Paul-Barter - Parking Policy China PDF

Pivotal Choices in Parking Policy:
International and Asian Approaches
:
Paul Barter
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore
www.reinventingparking.org
Photo: Zaitun Kasim
Summary
Beijing
A. Key choices in parking policy
B. The key choices in action in the

West
C. The key choices in action in Asia
D. Some guiding principles towards

more adaptive parking
Paul Barter: Pivotal Choices in Parking Policy
A. Key choices in parking policy
Prerequisite for effective parking policy: good enough

control against nuisance parking
Jakarta
Guangzhou
So first get control against disruptive parking
There is little incentive for

private actors to build or use
off-street parking if illegal
parking is easy
Dhaka
Much parking policy aims to expand off-street parking

out of fear of on-street chaos
But off-street supply CANNOT replace the need to get control of on-street parking
Manila
Jakarta
Enforcing on-street parking rules:

:
Clear rules and signs
Better as an administrative matter,
not a law court matter
Best NOT by the police

Better at local level
Keep revenue very local
Better outsourced to private contractor s
Good models include

UK, Netherlands, Spain, Singapore (since 2010),
Japan (since 2006), Makati in Metro Manila
2010
2006
Photo by Flickr user gregwake
Whose responsibility is parking supply?
Government? (government-subsidized public parking facilities)
Developers? (parking requirements)
Motorists? (proof-of-parking regulation in Japan)
Is it the wrong question?

Maybe no-one should be responsible for supply but rather for establishing
context in which the right supply can emerge via market processes?
Is parking really infrastructure?
Like the streets?

Like toilets/restrooms in buildings?
/
Or is infrastructure a poor analogy?
Maybe real estate based service would be better?

This way it would be clear that parking is mainly the motorists own
responsibility to rent on a commercial basis.
?
What kind of economic good is parking?
NOT a public good!

Parking is easily excludable and obviously subtractable (=rival)
=
Unfortunately, parking is often managed as an openaccess commons
The usual range of approaches to managing commons can work

(but may be politically tricky)
Parking as real-estate
But often bundled with other things
Becomes commercial and market-oriented when unbundled
from other goods
Should off-street parking serve the whole district or just its own site?
?
Kuala
Lumpur
Each premises must have enough

dedicated parking for its own
parking demand
VS
Parking should serve its local

district not just its own specific site
Taipei
Most conventional parking policy tries to keep parking within each building site
Spillover parking (when some of the vehicles heading to a site must park outside the
site) is assumed to be a bad thing
Some of the fear of spillover arises from failure to get enough

control of the on-street parking (as in Dhaka)
Private (clients-only) parking.

Spillover would be seen as a problem here.
Park-once districts: an approach that defuses spillover as a problem

Park-once
Parking location and destinations need not be same place
Much parking is open to the public (even parking within buildings)

Mixing of land uses is useful for parking efficiency
Taipei
Contrasting approaches to spillover
Conventional thinking
Spillover causes chaos and must be
prevented
VS
Park-once districts approach

Park-once
Vehicles dont have to park inside their
destination if the area has various parking
options open to the public at market-prices
Implications of different views of spillover for choices on parking supply
Spillover seen as a problem
Every building needs more than enough parking (even if price is zero)
OR
Every building needs enough but not too much
OR
Encourage (large) buildings to have enough but be pragmatic and

flexible about it
OR
Think of parking as serving whole area.

Stop assuming each site needs its own parking
Spillover NOT seen as a problem
How much parking supply?

If you want cheap parking in a dense
city then supply must be high and will
need subsidy or cross-subsidy
OR
Aim for the amount that best serves

our policy goals. A good idea but
difficult to achieve
OR
Allow supply to adapt to context via

market processes (with market prices)
Local governments often try to boost supply of

parking. But how much is enough? And at what
price?
In the past, the Tokyo Government built public

underground parking. Today, Tokyo allows such
parking to have prices close to market prices.
What is the right price for parking?

Free? (which really means bundling the cost with other things)
OR
A politically acceptable price?
OR
To cover costs?
OR
These involve some

kind of market price
To deliberately influence travel behaviour?
OR
To eliminate queuing/cruising for parking?(see Prof. Shoups presentation)

/Shoup
OR
To reflect opportunity costs of land/space used?

