Parking is not the first problem
Over the past decade, there have been real and successful attempts to eliminate parking minimums in cities across the country. The Parking Reform Network lists nearly 2,000 cities that have eliminated or reduced their parking minimums. Every year, Strong Towns leads an effort to demonstrate how much excess parking cities require on Black Friday, the busiest shopping day of the year, by sharing pictures of #BlackFridayParking. And as The War on Cars makes clear in every episode, cars make cities worse.
However, cars are also an absolute necessity for the vast majority of Americans. When the discussion of reduced parking requirements comes up in most communities across the country, community members often ask where people will park. Parking, more than any other single factor, drives many land use decisions in most cities, not because people want parking, but because people need parking.
People rightfully worry about the problems that are created in their neighborhoods when a new development goes in without enough parking. Often, cars from a new developments spill out into existing neighborhoods and make the quality of life in those neighborhoods worse. This is the real and legitimate concern that people have when not enough parking is provided in their neighborhood. It’s not that they necessarily want and love their cars (although some people certainly do), or that they believe cars give them freedom (although some believe that too), but it’s a recognition that cars are a necessity in their neighborhood because there are no transportation alternatives.
In California, one area where neighborhoods express the most concern is the mandated parking reductions for new affordable housing developments. California’s Density Bonus Law limits the minimum parking requirements that cities can impose on qualifying developments with rent restricted units to one parking space for studio and one bedroom units, 1.5 parking spaces for two- and three-bedroom units, and 2.5 spaces for four bedroom units.
A great example of this is a project that recently came before the Anaheim Planning Commission. The project consisted of a 44-unit condo complex that included five moderate-income for-sale units to qualify for the State Density Bonus Law. Due to the density bonus, the project was not subject to the City’s minimum parking standards and provided two enclosed parking spaces per unit with no guest parking other than a single handicap space. The residents here will be unable to have guests, unless they park in the surrounding neighborhoods and commercial centers. There are few options for getting to this new community without a car.
These parking minimums are considerably lower than the parking requirements for apartments in many cities. If these developments are built in neighborhoods without transportation alternatives, the residents, regardless of income, will need to use cars to gets around and therefore will need parking. Too often, these developments don’t provide the parking that will be required by the residents that live there. What ends of happening is that residents of these new developments and their guests will park their cars in existing neighborhoods, often impacting already constrained parking conditions.
While the State of California has continued to try to reduce parking requirements cities can impose on new developments, it has started to acknowledge the nexus between reducing the need for parking and transportation alternatives. AB 2097, enacted in 2023, limits cities ability to enforce parking minimums within one-half mile of a major transit stop. A major transit stop is defined as a rail station, or “the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” Unfortunately, too often areas that meet this definition of a major transit stop are still completely car dependent, and therefore parking will still be required by residents even if it’s not mandated by the city. A great example of this is many suburban malls. Transit agencies often use malls as transfer points between bus lines. Good examples of this in Southern California are the Brea Mall, Villages at Orange, or the Del Amo Fashion Center. Unfortunately, these are all located in the most unwalkable, car dominated areas that don’t provide any local services for nearby residents. Residents of new homes built near these major transit stops will still need cars to get around, and if parking isn’t provided then they will find other places to park.
This is a great illustration of how the need for parking is a symptom of a car-dependent transportation system. Focusing on the reduction of parking requirements is simply focusing on a symptom of a larger problem. In order to effectively reduce a city’s dependence on cars, it must first provide viable and competitive transportation alternatives. Parking reductions can be an integral part of reducing car dependence in a community, but it cannot be the first or only action a city takes to create a range of transportation options.
In order to reduce the need for parking, people must first have the ability to get around without a car. At a minimum, this means that cities need to provide adequate bike infrastructure and walkable streets to local destinations reachable with a short bike ride or walk, and preferably convenient transit for more distant trips. It is this type of investment in transportation alternatives that will enable a reduction in needed parking. Without transportation alternatives, people will need to park somewhere, whether the parking is mandated or not.