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

São Paulo parking 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 The City of São Paulo eliminated parking mandates (parking minimums) citywide for all land-uses in 2014. This was part of the strategic master plan of July 31, 2014. Why should you care? São Paulo is among the largest cities to have completely abolished its costly parking mandates. It is impossible to ignore the precedent set by this enormous city with relatively high car ownership and 12 million people at the heart of a 23 million population metro area. It is significant that this reform was part of an ambitious strategic master plan that focuses on people-oriented development and improved public and non-motorized transport. Under this reform, the city refrains from promoting excessive parking supply. Another case in the Atlas will highlight another reform taken at the same time to more actively discourage excessive parking provision in buildings close to transit corridors. Country Brazil Vehicle type cars State/province São Paulo Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of São Paulo Primary motivation enable housing or other infill Agencies involved Secretaria Municipal de Desenvolvimento Urbano (SMDU) Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift minimums abolition Off-street various Away from excessive supply AND towards more responsiveness to context/market What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted R: Relax about parking supply and stop boosting it implemented 2014 Goals of the reform The new Strategic Master Plan sought "to humanize São Paulo and bring employment and housing closer together, rebalancing the city. And to achieve these goals it is necessary to fight idle land, which does not fulfill its social function; implement the housing policy for those who need it; value the environment; guide the city's growth in proximity to public transport; qualify urban life at the neighborhood scale; promote economic development in the city; preserve heritage and enhance cultural initiatives; and strengthen popular participation in decisions on the city's directions." https://gestaourbana.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/noticias/sao-paulo-tem-um-plano-mais-humano-e-mais-moderno/ Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Issues that prompted these changes included a housing deficit and dismay over the results of decades of car-oriented development patterns, including a tendency for housing near good public transport to be aimed at high-income earners, fenced off, set back from the streets, and built with large numbers of parking spaces per unit. Detailed description of the reform The City of São Paulo eliminated parking minimums citywide in 2014. This was part of the strategic master plan of July 31, 2014 (Lei Municipal nº 16.050/2014), under then Mayor Fernando Haddad, which focuses on people-oriented development and improved public and non-motorized transport. There were three key parking steps in São Paulo's strategic master plan that was released on 31 July 2014: 1. Eliminating minimum parking requirements (parking mandates) for buildings across the city 2. Prohibiting 'frontage parking'. The plan banned the creation of parking spaces at walkway level in the frontage area between the front of the lot and the building. 3. Discouraging excessive parking provision in buildings close to transit corridors. The plan made parking in a building that is provided above a certain level count towards the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the zoning rules along transit corridors. This case is about #1. Another case focuses on #3. See https://www.parkingreformatlas.org/parking-reform-cases-1/s%C3%A3o-paulo-discourages-excessive-parking-close-to-transit-by-increasing-its-opportunity-cost The abolition of parking minimums applies to all land uses. The city previously had quite high parking minimums. For example, prior to the 2014 plan, the following parking mandates applied: * Residential: 1 space per unit smaller than 200m2; 2 spaces per unit of between 200m2 and 500m2 in floor area; 3 spaces per housing unit larger than 500m2 in area. * Non-residential: 1 space per 35m2 of computable area for use categories ñR2; 1 space per 50m2 of computable area for use categories ñR1. The City of São Paulo covers about 12 million residents at the heart of the São Paulo metropolitan area with 39 municipalities and about 23 million people. The master plan discussed in this case is for the City not the wider region. The plan was preceded by a huge participatory process, the largest in the history of São Paulo, with 114 public hearings, 25,692 participants and a total of 10,147 contributions. Results or impacts A 2018 study by ITDP Brasil investigated the effects of the reform (and related changes #2 and #3 mentioned in the detailed description). This provided a clear picture of the situation before the reform. https://itdpbrasil.org/politicas-de-estacionamento-em-edificacoes-na-cidade-de-sao-paulo-analise-dos-efeitos-legais-da-legislacao-no-desenvolvimento-urbano/ However, it has only early hints of the effects of the reform in 2014 and 2015. An economic slowdown in those years reduced the sample size and muddied the picture a little. Nevertheless, some key findings were: * In the period before the reform (between 1985 and 2013), 13,248 residential developments, totaling 755,716 units had 1,150,276 parking spaces provided on-site. This is an average of 1.52 parking spaces per unit. Assuming 27 m² per car space, this implies 31.1km² of built area was dedicated to parking or about 27% of the total built area built in the period. * There was an increase in the proportion of housing units in the smallest size category (up to 65m2). * Although the sample size was small, there was a reduction in the number of parking spaces per housing unit. About 79% of projects analyzed had up to one space per unit and projects without parking increased slightly. None of the launches in this period had more than two parking spaces per unit, down from 23% for the period between 1985 and 2013. Sources and acknowledgements Reinventing Parking (August 2014) São Paulo's parking u-turn https://www.reinventingparking.org/2014/08/sao-paulos-parking-u-turn.html ITDP (7 July 2014) New São Paulo Master Plan Promotes Sustainable Growth, Eliminates Parking Minimums Citywide https://www.itdp.org/2014/07/07/new-sao-paulo-master-plan-promotes-sustainable-growth-eliminates-parking-minimums-citywide-2/ ITDP Brasil (2018) (in Portuguese) Políticas de estacionamento em edificações na cidade de São Paulo: análise dos efeitos legais da legislação no desenvolvimento urbano (Parking policies in buildings in the city of São Paulo: analysis of the legal effects of legislation on urban development) https://itdpbrasil.org/politicas-de-estacionamento-em-edificacoes-na-cidade-de-sao-paulo-analise-dos-efeitos-legais-da-legislacao-no-desenvolvimento-urbano/ https://gestaourbana.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/noticias/sao-paulo-tem-um-plano-mais-humano-e-mais-moderno/ https://gestaourbana.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/um-plano-para-orientar-o-crescimento-da-cidade-nas-proximidades-do-transporte-publico/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-21/with-its-new-master-plan-s-o-paulo-takes-aim-at-gated-towers https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/sao-paulo-brazil-master-plan-parking-spaces-traffic-public-transit Marcela Alonso Ferreira, Hannah Arcuschin Machado, Fernando Túlio Salva Rocha Franco, Fernando de Mello Franco (2020) Brazil: Sao Paulo, in in Dorina Pojani, Jonathan Corcoran, Neil Sipe and Iderlina Mateo-Babiano (eds.) Parking: An International Perspective, 1st Edition. Elsevier. The image is from page 17 of ITDP Brasil (2018) (in Portuguese) Políticas de estacionamento em edificações na cidade de São Paulo: análise dos efeitos legais da legislação no desenvolvimento urbano (Parking policies in buildings in the city of São Paulo: analysis of the legal effects of legislation on urban development) https://itdpbrasil.org/politicas-de-estacionamento-em-edificacoes-na-cidade-de-sao-paulo-analise-dos-efeitos-legais-da-legislacao-no-desenvolvimento-urbano/ Last updated: 4 Feb 2022