/
Parking policy approach categories
Approaches to parking policy
Central goals
Avoid parking spillover and scarcity

Suburban
Conventional Demand-realistic
Relaxed-pragmatic
Avoid both scarcity and wasteful surplus
Require (large) buildings to merely contribute to
parking supply
Multi-objective
Make parking policy serve various

urban & transport policy goals
Parking
management
Constraint-focused
Use parking policy mainly to constrain car travel to

certain locations
Market-based
Ensure demand, supply and prices are responsive
(for example, Donald Shoups approach)
to each other
Donald Shoup
Central goals

Suburban
Relaxed-pragmatic
parking supply
Multi-objective

Parking
management
Constraint-focused

certain locations
Market-based
to each other
Donald Shoup
B. The key choices in action in the West
North American or Australasian suburbs
The autocentric conventional

or conventional suburban
approach dominates autooriented suburban areas
Very high minimum parking

requirements are the primary
parking policy
Auckland, New Zealand

Conventional suburban-style parking policy tends to promote

automobile dependence
Paul Barter: Pivotal Choices in Parking

Policy
Los Angeles
Many Americans
lament the damage
done by conventional
parking policy
Very difficult to undo

the damage
From Bernick and Cervero, 1997
Older or denser parts of Western cities
Relatively dense
Mixed land uses
Limited road space
Diverse alternatives to cars
Park-once districts
Park-once
Randwick: An inner area in Sydney
Older or denser parts of Western cities
Conventional suburban-style parking policy can blight older, dense areas if it

is not pragmatic or flexible enough
Near Houstons city centre

(Photo source?)
Central goals

Suburban
Relaxed-pragmatic
parking supply
Multi-objective

Parking
management
Constraint-focused

certain locations
Market-based
to each other
Donald Shoup
Parking management suites older, denser parts of Western cities
Much recent progress on parking management for such areas
The parking management approach works!

Tried and tested in many cities
Active management of parking prices,

eligibility, time-limits, design, sharing, parking
taxes, and supply (including restricting supply)
Defuses spillover as a problem
Balances interests of various stakeholders

and various goals (such as traffic, environmental
Priority parking for residents in Adelaide
and streetscape management)

BUT
Complex
Potential for conflict
Requires political will
Priority parking for car-sharing cars in Sydney
Places with restricted parking supply (such as parking maximums or

caps) often have commercial parking
So market processes also play a role in such places
Market-oriented thinking on parking policy
Proposals to expand market processes in parking, with

various recent trials (such as San Franciscos)

C. The key choices in action in Asian cities
What about Asian cities?

Asian city characteristics
High urban densities, mixed-use urban

fabric
Car ownership lower than in
the West
High use of non-car modes
So expect the parking management

approach?
Surprise!
They have minimum parking

requirements
And only a few signs of the
parking management approach
http://beta.adb.org/publications/parking-policy-asian-cities
Minimum parking requirements at comparable commercial

buildings versus approximate car ownership
100
VS
1000
Source: Barter (2011) Parking Policy in Asian Cities (ADB)
Southeast Asia
(Bangkok, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, and Manila)
Minimum parking requirement enthusiasts
Requiring large off-street supply with new

buildings has NOT solved their on-street
parking problems
These cities are increasingly car

-dominated
Low parking prices are a norm (p

rice controls in Jakarta)
Ahmedabad, Dhaka, Hanoi
Weak on-street parking management =

on-street parking chaos
=
Policy efforts (so far) focus on BOTH

minimum parking requirements
AND local government-provided parking
Off-street parking is often under-utilized

even when nearby streets are saturated
Dhaka
Indonesia
April 2012
Pragmatic eastern Asian approaches

seem promising
Minimum parking requirements at comparable commercial

buildings versus approximate car ownership
100
VS
1000
Exempting small buildings from requiring parking

Floor area threshold below which there are no parking requirements
Tokyo
Yes (1,500 m2 or 2,000 m2). Above the threshold, parking requirements phase in
gradually according to a formula. At full force only from 6,000 m2 floor area. 1500
m2 2000 m2
6000 m2
Guangzhou
Yes (500 m2) 500
Taipei city
Yes (300 m2 or 500 m2) 300500
Yes (commercial, office, shopping malls: 300 m2; condominiums: 60 m2 per unit;
Bangkok
hotels: 30 rooms; restaurants: 300 m2; entertainment buildings: 500 seats)
300m2; 60 m2 /; 30 ;
300 m2; 500
Small, street-side retail serving local residents is generally exempt
Hong Kong
Ahmedabad Yes (60 m2)60

Hanoi
Low-rise residential buildings exempt
Beijing
Yes?
Seoul
Jakarta
Singapore
Kuala Lumpur
Manila
Dhaka
No?
No?
No
No
No
No

