Urban parking minimums banned by New Zealand's national government 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 New Zealand's National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) is banning local governments that administer "urban environments" (settlements with more than 10,000 people) from including minimum car parking requirements in their district plans. "Urban environments" include most of the country's suburban areas. These Tier 1, 2 and 3 councils have until 20 February 2022 to removed any minimum parking requirements. Only 'accessible carparks' can be required (parking for use by persons with a disability or with limited mobility). Why should you care? There is a growing trend for higher levels of government (national or state/province) to restrict the ability of local governments to enact excessive parking requirements. This is a striking example. This bans all but small settlements from enacting any parking minimums at all. Please note that this does not require local governments to impose parking maximums. They can't require parking but they do not have to restrict parking. Country New Zealand Vehicle type cars State/province ​ Key actor type National Jurisdiction New Zealand Primary motivation enable housing or other infill Agencies involved The NPS-UD is administered by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE), with support from Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga - Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. Local councils are required to act 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 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 2020 Goals of the reform The overall goal of the NPS-UD is to "removes overly restrictive barriers to development to allow growth ‘up’ and ‘out’ in locations that have good access to existing services, public transport networks and infrastructure." The purpose of the removal of parking minimums "is to enable more housing and commercial developments, particularly in higher density areas where people do not necessarily need to own or use a car to access jobs, services, or amenities. It will enable urban space to be used for higher value purposes other than car parking, and remove a significant cost for higher density developments. Developers may still choose to provide car parking in many areas, but the number of car parks will be driven by market demand." (NZ Ministry for the Environment, July 2020) Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) New Zealand has been facing severe housing price escalation and acute housing affordability problems in its major cities. Detailed description of the reform New Zealand's National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) bans local governments in all Tier 1, 2 and 3 councils from including minimum car parking requirements in their district plans. These Tier 1, 2 and 3 councils have until 20 February 2022 to removed any minimum parking requirements. Only 'accessible carparks' can be required (parking for use by persons with a disability or with limited mobility). Tier 1, 2 and 3 councils are those with jurisdiction over an “urban environment”, defined as an area that "(a) is, or is intended to be, predominantly urban in character; and (b) is, or is intended to be, part of a housing and labour market of at least 10,000 people”. Note that "urban environments" include most of the country's suburban areas. Instead of using parking minimums, councils are instead urged to implement parking management to deal with parking supply and demand issues. On page 13 of the NPS-UD, Policy 11 states: "In relation to car parking: a) the district plans of tier 1, 2, and 3 territorial authorities do not set minimum car parking rate requirements, other than for accessible car parks; and b) tier 1, 2, and 3 local authorities are strongly encouraged to manage effects associated with the supply and demand of car parking through comprehensive parking management plans. " Backdoor parking minimums are also banned. On page 28: "3.38 Car parking If the district plan of a tier 1, 2, or 3 territorial authority contains objectives, policies, rules, or assessment criteria that have the effect of requiring a minimum number of car parks to be provided for a particular development, land use, or activity, the territorial authority must change its district plan to remove that effect, other than in respect of accessible car parks." The NPS-UD also stops Tier 1 councils from setting building height limits of less than six storeys within walkable distances of existing and planned rapid transit stops, city centres and metropolitan centres. Results or impacts The deadline has not yet passed (writing in April 2021) so it is too soon to tell. Sources and acknowledgements New Zealand Ministry for the Environment (July 2020) National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 – car parking fact sheet, https://environment.govt.nz/publications/national-policy-statement-on-urban-development-2020-car-parking-fact-sheet/ New Zealand Ministry for the Environment (July 2020) National policy statement on urban development, https://environment.govt.nz/acts-and-regulations/national-policy-statements/national-policy-statement-urban-development/ New Zealand Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (July 2020) National policy statement on urban development, https://www.hud.govt.nz/urban-development/national-policy-statement-on-urban-development-nps-ud/ Matt L (July 27, 2020) Supercharging Urban Development, https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2020/07/27/supercharging-urban-development/ Henry Cooke (Jul 23 2020) Government moves to end minimum carpark requirements and remove low height-limits in bid to increase dense housing, Stuff, https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300064493/government-moves-to-end-minimum-carpark-requirements-and-remove-low-heightlimits-in-bid-to-increase-dense-housing Last updated: 28 Apr 2021

