Starting with street parking in the area around the South Congress Ave commercial corridor, Austin has begun to replace restrictive residential permit zones with a hybrid approach that retains privileges for permit holders but also allows paid public street parking for casual visitors to the area. The expansion of paid public street parking to such permit zones was made affordable by making street parking payments via mobile only. This made it unnecessary to install expensive payment infrastructure in mainly residential streets where paid visitor parking is a modest proportion of parking demand. Hybrid resident and public-paid-parking zones (mobile pay) near Austin’s South Congress Ave When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform Starting with street parking in the area around the South Congress Ave commercial corridor, Austin has begun to replace restrictive residential permit zones with a hybrid approach that retains privileges for permit holders but also allows paid public street parking for casual visitors to the area. The expansion of paid public street parking to such permit zones was made affordable by making street parking payments via mobile only. This made it unnecessary to install expensive payment infrastructure in mainly residential streets where paid visitor parking is a modest proportion of parking demand. Why should you care? Easing conflict between residential street parking and casual visitor parking in mainly residential streets is an extremely widespread parking management challenge in residential streets near commercial land uses. The usual solutions, such as restrictive permit zones (as in South Congress before this reform) or time limits with permit holders exempted, avoid paid parking since costly payment machines are poorly suited to residential streets). But these solutions are typically ineffective and costly to enforce. The new approach in the South Congress area demonstrates a way forward for such streets. Low-cost mobile-only payment and a Parking Benefit District has made it feasible (financially and politically) to implement a “Hybrid Parking Area” with both residential permit parking and public paid parking in the same well-managed streets. Relying on mobile pay only gained relatively easy acceptance in this case because mobile only payments actually expanded the local parking options. The previous situation restricted all public parking. No-one has been newly excluded by being unable or unwilling to pay via mobile app. Improved management of parking in residential streets is also increasingly important as cities stop mandating parking with buildings. Austin eliminated all off-street parking mandates in November 2023 (Reinventing Parking, 27 Feb. 2024). Country United States of America Vehicle type cars State/province Texas Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of Austin Primary motivation Multiple Agencies involved Austin Transportation and Public Works Department Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift parking management broadly On-street in mainly residential streets Towards park-once-and-walk AND more responsiveness to context/market What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted S: Share parking more and even aim to make most of it open to the public implemented 2024 Goals of the reform Central goals were to maintain residential parking permit amenity while getting better use of underused residential permit zones and providing wider public parking options for workers and others visiting the busy commercial corridor, South Congress Avenue. These goals should be achieved while still ensuring orderly and well-regulated parking and providing a stream of revenue for local public-realm improvements. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Before the COVID 19 pandemic, the important commercial and entertainment street, South Congress Avenue, urgently needed improved parking management. All street parking was previously free of charge. Changes including paid parking were recommended by the 2021 South Congress Parking Strategy (Austin Downtown Alliance, 2021). The study recognized that paid parking on the main avenue would increase parking demand in nearby streets, both those with unmanaged parking and those with exclusive permit zones where only residential parking permit holders were allowed to park. The proposed fees on South Congress also increased the spotlight on the unfairness of the resident permit arrangements, since the residents were mostly wealthy and white, while workers in the area were more likely to be low-income and from minority communities (as pointed out by Curtis Rogers, 2023). The Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program, dating from 1996, “did not provide the option to charge for non-resident parking on residential streets, a key method for discouraging illegal spillover parking” and was focused only on increasing the availability of parking for residents and their guests (see the Parking Reform Network’s “Parking Reform Policy Cookbook” March 2026 edition, p.42). There was also “growing non-compliance with the residential permit program, which was caused by both illegal street parking and unauthorized transfers of permits between individuals.” As Curtis Rogers (2023) wrote before the reform, “So far, Austin’s neighborhood parking options have been the extremes: free-for-all or private for the locals. A hybrid option of Permits + Paid Curb offers a solution that maintains order on the curb AND financially supports the local area.” Detailed description of the reform In the low-density residential area around the South Congress Ave commercial corridor, Austin has replaced restrictive residential permit zones with an affordable yet effective hybrid approach that retains privileges for permit holders but also allows paid public street parking for casual visitors to the area. This reform in the streets near South Congress Avenue has three central features. CENTRAL FEATURE 1 involves allowing anyone to park along residential streets where parking was previously for the exclusive use of permit holders and charging parking fees to make sure such casual parking is well-regulated and does not cause problems for permit holders. The hybrid approach was implemented in the South Congress area in mid-2024, having been proposed in the 2021 South Congress Parking Study (Austin Downtown Alliance, 2021). Almost 2,000 parking spaces that were previously resident-permit-only were opened up for daytime public parking by customers and employees. Many streets are in the “Hybrid Parking Area” in which Pay-to-Park street parking is blended with Residential Permit Parking (RPP). The typical arrangement in these streets (as seen on signage) is that paid parking is allowed Monday to Saturday from 8am to 6pm and on Sunday 1pm to 6pm. At other times parking reserved for permit holders only. There are also residential street sections that are not part of the RPP zone (mostly adjacent to or on the commercial corridor). Along these, paid parking applies from 8am to midnight Mondays to Saturdays and 1pm to midnight on Sundays, with no restrictions at other times. These streets had previously lacked effective parking management. This new approach has been formalized in a significant 2025 change to Austin’s Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program. The “City Council passed a code update that allowed the Director of Transportation to establish a pay-to-park component for residential zones that are located near areas of interest including parks, commercial centers, and stadiums.” The reformed RPP program now aims to (among other things) ensure “balanced, fair usage of on-street parking infrastructure.” (Parking Reform Network, March 2026, “Parking Reform Policy Cookbook”, p.42). All street parking areas in Austin have the same fees and a tiered (escalating) pricing structure. For example, it costs USD 2 for the first hour and for the second hour, then the per-hour rates gradually escalate to USD 5 for the 7th and each subsequent hour (up to a maximum of 10 hours in a parking session). Ten hours of parking costs USD 49. CENTRAL FEATURE 2 involves using mobile-only as the payment method in these residential streets to make the expansion of paid parking cost-efficient by avoiding the need for costly in-street payment infrastructure. Implementation of paid parking for outsiders in residential South Congress residential streets was eased because Austin had recently made it possible to implement new paid parking as mobile pay only. This greatly lowered the cost of expanding paid parking. Refraining from installing parking meters or payment machines was especially politically feasible in the Hybrid Parking Area since in these street sections casual parking had previously been prohibited. So paid parking with mobile pay only amounted to an expansion of the parking options in the area, not a reduction. [Presumably, acceptance of mobile-pay only may have been more difficult on South