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

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

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

Moscow on-street parking pricing and improved parking 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 Starting with a pilot in late 2012, Moscow has been progressively implementing paid on-street parking in its core areas, along with greatly improved parking enforcement. The results have included reduced congestion, a huge reduction in illegal parking and a large drop in on-street parking durations. Why should you care? This is a case of a city that had an extremely daunting set of parking problems but has managed to establish relatively strong parking management in a short period of time. This should encourage other cities that parking management can be rapidly improved. Country Russian Federation Vehicle type cars State/province ​ Key actor type Metropolitan government Jurisdiction City of Moscow Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Moscow Transport Management and Road Infrastructure Development Department 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 2012 Goals of the reform Key objectives included: Reduce illegal parking Reduce traffic congestion Increase parking turnover Mode shift away from private car for city centre oriented trips Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) On-street parking in central Moscow was extremely chaotic with rampant illegal parking, double parking and parking on footways. Detailed description of the reform Paid parking began with a pilot project in November 2012 and has now expanded to most of the busiest districts. In June 2013 paid parking expanded to within the Boulevard Ring. In June 2014, it extended to near the Moscow City International Business Center. At the same time, differential parking rates were introduced. In August 2014, paid parking expanded to the Third Transport Ring. Fees vary based on demand. "The maximum fee of 200 RUR is set in the busiest streets (with a 100% daily capacity, e.g. Neglinnaya, Malaya Bronnaya, Petrovka streets) within the Third Ring Road." There are now over 80 thousand paid parking slots in Moscow, 10% of which are reserved for low-mobility citizens. Results or impacts According to https://parking.mos.ru/en/about/1146/ Travelling speed increased by 12%; Parking violation reduced by 64%; The number of personal vehicles entering the territory within the Garden Ring reduced by 25%; Vehicles turnover rate increased 4-fold (before the average parking time used to be 6-8 hours, now this parameter is not exceeding 1,5 hours)." Sources and acknowledgements https://parking.mos.ru/en/about/1146/ Report by consultants NOW! Innovations (pdf) http://f.voog.construction/0000/0000/0414/files/NOW!%20CaseStudy%20Moscow.pdf "BY THE END OF 2013 THE MOSCOW PARKING AREA TO BE EXPANDED TO THE GARDEN RING LIMITS" https://parking.mos.ru/en/news/202/ https://www.reinventingparking.org/2018/06/every-city-with-goldilocks-parking-fees.html Last updated: 11 Mar 2021

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

Seoul parking maximums in parking restriction zones 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 Seoul imposes maximums in 10 areas of the city (7 areas before 2009). The parking maximums for each land-use in these parking restriction areas are set at 50% of the parking minimums that apply in general areas of the city. These parking restriction areas are the areas with 'first grade' on-street and public parking fees, with strong public transport access, and are in and around major business districts. Why should you care? This is a rare Asian example of the use of parking maximums. Imposing parking maximums in congestion-prone but transit-oriented business districts is a time-tested and effective policy in many countries and Seoul's case is an ambitious and interesting version of this powerful policy. I would like to know more about any analysis of its impacts. Country South Korea Vehicle type cars State/province Seoul Key actor type Metropolitan government Jurisdiction City of Seoul Primary motivation mode shift or TDM Agencies involved Seoul Metropolitan Government Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift maximums or caps (including minimums switched to maximums) Off-street various 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 1997 Goals of the reform Reduce traffic demand on congested roads to and from the busiest areas with high public transport access. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) This policy was part of a wide-ranging set of TDM policies adopted in Seoul in the mid to late 1990s as a response to a growing traffic congestion crisis that emerged in that decade as car ownership rose steeply after 1985. Detailed description of the reform Seoul imposes maximums in 10 areas of the city (7 areas before 2009). The parking maximums for each land-use in these parking restriction areas are set at 50% of the parking minimums that apply in general areas of the city. These parking restriction areas are the areas with 'first grade' on-street and public parking fees, with strong public transport access, and are in and around major business districts. Seoul's on-street parking management has some problems, with on-street parking chaos common in many areas. But appropriately these parking restriction areas are the areas of Seoul with the most intensive parking management and the highest on-street prices. Results or impacts More details coming soon I hope. Sources and acknowledgements Barter, P.A. (2011) Parking Policy in Asian Cities. Asian Development Bank (ADB), Manila. Presentation by Sang Bum Kim (Assistant Mayor for City Transportation), “Policy Directions of Seoul for a Clean and Green City” to CUD Global Conference Seoul 2009 Park Ji-hoon, Lee Taeheon and Lee Shin-hae (2016) A Study on the Improvement of Maximum Parking Allowances in Seoul With the Review of Foreign Cases, Transportation Technology and Policy Vol.13 No.2, April 2016 Last updated: 5 Mar 2021

