China from a Global Perspective: How Can the Parking Shortage Be Resolved?

Spatial resource allocation reflects the priority of transportation modes.

In fact, in recent years, at the national macro‑strategic level, China has adopted a policy framework that prioritizes adjusting the travel‑mode mix as the primary approach to addressing urban traffic congestion; however, the specific implementation and practices at the local level have often contradicted this overarching strategy.

A common and typical phenomenon is that, while managers tout the need to prioritize public transit, bike‑sharing, and walking, they simultaneously claim there’s a lack of road capacity and insufficient land for stations and related facilities. At the same time, bowing to pressure from car users, they keep raising parking‑space requirements, devising ways to accommodate cars, and even carving out temporary parking spots in narrow alleys, residential lanes, housing complexes, and on sidewalks—let alone in newly built office buildings and apartment towers.
In fact, the way society and cities allocate resources most clearly reveals which mode of transportation a city prioritizes. This information is readily apparent to the public. Moreover, since urban resources—time and space—are limited, granting more resources to private cars inevitably encourages car‑based travel while squeezing the space available for public transit and pedestrians. This not only undermines the livability of our cities but also runs counter to the nation’s established policies.

How are parking spaces constructed in Chinese cities?

To address the question of whether parking management should be reformed, it is first necessary to understand the current context and status of parking planning, construction, and management in Chinese cities.

Currently, whether it’s above-ground parking or underground parking (with a floor-to-ceiling height of less than… 2.2 meters), and its floor area is not counted toward the plot ratio. In other words, under the current policy, developers are generally encouraged to provide more parking spaces—either by receiving reductions or exemptions in land‑transfer fees or by having such spaces excluded from the plot‑ratio calculation—in order to meet the parking needs of private cars. At the same time, China’s regulations on parking‑space provision still operate on a minimum‑requirement basis: developers are required to provide at least n parking spaces, for example, one space per household. To put it bluntly, this essentially means: if you buy an apartment here, you might as well buy a car—more is better (otherwise, who would use those parking spaces?).

Of course, beyond the issue of the number of parking spaces required to be provided as part of development projects, China also faces particularly acute challenges in parking management. Typical problems include insufficient parking capacity in older residential neighborhoods, unclear ownership rights over parking spaces, inadequate enforcement against illegal construction and unauthorized parking, and significant arbitrariness in parking fee structures coupled with a lack of effective pricing mechanisms. These factors constitute the principal obstacles to urban parking management in China today.

Why is it said that setting a minimum parking space requirement encourages car travel?

Let’s begin with an analysis of the minimum parking‑space requirements in urban planning. One might ask: Does providing more parking spaces necessarily lead to an increase in car trips, and is it really a significant factor?

In fact, this is supported by data. Chinese cities conduct annual road‑traffic surveys and household surveys to capture urban travel patterns. Researchers integrate these data into relevant transportation models and perform regression analyses to identify underlying trends. At the core of these models is the division of a city into numerous virtual traffic zones; the observed volumes of car trips are regressed against various planning variables to forecast how car travel volumes and trip‑making patterns will evolve under different future scenarios. For example, the car‑trip volumes in each zone can be regressed separately against factors such as local population, employment levels, and the number of parking spaces available in that area. Whether the resulting linear relationships hold depends primarily on the statistical validity of the regression functions. R-squared: the higher the R-squared value, the stronger the correlation, and the regression model derived from it will yield more accurate predictions for future outcomes.

The author has participated in traffic‑modeling projects in five or six cities. In these models, regression analyses were conducted using motor‑vehicle trips as the dependent variable and population, employment density, or the area of various land uses as independent variables; the resulting regression curves… The R-squared value typically ranges from 0.5 to 0.7, whereas the R-squared for the regression involving the number of parking spaces is often above 0.8. This indicates that the number of parking spaces is most closely correlated with the volume of car trips, and an increase in parking capacity exerts the strongest positive effect on the growth of car travel.

Problems caused: inability to estimate passenger car travel volumes, land wastage, and adverse impacts on air quality and housing prices.

Therefore, when formulating a minimum parking‑space‑provision plan, the fundamental challenge cities face is that they have no regulatory mechanism to determine how many car trips the residential community will generate in the future. —Because we only plan and design to the minimum standards, with no upper limit. This also means that the actual volume of car trips will be no lower than, and likely higher than, our planned estimates. This is one of the reasons why we often feel that planning alone cannot solve urban traffic congestion.

We must also recognize that transportation is dynamic—cars are meant to move. When developers arbitrarily increase the supply of parking spaces in new developments, it inevitably forces the government and society to allocate more urban land to build bridges and roads, while also requiring additional parking at various destinations (otherwise, drivers will simply pass by with nowhere to park). This, in turn, means higher vehicle emissions, and we end up breathing in more pollutants. PM2.5. The cost of planning for the minimum number of parking spaces is borne not by developers, but by society as a whole.

