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

Flap lock paid parking systems (Japan’s coin parking lots) 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 Numerous small surface parking lots are not the best feature of Japan's cities. But at least they are priced, and one of the keys to that is "flap lock" parking systems. These enable self-service (unstaffed) paid parking. They do not require on-site staff and have low enforcement costs. Operating costs are therefore very low, making parking fees feasible even on tiny parking areas. Why should you care? Japan fails to regulate small vacant-lot parking areas tightly enough, which causes various problems. Nevertheless, the flap lock parking approach to pricing in Japan does demonstrate the feasibility of charging fees for parking even on very small parking areas (some as small as a single parking space). This or similar systems might enable self-service pricing of small parking areas in many other countries too. One possible application is for the small parking areas in front of small commercial buildings. This ‘frontage parking’ arrangement is common across Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, India, Colombia and probably many other countries too. This parking is often private (customers-only or tenants-only). Typically, each business controls the spaces directly in front of it. This is extremely inefficient. Flap lock parking might perhaps be part of a better approach to managing such parking spaces. This would probably require local government help with negotiations to enable solutions that benefit all of the businesses involved. Country Japan Vehicle type cars State/province ​ Key actor type Private sector Jurisdiction Japan Primary motivation revenue/anti-subsidy Agencies involved Not applicable. Arose as an business innovation in response to a need. Is it a model or a warning? ambiguous Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift pricing Off-street commercial open-to-the-public 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 ​ Goals of the reform Coin parking systems using flap locks arose as a business innovation to enable parking fees even on very small parking areas. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) In the period after Japan’s 1990 real estate market crash, Japanese cities had numerous small plots of vacant land that could not be economically developed in the post-crash market conditions. The ability to charge for parking on small pieces of land presented an opportunity for land owners to get at least some return. The large number of vacant plots is also an artefact of various land, tenancy, and taxation policies. For example, planning rules do not treat conversion to a small parking lot as a development (Kanemoto, 1997). Detailed description of the reform Japanese cities have numerous small vacant-lot parking areas. In many ways, these are a blot on the landscape and are part of an oversupply of parking in small Japanese cities. But at least most are priced and open to the public via so-called ‘coin parking’. This refers to self-service (unstaffed) paid parking using ‘flap lock’ systems. These flap lock parking systems do not require on-site staff and have low enforcement costs, which keeps operating costs very low. In the areas in Japanese cities that have high market prices for parking, the low cost of coin parking makes such systems feasible on even tiny parking lots with as few as one or two spaces. Flap lock parking systems involve a flap lock device installed across each parking space. When a car parks on the space, a flap rises after a short delay (such as 2 minutes). This prevents the vehicle from driving off. Upon returning, the motorist makes payment (usually at an on-site kiosk or via digital payment app). This causes the flap to lower again, allowing the vehicle to be driven away. In the past, only coins were accepted in most coin parking lot kiosks. However, other payment methods, such as payment by digital app, pre-paid contactless cards and credit cards, are increasingly accepted. Coin parking using flap lock systems arose as a business innovation with no government involvement. However, the system did arise to take advantage of the lack of government regulation over small parking lots in Japan and from Japanese parking policies that made paid parking a viable business in most areas of most Japanese cities. These policies include having parking mandates (minimums) that are set at very low levels and which exempt small and medium-sized buildings and allowing very little on-street parking (and none at all overnight). Results or impacts Flap lock parking technology has enabled the cost effective implementation of priced parking even on tiny plots of vacant urban land in Japan. This has enabled the owners of this land to gain at least some return while waiting for market conditions to be attractive for development. It also adds depth to local paid-parking markets across Japan. On the negative side, together with other perverse incentives in the tax code (Kanemoto 1997), coin parking is enabling many vacant lots to remain underdeveloped for longer than it otherwise might be. Furthermore, the coin-parking phenomenon has played a role in an oversupply of parking in some parts of Japan, especially the urban cores of small Japanese cities and towns. Sources and acknowledgements How to Park a Car in Japan 14 Mar 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viZb_7uHKow Wheels in Japan (13 May 2016) Where can I park in Japan?!: Coin Parking, https://wheelsinjapan.wordpress.com/2016/05/13/where-can-i-park/ Reinventing Parking (August 2010) Tokyo’s coin parking lots https://www.reinventingparking.org/2010/08/tokyos-coin-parking-lots.html Reinventing Parking, (4 December 2019) Learn from Japan! https://www.reinventingparking.org/2019/12/learn-from-japan.html Net searches for ‘flap lock parking’ yield various sources of these systems, especially in China and Japan https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=flap+lock+parking&ia=web Kanemoto, Yoshitsugu (1997) The housing question in Japan. Regional Science and Urban Economics 27 (6), 613-641. Images of coin parking in Tokyo are from: https://www.google.com.sg/maps/@35.7129372,139.7822505,3a,90y,333.29h,97.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8D7AHZXt0_wFR06TvK8y9A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0 and https://www.google.com.sg/maps/@35.6983271,139.479725,3a,75y,317.77h,92.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXRNK0HByR0XL-pI3nskz-A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0 Last updated: 23 Jul 2021

