Late last year we heard about the Auckland Transport’s review of their Parking Strategy. At that time, they were seeking approval from the Council’s Planning Committee on the strategic direction of the strategy.

On Thursday they are seeking the approval of the Planning Committee and the AT board to put the strategy out for public consultation.

To unlock some of the city’s most gridlocked roads and reduce transport emissions, Auckland’s draft Parking Strategy proposes changes to how parking is managed across our city.

Pending both Auckland Transport Board and Auckland Council Planning Committee approval on Thursday, Aucklanders will be asked to have their say on the proposals throughout April. The proposals focus on ensuring people can move efficiently around Auckland, no matter what their mode of travel is.

Auckland Council Planning Committee Chair and Councillor Chris Darby says the draft strategy would allow communities to flourish as parking spaces are transformed to give genuine transport choice and to make our streets more liveable.

“Parking affects everyone whether they own a car or not. Space allocated to parking influences how much space is available for footpaths, cycleways, street trees, buses and high occupancy vehicle lanes, as well as affecting how much is invested in public transport.

“These changes to how we manage parking across our city are desperately needed to help ready Auckland’s transport network for the future.

“Some of our busiest streets have become fulltime carparks, storing cars and holding up our communities instead of enabling travel across our city. That’s just not fair on Aucklanders.”


AT’s Executive General Manager of Planning and Investment, Jenny Chetwynd, says the draft Parking Strategy would have wide-reaching benefits if implemented.

“Auckland faces significant population growth over the next decade, which has the potential to add more congestion on our roads. Private vehicle use is also a major contributor to the city’s transport emissions, which need to be reduced. To address these challenges, we need to decrease vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) and enable active modes and public transport to serve our communities far more than ever before – and this means making space for them on our busy road corridors.

“Therefore, we’ve really got to challenge ourselves about how we use our road space, and in particular, our busy key corridors. By rethinking how we can use our roads for movement of people, rather than movement of cars – or even storage of cars – our city will become a place where everyone can connect and move efficiently.”

Despite any changes, Ms Chetwynd acknowledges vehicles still have a big role to play in how Aucklanders get around for the foreseeable future.

“Changes in parking management will have benefits for drivers too, especially those who rely on our roads for their work such as the freight and trade sectors.

“It’s important to note that any changes will be rolled out progressively over the next 10 years and individual communities will be consulted with.”

It’s great to see AT using some more bold and direct language about the need for changing how our streets work. However, my biggest concern remains as it was last year: that this is really just a delaying tactic. That’s because the ‘contentious’ aspects of this draft strategy were also part of their existing Parking Strategy that was adopted in 2015, and AT never did anything about implementing them. So when AT say the changes will be rolled out over 10 years I read that as saying this is a strategy that won’t happen.

In saying that, it’s kind of odd that AT are presenting what is effectively their current strategy as a massive change. That, combined with indications last year that earlier versions of this review were much less bold, makes me worry that AT are deliberately trying to garner negative feedback so they can scale the strategy back.

So what are the ‘contentious’ issues? There are two key ones the media have already focused on.

Removing Parking from the Strategic Transport Network

As the document explains

To ensure these outcomes, the Parking Principles direct that parking is the lowest priority use of space on the Strategic Transport Network. This means that space for projects that improve safety or transport options (such as establishing bus lanes) will be provided by repurposing parking, rather than widening the road

AT initially wanted this strategy to allow them to just remove parking as appropriate, but the council and in particular the Mayor baulked at this idea and so the draft now includes that they will consult the public for every one of these roads.

However they also note that they will only remove parking if there is a project to use the reallocated space and that “At this stage around 20% of the roads on the Strategic Transport Network are proposed for improvements over the next 10 years“. So not that much will change then.

2015 Parking Strategy

The 2015 strategy already has this covered, though, noting in a section titled Parking on Arterial Roads

AT will manage parking on arterial roads by extending clearways or removing parking where it:

  • Inhibits the capacity of the road to carry more people (& goods) particularly in the peak periods, and/or
  • Causes significant delays to the speed and reliability of public transport on the FTN, and/or
  • Causes safety risks for cyclists or impedes quality improvements on the Auckland Cycle Network.

Charging for Park and Ride

AT say in their press release:

The draft Parking Strategy includes changes for how Auckland’s Park and Ride (PnR) facilities will be managed. PnR sites have an important role to play in Auckland as they extend the reach of the public transport system and reduce congestion.

