Henao Impactridehailing 2019

The impact of ride hailing on parking (and vice versa)
Author(s): Alejandro Henao and Wesley E. Marshall

Source: Journal of Transport and Land Use , Vol. 12, No. 1 (2019), pp. 127-147
Published by: Journal of Transport and Land Use
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26911261
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26911261?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Transport and Land Use is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of Transport and Land Use
This content downloaded from

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
T J  T  L U http://jtlu.org
V. 12 N. 1 [2019] pp. 127–147
The impact of ride hailing on parking (and vice versa)

Alejandro Henao Wesley E. Marshall
National Renewable Energy Laboratory University of Colorado Denver
[email protected] [email protected]
Abstract: Investigating emerging transportation services is critical to Article history:

forecasting mode choice and providing appropriate infrastructure. One Received: March 5, 2018
such infrastructure is parking, as parking demand may shift with the Received in revised form:
availability of ride-hailing services. This study uses ethnographic meth- November 15, 2018
ods—complemented with passenger surveys collected when driving for Accepted: December 26, 2018
Uber and Lyft in the Denver, Colorado, region—to gather quantitative Available online: February 18,
and qualitative data on ride-hailing and analyze the impacts of ride- 2019
hailing on parking, including changes in parking demand and parking as
a reason to deter driving. The study also examines relationships between
parking time and cost. This includes building a classification tree-based
model to predict the replaced driving trips as a function of car owner-
ship, destination land type, parking stress, and demographics.
The results suggest that: i) ride-hailing is replacing driving trips
and could reduce parking demand, particularly at land uses such as air-
ports, event venues, restaurants, and bars; ii) parking stress is a key rea-
son respondents chose not to drive; and iii) respondents are generally
willing to pay more for reduced parking time and distance. Conversely,
parking supply, time, and cost can all influence travel behavior and ride-
hailing use. This study provides insight into potential benefits and dis-
advantages of ride-hailing as related to parking.
Keywords: Ride-hailing, ridesourcing, TNC, Uber, Lyft, parking, curb

space management
1 Introduction
This paper focuses on the impacts of ride-hailing on parking, looking at the bi-directional relationship
between these two topics. In other words, does ride-hailing contribute to changes in parking demand?
On the other hand, how does parking stress (i.e., availability, time, and cost) deter driving trips and
encourage ride-hailing use? If ride-hailing replaces driving trips, we should theoretically reduce parking
supply, as more people can access destinations without requiring an accompanying parking space. In
turn, this could facilitate re-allocating parking infrastructure to other needs and land uses.
Obtaining data for independent academic research from ride-hailing companies such as Uber and
Lyft is extremely difficult (Levitt, 2016). Even when these companies agree to share data, the data is
often not adequate for research purposes (Vaccaro, 2016) or does not contain the required information
Copyright 2019 Alejandro Henao & Wesley E. Marshall

http://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2019.1392
ISSN: 1938-7849 | Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Noncommercial License 4.0
The Journal of Transport and Land Use is the official journal of the World Society for Transport and Land Use (WSTLUR)
and is published and sponsored by the University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies.

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00
128 JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT AND LAND USE 12.1
to answer even the most basic research questions. For this study, one of the authors collected data by
serving as an independent-contractor driving for both Uber and Lyft. This type of research combines
ethnography with additional elements—interviews and technology-based data—in order to facilitate
both quantitative and qualitative analysis.
We designed the study to look specifically at ride-hailing trips that otherwise would have needed
parking (e.g., if passengers would have driven their own car or rented a vehicle). For instance, our on-
board passenger survey asked passengers about: i) driving mode replacement in terms of what mode
they would have used if not for Uber or Lyft; and ii) parking as a stated reason to use ride-hailing instead
of another mode. After dropping off the passenger, the driver pretended he needed to park to estimate
“cruising to park” time, parking cost, and the estimated walking time from the parking spot to the final
destination. This combination of data allowed us to assess the relative shift in parking demand and the
contribution of parking as a reason of why someone decides to use ride-hailing.
This paper is divided into the following five sections: literature review, data, methods, results, and
discussion/conclusions. The literature review section contains previous research studies relevant to ride-
hailing and parking. In the data section, we describe in more detail the study design and data collection.
The methods section explains the classification tree-model analysis. We follow with the results section
and finalize the paper with conclusions and a discussion of the bi-directional implications of ride-hailing
and parking in the context of transportation and land use.
2 Literature review
We are beginning to see an increase in academic research related to ride-hailing services. For this study,
we focus on the literature specific to ride-hailing and parking-related outcomes. Since parking is affected
when ride-hailing replaces driving, we also consider how passengers are choosing this service as a new
means of travel and what transportation modes are being replaced. We then review the literature on
parking availability, time, and cost with respect to predicting (encouraging or deterring) driving mode
choice.
We use ethnography as the main data collection method to examine travel behavior of the popula-
tion using ride-hailing in the Denver metro area. Ethnography, as the representation of empirical data
on humans, has been explored thoroughly in biological, social, and cultural studies from anthropology,
and more recently has become widely used in social science (Brewer, 2000; Lewis, 2015). While the
main method of ethnography studies is participant observation, ethnographers also conduct interviews
and surveys (O'Reilly, 2012). While ethnographic studies are not common in transportation science,
it offers valuable insights for understanding phenomena by researchers delving in and studying a topic
from a participatory perspective. Specific to our research, we were able to learn about ride-hailing from
the driver interacting with passengers and collecting both quantitative and qualitative data. Such data
would have been difficult to acquire without becoming a driver for Uber and Lyft.
Regarding ride-hailing research, one of the first case studies looking at passenger travel behavior
changes used an intercept survey to compare taxis, transit, and ride-hailing services in San Francisco
(Rayle, Dai, Chan, Cervero, & Shaheen, 2016). While this study was conducted at an early stage of ride-
hailing entrance in 2014, participants stated that ride-hailing both substitutes and complements public
transit, walking, and biking. Overall, 7% of survey respondents stated that they would have driven, and
8% would not have traveled (i.e., induced travel effect) if ride-hailing services were not available.
A case study in Austin, Texas, surveyed people to examine how their habits changed after Uber and
Lyft left the city due to a local law change requiring driver fingerprinting and background checks. After
Uber and Lyft ceased operation, the researchers found that 41% of respondents shifted to a personal