Congress Avenue itself, where the previous situation had been free of charge time-limited parking.] An earlier text-to-pay option (usable by older phones) seems to have been dropped. Austin has had mobile app-based payment for street parking as an option for more than a decade. In recent years, confidence with the city’s Park ATX app and platform (managed by Passport) increased to the point that a number of parking areas in Austin (including one off-street lot) are "mobile pay only" (Austin Transportation and Public Works, accessed 5 Aug 2026). The Park ATX app is the primary payment method, with an additional mobile payment option provided by the Way.com app. CENTRAL FEATURE 3 is the use of a parking benefit district, known in Austin as a Parking & Transportation Management District, or PTMD. Public acceptance of the on-street parking management reforms in South Congress benefited from implementation of a new parking benefit district for the area. Austin’s PTMDs dedicate “51 percent of the public paid parking revenue, after City expenses, to support mobility improvements within the established district, including park maintenance, signage, wayfinding, and sidewalk improvements.” In place since 2023, the South Congress Parking & Transportation Management District (Austin Transportation and Public Works (Austin Transportation and Public Works, accessed 6 Aug 2026) takes in the whole area, including the main commercial street, some streets that previously had little parking management, and streets previously under restrictive residential permits that banned most parking by non-permit holders. Austin had been successfully experimenting with and then institutionalizing parking benefit districts for almost two decades, with step-by-step improvements. The West Campus example is highlighted in the Parking Reform Network’s PBD Guide (March 2026). Results or impacts As of mid-2026, this reform is still relatively new. I don’t yet see any formal evaluation of the effects of the changes. Public feedback on social media seems to have been mixed in the early stages, as would be expected, and muted since then, which is usually a good sign. Most such comments seem to focus on the main street, not the residential streets. Employee parking may remain a challenge. The initial impetus for this set of reforms included easing problems for employees in the area but it is not clear if this has been achieved. The initial plans involved three categories of street: public parking on the main corridor, public plus employee parking on many street sections close to the main corridor, and public and resident parking on the remaining street sections. It was proposed that shops and restaurants on South Congress could obtain parking permits for their employees. However, this employee permit and “public plus employee” zone proposals seem to have been dropped. In mid-2024, the Austin Transportation and Public Works said “Many of the merchants in the area have access to off-street parking facilities that can help accommodate employee parking needs. TPW will continue to work with merchants and stakeholders to address employee parking concerns, including the potential for affordable parking options similar to what is available to downtown service industry workers.” (cited by Kevin Baskar, 2024). Sources and acknowledgements Austin Downtown Alliance (March 2021) South Congress Parking Strategy: Public Draft (prepared by a consultant team from Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates and NuStats Research Solutions) https://downtownaustin.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/SoCoParkingStrategy_DraftRecommendations.pdf Austin Transportation and Public Works (accessed 5 Aug 2026) Paid Parking https://www.austintexas.gov/transportation-public-works/paid-parking Austin Transportation and Public Works (accessed 6 Aug 2026) Parking & Transportation Management Districts, https://www.austintexas.gov/transportation-public-works/programs/parking-and-transportation-management-districts Kevin Baskar (Jun 21, 2024) “Workers frustrated with South Congress paid parking”, KXAN (https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/workers-frustrated-with-south-congress-paid-parking/) Haley McLeod (3 July 2023) “South Congress Avenue-area visitors in Austin can expect new paid parking, regulations”, Community Impact, https://communityimpact.com/south-central-austin/transportation/south-congress-avenue-area-visitors-in-austin-can-expect-new-paid-parking-regulations/ Parking Reform Network (2026) “Short-Term Paid Parking in Residential Neighborhoods”, pp. 40-43 in the “Parking Policy Reform Cookbook” (March 2026 edition) (https://parkingreform.org/resources/cookbook/) Parking Reform Network (2022) Parking Benefit Districts: A Guide for Activists, written by Evan Kindler in collaboration with Tony Jordan and Jane Wilberding (https://parkingreform.org/playbook/pbd/#casestudies) Passport (accessed 5 Aug 2026) Case Study: Austin, TX: From Premier American City to Innovative Leader in Mobility Management, https://www.passportinc.com/case-studies/austin-tx/ Reinventing Parking (27 Feb. 2024) “Austin did it. Your city can too!” https://www.reinventingparking.org/2024/02/Austin.html Curtis Rogers (15 Mar 2023) “Common Ground at the Curb”, guest post in Jack Craver’s Austin Politics Newsletter, https://www.austinpolitics.net/common-ground-at-the-curb/ Last updated: 7 Aug 2026

A compendium of international parking reform cases to help parking policy reformers all over the world. The Parking Reform Atlas is a work in progress. I plan to steadily improve it with the help of the international community of parking changemakers. Your comments or other help are welcome! Scroll down to explore global parking reform examples OR narrow your selection with these filters Main reform type Main reform type Primary motivation Primary motivation Main parking category main category Main parking paradigm shift Main parking paradigm shift What is this about? World Region Region We use the World Bank regions here. Key actor type Key actor type Implementation state Implemented? Adaptive Parking thrust Adaptive Parking thrust What is this about? Clear all filters SHOW MORE CASES

In 2025 the City of Winnipeg made mobile payment the primary way to pay for on-street parking (and for some off-street surface parking lots). City-operated pay stations (payment machines) have been removed and are no longer an alternative for paid on-street parking areas. The alternative or back-up option is to pay via ‘prepaid parking booklets’ containing parking passes for display on the dashboard. However, mobile payment is much more convenient and is expected to dominate. Even before the removal of parking meters, mobile payments already accounted for over 80 percent of parking transactions, according to the City. Winnipeg’s removal of parking pay stations to rely mainly on mobile payments When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform In 2025 the City of Winnipeg made mobile payment the primary way to pay for on-street parking (and for some off-street surface parking lots). City-operated pay stations (payment machines) have been removed and are no longer an alternative for paid on-street parking areas. The alternative or back-up option is to pay via ‘prepaid parking booklets’ containing parking passes for display on the dashboard. However, mobile payment is much more convenient and is expected to dominate. Even before the removal of parking meters, mobile payments already accounted for over 80 percent of parking transactions, according to the City. Why should you care? In cities that have parking meters or parking payment kiosks proposals to remove this familiar payment option often face strong opposition. Therefore, it is so far rare for such cities to do what Winnipeg has done. This is a case for other cities to watch to see if the shift to mobile payment with safeguards (prepaid parking booklets) can prevail. Mobile only payment requires much lower investments by cities in on-street payment infrastructure and makes it much cheaper to operate paid parking in streets. Avoiding significant in-street infrastructure also makes it much easier to extend paid parking to more streets, if warranted. Lowered costs by avoiding parking meters can also enable paid parking in streets that need parking management, but where the expected daily fee intake would not justify costly infrastructure. Residential streets that face strong visitor parking demand are a common set of examples. Country Canada Vehicle type cars State/province Manitoba Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of Winnipeg Primary motivation Multiple Agencies involved Winnipeg Parking Authority Is it a model or a warning? remains to be seen Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift pricing On-street in mainly commercial streets Towards more responsiveness to context/market What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted P: Price parking in the right ways and with the right rates for each place and time implemented 2025 Goals of the reform The key goal of this change was to avoid the high cost of replacing pay stations that were approaching obsolescence while still providing convenient ways to pay for street parking. It was also argued that removing the option of paying via in-street parking meters would have several other advantages, such as avoided theft and vandalism, and lower ongoing costs. “The decision not to replace them means the city will save $3.6 million in replacement costs and $1 million in annual operating costs.” (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-parking-meters-being-removed-1.7540016) See the Why Should You Care section for more benefits that were not made explicit to justify the reform. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) The immediate impetus for the decision was the fact that the existing pay stations had reached the end of their useful life and would stop working as Canada's mobile network providers phase out their 3G networks (https://www.winnipeg.ca/people-culture/our-city-our-stories/how-pay-parking-winnipeg). Detailed description of the reform THIS CASE IS A DRAFT THAT RELIED ON WEB-BASED INFORMATION. IF YOU HAVE LOCAL INSIGHT OR MORE INFORMATION OR A CORRECTION, PLEASE VISIT https://www.parkingreformatlas.org/get-involved TO SEND A TIP OR OFFER FEEDBACK. In 2025 the City of Winnipeg made mobile payment the primary way to pay for on-street parking (and for some off-street surface parking lots). City-operated pay stations (payment machines) have been removed and are no longer an alternative for paid on-street parking areas. The Winnipeg Parking Authority appointed the Vancouver-based PayByPhone company to operate the mobile payment system. Motorists need to download and install the PayByPhone app and register to enable payment via mobile device. The back-up option is to pay via ‘prepaid parking booklets’ containing parking passes for display on the dashboard after the day, month, year and start time of parking are scratched. These can be purchased from seven locations around the city or ordered by phone and delivered at no additional cost. This is an improvement on the initial situation in mid-2025 when prepaid parking booklets were only available from three locations. These replace the earlier Scratch N’ Park Meter Passes. However, mobile payment is much more convenient for most people, and is expected to dominate. Even before the removal of parking meters, mobile payments already accounted for over 80 percent of parking transactions, according to the City. There were complaints in the months before and after the change but controversy seems to have died down quickly. [Please correct me if this is wrong!] Relatively good public acceptance of the change may, in part, be influenced by the fact that the area with paid on-street parking in the core of the city has many off-street parking options, including many surface parking lots. Off-street parking (which can be paid with cards or cash) is apparently a nearby option almost everywhere in this area. Results or impacts It is probably too soon to assess the results. There were complaints in the months immediately before and after the change. As of mid-2026, the controversy seems to have died down, although this impression may just reflect the difficulty of searching for such discussion. Some complaints focused on a small extra charge for SMS notifications in the parking app. If this option is turned off, then posted prices are correctly charged. But if it is left on then payment via the app is slightly more expensive than the posted prices. However, people complaining said this option was on by default. Sources and acknowledgements City of Winnipeg (Last update: April 14, 2026; Accessed July 2026) Paid parking payment methods, https://theparkingstore.winnipeg.ca/theparkingstore/parkingInfo/PaidParkingPaymentMethods.stm City of Winnipeg (3 July 2025) How to pay for parking in Winnipeg, https://www.winnipeg.ca/people-culture/our-city-our-stories/how-pay-parking-winnipeg CBC News (21 May 2025) Getting rid of parking meters a 'terrible' decision, Winnipeg drivers say, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-parking-meters-being-removed-1.7540016 Image source: Via City of Winnipeg (last updated 20 February 2026) Parking demand area map, https://theparkingstore.winnipeg.ca/theparkingstore/parkinginfo/parking-demand-area-map.stm Last updated: 18 Jul 2026

Hong Kong aggressively restricted residential parking supply in the 1970s using strict parking maximums. The parking maximums were part of the HK Government's policy of restraining private car ownership that began in the early 1970s. Although parking maximums were abandoned in 1981 (with a switch to fiscal methods of restraining car ownership growth), the low parking maximums of the 1970s left a legacy that led to modest parking supply and high parking prices in Hong Kong ever since. There are lessons here, even if this might be difficult for others to emulate. Hong Kong low residential parking maximums in the 1970s When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform Hong Kong aggressively restricted residential parking supply in the 1970s using strict parking maximums. The parking maximums were part of the HK Government's policy of restraining private car ownership that began in the early 1970s. Although parking maximums were abandoned in 1981 (with a switch to fiscal methods of restraining car ownership growth), the low parking maximums of the 1970s left a legacy that led to modest parking supply and high parking prices in Hong Kong ever since. There are lessons here, even if this might be difficult for others to emulate. Why should you care? The 1970s residential parking maximums in Hong Kong were very unusual. Perhaps the only case of the deliberate use of parking maximums to constrain the growth of car ownership. Although the policy was in place for less than 10 years, those years were a period of high economic and population growth. So the parking maximums policy seems to have been a key part of why Hong Kong has very high parking prices and modest parking minimums even now. Country China (HK was a British Colony at the time) Vehicle type cars State/province Hong Kong SAR Key actor type Metropolitan government Jurisdiction Hong Kong Primary motivation influence vehicle ownership Agencies involved I don't know Is it a model or a warning? ambiguous Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift maximums or caps (including minimums switched to maximums) Off-street residential Away from excessive parking supply What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted D: Discourage or limit parking supply in certain contexts ended Goals of the reform Restraint of private car ownership. Parking was a key tool, perhaps THE key tool of that period, aimed at restricting car ownership growth in the 1970s as part of the HK Government's policy of restraining private car ownership that began in the early 1970s. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Economic success in Hong Kong in the late 1960s and early 1970s had led to rapidly rising car ownership (starting from an extremely low level) which quickly caused severe traffic and parking problems in the context of very high population densities within the urbanized areas. Detailed description of the reform Hong Kong had strict maximums for residential development starting in the early 1970s (exact year needed) and 1981, when parking minimums were adopted instead. In 1981, there was a switch to relying on 'fiscal tools' such as increased vehicle purchase and ownership taxes and fuel taxes to contain car ownership growth. At that time, the HK Government decided that restricting residential parking supply was no longer necessary. The Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines 1992 edition issued by the Planning Department, explained the earlier switch away from restricting parking supply: "Parking standards for residential development were formulated in the light of the introduction of fiscal measures to restrict directly the rate of growth in private vehicle ownership and the abandonment of restraint on car ownership by a restriction of residential parking spaces. The overall intention of the standards is to ensure that, except in special cases, future residential developments should have sufficient parking provision to match the current and anticipated car ownership of residents. Generally, therefore, minimum rather than maximum standards are set. This should enable developers to be aware from outset of the extent of parking provision they can plan." We can see that there was a switch to a more conventional parking supply approach. Nevertheless, the 1970s policy left its mark on HK parking. Results or impacts Despite being in place for less than a decade, these residential parking maximums had a long-term impact on Hong Kong parking supply and prices. Hong Kong's population rose from 3,995,400 in 1970 to 5,109,812 in 1981. And the 1970s was (mostly) a time of rapid economic growth in Hong Kong. So a large increment of Hong Kong housing took place with very low rates of parking. The success of the policy meant Hong Kong still had low car ownership in 1981 and the government fully intended to continue to restrain the growth of car ownership. So the residential parking minimums that were adopted in 1981 were set at low levels. In fact, in a context of low car ownership, all of Hong Kong's parking minimums were set at low levels. So the parking maximums of the 1970s were an important influence on low rates of parking with buildings built BOTH in the 1970s AND in buildings built since then. Parking prices in Hong Kong are very high. For example, as of early 2021, monthly parking fees in HK public housing range from HK$1,150 (USD148) per month in the most outlying area facilities with the lowest occupancy rates to HK$2,890 (USD384) per month in central areas with high parking occupancy rates. Sources and acknowledgements Paul Barter (26 Nov 2013) "Hong Kong has parking minimums AND very expensive parking. How can that be?" Reinventing Parking https://www.reinventingparking.org/2013/11/hong-kong-has-parking-minimums-and-very.html Last updated: 13 Mar 2021

