Starting with street parking in the area around the South Congress Ave commercial corridor, Austin has begun to replace restrictive residential permit zones with a hybrid approach that retains privileges for permit holders but also allows paid public street parking for casual visitors to the area. The expansion of paid public street parking to such permit zones was made affordable by making street parking payments via mobile only. This made it unnecessary to install expensive payment infrastructure in mainly residential streets where paid visitor parking is a modest proportion of parking demand. Hybrid resident and public-paid-parking zones (mobile pay) near Austin’s South Congress Ave 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 street parking in the area around the South Congress Ave commercial corridor, Austin has begun to replace restrictive residential permit zones with a hybrid approach that retains privileges for permit holders but also allows paid public street parking for casual visitors to the area. The expansion of paid public street parking to such permit zones was made affordable by making street parking payments via mobile only. This made it unnecessary to install expensive payment infrastructure in mainly residential streets where paid visitor parking is a modest proportion of parking demand. Why should you care? Easing conflict between residential street parking and casual visitor parking in mainly residential streets is an extremely widespread parking management challenge in residential streets near commercial land uses. The usual solutions, such as restrictive permit zones (as in South Congress before this reform) or time limits with permit holders exempted, avoid paid parking since costly payment machines are poorly suited to residential streets). But these solutions are typically ineffective and costly to enforce. The new approach in the South Congress area demonstrates a way forward for such streets. Low-cost mobile-only payment and a Parking Benefit District has made it feasible (financially and politically) to implement a “Hybrid Parking Area” with both residential permit parking and public paid parking in the same well-managed streets. Relying on mobile pay only gained relatively easy acceptance in this case because mobile only payments actually expanded the local parking options. The previous situation restricted all public parking. No-one has been newly excluded by being unable or unwilling to pay via mobile app. Improved management of parking in residential streets is also increasingly important as cities stop mandating parking with buildings. Austin eliminated all off-street parking mandates in November 2023 (Reinventing Parking, 27 Feb. 2024). Country United States of America Vehicle type cars State/province Texas Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of Austin Primary motivation Multiple Agencies involved Austin Transportation and Public Works Department 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 residential streets Towards park-once-and-walk AND more responsiveness to context/market What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted S: Share parking more and even aim to make most of it open to the public implemented 2024 Goals of the reform Central goals were to maintain residential parking permit amenity while getting better use of underused residential permit zones and providing wider public parking options for workers and others visiting the busy commercial corridor, South Congress Avenue. These goals should be achieved while still ensuring orderly and well-regulated parking and providing a stream of revenue for local public-realm improvements. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Before the COVID 19 pandemic, the important commercial and entertainment street, South Congress Avenue, urgently needed improved parking management. All street parking was previously free of charge. Changes including paid parking were recommended by the 2021 South Congress Parking Strategy (Austin Downtown Alliance, 2021). The study recognized that paid parking on the main avenue would increase parking demand in nearby streets, both those with unmanaged parking and those with exclusive permit zones where only residential parking permit holders were allowed to park. The proposed fees on South Congress also increased the spotlight on the unfairness of the resident permit arrangements, since the residents were mostly wealthy and white, while workers in the area were more likely to be low-income and from minority communities (as pointed out by Curtis Rogers, 2023). The Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program, dating from 1996, “did not provide the option to charge for non-resident parking on residential streets, a key method for discouraging illegal spillover parking” and was focused only on increasing the availability of parking for residents and their guests (see the Parking Reform Network’s “Parking Reform Policy Cookbook” March 2026 edition, p.42). There was also “growing non-compliance with the residential permit program, which was caused by both illegal street parking and unauthorized transfers of permits between individuals.” As Curtis Rogers (2023) wrote before the reform, “So far, Austin’s neighborhood parking options have been the extremes: free-for-all or private for the