Parking reform
Are you suffering from minimum parking requirements? This too, shall pass.
The amount of space devoted to parking in US cities is staggering. Minimum parking requirements have had a profound impact on the way our cities are designed and developed.
The City of Los Angeles is 469 square miles. Planners estimate that surface parking gobbles up 200 square miles of land. In a time when affordable housing is routinely making headlines, LA is home to 4 million people and at least 19 million parking spaces.
Portland, OR has estimated that its surface parking consumes 27% of land citywide, and in some parts of the city it’s has high as 39%.
According to the Atlanta Regional Commission, sprawl’s poster child city dedicates 37% of some of its prime real estate to car parking.
Almost a third of downtown Austin, TX is paved for surface parking.
These are specific examples of what urbanists mean when they say “car-oriented planning” and reasons for saying “we want to design for people instead of machines.” Those phrases can be effective for some audiences, but normies who don’t have birthdays for Jane Jacobs and Holly Whyte marked on their calendars need specifics.
The tangible talking point is that cities have created asphalt kingdoms.
Thou shalt pave thy land.
It’s been a while since I had to study the 10,000 commandments of urban planning for the AICP exam, but I do remember clearly the negative impacts of (and frequent abuse) of land use regulations.
Minimum parking requirements were first introduced in the US in the 1920s, as the number of cars on the roads increased. At the time, experts thought that providing ample parking was necessary to avoid traffic congestion and ensure that drivers could easily find a parking spot. Cities began to require property owners and developers to include a certain number of parking spaces for each new building, and these requirements have only grown more stringent over time. Developers even have to add parking just for changing the use of an existing property (e.g. gas station to coffee shop).
Even though they didn’t have sophisticated computer models yet, city planners’ assumptions were based on the faulty claim that humans behave like 1s and 0s—that we’re predictable. The reality is humans adapt their travel behavior according to their circumstances.
Minimum parking requirements assumes that everyone drives and needs a car. And as land is paved for more roads and parking lots, everyone is left with a need to drive a car. This has led to sprawling, car-centric cities where pedestrians and cyclists are an afterthought. That’s no accident, because policy is heavily influenced by lobbying.
Automobile manufacturers and their allies are major actors in the origin and continuation of minimum parking requirements. Organizations like the American Automobile Association (AAA) actively lobbied for policies that would make it easier for people to drive and park their cars.
It makes sense to anyone who thinks about the business angle for just a few seconds. If your business directly benefits from more people driving, then of course you’ll support legislation that gets more people driving. Big Auto obviously reaps benefits of requiring developers to build more parking spaces. “There will always be a place for you to park your cars. Driving is so convenient.”
Land use policies written and enforced by local governments are direct paths to car dependency. As the land uses are pushed further and further out, and as more car parking is required at each destination, the personal car is the only viable mobility option.
The impact of minimum parking requirements is particularly evident in urban areas, where space is at a premium. Developers are often forced to build massive parking lots or garages that take up valuable land that could be used for other purposes. More often than not, regulations replace dreams of walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods with isolated, auto-dependent developments.
Reconsidering the planning commandments.
Parking minimums have had extraordinarily negative impacts on urban design and mobility, even while public agencies claim to prioritize walkability, sustainability, and a strong local economy. Forcing property owners to pave paradise hollows out downtowns.
Finally, there’s some recognition among local planners about the source of the problem.
Even the American Planning Association is starting to publish blogs and articles about parking reform. That’s a big shift, because they’re the major professional organization whose members require all the parking.
One surprising trend gaining momentum is eliminating minimum parking requirements altogether. Cities like Buffalo, NY, and Hartford, CT, have recently taken this step, allowing developers to determine their own parking needs based on market demand and the unique characteristics of their projects.
Some agencies are promoting shared parking arrangements, where multiple developments share a single parking lot or garage, while others are allowing for more flexible parking requirements in transit-rich areas or near bike and pedestrian infrastructure. You’d think shared parking would be an obvious choice, but it’s considered an exception in many places. I worked on dozens of site plans over the years where the local planning department wouldn’t approve a plan where the property owner would share access and parking with an adjacent parcel.
States are also getting in on the reformation action. California passed legislation that allows developers to build less parking in certain areas if they provide affordable housing or locate near transit. Oregon has a "parking cash-out" program that allows employees to opt out of employer-provided parking and receive a cash incentive instead.
The Parking Reform Network is one of my favorite recent discoveries. They made an open source, interactive map tracking the progress of 300+ cities.
By reducing the amount of space devoted to car storage and encouraging alternative modes of transportation, communities can create more vibrant, walkable neighborhoods, reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, and improve access to jobs, housing, and amenities for all residents.
Land use policy is incredibly powerful. Don’t let anyone blame car dependency entirely on the ridiculousness of modern traffic engineering. Without car-first policies, there’d be little need for traffic analysis as we know it.
Join a live conversation about parking reform
Tuesday, April 4, noon EST. You don’t need a Twitter account to listen, but if you want to speak you’ll need to use your Twitter mobile app.
