Ranchi’s colour-coded parking fee areas 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 Ranchi improved the parking management on a 2.5 km of its main street, Mahatma Gandhi Rd. Four zones were delineated (red: no parking; orange: high-demand, high prices; yellow: medium demand and slightly lower-prices; green: low parking pressure and even lower prices). The prices were much higher than those of the the past and collection efficiency was improved. The city's parking revenue increased twelve-fold, according to ITDP India. Unfortunately, this success has not been built upon. Why should you care? Ranchi was a pioneer in India of relatively high hourly on-street parking prices. The creation of four zones to reflect different levels of parking demand is an excellent feature of this reform. This would have been more robust if it had included routine price reviews based on demand (occupancy for example). The huge increase in revenue that was achieved suggested that most cities in India could be gaining much more revenue from on-street parking than they had been. Unfortunately, the paper and cash based fee collection, problems with contracts, a lack of evidence-based price reviews, and a focus on revenue seems to have undermined the early healthy focus on parking management and led to political problems for the reform. Perhaps, Ranchi could reap BOTH revenue AND street parking management benefits if the primary focus of the effort can return to parking management and if contracting policies, fee-collection methods and price-review practices can be improved. Country India Vehicle type diverse State/province Jharkhand Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of Ranchi Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Ranchi Municipal Corporation 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 City-owned (both on-street and off-street) 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 Improved parking conditions and traffic conditions were stated goals. But revenue appears to have been high on the agenda too in the minds of local leaders. Technical assistance from ITDP India which encouraged a focus on parking management goals of achieving less over-burdened on-street parking through higher prices in the highest demand locations. The idea was that improved conditions in the street should be the focus while increased revenue was welcome as well and was a selling point for decision makers. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Parking chaos, very low levels of revenue for the city from previous parking fee contracts, and the opportunity of technical assistance from ITDP India seem to have prompted this reform. Detailed description of the reform Ranchi improved the parking management on a 2.5 km of its main street, Mahatma Gandhi Rd. Four zones were delineated (red: no parking; orange: high-demand, high prices; yellow: medium demand and slightly lower-prices; green: low parking pressure and even lower prices). Prices in 2017: * Orange zone - Rs 40 (USD 0.63) per hour for cars and Rs 10 per hour for two-wheelers. * Yellow zone - initial 2 hours, Rs 30 for cars (four-wheelers) and Rs 10 for two-wheelers then Rs 30 per hour for cars and Rs 10 per hour for motorcycles. * Green zone - initial 3 hours, Rs 20 for cars (four-wheelers) and Rs 5 for motorcycles (two-wheelers). These prices might seem low but they were much higher than those of the past. Unfortunately, the system did not include the practice of regular price reviews to adjust these prices as demand conditions change. Collection efficiency was improved, as least initially. The initial tender called for parking attendants to use digital handheld devices to issue tickets, which should have improved oversight and reduced leakage. However, I am not sure if this was actually done. There also seems to have been increased attention to enforcement in the area by the Traffic Police, at least in the early period of this reform. As a result, the city's parking revenue increased twelve-fold, according to ITDP India. The green and yellow zones are mostly off-street parking areas. The orange and red zones are mostly on-street parking. The approach to monthly passes for shopkeepers and employees was interesting. The pricing was aimed at encouraging such all-day parking in the green (low-demand and mostly off-street) parking zone rather than in the higher-demand orange zones (Times of India, Jan 2017). Unfortunately, the early successes with MG Road parking fees have not yet been built upon. The parking management in MG Road is still apparently better than before 2017 but problems have included: a cancelled first contract; a contract approach in which the city focuses more on revenue than parking management and sees parking fee collection as essentially ‘giving the land for rent’; a paper-tickets and cash payments approach; and a populist decision to drastically reduce the parking prices. As of mid 2018, the city was managing the parking using its own staff who were issuing paper tickets for users. However, the city is reportedly keen to re-tender the parking management system and to add a few more key streets to the system. Results or impacts Collection efficiency was also improved, as least initially. And there was increased attention to enforcement in the area by the Traffic Police. As a result, the city's parking revenue increased twelve-fold, according to ITDP India. This may have eroded somewhat since then. There have been anecdotal mentions of improved on-street parking conditions but I have not seen quantitative information on this. And this benefit is likely to have eroded somewhat since the initial reform as a result of problems mentioned in the detailed description. Sources and acknowledgements Reinventing Parking (August 14, 2018) “Taming India's on-street parking: Shreya Gadepalli” https://www.reinventingparking.org/2018/08/India-on-street.html Ranchi Municipal Corporation (December 2016) Tender Notice http://www.ranchimunicipal.com/docs/MG_ROAD_PARKING_TENDER-Revised_03-12-16.pdf [This is the source of the image at the top] Ranchi Municipal Corporation (2016) Control of Parking and Collection of Parking Fees, Regulations 2016 http://www.ranchimunicipal.com/docs/DraftParkingRegulations.pdf https://www.telegraphindia.com/jharkhand/colour-coded-parking/cid/1337690 https://www.telegraphindia.com/jharkhand/parking-fees-to-be-slashed-in-ranchi/cid/1704736 ITDP India (no date, accessed April 2021) Busting Parking Myths, https://www.itdp.in/free-parking-is-not-a-right-but-a-blight/ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ranchi/mg-roads-new-parking-system-set-for-jan-26-opening/articleshow/56742253.cms Last updated: 18 May 2021

Pricey residential permit parking in Stockholm 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 City of Stockholm has unusually expensive residential on-street parking permits. As of late 2021, the most expensive residential permit parking costs SKR1100 per month (US$120/month, which comes to US$1,440 per year). Although this is expensive compared with most other cities around the world, it is still a little cheaper than nearby garage parking and is only roughly 50 times the non-discounted hourly charge in each area. So residential parking is still heavily discounted compared to casual parking. The City of Stockholm issues resident parking permit in numbers that roughly match the estimated number of on-street parking spaces. No on-street parking is reserved solely for permit holders. Why should you care? Cities around the world, even in Europe, struggle to set the prices for residential on-street permit parking at anything even remotely approaching a market price or a rent covering price. However, the City of Stockholm has unusually expensive residential on-street permit parking in which the prices are approaching those of long-term garage parking. This seems to be the result of a consistent long-term effort to establish and operationalize the view that parking on public streets is a privilege provided to residents, and certainly not an obligation that the city must provide. Parking policy and pricing decisions have consistently put this view into practice. I hope to update this case with more information on the politics of how this was achieved if I can find out more. Country Sweden Vehicle type cars State/province ​ Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of Stockholm Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Traffic Administration, City of Stockholm 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 1981 Goals of the reform Permit parking price increases have been aimed at encouraging the use of available off-street parking and at reducing the gap between the prices of long-term off-street garage parking and on-street residential parking. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) The initial impetus in 1981 seems to have been similar to residential permit parking in dense areas in many cities: a need to provide priority parking for residents in districts where existing residential buildings generally lacked off-street parking. The impetus for price rises was to encourage the use of off-street parking. Detailed description of the reform The City of Stockholm has unusually expensive residential on-street parking permits. As of late 2021, the most expensive residential permit parking is in Zones 2 and 3 (the pink and blue areas) where storing a car in the streets costs SKR1100 per month. That is US$120/month, which comes to US$1,440 per year. In the purple area (zone 4) the permit parking price for cars is SKR500 per month (US$50/month or 600/year) and in the orange area (zone 5) residential permit parking for cars costs SKR300 per month (which is US$33/month or 396/year). The city centre Zone 1 has no residential permit parking. Zones 4 and 5 were only established in 2016. The five zones under the permit program are the same zones under which the prices of metered parking vary. The City of Stockholm residential permit parking program started in 1981. Permit parking prices were increased successively, especially in around 2010. These increases were aimed at encouraging the use of available off-street parking and to reduce the gap between the prevailing prices of long-term off-street parking and on-street residential parking. A comparison with the monthly price of a public transport pass may also have been a consideration according to some replies I received on twitter. Although they may seem very expensive to many of us around the world, these prices for on-street residential parking in Stockholm remain a little cheaper than nearby garage parking. Furthermore, Jonas Eliasson (former Director of the Stockholm Transport Administration and now Director of Transport Accessibility in the Swedish Transport Administration, who responded to a question via twitter) points out that residential inner-city permit parking costs roughly 50 times the non-discounted hourly charge in each area. So residential parking is still heavily discounted compared to casual parking. Permit holders are only allowed to own one permit at any one time, no matter what zone they reside in. The City of Stockholm issues resident parking permit in numbers that roughly match the estimated number of on-street parking spaces (63,000 in 2018). No on-street parking is reserved solely for permit holders. Payment for residential permit parking allows residents to ignore the prices and/or time limits that apply to casual parking. A resident who is a registered owner of