Better Cities Project
  • Home
  • About Us
    Our Vision
    BCP’s vision is that free-market municipal policy solutions are broadly available, widely acceptable, and regularly employed, enabling American cities to achieve their full potential as engines of economic prosperity. We reject the idea that cities are lost to free-market principles or policies.
    Our Mission
    BCP uncovers ideas that work, promotes realistic solutions, and forges partnerships that help people in America’s largest cities live free and happy lives.
    Learn More
    • About Better Cities Project
    • Our Focus Areas
    • Our Team
    • Collaboration and Careers -- Work With BCP
  • Research and Projects
  • Latest Insights
  • Videos
  • Contact

    Address

    304 S. Jones Blvd #2826
    Las Vegas NV 89107

    Phone

    (702) 608-2046‬

    Hours

    Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.

    Email

    info@better-cities.org

No Result
View All Result
Better Cities Project
  • Home
  • About Us
    Our Vision
    BCP’s vision is that free-market municipal policy solutions are broadly available, widely acceptable, and regularly employed, enabling American cities to achieve their full potential as engines of economic prosperity. We reject the idea that cities are lost to free-market principles or policies.
    Our Mission
    BCP uncovers ideas that work, promotes realistic solutions, and forges partnerships that help people in America’s largest cities live free and happy lives.
    Learn More
    • About Better Cities Project
    • Our Focus Areas
    • Our Team
    • Collaboration and Careers -- Work With BCP
  • Research and Projects
  • Latest Insights
  • Videos
  • Contact

    Address

    304 S. Jones Blvd #2826
    Las Vegas NV 89107

    Phone

    (702) 608-2046‬

    Hours

    Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.

    Email

    info@better-cities.org

No Result
View All Result
Better Cities Project
No Result
View All Result
Home Transportation and Infrastructure

The case against parking maximums

Parking minimums have become parking maximums in many cities; but a balanced diet is better than either extreme

bySalim Furth
September 19, 2023
in Community, Growth and Housing, Economic Prosperity, Transportation and Infrastructure
Reading Time: 5 mins read
A A
No-parking sign
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterLinkedInEmail

For generations, most American cities have required new businesses and homes to provide off-street parking according to arbitrary formulas. To take a typical example, a veterinary clinic in Orem, Utah, must provide one parking space per 325 square feet of floor area. But the same clinic would need just one space per 500 square feet in neighboring Provo.

Since 2020, however, scores of cities have ditched arbitrary parking minimums, at least for core commercial areas, letting people balance parking against other priorities without government mandates. But, like fad dieters dropping a zero-fat regime for a daily pound of bacon, some cities have adopted an opposite but equally arbitrary approach. In Nashville (TN), Dunwoody (GA), and Roanoke (VA) parking minimums were replaced overnight by parking maximums. Many more cities, especially in the Carolinas and Upper Midwest, have implemented parking maximums, although most affect only some zoning districts and land-use categories.

RelatedInsights

Texas HB 24: A win for housing development—and a lesson for other cities

Inclusionary housing: At what price?

Streamlining permits to solve housing shortages

Small town America vs big box stores

A more balanced urban diet is better than either extreme. Each business or builder knows its customers and context best; where parking-related problems persist, such as illegal parking, traffic congestion, or stormwater runoff from parking lots, cities should address those directly on a neighborhood basis.

Map of parking maximums in the U.S.
Cities with parking maximums for at least some uses or districts. The color coding refers to the scope of recent changes in parking minimums and is not indicative of the extent of parking maximums. Source: Parking Reform Network.

Motives

Why did most American cities adopt parking minimums in the 20th century? And why, in the 21st, are parking maximums catching on? Weirdly, they’re both trying to solve the same problem: congestion.

Twentieth-century cities saw curb lanes fill up with parked and double-parked cars and vowed to move the stationary cars off the roads, into purpose-built lots and decks. The strategy partly worked – almost any district built since 1960 or so has parking, usually free, well in excess of its needs.

