Berlin abolished its minimum parking requirements, only keeping requirements for disability spaces and bicycles. However, it did not impose maximums. Berlin abolition of minimum parking requirements 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 Berlin abolished its minimum parking requirements, only keeping requirements for disability spaces and bicycles. However, it did not impose maximums. Why should you care? This is one of only a few cases of a whole large city that has been without parking minimums for more than 20 years now. It would be useful to have more detailed information on the results of this. Note that on-street parking management was improved but it still has weaknesses. Furthermore, strong parking management is restricted to only a few districts and chaotic on-street parking situations are common in many parts of the city. But according to Jos Nino Notz, there is no political push of any significance to try to reinstate minimum parking requirements. Country Germany Vehicle type cars State/province Berlin (State) Key actor type Metropolitan government Jurisdiction Berlin Primary motivation mode shift or TDM Agencies involved Decision by Berlin Senate. More information needed on detailed implementation agency or agencies. 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 Towards park-once-and-walk AND away from excessive supply What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted R: Relax about parking supply and stop boosting it implemented 1997 Goals of the reform More information needed. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) More information needed. Detailed description of the reform Berlin abolished its minimum parking requirements, only keeping requirements for disability spaces and bicycles. However, it did not impose maximums. This no-parking-minimums regime applies to the whole city of 3.3 million people and almost 900 square kilometres. Parking within buildings is not exempted from counting towards the allowed floor area under the zoning rules (although outdoor surface parking is exempt), according to Mr Kunst. If this is true, developers in Berlin must sacrifice some other floor space if they want to provide parking in a building. Results or impacts Mr Kunst and Jos Nino Notz (see sources) mentioned some disappointment among reformers that parking supplied after the abolition of minimums was not as low as had been hoped. According to the Park4SUMP report 'Parking Standards as a steering instrument in urban and mobility planning' (p.17): "The construction of parking spaces in Berlin has developed according to the city area and the price segment of a project. At the top end of the market, more parking spaces are built because they are a selling point." On the negative side, the same report mentions: "The lifting of the parking space construction obligation makes the implementation of mobility management more difficult and reduces the city’s influence on the creation of parking spaces. Mobility management schemes saw the investor offer for example cheap tickets for public transport, car sharing and bike sharing instead of building parking spaces, but these can no longer be a requirement on the developer. In addition, there is no revenue from the compensation payment that is common in other German cities when the required parking spaces are not built." Does anyone know of more formal reports or studies on the results? Sources and acknowledgements Conversations with several reliable people, including Mr Friedemann Kunst, Head Department of Transport of the Berlin Senate and Mr Eckhart Heinrichs of LK Argus consulting. Park4SUMP (Jan 2021) "Parking Standards as a steering instrument in urban and mobility planning", CIVITAS, https://park4sump.eu/index.php/news-events/news/improving-parking-standards-sustainable-mobility Also the Reinventing Parking podcast episode with Berlin parking expert, Jos Nino Notz https://www.reinventingparking.org/2018/10/Berlin-model-or-warning.html Last updated: 13 Mar 2021

Barter, P.A. (2010) Off-Street Parking Policy without Parking Requirements: a Need for Market Fostering and Regulation? Transport Reviews, 30 (5), 571-588. Barter, P.A. (2010) Off-Street Parking Policy without Parking Requirements: a Need for Market Fostering and Regulation? Transport Reviews, 30 (5), 571-588. Abstract This paper addresses and extends upon the recent upsurge of interest in market-oriented reform of parking policy, which has been reinvigorated by the work of Donald Shoup. His market-oriented approach to parking policy is shown to be the more ambitious of two distinct challenges to the conventional supply-focused approach. The other is ‘parking management’. However, off-street parking markets and their post-reform dynamics have been neglected so far in proposals to deregulate the quantity of off-street parking. The paper highlights additional barriers to the emergence of off-street parking markets and several likely problems within them. Rather than suggesting the rejection of market-oriented parking policy, these findings are taken to imply a need for a more vigorous policy effort than has so far been called for. Achieving well-functioning off-street parking markets would require efforts both to actively foster such markets and to regulate to ensure their health. Deregulation would not be enough. Link to the final publisher version https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640903216958 Download (preprint or postprint if available. If this does not work, try the publisher link.) Click here to download pdf