Hong Kong low residential parking maximums in the 1970s 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 Hong Kong aggressively restricted residential parking supply in the 1970s using strict parking maximums. The parking maximums were part of the HK Government's policy of restraining private car ownership that began in the early 1970s. Although parking maximums were abandoned in 1981 (with a switch to fiscal methods of restraining car ownership growth), the low parking maximums of the 1970s left a legacy that led to modest parking supply and high parking prices in Hong Kong ever since. There are lessons here, even if this might be difficult for others to emulate. Why should you care? The 1970s residential parking maximums in Hong Kong were very unusual. Perhaps the only case of the deliberate use of parking maximums to constrain the growth of car ownership. Although the policy was in place for less than 10 years, those years were a period of high economic and population growth. So the parking maximums policy seems to have been a key part of why Hong Kong has very high parking prices and modest parking minimums even now. Country China (HK was a British Colony at the time) Vehicle type cars State/province Hong Kong SAR Key actor type Metropolitan government Jurisdiction Hong Kong Primary motivation influence vehicle ownership Agencies involved I don't know Is it a model or a warning? ambiguous Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift maximums or caps (including minimums switched to maximums) Off-street residential Away from excessive parking supply What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted D: Discourage or limit parking supply in certain contexts ended ​ Goals of the reform Restraint of private car ownership. Parking was a key tool, perhaps THE key tool of that period, aimed at restricting car ownership growth in the 1970s as part of the HK Government's policy of restraining private car ownership that began in the early 1970s. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Economic success in Hong Kong in the late 1960s and early 1970s had led to rapidly rising car ownership (starting from an extremely low level) which quickly caused severe traffic and parking problems in the context of very high population densities within the urbanized areas. Detailed description of the reform Hong Kong had strict maximums for residential development starting in the early 1970s (exact year needed) and 1981, when parking minimums were adopted instead. In 1981, there was a switch to relying on 'fiscal tools' such as increased vehicle purchase and ownership taxes and fuel taxes to contain car ownership growth. At that time, the HK Government decided that restricting residential parking supply was no longer necessary. The Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines 1992 edition issued by the Planning Department, explained the earlier switch away from restricting parking supply: "Parking standards for residential development were formulated in the light of the introduction of fiscal measures to restrict directly the rate of growth in private vehicle ownership and the abandonment of restraint on car ownership by a restriction of residential parking spaces. The overall intention of the standards is to ensure that, except in special cases, future residential developments should have sufficient parking provision to match the current and anticipated car ownership of residents. Generally, therefore, minimum rather than maximum standards are set. This should enable developers to be aware from outset of the extent of parking provision they can plan." We can see that there was a switch to a more conventional parking supply approach. Nevertheless, the 1970s policy left its mark on HK parking. Results or impacts Despite being in place for less than a decade, these residential parking maximums had a long-term impact on Hong Kong parking supply and prices. Hong Kong's population rose from 3,995,400 in 1970 to 5,109,812 in 1981. And the 1970s was (mostly) a time of rapid economic growth in Hong Kong. So a large increment of Hong Kong housing took place with very low rates of parking. The success of the policy meant Hong Kong still had low car ownership in 1981 and the government fully intended to continue to restrain the growth of car ownership. So the residential parking minimums that were adopted in 1981 were set at low levels. In fact, in a context of low car ownership, all of Hong Kong's parking minimums were set at low levels. So the parking maximums of the 1970s were an important influence on low rates of parking with buildings built BOTH in the 1970s AND in buildings built since then. Parking prices in Hong Kong are very high. For example, as of early 2021, monthly parking fees in HK public housing range from HK$1,150 (USD148) per month in the most outlying area facilities with the lowest occupancy rates to HK$2,890 (USD384) per month in central areas with high parking occupancy rates. Sources and acknowledgements Paul Barter (26 Nov 2013) "Hong Kong has parking minimums AND very expensive parking. How can that be?" Reinventing Parking https://www.reinventingparking.org/2013/11/hong-kong-has-parking-minimums-and-very.html Last updated: 13 Mar 2021

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

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

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

