Master Thesis (60 ECTS) - Erhvervsstyrelsen...Abstract The aim of this thesis is to collect information about Park & Ride in Denmark, with a focus on four case municipalities: Stevns,

U N I V E R S I T Y O F C O P E N H A G E N

F A C U L T Y O F S C I E N C E

Master Thesis (60 ECTS)

Anna Viktoria Ahlehoff Hansen – HWR839

The Potential for Park & Ride in Denmark

Rethinking commuter mobility

Supervisor: Lasse Møller-Jensen

October 2019

Abstract

The aim of this thesis is to collect information about Park & Ride in Denmark, with a

focus on four case municipalities: Stevns, Køge, Solrød and Greve. Park & Ride facilities

are not that common in Denmark. However, there might be a potential for them to

become so. An increasing awareness of the problems connected with the expansion of

the car began to unfold in the 1980s, such as congestion-, parking-, health- and

environmental problems. A Park & Ride journey constitutes a mode of travel whereby

the traveller drives to a Park & Ride facility, parks the car and then takes the train –

therefore, it has the ability to fight congestion. Danish and international findings on Park

& Ride define factors, such as available parking, time-saving and walking distance, as

important when using Park & Ride. Despite this, literature on this topic is limited. For

this reason, different findings on Park & Ride have been gathered in this thesis through

different methods: a survey on preferences, an interview with a Park & Ride project

manager in the municipality of Køge, and a GIS analysis of the potential time-savings.

This thesis focuses mainly on ten chosen preferences regarding Park & Ride: 1) Easy

access, 2) Walking distance to station, 3) Available parking, 4) Safe to use, 5) Neat and

welcoming, 6) Time-saving, 7) Train frequency, 8) Shops and stores, 9) Walking distance

to final destination, and 10) Changing train. Findings on each of the ten preferences have

been summarised in order to compare and discuss them. The findings show that there

is a potential for Park & Ride in Denmark. Nevertheless, this depends on actions being

taken at both the municipal and state level. As a result, this thesis lists a number of

recommendations that concern actions that can be carried out at the state level or the

municipal level in order to make Park & Ride more common in Denmark.

1

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................2

2. Research Questions ..............................................................................................................................................3

3. Theory and Literature Review ..............................................................................................................................4

3.1 Danish Literature ............................................................................................................................................5

3.2 International Literature ..................................................................................................................................7

3.2.1 Sweden ....................................................................................................................................................7

3.2.2 The Netherlands ......................................................................................................................................8

3.2.3 Norway ....................................................................................................................................................8

4. Case Area ..............................................................................................................................................................9

5. Methods ............................................................................................................................................................ 13

5.1 Survey .......................................................................................................................................................... 13

5.1.1 Creating the Survey .............................................................................................................................. 13

5.1.2 Distributing the Survey ......................................................................................................................... 15

5.1.3 Method Discussion (Survey) ................................................................................................................. 15

5.2 Interview ...................................................................................................................................................... 16

5.2.1 Method Discussion (Interview) ............................................................................................................ 17

5.3 GIS ................................................................................................................................................................ 18

5.3.1 Creating Networks ................................................................................................................................ 18

5.3.2 Closest Facility ...................................................................................................................................... 20

5.3.1 Method Discussion (GIS)....................................................................................................................... 20

6. Survey Results .................................................................................................................................................... 22

6.1 Background Data ......................................................................................................................................... 23

6.2 The “Yes – road” .......................................................................................................................................... 25

6.3 The “No-road” ............................................................................................................................................. 27

6.4 Common Preference Questions .................................................................................................................. 29

6.5 Preference Questions .................................................................................................................................. 34

6.5.1 Park & Ride Preferences: User Expectations vs Experiences ............................................................... 34

6.5.2 Park & Ride Preferences: Users vs Non-users ...................................................................................... 41

7. Results of the Interview ..................................................................................................................................... 46

7.1 Field Work at Køge Nord Station ................................................................................................................. 51

2

8. Results of the GIS Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 52

8.1 Municipality Patterns .................................................................................................................................. 55

9. Discussion .......................................................................................................................................................... 59

9.1 Easy Access .................................................................................................................................................. 59

9.2 Walking Distance to Station ........................................................................................................................ 61

9.3 Available Parking ......................................................................................................................................... 62

9.4 Safe to Use ................................................................................................................................................... 63

9.5 Neat and Welcoming ................................................................................................................................... 64

9.6 Time-saving .................................................................................................................................................. 65

9.7 Train Frequency ........................................................................................................................................... 67

9.8 Shops and Stores ......................................................................................................................................... 68

9.9 Walking Distance to Final Destination ......................................................................................................... 69

9.10 Changing Train ........................................................................................................................................... 70

9.11 Paid Parking and Travel Cost ..................................................................................................................... 71

10. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 73

11. References ....................................................................................................................................................... 75

12. Appendix 1 – Survey ........................................................................................................................................ 77

1. Introduction

Traffic congestion is one of the greatest mobility challenges in urban areas, especially during

periods of rush hour (Rodrigue, 2017). It is a rising problem, leading to time wasted on the roads,

less effective mobility and frustrated drivers, among other challenges. Congestion occurs when the

demand for road use is higher than the road capacity, and, as a result, there is a need for road

expansion. In Denmark, traffic congestion is also a problem, since a large amount of commuting is

by car. Calculated in kilometres, in 2017, 58% of the total transport in Denmark was by car and only

18% by public transport (DTU, 2017). The increasing mobility of the workforce in Denmark has led

to more people driving to work and correspondingly a massive car pressure on the roads. In addition,

commuters are spending a heightened amount of time and kilometres on driving to work, resulting

in congestion (DST, 2018).

However, is there an alternative to this colossal over-usage of cars? This question has been

debated multiple times, and the obvious answer is to focus on public transport, thereby minimising

3

the number of cars on the roads. Nevertheless, there are other alternatives; one of them is “Park &

Ride”. Park & Ride is a solution that combines car driving and public transport. Is this combination

the best of both worlds in order to avoid congestion, yet still maintain the comfort of driving? On

Zealand, the problem of congestion is faced by a large group of people that commute from the outer

areas of Copenhagen to the centre of Copenhagen on a daily basis. In 2016 there were 61.700 more

people commuting into the municipality of Copenhagen than out of the municipality (ibid.).

This thesis is dedicated to investigating the potential for Park &and Ride, focusing

specifically on commuters on Zealand who travel into the municipality of Copenhagen. The case

area will be the four municipalities in the Bay of Køge: Stevns, Køge, Solrød and Greve. Park & Ride

will be examined both in terms of people’s preferences and in terms of the planning process. Firstly,

this thesis will explain the theoretical framework behind Park & Ride in order to understand the

potential in terms of preferences and planning. Additionally, Danish and international experiences

from literature will be reviewed. Moreover, a survey will be constructed based on the findings from

the literature. The aim of the survey is to validate and gather new information about preferences

on Park & Ride in Denmark. An understanding of the planning for Park & Ride is established through

an interview with a civil servant working for a municipality. Using GIS, travel times for both

commuting by car and Park & Ride are calculated. The two results will be compared in order to

calculate the potential travel time-savings in the case area. Then, a discussion will follow on

comparing the different findings on the preferences concerning the potential for Park & Ride. Lastly,

this thesis will list a number of recommendations that can promote the use of Park & Ride in

Denmark.

2. Research Questions

What is the potential for Park & Ride in Denmark and how can it become more common?

What are the citizens’ preferences when it comes to Park & Ride, when asking both Park &

Ride users and non-users?

How does a municipality plan for a Park & Ride facility?

Which locations in the case area will experience time-savings as a result of using Park &

Ride?

What initiatives can be introduced in order to make Park & Ride more common?

4

3. Theory and Literature Review

This thesis is not introducing a new way of travelling in Denmark, since Park & Ride has

existed for many years, both in Denmark and other countries to different degrees. The term Park &

Ride covers a mode of travel whereby the traveller goes by car to a car park near a station, parks

and then continues the journey by train. In its simplicity, is can be described as a form of long stay

parking near a station. Park & Ride as a concept also covers travel by bike and bus, but this thesis

only examines the combination of car and train. An increasing awareness of the problems connected

with the expansion of the car began to unfold in the 1980s, such as congestion-, parking-, health-

and environmental problems. Consequently, this led to a greater focus on the use of Park & Ride as

a way of travelling (COWI, 2015).

However, this way of travelling is not that common in Denmark. So why is this way of

travelling not that preferable for the Danish commuter’s mobility? In order to investigate the

potential for Park & Ride it is important to inspect the citizen’s needs and preferences. Park & Ride

needs to be suited to the citizen’s mobility preferences: mobility being the ability to move (Rambøll,

2018). Everyday people move in order to get from A to B. Mobility differs from transport because it

covers the traveller’s needs that determine which route, mode of transport etc. they choose (ibid.).

Their way of travelling can differ from day to day and involve different types of ways of travelling.

Therefore, mobility has to be specifically suited to each travel situation. We go to work, the shops,

the park – all different situations where different kinds of mobility can be favourable. Each trip has

a different purpose and sometimes we need to go fast, whereas sometimes we prefer silence or a

slower journey. When combining different modes of transport, as Park & Ride does, the traveller is

able to choose the most suitable way of travelling when it comes to speed, climate impact, time,

price etc. (ibid.).

The group that uses Park & Ride most often are commuters, as they enjoy the largest

benefits from using this transport solution, since they can avoid rush hour on the roads, as well as

searching for an expensive parking space in the city centre (COWI, 2015). Some people also travel

with Park & Ride when they need to travel for cultural experiences or visiting friends. However, the

number of such travellers is small when compared with the total number of Park & Ride journeys

(ibid.).

5

The next section will firstly examine Danish literature on preferences for Park & Ride,

followed by international literature on the topic. The findings based on Danish literature are

separated from the international literature, since the national transport systems and people’s

preferences differ between countries.

3.1 Danish Literature

One of the factors that a paper from COWI in 2015 outlines as being important is the

capacity of a car park. In order to get people to use Park & Ride there need to be available parking

spaces. If there are no available parking spaces, then the traveller cannot use the Park & Ride facility,

and this leads to frustration. This does not motivate them to travel this way in the future if they

experience problems finding an available parking space. DSB collects data both on how many

parking spaces there are at each station and how many parked cars there are. These data can be

used to gain an understanding of how occupied the car parks near the stations are. DSB has

calculated how occupied the car parks are in percent and defined categories describing how difficult

it is for travellers to find a parking space. The number of cars are counted during rush hour and DSB

highlights that there is no guarantee for an available parking space. The different definitions are

shown in Table 1. These categories will be used later when describing the case area. In Denmark, in

general the car parks are more densely occupied at stations where trains go directly to and from

larger cities, such as Copenhagen.

Percent

occupied

Definition

Over 85% It will often be difficult to find an available parking space during rush hour. Try

another station.

70-85% There should be an available parking space, but certain hours/days all parking

spaces may be occupied.

Under

70%

You will rarely experience problems in finding an available parking space.

Table 1 – Defintions of occupied car parks (DSB, 2019)

6

Regarding the car park itself, other factors besides how occupied it is, are important. The

appearance is also important, since a nice and clean parking area is preferred. E.g. a parking area

without puddles and mud is ideal (COWI, 2015). Adding to this, the literature outlines that the users

want to feel safe when using the car park. They do not want to be concerned about their safety or

vandalism of their car when using the parking areas. Light and CCTV monitoring are two factors that

have a positive effect when it comes to people feeling safe (ibid.). The location of the parking area

is also outlined as being important. People are not willing to walk far from the car park to the station

when using Park & Ride, and so a 300 meter maximum walking distance is recommended (ibid.). The

issue concerning walking distance is also important in regard to the walking distance from the end

station to the final destination. Here, the need for a short walking distance also applies (ibid.). Shops

and stores that are located near to car parks are most commonly investigated in relation to the

benefits they might gain as a result. However, it is mentioned that it is important for the travellers

to be able to buy a cup of coffee (ibid.).

When reviewing the individual’s needs concerning mobility, literature finds that there are

positive aspects for train-commuters to enjoy. After parking the car there is a great comfort in taking

the train, since it gives the traveller the opportunity to relax, read etc. In order to secure optimal

mobility when using Park & Ride, it is important to make the shift from car to train smooth and easy

(ibid.). This relates to the findings on the importance of a short walking distance and feeling safe.

Having disruptions when changing from car to train, such as walking far in the rain, feeling unsafe

about suspicious people in the area etc. make the Park & Ride option less attractive. Changing train

whilst travelling also seems to have a negative impact. Danish studies show that people are willing

to pay more in order to avoid changing train along their journey (ibid.). Concretely they found that

the time spent changing from one train to another is 1.5 times worse than the actual travel time

(DTU, 2006 in COWI, 2015). Therefore, a longer travel time is preferred compared with a shorter

trip that includes changing train.

When the traveller chooses which station to drive to and park at, the location of the station

is important. The literature finds that people who use Park & Ride often choose the nearest station

in the direction of their final destination (COWI, 2015). Adding to this, the accessibility of the car

park also has an impact. Stations located near the road network are easier to access and therefore

more preferable. Besides the location of the station, it has been proven that that users are willing

to drive to a station located further away, if the train ticket is cheaper due to the train zoning plan.

7

It has also been confirmed that Park & Ride users are willing to drive further than the nearest

stations, if they can reach a station that offers faster trains (ibid.).

The Danish literature on the subject has given an insight into many parameters that have

been deemed important when it comes to people’s mobility preferences. These findings have

included preferences regarding many issues e.g. the car park, the station, the connection etc.

However, as Park & Ride is not that common in Denmark, international findings from literature must

also be investigated.

3.2 International Literature

Three countries stand out when researching international findings on Park & Ride: Sweden,

the Netherlands and Norway. The international findings in this thesis will be based on experiences

and literature from these three countries, since they have great experience with Park & Ride and

they are European countries that share some similarities to Denmark.

3.2.1 Sweden

In Stockholm, there has been a great focus on the challenges of parking, congestion and

environmental problems in larger cities due to the over-use of cars. In 2007, road pricing was

introduced to the city and more Park & Ride facilities were established (ibid.). The Park & Ride

facilities were established outside the road pricing area in order to coerce people into parking

outside the road pricing area and taking public transport into the city. There are 34 Park & Ride

facilities outside the road pricing area and in total 3681 parking spaces. A large number of these 34

Park & Ride facilities are located 10-15 kilometres outside the centre of Stockholm (ibid.). At all the

Park & Ride facilities, the parking fee is cheaper if you park between 05.00-09.00 am, in order to

make it beneficial for commuters. However, six of the Park & Ride facilities provide parking free of

charge if you have a ticket for the train (Stockholm parking, 2019). Introducing road pricing resulted

in a 23% rise in the use of Park & Ride (Tetraplan, 2019, in COWI, 2015).

Gothenburg is also a great example of a Swedish city with Park & Ride facilities. There are

42 Park & Ride facilities with, in total, 2700 free parking spaces (Göteborgs Stad, 2019).

8

3.2.2 The Netherlands

In the Netherlands, there are 400 Park & Ride facilities (COWI, 2015). Eight of them are

located outside of Amsterdam in order to avoid congestion in the centre of the city. Some of the

advantages “I Amsterdam” (the online provider of Park & Ride) highlights regarding Park & Ride are

saving money, avoiding searching for one of the few available parking spaces in Amsterdam, and

the easy accessibility from the motorway (I Amsterdam, 2019). There is a combined ticket for both

parking and the train, and it is always cheaper to use the Park & Ride facilities than driving all the

way (COWI, 2015). On the website, it is possible to see live at any given time how many parking

spaces are available. This service makes it preferable to use Park & Ride because the user knows if

the car parks are occupied. Another service that makes it easy for the user to use Park & Ride is signs

on the roads. All Park & Ride locations are clearly signposted on the roads and near the exits (I

Amsterdam, 2019). Two of the Park & Ride facilities are near large sports arenas, giving the car park

a double function: both facilitating Park & Ride and larger sports events. The Netherlands is outlined

as the only country that has Park & Ride as a public-private partnership. One example of this is a

Park & Ride facility that was partly financed by a privately-owned parking operator (COWI, 2015).

They paid for 25% of the Park & Ride facility in order to obtain the rights to take charge of the car

park. Another example is a McDonald’s restaurant that has been involved in the operation of a Park

& Ride facility (ibid.). The customers of the restaurant use the parking which results in a safer area,

since more people use it.

A Dutch study from 1991 found that the travel time by Park & Ride should not be more than

twice as long compared with driving all the way (ibid.). Another Dutch study mentioned the

importance of the appearance of the Park & Ride facility (ibid.). The area should appear safe and

accommodating. Here, a parallel can be drawn with some of the Danish findings introduced in the

Danish literature section.