All London Boroughs abolished their minimum parking requirements for all land-uses and adopted maximums in 2004 or in the years soon after. [But note that parts of central London already had parking maximums decades before this.] London parking maximums (and minimums abolition) When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform All London Boroughs abolished their minimum parking requirements for all land-uses and adopted maximums in 2004 or in the years soon after. [But note that parts of central London already had parking maximums decades before this.] Why should you care? London (and England more widely) is a prominent case of a large city that has been almost completely without parking minimums, and has applied parking maximums, for more than 15 years now. The impacts of the reform on residential parking provision have been closely studies by Zhan Guo and his colleagues. Country United Kingdom Vehicle type cars State/province Key actor type Metropolitan government Jurisdiction London Primary motivation mode shift or TDM Agencies involved Greater London Authority and the 33 London Boroughs Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift maximums or caps (including minimums switched to maximums) Off-street various Promotes all three Adaptive Parking paradigm shifts What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted D: Discourage or limit parking supply in certain contexts implemented 2004 Goals of the reform England's Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport of 2001 stated that “maximum standards should be designed to be used as part of a package of measures to promote sustainable transport choices.” Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Wider national policy trends seem to have been behind this reform but more information is needed. Detailed description of the reform All London Boroughs abolished their minimum parking requirements and adopted maximums in 2004 or in the years soon after. This change applied to all land-use types. Transport for London (TfL) Public Transport Accessibility Scores (PTAL scores) helps developers decide how much parking provision is appropriate in each location across the city. Different maximums apply to different areas, guided by PTAL scores and by London Plan spatial designations and use classes. Maximums applying in central London are very restrictive and allow very little parking to be built. For example, under the London Plan, office buildings in central and inner London have a parking maximum of zero (except for 'disabled persons parking'). Those applying in outer areas are permissive and still allow quite abundant parking to be provided. The highest maximum for office and for retail buildings under the London Plan is 1 space per 50 square metres. It should be noted that, despite the abolition of parking minimums and the adoption of maximums, some local authorities in England, including some London boroughs, remained concerned about parking under-provision. Similar to the case of Dublin, Ireland, many of them seem to treat the parking maximums as a target rather than a maximum and require developers to provide strong justification for development proposals with parking much below the maximums. The shift to maximums occurred after 'the Greater London Authority (GLA) passed the London Plan in February 2004, which required local authorities to shift from a minimum to a maximum standard.' Parts of London have had parking maximums since 1976: "The Greater London Development Plan (1976) (paras 5.8.16 to 5.8.22 and Table 4) set maximums for offices and shops "with different levels for the Central Area, Inner Ring, more important suburban centres and in the remainder of Outer London". The GLA policy in turn was in line with national policy guidance PPG13 for England, which was published in 2001 and said that car parking standards should be expressed as maximums not minimums and that developers should normally have discretion to provide as little parking as they consider necessary. As context, in large parts of London on-street parking is strictly managed under CPZs (controlled parking zones). These have certain faults but do reliably control chaotic and obstructive parking in the areas under them. National guidance changed in 2019. The National Planning Policy Framework opened the door to minimums and discouraged parking maximums ("Maximum parking standards for residential and non-residential development should only be set where there is a clear and compelling justification that they are necessary for managing the local road network."). The new London Plan 2021 still calls for parking maximums for all land-uses but does now allow residential parking minimums in outer areas: "Outer London boroughs wishing to adopt minimum residential parking standards through a Development Plan Document (within the maximum standards set out in Policy T6 .1 Residential parking) must only do so for parts of London that are PTAL 0-1. Inner London boroughs should not adopt minimum standards. Minimum standards are not appropriate for non-residential use classes in any part of London." (p. 423) Have any London boroughs yet adopted any residential minimums? Results or impacts Zhan Guo and colleagues studied the impact of the reform on residential development, finding that the main impact was from removing the minimums, not from the maximums. The main conclusions were: "The number of parking spaces supplied after the 2004 parking reform fell by approximately 40 percent when compared to the number of parking spaces that would have been supplied with the previous minimum parking requirements. This means that from 2004 to 2010, the new parking requirements led to a total of 143,893 fewer spaces. No other alternative explanations (car ownership saturation, development constraints, congestion charging, oil price spike, etc.) account for such a dramatic decline. Furthermore, almost all the reduction in parking supply was caused by eliminating the minimum standards, declining only 2.2 percent due to adoption of the maximum standards." Have there been other studies of the parking maximums in London, such as the effects of the maximums for other land-uses? Sources and acknowledgements Zhan Guo, "From Parking Minimums to Parking Maximums in London", Access magazine, Fall 2016. https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-2016/from-parking-minimums-to-parking-maximums-in-london/ Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, February 2019, "National Planning Policy Framework", https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/810197/NPPF_Feb_2019_revised.pdf London Plan 2021. https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/london-plan-2021 https://www.reinventingparking.org/2013/09/which-cities-have-abolished-parking.html https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/public-transport-accessibility-levels London Forum statement https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/Commission%20-%20London%20Forum%20-Technical%20consultation%20MB%20comments%20on%20Maximum%20parking%20standards.pdf Last updated: 16 Mar 2021

