Barter, Paul (2018) ‘Parking Policies in Asian Cities: Conventional but Instructive’, in Shoup, D. (ed.). Parking and the City. New York: Routledge. Abstract To document how parking requirements have spread through Asia, and how they vary among cities, this chapter analyzes the parking policies in 14 large metropolitan areas: Ahmedabad, Bangkok, Beijing, Dhaka, Guangzhou, Hanoi, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Manila, Singapore, Seoul, Taipei, and Tokyo. Two main surprises emerge. First, all the cities have minimum parking requirements and most apply them in rather rigid ways. This is surprising because rigidly-applied parking minimums are usually associated with car dependent cities and seem ill-suited to Asia’s dense and mixed-use urban fabrics where car use is relatively low. Second, although Tokyo’s parking policies include minimum parking requirements, a closer look reveals a uniquely Japanese market-responsive set of parking policies. The comparisons in this chapter make use of a new typology of parking policy approaches which is presented in the next section. Then the following section illustrates the typology as it applies to common approaches in the western world. This sets the scene for three sections that examine how Asian cities compare by looking at their policies towards: a) off-street on-site parking, b) on-street parking, and c) public parking. The chapter ends by taking stock of the significance of the findings. Link to the final publisher version https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/parking-policies-asian-cities-conventional-instructive-paul-barter/e/10.4324/9781351019668-14 Download (preprint or postprint if available. If this does not work, try the publisher link.) Click here to download pdf

Barter, P.A. (2011) Parking Policy in Asian Cities. Asian Development Bank (ADB), Manila. 98 pages. Abstract The final book form of my study of "Parking Policy in Asian Cities". Most Asian cities are facing an acute parking crisis as a result of rapid urbanization and motorization, and high urban densities. Parking policy is an important component of a holistic approach to sustainable urban transport across the region. The report provides an international comparative perspective on parking policy in Asian cities, while highlighting the nature of the policy choices available. It is a step in building a knowledge base to address the knowledge gap on parking and the lack of adequate guidance for parking policy in Asia. Available in hard copy or on-line via the ADB page. Link to the final publisher version https://www.adb.org/publications/parking-policy-asian-cities. Download (preprint or postprint if available. If this does not work, try the publisher link.) Click here to download pdf

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

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

France limits how high parking minimums can be set 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 National Government of France generally allows local governments to set minimum parking requirements but limits how high they can be set ("roofed minimums") for some housing. These limits on the level of parking minimums are lowest for social housing, student housing and housing for elderly. There are also limits on the level of parking minimums for all housing near quality public transport. Parking maximums are allowed "when the conditions of service by regular public transport allow it" but only for non-residential land-uses. Why should you care? Higher levels of government are increasingly interested in setting limits on the ability of local government to set excessive minimum parking requirements. This is an important example. This policy sometimes gets confused with parking maximums. Limiting the level of parking minimums that municipalities may set is NOT the same as a policy of imposing parking maximums. Country France Vehicle type cars State/province ​ Key actor type National Jurisdiction France Primary motivation Unknown Agencies involved Relevant agencies in the National Government established the law. 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 Away from excessive parking supply 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 This law does not forbid parking minimums. Nor does it mandate parking maximums. But it does prevent local governments from imposing inappropriate and excessive parking minimums for certain kinds of housing and for all housing near quality public transport. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) If you know the impetus for this policy, please let me know using the form on the "how to help" page. Detailed description of the reform The National Government of France generally allows local governments to set minimum parking requirements but limits how high they can be set ("roofed minimums"), at least for some housing. The relevant law is France's Town planning code : Paragraph 3: Parking (Code de l'urbanisme : Paragraphe 3 : Stationnement) Articles L151-30 to L151-37. For residential generally, the limitation on the parking minimums that are allowed (of 1 per housing unit) applies only for housing within 500 metres of quality public transport. (Article L151-36) For specified types of social housing, student housing and housing for elderly, the limits on the level of parking minimums are set to 0.5 spaces per dwelling for such housing near quality public transport and to 1 per dwelling elswhere. (Articles L151-34 and 35) Parking maximums are allowed "when the conditions of service by regular public transport allow it" but only for non-residential land-uses. The same law also requires local governments in France to accept off-site parking to meet minimum parking requirements. Developers who cannot meet the requirement on-site may meet if off-site by "either obtaining a long-term concession in an existing public parking lot or in the process of being built and located near the operation, or the acquisition or concession of spaces in a private park parking spaces meeting the same conditions" (Code de l'urbanisme : Paragraphe 3 : Stationnement, Article L151-33). Results or impacts Please let me know if you have information on the results of this policy. Sources and acknowledgements I was alerted to this policy by the 2021 CIVITAS Initiative Park4SUMP report, "Parking standards as steering instrument in urban and mobility planning. How to make parking standards more sustainable." (authors: Gies, Jürgen; Hertel, Martina; Tully, Susan). https://park4sump.eu/news-events/news/improving-parking-standards-sustainable-mobility France Town planning code : Paragraph 3: Parking (Articles L151-30 to L151-37) https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000006074075/LEGISCTA000031211225/ Image credit: A relatively new small apartment building near an RER station in southern Paris. Google Street View https://www.google.com.sg/maps/@48.8070446,2.3357872,3a,75y,334.81h,105.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDLP97Y3RKGsJpyUeu4YNXA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?hl=en&authuser=0 Last updated: 5 Apr 2021