Edmonton City Council adopted "Open Option Parking", which means that minimum on-site parking requirements have been removed from Edmonton’s Zoning Bylaw. Developers, homeowners and businesses can now decide how much on-site parking to provide. Edmonton "Open Option Parking" (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 Edmonton City Council adopted "Open Option Parking", which means that minimum on-site parking requirements have been removed from Edmonton’s Zoning Bylaw. Developers, homeowners and businesses can now decide how much on-site parking to provide. Why should you care? This is a striking case of wholesale abolition of parking minimums across a whole car-dependent city. The framing of the reform as "Open Option Parking" is noteworthy and may be worth emulating. Campaigners for a similar reform in Vancouver in Canada are already running with this framing. It is also unusual in that the City of Edmonton with about 930,000 people accounts for a very large proportion of the metropolitan area of 1.3 million people. This reform therefore applies to most of the metropolitan area, including large areas that are car-dependent suburbia. Country Canada Vehicle type cars State/province Alberta Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of Edmonton Primary motivation Multiple Agencies involved Edmonton City Council and its Urban Planning Committee (UPC) 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 2020 Goals of the reform According to https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/urban_planning_and_design/comprehensive-parking-review.aspx: "Designing our city around parking amenities instead of people has resulted in wasted space and wasted business opportunities. Eliminating parking minimums is a practical, fiscally responsible move that delivers significant long-term benefits for Edmonton, including: * Improving choice and flexibility in how businesses and homeowners use their properties and meet their parking needs. * Moving us closer to achieving the vibrant, walkable and compact city envisioned in ConnectEdmonton and the draft City Plan... * Removing an economic barrier to new businesses and more diverse, affordable housing options. ... * Supporting more diverse transportation options and climate resilience. ... * Enabling opportunities for businesses and homeowners to share parking or lease out space to nearby properties. ..." Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) A coalition of advocates on various related issues successfully campaigned for this change by highlighting the costs of the status quo, the opportunities of change and the low risks of change. An important part of this was emphasizing that removing minimums did not mean getting rid of parking; it just meant letting the market decide the right amount of parking (see https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/11/19/parking-minimums-video). A multi-step process of study, investigation and consultation occurred between 2018 and 2020 before the final decision. Detailed description of the reform "Open Option Parking means that minimum on-site parking requirements have been removed from Edmonton’s Zoning Bylaw, allowing developers, homeowners and businesses to decide how much on-site parking to provide on their properties based on their particular operations, activities or lifestyle. Removing parking minimums doesn’t necessarily mean that no parking will be provided. Businesses and homeowners know their parking needs best and have an interest in ensuring they are met, making this approach more likely to result in the “right amount” of parking. Under the new rules, barrier-free (accessible) parking will continue to be provided at rates comparable to today and bicycle parking requirements have increased. Maximum parking requirements have been retained downtown, and expanded in Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and main street areas. Design requirements for both surface and underground parking facilities have also been enhanced, and opportunities created for businesses and homeowners to share parking or lease out parking spaces to nearby properties. The City will monitor the impacts of shared parking and report back to City Council in early 2021. While the change will be transformative, it will also be gradual. Only coming into effect as homes and businesses are slowly developed or redeveloped across the city in the decades ahead." Source: Parking Rules for New Homes and Businesses, https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/urban_planning_and_design/comprehensive-parking-review.aspx Results or impacts This reform is recent. Change will emerge incrementally. It will be interesting to see the results. "The City will monitor the impacts of shared parking and report back to City Council in early 2021." Sources and acknowledgements Parking Rules for New Homes and Businesses, https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/urban_planning_and_design/comprehensive-parking-review.aspx Strong Towns, November 24, 2020, Ending Parking Minimums: How to Make the Case with Facts and Options, https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/11/19/parking-minimums-video Caley Ramsay, June 24, 2020, Edmonton removes minimum parking requirements city-wide, Global News, https://globalnews.ca/news/7101796/edmonton-removes-minimum-parking-requirements/ Last updated: 13 Mar 2021

