文章编号： 1672-5328（2018）01-0085-13

Paul A. Barter1 著，岳阳2 译
(1.莫道克大学，新加坡556195；2.中国城市规划设计研究院，北京100037)

摘要： 对停车政策类型缺乏广泛理解会导致对城市停车政策的混淆。通过对各地停车政策学术研究 和实践应用的综述，指出以往的政策分类或缺乏完整性，过于简单、不准确，或无法洞悉差异背后 的本质。并且没有一项研究能对每种停车政策及改革背后的政策思路进行分析。为弥补这些缺陷， 提出一种关于停车政策新的分类方法。该方法清晰地指出不同停车改革政策背后思维模式的差异。 通过回顾不同地区(国际和都市区内部地区)停车改革实践，验证分类方法的价值并提出改进措施。 通过两个关键问题定义三种停车政策模式。每个模式对停车作为一种经济产品的本质提出不同的基 础假设。通过第三个问题确立分类模式的第三个维度。新方法的提出能减少由于合并不同形式造成 的停车争论偏好的混淆，包括假两难推理和偷换概念等关键替代形式。

关键词： 停车；停车政策；最小停车标准；政策问题框架；政策分类

中图分类号： U491.7

文献标识码：A

A Parking Policy Typology for Clearer Thinking on Parking Reform

Written by Paul A. Barter1, Translated by Yue Yang2
(1.Reinventing Transport, Murdoch University, Singapore 556195, Singapore; 2.China Academy of Urban Planning & Design, Beijing 100037, China)

Abstract： This paper contends that the absence of a widely understood typology of parking policy approaches is causing confusion in an important urban policy arena. This is apparent across the parking policy literature, both academic and practical, and across several regions. Previous typologies are reviewed and found to be either incomplete, overly simplistic, inaccurate, or failing to offer insight beyond merely describing the diversity. None enables much insight into the thinking behind each approach and reform thrust. To remedy this gap, a new approach to classifying parking policies is proposed. It is based on making explicit the contrasting mindsets behind different parking reform directions. A review of geographical diversity (both international and within metropolitan areas) is presented. This allows the value of the taxonomy to be evaluated, as well as enabling some refinements. Three main mindsets are posited, with each being defined by answers to two key questions. Each mindset has contrasting assumptions about the nature of parking as an economic good. Further detail in the typology is enabled through a third dimension based on one further question. New clarity provided by the new classification approach should reduce the tendency for parking debates to be confounded by the conflation of distinct reforms, by false dichotomies and by ‘straw man’ portrayals of key alternatives.

Keywords： parking; parking policy; minimum parking requirements; policy problem framing; policy typologies