a vehicle and registered in a residential parking area can apply for a residential parking permit. Possessing a valid permit and paying for the relevant parking are separate matters. Having a permit allows a resident to then pay for parking within that area at the residential rate. Residents have a choice of payment modalities. They can pay for an ongoing subscription or pay only for months or days when they need on-street parking. In both cases, the resident must already hold a valid residential parking permit linked to the relevant vehicle. The fee per day fees for cars are: Zones 2 and 3 – SKR75 per day; Zone 4 – SKR35 per day; and Zone 5 – SKR20 per day. Motorcycle owners wishing to park in the streets also require permits. Motorcycle residential permit parking costs are: Zones 2 and 3 – SKR275 per month; Zone 4 – SKR125 per month; Zone 5 – SKR75 per month. Results or impacts According to a 2019 report for the Office of the President, Borough of Manhattan, New York, the "permit parking program in Stockholm appears to be a relatively successful one with residents feeling that priority parking is allocated appropriately to them". The same report cites interviewee Anders Aronsson (an Analyst for the Stockholm Traffic Administration) who explains that the permit system in Stockholm has successfully established a consensus that parking on public streets is a bonus provided to residents, not an obligation that the city must provide. This view is supported by Swedish parking law, which enshrines an expectation that residents are supposed to arrange their parking off-street (according to Jonas Eliasson via twitter). Zones 4 and 5 for residential permit parking began in 2016 after requests from residents and local politicians. The reaction to these provides further evidence for success. The 2019 report from the Manhattan President reports that most feedback on the new zones was positive. Residents now found it easier to find parking and residents in adjacent areas have been asking for their neighbourhoods to be included too. Sources and acknowledgements Traffic Administration, City of Stockholm https://parkering.stockholm/betala-parkering/taxeomraden-avgifter/ (machine translation into English: https://parkering-stockholm.translate.goog/betala-parkering/taxeomraden-avgifter/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl) Office of the President, Borough of Manhattan, The City of New York (October, 2019) Residential parking permit plans in 7 cities worldwide: a survey. https://www.manhattanbp.nyc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ParkingZoneWhitePaperFINAL.pdf Kodransky, M. and Hermann, G. (18 Jan 2011) European Parking U-Turn: From Accommodation to Regulation, Report for the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP). https://www.itdp.org/2011/01/18/europes-parking-u-turn-from-accommodation-to-regulation/ Benchmark for parking policies in large urban agglomerations (in France and Europe) (Centre d'analyse stratégique): http://www.strategie.gouv.fr/sites/strategie.gouv.fr/files/atoms/files/rapport-stationnement-benchmark1.pdf Image via https://parkering.stockholm/betala-parkering/taxeomraden-avgifter/ Last updated: 28 Dec 2021

San Francisco’s demand-based parking pricing (the pilot was called SFPark) 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 San Francisco sets its parking prices (‘rates’) based on demand (using data on parking occupancy), under its “demand-responsive parking” policy. It raises the price by $0.25 on blocks where average occupancy is above 80%, lowers the price $0.25 on blocks where average occupancy is below 60%, and does not change the price on blocks that hit the target occupancy between 60% and 80%. As a result, parking prices may vary by block, by time of day, and weekday or weekend. Prices are adjusted approximately every quarter. Why should you care? This is a sophisticated and much-studied example of demand-based parking price setting (which is a key element of Professor Donald Shoup’s set of parking policy suggestions). Its success has been well-documented in San Francisco. Demand-based parking pricing in San Francisco did not cease at the end of the SFPark pilot. In fact, it has been expanded and made permanent (but without the use of in-street parking sensors). Success with on-street parking management has also probably played a role in emboldening the city to finally completely abolish minimum parking requirements across the city in early 2019. Although the SFPark pilot faced some controversy initially, this soon disappeared. Demand-responsive parking price adjustments have generally proceeded without fuss or controversy since then. Country United States of America Vehicle type diverse State/province California Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City and County of San Francisco Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift pricing City-owned (both on-street and off-street) 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 2011 Goals of the reform “The demand-responsive model sets a clear pricing policy: charge the lowest rates possible without creating a parking shortage.” More specifically, via https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-documents/2021/02/on-street_parking_pricing_policies_-_feb_2_2021.pdf: Goal 2 of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s (SFMTA) Strategic Plan —“Make transit and other sustainable modes of transportation the most attractive and preferred means of travel”—contains Objective 2.3: “Manage congestion and parking demand to support the Transit First Policy.” In keeping with this, the SFMTA’s vision and related goals for parking include: • Make it easy to find parking – Use parking prices to manage demand for parking and thereby achieve a target level of parking availability. • Ensure a target level of parking availability to achieve SFMTA’s other goals – Making it easy for drivers to quickly find an available parking space will improve safety, Muni performance, and customer experience while reducing double parking, circling, emissions, and parking-related congestion. • Use parking prices to encourage the use of transit, walking, and biking – Managing demand for parking will provide an incentive for people to use means other than driving. • Provide a clear, simple, and respectful customer experience – Improve customer service, experience, and convenience when using the SFMTA’s parking system. • Transparent process – Have a transparent, consistent, rules-based, and data-driven approach for setting parking rates.” Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) The opportunity presented by a $19.8 million federal grant through the Federal Department of Transportation’s Urban Partnership Program was an impetus. This paid for 80 percent of the SFpark pilot. Detailed description of the reform San Francisco sets its parking prices (‘rates’) based on demand (using data on parking occupancy), under its “demand-responsive parking” policy. This means that it “uses data for parking occupancy to find the lowest rate possible to achieve a target level of availability.” The SFMTA raises the price by $0.25 on blocks where average occupancy is above 80%, lowers the price $0.25 on blocks where average occupancy is below 60%, and does not change the price on blocks that hit the target occupancy between 60% and 80%. As a result, parking prices may vary by block, by time of day, and weekday or weekend. Prices are adjusted approximately every quarter. This approach applies to commercial and mixed use areas when and where parking demand is high and/or when places of business are open. Pricing is extended to such streets if parking pressure warrants it. Street parking in purely residential areas is not managed in the same way. The pilot version of this policy was called SFPark, under which the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) successfully implemented demand-responsive pricing, starting in 2011, at 7,000 parking meters, 14 city-managed parking garages and one SFMTA parking lot. Since late 2017, San Francisco applies demand-based price setting for ALL of the city’s 28,000 on-street parking meters and all of city-operated metered surface parking lots. Under the SFPark pilot, parking sensors embedded in the street were used to measure parking occupancy. However, the city now primarily uses meter payment data to estimate parking occupancy (https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-documents/2018/01/sira-methodology-and-implementation-plan_2014_05-14.pdf). The maximum price allowed is currently $8.00/hour for car parking spaces. The price variations and changes are on a per-block basis, where a block includes both sides of the street. There are also time-of-day price variations using these time periods: Open-Noon; Noon-3pm; 3-6pm; and 6pm-close. Weekday prices may differ from Saturday (and, in some cases, Sunday) prices. In addition, there are special event prices at on-street spaces near large events that generate spikes in parking demand. These prices are based on the parking demand the event is expected to generate. San Francisco also used demand-based price setting for on-street motorcycle parking. Metered motorcycle pricing. This works in almost the same way as for car parking. The maximum price allowable for motorcycle meters is one-fifth of the maximum rate for car meters. When occupancy at local motorcycle meters is 80 percent or above, the hourly rate is raised by $0.10. When occupancy is 60 or above but below 80 percent, the hourly rate is not changed. When occupancy is below 60 percent, the hourly rate is lowered by $0.10. Results or impacts The pilot of this policy, SFPark, was intensively evaluated. See the Sources list below. According to the SFMTA website (https://www.sfmta.com/blog/san-francisco-adopts-demand-responsive-pricing-program-make-parking-easier), “An evaluation of SFpark found that using demand-responsive pricing resulted in: * Increased business for local businesses: Sales tax revenues rose over 35% in SFpark areas during the compared to less than 20% in the other parts of the city. * Lower parking rates: Average meter rates were reduced by 4% (down $0.11/hour) in SFpark on-street pilot areas. City-owned garage rates went down by 12% (down $0.42/hour.) * Decreased parking search time: Reported parking search time went down by 43% under the SFpark pilot. * Decreased daily vehicle miles traveled: Reduced circling for parking led to a 30% decrease in miles traveled in SFpark areas, benefiting safety, easing congestion and reducing neighborhood pollution.” Parking violation tickets decreased significantly. Unfortunately, parking placard abuse somewhat undermines the effectiveness of on-street parking pricing in San Francisco (and in other cities in California). Sources and acknowledgements SFMTA Curb Management Team, Parking & Curb Management Group, Streets Division (2 February 2021) “On-street parking meters, off-street parking lots, special events, motorcycles, and Pay or Permit blocks” https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-documents/2021/02/on-street_parking_pricing_policies_-_feb_2_2021.pdf SFMTA, Demand-Responsive Parking Pricing https://www.sfmta.com/demand-responsive-parking-pricing This site has links to just about everything we need on this. Ben Jose (5 December 2017) San Francisco Adopts Demand-Responsive Pricing Program to Make Parking Easier, SFMTA https://www.sfmta.com/blog/san-francisco-adopts-demand-responsive-pricing-program-make-parking-easier SFPark Evaluation. A large set of evaluation reports and data. https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/drive-park/demand-responsive-pricing/sfpark-evaluation Adam Millard-Ball, Rachel R. Weinberger, Robert C. Hampshire (2014) Is the curb 80% full or 20% empty? Assessing the impacts of San Francisco’s parking pricing experiment, Transportation Research Part A 63 (2014) 76–92. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.02.016 SFPark Overview Video on Vimeo (2 min 50 sec) https://vimeo.com/13867453 The image is by Carlos Felipe Pardo, taken Sept 2014 via Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosfpardo/15092037348 Last updated: 14 Jun 2021