Unbundled parking in Singapore public housing 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 Parking in Singapore's public housing estates, built by HDB, was free-of-charge at first. At some point (in the 1970s or1980s?) parking fees were introduced both for people (mainly residents) seeking long term 'season' parking and for short-term visitor parking. Why should you care? It is not widely known outside Singapore that car owners in public housing in Singapore pay at least S$960 per year (and usually more) for home-based parking. Country Singapore Vehicle type diverse State/province ​ Key actor type National Jurisdiction Singapore Primary motivation fairness/social justice Agencies involved Housing and Development Board (HDB) Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift unbundling Off-street residential 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 ? Goals of the reform I don't know if this goal was articulated at the time but the idea is that only the users of the parking, and not other people, should pay for the parking that is provided in the estates. The principle that parking in HDB should not be subsidised by government nor cross-subsidised from other HDB business lines (such as housing) was stated by the Auditor General in 2004. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) More information needed on what was happening at the time that parking fees were introduced. Detailed description of the reform Parking in Singapore's public housing estates, built by HDB, was free-of-charge at first. You might say that this means that parking was bundled with HDB flats. However, the term 'bundled' seems a little odd here, since HDB parking has never been allocated to specific flats or vehicles. It has always been pooled. Motorists seek a vacant spot within the parking area near their flat. At some point (in the 1970s or1980s?) parking fees were introduced both for long term 'season' parking and for short-term visitor parking. In other words, HDB residential parking is now 'unbundled'. Residents who wish to park a car or motorcycle within the estate where they live must purchase a season parking permit from HDB. As an example, the price per month for season parking in covered parking (mostly multi-storey car parks) in areas well away from the city centre is S$110 Tier 1 car, S$120 Tier 2 car and S$17 for motorcycle. See https://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/car-parks/season-parking/season-parking/application-procedure [S$1 = USD0.76 in early 2021] [Tier 1 season parking rate will apply to a resident's first car of the household. Resident must be the registered flat owner/ occupier/ tenant living in the HDB precinct served by the car park. Tier 2 season parking rate will apply to the residents' subsequent cars and all cars of non-residents.] [Background: About 80% of Singapore citizens and permanent residents live in HDB estates, mostly in flats that they own on a 99 year leasehold basis. Rental flats are a small percentage of flats. This means that a very wide cross-section of socio-economic groups all live in HDB estates.] Results or impacts This policy fosters housing affordability and equity by ensuring that households that do not own a vehicle (many of whom cannot afford one) are not made to cross-subsidise the cost of providing parking for the households that do own vehicles. Sources and acknowledgements Barter, Paul (2020) ‘Singapore’ in Dorina Pojani, Jonathan Corcoran, Neil Sipe and Iderlina Mateo-Babiano (eds.) Parking: An International Perspective, 1st Edition. Elsevier. Auditor General. 2004. “Report of the Auditor-General for the Financial Year 2003/04”. Singapore: Auditor General. Housing & Development Board (HDB) Car Parks information. https://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/car-parks 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. Last updated: 2 Mar 2021

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

Vancouver’s West End residential permit reforms 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 West End Vancouver, residential on-street parking permit prices were shifted to market-based rates. But only for new permits. Existing permit holders could renew at grandfathered prices and low-income households pay the same price as these legacy permit holders. Together with some other parking management improvements, these changes have greatly eased the previous on-street parking problems and have increased the use of the existing off-street residential parking. Why should you care? This is a rare case of charging high, ‘market-based’ prices for on-street residential parking permits. However, only NEW permits attract the market-based price. Holders of permits before the reform can continue to renew their permits at the old price (it was ‘grandfathered’). In addition, low-income residents are also eligible for the old price. These features made the reform politically feasible. Nevertheless, because roughly 20% of legacy permits are NOT renewed each year, the number of permits at the grandfathered price is expected to decline quite quickly. Country Canada Vehicle type cars State/province British Columbia Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of Vancouver Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved City of Vancouver 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 2017 Goals of the reform “Our goal is to make it easier to find parking in the West End permit zone without encouraging more driving overall.” https://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/west-end-parking-strategy.aspx Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) According to https://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/west-end-parking-strategy.aspx On-street parking was overburdened before the reform. Finding parking took