3.2.3 Norway

A Norwegian study points out three important factors for users of Park & Ride (ibid.). The

potential to save time by avoiding congestion is the most important factor. Expensive or difficult

parking at the final destination and the enjoyability of riding the public transport are the two other

significant factors. Studies from both Norway (1994) and the Netherlands (2003) mention the

importance of the number of train departures pr. hour. The Norwegian study calculates travel time-

9

savings for Park & Ride versus travelling by car, based on how often trains depart from the station

(ibid.). A Norwegian study from an area called Buskerud has also investigated the preferences for

and against paid parking. As similar to other studies, they found that paid parking might result in

some people not wanting to use the Park & Ride facilities. However, they also find a positive effect

of paid parking; people who would normally have cycled to the station would take the car if the

parking was free. Paid parking secures parking for the people who really need it (ibid.).

A common finding from the three countries is that they have a standard sign for Park & Ride

on the roads (ibid.). Here, it is outlined that the shared knowledge of Park & Ride is important to

coax people into using it. Additionally, Amsterdam and Stockholm have websites about Park & Ride

containing information on: parking conditions, parking fees, facilities etc., in doing so, making it

easier for the user (ibid.).

Larger consistent analyses have not been carried out on why people use Park & Ride, but

most literature (both Danish and international) show that factors concerning available parking, easy

access, avoiding congestion and low payment for parking are some of the most important.

4. Case Area

The case area for this thesis is four municipalities in the Bay of Køge: Stevns, Køge, Solrød

and Greve. The locations of the four municipalities are shown in Map 1. Greve is closest to

Copenhagen, then Solrød, Køge and Stevns. The number of parking spaces and how occupied they

are shown in Table 2: all of the stations are almost fully occupied beside Karlslunde Station,

however, it only facilitates 18 parking spaces. In Table 3 the size (km2) and number of inhabitants

are shown for each municipality. The four municipalities differ in size and number of inhabitants.

The largest municipalities (according to size) are not the ones with the most inhabitants. This can be

seen when looking at data for the population density pr. square kilometre. When it comes to the

four case municipalities, a larger population density follows in line with the proximity to

Copenhagen (Table 3).

10

Station name Percentage of occupied

parking spaces

Number of parking spaces Municipality they

are located in

Køge Station 75% 767 Køge

Ølby Station 83% 543 Køge

Jersie Station 80% 85 Solrød

Solrød Strand

Station

102% 65 Solrød

Karslunde

Station

0% 18 Greve

Greve Station 88% 389 Greve

Hundige Station 103% 121 Greve

Table 2 – S-train stations in the case area (DSB, 2019)

Map 1 – The location of the four case municipalities

11

Municipality: Greve Solrød Køge Stevns

Inhabitants

(2018)

50289

23234 60725 22856

Size (km2) 60.4 40.1 257.3 250.1

Inhabitants pr.

km2 (2018)

833 579 236 91

Table 3 – Data for the four case municipalities (DST, 2019)

The four municipalities are located in the “Køge Finger”. The Køge Finger is a part of the

Finger Plan, which covers 34 municipalities in and around Copenhagen. The original plan, developed

in 1947, planned for urban development concentrated in ‘five fingers’ moving outwards from

Copenhagen, as well as green ‘wedges’ (areas) in between them (Danish Ministry of the

Environment, 2015). Since then the plan has been revised several times, each time as a result of

having to face new urban challenges. However, the overall plan establishing the development of the

five fingers containing built-up areas and undeveloped green wedges in between, is still applicable.

The infrastructure in the fingers ensures mobility in the area.

In the Køge Finger the s-train departs from Copenhagen to Køge every 10 minutes during

the day and less frequently during the night. The Finger Plan divides the 34 municipalities into

different geographical zones, each one with different planning options. The different zones are

shown in Map 2. The Køge Finger is located in the outer urban area. §11 in the Finger Plan outlines

that municipal spatial planning for urban development in the outer urban area (the fingers) should

take the existing and the planned infrastructure, i.e. major roads and high class public

transportation, into consideration (Erhvervsstyrelsen, 2019). It is also stipulated that urban

functions that have an intensive character when it comes to size and number of daily users (except

for large housing estates) should be located in an area near a station, i.e. within 600 meters walking

distance and, under certain conditions, within 1.200 meters (ibid.). Development in proximity to the

stations contributes to more people using the public transport.

12

Map 2 – The Finger Plan (Erhvervsstyrelsen, 2019)

The main focus of this thesis is on the municipality of Køge, since the municipality has

recently opened a new station with Park & Ride facilities. The station is located in the northern area

of Køge and is called: Køge Nord Station. It opened on the 31st of May 2019 with 650 parking spaces.

The new station is connected to the existing s-train line and new platforms were built in order to

operate high-speed trains. The area is not only located near the existing s-train but also located near

the motorway. The motorway has been connected to the station area by creating a new exit. The

passengers can walk between the platforms and parking areas via a 225 meter long bridge built in

the shape of a tube (Truberg Jensen & Bastrup Kure, 2017). The Park & Ride facilities are established

at both ends of the bridge and are home to 2700 potential parking spaces. As of today (Oct. 2019),

650 parking spaces have been established (ibid.). The area around the station has been planned to

accommodate both industrial and residential areas (Køge Kommune, 2018). The travel time for the

high-speed trains that go directly from Køge Nord Station to Copenhagen is estimated to be 20

minutes (ibid.). Since the train is not currently functioning at full speed yet, and since the train does

not depart as frequently as planned, it is only the existing s-trains that have been investigated in this

thesis’ GIS analysis.

13

5. Methods

This section will describe the use of methods in this thesis and how challenges have been

dealt with throughout the process. Three different methods were used in this thesis and they will

be described separately. After having introduced the choice of methods, the major challenges

working with them will be described and discussed. The challenges that are outlined in this section

include both those which occurred during the process and those which occurred after the data were

collected.

5.1 Survey

The Danish literature about people’s preferences for Park & Ride are limited. Therefore, an

online survey was designed in order to validate the current literature on the topic, as well as

supplement it with new data. The survey was made in Survey Exact, an online program that provides

tools to customise an online survey. When data are collected, the program also facilities data

processing, thus allowing for the data to be downloaded to Excel.

5.1.1 Creating the Survey

Page one in the survey explains its purpose and the travel concept of Park & Ride is

introduced. In the explanation of Park & Ride, it is noted that the respondents may have travelled

with Park & Ride without thinking about it. It was important to introduce Park & Ride in a simple

way in order to avoid people quitting the survey before answering all of the questions. Even though

the term was defined simply, 200 people quit the survey after only having read the first page. This

can both be explained by the term itself, as most people are unfamiliar with the term, even though

it has a simple meaning. Another explanation may be that the amount of text has deterred people

from reading on. Park & Ride is explained as neutrally as possible throughout the whole survey in

order to avoid the respondents’ answers being swayed.

The first two questions in the survey require easy answers. Here, respondents are asked

which municipality they live in and which municipality they work or study in. If some respondents

are unemployed or not a student, a note in the survey explains that they can choose the municipality

where they worked or studied most recently. It is preferable to present easy questions at the

beginning of a survey, since this makes the respondents confident and therefore contributes to

14

fewer people quitting (Hansen & Andersen, 2019). Ensuring that the respondents do not quit the

survey has been an issue, since the survey is long and has many questions on a slightly obscure topic.

In general, there has been a great focus on the balance between asking many questions in order to

get the needed information, and not making the survey too long or demanding for the respondents.

The third question asks whether or not the respondents have tried Park & Ride, and sets the

flow for the rest of the survey - the next question depends on whether the respondents have tried

Park & Ride or not. If the respondents answered “yes” they have tried Park & Ride, they will then be

asked to consider their preferences when using Park & Ride. The respondents that answered “no”,

that they have not tried Park & Ride, were asked why not. Subsequently, the respondents were

asked to consider ten different preferences on a scale from “Totally agree” to “Totally disagree” –

the questions are still determined by whether or not the respondents have tried Park & Ride. The

respondents that have tried Park & Ride are asked for their opinion on the ten preferences, both

when it comes to what they had expected, and afterwards in terms of how their experiences have

been. What Park & Ride users experience when they use Park & Ride does not have to be the same

as what they expect.

When creating the survey, there has been a great focus on how to distinguish between these

two different ways of asking about the same preferences, both when it comes to expectations and

experiences. The solution was to add a note with small text in bold explaining the difference. The

respondents that have not tried Park & Ride are asked for their view on the ten preferences as if

they were to use it. The ten preferences defined have been found in the literature review. The

survey gives the respondents the opportunity to choose the option ”Do not know” so they can skip

questions which they do not have an opinion on. Having “Do not know” as an option is also

important in relation to avoiding people quitting the survey (Hansen & Andersen, 2019). If they were

forced to give an answer to a question which they do not have an opinion on, they might choose to

quit the survey.

After considering the ten preferences, all of the respondents (Park & Ride users and non-

users) were asked six common questions. These are different from the other questions, seeing as

the possible answers here are exact numbers measured in percentage, meters, Danish Kroner (DKK)

or number of times. The results from these questions will give a good indication about various

important factors when it comes to the use of Park & Ride. The last page of the survey thanks the

respondents for answering. The survey can be seen in appendix 1.

15

5.1.2 Distributing the Survey

The survey was an online survey and was initially distributed through Facebook. Facebook

gives access to many different types of groups where people gather around small or large topics.

Since everyone is a potential respondent for this survey, it could be shared in all types of groups.

However, in order to avoid biases in the data, Facebook groups that did not specifically focus on a

narrow topic were chosen. In the end, the decision was taken to distribute the survey in groups

about municipalities and congestion. The purpose of the municipality-related Facebook groups is to

spread information about politics, sale, events etc. in the municipality. The survey was shared in

groups about municipalities geographically located within the Køge Finger, in order to target people

that live in the case area. The survey was also shared in two groups about congestion, one of them

with a focus on the Køge Finger. Sharing the survey in a total of seven Facebook groups resulted in

312 completed answers. Afterwards the survey was shared on LinkedIn which resulted in an

additional 36 answers. Overall, the survey gave 348 completed answers.

5.1.3 Method Discussion (Survey)

When creating the survey, many decisions were made. The aim was to create a survey that

was both easy to understand for the respondents, and yet, still managed to gather all relevant

information. The previous section about creating the survey explains some of the decisions that

were made in the process. However, the upcoming section will outline some of the most important

challenges that arose when creating the survey and subsequently working with the results.

One of the common six question at the end of the survey relates to how often the

respondents are willing to change train along their journey route. However, the respondents could

have a different opinion on whether the metro is a train or not. If a respondent was fine with

changing to the metro, when using Park & Ride, and defines it as a train, they would answer

“Changing 1 time”. If the same respondent defines the metro as not being a train, but is still fine

with changing to it, they would answer that they would not change trains along the route. Both

respondents agree that it is fine to change to the metro, yet offer different answers in the survey,

due to this technicality in perception. This has to be taken into consideration when looking at the

answers.

16

As mentioned previously, the survey was distributed in Facebook groups. The intention with

choosing large Facebook groups that do not concern a narrow topic was to reach many different

people in the municipalities, thereby avoiding biased data. Distributing the survey in a Facebook

group called “Retirees in Køge” would result in a biased dataset, as the results would only indicate

the retirees’ opinions and not the general opinion on Park & Ride. Additionally, in order to avoid

biased data, the survey was distributed in the evening, making it possible for employees to answer

it. Be that as it may, the results from the survey may be biased if it could be concluded that there is

a certain type of person that joins Facebook groups related to events, politics etc. in a municipality.

5.2 Interview

One interview was conducted in the process of writing this master thesis. The aim of the

interview was mainly to gather information on how a municipality plans for a Park & Ride facility,

and, additionally, how to face the challenges. The interview was conducted with a project manager

working in the municipality of Køge. On the 31st May 2019 the municipality opened a new station

called Køge Nord Station with a large Park & Ride facility. The interview took place at the old Town

Hall and lasted approx. 60 minutes. The project manager was able to prepare for the interview, since

the interview guide was sent weeks before the interview. The interview guide is semi-structured

and therefore, the interview did not have to follow the questions chronologically (Kvale &

Brinkmann, 2009). The interview is an elite interview, since the interview person had expert

knowledge on the topic, meaning not just anyone could answer the questions (ibid.). From the

interview, information about the project concerning financing, number of parking spaces,

cooperation etc. was gathered, but also reflections on how to plan for a successful Park & Ride

facility and how to deal with its challenges. The reflections from the interview will be used in the

discussion chapter.

Before the interview was started, permission was obtained from the informant to record

the interview. Recording the interview has several benefits. Avoiding writing everything down gives

a greater focus on the dialog, especially when conducting a semi-structured interview that does not

follow a strict order. Additionally, it makes data processing easier, since it is possible to listen to the

whole interview as many times as needed. The interview began with a briefing, defining the context

for the interview and its aim. The briefing was followed by a short presentation on the interviewer’s

academic background. As planned, the interview followed the semi-structured format, even though

17

it began with the first question from the guide. The topics changed naturally when one topic led to

another, despite not being the same order as on the paper. Follow-up questions were asked when

necessary. These kinds of questions are important, since they indicate that the interviewer is

listening and they can clarify some topics that may be difficult to understand later when listening to

the recording of the interview (ibid.). The interview ended with a debriefing, thanking the interview

informant for her time and her interesting insight into the topic.

5.2.1 Method Discussion (Interview)

There are certain expectations regarding what a person can contribute to an interview.

During the interview, the interview informant might not answer as expected. There might be

problems with short answers, lack of concrete knowledge on the topic etc. Luckily, the interview for

this thesis went very well. The interview informant answered very thoroughly. Therefore, there are

not many challenges to discuss based on the interview. However, some challenges did occur in

respect to contacting potential interview persons and writing the interview guide.

Originally, the plan was to conduct interviews with persons from different municipalities.

The municipality of Køge agreed to an interview per email, shortly after the request was sent.

Despite several calls, the other municipalities were unable to point out a person who was directly

engaged in planning concerning Park & Ride. The municipality of Køge has an ongoing planning

process for Park & Ride projects. This could explain why this is the only municipality out of the ones

asked that agreed to an interview. The other municipalities do not currently have a Park & Ride

project. This might explain why an interview could not be arranged. Since this thesis does not intend

to investigate the differences between the municipalities, it was chosen to go ahead with only one

interview with the municipality of Køge, since they have great experience with the subject of Park

& Ride.

First, the interview guide was made as a draft, and was changed several times before

sending it to the interview informant. In the meantime, more knowledge was gathered. Especially

the results from the survey contributed new, interesting findings. For this reason, some extra

questions were added to the interview guide. The project manager had not heard or seen these

extra questions before they were asked at the interview. However, the new questions were

relevant, and the interview informant could answer them sufficiently.

18

5.3 GIS

By working with GIS data, the aim is to create a map that indicates which locations

experience travel time-savings when using Park & Ride. In order to create the map, two closest

facility network analyses are carried out and compared based on their travel time. The first closest

facility analysis was based on a network containing roads on Zealand. The second closest facility

analysis was based on a multimodal network containing both roads, s-train stations and railway lines

for the s-train. This section will go through how to create a multimodal network and how to run a

closest facility analysis.

Data used in the GIS analysis:

Road network (Lines)

S-train network (Lines)

Stations (Points)

Citizens 100x100 (Points)

5.3.1 Creating Networks

Network data are used, since they are suited to model transportation networks (ESRI A,

2019). In order to compare two ways of travelling, two different networks must be established. The

first network was a pre-established layer of roads on Zealand containing the necessary information,

such as travel time for each road line measured in minutes. These time values was calculated as if

there were no congestion. However, this is not the real situation during rush hour, and since this

thesis investigates Park & Ride in the context of rising congestion, each time value was multiplied

with 1.3. Multiplying the time values by 1.3 added a 30% longer driving time.

The second network is a multimodal network because it includes more than one type of

network (ESRI B, 2019). Here, the multimodal network represents travelling by Park & Ride and

contains both roads and s-train lines. This network was established by creating a new multimodal

network containing both types of travelling (car and train). In order to connect these two types of

travelling, s-train stations were used to indicate where it is possible to change from car on the roads

to trains on the s-train lines (ESRI C, 2019). The multimodal network is shown in Map 3: the case

area is marked with a green colour and the stations in the case area are black dots. The road layer

only contained roads where it is possible to drive, and so the network was not connected all the way

19

to the stations. To deal with this, a new piece of line was added to the road network making it

possible to change from car to train in the multimodal network (Map 4). Besides connecting the

roads to the stations, the new lines had another purpose. Each line was given a time value of 5

minutes representing the changeover time from car to train. This time value includes parking the

car, walking to the station and waiting for the train. This time value was chosen, since the s-train

departs every 10 minutes and it is assumed that people plan when to drive to the station, thus

rendering a short waiting time. The Danish study from 2015 also used a 5-minute changeover time

in their investigation (COWI, 2015). The road layer used in the multimodal network also had a time

value that was multiplied by 1.3, since there may also be congestion on the roads leading to the

stations in periods of rush hour.