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00
The impact of ride hailing on parking (and vice versa) 129
vehicle while 3% shifted to public transit. Additionally, 9% of respondents stated that they purchased a
vehicle after the ride-hailing companies left (Hampshire, Simek, Fabusuyi, Di, & Chen, 2017).
More recently, a report surveying over 4,000 adults in major U.S. metropolitan areas found that
21% of adults personally use ride-hailing services. Of those ride-hailing users, 39% were substituting
driving, 15% public transportation, 23% bike or walk, and 22% would not have made the trip (Clew-
low & Mishra, 2017). More relevant to this study, the same report found that 37% of urban ride-hailing
users cite parking issues as their top reason to do so. Second on the list was avoiding driving when drink-
ing (33% of ride-hailing users).
Regarding parking, several studies suggest that parking availability (Guo, 2013; Weinberger, 2012;
Weinberger, Seaman, & Johnson, 2009) and cost (Hess, 2001; Wilson & Shoup, 1990; Wilson, 1992)
are significantly associated with car ownership and mode choice. The higher the parking supply and the
lower the cost to park, the higher the chance of someone owning a car and/or choosing to drive as the
mode of transportation. Parking also poses a problem in terms of cruising for a parking space at destina-
tion locations and the related traffic congestion (Brooke, Ison, & Quddus, 2014; Shoup, 2006).
Recent studies suggest that parking revenues have been declining due to the increase in ride-hailing
use in urban areas (Morris, 2018; Steele, 2018). Airports are also experiencing a similar trend with
changes in ground transportation revenue from parking and other services (Mandle & Box, 2017; Zip-
kin, 2017). More recently, a study of medium to major airports found that parking revenues peaked one
to two years after ride-hailing companies started their service, and a steady decline in parking revenues
followed since then (Henao, Sperling, Garikapati, Hou, & Young, 2018). This has caused some airports
to reconsider parking needs. Developers are similarly beginning to rethink parking, and transportation
professionals continue to suggest a future decline in parking demand as new services and automated
vehicles come into place.
While ride-hailing may negatively impact transportation with increased deadheading (drivers cir-
culating around without passengers), vehicle miles traveled, congestion, and substituting from more sus-
tainable modes such as walking, biking, and public transportation (Clewlow & Mishra, 2017; Henao,
2017; Henao & Marshall, 2018), a positive impact might be found in parking. Parking, with respect
to ride-hailing, presents an opportunity to: i) lower parking generation rates, ii) reduce zoning require-
ments or eliminate minimums with some land uses, and iii) replace parking spaces with different land
uses and economic development opportunities. Changes with ride-hailing and parking could also re-
duce car ownership and personal driving trips.
The literature on ride-hailing remains limited, in part due to the novelty and lack of open data
on these services. Thus, it is difficult for cities and transportation agencies to know what to do when it
comes to emerging services such as ride-hailing. This study aims to begin filling this gap in the literature
by looking in more detail at changes with respect to parking.
3 Data
Realizing the lack of available data from companies such as Uber and Lyft, we decided to collect the
data ourselves by one of us signing up as a driver for both companies. By doing this, we were able to
gain access to exclusive data and interact directly with passengers. To our knowledge, this is the first
independent research that implements an ethnographic approach for ride-hailing data collection with
passengers.
The data was collected in the Denver metropolitan area with a research proposal to interview pas-
sengers that was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (COMIRB Protocol
16-0773, Exception APP001-3). The Denver metropolitan region includes a variety of contexts, cover-
ing both urban and suburban areas. This diversity of characteristics (e.g., density, race diversity, income