residents 5 minutes on average and visitors took 10 minutes. Before the 1 September 2017 changes, on-street permits were much cheaper (at $6 per month) than off-street parking in residents’ own buildings (which cost $50 per month usually). Note that residential home-based parking is typically unbundled in this area. Many residents were parking in the street, even though most had parking available in their building and the area overall had about 1.5 residential parking spaces for every car registered in the area. It seemed clear that better management of the on-street parking permit system should be able to ease the problem. Detailed description of the reform Under Vancouver’s West End Parking Strategy, bold reforms to the residential on-street parking permit were made in this dense area just west of Downtown Vancouver. The key change was a shift to market-based prices but only for new permits. Existing permit holders In West End Vancouver had their prices grandfathered, although indexed to inflation. Low-income households pay the same price as the existing permit holders. The idea is that permit turnover will gradually bring most permits onto the new market rates to enable a better balance of supply and demand, mostly by prompting more people to park in the parking in their buildings instead of in the streets. At the time of the reform, it was predicted that high permit turnover in the area would mean that only about 1 in 5 original permit holders would remain after 5 years. Approximately 20% of West End households had parking permits at the time. Starting in 2017, permit prices were shifted to market-based rates of CAN$360 per year ($30 per month). The initial proposal had been $50 per month and was based on existing off-street parking prices. The lower initial rate was based on “more detailed modelling of the value of on-street parking compared to off-street spaces”. As of 2021, the market rate for West End Vancouver street parking permits is CAN$$401.13. The non-market legacy rate (for existing legacy permit holders) is CAN$90.93 and the non-market exempt rate (for low income household) CAN$90.93. The City undertook that any increase in revenue from the sale of permits at the new rates would be reinvested in the West End according to needs identified by the community (a parking benefit district arrangement). The reform also included an effort to enable residential buildings with excess parking to voluntarily rent spaces to other residents of the area. It was estimated that, although some buildings had parking that was nearly full, others nearby had much unused parking and that, overall, there were many more residential spaces than cars in the area. On-street parking management was also improved in the area, by modernising parking enforcement, expanding parking pricing for visitors (free two-hour parking spaces were replaced with $1.00 per hour metered parking with a time limit of three hours). If the reforms succeeded in reducing demand for on-street parking, the city also planned to allow visitor parking in permit-only spaces at low-demand times and to convert some residential parking to visitor parking. Results or impacts According to a Feb 22 2019 report by Kenneth Chan of the Daily Hive (Urbanized section), the City seemed happy with the results so far. The number of permits sold each year dropped, although not as quickly as expected. In the year up to the end of the 2018 permit renewal period, the sale of non-market permits to existing permit holders had decreased by 21%. The number of active permits still greatly exceeded on-street parking supply at that time, with over 6,700 active permits but about 2,700 on-street permit-only parking spaces. Nevertheless, parking availability for visitors had improved, both based on anecdotal feedback and based on occupancy data, with many fewer blocks missing the city’s targets for on-street parking vacancy rates. The City is now planning to extend parking permits to the whole city. It will be interesting to see if this proceeds and whether it follows the West End Vancouver approach. Sources and acknowledgements City of Vancouver, West End Parking Strategy https://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/west-end-parking-strategy.aspx (This is also the source of the image above). Kenneth Chan (22 Feb, 2019) Street pay parking in Vancouver's West End is 'working as expected': report, Daily Hive (Urbanized section), https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-west-end-pay-parking-report-february-2019 https://chronology.vancouverplanning.ca/emerging-milestones/emerging-milestones-2017/market-based-residential-parking-permits-introduced/ https://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/west-end-parking-non-market-rates.aspx Last updated: 7 Jun 2021

São Paulo 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 The City of São Paulo eliminated parking mandates (parking minimums) citywide for all land-uses in 2014. This was part of the strategic master plan of July 31, 2014. Why should you care? São Paulo is among the largest cities to have completely abolished its costly parking mandates. It is impossible to ignore the precedent set by this enormous city with relatively high car ownership and 12 million people at the heart of a 23 million population metro area. It is significant that this reform was part of an ambitious strategic master plan that focuses on people-oriented development and improved public and non-motorized transport. Under this reform, the city refrains from promoting excessive parking supply. Another case in the Atlas will highlight another reform taken at the same time to more actively discourage excessive parking provision in buildings close to transit corridors. Country