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

Montreal imposes a special tax on all non-residential parking spaces in the central area (downtown and adjacent inner areas). Exterior surface parking is taxed at a higher rate than indoor parking. In 2013, the tax rate for surface parking was doubled to increase the incentive for such parking lots to be redeveloped. Montreal parking tax with higher rates on surface parking 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 Montreal imposes a special tax on all non-residential parking spaces in the central area (downtown and adjacent inner areas). Exterior surface parking is taxed at a higher rate than indoor parking. In 2013, the tax rate for surface parking was doubled to increase the incentive for such parking lots to be redeveloped. Why should you care? Montreal's parking tax is applied to all non-residential parking in the central area. It has apparently played a strong role in spurring the redevelopment of many surface parking lots in the area (although a careful study of the impacts and possible side-effects would be good to see). Country Canada Vehicle type cars State/province Quebec Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction Montreal Primary motivation enable housing or other infill Agencies involved City of Montreal Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift taxes and levies Off-street various Away from excessive supply AND towards more responsiveness to context/market What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted D: Discourage or limit parking supply in certain contexts implemented 2010 Goals of the reform Gaining revenue for public transport and prompting redevelopment of parking were twin goals of this parking tax. The 2013 parking tax rate hike on surface lots was strongly and explicitly linked to the goal of reducing the number of outdoor parking lots and promoting residential development. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) The excessive number of surface parking lots in central Montreal were seen as "an inefficient use of space which is to be discouraged" and as promoting "an unsustainable car-dependent lifestyle and retards the development of large swaths of downtown" (Alfaro, 2010). Downtown Montreal has seen a residential development boom since about 2005 or so. Detailed description of the reform Montreal imposes a tax on all non-residential parking spaces in the central area (downtown and adjacent inner areas). Perhaps this should be termed a 'levy' since it applies to parking spaces regardless of whether they are open to the public and whether they are priced or not. Exterior surface parking is taxed at a higher rate than indoor parking to create a stronger incentive for surface parking lots to be redeveloped. In 2013, to increase this incentive the tax rates for surface parking were doubled, while the tax rate for indoor parking remained unchanged. Upzoning around the same time further increased the incentive for the owners of surface parking lots to redevelop. At around the time that the parking tax was imposed, the city also cracked down on illegal unregistered surface parking lots. Downtown Montreal had numerous surface parking lots before the parking tax (although less so than Canada's more car-dependent prairie cities. There are two zones, with higher parking tax rates in the central business district (boundaries shown in the image below from Spacing Montreal) and lower parking tax rates in central neighbourhoods beyond the CBD. Initially the highest charge was CAD19.80 per square metre for a surface lot in the central business district (about CAD300 per year for a three by five meter parking space). The initial tax rate for surface parking in the the central neighbourhoods zone was CAD14.85 per square metre. These rates were doubled in 2013. The lowest initial charge was CAD4.95 per square metre for an indoor lot in the zone beyond the central business district. In 2010, the city expected that the tax would collect around CAD20 million per year. The revenue generated from this tax is earmarked for improving public transport. According the the City of Montreal (ca. 2016), "There are close to 49,000 parking spots downtown, 11,520 of them on-street and 37,400 in off-street lots. Surface parking lots represent 19% of all off-street parking." The image above shows surface parking lots in central Montreal in 2010. Image credit Spacing Montreal, http://spacing.ca/montreal/2010/01/17/the-parking-lot-tax/ Results or impacts Anecdotally, many surface parking lots in central Montreal have been closed and redeveloped since the parking tax was imposed. News reports attributed much of this to the incentives from the parking tax, although upzoning and the ongoing development boom must have also played a role. In 2013, it was reported that "a combination of higher taxes and the transformation of downtown lots into condos has driven indoor parking prices up nearly 12 per cent in Montreal, year over year, the highest leap in the country." (Lampert, 2013) Fears were expressed before the parking tax was imposed and when the rates were increased that it would have a negative impact on business and investment in the core and prompt development