locals. A hybrid option of Permits + Paid Curb offers a solution that maintains order on the curb AND financially supports the local area.” Detailed description of the reform In the low-density residential area around the South Congress Ave commercial corridor, Austin has replaced restrictive residential permit zones with an affordable yet effective hybrid approach that retains privileges for permit holders but also allows paid public street parking for casual visitors to the area. This reform in the streets near South Congress Avenue has three central features. CENTRAL FEATURE 1 involves allowing anyone to park along residential streets where parking was previously for the exclusive use of permit holders and charging parking fees to make sure such casual parking is well-regulated and does not cause problems for permit holders. The hybrid approach was implemented in the South Congress area in mid-2024, having been proposed in the 2021 South Congress Parking Study (Austin Downtown Alliance, 2021). Almost 2,000 parking spaces that were previously resident-permit-only were opened up for daytime public parking by customers and employees. Many streets are in the “Hybrid Parking Area” in which Pay-to-Park street parking is blended with Residential Permit Parking (RPP). The typical arrangement in these streets (as seen on signage) is that paid parking is allowed Monday to Saturday from 8am to 6pm and on Sunday 1pm to 6pm. At other times parking reserved for permit holders only. There are also residential street sections that are not part of the RPP zone (mostly adjacent to or on the commercial corridor). Along these, paid parking applies from 8am to midnight Mondays to Saturdays and 1pm to midnight on Sundays, with no restrictions at other times. These streets had previously lacked effective parking management. This new approach has been formalized in a significant 2025 change to Austin’s Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program. The “City Council passed a code update that allowed the Director of Transportation to establish a pay-to-park component for residential zones that are located near areas of interest including parks, commercial centers, and stadiums.” The reformed RPP program now aims to (among other things) ensure “balanced, fair usage of on-street parking infrastructure.” (Parking Reform Network, March 2026, “Parking Reform Policy Cookbook”, p.42). All street parking areas in Austin have the same fees and a tiered (escalating) pricing structure. For example, it costs USD 2 for the first hour and for the second hour, then the per-hour rates gradually escalate to USD 5 for the 7th and each subsequent hour (up to a maximum of 10 hours in a parking session). Ten hours of parking costs USD 49. CENTRAL FEATURE 2 involves using mobile-only as the payment method in these residential streets to make the expansion of paid parking cost-efficient by avoiding the need for costly in-street payment infrastructure. Implementation of paid parking for outsiders in residential South Congress residential streets was eased because Austin had recently made it possible to implement new paid parking as mobile pay only. This greatly lowered the cost of expanding paid parking. Refraining from installing parking meters or payment machines was especially politically feasible in the Hybrid Parking Area since in these street sections casual parking had previously been prohibited. So paid parking with mobile pay only amounted to an expansion of the parking options in the area, not a reduction. [Presumably, acceptance of mobile-pay only may have been more difficult on South Congress Avenue itself, where the previous situation had been free of charge time-limited parking.] An earlier text-to-pay option (usable by older phones) seems to have been dropped. Austin has had mobile app-based payment for street parking as an option for more than a decade. In recent years, confidence with the city’s Park ATX app and platform (managed by Passport) increased to the point that a number of parking areas in Austin (including one off-street lot) are "mobile pay only" (Austin Transportation and Public Works, accessed 5 Aug 2026). The Park ATX app is the primary payment method, with an additional mobile payment option provided by the Way.com app. CENTRAL FEATURE 3 is the use of a parking benefit district, known in Austin as a Parking & Transportation Management District, or PTMD. Public acceptance of the on-street parking management reforms in South Congress benefited from implementation of a new parking benefit district for the area. Austin’s PTMDs dedicate “51 percent of the public paid parking revenue, after City expenses, to support mobility improvements within the established district, including park maintenance, signage, wayfinding, and sidewalk improvements.” In place since 2023, the South Congress Parking & Transportation Management District (Austin Transportation and Public Works (Austin Transportation and Public Works, accessed 6 Aug 2026) takes in the whole area, including the main commercial street, some streets that previously had little parking management, and streets previously under restrictive residential permits that banned most parking by non-permit holders. Austin had been successfully experimenting with and then institutionalizing parking benefit districts for almost two