Taipei 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 Taipei City sets its parking prices based on demand (although community consultation sometimes leads to compromises on this). Pricing reviews take place every six months. Occupancy of 80% triggers an upward revision, while occupancy below 50% triggers a downward revision. This approach applies to both on-street and off-street city-owned parking. I don't know which year this approach was adopted but it was already in place in 2009. Why should you care? Taipei's price setting approach for the city-owned on-street parking is striking for being an early example of Donald Shoup's recommended demand-based parking price setting approach. I am not sure when Taipei adopted this approach or whether they did so under the influence of Shoup's writings! Country Taiwan Vehicle type cars State/province ​ Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction Taipei City Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Taipei Parking Management Office under the Taipei City Government 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 ​ Goals of the reform Occupancy in the range of 50 to 80% in order to avoid the negative side effects of saturated parking and to avoid overcharging for parking. More broadly, well used but orderly parking is desired. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) I don't know if this replaced another approach to price setting, when this happened and what prompted the change. I would like to know. Detailed description of the reform The Taipei city government conducts a six-monthly review of parking charges and adjusts parking prices according to parking demand. Prices are adjusted upwards if the usage is more than 80%, and downwards, if the usage falls below 50%. This applies to both on-street and off-street city-owned parking. [Commercial off-street public parking has market prices] However, after these price reviews the price adjustments are often discretionary, especially for off-street parking. Community input plays a major role in determining the outcomes of price adjustments. Strenuous objections sometimes result on prices not rising. Community sentiment tends to resist price increase for off-street parking rather than on-street parking. Nevertheless, the evidence-based nature of this policy provides strong evidential support for price adjustments which is helpful when engaging with the stakeholders both within the government and the community. The city government often tries to engage with community leaders to mobilise community support for car park pricing policies. Results or impacts I would be interested to learn of any reports on the results of this policy or any evaluation of its success or otherwise. Sources and acknowledgements Interview in 2009 by Paul Barter with Mr Chen of the Taipei Parking Management Office 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. Taipei Department of Transportation https://english.dot.gov.taipei/Content_List.aspx?n=E930A4B70BD80768 Last updated: 11 Mar 2021