Map 3 – The multimodal network. The case area is marked with green.

20

Map 4 – Line connecting the road with the station

5.3.2 Closest Facility

The tool used for the analysis is ArcGIS Network Analyst extension. This analysing tool always

depends on a network dataset (ESRI D, 2019). The network data contain information about travel

time, distance and junctions. The analysis closest facility was run twice, both on the multimodal Park

& Ride network and on the road network. The final destination (facilities) was loaded as one point:

Nørreport Station in central Copenhagen. The start destinations (incidents) were loaded as 9590

points representing the population in 100x100 meters cells in the municipalities Stevns, Køge, Solrød

and Greve. The analysis calculates the fastest routes in minutes for each of the 9590 points to the

end point Nørreport Station (ESRI E, 2019). The closest facility was run twice, with the same start

points and end point, but with different networks, resulting in two different travel times. The two

travel times are joined to the same layer and a new field is added. In this field, the Park & Ride travel

times are subtracted from the car travel times, showing the time difference. The time differences

are visually presented on a map, showing each point with a colour that indicates the time

differences.

5.3.1 Method Discussion (GIS)

Achieving a scenario that is as close to reality as possible is the goal when working with GIS

analysis. When the networks and the closest facility were prepared in GIS, there were many

considerations for each choice. This section is intended to discuss the factors that might have

affected the results.

21

Nørreport station was chosen as the final destination for the closest facility analysis. This

station was chosen due to two factors. Firstly, it was important that the final destination was a

station. If the final destination had not been a station, then journeys made in the multimodal

network would have included driving by car from the last station to the final destination after using

the public transport. Consequently, the multimodal network would have included driving by car

twice in the analysis: before entering the train and after, since the network does not include walking.

It is relevant to highlight how the concept of Park & Ride does not involve driving both before and

after the public transport. A network of walking paths could have been included in the analysis in

order to solve this challenge. However, the analysis would have still created the route based on the

car roads, as this is a faster way of moving. Secondly, Nørreport station was chosen, since it is the

busiest station in Copenhagen (Metroselskabet, 2019) and many people work nearby. Having a

station as a final destination might have given the Park & Ride running on the multimodal network

an advantage because it might give a shorter travel time, given that the cars need to drive to the

station where there may be a lot of traffic. On the other hand, having a final destination in

Copenhagen that is not a station could also be difficult to reach by car due to traffic. Therefore,

there is no evidence that a station as the final destination gives journeys made by Park & Ride an

advantage, when it comes to travel time.

As explained, the decision was made to multiply all time values for the driving time in the

road layer by 1.3 in both layers. Here, the intention was to create a realistic rush hour scenario in

the GIS analysis, and therefore extra time was added based on time values found on Google Maps

in rush hour in the morning and in the evenings. Despite this, the level of congestion differs in time,

both regarding days and hours. Some days the motorways are almost gridlocked due to traffic chaos

or accidents resulting in long queues. The road layer used in GIS includes all roads where cars can

drive, however there is a large difference in the roads. Motorways can be busy in rush hour, and at

the same time, some residential roads can be almost clear of cars. Therefore, a 30% longer travel

time was chosen, since this represents a situation where there are ‘normal’ levels of congestion.

The time values from Google Maps changed both during rush hour and from day to day,

nevertheless, an average of approx. 30% longer travel time from Køge to Nørreport station was

found. It should be noted that the 30% extra travel time does not include days where the traffic is

gridlocked because of accidents etc. Despite not being included in the GIS analysis, situations where

the traffic is gridlocked may present an argument in favour of using Park & Ride.

22

This thesis only investigates Park & Ride with connections to the s-train line between Køge

Station and Nørreport Station. However, other trains and routes are also in service in the case area.

I.e. the local train from Stevns to Køge and high-speed trains from Køge Nord Station to Copenhagen.

Including these trains and stations could have given another route pattern. People’s preferences are

different, and people located in a remote area of Stevns might have different opinions regarding

whether they want to drive to a local station in Stevns and minimize the driving time, or prefer to

drive all the way to a station in Køge, thereby avoiding changing train and having to wait for the

local train that departs less frequently. As previously described, the decision has been made to only

include the s-trains that depart frequently and that travel all the way to Copenhagen. The new route

from Køge Nord Station with the high-speed train is not included, since the travel times and

departure frequencies are still estimates (as per Oct 2019). The s-train stop at Køge Nord is,

however, included, as it is on the s-train line and is in service.

As mentioned, 5 minutes was the changeover time from car to train: this includes parking,

walking to the station and waiting for the train. The existing parking spaces in the case areas are in

proximity to the stations and the train departs every 10 minutes in rush hour. It is assumed that

people plan when to drive to the station and therefore the waiting time for the train should be no

longer than that. If a Park & Ride facility is located far away from the station, or if there are no

available parking spaces, the changeover time from car to train might be longer. Additionally, train

delays affect the changeover time, since it is not possible to use the public transport on time as

planned. This factor is identical to the problems that might occur on the roads which can lead to

congestion, and, as a result, there are some uncertainties in both forms of travel.

6. Survey Results

The online survey resulted in 348 fully completed answers. This section will go through the

data obtained from the survey. Firstly, through the use of descriptive statistics, the background data

for all of the respondents will be examined. After doing so, the data from the different questions

related to whether or not the respondents have tried Park & Ride, will be studied. Then the answers

based on the common questions will be reviewed. Lastly, in order to analyse the preference data

for both respondent groups (Park & Ride users and non-users), chi2 tests are calculated and the

results are introduced.

23

6.1 Background Data

The first questions in the survey were in regard to where the respondents live and work or study.

The respondents live in 30 different municipalities. Even though the survey was mainly

distributed in Facebook groups concerning the four case municipalities, a small proportion of the

respondents lived in other municipalities. 25 of the municipalities were represented by between 1-

7 respondents and comprised less than 2% of the total amount of respondents. Therefore, the

decision was made to leave them out, when introducing the background of the respondents, even

though their answers remain in the rest of the data. 5 municipalities will be presented in Table 4.

The four municipalities where most of the respondents live are the four municipalities in the case

area (Table 4). As a result, the aim when distributing the survey seems to have been achieved.

However, there is a big difference in how many respondents are representative of each of the case

municipalities. The number of respondents living in the municipality of Greve is almost twice as big

as the number of respondents living in Køge, which itself has the second largest amount (Table 4).

Within this dataset, Copenhagen is the municipality in fifth position, which can be explained by the

fact that it is the capital of Denmark and has the largest number of inhabitants.

Municipality No. of respondents Percentage of respondents

Greve 126 36.2%

Køge 65 18.7%

Solrød 43 12.4%

Stevns 39 11.2%

Copenhagen 21 6.0%

Table 4 – The municipalities where the respondents live

Respondents who either work or study are found in 38 municipalities. However, less than

2% of the respondents work or study in 29 of the municipalities. As seen in Table 4, the

municipalities with a value less than 2% are left out when presenting the municipalities, even though

their answers still remain. The nine municipalities with values higher than 2% are presented in Table

5. The data for where the respondents work or study are more dispersed when compared with

looking at where the respondents live. The greatest number of respondents work or study in the

municipality of Copenhagen, likely as a result of workplaces being located in Copenhagen, the capital

24

of Denmark. Aarhus, as the second largest city in Denmark, located in Jutland, is not represented in

the top nine, likely because the survey is distributed in Zealand. Commuting from Zealand to Aarhus

is almost impossible from Zealand. The second, third and fourth municipality where most of the

respondents work or study are the case municipalities. The survey was targeted at people with an

interest in these municipalities and that might explain the high number of respondents working

there. The last five municipalities in Table 5 are all located in The Finger Plan area on Zealand. As

seen in Table 5, many of the respondents live in municipalities near these municipalities and find it

therefore easy to commute.

Municipalities No. of

respondents

Percentage

of

respondents

Copenhagen 118 33.9%

Greve 43 12.4%

Køge 34 9.8%

Stevns 19 5.5%

Glostrup 12 3.4%

Roskilde 12 3.4%

Hvidovre 10 2.9%

Frederiksberg 9 2.6%

Brøndby 8 2.3%

Table 5 – The municipalities where the respondents work or study

After looking at the background of the respondents, the questions specifically pertaining to

Park & Ride followed. 30% of the respondents have answered that they have tried travelling by Park

& Ride (104 respondents), whereas 70% of the respondents answered that they have not tried

travelling by Park & Ride (244 respondents). Answering yes or no determined the next questions.

The respondents that have tried Park & Ride followed the “Yes – road”, with questions concerning

their use of Park & Ride, while the respondents that have not tried it followed the “No – road” asking

as to why they have not tried it. The next section will go through the answers from both “roads” and

finishes off with an analysis of the common preference questions.

25

6.2 The “Yes – road”

The 104 respondents that have tried travelling by Park & Ride were asked about the purpose

of having tried it. The results shown in Table 6 demonstrate that most of the Park & Ride users in

this survey travel by Park & Ride both when commuting and in their spare time. This could indicate

that once people have tried Park & Ride, people regard it as being preferable both for commuting

to work and in their spare time. However, Table 6 also shows that some people use it exclusively for

either commuting to work or in their spare time. Respondents that use Park & Ride in their spare

time but not when commuting to work, do not necessarily opt out of using Park & Ride when going

to work. They might live close to their work and therefore commuting by Park & Ride is not

necessary. This might also apply for the respondents using Park & Ride for commuting to work, but

not for leisure purposes in their spare time. Their family e.g. may live close, so they do not need to

make use of the Park & Ride option.

Reason No. of respondents Percentage of total

Both reasons 42 40

Recreation, amenities, visits etc. 35 34

Commuting to or from work or study place 27 26

Table 6 – The respondents’ reasons for travelling by Park & Ride

Table 7 shows why the respondents chose to travel by Park & Ride. The respondents could

only choose one answer and thus had to choose the most important factor. More than 1/3, the

largest number of respondents, answered that avoiding car queues is the most important factor.

Yet, when it comes to the environmental issue, only 5.8% of the respondents chose this option. The

rest of the reasons have quite similar numbers of respondents ranging from 13-19 respondents.

The most important reason for why I use Park & Ride is that… Respondents Percentage of total

...I avoid car queues 36 34.6%

...I contribute to helping the environment 6 5.8%

...I find it more flexible 19 18.3%

26

...I avoid spending a lot of time in a car 13 12.5%

...it is cheaper 17 16.3%

...it saves time 13 12.5%

Total 104 100%

Table 7 – The respondents’ answers as to why they use Park & Ride

When asking about the reasons as to why the respondents chose to park at stations, they

could choose between multiple options. However, some of the options exclude others e.g. if the

nearest stations are not easily accessible, both options cannot be chosen in combination with each

other. Some options can include others e.g. if the station is both close and offers available parking.

Some Park & Ride users might drive to different stations when using Park & Ride for different

travelling situations, and so depending on the travel situation, will have multiple preferences

regarding choice of station. Table 8 shows which factors are the most important for the

respondents, highlighting how stations with free parking are the most preferable. The second most

important factor for choosing a station is when the respondents know that it offers available

parking. Even though the respondents could choose both free parking and available parking, the

number of people who chose free parking is 20 percentage points (pp) higher than available parking.

The third most important factor for choosing a station is choosing the nearest station in order to

minimise the travel time by car. The rest of the options have been chosen by approximately the

same number of respondents. Only a small number of the respondents chose that they drive to

stations with a train running directly to their final destination. Most of the respondents live in

municipalities where the s-train operates and therefore there is no need to drive further away to

reach a direct train - this this might explain why it does not seem that important in the data. The

same considerations cover the question about driving to a station to reach a faster train.

Which factors determine which station you drive to and

park at?

Respondents Percentage of total

I drive to the nearest stations – then I drive as little as possible 45 43.3%

I drive to a new travel zone, then the journey is cheaper 11 10.6%

I drive further in order not to change train 16 15.4%

27

I drive further in order to reach a station with direct trains 13 12.5%

I choose a station with easy access, near the road network 18 17.3%

I choose a station where I know there are always available

parking spaces

51 49.0%

I choose a station with free parking 63 60.6%

Total 104 100%

Table 8 – The respondents’ answers about their choice of station

The question had an additional field where the respondents could add other factors

concerning why they have chosen to drive and park at a specific station. Four respondents had

additional comments: three of them wrote that the station they had chosen was near their child’s

day care and could therefore pick up their children when driving home. One respondent wrote that

the daily information from DSB concerning signal errors or rail work affected which station to drive

to.

6.3 The “No-road”

Out of the total 348 respondents, 244 of them had not tried Park & Ride. However, their

thoughts on why they had not tried it and their preferences regarding Park & Ride as to whether

they should use it, are interesting. If Park & Ride facilities are to become more common in Denmark,

there is a need to include the travellers that do not currently use Park & Ride.

Table 9 demonstrates why non-users have not tried Park & Ride, and they could only choose

one reason. The largest group of the non-users have not made use of Park & Ride, since it has not

been necessary or possible (45.9%). However, some non-users might have answered that it has not

been necessary, if they have not fully understood the concept of Park & Ride. The second largest

group are the ones who do not have a car (25%). These two groups of non-users do not use Park &

Ride, however both groups constitute possible future Park & Ride users. Even though Park & Ride is

not viewed as being necessary at the moment, it could be in the future if the respondents find a

new job or home further away from a station. The non-users who responded that they did not have

a car could be younger respondents studying in their home city. After having acquired a job and car,

they could become potential Park & Ride users. The third largest group is the non-users that would

28

rather drive all the way (24.2%). This group is difficult to see as potential Park & Ride users, since

they have actively chosen not to use the facility because of their preference to drive all the way. The

last group of the non-users (4.9%) find Park & Ride too difficult. This group has also actively chosen

not to use Park & Ride, and it is likewise difficult to see them as potential Park & Ride users.

The two largest groups could be potential Park & Ride users. Therefore, their preferences

regarding Park & Ride indicate something about what they expect, if they were to use it. The two

last groups answered that they do not want to use Park & Ride because they want to drive all the

way or because they find the concept difficult. Their preferences tell something about what non-

users of Park & Ride would want, if they were to be willing to use it.

Why have you not tried Park & Ride?


I find it difficult 12 4.9%

I would rather drive all the way 59 24.2%

I do not have a car available 61 25.0%

It has not been necessary or possible 112 45.9%

Total 244 100%

Table 9 – Why have the non-users not tried Park & Ride

The question for the non-users had an additional field where the respondents could add

other factors concerning why they do not use Park & Ride: 46 respondents had additional comments

(Table 10). Nineteen of them stated that they did not know what Park & Ride was. Ten of the

respondents wrote that they did not use Park & Ride by car, however they did use Park & Ride by

bicycle. This is also a version of the Park & Ride concept, but is not the one that is asked about in

this survey. Ten respondents wrote simply that Park & Ride was not necessary. Moreover, two

respondents wrote that driving all the way was cheaper than using Park & Ride. The last five were

all different: one wrote that public transport was impossible to use, another that there was no travel

time to be saved, another that parking near a station was difficult, and the two last provided answers

similar to the options in the survey.

29

Reason No. of

respondents

Does not know what is it 19

Expensive compared to travelling by car 2

Park & Ride by bicycle 10

Not a possibility 10

Other 10

Table 10 – Answers based on the optional field as to why non-users have not tried Park & Ride

6.4 Common Preference Questions

At the end of the survey, all respondents were asked to answer six common questions about

their preferences. This section’s results include answers from both the Park & Ride users and non-

users. These questions differed from the other questions, since the answers from these 6 questions

are registered as exact numbers measured in percentage, meters, DKK or number of times etc. For

this reason, these answers give a good indication about various important factors concerning the

use of Park & Ride.

Table 11 moves on to show the respondents’ views on how much longer travel time they

would allow, if they were to use Park & Ride. The answers, displayed as percentages, indicate how

much longer a journey may be, when compared with travelling exclusively by car. Almost half of the

respondents (46%) answered that the travel time should be almost the same, expressed as only 1-

10% longer than travelling solely by car. The second largest group (26.1%) answered that the travel

time should be shorter when travelling by Park & Ride. 2.6% of the respondents answered that they

would allow the travel time to be 25-50% longer. This category is the one with the highest accepted

time difference. 2% of the respondents signified that there are so many benefits using Park & Ride

that the time does not concern them. The two most considerable groups indicate that the travel

time, when using Park & Ride, is very important, since it must not be too long.

