This document evaluates the effect of London's parking reform between 1997-2010 which shifted from minimum to maximum parking standards. It analyzed 607 matched pre-reform and post-reform developments. On average, the reform reduced parking supply by 0.73 spaces per unit. A larger portion of this effect was due to eliminating minimum standards, which previously distorted the market more in inner London. The reform shows parking markets can function efficiently with minimal off-street regulation and flexible on-street pricing.

2. Evaluating the Parking Standard
Reform in London:
A Matched-Pair Approach
Fei Li
New York University
Wagner Graduate School of Public Service
Lee Schipper Memorial Scholarship for Sustainable Transport and Energy

3. Why care about parking Standards?
 Underused parking
(Willson, 1995)
 More costly housing
(Jia & Wachs, 1998)
Minimum Parking Standard
Higher Car
Ownership
and Usage
 Barring redevelopment
(Manville and Shoup, 2010)
 Greater car dependence
(Shoup, 2005)
Excess Parking
Supply
Lower
Density
Lower Parking
Costs
Lee Schipper Memorial Scholarship for Sustainable Transport and Energy
Higher
Housing
Costs
2

4. Reforming Parking Policy
 Three approaches to parking regulation (Barter, 2010)
 The traditional approach: minimum parking standards
 The market approach: deregulating off-street parking &
pricing on-street parking (Shoup, 2005)
 Comprehensive parking management: maximum
parking standards (parking caps), on-street parking
control, etc.
Lee Schipper Memorial Scholarship for Sustainable Transport and Energy
3

5. London Parking Reform
 Following two national policies (PPG3, PPG13) and the
2004 London Plan:
 An across-the-board shift from minimum to maximum car
parking standards (mainly for residential uses)
 Encouraging car free developments in downtown areas
 On-street parking controls limiting car usage
 To evaluate the effect of the parking reform, we compare
the parking provision in pre-reform (1997-2000) and postreform (2004-2010) developments
Lee Schipper Memorial Scholarship for Sustainable Transport and Energy
4

6. The Study Area
Parking standards
(# of spaces per unit)
Borough
Prereform
(Min)
Postreform
(Max)
# of cars per
household
Commuting
by car (%)
2001
2001
2011
2011
Barnet
Harrow
Hammersmith
and Fulham
(H & F)
Islington
0-1
0.5
Mixed
0.51
0.41
16.82
6.39
Lambeth
0-1
0.25-1
Mixed
0.61
0.51
20.07
1-1.5
1-1.5
None
0.74
0.66
30.82
15.29
Newham
1.5-3
1-3
Reduced
0.63
0.60
29.25
12.67
Southwark
1.1
0-2
Mixed
0.59
0.50
21.84
8.66
Westminster
1
1-1.5
Increased
0.54
0.46
14.43
6.48
Bexley
1.33-2.5
1-2
Reduced
1.13
1.17
50.75
33.43
None
0.65
0.54
19.00
Waltham
Forest
Redbridge
8.73
Havering
Brent
Brent
1.2-2.16
1-2
Reduced
0.88
0.80
36.11
1.5-3
1-2
Reduced
1.16
1.18
45.23
1-2
1
Reduced
0.79
0.77
36.59
1-2
Reduced
1.09
1.06
40.70
24.40
H&F K&C
Barking
and
Dagenham
Greenwich
Southwark
Lambeth
Hounslow
Richmond
upon
Thames
Wandsworth
Bexley
Lewisham
Merton
Kingston
18.71
1-3
Hackney
Islington
Tower Newham
Hamlets
Westminster C.o.L.
Ealing
28.91
Greenwich
Camden
Hillingdon
18.67
Bromley
Richmond
upon Thames
Outer
London
Haringey
9.12
Lewisham
Inner
London
1-1.6
1-1.6
±
Enfield
Change
Bromley
Sutton
Croydon
Legend
Selected Boroughs
0
1 2
4
6
8
Miles
Lee Schipper Memorial Scholarship for Sustainable Transport and Energy
Inner London
5

7. Estimating the Policy Effect
 607 pairs of pre- and post-reform developments
matched by location and development type
 The average reform effect on parking supply:
𝑌 = 𝑋𝛽 + 𝛿𝑍 + 𝜀
 Pairwise difference estimator:
𝐸 𝑖 = 𝑌𝑖
𝑚𝑖𝑛
− 𝑌𝑖
𝑚𝑎𝑥
= 𝜀𝑖
Pre-reform parking supply
𝑚𝑖𝑛
− 𝜀𝑖
𝑚𝑎𝑥
Capping effect
Binding effect
− 𝛿
Post-reform parking supply
Parking standard
Lee Schipper Memorial Scholarship for Sustainable Transport and Energy
6

8. Results
Average
Reform
Effect (𝜹)
Percent Bound by
Minimum Parking
Standards (%)
Average
Binding
Effect
Percent Capped by
Maximum Parking
Standards (%)
Average
Capping
Effect
Inner
London
0.65
(62%)
27.3
0.87
(81%)
8.2
0.49
(30%)
Outer
London
0.81
(28%)
28.4
0.75
(41%)
20.1
0.90
(33%)
Total
0.73
(45%)
27.8
0.81
(61%)
14.2
0.78
(32%)
Figures in parentheses are the percentages of reduction in pre-reform parking supply.
Lee Schipper Memorial Scholarship for Sustainable Transport and Energy
7

9. Conclusions & Policy Implications
 A larger part of the average effect in London parking
reform is attributable to the elimination of minimum
parking standards
 Minimum parking standards cause greater market
distortion in the inner city
 The London parking reform suggests the potential for
an efficient parking market with minimal regulation
on off-street parking provision and flexible on-street
parking prices
Lee Schipper Memorial Scholarship for Sustainable Transport and Energy
8