Rio de Janeiro residential parking minimums replaced by maximums near mass transit When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform For residential developments within 800m of mass transit, Rio de Janeiro abolished the previous minimum parking requirement of one parking space per unit and replaced it with a parking maximum of one space per four residential units. Why should you care? Momentum to reform parking minimums and to consider parking maximums may be gathering across Latin America. Rio de Janeiro has joined Mexico City and São Paulo in enacting such reforms. Parking maximums are controversial among parking reformers but if they are appropriate anywhere it is close to mass transit. Country Brazil Vehicle type cars State/province State of Rio de Janeiro Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of Rio de Janeiro Primary motivation enable housing or other infill Agencies involved The Municipal Transportation Secretariat (SMTR) and the Urbanization, Infrastructure and Housing Secretariat (SMUIH) Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift maximums or caps (including minimums switched to maximums) Off-street residential Away from excessive parking supply What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted D: Discourage or limit parking supply in certain contexts implemented 2019 Goals of the reform The main goal seems to be to promote more transit-oriented residential development near mass transit stations across the city. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) ITDP Brazil had been campaigning for parking reform. This included a 2017 study by ITDP Brazil which highlighted the larger proportion of built space being devoted to parking. The campaign also included workshops and webinars with city officials and engagement with planners, public managers, and government representatives, including sharing Mexico City's parking reform success. Detailed description of the reform Rio de Janeiro's building code now specifies a maximum of one parking space for every four housing units with buildings located within a radius of 800 meters from metro, railway, Bus Rapid Transit or Light Rail. This is in support of a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) policy. Parking minimums had been in place since 1967. The updated building code also added a bicycle parking requirement of one bicycle space per residential unit and and one space for a bicycle per 200 m² in non-residential or mixed buildings. In addition, bicycle parking is now allowed in car parking spaces when the space is not being used for a car. Results or impacts It is too soon to evaluate the results of this recent reform. It will be interesting to learn later if significant TOD style residential development occurs and which socio-economic groups are served by any such development. Sources and acknowledgements ITDP (January 31, 2019) Rio de Janeiro Joins Other Latin American City Leaders in Parking Reform, https://www.itdp.org/2019/01/31/rio-joins-parking-reform-leaders/ ITDP Brasil (1 February 2019) Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro aprova novo código de obras que traz avanços para a mobilidade urbana da cidade, https://itdpbrasil.org/prefeitura-do-rio-de-janeiro-aprova-novo-codigo-de-obras-que-traz-avancos-para-a-mobilidade-urbana-da-cidade/ ITDP Brasil (10 July 2017) ITDP Brasil apresenta estudo sobre estacionamento em edificações na cidade do Rio de Janeiro, https://itdpbrasil.org.br/itdp-brasil-apresenta-estudo-sobre-estacionamento-em-edificacoes-na-cidade-do-rio-de-janeiro/ Image credit: ITDP Brasil, https://itdpbrasil.org.br/itdp-brasil-apresenta-estudo-sobre-estacionamento-em-edificacoes-na-cidade-do-rio-de-janeiro/ Last updated: 16 Apr 2021