Japan’s low-harm parking minimums 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 Japanese cities (such as Tokyo) have parking requirements (minimums) that are less harmful than in most countries. They are set at low levels even when they apply in full. Furthermore, they exempt small buildings and phase in only gradually with floor area beyond the threshold (of 1500 to 2000 square metres). This means that parking minimums are not an obstacle to the development or redevelopment of small buildings on small sites in Japan. Why should you care? Japanese parking minimums are less harmful than most. They are not an obstacle to infill development. In combination with other policies, they have resulted in most neighbourhoods having much parking that is open to the public and that is provided on a commercial basis at market prices. You may think that this 'light' approach to parking minimums is possible in Japan only because of excellent public transport and other policies that keep car ownership low. That may be so of the large cities. However, the same kind of parking requirements apply across the country, even in towns and small cities where car ownership rates are high (comparable to or higher than the rates seen across western Europe). Country Japan Vehicle type cars State/province Tokyo Prefecture (Tokyo-to) Key actor type National Jurisdiction National (although this case focuses on Tokyo Prefecture) Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism [need to check this] Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift minimums harm reduction Off-street various Towards park-once-and-walk AND away from excessive supply What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted R: Relax about parking supply and stop boosting it implemented 1962 Goals of the reform The goals of parking minimums in Japan are conventional (similar to those in other countries). However, their levels have not been increased for many decades. The on-site parking with buildings is apparently not expected to meet the full demand for parking but merely to contribute towards the neighbourhood parking demand. This is unusual and may be the result of other parking policies which have prevented perceived parking shortages from emerging. Most prominent among these policies are a ban on most on-street parking (and a total ban on overnight on-street parking) and the proof-of-parking law. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Parking minimums emerged for familiar reasons (in the 1950s apparently). It would be great to learn why the specific characteristics of the minimums were chosen. Detailed description of the reform Japanese cities (such as Tokyo) have parking requirements (minimums) that are less harmful than in most countries and this has been the case since the 1950s. They are set at low levels even when they apply in full. The highest requirements are 1 space per 200 sq.m for department stores (and similar) in 'Car park improvement districts'. This is very low compared with many other countries. Furthermore, they exempt small buildings and phase in only gradually with floor area beyond the threshold (of 1500 to 2000 square metres). The list of land-uses for the purpose of parking minimums is extremely simple, with only two categories: (i) specific uses (theater, cinema, music hall, viewing field, broadcast studio hall, assembly hall, exhibition, wedding hall, funeral hall, inn, hotel, restaurant, restaurants, cabarets, cafes, nightclubs, bars, dance hall, playground, bowling alley, gymnasium, other department stores, offices, hospitals, wholesale markets, warehouses or factories, or places with two or more of the above functions); and (ii) non-specific uses (others). Results or impacts These characteristics mean that parking minimums are not an obstacle to the development or redevelopment of small buildings on small sites in Japan. They have been compatible with the emergence of commercial priced parking (for visitor parking, employee parking and residential parking) in most neighbourhoods of most cities. This is also the result of the absence of on-street parking, and the proof-of-parking rule. A large proportion of parking is open to the public (even if privately owned and operated). Japanese cities seem to have surprisingly market-responsive parking. Parking prices vary in rough proportion to real-estate values. Sources and acknowledgements "Learn from Japan!" episode of Reinventing Parking https://www.reinventingparking.org/2019/12/learn-from-japan.html Barter, P.A. (2011) Parking Policy in Asian Cities. Asian Development Bank (ADB), Manila. Available in hard copy or on-line via https://www.adb.org/publications/parking-policy-asian-cities. 98 pages. ISBN: 978-92-9092-241-4 (print), 978-92-9092-352-7 (web). The following documents in Japanese were consulted in 2009 to understand Tokyo parking regulations for the study above (Barter, 2011): Regulations for parking to accompany large-scale buildings, Bureau of Urban Development, Tokyo Metropolitan Government. www.toshiseibi.metro.tokyo.jp/kenchiku/parking/kn_k12.htm Description of Tokyo’s parking ordinance, with worked examples. www.archi-navi.com/archinavitool/a-kikaku-v1/setumei/tokyo-park.pdf Case studies of rules under the ordinance in Tokyo Parking. www.shibuya-kyogikai.jp/pdf/5th/2.pdf Yokohama parking requirement details. www.city.yokohama.jp/me/toshi/toshiko/pressrelease/h19/07041700/pdf/osirase.pdf Regulations regarding parking facilities in buildings (Kagoshima). www.city.kagoshima.lg.jp/_1010/shimin/1kurashi/1-9tyusyajo/0000534.html Regulations regarding parking facilities in buildings (Okayama). www.city.okayama.jp/toshi/tosai/tyuusyahuchi_gaiyou.htm Last updated: 19 Mar 2021