How much longer may the travel time be when using Park &

Ride? (Compared to driving all the way in the car)

Respondents Percentage of

total

I expect my travel time to be shorter when using Park & Ride 91 26.1%

30

The travel time should be approximately the same (1-10%

longer)

160 46.0%

The travel time may be 10-25% longer 49 14.1%



The travel time may be more than 75% longer 0 0.0%

I see so many advantages with Park & Ride that I am not

concerned about travel time

7 2.0%

Do not know 32 9.2%

Total 348 100%

Table 11 – Results of the respondents’ views on travel time by Park & Ride

Table 12 shows the respondents’ preferences when it comes to train frequency when using

Park & Ride. The category chosen by the majority of respondents (46.8%) was the option of a train

5-6 times an hour. That is a train frequency of approx. every 10 minutes. This is the same frequency

as for the s-trains. Many of the respondents are from municipalities near the s-train line (Table 4:

Greve, Køge, Solrød and Copenhagen). This could explain why the greatest number of respondents

have chosen this category. The second largest category (33%) answered that the train should depart

3-4 times an hour, and 7.5% answered 1-2 times an hour. This demonstrates that there is a potential

to establish Park & Ride facilities in areas with no s-trains, but rather other types of trains that depart

less frequently. 8.9% answered that the train should depart more than 6 times an hour when using

Park & Ride. This preference demands either a metro or another type of high frequency train. It is

thought that this group of respondents may share some of the non-users’ resentment and thus have

decided to choose a non-realistic option. In general, the results in Table 12 show that the greatest

potential for Park & Ride is at s-train stations where the train departs frequently. However, there is

also a potential outside s-train areas where the trains depart less frequently.

How often should a train depart in one direction from a

station when using Park & Ride?


1-2 times an hour 26 7.5%

31

3-4 times an hour 115 33.0%

5-6 times an hour (Approx. every 10 minutes) 163 46.8%

More than 6 times an hour 13 3.7%

Do not know 31 8.9%

Total 348 100%

Table 12 – Results of how often the respondents expect trains to depart when using Park & Ride.

Table 13 shows the results of how often the respondents are willing to change train along

their journey by Park & Ride. In this question there are two large groups that, when combined, cover

83.3% of the respondents answers. The difference between the two largest groups is 2.9 pp (ten

respondents). The largest of these two groups (43.1%) is willing to change train once. It could be

changing from the s-train to another s-train or from a local train to the s-train. The second of the

two largest groups (40.2%) is not willing to change train along their journey by Park & Ride. When

they have changed from car to train, they do not want to change to yet another train. In addition,

9.5% are willing to change twice and 1.1% are willing to change three times. In general, most

respondents are not willing to change train or only change once. As mentioned in the methods

section, the metro can be defined as both a train and not a train.

How often are you willing to change train along your

journey by Park & Ride?


Zero times. After I have parked the car and entered a train,

I do not want to change train.

140 40.2%

1 time 150 43.1%

2 times 33 9.5%

More than 3 times 4 1.1%

Do not know 21 6.0%

Total 348 100%

Table 13 – Results of how often the respondents are willing to change train when travelling by Park & Ride.

Table 14 shows how far the respondents are willing to walk from the car park to the station.

Half of the respondents (50.6%) are willing to walk a maximum distance of 300 meters, whereas

32

19.5% only wants to walk a maximum of 150 meters and 18.1% are willing to walk a maximum of

600 meters. Only 5.7% are willing to walk more than 600 meters. The respondent’s answers to this

question indicate that the car park’s proximity to the station is important when using Park & Ride,

since they do not want to walk far. However, it should be noted that the low tolerances for walking

distances expressed in this question might be a result of the respondents not being able to imagine

the different walking distances.

How far are you willing to walk between the car park and

the station?


Maximum 150 meters 68 19.5%



Over 600 meters 20 5.7%

Do not know 21 6.0%

Total 348 100%

Table 14 – The results of the respondents answers concerning how long they are willing to walk from the car park to the station

Table 15 gives an overview of how far the respondents are willing to walk from the end

station to their final destination. More than half of the respondents (52.6%) have chosen the

shortest walking distance: maximum 600 meters. If a walking distance of a maximum of 600 meters

is required in order to get people to use Park & Ride, it demands jobs, services etc. to be located

near stations. Furthermore, as shown in table 15, 29.9% are willing to walk 1200 meters to their

final destination, 6.6% are willing to walk up to 1800 meters, yet only 2% of the respondents are

willing to walk further than 1800 meters. As mentioned in relation to Table 14, the low tolerances

for walking distances expressed in this question might be a result of the respondents not being able

to imagine the different walking distances. In general, most of the respondents are willing to walk a

maximum of 600 meters.

33

How far are you willing to walk between the last station to

your final destination?





Over 1800 meters 7 2.0%

Do not know 31 8.9%

Total 348 100%

Table 15 – Results of the respondents’ answers regarding how long they are willing to walk from the station to their final

destination

Table 16 shows how much the respondents are willing to pay for parking. More than half of

the respondents (52.9%) have chosen that they expect the parking to be free. 19.8% accept a charge

of up to 15 DKK and 11.2% accept a charge of up to 30 DKK. Only 3.4% accept a maximum payment

of up to 45 DKK and 2.6% accept payment of up to 60 DKK. One person (0.3%) answered that the

paid parking could cost even more than 60 DKK and they would still use the facility. The results in

the table indicate that the price for parking is very important. A large group of the respondents

expect it to be free when using Park & Ride. Another relatively large group has a maximum limit of

15 DKK for Park & Ride parking.

How much are you willing to pay for parking when

using Park & Ride?


It has to be free 184 52.9%

Maximum 15 DKK 69 19.8%




Moe than 60 DKK 1 0.3%

Do not know 34 9.8%

Total 348 100%

Table 16 – Results of the respondents’ answer as to how much they are willing to pay to park

34

6.5 Preference Questions

Both the Park & Ride users (the ‘yes-road’) and the non-users (the ‘no-road’) were asked

about their preferences in regard to if and when using Park & Ride. They were asked to rate their

preferences from “Totally agree” to “Totally disagree”. The non-users were asked for their view on

ten preferences in relation to if they were to use Park & Ride. The Park & Ride users had twice as

many preferences to consider, since they were asked about the same ten preferences twice. First,

they were asked about their view on ten preferences related to their expectations of Park & Ride

and afterwards they had to consider the same ten preferences related to their experiences when

using Park & Ride.

Now there are three groups of answers to work with: the non-users’ preferences, the users’

expectations regarding the preferences and the users’ experiences regarding the preferences.

Looking at the data for the Park & Ride users, it is interesting to investigate whether the Park & Ride

users answered the same when it comes to their expectations and their experiences. Are there any

preferences they hold important, but which are not fulfilled in reality when actually using Park &

Ride? Additionally, what about the non-users; do they find the same preferences important as the

Park & Ride users? If not, this might indicate which preferences need to be fulfilled in order to get

non-users to use Park & Ride in the future.

In order to test if there is a relation between which group the respondents belong to and

what they answered, chi2 tests are performed, with a significance level of 5%. The chi2 tests are

calculated using the same procedure as in Hansen & Andersen 2009. The next two sections will go

through the results from the tests and the results will be presented in relation to whether the null

hypothesis (H0) is rejected or accepted.

6.5.1 Park & Ride Preferences: User Expectations vs Experiences

Testing the link between the Park & Ride users’ expectations and experiences gives an indication

of whether the users answered the same when it comes to what they expect and experience. The

data are based on the same Park & Ride users expressing their expectations and experiences. The

tests were performed with a 5% significance level and the null hypothesis (H0) and alternative

hypothesis (Ha) are as follows:

35

H0: There is no link between the respondents’ answers concerning their experiences and

their expectations. The respondents answered alike.

Ha: There is a link between the respondents’ answers concerning their experiences and

their expectations. The respondents answered differently.

Ten tests were calculated and in three out of the ten tests, the H0 was accepted. In the rest of the

tests, the H0 was rejected. The results are shown in Table 17.

Preference Test result

Easy access Reject H0

Walking distance to station Reject H0

Available parking Reject H0

Safe to use Reject H0

Neat and welcoming Accept H0

Time-saving Reject H0

Train frequency Reject H0

Shops and stores Reject H0

Walking distance to final destination Accept H0

Changing train Accept H0

Table 17 – Results from Chi2 test

The chi2 test shows whether the respondents answered the same in the questions about

their expectations as the ones about their experiences. However, the test does not include what the

respondents answered. Therefore, each result from the two tests is investigated in combination

with descriptive statistics in order to gather information on what the respondents have answered.

Easy Access

The test showed that the Park & Ride users answered differently when it comes to their

expectations and experiences. When it comes to their expectations, 95.2% of the respondents agree

or totally agree, whereas 3.8% answered neither nor. No one disagreed. Looking at their experiences

36

regarding the same preference, 88.5% agreed or totally agreed that there is easy access to their Park

& Ride facility. This is 6.7 pp less than when looking at data for their expectations. The difference is

also seen in the distribution of agree and totally agree. Looking at their experiences, only 37.5%

totally agree – that is 29.8 pp less than totally agree in their expectations. In regard to their

experiences, 3.8% disagree that there is easy access to the Park & Ride facility when travelling. Even

though there are differences between their expectations and their experiences, both results

indicate that easy access is an important factor when using Park & Ride. However, the expectations

are higher than the experiences, and so there should be a focus on easy access when planning future

Park & Ride facilities. The respondent’s definition of easy access might also be different. Yet, it was

the same respondents answering all 20 preference questions, and therefore comparisons are still

held as being meaningful.

Walking Distance to Station

The respondents answered differently to what they expect and what they actually

experience. 94.2% of the respondents agreed or totally agreed that they expect a short walking

distance from the car park to the station. However, when it comes to what they experience, only

85.6% agreed or totally agreed. The difference is greatest when looking at the totally agree category:

here there is a 21.1 pp difference. 1% disagreed in the expectations and 5.8% disagreed in the

experiences. Despite the test revealing how they answered differently, the answers are still, in

general, in favour of a short walking distance from the car park to the station. Looking at the results,

the expectations regarding this preference are higher than the experiences. This indicates that

planning for new Park & Ride facilities should consider locations in proximity to stations.

Available Parking

The test showed that they answered differently to this preference. This can be seen when

looking at the data. 96.2% agreed or totally agreed that they expect to know beforehand that there

is an available parking space for them when using Park & Ride. Looking at their experiences, only

69.2% agreed or totally agreed. A considerable difference is seen when looking at the number of

how many totally agreed. Only 23.1% totally agreed that they experience there always being an

available parking space for them, while 77.9% totally agreed that they expect an available parking

space. This is a difference of 54.8 pp. In their expectations, 2.9% answered neither nor, yet in respect

37

to the experiences, 17.3% answered neither nor. The demand for parking spaces is higher when

commuting to work, and if a respondent uses Park & Ride for different purposes, they may have

different experiences when it comes to the availability of parking spaces. One person totally

disagreed on the importance of finding an available parking space. Looking at the experiences,

11.5% signified that they disagreed in terms of their experiences regarding available parking spaces,

and 1.9% totally disagreed. In general, the respondents find it important to know that they will be

able to find an available parking space when using Park & Ride. Looking at the experiences, the

answers are more dispersed, but the largest category is the one where the respondents agree.

Nevertheless, each station has a different number of parking spaces, and the respondents do not

necessarily use the same stations – for this reason, they may have different experiences. This could

explain why the experiences are dispersed. Looking at the data, there is a large group of Park & Ride

users that expect an available parking space when they use Park & Ride. However, their experiences

do not match the expectations. More parking spaces are needed in order to fulfil the Park & Ride

user’s expectations.

Safe to Use

The respondents answered differently on their expectations and experiences. Looking at

the data 79.8% agreed or totally agreed that they expect to feel safe when using the Park & Ride

facility. When it comes to what they have experienced, 69.2% agreed or totally agreed. Even though

there are only 10.2 pp in difference when looking at the sum of agree and totally agree, the large

difference reveals itself when looking at only the totally agree. 48.1% of the respondents totally

agreed when asking about their expectations, and only 17.3% answered totally agree when it comes

to their experiences. There are also differences in the disagree, with 1% difference in the

expectations and 5,8% in the experiences; this same tendency is seen through 0% totally disagreeing

on the preference in the expectations, and 2,9% totally disagreeing in the experiences. The

importance of safety is, in general, high for the expectations, and when looking at the experiences,

it cannot fulfil the expectations. This is seen when looking at the large difference between totally

agree in expectations and experiences. The data indicates that there are a group of respondents

that feel unsafe using the Park & Ride facilities; this might both be caused by a previous incident or

an irrational fear. Facing the problem of safety is an important topic to focus on, both concerning

existing Park & Ride facilities and the planning for future ones.

38

Neat and Welcoming

The test showed that the respondents’ expectations are alike to their experiences. 53.8%

answered that they agree or totally agree that they expect the parking area to be neat and

welcoming, 48.1% answered the same for the expectations. The distribution of answers between

agree and totally agree is also almost the same. The category most respondents had chosen for both

their expectations and experiences was neither nor (41.3% expectations and 43.3% experiences). A

smaller difference is that no one totally disagreed on this preference in the expectations, but 1.9%

(2 persons) chose this in their experiences. In general, the answers match each other, and the largest

category is neither nor. Looking at the data, a neat and nice area to park at is not the most important

preference.

Time-saving

The test showed that the respondents answered differently on this preference when it

comes to their experiences and their expectations. When looking at the sum of both agree and

totally agree, 51% expected their travel time to be shorter when using Park & Ride, and 40.4%

experience so. The difference is quite great when looking only at the totally agree. Here, 30.8%

expect a shorter travel time and only 11.5% experience so, constituting a difference of 19.3 pp. The

neither nor category is quite the same with 31.7% for the expectations and 19.2% for the

experiences. 17.3% totally disagreed or disagreed that they expected the travel time to be shorter,

and 26.9% totally disagreed or disagreed that they experienced that their travel time got shorter.

This indicates that some respondents expect a shorter travel time, but do not experience so when

using Park & Ride. Travel time is a very diverse preference that is determined by the location of the

start destination, the final destination and the infrastructure for train and roads. The data show

that, in general, a shorter travel time using Park & Ride compared to car travel, is preferable. The

element of time-saving will be analysed further later on by means of a GIS analysis.

Train Frequency

The test showed that the respondents answered differently in regard to what they expect

and what they experience. 88.5% answered that they agree or totally agree that they expect the

train to depart without delays, which is further supported by a large proportion of 47.1% who totally

agreed. In contrast, in total, only 53.8% agreed or totally agreed that they experience train

39

departures without delays, of which only 9.6% totally agreed. Therefore, there is a large difference

in what the respondents expect and experience. The category neither nor is also very different with

8.7% in the expectations and 27.9% in the experience. Train delays can occur in certain periods and

their frequency varies. That might explain the large number of respondents who answered neither

nor in their experiences. In the expectations, 1.9% disagreed and no one totally disagreed. Looking

at the experiences, 17.3% disagreed or totally disagreed that they experience train departures

without delays. The data shows that having trains that depart without delays is, in general, very

important, but, as the experiences indicate, there seem to be some problems in reality. The survey

data may be biased if there at the time of distributing the survey, had been many train delays.

Another factor that could have affected the results could be that the passengers experience a higher

frequency of train delays than in reality. Beside these factors, the test still shows that there is a

difference between the Park & Ride user’s expectations and experiences, and therefore avoiding

train delays is an important focus area.

Shops and Stores

The test showed that the respondents answered differently on this preference. Looking at

data for the expectations, 13.5% agreed or totally agreed that they expect shops and stores to be

nearby. Compared to the experiences, 49% answered that they agreed or totally agreed that there

are shops and stores nearby the Park & Ride facility. This indicates that the respondents do not

regard nearby shops and stores as being important, but in reality, there seem to be many shops and

stores nearby. Looking at the data for disagree and totally disagree, the same tendency can be

traced. 42.3% disagreed or totally disagreed that they expect shops and stores to be nearby, yet

looking at their experiences, only 10.6% disagreed or totally disagreed. The neither nor category is

quite big, both when it comes to the respondents’ expectations (42.3%) and their experiences

(37.5%). In general, the expectations and experiences are different, as the test has shown. The

respondents do not seem to find nearby shops and stores important. However, when they use Park

& Ride, they experience that there are shops and stores nearby. Perhaps some respondents do not

value nearby shops and stores, since they are already there, as the data indicate.

40

Walking Distance to Final Destination

The test showed that the expectations of the respondents are alike to their experiences.

59.6% agreed or totally agreed that they expect a short walking distance to their final destination.

Looking at the experiences, the percentage of 55.8% is nearly the same. More than half of the

respondents both expect and experience a short walking distance from the stations to the final

destination. 26.9% answered neither nor for the expectations and 21.2% for the experiences, which

is similar to the agree or totally agree category. In total, 5.8% disagreed and totally disagreed that

they expect a short walking distance, and for the same categories in the experiences, the result is

14.4%. There is consequently an 8.6 pp difference. This indicates that there are respondents that

expect a short walking distance, but in reality, experience a longer distance. It is relevant to note

that a “short” walking distance is a vague term, and the respondents may have different opinions

about what the term ‘short walking distance’ means. Overall, in accordance with the test, the

respondents answered similarly in terms of their expectations and experiences. However, looking

at the answers, some respondents experience a longer walk than they expected.

