The Rule-of-Law Approach to Addressing Urban Parking Challenges

With the rapid advancement of urbanization and motorization, difficulties in finding parking and chaotic parking practices have become a pervasive problem in Chinese cities, troubling both residents and city administrators. These issues often exacerbate traffic congestion, encroaching on and disrupting the living and social spaces of urban dwellers. Disputes over illegal parking, parking fees, and other related matters are frequent, to the point that inadequate and poorly managed parking has undermined the quality of urban life.

To address the difficulty of parking motor vehicles, the first response is often to increase the supply of parking spaces by mobilizing various resources. However, even as the number of parking spots grows, the problem fails to ease—and new issues may even emerge. In fact, relying on an expanded parking supply to solve the parking crisis inevitably leads to the predicament described by Downs’s Law: “In the absence of effective government regulation of urban traffic, newly constructed road infrastructure tends to induce additional traffic, and demand for transportation consistently outstrips available supply.” Consequently, resolving the challenge of parking—particularly in urban contexts—requires robust government regulation. Moreover, since such regulation necessarily entails imposing restrictions on the rights of vehicle owners and establishing corresponding obligations, the formulation and amendment of relevant laws and regulations are indispensable, providing a systematic and evidence‑based legal framework for tackling urban parking problems.

From the perspective of traffic characteristics, parking difficulties are primarily concentrated within built-up urban areas, making them highly localized. Consequently, cities must formulate overarching strategies to address these challenges, taking into account their specific land-use patterns, road network configurations, and development conditions. Article 72, paragraph 2, of the revised Legislation Law of the People’s Republic of China (2015) stipulates: “The people’s congresses and their standing committees of prefecture-level cities may, in light of the city’s specific circumstances and actual needs and provided that such regulations do not conflict with the Constitution, laws, administrative regulations, or the local regulations of the province or autonomous region, enact local regulations on matters relating to urban and rural construction and management, environmental protection, historical and cultural preservation, and other relevant issues.” As urban parking issues fall squarely within the scope of “urban and rural construction and management,” the key to addressing them lies in enacting municipal legislation that furnishes the government with a robust legal basis for implementing effective regulatory measures.

However, since the parking problem is systemic, as revealed by Downs’s Law, urban parking legislation cannot focus solely on addressing motorized vehicle parking. Such an approach often risks being “captured” by the issue itself, leading to a misguided emphasis on motor vehicles, an unwarranted expansion of parking supply, and even a narrow focus on meeting the parking needs of private cars while neglecting the balanced integration of diverse modes of travel. This can artificially shrink urban pedestrian spaces and overlook the fundamental principle that urban resources should serve people, ultimately circling back to the very path predicted by Downs’s Law. Therefore, parking legislation—intended as the overarching framework for tackling urban parking challenges—should not be confined to regulating motorized vehicle parking. Instead, it must holistically address both motorized and non‑motorized vehicle parking, ensuring that, while prioritizing motorized vehicle parking, adequate space is also allocated for non‑motorized modes of transport. By adopting a policy of preferential allocation of parking resources, such legislation can help achieve equitable distribution of road‑use rights in urban areas.

During the legislative process, with regard to motor vehicle parking management, it is essential to fundamentally shift away from a car-centric approach. This entails providing urban residents with well‑planned parking facilities that support integrated public‑transport services, as well as ensuring adequate parking spaces and on‑street parking spots for freight vehicles that underpin the city’s logistical operations. As for non‑motorized vehicle parking, special attention should be given to regulating the rapidly emerging phenomenon of internet‑based bike‑sharing—commonly known as “shared bicycles.” On the one hand, in line with the goals of promoting non‑motorized travel and fostering the growth of bike‑sharing, more space should be allocated in parking‑plan development and infrastructure projects. On the other hand, based on the behavioral patterns and parking characteristics of privately owned non‑motorized vehicles and shared bikes, scientifically sound parking‑management rules should be formulated to address the widespread issue of haphazard parking, thereby fostering a people‑centered urban environment characterized by harmony and order.