Dublin applies parking maximums not minimums. The 'car parking standards' in Dublin 'shall be generally regarded as the MAXIMUM parking provision and parking provision in excess of these maximum standards shall only be permitted in exceptional circumstances'. I assume that Dublin previously had minimum parking requirements but it is unclear to me when this occurred. Dublin parking maximums When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform Dublin applies parking maximums not minimums. The 'car parking standards' in Dublin 'shall be generally regarded as the MAXIMUM parking provision and parking provision in excess of these maximum standards shall only be permitted in exceptional circumstances'. I assume that Dublin previously had minimum parking requirements but it is unclear to me when this occurred. Why should you care? Without fanfare it appears that Dublin (and perhaps many or all cities in Ireland) has been applying parking maximums, rather than minimums. However, the policy is interesting in that the goal seems to be not only to avoid excessive parking provision but also to avoid excessively low provision. So, despite imposing maximums, the spirit of this policy therefore seems less relaxed about the possibility of low-parking buildings than a reform such as Edmonton's, where minimums have been abolished without imposing maximums. Country Ireland Vehicle type cars State/province Province of Leinster Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction Dublin City Primary motivation Unknown Agencies involved Dublin City Council Is it a model or a warning? ambiguous Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift maximums or caps (including minimums switched to maximums) Off-street various Away from excessive parking supply What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted D: Discourage or limit parking supply in certain contexts implemented Goals of the reform This example of maximums is not only concerned with limiting parking supply. The language in the document, 16.38 Car Parking Standards, suggests that the parking standards aim for 'right-sized' parking provision with developments. The goals seem to be to both avoid shortage AND excessive provision and to aim for about the 'right' amount of parking for each context. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) I don't know and would like to find out. Detailed description of the reform Dublin's 'car parking standards' 'shall be generally regarded as the MAXIMUM parking provision and parking provision in excess of these maximum standards shall only be permitted in exceptional circumstances' (Dublin City Council, 16.38 Car Parking Standards). The parking provision standards are set according to three zones: 'Parking Zone 1 is generally within an inner city location where transport corridors intersect, or that has significant interchange potential. Parking Zone 2 occurs alongside transport corridors and the remainder of the city falls under Parking Zone 3.' Although the standards are said to be maximums, the relevant text also expresses concern about the risk of inadequate parking. For example, 'Parking provision below the maximum may be permitted provided it does not impact negatively on the amenities of surrounding properties or areas and there is no potential negative impact on traffic safety. In certain cases, parking can be restricted even below the prevailing maximum for that location: 'In addition, the planning authority may require the maximum number of car parking spaces specified in Table 16.1 to be further reduced where it is considered that the surrounding road network is not sufficient to cater for the volume of traffic likely to be generated by the proposed development.' The documents do not mention minimums but there is some hint that parking minimums are applied in some cases at least. For example, 'Given the high accessibility by public transport to Zone 1 there shall be no minimum requirement for car parking in that zone', which seems to imply that there might be minimums in other zones or that the parking standards may be considered to be a target level of provision, not just a maximum. In practice it appears that developers are expected to provide parking at rates at or below the maximums but to also justify themselves if providing substantially less parking than the standard. Results or impacts I don't know and would like to. Sources and acknowledgements Dublin City Development Plan 2016–2022: Written Statement, Section 16.38 Car Parking Standards, https://www.dublincity.ie/dublin-city-development-plan-2016-2022/16-development-standards/1638-car-parking-standards and https://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/2020-08/written-statement-volume-1.pdf (p.362) Last updated: 14 Mar 2021