Another issue arising from the planning requirement for a minimum number of parking spaces is persistently high housing prices. Parking spaces entail construction costs; if each household is mandated to have at least one space, this means every home must shoulder the cost of building that single spot. While I do not have specific cost figures, considering that residential sale prices in Europe and North America are comparable to those in certain regions of China, the construction cost per parking space would be approximately… Between US$40,000 and US$80,000—by this calculation, the cost of selling each home has increased by RMB 200,000 to 500,000. How far this is from the overarching policy goal of lowering housing prices and ensuring that everyone has a place to live!

When viewed against the backdrop of Chinese cities’ strenuous efforts to tackle traffic congestion, the policy mandating minimum parking‑space requirements appears all the more counterproductive and strikingly at odds with these goals. In recent years, key documents on new‑type urbanization issued by the State Council have consistently emphasized that the fundamental solution to urban mobility challenges lies in reshaping travel patterns—specifically, by reducing the share of car trips and encouraging the use of public transit, non‑motorized modes, and other sustainable forms of transportation. By contrast, the conventional approach of setting minimum parking‑space requirements runs directly counter to this objective, both in terms of policy coherence and the underlying rationale for its design.

Are reforms easier in Europe and the United States? Not at all! Even Brazil has managed it!

Today, China’s urban transportation has reached a critical juncture where reform is imperative—so which path should we take?

In fact, European and American countries have also gone through a parking‑management process similar to China’s. Under comparable traffic pressures, they launched top‑down reforms in parking management, shifting from the traditional system of minimum required parking‑space provisions to one that sets maximum limits—examples include most cities in the United Kingdom, Paris in France, and Portland in the United States.

In formulating their statutory plans, these cities have explicitly stipulated the maximum number of parking spaces to be provided per household, with no lower limit. The upper limit on parking provision is determined by the distance of each parcel from major public transit nodes: the more developed the public transportation network, the lower the corresponding cap. — As mentioned above, within a 500-meter radius of Paris metro stations, the maximum number of private car parking spaces in buildings is capped at zero (this excludes a small number of spaces reserved for loading and unloading, persons with disabilities, and other temporary‑use vehicles).

There are also cities, such as Berlin in Germany, that adopt a model where parking spaces have no upper or lower limits, relying entirely on market forces to regulate supply and demand. Of course, the level of public transportation development varies across countries, and in some nations, residents tend to make more rational housing choices. For example, in London, the iconic Swiss Re Tower ( Gherkin is a Grade-A office building with zero private car parking spaces, yet it enjoys widespread market appeal.

London’s famous landmark buildings Gherkin Tower is a Grade 5A office building that does not provide any private car parking spaces.

When confronted with these well-established practices, some people invariably invoke China’s national conditions to advance opposing views. Their argument boils down to nothing more than… “Our citizens lack civic awareness,” “the management system is overly complex and rigid,” “management capacity is inadequate,” and “long-standing historical issues are particularly intractable.” To sum up, several persistent, intractable problems in practice include: insufficient parking spaces in older residential neighborhoods, making redevelopment difficult; low public awareness, which complicates enforcement against illegal construction and unauthorized parking; and, in today’s social climate, a widespread desire among residents to purchase housing that comes with more allocated parking spaces.

However, just then... In 2013, as a representative of cities in the developing world, São Paulo, Brazil, successfully implemented a citywide reform of parking‑space‑allocation caps. This undoubtedly served as a powerful rebuttal to China’s aforementioned rhetoric and inaction. As Brazil’s largest city, São Paulo was the first among developing nations to eliminate minimum parking‑space requirements in its new master plan and to introduce maximum‑parking‑space caps along its major bus corridors. Developers may provide at most one parking space per dwelling; any additional spaces must be paid for. The city’s stated goal is “to reshape the urban environment into one that is more pedestrian‑ and public‑transport‑friendly through reforms to parking‑planning and management.”

How should we address the difficult issues in reform?

Below, we will analyze the challenges of reform that we have encountered and examine how São Paulo, Brazil, has managed to address them.

Old residential neighborhoods are a longstanding challenge, typically located in the heart of historic city centers—areas where traffic congestion is most severe and road‑rehabilitation projects are most difficult to implement. If we yield to the so‑called demands of local car‑owning residents by providing them with more parking spaces, and if we fail to carry out effective expansion or upgrading of the road network, are we really aiming to drive them into the ranks of those who further exacerbate congestion? Or should we adopt a gradual, step‑by‑step approach, offering higher‑quality public transportation to encourage people to shift their travel modes and move toward a more sustainable urban mobility system? I hope everyone will reflect deeply on this issue and draw their own conclusions.

