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

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

To decide how much on-site parking to include in a project, developers in London are guided by TfL's Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs) and by parking maximums which are themselves set using PTALs as a guide. London is mostly free of minimum parking requirements, so parking minimums play almost no role in determining off-street parking investment in Greater London. Information instead of parking minimums in London 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 To decide how much on-site parking to include in a project, developers in London are guided by TfL's Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs) and by parking maximums which are themselves set using PTALs as a guide. London is mostly free of minimum parking requirements, so parking minimums play almost no role in determining off-street parking investment in Greater London. Why should you care? This example of using information rather than regulation is relevant to the 'Shoupista' view that there is no need to regulate the supply of parking with parking minimums and that developers just need the right information and the right set of incentives to make judgements about parking in their projects that will be roughly in line with the wider public interest. This example is best understood together with the page about London's parking maximums https://www.parkingreformatlas.org/parking-reform-cases-1/london-parking-maximums-(and-minimums-abolition) Country United Kingdom Vehicle type cars State/province Key actor type Metropolitan government Jurisdiction Greater London Primary motivation other Agencies involved Transport for London (TfL) under the Greater London Authority Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift information 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 Goals of the reform PTALs play various roles in transport planning and urban planning in London but the key goals relevant to parking are: 1) to enable real estate developers to better judge the likely demand for parking associated with a building; and 2) to guide the Great London Authority and the Boroughs when they are determining appropriate parking maximums (or minimums potentially in the case of Outer London residential in areas with very low PTAL scores). Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) I am not sure about the impetus that led to the development of the PTAL scores or their use in parking policy. Tips are welcome. Detailed description of the reform To decide how much on-site parking to include in a real-estate development, developers in London are guided primarily by TfL's Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs) rather than by minimum parking requirements. In most cases, parking provision is also constrained by parking maximums and these are also guided by PTALs. For each land-use type, different maximums apply to different areas, guided by PTAL scores and by the spatial designations and use classes in the London Plan. Transport for London's Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs) "are a detailed and accurate measure of the accessibility of a point to the public transport network, taking into account walk access time and service availability. The method is essentially a way of measuring the density of the public transport network at any location within Greater London. Each area is graded between 0 and 6b, where a score of 0 is very poor access to public transport, and 6b is excellent access to public transport." https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/public-transport-accessibility-levels All London Boroughs abolished their minimum parking requirements and adopted maximums in 2004 or in the years soon after. See https://www.parkingreformatlas.org/parking-reform-cases-1/london-parking-maximums-(and-minimums-abolition) Parking minimums are now again allowed in certain circumstances (outer boroughs may apply minimums only for residential in areas with very low PTAL scores). London is reportedly working on improved measures of accessibility to improve or replace PTALs in the future. Results or impacts I would like to say more here. Tips are welcome about any evaluations that address the question of how well the use of PTALs works in guiding developers to get parking provision about "right". Sources and acknowledgements Transport for London (TfL), Public Transport Accessibility Levels, https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/public-transport-accessibility-levels London Plan 2021. https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/london-plan-2021 Zhan Guo, "From Parking Minimums to Parking Maximums in London", Access magazine, Fall 2016. https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-2016/from-parking-minimums-to-parking-maximums-in-london/ Image credit (Greater London Public Transport Access Level Map): Aliasgar Inayathusein and Simon Cooper (2018) Transport for London London’s Accessibility Indicators: Strengths, Weaknesses, Challenges, Discussion Paper, The International Transport Forum/OECD. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/london-accessibility-indicators.pdf Last updated: 6 Apr 2021