beyond the parking tax areas. Can anyone point me to any solid evaluations of the impacts of this parking tax? Sources and acknowledgements Devin Alfaro (January 17, 2010) The Parking Lot Tax, Spacing Montreal, http://spacing.ca/montreal/2010/01/17/the-parking-lot-tax/ Will Montreal Parking Tax Promote Redevelopment or Relocation? Planetizen, https://www.planetizen.com/node/60485 Allison Lampert (January 29, 2013) Taxes on Montreal parking lots have doubled, The Gazette, https://globalnews.ca/news/385451/taxes-on-montreal-parking-lots-have-doubled/ Kristian Gravenor (Oct 25, 2012) Parking squeeze: Downtown businesses feeling it, https://montrealgazette.com/business/montreal-parking-squeeze-with-above-ground-lots-disappearing-and-the-prices-of-indoor-spaces-soaring-businesses-downtown-are-feeling-the-effects City of Montreal (ca. 2016) Downtown Strategy BUILDING ON MOMENTUM 2016 Consultation Document, https://ocpm.qc.ca/sites/ocpm.qc.ca/files/document_consultation/vmvma-16-026_strategie_centre-ville_final.pdf Last updated: 1 Apr 2021

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

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

Barter, P.A. (2012) Off-Street Parking Policy Surprises in Asian Cities, J. Cities, 29 (1), 23-31. 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

Seville quickly built a large network of protected bicycle tracks (or segregated bicycle lanes) despite the fact that this involved repurposing large numbers of on-street parking spaces. In most cases the new bicycle tracks were built on space taken from what had been the parking lane on one side of the road. Most commonly the parking lane was actually moved over and replaced a traffic lane. Nevertheless, the bicycle network required repurposing almost 5,000 on-street car parking spaces. Parking and Seville’s network of segregated bicycle lanes 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 Seville quickly built a large network of protected bicycle tracks (or segregated bicycle lanes) despite the fact that this involved repurposing large numbers of on-street parking spaces. In most cases the new bicycle tracks were built on space taken from what had been the parking lane on one side of the road. Most commonly the parking lane was actually moved over and replaced a traffic lane. Nevertheless, the bicycle network required repurposing almost 5,000 on-street car parking spaces. Why should you care? The key question for parking reformers is how was such an ambitious bicycle network expansion possible despite significant levels of parking removal? The decision to proceed very quickly with a large network seems to have been important. The approach to public input was also a key. There was still much consultation and it resulted in design changes in various areas. However, the question in consultations was never WHETHER the bike network would go ahead. The question was always HOW exactly bike lanes would be added to the streets. Blocking bike tracks from being built was not an option on the table. It is also possible that relatively effective parking management in high-demand areas may also have helped defuse parking-related opposition. But this is speculative and I would like to learn more. Country Spain Vehicle type cars State/province Andalusia Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction Ayuntamiento de Sevilla Primary motivation mode shift or TDM Agencies involved Interestingly, the key agency was the Urban Planning Office of the City Council of Seville, NOT the transport department. Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift bans or removal or repurposing On-street (many contexts) Unknown or unclear or not applicable or other What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted On: On-street design and control and enforcement implemented 2007 Goals of the reform Quickly build a large and connected network of segregated bicycle lanes to make it possible for large numbers of people who didn’t already cycle, to take up the use of bicycles. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Traffic problems had been mounting in the economic boom period of the early 2000s. A new left/green alliance in the city council resulted in an administration that supported bicycle infrastructure expansion at a time when the municipal budget was healthy. Detailed description of the reform Seville quickly built a large network of protected bicycle tracks (or segregated bicycle lanes) despite the fact that this involved repurposing large numbers of on-street parking spaces. In most cases the new bicycle tracks were built on space taken from what had been the parking lane on one side of the road. However, most commonly the parking lane was actually moved over and replaced a traffic lane. Nevertheless, the bicycle network created in the years 2007 to 2009 required repurposing almost 5,000 on-street car parking spaces. This was controversial of course. How was such an ambitious bicycle network expansion possible despite these levels of parking removal? Manuel Calvo was a key consultant behind the bike network plans in the ‘Plan de la Bicicleta de Sevilla’ and oversaw implementation. In speaking engagements and interviews he has suggested a number of