Cruising for Parking
By D. Shoup. 2006
1,118 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Automotive Engineering, Building and Construction
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4d26cfc1f23512872e90104a714c61d40d28dd42
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Automotive Engineering
- G. Santos
- J. V. van Ommeren
- Jörg Firnkorn
- Martin Müller
- A. Millard‐Ball
- A. Gómez-Lobo
- R. Weinberger
- Emmanouil Chaniotakis
In Building and Construction
- G. Santos
- Jörg Firnkorn
- A. Millard‐Ball
- A. Gómez-Lobo
- R. Weinberger
- Hannah Behrendt
- Emmanouil Chaniotakis
- Alexander Teytelboym
Citations in the corpus
- Drivers’ parking location choice under uncertain parking availability and search times: A stated preference experiment (2015, background): “…how search times are appreciated, while 8 minutes is suggested to be within the range of an acceptable search time before rerouting to a different parking area (found as average130 cruising time for on-street parking by Shoup (2006), and also suggested from our pilot studies, see Section 2.3.1).”
- ParkNet: drive-by sensing of road-side parking statistics (2010, background): “In a recent study [4], researchers found in one small business district of Los Angeles that, over the course of a year, vehicles looking for parking created the equivalent of 38 trips around the world, burning 47,000 gallons of gasoline and producing 730 tons of carbon dioxide.”
- Death by a Thousand Curb-cuts: Evidence on the effect of minimum parking requirements on the choice to drive (2012, neutral): “Other research shows that cruising may account for as much as 30% of traffic in urban centers (Shoup 2005, 2006).”
- Empirical evidence on cruising for parking (2012, positive): “The literature on cruising is dominated by theory (Glazer and Niskanen, 1992; Arnott and Rowse, 1999, 2009; Anderson and de Palma, 2004; Arnott and Inci, 2006) with few empirical evidence on the determinants of cruising (Shoup, 2006).”
- Generalized bathtub model of network trip flows (2019, background): “Note that this may not be the case when vehicles have to cruise for parking (Shoup, 2006).”
- Free-floating electric carsharing-fleets in smart cities: The dawning of a post-private car era in urban environments? (2015, background): “…parking space shortages and studies analysing the cause of city traffic found ‘‘[b]etween 8 and 74 percent of the traffic was cruising for parking’’ (Shoup, 2006, p. 479) – this cruising for parking in private cars can be reduced through shared cars: First, parking privileges for shared cars…”
- The Real Price of Parking Policy (2011, neutral): “In the literature the importance of cruising for on-street parking has come to the fore (e.g., Glazer and Niskanen, 1992; Calthrop, 2002; Anderson and De Palma, 2004; Arnott and Inci, 2006; Shoup, 2005, 2006).”
- Does ride-hailing increase or decrease vehicle kilometers traveled (VKT)? A simulation approach for Santiago de Chile (2020, background): “In addition, private cars also congest the roads when looking for a parking space (e.g., Arnott & Inci, 2006; Shoup, 2006).”
- Part II: Policy instruments for sustainable road transport (2010, background): “A combination of free curb-side parking and car parks encourages cruising at low speeds to find a spot (74 per cent of cars idle in Freiburg), causes pollution and congestion and makes pricing policies very difficult (Shoup, 2006).”
- ParkUs: A Novel Vehicle Parking Detection System (2017, background): “3 minutes (as experienced in Westwood Village, LA) per driver per parking activity can have adverse consequences on congestion and pollution (Shoup 2007).”
- Estimated Bounds and Important Factors for Fuel Use and Consumer Costs of Connected and Automated Vehicles (2016, background): “• Partial automation: 2%–5% VMT reduction during city driving • Full automation: 5%–11% VMT reduction during city driving Shoup (2006) estimated that 2%–11% of VMT in a central urban area are spent hunting for parking.”
- Is the Curb 80% Full or 20% Empty? Assessing the Impacts of San Francisco's Parking Pricing Experiment (2014, positive): “In contrast to a marginal cost pricing approach, Shoup (2006) recommends that on-street prices be set to achieve an average occupancy level of 85%, with an explicit rationale of eliminating cruising.”