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

São Paulo discourages excessive parking close to transit by increasing its opportunity cost When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform São Paulo's 2014 strategic master plan discourages excessive parking provision in buildings close to transit corridors. Below a threshold, parking does not count towards the calculation of allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) under the zoning rules. However, parking provided beyond the threshold DOES count towards FAR. This greatly increases the opportunity cost for developers of providing excessive parking. Why should you care? The idea of making excessive parking space count towards the allowed floor area in zoning calculations is a promising approach that other cities should study. It increases the opportunity cost of parking in a context-sensitive way. This fascinating and market-friendly approach to discouraging excessive parking provision close to public transport deserves more attention. Country Brazil Vehicle type cars State/province São Paulo Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of São Paulo Primary motivation mode shift or TDM Agencies involved Secretaria Municipal de Desenvolvimento Urbano (SMDU) Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift other supply disincentives Off-street various Away from excessive supply AND towards more responsiveness to context/market What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted D: Discourage or limit parking supply in certain contexts implemented 2014 Goals of the reform Discourage excessive parking provision in buildings close to transit corridors as part of a strategy to guide the growth of the city towards areas close to public transport. 'Councilman Nabil Bonduki, a trained urban planner who pushed for the successful vote, called it a measure “to curb the dictatorship of the automobile.”' See https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/sao-paulo-brazil-master-plan-parking-spaces-traffic-public-transit Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Issues that prompted these changes included a housing deficit and dismay over the results of decades of car-oriented development patterns, including a tendency for housing near good public transport to be aimed at high-income earners, fenced off, set back from the streets, and built with large numbers of parking spaces per unit. ITDP (2018, p.21) notes that this policy is intended to avoid a mistake made by Curitiba where, despite densification along the BRT corridors, an oversupply of parking spaces in nearby buildings resulted in higher car-ownership among families residing in the close to the public transport stations than among residents further away. Detailed description of the reform São Paulo's 2014 strategic master plan discourages excessive parking provision in buildings close to transit corridors by increasing the opportunity cost of providing excessive parking. This involves setting thresholds for parking provision with buildings in the defined transit corridor zones. Below the relevant threshold, parking provided with a building does not count towards the calculation of allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) under the zoning rules. However, parking provided beyond the threshold DOES count towards FAR. This discourages excessive parking supply because for parking spaces beyond the threshold: - developers must now choose between useful built area or parking spaces. Useful built area, such as office or residential space is usually of higher sale or lease value per square meter than parking space. - in cases where developers have the option of paying a development fee for the right to build, this fee will count not just the additional useful built area but also the parking area above the threshold. Reports on these thresholds have sometimes referred to them as 'maximums' but this label is misleading. Developers are still free to build as much parking as they see fit. However, this policy greatly increases the opportunity cost of providing excessive parking. This reform is one of the three key parking steps in São Paulo's strategic master plan that was released on 31 July 2014: 1. Eliminating minimum parking requirements (parking mandates) for buildings across the city 2. Prohibiting 'frontage parking'. The plan banned the creation of parking spaces at walkway level in the frontage area between the front of the lot and the building. 3. Discouraging excessive parking provision in buildings within transit corridor zones by making parking provided beyond a certain threshold count towards the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). This case is about #3. A previous case focused on #1. See https://www.parkingreformatlas.org/parking-reform-cases-1/s%C3%A3o-paulo-parking-minimums-abolition The transit-corridor zones (or 'areas of influence of the structuring axes of urban transformation') are: - For mass transit stations: plots that fall completely within 600 m or partially within 400 m of the station (circular zones of influence) - For bus: plots that fall completely within 300 m or partially within 150 m of the line (linear zones of influence). Under the strategic master plan, the public transport axes are priority places for urban transformation and optimization of urban land. The thresholds in the 2014 strategic master plan were: - Residential: one space per housing unit - Non-residential: one space per 100 square meters of computable floor area. For area calculations, the plan takes 32 square meters as the area per parking space (including circulation space and so on). In 2016, the Land Installment, Use and Occupancy Law (Lei de Parcelamento, Uso e Ocupação do Solo - LPUOS) was enacted to consolidate the strategies presented in the strategic master plan of 2014. This 2016 zoning law watered down the reform a little for residential buildings (ITDP, 2018, p.23). The residential threshold was changed from one parking space per unit to one parking space per 60 square meters of computable area. As a result, large apartments could again be built with more than one parking space free of counting towards the FAR computation. Comments from 'Rafael' on the Reinventing Parking article on the 2014 parking reforms provided further insights. Rafael explained that São Paulo has been implementing "paid allowance for building rights". According to Rafael, the basic FAR had been set to 1 in most of the city. However, along the public transport axes, an FAR of up to 4 is possible upon payment of these development fees. This is why extra parking beyond the threshold in transit zones generally attracts a fee. Incidentally, making some parking count towards the calculation of built area is also used in Singapore where only the required parking is exempted from counting as part of the allowed floor area (gross floor area, GFA) under the development controls (zoning). See https://www.reinventingparking.org/2011/06/deliberate-parking-crunch-in-singapores.html Results or impacts For a preliminary evaluation of results of the parking reforms in the 2014 strategic master plan, see this companion case: https://www.parkingreformatlas.org/parking-reform-cases-1/s%C3%A3o-paulo-parking-minimums-abolition Sources and acknowledgements Reinventing Parking (October 2014) São Paulo's parking "maximums" ain't maximums, https://www.reinventingparking.org/2014/10/sao-paulos-parking-maximums-aint.html ITDP (7 July 2014) New São Paulo Master Plan Promotes Sustainable Growth, Eliminates Parking Minimums Citywide https://www.itdp.org/2014/07/07/new-sao-paulo-master-plan-promotes-sustainable-growth-eliminates-parking-minimums-citywide-2/ ITDP Brasil (2018) (in Portuguese) Políticas de estacionamento em edificações na cidade de São Paulo: análise dos efeitos legais da legislação no desenvolvimento urbano (Parking policies in buildings in the city of São Paulo: analysis of the legal effects of legislation on urban development) https://itdpbrasil.org/politicas-de-estacionamento-em-edificacoes-na-cidade-de-sao-paulo-analise-dos-efeitos-legais-da-legislacao-no-desenvolvimento-urbano/ https://gestaourbana.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/um-plano-para-orientar-o-crescimento-da-cidade-nas-proximidades-do-transporte-publico/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-07-21/with-its-new-master-plan-s-o-paulo-takes-aim-at-gated-towers https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/sao-paulo-brazil-master-plan-parking-spaces-traffic-public-transit Marcela Alonso Ferreira, Hannah Arcuschin Machado, Fernando Túlio Salva Rocha Franco, Fernando de Mello Franco (2020) Brazil: Sao Paulo, in in Dorina Pojani, Jonathan Corcoran, Neil Sipe and Iderlina Mateo-Babiano (eds.) Parking: An International Perspective, 1st Edition. Elsevier. The image at the top is from ITDP 2018 p. 18. Figure 4 - Criteria for the inclusion of lots in the area of influence of the structuring axes of urban transformation. [Figura 4 - Critério para inclusão dos lotes na área de influência dos eixos de estruturação da transformação urbana.] The image at the bottom is also from ITDP 2018 (this time Figure 6 from page 22). It shows the difference between the regulation of residential parking spaces under the strategic master plan (PDE-SP) of 2014 and under the Zoning Act of 2016. Last updated: 4 Feb 2022

