Residential parking permits and parking supply

Ommeren, Jos van; Groote, Jesper de; Mingardo, Giuliano

doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2013.11.003

Cited by 42 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Every year of waiting-list duration decreases car ownership by about 2 percentage points, which implies a price elasticity of car demand of −0.8. The (implicit) subsidy of a parking permit (with an average waiting duration of one year) induces an annual deadweight loss of about € 270 per permit, which is close to earlier findings by Van Ommeren et al (2014). However, we measure residential parking demand, while the latter paper focusses on parking supply near shopping centers and ignores further indirect welfare implications of residential parking, like the loss of product variety in shops because of less convenient visitor parking, as suggested by Molenda and Sieg (2013).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 71%

“…For example, a recent study by Van Ommeren et al (2014) for the Netherlands suggests that this elasticity is around one. Given a unit elasticity, the car supply function can be written as: ( ) = 0 + ( − 0 )( ⁄ ).…”

Section: Parking Policy and Welfarementioning

confidence: 99%

“…We have seen in Table 7 that the price elasticity tends to be higher for households with higher household incomes, which implies that especially high-income households contribute to this welfare loss. It is interesting to compare this estimate to the welfare loss of parking permit provision estimated by Van Ommeren et al (2014). In this study, parking supply elasticities have been estimated in 275 main shopping areas in the Netherlands.…”

Section: Parking Policy and Welfarementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Car Ownership and Residential Parking Subsidies: Evidence from Amsterdam

Groote¹,

Ommeren

Koster

2015

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. SUMMARY -Many cities around the world have introduced paid parking but implicitly subsidize parking for example by providing residential parking permits for street parking. We study the welfare effects of residential parking subsidies through changes in car ownership for Amsterdam. We employ a boundary-discontinuity design that exploits spatial variation in the length of waiting lists for permits and therefore in the size of the parking subsidy. In the city center, the waiting time for a permit is up to four years. Our results indicate that one additional year of waiting for a parking permit reduces car ownership with 2 percentage points corresponding to a price elasticity of car demand of −0.8. We demonstrate that subsidizing residential parking induces a substantial welfare loss. On average, a parking permit induces an annual deadweight loss of € 270. Terms of use: Documents inFurthermore, we show that the provision of parking permits is an income-regressive policy: rich households are five times more likely than poor households to receive these (implicit) parking subsidies.JEL-code -R20, R40, R42

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Section: Parking Policy and Welfarementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Parking Policy and Welfarementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Car Ownership and Residential Parking Subsidies: Evidence from Amsterdam

Groote¹,

Ommeren

Koster

2015

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fei [24] concluded that parking in residential areas is regular, and their study showed that the parking rate of residential land presented a stable change trend within 10% of the number of parking spaces in the working period and rest day; Zhen [25] established a two-level programming induction model based on shared parking in the residential area, it was used to measure whether the guidance service can realize the balanced utilization of regional parking resources and whether shared parking was feasible; Jian [26] established the optimal allocation model of shared berth resources in residential areas. Ommeren [27], Inga [28], and others proposed the problems of parking lot utilization and parking space sharing in residential areas, but did not involve specific research on sharing implementation.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Risk and Benefit on the Suppliers’ and Managers’ Intention of Shared Parking in Residential Areas

Jin

Yang

et al. 2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shared parking is not commonly applied in residential areas. The reason is that parking suppliers and managers believe that there are many uncertainties and conflicts in obtaining sharing benefits and taking sharing risks. To increase their acceptance of shared parking in residential areas, risk and benefit factors were identified by an influential analysis and a questionnaire survey. A research framework based on the structural equation model was developed to analyze the relationship between shared-parking risks, shared-parking benefits, management pressure, and intentions of parking suppliers and managers. The results showed that, to parking suppliers, the risks of shared parking have the largest effect on suppliers' intention to apply shared parking by a standardized coefficient of −0.85, followed by the benefits of shared parking (0.29), and management pressures (−0.14). To the parking managers, management pressures have the largest effect on managers' intention to apply shared parking by a standardized coefficient of −0.74, followed by the benefits of shared parking (0.52) and risks of shared parking (−0.46). These results can help in increasing parking suppliers' and managers' acceptance of shared parking in residential areas.

show abstract

“…1 In the US, on-street parking prices tend to be lower than prices of off-street parking offered by commercial providers. In European countries such as the Netherlands, on-street and off-street prices are about equal, as documented by Van Ommeren et al (2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Car ownership and residential parking subsidies: Evidence from Amsterdam

Groote

Ommeren

Koster

2016

Economics of Transportation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY -Many cities around the world have introduced paid parking but implicitly subsidize parking for example by providing residential parking permits for street parking. We study the welfare effects of residential parking subsidies through changes in car ownership for Amsterdam. We employ a boundary-discontinuity design that exploits spatial variation in the length of waiting lists for permits and therefore in the size of the parking subsidy. In the city center, the waiting time for a permit is up to four years. Our results indicate that one additional year of waiting for a parking permit reduces car ownership with 2 percentage points corresponding to a price elasticity of car demand of −0.8. We demonstrate that subsidizing residential parking induces a substantial welfare loss. On average, a parking permit induces an annual deadweight loss of € 270.Furthermore, we show that the provision of parking permits is an income-regressive policy: rich households are five times more likely than poor households to receive these (implicit) parking subsidies.JEL-code -R20, R40, R42

show abstract

Residential parking permits and parking supply

Cited by 42 publications

References 27 publications

Car Ownership and Residential Parking Subsidies: Evidence from Amsterdam

Car Ownership and Residential Parking Subsidies: Evidence from Amsterdam

Impact of Risk and Benefit on the Suppliers’ and Managers’ Intention of Shared Parking in Residential Areas

Car ownership and residential parking subsidies: Evidence from Amsterdam

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About