Policy

California’s Vehicle Code, which sets the rules for driving and stopping vehicles throughout the state, has tens of thousands of sections. Not surprisingly, some of those sections are relics of the time they were adopted, and do not reflect the evolution—or even allow the use—of new technologies. One example is Section 22508(e).  Until December 31, 2024, this section required cities to use physical parking meters or pay stations if they wanted to charge for on-street parking.  Thanks to SB 532, sponsored by State Senator Scott Wiener, three cities (Santa Monica, Long Beach, and San Francisco) may now pilot paid parking without a physical meter or pay station.  https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB532.  In the last few years, mobile and online payment have exploded for products from coffee to concert tickets to car insurance.  More than 16% of all retail products are purchased online today, an increase from around 7% ten years ago.  https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_ecommerce_sales_as_percent_retail_sales. And according to a November 2024 report from the Pew Research Center: “The vast majority of Americans – 98% – now own a cellphone of some kind,” and 91% own a smart phone.  https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/.  SB 532 reflects the reality of how payments are made in 2025, and allows cities in California to keep up with the private sector—not to mention other cities around the country (like Doral, Florida and Columbus, Ohio) that offer mobile-only parking payment zones.  And it does all this while respecting California values, requiring an “Equitable and Accessible Parking Cash Payment Plan” to ensure non-mobile phone users have a way to pay with cash. Allowing cities to modernize their payment systems saves money on infrastructure purchase and maintenance.  Meters and pay stations are expensive to procure and keep in good working order, and can be targets for vandalism and fraud.  While meters and pay stations may ultimately prove to be an indispensable part of an equitable and robust on-street parking payment system, allowing cities to experiment with modern technology can only lead to improvements for customers and the public.  It will be fascinating to see how SB 532’s three pilot cities (and others that may be added) exercise this new opportunity.  And the answers will come sooner than we think: their pilot authority expires in 2033. Hank Willson is a Parking Policy Manager for the City and County of San Francisco, California (SFMTA). Hank can be reached at Hank.Willson@sfmta.com.  

The IPMI Policy & Legislative Cohort administered a survey aimed at identifying the most pressing industry policy topics.  Among the top issues are policies around new technologies that could revolutionize parking management by reducing friction. One of the highest friction points in an operation is the ability to consistently facilitate curbside compliance, aka parking enforcement.  As curbside demands have exponentially increased, the parking enforcement tools in our policy toolbox have generally remained the same. I’m not here to write about the legislative barriers to reduce friction in the parking enforcement process (there are many) or the growing number of case studies of cities that have embarked on their automated enforcement journey (that number is growing).  What I’m here to write about today are the policies that your organization should be thinking about when you are able to reduce the friction in your parking enforcement process and move towards automated enforcement.  Before we begin, what do I mean by automated enforcement.  For the purposes of this discussion, automated enforcement is the ability to utilize fixed or mobile camera technology to identify a parking violation and process that parking violation without placing a parking citation on the violating vehicle. Imagine for a minute your organization has the legislative ability to implement automated enforcement.  Would you be able to implement by the end of the week, month, year?  Here are just a few policy topics your organization should think about when moving towards automated enforcement: Violation Types – does it makes sense to automate enforcement for all violation types? Are there more severe safety related parking violations that should be prioritized for an initial rollout of automated enforcement? Payment/Appeal Deadlines – mailing a parking citation to a registered owner adds time to the notification process. Do your payment and appeal deadlines need to shift to accommodate this new process? Violation Fine Structure – cities that have implemented automated enforcement have seen citation issuance increase exponentially. Knowing this may occur, are there opportunities to revise the fine structure for certain violations? This may be an opportunity to introduce first-time warnings, early payment discounts, or progressive pricing for repeat violators. Don’t get me wrong, the legislative framework to allow for automated enforcement is a top priority to enable your organization to leverage new and emerging parking enforcement technologies.  Equally as important is your policy framework for administering an automated enforcement program. Policies matter, and when developed in a comprehensive manner can lead to long-term success for your operation.  Let’s keep the conversation going on Forum Online Community and the dedicated “Policy and Legislation” community. Robert Ferrin, PTMP is a Mobility & Parking Senior Project Manager with Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. and is serving his third term on the IPMI Board of Directors.  Robert can be reached at robert.ferrin@kimley-horn.com.

In this joint roundtable between IPMI and the British Parking Association (BPA), we will discuss the similarities and differences between higher education parking in North America and Great Britain and what can be learned from the experiences of both.