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

Buffalo 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 Under its new Green Code, Buffalo abolished all of its minimum parking requirements. Although the city retains some influence over parking provision (see details below), Hess and Rehler (2021) find large reductions in the provision of parking in the first two years of the new policy compared with what the previous minimums required. Why should you care? This case of parking minimums abolition includes a safeguard, that certain development proposals are required to complete a TDM plan, which can result in the provision of off-street parking. This may have helped reassure doubters before the reform. However, it seems that this is probably not a case of retaining parking minimums in disguise. Hess and Rehler (2021) offer a takeaway for practice from their study: "Our findings suggest mixed-use developers are likely to take advantage of the ability to provide less parking in highly accessible locations. Though many developers quickly pivot to the newfound possibilities of providing fewer parking spaces, others continue to meet earlier requirements. Cities of all types stand to benefit from undoing constraining parking policies of the past and allowing developers to transform parking lots to “higher uses.” Country United States of America Vehicle type cars State/province New York Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of Buffalo Primary motivation enable housing or other infill Agencies involved City of Buffalo Mayor’s Office of Strategic Planning 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 2017 Goals of the reform A key stated aim of Buffalo's Green Code is to revitalize development in the city. So it seems clear that a primary goal in abolishing the parking minimums was to remove a key barrier to sensitive development and redevelopment of sites within the city (while also trying to make sure that development in the city would not increase traffic too much). Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) The City of Buffalo is at the core of its metropolitan area and had suffered many many decades of economic stagnation. However, real-estate development interest picked up in the recent decade. This prompted a review of outdated zoning regulations that led to the form-based Green Code of Jan. 2017. Detailed description of the reform Buffalo abolished minimum parking requirements for all land-uses and across the whole city (which represents 255,000 people in the core of the Buffalo-Niagara Falls metropolitan area of 1,130,00 (as of 2018). Buffalo’s new Green Code states on page 8-5: “There are no provisions that establish a minimum number of off-street parking spaces for development." Page 8-5 of the Green Code mentions that the city retains some influence over parking provision: "certain development proposals are required to complete a transportation demand management plan, per Section 8.4, which can result in the provision of off-street parking.” Hess and Rehler (2021) explain that this provision does NOT amount to parking minimums in disguise: "according to Article 8.4, major site plan approval requires a project-specific TDM plan implementing strategies from a menu of options with implications for parking such as public transit pass subsidies, roadway improvements, shared parking, and carpooling programs. Developers can provide more or less parking than the modal share objective for their project (after accounting for TDM strategies); doing so by 10% or more requires written justification. These new policies allow considerable deviation from earlier parking requirements, allowing the market to influence parking supply considerations. It is now legally possible for residential, commercial, and mixed-use projects to provide no off-street parking." Results or impacts Hess and Rehler (2021) have investigated 36 major developments and their parking provision in the first two years of the Green Code. They found: "First, 47% of major developments included fewer parking spaces than previously permissible, suggesting earlier minimum parking requirements may have been excessive. Second, mixed-use developments introduced 53% fewer parking spaces than would have been required by earlier minimum requirements as developers readily took advantage of the newfound possibility to include less off-street parking. Aggregate parking spaces among single-use projects exceeded the earlier minimum requirements, suggesting developers of such projects were less motivated to deviate from accepted practices in determining the parking supply for urban development." Sources and acknowledgements Daniel Baldwin Hess & Jeffrey Rehler (2021): Minus Minimums, Journal of the American Planning Association, https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2020.1864225 https://www.reinventingparking.org/2017/02/dont-do-wrong-thing-better-do-right.html Buffalo green code https://bufgreencode.com/. In particular, see https://bufgreencode.com/access-parking/vehicle-access-and-parking/#831-general Image credit (top image): https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/10/23/buffalo-may-turn-parking-craters-into-neighborhoods/ Image credit (bottom image): http://joeplanner.blogspot.com/2009/01/recent-article-in-buffalo-news-citing.html Last updated: 16 Mar 2021