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00
levels, etc.) makes the Denver region a good place to study ride-hailing. Our sample is also random by
design since the driver-author did not know where each ride would end up; this entailed driving all
over the study area and providing transportation to passengers across a wide variety of socio-economic
and socio-demographic characteristics. The only location that we had control over is where the app was
turned on at the beginning of the shift. Thus, we varied the starting location from urban to suburban
areas across the metropolitan region. We conducted all the data collection ourselves to eliminate bias be-
tween drivers, to control travel without a passenger (i.e., deadheading minimization), to reduce surveyor
errors, and to ensure data quality.
For data collection, we used a sedan vehicle (2015 Honda Civic) and a smartphone (iPhone 5s).
The main apps in the smartphone used for this research were “Lyft,” “Uber-driver Partner,” “GoogleMaps,”
and “My Tracks” (Figure 1). GoogleMaps and MyTracks GPS apps helped tracking and recording ride-
hailing travel data. For the origin and destination locations, we collected the closest cross streets, rather
than the actual address, to maintain confidentiality. Driving shifts ranged from as low as two hours to as
high as nine hours. All seven days and most times were covered during the study period, but a higher
number of rides came during high demand times such as Friday and Saturday nights, representing typi-
cal ride-hailing services.
Figure 1. Lyft and Uber driver profiles and smartphone apps
We ended up with two inter-connected datasets: i) the ride-hailing driver dataset; and ii) the ride-
hailing passenger dataset. The first is the exclusive data that Uber/Lyft drivers can obtain by giving rides
to passengers. This “driver dataset” contains information with GPS tracking of date, time of day, travel
times, and travel distance (e.g., origin-destination rides). We also collected additional data relevant to
parking, including the cost, time, and distance it would take to find a parking space after passenger drop-
off. We based the parking location as a combination of different passenger rationalities (e.g., free park-
ing, on-street metered parking, and garage parking in special destinations such as stadiums or airports).
We recorded the cruising to park time and distance using the same GPS-based methodology. For the
walking time and distance to final destination, we input the coordinate locations for parking and final
destination (i.e., ride-hailing passenger drop-off) in Google Maps and recorded the estimated walking
time and distance. We then described the destination type as high urban (e.g., central business district or
CBD), general urban, suburban, or special event (e.g., airport, university campus, or stadium).
The “passenger dataset” contains information gathered by surveying passengers during the actual
rides. On a typical day, the driver-author turned on both ride-hailing apps and waited until a passenger

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00
requested a ride. Once a passenger was on board during the ride, he/she was invited to participate in a
short survey about ride-hailing both verbally and with signs in the car that read:
“Hi rider, I am a grad student doing research on transportation. Would you help me by doing a
short survey (~6 minutes) about this ride? You can use my tablet or go to this link www.ride-survey.com.
Thank you!”
As the sign indicated, passengers had the option to take the survey using their own device or via a
tablet device that was provided. In some cases, the driver-author conducted verbal interviews. Once the
ride ended at the destination location, the other app was turned on to wait for a new passenger request.
Once the passenger left the car, the driver-author tried to find the closest parking space available with
the intent to minimize cruising distance without a passenger.
The passenger survey included three groups of questions:
• Specific Trip Questions
The first section asks passengers questions regarding the specific Uber/Lyft ride and includes
questions such as trip purpose, travel mode replacement, and reasons to shift from a previous
mode.
• General Use Questions
The second part of the survey covers broader questions about travel behavior in general such as
modality resources (e.g., car ownership, transit pass, etc.), general ride-hailing use, frequency of
use for different modes, travel behavior changes, and more general reasons.
• Demographic Questions
The third section of the survey includes questions regarding characteristics of the individual and
household (i.e., socio-economic demographics).
Table 1 depicts the demographics of our ride-hailing passengers. Comparing the summary statis-
tics of this study to the overall Denver population, our respondents show a close gender split, higher
representation from younger adults (ages 18-34, +28.2%) that are single or never married (+21.4%), of
white race (+15.3%), with mid household incomes ($46K–$60K, +10.5%), and higher education lev-
els (some college or higher, +12.1%). In contrast, our respondents exhibited lower representation from
older populations (age 55+, -22.3%), married (-11.9%), of Hispanic or Latin race (-17.9%), with lower
incomes ($30K or less, -15.6%), and lower education levels (high school or less, -12.1%). Our sample
shows that 17.8% of passengers were visitors from out of town.
The existing literature suggests that ride-hailing (and carsharing) users do not usually represent
the general population in terms of income, age, and ethnicity (Murphy, 2016; Rayle et al., 2016). The
authors from these papers suggest that these services mostly serve certain populations. Although the
ride-hailing passengers from our study similarly skewed towards certain demographics as compared to
the overall Denver population, we had higher participation from some subgroups as compared to the
existing literature. For example, age, income and education were better distributed across a wider range
than found in previous studies. Different from previous studies—where researchers used intercept sur-
veys at specific locations or online—our research has the advantage of being random by design since the
passengers’ destination location is unknown.
We collected data over a period of 14 weeks during fall 2016. Our dataset includes 311 responses
over the course of 308 rides (during three rides, more than one passenger took the survey). The survey
response rate was 87.5%.

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00
Table 1. Demographics of ride-hailing passengers