Mexico City replaced its parking minimums with maximums 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 Mexico City previously had parking minimums set at high levels. In 2017, it abolished all of its minimum parking requirements and replaced them with parking maximums. In addition, in central areas and near good public transport, a fee is charged on developers for every parking space built between 50% and 100% of the new maximums. This provides an incentive to build less parking than the maximum that is allowed. Why should you care? Parking change-makers in many cities have much to learn from the successful campaign waged in Mexico City to achieve this reform. Also noteworthy is the inclusion in the reform of a new fee on developers parking provision between 50% and 100% of the maximum. This seems to combine well with the rather permissive maximums. It has the attraction for the city government of creating a new stream of revenue as part of the reform. The campaign also very successfully reframed the issue: that off-street parking is not a way to mitigate on-street parking problems but is actually a CAUSE of problems that need to be mitigated. Country Mexico Vehicle type cars State/province ​ Key actor type Metropolitan government Jurisdiction Mexico City Primary motivation mode shift or TDM Agencies involved ​ 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 R: Relax about parking supply and stop boosting it implemented 2017 Goals of the reform To reform aimed to alleviate the large oversupply of parking that was previously being built and to open the possibility of new development with much less on-site parking. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) A ten-year campaign by a coalition of actors, among which ITDP Mexico was prominent, raised awareness of how much parking was being built with every new building, how excessive this parking supply way, and of the negative impacts of this and the lost opportunities. The ITDP 'Less parking, more city' report also found that most developments provided as close to the minimum as possible, suggesting that developers want to provide less parking than they are required to. 'Less parking, more city' was also an effective slogan. The campaign successfully reframed the issue: that off-street parking is not a way to mitigate on-street parking problems but is actually a cause of problems that need to be mitigated. Detailed description of the reform Mexico City previously had parking minimums set at high levels. For example, apartments were required to provide between 1 and 3.5 parking spaces per unit (depending on unit size). Shopping malls were required to provide one space for every 40 square metres of floor space. In 2017, it abolished all of its minimum parking requirements and replaced them with parking maximums. Existing parking spaces can now be converted to other uses if building owners wish. These new maximums are often at similar rates as the old minimums and are not very restrictive on how much parking can be built. For example, all housing now has a maximum of 3 spaces per unit. Malls now have a maximum of 1 parking space per 25 square metres. In addition, in central areas and near good public transport, a fee is charged on developers for every parking space built between 50% and 100% of the new maximums. This presents developers with an incentive to build less parking than the maximum that is allowed. It also provides a new stream of revenue to be used for improvements to public transport. Results or impacts It is too soon to evaluate the results. Anecdotally, various buildings are now going up with much less parking than would have been required before the reform. Sources and acknowledgements Rodrigo Garcia Resendiz and Andres Sañudo Gavaldon (2018) Chapter 15. Less Off-Street Parking, More Mexico City, in Shoup, D. (ed.). Parking and the City. New York: Routledge. ITDP "How Mexico City Became a Leader in Parking Reform" https://www.itdp.org/mexico-city-parking/ Reinventing Parking "How Mexico City Lost its Parking Minimums" https://www.reinventingparking.org/2018/11/mexico-city-parking-mins.html Angie Schmitt 2017 "It’s Official: Mexico City Eliminates Mandatory Parking Minimums" Streetsblog USA, https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/07/19/its-official-mexico-city-eliminates-mandatory-parking-minimums/ https://www.reinventingparking.org/2014/10/mexico-citys-required-parking-glut.html ITDP Mexico, 2014. "Less Parking, More City", https://www.itdp.org/publication/less-parking-more-city-a-case-study-in-mexico-city/ Last updated: 16 Mar 2021

Parking Permit innovation in Portland's Northwest Parking District 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 Noteworthy changes to the parking permits program in Northwest Portland include: * a large surcharge added to the usual permit price, resulting in unusually high permit prices (by North American standards); * limits on the number of permits for recently-built multifamily buildings * a suite of mobility passes and memberships (the Transportation Wallet) is offered for free to anyone in the zone who gives up their parking permit; * Fewer permits are allowed at addresses with off-street parking spaces; * Tiered prices for multiple permits in a household. Why should you care? Making it politically feasible to set high parking-permit prices is probably the most noteworthy feature of this set of parking permits reforms. Northwest Portland has found a combination of rules, price points, exemptions and incentives that won local support for permit prices that are much higher than in most other North American cases. On-street parking management in the area still has some way to go before problems with high parking occupancy rates are overcome but these reforms have helped. Country United States of America Vehicle type cars State/province Oregon Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction Portland Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) and the Northwest Parking District Stakeholder Advisory Commission (SAC) 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 mixed-use streets/areas 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 trial 2017 Goals of the reform The goal of the permit reforms is to reduce on-street parking demand, which was very high with occupancy rates in the evening far above 85% on many streets in the area. Several of the reforms are clearly aimed at encouraging car-owning residents who have off-street parking available to actually use it and to give up their on-street parking permits. Mode shift and reduced car ownership are also aims of the program. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Northwest Portland is an inner-city mixed-use area that has never had minimum parking requirements. Infill development and other economic trends were leading to mounting on-street parking problems. This led to the formation of the Northwest Portland Parking Stakeholder Advisory Committee (NW Parking SAC), which asked the city council to impose parking minimums in the area. However, in July 2016, Portland City Council decided not to extend minimum parking requirements into Northwest Portland. But it did empower NW Parking SAC to develop a pilot program with additional tools to manage on-street parking. By then the district had recently installed parking meters in the busiest parking streets and had a permit program which allowed for an unlimited number of annual on-street permits to residents and businesses for $60/year (Tony Jordan, 2017). The permit program became the focus of their attention. Detailed description of the reform The Northwest Portland Parking District (also called Zone M) is an area with metered parking and parking for residential/business permit holders. Recent pilot innovations in the parking permits program in the Northwest Portland Parking District (also called Zone M) include: * a large surcharge added to the usual permit price (with low-income households exempted); * caps on the number of permits sold aimed at matching supply; * limits on the number of permits for recently built new multifamily buildings * a suite of mobility passes and memberships (the Transportation Wallet) worth USD99 is offered for free to any residents and employees in the zone who give up their parking permit; * The number of resident permits allowed per address is reduced proportionately by the number of off-street parking spaces available to that address; * There are tiered prices for multiple permits for one household. The current (2021) prices are: 1st permit: $195 per year ($75 permit + $120 surcharge), 2nd permit: $390, and 3rd permit and thereafter: $585. The Northwest Parking District Stakeholder Advisory Commission (SAC), formed in 2014, has been a noteworthy mechanism in these reforms. It is made up of neighborhood and business representatives, meets monthly in public. Its mission is "to advise the City on transportation and parking issues in northwest and support a full range of transportation options within the context of neighborhood livability and economic vitality with the goal of efficiently managing parking and reducing reliance on single-occupancy vehicles." The Zone M permit program allows permit holders (both residential and business) to exceed the signed visitor time limits in the permit zone. The permit surcharge revenue must be spent within the northwest parking area on "incentives and transportation demand management programs that help people drive and park less in NW, such as the Transportation Wallet and planning efforts to improve biking, walking and transit infrastructure". Results or impacts Simply winning local support to proceed with this set of reforms is an impressive result. The first two years of the pilot succeeded in greatly reducing the number of business parking permits and in slowing the growth rate of residential permits (although an actual reduction had been the aim). About 560 people gave up parking permits (of which just over 100 were residential permits) in exchange for a year-long Transportation Wallet. As of late 2019, average and peak period parking occupancy rates had improved but many streets still have very high occupancy rates. Permit use has also reduced but is still higher than desired: "Based on current peak hour occupancies, 268 additional permits would need to be removed from current allocations in order to bring occupancies in OBP stalls to 84%" (NW Parking District Assessment and Permit Analysis Summary 2019). The review suggested expanding paid parking areas (parking meters), further reducing the number of permits allocated and changing enforcement hours from 9am - 7pm to 10am - 8pm. Sources and acknowledgements City of Portland, Northwest Parking District, https://www.portland.gov/transportation/parking/northwest-parking-district NW Portland Parking Project Annual Report 2018 - 2019, https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/nw-portland-parking-project-annual-report-2018-2019.pdf NW Parking District Assessment and Permit Analysis Summary 2019, https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/nw-parking-district-parking-assessment-and-permit-analysis-summary-2019.pdf Tony Jordan (May 1, 2017) Innovative Permit Changes Proposed In NW Portland, Portlanders for Parking Reform, https://pdxshoupistas.com/innovative-permit-changes-proposed-in-nw-portland/ Tony Jordan (December 18, 2018) PBOT Proposes Guidelines For Permit Surcharge Money, Portlanders for Parking Reform, https://pdxshoupistas.com/pbot-proposes-guidelines-for-permit-surcharge-money/ City of Portland and NW Parking SAC (December 19, 2018) NW Zone M Parking Permit Pilot Report to City Council, https://pdxshoupistas.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/1344-zone-m-council-report.pdf Northwest Parking District Stakeholder Advisory Committee, https://www.portland.gov/transportation/nw-parking-committee City of Portland, Transportation Wallet Sign Up, https://www.portland.gov/transportation/wallet/signup Paul Barter (March 21, 2019) Your city needs a parking reform non-profit! (an interview with Tony Jordan, founder of Portlanders for Parking Reform), https://www.reinventingparking.org/2019/03/portlanders-for-parking-reform.html Image credit: 2016 NW Portland Parking Occupancy Map 7-8pm: City of Portland and NW Parking SAC (December 19, 2018) NW Zone M Parking Permit Pilot Report to City Council, https://pdxshoupistas.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/1344-zone-m-council-report.pdf Last updated: 19 Apr 2021

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

Rio de Janeiro residential parking minimums replaced by maximums near mass transit 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 For residential developments within 800m of mass transit, Rio de Janeiro abolished the previous minimum parking requirement of one parking space per unit and replaced it with a parking maximum of one space per four residential units. Why should you care? Momentum to reform parking minimums and to consider parking maximums may be gathering across Latin America. Rio de Janeiro has joined Mexico City and São Paulo in enacting such reforms. Parking maximums are controversial among parking reformers but if they are appropriate anywhere it is close to mass transit. Country Brazil Vehicle type cars State/province State of Rio de Janeiro Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of Rio de Janeiro Primary motivation enable housing or other infill Agencies involved The Municipal Transportation Secretariat (SMTR) and the Urbanization, Infrastructure and Housing Secretariat (SMUIH) 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 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 implemented 2019 Goals of the reform The main goal seems to be to promote more transit-oriented residential development near mass transit stations across the city. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) ITDP Brazil had been campaigning for parking reform. This included a 2017 study by ITDP Brazil which highlighted the larger proportion of built space being devoted to parking. The campaign also included workshops and webinars with city officials and engagement with planners, public managers, and government representatives, including sharing Mexico City's parking reform success. Detailed description of the reform Rio de Janeiro's building code now specifies a maximum of one parking space for every four housing units with buildings located within a radius of 800 meters from metro, railway, Bus Rapid Transit or Light Rail. This is in support of a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) policy. Parking minimums had been in place since 1967. The updated building code also added a bicycle parking requirement of one bicycle space per residential unit and and one space for a bicycle per 200 m² in non-residential or mixed buildings. In addition, bicycle parking is now allowed in car parking spaces when the space is not being used for a car. Results or impacts It is too soon to evaluate the results of this recent reform. It will be interesting to learn later if significant TOD style residential development occurs and which socio-economic groups are served by any such development. Sources and acknowledgements ITDP (January 31, 2019) Rio de Janeiro Joins Other Latin American City Leaders in Parking Reform, https://www.itdp.org/2019/01/31/rio-joins-parking-reform-leaders/ ITDP Brasil (1 February 2019) Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro aprova novo código de obras que traz avanços para a mobilidade urbana da cidade, https://itdpbrasil.org/prefeitura-do-rio-de-janeiro-aprova-novo-codigo-de-obras-que-traz-avancos-para-a-mobilidade-urbana-da-cidade/ ITDP Brasil (10 July 2017) ITDP Brasil apresenta estudo sobre estacionamento em edificações na cidade do Rio de Janeiro, https://itdpbrasil.org.br/itdp-brasil-apresenta-estudo-sobre-estacionamento-em-edificacoes-na-cidade-do-rio-de-janeiro/ Image credit: ITDP Brasil, https://itdpbrasil.org.br/itdp-brasil-apresenta-estudo-sobre-estacionamento-em-edificacoes-na-cidade-do-rio-de-janeiro/ Last updated: 16 Apr 2021

Philippines unfortunate national minimum 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 Unfortunately, local governments in the Philippines cannot lower or eliminate parking mandates (minimum parking requirements) because parking minimums are specified at the national level and cities cannot set parking minimums below the national guidelines. Why should you care? Preventing parking requirements from being adapted to each local context makes them even more harmful than they need to be. The Philippines is not unique in having the national guidelines on parking requirements. However, the national parking minimums in the Philippines are unusually inflexible in allowing local governments no discretion to set lower or zero parking minimums to suit local contexts, even in locations where high parking minimums would be especially inappropriate. This case also highlights a wider dilemma over local control versus pre-emption by higher levels of government. Although parking reformers cheer cases in which State or National governments restrain local governments from imposing excessive parking mandates (as in France for example) we are less happy when they impose excessive and inflexible parking mandates on local governments, as in this case. Country The Philippines Vehicle type cars State/province ​ Key actor type National Jurisdiction The Philippines Primary motivation other Agencies involved National Building Code Development Office, Philippines Department of Public Works and Highways Is it a model or a warning? what NOT to do Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift other Off-street various Unknown or unclear or not applicable or other What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted Does not fit neatly into this framework/None of the above implemented 1977 Goals of the reform The motivations for the Philippines minimum parking requirements are not specified in the building code but presumably they are the usual motivations for parking mandates everywhere, including the belief that developers will not build appropriate parking space without such a mandate. It is not clear why the country decided to specify parking mandates in the National Building Code rather than leaving it to local discretion. Perhaps the fact that the National Building Code Development Office is located in the Department of Public Works and Highways has something to do with it! Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Unknown but presumably there was an increase in parking problems as motorization increased. Detailed description of the reform Local governments in the Philippines cannot set parking mandates (minimum parking requirements) below the levels specified in the National Building Code set by the national government. Local governments can only set parking mandates equal to or higher than the national guidelines. Informal or formal exceptions are sometimes granted by local government to allow some buildings to be built with less parking than specified in the National Building Code. However, this is not ideal. It likely opens the door to corruption and gives an unfair advantage to the largest development companies, which have more ability to negotiate such exceptions. The National Government sets parking requirement guidelines in Table VII.4 of Presidential Decree 1096, otherwise known as the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the National Building Code of the Philippines. These parking minimums are not as high as many in suburban areas in North America. Nevertheless, some of them do seem extreme for a nation where car ownership rates are low. For example, restaurants, bars and fast food outlets must provide one parking slot per 30 square metres of the customer area and nightclubs, supper clubs, and theater-restaurants must have 1 slot per 20m² of customer area. Other parking mandates are more moderate, such as shopping centers (one slot per 100m² of shopping area), office building (one slot per 125m² of gross floor area) and so on. One redeeming feature that reduces the harm of the parking mandates for housing is that housing types aimed at low-income people have much lower car parking minimums. For example, “low-income single-detached living unit with individual lots not more than 100m²” are required to have 1 car parking slot per 10 units. Multi-family living units regardless of no. of stories with an average living floor area of 50m² must have 1 parking slot per 8 units. Multi-family living units regardless of no. of stories with an average living floor area of above 50 m² to 100 m² must have 1 parking slot per 4 housing units. Results or impacts I don’t have data on the effects of the national parking mandates in the Philippines. However, it seems clear that these parking mandates must be hugely excessive for buildings that serve low-income groups in a country that has a very low level of car ownership overall. This comment probably applies to most buildings in lower-income municipalities across the country, including most rural towns. Conversely, these parking mandates make no difference to developments that aim to serve a high-income groups. Such buildings routinely provide much more on-site parking that is required under the building code. Sources and acknowledgements I learned of this feature of the Philippines building code from Robert Anthony Siy, Chief Transport Planner, Pasig City, Philippines. Implementing Rules and Regulations of the National Building Code of the Philippines (PD1096), Philippines Department of Public Works and Highways https://www.dpwh.gov.ph/dpwh/references/laws_codes_orders/PD1096 Robert Siy (16 November 2019) Parking and the National Building Code, The Manila Times https://www.manilatimes.net/2019/11/16/business/columnists-business/parking-and-the-national-building-code/656269 Last updated: 13 Jul 2021