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

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

Parking in Seoul's employer-based TDM program When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform Implementing paid workplace parking is the most common TDM action taken by employers under Seoul’s employer-based TDM program. A smaller number of employers abolish employee parking altogether under the program. Why should you care? This case suggests that it may be feasible for more governments to take steps to encourage employers to implement paid workplace parking. Country South Korea Vehicle type cars State/province Seoul Key actor type Metropolitan government Jurisdiction City of Seoul Primary motivation mode shift or TDM Agencies involved Proposed by the Seoul Development Institute (currently the Seoul Institute) in 1993. Implemented by relevant agencies of Seoul Metropolitan Government. Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift workplace pricing Off-street workplace 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 1995 Goals of the reform The goal is reduced use of single-occupant car travel to work for congestion and pollution benefits. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Seoul faced a huge surge in car ownership from the mid 1980s. Before that time, South Korea had kept car ownership extremely low as part of an economic strategy that discouraged household consumption. By the early 1990s, traffic congestion was at crisis levels and prompted urgent action. This came just as the country democratised after decades of autocratic government. Seoul Development Institute (now Seoul Institute) looks to California's TDM policies as a model. Detailed description of the reform Adopting workplace parking fees for employees is the most common TDM action taken up by employers under Seoul’s voluntary employer-based TDM program. Of 912 TDM-participating employers in a study sample of employers, 430 or 47.1% adopted paid employee parking (Ko and Kim, 2017). Most of these were office-based employers. A smaller number (86 out of 912 in Ko and Kim's study) of employers in the program abolish employee parking altogether. This is done mostly by commercial (retail) employers, many of them in the main central business district, according to Ko and Kim. Installing a parking guidance system is also part of the TDM program (but this is expensive for employers and has had very low adoption. Other, non-parking TDM measures available under the program include: no-drive days based on license plate numbers; encouraging bicycle use; free employer-provided commuter buses; employer-provided taxi service; and transit-day campaigns. The TDM program is voluntary for private-sector employers but is incentivized by offering discounts on the annual traffic impact fee. The TDM is compulsory for many public-sector employers. According to Seoul Solution: "As of 2015, some 23.2% of the facilities subject to the ‘TDM program for companies’ have got involved in the system." Results or impacts Along with Seoul's many other efforts, including large investments in public transport, the TDM policies have seen some success. For example, according to Seoul Solution: "Since the implementation of the TDM policy in various ways in the 1990s, the transport share of private cars in Seoul has fallen continuously while the share of public transport has risen steadily from 61% in 2004 to 66% in 2014, consequently increasing the average travel speed on major and downtown roads. In the early 2000s, the average travel speed in downtown Seoul was 22.4 km/h, rising to 26.4 km/h by 2013. A similar phenomenon has been observed in the outskirts of Seoul and on major arterial roads." Sources and acknowledgements Seoul Solution, "Reduction of Car Travel: Transportation Demand Management (TDM)", https://www.seoulsolution.kr/en/node/6535 Ko, Joonho & Kim, Daejin, 2017. "Employer-based travel demand management program: Employer’s choice and effectiveness," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.06.003 Last updated: 17 Mar 2021