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00
4 Methods
We examine the parking dataset using descriptive statistics and perform a one-way ANOVA test to
analyze the difference in parking time means for three different groups. We then explore the relationship
between parking time and parking cost for ride-hailing trips replacing driving. Lastly, we build a clas-
sification tree-based model to evaluate how ride-hailing influences parking demand (i.e., replacement of
driving) and attempt to identify the variables that influence travel shifts.
4.1 Tree-based model
The classification tree-based model first assesses how mode replacement is affected from a set of variables
in three areas: modality resources (e.g., car ownership), travel attributes (e.g., destination type, parking
stress), and demographics (e.g., age). This analysis can help determine the level of importance and rela-
tionship between each variable and the outcome. The pruned categorical tree provides a visual represen-
tation with the categorical dependent variable at the root and the corresponding relative importance and
associated threshold values at the top.
We used the classification and regression trees (CART) statistical method since it facilitated break-
ing down the predictor space into several regions based on the relationship of each group with the
dependent variable of interest (Breiman, Friedman, Stone, & Olshen, 1984). The model first groups
the predictors using a specific method, such as simple average, and then it determines the true relation
between the predictors, or covariates, and the variable of interest—ride-hailing replacing driving modes
for this study—in each of the groups in the tree. Since our response variable is categorical, the model
used for this study is called a classification tree-based model.
Finally, we “pruned” the tree to limit the size of the tree and avoid data over-fit by removing the
least important splits based on deviance criterion and mean squared error. CART has the advantage of
capturing and ordering the predictor variables based on relationship with the outcome while providing
a graphical representation of these interactions. CART is used widely in several areas including environ-
mental, construction, engineering, and computer science fields (Suchetana, Rajagopalan, & Silverstein,
2017).
4.1.1 Categorical dependent variable
The dependent variable in the model is “mode being replaced by ride-hailing.” We created categorical
values based on answers to question Q5 (Figure 2) from the passenger survey: “For this trip, how would
you have traveled if Lyft/Uber wasn’t an option?” The survey response options to the multiple-choice
question were then grouped into three categories: “replaced mode requiring parking,” “replaced mode
not requiring parking,” or “new trip.”
4.1.2 Driver dataset predictors variables
The following variables from the “driver dataset” were considered in the model:
• Parking time: continuous
• Parking cost: continuous
• Destination type: categorical (high urban, general urban, suburban, or special event)

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00
4.1.3 Passenger dataset predictor variables
The following variables from the “passenger dataset” were included in the model:
• Car ownership: binary (yes, no)
• Trip purpose: categorical (discrete, non-discrete, or airport)
• Parking as a reason to take ride-hailing instead of driving: binary (yes, no)
• Demographics: age (1 through 6 based on age levels), gender (male, female), income (1 through
6 based on levels)
We combined three of the parking variables (parking time, parking cost, and parking as a reason)
to form a new predictor variable called “parking stress” with numerical levels from 0 to 4. To do this, we
first converted the three variables as follows:
• Parking time: if parking time was 0, the new value is 0; if parking time was higher than 0 but
lower or equal to 7, the new value is 1; and if parking time was higher than 7, the new value is 2.
• Parking time: if parking cost was 0, the new value is 0; otherwise, it is 1.
• Parking as a reason: if parking as a reason was “no,” the new value is 0; otherwise, it is 1.
We used the statistical R program to perform our analysis, including the appropriate packages
such as the “tree” and “prune.tree” packages that help fit categorical trees (Ripley, 2005). We started our
model with the three categories previously described from the “mode replaced by ride-hailing” depen-
dent variable using the specific trip dataset.
5 Results
This section is divided in four main subsections. First, we explore parking demand by analyzing driv-
ing trips being replaced with ride-hailing. Second, we assess parking as a reason to choose ride-hailing
over other modes. These two subsections include results from the specific Uber/Lyft rides as well as the
respondents’ overall travel behavior. Third, we present results from the parking time and parking cost
analysis. Lastly, we present results of the classification tree-based model.
5.1 Parking demand
To better understand how parking demand might be impacted by ride-hailing, we explored the driving
trips that ride-hailing was replacing both for the specific origin to destination (O-D) ride and in a more
general context.
5.1.1 Parking demand: Specific trip
Since vehicle parking, theoretically, is only needed for driving trips, we decided to look in more detail
at the mode replacement distribution and pay close attention to the trips that would involve driving—
such as drive alone or single occupancy vehicle (SOV), car rental, carpool (drive), and carsharing—to
start understanding potential changes in parking demand.
In terms of replacing driving trips with ride-hailing, we should exercise some caution since, in some
cases, the trip replaced might have been only a part of the trip with the intent to avoid parking at the des-
tination. In other words, a passenger might have still driven and parked, but ride-hailing allowed him/
her to do so in a different location. For example, parking downtown might be limited and expensive, so
a passenger decides to drive to a location—as close as possible to the destination—where parking is more
abundant and/or free/cheaper. They then requested an Uber/Lyft ride to reach the final destination, thus
benefiting from cost and time savings of a shorter ride-hailing trip. Within this section, we analyzed the
specific ride with the question “For this trip, how would you have traveled if Uber/Lyft wasn’t an op-

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00
tion?” under two conditions: i) the mode replaced is one of the driving options; and ii) driving is not
part of a connection trip. Figure 2 illustrates that 26.4% of all respondents would otherwise have driven
and needed a parking location.
Figure 2. Ride-hailing replacing driving trips (n = 311)
Figure 3 represents the origin and destination locations for the specific ride-hailing trips. The outer
circle represents the total of origins plus destinations; the corresponding color connecting one place over
the other represents the ride-hailing trips originating at that location type. For example, the red color on
the ring represents 32 total trips to/from restaurants, and the connections red lines represent 14 of the 32
originating there (keeping in mind that a few trips were from a restaurant/bar to another restaurant/bar).