Makati Parking Authority (MAPA) carries out effective on-street parking management in the Makati CBD using uniformed parking attendants with digital devices. The high standard of parking management in the area stands out in contrast with the extremely weak on-street parking management across most of the rest of Metro Manila. Improved on-street parking management in Makati When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform Makati Parking Authority (MAPA) carries out effective on-street parking management in the Makati CBD using uniformed parking attendants with digital devices. The high standard of parking management in the area stands out in contrast with the extremely weak on-street parking management across most of the rest of Metro Manila. Why should you care? The unusual institutional arrangements in Makati CBD (where the Ayala corporation plays a prominent role) may make some aspects of MAPA difficult to replicate but it stands as proof that effective on-street parking management can be achieved even in middle-income countries where good governance is difficult to achieve. Country Philippines Vehicle type diverse State/province Metro Manila Key actor type Government (any level) with private sector Jurisdiction Makati City Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Makati Parking Authority (MAPA) created by the Makati City Government, Ayala Land Inc., MaCEA, and the Makati Chamber of Commerce and Industry Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift parking management broadly On-street in mainly commercial streets Helpful for park-once-and-walk approach What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted Both P and On implemented 1987 Goals of the reform “to effect low-cost traffic management that shall control and facilitate free movement and regulated parking of motor vehicles" in the area. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) MAPA was formed in response to the chaotic on-street parking situation in the 1980’s. Detailed description of the reform Makati Parking Authority (MAPA) carries out effective on-street parking management in the Makati CBD using uniformed parking attendants with digital devices. On-street spaces for both cars and motorcycles have been marked and parking is illegal outside the marked spaces. Standards of parking markings and signage are high. Time limits of 3 hours apply but parking is also priced. As of 2019, the prices are P50 for the first two hours and P60 for the third hour for cars and P30 per hour for motorcycles. Enforcement is via wheel-clamping or towing. This approach is probably because an unreliable national vehicle registration system may make violation notices and collection of fines otherwise impossible. MAPA was created as a cooperative effort between the Makati City Government, Ayala Land Inc., MaCEA, and the Makati Chamber of Commerce and Industry. MAPA was formed as a nonstock, non-profit and self-sustaining private corporation. MAPA's main source of revenue is the collection of on-street parking fees. Fifteen percent of net revenue goes to the City Government. The rest supports MAPA's operations with the surplus going to "parking and traffic management projects such as installation of traffic lights, maintenance of road pavement marking and parking and traffic related road signs, and posting of parking wardens and traffic enforcers." Results or impacts MAPA and the City of Makati claim that MAPA has: "Minimized traffic congestion and obstruction along Ayala Avenue, cutting end-to-end travel time from 30-45 minutes to 13-15 minutes; Discouraged long-term use of onstreet parking, thereby significantly increasing the number of slots available for use by business visitors; Minimized vagrancy, vandalism, and car theft; Generated employment; Disciplined motorists to mind and follow traffic and parking rules, and pedestrians to use the sidewalks, underpasses and elevated walkway; and Restored order in the streets of the District." MaCEA (1 Sept. 2019) The Makati Parking Authority (MAPA): An Overview, https://macea.com.ph/2019/09/01/the-makati-parking-authority-mapa-an-overview/ Sources and acknowledgements MaCEA (1 Sept. 2019) The Makati Parking Authority (MAPA): An Overview, https://macea.com.ph/2019/09/01/the-makati-parking-authority-mapa-an-overview/ Aida Sevilla-Mendoza (8 October 2014) "On-street parking in Makati", MotionCars column, The Inquirer, https://motioncars.inquirer.net/32348/on-street-parking-in-makati Barter, P.A. (2011) Parking Policy in Asian Cities. Asian Development Bank (ADB), Manila. Available in hard copy or on-line via https://www.adb.org/publications/parking-policy-asian-cities. 98 pages. ISBN: 978-92-9092-241-4 (print), 978-92-9092-352-7 (web). Last updated: 2 Mar 2021

Ranchi improved the parking management on a 2.5 km of its main street, Mahatma Gandhi Rd. Four zones were delineated (red: no parking; orange: high-demand, high prices; yellow: medium demand and slightly lower-prices; green: low parking pressure and even lower prices). The prices were much higher than those of the the past and collection efficiency was improved. The city's parking revenue increased twelve-fold, according to ITDP India. Unfortunately, this success has not been built upon. Ranchi’s colour-coded parking fee areas 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 Ranchi improved the parking management on a 2.5 km of its main street, Mahatma Gandhi Rd. Four zones were delineated (red: no parking; orange: high-demand, high prices; yellow: medium demand and slightly lower-prices; green: low parking pressure and even lower prices). The prices were much higher than those of the the past and collection efficiency was improved. The city's parking revenue increased twelve-fold, according