Buffalo parking 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 Under its new Green Code, Buffalo abolished all of its minimum parking requirements. Although the city retains some influence over parking provision (see details below), Hess and Rehler (2021) find large reductions in the provision of parking in the first two years of the new policy compared with what the previous minimums required. Why should you care? This case of parking minimums abolition includes a safeguard, that certain development proposals are required to complete a TDM plan, which can result in the provision of off-street parking. This may have helped reassure doubters before the reform. However, it seems that this is probably not a case of retaining parking minimums in disguise. Hess and Rehler (2021) offer a takeaway for practice from their study: "Our findings suggest mixed-use developers are likely to take advantage of the ability to provide less parking in highly accessible locations. Though many developers quickly pivot to the newfound possibilities of providing fewer parking spaces, others continue to meet earlier requirements. Cities of all types stand to benefit from undoing constraining parking policies of the past and allowing developers to transform parking lots to “higher uses.” Country United States of America Vehicle type cars State/province New York Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of Buffalo Primary motivation enable housing or other infill Agencies involved City of Buffalo Mayor’s Office of Strategic Planning Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift minimums abolition Off-street various Promotes all three Adaptive Parking paradigm shifts What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted R: Relax about parking supply and stop boosting it implemented 2017 Goals of the reform A key stated aim of Buffalo's Green Code is to revitalize development in the city. So it seems clear that a primary goal in abolishing the parking minimums was to remove a key barrier to sensitive development and redevelopment of sites within the city (while also trying to make sure that development in the city would not increase traffic too much). Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) The City of Buffalo is at the core of its metropolitan area and had suffered many many decades of economic stagnation. However, real-estate development interest picked up in the recent decade. This prompted a review of outdated zoning regulations that led to the form-based Green Code of Jan. 2017. Detailed description of the reform Buffalo abolished minimum parking requirements for all land-uses and across the whole city (which represents 255,000 people in the core of the Buffalo-Niagara Falls metropolitan area of 1,130,00 (as of 2018). Buffalo’s new Green Code states on page 8-5: “There are no provisions that establish a minimum number of off-street parking spaces for development." Page 8-5 of the Green Code mentions that the city retains some influence over parking provision: "certain development proposals are required to complete a transportation demand management plan, per Section 8.4, which can result in the provision of off-street parking.” Hess and Rehler (2021) explain that this provision does NOT amount to parking minimums in disguise: "according to Article 8.4, major site plan approval requires a project-specific TDM plan implementing strategies from a menu of options with implications for parking such as public transit pass subsidies, roadway improvements, shared parking, and carpooling programs. Developers can provide more or less parking than the modal share objective for their project (after accounting for TDM strategies); doing so by 10% or more requires written justification. These new policies allow considerable deviation from earlier parking requirements, allowing the market to influence parking supply considerations. It is now legally possible for residential, commercial, and mixed-use projects to provide no off-street parking." Results or impacts Hess and Rehler (2021) have investigated 36 major developments and their parking provision in the first two years of the Green Code. They found: "First, 47% of major developments included fewer parking spaces than previously permissible, suggesting earlier minimum parking requirements may have been excessive. Second, mixed-use developments introduced 53% fewer parking spaces than would have been required by earlier minimum requirements as developers readily took advantage of the newfound possibility to include less off-street parking. Aggregate parking spaces among single-use projects exceeded the earlier minimum requirements, suggesting developers of such projects were less motivated to deviate from accepted practices in determining the parking supply for urban development." Sources and acknowledgements Daniel Baldwin Hess & Jeffrey Rehler (2021): Minus Minimums, Journal of the American Planning Association, https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2020.1864225 https://www.reinventingparking.org/2017/02/dont-do-wrong-thing-better-do-right.html Buffalo green code https://bufgreencode.com/. In particular, see https://bufgreencode.com/access-parking/vehicle-access-and-parking/#831-general Image credit (top image): https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/10/23/buffalo-may-turn-parking-craters-into-neighborhoods/ Image credit (bottom image): http://joeplanner.blogspot.com/2009/01/recent-article-in-buffalo-news-citing.html Last updated: 16 Mar 2021

São Paulo discourages excessive parking close to transit by increasing its opportunity cost 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 São Paulo's 2014 strategic master plan discourages excessive parking provision in buildings close to transit corridors. Below a threshold, parking does not count towards the calculation of allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) under the zoning rules. However, parking provided beyond the threshold DOES count towards FAR. This greatly increases the opportunity cost for developers of providing excessive parking. Why should you care? The idea of making excessive parking space count towards the allowed floor area in zoning calculations is a promising approach that other cities should study. It increases the opportunity cost of parking in a context-sensitive way. This fascinating and market-friendly approach to discouraging excessive parking provision close to public transport deserves more attention. Country Brazil Vehicle type cars State/province São Paulo Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of São Paulo Primary motivation mode shift or TDM Agencies involved Secretaria Municipal de Desenvolvimento Urbano (SMDU) Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift other supply disincentives Off-street various Away from excessive supply AND towards more responsiveness to context/market What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted D: Discourage or limit parking supply in certain contexts implemented 2014 Goals of the reform Discourage excessive parking provision in buildings close to transit corridors as part of a strategy to guide the growth of the city towards areas close to public transport. 