decades, with step-by-step improvements. The West Campus example is highlighted in the Parking Reform Network’s PBD Guide (March 2026). Results or impacts As of mid-2026, this reform is still relatively new. I don’t yet see any formal evaluation of the effects of the changes. Public feedback on social media seems to have been mixed in the early stages, as would be expected, and muted since then, which is usually a good sign. Most such comments seem to focus on the main street, not the residential streets. Employee parking may remain a challenge. The initial impetus for this set of reforms included easing problems for employees in the area but it is not clear if this has been achieved. The initial plans involved three categories of street: public parking on the main corridor, public plus employee parking on many street sections close to the main corridor, and public and resident parking on the remaining street sections. It was proposed that shops and restaurants on South Congress could obtain parking permits for their employees. However, this employee permit and “public plus employee” zone proposals seem to have been dropped. In mid-2024, the Austin Transportation and Public Works said “Many of the merchants in the area have access to off-street parking facilities that can help accommodate employee parking needs. TPW will continue to work with merchants and stakeholders to address employee parking concerns, including the potential for affordable parking options similar to what is available to downtown service industry workers.” (cited by Kevin Baskar, 2024). Sources and acknowledgements Austin Downtown Alliance (March 2021) South Congress Parking Strategy: Public Draft (prepared by a consultant team from Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates and NuStats Research Solutions) https://downtownaustin.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/SoCoParkingStrategy_DraftRecommendations.pdf Austin Transportation and Public Works (accessed 5 Aug 2026) Paid Parking https://www.austintexas.gov/transportation-public-works/paid-parking Austin Transportation and Public Works (accessed 6 Aug 2026) Parking & Transportation Management Districts, https://www.austintexas.gov/transportation-public-works/programs/parking-and-transportation-management-districts Kevin Baskar (Jun 21, 2024) “Workers frustrated with South Congress paid parking”, KXAN (https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/workers-frustrated-with-south-congress-paid-parking/) Haley McLeod (3 July 2023) “South Congress Avenue-area visitors in Austin can expect new paid parking, regulations”, Community Impact, https://communityimpact.com/south-central-austin/transportation/south-congress-avenue-area-visitors-in-austin-can-expect-new-paid-parking-regulations/ Parking Reform Network (2026) “Short-Term Paid Parking in Residential Neighborhoods”, pp. 40-43 in the “Parking Policy Reform Cookbook” (March 2026 edition) (https://parkingreform.org/resources/cookbook/) Parking Reform Network (2022) Parking Benefit Districts: A Guide for Activists, written by Evan Kindler in collaboration with Tony Jordan and Jane Wilberding (https://parkingreform.org/playbook/pbd/#casestudies) Passport (accessed 5 Aug 2026) Case Study: Austin, TX: From Premier American City to Innovative Leader in Mobility Management, https://www.passportinc.com/case-studies/austin-tx/ Reinventing Parking (27 Feb. 2024) “Austin did it. Your city can too!” https://www.reinventingparking.org/2024/02/Austin.html Curtis Rogers (15 Mar 2023) “Common Ground at the Curb”, guest post in Jack Craver’s Austin Politics Newsletter, https://www.austinpolitics.net/common-ground-at-the-curb/ Last updated: 7 Aug 2026

A compendium of international parking reform cases to help parking policy reformers all over the world. The Parking Reform Atlas is a work in progress. I plan to steadily improve it with the help of the international community of parking changemakers. Your comments or other help are welcome! Scroll down to explore global parking reform examples OR narrow your selection with these filters Main reform type Main reform type Primary motivation Primary motivation Main parking category main category Main parking paradigm shift Main parking paradigm shift What is this about? World Region Region We use the World Bank regions here. Key actor type Key actor type Implementation state Implemented? Adaptive Parking thrust Adaptive Parking thrust What is this about? Clear all filters SHOW MORE CASES

In 2025 the City of Winnipeg made mobile payment the primary way to pay for on-street parking (and for some off-street surface parking lots). City-operated pay stations (payment machines) have been removed and are no longer an alternative for paid on-street parking areas. The alternative or back-up option is to pay via ‘prepaid parking booklets’ containing parking passes for display on the dashboard. However, mobile payment is much more convenient and is expected to dominate. Even before the removal of parking meters, mobile payments already accounted for over 80 percent of parking transactions, according to the City. Winnipeg’s removal of parking pay stations to rely mainly on mobile 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 2025 the City of Winnipeg made mobile payment the primary way to pay for on-street parking (and for some off-street