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00
Figure 3. Origins and destination for ride-hailing replacing driving trips (n=82 to 82)
5.1.2 Parking demand: General use
Beyond looking at the specific trips that would have needed parking, we considered the passengers’
responses regarding travel behavior changes for different modes with the following sentence: “Complete
the sentence based on your travel today compared to the past.” The specific section of interest about
parking is: “Because of ride-hailing, I drive…” with the response options: “a lot less,” “a bit less,” “about
same,” “a bit more,” or “a lot more.”
Figure 4 shows that about a third of participants stated that they drive less—13.5% said a lot less
and 19.0% said a bit less—which has implications for reduction in parking demand and slightly higher
than the percentage of respondents to the specific trip replacement question. It was not expected that
passengers would increase their driving, but 2.3% of respondents said, “a bit more” or a “lot more.”
Based on our experiences of interacting with passengers, this is explained as a handful of survey respon-
dents are also ride-hailing drivers themselves.

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00
Figure 4. Ride-hailing and driving behavior change (n = 311)
5.2 Parking difficulty as a reason to choose ride-hailing
This subsection analyzes parking as a reason for someone to use ride-hailing over other modes of trans-
portation, both for specific O-D ride-hailing trips and for general use.
5.2.1 Parking difficulty: Specific trip
Passengers stated the main reason that led them to choose Uber/Lyft over other options for their ride
that day. Figure 5 presents the percentages for those passengers that “would have driven if ride-hailing
was not available.” “Parking” is highlighted in the responses as the second top reason in choosing ride-
hailing over driving.
Figure 5: Percentage of “passengers that would have driven” identifying the main reason to choose ride-hailing (n = 82)

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00
Exploring further on the type of trip including origin and destination locations, four out of five
trips with a reason of going out and/or drinking was to an event venue (e.g., stadium), a restaurant, or
a bar. For the trips stating parking as the main reason, about half were to the airport and a third again
to an event venue, restaurant, or bar. Passengers responding “Don’t have a car available” were travelers
from out of town and passengers whose vehicle was getting repaired. Passengers stating that the cost of
their ride-hailing trip would be reimbursed were either traveling to/from the airport or visitors from out
of town.
5.2.2 Parking difficulty: general use
Complementing the main reason of using ride-hailing for the specific rides, we evaluated parking
difficulty for the passengers’ general travel behavior. We look specifically at the survey question: “In gen-
eral, what are the main reasons you choose ride-hailing over other modes? (check up to three reasons).”
About a third of respondents selected parking as one of the main reasons to use ride-hailing over other
modes (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Percentage of all respondents identifying reasons to choose ride-hailing
Since parking is related to driving behavior, we examined the same dataset based upon the driving
frequency of the passengers. To better understand the results, we selected the top five reasons from the
dataset based on driving frequency, as shown in Table 2.

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00
Table 2. Reasons to choose ride-hailing and driving frequency
Driving Frequency
Always Never
Reasons to use ride-hailing Regularly Sometimes Rarely
drive drive
Going out, drinking 68 28 17 7 15
Parking is difficult 46 27 14 5 5
Time 29 22 16 13 37
Cost (including Reinbursement) 31 19 7 5 25
Don't have a car available 29 13 8 13 36
Able to do something while riding 16 9 9 4 10

Public transportation not available 12 12 9 7 50
In this table, we observe correlations between driving frequency and reasons choosing ride-hailing
instead of the previous mode. High frequency drivers tend to use ride-hailing mostly when they are go-
ing out for social activities (i.e., avoid driving after drinking) and/or when they feel parking is difficult.
Time—including travel savings and time use—while it was barely identified as a main reason for the
specific trip (only 2.4%, Figure 5), it was heavily cited on general behavior when choosing up to three
reasons, thus acting as a secondary or complementary factor. Reasons such as cost (including reimburse-
ment) and not having a car available (e.g., out of town travel, issues with the vehicle)—which were
identified on previous specific trip analysis—were also mid-level indicators as to the general reasons why
people shift from driving to ride-hailing. “Public transportation not being available” has low representa-
tion for high frequency drivers but was the most frequent reason cited by passengers that normally do
not drive.
5.3 Parking time, Parking cost, and time/cost relationships
This subsection analyzes parking time, parking cost, and the relationship between time savings and cost
for those passengers shifting from driving to ride-hailing. We first present descriptive statistics on these
variables and then present results comparing cost and time for passengers shifting from driving to ride-
hailing with parking as the main reason.
5.3.1 Parking times
Table 3 presents summary statistics for the 311 observations on parking times including: i) cruising for
parking, and ii) walking to final destination. For most rides, we experienced less than thirty seconds of
additional times for parking and walking to the final destination, but the additional total time can be up
to 29 minutes with a mean time of 3.4 minutes.

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00
Table 3. Parking time summary statistics (in minutes)
Cruising to Park Walking to Destination Additional Time for Parking

Mean 1.2 2.2 3.4
St. Dev. 2.0 4.3 6.1
Min 0.0 0.0 0.0
Max 11.0 20.0 29.0
Figure 7 presents the distribution of additional time for parking for those that took at least one
minute. Most of the rides with a total of 15 or more minutes to park were experienced at Denver Inter-
national Airport (DIA), university campus, or event venues (e.g., stadium, theater).
Figure 7. Additional parking time if driving
We use a one-way ANOVA test with post-hoc Tukey HSD to compare the “additional parking
time if driving” mean of the three sub-groups based on the mode being replaced. The ANOVA results
show a statistically significant difference in parking time for two out of the three sub-groups
The first post-hoc Tukey HDS compares the difference in the time it takes to park and walk to
the destination for those stating they were replacing a driving trip and those stating they were replac-
ing another mode, with a significant difference. Compared to “other mode” replaced, ride-hailing trips
that replaced a driving trip would have taken, on average, 2.6 minutes longer to park and walk to the
destination.
The second comparison looks at those stating they are replacing a driving trip against those stating
they would not have taken the trip at all. This also results in a statistically significant difference of 3.8
minutes longer for those replacing the driving trip.
The last ANOVA, comparing those that stated they were replacing a mode other than driving
against those that would not have taken the trip, did not result in a significant difference.