Brazil Vehicle type cars State/province São Paulo Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of São Paulo Primary motivation enable housing or other infill Agencies involved Secretaria Municipal de Desenvolvimento Urbano (SMDU) Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift minimums abolition 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 2014 Goals of the reform The new Strategic Master Plan sought "to humanize São Paulo and bring employment and housing closer together, rebalancing the city. And to achieve these goals it is necessary to fight idle land, which does not fulfill its social function; implement the housing policy for those who need it; value the environment; guide the city's growth in proximity to public transport; qualify urban life at the neighborhood scale; promote economic development in the city; preserve heritage and enhance cultural initiatives; and strengthen popular participation in decisions on the city's directions." https://gestaourbana.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/noticias/sao-paulo-tem-um-plano-mais-humano-e-mais-moderno/ Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Issues that prompted these changes included a housing deficit and dismay over the results of decades of car-oriented development patterns, including a tendency for housing near good public transport to be aimed at high-income earners, fenced off, set back from the streets, and built with large numbers of parking spaces per unit. Detailed description of the reform The City of São Paulo eliminated parking minimums citywide in 2014. This was part of the strategic master plan of July 31, 2014 (Lei Municipal nº 16.050/2014), under then Mayor Fernando Haddad, which focuses on people-oriented development and improved public and non-motorized transport. There were three key parking steps in São Paulo's strategic master plan that was released on 31 July 2014: 1. Eliminating minimum parking requirements (parking mandates) for buildings across the city 2. Prohibiting 'frontage parking'. The plan banned the creation of parking spaces at walkway level in the frontage area between the front of the lot and the building. 3. Discouraging excessive parking provision in buildings close to transit corridors. The plan made parking in a building that is provided above a certain level count towards the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the zoning rules along transit corridors. This case is about #1. Another case focuses on #3. See https://www.parkingreformatlas.org/parking-reform-cases-1/s%C3%A3o-paulo-discourages-excessive-parking-close-to-transit-by-increasing-its-opportunity-cost The abolition of parking minimums applies to all land uses. The city previously had quite high parking minimums. For example, prior to the 2014 plan, the following parking mandates applied: * Residential: 1 space per unit smaller than 200m2; 2 spaces per unit of between 200m2 and 500m2 in floor area; 3 spaces per housing unit larger than 500m2 in area. * Non-residential: 1 space per 35m2 of computable area for use categories ñR2; 1 space per 50m2 of computable area for use categories ñR1. The City of São Paulo covers about 12 million residents at the heart of the São Paulo metropolitan area with 39 municipalities and about 23 million people. The master plan discussed in this case is for the City not the wider region. The plan was preceded by a huge participatory process, the largest in the history of São Paulo, with 114 public hearings, 25,692 participants and a total of 10,147 contributions. Results or impacts A 2018 study by ITDP Brasil investigated the effects of the reform (and related changes #2 and #3 mentioned in the detailed description). This provided a clear picture of the situation before the reform. https://itdpbrasil.org/politicas-de-estacionamento-em-edificacoes-na-cidade-de-sao-paulo-analise-dos-efeitos-legais-da-legislacao-no-desenvolvimento-urbano/ However, it has only early hints of the effects of the reform in 2014 and 2015. An economic slowdown in those years reduced the sample size and muddied the picture a little. Nevertheless, some key findings were: * In the period before the reform (between 1985 and 2013), 13,248 residential developments, totaling 755,716 units had 1,150,276 parking spaces provided on-site. This is an average of 1.52 parking spaces per unit. Assuming 27 m² per car space, this implies 31.1km² of built area was dedicated to parking or about 27% of the total built area built in the period. * There was an increase in the proportion of housing units in the smallest size category (up to 65m2). * Although the sample size was small, there was a reduction in the number of parking spaces per housing unit. About 79% of projects analyzed had up to one space per unit and projects without parking increased slightly. None of the launches in this period had more than two parking spaces per unit, down from 23% for the period between 1985 and 2013. Sources and acknowledgements Reinventing Parking (August 2014) São Paulo's parking u-turn https://www.reinventingparking.org/2014/08/sao-paulos-parking-u-turn.html ITDP (7 July 2014) New São Paulo Master Plan Promotes Sustainable Growth, Eliminates Parking Minimums Citywide https://www.itdp.org/2014/07/07/new-sao-paulo-master-plan-promotes-sustainable-growth-eliminates-parking-minimums-citywide-2/ ITDP Brasil (2018) (in Portuguese) Políticas de estacionamento em edificações na cidade de São Paulo: análise dos efeitos legais da legislação no desenvolvimento urbano (Parking policies in buildings in the city of São Paulo: analysis of the legal effects of legislation on urban development) https://itdpbrasil.org/politicas-de-estacionamento-em-edificacoes-na-cidade-de-sao-paulo-analise-dos-efeitos-legais-da-legislacao-no-desenvolvimento-urbano/ https://gestaourbana.