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

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

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

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

London parking maximums (and 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 All London Boroughs abolished their minimum parking requirements for all land-uses and adopted maximums in 2004 or in the years soon after. [But note that parts of central London already had parking maximums decades before this.] Why should you care? London (and England more widely) is a prominent case of a large city that has been almost completely without parking minimums, and has applied parking maximums, for more than 15 years now. The impacts of the reform on residential parking provision have been closely studies by Zhan Guo and his colleagues. Country United Kingdom Vehicle type cars State/province ​ Key actor type Metropolitan government Jurisdiction London Primary motivation mode shift or TDM Agencies involved Greater London Authority and the 33 London Boroughs Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift maximums or caps (including minimums switched to maximums) Off-street various Promotes all three Adaptive Parking paradigm shifts What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted D: Discourage or limit parking supply in certain contexts implemented 2004 Goals of the reform England's Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport of 2001 stated that “maximum standards should be designed to be used as part of a package of measures to promote sustainable transport choices.” Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Wider national policy trends seem to have been behind this reform but more information is needed. Detailed description of the reform All London Boroughs abolished their minimum parking requirements and adopted maximums in 2004 or in the years soon after. This change applied to all land-use types. Transport for London (TfL) Public Transport Accessibility Scores (PTAL scores) helps developers decide how much parking provision is appropriate in each location across the city. Different maximums apply to different areas, guided by PTAL scores and by London Plan spatial designations and use classes. Maximums applying in central London are very restrictive and allow very little parking to be built. For example, under the London Plan, office buildings in central and inner London have a parking maximum of zero (except for 'disabled persons parking'). Those applying in outer areas are permissive and still allow quite abundant parking to be provided. The highest maximum for office and for retail buildings under the London Plan is 1 space per 50 square metres. It should be noted that, despite the abolition of parking minimums and the adoption of maximums, some local authorities in England, including some London boroughs, remained concerned about parking under-provision. Similar to the case of Dublin, Ireland, many of them seem to treat the parking maximums as a target rather than a maximum and require developers to provide strong justification for development proposals with parking much below the maximums. The shift to maximums occurred after 'the Greater London Authority (GLA) passed the London Plan in February 2004, which required local authorities to shift from a minimum to a maximum standard.' Parts of London have had parking maximums since 1976: "The Greater London Development Plan (1976) (paras 5.8.16 to 5.8.22 and Table 4) set maximums for offices and shops "with different levels for the Central Area, Inner Ring, more important suburban centres and in the remainder of Outer London". The GLA policy in turn was in line with national policy guidance PPG13 for England, which was published in 2001 and said that car parking standards should be expressed as maximums not minimums and that developers should normally have discretion to provide as little parking as they consider necessary. As context, in large parts of London on-street parking is strictly managed under CPZs (controlled parking zones). These have certain faults but do reliably control chaotic and obstructive parking in the areas under them. National guidance changed in 2019. The National Planning Policy Framework opened the door to minimums and discouraged parking maximums ("Maximum parking standards for residential and non-residential development should only be set where there is a clear and compelling justification that they are necessary for managing the local road network."). The new London Plan 2021 still calls for parking maximums for all land-uses but does now allow residential parking minimums in outer areas: "Outer London boroughs wishing to adopt minimum residential parking standards through a Development Plan Document (within the maximum standards set out in Policy T6 .1 Residential parking) must only do so for parts of London that are PTAL 0-1. Inner London boroughs should not adopt minimum standards. Minimum standards are not appropriate for non-residential use classes in any part of London." (p. 423) Have any London boroughs yet adopted any residential minimums? Results or impacts Zhan Guo and colleagues studied the impact of the reform on residential development, finding that the main impact was from removing the minimums, not from the maximums. The main conclusions were: "The number of parking spaces supplied after the 2004 parking reform fell by approximately 40 percent when compared to the number of parking spaces that would have been supplied with the previous minimum parking requirements. This means that from 2004 to 2010, the new parking requirements led to a total of 143,893 fewer spaces. No other alternative explanations (car ownership saturation, development constraints, congestion charging, oil price spike, etc.) account for such a dramatic decline. Furthermore, almost all the reduction in parking supply was caused by eliminating the minimum standards, declining only 2.2 percent due to adoption of the maximum standards." Have there been other studies of the parking maximums in London, such as the effects of the maximums for other land-uses? Sources and acknowledgements 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/ Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, February 2019, "National Planning Policy Framework", https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/810197/NPPF_Feb_2019_revised.pdf London Plan 2021. https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/london-plan-2021 https://www.reinventingparking.org/2013/09/which-cities-have-abolished-parking.html https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/public-transport-accessibility-levels London Forum statement https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/Commission%20-%20London%20Forum%20-Technical%20consultation%20MB%20comments%20on%20Maximum%20parking%20standards.pdf Last updated: 16 Mar 2021