surface parking lots). City-operated pay stations (payment machines) have been removed and are no longer an alternative for paid on-street parking areas. The alternative or back-up option is to pay via ‘prepaid parking booklets’ containing parking passes for display on the dashboard. However, mobile payment is much more convenient and is expected to dominate. Even before the removal of parking meters, mobile payments already accounted for over 80 percent of parking transactions, according to the City. Why should you care? In cities that have parking meters or parking payment kiosks proposals to remove this familiar payment option often face strong opposition. Therefore, it is so far rare for such cities to do what Winnipeg has done. This is a case for other cities to watch to see if the shift to mobile payment with safeguards (prepaid parking booklets) can prevail. Mobile only payment requires much lower investments by cities in on-street payment infrastructure and makes it much cheaper to operate paid parking in streets. Avoiding significant in-street infrastructure also makes it much easier to extend paid parking to more streets, if warranted. Lowered costs by avoiding parking meters can also enable paid parking in streets that need parking management, but where the expected daily fee intake would not justify costly infrastructure. Residential streets that face strong visitor parking demand are a common set of examples. Country Canada Vehicle type cars State/province Manitoba Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of Winnipeg Primary motivation Multiple Agencies involved Winnipeg Parking Authority Is it a model or a warning? remains to be seen Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift pricing On-street in mainly commercial streets Towards more responsiveness to context/market What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted P: Price parking in the right ways and with the right rates for each place and time implemented 2025 Goals of the reform The key goal of this change was to avoid the high cost of replacing pay stations that were approaching obsolescence while still providing convenient ways to pay for street parking. It was also argued that removing the option of paying via in-street parking meters would have several other advantages, such as avoided theft and vandalism, and lower ongoing costs. “The decision not to replace them means the city will save $3.6 million in replacement costs and $1 million in annual operating costs.” (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-parking-meters-being-removed-1.7540016) See the Why Should You Care section for more benefits that were not made explicit to justify the reform. Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) The immediate impetus for the decision was the fact that the existing pay stations had reached the end of their useful life and would stop working as Canada's mobile network providers phase out their 3G networks (https://www.winnipeg.ca/people-culture/our-city-our-stories/how-pay-parking-winnipeg). Detailed description of the reform THIS CASE IS A DRAFT THAT RELIED ON WEB-BASED INFORMATION. IF YOU HAVE LOCAL INSIGHT OR MORE INFORMATION OR A CORRECTION, PLEASE VISIT https://www.parkingreformatlas.org/get-involved TO SEND A TIP OR OFFER FEEDBACK. In 2025 the City of Winnipeg made mobile payment the primary way to pay for on-street parking (and for some off-street surface parking lots). City-operated pay stations (payment machines) have been removed and are no longer an alternative for paid on-street parking areas. The Winnipeg Parking Authority appointed the Vancouver-based PayByPhone company to operate the mobile payment system. Motorists need to download and install the PayByPhone app and register to enable payment via mobile device. The back-up option is to pay via ‘prepaid parking booklets’ containing parking passes for display on the dashboard after the day, month, year and start time of parking are scratched. These can be purchased from seven locations around the city or ordered by phone and delivered at no additional cost. This is an improvement on the initial situation in mid-2025 when prepaid parking booklets were only available from three locations. These replace the earlier Scratch N’ Park Meter Passes. However, mobile payment is much more convenient for most people, and is expected to dominate. Even before the removal of parking meters, mobile payments already accounted for over 80 percent of parking transactions, according to the City. There were complaints in the months before and after the change but controversy seems to have died down quickly. [Please correct me if this is wrong!] Relatively good public acceptance of the change may, in part, be influenced by the fact that the area with paid on-street parking in the core of the city has many off-street parking options, including many surface parking lots. Off-street parking (which can be paid with cards or cash) is apparently a nearby option almost everywhere in this area. Results or impacts It is probably too soon to assess the results. There were complaints in the months immediately before and after the change. As of mid-2026, the controversy seems to have died down, although this impression may just reflect the difficulty of searching for such discussion. Some complaints focused