Author
Listed:
- Srirang Sohoni
- Bumsoo Lee
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.
Suggested Citation
Srirang Sohoni & Bumsoo Lee, 2024.
"After the Minimum Parking Requirement,"
Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 90(3), pages 471-485, July.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:rjpaxx:v:90:y:2024:i:3:p:471-485
DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2023.2248093
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rjpaxx:v:90:y:2024:i:3:p:471-485. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rjpa20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.