'Councilman Nabil Bonduki, a trained urban planner who pushed for the successful vote, called it a measure “to curb the dictatorship of the automobile.”' See https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/sao-paulo-brazil-master-plan-parking-spaces-traffic-public-transit Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Issues that prompted these changes included a housing deficit and dismay over the results of decades of car-oriented development patterns, including a tendency for housing near good public transport to be aimed at high-income earners, fenced off, set back from the streets, and built with large numbers of parking spaces per unit. ITDP (2018, p.21) notes that this policy is intended to avoid a mistake made by Curitiba where, despite densification along the BRT corridors, an oversupply of parking spaces in nearby buildings resulted in higher car-ownership among families residing in the close to the public transport stations than among residents further away. Detailed description of the reform São Paulo's 2014 strategic master plan discourages excessive parking provision in buildings close to transit corridors by increasing the opportunity cost of providing excessive parking. This involves setting thresholds for parking provision with buildings in the defined transit corridor zones. Below the relevant threshold, parking provided with a building does not count towards the calculation of allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) under the zoning rules. However, parking provided beyond the threshold DOES count towards FAR. This discourages excessive parking supply because for parking spaces beyond the threshold: - developers must now choose between useful built area or parking spaces. Useful built area, such as office or residential space is usually of higher sale or lease value per square meter than parking space. - in cases where developers have the option of paying a development fee for the right to build, this fee will count not just the additional useful built area but also the parking area above the threshold. Reports on these thresholds have sometimes referred to them as 'maximums' but this label is misleading. Developers are still free to build as much parking as they see fit. However, this policy greatly increases the opportunity cost of providing excessive parking. This reform is one of the three key parking steps in São Paulo's strategic master plan that was released on 31 July 2014: 1. Eliminating minimum parking requirements (parking mandates) for buildings across the city 2. Prohibiting 'frontage parking'. The plan banned the creation of parking spaces at walkway level in the frontage area between the front of the lot and the building. 3. Discouraging excessive parking provision in buildings within transit corridor zones by making parking provided beyond a certain threshold count towards the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). This case is about #3. A previous case focused on #1. See https://www.parkingreformatlas.org/parking-reform-cases-1/s%C3%A3o-paulo-parking-minimums-abolition The transit-corridor zones (or 'areas of influence of the structuring axes of urban transformation') are: - For mass transit stations: plots that fall completely within 600 m or partially within 400 m of the station (circular zones of influence) - For bus: plots that fall completely within 300 m or partially within 150 m of the line (linear zones of influence). Under the strategic master plan, the public transport axes are priority places for urban transformation and optimization of urban land. The thresholds in the 2014 strategic master plan were: - Residential: one space per housing unit - Non-residential: one space per 100 square meters of computable floor area. For area calculations, the plan takes 32 square meters as the area per parking space (including circulation space and so on). In 2016, the Land Installment, Use and Occupancy Law (Lei de Parcelamento, Uso e Ocupação do Solo - LPUOS) was enacted to consolidate the strategies presented in the strategic master plan of 2014. This 2016 zoning law watered down the reform a little for residential buildings (ITDP, 2018, p.23). The residential threshold was changed from one parking space per unit to one parking space per 60 square meters of computable area. As a result, large apartments could again be built with more than one parking space free of counting towards the FAR computation. Comments from 'Rafael' on the Reinventing Parking article on the 2014 parking reforms provided further insights. Rafael explained that São Paulo has been implementing "paid allowance for building rights". According to Rafael, the basic FAR had been set to 1 in most of the city. However, along the public transport axes, an FAR of up to 4 is possible upon payment of these development fees. This is why extra parking beyond the threshold in transit zones generally attracts a fee. Incidentally, making some parking count towards the calculation of built area is also used in Singapore where only the required parking is exempted from counting as part of the allowed floor area (gross floor area, GFA) under the development controls (zoning). See https://www.reinventingparking.org/2011/06/deliberate-parking-crunch-in-singapores.html Results or impacts For a preliminary evaluation of results of the parking reforms in the 2014 strategic master plan, see this companion case: https://www.parkingreformatlas.org/parking-reform-cases-1/s%C3%A3o-paulo-parking-minimums-abolition Sources and acknowledgements Reinventing Parking (October 2014) São Paulo's parking "maximums" ain't maximums, https://www.reinventingparking.org/2014/10/sao-paulos-parking-maximums-aint.html ITDP (7 July 2014) New São Paulo Master Plan Promotes Sustainable Growth, Eliminates Parking Minimums Citywide https://www.itdp.org/2014/07/07/new-sao-paulo-master-plan-promotes-sustainable-growth-eliminates-parking-minimums-citywide-2/ ITDP Brasil (2018) (in Portuguese) Políticas de estacionamento em edificações na cidade de São Paulo: análise dos efeitos legais da legislação no desenvolvimento urbano (Parking policies in buildings in the city of São Paulo: analysis of the legal effects of legislation on urban development) https://itdpbrasil.org/politicas-de-estacionamento-em-edificacoes-na-cidade-de-sao-paulo-analise-dos-efeitos-legais-da-legislacao-no-desenvolvimento-urbano/ https://gestaourbana.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/um-plano-para-orientar-o-crescimento-da-cidade-nas-proximidades-do-transporte-publico/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-21/with-its-new-master-plan-s-o-paulo-takes-aim-at-gated-towers https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/sao-paulo-brazil-master-plan-parking-spaces-traffic-public-transit Marcela Alonso Ferreira, Hannah Arcuschin Machado, Fernando Túlio Salva Rocha Franco, Fernando de Mello Franco (2020) Brazil: Sao Paulo, in in Dorina Pojani, Jonathan Corcoran, Neil Sipe and Iderlina Mateo-Babiano (eds.) Parking: An International Perspective, 1st Edition. Elsevier. The image at the top is from ITDP 2018 p. 18. Figure 4 - Criteria for the inclusion of lots in the area of influence of the structuring axes of urban transformation. [Figura 4 - Critério para inclusão dos lotes na área de influência dos eixos de estruturação da transformação urbana.] The image at the bottom is also from ITDP 2018 (this time Figure 6 from page 22). It shows the difference between the regulation of residential parking spaces under the strategic master plan (PDE-SP) of 2014 and under the Zoning Act of 2016. Last updated: 4 Feb 2022

