EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

After the Minimum Parking Requirement

Srirang Sohoni and Bumsoo Lee

Journal of the American Planning Association, 2024, vol. 90, issue 3, 471-485

Abstract: Problem, research strategy, and findingsMinimum parking requirements (MPRs) have been criticized for creating excess parking, degrading urban form, reducing housing affordability, and encouraging automobile dependency. As a result, many American cities have begun to reduce or remove parking minimums in some or all areas. However, existing research on the effects of these policy changes has focused only on the analysis of parking supply. We investigated the broader results of parking reform at a small university city in the Midwest that removed MPRs for downtown and university districts. Our quasi-experimental research found that onsite parking construction in the deregulated zones decreased dramatically, from 108% of the earlier requirement to only 46%, clearly indicating that MPRs had enforced oversupply of parking. Of the 43 new major developments built in the 7 years following the parking reform, 84% provided less parking than previous requirements, including eight developments with zero parking. The reduction in onsite parking led to more efficient use of existing parking stock, both public and private. Furthermore, the removal of MPRs, combined with other policies, helped improve urban form by increasing housing density, promoting active building frontages, and guiding a growing share of new developments to transit-rich and walkable districts.Takeaway for practiceAmerican cities stand to benefit greatly by relaxing or repealing parking requirements. Cities that expect resistance to parking reforms can take a targeted and incremental approach, first removing MPRs in denser areas such as downtowns, transit corridors, and other prime districts where an oversupply of parking is typically being reinforced by uniform MPRs. The case of Champaign (IL) demonstrates that a targeted district-scale reform is likely to encounter minimal opposition.

Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01944363.2023.2248093 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:rjpaxx:v:90:y:2024:i:3:p:471-485

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/rjpa20

DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2023.2248093

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of the American Planning Association is currently edited by Sandi Rosenbloom

More articles in Journal of the American Planning Association from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().

 
Page updated 2025-03-20
Handle: RePEc:taf:rjpaxx:v:90:y:2024:i:3:p:471-485