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

GIZ-SUTP (2017) On-Street Parking Management: An International Toolkit (Sustainable Urban Transport Technical Document #14). Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP), Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), 108 pages. Abstract Prepared by Paul Barter. The document provides an overview of the different approaches to on-street parking management and provides advice to policy makers dealing with problems arising from unmanaged on-street parking. It addresses common problems that occur from illegal parking and circulating traffic searching for parking and points out approaches to overcome them. This includes information on the appropriate physical design of on-street parking as well as on the institutional basics and adequate tools for fee collection and pricing. Link to the final publisher version https://www.sutp.org/publications/on-street-parking-managment/ Download (preprint or postprint if available. If this does not work, try the publisher link.) Click here to download pdf

Nottingham Workplace Parking Levy Package 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 Nottingham levies a charge on employers in the city that offer 11 or more car parking spaces for employees, regular business visitors or pupils/students. The revenue is earmarked for transport improvements. The parking levy is a transport demand management measure that affects travel by prompting employers to manage their workplace parking and by helping to fund a package of sustainable transport measures and investments. Why should you care? This is a rare case of a workplace parking levy applying across a large area (a large proportion of the Nottingham metropolitan area). The Nottingham WPL is so far reported to be strikingly successful. It was crafted to be part of a strategic transport package for the city. Note that business sites in Nottingham do not face minimum parking requirements, so reducing parking supply is one option available to them. Country United Kingdom Vehicle type cars State/province England Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction Nottingham Primary motivation mode shift or TDM Agencies involved Nottingham City Council 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 workplace Away from excessive supply AND towards more responsiveness to context/market What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted Two or more others implemented 2012 Goals of the reform "The Nottingham Workplace Parking Levy Package (WPL Package) is ... aimed at constraining congestion, providing additional sustainable transport capacity to cater for growth and contributing to making Nottingham a more attractive City for business investment." (Dale et al., 2017) Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) The Transport Act 2000 allows local authorities in England and Wales to levy a charge on employers for workplace parking provided to employees. Nottingham City Council began considering a WPL soon afterwards and was granted a license to do so when the Workplace Parking Levy (England) Regulations 2009 came into force. As of 2021, Nottingham the only local authority to have used this authority. Detailed description of the reform Nottingham levies a charge on employers in the city that offer 11 or more car parking spaces for employees, regular business visitors or pupils/students. The parking levy is a transport demand management measure that affects travel by prompting employers to manage their workplace parking and by helping to fund a package of sustainable transport measures and investments. Every workplace parking space is licensed but employers with 10 or fewer spaces receive a 100 per cent exemption. This licensing requirement creates a complete database of workplace parking in the city. Parking spaces that are empty, or occupied by customers, occasional business visitors or fleet vehicles will not need to be licensed and will not be charged. There are also some limited exemptions, such as National Health Service sites and disabled parking spaces but not education. The level of the WPL for the next licensing period is £428 (USD590) per year. Annual increases in the charge are linked to increases in inflation. According to Center for Cities, "the levy raises £9 million a year which is used to fund improvement to public transport in the city and costs around £500,000 a year to run." The revenue is earmarked for transport improvements. According to Nottingham City Council, "money raised from the WPL has helped to fund NET Phase Two (the extensions to the existing tram system), which now carries more than 17m passengers a year, as well as the redevelopment of Nottingham Station. It also supports the popular Link bus network." The city council provides support for employers to develop workplace parking and mobility plans. About half of the firms that pay the levy reportedly pass the cost on to their employees (although medium-sized organizations have tended to absorb the cost) (Dale et al., 2014). Image credit: Malc McDonald / Nottingham trams, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nottingham_trams_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1735129.jpg Results or impacts Center for Cities reports: "Public transport usage is now among the highest of any city in the UK. This partly results from a local culture and policy of municipal public transport (Nottingham City Council retains majority ownership of the local bus company), which has been supported by the WPL. Nottingham was the only Core City in England to see congestion fall on A-roads in the morning rush hour from 2012, when the levy was introduced. CO2 also fell 33 per cent across the city (albeit not just because of the levy). There is little evidence that it has had a negative effect on the city’s business stock. A longer term impact will be that the land previously used for parking will be converted to the public realm, and residential and commercial uses. For example, the University of Nottingham has expanded onto land that was previously used for university car parking before the levy was introduced." Dale et al. 2017 find: "that there is strong evidence that the WPL is not having a significantly negative impact on inward investment. Additionally, strong growth in employment and output, combined with a positive movement of inward investment indicators, suggests that Nottingham remains relatively attractive to investors. There is emerging evidence from investment case studies that the public transport improvements are playing a role in this." Sources and acknowledgements Nottingham City Council, Workplace Parking Levy http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/wpl Dale, S., Frost, M., Gooding, J., Ison, S. and Warren, P. (2014), "A Case Study of the Introduction of a Workplace Parking Levy in Nottingham", Parking Issues and Policies (Transport and Sustainability, Vol. 5), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 335-360. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2044-994120140000005024 Dale, Simon & Frost, Matthew & Ison, Stephen & Quddus, Mohammed & Warren, Mr. (2017). Evaluating the impact of a workplace parking levy on local traffic congestion: The case of Nottingham UK. Transport Policy. 59. 153-164. 10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.07.015. Center for Cities https://www.centreforcities.org/reader/funding-financing-inclusive-growth-cities/reviewing-funding-finance-options-available-city-combined-authorities/#case-study-1-nottingham-workplace-parking-levy Last updated: 31 Mar 2021