Barter (2011)ADB
Suburban
Relaxed-pragmatic
Multi-objective
Parking
management
Constraint-focused
Central goals
Relaxed-pragmatic
conventional approaches
Avoidseem
parkingtospillover
and scarcity
be common
in

eastern Asia

parking supply


certain locations
Market-based
to each other
Donald Shoup
Tokyo (and Japan generally)
Minimum parking requirements

but they are very low and exempt
small buildings
Narrow streets : little on-street

parking (and on-street parking generally
banned overnight)
Proof-of-parking rule
Park-once districts Park-once
- with much parking open to public
- priced at market rates (both public-sector and private-sector)
Tokyo
Japans parking inadvertently market-oriented

Result of 3 pragmatic policies parking 3

low parking requirements that exempt small buildings;
limited on-street parking;

Proof-of-parking rule for residential
Tokyo has commercial parking in most areas
Tokyo
Tokyo has commercial parking in most areas
Even for residential parking
Tokyo
Hong Kong, Seoul and Singapore

Parking requirements aimed to match
realistic demand
But pragmatic about spillover (parkonce districts)
park once
Lower parking requirements near mass

transit
HK and Singapore lowered their parking

requirements when found to be excessive
Pricing widespread (including market pricing)
Seouls business districts have parking

maximums
Hong Kong
Taipei
Modest parking requirements
Earlier keen on government supply (but

now abandoning this supply focus)
Increasingly effective on-street parking

management with pricing
Pricing very widespread; many parkonce districts

park once
Even government parking now close to

market priced
Beijing, Guangzhou
Modest parking requirements
Keen on government-provided parking
New parking management efforts
(including impr
oved enforcement, raised prices in central zones, etc)
Priced parking widespread with many park-onc

e districts
park once
But price controls on private-sector parking are

worrying (will limit market responsiveness)
On-street pricing and time limits 2009

2009
Dhaka
Prices vary from place to

place or time to time?
Higher in CBD CBD
Highest price found

(PPP$/hr)
0.78 per day 0.78 /
Ahmedabad
Jakarta
Kuala Lumpur
Bangkok
Uniform where priced

Two zones 2
One price per municipality
Uniform where priced
0.16
0.37
0.41
0.60
Hanoi
Two zones
0.81
Guangzhou
Beijing
Hong Kong
Zones with different prices

Two zones
Uniform legislated price
1.05
1.32
1.46
Manila
Singapore
Tokyo
Taipei
Seoul
One price per municipality

Two zones 2
Uniform legislated price
Higher where demand high
Five zones 5
1.71
1.90
2.58
3.45
7.86

Barter (2011)ADB
Median monthly unreserved CBD parking price (US$)

CBD
Source: Colliers International Global CBD Parking Rate Survey 2011
Paul Barter: Pivotal

Choices in Parking Policy
CBD parking prices compared with CBD Grade A office rents 2009
(on a rent per square meter basis) based on Colliers International data sources
CBDA
2009CBD A
CBD
Barter (2011)ADB
Summary on eastern
Asian cities
Several eastern Asian cities have variations on a relaxed pragmatic version of the
conventional parking policy approach
Less harmful than the conventional suburban approach
It suits their high-density, mixed-use urban fabrics
It fosters some market responsiveness in park-once neighborhoods which mostly cope well
with spillover park-once
Opportunity : encourage this further via market-pricing both on-street and off-street and in both
private and public sectors
Opportunitytry more parking management, especially in highly transit-oriented locations
D. Some guiding principles towards

more Adaptive Parking
These build on Donald Shoups suggestions,

take lessons from successful park-once districts
in many places (for example, in Japan), and aim
to complement parking management.
Donald Shoup
park- once

Guiding principles towards more Adaptive Parking
Prerequisite: adequate control of parking in public spaces
AND simultaneously and progressively

:
1. encourage more parking to be open to the public
2. foster more demand-responsive pricing
3. compromise with local stakeholders when necessary
4. allow supply to be more responsive to local context
5. ensure enough competition and options
First get control against disruptive parking
As discussed earlier, this is a

prerequisite
Little incentive to build or use

off-street parking if illegal
parking is easy
Dhaka
1. Public Parking
Encourage more parking to be
OPEN to the public rather
than restricted to tenants or
customers, etc.
Shared or public parking

serving multiple destinations
(with different peak parking
times) is efficient (like the
tables in a food court)
Private frontage parking would be

more efficient if shared or public
2. Performance Pricing
In its pure form, this says adjust prices
gradually until
there are some vacancies