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00
Table 4. Tukey simultaneous tests for differences of means (Parking time per mode replaced)
Parking Time Adjusted
95% C.I.
Difference p-value
Replaced Driving vs. Replaced Other Mode 2.61 (0.77, 4.44) 0.0026
Replaced Driving vs. Induced Trip 3.80 (1.06, 6.53) 0.0034
Replaced Other Mode vs. Induced Trip -1.19 (-3.68, 1.30) 0.4991
5.3.2 Parking cost
Parking cost was not high for most of the rides (Figure 8). High parking cost was only experienced at
DIA, universities, special events (e.g., sports, concerts), and private parking in the CBD.
Figure 8. Parking cost
5.3.3 Additional Monetary Cost and Time Gains: Willingness to pay for parking?
When passengers shift from mode A to mode B, they gain and lose certain utility. Since time and cost are
two of the most important predictors on mode choice, we decided to evaluate these two variables for the
trips that would have been by car. We use travel times and cost for ride-hailing rides versus hypotheti-
cal driving trips. We exclude trips where passengers stated a strong reason and would have unbalanced
the results; these include going out/drinking, visitors not having a car available, and trips to the airport
(since many trips can be travel reimbursed and we did not have information on how long passengers
were going to be out of town to determine total parking cost). For ride-hailing travel time, we use data
collected on waiting for ride-hailing plus on-board time; for driving travel times, we use driving time
plus parking times. For cost, we have detailed information on total ride-hailing fare; for driving, we
estimate cost per mile driven, using $0.54 per mile based on the U.S. Federal standard mileage rate in
2016, summed with parking cost. Assuming unbiased decision-making, we would expect to see little
shift from driving to ride-hailing when parking time and parking cost is low; on the other hand, we
would expect to see large shifts when parking time and parking cost is high. If parking time and parking
cost are going in different directions, then we are uncertain. Figure 9 presents boxplots comparing travel
time and cost for driving versus ride-hailing for trips shifting from driving to ride-hailing, showing that
passengers pay more to save time. While all travel times are not the same (e.g., driving time, on-board
time, waiting time, and/or parking time), these results might give us insight into the potential expense
passengers are willing to pay to save parking time.

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00
Figure 9. Travel times and monetary cost, ride-hailing over driving (n=17)
5.4 Tree-based model
The final tree-based model includes the dependent variables “mode replacing parking” as a binary “yes”
or “no” and the following five predictors: “car ownership (car)”; “destination type (destype)”; “parking
stress (pstress)”; “age (age)”; and “gender (gender).” The age ordinal value is distributed as follows: 1 for
“18 to 24 years old”; 2 for “25 to 34 years old”; 3 for “35 to 44 years old”; and 4 for “45 years old or
older.” Figure 10 presents the visual representation of the best classification tree-based model after prun-
ing the tree.

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00
Figure 10. Best classification tree model of ride-hailing replacing modes requiring parking with car ownership, destination
type, stress level, age, and gender
The final prune tree contains 268 observations of five variables with six nodes, and a model accu-
racy of 0.74. The highest-level predictor is whether a passenger owns a car or not. For those passengers
not owning a car, the mode replaced is non-driving (e.g., transit, walking, or biking). Destination type is
the second level predictor, showing, for example, that a person owning a car and going to a suburban or
special destination would have driven. Following car ownership and destination type is age. If a person
owns a car, is going to an urban place, and is 35 years old or older, they are most likely to drive. However,
if they are 34 or younger, it would depend on our fourth and fifth predictors: parking stress and gender.
For female passengers that are 34 years old or younger, own a car, and are going to an urban destination,
a parking stress level of 2 or more might represent the reason why they would take ride-hailing instead
of driving.
This model helps shed light on driving trips being replaced by ride-hailing—particularly with re-
spect to the subsequent parking issues—and the relationship with the predictors. Take, for example, a
passenger data subset in which passengers answer: “Do you (or your household) own fewer cars because
of ride-hailing?” For the 311 passengers surveyed, 12.5%, or 39 people, stated yes. Of those 39 passen-
gers, 18 still had access to a car. Our tree-based model predicts 13 driving trips replaced (33.3% of the
39 passenger). If all those 39 passengers would have had access to a car, our model would have predicted
25 replaced driving trips (64.1% of the 39 passengers).
5.5 Discussion and conclusions
Emerging transportation services such as ride-hailing might be creating a window of opportunity to

help dissolve individualized car-dependency and the transportation infrastructure centered around this
pattern, particularly parking. Thus, this study aims to investigate the reciprocal influence of an evolving
transportation service—ride-hailing—in terms of a very important transportation topic—parking—so
we can better model, design, and build future infrastructure.
First, we look at parking demand by analyzing the transportation modes being replaced by Lyft/
Uber. Results suggest that 26.4% of Uber/Lyft riders would have driven and needed a parking space if
these ride-hailing services did not exist. Also, about a third of respondents stated that they are driving