Implementing paid workplace parking is the most common TDM action taken by employers under Seoul’s employer-based TDM program. A smaller number of employers abolish employee parking altogether under the program. Parking in Seoul's employer-based TDM program When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform Implementing paid workplace parking is the most common TDM action taken by employers under Seoul’s employer-based TDM program. A smaller number of employers abolish employee parking altogether under the program. Why should you care? This case suggests that it may be feasible for more governments to take steps to encourage employers to implement paid workplace parking. Country South Korea Vehicle type cars State/province Seoul Key actor type Metropolitan government Jurisdiction City of Seoul Primary motivation mode shift or TDM Agencies involved Proposed by the Seoul Development Institute (currently the Seoul Institute) in 1993. Implemented by relevant agencies of Seoul Metropolitan Government. Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift workplace pricing Off-street workplace Unknown or unclear or not applicable or other What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted P: Price parking in the right ways and with the right rates for each place and time implemented 1995 Goals of the reform The goal is reduced use of single-occupant car travel to work for congestion and pollution benefits. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Seoul faced a huge surge in car ownership from the mid 1980s. Before that time, South Korea had kept car ownership extremely low as part of an economic strategy that discouraged household consumption. By the early 1990s, traffic congestion was at crisis levels and prompted urgent action. This came just as the country democratised after decades of autocratic government. Seoul Development Institute (now Seoul Institute) looks to California's TDM policies as a model. Detailed description of the reform Adopting workplace parking fees for employees is the most common TDM action taken up by employers under Seoul’s voluntary employer-based TDM program. Of 912 TDM-participating employers in a study sample of employers, 430 or 47.1% adopted paid employee parking (Ko and Kim, 2017). Most of these were office-based employers. A smaller number (86 out of 912 in Ko and Kim's study) of employers in the program abolish employee parking altogether. This is done mostly by commercial (retail) employers, many of them in the main central business district, according to Ko and Kim. Installing a parking guidance system is also part of the TDM program (but this is expensive for employers and has had very low adoption. Other, non-parking TDM measures available under the program include: no-drive days based on license plate numbers; encouraging bicycle use; free employer-provided commuter buses; employer-provided taxi service; and transit-day campaigns. The TDM program is voluntary for private-sector employers but is incentivized by offering discounts on the annual traffic impact fee. The TDM is compulsory for many public-sector employers. According to Seoul Solution: "As of 2015, some 23.2% of the facilities subject to the ‘TDM program for companies’ have got involved in the system." Results or impacts Along with Seoul's many other efforts, including large investments in public transport, the TDM policies have seen some success. For example, according to Seoul Solution: "Since the implementation of the TDM policy in various ways in the 1990s, the transport share of private cars in Seoul has fallen continuously while the share of public transport has risen steadily from 61% in 2004 to 66% in 2014, consequently increasing the average travel speed on major and downtown roads. In the early 2000s, the average travel speed in downtown Seoul was 22.4 km/h, rising to 26.4 km/h by 2013. A similar phenomenon has been observed in the outskirts of Seoul and on major arterial roads." Sources and acknowledgements Seoul Solution, "Reduction of Car Travel: Transportation Demand Management (TDM)", https://www.seoulsolution.kr/en/node/6535 Ko, Joonho & Kim, Daejin, 2017. "Employer-based travel demand management program: Employer’s choice and effectiveness," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.06.003 Last updated: 17 Mar 2021

In West End Vancouver, residential on-street parking permit prices were shifted to market-based rates. But only for new permits. Existing permit holders could renew at grandfathered prices and low-income households pay the same price as these legacy permit holders. Together with some other parking management improvements, these changes have greatly eased the previous on-street parking problems and have increased the use of the existing off-street residential parking. Vancouver’s West End residential permit reforms When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform In West End Vancouver, residential on-street parking permit prices were shifted to market-based rates. But only for new permits. Existing permit holders could renew at grandfathered prices and low-income households pay the same price as these legacy permit holders. Together with some other parking management improvements, these changes have greatly eased the previous on-street parking problems and have increased the use of the existing off-street residential parking. Why should you care? This is a rare case of charging high, ‘market-based’ prices for on-street residential parking permits. However, only NEW permits attract the market-based price. Holders of permits before the reform can continue to renew their permits at the old price (it was ‘grandfathered’). In addition, low-income residents are also eligible for the old price. These features made the reform politically feasible. Nevertheless, because roughly 20% of legacy permits are NOT renewed each year, the number of permits at the grandfathered price is expected to decline quite quickly. Country Canada Vehicle type cars State/province British Columbia Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of Vancouver Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved City of Vancouver Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift permits On-street in mainly residential streets Towards more responsiveness to context/market What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted P: Price parking in the right ways and with the right rates for each place and time implemented 2017 Goals of the reform “Our goal is to make it easier to find parking in the West End permit zone without encouraging more driving overall.” https://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/west-end-parking-strategy.aspx Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) According to https://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/west-end-parking-strategy.aspx On-street parking was overburdened before the reform. Finding parking took residents 5 minutes on average and visitors took 10 minutes. Before the 1 September 2017 changes, on-street permits were much cheaper (at $6 per month) than off-street parking in residents’ own buildings (which cost $50 per month usually). Note that residential home-based parking is typically unbundled in this area. Many residents were parking in the street, even though most had parking available in their building and the area overall had about 1.5 residential parking spaces for every car registered in the area. It seemed clear that better management of the on-street parking permit system should be able to ease the problem. Detailed description of the reform Under Vancouver’s West End Parking Strategy, bold reforms to the residential on-street parking permit were made in this dense area just west of Downtown Vancouver. The key change was a shift to market-based prices but only for new permits. Existing permit holders In West End Vancouver had their prices grandfathered, although indexed to inflation. Low-income households pay the same price as the existing permit holders. The idea is that permit turnover will gradually bring most permits onto the new market rates to enable a better balance of supply and demand, mostly by prompting more people to park in the parking in their buildings instead of in the streets. At the time of the reform, it was predicted that high permit turnover in the area would mean that only about 1 in 5 original permit holders would remain after 5 years. Approximately 20% of West End households had parking permits at the time. Starting in 2017, permit prices were shifted to market-based rates of CAN$360 per year ($30 per month). The initial proposal had been $50 per month and was based on existing off-street parking prices. The lower initial rate was based on “more detailed modelling of the value of on-street parking compared to off-street spaces”. As of 2021, the market rate for West End Vancouver street parking permits is CAN$$401.13. The non-market legacy rate (for existing legacy permit holders) is CAN$90.93 and the non-market exempt rate (for low income household) CAN$90.93. The City undertook that any increase in revenue from the sale of permits at the new rates would be reinvested in the West End according to needs identified by the community (a parking benefit district arrangement). The reform also included an effort to enable residential buildings with excess parking to voluntarily rent spaces to other residents of the area. It was estimated that, although some buildings had parking that was nearly full, others nearby had much unused parking and that, overall, there were many more residential spaces than cars in the area. On-street