Dr Paul Barter LKY School of Public Policy National University of Singapore paulbarter@nus.edu.sg Parking Policy in Asian cities highlights Photo by Rutul Joshi Study commissioned by ADB under RETA 6416: A Development Framework for Sustainable Urban Transport - Parking Policy in Asia: Status, Comparisons and Potential Photo: Zaitun Kasim
1. Framework for thinking about parking policy choices 1. Conventional approaches parking as ancillary infrastructure for buildings, hence parking requirements 2. Parking management approaches parking as a tool for wider policy goals 3. Market-based approaches parking as a real-estate based service
1. Framework for thinking about parking policy choices Approaches to parking policy What is parking? And whose responsibility? Central goals Conventional Autocentric Demand-realistic Infrastructure Government + property owner responsibility. Avoid parking scarcity Avoid both scarcity and wasteful surplus Parking management Multi-objective Constraint-focused Infrastructure Government responsibility mainly Serve wider urban & transport policy goals Key goal is constraint of car travel (to certain locations) Market-based Real-estate based service Private beneficiaries (willingness to pay) Ensure demand, supply and prices are responsive to each other
2. Selected results: Parking requirements at commercial buildings (on average) versus approximate car ownership
2. Selected results: Exempting small buildings from requiring parking Tokyo Floor area threshold below which no parking requirements Yes (1500 or 2000 sq. m). Above this requirements phase in gradually Taipei Yes (300 or 500m 2 ) Bangkok Yes (commercial, office, shopping malls: 300m 2 ; condominiums: 60m 2 per unit; hotels: 30 rooms; restaurants: 300m 2 ; entertainment buildings 500 seats) Seoul No? Jakarta Singapore Kuala Lumpur Manila Hong Kong No? No No No No Guangzhou Yes (500m 2 ) Ahmedabad Yes (60m 2 ) Beijing Hanoi Dhaka Yes? Low-rise residential buildings exempt No
2. Selected results: On-street pricing and time limits Source: Shoup, D. Prices vary from place to place or time to time? Highest price found (PPP$/hr) Time limits used? Jakarta Two zones 0.37 No Kuala Lumpur One price per municipality 0.41 Yes (3 hrs) Bangkok Uniform where priced 0.60 No Hong Kong Uniform legislated price 1.46 Yes (2 hrs) Manila One price per municipality 1.71 Yes (3 hrs) Singapore Two zones 1.90 No Tokyo Uniform legislated price 2.58 Yes (60 min) Taipei Higher where demand high 3.45 No Seoul Five zones 7.86 No Dhaka Higher in CBD 0.78 per day No Ahmedabad Uniform where priced 0.16 No Hanoi Two zones 0.81 No Guangzhou Zones with different prices 1.05? Beijing Two zones 1.32?
2. Selected results: Where do people park? Locations for shopping/entertainment parking by survey respondents
2. Selected results: Proportion paying for parking (as % of respondents parking for each purpose)
2. Selected results: Average work-based parking prices paid by survey respondents per month (January 2010 US$) * In Manila, Seoul, and Ahmedabad fewer than 20 respondents paid for parking at work so their mean prices should be treated with extra caution.
2. Selected results: CBD parking prices compared with CBD Grade A office rents (on a rent per square meter basis) in many international cities, based on Colliers International data sources
2. Selected results: other highlights Parking enforcement best practices make a difference (e.g. freeing the police from this role) Japan's proof-of of-parking policy is important Priced off-street parking (both private and public sector) outside of destination premises is most significant in Beijing, Taipei, Hanoi, Hong Kong and (apparently) Tokyo Several cities have price controls over private sector parking (Beijing, Guangzhou, Hanoi, Jakarta) Parking policy for TDM is surprisingly rare in Asia (Seoul is the main exception)
3. Parking policy trajectories in Asia Parking requirement enthusiasts: Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, Jakarta and Manila. South Asian cities seem headed this way. TDM cities with surprisingly conventional parking policy: : Hong Kong, Seoul and Singapore (Inadvertent) Market-fostering fostering: : Tokyo Result of 3 pragmatic policies: low parking requirements that exempt small buildings; limited on-street parking; and the proof-of of-parking rule. An intermediate path: : Taipei, Beijing and Guangzhou and (perhaps) Hanoi.
4. Key policy implications Fear of chaotic on-street parking is a key motivation for requiring parking in real estate developments BUT plentiful off-street parking provides no guarantee of orderly on-street parking Solving on-street parking problems requires on-street parking management, not necessarily off-street supply expansion. On-street parking chaos is not proof of a shortage
4. Key policy implications Pricing is widespread in Asian cities, especially in East Asia A surprising proportion of parking is free-of of-charge (or cheap) even in cities with high property prices Price controls on private-sector parking are unwise Government-subsidized parking is a highly regressive and unwise use of taxpayers resources Parking requirements seem an easy option but are problematic. Audacious to think that we can predict parking demand of buildings for decades
4. Key policy implications Constraint-focused parking policy deserves wider application but faces political and practical barriers in many cities Multi-objective parking management has much to offer and deserves much wider application Park-once neighborhoods (most parking in shared public parking with market-prices) are already common and are highly relevant to Asian conditions. They could provide a useful focus for market-oriented parking policies.