Legislation on motor vehicle traffic and parking management, grounded in the principle of “equitable road‑use rights,” is a systemic undertaking that requires a gradual implementation process. Moreover, beyond the prefecture‑level cities vested with legislative authority, many other Chinese municipalities without such powers also grapple with pressing issues of parking shortages and disorderly parking. Consequently, while we look to municipal legislation to provide overarching policy guidance, from a rule‑of‑law perspective it remains essential to focus on the “enforcement and administration” of on‑street parking as a key lever for effectively addressing urban challenges related to parking scarcity and chaos.

Whether on motor vehicle lanes, non-motorized vehicle lanes, or sidewalks, the primary purpose of these roadways is to facilitate smooth traffic flow. Designating parking spaces along such roads serves mainly to accommodate temporary parking and, in practice, also supports convenient vehicular movement; however, they should not be used as long‑term or permanent parking facilities. At the same time, to address the imbalance between high demand and limited on‑street parking capacity, it is necessary to impose appropriate parking fees. Yet in reality, urban on‑street parking spaces often become de facto long‑term parking lots, while parking charges are seldom made transparent or publicly accessible, undermining public trust. Therefore, it is essential to adopt rigorous and precise law enforcement and management practices to correct misconceptions about the design and administration of on‑street parking and to tackle road‑side parking issues in a targeted manner.

First, on-street parking spaces are established and discontinued in accordance with the law, owing to their temporary nature. Article 33, Paragraph 2 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates: “Within urban road areas, provided that pedestrian and vehicle traffic are not impeded, the relevant government departments may designate parking spaces.” This provision sets out the basic requirements for urban government authorities to establish parking spaces on city roads; however, it unfortunately fails to clarify the temporary nature of such spaces. In response, local regulations and rules implementing the Road Traffic Safety Law have addressed this issue, for example, Article 31 of the Jiangsu Province Road Traffic Safety Management Regulations provides: “In urban districts where parking spaces for motor vehicles are insufficient, the traffic management departments of municipal and county public security organs may, in accordance with traffic conditions and the public parking‑lot development plan, designate temporary parking spaces within urban road areas—so long as pedestrian and vehicle traffic are not obstructed—and specify the permitted duration of use and install appropriate warning signs. When traffic conditions change, the traffic management departments of the public security organs may remove these parking spaces.” Furthermore, the Shenzhen Municipal Government Regulation on the Administration of Temporary On‑Road Parking of Motor Vehicles, which came into effect on May 1, 2014, explicitly treats parking in roadside spaces as temporary parking, thereby enacting administrative legislation that accurately reflects the fundamental nature of such spaces and regulates motor vehicle parking behavior on public roads.

Secondly, on-street parking is subject to enforcement-based management rather than fee-based management. As a public resource, roads are intended for the use and passage of all persons. Temporary parking of motor vehicles on roadways can, to a certain extent, be regarded as an integral part of traffic flow; accordingly, in compliance with legal provisions, parking spaces may be designated on roads provided that such designation does not impede the safe and unobstructed movement of pedestrians or vehicles. However, when the number of parking spaces is limited while demand is high, ensuring a fair and equitable allocation of this scarce resource poses a significant challenge in contemporary road‑side parking management. When public resources are appropriated by a small minority, in order to uphold fairness, any necessary fees—under administrative law—are classified as administrative service charges and must be collected by the relevant government authorities or their authorized agents, with the proceeds incorporated into the city government’s unified fiscal administration.