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

Pricey residential permit parking in Stockholm When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform The City of Stockholm has unusually expensive residential on-street parking permits. As of late 2021, the most expensive residential permit parking costs SKR1100 per month (US$120/month, which comes to US$1,440 per year). Although this is expensive compared with most other cities around the world, it is still a little cheaper than nearby garage parking and is only roughly 50 times the non-discounted hourly charge in each area. So residential parking is still heavily discounted compared to casual parking. The City of Stockholm issues resident parking permit in numbers that roughly match the estimated number of on-street parking spaces. No on-street parking is reserved solely for permit holders. Why should you care? Cities around the world, even in Europe, struggle to set the prices for residential on-street permit parking at anything even remotely approaching a market price or a rent covering price. However, the City of Stockholm has unusually expensive residential on-street permit parking in which the prices are approaching those of long-term garage parking. This seems to be the result of a consistent long-term effort to establish and operationalize the view that parking on public streets is a privilege provided to residents, and certainly not an obligation that the city must provide. Parking policy and pricing decisions have consistently put this view into practice. I hope to update this case with more information on the politics of how this was achieved if I can find out more. Country Sweden Vehicle type cars State/province ​ Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of Stockholm Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Traffic Administration, City of Stockholm Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift permits On-street in mainly residential 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 1981 Goals of the reform Permit parking price increases have been aimed at encouraging the use of available off-street parking and at reducing the gap between the prices of long-term off-street garage parking and on-street residential parking. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) The initial impetus in 1981 seems to have been similar to residential permit parking in dense areas in many cities: a need to provide priority parking for residents in districts where existing residential buildings generally lacked off-street parking. The impetus for price rises was to encourage the use of off-street parking. Detailed description of the reform The City of Stockholm has unusually expensive residential on-street parking permits. As of late 2021, the most expensive residential permit parking is in Zones 2 and 3 (the pink and blue areas) where storing a car in the streets costs SKR1100 per month. That is US$120/month, which comes to US$1,440 per year. In the purple area (zone 4) the permit parking price for cars is SKR500 per month (US$50/month or 600/year) and in the orange area (zone 5) residential permit parking for cars costs SKR300 per month (which is US$33/month or 396/year). The city centre Zone 1 has no residential permit parking. Zones 4 and 5 were only established in 2016. The five zones under the permit program are the same zones under which the prices of metered parking vary. The City of Stockholm residential permit parking program started in 1981. Permit parking prices were increased successively, especially in around 2010. These increases were aimed at encouraging the use of available off-street parking and to reduce the gap between the prevailing prices of long-term off-street parking and on-street residential parking. A comparison with the monthly price of a public transport pass may also have been a consideration according to some replies I received on twitter. Although they may seem very expensive to many of us around the world, these prices for on-street residential parking in Stockholm remain a little cheaper than nearby garage parking. Furthermore, Jonas Eliasson (former Director of the Stockholm Transport Administration and now Director of Transport Accessibility in the Swedish Transport Administration, who responded to a question via twitter) points out that residential inner-city permit parking costs roughly 50 times the non-discounted hourly charge in each area. So residential parking is still heavily discounted compared to casual parking. Permit holders are only allowed to own one permit at any one time, no matter what zone they reside in. The City of Stockholm issues resident parking permit in numbers that roughly match the estimated number of on-street parking spaces (63,000 in 2018). No on-street parking is reserved solely for permit holders. Payment for residential permit parking allows residents to ignore the prices and/or time limits that apply to casual parking. A resident who is a registered owner of a vehicle and registered in a residential parking area can apply for a residential parking permit. Possessing a valid permit and paying for the relevant parking are separate matters. Having a permit allows a resident to then pay for parking within that area at the residential rate. Residents have a choice of payment modalities. They can pay for an ongoing subscription or pay only for months or days when they need on-street parking. In both cases, the resident must already hold a valid residential parking permit linked to the relevant vehicle. The fee per day fees for cars are: Zones 2 and 3 – SKR75 per day; Zone 4 – SKR35 per day; and Zone 5 – SKR20 per day. Motorcycle owners wishing to park in the streets also require permits. Motorcycle residential permit parking costs are: Zones 2 and 3 – SKR275 per month; Zone 4 – SKR125 per month; Zone 5 – SKR75 per month. Results or impacts According to a 2019 report for the Office of the President, Borough of Manhattan, New York, the "permit parking program in Stockholm appears to be a relatively successful one with residents feeling that priority parking is allocated appropriately to them". The same report cites interviewee Anders Aronsson (an Analyst for the Stockholm Traffic Administration) who explains that the permit system in Stockholm has successfully established a consensus that parking on public streets is a bonus provided to residents, not an obligation that the city must provide. This view is supported by Swedish parking law, which enshrines an expectation that residents are supposed to arrange their parking off-street (according to Jonas Eliasson via twitter). Zones 4 and 5 for residential permit parking began in 2016 after requests from residents and local politicians. The reaction to these provides further evidence for success. The 2019 report from the Manhattan President reports that most feedback on the new zones was positive. Residents now found it easier to find parking and residents in adjacent areas have been asking for their neighbourhoods to be included too. Sources and acknowledgements Traffic Administration, City of Stockholm https://parkering.stockholm/betala-parkering/taxeomraden-avgifter/ (machine translation into English: https://parkering-stockholm.translate.goog/betala-parkering/taxeomraden-avgifter/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl) Office of the President, Borough of Manhattan, The City of New York (October, 2019) Residential parking permit plans in 7 cities worldwide: a survey. https://www.manhattanbp.nyc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ParkingZoneWhitePaperFINAL.pdf Kodransky, M. and Hermann, G. (18 Jan 2011) European Parking U-Turn: From Accommodation to Regulation, Report for the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP). https://www.itdp.org/2011/01/18/europes-parking-u-turn-from-accommodation-to-regulation/ Benchmark for parking policies in large urban agglomerations (in France and Europe) (Centre d'analyse stratégique): http://www.strategie.gouv.fr/sites/strategie.gouv.fr/files/atoms/files/rapport-stationnement-benchmark1.pdf Image via https://parkering.stockholm/betala-parkering/taxeomraden-avgifter/ Last updated: 28 Dec 2021