To ensure this continues to be the core role of PnRs, AT will need to actively manage them as a premium offering to customers. This will include enforcement of these spaces, and a pricing model, to make sure they are being used for their intended purpose.

While AT cannot be specific or pre-empt the decision made by the Traffic Control Committee (TCC) on fees, AT estimates that the fees would be modest, and in the range of approximately $2-$4 per day initially.

Ms Chetwynd says that charging for PnRs is one option to ensure they remain fit for purpose in the future.

From the language above and also in the document itself, AT talk about P&R being a premium service, and they’re seemingly worried about some P&R sites being used by local workers, thereby taking up spaces that could be being used by PT commuters.

One thing that strikes me as missing from the conversation is how charging for P&R can help improve PT accessibility. The current setup rewards those who can get to the station early, and often spaces are taken up by people who live only a short distance away from the station itself or live on a feeder bus route.

With the carparks being free, this means that PT is less accessible for a wide range of potential PT customers. For example, a parent who might need to walk their kid to school before heading to work – but by the time they’ve done that, the frequency of feeder buses has often dropped and with the P&R full they end up just driving their entire journey.

2015 Parking Strategy

The 2015 strategy also allows for charging for P&R, and even includes thresholds for when pricing should be applied, such as that pricing is introduced when additional P&R capacity is provided (which AT has ignored), and that they should:

Introduce pricing once demand consistently exceeds the 85 percent occupancy threshold capacity during the morning peak and viable alternative options for accessing the stations are in place, such as frequent bus feeders and good cycle parking, walking connections

Overall, the proposed parking strategy is fine – but then it should be, given it’s just a rebrand of the existing document. The only question is what guarantees will AT give that they’ll actually implement it.

Assuming the Council and AT Board approve the strategy for consultation, it will go out for discussion in April.

Share this


  1. Wow this strategy is literally “big boast small roast” from Auckland Transport. Wind everyone up by selling a rebrand of the current strategy as massive scary transformational change.

    I honestly think AT are playing the council here. Deliberately trying to provoke a backlash from councillors and the public rather than just getting on with implementing a perfectly good 2015 strategy.

    1. Help me understand. The 2015 strategy is currently operative, yes? The one that says:

      “AT will manage parking on arterial roads by extending clearways or removing parking where it *causes safety risks for cyclists* or impedes quality improvements on the Auckland Cycle Network.”

      That’s highly relevant to the recent death in Royal Oak. Why doesn’t AT use this safety response more often?

      And will the current strategy “refresh” weaken their ability to do so?

  2. You are 100% on the money here. Re doing parking policy is a delaying tactic. AT want to slowly re allocate car parking into road space on their arterials via their arterial plan starting with New North Road. Building bikes lanes sometimes, maybe where convenient. Change is going to be glacial.

      1. Yea. AT is also look set to have spectacular year. Massive disruptions to PT schedules, will doubtless have low patronage rates. They will probably add zero meters of bike lane to network and look on track have another year where almost twice the average number of people get killed on the roads. But no rush, let’s re do consultations we did a few years back.

  3. I really think AT are their own worst enemies. They keep doing things by half-measures which means everyone hates them. People that love cars think they focus too much on cycleways, while transport advocates hate them for their glacial pace. They’d be so much better off committing to significant changes to show the benefits of what doing things properly achieves but half-measures mean you keep all the disruption of change without achieving any significant end result.

    1. Absolutely. Listing to morning report today, Croin Dann sounded genuinely surprised that people don’t have the automatic right to park on the road outside their house. Then pivoted into poor people need car concern trolling.

      This and this probably the PT friendly media.

  4. AT never fails to disappoint me!
    I agree, it does seem like a delaying tactic. I get the feeling that AT does not want to cause major changes or upset car users. As everyone who reads this blog knows though, we desperately need those major changes if we are going to reduce VKT and the number of cars this city has. I honestly don’t think that AT will bother implementing anything in this plan. If they do, it will definitely be half assed and the rest will be discarded because of outrage from car owners. grow a spine AT

  5. Inviting a culture war over retaining existing parking policies is peak Auckland Transport.

    What’s the bet the architect behind this is the same person named extensively in a recent Metro article.

  6. A truly radical plan. They are going to remove parking but only if they need. Just like Auckland City used to do 25 years ago.