on a small extra charge for SMS notifications in the parking app. If this option is turned off, then posted prices are correctly charged. But if it is left on then payment via the app is slightly more expensive than the posted prices. However, people complaining said this option was on by default. Sources and acknowledgements City of Winnipeg (Last update: April 14, 2026; Accessed July 2026) Paid parking payment methods, https://theparkingstore.winnipeg.ca/theparkingstore/parkingInfo/PaidParkingPaymentMethods.stm City of Winnipeg (3 July 2025) How to pay for parking in Winnipeg, https://www.winnipeg.ca/people-culture/our-city-our-stories/how-pay-parking-winnipeg CBC News (21 May 2025) Getting rid of parking meters a 'terrible' decision, Winnipeg drivers say, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-parking-meters-being-removed-1.7540016 Image source: Via City of Winnipeg (last updated 20 February 2026) Parking demand area map, https://theparkingstore.winnipeg.ca/theparkingstore/parkinginfo/parking-demand-area-map.stm Last updated: 18 Jul 2026

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. 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

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). 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

Metered parking fees for city-owned parking are demand-based in two centres of activity in the City of Gold Coast under the city’s ParkInCentre Scheme (PICS). The areas are Broadbeach and Burleigh Heads. Four times a year, the city reviews the price of metered parking in small zones across these areas, and adjusts the price up or down (in increments of 20 cents) to better manage demand. This is based on occupancy data, primarily from in-ground sensors. There are also three time-of-day pricing periods. There are other areas with priced on-street parking in Gold Coast but so far Broadbeach and Burleigh Heads are the only centres with demand-based price setting. Gold Coast demand-based parking pricing 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 Metered parking fees for city-owned parking are demand-based in two centres of activity in the City of Gold Coast under the city’s ParkInCentre Scheme (PICS). The areas are Broadbeach and Burleigh Heads. Four times a year, the city reviews the price of metered parking in small zones across these areas, and adjusts the price up or down (in increments of 20 cents) to better manage demand. This is based on occupancy data, primarily from in-ground sensors. There are also three time-of-day pricing periods. There are other areas with priced on-street parking in Gold Coast but so far Broadbeach and Burleigh Heads are the only centres with demand-based price setting. Why should you care? This is Australia’s first example of demand-based parking price setting. The ParkInCentre Scheme also involves a relatively evidence-based approach to parking management. This reform has received little publicity. It deserves to be more widely known and to have its effects studied in more detail. It remains to be seen if the City of Gold Coast will extend this approach beyond its currently very limited geographical extent. Country Australia Vehicle type cars State/province Queensland Key actor type Local government Jurisdiction City of Gold Coast Primary motivation orderly parking (usually for wider benefits too) Agencies involved City of Gold Coast Parking Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift pricing City-owned (both on-street and off-street) Towards park-once-and-walk AND more responsiveness to context/market What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted P: Price parking in the right ways and with the right rates for each place and time implemented 2015 Goals of the reform “This Plan aims to achieve efficient and equitable parking outcomes through ‘ParkInCentre Schemes’ (PICS), local parking plans that are based on three principles: • Parking, timed and/or paid regulation, is managed according to local demand data. • New parking revenue is invested in local streetscape and local public transport improvements. • Actions and outcomes reflect local conditions and evolve over time.” (City of Gold Coast, City Parking Plan 2015, Feb. 2015) Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) It is not clear what the impetus for the 2015 trial was. The strategy document refers to SFPark in San Francisco, which seems to have been an inspiration. Detailed description of the reform In two areas of the City of Gold Coast (Broadbeach and Burleigh Heads), city-owned metered parking fees are demand-based. These areas fall under the most intensively-managed category of area under the city’s ParkInCentre Scheme (PICS). The demand-based price setting applies to both on-street parking and city-owned off-street metered parking. Four times a year, the city reviews the price of metered parking in small zones across these areas, and adjusts the price up or down (in increments of 20 cents) to better manage demand. Both Broadbeach and Burleigh Heads have three time-of-day pricing periods. In Broadbeach these are 9am-11am, 11am-2pm and 2pm-7pm. In Burleigh Heads the pricing periods are 9am-10am, 10am-2pm and 2pm-5pm). The prices for city-owned car parking under this scheme range from AUD1.50 per hour to AUD3.60 per hour as of May 2021. There are other areas with