Is Car Parking Destroying Cities?

By Vanshika Fotedar, third-year Ph.D. student

Recommendations

  1. Remove minimum parking requirements: Minimum parking requirements are often based on flawed data and assumptions. These requirements increase the cost of housing, goods, and services. Removing parking requirements allows businesses to provide as much parking as they deem necessary and would reduce the cost of development.
  2. Set the right price for curb parking: Cities often set parking prices too low, leading to over occupancy, encouraging people to cruise for parking, and adding to traffic congestion.
  3. Return parking revenue to pay for local public services: Parking revenue is often used to finance the city’s general fund. Dedicating this revenue to local public services would be more beneficial.

Introduction

In urban policymaking discussions, parking is often ignored or discussed as an afterthought. This is in sharp contrast with how much of our urban land use is dedicated exclusively to parking. It is estimated that, on average, there are at least 7 parking spaces for each of the 283 million registered vehicles in the country, as of 2022.1, 2 In certain areas, such as Des Moines, Iowa, the number of parking spaces per household far exceeds that, reaching over 19 spaces in some cases.3 As cities grapple with housing affordability and promoting sustainable urban development, parking policies, often overlooked in the past, are increasingly being recognized as a critical lever for addressing affordability and sustainability issues arising during urbanization.

Hazard Parking or Parking Hazard

Parking lots in Anaheim, California
This is a map of the Anaheim, California city area with red highlights of the off-street parking south of East Sycamore Street, North of East Santa Ana Street, East of North Clifton Street, and West of South Olive Street.
33 percent of the downtown Anaheim, California area is off-street parking.
City type: principal
336,824 residents – city proper.
12,237,376 residents - urbanized area. 
Parking reforms implemented. Link to details.
Copyright Parking Reform Network, Copyright Open Street Map, Copyright Open Map Tiles, Copyright Stamen Design.

Parking shapes urban landscapes and influences transportation choices. Parking Reform Network argues parking is hazardous to society because it is expensive to build, takes up a lot of valuable urban space, makes it difficult to build affordable housing, and eventually leads to unequitable development.3 Parking mandates are very specific, and, for cases where alcoholic beverages are sold to drink on the premises, could be questioned in terms of limiting parking spaces to discourage drinking and driving. For example,4

  • 1 parking space for every 100 sq feet of bars, restaurant, skating rinks
  • 1 parking space for every 250 sq. feet of retail, takeout (no seating)
  • 1 parking space for every 500 sq feet of professional office or other business/services

No Such Thing as “Free Parking”

A single parking space takes up 180 sq ft of space, but when you add all the ramps and access walkways, its closer to 300 sq ft.3 For context, that is the size of a median studio apartment in Los Angeles, California. And, building a single parking spot typically adds $40K-$60K to construction costs, and those costs double if the parking spot is underground.3 This parking is often free to those parking.5 So, who pays this cost?

In “The High Cost of Free Parking”, Donald Shoup highlights that parking requirements inflate the cost of housing and can diminish its supply. He found that in San Francisco, off-street parking requirements increased housing prices by an average of $47,000 and made homeownership unattainable for households earning less than $76,000 annually.5 Litman, in Parking Management Best Practices, found that excessive parking supply increases housing costs, encourages urban sprawl, and reduces urban density, which undermines public transportation viability.6 Additionally, Manville, in his study on parking minimums in Los Angeles, highlighted that these regulations inflate housing prices by increasing construction costs and lead to greater car dependency, further limiting affordable housing.7 On the other hand, Fotedar studied how removal of these parking minimums leads to a higher and faster rate of construction for missing middle-income housing like townhomes and duplexes.8 Overall, parking minimums prove to be highly regressive, with low-income families bearing the brunt of these costs, and high-income families benefitting the most, in terms of amenities.

Why This Matters:

The twin gods of Smooth Traffic and Ample Parking—have turned our downtowns into places that are easy to get to but not worth arriving at.9

Jeff Speck

Rethinking parking policies is not just a matter of convenience, but a critical step towards building more efficient, sustainable, and affordable cities. The researchers studying parking underscore how seemingly mundane parking regulations have profound and far-reaching consequences for urban life. The current model of abundant and free parking, fueled by flawed zoning regulations, creates a hidden subsidy for drivers that distorts transportation choices toward more cars and less public transit and exacerbates urban challenges. As Donald Shoup argues, the oversupply of free parking artificially lowers the perceived cost of driving, encouraging car dependency and contributing to traffic congestion, air pollution, and sprawl.5

By shifting towards market-based parking policies that reflect the true cost of parking, cities can unlock significant economic, environmental, and social benefits. Performance pricing for curb parking, where prices are adjusted to ensure a consistent availability of spaces, can reduce cruising to look for parking, alleviate congestion, and generate revenue for local improvements. Dedicating parking revenue to fund neighborhood enhancements can create a virtuous cycle, where paid parking is seen as a direct investment in the community. Removing or reducing minimum parking requirements can free up valuable land for housing, businesses, and public spaces, fostering more vibrant and walkable urban environments. Moving away from the ingrained culture of free and abundant parking requires a paradigm shift in thinking, but the rewards are substantial. By adopting sensible parking policies, cities can create a more balanced transportation ecosystem, promote affordability, enhance quality of life, and build a more sustainable future.

CRB Nexus Guest Author

Vanshika Fotedar is an Urban Economist specializing in issues such as the electricity market, parking, housing, and the inequalities that arise from them. She is currently conducting her research at the University of Southern California and was previously engaged as an Energy Economist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.


[1] O’Brien, M. (2023, May 20). Cities are reversing decades of car-centric urban planning. Here’s why. CNN Business.

[2] Statista. (2023). Number of vehicles in operation in the United States from 1990 to 2022. Statista.

[3] Parking Reform Network. (n.d.). What is parking reform? Parking Reform Network.

[4] See Information Bulletin: Public Building Code. (2023). Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety.

City of Los Angeles Summary of Parking Requirements. (n.d.). MuniStandards.com.

[5] Shoup, D. (2011). The high cost of free parking. American Planning Association, Planners Press.

[6] Litman, T. (2006). Parking Management Best Practices. Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

[7] Manville, M. (2013). Parking Requirements and Housing Development: Regulation and Reform in Los Angeles. Journal of the American Planning Association, 79(1), 49-66.

[8] Fotedar, V. (2023). No Parking: The Impact of Parking Reform on Building Landscape in Cities [Working Paper]. University of Southern California.

[9] Speck, J. (2012). Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time. Nova York: North Point Press.