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/noticias/sao-paulo-tem-um-plano-mais-humano-e-mais-moderno/ https://gestaourbana.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/um-plano-para-orientar-o-crescimento-da-cidade-nas-proximidades-do-transporte-publico/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-21/with-its-new-master-plan-s-o-paulo-takes-aim-at-gated-towers https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/sao-paulo-brazil-master-plan-parking-spaces-traffic-public-transit Marcela Alonso Ferreira, Hannah Arcuschin Machado, Fernando Túlio Salva Rocha Franco, Fernando de Mello Franco (2020) Brazil: Sao Paulo, in in Dorina Pojani, Jonathan Corcoran, Neil Sipe and Iderlina Mateo-Babiano (eds.) Parking: An International Perspective, 1st Edition. Elsevier. The image is from page 17 of ITDP Brasil (2018) (in Portuguese) Políticas de estacionamento em edificações na cidade de São Paulo: análise dos efeitos legais da legislação no desenvolvimento urbano (Parking policies in buildings in the city of São Paulo: analysis of the legal effects of legislation on urban development) https://itdpbrasil.org/politicas-de-estacionamento-em-edificacoes-na-cidade-de-sao-paulo-analise-dos-efeitos-legais-da-legislacao-no-desenvolvimento-urbano/ Last updated: 4 Feb 2022

Mexico City replaced its parking minimums with maximums When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform Mexico City previously had parking minimums set at high levels. In 2017, it abolished all of its minimum parking requirements and replaced them with parking maximums. In addition, in central areas and near good public transport, a fee is charged on developers for every parking space built between 50% and 100% of the new maximums. This provides an incentive to build less parking than the maximum that is allowed. Why should you care? Parking change-makers in many cities have much to learn from the successful campaign waged in Mexico City to achieve this reform. Also noteworthy is the inclusion in the reform of a new fee on developers parking provision between 50% and 100% of the maximum. This seems to combine well with the rather permissive maximums. It has the attraction for the city government of creating a new stream of revenue as part of the reform. The campaign also very successfully reframed the issue: that off-street parking is not a way to mitigate on-street parking problems but is actually a CAUSE of problems that need to be mitigated. Country Mexico Vehicle type cars State/province ​ Key actor type Metropolitan government Jurisdiction Mexico City Primary motivation mode shift or TDM Agencies involved ​ 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 R: Relax about parking supply and stop boosting it implemented 2017 Goals of the reform To reform aimed to alleviate the large oversupply of parking that was previously being built and to open the possibility of new development with much less on-site parking. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) A ten-year campaign by a coalition of actors, among which ITDP Mexico was prominent, raised awareness of how much parking was being built with every new building, how excessive this parking supply way, and of the negative impacts of this and the lost opportunities. The ITDP 'Less parking, more city' report also found that most developments provided as close to the minimum as possible, suggesting that developers want to provide less parking than they are required to. 'Less parking, more city' was also an effective slogan. The campaign successfully reframed the issue: that off-street parking is not a way to mitigate on-street parking problems but is actually a cause of problems that need to be mitigated. Detailed description of the reform Mexico City previously had parking minimums set at high levels. For example, apartments were required to provide between 1 and 3.5 parking spaces per unit (depending on unit size). Shopping malls were required to provide one space for every 40 square metres of floor space. In 2017, it abolished all of its minimum parking requirements and replaced them with parking maximums. Existing parking spaces can now be converted to other uses if building owners wish. These new maximums are often at similar rates as the old minimums and are not very restrictive on how much parking can be built. For example, all housing now has a maximum of 3 spaces per unit. Malls now have a maximum of 1 parking space per 25 square metres. In addition, in central areas and near good public transport, a fee is charged on developers for every parking space built between 50% and 100% of the new maximums. This presents developers with an incentive to build less parking than the maximum that is allowed. It also provides a new stream of revenue to be used for improvements to public transport. Results or impacts It is too soon to evaluate the results. Anecdotally, various buildings are now going up with much less parking than would have been required before the reform. Sources and acknowledgements Rodrigo Garcia Resendiz and Andres Sañudo Gavaldon (2018) Chapter 15. Less Off-Street Parking, More Mexico City, in Shoup, D. (ed.). Parking and the City. New York: Routledge. ITDP "How Mexico City Became a Leader in Parking Reform" https://www.itdp.org/mexico-city-parking/ Reinventing Parking "How Mexico City Lost its Parking Minimums" https://www.reinventingparking.org/2018/11/mexico-city-parking-mins.html Angie Schmitt 2017 "It’s Official: Mexico City Eliminates Mandatory Parking Minimums" Streetsblog USA, https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/07/19/its-official-mexico-city-eliminates-mandatory-parking-minimums/ https://www.reinventingparking.org/2014/10/mexico-citys-required-parking-glut.html ITDP Mexico, 2014. "Less Parking, More City", https://www.itdp.org/publication/less-parking-more-city-a-case-study-in-mexico-city/ Last updated: 16 Mar 2021