However, for government authorities, collecting parking‑space‑occupation fees from motorists is not the ultimate goal; rather, it serves to uphold public order and may even constitute an ancillary effect of law enforcement. For instance, Article 21 of the Shenzhen Measures for the Administration of Temporary On‑Street Parking stipulates that drivers parking in on‑street spaces must “pay the prescribed fee for the use of roadside temporary parking spaces”; Article 30 further prescribes penalties for unpaid parking and mandates that such records be “incorporated into the personal credit reporting system.” Similarly, Article 41 of the Beijing Municipal Regulations on Motor Vehicle Parking, adopted by the Standing Committee of the Beijing Municipal People’s Congress on March 30 this year, provides: “Parking users shall pay road‑side parking fees in accordance with the relevant regulations. In cases of violation, the district parking administration shall issue a notice for payment and impose a fine of 200 yuan; for serious violations, a fine of no less than 500 yuan but not exceeding 1,000 yuan shall be imposed.” Accordingly, in managing on‑street parking, while emphasizing that government agencies should publicly disclose parking‑fee collection and allocate these revenues to public purposes to build public trust, it is also essential to shift away from the currently prevalent fee‑collection mindset. By clearly defining the statutory obligation of parking users to pay and employing enforcement measures to encourage compliance, we can transition on‑street parking management from a fee‑based approach to one grounded in law enforcement.

Finally, special attention should be given to the enforcement and management of illegal roadside parking. Whether it is the management of on‑street parking spaces or the regulation of traffic秩序, both primarily serve the flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Moreover, management within parking spaces and that outside them are mutually reinforcing. If oversight is confined solely to fee collection within the spaces, or if management inside and outside the spaces is kept separate, the overall effectiveness of enforcement will be severely compromised. Indeed, when unauthorized parking in on‑street spaces remains widespread and unaddressed, yet fee‑collection efforts within those spaces are continually intensified, this approach reverses priorities. Therefore, when reforming on‑street parking‑fee management through an enforcement‑oriented framework, it is essential to strengthen enforcement beyond the parking spaces themselves, so as to create a coordinated and synergistic effort.

Specifically, enforcement and management of parking spaces outside designated on‑street bays encompass two main aspects: first, penalties for illegal parking; and second, the removal of vehicles parked in serious violation of parking regulations (an administrative coercive measure). With regard to penalties for illegal parking, fines should be imposed in conjunction with demerit points, thereby maximizing the educational impact of the latter. As for the removal of illegally parked vehicles, clear and unambiguous notification must be provided to alert drivers to the risk of towing in specific road segments, and tow trucks and personnel should be centrally coordinated to ensure that administrative enforcement measures effectively maintain orderly traffic flow.

In 2016, when Beijing initiated the legislative process for the Regulations on Motor Vehicle Parking Management, it stated that the legislation would be guided by a sixteen-character principle: “purchase a vehicle only if a parking space is available, park in an assigned spot, pay for parking, and face penalties for illegal parking.” Notably, the phrase “purchase a vehicle only if a parking space is available” quickly sparked widespread public debate, with strong opposition and relatively few supporters. Subsequently, during the formal legislative process, this formulation was not reflected in the final text.

On November 29, 2014, at the Second Nanjing Urban Parking Governance Forum hosted by the Research Center for Traffic Law and Development at Southeast University, the author, as the principal drafter, unveiled the “Five Nanjing Consensuses on Reasonably Regulating the Scale of Motor Vehicles in Cities.” The third consensus reads: “As the foundation for rationally managing the scale of motor vehicles, parking governance hinges on the legal principle that vehicle owners should have their own parking spaces, and cities may explore corresponding legislative measures.” The underlying rationale behind this forum’s consensus is that providing vehicle owners with dedicated parking spaces should underpin a reasonable vehicle‑ownership level—something that requires top‑level legislative framework. For instance, Tokyo, Japan, with an area of 2,190 square kilometers and a population of 13 million, boasts a motor vehicle stock exceeding 8 million yet has not experienced systemic congestion. Beyond its well‑developed rail transit and public‑transport systems, the city’s lawful and scientifically grounded management of private cars has played a pivotal role; in particular, the enactment and implementation of the Garage Law—officially titled the “Law Concerning the Securing of Automobile Storage Facilities”—has been instrumental.