Changing Train

The test showed that the expectations of the respondents are alike to their experiences.

67.3% agreed or totally agreed that they do not expect to change train along their journey:

compared to the experiences, this number is 63.5%. The difference is small and both answers

indicate that it is important not to change train en route, and that a high number of the respondents

do not change train when using Park & Ride. As 24% answered neither nor for the expectations and

19.2% for the experiences, both statistics also show similarity. 8.7% disagreed and totally disagreed

that they do not expect to change train along the way, and for the same categories in the

experiences, the percentage is 15.4%. Here, there is a difference of 6.7 pp, which indicates that

some respondents do not expect to change train whilst travelling, but simply have to. It is important

to note that the survey did not include busses, so some respondents may change from car to train

to bus, in order to reach their final destination. In general, it is important not to change train when

travelling with Park & Ride. Once the car is parked, most of the respondents prefer to only take the

train once.

41

When looking at what the respondents’ expectations were regarding Park & Ride, the six

most important preferences were: not to change train along the journey, having Park & Ride

facilities that feel safe to use, knowing that there is an available parking space, having a short

walking distance from the parking area to the station, having easy access to the parking area and

having no train delays. The chi2 tests showed that only one out of these six important preferences

had similar answers when it comes to the experiences: not having to change train along the journey.

Therefore, some Park & Ride preferences should be adopted into plans for Park & Ride facilities.

Three other preferences were also important, but still not as important as the ones mentioned

above: a short walking distance from the station to the final destination, a shorter travel time as a

result of using Park & Ride, and a neat and welcoming Park & Ride facility. Here, the test showed

that two out of the three preferences have similar answers when it comes to experiences: a short

walking distance from the station to the final destination and a neat and welcoming Park & Ride

facility. One preference did not turn out to be that important: nearby shops and stores. This

preference is the only one where the reality seems to be better than the expectations, since the

number of people agreeing or totally agreeing is higher in the experiences than in the expectations.

6.5.2 Park & Ride Preferences: Users vs Non-users

Testing the link between the Park & Ride user preferences and the non-user preferences, gives

an indication of whether the two groups answered alike. The Park & Ride user experience answers

were used for these tests. The test was performed with a 5% significance level and the null

hypothesis (H0) and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) are as follows:

H0: There is no link between the respondents’ answers concerning whether they have tried

Park & Ride or not. The respondents answered alike.

Ha: There is a link between the respondents’ answers concerning whether they have tried

Park & Ride or not. The respondents answered differently.

Ten tests were calculated and in six out of the ten tests, the H0 was accepted. In the rest of the tests,

the H0 was rejected. The results are shown in Table 18.

42

Preferences The result

Easy access Accept H0

Walking distance to station Accept H0

Available parking Accept H0

Safe to use Accept H0

Neat and welcoming Reject H0

Time-saving Reject H0

Train frequency Accept H0

Shops and stores Reject H0

Walking distance to final destination Reject H0

Changing train Accept H0

Table 18 – Results from the Chi2 test

The chi2 test is an indicator of whether the respondents that use Park & Ride and the non-

users have the same preferences when it comes to what is important if and when using Park & Ride.

However, the test does not include what the respondents answered. Therefore, each result from

the two tests are investigated in combination with descriptive statistics in order to gather

information on what the respondents have answered.

Easy Access

The test showed that there is no link between which group the respondents belong to and

what they answered: the respondents answered alike. 95.2% of the Park & Ride users agreed or

totally agreed, whereas the rest had chosen neither nor – no one disagreed. 88.9% of the non-users

agreed or totally agreed, whilst 2.5% chose neither nor and only one person disagreed (0.4%). The

rest answered “Do not know”. In general, both groups of respondents answers highlighted this as

an important preference if and when using Park & Ride. The share of respondents that regards this

is an important preference is slightly greater among the Park & Ride users.

Walking Distance to the Station

The test results showed that the respondents answered alike. 94.2% of the Park & Ride users

agreed or totally agreed on this preference, and for the same categories, this number was 86.1% for

43

the non-users. There is only one person that disagrees in both test groups and the rest of the

answers were found in the neither nor option. In general, both groups answered that a short walking

distance from the car park to the station is important if and when using Park & Ride. As before, the

share of respondents that regards this as an important preference is slightly greater among the Park

& Ride users.

Available Parking

The test showed that the Park & Ride users and the non-users answered alike. 96.2% of the

users agree or totally agree that available parking spaces are important. Looking at the data for the

non-users for the same categories the number is 91.8%. One Park & Ride user totally agreed and

one non-user disagreed. In general, both groups of respondents answered that available parking

spaces are important if and when using Park & Ride. Again, the number of respondents that regards

this as important is slightly greater among the Park & Ride users.

Safe to Use

The test showed that the respondent groups answered alike. 79.8% of the Park & Ride users

and 83.2% of the non-users found this preference important. The 3.4 pp difference is small, even

though the non-users find it slightly more important. In general, both groups of respondents find it

important to feel safe when travelling and using Park & Ride.

Neat and Welcoming

The test showed that the two groups of respondents answered differently, with 53.8% of

the Park & Ride users agreeing or totally agreeing. Looking at the same two categories for the non-

users, the number is 65.2%. The 11.4 pp difference indicates that the non-users have a larger

number of respondents who think it is important. 41.3% of the Park & Ride users have chosen

neither nor, indicating that this preference is something they do not disagree on; however, it is

simply not that important. Only 26.2% of the non-users answered neither nor. 4.8% of the Park &

Ride users disagree on this preference, compared with the non-users where 2.8% disagreed or

totally disagreed. Looking at the sum of agree and totally agree, this preference is out of ten, the

third least important preference for the Park & Ride users and the second least important

preference for the non-users. Even though it is the second least important preference for the non-

44

users, the number of non-users that found this preference important was higher than the amount

of Park & Ride users that found it important.

Time-saving

In regard to this preference, the two groups answered differently. 51% of the Park & Ride

users agree or totally agree that it is important for the travel time by Park & Ride to be shorter

compared to driving. The same categories for the non-users show that 75.8% regard it as important.

This difference is also seen when looking at the categories disagree and totally disagree: 17.3% of

the Park & Ride users do not view it as being important, which only 3.3% of the non-users also agree

with. An explanation of this difference might be that the Park & Ride users experience many positive

factors when using Park & Ride, such as avoiding rush hour etc. That is why they do not seem to care

about a shorter travel time. The non-users do not have the same experiences, since they have not

tried Park & Ride, and, as a result, they have a greater focus on travel time if they were to use Park

& Ride.

Train Frequency

The test shows that the two groups answered alike. Both groups are, in general, positive

about this preference: 88.5% of the Park & Ride users agree or totally agree on this preference, and

for the same categories for the non-users the number is 89.3%. With only a 0.8 pp difference, the

answers are very alike. Both the users and the non-users found it important to have trains that

depart without delays if and when using Park & Ride.

Shops and Stores

The test showed that the two groups answered differently. 13.5% of the Park & Ride users

agree or totally agree that this preference is important, of which only 2.9% of them totally agree.

This preference has also less importance when looking at the non-users’ answers. 29.5% of the non-

users agree or totally agree as to the importance of nearby stores and shops. Here, the totally agree

percentage was 11.5%. 42.3% of the Park & Ride users disagree or totally disagree, compared with

the non-users of which only 28.7% disagree or totally disagree. In general, both groups found this

preference to be less important, and, in fact, the least important preference compared to the other

45

nine. However, the non-user group found it more important, especially when looking at the totally

agree percentage.

Walking Distance to the Final Destination

The test showed that the two groups answered differently. 59.6% of the Park & Ride users

answered that they agree or totally agree that they do not want to walk far to reach their final

destination. 82% of the non-users answered the same. A relatively large group of 26.% of the Park

& Ride users answered neither nor. In general, both groups are positive about this preference.

However, a larger number of the non-users found it important. This could be explained by car

mentality; the non-users are used to driving all the way to their final destination and not having to

walk far. If they were to use Park & Ride, they would still expect a close proximity to their final

destination.

Changing Train

The test showed that the two groups answered alike. In general, both groups found this

preference important: 67.3% of the users agreed or totally agreed and 70.1% for the non-users.

Comparing this preference with the others, it is not the most important one. However, there is

agreement among the users and non-users that it is important not to have to change train along the

journey if or when using Park & Ride.

In seven out of ten preferences the number of non-user respondents who answered it was

important (agree + totally agree) was higher than the Park & Ride users. These seven preferences

could be something to work on when planning to attract more people to use Park & Ride. It could

also indicate that the non-users are critical towards using Park & Ride and therefore their answers

show that they expect the Park & Ride to be super easy and beneficial, if they are to use it.

The test showed that in six out of the ten preferences, the users and the non-users agreed

on the importance of them. Nevertheless, they did not answer the same when it came to the other

four preferences: neat and welcoming, time-saving, shops and stores nearby, and a short walking

distance to final destination. The non-users found these four preferences more important than the

users.

46

As mentioned above, the Park & Ride users may have other Park & Ride preferences because

they have tried the facility before. The non-users seems to focus on tangible beneficial factors, such

as time-saving. However, both groups agree on the most and least important preferences out of the

ten. An available parking space is the most important preference in the survey and nearby stores

and shops are the least important one. In general, the Park & Ride users and non-users agree on

what is important when using Park & Ride, even though the data has shown there are some

important differences too.

7. Results of the Interview

The survey provided information about the inhabitants’ preferences regarding Park & Ride.

In order to obtain information about planning for a Park & Ride facility and how to work with the

different preferences, an interview was carried out with a civil servant who works with Park & Ride

for a municipality. The chosen municipality was Køge, since it has recently opened a new station

with a Park & Ride facility. A project manager working with the new station “Køge Nord Station” was

interviewed. The interview was semi-structured and at the end of the interview, the different

preferences were discussed in relation to the planning for Park & Ride in Køge Nord. The next section

is based on this interview. The findings from the interview will later be used in the discussion of the

potential for Park & Ride.

First of all, the project manager gave an insight into how to plan for Køge Nord Station.

Planning for the Køge Nord Station and the Park & Ride facility was carried out as a cooperation

between the state and the municipality of Køge. However, other actors have also been a part of the

project throughout the different phases. In the earlier phases, Region Zealand investigated the

potential for Park & Ride at Køge Nord Station. They were interested because of the possibility of

improving connectivity of the main transport junctions in Zealand. Furthermore, Køge Nord has a

large possible commuter catchment area on Zealand. The Danish Transport, Construction and

Housing Authority was also a part of this, by investigating how many parking spaces were needed in

order to establish it, as well as how to finance it. When it was decided to build in the area of Køge

Nord, it was the municipality, The Danish State Railways (DSB) and The Rail Net Denmark that called

for the competition to find an architect. When asking about the two actors, The Rail Net Denmark

47

and the Road Directorate, she responded that they were not involved in the financing or

construction of the Park & Ride facility at Køge Nord.

A construction law was outlined for the area at Køge Nord, since it is close to an exit from

the motorway and because there was a large unused area. The law estimated that 2700 Park & Ride

spaces near Køge Nord Station would be the full potential of the area. The law does not include a

conclusion on how the construction project for the area was financed. Later it was decided that

there would be planned to establish 900 parking spaces: 400 of the 900 parking spaces would be

moved from inner Køge to Køge Nord. The other 500 parking spaces were equally financed by the

municipality of Køge and DSB, respectively. Today, 650 parking spaces have been established. There

is no concrete plan for the financing of the 2700 parking spaces and the project manager explains

that they have not begun the negotiations yet. The municipality of Køge contributes to the

establishment of the 900 parking spaces. However, the commuter catchment area of the station is

so large that the municipality cannot spend Køge´s taxpayer money in order to establish more

parking spaces which will essentially be used by inhabitants of other municipalities. DSB did not

initially want a fully built Park & Ride facility, as they wanted to map the real needs of the users. In

the meantime, the municipality has begun planning for a residential area near the station. When

asking if there has been any resistance from the politicians from the municipality towards the plan,

the project manager answers that there has been no political action against the planning for Køge

Nord Station.

The station Køge Nord opened the 31st of May, but it is only the first phase of Køge Nord

Station that is finished. Seeing as the Park & Ride facilities are built as construction fields, there will

be several shifts in how the drawings of the area look like. In the future, some of the Park & Ride

facilities will be changed to multi-storey car park. However, one area will still contain a non-built up

Park & Ride facility. The non-built up parking will be free, though building a multi-storey car park

will inevitably result in a parking charge. DSB highlights that free parking is important in order to

make people use Park & Ride. Be that as it may, the project manager explains that there is no

guarantee of free parking in the future, since it has not been planned for and they do not know who

would finance it. There are many ways to solve this issue concerning finances, but she emphasises

that it involves all of Zealand’s mobility planning. Possible solutions could be a parking subscription,

or a ticket that includes both parking and a train ticket. However, as the project manager outlines,

planning for this type of solution needs to involve other actors besides the municipality of Køge.

48

The project manager states that there has been a great focus on planning to accommodate

a minimal walking distance from the parking areas to the bridge. As a part of this solution, there is

parking at both sides of the station in order to minimise the walking distance. Besides all of the

parking, she emphasises that urban life is still important, and this is therefore also a great part of

the planning. The planning has two different aspects: the construction law that stipulates that 2700

parking spaces are the area’s potential, and the Finger Plan that addresses intensive built-up areas

near stations. She outlines that it is the municipality’s clear statement that the Køge Nord Station

area must contain a built-up urban environment and must not end up being an asphalt desert with

parking areas. The built-up urban area includes a supermarket, as it is defined in the local plan. There

will not be any shopping possibilities at Køge Nord Station, since it may risk driving the shopping

stores in the centre of Køge out of business. There have only been planned for functions that support

Park & Ride in order to make the area attractive for Park & Ride use. Moreover, the supermarket is

also important in relation to the new residential areas that are planned for near Køge Nord Station.

As mentioned before, 400 parking spaces have been moved away from Køge Station to Køge

Nord Station. In the proximity of Køge Station, during the past ten years there has been a

transformation and now there are stores located next to the station. Køge Station is located in the

inner Køge area and here city development has been planned for on both sides of the station. In

addition, now there is a parking area. A project in Køge called “The Køge Coast Project” is about

opening the city up to the sea, and here, Køge Station is located between the old part of Køge and

the sea. She describes that there will be a shift in the function of the stations in the municipality of

Køge: Køge is the city station and Ølby and Køge Nord are the commuter stations. With the opening

of Køge Nord Station, new bus routes were added to stop at Køge Nord Station.

Now that some of the more practical information about the new station and urban developments

in the municipality have been discussed, the interview presented some questions regarding the

potential for Park & Ride and possible problems related to this.

Firstly, a question was asked about the extent to which the new Park & Ride facilities could

help the massive congestion problems. The full potential for Park & Ride near Køge Nord Station is

2700 parking spaces and it is only a small part that has been completed. She explains that, compared

to the 130.000 commuters that travel by car every day on the roads near Køge Nord, this is only a

small piece of the overall puzzle. Additionally, she adds that the Park & Ride facilities were born in

49

a period where there was a great of focus on road pricing on Zealand towards Copenhagen. Here,

the Park & Ride facility at Køge Nord would have been a part of the overall solution. As a result, she

outlines that the Park & Ride can be seen as an alternative to driving a car, but it is only a small part

of the larger puzzle.

When asking for her perspective on self-driving cars and how they might be a threat to the

use of Park & Ride, she explains that it is not a concern in the municipality of Køge. As mentioned

above, the area is structured as building construction areas and they can be used in other ways than

how they were originally planned for. Planning in the municipality of Køge takes an agile approach,

ready to change if a new situation arises. It is also mentioned that if self-driving cars become a reality

in a few years, the multi-storey car park at Køge Nord Station may have not yet been built. However

if a multi-storey car park were to be built at Køge Nord before the arrival of self-driving cars, Park &

Ride would still be a way of using the existing infrastructure instead of building more motorways.

When the Finger Plan was revised in 2018/19, the municipalities from the Finger Plan had

the opportunity to add suggestions. The municipality of Copenhagen had a suggestion for the

revision of the Finger Plan 2019 in regard to Park & Ride. The suggestion was a plan for Park & Ride

in areas outside the Finger Plan area, such as Slagelse etc. They referred to a study that argued that

Park & Ride facilities should be located far away from Copenhagen. In relation to this, the project

manager was asked why Park & Ride is useful in proximity to Copenhagen. She points out a finding

that was uncovered by The Region Zealand as a partial conclusion: if there is a great distance to a

Park & Ride facility, the drivers are more likely to drive all the way. However, the study from The

Region Zealand also points out that there is a massive car congestion problem on the roads, and if

the 130.000 car commuters were to park at a single place in a city, it would not be an attractive

place. She highlights that it is about many a mickle makes a muckle, and therefore it would be

meaningful to have Park & Ride facilities located multiple places on the way towards Copenhagen

in order to fight the massive congestion on the roads.

