On the one hand, the Urban Redevelopment Authority and the Land Transport Authority talk enthusiastically about how the government wants the community to play a more active role to move Singapore towards becoming a car-free society. On the other hand, they can't seem to shake the need to maintain control. It is not uncommon for the government to put the brakes on the policy of reducing parking. When the Range-Based Car Parking Standard (RCPS) was implemented in 2005, it aimed to provide developers with greater flexibility in providing parking spaces to meet parking demands based on operational considerations and commercial. However, this has been brought back under control since 2012, when a circular was issued now requiring developers to first consult LTA before adopting the system. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on 'Why violent video games should not be banned'? Get the original essay The proposed amendment to the Parking Places Act, introduced in Parliament recently, will give the LTA the flexibility to specify a series of parking provisions - defined by a lower and/or upper limit. While it is undeniable that this is a positive step towards making cars lighter, this measure did not go so far as to be "bold and simply abolish" the minimum number of parking spaces required, as parking policy expert Dr Paul Barter has rightly pointed out. Parking requirements are not as radical as they seem. In fact, cities like London and Berlin have no parking requirements. This approach does not eliminate the supply of parking, it simply allows developers to decide how many lots to build based on market demand. The site was sold in November 2016, its parking provision capped at 80 per cent of minimum standards - the first time a cap has been imposed. Christine Li, research director of Cushman & Wakefield, later questioned the cap because "such restrictions could make the development less attractive to office tenants who expect a generous parking allowance." This raises the question of whether parking requirements should instead be left to developers. Rather than a generic table of parking requirements drawn up by traffic engineering and planning professionals, developers should take a market-oriented approach to parking and determine the quantum of parking based on their target users . However, until now the practice of imposing a parking requirement has resisted any possible change. One obstacle may be that market-oriented thinking about parking policy has not provided sufficient assurance about what will happen to off-street parking after the first measures are put in place. reforms. Few cases of developers taking advantage of such a laissez-faire policy motivated the 2005 tightening process. The situation is made worse by the fact that this problem cannot be resolved quickly because parking spaces are inelastic – parking spaces cannot be created as needed, especially in land-scarce Singapore. As Singaporean society is quick to react politically, cautious measures are more than often taken by policymakers and policy agencies. Agencies' attempts to gain stakeholder involvement are also,.