However, we may not be able to persuade local residents, who remain committed to using private cars. In such cases, I personally believe that residents should also bear the corresponding costs of car ownership and the broader social costs. For example, based on the average land‑transfer price in the area, we could calculate the true economic value of the space occupied by parking spaces—and the opportunity cost of that land use. Moreover, other societal costs should be factored in, such as congestion charges, air‑pollution‑control expenses, and the costs of building roads and bridges. Only then can we achieve a fair and rational redistribution of resources: individuals must pay an adequate price for the luxuries they choose, rather than relying on society to subsidize their lavish lifestyles. Do you prefer to live in an area with limited parking but well‑developed public transit and shorter travel distances, or in the suburbs, where parking is abundant but commutes are longer and more time‑consuming? The truth is clear to everyone: one cannot have both fish and bear’s paw.

Another category of challenges involves issues such as illegal construction and unauthorized parking. However, I have always maintained that these are more often excuses than genuine obstacles to reform. Many people routinely argue that because European and American countries boast advanced social governance, implementing reforms there is supposedly easier. Yet they fail to recognize that rolling out parking‑space reforms in those regions is far more difficult than in China.

In some U.S. cities, such as Portland, the implementation of parking‑space reforms began around… Around 2005, the number of passenger cars per thousand residents in the United States exceeded 900. This meant that, excluding those aged 70 and older and those under 16 who are not licensed to drive, Americans owned an average of 1.5 vehicles each. Such a high level of motorization also entailed electoral pressure: policymakers considering reforms to parking‑space caps needed the votes of these motorists. Yet even in this challenging context, U.S. city officials continued to grapple with difficult parking‑reform efforts.

And what about our situation? Although urban traffic congestion in China is now a complete mess, in most Chinese cities—including Beijing—the per‑thousand‑inhabitant car ownership rate is basically… With 200 to 300 vehicles per thousand residents, China still has no city where car ownership exceeds 400 vehicles per thousand people. The modal share of private car travel generally hovers around 20 percent. This clearly indicates that the majority of urban residents currently rely primarily on public transit, cycling, and walking. So why should our policy‑making prioritize a small minority of car users? If we do not summon the courage to implement reform now, when will we?

From the formulation to the implementation of parking‑space management policies, European and American countries have in fact faced even greater pressure from voters. To achieve their goals, they have primarily relied on guidance and public education, while strengthening civic participation. By contrast, our current compromises with, indulgence of, and lack of coordination regarding private cars will only exacerbate the challenges of future, more advanced urbanization. Nevertheless, I remain confident that, if we are truly committed to addressing this issue, we will ultimately devise approaches tailored to China’s unique circumstances.

Furthermore, broad public participation in discussions about parking‑space planning is itself a process of building social consensus. It helps people understand that capping and restricting parking spaces can not only lower housing prices but also enhance the quality of public transportation, create more outdoor space for residents, and reduce air pollution. We need to engage citizens in joint reflection and the search for solutions. We must foster a shared understanding: we have the opportunity to choose alternative ways of life—there is no need to stick with the status quo. — Sitting stuck in traffic, paying hefty housing costs, and having to put a smog‑proof mask on your child every day.

In fact, São Paulo, Brazil, imposes a cap on the number of parking spaces required in new developments, a measure that is even more challenging to implement than in China. The author once… In 2006, I visited several Brazilian cities and found that their level of social governance lagged behind that of Beijing and the developed coastal regions in China. At the time, two-thirds of the population lived in urban villages, illegal parking and unauthorized construction were even more rampant—police resources were largely devoted to tackling criminal offenses—and income inequality was far more pronounced. By domestic standards, from every perspective, Brazil was hardly in a position to serve as a pioneer in reforming urban planning at the upper end of the developing‑country spectrum.

So, how did São Paulo advance its parking‑space management reform? It adopted a cap‑and‑trade system. Under this framework, the government sets a maximum allowable number of parking spaces to be provided, and developers may apply to the planning authority to purchase additional parking spaces beyond that cap. The price is determined by the planning department, taking into account the local demand, land‑transfer prices, the area’s supply‑and‑demand dynamics, and other social costs. This approach also helped mitigate pressure from the real‑estate sector during the early stages of the reform.

Building on this point, we can adopt additional administrative measures—guided by the principle of reshaping the travel‑mode mix—such as incentivizing developers to provide a specified proportion of bus terminals and public bicycle parking spaces in exchange for a portion of parking spaces exceeding the prescribed cap. The key advantage of such a mechanism is that it equips urban planning and development authorities with more tools to regulate and manage the city’s transportation‑travel structure, forecast future traffic volumes, and more effectively fulfill their role in macro‑level guidance and regulation.

China is set to implement cap‑based management reforms. The author also recommends exploring innovative approaches tailored to national conditions, such as a transitional mechanism that simultaneously applies both upper and lower limits to parking spaces, piloting this approach in areas with new housing developments, and integrating it with subway systems, Pilot programs will be implemented within a 500–1,000-meter radius of BRT stations and bus terminals. The flexible application of these measures can progressively advance the reform of China’s institutional framework for parking space planning, construction, and management.