reasons why this was politically possible. See for example, https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/05/07/six-secrets-from-the-planner-of-sevillas-lightning-bike-network/ The politicians in charge of the city acted in response to opinion polls that showed bicycle infrastructure to have very high levels of support. They decided to act, they wanted to do so quickly, and they wanted the network to be yielding real results before the next municipal elections. The 80 km ‘minimum network’ was completed in 18 months or so. This determination influenced the approach to public input. There was still a great deal of consultation, which resulted in design changes in various areas. However, as Calvo has explained, the question in such consultations was never WHETHER the bike network would go ahead. The question was always HOW exactly bike lanes would be added to the streets. Blocking bike tracks from being built was not an option on the table. Opposition was also said to be muted in the planning stage because many people assumed the ambitious plans would not really proceed, as had been the case with previous ambitious bicycle plans in Spain (https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jan/28/seville-cycling-capital-southern-europe-bike-lanes). However, opposition was vocal once construction began. According to the Metropolis Case Study: “The external resistance was discussed in the media on a daily basis. Pedestrians were irritated by having to share space and drivers felt that the distribution of space was incorrect. When relocating or removing car parking spaces, initial opposition was severe. Local businesses wondered if customers would still come on their bike instead of with their cars.” Did effective on-street parking management also play a role in making parking repurposing a little more palatable? In theory, effective on-street parking management should help. Seville does have areas with strong on-street parking management. However, these areas are relatively limited. There is priced on-street parking only in high-demand areas. These parking management zones are of three types: Very High Turnover Zones (Zona MAR - muy alta rotación), Blue Zones (high turnover desired) and Green Zones (lower turnover is acceptable), with time-limits and prices varying as you would expect. There are also priced public off-street parking (often underground) in dense old areas outside the medieval old city, especially along the ring road around the old city and other strategic locations. However, many streets even in the central area are beyond these parking management zones and have uncontrolled parking. My guess is that the existence of a system for managing on-street parking and the existence of public parking in various places may possibly have helped ease the politics of parking repurposing a little. But I would like to learn more about this aspect of the story. Results or impacts I have no information on the parking impacts of the parking space repurposing in this case. The lack of easily-found information perhaps suggests that serious problems did not result from the loss of parking spaces. The bicycle network itself is widely seen as an enormous success (and is now facing problems of success, such as overburdened bicycle lanes that are now considered too narrow). Bicycle use in Seville increased from roughly 0.2% of trips to around 7% (Metropolis Case Study). Sources and acknowledgements Michael Andersen (7 May, 2018) Six Secrets From the Planner of Sevilla’s Lightning Bike Network, StreetsBlog USA, https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/05/07/six-secrets-from-the-planner-of-sevillas-lightning-bike-network/ Peter Walker (28 Jan 2015) How Seville transformed itself into the cycling capital of southern Europe, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jan/28/seville-cycling-capital-southern-europe-bike-lanes V. Hernández-Herrador, M. Calvo-Salazar and J.A. García-Cebrián (2015) How infrastructure can promote cycling in cities: Lessons from Seville, Research in Transportation Economics, 53, 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2015.10.017 Metropolis Case Study: Cycle-Lane Network Seville, https://use.metropolis.org/case-studies/cycle-lane-network-seville Streetfilms (1 July, 2018) How Seville Got Its Bicycle Network, https://www.streetfilms.org/how-seville-got-its-bicycle-network/ [the map above is also from this video] Blue Zones in Seville (in Spanish) https://zona-azul.es/sevilla/ https://translate.google.com.hk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://zona-azul.es/sevilla/ Last updated: 20 May 2021

Barter, Paul (2018) ‘Parking Policies in Asian Cities: Conventional but Instructive’, in Shoup, D. (ed.). Parking and the City. New York: Routledge. 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. 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