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00
less when asked about general travel behavior. The most common places for ride-hailing replacing driv-
ing trips are restaurant/bars, working trips to the CBD, airport, lodging, and event venues. Second, we
analyzed parking as a stated reason for using ride-hailing, showing that for both the specific surveyed trip
as well as with their more general usage, parking difficulty (e.g., availability, additional time, and cost) is
the second most cited reason for trips replacing driving. We then investigated the relationship between
parking time and parking cost. While time spent and monetary cost between driving versus ride-hailing
is not exclusively parking-related, we were able to analyze in more detail the rides where passengers stated
parking as the main reason, excluding trips that might bias the decision. When individually considering
the costs of driving and ride-hailing, we found that passengers, on average, spent more money on a ride-
hailing trip that would not necessitate cruising for parking and walking to the final destination. This
could provide insight into right pricing parking structures to better manage parking demand and supply,
which would in turn, increase the traveler experience without inducing negative externalities. Finally,
we presented the best fit classification tree-model with our data, showing that car ownership, destina-
tion type, parking stress level, age, and gender are factors contributing to reducing the modes requiring
parking with the use of ride-hailing services. Trip purpose and income were not significant in our model.
When passengers shift away from driving, cities might gain space from people not needing to park,
but they still need to manage where and how people get pick-up/drop off with ride-hailing. Besides
passengers, they need to manage ride-hailing drivers (including parking for ride-hailing drivers). The
experience as a ride-hailing driver shows that passenger pick-up/drop-off can be stressful with safety con-
cerns, customer experience, and drivers/passengers being able to find each other. Stress is higher when
the origin or destination is in dense urban areas such as the CBD and/or places at university campuses/
stadiums that do not provide adequate curb space. For example, during some rides, passengers wanted
to get out of the car in areas that could compromise their own safety or the safety of others (e.g., wanting
to get off at the bike lane, at a red light, etc.). On one hand, drivers want to do the right thing and not al-
low passengers to dangerously disembark; on the other hand, they know that passengers could get upset
if they were not allowed to leave and then give a bad rating. Proper infrastructure and communication
between city enforcement and ride-hailing companies could alleviate some of these issues.
The main limitation of our study is the trip sample size relative to the overall number of rides that
Uber and Lyft provide. Another limitation is that our case study focuses on Denver and the surround-
ing areas and might not be applicable to other metropolitan regions. Despite our study limitations, we
learned many lessons for future research. For example, ride-hailing is very dynamic and could provide
different infrastructure use at different times (e.g., parking during the day, and pick-up/drop-off at
night). Further exploration on travel cost and travel times is very important for mode choice, including
different values for separate travel times (waiting, on-board, driving, parking). Other future potential
research include value on curb space access to incentivize sharing/carpool behaviors and/or willingness
to pay for riding alone; and parking needs for ride-hailing drivers based on driving strategy in-between
rides (park and wait, travel to places with potentially high demand and wait, cruise around)
While total taxi and ride-hailing passenger miles in the U.S. is less than one percent of total vehicle
miles traveled (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2017), the percentage is much higher for specific
destinations in urban areas such as restaurant/bars, airports, CBD, lodging, event venues. With this
study, we find evidence that cities might want to examine transportation infrastructure (e.g., parking,
ride-hailing pick-ups/drop-off space or PUDOs, built environment that encourages other non-vehicular
modes) and adaptation strategies (e.g., pricing to deal with supply and demand) to provide a better
travel experience for all and aiming at specific city goals (e.g., increase walking, biking, and public transit
use, and/or higher vehicle occupancy). Similarly, parking requirements and parking supply for specific
developments such as bars, restaurants, event venues, and airports should be re-evaluated so that we can
design buildings with lower parking capacity in the future.

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00
Acknowledgements
The work presented in this paper was conducted with support from the University of Colorado Denver
and the Mountain-Plains Consortium, a University Transportation Center funded by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation. We would also like to express our gratitude to the National Science Founda-
tion for providing funding through the Bridge to the Doctorate Program and the U.S. Department of
Transportation for the Dwight D. Eisenhower Graduate Fellowship.