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

To register a car in Japan, prospective owners need to obtain a "garage certificate" from local police to prove that they have access to an off-street parking space. It is not tempting to corruptly obtain or fake a certificate because overnight on-street parking is banned across Japan. So there is no point cheating on proof-of-parking. Japan's Proof-of-Parking rule (shako shomeisho) 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 To register a car in Japan, prospective owners need to obtain a "garage certificate" from local police to prove that they have access to an off-street parking space. It is not tempting to corruptly obtain or fake a certificate because overnight on-street parking is banned across Japan. So there is no point cheating on proof-of-parking. Why should you care? Many other places consider emulating this policy, including several states in India. However, there is low awareness that the policy works well mainly by being twinned with the ban on overnight on-street parking. Nevertheless, there may be ways to succeed with such a policy by twinning it with a robust on-street parking permit system. Country Japan Vehicle type cars State/province Key actor type National Jurisdiction Japan Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Government of Japan Is it a model or a warning? ambiguous Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift proof-of-parking Off-street residential 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 1962 Goals of the reform The intention in Japan has always been to make sure its narrow streets are not clogged with parked vehicles. The policy was NOT explicitly aimed at restricting car ownership. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) As car-ownership started to take off in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Japan's very narrow residential streets faced becoming hopelessly clogged with parked cars. Detailed description of the reform Under the 1962 Garage Act, motorists in Japan need to obtain a "garage certificate" (or "Shako shomei sho") from local police in order to register a car (or when changing address as a car owner). The certificate is to prove that they have access to an off-street parking space. Japan's proof-of-parking rule does not require ownership of a parking space. Permission to lease the space is good enough. If you are renting in a building with no parking you are not prevented from buying a car. You would just have to find a parking space to lease nearby and prove this to the local police. The rule initially applied only to the large cities, according to a footnote on page 243 of "Local Government in Japan" by Kurt Steine (1965). However, it now seems to apply much more widely. Japan's proof-of-parking rule has an essential twin policy, the ban on overnight parking, which effectively bans on-street residential parking. This ban on all-night parking makes it futile to cheat on the proof-of-parking rule. Suppose a motorist did cheat or bribe to somehow get a fake proof-of-parking certificate, where will you put your car? You still can't park overnight in the streets. Try it and the car would still be towed away within a day or two. Conversely, the proof-of-parking rule makes the overnight on-street parking ban more politically feasible by undermining claims from motorists that they have no choice but to park in the street. This synergy with the overnight parking ban also explains why it is no big deal that an exception is made (in some areas) for tiny cars or "kei" cars, which have yellow license plates. Owners of these little cars do not need to prove access to a parking space but they still can't park in the streets overnight. Results or impacts The policy created a demand for leased parking near homes, which the market has generally managed to meet, at a market price. The proof-of-parking regulation eliminated the need to have high, American style parking requirements for residential buildings. There are parking minimums but they are low and small buildings are exempted. The regulation also removes the need to have residential parking permits. It has also probably had the indirect effect of avoiding the pressure to increase street width standards for residential areas to accommodate parking. This was not the goal but the policy probably slowed the growth of car ownership in Japan’s cities. This impact must be greatest in places with high property prices, where leased parking prices are also high. This deters car ownership in precisely the highly accessible, densely-developed, transit-rich contexts where car ownership is least necessary. Along with strong public transport and other road pricing policies, the proof-of-parking regulation must have helped foster low car ownership in the urban cores of Japan’s large cities, where high real estate prices translate into expensive overnight parking. For example, leased residential parking prices of more than $300 per month were seen advertised in inner-city Tokyo during late 2009 fieldwork for this study. Sources and acknowledgements Barter, P.A. (2011) Parking Policy in Asian Cities. Asian Development Bank (ADB), Manila. Available in hard copy or on-line via https://www.adb.org/publications/parking-policy-asian-cities. https://www.reinventingparking.org/2014/06/japans-proof-of-parking-rule-has.html https://www.reinventingparking.org/2010/08/japan-style-proof-of-parking.html https://www.reinventingparking.org/2019/12/learn-from-japan.html Last updated: 15 Mar 2021