  7. Have you ever seen a roading improvement proposal from AT,where option A utilized the existing corridor, and reallocate the space. Any proposals l see ,with options A,B,C & D,always have major works,(cost), attached to would seem they ,AT, are too scared to put the ,”use existing road corridor ” option on the table.
    Of course if it ever made the cut,it would need “political ” backing,which is probably why ,it’s never proposed. You would think ,it would be an easy “sell” as cost and disruption during implementation would be low, but “Oh,those carparks are vital,to Auckland,s economy” and “my political future “.

    1. And in those situations where there could potentially be the reallocation of parking to better uses, AT staff sometimes actually claim that the parking strategy allows them to prioritise parking over safety.

      You couldn’t make this shit up.

  8. Regarding paid parking at the Park and Ride, there are many areas in Auckland with no (absolutely no) busses. It’s therefore wrong to charge people who live there for using the park and ride. AT do need to give these people some kind of concession in the same way they are considering concessions for other groups, and also AT need to look at providing busses or some kind of PT to all areas. I thought it would be easy to incentivize people who park at the park and ride to use the bus, not just park there. A barrier arm for entry that opens with a hop card. Unless that hop card is used to get on a bus within 30 mins, there is a $20 charge. Easy.

    1. It sounds like AT will make the first or second zone free/cheap with via a hop card when used for to acces a park and ride. I think the recent PT charging changes mucked AT up here tho.

      In general, park and rides are the most car centric ridiculous PT concept imaginable. They also can make it worse to access the PT systems via feeder services. 95% of park and rides should be converted into apartments.

      1. The only way of paying for parking at the park n rides should be via Hop card and/or AT Parking app

        If you have say a monthly pass or a Sunday, then parking is free. Or nominal like $1 per day

        If you just want to park and walk to the shops, then fine, but you pay commercial rates, starting at $10 per day

        Thing is that with apps and smartcards, you have a lot of flexibility; drop price over say January when demand is low, or free if you tag onto a bus/ferry/train within an hour. Maybe just part of the daily cap

    2. The bigger problem is people that could have taken the 83 and then transferred to NX1, for example in the picture above, but chose not to and drove to the P&R instead.

      Administering some kind of scheme where if you live x distance from a feeder you get free park and ride would probably cost more than would be given back to that group. And would just lead to people registering cars to random addresses. Most people I know that live in rural Auckland would rather pay 2-4$ than have to get up an hour early and rush to get a P&R spot.

      Any policy change is going to be “unfair” to someone, but if it’s a net benefit, like this would be, then the onus should be on justifying keeping the status quo. Why should we accept extremely inefficient use of P&R and have all these people in rural Auckland totally unable to use it?

      1. I support charging for Park and Ride. This encourages catching a bus to the park and ride rather than driving there.

    3. I mean I sort of empathise but also people need to take responsibility for their own decisions. If people choose to live away from a PT hub then that is their choice. Maybe they decided that having a bit more space, detached house, garden, etc… was more valuable than living closer to PT. If we continue to subsidise those decisions there is little chance people will start to weigh up those decisions accurately and we will all continue to waste money on an unsustainable transport system.

      1. This is more or less how I feel about car dominance generally. Yeah, I can see how you’re locked into driving kids to school and then to work and then everywhere else. But the flip side is doing so is dangerous, inefficient, and not helping us with climate goals.
        The sooner we make radical changes, the less radical they have to be. If we kick the can down the road another 10 years (which seems to be what AT are doing) then it’s only going to be more, bigger, and faster changes then.

    4. Anna, are you right in thinking there still many areas in Auckland with absolutely no buses? The New Network is pretty good, and the CATR changes fill in some remaining gaps in acceptable service.

      If people are choosing to live where there is no bus, then they certainly should be paying for park and ride, and at a rate that covers the costs imposed by the provision of the parking. Which is more than is being proposed.

      If people truly have no choice about where to live because they can’t afford anywhere else, then you’d be right. But even then, the park and ride land would be better developed into apartments for them, than wasted on free parking. And I doubt it is true, anyway. Apartments in town are really reasonable at the moment, for example.

      1. no busses where i live.
        half price PT – ha !! we’re all drive baby drive.
        Then fight for parking…
        Manukau harbour ferry would fix so much for us.

        1. Ferry? Sounds interesting – but from where to where, and why? Just to miss out on the Mangere Bridge? And would it link up to anything else?