Parking spaces are private assets and should, in principle, allocate resources and balance supply and demand through market mechanisms. However, high enforcement costs and lax enforcement have led many vehicle owners to occupy public spaces for parking, preventing parking prices from accurately reflecting supply and demand. This distortion of price signals has exacerbated the imbalance between parking supply and demand. More importantly, distorted parking price signals not only undermine efficient resource allocation in the parking market but also impair the optimal allocation of resources across different urban transportation modes. “Car‑with‑a‑parking‑space” seeks to correct this distorted parking‑supply‑demand relationship through legal means, thereby reflecting the true cost of parking in the market. Consequently, in the long run, enshrining “car‑with‑a‑parking‑space” in law would serve as a crucial safeguard for addressing the current shortage of parking resources. Therefore, it is necessary to adopt a pilot legislative approach, granting authorization to select cities, to institutionalize “car‑with‑a‑parking‑space” and ensure its rigorous implementation.

However, ensuring effective coordination between national laws and municipal regulations and implementing a comprehensive parking‑space registration system are crucial safeguards following the legalization of the “purchase only with a designated parking space” policy. In the past, Beijing also introduced such a policy, but it was soon repealed due to gaps in the legal framework and insufficient enforcement. Against the backdrop of advancing law-based governance nationwide, enshrining this policy in law requires a robust, systematic support mechanism to effectively address urban parking challenges and safeguard and enhance the public interest.

First and foremost, the coordination between municipal legislation and national law is a prerequisite. “The ‘car‑purchase‑first’ requirement, which legally mandates that, upon purchasing a new vehicle, one must provide proof of parking space within a specified zone in their residential area—whether through ownership or lease—in order to obtain registration, effectively constitutes a legislative act by which a local regulation imposes an additional condition for motor‑vehicle registration. For instance, the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that applications for motor‑vehicle registration must be accompanied by the following documents and certificates: (1) identification of the vehicle owner; (2) proof of the vehicle’s origin; (3) the certificate of conformity issued upon factory release or, for imported vehicles, the import certificate; (4) proof of payment of the vehicle acquisition tax or a tax‑exemption certificate; and (5) any other documents or certificates prescribed by laws or administrative regulations that must be submitted at the time of registration. The traffic management department of the public security organ shall complete the review of the registration application within five working days from the date of acceptance; if the applicant meets the conditions set forth in the preceding paragraph, it shall issue the motor‑vehicle registration certificate, license plates, and driving permit; if not, it shall inform the applicant of the reasons for refusing registration. However, the “car‑purchase‑first” requirement is not reflected in the aforementioned Road Traffic Safety Law, and any such additional conditions may only be established by virtue of laws or administrative regulations. Article 16 of the Administrative Licensing Law of the People’s Republic of China provides: “Specific provisions in laws and regulations implementing administrative licenses established by higher‑level laws shall not impose additional licensing requirements; nor shall specific provisions concerning the conditions for administrative licenses introduce any conditions that contravene higher‑level laws.” Accordingly, when a city enacts a local regulation imposing a “parking‑space‑required‑for‑purchase” condition, it must, in line with the requirements set forth in the Decision of the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee, obtain authorization from the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. Only in this way can the relationship between national law and municipal legislation be properly balanced, thereby ensuring that legislation is carried out in accordance with the law.”

Secondly, a comprehensive parking-space registration system is essential. To realize the goal of enshrining the “car‑for‑a‑parking‑space” principle in law, an effectively functioning parking‑space registration system is indispensable. Article 74 of the Property Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates: “Within a residential development, parking spaces and garages planned for vehicle storage shall first meet the needs of the property owners. The ownership of such parking spaces and garages shall be determined by the parties through sale, gratuitous transfer, lease, or other means.” In practice, this provision is often misunderstood, further complicating urban parking challenges. For example, in Shenzhen, disputes persist over whether parking spaces allocated to residential areas should be owned collectively by the community’s residents or by the original developer. Moreover, many underground parking spaces in residential complexes remain unregistered, while some cities use whether underground spaces are counted toward the floor‑area ratio as a criterion for issuing property titles, resulting in numerous underground spaces that fail to be included in the building’s floor‑area ratio and thus cannot be registered. Consequently, the legislative effort to codify the “car‑for‑a‑parking‑space” principle in pilot cities can proceed smoothly only after a comprehensive parking‑space registration system has been fully implemented.