Selected parking-related publications by Paul Barter For most of these, you can download a version or click through to the publisher version. 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 Barter, Paul (2018) ‘Parking Policies in Asian Cities: Conventional but Instructive’, in Shoup, D. (ed.). Parking and the City. New York: Routledge. Abstract To document how parking requirements have spread through Asia, and how they vary among cities, this chapter analyzes the parking policies in 14 large metropolitan areas: Ahmedabad, Bangkok, Beijing, Dhaka, Guangzhou, Hanoi, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Manila, Singapore, Seoul, Taipei, and Tokyo. Two main surprises emerge. First, all the cities have minimum parking requirements and most apply them in rather rigid ways. This is surprising because rigidly-applied parking minimums are usually associated with car dependent cities and seem ill-suited to Asia’s dense and mixed-use urban fabrics where car use is relatively low. Second, although Tokyo’s parking policies include minimum parking requirements, a closer look reveals a uniquely Japanese market-responsive set of parking policies. The comparisons in this chapter make use of a new typology of parking policy approaches which is presented in the next section. Then the following section illustrates the typology as it applies to common approaches in the western world. This sets the scene for three sections that examine how Asian cities compare by looking at their policies towards: a) off-street on-site parking, b) on-street parking, and c) public parking. The chapter ends by taking stock of the significance of the findings. Link to the final publisher version https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/parking-policies-asian-cities-conventional-instructive-paul-barter/e/10.4324/9781351019668-14 Download (preprint or postprint if available. If this does not work, try the publisher link.) Click here to download pdf GIZ-SUTP (2017) On-Street Parking Management: An International Toolkit (Sustainable Urban Transport Technical Document #14). Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP), Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), 108 pages. 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 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 Barter, P. A. (2015) A parking policy typology for clearer thinking on parking reform, International Journal of Urban Sciences, 19:2, 136-156. Abstract This paper contends that the absence of a widely understood typology of parking policy approaches is causing confusion in an important urban policy arena. This is apparent across the parking policy literature, both academic and practical, and across several regions. Previous typologies are reviewed and found to be either incomplete, overly simplistic, inaccurate, or failing to offer insight beyond merely describing the diversity. None enables much insight into the thinking behind each approach and reform thrust. To remedy this gap, a new approach to classifying parking policies is proposed. It is based on making explicit the contrasting mindsets behind different parking reform directions. A review of geographical diversity (both international and within metropolitan areas) is presented. This allows the value of the taxonomy to be evaluated, as well as enabling some refinements. Three main mindsets are posited, with each being defined by answers to two key questions. Each mindset has contrasting assumptions about the nature of parking as an economic good. Further detail in the typology is enabled through a third dimension based on one further question. New clarity provided by the new classification approach should reduce the tendency for parking debates to be confounded by the conflation of distinct reforms, by false dichotomies and by ‘straw man’ portrayals of key alternatives. Link to the final publisher version https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2014.927740 Download (preprint or postprint if available. If this does not work, try the publisher link.) Click here to download pdf Barter, P.A. (2010) Off-Street Parking Policy without Parking Requirements: a Need for Market Fostering and Regulation? Transport Reviews, 30 (5), 571-588. Abstract This paper addresses and extends upon the recent upsurge of interest in market-oriented reform of parking policy, which has been reinvigorated by the work of Donald Shoup. His market-oriented approach to parking policy is shown to be the more ambitious of two distinct challenges to the conventional supply-focused approach. The other is ‘parking management’. However, off-street parking markets and their post-reform dynamics have been neglected so far in proposals to deregulate the quantity of off-street parking. The paper highlights additional barriers to the emergence of off-street parking markets and several likely problems within them. Rather than suggesting the rejection of market-oriented parking policy, these findings are taken to imply a need for a more vigorous policy effort than has so far been called for. Achieving well-functioning off-street parking markets would require efforts both to actively foster such markets and to regulate to ensure their health. Deregulation would not be enough. Link to the final publisher version https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640903216958 Download (preprint or postprint if available. If this does not work, try the publisher link.) Click here to download pdf Barter, P.A. (2012) Off-Street Parking Policy Surprises in Asian Cities, J. Cities, 29 (1), 23-31. Abstract This paper analyses findings on policy towards non-residential, off-street parking supply from a study of large metropolitan areas in East, Southeast and South Asia. The study provides the first international comparative perspective on the issue for a region where parking challenges are widespread and acute. It utilises (and helped to refine) a new typology, which groups parking policy approaches into ‘conventional’, ‘parking management’ and ‘market-oriented’ categories. Several distinct parking policy orientations are identified among the cities studied. Given their characteristics (most have relatively low car-ownership, high-density development and with high usage of public transport) most of these Asian cities might be expected to have off-street parking policies akin to those found in older areas of western cities that have comparable characteristics. Yet, parking policies that are surprisingly conventional and promoting of automobile-dependence prevail in most of the Southeast and South Asian cities studied. It is less surprising that a number of Asian cities (mostly in East Asia) do not have such an auto-centric conventional approach. However, it is a surprise that their parking policy approaches still involve minimum parking requirements and have generally not adopted the most common western alternative to the conventional approach (parking management). Link to the final publisher version https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2011.06.007 Download (preprint or postprint if available. If this does not work, try the publisher link.) Click here to download pdf