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

Seattle adopted demand-based price setting for the on-street parking in its busiest areas. It is known as "Performance-Based Parking Pricing". Seattle has largish price zones. The system now includes time-of-day price variations, with three weekday pricing periods (morning, midday, evening). Seattle Performance-Based Parking Pricing Program When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform Seattle adopted demand-based price setting for the on-street parking in its busiest areas. It is known as "Performance-Based Parking Pricing". Seattle has largish price zones. The system now includes time-of-day price variations, with three weekday pricing periods (morning, midday, evening). Why should you care? Seattle's demand-based parking price setting is noteworthy for starting in a relatively simple (but good enough) implementation but then making incremental improvements over time. Country United States of America Vehicle type cars State/province Washington Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of Seattle Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift pricing On-street in mainly commercial streets Towards 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 2010 Goals of the reform The immediate goal is adequate parking vacancies so that new arrivals can find an open space and to prevent the negative side-effects of excessive parking occupancy. "SDOT sets on-street parking rates and hours of operation based on data to achieve a goal of 1 to 2 spaces available per block. This means that visitors and shoppers can find a parking spot more easily, with less time spent driving around circling in traffic." Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) I am not sure what the immediate impetus for this reform was in 2009 or so. I assume that advocacy for this approach by Donald Shoup and others must have been important, along with news that San Francisco and Los Angeles were about to try something similar. Detailed description of the reform Seattle's demand-based on-street parking price setting uses data on parking occupancy "to determine potential changes to rates, time limits, and paid parking hours by comparing results to our target range of 70% - 85% occupancy." It applies to about 11,500 parking spaces. SDOT provides detailed reports to explain the price revision process each year. The system began in 2010 relatively simply and has increased in sophistication in a step-by-step way. Initially, the price in each zone was the same for all priced hours. Since 2015, the system includes time-of-day price variations, with three weekday pricing periods (morning, midday, evening). In certain areas there area also price differences according to the season of the year. The demand-based price setting initially used annual parking occupancy surveys to determine parking conditions for its price reviews. Now SDOT also uses "a sophisticated model that predicts parking activity based on transactions and regularly collected counts throughout the city. Like Calgary, Seattle uses largish price zones and prices get adjusted only once a year. This simplicity contrasts with San Francisco's prices that vary block-by-block. The pricing zones have been refined over time, including adding new priced zones. Seattle’s areas with paid parking range in size between 50 spaces to over 1,000 spaces. A prominent example was the splitting of the initial Chinatown-ID zone into two zones, Core and Periphery in 2013. This resulted in two zones with different occupancy patterns, and hence different prices. The split gave motorists the option of walking a little to get cheaper parking than in the Core area. Some cities adopting demand-based price-setting extend or abolish on-street parking time-limits as part of the reform. However, Seattle appears to have retained time limits (mostly 2 hours) at least during busy times. Results or impacts According to SDOT: "For the most part, on average over the day, paid areas are in or near the target range of one to two available spaces on a blockface." One example of a new paid parking area illustrates the results: "SDOT installed new paid parking, load zones, disabled parking, unpaid time limits, and restricted parking zone spaces in Columbia City in late 2017 following a two-year data collection and outreach effort. Overall, data collected in 2018 and 2019 show that conversion to paid parking has led to improved parking availability. Prior to implementation, parking on commercial streets in Columbia City was completely full for much of the day. Following implementation of paid parking, parking is still well utilized, but drivers are much more likely to find a space." http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SDOT/ParkingProgram/CurbsideManagementTeam_2019AnnualReport.pdf Sources and acknowledgements Seattle Department of Transportation, "Performance-Based Parking Pricing Program", http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/parking-program/performance-based-parking-pricing-program https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/parking-program/ Seattle Department of Transportation, "2019 PAID PARKING STUDY REPORT: Making it Easier to Find Parking", http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SDOT/ParkingProgram/PaidParking/FINAL_2019_PaidParkingStudy_Report.pdf https://www.reinventingparking.org/2018/06/every-city-with-goldilocks-parking-fees.html https://www.reinventingparking.org/2014/08/seattle-street-parking-pricing-gets.html Last updated: 14 Mar 2021