Finally, the project manager was asked to relate the preferences that this thesis worked with to the

planning of the Park & Ride facility at Køge Nord Station.

When it comes to the preference for easy access, she states that the whole foundation for

the construction law was to ensure there would be good access to the station and the Park & Ride

facility. There has also been a keen focus on having a short walking distance from the car park to

50

the station. She mentioned a discussion that has been had on this issue. The discussion was whether

a travellator in the bridge might be a solution. At the beginning of the planning, the bridge was 280

m long. Later in the planning phase, it was decided to move it in order to make it shorter, with the

goal of making the walking distance shorter. Today the bridge is only 225 meters long and the new

location also connects the bridge with the main path, thereby making it easier to access the area by

bicycle. Since it is the overall walking distance that is important to deal with, the travellator was

skipped in favour of establishing escalators. It was the overall mobility towards the areas that was

important in the competition in order to win the tender for the bridge. Therefore, the bridge was

important, but the connectivity to it from the Park & Ride facility was also important.

As mention above, the area in Køge Nord was chosen because of the large unused area.

There is a large enough area to expand the number of parking spaces in the plan, if the demand

rises. After having parked the car, the s-train departs every 10 minutes during the daytime.

When asking as to how to plan for a safe area, she explains that it was one of the most

difficult challenges to plan for, since there are no urban functions yet. The area will be for several

years to come. When planning for the area, there has been a great focus on the bridge, since

traditional station buildings are not built anymore. The bridge is built as a tube, and it functions as

a station building – there has also been a great amount of work on planning for the station to be a

nice place to stay at. At each end of the bridge, there are viewpoints. She presents a piece of

research that concludes that people who have just one bad experience on a journey are more likely

not to use the same way of travelling again. Additionally, she explains that feeling insecure in public

spaces is often associated with slow movements. If you feel unsafe, you want to get away, and that

is more difficult when you move slowly. Therefore, there has been focus on slow mobility in the

Køge Nord Station area: the planning is more detailed in order to make the traveller feel safe. The

municipality of Køge has planned to cooperate with a group in Køge specialized in safety in public

areas. Furthermore, the municipality of Køge has also planned for the possibility of locating

conference venues and hotels in the area, in order to provide more activity in the area at all times

of the day. Another initiative has been to minimise the number of paths, so people more frequently

meet other people on the paths. In additional to planning for a safe area, there has also been focus

on a nice and neat area filled with green spaces and trees.

51

As mentioned before, shopping possibilities near the station have not been planned for, but

functions, such as a supermarket, that supports the use of Park & Ride, will be established. The

supermarket will have customers from the nearby residential areas.

The preferences found in literature that this thesis has worked with are also found in the

planning for Køge Nord Station. Interestingly, it was pointed out that it was the “safe area

preference” that the project manager highlighted as being one of the most difficult elements to plan

for. The interview also provided information about how to face a problem and then solve it with the

resources that are available. An example from the interview is how accessibility challenges were

overcome; despite thinking of a travellator, the solution was to move the bridge so it did not have

to be as long, and, additionally, it was connected to the main path from the residential area nearby.

In regard to some of the problems the project manager was asked to relate to, it was

demonstrated that the planning by the municipalities is very agile, as it must be prepared to change

the area in the next phases of the project. Some of the conclusions from the interview indicate that

to achieve the full potential of Park & Ride, state action is demanded. A new form of ticket, including

both the parking and the train ticket, might be a successful way of expanding the use of Park & Ride.

In addition, it was mentioned that the Park & Ride facility was born in a time when road pricing was

a suggestion in Copenhagen. The project manager also referred to the quote ‘many a mickle makes

a muckle’, and when looking at experiences from other countries, where both Park & Ride facilities

at multiple locations are combined with road pricing, they have been a success. The findings from

the interview will be further discussed in the next section in relation to the other findings in this

thesis.

7.1 Field Work at Køge Nord Station

The interview was followed by a field trip to Køge Nord Station, four months after it was

opened. The field trip was executed during a weekday at 2pm. The arrival at the station was by the

s-train. In close proximity to the s-train there are car parking spaces, a bus stop, a path and bicycle

parking. The area combines many types of travelling. The bridge, built as a tube, is entered via an

escalator. The tube extends over the motorway, and because of the large windows there is a great

view. Through the tube the other platforms operating the high-speed trains can be reached. When

walking all the way through the tube to the other end, there is also a large car parking area, as well

52

as bicycle parking and a bus stop. The area can be defined as a traffic junction combining a large

amount of different ways of travelling. As the project manager described in the interview, the bridge

should function as a waiting hall for the passengers, rather than having them waiting at the

platforms. This function seems to have been achieved successfully, as the people at the station

waiting for the train were sitting inside the bridge, reading, talking etc. Some people were also

enjoying the view that emerges from both sides of the bridge. When walking around the area, the

great focus that the municipality has had on securing a safe and neat area, can be seen. The area is

CCTV monitored, and green spaces between the parking areas have been lowered in order to collect

and drain the rain away. Near both parking areas, there were restrooms available, ensuring comfort

for the users. Since DSB has not gathered information about how occupied the car park at Køge

Nord Station are yet, the cars were counted at the field trip. In total, there were 272 cars: 96 near

the s-train and 176 on the other side of the bridge. According to these numbers, 42% of the parking

spaces were occupied. In line with DSB´s definition, this means: you will rarely experience problems

in finding an available parking space. However, the field trip confirmed some of the things the

project manager had outlined, and that the parking areas had begun being used shortly after they

were opened.

8. Results of the GIS Analysis

Time differences are calculated based on the two closest facility results, with each based on

a different network. The first analysis calculates the closest facility based on a network of roads

travelling by car. The other analysis is based on a network containing roads, s-train stations and

railroad lines in the case area. The time differences are calculated by subtracting the Park & Ride

travel time from the car travel time. The data and the analysis behind these results are described

and discussed in the methods section.

The time differences are shown in Map 5. Equal intervals are used to categorise the different

time values. The use of five different categories has been chosen, since this gives a detailed overview

of the time differences. More categories and colours would have added more detail, but then the

map would have not been as easy to interpret.

53

Map 5 – GIS result for the four case municipalities

Overall, the map shows that there are time-savings to be had for a large part of the case

area, indicated by light green and a darker green colour. However, there is a tendency for points in

the case areas closer to Copenhagen to be marked with yellow. The yellow category contains minor

time differences (both positive and negative), indicating that a few more minutes on the road or a

train delay, could determine that the other travel option would be faster. Therefore, it is not

reasonable to conclude that one of the modes of transport is faster for the yellow category. Yellow

points are also seen in the municipality of Stevns along with red and orange points clustering in one

specific area. Stevns is the only municipality that contains the darker coloured green points,

indicating a large time-saving. These dark green points cover a large part of Stevns.

54

The points are placed for each 100x100 meter cell. Areas with no inhabitants in a 100x100

meter area are not represented by a point. Each point has a different number of inhabitants and

therefore the results should not only be understood by looking at the points. Having 99 green points

and 1 red point could be interpreted as almost everyone benefitting if they used Park & Ride (when

it comes to time-savings). However, if the 99 dots only contain one person and the one point

contains 100 persons, then the interpretation that almost everyone could save time is not right. This

example is extreme, but the number of inhabitants in each category needs to be taken into account.

Nevertheless, the points and their colour still have something to say about the spatial distribution

of which areas benefit from using Park & Ride. This result could be, for example, used to plan where

to expand residential areas in order to build in areas where there are time-savings due to Park &

Ride.

Dark green:

8.83 - 13,75

Light green:

3.92 - 8,83

Yellow:

-0.996 – 3.92

Orange:

-5.91 - -0.996

Red:

-10.82- -5.91

No. of

inhabitant

5408 71275 70014 1546 2665

Table 19 – No. of inhabitants for each of the five categories in the GIS analysis

Table 19 shows that the category with the highest population count is the light green (3.92

– 8.83 minutes), indicating that a large amount of people in the case area would experience a time-

saving benefit by using Park & Ride. The second largest category is the yellow one and it is almost

as big as the largest category. The yellow category indicates that there is a large group of people in

the case area that lives in areas where the time differences between travelling by car or Park & Ride

are small. The three other categories have a small number of inhabitants compared to the other

two. Still, the dark green category is the third largest, indicating that there are more people saving

a lot of time when using Park & Ride than people losing a lot of time (compared to orange and red).

The two smallest categories are orange and red, and therefore, only a small proportion of the

inhabitants in the case area can use extra travel time as an excuse not to use Park & Ride.

55

8.1 Municipality Patterns

There are local clusters and different patterns in each municipality, and thus a need for each

municipality to be investigated further. Looking at maps for each municipality on a more detailed

scale also makes it easier to differentiate between the points and analyse the pattern.

Map 6 – GIS results for the municipality of Stevns

There seems to be a tendency that more remote areas of Stevns benefit especially from

using Park & Ride (Map 6), as opposed to only driving by car. The south-west area of the municipality

of Stevns has a large number of locations with an 8.83 to 12.75 minute time-saving. Interestingly,

56

some findings show that people are not willing to use Park & Ride if they live far from a Park & Ride

facility. Within this result, some of the people who benefit the most from using Park & Ride (in time),

live further away from the nearest station. There is a group of yellow, orange and red points located

in Stevns. A possible explanation for this could be that the roads to the stations from this area do

not have a good connection. Instead, this area may be better connected to the motorway to

Copenhagen and so there is a lower travel time to Nørreport when driving. Looking at the municipal

plans for the local areas with the yellow, orange and red points, it can be seen that a part of the

area is a holiday home area. For this reason, there are not that many people living in the area.

Map 7 - GIS results for the municipality of Køge

57

In the municipality of Køge the greatest amount of points are light green, indicating that

there is a 3.92 to 8.83 minute time-saving to be had (Map 7). There are no red points in the

municipality of Køge. However, there are some yellow and orange points, many of them near the

three stations in Køge. This can be explained by the motorway that runs parallel with the railway

lines. Being in proximity to a station in Køge also means being in proximity to the motorway that

runs to Copenhagen and the final destination in this analysis, Nørreport Station. South of Køge

Station (the southernmost station of the three of them) there are no yellow points. Since this area

has no fast access to the motorway, seeing as it is an urban built-up part of Køge, travelling by Park

& Ride is the fastest option.

Map 8 - GIS results for the municipality of Solrød

58

The municipality of Solrød is mostly yellow, but it also contains a large amount of light green

points (Map 8). The area that would benefit from using Park & Ride when it comes to time, is the

western part of the municipality. The difference may indicate that the western area of the

municipality does not have easy access to the motorway and therefore driving to a station and

taking the train is faster than driving all the way.

Map 9 - GIS results for the municipality of Greve

In the municipality of Greve, a large number of points are yellow (Map 9). As described

before, yellow contains both locations where Park & Ride will save time and locations where it will

59

not. The municipality of Greve has the highest number of yellow dots, indicating that the closer the

proximity to the final destination, Nørreport Station, the fewer time-benefits there are from Park &

Ride. Nevertheless, there are some green points near two out of the three stations. Therefore, there

are still time-savings to be had for people living near the stations, even though they are closer to

Copenhagen in the municipality of Greve.

In general, the high number of green points (dark and light green) indicates that Park & Ride

has a good potential for saving travel time in many areas. This tendency is also seen when looking

at the number of inhabitants that can save time by Park & Ride (Table 19). The largest category is

the one where the inhabitants save 3.92 to 8.83 minutes. The second largest category is the one

where the time saved or the time lost are insignificant, and thus it does not matter whether they

use Park & Ride or not in terms of time. Here, other factors should encourage people to use Park &

Ride. The three other categories are, in comparison to the two largest, very small, when it comes to

numbers of inhabitants.

9. Discussion

This discussion has two aims. One aim is to summarise and discuss the findings on the ten

preferences worked with in this thesis. Additionally, findings on paid parking and travel cost will be

discussed in the light of the ten preferences. Based on the findings, the second aim is to list a number

of recommendations regarding Park & Ride facilities in Denmark. The recommendations will concern

suggested actions that can be carried out at the state level or the municipal level.

9.1 Easy Access

Summary and Discussion of the Findings

Literature from both Denmark and the Netherlands explained the importance of having Park

& Ride facilities located in areas that are easily accessible by car. When asking the Park & Ride users

which factor determine the stations they drive to and park at, 17% answered that they chose a

station with easy access. Even though the respondents could choose more than one option, the easy

access category was only the fourth most chosen category out of seven. The Park & Ride users might

take easy access for granted, since the s-trains in the case area are all in proximity to the motorway.

60

Additionally, “easy access” is an ambiguous factor without an exact definition, and could therefore

explain why only few respondents chose this category. When the Park & Ride users are directly

asked if easy access is important, 92.2% agreed. This result is different from the other question, and

it could possibly be explained be the way the question was asked. Firstly, the survey asked whether

easy access was a factor that determined which stations they respondents chose to drive to,

consequently resulting in only a few choosing this category. Later, it was asked whether easy access

is important and almost all of the respondents did agree that they found it important.

This indicates that easy access is not a factor that determines which station the Park & Ride

users choose. However, it is still a very important factor when they use Park & Ride.

The non-users agreed that easy access was important.

However, the number of Park & Ride users that experienced easy access when using Park & Ride

was lower than the expectations.

Køge Nord Station is an example of a Park & Ride facility with easy access. In the interview,

it was explained that it is outlined in the Danish construction law that the proximity to the motorway

was the foundation for the plans for Køge Nord Station. It was easy to establish an exit from the

motorway, in doing so, securing easy accessibility for cars to Køge Nord station.

Recommendations

Park & Ride facilities and larger residential areas should be built near already established

infrastructure.

When planning for new Park & Ride facilities it is important that municipalities take accessibility into

consideration, just as the municipality of Køge did when planning Køge Nord Station. Here, the

establishing of a Park & Ride facility supported the existing infrastructure, most notably the s-train

line and the motorway. The municipalities should also plan for new residential areas in locations

where it is easily accessible to Park & Ride facilities. The residential areas do not necessarily have to

be in proximity to the stations. However, they should have good connectivity to the stations in order

to make Park & Ride more preferable. The project manager highlighted in the interview that if the

residential areas are located far away from the stations, the inhabitants would be more willing to

drive all the way to their final destination. Be that as it may, the GIS analysis performed in this thesis

showed that many areas located far away from the stations could still benefit when it comes to

saving time using Park & Ride.

61

9.2 Walking Distance to Station


In a Danish study by COWI it is argued that a short walking distance from the parking facility to

the station is important, and emphasises a maximum walking distance of 300 meters. The survey

included a question on this issue in order to investigate the respondent’s maximum walking distance

from the car park to the station. Half of the respondents answered that they would accept a 300

meter maximum walking distance.

The respondents answers indicate that proximity of the car park to the station is important.

Additionally, it supports the findings from Danish literature. Only 5.7% of the respondents were

willing to accept a 600 meter maximum walking distance. When asking directly about the

importance of the preference, it also seems to be important.

Almost all of the Park & Ride users and non-users agreed that a short walking distance was

important.

However, the test showed that the Park & Ride user’s expectations and experiences were different.

The number of Park & Ride users that experienced a short walking distance when using Park

& Ride is smaller than the number that expect it to be so.

The project manager working with the Køge Nord Station project also outlined the important

influence a short walking distance has. In order to guarantee connectivity to the station area, the

tube that connects the platform was shortened in length. Additionally, escalators were established,

as well as paths leading to the tube.

Recommendations

Park & Ride near stations should be outlined as a demand in the municipal plans.

Municipalities with stations should be required to plan Park & Ride facilities to be located in

proximity to the stations. The challenge that occurred when contacting municipalities for an

interview about Park & Ride could indicate that planning for Park & Ride facilities has not been a

priority. On e.g. Zealand, municipalities with train connections to Copenhagen could be required to

plan Park & Ride facilities in proximity to the stations. In order to achieve the full potential for Park

& Ride, it is important to secure parking in proximity to the stations.

62

9.3 Available Parking


Available parking is an essential factor when using Park & Ride, and in the Netherlands on a

website it is possible to see live, the number how many available parking spaces there are at each

Park & Ride facility. The results from the survey showed that:

Over 90% of both the Park & Ride users and the non-users agreed that it was important to

know whether there would be an available parking space.

However, the Park & Ride user’s expectations and experiences do not match:

There is a group of Park & Ride users that experience not being able to find an available

parking space when using Park & Ride.

The number of Park & Ride users who agree that they always experience being able to find an

available parking space is lower than the expectations. The results from their experiences are more

dispersed, however, the majority still agree.

At Køge Nord 900 parking spaces are planned, 650 of which have been established. There

are still no available official numbers for how occupied the parking facilities are. However, the

parking areas were 42% occupied when the cars were counted on the field trip. The full potential

for the area is 2700 parking spaces, as stipulated in the Danish construction law. Before establishing

more parking spaces, DSB wanted to investigate the demand. If the demand for parking at Køge

Nord were to rise in line with more frequent use of Park & Ride, there is a large parking potential on

the surrounding unused area.