to ITDP India. Unfortunately, this success has not been built upon. Why should you care? Ranchi was a pioneer in India of relatively high hourly on-street parking prices. The creation of four zones to reflect different levels of parking demand is an excellent feature of this reform. This would have been more robust if it had included routine price reviews based on demand (occupancy for example). The huge increase in revenue that was achieved suggested that most cities in India could be gaining much more revenue from on-street parking than they had been. Unfortunately, the paper and cash based fee collection, problems with contracts, a lack of evidence-based price reviews, and a focus on revenue seems to have undermined the early healthy focus on parking management and led to political problems for the reform. Perhaps, Ranchi could reap BOTH revenue AND street parking management benefits if the primary focus of the effort can return to parking management and if contracting policies, fee-collection methods and price-review practices can be improved. Country India Vehicle type diverse State/province Jharkhand Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of Ranchi Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Ranchi Municipal Corporation Is it a model or a warning? remains to be seen Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift pricing City-owned (both on-street and off-street) Towards more responsiveness to context/market What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted P: Price parking in the right ways and with the right rates for each place and time implemented 2017 Goals of the reform Improved parking conditions and traffic conditions were stated goals. But revenue appears to have been high on the agenda too in the minds of local leaders. Technical assistance from ITDP India which encouraged a focus on parking management goals of achieving less over-burdened on-street parking through higher prices in the highest demand locations. The idea was that improved conditions in the street should be the focus while increased revenue was welcome as well and was a selling point for decision makers. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Parking chaos, very low levels of revenue for the city from previous parking fee contracts, and the opportunity of technical assistance from ITDP India seem to have prompted this reform. Detailed description of the reform Ranchi improved the parking management on a 2.5 km of its main street, Mahatma Gandhi Rd. Four zones were delineated (red: no parking; orange: high-demand, high prices; yellow: medium demand and slightly lower-prices; green: low parking pressure and even lower prices). Prices in 2017: * Orange zone - Rs 40 (USD 0.63) per hour for cars and Rs 10 per hour for two-wheelers. * Yellow zone - initial 2 hours, Rs 30 for cars (four-wheelers) and Rs 10 for two-wheelers then Rs 30 per hour for cars and Rs 10 per hour for motorcycles. * Green zone - initial 3 hours, Rs 20 for cars (four-wheelers) and Rs 5 for motorcycles (two-wheelers). These prices might seem low but they were much higher than those of the past. Unfortunately, the system did not include the practice of regular price reviews to adjust these prices as demand conditions change. Collection efficiency was improved, as least initially. The initial tender called for parking attendants to use digital handheld devices to issue tickets, which should have improved oversight and reduced leakage. However, I am not sure if this was actually done. There also seems to have been increased attention to enforcement in the area by the Traffic Police, at least in the early period of this reform. As a result, the city's parking revenue increased twelve-fold, according to ITDP India. The green and yellow zones are mostly off-street parking areas. The orange and red zones are mostly on-street parking. The approach to monthly passes for shopkeepers and employees was interesting. The pricing was aimed at encouraging such all-day parking in the green (low-demand and mostly off-street) parking zone rather than in the higher-demand orange zones (Times of India, Jan 2017). Unfortunately, the early successes with MG Road parking fees have not yet been built upon. The parking management in MG Road is still apparently better than before 2017 but problems have included: a cancelled first contract; a contract approach in which the city focuses more on revenue than parking management and sees parking fee collection as essentially ‘giving the land for rent’; a paper-tickets and cash payments approach; and a populist decision to drastically reduce the parking prices. As of mid 2018, the city was managing the parking using its own staff who were issuing paper tickets for users. However, the city is reportedly keen to re-tender the parking management system and to add a few more key streets to the system. Results or impacts Collection efficiency was also improved, as least initially. And there was increased attention to enforcement in the area by the Traffic Police. As a result, the city's parking revenue increased twelve-fold, according to ITDP India. This may have eroded somewhat since then. There have been anecdotal mentions of improved on-street parking conditions but I have not seen quantitative information on this. And this benefit is likely to have eroded somewhat since the initial