Singapore adopted pre-paid parking coupons for parking payments, both in the streets and in government-owned off-street parking facilities. This replaced the older system of parking attendants issuing paper tickets, which had become too labour-intensive for Singapore by the late 1970s. In recent years, a phone parking app has become an alternative to coupons and will probably replace them completely at some point. Singapore's 1980 parking fee shift from attendants to pre-paid coupons 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 Singapore adopted pre-paid parking coupons for parking payments, both in the streets and in government-owned off-street parking facilities. This replaced the older system of parking attendants issuing paper tickets, which had become too labour-intensive for Singapore by the late 1970s. In recent years, a phone parking app has become an alternative to coupons and will probably replace them completely at some point. Why should you care? This is a reminder that there are many cities where parking meters have never been used for on-street parking payments. Pre-paid parking coupons (or cards) are a parking payment method that has been widely used in Brazil, Malaysia, Ireland, Israel and Singapore. They have some advantages over older parking meters. Today however, even low-income or middle-income cities should probably consider jumping straight to phone-based parking payments (plus payments via vendors as backup). Singapore is making this transition and Tel Aviv, Sao Paulo and Penang have already phased out coupons and shifted entirely to mobile payments. Country Singapore Vehicle type diverse State/province Key actor type Metropolitan government Jurisdiction Singapore Primary motivation revenue/anti-subsidy Agencies involved URA Car Park Division Is it a model or a warning? ambiguous Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift pricing Various 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 1980 Goals of the reform The main goal was to find a payment mechanism for parking in the open (on-street or in government lots) that was low-cost, convenient, reliable and with low labour requirements. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Paying for parking to attendants was convenient for motorists but was very labour-intensive and required strong mechanisms to reduce the risk of leakage. By the late 1970s, the increasing cost of labour prompted a search for another approach. Parking meters were considered but were found to have high capital and maintenance costs and be prone to vandalism. There were also concerns about street clutter. Detailed description of the reform Singapore adopted pre-paid parking coupons for parking payments, both in the streets and in government-owned off-street parking facilities. This replaced the older system of parking attendants issuing paper tickets. Singapore parking coupons come in several values. The coupons use tear-away die-cast tabs and motorists must tear away the appropriate tabs to indicate the date and time of the parking event. Enough coupons (with tabs torn to indicate the right sequence of times) must be displayed to pay for the duration of parking anticipated. Under the old attendants-based system, when a car parked an attendant would place an 'advice note' on the car. When the driver returned, they would have up to seven days to pay the fee either to an attendant, at a parking kiosk (the attendants' home bases across Singapore), or at the URA Parking Division office. This was relatively convenient for motorists but was a labour-intensive approach. Singapore's adoption of pre-paid parking coupons was modeled on the parking cards used in Isreali cities and in Lyon, France. Singapore sent a delegation to study these in 1979. Results or impacts The number of parking spaces per staff person increased from 15-20 to 150. The system has been used relatively successfully since 1980. It had low capital cost and relatively low operation costs. It is low-tech although anti-counterfeiting effort is necessary. There are some drawbacks however, such as the following: motorist error is common, leading to fines; motorists must predict their parking duration when placing the coupons (or return to the vehicle to extend); motorists risk overpaying if their parking ends earlier than anticipated; paper coupons provide no data stream or information on where paid parking takes place; minor cheating (indicate arrival later than actual for example) is common; the enforcement cost is significant since wardens must peer in at coupons on dashboards; and there may be occasional cases of counterfeiting. Digital phone-app-based payments are currently gradually superseding the coupon system, with high percentage of motorists having switched. The app overcomes many of the drawbacks of coupons, while retaining their key advantages. Sources and acknowledgements Most of the information in this case is based on: Azhar Ghani, March 2011, "Success Matters: the Parking Coupon System", IPS Update, https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ips/azhar_the-parking-coupon-system_010311.pdf https://www.reinventingparking.org/2016/11/how-to-collect-on-street-parking-fees.html https://www.tech.gov.sg/products-and-services/parking-sg/ Last updated: 25 Mar 2021