But it also partly failed. Many cities refused to charge for valuable street parking. By making parking so abundant and hiding its costs in taxes and goods prices, the decongested parking areas contributed to congested roadways. With parking “underpriced”, drivers are willing to “overpay” with their time (and other people’s time) by sitting in traffic.

New parking maximums hope to reduce congestion by shrinking the number of “parkable” destinations. But the policy faces the same challenges as parking minimums. It is discouraging that the same urban planners who have come to recognize the failure of solving congestion through minimums now think they can solve it through maximums.

Disinvestment

If underpricing parking led to excess road congestion, why won’t overpricing parking solve it? The failures of parking minimums offer one clue.

When Buffalo, NY, released its downtown from parking minimums for reuse of existing buildings, reinvestment in its long-suffering downtown soared. Smaller developers in particular found relief from parking mandates helpful, since they often work within the envelope of existing buildings. Large-scale developers are still adding and rehabilitating parking structures where there’s demand.

The places where parking problems were worst in 1950 or 1960 were pre-war downtowns, not newly built areas. But the mandates didn’t add parking in downtowns, it just added bureaucratic hassles as each new business occupying an old building needed a waiver from the parking mandates. And the excess congestion cost them just the same: their driving or bus-borne customers, employees, and suppliers were delayed by the general increase in congestion. They doubly lost out.

Fast-forward to today: The places with the most excessive parking lots are largely along major roads in low-density suburbs. Parking maximums won’t, by themselves, induce lot owners to bulldoze existing investments and retrofit them into walkable “town centers.” Instead, it will add a bureaucratic hurdle to every business turnover: seeking a waiver from the parking maximum.

Magic numbers

Parking maximums, like minimums, are based on arbitrary formulas that make no allowance for the diversity of business models. The Institute for Justice successfully sued Pasadena (TX) for imposing a 28-space parking minimum on an auto mechanic whose business needed just five spaces. Under parking maximums, what will become of a business that – for similarly unique reasons – needs 28 spaces when only five are allowed?

 

Do parking maximums even matter?

Imagine you want to lease space to open a hair salon with four chairs. You’d ideally like 12 parking spaces.

1. At one vacant site on the market, the maximum is 15 spaces and the site owner will build to suit your needs. It’s expensive, but it will work.
2. Next door, the maximum is also 15. There’s an existing building and parking lot with 30 spaces. The landlord won’t shrink it. You can apply for a “variance”, but that will take a few months and requires a public hearing. A lawyer friend assures you that the city always grants variances to reuse vacant structures, but how can you be sure?
3. In a different district, the parking maximum will only allow for eight spaces. The city’s goal is to make this a walkable retail area someday, so it won’t look favorably on a variance request. Can you survive with eight spaces until foot traffic picks up? Or should you cut one stylist?

 

Parking needs differ even among businesses or residences in the same category. Should a romantic restaurant where patrons arrive in ones and twos have the same parking as a kid-friendly pizza place that mostly attracts minivans? Do we expect a retail store selling appliances to have similar traffic patterns to one selling bikes?

If cities enforced parking maximums strictly, businesses needing more parking than allowed would decamp for neighboring jurisdictions. What seems more common is a continuation of the delays and uncertainty of the waiver process: the same arbitrary numbers and kludgy governance that prevail with parking minimums.

Everybody pays

Suppose a city embarked on a successful, multi-pronged effort to reduce its total parking – eliminating not just excess parking but in-demand parking as well. On the plus side of the ledger, they would have freed up space for other valuable uses, like homes, jobs, recreation, and commerce. But the city might find itself with the double parking, cruising, and curbside congestion that originally made parking minimums seem like a good idea.

It’s an unpopular economic truth: Everybody pays. People pay with their time – by sitting in traffic or cruising for parking – if they can’t pay with their wallets. Tolls and parking meters reliably keep traffic flowing and parking available where mandates and prohibitions both fail.