  9. Seems like a Claytons consultation anyway. The process of getting THEIR plan signed off, and then taking it out for consultation, suggests that they are not very interested in anyone else’s view. A true consultation process would start from the basics and result in a recommendation that there was good support for.
    As an aside, regarding bus lanes and parking: I live next to a major arterial, and they took the kerb lane for a busway. Every day I see cars being ticketed and towed. But when you watch the traffic, once it gets busy, the bus shifts over into the GP lane so that it can get through the intersection. It does not use that carefully cleared bus lane at all. The result is an impression that it is all about revenue raising, and not about fixing the traffic at all.

  10. The new north road options are pathetic. Ubers, tradespeople, deliveries, disabled, elderly, post, courier drivers not taken into consideration at all. On top of that, a faulty consultation by AT. Pandering to extreme minorities seems to be the story here.

    1. Classic hot take.
      According to your analysis I’m an extreme minority, but I couldn’t be more norm-core suburban dad. I just ride a bike, that’s all. And I’d like not to be killed while doing so.

    2. yeah, the motorway already parallels that road with a vastly higher level of service and capacity. New North road should be one way general traffic, 2 way bus and bike. General traffic space primarily as an access-way for local vehicles and deliveries etc. No need to be a through road.

    3. Roj – I really don’t understand the cries by people that aim to say the elderly or disabled aren’t taken into account … Many many elderly people cannot drive, and likewise with disabled people. Improvements to bus services should be prioritised over parking. And from what I can see all the New North Rd options provide for parking / loading locations in all of the town centre locations that you seem to be worried about?

  11. I found the parking discussion document worrying for all the reasons Matt has outlined. But the problems went further than this. The document implies that most of the city doesn’t need parking changes unless issues “arise” when in fact most of the city has parking issues already.

    It’s a prime example of AT ignoring that their operations are impacting safety – which is why the safety crisis is as bad as ever.

    And there was a very unsavoury aspect to the discussion document. On the basis of poor logic and bad planning, it argues for a class society. Basically, it protects those with large properties that were developed in the past from having to change their habits, and gives them higher rights – when in fact, everyone has to change or we won’t have a decent future.

    If there’s any elected member out there who wants to understand this, contact me. Council has a lot of excellent staff who understand equity and urban planning better than this. I don’t know why they are letting AT produce material that is so regressive.

  12. AT people deciding on consultation aren’t stupid, but I believe may be guilty of malicious compliance

    They know perfectly well that large numbers of people living on those arterial routes will look at the loss of their parking outside their house, and complain about any change. Then the Herald has an article “Auckland Transport’s plan to remove kerbside parking for cycleways and bus lanes” which will wind up all the car drivers who think they are going to lose out to those ‘unused’ cycleways and those T2/T3/bus-lanes that they should be able to drive in.

    Even just expressing it as ‘removing parking’ is changing the narrative from ‘improving safety’, ‘improving the environment’ or if AT really wanted to do this change, ‘improving flow and reducing congestion’. Removing parking is a solution or mechanism to allow road space to be better allocated, not a goal in itself.

    So the consultation will obviously be stacked with people wanting the status quo.

    And how many people can articulate and want the advantages that removing free parking can give? People taking PT are very unlikely to be demanding removal of parking or wanting to pay for a free service like PnR*.

    *Though TBH, when I was using PnR if somebody gave me a choice between paying $1 a day and having to get in early or miss out and spend another 15-20m walking from a remote park, I would have gladly paid

    1. Yeah, I heard a Cllr sum it up nicely along the lines of so you’re consulting on “taking away parking, more paid parking and more parking enforcement, good luck with that”. AT could have framed this very differently. They could have reminded people that there was already an existing strategy that was widely consulted on and endorsed. Own up and admit that they hadn’t been implemented it to date because the Board and ELT were too scared. They a) shouldn’t have caved to public pressure on projects that removed parking for walking/cycling/PT/safety b) they shouldn’t have left it up to individual projects to make the case, they should have been more proactive in their communication and engagement strategy at a region-wide level.
      This consultation should have focused on the benefits of better parking management with facts and figures e.g.
      – the high cost of providing parking in $ terms, the massive cost-savings to ratepayers of reallocating parking space rather than widening roads,
      – how many carparks would be affected in the context of how many car parks there are across the region,
      – how many car trips would be removed from the system by providing effective alternatives like bus lanes and cycle lanes,
      – how developing off-street car parks can help address the housing crisis, reduce car trips and make town centres more lovely,
      -how these measures impact emissions