A city-owned parking management company, ISPARK, was set up to manage on-street parking. Free-of-charge, unmanaged parking (or pricing by illegal attendants) was replaced, area by area, with marked out parking spaces, with good signage, and predictable parking fees collected by uniformed attendants with digital handheld devices. This has greatly reduced the parking chaos in the areas managed by ISPARK. Istanbul ISPARK on-street parking management improvements 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 A city-owned parking management company, ISPARK, was set up to manage on-street parking. Free-of-charge, unmanaged parking (or pricing by illegal attendants) was replaced, area by area, with marked out parking spaces, with good signage, and predictable parking fees collected by uniformed attendants with digital handheld devices. This has greatly reduced the parking chaos in the areas managed by ISPARK. Why should you care? This seems a useful example of a city with extremely chaotic on-street parking and a sense of parking crisis making large steps towards well-managed parking. Have the early improvements been maintained and consolidated? It seems likely further improvements to on-street parking management are still needed. I would like to know more. Country Turkey Vehicle type cars State/province Istanbul Province Key actor type Metropolitan government Jurisdiction Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved ISPARK, a parking management company established by the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift parking management broadly On-street (many contexts) Helpful for park-once-and-walk approach What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted Both P and On implemented 2005 Goals of the reform Effective rationing of scarce on-street parking and prevention of nuisance parking in busy areas through marking, pricing and enforcement. More use of off-street parking facilities was also a goal with on-street parking mainly for short-term visits. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) On-street parking was extremely chaotic with strongly negative impacts on other street users. In fact, this is still the case in most areas that ISPARK has not yet been extended to. On-street parking was unmanaged and either free-of-charge or priced by illegal parking attendants. Detailed description of the reform A city-owned parking management company, ISPARK, was set up to manage on-street parking. ISPARK also manages city-owned off-street parking facilities. Free-of-charge, unmanaged parking (or pricing by illegal attendants) was replaced with marked out parking spaces, with good signage, and predictable parking fees collected by uniformed attendants with digital handheld devices. According to Eren Inci, ISPARK "expanded neighborhood by neighborhood, and thus there has been a gradual transition from free and informal parking to paid and formal." I don't know if prices vary much from place to place or how they are set. Payment is to in-street parking attendants who have digital devices and is by cash, credit card or istanbulkart (the same card can be used for public transport). Relying mainly on parking attendants to collect fees in the streets seems likely to be a costly approach and it seems a little risky to have in-street attendants handling cash payments. [I would like to know more about how this is working] As of 2009, approximately half of revenues went to the municipality. After other costs, the rest is invested in parking. Results or impacts ISPARK management greatly reduced the parking chaos in the areas managed by ISPARK, although the standard of parking management remains far from perfect, even in ISPARK areas. Sources and acknowledgements Eren Inci (2016) "Who Pays for Free Parking", Milken Institute Review, 69 (First Quarter, 2016), 66-74. Ozan Bakis, Eren Inci and Rifat Ozan Senturk (2018) Unbundling Curbside Parking Costs from Housing Prices, Journal of Economic Geography 19 (2019), 89-119. "On-Road Car Parks" ISPARK https://ispark.istanbul/projeler/yol-ustu-otoparklar/ [in Turkish] "Where do your parking fees go?" https://www.ntv.com.tr/ekonomi/otopark-fisleriniz-nereye-gidiyor,jFX9_KonFkGTetPfo2SOAQ [in Turkish] "Park in Istanbul with istanbulkart" https://www.ibb.istanbul/news/detail/34140 [in Turkish] Last updated: 2 Mar 2021

Auckland applies a relatively simple demand-based approach to setting its city-owned parking prices. Auckland Transport conducts regular parking reviews of areas with high parking demand. This may trigger paid parking implementation in areas with only time limits previously. And in existing paid parking areas this review may prompt a price adjustment with the aim of achieving an average of 85% occupancy in peak parking periods. Auckland demand-based parking price setting When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform Auckland applies a relatively simple demand-based approach to setting its city-owned parking prices. Auckland Transport conducts regular parking reviews of areas with high parking demand. This may trigger paid parking implementation in areas with only time limits previously. And in existing paid parking areas this review may prompt a price adjustment with the aim of achieving an average of 85% occupancy in peak parking periods. Why should you care? This is another case of applying demand-based parking price setting in a relatively low-fuss and simple way. The use of very clear data-based trigger points to aid decisions on where