parking management was also improved in the area, by modernising parking enforcement, expanding parking pricing for visitors (free two-hour parking spaces were replaced with $1.00 per hour metered parking with a time limit of three hours). If the reforms succeeded in reducing demand for on-street parking, the city also planned to allow visitor parking in permit-only spaces at low-demand times and to convert some residential parking to visitor parking. Results or impacts According to a Feb 22 2019 report by Kenneth Chan of the Daily Hive (Urbanized section), the City seemed happy with the results so far. The number of permits sold each year dropped, although not as quickly as expected. In the year up to the end of the 2018 permit renewal period, the sale of non-market permits to existing permit holders had decreased by 21%. The number of active permits still greatly exceeded on-street parking supply at that time, with over 6,700 active permits but about 2,700 on-street permit-only parking spaces. Nevertheless, parking availability for visitors had improved, both based on anecdotal feedback and based on occupancy data, with many fewer blocks missing the city’s targets for on-street parking vacancy rates. The City is now planning to extend parking permits to the whole city. It will be interesting to see if this proceeds and whether it follows the West End Vancouver approach. Sources and acknowledgements City of Vancouver, West End Parking Strategy https://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/west-end-parking-strategy.aspx (This is also the source of the image above). Kenneth Chan (22 Feb, 2019) Street pay parking in Vancouver's West End is 'working as expected': report, Daily Hive (Urbanized section), https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-west-end-pay-parking-report-february-2019 https://chronology.vancouverplanning.ca/emerging-milestones/emerging-milestones-2017/market-based-residential-parking-permits-introduced/ https://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/west-end-parking-non-market-rates.aspx Last updated: 7 Jun 2021

Numerous small surface parking lots are not the best feature of Japan's cities. But at least they are priced, and one of the keys to that is "flap lock" parking systems. These enable self-service (unstaffed) paid parking. They do not require on-site staff and have low enforcement costs. Operating costs are therefore very low, making parking fees feasible even on tiny parking areas. Flap lock paid parking systems (Japan’s coin parking lots) When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform Numerous small surface parking lots are not the best feature of Japan's cities. But at least they are priced, and one of the keys to that is "flap lock" parking systems. These enable self-service (unstaffed) paid parking. They do not require on-site staff and have low enforcement costs. Operating costs are therefore very low, making parking fees feasible even on tiny parking areas. Why should you care? Japan fails to regulate small vacant-lot parking areas tightly enough, which causes various problems. Nevertheless, the flap lock parking approach to pricing in Japan does demonstrate the feasibility of charging fees for parking even on very small parking areas (some as small as a single parking space). This or similar systems might enable self-service pricing of small parking areas in many other countries too. One possible application is for the small parking areas in front of small commercial buildings. This ‘frontage parking’ arrangement is common across Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, India, Colombia and probably many other countries too. This parking is often private (customers-only or tenants-only). Typically, each business controls the spaces directly in front of it. This is extremely inefficient. Flap lock parking might perhaps be part of a better approach to managing such parking spaces. This would probably require local government help with negotiations to enable solutions that benefit all of the businesses involved. Country Japan Vehicle type cars State/province Key actor type Private sector Jurisdiction Japan Primary motivation revenue/anti-subsidy Agencies involved Not applicable. Arose as an business innovation in response to a need. Is it a model or a warning? ambiguous Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift pricing Off-street commercial open-to-the-public Towards park-once-and-walk AND more responsiveness to context/market What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted P: Price parking in the right ways and with the right rates for each place and time implemented Goals of the reform Coin parking systems using flap locks arose as a business innovation to enable parking fees even on very small parking areas. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) In the period after Japan’s 1990 real estate market crash, Japanese cities had numerous small plots of vacant land that could not be economically developed in the post-crash market conditions. The ability to charge for parking on small pieces of land presented an opportunity for land owners to get at least some return. The large number of vacant plots is also an artefact of various land, tenancy, and taxation policies. For example, planning rules do not treat conversion to a small parking lot as a development (Kanemoto, 1997). Detailed description of the reform Japanese cities have numerous small vacant-lot parking areas. In many ways, these are a blot on the landscape and are part of an oversupply of parking in small Japanese cities. But at least most are priced and open to the public via so-called ‘coin parking’. This refers to self-service (unstaffed) paid parking using ‘flap lock’ systems. These flap lock parking systems do not require on-site staff and have low enforcement costs, which keeps operating costs very low. In the areas in Japanese cities that have high market prices for parking, the low cost of coin parking makes such systems feasible on even tiny parking lots with as few as one or two spaces. Flap lock parking systems involve a flap lock device installed across each parking space. When a car parks on the space, a flap rises after a short delay (such as 2 minutes). This prevents the vehicle from driving off. Upon returning, the motorist makes payment (usually at an on-site kiosk or via digital payment app). This causes the flap to lower again, allowing the vehicle to be driven away. In the past, only coins were accepted in most coin parking lot kiosks. However, other payment methods, such as payment by digital app, pre-paid contactless cards and credit cards, are increasingly accepted. Coin parking using flap lock systems arose as a business innovation with no government involvement. However, the system did arise to take advantage of the lack of government regulation over small parking lots in Japan and from Japanese parking policies that made paid parking a viable business in most areas of most Japanese cities. These policies include having parking mandates (minimums) that are set at very low levels and which exempt small and medium-sized buildings and allowing very little on-street parking (and none at all overnight). Results or impacts Flap lock parking technology has enabled the cost effective implementation of priced parking even on tiny plots of vacant urban land in Japan. This has enabled the owners of this land to gain at least some return while waiting for market conditions to be attractive for development. It also adds depth to local paid-parking markets across Japan. On the negative side, together with other perverse incentives in the tax code (Kanemoto 1997), coin parking is enabling many vacant lots to remain underdeveloped for longer than it otherwise might be. Furthermore, the coin-parking phenomenon has played a role in an oversupply of parking in some parts of Japan, especially the urban cores of small Japanese cities and towns. Sources and acknowledgements How to Park a Car in Japan 14 Mar 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viZb_7uHKow Wheels in Japan (13 May 2016) Where can I park in Japan?!: Coin Parking, https://wheelsinjapan.wordpress.com/2016/05/13/where-can-i-park/ Reinventing Parking (August 2010) Tokyo’s coin parking lots https://www.reinventingparking.org/2010/08/tokyos-coin-parking-lots.html Reinventing Parking, (4 December 2019) Learn from Japan! https://www.reinventingparking.org/2019/12/learn-from-japan.html Net searches for ‘flap lock parking’ yield various sources of these systems, especially in China and Japan https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=flap+lock+parking&ia=web Kanemoto, Yoshitsugu (1997) The housing question in Japan. Regional Science and Urban Economics 27 (6), 613-641. Images of coin parking in Tokyo are from: https://www.google.com.sg/maps/@35.7129372,139.7822505,3a,90y,333.29h,97.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8D7AHZXt0_wFR06TvK8y9A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0 and https://www.google.com.sg/maps/@35.6983271,139.479725,3a,75y,317.77h,92.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXRNK0HByR0XL-pI3nskz-A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0 Last updated: 23 Jul 2021