Melbourne's ‘congestion levy’ on long-stay off-street car parking spaces 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 Melbourne’s 'congestion levy' is a parking levy that applies to parking spaces used for long-stay parking. However, research suggests that the levy has ambiguous outcomes and would need reform to better achieve its stated goals. Why should you care? This is a case of a parking levy that clearly needs improvements. It raises revenue but it is not clear that it changes motorist or parking-owner behavior in helpful ways. This is a reminder that not all parking levies are the same. Poorly designed parking levies may not achieve their stated objectives. Hamer et al., 2012 conclude: “What is also clear is that a large proportion of those who park and commute to the Melbourne CBD do not pay for parking. Employers cover this as part of wider salary packaging arrangements. This is a significant barrier to the effective use of parking pricing as a means of reducing car congestion. To address the issue, policy could either deal directly with employers by targeting employment packaging arrangements or deal directly with the driver using taxation such as a road toll.” Country Australia Vehicle type cars State/province Victoria Key actor type State/province Jurisdiction Victoria Primary motivation mode shift or TDM Agencies involved State of Victoria Department of Transport Is it a model or a warning? ambiguous 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 Does not fit neatly into this framework/None of the above implemented 2006 Goals of the reform According to the Congestion Levy Bill 2005 (Vic): "The levy is designed to reduce traffic congestion in Melbourne’s inner city by acting as a financial deterrent to drivers who arrive and leave during commuter peak hours and park all day in the city car parks. The levy aims to encourage suburban commuters to use public transport to travel into the city and car park owners/operators to convert long-stay car parking spaces, which will attract the levy, into short stay parking spaces, thereby creating more parking options for shoppers and visitors." Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) It is not clear to me yet what the immediate impetus for this policy was in 2005 or so. Can you help provide this information? Detailed description of the reform According to Hamer et al. 2012: "The congestion levy is a charge that applies to off-street parking spaces within a 15 km2 area of inner Melbourne (‘the levy area’). The Congestion Levy Act 2005 (Vic) provides the legislative basis for the levy and details when the levy is payable. "The levy applies to all non-exempt, long-stay parking spaces within the levy area. Long-stay parking spaces include all parking spaces in a private off-street car park, and all parking spaces in a public off-street car park that are either: (i) set aside for on-going parking; or (ii) used for parking for at least 4 h, commencing at or before 9.30 am and ending at or after 9.30 am. Thus, in private car parks and reserved spaces in public car parks, it is the supply of the parking space that attracts the levy. By contrast, parking spaces that are offered to the public for use on an hourly or daily basis attract the levy because of their use. The method of charging for casual parking, i.e. a flat fee or an hourly rate, is irrelevant as the criteria are the time of arrival and the length of stay. On-street car parking spaces do not attract the levy." In 2015 the area to which the levy applies was extended. In 2019, the levy was AUD1140 per space per year in category 1 area (central business district) and AUD1020 in category 2 area (to the north and south of the CBD). According to Taylor 2020, spending of income from the levy 'is not visible or local or clearly tied to transport improvement'. The income is mostly absorbed into general revenue. Image credit: Gracchus250, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:City_of_Melbourne_skyline_view_from_Southbank_with_Princes_Bridge_and_Flinders_St,_2018.jpg CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons Results or impacts It is not clear whether the levy has reduced congestion or led to any shift away from community by car. Hamer et al. 2012 found that (to some extent) the levy had been passed on to short term parking users in commercial garages, rather than discouraging long-term parkers (commuters) or reducing the supply of parking spaces. The design of the system is also thought to actually discourage workplace parking fees. Sources and acknowledgements Hamer, P., Young, W., & Currie, G. (2012). Do long stay parkers pay the Melbourne congestion levy?. Transport Policy, 21, 71-84. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0967070X12000303 State Revenue Office Victoria "Car Parks: A congestion levy applies to off-street private and public car parking spaces in inner Melbourne". https://www.sro.vic.gov.au/car-parks Elizabeth Taylor (May 2018) City of Melbourne Transport Strategy Refresh Background paper – Car Parking, https://apo.org.au/node/179486 Elizabeth J. Taylor (2020) "Australia: Melbourne" in Dorina Pojani, Jonathan Corcoran, Neil Sipe and Iderlina Mateo-Babiano (eds.) Parking: An International Perspective, 1st Edition. Elsevier. Last updated: 23 Mar 2021