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00
References
Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Stone, C. J., & Olshen, R. A. (1984). Classification and regression trees. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC press.
Brewer, J. (2000). Ethnography. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Brooke, S., Ison, S., & Quddus, M. (2014). On-street parking search. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2469, 65–75.
Clewlow, R. R., & Mishra, G. S. (2017). Disruptive transportation: The adoption, utilization, and impacts
of ride-hailing in the United States. Retrieved from https://trid.trb.org/view/1485471
Guo, Z. (2013). Does residential parking supply affect household car ownership? The case of New York
City. Journal of Transport Geography, 26, 18–28. doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.08.006
Hampshire, R. C., Simek, C., Fabusuyi, T., Di, X., & Chen, X. (2017). Measuring the impact of an
unanticipated suspension of ride-sourcing in Austin, Texas. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/
sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2977969
Henao, A. (2017). Impacts of ridesourcing—Lyft and Uber—on transportation including VMT, mode re-
placement, parking, and travel behavior. Denver: University of Colorado at Denver.
Henao, A., & Marshall, W. E. (2018). The impact of ride-hailing on vehicle miles traveled. Transporta-
tion. doi.org/10.1007/s1111
Henao, A., Sperling, J., Garikapati, V., Hou, Y., & Young, S. E. (2018). Airport analyses informing new
mobility shifts: Opportunities to adapt energy-efficient mobility services and infrastructure. Paper pre-
sented at the Intelligent Transportation Society of America, Detroit. National Renewable Energy
Lab. NREL/CP-5400-71036. Retrieved from https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/71036.pdf
Hess, D. (2001). Effect of free parking on commuter mode choice: Evidence from travel diary data.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1753, 35–42.
Lewis, S. (2015). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Health
Promotion Practice, 16(4), 473–475.
Mandle, P., & Box, S. (2017). Transportation network companies: Challenges and opportunities for airport
operators. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Morris, D. Z. (2018, February 24). Yes, Uber really is killing the parking business. Fortune. Retrieved
from http://fortune.com/2018/02/24/yes-uber-really-is-killing-the-parking-business/
O’Reilly, K. (2012). Ethnographic methods. London: Routledge.
Rayle, L., Dai, D., Chan, N., Cervero, R., & Shaheen, S. (2016). Just a better taxi? A survey-based com-
parison of taxis, transit, and ridesourcing services in San Francisco. Transport Policy, 45, 168–178.
doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.10.004
Ripley, B. (2005). Tree: Classification and regression trees. R package version, 1.0-19.
Shoup, D. C. (2006). Cruising for parking. Transport Policy, 13(6), 479–486. doi.org/10.1016/j.tran-
pol.2006.05.005
Steele, J. (2018, February 22). Ace Parking says Uber, Lyft have cut parking business up to 50% in some
venues. The San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/busi-
ness/growth-development/sd-fi-ace-parking-uber-lyft-competition-20180222-story.html
Suchetana, B., Rajagopalan, B., & Silverstein, J. (2017). Assessment of wastewater treatment facility
compliance with decreasing ammonia discharge limits using a regression tree model. Science of The
Total Environment, 598, 249–257.
U.S. Department of Transportation, FHA. (2017). 2017 National Household Travel Survey. Retrieved
from https://nhts.ornl.gov
Vaccaro, A. (2016, December 05). Highly touted Boston-Uber partnership has not lived up to hype so

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00
far. Boston.com. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/news/business/2016/06/16/bostons-uber-

partnership-has-not-lived-up-to-promise
Weinberger, R. (2012). Death by a thousand curb-cuts: Evidence on the effect of minimum park-
ing requirements on the choice to drive. Transport Policy, 20, 93–102. doi.org/10.1016/j.tran-
pol.2011.08.002
Weinberger, R., Seaman, M., & Johnson, C. (2009). Residential off-street parking impacts on car own-
ership, vehicle miles traveled, and related carbon emissions. Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, 2118, 24–30.
Wilson, R. W., & Shoup, D. C. (1990). Parking subsidies and travel choices: Assessing the evidence.
Transportation, 17(2), 141–157.
Wilson, R. W. (1992). Estimating the travel and parking demand effects of employer-paid parking.
Regional Science and Urban Economics, 22(1), 133–145. doi.org/10.1016/0166-0462(92)90029-Z
Zipkin, A. (2017, December 11). Airports are losing money as ride-hailing services grow. NY Times.
Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/business/airports-ride-hailing-services.html

37.76.38.242 on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:40:29 +00:00

Henao Impactridehailing 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Henao Impactridehailing 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Henao Impactridehailing 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The impact of ride hailing on parking (and vice versa)

Author(s): Alejandro Henao and Wesley E. Marshall

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26911261

This content downloaded from

The impact of ride hailing on parking (and vice versa)

Abstract: Investigating emerging transportation services is critical to Article history:

Keywords: Ride-hailing, ridesourcing, TNC, Uber, Lyft, parking, curb

Copyright 2019 Alejandro Henao & Wesley E. Marshall

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Figure 1. Lyft and Uber driver profiles and smartphone apps

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Table 1. Demographics of ride-hailing passengers

This content downloaded from

4.1 Tree-based model

4.1.1 Categorical dependent variable

4.1.2 Driver dataset predictors variables

This content downloaded from

4.1.3 Passenger dataset predictor variables

5.1 Parking demand

5.1.1 Parking demand: Specific trip

This content downloaded from

Figure 2. Ride-hailing replacing driving trips (n = 311)

This content downloaded from

5.1.2 Parking demand: General use

This content downloaded from

Figure 4. Ride-hailing and driving behavior change (n = 311)

5.2 Parking difficulty as a reason to choose ride-hailing

5.2.1 Parking difficulty: Specific trip

This content downloaded from

5.2.2 Parking difficulty: general use

Figure 6. Percentage of all respondents identifying reasons to choose ride-hailing

This content downloaded from

Table 2. Reasons to choose ride-hailing and driving frequency

Cost (including Reinbursement) 31 19 7 5 25

Don't have a car available 29 13 8 13 36

Able to do something while riding 16 9 9 4 10

5.3 Parking time, Parking cost, and time/cost relationships

5.3.1 Parking times

This content downloaded from

Table 3. Parking time summary statistics (in minutes)

Cruising to Park Walking to Destination Additional Time for Parking

Figure 7. Additional parking time if driving

This content downloaded from

5.3.2 Parking cost

Figure 8. Parking cost

This content downloaded from

5.4 Tree-based model

This content downloaded from

5.5 Discussion and conclusions

Emerging transportation services such as ride-hailing might be creating a window of opportunity to

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

far. Boston.com. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/news/business/2016/06/16/bostons-uber-

This content downloaded from