Change is inevitable, and when it comes to regulation, standing on the sidelines means accepting whatever comes your way—whether favorable or not. The universe abhors a vacuum, and if industry professionals don’t step in to help shape legislation, other forces will fill the gap, often without the insight needed to create balanced, effective policies. Last month, in a message to members of the Legislative Cohort Committee, Mark Vergenes shared an example of how the Pennsylvania Parking Association (PTAP) interacted with the Pennsylvania legislature to advocate for changes in parking enforcement laws. His message was clear: Active participation in the legislative process is essential. With over 15 years of experience in legislative affairs, I can confidently say: Legislators value input from their constituents. Your voice matters. If you’re not in the room, you’re not at the table. Lawmakers don’t intentionally exclude interested parties, but without active participation, your expertise is missing from the conversation. You have knowledge that can guide policymakers. Legislators will rely on industry experts to understand the real-world impact of their decisions. Regulation is increasing. Across the country, new laws are being passed to address concerns about industry practices, often based on the actions of a small percentage of bad actors. Without industry guidance, well-intentioned regulations may have unintended consequences. Advocacy requires patience and repetition. A single conversation isn’t enough—consistent, collective engagement through industry groups or associations is far more effective than a lone voice. Silence is costly. If you choose to remain uninvolved, you’ll have to live with the results, and when it comes to regulation, the outcome may not be in your favor. State-led regulatory efforts are gaining momentum and could significantly alter long-standing industry practices. While some legislation may have good intentions, lawmakers often lack the technical understanding of how their decisions affect businesses. That’s where industry experts play a vital role in educating policymakers and shaping regulations that are both fair and practical. We should collectively advocate for laws that promote good public policy. That means considering both the intended and unintended consequences of legislation. Moreover, when laws adopt industry practices, they provide legal protections against class action lawsuits and other litigation against the industry. Proactive engagement isn’t just about preventing bad laws—it’s about ensuring that industry standards are codified in a way that provides stability and clarity. Change is coming. The question is: will you help direct it, or will you be steamrolled by it? To ensure a fair and responsible regulatory environment, industry professionals must actively participate, educate, and advocate for balanced land fair legislation. Join the conversation. Share your insights. Your engagement is crucial. Scott A. Petri is the President for Mobility & Parking Advisors, LLC. Scott can be reached at Scott@mobilityparkingadvisors.com.

The homelessness crisis in America is real and has far-reaching economic and community impacts. Parking and mobility owners and operators are facing issues on both the operations and enforcement fronts, from people sleeping outside in and around the garages to those seeking shelter in automobiles using parking garages and lots as places to sleep for the night or longer to stay safe.

As a member of the IPMI Policy & Legislative Task Force, our cohort provides strategic guidance and recommendations on policies and regulations impacting the parking and mobility industry. As part of our initiatives that inform policymakers, stakeholders, and the public on effective strategies for improving urban mobility through well-planned parking policies, we are sharing this example from Pennsylvania to demonstrate specific advocacy efforts. In Pennsylvania, updating state laws that govern parking in cities of the 1st, 2nd, 2A, and 3rd classes has been a long-standing challenge. With 56 municipalities classified as cities, each with its own regulations, navigating legislative reform is no small feat. To streamline advocacy efforts, the Pennsylvania Parking Association (PTAP) is taking inspiration from the California Parking Association, which has spent over 25 years championing the parking industry. With the help of a seasoned advocacy firm, PTAP members will receive timely legislative updates and have access to resources that amplify their voices in policy discussions. This coordinated effort ensures fair regulations, increased revenue opportunities, and improved city parking management. Past Success and Future Goals In 2017-2018, PTAP successfully advocated for legislation allowing Cities of the 3rd class to adjudicate parking tickets outside of District Justice courts. This change streamlined payment processing, improved offender experience, and alleviated court backlogs. For 2025, PTAP’s Advocacy Committee has identified three key priorities: Front-Facing License Plates – Pennsylvania is one of only 20 states that do not mandate front-facing plates. Implementing this requirement will enhance license plate recognition (LPR) technology for efficient enforcement. Red Light & Speed Cameras Operated by Parking Authorities – Expanding automated enforcement, similar to successful programs in Philadelphia, can improve safety, reduce court congestion, and generate municipal revenue. State-Backed Enforcement of Unpaid Fines – PTAP is advocating for policies that allow for registration holds and driver’s license censure for unpaid citations, ensuring accountability and compliance. Recent Advocacy Efforts PTAP leaders have actively participated in legislative discussions, meeting with policymakers to advocate for meaningful reform. On May 3, 2023, they engaged with the PA House and Senate Transportation Committees to discuss policy priorities. Nearly a year later, on May 1, 2024, PTAP representatives and industry experts provided testimony at the Senate Transportation Committee Hearing. Most recently, on June 11, 2024, they held a virtual meeting with PennDOT to explore enforcement mechanisms for unpaid fines. Join the Movement As cities and municipalities set their own agendas, having a dedicated advocacy firm ensures that parking and transportation priorities remain in focus. By uniting behind a common goal, PTAP members can drive legislative success, making parking more efficient and equitable across Pennsylvania. As the saying goes, when the tide rises, all boats rise—and with PTAP’s advocacy efforts, Pennsylvania’s parking future looks brighter than ever. IPMI members, be sure to sign up for our open community on Forum, the Policy and Legislation Community to find out more, start discussions, and hear how IPMI members are effectively using policy to streamline their operations. Mark A. Vergenes is a consultant for Mirus Consultants. Mark can be reached at mark@mirusconsultants.com.