and when to step up or change parking management is an excellent model for other cities. The reported lack of controversy (after initial debate) over this pricing approach in Auckland is also striking. At least anecdotally, based on this case and similar ones such as Seattle, Calgary and San Francisco, demand-based parking price-setting seems to succeed at greatly reducing civic unhappiness over on-street parking price adjustments. Country New Zealand Vehicle type cars State/province Key actor type Metropolitan government Jurisdiction Auckland Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Auckland Transport (AT) 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 2012 Goals of the reform Price reviews in Auckland adjust on-street parking prices up or down "with the goal of maintaining on average 85% occupancy at peak times . An occupancy range of 70-90% is considered an acceptable range . The target parking occupancy rate is not set at 100% because some parking spaces should be available at all times. An occupancy rate of approximately 85% ensures that parking resources are well-used and people can find a park in reasonable proximity to their destination." (AT, 2015) Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) "In 2012, AT completed a review of parking in the city centre and found that the time restrictions were not aligned to the amount of time customers actually wanted to park . The on-street parking was also at capacity for much of the day, which resulted in frustrated customers and increased traffic congestion. The review led to the implementation of a new on-street parking management system called the City Centre Parking Zone (CCPZ)."(AT, 2015) Detailed description of the reform Auckland Transport generally reviews parking demand in paid parking areas every three, six or 12 months. Parking price reviews focus on on-street parking and on city-owned off-street parking. This approach applied initially from 2012 to just the City Centre Parking Zone (CCPZ). However, since 2014 it has applied anywhere in Auckland if conditions warrant it. Examples of recent parking price reviews in different areas of Auckland can be found at https://at.govt.nz/driving-parking/parking-reviews/ These include reviews that resulted in various different interventions, such as: increasing prices in existing paid on-street parking areas; extending pricing by creating a paid parking zone in an area that previously had free-of-charge time-limited parking; and splitting paid parking zones so that prices can be adjusted in just part of the previous paid parking zone. AT has a target of 85% parking occupancy and adjusts prices according to the following formula (AT, 2015): • When average occupancy is less than 50%, the price will be reduced by up to 25% of the hourly rate with no minimum price. • When average occupancy is 50-70%, the price will be reduced by up to 15% of the hourly rate. • When average occupancy is 70-90%, the price will not change. • When average occupancy is 90-100%, the price will be increased by up to 15% of the hourly rate. AT also specifies "Parking Intervention Triggers" or "trigger points" in deciding where and when to step up or change parking management controls to manage an increase in demand for parking. Two of these are relevant to price reviews • In areas that have time restrictions, parking occupancy levels that regularly exceed 85% at peak times trigger a review in which introducing paid parking (without time-limits) is considered. • In areas that already have paid parking, parking occupancy rates that regularly exceed 85% at peak times trigger a price review in which an increase in parking charges is the main option, as mentioned above (although investment in additional off-street paid parking is sometimes also considered). Auckland's parking policy also allows for different peak and off-peak prices for areas where there is different parking demand on different days of the week or different times of the day. AT also considers extending pricing beyond the usual 8am to 6pm period if occupancy levels in an area are found to high later in the evening. Results or impacts Anecdotally, the Auckland approach to parking price reviews has been successful. See https://www.reinventingparking.org/2019/01/auckland-parking-champ.html I would like to see detailed evaluations of the policy. One measure of success is the relative lack of fuss or controversy associated with on-street parking management and with parking price reviews. Sources and acknowledgements Auckland Transport Parking Strategy, 2015, https://at.govt.nz/about-us/transport-plans-strategies/parking-strategy/ Auckland Transport, Parking Reviews, https://at.govt.nz/driving-parking/parking-reviews/ Paul Barter (June 11, 2018) Every city with "Goldilocks" parking fees, Reinventing Parking, https://www.reinventingparking.org/2018/06/every-city-with-goldilocks-parking-fees.html Paul Barter (January 11, 2019) Auckland: unsung parking reform champ, Reinventing Parking, https://www.reinventingparking.org/2019/01/auckland-parking-champ.html Image credit, Auckland Transport, https://at.govt.nz/driving-parking/parking-reviews/ Last updated: 8 Apr 2021

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