and no searching for parking
prices send useful market signal
Sweet spot usually about 85%

occupancy
85%
Price too low if much fuller than that

85%
Source: Shoup, D. The High Cost of Free Parking
This is NOT about deterring car trips
But it does reduce traffic by reducing

circling and queuing for parking
Price too high if much emptier

85%
Performance Pricing
This means there is no one-size-fits-all

parking price
Different prices in different places
Different prices at different times of the

day and week
Several cities trying ambitious versions

(eg trials in SF www.SFPark.org
SF
But MANY cities have long used

occupancy as rough guide to price
adjustments
Shopkeepers need not fear price

drops if parking usage drops

3.
Integrate Stakeholder Interests
For example, residents often illegally

claim street spaces as their own
They will fight efforts to enforce public

parking and to price it
Unless we somehow sweeten the deal

for them
4. Responsive Supply
Steps above should make spillover less scary!
Shoup says abolish parking minimums. We can let developers

decide how much parking to build. Shoup
Shoup
Adaptive Parking says, at least allow MORE responsiveness. The

more the better!
Ways include
Dont set requirements too high
Exempt small buildings
Allow payments in lieu of parking
Allow required parking to be off-site
Allow less if it is open to the public

Allow less near public transport or with TDM efforts
TDM
5: Options and Competition

We can reduce suspicion and anger
about pricing and other parking
reforms if we improve peoples options
Options can include

competing parking providers nearby
at different prices
decent and diverse alternatives

to driving
options even if they do drive

(eg ride-sharing)
Guiding principles towards more Adaptive Parking
Prerequisite: adequate control of parking in public spaces
Then progressively
:
1.encourage more parking to be open to the public
2. foster more demand-responsive pricing
3. compromise with local stakeholders when necessary
4. allow supply to be more responsive to local context
5. ensure enough competition and options
Thank you!
!
To download the Parking Policy in Asian Cities study go to
http://beta.adb.org/publications/parking-policy-asian-cities
For more on my perspectives on parking policy see
http://www.reinventingparking.org/

Paul-Barter - Parking Policy China PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paul-Barter - Parking Policy China PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pivotal Choices in Parking Policy:

International and Asian Approaches

Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore

Photo: Zaitun Kasim

A. Key choices in parking policy

B. The key choices in action in the

C. The key choices in action in Asia

D. Some guiding principles towards

Paul Barter: Pivotal Choices in Parking Policy

A. Key choices in parking policy

Paul Barter: Pivotal Choices in Parking Policy

Prerequisite for effective parking policy: good enough

Paul Barter: Pivotal Choices in Parking Policy

So first get control against disruptive parking

There is little incentive for

Paul Barter: Pivotal Choices in Parking Policy

Much parking policy aims to expand off-street parking

Paul Barter: Pivotal Choices in Parking Policy

Enforcing on-street parking rules:

Best NOT by the police

Good models include

Photo by Flickr user gregwake

Paul Barter: Pivotal Choices in Parking Policy

Whose responsibility is parking supply?

Government? (government-subsidized public parking facilities)

Developers? (parking requirements)

Motorists? (proof-of-parking regulation in Japan)

Is it the wrong question?

Paul Barter: Pivotal Choices in Parking Policy

Is parking really infrastructure?

Like the streets?

Or is infrastructure a poor analogy?

Maybe real estate based service would be better?

Paul Barter: Pivotal Choices in Parking Policy

What kind of economic good is parking?

NOT a public good!

Unfortunately, parking is often managed as an openaccess commons

The usual range of approaches to managing commons can work

Each premises must have enough

Parking should serve its local

Paul Barter: Pivotal Choices in Parking Policy

Some of the fear of spillover arises from failure to get enough

Private (clients-only) parking.

Paul Barter: Pivotal Choices in Parking Policy

Park-once districts: an approach that defuses spillover as a problem

Parking location and destinations need not be same place

Much parking is open to the public (even parking within buildings)

Mixing of land uses is useful for parking efficiency

Paul Barter: Pivotal Choices in Parking Policy

Contrasting approaches to spillover

Park-once districts approach

Paul Barter: Pivotal Choices in Parking Policy

Implications of different views of spillover for choices on parking supply

Spillover seen as a problem

Every building needs enough but not too much

Encourage (large) buildings to have enough but be pragmatic and

Think of parking as serving whole area.

Spillover NOT seen as a problem

Paul Barter: Pivotal Choices in Parking Policy

How much parking supply?

Aim for the amount that best serves

Allow supply to adapt to context via

Local governments often try to boost supply of