Minimum parking requirements for residential buildings in Munich, Germany, are set to one parking unit per apartment, which regularly adds substantial construction costs to developments. This policy seems to contradict Munich's policy targets of providing affordable housing and promoting sustainable modes of transportation, other than the private car. The objective of this study is to measure the demand of residents for private parking based on stated preferences. Using a survey with 226 respondents in the Munich metropolitan region, we analyze residents' willingness to pay (WTP) for a guaranteed private parking unit under different supply scenarios using the contingent valuation method. Next to the status quo, the supply scenarios comprise a multimodal mobility management concept, more amenities at the household location, and an improvement in transit accessibility. We use a linear regression model and corresponding weighting to derive representative average WTP estimates and population shares of residents willing to pay at least €49.50 or €95.11 per month as minimum and realistic construction costs of a parking unit, respectively. Our analysis shows that a mobility management concept reduces the average WTP by slightly more than 11%. We provide evidence that the minimum parking requirements do not reflect the demand given a realistic supply, and that a multimodal mobility management concept can reduce the demand by an additional 12%. Planners and decision makers can use these findings to adapt parking requirements according to individual demand and strategic planning goals.
«
Minimum parking requirements for residential buildings in Munich, Germany, are set to one parking unit per apartment, which regularly adds substantial construction costs to developments. This policy seems to contradict Munich's policy targets of providing affordable housing and promoting sustainable modes of transportation, other than the private car. The objective of this study is to measure the demand of residents for private parking based on stated preferences. Using a survey with 226 respond...
»