Improved on-street parking management in Makati 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 Makati Parking Authority (MAPA) carries out effective on-street parking management in the Makati CBD using uniformed parking attendants with digital devices. The high standard of parking management in the area stands out in contrast with the extremely weak on-street parking management across most of the rest of Metro Manila. Why should you care? The unusual institutional arrangements in Makati CBD (where the Ayala corporation plays a prominent role) may make some aspects of MAPA difficult to replicate but it stands as proof that effective on-street parking management can be achieved even in middle-income countries where good governance is difficult to achieve. Country Philippines Vehicle type diverse State/province Metro Manila Key actor type Government (any level) with private sector Jurisdiction Makati City Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Makati Parking Authority (MAPA) created by the Makati City Government, Ayala Land Inc., MaCEA, and the Makati Chamber of Commerce and Industry 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 commercial streets Helpful for park-once-and-walk approach What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted Both P and On implemented 1987 Goals of the reform “to effect low-cost traffic management that shall control and facilitate free movement and regulated parking of motor vehicles" in the area. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) MAPA was formed in response to the chaotic on-street parking situation in the 1980’s. Detailed description of the reform Makati Parking Authority (MAPA) carries out effective on-street parking management in the Makati CBD using uniformed parking attendants with digital devices. On-street spaces for both cars and motorcycles have been marked and parking is illegal outside the marked spaces. Standards of parking markings and signage are high. Time limits of 3 hours apply but parking is also priced. As of 2019, the prices are P50 for the first two hours and P60 for the third hour for cars and P30 per hour for motorcycles. Enforcement is via wheel-clamping or towing. This approach is probably because an unreliable national vehicle registration system may make violation notices and collection of fines otherwise impossible. MAPA was created as a cooperative effort between the Makati City Government, Ayala Land Inc., MaCEA, and the Makati Chamber of Commerce and Industry. MAPA was formed as a nonstock, non-profit and self-sustaining private corporation. MAPA's main source of revenue is the collection of on-street parking fees. Fifteen percent of net revenue goes to the City Government. The rest supports MAPA's operations with the surplus going to "parking and traffic management projects such as installation of traffic lights, maintenance of road pavement marking and parking and traffic related road signs, and posting of parking wardens and traffic enforcers." Results or impacts MAPA and the City of Makati claim that MAPA has: "Minimized traffic congestion and obstruction along Ayala Avenue, cutting end-to-end travel time from 30-45 minutes to 13-15 minutes; Discouraged long-term use of onstreet parking, thereby significantly increasing the number of slots available for use by business visitors; Minimized vagrancy, vandalism, and car theft; Generated employment; Disciplined motorists to mind and follow traffic and parking rules, and pedestrians to use the sidewalks, underpasses and elevated walkway; and Restored order in the streets of the District." MaCEA (1 Sept. 2019) The Makati Parking Authority (MAPA): An Overview, https://macea.com.ph/2019/09/01/the-makati-parking-authority-mapa-an-overview/ Sources and acknowledgements MaCEA (1 Sept. 2019) The Makati Parking Authority (MAPA): An Overview, https://macea.com.ph/2019/09/01/the-makati-parking-authority-mapa-an-overview/ Aida Sevilla-Mendoza (8 October 2014) "On-street parking in Makati", MotionCars column, The Inquirer, https://motioncars.inquirer.net/32348/on-street-parking-in-makati 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). Last updated: 2 Mar 2021

Tel Aviv mobile-only on-street parking 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 Tel Aviv the only options to pay for casual on-street parking are pay-by-phone (two companies) or by in-vehicle meter (one company). This mobile-only approach replaced the older system of paying by displaying pre-purchased paper coupons. Tel Aviv has not used parking meters for on-street parking payments since 1972. Why should you care? This is a case of a large city where casual on-street parking payments are handled ONLY by mobile payment options, with no parking meter option. It shares this distinction with several other cities, including other cities in Israel and São Paulo and Shenzhen. This experience should encourage cities that do not currently use parking meters, but which want in adopt or expand paid on-street parking, to consider avoiding parking meters completely and to jump straight to mobile-only payment systems. Country Israel Vehicle type cars State/province ​ Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction Tel Aviv-Yafo Municipality Primary motivation other Agencies involved Tel Aviv-Yafo Municipality and several private-sector mobile payments providers 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 (many contexts) 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 ​ Goals of the reform I have not yet found information on goals of the switch from card (coupon) payments to mobile payments. But see impetus below for Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) The shift from pre-purchased card or coupon-based parking payments to digital mobile payments has several advantaged, such as a data stream, the ability to extend parking sessions, and much more efficient enforcement with less cheating. These benefits must have motivated the switch when mobile payments technology became reliable enough. One impetus to accelerate the phase-out of paper parking payment cards may have been the discovery in late 2007 of a factory producing fake parking cards (according to a 2008 Jerusalem Post report). Detailed description of the reform Tel Aviv does not use in-street parking meters or parking payment stations. The only methods for paying for casual on-street parking are mobile methods (via smartphone or via in-vehicle parking meter). According to the Tel Aviv-Yafo government, the payment options for on-street parking (marked in blue and white, with paid parking from Sundays to Thursdays, 09:00am to 7:00pm and Fridays and holidays, 09:00am to 1:00pm) are as follows: * Cellopark - Payment via cellular phone. * Pango- payment via cellular phones. * Easypark payment via "an electronic smart card" (which, from the website, is clearly an in-vehicle parking meter solution). [See image above. Image credit: http://www.easypark.co.il/ ] Another option, Achuzatot Ha’hof, apparently applies only to Municipality Parking Lots https://www.tel-aviv.gov.il/en/Live/Transportation/Pages/Parkingpaymentoptions.aspx This mobile-only approach replaced the older system of paying by displaying pre-purchased paper coupons. It is not clear to me exactly when this shift happened. There must have been a period in which both paper parking cards and the in-vehicle meter and mobile-phone based payment options coexisted. According to Azhar Ghani (2011) : Tel Aviv did adopt parking meters for on-street parking payments in 1965 but replaced them with a 'card' (or coupon) system in 1972. This was considered successful and was emulated by Haifa, Jerusalem and by Singapore. At some point in recent years, Tel Aviv phased out the card or coupon approach and switched to the digital mobile-only approaches seen today. Results or impacts More information is needed here. Can anyone suggest sources? According to Assaf Rubinstein (2015), "... in 2007 revenues from street parking in Tel-Aviv were $16 million. In 2010, with over 30% of drivers using a parking application, revenues rose to $30 million." This makes me wonder if the shift from cards (coupons) began