Gold Coast demand-based parking pricing 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 Metered parking fees for city-owned parking are demand-based in two centres of activity in the City of Gold Coast under the city’s ParkInCentre Scheme (PICS). The areas are Broadbeach and Burleigh Heads. Four times a year, the city reviews the price of metered parking in small zones across these areas, and adjusts the price up or down (in increments of 20 cents) to better manage demand. This is based on occupancy data, primarily from in-ground sensors. There are also three time-of-day pricing periods. There are other areas with priced on-street parking in Gold Coast but so far Broadbeach and Burleigh Heads are the only centres with demand-based price setting. Why should you care? This is Australia’s first example of demand-based parking price setting. The ParkInCentre Scheme also involves a relatively evidence-based approach to parking management. This reform has received little publicity. It deserves to be more widely known and to have its effects studied in more detail. It remains to be seen if the City of Gold Coast will extend this approach beyond its currently very limited geographical extent. Country Australia Vehicle type cars State/province Queensland Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of Gold Coast Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved City of Gold Coast Parking 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 park-once-and-walk AND more responsiveness to context/market What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted P: Price parking in the right ways and with the right rates for each place and time implemented 2015 Goals of the reform “This Plan aims to achieve efficient and equitable parking outcomes through ‘ParkInCentre Schemes’ (PICS), local parking plans that are based on three principles: • Parking, timed and/or paid regulation, is managed according to local demand data. • New parking revenue is invested in local streetscape and local public transport improvements. • Actions and outcomes reflect local conditions and evolve over time.” (City of Gold Coast, City Parking Plan 2015, Feb. 2015) Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) It is not clear what the impetus for the 2015 trial was. The strategy document refers to SFPark in San Francisco, which seems to have been an inspiration. Detailed description of the reform In two areas of the City of Gold Coast (Broadbeach and Burleigh Heads), city-owned metered parking fees are demand-based. These areas fall under the most intensively-managed category of area under the city’s ParkInCentre Scheme (PICS). The demand-based price setting applies to both on-street parking and city-owned off-street metered parking. Four times a year, the city reviews the price of metered parking in small zones across these areas, and adjusts the price up or down (in increments of 20 cents) to better manage demand. Both Broadbeach and Burleigh Heads have three time-of-day pricing periods. In Broadbeach these are 9am-11am, 11am-2pm and 2pm-7pm. In Burleigh Heads the pricing periods are 9am-10am, 10am-2pm and 2pm-5pm). The prices for city-owned car parking under this scheme range from AUD1.50 per hour to AUD3.60 per hour as of May 2021. There are other areas with priced on-street parking in Gold Coast but so far Broadbeach and Burleigh Heads are the only centres with demand-based price setting. Each of the other areas has a different hourly price for parking but each has the same price across the whole area and across the whole pricing period (AUD2.80 per hour in Southport, AUD4.10 per hour in Surfer’s Paradise and AUD2.10 per hour in Bundall). As centres of activity change, the Gold Coast parking strategy suggests a progression of parking management effort under the ParkInCentre Scheme (PICS). This starts with a PICS Review to look into new or changed regulated parking, then a PICS Study to also look into adding paid parking areas, and then potentially establishing a PICS Benefitted Area Zone to introduce “demand responsive parking prices with an investment policy for local accessibility and streetscaping improvements”. (City of Gold Coast, City Parking Plan 2015, Feb. 2015) Paid on-street parking will be introduced into a centre when 80 per cent occupancy is consistently reached in peak periods, based on data and evidence. Occupancy data is primarily from in-ground sensors. In the City of Gold Coast 50% of parking revenue is devoted to local improvement projects, including streetscaping, landscaping and improved public transport. Results or impacts “The two-year ‘ParkInCentre Scheme’ (PICS) pilot for Broadbeach and Burleigh Heads started in October 2015 introducing location based demand-responsive pricing. During the first 12 months of the PICS pilot: vehicle overstays decreased by 2-4 per cent vehicle occupancy in low demand areas increased by 5-10 per cent reductions in peak parking demand resulted in greater parking accessibility.” (https://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/parkincentres-schemes-pics-28332.html) Sources and acknowledgements City of Gold Coast, City Parking Plan 2015, Feb. 2015 https://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/documents/bf/City_Parking_Plan_book_WEB.pdf City of Gold Coast: Parking https://new.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Services/Parking/Traffic-Areas/Broadbeach-parking https://new.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Services/Parking/Traffic-Areas/Burleigh-Heads-parking Frequently Asked Questions - ParkInCentres Schemes (PICS) https://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/parkincentres-schemes-pics-28332.html https://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/traffic-reports/gold-coast-council-starts-floating-price-parking-trial-at-broadbeach-and-burleigh/news-story/e8304ba1bbbde86832fb7278edc44ef5 Last updated: 18 May 2021