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

Digital Blue Zone on-street parking payments in São Paulo When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform In 2016, the Digital Blue Zone (Zona Azul Digital) system for on-street parking fees replaced the older Blue Zone coupon-based system that had been used since 1975. So the primary way to pay for on-street parking in São Paulo is now by mobile app. Why should you care? This is an important example of a city that has never adopted expensive in-street parking payments infrastructure such as parking meters. It previously used pre-paid paper coupons and has now shifted to a mobile-only payments system. It seems to be working well and may therefore be a model for many other cities seeking to avoid the high capital cost of installing parking meters or parking pay stations. Country Brazil Vehicle type diverse State/province State of São Paulo Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of São Paulo Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Municipal Secretariat of Mobility and Transport ( Secretaria Municipal de Mobilidade e Transportes) 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 Both P and On implemented 2016 Goals of the reform Shifting to digital mobile-based payments enabled improved monitoring, enforcement, and service to motorists (such as notifications that their paid parking time is running out and the possibility to extend - within a time limit). Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) The rise of digital parking payment app technology made it possible to shift away from the older and more problem-prone system that used paper coupons displayed in vehicles. The coupon system made enforcement expensive and was prone to fraud and counterfeit coupons. Detailed description of the reform In 2016, the Digital Blue Zone (Zona Azul Digital) system for on-street parking fees replaced the older Blue Zone coupon-based system that had been used since 1975. So the primary way to pay for on-street parking in São Paulo is now by mobile app. As of early 2021, the system is transitioning to a new concessionaire for the system. Sporadic users have the less convenient alternative of paying at a designated 'payment office' (mostly local shops I think). There is an sms-based option for registered users who find themselves short of mobile data. São Paulo has never had parking meters or parking pay stations. Between 1975 and 2016, Blue Zone paid on-street parking used a system of pre-purchased coupons. The cost of a Digital Blue Card is currently 5 Rials (just under one US dollar). Motorists can use either one or two such cards when parking. In most areas, one card enables one hour of parking. So there is an effective time limit of 2 hours. In certain special areas, one card equates to 2 or 3 hours of parking, so that the time limit is 4 or 6 hours. Results or impacts According to Ferreira et al., the new digital payment approach has overcome the fraud problems of coupons. By 2017, it had already led to a 60% higher level of revenue from on-street parking fees. It has made enforcement much more efficient and enables tracking of the usage of on-street parking. Success is reflected in the fact that the system is rapidly being emulated in many other cities in Brazil. Sources and acknowledgements 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. http://www.cetsp.com.br/consultas/zona-azul.aspx [in Portuguese] https://www.estapar.com.br/zona-azul-digital/o-que-mudou [in Portuguese] Last updated: 2 Mar 2021

Barter, Paul (2020) ‘Singapore’ in Dorina Pojani, Jonathan Corcoran, Neil Sipe and Iderlina Mateo-Babiano (eds.) Parking: An International Perspective, 1st Edition. Elsevier. Abstract Singapore’s urban transport policies have long been unusual in vigorously slowing the growth of growth of car ownership. Its parking policies and practices do also have some unusual feature but are also conventional in several important respects. Most Singapore neighbourhoods are park-once-and-walk areas, served by relatively well-managed public parking. Yet parking supply policy still relies heavily on trying to seeks to meet parking demand on-site with each building, using minimum parking requirements. Nevertheless, there are some signs that parking policy may be made more consistent with Singapore’s wider transport and urban development priorities. Link to the final publisher version https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012815265200011X Download (preprint or postprint if available. If this does not work, try the publisher link.) Click here to download pdf