Barter, Paul (2018) ‘Parking Policies in Asian Cities: Conventional but Instructive’, in Shoup, D. (ed.). Parking and the City. New York: Routledge. Abstract To document how parking requirements have spread through Asia, and how they vary among cities, this chapter analyzes the parking policies in 14 large metropolitan areas: Ahmedabad, Bangkok, Beijing, Dhaka, Guangzhou, Hanoi, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Manila, Singapore, Seoul, Taipei, and Tokyo. Two main surprises emerge. First, all the cities have minimum parking requirements and most apply them in rather rigid ways. This is surprising because rigidly-applied parking minimums are usually associated with car dependent cities and seem ill-suited to Asia’s dense and mixed-use urban fabrics where car use is relatively low. Second, although Tokyo’s parking policies include minimum parking requirements, a closer look reveals a uniquely Japanese market-responsive set of parking policies. The comparisons in this chapter make use of a new typology of parking policy approaches which is presented in the next section. Then the following section illustrates the typology as it applies to common approaches in the western world. This sets the scene for three sections that examine how Asian cities compare by looking at their policies towards: a) off-street on-site parking, b) on-street parking, and c) public parking. The chapter ends by taking stock of the significance of the findings. Link to the final publisher version https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/parking-policies-asian-cities-conventional-instructive-paul-barter/e/10.4324/9781351019668-14 Download (preprint or postprint if available. If this does not work, try the publisher link.) Click here to download pdf

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

Barter, P.A. (2011) Parking Policy in Asian Cities. Asian Development Bank (ADB), Manila. 98 pages. Abstract The final book form of my study of "Parking Policy in Asian Cities". Most Asian cities are facing an acute parking crisis as a result of rapid urbanization and motorization, and high urban densities. Parking policy is an important component of a holistic approach to sustainable urban transport across the region. The report provides an international comparative perspective on parking policy in Asian cities, while highlighting the nature of the policy choices available. It is a step in building a knowledge base to address the knowledge gap on parking and the lack of adequate guidance for parking policy in Asia. Available in hard copy or on-line via the ADB page. Link to the final publisher version https://www.adb.org/publications/parking-policy-asian-cities. Download (preprint or postprint if available. If this does not work, try the publisher link.) Click here to download pdf

Palembang app to check the legitimacy of on-street parking attendants 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 city government has prepared a smartphone app to enable motorists to check if any on-street parking attendant has the legal authority to collect parking fees by scanning a QR code on the attendants' identity badge. This app is an effort to slightly improve oversight of on-street parking fee collection system in Palembang. But the fee-collection system has profound problems and really needs a much bigger shake-up than this small step. Why should you care? Indonesian cities have on-street parking fees but are mostly unable to use them for any kind of effective parking management. Instead they merely collect a small amount of rent from on-street parking. This is done in an extremely leakage-prone way by contracting out very short sections of street to individuals who are given a permission letter to manually collect cash parking fees on that street section. There are numerous problems with this. The app described in this case suggests some effort to improve the situation but only a very small one. Country Indonesia Vehicle type diverse State/province South Sumatra Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of Palembang Primary motivation other Agencies involved Palembang Transportation Bureau (Dinas Perhubungan Kota Palembang) Is it a model or a warning? ambiguous Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift other On-street in mainly commercial streets 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 2020 Goals of the reform The main goal seems to be to discourage illegal parking attendants (who lack the proper letter of authority from the city government) from attempting to collect parking fees in the street. A less clearly spelled out goal may be to reduce rent seeking by intermediaries. Secondary goals seem to be to provide information to the city government on parking fee collection activities in the city, especially in locations where no legitimate parking attendants have been given permission. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) The main impetus seems to be community unhappiness over illegal parking attendants and concern that the city has been losing revenue because illegal parking attendants have been collecting informal fees in various locations that were not sanctioned by the city. News reports also mentioned the possibility that some officials have corruptly enabled the illegal attendant activities. Detailed description of the reform The Transport Bureau of the Palembang city government has prepared a smartphone app to enable motorists to check if any on-street parking attendant actually has the legal authority to collect parking fees by scanning a QR code on the attendants' identity badge. The idea is that motorists should refuse to pay if the attendant lacks proper authority. The app is called Sistem Informasi Aplikasi Perparkiran Palembang (Palembang Parking Application Information System) (SIAPP). This app is an effort to slightly improve the oversight of the on-street parking fee collection system in Palembang. Unfortunately, this is only a very small change to a system that is fundamentally ill-suited to providing effective parking management via on-street pricing. The on-street parking fee collection system needs much bigger improvements than this small step. On-street parking fees in Palembang (as in most Indonesian cities) are collected by parking attendants (‘juru parkir’ or jukir). That is not very unusual internationally. But it is unusual that the attendants are engaged by the city government under a system of individual contracts for each attendant’s tiny patch (the short stretch of street that one attendant can handle). Each little patch is associated with an attendant licence or permission letter (‘surat izin’). In theory, this piece of paper entitles only the attendant and two named assistants to collect parking fees on this patch. They get an official vest, which would be orange in Palembang. This new app MAY perhaps be an effort to crack down on the problem that most of actual parking attendants out in the streets and their assistants were NOT the people as listed on the licenses. Allegedly, in the past, many of the people with the formal permission letters were in practice ‘preman’ (gangsters perhaps) who engaged in rent-seeking by holding the permission letters then sub-contracting the fee collection to others. Reducing the involvement of these preman would decrease revenue leakage. However, this app alone seems unlikely to be able to do much to change the situation. Results or impacts It is too soon to know if this app will actually be used much by motorists or have any impact on the illegal parking attendants or the problem of intermediaries (preman). Sources and acknowledgements Palembang Luncurkan Aplikasi Parkir dengan QR Code (Palembang Launches Parking Application with QR Code), Feb. 2020, https://kominfo.palembang.go.id/2020/02/13/palembang-luncurkan-aplikasi-parkir-dengan-qr-code/ https://sumselterkini.co.id/digital-ekonomi/mau-tahu-jukir-legal-download-aplikasi-siapp-milik-dishub-palembang/ Paul Barter, 23 May 2012, "Gangsters" in Indonesian parking, https://www.reinventingparking.org/2012/05/gangsters-in-indonesian-parking.html Fika Fawzia, 2 January 2012, “Terus-Men” – Parking in Jakarta" https://fikafawzia.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/terus-men-parking-in-jakarta/ Last updated: 23 Mar 2021

France limits how high parking minimums can be set 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 National Government of France generally allows local governments to set minimum parking requirements but limits how high they can be set ("roofed minimums") for some housing. These limits on the level of parking minimums are lowest for social housing, student housing and housing for elderly. There are also limits on the level of parking minimums for all housing near quality public transport. Parking maximums are allowed "when the conditions of service by regular public transport allow it" but only for non-residential land-uses. Why should you care? Higher levels of government are increasingly interested in setting limits on the ability of local government to set excessive minimum parking requirements. This is an important example. This policy sometimes gets confused with parking maximums. Limiting the level of parking minimums that municipalities may set is NOT the same as a policy of imposing parking maximums. Country France Vehicle type cars State/province ​ Key actor type National Jurisdiction France Primary motivation Unknown Agencies involved Relevant agencies in the National Government established the law. Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift minimums harm reduction Off-street various Away from excessive parking supply What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted R: Relax about parking supply and stop boosting it implemented ​ Goals of the reform This law does not forbid parking minimums. Nor does it mandate parking maximums. But it does prevent local governments from imposing inappropriate and excessive parking minimums for certain kinds of housing and for all housing near quality public transport. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) If you know the impetus for this policy, please let me know using the form on the "how to help" page. Detailed description of the reform The National Government of France generally allows local governments to set minimum parking requirements but limits how high they can be set ("roofed minimums"), at least for some housing. The relevant law is France's Town planning code : Paragraph 3: Parking (Code de l'urbanisme : Paragraphe 3 : Stationnement) Articles L151-30 to L151-37. For residential generally, the limitation on the parking minimums that are allowed (of 1 per housing unit) applies only for housing within 500 metres of quality public transport. (Article L151-36) For specified types of social housing, student housing and housing for elderly, the limits on the level of parking minimums are set to 0.5 spaces per dwelling for such housing near quality public transport and to 1 per dwelling elswhere. (Articles L151-34 and 35) Parking maximums are allowed "when the conditions of service by regular public transport allow it" but only for non-residential land-uses. The same law also requires local governments in France to accept off-site parking to meet minimum parking requirements. Developers who cannot meet the requirement on-site may meet if off-site by "either obtaining a long-term concession in an existing public parking lot or in the process of being built and located near the operation, or the acquisition or concession of spaces in a private park parking spaces meeting the same conditions" (Code de l'urbanisme : Paragraphe 3 : Stationnement, Article L151-33). Results or impacts Please let me know if you have information on the results of this policy. Sources and acknowledgements I was alerted to this policy by the 2021 CIVITAS Initiative Park4SUMP report, "Parking standards as steering instrument in urban and mobility planning. How to make parking standards more sustainable." (authors: Gies, Jürgen; Hertel, Martina; Tully, Susan). https://park4sump.eu/news-events/news/improving-parking-standards-sustainable-mobility France Town planning code : Paragraph 3: Parking (Articles L151-30 to L151-37) https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000006074075/LEGISCTA000031211225/ Image credit: A relatively new small apartment building near an RER station in southern Paris. Google Street View https://www.google.com.sg/maps/@48.8070446,2.3357872,3a,75y,334.81h,105.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDLP97Y3RKGsJpyUeu4YNXA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?hl=en&authuser=0 Last updated: 5 Apr 2021

Calgary demand-based parking price setting 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 Calgary sets the prices for its on-street parking in commercial areas based on demand. Annual occupancy reviews determine if prices rise, drop or remain the same for each of 27 pricing areas and four time-periods in the day. Therefore prices now vary according to both location and time-of-day. Why should you care? This is a relatively simple but effective version of demand-based parking price setting, as recommended by Donald Shoup. It is noteworthy for having time-of-day price variations and not just variations by location. Price adjustments under this system seem not to have been controversial since the system was implemented in 2014. Country Canada Vehicle type cars State/province Alberta Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of Calgary Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved City Council and the Calgary Parking Authority 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 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 2014 Goals of the reform According to Calgary Parking Authority, "Demand based pricing helps ensure on-street parking is managed in a more consistent, transparent, fair and equitable manner." Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) I don't know exactly what prompted this reform, although it is clear that San Francisco's SFPark trial was an influence. Detailed description of the reform In May 2013, City Council adopted on-street parking pricing based on demand. Paid parking is divided into 27 pricing areas (which are often about 500 metres or less across). There are also four pricing periods on weekdays. Starting in January 2014, on-street rates in each pricing area and for each pricing period are reviewed annually. The review uses ParkPlus System parking payments data to estimate occupancy rates. In areas where occupancy is below 50%, prices will decrease by $0.25; In areas where occupancy is above 80%, prices will increase by $0.25; In areas where occupancy is between 50-80%, prices will stay the same. Therefore prices now vary according to both location and time-of-day. This reform was made easier by a 2007 modernization of the parking payments system (under the ParkPlus brand), replacing single-space meters with block-by-block pay stations, phone-based payment options and car-mounted license plate readers for enforcement among other things. Results or impacts I am not aware of reports on the effects or impacts of this reform in Calgary. If you know of any, please get in touch. Sources and acknowledgements https://www.calgaryparking.com/findparking/onstreetrates https://www.reinventingparking.org/2014/06/calgarys-demand-responsive-on-street.html https://www.calgaryparking.com/parkplus Last updated: 11 Mar 2021

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 ​ Support this effort via Patreon ​ 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

GIZ-SUTP (2017) On-Street Parking Management: An International Toolkit (Sustainable Urban Transport Technical Document #14). Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP), Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), 108 pages. Abstract Prepared by Paul Barter. The document provides an overview of the different approaches to on-street parking management and provides advice to policy makers dealing with problems arising from unmanaged on-street parking. It addresses common problems that occur from illegal parking and circulating traffic searching for parking and points out approaches to overcome them. This includes information on the appropriate physical design of on-street parking as well as on the institutional basics and adequate tools for fee collection and pricing. Link to the final publisher version https://www.sutp.org/publications/on-street-parking-managment/ Download (preprint or postprint if available. If this does not work, try the publisher link.) Click here to download pdf