Better alternatives

If parking maximums are a bad idea, how can city leaders meet the goals that led them to revise parking policy in the first place?

  • Reduce congestion on the roads.
    • Price all public parking at the market rate. This cuts down on cruising for parking.
    • Regularly re-optimize traffic lights. This cheap, effective way to get the most from existing roads (and improve safety) is surprisingly underrated.
    • Implement highway tolls and downtown decongestion fees, which are the only proven remedy for widespread congestion.
    • Implement traffic circulation plans to keep through traffic moving along the outskirts of small commercial districts while local-destination traffic comes in and out.
  • Reduce stormwater or heat island effects in new developments.
    • Require newly constructed parking areas to capture and offset runoff.
    • Require landscaping and tree cover at parking lot edges. As a bonus, this makes parking easier on the eyes.
    • Mitigate runoff or heat island effects for old parking lots, funding it either through general revenues or by special assessments on those that are creating the problem.
  • Replace driving trips with walking or transit.
    • Upzone to allow more residents, jobs, and destinations in walkable, transit-rich locations, thus using existing infrastructure more efficiently.
    • Prioritize walkable locations for government buildings, especially schools.
    • Address barriers to walking, such as unsafe crossings.

And don’t forget to eliminate parking minimums. They’re just as bad as parking maximums.

 

 

Tags: InfrastructureParkingRegulationTennesseeTexasUtahVirginia
Previous Post

Federal court rules Detroit-area civil asset forfeiture program unconstitutional

Next Post

Local policing reform: three ready-to-run solutions

Salim Furth

Salim Furth

Salim Furth is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He studies regional, urban, and macroeconomic trends and policies and has testified before the US Senate and House of Representatives. Previously, he worked at the Heritage Foundation and Amherst College. His writing has been featured in National Affairs, American Affairs, The City, and Public Discourse, and he wrote regularly for the Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank blog. He earned his PhD in economics from the University of Rochester in 2011.

Explore More

  • Economic Prosperity
  • Criminal Justice and Public Safety
  • Transportation and Infrastructure
  • Education
  • Energy and Environment
  • Community, Growth and Housing
  • Clean, Open and Fair Government

Recent News

Texas HB 24: A win for housing development—and a lesson for other cities

Texas HB 24: A win for housing development—and a lesson for other cities

May 7, 2025
Inclusionary housing: At what price?

Inclusionary housing: At what price?

May 5, 2025
Streamlining permits to solve housing shortages

Streamlining permits to solve housing shortages

April 28, 2025
Small town America vs big box stores

Small town America vs big box stores

April 23, 2025
Load More
Facebook Twitter RSS
Better Cities Project

Better Cities Project helps people in America’s largest cities live free, happy lives. We uncover what works, promote solutions, and forge partnerships that turn ideas into results.



© 2023 Better Cities Project

Thanks to QuestionPro for providing us over 35 question types to choose from. The advanced question types help up collect deep insights.

Our Focus Areas

  • Economic Prosperity
  • Criminal Justice and Public Safety
  • Transportation and Infrastructure
  • Education
  • Energy and Environment
  • Community, Growth and Housing
  • Clean, Open and Fair Government

The Fine Print

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Reports and Financials

Recent News

Texas HB 24: A win for housing development—and a lesson for other cities

Texas HB 24: A win for housing development—and a lesson for other cities

May 7, 2025
Inclusionary housing: At what price?

Inclusionary housing: At what price?

May 5, 2025
Streamlining permits to solve housing shortages

Streamlining permits to solve housing shortages

April 28, 2025

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In

Add New Playlist

Love Cities? So Do We.

Get ahead of the curve -- learn about innovations, ideas and policies driving change in America's largest cities, with BCP in your inbox.



You have Successfully Subscribed!

No Result
View All Result
  • About Us
  • The Team
  • Work With Better Cities Project
  • Research and Projects
  • Latest Insights
  • Videos

© 2023 Better Cities Project