reform as a result of problems mentioned in the detailed description. Sources and acknowledgements Reinventing Parking (August 14, 2018) “Taming India's on-street parking: Shreya Gadepalli” https://www.reinventingparking.org/2018/08/India-on-street.html Ranchi Municipal Corporation (December 2016) Tender Notice http://www.ranchimunicipal.com/docs/MG_ROAD_PARKING_TENDER-Revised_03-12-16.pdf [This is the source of the image at the top] Ranchi Municipal Corporation (2016) Control of Parking and Collection of Parking Fees, Regulations 2016 http://www.ranchimunicipal.com/docs/DraftParkingRegulations.pdf https://www.telegraphindia.com/jharkhand/colour-coded-parking/cid/1337690 https://www.telegraphindia.com/jharkhand/parking-fees-to-be-slashed-in-ranchi/cid/1704736 ITDP India (no date, accessed April 2021) Busting Parking Myths, https://www.itdp.in/free-parking-is-not-a-right-but-a-blight/ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ranchi/mg-roads-new-parking-system-set-for-jan-26-opening/articleshow/56742253.cms Last updated: 18 May 2021

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

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

San Francisco sets its parking prices (‘rates’) based on demand (using data on parking occupancy), under its “demand-responsive parking” policy. It raises the price by $0.25 on blocks where average occupancy is above 80%, lowers the price $0.25 on blocks where average occupancy is below 60%, and does not change the price on blocks that hit the target occupancy between 60% and 80%. As a result, parking prices may vary by block, by time of day, and weekday or weekend. Prices are adjusted approximately every quarter. San Francisco’s demand-based parking pricing (the pilot was called SFPark) 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 San Francisco sets its parking prices (‘rates’) based on demand (using data on parking occupancy), under its “demand-responsive parking” policy. It raises the price by $0.25 on blocks where average occupancy is above 80%, lowers the price $0.25 on blocks where average occupancy is below 60%, and does not change the price on blocks that hit the target occupancy between 60% and 80%. As a result, parking prices may vary by block, by time of day, and weekday or weekend. Prices are adjusted approximately every quarter. Why should you care? This is a sophisticated and much-studied example of demand-based parking price setting (which is a key element of Professor Donald Shoup’s set of parking policy suggestions). Its success has been well-documented in San Francisco. Demand-based parking pricing in San Francisco did not cease at the end of the SFPark pilot. In fact, it has been expanded and made permanent (but without the use of in-street parking sensors). Success with on-street parking management has also probably played a role in emboldening the city to finally completely abolish minimum parking requirements across the city in early 2019. Although the SFPark pilot faced some controversy initially, this soon disappeared. Demand-responsive parking price adjustments have generally proceeded without fuss or controversy since then. Country United States of America Vehicle type diverse State/province California Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City and County of San Francisco Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) 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 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 2011 Goals of the reform “The demand-responsive model sets a clear pricing policy: charge the lowest rates possible without creating a parking shortage.” More specifically, via https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-documents/2021/02/on-street_parking_pricing_policies_-_feb_2_2021.pdf: Goal 2 of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s (SFMTA) Strategic Plan —“Make transit and other sustainable modes of transportation the most attractive and preferred means of travel”—contains Objective 2.3: “Manage congestion and parking demand to support the Transit First Policy.” In keeping with this, the SFMTA’s vision and related goals for parking include: • Make it easy to find parking – Use parking prices to manage demand for parking and thereby achieve a target level of parking availability. • Ensure a target level of parking availability to achieve SFMTA’s other goals – Making it easy for drivers to quickly find an available parking space will improve safety, Muni performance, and customer experience while reducing double parking, circling, emissions, and parking-related congestion. • Use parking prices to encourage the use of transit, walking, and biking – Managing demand for parking will provide an incentive for people to use means other than driving. • Provide a clear, simple, and respectful customer experience – Improve customer service, experience, and convenience when using the SFMTA’s parking system. • Transparent process – Have a transparent, consistent, rules-based, and data-driven approach for setting parking rates.” Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) The opportunity presented by a $19.8 million federal grant through the Federal Department of Transportation’s Urban Partnership Program was an impetus. This paid for 80 percent of the SFpark pilot. Detailed description of the reform San Francisco sets its parking prices (‘rates’) based on demand (using data on parking occupancy), under its “demand-responsive parking” policy. This means that it “uses data for parking occupancy to find the lowest rate possible to achieve a target level of availability.” The SFMTA raises the price by $0.25 on blocks where average occupancy is above 80%, lowers the price $0.25 on blocks where average occupancy is below 60%, and does not change the price on blocks that hit the target occupancy between 60% and 80%. As a result, parking prices may vary by block, by time of day, and weekday or weekend. Prices are adjusted approximately every quarter. This approach applies to commercial and mixed use areas when and where parking demand is high and/or when places of business are open. Pricing is extended to such streets if parking pressure warrants it. Street parking in purely residential areas is not managed in the same way. The pilot version of this policy was called SFPark, under which the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) successfully implemented demand-responsive pricing, starting in 2011, at 7,000 parking meters, 14 city-managed parking garages and one SFMTA parking lot. Since late 2017, San Francisco applies demand-based price setting for ALL of the city’s 28,000 on-street parking meters and all of city-operated metered surface parking lots. Under the SFPark pilot, parking sensors embedded in the street were used to measure parking occupancy. However, the city now primarily uses meter payment data to estimate parking occupancy (https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-documents/2018/01/sira-methodology-and-implementation-plan_2014_05-14.pdf). The maximum price allowed is currently $8.00/hour for car parking spaces. The price variations and changes are on a per-block basis, where a block includes both sides of the street. There are also time-of-day price variations using these time periods: Open-Noon; Noon-3pm; 3-6pm; and 6pm-close. Weekday prices may differ from Saturday (and, in some cases, Sunday) prices. In addition, there are special event prices at on-street spaces near large events that generate spikes in parking demand. These prices are based on the parking demand the event is expected to generate. San Francisco also used demand-based price setting for on-street motorcycle parking. Metered motorcycle pricing. This works in almost the same way as for car parking. The maximum price allowable for motorcycle meters is one-fifth of the maximum rate for car meters. When occupancy at local motorcycle meters is 80 percent or above, the hourly rate is raised by $0.10. When occupancy is 60 or above but below 80 percent, the hourly rate is not changed. When occupancy is below 60 percent, the hourly rate is lowered by $0.10. Results or impacts The pilot of this policy, SFPark, was intensively evaluated. See the Sources list below. According to the SFMTA website (https://www.sfmta.com/blog/san-francisco-adopts-demand-responsive-pricing-program-make-parking-easier), “An evaluation of SFpark found that using demand-responsive pricing resulted in: * Increased business for local businesses: Sales tax revenues rose over 35% in SFpark areas during the compared to less than 20% in the other parts of the city. * Lower parking rates: Average meter rates were reduced by 4% (down $0.11/hour) in SFpark on-street pilot areas. City-owned garage rates went down by 12% (down $0.42/hour.) * Decreased parking search time: Reported parking search time went down by 43% under the SFpark pilot. * Decreased daily vehicle miles traveled: Reduced circling for parking led to a 30% decrease in miles traveled in SFpark areas, benefiting safety, easing congestion and reducing neighborhood pollution.” Parking violation tickets decreased significantly. Unfortunately, parking placard abuse somewhat undermines the effectiveness of on-street parking pricing in San Francisco (and in other cities in California). Sources and acknowledgements SFMTA Curb Management Team, Parking & Curb Management Group, Streets Division (2 February 2021) “On-street parking meters, off-street parking lots, special events, motorcycles, and Pay or Permit blocks” https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-documents/2021/02/on-street_parking_pricing_policies_-_feb_2_2021.pdf SFMTA, Demand-Responsive Parking Pricing https://www.sfmta.com/demand-responsive-parking-pricing This site has links to just about everything we need on this. Ben Jose (5 December 2017) San Francisco Adopts Demand-Responsive Pricing Program to Make Parking Easier, SFMTA https://www.sfmta.com/blog/san-francisco-adopts-demand-responsive-pricing-program-make-parking-easier SFPark Evaluation. A large set of evaluation reports and data. https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/drive-park/demand-responsive-pricing/sfpark-evaluation Adam Millard-Ball, Rachel R. Weinberger, Robert C. Hampshire (2014) Is the curb 80% full or 20% empty? Assessing the impacts of San Francisco’s parking pricing experiment, Transportation Research Part A 63 (2014) 76–92. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.02.016 SFPark Overview Video on Vimeo (2 min 50 sec) https://vimeo.com/13867453 The image is by Carlos Felipe Pardo, taken Sept 2014 via Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosfpardo/15092037348 Last updated: 14 Jun 2021

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