Parking Permit innovation in Portland's Northwest Parking District 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 Noteworthy changes to the parking permits program in Northwest Portland include: * a large surcharge added to the usual permit price, resulting in unusually high permit prices (by North American standards); * limits on the number of permits for recently-built multifamily buildings * a suite of mobility passes and memberships (the Transportation Wallet) is offered for free to anyone in the zone who gives up their parking permit; * Fewer permits are allowed at addresses with off-street parking spaces; * Tiered prices for multiple permits in a household. Why should you care? Making it politically feasible to set high parking-permit prices is probably the most noteworthy feature of this set of parking permits reforms. Northwest Portland has found a combination of rules, price points, exemptions and incentives that won local support for permit prices that are much higher than in most other North American cases. On-street parking management in the area still has some way to go before problems with high parking occupancy rates are overcome but these reforms have helped. Country United States of America Vehicle type cars State/province Oregon Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction Portland Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) and the Northwest Parking District Stakeholder Advisory Commission (SAC) 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 mixed-use streets/areas 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 trial 2017 Goals of the reform The goal of the permit reforms is to reduce on-street parking demand, which was very high with occupancy rates in the evening far above 85% on many streets in the area. Several of the reforms are clearly aimed at encouraging car-owning residents who have off-street parking available to actually use it and to give up their on-street parking permits. Mode shift and reduced car ownership are also aims of the program. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Northwest Portland is an inner-city mixed-use area that has never had minimum parking requirements. Infill development and other economic trends were leading to mounting on-street parking problems. This led to the formation of the Northwest Portland Parking Stakeholder Advisory Committee (NW Parking SAC), which asked the city council to impose parking minimums in the area. However, in July 2016, Portland City Council decided not to extend minimum parking requirements into Northwest Portland. But it did empower NW Parking SAC to develop a pilot program with additional tools to manage on-street parking. By then the district had recently installed parking meters in the busiest parking streets and had a permit program which allowed for an unlimited number of annual on-street permits to residents and businesses for $60/year (Tony Jordan, 2017). The permit program became the focus of their attention. Detailed description of the reform The Northwest Portland Parking District (also called Zone M) is an area with metered parking and parking for residential/business permit holders. Recent pilot innovations in the parking permits program in the Northwest Portland Parking District (also called Zone M) include: * a large surcharge added to the usual permit price (with low-income households exempted); * caps on the number of permits sold aimed at matching supply; * limits on the number of permits for recently built new multifamily buildings * a suite of mobility passes and memberships (the Transportation Wallet) worth USD99 is offered for free to any residents and employees in the zone who give up their parking permit; * The number of resident permits allowed per address is reduced proportionately by the number of off-street parking spaces available to that address; * There are tiered prices for multiple permits for one household. The current (2021) prices are: 1st permit: $195 per year ($75 permit + $120 surcharge), 2nd permit: $390, and 3rd permit and thereafter: $585. The Northwest Parking District Stakeholder Advisory Commission (SAC), formed in 2014, has been a noteworthy mechanism in these reforms. It is made up of neighborhood and business representatives, meets monthly in public. Its mission is "to advise the City on transportation and parking issues in northwest and support a full range of transportation options within the context of neighborhood livability and economic vitality with the goal of efficiently managing parking and reducing reliance on single-occupancy vehicles." The Zone M permit program allows permit holders (both residential and business) to exceed the signed visitor time limits in the permit zone. The permit surcharge revenue must be spent within the northwest parking area on "incentives and transportation demand management programs that help people drive and park less in NW, such as the Transportation Wallet and planning efforts to improve biking, walking and transit infrastructure". Results or impacts Simply winning local support to proceed with this set of reforms is an impressive result. The first two years of the pilot succeeded in greatly reducing the number of business parking permits and in slowing the growth rate of residential permits (although an actual reduction had been the aim). About 560 people gave up parking permits (of which just over 100 were residential permits) in exchange for a year-long Transportation Wallet. As of late 