priced on-street parking in Gold Coast but so far Broadbeach and Burleigh Heads are the only centres with demand-based price setting. Each of the other areas has a different hourly price for parking but each has the same price across the whole area and across the whole pricing period (AUD2.80 per hour in Southport, AUD4.10 per hour in Surfer’s Paradise and AUD2.10 per hour in Bundall). As centres of activity change, the Gold Coast parking strategy suggests a progression of parking management effort under the ParkInCentre Scheme (PICS). This starts with a PICS Review to look into new or changed regulated parking, then a PICS Study to also look into adding paid parking areas, and then potentially establishing a PICS Benefitted Area Zone to introduce “demand responsive parking prices with an investment policy for local accessibility and streetscaping improvements”. (City of Gold Coast, City Parking Plan 2015, Feb. 2015) Paid on-street parking will be introduced into a centre when 80 per cent occupancy is consistently reached in peak periods, based on data and evidence. Occupancy data is primarily from in-ground sensors. In the City of Gold Coast 50% of parking revenue is devoted to local improvement projects, including streetscaping, landscaping and improved public transport. Results or impacts “The two-year ‘ParkInCentre Scheme’ (PICS) pilot for Broadbeach and Burleigh Heads started in October 2015 introducing location based demand-responsive pricing. During the first 12 months of the PICS pilot: vehicle overstays decreased by 2-4 per cent vehicle occupancy in low demand areas increased by 5-10 per cent reductions in peak parking demand resulted in greater parking accessibility.” (https://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/parkincentres-schemes-pics-28332.html) Sources and acknowledgements City of Gold Coast, City Parking Plan 2015, Feb. 2015 https://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/documents/bf/City_Parking_Plan_book_WEB.pdf City of Gold Coast: Parking https://new.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Services/Parking/Traffic-Areas/Broadbeach-parking https://new.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Services/Parking/Traffic-Areas/Burleigh-Heads-parking Frequently Asked Questions - ParkInCentres Schemes (PICS) https://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/parkincentres-schemes-pics-28332.html https://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/traffic-reports/gold-coast-council-starts-floating-price-parking-trial-at-broadbeach-and-burleigh/news-story/e8304ba1bbbde86832fb7278edc44ef5 Last updated: 18 May 2021

Barter, P.A. (2011) Parking Policy in Asian Cities. Asian Development Bank (ADB), Manila. 98 pages. 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, Paul (2020) ‘Singapore’ in Dorina Pojani, Jonathan Corcoran, Neil Sipe and Iderlina Mateo-Babiano (eds.) Parking: An International Perspective, 1st Edition. Elsevier. 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

Downloadable documents about parking policy and reform by Paul Barter 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

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

All London Boroughs abolished their minimum parking requirements for all land-uses and adopted maximums in 2004 or in the years soon after. [But note that parts of central London already had parking maximums decades before this.] London parking maximums (and minimums abolition) When you use this in your parking change-making efforts, please give credit to Parking Reform Atlas and/or its sources. Do you see an error? Have a comment? There is a feedback form here . Brief summary of this reform All London Boroughs abolished their minimum parking requirements for all land-uses and adopted maximums in 2004 or in the years soon after. [But note that parts of central London already had parking maximums decades before this.] Why should you care? London (and England more widely) is a prominent case of a large city that has been almost completely without parking minimums, and has applied parking maximums, for more than 15 years now. The impacts of the reform on residential parking provision have been closely studies by Zhan Guo and his colleagues. Country United Kingdom Vehicle type cars State/province Key actor type Metropolitan government Jurisdiction London Primary motivation mode shift or TDM Agencies involved Greater London Authority and the 33 London Boroughs Is it a model or a warning? useful model Reform type Main parking category What is this about? Main parking paradigm shift maximums or caps (including minimums switched to maximums) Off-street various Promotes all three Adaptive Parking paradigm shifts What is this about? Adaptive Parking thrust Implementation status Year adopted D: Discourage or limit parking supply in certain contexts implemented 2004 Goals of the reform England's Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport of 2001 stated that “maximum standards should be designed to be used as part of a package of measures to promote sustainable transport choices.” Impetus (what problem, campaign, opportunity or event prompted action?) Wider national policy trends seem to have been behind this reform but more information is needed. Detailed description of the reform All London Boroughs abolished their minimum