The Problem of Parking Policy in Singapore

On the one hand, the Urban Redevelopment Authority and Land Transport Authority speak glowingly about how the government wants the community playing a more active role in steering Singapore towards becoming a car-lite society. On the other hand, they can't seem to shake off the need to still maintain control. It is not uncommon for government to put a leash on car park reduction policy. When Range-Based Car Parking Standard (RCPS) was implemented in 2005, it was intended to provide developers with greater flexibility in the provision of carparking spaces in order to match this with the car parking demands based on operational and business considerations. However, this was pulled back under control since 2012 when a circular was released to now require for developers to pre-consult LTA prior to adoption of the scheme.

The proposed amendment to the Parking Places Act, put forth in Parliament recently, will give LTA the flexibility to specify a range of parking provisions - defined by a lower and/or upper limit. While it is undeniable that this is a positive step towards car-lite, but again it stopped short of being “bold and just abolish" the minimum number of parking spaces required as rightly pointed out by Parking policy expert Dr Paul Barter. Eliminating minimum parking requirements is not as radical as it sounds. In fact, cities such London and Berlin have no parking requirements. This approach does not eliminate parking supply, it simply allows developers to decide how many lots to build based on market demand. When Central Boulevard white site was sold in November 2016, its car parking provision was capped at 80 per cent of the minimum standards - the first time a cap was imposed.

Cushman & Wakefield research director Christine Li then questioned the cap as "such restrictions could make the development less attractive to office tenants who expect generous car parking allocation. It begs the question if carpark requirements should be left for developers instead. Rather than a generic parking requirement table set by traffic engineering and planning professions, developers to take a market-oriented parking approach, and determine the carpark quantum based on their target users. However, the practice of imposing parking requirement has been resistant to any possible change so far. One barrier may be that market-oriented parking policy thinking has provided inadequate assurance on what would happen to off-street parking after initial reforms take place.

Few cases of developers taking advantage of such laissez-faire policy was the reason for the 2005 tightening process. This is made worse due to the fact that this problem cannot be solved promptly as carpark spaces are inelastic – carpark space cannot be created as and when required especially in land-scarce Singapore. With Singapore society being quick in its political backlash, cautious steps are more than often taken by policy makers/agencies. Attempts by agencies to seek involvement from the stakeholders is also often difficult when businesses and local communities do not come together; and a prescriptive approach is often seen as imposed by agencies without good understanding of businesses.

Recent introduction of Business Improvement District (BID) programme may offer a way to depoliticize the reform and allays concerns from both stakeholders and agencies. With a formal place management model and active participation by stakeholders, this will provide more assurance for initial reforms to take place. Tanjong Pagar and Kampong Glam BIDs’ proposal for more car-free zones within the two precincts is the first step forward. The next step is to seek the support for creating parking benefit districts. Development of a parking benefit district begins with the involvement of key stakeholders (e. g. businesses, developers, landowners, and government representatives) to develop shared goals and objectives, a more collaborative approach to the parking issue. The money from the parking pricing in those district can go to fund the BIDs’ efforts and improvements in transforming public spaces into vibrant community spaces.

Current jurisdictions apply a few adjustment factors, such as modest reductions for developments located near a MRT, but the potential is much larger. The stakeholders can work together to adjust parking requirements to more accurately reflect demands. “Park once and walk” hub (Paul Barter) and possible parking supply adjustment factors (Todd Litman) are few of the strategies that can gain more traction with involvement from the stakeholders. An action plan that establishes boundaries, efficient on-street parking management and enforcement, and relevant strategies put up by the stakeholders themselves could persuade agencies and policy makers to take a more laissez-faire deregulatory approach to off-street parking. Developing inter-organizational trust is seen to be a crucial factor if the government truly wants the community playing a more active role. Mindsets cannot remain rooted in the past if Singapore is to move forward.