Nairobi plans a shift to time-based on-street parking (from today's flat-rate per day fees) 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 Nairobi has proposed making its on-street parking fees duration-based (time-based) with a per-hour price. This would be a huge improvement on the existing flat rate per day regardless of parking duration. The city already has a mobile/digital payments system and the basis for effective enforcement but loopholes in how these actually operate will also need to be closed if the duration-based fees reform is to succeed. Why should you care? Cities, like Nairobi. which currently have a flat fee for all-day on-street parking, should certainly shift to time-based fees. This mundane-seeming change is very important. A fee-per-hour can improve street parking conditions by discouraging long-duration parking in prime locations. By contrast, flat-rate fees cannot play any useful parking management role and can only be about revenue (and they perform poorly at that too). Country Kenya Vehicle type cars State/province ​ Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction Nairobi Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Nairobi City County 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 proposal 2021 Goals of the reform Stated goals of the hourly parking charges proposal have included reducing traffic congestion within the CBD, boosting revenue collection and reducing the cost of short-duration parking. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Worsening traffic congestion and enormous levels of leakage from the existing fee collection system seem to have prompted a strong push for change. The Nairobi Finance and Economic Planning Chief Officer, Halkano Waqo, suggested that the hourly fee will discourage collusion between motorists and parking attendants. In 2019, Members of the County Assembly (MCAs) passed a motion calling on the county government to introduce hourly parking charges in the city centre (Collins Omulo, 2021). Detailed description of the reform Nairobi reportedly plans to make its on-street parking fees duration-based (time-based) with a per-hour price. This would replace the existing flat rate of KES200 (about 1.9 USD) per day regardless of parking duration. Most details of the proposed hourly fee have not yet been announced. It remains to be seen whether this proposal will proceed. A similar proposal in 2012 was abandoned. A fee-per-hour can improve street parking conditions by discouraging long-duration parking in prime locations. By contrast, flat-rate fees per day cannot play any useful parking management role and can only be about revenue. For various reasons why duration-based parking fees are far superior to flat-fees for all day parking, see https://www.reinventingparking.org/2012/11/parking-policy-basics-time-based-fees.html Nairobi previously had parking meters for on-street parking in the central area, but they were removed in the late 1990s and flat-rate per day fees collected by parking attendants were introduced . Since 2014, Nairobi has had a mobile-phone-based electronic payment system (Ejijipay) for parking. This is promising, since it should enable a smooth transition to payments of duration-based parking. There is also the option to pay a parking attendant in cash who should then complete the transaction electronically using a city-issued phone (ITDP Africa, 2016). However, as pointed out by ITDP in 2016, there are loopholes in the enforcement and payment system and parking attendants have too much discretion over whether to take action over parking infractions, such as failure to pay. Sure enough, investigations in 2019 and 2020 found that collusion between parking attendants and motorists was costing the city Sh437,500 every day from lost on-street parking fees and that only 31 percent of motorists actually paid the city for their parking (Collins Omulo, 2021). Any implementation of time-based fees will also need to close these loopholes if it is to succeed. Results or impacts If implemented, it will be very interesting to see the results. Sources and acknowledgements Collins Omulo (March 10, 2021) City Hall to launch hourly CBD parking charges, The Nation, https://nation.africa/kenya/counties/nairobi/city-hall-to-launch-hourly-cbd-parking-charges-3317930 (and https://allafrica.com/stories/202103110063.html) Paul Barter (November 30, 2012) Parking Policy Basics: time-based fees for on-street parking, Reinventing Parking, https://www.reinventingparking.org/2012/11/parking-policy-basics-time-based-fees.html ITDP Africa (June 2016) Nairobi CBD parking survey, https://africa.itdp.org/publication/nairobi-cbd-parking-survey/ Image credit: KamauxKamau, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rush_hour_in_Nairobi.jpg Last updated: 14 Apr 2021

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

About the Parking Reform Atlas A project started by Paul Barter of Reinventing Parking Reinventing Parkin g is a website and podcast created by Paul Barter , who has been working on parking policy issues since 2008. You can browse a set of Paul's downloadable publications on parking . ​ With the help of the international community of parking changemakers, this Parking Reform Atlas project aims to collect rich examples of noteworthy parking policies and parking reforms from all over the world. I want to complement the work at Reinventing Parking and to make it easy for you to find parking reform ideas and examples from many contexts. The key idea is to support any work, anywhere in the world, to prevent parking policy from getting in the way of all the other good things we all want from our cities. ​ Do you want to get involved and help make the Atlas better? ​ Or just feel free to just make good use of the Atlas .