Organized by the European Parking Association (EPA) from its new base in Brussels, the 21st European Parking Conference & Exhibition is the next edition of the sector’s flagship biennial event.

With a mobility ecosystem rapidly evolving, what are the topline mobility issues to be aware of, who are the key decision makers framing mobility policy, and how can you and your organization help steer the mobility conversation. The transportation and mobility space is constantly evolving, impacting how people and goods move through and between our communities. That ecosystem is framed around a policy framework developed by decision makers at varying levels of government. Most mobility practitioners are in the business of implementing policies and programs that help manage the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. However, what may be a missed opportunity in the policy feedback loop is factoring in practitioner experience and feedback alongside community feedback. Before diving into the currents within the mobility space and how to navigate them, it is helpful to understand the general policy lever environment. This graphic below succinctly illustrates the varying levels of decision making and influence in policy making. Most federal policy levers handle very macro issues and set a high level direction for the mobility space, with a forthcoming policy and funding discussion in the 119th Congress that will translate into the next multiyear surface transportation reauthorization that the Presidential administration will be tasked to implement (and will likely implement with an economic development and waste reduction lens). State policy levers play similar roles and tackle similar issues to the federal levers, but at a more meso scale (at a state level). Those state policy levers will flesh out more detail to goals and implementation strategy of larger federal ideas within the state context (whether advancing economic development or climate change goals). Additional levers below state levers start to get into more micro scale of issue detail, touching upon how things are implemented or operated (such as curbside policy or parking meter rates) and its impact felt on a regular basis (such as sensitivity to cost of living).  An IPMI membership survey from Fall 2024, highlighted various policy issues that are on the horizon for the Policy and Legislative Cohort to explore and synthesize the topline impacts and how to influence it for IPMI members. They included issues related to enforcement of the mobility space, curbside management in a dynamic land use and economic environment, as well as accessible mobility. Some of those issues are inherently local, while others may feel local, but are regulated/authorized at a state, if not on a rare occasion at the federal level. As a member of IPMI, there’s things you can do now to influence the policy conversation on key issues that impact your operations and implementation. Spend time educating not only your stakeholders, but also your key decision makers at the local, state, and federal levels on who you are, what you do, and the mobility issues impacting your community. Also take the time to build a larger, diverse tent of stakeholders (such as Chambers of Commerce, Transit agencies, Health departments, community and environmental groups) that can be your coalition to educate, advocate, and for some of those stakeholders to lobby on particular issues of consensus. Benito Pérez, AICP, CTP, CAPP, is the Policy Director at Transportation For America. Benito can be reached at benito.perez@t4america.org.

If you work in a municipality, chances are you've received an email from a colleague in another city requesting information—anything from a simple meter rate survey to more complex issues like commercial loading zones or managing ADA parking in the on-street environment. Or perhaps you’ve been the one sending that email. You may have also participated in numerous IPMI municipal roundtables, whether in person at the annual conference or virtually.  One of the unique aspects of our profession is our willingness to share challenges and solutions. If Houston is facing a particular issue, cities like LA, Seattle, or Miami have probably already tackled it and can offer valuable insights. That’s how emails and conversations flow, allowing us to collaborate—because, after all, why reinvent the wheel?  While this informal system has worked well, it’s time to take it to the next level.  IPMI has formalized this collaboration by creating a space where we can exchange ideas, discuss policies, and share municipal codes—the backbone of any city. The newly established IPMI Policy & Legislative Cohort will offer strategic guidance and recommendations on policies and regulations impacting the parking and mobility profession.  The Cohort’s work began with a survey aimed at identifying the most pressing policy topics across cities. Among the top issues are policies around new technologies that could revolutionize parking management by reducing friction—think AI, LPR, and citation by mail. What policies or city codes are necessary to facilitate the adoption of these tools to improve efficiency and effectiveness?  However, cities are also grappling with policies that limit the use of these technologies, hindering progress. For instance, if state or city codes require parking citations to be placed on a windshield, a city can’t even begin to explore mailing citations until the code is updated—assuming there’s political will to make that change.  Other key policy concerns include curb management for critical building access and ADA parking. If you have a topic you'd like the Cohort to consider, we encourage you to share it with us.  In addition to this, IPMI has launched an updated member online community with a dedicated “Policy and Legislation” Community. The updated platform will enable seamless conversations and document exchanges where you can easily find relevant information on any hot topic you’re currently tackling.  The municipal sector of IPMI has always been a strong, tight knit, yet welcoming community. The work of the Policy & Legislative Cohort will help build on this foundation, driving meaningful change and fostering greater collaboration across the parking and mobility profession.  Maria Irshad, MPA, CAPP, is the Deputy Director for the City of Houston, Texas (ParkHouston).

The cohort’s develops best practices and research based on IPMI’s members’ needs and the most critical issues facing our community, including accessible parking and placard abuse; regulations that foster (or hamper) effective enforcement; transportation equity; curbside management, and more.

An Individualized Approach to Parking Minimums