New Zealand's National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) is banning local governments that administer "urban environments" (settlements with more than 10,000 people) from including minimum car parking requirements in their district plans. "Urban environments" include most of the country's suburban areas. These Tier 1, 2 and 3 councils have until 20 February 2022 to removed any minimum parking requirements. Only 'accessible carparks' can be required (parking for use by persons with a disability or with limited mobility). Urban parking minimums banned by New Zealand's national government 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 New Zealand's National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) is banning local governments that administer "urban environments" (settlements with more than 10,000 people) from including minimum car parking requirements in their district plans. "Urban environments" include most of the country's suburban areas. These Tier 1, 2 and 3 councils have until 20 February 2022 to removed any minimum parking requirements. Only 'accessible carparks' can be required (parking for use by persons with a disability or with limited mobility). Why should you care? There is a growing trend for higher levels of government (national or state/province) to restrict the ability of local governments to enact excessive parking requirements. This is a striking example. This bans all but small settlements from enacting any parking minimums at all. Please note that this does not require local governments to impose parking maximums. They can't require parking but they do not have to restrict parking. Country New Zealand Vehicle type cars State/province Key actor type National Jurisdiction New Zealand Primary motivation enable housing or other infill Agencies involved The NPS-UD is administered by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE), with support from Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga - Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. Local councils are required to act 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 2020 Goals of the reform The overall goal of the NPS-UD is to "removes overly restrictive barriers to development to allow growth ‘up’ and ‘out’ in locations that have good access to existing services, public transport networks and infrastructure." The purpose of the removal of parking minimums "is to enable more housing and commercial developments, particularly in higher density areas where people do not necessarily need to own or use a car to access jobs, services, or amenities. It will enable urban space to be used for higher value purposes other than car parking, and remove a significant cost for higher density developments. Developers may still choose to provide car parking in many areas, but the number of car parks will be driven by market demand." (NZ Ministry for the Environment, July 2020) Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) New Zealand has been facing severe housing price escalation and acute housing affordability problems in its major cities. Detailed description of the reform New Zealand's National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) bans local governments in all Tier 1, 2 and 3 councils from including minimum car parking requirements in their district plans. These Tier 1, 2 and 3 councils have until 20 February 2022 to removed any minimum parking requirements. Only 'accessible carparks' can be required (parking for use by persons with a disability or with limited mobility). Tier 1, 2 and 3 councils are those with jurisdiction over an “urban environment”, defined as an area that "(a) is, or is intended to be, predominantly urban in character; and (b) is, or is intended to be, part of a housing and labour market of at least 10,000 people”. Note that "urban environments" include most of the country's suburban areas. Instead of using parking minimums, councils are instead urged to implement parking management to deal with parking supply and demand issues. On page 13 of the NPS-UD, Policy 11 states: "In relation to car parking: a) the district plans of tier 1, 2, and 3 territorial authorities do not set minimum car parking rate requirements, other than for accessible car parks; and b) tier 1, 2, and 3 local authorities are strongly encouraged to manage effects associated with the supply and demand of car parking through comprehensive parking management plans. " Backdoor parking minimums are also banned. On page 28: "3.38 Car parking If the district plan of a tier 1, 2, or 3 territorial authority contains objectives, policies, rules, or assessment criteria that have the effect of requiring a minimum number of car parks to be provided for a particular development, land use, or activity, the territorial authority must change its district plan to remove that effect, other than in respect of accessible car parks." The NPS-UD also stops Tier 1 councils from setting building height limits of less than six storeys within walkable distances of existing and planned rapid transit stops, city centres and metropolitan centres. Results or impacts The deadline has not yet passed (writing in April 2021) so it is too soon to tell. Sources and acknowledgements New Zealand Ministry for the Environment (July 2020) National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 – car parking fact sheet, https://environment.govt.nz/publications/national-policy-statement-on-urban-development-2020-car-parking-fact-sheet/ New Zealand Ministry for the Environment (July 2020) National policy statement on urban development, https://environment.govt.nz/acts-and-regulations/national-policy-statements/national-policy-statement-urban-development/ New Zealand Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (July 2020) National policy statement on urban development, https://www.hud.govt.nz/urban-development/national-policy-statement-on-urban-development-nps-ud/ Matt L (July 27, 2020) Supercharging Urban Development, https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2020/07/27/supercharging-urban-development/ Henry Cooke (Jul 23 2020) Government moves to end minimum carpark requirements and remove low height-limits in bid to increase dense housing, Stuff, https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300064493/government-moves-to-end-minimum-carpark-requirements-and-remove-low-heightlimits-in-bid-to-increase-dense-housing Last updated: 28 Apr 2021

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. 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

Barter, P.A. (2011) Parking Policy in Asian Cities. Asian Development Bank (ADB), Manila. 98 pages. 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, Paul (2020) ‘Singapore’ in Dorina Pojani, Jonathan Corcoran, Neil Sipe and Iderlina Mateo-Babiano (eds.) Parking: An International Perspective, 1st Edition. Elsevier. 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

Downloadable documents about parking policy and reform by Paul Barter 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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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. 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

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. 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