between 2007 and 2010. Sources and acknowledgements "Parking Payment Options", Tel Aviv - Yafo Municipality, https://www.tel-aviv.gov.il/en/Live/Transportation/Pages/Parkingpaymentoptions.aspx "Parking in Tel Aviv" https://www.touristisrael.com/parking-in-tel-aviv/33103/ Assaf Rubinstein, Mar 07, 2015, "Pango - Bringing the future of street parking by making parking meters a thing of the past", https://www.hbs.edu/openforum/openforum.hbs.org/goto/challenge/understand-digital-transformation-of-business/pango-bringing-the-future-of-street-parking-by-making-parking-meters-a-thing-of-the-past/comments/c-0b9e57c46de934cee33b0e8d1839bfc2.html Azhar Ghani, March 2011, "Success Matters: the Parking Coupon System", IPS Update, https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ips/azhar_the-parking-coupon-system_010311.pdf URAIA Case Study "Pango parking payment system of the Union of Local Authorities of Israel (ULAI) and the Local Government Economic Services Company - Israel" https://www.uraia.org/documents/43/1811_arquivoB.pdf Miriam Bulwar David-Hay, "Drivers warned about fake parking cards - Private detectives discovered a factory in Tel Aviv that was manufacturing fake cards at a high standard." Jerusalem Post, 13 Jan. 2008. https://www.jpost.com/local-israel/tel-aviv-and-center/drivers-warned-about-fake-parking-cards Last updated: 24 Mar 2021

Selected parking-related publications by Paul Barter For most of these, you can download a version or click through to the publisher version. Barter, Paul (2020) ‘Singapore’ in Dorina Pojani, Jonathan Corcoran, Neil Sipe and Iderlina Mateo-Babiano (eds.) Parking: An International Perspective, 1st Edition. Elsevier. Abstract Singapore’s urban transport policies have long been unusual in vigorously slowing the growth of growth of car ownership. Its parking policies and practices do also have some unusual feature but are also conventional in several important respects. Most Singapore neighbourhoods are park-once-and-walk areas, served by relatively well-managed public parking. Yet parking supply policy still relies heavily on trying to seeks to meet parking demand on-site with each building, using minimum parking requirements. Nevertheless, there are some signs that parking policy may be made more consistent with Singapore’s wider transport and urban development priorities. Link to the final publisher version https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012815265200011X Download (preprint or postprint if available. If this does not work, try the publisher link.) Click here to download pdf 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 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 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 Barter, P. A. (2015) A parking policy typology for clearer thinking on parking reform, International Journal of Urban Sciences, 19:2, 136-156. Abstract This paper contends that the absence of a widely understood typology of parking policy approaches is causing confusion in an important urban policy arena. This is apparent across the parking policy literature, both academic and practical, and across several regions. Previous typologies are reviewed and found to be either incomplete, overly simplistic, inaccurate, or failing to offer insight beyond merely describing the diversity. None enables much insight into the thinking behind each approach and reform thrust. To remedy this gap, a new approach to classifying parking policies is proposed. It is based on making explicit the contrasting mindsets behind different parking reform directions. A review of geographical diversity (both international and within metropolitan areas) is presented. This allows the value of the taxonomy to be evaluated, as well as enabling some refinements. Three main mindsets are posited, with each being defined by answers to two key questions. Each mindset has contrasting assumptions about the nature of parking as an economic good. Further detail in the typology is enabled through a third dimension based on one further question. New clarity provided by the new classification approach should reduce the tendency for parking debates to be confounded by the conflation of distinct reforms, by false dichotomies and by ‘straw man’ portrayals of key alternatives. Link to the final publisher version https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2014.927740 Download (preprint or postprint if available. If this does not work, try the publisher link.) Click here to download pdf Barter, P.A. (2010) Off-Street Parking Policy without Parking Requirements: a Need for Market Fostering and Regulation? Transport Reviews, 30 (5), 571-588. Abstract This paper addresses and extends upon the recent upsurge of interest in market-oriented reform of parking policy, which has been reinvigorated by the work of Donald Shoup. His market-oriented approach to parking policy is shown to be the more ambitious of two distinct challenges to the conventional supply-focused approach. The other is ‘parking management’. However, off-street parking markets and their post-reform dynamics have been neglected so far in proposals to deregulate the quantity of off-street parking. The paper highlights additional barriers to the emergence of off-street parking markets and several likely problems within them. Rather than suggesting the rejection of market-oriented parking policy, these findings are taken to imply a need for a more vigorous policy effort than has so far been called for. Achieving well-functioning off-street parking markets would require efforts both to actively foster such markets and to regulate to ensure their health. Deregulation would not be enough. Link to the final publisher version https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640903216958 Download (preprint or postprint if available. If this does not work, try the publisher link.) Click here to download pdf Barter, P.A. (2012) Off-Street Parking Policy Surprises in Asian Cities, J. Cities, 29 (1), 23-31. Abstract This paper analyses findings on policy towards non-residential, off-street parking supply from a study of large metropolitan areas in East, Southeast and South Asia. The study provides the first international comparative perspective on the issue for a region where parking challenges are widespread and acute. It utilises (and helped to refine) a new typology, which groups parking policy approaches into ‘conventional’, ‘parking management’ and ‘market-oriented’ categories. Several distinct parking policy orientations are identified among the cities studied. Given their characteristics (most have relatively low car-ownership, high-density development and with high usage of public transport) most of these Asian cities might be expected to have off-street parking policies akin to those found in older areas of western cities that have comparable characteristics. Yet, parking policies that are surprisingly conventional and promoting of automobile-dependence prevail in most of the Southeast and South Asian cities studied. It is less surprising that a number of Asian cities (mostly in East Asia) do not have such an auto-centric conventional approach. However, it is a surprise that their parking policy approaches still involve minimum parking requirements and have generally not adopted the most common western alternative to the conventional approach (parking management). Link to the final publisher version https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2011.06.007 Download (preprint or postprint if available. If this does not work, try the publisher link.) Click here to download pdf