parking requirements and adopted maximums in 2004 or in the years soon after. This change applied to all land-use types. Transport for London (TfL) Public Transport Accessibility Scores (PTAL scores) helps developers decide how much parking provision is appropriate in each location across the city. Different maximums apply to different areas, guided by PTAL scores and by London Plan spatial designations and use classes. Maximums applying in central London are very restrictive and allow very little parking to be built. For example, under the London Plan, office buildings in central and inner London have a parking maximum of zero (except for 'disabled persons parking'). Those applying in outer areas are permissive and still allow quite abundant parking to be provided. The highest maximum for office and for retail buildings under the London Plan is 1 space per 50 square metres. It should be noted that, despite the abolition of parking minimums and the adoption of maximums, some local authorities in England, including some London boroughs, remained concerned about parking under-provision. Similar to the case of Dublin, Ireland, many of them seem to treat the parking maximums as a target rather than a maximum and require developers to provide strong justification for development proposals with parking much below the maximums. The shift to maximums occurred after 'the Greater London Authority (GLA) passed the London Plan in February 2004, which required local authorities to shift from a minimum to a maximum standard.' Parts of London have had parking maximums since 1976: "The Greater London Development Plan (1976) (paras 5.8.16 to 5.8.22 and Table 4) set maximums for offices and shops "with different levels for the Central Area, Inner Ring, more important suburban centres and in the remainder of Outer London". The GLA policy in turn was in line with national policy guidance PPG13 for England, which was published in 2001 and said that car parking standards should be expressed as maximums not minimums and that developers should normally have discretion to provide as little parking as they consider necessary. As context, in large parts of London on-street parking is strictly managed under CPZs (controlled parking zones). These have certain faults but do reliably control chaotic and obstructive parking in the areas under them. National guidance changed in 2019. The National Planning Policy Framework opened the door to minimums and discouraged parking maximums ("Maximum parking standards for residential and non-residential development should only be set where there is a clear and compelling justification that they are necessary for managing the local road network."). The new London Plan 2021 still calls for parking maximums for all land-uses but does now allow residential parking minimums in outer areas: "Outer London boroughs wishing to adopt minimum residential parking standards through a Development Plan Document (within the maximum standards set out in Policy T6 .1 Residential parking) must only do so for parts of London that are PTAL 0-1. Inner London boroughs should not adopt minimum standards. Minimum standards are not appropriate for non-residential use classes in any part of London." (p. 423) Have any London boroughs yet adopted any residential minimums? Results or impacts Zhan Guo and colleagues studied the impact of the reform on residential development, finding that the main impact was from removing the minimums, not from the maximums. The main conclusions were: "The number of parking spaces supplied after the 2004 parking reform fell by approximately 40 percent when compared to the number of parking spaces that would have been supplied with the previous minimum parking requirements. This means that from 2004 to 2010, the new parking requirements led to a total of 143,893 fewer spaces. No other alternative explanations (car ownership saturation, development constraints, congestion charging, oil price spike, etc.) account for such a dramatic decline. Furthermore, almost all the reduction in parking supply was caused by eliminating the minimum standards, declining only 2.2 percent due to adoption of the maximum standards." Have there been other studies of the parking maximums in London, such as the effects of the maximums for other land-uses? Sources and acknowledgements Zhan Guo, "From Parking Minimums to Parking Maximums in London", Access magazine, Fall 2016. https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-2016/from-parking-minimums-to-parking-maximums-in-london/ Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, February 2019, "National Planning Policy Framework", https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/810197/NPPF_Feb_2019_revised.pdf London Plan 2021. https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/london-plan-2021 https://www.reinventingparking.org/2013/09/which-cities-have-abolished-parking.html https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/public-transport-accessibility-levels London Forum statement https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/Commission%20-%20London%20Forum%20-Technical%20consultation%20MB%20comments%20on%20Maximum%20parking%20standards.pdf Last updated: 16 Mar 2021

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. 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