Car Parking Management at Airports: Special Case?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes how the provision of car parking is an essential element of airport operations. As airports grow, more pressure is placed on the surface access system and car parking meaning congestion becomes a major issue. The number of employees who daily commute to the airport represents one quarter to one half of the daily number of passengers. At UK airports it is rare for employees to pay for their car parking, with most employers absorbing the charges imposed by the airport operator. Offering free parking to staff creates certain problems, however, because employees do not calculate the true cost of driving to work. A literature review was undertaken to identify employee car parking issues at airports. The problems with offering free parking to employees are highlighted and a comparison is undertaken between a selection of case studies and the airport sector with the aim of enabling airports to learn from best practice elsewhere. A survey and a series of focus groups were conducted with employees at a large SE England airport to gauge the attitudes, acceptability and likely behavioral effects of the introduction of potential parking management strategies. Key findings are presented to suggest how airports may be able to learn from the experiences of others. The paper concludes that there are a number of lessons that airports could learn from if they were to introduce a parking charge for employees, not least in the areas of consultation and acceptance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".