vol. 33, pp. 1-10, DOI: 10.1016/
j.landusepol.2012.11.014.
Acknowledgements Rome, P. and Mukherjee, S. (2015). “Car parking-a perennial problem
of kolkata.” International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
We take this opportunity to express my deep sense of gratitude ISSN: 2319-7064, Vol. 4, Issue 6, pp. 2583-2587.
to thanks Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMA) for allowing us Saaty, T. L. and Kearns, K. P. (1985). “Analytical planning: The organization
to conduct various types of surveys at various study locations. of system.” (International series in modern applied mathematics and
We also want to thank M. Tech students, Mr. Sudeep Biswas and computer science, v. 7). Peegamon Press Ltd.
Mr. Saptarshi Sen for their help in data collection. Shaaban, K. and Pande, A. (2015). “Classification tree analysis of factors
affecting parking choices in Qatar.” Case Studies on Transport Policy.
Shiftan, Y. and Burd-Eden, R. (2000). “Modelling the response to
Notations parking policy.” Presented at TRB (Transportation Research Board)
2001 Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, DOI: 10.3141/1765-05.
AET = Average ease time Shoup Donald (2007). “Cruising for parking.” Available, http://shoup.
APF = Average parking fee bol.ucla.edu/CruisingForParkingAccess.pdf.
APSUR = Average parking space utilization rate Smith, A. (2013). “Parking utilization in neighbourhood shopping
AS = Average spacing centers on transit routes in san jose, california: are minimum parking
CBD = Central Business District requirements too high?.” Transportation Research Record: Journal
of the Transportation Research Board, (2359), pp. 27-35, DOI:
DC = Design Characteristics
10.3141/2359-04.
INR = Indian Rupee Smith, M. S. (1985). “Parking Standards.” Parking: The Magazine of
L= Availability of lightning the Parking Industry, Vol. 24, No. 4, (July-August, 1985).
LOS = Level Of Service Smith, M. S. (1996). Crime prevention through environmental design in
PTR = Parking turnover rate parking facilities, US Department of Justice, Office of Justice
PC = Parking Characteristics Programs, National Institute of Justice.
SC = Safety Characteristics Smith, M. S. and Thomas A. Butcher (2008). “How Far Should Parkers
V/C ratio = Volume to capacity ratio Have to Walk?.” Parking, Vol. 47, No. 4 .
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2011). “Parking Evaluation—
VPFC = Number of vehicles per fee collector
Evaluating Parking Problems, Solutions, Costs, and Benefits”.
Report updated October 11, 2011.
References Yang, H., Hao, S., and Lei, W. (2010). “Research on the Improvement of
Urban Public Car Park Level of Service.” Transport Standardization
Cats, O., Zhang, C., and Nissan, A. (2016). “Survey methodology for May, pp. 87-90.
measuring parking occupancy: Impacts of an on-street parking Ye, X., Chen, J., Wang, T., Zheng, J., and Zhang, H. (2013). October.
pricing scheme in an urban center.” Transport Policy, Vol. 47, “Level of Service of Curbside Parking Facilities Based on Parking
pp. 55-63, DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.12.008. Accessibility.” In Fourth International Conference on Transportation
Dong, H. Y. and Wang, Q. P. (2009). “The level of the car park service Engineering, DOI: 10.1061/9780784413159.318.
evaluation research based on fuzzy theory [J].” Technology & Yu, J. C. and Lincoln, A. R. (1973). “Parking Facility Layout: Level-of-
Economy in Areas of Communications, Vol. 6, pp. 14-17. Service Approach.” Journal of the Transportation Engineering
He, Y., Sun, X., Du, L., Jinmei, R., and Das, S. (2012). September. “Level of Division, Vol. 99, No. 2, pp. 297-306.
service for parking facilities.” In Intelligent Transportation Systems
(ITSC), 2012 15th International IEEE Conference on (pp. 1161-
1165). IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/ITSC.2012.6338914.
Appendix
Kay, B. and Smith, M. S. (2000). The level of service approach, France:
France Publications, Inc. Case study of Dalhousie area
Keese, C. L. (1964). “Highway Capacity the Level of Service Concept
(Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M)”. Table 16. Collected Data for Each Variable from Field Survey for
Khanna, S. K. and Justo, C. E. G. (1991). Highway engineering, Nem Dalhousie
Chand & Bros. Variables 07:00 to 12:00 12:00 to 18:00 18:00 to 20:00
Kolkata Municipal Corporation (2000). Parking policy in Kolkata V/C ratio 0.90 1.33 0.84
Metropolitan Area (KMA).” Report, Available: http://www.cseindia. APSUR 0.48 0.94 0.64
org/userfiles/Parking%20Policy_KMDA.pdf. APF INR 68
Kononov, J. and Allery, B. (2003). “Level of service of safety: Conceptual AET 2 3 2
blueprint and analytical framework.” Transportation Research Record:
PTR 0.87 0.37 0.26
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1840), pp. 57-66,
VPFC 14 18 14
DOI: 10.3141/1840-07.
Mildner, G. C., Strathman, J. G., and Bianco, M. J. (1997). “Parking L Day paring Day parking 10.5
policies and commuting behaviour.” Transportation Quarterly, AS 1.10 0.16 1.70

Vol. 22, No. 1 / January 2018 − 339 −

 Debasish Das and Mokaddes Ali Ahmed

Table 17. Dimensionless Value for Each Variable for Dalhousie Table 18. Average of Dimensionless Value for Each Parking
Variables 07:00 to 12:00 12:00 to 18:00 18:00 to 20:00 Selection Criteria for Dalhousie
V/C ratio 0.52 0.02 0.56 Parking Time
APSUR 0.67 0.08 0.48 characteristics 07:00 to 12:00 12:00 to 18:00 18:00 to 20:00
APF 0.47 PC 0.61 0.34 0.49
AET 0.80 0.75 0.80 SC 0.69 0.625 0.34
PTR 0.61 0.02 0.14 DC 0.63 0.14 0.89
VPFC 0.38 0.25 0.38
L 1 1 0.30 Table 19. Estimated Overall LOS for Dalhousie
AS 0.63 0.14 0.89 Time LOS value Designated LOS
07:00 to 12:00 0.63 LOS B
12:00 to 18:00 0.39 LOS C
18:00 to 20:00 0.51 LOS B

− 340 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering