Matriz de complejidad

“Parking programmes are aimed at providing as much parking as possible, as close as possible, to the terminal building” (Lawler, 1964 p. 69). This view from 1964 is probably the ideal situation from the airports perspective as it allows the highest level of service and convenience to be offered to both passengers and employees. The growth in air transport following the publication of the paper and the predicted future growth, however, means that providing car parking is now much more complicated that providing as much as possible, as close as possible. This section sets out a number of ways in which parking can be managed by airports.

There is a wide range of instruments that can be used to manage car parking. Many of these are associated with using the current facilities more efficiently or making modifications to them. Other strategies may use measures which can be classified as “incentives” and

“disincentives”. Such measures may encourage people to use their cars more efficiently or indeed use alternative modes of transport, thus reducing the demand for car parks which are at or over capacity. Incentives would be the encouraging factor and could involve some kind of financial incentive while disincentives would discourage people from parking, for example by increasing parking charges or not permitting certain groups to park.

The main options for improving airport parking conditions using measures which use existing facilities more efficiently or improve capacity include:

Space reallocation to match parking demand;

Modifications to parking operations or rates;

Redesign and/or construction of facilities to improve capacity.

(FHA and FAA, 1995)

Sometimes an airport will have enough total spaces but too many are allocated to one user group, such as passengers, employees or rental cars, and not enough to another. In such situations it may be necessary to reallocate parking from one use to another. Different parking durations such as long-term and short-term could also be reallocated, as could different levels of service such as self-park or valet parking (FHA and FAA, 1995).

The pricing mechanism can be used by airports to manage the demand for parking. Charging more to park in short term car parks as opposed to long-term car parks has been discussed in section 2.7. The effects of parking cost on parking demand can also vary with passenger type. Business passengers are to a large extent insensitive to the cost of parking, while non-business passengers are more sensitive (Psaraki et al, 2000). This suggests that airports could use the pricing mechanism to target specific groups of passengers with the aim of reducing car parking demand. For this to work, however, there must be satisfactory alternatives to the private car available.

Off airport parking is a solution which many airports use to add extra capacity. The consolidation of car rental facilities away from the terminal is also seen as a way of expanding the landside capacity of the airport (Caves and Gosling, 1999). Off airport parking is sometimes seen by some drivers to be “second best” because it is further away from the terminal. This can often cause extra circulating traffic on the surface access system as drivers first drive close to the terminal to search for parking before going to off airport facilities. However, off airport parking can also reduce vehicle trips to the airport if people drive there directly. Off airport parking can result in lost revenues for the airport so from the airport’s perspective the most suitable forms of off airport parking are long-term public parking with regular transportation to the terminal (FHA and FAA, 1995).

Airport parking is currently most likely to be constrained by planning regulations. In the UK, Government Policy contains measures which could potentially reduce demand for airport parking and restrict new parking provision at or around airports. Government Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG13 on Transport calls for reduced parking requirements for new development in locations with good access via modes other than the private car and for parking requirements in general to be kept to the operational minimum (Robertson, 1995, DETR, 2001a). This is the case at London Heathrow Airport where the Inspectors Report

following a Public Inquiry into the development for a new fifth terminal constrained the number of parking spaces that could be developed. The report included limits for both airport employees and for passengers (DETR, 2001b).

2.11.1 Strategies to Manage Employee Car Parking at Airports

Airports regard employees as an easier group to target with strategies designed to reduce car use and parking because they have more information on them, their travel patterns are known and they do not have the inconvenience of luggage which passengers do. Airports may also be reluctant to dissuade passengers from travelling by car because of the revenues generated from passenger car parking and because it would lower the quality of service offered by the airport possibly giving advantage to a competing airport. (de Neufville and Odoni, 2003).

Car parking policy where employees are concerned is, however, still recognised as a sensitive issue for airport managers, most notably in terms of raising charges or removing spaces (Humphreys and Ison, 2005). Generally, however, almost all employers, at UK airports at least, do not pass parking charges onto their employees. This results in employees not appreciating the cost of driving to work and hence not altering their travel behaviour.

Off airport parking may be suitable for employees who are unable to park near to the terminal or their place of work. Research suggests that employees more readily accept remote parking because the uncertainty of shuttle bus schedules from the car park to the airport is less critical for them than passengers and because they do not have the hassle of luggage or the anxiety of making their flight (FHA and FAA, 1995). While it may be true that employees do not have luggage to transport, the other reasons must be questioned. For many, particularly those working shifts or aircraft crew, the certainty of arriving at the airport on time is critical and their employment may depend on it, hence anxiety levels could also be high and staff need to be confident in the shuttle buses.

One example of a more innovative approach exists at Amsterdam Schiphol airport where the main employer KLM (Royal Dutch Airlines) introduced an employee car parking scheme.

KLM is the dominant employer at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, employing 25,000 staff, half of whom work in the central terminal area. Rapid growth in airport activity in the mid

to late 1990’s created serious parking problems and KLM introduced a charge for employee parking. Prior to the scheme’s introduction in 1995 a free parking place had been guaranteed for every employee. In 1995 each employee received a one-time salary increase equivalent to approximately 20 Euros a month, which was equivalent to the amount the KLM had paid Schiphol Airport each month for employee parking passes, and was required to pay for their own parking. This had no impact on single occupancy vehicle drivers but staff who used other modes of transport or car shared with other employees made financial savings as they did not have to pay to park but still received the 20 Euros monthly salary increase. The scheme was also expected to have a greater impact in the future as parking rates were gradually increased, further benefiting those who used alternative modes.

Coupled with the parking charges were improvements to other modes of transport, most significantly cycling, where a new bicycle campaign was introduced, and the provision of a

“limited use” parking pass which could be used in the event of bad weather or personal reasons for commuters committed to cycling. The main advantage for Schiphol was that by implementing the programme, more spaces were available in the summer when passenger demand was greater (Schreffler and de Vreede, 2000).

2.12 Reflections on the Airport Surface Access and Airport Car Parking