How you can help the Parking Reform Atlas get better. How you can help Are you part of the growing international community of parking changemakers? Do you agree that parking and parking policy are too often huge obstacles to many great things that we want for our cities and towns? You can help this project! There are both active and more passive ways to help. Give credit whenever you use the Parking Reform Atlas Sign up for email updates Join the Reinventing Parking community Send a tip or offer feedback Use the atlas AND give credit when you do Please give credit to this site (and/or to the sources that are mentioned on each reform page) whenever you make use of it in your parking change-making work, whether research, advocacy, professional work or whatever. Anchor 5 Sign up for email updates Sign up to get email updates about new content on the main Reinventing Parking site (with its podcast episodes and articles). Those updates will also include updates about this Parking Reform Atlas. Anchor 1 Join the Reinventing Parking community If you are a Facebook user, you can join the Reinventing Parking community , our facebook group, and share insights on parking changemaking with likeminded people around the world. Anchor 2 Support this effort via Patreon Become a monthly "patron" of my writing, podcasting and Parking Reform Atlas work at whatever dollar amount you feel good about. Sign up if you support what I am trying to achieve and want me to keep writing, making podcasts, expanding this atlas and working on this mission that grips me. Anchor 3 Send a tip or offer feedback Offer corrections, suggestions or any other feedback below. If you are suggesting a reform, please try to include links to more information and/or suggest people/organizations to contact to seek details. Thanks for submitting! Submit Anchor 4

The Central Division of Kampala has paid on-street parking via contract with a private parking management company. This started via attendants and pay-and-display parking meters but today the main payment method is to pay via mobile money services based on a receipt issued by a parking attendant. Kampala paid on-street parking in the central area When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform The Central Division of Kampala has paid on-street parking via contract with a private parking management company. This started via attendants and pay-and-display parking meters but today the main payment method is to pay via mobile money services based on a receipt issued by a parking attendant. Why should you care? Despite some significant difficulties and problems, this seems to be a relatively successful implementation of on-street parking management, including fee collection, in a low-income country context. It highlights that establishing such parking management is challenging but also rewarding. Country Uganda Vehicle type diverse State/province Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction Kampala Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) and the private company, Multiplex Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift pricing On-street in mainly commercial streets Helpful for park-once-and-walk approach What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted P: Price parking in the right ways and with the right rates for each place and time implemented 1997 Goals of the reform Both orderly parking and revenue for the city seem to be the key goals of the paid on-street parking system. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) GIZ-SUTP suggests that paid parking commenced as part of a set of 1997 reforms to improve service delivery in the city generally. Detailed description of the reform The Central Division of Kampala has paid on-street parking via contract with a private parking management company handling both payments and enforcement in the paid parking area. This started via attendants and pay-and-display parking meters. Today the main payment method is to pay via any one of several mobile money services based on a receipt issued by a parking attendant. The first contract was awarded in 1997 after competitive tendering to Green Boat Entertainment, with UGX70 million to go to the city council and any remaining revenue after costs staying with the company as profit (GIZ SUTP, 2010). In 2003, Multiplex won the contract with payments of UGX80 million per month to the city council. Multiplex was again awarded the contract that started in 2010 and again (controversially) from 2020, when some city officials declared a high level of satisfaction with Multiplex but with others pointing to various lapses (Daily Monitor, 2019). Multiplex has also faced complaints about overzealous enforcement at times and its street employees went on strike in 2017 over pay and conditions. In 2012, there was a failed court challenge to the legality of on-street parking fees by the City (Daily Monitor, 2012). The parking fees were dramatically increased in 2017. This resulted in changes to the contract between KCCA and Multiplex, which had been paying UGX140 million per month and would then pay UGX337 million (about USD90,000) per month. [1USD = 3,638 Ugandan Shillings as of April 2021] Results or impacts I have not see any formal evaluation of the results of this paid parking system and would welcome more information. GIZ-SUTP (2010) includes a case study on this that suggests significantly improved parking availability and success with reducing all-day parking in prime locations. SUTP also reported that the revenue for the city has been a major benefit. Sources and acknowledgements GIZ SUTP (2010) SUTP Module 2c – Parking Management, https://www.sutp.org/publications/parking-management/ Multiplex Limited, https://www.multiplexug.com Daily Monitor (December 05 2012) Multiplex wins parking case, https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/news/national/multiplex-wins-parking-case-1531824 Blanshe Musinguzi (29 Aug 2017) KCCA: New Parking Fees Will Discourage Long-Stay Parking, https://ugandaradionetwork.net/story/kcca-new-parking-fees-will-discourage-long-stay-parking Uganda Business News (August 28, 2017) KCCA hikes parking fees, https://ugbusiness.com/2017/08/politics-policy/kcca-hikes-parking-fees Daily Monitor (March 21 2019) KCCA extends Multiplex street parking contract, https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/news/national/kcca-extends-multiplex-street-parking-contract-1814766 Namanya Elias Makuka (February 15, 2021) How to Pay for Your Street Parking Ticket Using Mobile Money in Uganda, https://parrotsug.com/2021/02/how-to-pay-for-your-street-parking-ticket-using-mobile-money-in-uganda.html Image credit: "not not phil" from SF, CA, US, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Uganda_-_Downtown_Kampala.jpg Last updated: 13 Apr 2021

This law requires (some) employers in Washington, D.C. who provide free or subsidized parking to also offer benefits to employees who choose other ways to commute to work, such as taking transit, walking or biking. Washington DC Parking Cash-Out Law (Transportation Benefits Equity Amendment Act) When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform This law requires (some) employers in Washington, D.C. who provide free or subsidized parking to also offer benefits to employees who choose other ways to commute to work, such as taking transit, walking or biking. Why should you care? Free workplace parking is a large incentive to drive to work. This DC law is a first-of-its-kind municipal-level parking cash-out law. It is a potential model for other cities and will be carefully watched for its impacts. Parking cash-out has been estimated, based on experience in California, to have strong potential for mode shift (of 10 to 12% reduction in drive-alone commuter trips). Country United States of America Vehicle type cars State/province Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction Washington, D.C. Primary motivation mode shift or TDM Agencies involved District Department of Transportation (DDOT), Washington, D.C. Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift cash-out and similar Off-street workplace Towards more responsiveness to context/market What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted P: Price parking in the right ways and with the right rates for each place and time implemented 2020 Goals of the reform According to the Coalition for Smarter Growth, "Parking cash-out can incentivize more people to bike, walk, or ride transit to work. Cash-out simply lets an employee trade a parking space for a transit pass of the same value, or keep the cash and walk or bicycle to work. By expanding people’s commuting choices, alternatives to driving alone become more attractive, and the number of drive-alone commute trips decreases." Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) A vigorous 2017-2018 campaign led by the non-profit Coalition for Smarter Growth was the immediate impetus. An important reason for the Coalition's decision to pursue this campaign was that DC had in 2013 passed the Sustainable DC Omnibus Act, which requires employers with 20 or more employees to offer pre-tax commuter benefits to those employees. This meant that most DC employers have administrative systems that are suited to implementing a parking cash-out policy. Detailed description of the reform The new law requires (some) employers who provide free or subsidized parking to also offer benefits to employees who choose other ways to commute to work, such as taking transit, walking or biking. In welcoming the law, Cheryl Cort, Policy Director for the Coalition for Smarter Growth, which is the non-profit organization that campaigned for the law, said "This new law will allow an employee who is offered a parking benefit by their employer to use the equivalent value of the parking subsidy for a transit, walk, or bike commute”. The Transportation Benefits Equity Amendment Act of 2020 is an amendment to the Sustainable DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2014. Employers that fall under this law can "comply" in four different ways: Stop offering free-of-charge or subsidized parking to employees, so the cash-out law does NOT apply Offer a "Clean Air Transportation Fringe Benefit" to employees who give up their parking benefits Implement a transportation demand management plan Pay a Clean Air Compliance fee to the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) The Actionfigure blog post about this law described the first option as The Bonus Option. "While not spelled out literally, the intent of the law also supports just getting rid of employee parking altogether. If you can do it, this is the most cost-effective option as well as the best choice for the environment. It may also be aligned with your company’s values and goals, may help with LEED certification points, and advances other sustainability metrics. Making this new law simply not apply to you is a fantastic path forward!" It will be instructive to monitor the relative popularity of each option. Early information on this may be available soon. A "Clean Air Transportation Fringe Benefit" is defined by the US taxation authorities as either a public transport or vanpool subsidy. To comply, this must be equal to the market rate of the parking space. The transportation demand management plan option involves getting approval from the city for a plan for "reducing the number of employees’ commuter trips made by car by at least 10% from the previous year, until 25% or less of employees’ commuter trips are made by car". The Clean Air Compliance fee option is for employers that choose to keep offering free or subsidized parking to employees. Such employers can pay a Clean Air Compliance fee of US$100/month per employee who is offered a parking benefit. The law applies to employers that meet all of these criteria: - Have 20 or more employees working in DC - Lease their parking spaces - Offer free or subsidized parking to some or all of their employees Campaigners for the law were disappointed that exemptions to the law were broader than they had hoped. In particular, the law exempts: - Employers that currently own the parking used for employees. - Existing leased parking: if an employer has an existing lease for parking provided to employees, the employer is only required to comply with the new rules at the end of the current lease. - Employers that do not provide subsidized parking are exempt. - Employers with 20 or fewer employees are exempt. Some hospitals and universities are also exempt, particularly those with existing Campus Plans (until they expire). However, if such entities build outside their existing campus plan, then the new construction must comply.  Results or impacts It is too soon to evaluate the results of the law. Sources and acknowledgements Samantha Huff (March 17, 2022) Everything You Need to Know About the DC Parking Cashout Law, goDCgo (a DC government resource for transportation information and options), https://godcgo.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-dc-parking-cashout-law/ https://lims.dccouncil.us/Legislation/B23-0148?FromSearchResults=true Articles on this from the proponent non-profit, Coalition for Smarter Growth: https://smartergrowth.net/?s=flexible+commuter and https://smartergrowth.net/resources/flexible-commuter-benefits-in-dc-a-csg-campaign-report-and-addendum/ Reinventing Parking podcast episode based on a Parking Reform Network event to discuss this law and the campaign that led to it: https://www.reinventingparking.org/2021/07/DC-cash-out.html Information on this from 'Actionfigure Insights'. [Actionfigure Insights is Actionfigure’s transportation education, planning, and commute management solution with the most advanced, personalized, door-to-door commute planning available.] https://actionfigure.ai/blog/dc-parking-cash-out-law-employees/ Image is from https://smartergrowth.net/resources/flexible-commuter-benefits-in-dc-a-csg-campaign-report-and-addendum/ Last updated: 17 May 2022

On-street parking fees using pay-and-display parking meters were introduced to the Balad area of central Jeddah, along with effective parking enforcement. Previously, on-street parking in the area was free-of-charge and extremely chaotic. Jeddah on-street parking fees and improved management When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform On-street parking fees using pay-and-display parking meters were introduced to the Balad area of central Jeddah, along with effective parking enforcement. Previously, on-street parking in the area was free-of-charge and extremely chaotic. Why should you care? This case demonstrates the power of ordinary straightforward on-street parking pricing with enforcement and improved demarcation of spaces to make a huge difference to the parking and street conditions in a commercial/shopping area. It is striking that it achieved results even though public transport in Jeddah is still extremely limited. This is a city of more than 4 million people that has only 6 bus routes and no urban rail system yet. Country Saudi Arabia Vehicle type cars State/province Hejaz (Western Province) Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction Jeddah Municipality Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Jeddah Municipality, Jeddah Urban Development Company, Mawgif, the country's national parking company. Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift pricing On-street in mainly commercial streets Helpful for park-once-and-walk approach What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted P: Price parking in the right ways and with the right rates for each place and time implemented 2014 Goals of the reform Parking availability and turnover; prevent obstructive parking; improve traffic; enable more space for pedestrians and shoppers; allow access for emergency and Civil Defense vehicles; make it safer for pedestrians and individuals with disabilities. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Extreme parking chaos in the area before the parking management intervention caused various problems. Detailed description of the reform Paid parking and improved parking management was implemented in Balad in central Jeddah. The initial paid parking area extended from the intersection of King Abdulaziz Street with Al-Dhab Street to Al-Baieh Square. Initially, more than 39 pay-and-display meters were installed, with a price of SR3 per hour. Parking spaces were marked out and numbered. Enforcement is principally by towing initially. Payment was initially by coin or e-wallet (opening an account with credit in advance). Smartphone app-based payment has been added. Results or impacts According to Andrew Perrier of Mawgif in 2017, the on-street parking management in Jeddah was successful in greatly reducing the level of illegal and obstructive parking and in maintaining parking availability on the priced streets. See the images, which are drawn from Andrew's presentation. Sources and acknowledgements "Generating Additional Revenue Through Parking Operations & Management Initiatives", presentation by Andrew Perrier, Chief Business Development Officer, National Parking Company (Mawgif) to the 2nd Annual Parking Management Conference, Singapore, Feb. 2017. "No more free parking in downtown Jeddah", Saudi Gazette, September 08, 2014 Fouzia Khan, 2015-05-18 "Many motorists unaware of Balad paid parking scheme", Arab News. https://www.arabnews.com/saudi-arabia/news/748501 "Paid parking system in Jeddah", Mediaone TV (Tamil language local news item), 11 Sept 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOO4EzOngQU https://www.reinventingparking.org/2017/06/on-street-parking-fees-despite-zero.html https://www.edarabia.com/bus-routes-jeddah/ Last updated: 12 Mar 2021