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

Japan’s low-harm parking 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 Japanese cities (such as Tokyo) have parking requirements (minimums) that are less harmful than in most countries. They are set at low levels even when they apply in full. Furthermore, they exempt small buildings and phase in only gradually with floor area beyond the threshold (of 1500 to 2000 square metres). This means that parking minimums are not an obstacle to the development or redevelopment of small buildings on small sites in Japan. Why should you care? Japanese parking minimums are less harmful than most. They are not an obstacle to infill development. In combination with other policies, they have resulted in most neighbourhoods having much parking that is open to the public and that is provided on a commercial basis at market prices. You may think that this 'light' approach to parking minimums is possible in Japan only because of excellent public transport and other policies that keep car ownership low. That may be so of the large cities. However, the same kind of parking requirements apply across the country, even in towns and small cities where car ownership rates are high (comparable to or higher than the rates seen across western Europe). Country Japan Vehicle type cars State/province Tokyo Prefecture (Tokyo-to) Key actor type National Jurisdiction National (although this case focuses on Tokyo Prefecture) Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism [need to check this] Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift minimums harm reduction 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 1962 Goals of the reform The goals of parking minimums in Japan are conventional (similar to those in other countries). However, their levels have not been increased for many decades. The on-site parking with buildings is apparently not expected to meet the full demand for parking but merely to contribute towards the neighbourhood parking demand. This is unusual and may be the result of other parking policies which have prevented perceived parking shortages from emerging. Most prominent among these policies are a ban on most on-street parking (and a total ban on overnight on-street parking) and the proof-of-parking law. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Parking minimums emerged for familiar reasons (in the 1950s apparently). It would be great to learn why the specific characteristics of the minimums were chosen. Detailed description of the reform Japanese cities (such as Tokyo) have parking requirements (minimums) that are less harmful than in most countries and this has been the case since the 1950s. They are set at low levels even when they apply in full. The highest requirements are 1 space per 200 sq.m for department stores (and similar) in 'Car park improvement districts'. This is very low compared with many other countries. Furthermore, they exempt small buildings and phase in only gradually with floor area beyond the threshold (of 1500 to 2000 square metres). The list of land-uses for the purpose of parking minimums is extremely simple, with only two categories: (i) specific uses (theater, cinema, music hall, viewing field, broadcast studio hall, assembly hall, exhibition, wedding hall, funeral hall, inn, hotel, restaurant, restaurants, cabarets, cafes, nightclubs, bars, dance hall, playground, bowling alley, gymnasium, other department stores, offices, hospitals, wholesale markets, warehouses or factories, or places with two or more of the above functions); and (ii) non-specific uses (others). Results or impacts These characteristics mean that parking minimums are not an obstacle to the development or redevelopment of small buildings on small sites in Japan. They have been compatible with the emergence of commercial priced parking (for visitor parking, employee parking and residential parking) in most neighbourhoods of most cities. This is also the result of the absence of on-street parking, and the proof-of-parking rule. A large proportion of parking is open to the public (even if privately owned and operated). Japanese cities seem to have surprisingly market-responsive parking. Parking prices vary in rough proportion to real-estate values. Sources and acknowledgements "Learn from Japan!" episode of Reinventing Parking https://www.reinventingparking.org/2019/12/learn-from-japan.html 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). The following documents in Japanese were consulted in 2009 to understand Tokyo parking regulations for the study above (Barter, 2011): Regulations for parking to accompany large-scale buildings, Bureau of Urban Development, Tokyo Metropolitan Government. www.toshiseibi.metro.tokyo.jp/kenchiku/parking/kn_k12.htm Description of Tokyo’s parking ordinance, with worked examples. www.archi-navi.com/archinavitool/a-kikaku-v1/setumei/tokyo-park.pdf Case studies of rules under the ordinance in Tokyo Parking. www.shibuya-kyogikai.jp/pdf/5th/2.pdf Yokohama parking requirement details. www.city.yokohama.jp/me/toshi/toshiko/pressrelease/h19/07041700/pdf/osirase.pdf Regulations regarding parking facilities in buildings (Kagoshima). www.city.kagoshima.lg.jp/_1010/shimin/1kurashi/1-9tyusyajo/0000534.html Regulations regarding parking facilities in buildings (Okayama). www.city.okayama.jp/toshi/tosai/tyuusyahuchi_gaiyou.htm Last updated: 19 Mar 2021