2019, average and peak period parking occupancy rates had improved but many streets still have very high occupancy rates. Permit use has also reduced but is still higher than desired: "Based on current peak hour occupancies, 268 additional permits would need to be removed from current allocations in order to bring occupancies in OBP stalls to 84%" (NW Parking District Assessment and Permit Analysis Summary 2019). The review suggested expanding paid parking areas (parking meters), further reducing the number of permits allocated and changing enforcement hours from 9am - 7pm to 10am - 8pm. Sources and acknowledgements City of Portland, Northwest Parking District, https://www.portland.gov/transportation/parking/northwest-parking-district NW Portland Parking Project Annual Report 2018 - 2019, https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/nw-portland-parking-project-annual-report-2018-2019.pdf NW Parking District Assessment and Permit Analysis Summary 2019, https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/nw-parking-district-parking-assessment-and-permit-analysis-summary-2019.pdf Tony Jordan (May 1, 2017) Innovative Permit Changes Proposed In NW Portland, Portlanders for Parking Reform, https://pdxshoupistas.com/innovative-permit-changes-proposed-in-nw-portland/ Tony Jordan (December 18, 2018) PBOT Proposes Guidelines For Permit Surcharge Money, Portlanders for Parking Reform, https://pdxshoupistas.com/pbot-proposes-guidelines-for-permit-surcharge-money/ City of Portland and NW Parking SAC (December 19, 2018) NW Zone M Parking Permit Pilot Report to City Council, https://pdxshoupistas.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/1344-zone-m-council-report.pdf Northwest Parking District Stakeholder Advisory Committee, https://www.portland.gov/transportation/nw-parking-committee City of Portland, Transportation Wallet Sign Up, https://www.portland.gov/transportation/wallet/signup Paul Barter (March 21, 2019) Your city needs a parking reform non-profit! (an interview with Tony Jordan, founder of Portlanders for Parking Reform), https://www.reinventingparking.org/2019/03/portlanders-for-parking-reform.html Image credit: 2016 NW Portland Parking Occupancy Map 7-8pm: City of Portland and NW Parking SAC (December 19, 2018) NW Zone M Parking Permit Pilot Report to City Council, https://pdxshoupistas.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/1344-zone-m-council-report.pdf Last updated: 19 Apr 2021

Jeddah on-street parking fees and improved management When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform On-street parking fees using pay-and-display parking meters were introduced to the Balad area of central Jeddah, along with effective parking enforcement. Previously, on-street parking in the area was free-of-charge and extremely chaotic. Why should you care? This case demonstrates the power of ordinary straightforward on-street parking pricing with enforcement and improved demarcation of spaces to make a huge difference to the parking and street conditions in a commercial/shopping area. It is striking that it achieved results even though public transport in Jeddah is still extremely limited. This is a city of more than 4 million people that has only 6 bus routes and no urban rail system yet. Country Saudi Arabia Vehicle type cars State/province Hejaz (Western Province) Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction Jeddah Municipality Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved Jeddah Municipality, Jeddah Urban Development Company, Mawgif, the country's national parking company. 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 2014 Goals of the reform Parking availability and turnover; prevent obstructive parking; improve traffic; enable more space for pedestrians and shoppers; allow access for emergency and Civil Defense vehicles; make it safer for pedestrians and individuals with disabilities. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Extreme parking chaos in the area before the parking management intervention caused various problems. Detailed description of the reform Paid parking and improved parking management was implemented in Balad in central Jeddah. The initial paid parking area extended from the intersection of King Abdulaziz Street with Al-Dhab Street to Al-Baieh Square. Initially, more than 39 pay-and-display meters were installed, with a price of SR3 per hour. Parking spaces were marked out and numbered. Enforcement is principally by towing initially. Payment was initially by coin or e-wallet (opening an account with credit in advance). Smartphone app-based payment has been added. Results or impacts According to Andrew Perrier of Mawgif in 2017, the on-street parking management in Jeddah was successful in greatly reducing the level of illegal and obstructive parking and in maintaining parking availability on the priced streets. See the images, which are drawn from Andrew's presentation. Sources and acknowledgements "Generating Additional Revenue Through Parking Operations & Management Initiatives", presentation by Andrew Perrier, Chief Business Development Officer, National Parking Company (Mawgif) to the 2nd Annual Parking Management Conference, Singapore, Feb. 2017. "No more free parking in downtown Jeddah", Saudi Gazette, September 08, 2014 Fouzia Khan, 2015-05-18 "Many motorists unaware of Balad paid parking scheme", Arab News. https://www.arabnews.com/saudi-arabia/news/748501 "Paid parking system in Jeddah", Mediaone TV (Tamil language local news item), 11 Sept 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOO4EzOngQU https://www.reinventingparking.org/2017/06/on-street-parking-fees-despite-zero.html https://www.edarabia.com/bus-routes-jeddah/ Last updated: 12 Mar 2021