  13. I must be incorrect then. I was looking at the interpretation of a bus lane in the Road User and Traffic Devices Rules:
    “bus lane means a lane reserved by a marking or sign installed at the start of the lane and at each point at which the lane resumes after an intersection for the use of—
    buses; and
    cycles, mopeds, and motorcycles (unless 1 or more are specifically excluded by the marking or sign); and
    electric vehicles (if specifically included by the marking or sign)”

    I’ve misinterpreted that. I would still say though that given WK have just consulted on the TCD manual with changes to show special vehicle lane markings in an intersection my statement that this isn’t an AT-controlled situation still stands.

    Heidi, I can’t speak on AT’s position as I don’t work there. 🙂

  14. To me it sounds from the way you describe it that AT did try to do one new thing here but the Mayor and Councilors wouldn’t let them. The idea that consultation on the Strategy document would have removed the need to consult on applying the strategy in each case.
    If that had been allowed to go forward it would have made a significant difference. Forcing AT to consult on parking issues for each project is pointless. AT will already know that lots of car owners don’t think any project is important enough to stop them being able to store their personal property on the public street. Whereas most of the people on here and at least a fair number of people in AT think that the parking spaces should go in order to use the space for better transport options.
    What are AT going to learn from being forced to consult on this in each case. the Mayor and Councilors should have kept their political noses out of it – which is why AT was set up as a CCO in the first place rather than being a department of the council.
    So yeah disappointing from the politicians but I guess also disappointing from AT for not being brave enough to tell the politicians to stick to their knitting and just doing it the way they wanted to.

    1. AT don’t need the permission of the politicians. With strong leadership they would say each time, “we’re doing this to meet our requirements for providing a safe, effective and efficient transport system, regardless of what you think. That’s the benefit of being at arms’ length of politics.”

      AT knew full well that if they put an unnecessary change to the politicians that they were introducing the risk of things being pushed in the opposite direction to progress. There are too many examples of AT staff giving media statements in which their attitude clearly prioritises drivers’ amenity over safety or sustainability to believe that this wasn’t either intentional, or a result of really muddy incompetence.

      Don’t forget that the requirements for consultation are not very onerous; only AT’s interpretation of it is. Nor do AT have to treat the results of the consultation as if it was a referendum – in fact, they must not. Yet they often do.

      The discussion document effectively showed the level of ambition AT had for change in the city, and it was sorely inadequate.

      The proposed strategy embeds a public expectation in most parts of the city that there’d be no change. Talk about undermining their own programme.

  15. +1 A.T. for leading the way.

    However, if we want a vision zero/carbon zero surface transport network then parking removal and dynamic parking pricing needs to be part of a mandatory nationwide infrastructure standard.

  16. The overhead view of the Albany park and ride shows the wasted space of the wide double lane, double direction access to each car park row. Only about 1/2 the total space is for parked cars. The lanes between the car park rows should have being single direction, making more room for maybe three more parking rows.

    1. They need to be that wide so that drivers can maneuver in and out of the perpendicular parks. If you make aisles narrower you need to make the parking spaces wider or on an angle to compensate, which means less of them fit in anyway.

      There is no efficient way to do carparking, it just takes up a lot of space.

  17. The layout was very strange. I suspect as it kind of grew over time; when I was using it, the second part was added at enormous cost. And yet never quite linked up to anything else like the Albany mall to make it easier to walk/cycle up; the assumption seemed to be from day one that everybody would drive to the bus station.

    I remember wondering if there was software that could optimize parking in an irregular space; and yes, a quick Google shows there is, though interesting software problem; combination of brute forcing a lot of potential solutions combined with heuristics to prune the solution tree

  18. I own 2 shops on arterial routes that in high retail areas. Removing parking will decimate my stores. Think take aways, dry cleaners, pharmacies, parking on st for 5 mins is essential.

    1. Do your stores have nearby side streets? If not, you may have to move elsewhere when the parking is removed some time over the next decade, just like your competitors will.

    2. If its a high retail area, im sure parking isnt restricted to right outside the door on the arterial. There wouldnt be the volume to sustain all those businesses.

      Like most places, there will be parking a short walk away on the side streets, or behind the shops. Though we need a solution for the disabled.