Recommendation

The high number of parking spaces should tell the traveller that there must be available

parking.

If the aim is to change people’s mobility preference from travelling by car to travelling by Park &

Ride, planning must ensure that there are enough parking spaces. The difference seen in the survey

between the expectations and experiences indicates that there is a need for establishing additional

parking spaces. This can also be seen when looking at the current available parking spaces for the

63

stations in the four case municipalities (Table 2). Out of seven stations (excluding Køge Nord Station)

there is only one where the travellers can be certain about finding a parking space in rush hour.

An online information service about available parking could be an option.

In the Netherlands the Park & Ride users can be certain about finding an available parking space

because it is possible to see how many parking spaces there that are available at each Park & Ride

facility live on a website. Almost all of the respondents found it important to know in advance that

there would be available parking, and this solution could meet their needs.

Minimising the number of available parking spaces at the final destination

In relation to the number of parking, this could also be a solution. A focus on how to make driving

and parking less preferable might be needed in order to make Park & Ride more common. Fewer

parking spaces in the city centres would make it difficult to find a parking space, and hence less

preferable. Both the Norwegian and the Dutch study outlined that Park & Ride is to be preferred,

because it is difficult to find a parking space in the larger cities.

9.4 Safe to Use


The literature mentioned the importance of ensuring the feeling of safety among travellers

when using the Park & Ride facility, both regarding their own safety and their cars’. Light and CCTV

monitoring were outlined as some possible factors that could help this issue.

For both Park & Ride users and the non-users approximately 80% agreed that it was

important.

However, the Park & Ride users’ expectations do not match their experiences:

The findings indicate that some respondents have experienced a situation where they have

felt unsafe, even though they find safety important when using Park & Ride.

It is worth noting that the conditions for each Park & Ride facility are different and some areas might

feel safer than others. There might also be a difference in when the respondents felt unsafe.

This preference was highlighted as the most difficult to plan for, according to the project

manager from the municipality of Køge. It was explained that if the traveller were to experience one

64

bad situation on their journey, they would be more likely to choose another way of travelling, or

another route, next time. Therefore, several initiatives have been established in order to create a

safe feeling in the area. Køge Nord Station might remain relatively empty for the next many years,

and this could result in people feeling unsafe. Therefore, there are plans to build hotels and

conference venues in the area, thereby increasing the number of people in the area. This way of

attracting people to an area is similar to the one in the Netherlands, where a McDonald’s restaurant

in the area attracted people, making the area less desolated. The project manager also describes

how many travellers in the Køge Nord Station area move slowly: they have parked their car, or got

off the train, and now they are walking. Feeling insecure in public spaces is often associated with

slow movement. Therefore, the municipality has made a detailed plan for helping the slow walker

to feel safe. There has also been focus on creating a bridge where it is nice and safe to stay, when

waiting for the train. Additionally, the area is CCTV monitored, as observed on the field trip.

Recommendations

In Park & Ride facility areas there should be other facilities, such as a restaurant, hotel etc.

in order to secure more people in the area.

An empty area feels more unsafe than an area full of people. Therefore, it is important to include

other functions in the area that do not necessarily facilitate Park & Ride. Securing more activity in

the area makes the traveller feel safer. Additionally, it also helps to plan for good lighting and CCTV

monitoring in the area. Additionally, recent numbers from “Passagerpulsen” shows that every

fourth public transport passenger has felt unsecure when stayed at a station in the last six months

(Passagerpulsen, 2019). This underlines the importance of this recommendation.

9.5 Neat and Welcoming


In the literature, it was concluded that the appearance of a Park & Ride facility was important.

This included properties, such as being accommodating, nice and clean. Nevertheless, the results

from the survey show that this preference was not that important compared to the other nine

preferences. The Park & Ride users’ expectations and experiences were alike. The non-users found

65

this preference more important than the Park & Ride users, however, it was not viewed as the most

important preference compared to the others.

Many respondents had chosen the category neither nor, indicating that this preference is

not that important.

In the planning for Køge Nord Station there has been a focus on a nice and neat area with green

spaces and trees. One of the elements the literature mentioned as important was areas without

puddles and mud. The parking in Køge Nord is on asphalt and in between the parking, there are

green spaces where water will drain when it rains.

Recommendations

The Park & Ride facilities should appear nice and welcoming.

Even though this preferences was not that important, how to plan for a neat and welcoming park

and facility should be taken in consideration in the planning. One factor is to avoid mud and

puddles at the car park. In the municipality of Køge they have created green spaces between the

parking spaces; the green areas are a contrast to all of the asphalt, and they also function as drains

when it rains.

9.6 Time-saving


The element of time-saving is outlined as being important in the literature. A Dutch study

concludes that the Park & Ride travel time must not be more than twice as long as the time spent

driving all the way. All of the respondents were asked if they expected to save time and how much,

when using Park & Ride (compared to driving all the way).

Almost half of the respondents expected a travel time that was almost the same, expressed

as 1-10% longer than travelling solely by car.

More than a quarter of the respondents expected time-savings by using Park & Ride.

Only 2.6% of the respondents would accept a 25-50% longer travel time.

2% did not care about the travel time because they preferred Park & Ride.

The results from the survey are not similar to the Dutch findings. The survey’s respondents’ answers

indicate that either maintaining the same travel time or indeed saving time are important if and

66

when using Park & Ride. However, it is important to take into consideration that there were more

non-users than Park & Ride users. When they were asked separately about the importance of saving

time, they answered differently:

3/4 of the non-users answered that time-savings by Park & Ride are important, compared

to just over half of the Park & Ride users who found it important.

The number of Park & Ride users that experience a time-saving is around 40%. Looking at the main

reason for using Park & Ride, 12.5% of the Park & Ride users answered that it was because of time-

savings. Most Park & Ride users answered that they used Park & Ride in order to avoid congestion.

Avoiding congestion is linked to saving travel time. However, congestion is also linked to frustration.

Therefore, the respondents might have chosen congestion because it covers both the aspect of time

and the feeling of frustration.

When compared with the GIS analysis conducted in this thesis, a large proportion of the

respondents that live in the case area should experience time-savings when using Park & Ride, if not

at least achieving the same travel time. There was a tendency that points in areas closer to

Copenhagen were marked as yellow, as seen in the municipality of Greve (Map 9). However, 36.2%

of the respondents live in the municipality of Greve (Table 4) where there are fewer possibilities to

save time, and this could have affected the results.

Recommendations

Avoid factors that might result in a longer Park & Ride journey.

There are several factors that result in a longer journey by Park & Ride. Some of them are combined

with the aforementioned recommendations. Extra travel time, when searching for a parking space,

can be avoided if there are enough parking spaces available. The same applies in regard to the

walking distance from the car parking to the stations. A shorter walking distance results in less time

spent on the journey. Additionally, trains that departs on time and frequently also minimise the

journey time by Park & Ride.

67

9.7 Train Frequency

Summary and Discussion of the findings

Both studies from Norway and the Netherlands found that the number of train departures is

important. A shorter travel time is meaningless if the train only departs 2 times an hour. Park & Ride

at stations with a low train departure frequency results in extra travel time. In the Norwegian study,

the travel time by Park & Ride was calculated based on train departure frequency. In this thesis´ GIS

analysis a 5-minute changeover time was added to each Park & Ride journey. Consequently, the

travel time was also based on the train frequency, since the train departs every 10 minutes. A 5-

minute changeover time would not have been enough if the train only departed every half an hour.

It is meaningful to have realistic changeover values based on the train departure frequency, in order

to calculate a realistic travel time when using Park & Ride. The respondents in this thesis’ survey

were asked for their preference concerning train frequency.

Almost half of the respondents preferred a train frequency of every 10 minutes.

33% accepted a frequency of 3-4 times an hour.

3.7% of the respondents preferred a frequency greater than every 10 minutes.

Therefore, many of the respondents will have their preferences fulfilled when using Park & Ride at

an s-train station. One thing is train frequency, another thing is train delays, since these change the

frequency and can be time consuming, resulting in frustrated commuters.

Both the non-users and the Park & Ride users find trains that depart regularly without delays

important.

88.5% of the Park & Ride users agreed that it is important to know that the train departs frequently

without train delays. Only 53.8% agreed that they experienced it.

There are a group of Park & Ride users that expect the train to depart on time, but do not

experience this in reality.

This indicates that knowing the train departs regularly is important, but in reality, there seem to be

some challenges.

Recommendations

In order to make Park & Ride more common it is important to support a train system that

functions without delays.

68

There is a large potential for the use of Park & Ride at stations with high frequency s-trains. However,

it is also important to have a train system that functions without delays. As seen in the results from

the survey, there is a group of Park & Ride users who experience not being certain about whether

the trains will depart as scheduled. Therefore, there should be political financing and support to

improve the public transport infrastructure in Denmark.

9.8 Shops and Stores


In the Danish literature it is described that shops and stores being nearby was not that

important. Despite this, it was important that the traveller was able to buy a cup of coffee etc. The

respondents were asked their view on shops and stores nearby Park & Ride facilities. There was a

difference in what Park & Ride users expect and what they experience when it comes to shops and

stores nearby Park & Ride facilities.

The respondents do not find shops and stores nearby to be important, though, they do still

experience that there are a shops and stores nearby.

A difference was also found between the answers of the Park & Ride users and the non-users.

The non-users find this preference more important.

However, this is not the preference that the non-users found most important among the nine

others.

In the Køge Nord Station area there will only be shops that facilitate the Park & Ride facility.

The shopping possibilities will remain in inner Køge. A supermarket is also planned in the area. The

supermarket will not only support the Park & Ride facility, but should also function as a supermarket

for the residents living nearby in the new built-up areas.

Recommendations

There is only a need for stores that facilitate the Park & Ride facility

Both the literature, the finding from the survey and the interview emphasise that stores are not

important when establishing a Park & Ride facility. Only smaller shops where it is possible to buy

coffee are recommended. However, there may be differences concerning where the stations is

located; many stations are already located near shops and stores. Establishing shops and stores at

69

more remote stations could drive the shopping stores in the city centre out of business, as discussed

in the interview with the project manager.

9.9 Walking Distance to Final Destination


Danish literature outlines the importance of a short walking distance from the station to the

final destination. In the survey the respondents were asked how far they were willing to walk to

their final destination.

Just over half of the respondents were willing to walk a maximum of 600 meters.

This was the shortest walking distance presented in the survey. When asking the Park & Ride users

about their expectations and their experiences regard a short walking distance from the station to

their final destination, their answers matched.

82% of the non-users found a short walking distance important. This is a larger amount than

for the Park & Ride users.

This might be an expression of them still wanting the comfort of short walking distances similar to

when travelling by car.

Recommendations

Buildings with an intensive character when it comes to size and number of daily users should

be located in proximity to the stations.

The Finger Plan ensures that urban functions that have an intensive character in terms of size and

number of daily visitors (except for large housing estates) are located near stations i.e. within 600

meters walking distance, and, under certain conditions, within 1200 meters. It contributes to people

taking the train instead of the car. Despite this, only 29.9% of the respondents were willing to walk

1200 meters. This indicates that some travellers would prefer travelling by car if the public transport

travel demanded a 1200 meter walk to the final destination. With that being said, over half of the

respondents were willing to walk up to a maximum of 600 meters. This is the same distance as the

shortest distance outlined in the Finger Plan. The survey did not include an option with a maximum

walking distance less than 600 meters. Since the greatest number of people chose the maximum

600 meter category, it would have been interesting to investigate whether the respondents would

70

have preferred a shorter walking distance. However, data on this issue have been collected for the

municipalities in the Finger Plan, by investigating walking distances in relation to encouraging people

to use the public transport rather than driving. The analysis shows that the locations near stations

should be a walking distances of 600 meters around the stations in order to get people to use public

transport (Aalborg University, 2017). The paper also concludes that locating functions with an

intensive character in proximity to stations results in more people using the public transport, and as

the share of cars on the road decreases, positive effects on traffic, congestion, the environment and

the climate can be achieved (ibid.). The results from the different findings indicate that a short

walking distance is preferred. Therefore, changing the definition of the locations near a station in

the Finger Plan could be a solution to making Park & Ride and public transport more preferable. It

seems pointless to drive to Copenhagen from e.g. Køge to go to a location that is so close to a station

that they need to park further away than the station.

9.10 Changing Train


A Danish study from DTU found that changing train along a journey was regarded as being 1.5

times worse than extra travel time. Therefore, not having to change train can make Park & Ride a

more attractive option, which requires an effective public transport system.

When asking all of the respondents how often they would be willing to change train almost

everyone answered either one time or to not change at all.

This is similar to the findings from DTU where changing train was seen as negative.

Both the Park & Ride users and the non-users agreed that it was important not to change

train.

When looking at the users’ expectations and experiences, they match.

This indicates that as a result of the Danish train system they do not have to change train more often

than they are willing to. All the s-trains except one depart at Nørreport Station and Copenhagen

Central Station, near to where many commuters work.

71

Recommendations

Not having to change train whilst travelling is important, and the Park & Ride users’ answers

indicate that this preference does not pose a challenge in Denmark due to the effective train

system.

9.11 Paid Parking and Travel Cost

Another factor that was found important in this thesis was the total price of the journey. The

survey did not include a preference question regarding the travel cost for Park & Ride compared to

driving. However, the survey did include questions regarding travel cost and paid parking.

16% of the Park & Ride users said the main reason they used Park & Ride was because it

was cheaper.

52.9% of the respondents would only accept a maximum charge of 15 DKK when parking at

a Park & Ride facility. This price was the lowest possible category in the survey.

Both results indicate that the total cost for the travel cost and the price for paid parking is important.

Both results indicate that as low a travel cost as possible is preferable when travelling.

Recommendations

Offering a ticket that includes both parking and a train ride would be preferable, when

encouraging people to use Park & Ride.

In relation to payment, a solution practised in both Sweden and the Netherlands is a combined

ticket. The project manager from the municipality of Køge also mentioned this solution, but

explained that this needs to be planned for at the state level. A combined ticket would be beneficial

for the Park & Ride users. First and foremost, it makes it easier for them, since they only need to

purchase one ticket. Secondly, a combined ticket would also carry an economic benefit for the users

by securing them a small discount.

In order to make journeys by car less preferable, road pricing could be a solution that could

be introduced in Denmark, especially near Copenhagen, since this would encourage more

people to use public transport and Park & Ride.

72

The data indicate that the price for paid parking is important if Park & Ride is to be preferred.

However, changing the price of travelling by car could also be a solution. The findings from Sweden

showed that combining Park & Ride with road pricing was a great solution in order to avoid

congestion in the city. The combination makes it easy to drive, park where the road pricing begins,

and afterwards take the train to the city. Additionally, introducing road pricing in Sweden in

combination with Park & Ride resulted in more people using Park & Ride. Road pricing would make

it less preferable to go by car because of the charge. Combining road pricing with a combined ticket

could also be a solution. Road pricing makes it more expensive to drive to i.e. Copenhagen, and a

combined ticket would be the least expensive alternative, thereby making it easy to buy the ticket,

park, and then take the train.

Affordable public transport and Park & Ride

Combined ticket or not, there should be a focus on making Park & Ride and public transport less

expensive than driving by car all the way, as findings from the Netherlands suggested. Free parking

might be a solution, however a study from Norway emphasised that it could result in people that

normally cycle to the station would take the car instead. Free public transport could also be a

solution. Nevertheless, in 2006 a workgroup investigated the effects of free public transport in

Denmark, finding that a free public transport infrastructure in the whole of Denmark would not be

appropriate (Teknologi Rådet, 2006). Compared to the high cost, the positive effects on congestion,

traffic and accidents would be small. In addition to this, they found that if public transport were to

be free, then it ought to be so in the larger cities (ibid.). They conclude that lowering the price on

public transport compared with a better quality and frequency on public transport would be the

best solution (ibid.). The findings from the Netherlands suggested that parking and the train ticket

should be less expensive than driving. In general, making public transport and Park & Ride parking

less expensive would help encourage people to use public transport, including Park & Ride.

Increase parking charges in city centres

More expensive parking at the final destination would make travel by car less preferable. The

Norwegian literature outlines that Park & Ride is the more favourable option, if the parking charge

at the final destination is expensive. Expensive parking in the city centre could therefore be

combined with fewer parking spaces in order to make it even less preferable.

73

10. Conclusion

This thesis has investigated the potential for Park & Ride in Denmark, focusing on the four

case municipalities: Stevns, Køge, Solrød and Greve. Literary findings from both Denmark and other

countries have been investigated. These findings have formed the foundations for the preferences

that were included in the survey. Ten preferences were chosen to work on in the thesis: 1) Easy

access 2) Walking distance to station, 3) Available parking, 4) Safe to use, 5) Neat and welcoming, 6)

Time-saving, 7) Train frequency, 8) Shops and stores, 9) Walking distance to final destination, and

10) Changing train. The respondents was asked to rank each of the ten preferences from totally

agree to totally disagree. Additionally, the Park & Ride users were also asked to express their

experiences for each preference when using Park & Ride. The Park & Ride users in the survey mostly

agreed on the importance of: easy access, available parking and short distance from the car park to

station. These are all preferences related to the Park & Ride facility. Performing Chi2 tests provided

information about whether the Park & Ride users and the non-users answered alike, as well as

whether the Park & Ride users’ experiences matched their expectations. The test was performed

for all of the ten preferences. An example of this is that the test showed that the non-users had

answered similarly regarding the three preferences mentioned above. However, in contrast, the test

showed that some of the Park & Ride users, in reality, do not experience available parking, easy

access or a short walking distance to the station.

Seeing as Køge Nord Station has opened recently, the interview provided information about

how the municipality of Køge had planned for a Park & Ride area. The project manager contributed

insightful information about how to plan for an attractive Park & Ride facility, but also gave an

insight into some of the challenges. The decision was taken to build a new station with Park & Ride

at Køge Nord, due to its large unused area and its proximity to the motorway and the s-train. The

full potential of the area is 2700 parking spaces, however only 650 have been established so far. The

interview gave an insight into how to work with the preferences, and planning for an area that feels

safe was mentioned as one of the most difficult challenges.

The GIS analysis performed in this thesis resulted in a map that visually presented which

areas would be able to experience time-savings as a result of using Park & Ride. Additionally, the

data also gave information about how many people stood to gain time-savings in the case area.

Most people would gain 3.92 – 8.83 minutes by using Park & Ride. Therefore, travel by Park & Ride

74

is an alternative to driving the car, yet still maintains some of the comfort of driving. If the

commuters that could gain time-savings by Park & Ride began to use Park & Ride, it would result in

less congestion. Consequently, less congestion leads to fewer frustrated drivers. Additionally, both

the new Park & Ride travellers and the ones who continue driving will experience an upgrade in

their level of mobility.

However, in order to gain the full potential of Park & Ride, several initiatives need to be

carried out. This thesis has listed a number of recommendations. Some of the recommendations

need to be carried out in the planning at the municipal level, whilst others require political action at

the state level. The interview with the project manager gave insight into the challenges that a

municipality cannot plan for on their own. An example of one of the recommendations that the

municipalities cannot carry out by themselves is road pricing and/or a combined ticket. Both actions

need to be planned for at the state level. Other recommendations could be handled at the municipal

level, such as planning for Park & Ride facilities in proximity to stations, or planning for new

residential areas that have easy access to Park & Ride facilities. All of the recommendations are

based on findings from this thesis, and if Park & Ride is to become more common in Denmark, some

of the recommendations need to be acted upon.

This thesis has mainly focused on the ten different preferences. Nevertheless, many other

aspects are relevant to include. The traffic situation as it is today may change in the next years. Self-

driving cars might become a possibility in a few years, changing the whole concept of mobility as we

understand it today. The Park & Ride facilities might not be useless if self-driving cars become a

reality, as the project manager from the municipality of Køge stated. It simply demands an agile

planning approach – The Park & Ride facilities could actually support the self-driving cars, if they

were used as pick-up points for shared self-driving cars. Other preferences could also be interesting

to investigate. For example, charging stations for electric cars at the Park & Ride facility could also

cover a need of the traveller that may increase in the next couple of years.

Many factors need to be taken into account when planning for Park & Ride facilities. There

is definitely a potential for Park & Ride in Denmark, however this depends on actions at both the

municipal and state level, which should take point of departure in some of the recommendations

listed in this thesis.

75

11. References

COWI (2015). Analyse af potentialer ved Parkér og Rejs anlæg ved stationer. COWI, Transportministeriet og Realdania. Marts 2015.

Danish Ministry of the Environment (2015). The Finger Plan – Strategy for the development of the

Greater Copenhagen area. The Danish Nature Agency. Danmarks Statistik (2018). Flere pendler længere til arbejde. Danmarks Statistik. Nyt fra Danmarks

Statistik. 16. maj 2018. Danmarks Statistik (2019). Kommunefakta.

https://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/kommunekort/kommunefakta (Accessed 15/02/2019) Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, 2017. Transportvane undersøgelsen. Hovedresultater. DTU

Transport. Center for Transport Analytics. https://www.cta.man.dtu.dk/transportvaneundersoegelsen/hovedresultater (Accessed 26/06/19)

DSB (2019). Stationer. Køge -, Ølby-, Jersie-, Solrød Strand-, Karlslunde-, Greve- & Hundige Station.

https://www.dsb.dk/kundeservice/stationer/# (Accessed 04/03/19)

Erhvervsstyrelsen (2019). Fingerplan 2019 – Landsplandirektiv for hovedstadsområdets planlægning. Marts 2019.

ESRI A (2019). What is a network dataset? ArcMap.

https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/extensions/network-analyst/what-is-a-network-dataset.htm (Accessed 03/05/19)

ESRI B (2019). What is the ArcGIS Network Analyst extension? ArcMap.

https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/extensions/network-analyst/what-is-network-analyst-.htm (Accessed 03/05/19)

ESRI C (2019). Multimodal network.

https://support.esri.com/en/other-resources/gis-dictionary/term/a90aa0eb-70da-415a-acaf-c413471ec666 (Accessed 03/05/19)

ESRI D (2019). Exercise 2: Creating a multimodal network dataset. ArcMap.

https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/extensions/network-analyst/exercise-2-creating-a-multimodal-network-dataset.htm (Accessed 03/05/19)

ESRI E (2019). Closest facility analysis. ArcMap

https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/extensions/network-analyst/closest-facility.htm (Accessed 28/05/19)

https://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/kommunekort/kommunefakta

https://www.cta.man.dtu.dk/transportvaneundersoegelsen/hovedresultater

https://www.dsb.dk/kundeservice/stationer/

https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/extensions/network-analyst/what-is-a-network-dataset.htm

https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/extensions/network-analyst/what-is-a-network-dataset.htm

https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/extensions/network-analyst/what-is-network-analyst-.htm

https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/extensions/network-analyst/what-is-network-analyst-.htm

https://support.esri.com/en/other-resources/gis-dictionary/term/a90aa0eb-70da-415a-acaf-c413471ec666

https://support.esri.com/en/other-resources/gis-dictionary/term/a90aa0eb-70da-415a-acaf-c413471ec666

https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/extensions/network-analyst/exercise-2-creating-a-multimodal-network-dataset.htm

https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/extensions/network-analyst/exercise-2-creating-a-multimodal-network-dataset.htm

https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/extensions/network-analyst/closest-facility.htm

https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/extensions/network-analyst/closest-facility.htm

76

Göteborgs Stad. (2019). Pendelparkering. https://goteborg.se/wps/portal/start/parkeringstillstand-och-parkeringsplatser/parkera/parkeringsplats/pendelparkering/!ut/p/z1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfIjo8ziAwy9Ai2cDB0N_N0t3Qw8Q7wD3Py8ffw9Qoz0wwkpiAJKG-AAjgb6BbmhigDohzsp/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/ (Accessed 27/04/19)

Hansen, E. J., & Andersen, B. H. (2009). Et sociologisk værktøj – Introduktion til den kvantitative

metode. Hans Reitzels Forlag. 2. Udgave, 4. oplag. Hartoft-Nielsen, P., & Reiter, I. (2017). Trafikale effekter af stationsnær lokalisering i

hovedstadsområdet 2017 – første rapport med hovedresultater og analyser. BY og BANE-projektet, Aalborg Universitet, Campus København.

I amsterdam (2019). Park and Ride (P+R Amsterdam).

https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/plan-your-trip/getting-around/parking/park-and-ride (Accessed 27/04/19)

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interview – Introduktion til et håndværk. Hans Reitzels Forlag. 2. udgave, 6. oplæg.

Køge Kommune (2018). Køge Nord – Stationsnært Kontorbyggeri. Erhvervsgrunde til salg. Køge

Kommunen & Kuben Management. Metroselskabet (2019). Tæt på stationen. Fakta om Nørreport station.

https://m.dk/stationer/noerreport/ (Accessed 02/10/19) Passagerpulsen (2019). Undersøgelse: Passagerernes oplevelse af tryghed på togstationer.

Forbrugerrådet Tænk. 2. september 2019.

Rambøll (2018). Mobilitet i Region Hovedstaden – Input til trafik- og mobilitetsplanlægning. Februar 2018.

Rodrigue, J. (2017).The Geography of Transport Systems. Urban Transportation at the Crossroads.

New York: Routledge. Fouth edition. Stockholm Parkering (2019). Park and Rides in the city of Stockholm, with addresses, fees…

https://www.stockholmparkering.se/Pages/Infartsparkering_english.aspx (Accessed 26/04/19)

Teknologi Rådet (2006). Perspektiver ved indførelse af gratis offentlig transport – vurderinger og

anbefalinger fra en arbejdsgruppe under Teknologirådet. Truberg Jensen, K., & Bastrup Kure, M. (2017). Trafikalt knudepunkt skal være danmarksmester i

parkér og rejs. Trafik og veje. December 2017.

https://goteborg.se/wps/portal/start/parkeringstillstand-och-parkeringsplatser/parkera/parkeringsplats/pendelparkering/!ut/p/z1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfIjo8ziAwy9Ai2cDB0N_N0t3Qw8Q7wD3Py8ffw9Qoz0wwkpiAJKG-AAjgb6BbmhigDohzsp/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/




https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/plan-your-trip/getting-around/parking/park-and-ride

https://m.dk/stationer/noerreport/

https://www.stockholmparkering.se/Pages/Infartsparkering_english.aspx

77

12. Appendix 1 – Survey

Jeg er en geografistuderende fra Københavns Universitet, der i mit specialestudie undersøger brugen af ”Parkér og Rejs”.

Du kan have benyttet dig af transportformen Parkér og Rejs uden at tænke over det – det kan i sin enkelthed forstås som en heldagsparkering ved en station. Man ankommer til en station, parkerer bilen og tager toget fremfor at køre i bil hele vejen. Bemærk at Parkér og Rejs også kan dække over cykling og bustransport, men dette spørgeskema omhandler kun transport med bil og tog. Alle besvarelser er en stor hjælp, uanset om du har benyttet Parkér og Rejs eller ej. Spørgeskemaet er anonymt at besvare og det tager ca. 5 min.

Tak for din deltagelse

(Baggrundsspørgsmål ”Background questions”) Hvilken kommune er du bosat i? (Der kan vælges mellem alle Danmarks 98 kommuner)

Hvilken kommune arbejder/studerer du i? (Der kan vælges mellem alle Danmarks 98 kommuner)

Ikke i job/studerende, vælg den kommune du senest var ansat/studerede i

Har du benyttet dig af Parkér og Rejs med bil?

(1) Ja

(2) Nej

(Ja vejen ”The yes–road”)

Til hvilke formål har du benyttet dig af Parkér og Rejs?

(1) Pendling til og fra arbejde eller studie

(2) Fritidsaktiviteter, oplevelser, besøg mm.

(3) Begge formål

Den vigtigste årsag til at jeg benytter Parkér og Rejs er...

(1) ...at jeg slipper for at sidde i bilkø

(2) ...at jeg bidrager til forbedringer af miljøet

78

(3) ...at jeg finder det fleksibelt, jeg kan lave andre ting på togturen som at læse mails

(4) ...at jeg slipper for at køre meget i bil

(5) ...at det er billigere

(6) ...at det er tidsbesparende

Hvilke faktorer afgør hvilken station du kører til og parkerer for derefter at tage toget? (Sæt så mange kryds du vil)

(1) Jeg kører til den nærmeste station – så kører jeg mindst muligt i bil

(2) Jeg kører til et nyt takstområde, der er tættere på slutdestinationen, så jeg sparer penge

(3) Jeg kører længere til en station, så jeg ikke behøver at skifte tog

(6) Jeg kører længere til en station med hurtigere togforbindelser

(7) Jeg vælger en station der er nemt tilgængelig f.eks. tæt på en hovedvej

(4) Jeg vælger en station hvor der altid er ledige parkeringspladser

(5) Jeg vælger en station med gratis parkering

Andre faktorer:

_________________________________________

(Preference spørgsmål ”Preference questions”)

Hvor enig eller uenig er du i nedstående udsagn om Parkér og Rejs Besvar nedstående spørgsmål efter hvad du ønsker og ikke hvad du oplever, når du benytter Parkér og Rejs.

Når jeg benytter Parkér og Rejs, er det vigtigt…

Meget enig Enig Hverken eller Uenig Meget uenig Ved ikke

…at parkeringsanlægget er nemt

tilgængeligt (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

…at der er kort gåafstand

mellem parkeringsanlægget og

stationen

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

…at jeg er sikker på, at der er en

ledig parkeringsplads til mig (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

79


…at parkeringsanlægget er trygt

at færdes i (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

…at parkeringsanlægget er

pænt og imødekommende (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

…at den samlede rejsetid bliver

kortere, end hvis jeg tog bilen

hele vejen

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

…at jeg ved, at togene kører

regelmæssigt og der sjældent er

forsinkelser

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

…at der er butikker i nærheden

af parkeringsanlægget, så jeg

kan handle mm. på vejen hjem

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

…at toget stopper tæt på min

arbejdsplads, så jeg ikke skal gå

for langt det sidste stykke

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

…at jeg skal ikke skifte tog

under rejsen (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Hvor enig eller uenig er du i nedstående udsagn om Parkér og Rejs Besvar nedstående spørgsmål efter hvad du rent faktisk oplever, når du benytter Parkér og Rejs.

Når jeg benytter Parkér og Rejs, oplever jeg..



tilgængeligt (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)



stationen

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

80





at færdes i (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)





hele vejen

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)



forsinkelser

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)


under rejsen (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

(Nej vejen ”The no–road”) Hvorfor har du ikke benyttet Parkér og Rejs med bil?

(1) Jeg finder det besværligt

(3) Jeg kører hellere hele vejen

(2) Jeg har ikke en bil til rådighed

(4) Det har ikke været nødvendigt/muligt

Andre grunde:

__________________________

81

(Preference spørgsmål ”Preference questions”) Hvor enig eller uenig er du i nedstående udsagn om Parkér og Rejs

Hvis jeg skulle benytte Parkér og Rejs, er det vigtigt…



tilgængeligt (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)



stationen

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)




at færdes i (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)





hele vejen

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)



forsinkelser

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)




(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)


under rejsen (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

82

(Fælles spørgsmål “Common questions”)

De næste spørgsmål vil omhandle dine præferencer ift. brugen af Parkér og Rejs Besvar spørgsmålene ud fra dine præferencer og ikke dine erfaringer

Hvor meget længere må din rejstetid blive ved at benytte Parkér og Rejs? (Ift. hvis du kun benyttede bil)

(1) Jeg forventer, at min rejse bliver kortere ved at benytte Parkér og Rejs

(2) Rejsetiden skal være nogenlunde den samme (1-10% længere)

(3) Rejsetiden må gerne blive 10-25% længere



(6) Rejsetiden må gerne blive mere end 75% procent længere

(7) Jeg ser så mange fordele ved Parkér og Rejs, at den nye rejsetid ikke bekymrer mig

(8) Ved ikke

Hvor ofte skal et tog køre i en bestemt retning fra en station, når man benyttter Parkér og Rejs?

(1) 1-2 gange i timen

(2) 3-4 gange i timen

(3) 5-6 gange i timen (Ca. hvert 10. min)

(4) Mere end 6 gange i timen

(5) Ved ikke

Hvor mange gange er du villig til at skifte tog under din rejse med Parkér og Rejs?

(1) Ingen. Efter jeg har sat bilen og steget på et tog, vil jeg ikke skifte tog.

(2) 1 gang

(3) 2 gange

(4) Mere end 3 gange

(5) Ved ikke

Hvor langt er du villig til at gå mellem parkeringsanlægget og stationen?

(1) Maks. 150 m

(2) Maks. 300 m

(3) Maks. 600 m

(4) Over 600 m

(6) Ved ikke

83

Hvor langt er du villig til at gå mellem den sidste station på rejsen og din slutdestination?

(1) Maks. 600 m

(2) Maks. 1200 m

(3) Maks. 1800 m

(4) Over 1800 m

(5) Ved ikke

Hvor meget er du villig til at betale i et Parkér og Rejs anlæg? (Heldagsparkering)

(1) Det skal være gratis, før jeg vil benytte mig af det

(2) Maks. 15 kr.

(3) Maks. 30 kr.

(4) Maks. 45 kr.

(5) Maks. 60 kr.

(6) Mere end 60 kr.

(7) Ved ikke

Tak for din deltagelse

Documents

Master Thesis (60 ECTS) - Erhvervsstyrelsen...Abstract The aim of this thesis is to collect information about Park & Ride in Denmark, with a focus on four case municipalities: Stevns,