Barter, P. A. (2015) A parking policy typology for clearer thinking on parking reform, International Journal of Urban Sciences, 19:2, 136-156. Abstract This paper contends that the absence of a widely understood typology of parking policy approaches is causing confusion in an important urban policy arena. This is apparent across the parking policy literature, both academic and practical, and across several regions. Previous typologies are reviewed and found to be either incomplete, overly simplistic, inaccurate, or failing to offer insight beyond merely describing the diversity. None enables much insight into the thinking behind each approach and reform thrust. To remedy this gap, a new approach to classifying parking policies is proposed. It is based on making explicit the contrasting mindsets behind different parking reform directions. A review of geographical diversity (both international and within metropolitan areas) is presented. This allows the value of the taxonomy to be evaluated, as well as enabling some refinements. Three main mindsets are posited, with each being defined by answers to two key questions. Each mindset has contrasting assumptions about the nature of parking as an economic good. Further detail in the typology is enabled through a third dimension based on one further question. New clarity provided by the new classification approach should reduce the tendency for parking debates to be confounded by the conflation of distinct reforms, by false dichotomies and by ‘straw man’ portrayals of key alternatives. Link to the final publisher version https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2014.927740 Download (preprint or postprint if available. If this does not work, try the publisher link.) Click here to download pdf

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

Seoul parking maximums in parking restriction zones 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 Seoul imposes maximums in 10 areas of the city (7 areas before 2009). The parking maximums for each land-use in these parking restriction areas are set at 50% of the parking minimums that apply in general areas of the city. These parking restriction areas are the areas with 'first grade' on-street and public parking fees, with strong public transport access, and are in and around major business districts. Why should you care? This is a rare Asian example of the use of parking maximums. Imposing parking maximums in congestion-prone but transit-oriented business districts is a time-tested and effective policy in many countries and Seoul's case is an ambitious and interesting version of this powerful policy. I would like to know more about any analysis of its impacts. Country South Korea Vehicle type cars State/province Seoul Key actor type Metropolitan government Jurisdiction City of Seoul Primary motivation mode shift or TDM Agencies involved Seoul Metropolitan Government 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 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 1997 Goals of the reform Reduce traffic demand on congested roads to and from the busiest areas with high public transport access. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) This policy was part of a wide-ranging set of TDM policies adopted in Seoul in the mid to late 1990s as a response to a growing traffic congestion crisis that emerged in that decade as car ownership rose steeply after 1985. Detailed description of the reform Seoul imposes maximums in 10 areas of the city (7 areas before 2009). The parking maximums for each land-use in these parking restriction areas are set at 50% of the parking minimums that apply in general areas of the city. These parking restriction areas are the areas with 'first grade' on-street and public parking fees, with strong public transport access, and are in and around major business districts. Seoul's on-street parking management has some problems, with on-street parking chaos common in many areas. But appropriately these parking restriction areas are the areas of Seoul with the most intensive parking management and the highest on-street prices. Results or impacts More details coming soon I hope. Sources and acknowledgements Barter, P.A. (2011) Parking Policy in Asian Cities. Asian Development Bank (ADB), Manila. Presentation by Sang Bum Kim (Assistant Mayor for City Transportation), “Policy Directions of Seoul for a Clean and Green City” to CUD Global Conference Seoul 2009 Park Ji-hoon, Lee Taeheon and Lee Shin-hae (2016) A Study on the Improvement of Maximum Parking Allowances in Seoul With the Review of Foreign Cases, Transportation Technology and Policy Vol.13 No.2, April 2016 Last updated: 5 Mar 2021