    3. it amazes me that people don’t think about customers who will start or will come more often to their stores because walking, cycling and getting public transport to your store will be more convenient. Like those businesses on High Street who were later surprised that they have more cusomers after removing car parks…. Maybe dry cleaners or a store that sells big TV sets/furniture (should have delivery options though) can raise that argument but then they should have space with their own car park not use the council ones for their business. And also I don’t know many people who would use 5 min car parks. Usually area with 5 min carparks (if they’re not taken already) is considered by most people I know as area with no car park that you shouldn’t drive your own car to. And even if you park there you’re paranoid that it will take you longer and you’ll get towed. Regardless, improving walking, cycling and public transport is way more important than few car parks.

  19. Finally! About time Auckland Transport is doing something about the curbed side parking on the bus lanes which head towards the CBD!!!! On the good side this strategy is good for commuters which takes the buses and go along the affected roads but downside is that it affects businesses and private property owners as a whole since they’ll be losing their usual parking space. But there is a solution to fix these problems, for those small business who rely on curb side parking in places such as Mt Eden, Balmoral, Ponsonby, Epsom, Greenlane and Remuera, there should be ‘Smart Parking/Rotary Parking’ placed on their side streets or even on their main roads. As for apartment buildings, the Auckland Council should revisit their ‘Unitary Plan’ and make it compulsory to have car garages trenched underneath apartments buildings or beside apartments.

    With apartments, some across Auckland don’t have any garages underneath or right beside their apartments which can make apartments an unattractive choice to live in since some type of people need it for their use of work or large family purposes. Also having to park a car on the side of the curb is not ideal since it can block cars two way street and turn it into one way street where you have to continuously give way to the incoming vehicle. In the future, Auckland is going to turn into a highly densely populated place with a lot of apartments and if you were to still have curb side parking along the apartment blocks and a lot of vehicles needing parking, it would cause problems for those who need cars for work or big families so that is why there needs to be garage parking compulsory for developments of making new apartments. There should be a compulsory/mandatory law by council since 1, 2 bedroom units don’t normally need private vehicle can use public transport while 3, 4 and 5 bedroom units would highly likely require the need of private vehicles.

    So what is a ‘Smart Parking/Rotary Parking’ you ask? Well it is a form of parking where instead of parking on the side of the road, you park on this ‘Ferris Wheel Type Of Parking’. It’s the same concept of going on a ride ‘Ferris Wheel’, you come and park on the ‘Smart Parking/Rotary Parking’, once on, you get out and push a button to make thing rotate. It will be very convenient for the small businesses which are affected by the change since the customers wouldn’t have to walk so far the businesses and in-some cases, park furtherer away from the business which can effect the attractiveness of visiting them since its not ideal to visit and not convenient so that is why we need ‘Smart Parking/Rotary Parking to create convenience for the small businesses and customers.

    This innovative technology would be a game changer for a city like Auckland and really needed fast! The ‘Smart Parking/Rotary Parking’ can be constructed in matter of 3 – 5 days and be operationally operating running. Also other specifications are:

    * High efficacy spacing and capacity of holding 12 – 16 cars at a time depending on ‘Smart Parking/Rotary Parking’ type
    * Low electric power consumption
    * Low maintenance cost/Low operating cost
    * Rotates both directions
    * Low noise level
    * Easy to reinstall and relocate
    * Can hold any vehicle maximum height of 20 cm
    * Lifespan of 15 – 20 years
    * Driver can operate manually or via mobile device on app

    Auckland Council should look into buying some ‘Smart Parking/Rotary Plan system, it will help business along the busy road corridors which will be affect by the change!

    We should definitely have this in our city, we are a very advanced city and are going to turn into a highly densely populated city as whole and . We are falling behind the developed/advanced countries of the world in this, we need to keep up with innovative technologies which improve life for all kinds of people! The ‘Smart Parking/Rotary Parking’ are in countries such as Japan, China, USA, South Korea, India, Brazil, Israel and 18 other countries. Main common place to find these is in Japanese South Korean and Chinese cities since they’ve got a lot of high density apartments. We do need this type of new from of parking immediately and can’t keep to our same method of ‘Curb Side Parking’, its just disrupts the traffic flow of the buses which get blocked by the block of cars parked on the curb.

    Check out down below the links of ‘Smart Parking/Rotary Parking’ works!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *