Parking Reform Network

Research

A new way to look at costly parking mandates

By Leave a Comment

In 2015, Strong Towns led a landmark campaign in the fight to end costly parking mandates by developing a crowdsourced map of cities that have eliminated minimum parking requirements. Circulating far and wide, this map has been an emblem in illustrating where cities have made progress to prioritize people over cars, and inspires other communities to do the same. 

The increasing number of entries reminds us that not all parking reform policies are created equal. Some cities have eliminated minimum requirements for all land uses citywide (a gold standard!), while others have reduced minimums along a 500-foot historic corridor, and still others have eliminated minimums for a specific land use within a CBD. Understanding the wide variation keeps us honest about the movements’ progress and reveals opportunities for continued advancement. With this in mind, we are excited to announce that this map is getting a facelift. 

PRN saw an opportunity to strengthen the map by conveying distinctions between the type of policy, identifying the land uses affected, and illustrating the geography it applies to. For the past year, we have worked alongside StrongTowns to capture the juicy details within the zoning codes of the 200 entries submitted since the map’s inception. We’ve reimagined and crystallized the nuances within this unique dataset. Knowledge IS power—by sharing what policies communities adopted (and direct links to ordinances and codes), we’re hoping to empower others to better understand good parking reform and apply it to their own communities.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  1. When it comes to parking codes, multifaceted is the norm and simplicity is the exception. The simplest way to integrate parking reform in a zoning code is to declare that “there are no provisions that establish a minimum number of off-street parking spaces for development for all land uses” or to state that all minimum requirements will be converted to maximums. This is easy to implement, clear for readers to understand, and a tremendous advancement in making your city more livable. But more often, communities address a variety of use cases through writing many complex provisions.

    For example, a zoning code may include provisions to eliminate minimums in a central business district for all land uses…another provision to eliminate requirements for just commercial land uses along a specific corridor…another provision to be eligible to reduce residential requirements in another area…another provision to reduce a percentage of parking requirements if additional bicycle parking is included on site…another provision about maximums along pedestrian-oriented or transit-oriented land uses…you get the picture. While these provisions are an important step to accomplish parking reform, high levels of intricacy can create confusion for incoming developments, make it more technically challenging for staff to make adjustments, and limit growth. As the success of citywide parking reforms continue to increase, we hope the number of provisions will continue to decrease.
  1. A large number of cities eliminated minimum requirements for a small portion of their communities. Of the 200 examined codes, approximately 20% have abolished or reduced parking mandates citywide. The remainder have eliminated parking requirements in specific areas such as a downtown, main street, or historic district. In fact, several codes limited parking reforms to two to four blocks within a downtown or commercial district, as seen below. Eliminating minimum parking requirements is progress no matter which way you cut it, but limiting it to such an insignificant area also limits the positive impacts of these policies.
  1. Parking reform heavily leans toward commercial land uses. More often than not, parking requirements for commercial land uses are the first to go. Nearly every map entry eliminates mandates for commercial/retail development, facilitating walkable downtowns and commercial districts, but residential reform is just as important and has much more conservative parking ratios. Parking requirements for residential land uses are typically reserved for individuals and remain vacant for large portions of the day. Tackling residential parking requirements remains a major opportunity in the parking reform movement. 
  2. Parking maximums are not uncommon. Parking maximums (a required cap on the total number of parking spaces constructed) have been a polarizing reform strategy in recent years due to concerns surrounding developer push-back and vehicle access limitations. But with 45 code entries–many of which arein communities with under 50,000 people–they seem to be less controversial than anticipated. One of the many benefits of having a crowdsourced map is that communities adopting bold and progressive reforms can share their accomplishments, encourage others to do the same, and create a cycle of parking reform throughout the country. But don’t take our word for it, check out the map!

WHAT’S NEW WITH THE MAP

The updated map features colors indicating the geography (or scope) that each parking reform policy applies to. While the ideal policy would be to eliminate costly parking mandates citywide, many communities only have this provision for specific land uses and/or specific geographies. Accordingly, citywide policies have been marked in red to reflect their importance.

The drop-down menu on the left hand side of the map allows users to filter new categories regarding key reform information. In addition to the ‘scope of reform’ featured in the legend/colors, ‘policy change’ allows users to disseminate just how many cities have implemented parking maximums, eliminated minimums, or simply reduce existing requirements. The ‘affected land use’ filter allows users to view which land uses reform policies apply to. Finally, the population slider on the bottom of the drop-down, alters the population size on the map. Users can easily search for cities that have eliminated minimum parking requirements in transit-oriented areas, or cities that have eliminated parking mandates for residential land uses in the City center. You might notice some overlap and/or inconsistencies in the policy change or the affected land uses, and that is because many codes apply different reform policies to different areas of their communities, which is captured in full on the ‘detailed information and citations’ page.

Perhaps the most exciting difference in this map is that users can view the word-for-word zoning code language adopted by each of the communities on the map. Anytime you find yourself wondering what exactly the flagship zoning code looked like in Buffalo NY that eliminated minimum parking requirements citywide, then look no further. We have also provided links to the municipal codes so viewers have the option to scroll through it themselves. Are you wondering why your city isn’t on the map? Got a reform you would like to share? Please fill out this form to get on the map! Or feel free to reach out with other questions or comments at map@parkingreform.org.

We Sorted Through Parking Codes So You Don’t Have To

By Leave a Comment

Written by University of Illinois at Chicago students Maggie Kochman, Zane Jacobson, and Bobby Siemiaszko.

From January through May 2021, three students at the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Urban Studies program (UIC) performed work on their end of year project with the Parking Reform Network. This project involved updating the Strong Town’s map of cities that have reduced or eliminated parking minimums; the students worked with Tony Jordan, Jane Wilberding and other PRN members to review, update, and more clearly synthesize the data into a new database.

The widely cited map hosted by Strongtowns is a great resource, but lacks direct code citations and detailed verified information.

The crowdsourced map on the Strong Town’s website was provided to the Parking Reform Network with over 180 cities, districts, or policies related to eliminating or reducing minimum parking requirements. All inputs were entered into a database using Google Tables and were systematically verified and reformatted by the UIC students. The general method for verification was to start with a city in the database without a report search “city name” and “parking requirements” or “city code.” Then find the parking requirements section of the city code to identify if there are exceptions to parking requirements, parking maximums, or notable reductions in minimums. The documentation process was to create a report for the city and fill in what kind of progress was made and then to create a citation with a link to the city code and a screenshot of the referenced section.

The improved dataset uses tags to provide granular information about the scope and magnitude of parking reforms.

The database had four main tables: (1) City, which stored general information about the City itself (2) Citation, which details the sources used, (3) Contact, information to connect with the individual who reported or researched the policy, and (4) Report, which the details of the policy were stored. Within the Report tab, several categories were created to better understand and delineate where each City stands in their parking reform process:

  • The status of the policy: (implemented, passed, planned or unverified
  • How aggressive the city’s policy is: reduced  minimums, eliminated minimums, implemented  maximums
  • Applicable land uses: residential, commercial, etc.
  • The magnitude of the policy: applied only to the city center, along a main street, adjacent to transit oriented development, or citywide
  • Specified requirements: was the policy implemented by right of the city, in lieu of fees, an affordable housing requirement, or something else

Each student worked with PRN members and then independently to fill out one line of information for each city. Oftentimes, multiple choices were applicable for the same city. For example, cities are more willing to reduce or eliminate parking requirements for a downtown district than for residential zones citywide. There were 58 verified reports of “City Center/Business District) reductions or exemptions, versus 29 citywide. 

As we went along, we realized it was not just a simple look up and fill in the data project.  Each city was and is its own entity and has its own way of doing things. There is no one cookie cutter way that cities are eliminating or reducing excessive parking requirements. Meaning that recording each entry was tedious, complex, and sometimes very difficult to find information. If you could find the City Code for the city, it was then a challenge to find the parking requirements. Some cities had comprehensive charts, others had detailed paragraphs, whereas others were very vague or sometimes too specific. To actually be able to choose the correct tags for each city was generally not an intuitive process. Looking at a city like New York with five boroughs and many different neighborhoods and associated requirements within it makes the process of assigning a uniform label  difficult, if not impossible. However, one thing is clear:  parking reform is gaining momentum–cities are lowering or eliminating requirements  where maybe 10 years ago were much higher.

This database was developed to  make it easiest for cities to adapt and improve upon their parking codes through the power of example and precedent. For instance, having a platform to search and identify r cities with downtowns that have eliminated residential parking could be an effective resource when presenting to a city council or the public.    This could then make a much easier argument if city X wants to become more like city Y, finding relevant information at a fast pace that is easy to compare between cities.  The more cities that have parking reform, the more the map can fill up and can pave a way for the future change of reducing and eliminating excess parking requirements. 

Editor’s Note: Since the UIC students completed their coursework, the Parking Reform Network has continued work on verifying these records. Henry Vorosmarti, a Research Intern from Case Western University is currently working with Ryan Johnson, a student at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design on the project. We’re planning to release the dataset and a new map later this year.

How Do We Grade Parking?

By 1 Comment

Part 2: Creating a Parking Survey

This is part 2 in a 3-part series. If you missed it, here’s part one.

This is where the wheels hit the road (metaphorically, clearly, we are trying to reduce the number of wheels on the road). Tony and Jane produced a survey to begin making a database of on-street (non-residential) parking management in our lucky top 14 cities. The survey they produced collects data on 5 categories for scoring parking management: On-street parking management, technology (single-space meters, pay stations, pay by plate, etc.), curb space allocation (loading zones, parklets, etc.), meter revenue allocation, and equity.

Demo scorecard for Portland - Five evaluation areas and how to improve them. Scores out of 100. Evaluation areas are: on-street parking prices, technology and management, curbspace allocation, equity and inclusion, and revenue allocation.
Picture links to the 2-page pdf with demo scorecards for Portland and Chicago.

To kick off the research effort, Jane and Tony both filled out as much of the survey as possible for each of their respective hometowns, Portland and Chicago, to demonstrate what the finished scorecards might look like.

General information on parking management was easy enough to find. Information on hourly rates for parking is easy to come by on city webpages, and we were able to find data for all 14 cities (the most expensive parking was $7 per hour in downtown Chicago). After collecting the basic information on street-parking such as, daily meter maximums, parking time limits, and what the hours of operation are, information about street-parking becomes significantly less transparent on city webpages. Data on how meter rates are set can be hard to find. Normally the best way to find it is to search local news sources. The mechanics of who recommends rate adjustments and how often adjustments are made can be very tricky to find without an insider from each parking department to help out.

Finding which technology was used for collecting parking revenue was easy enough, but figuring out how parking occupancy is measured (manual parking survey, direct measurement by payment or sensors. Drones?) is not information that cities make readily available. Again, the best bet for finding out how occupancy is measured is to comb through local news sources on the subject.

Of the five categories we collected data on, the place where research generally hit a dead end (another road metaphor, you’re welcome) and had the least available information was Equity and Outreach. Here our goal was to find information on what different municipalities are doing to assess the impact parking policy reform has on low-income and BIPOC residents. How does the municipality reach out for consultation on parking reforms? Does the city offer discounts or subsidies for low-income residents using street parking? And how are parking violations enforced?

It is important to look at parking through an equity lens similar to other aspects of the transportation network. Like most aspects of our transportation system, inequity is built into our parking system. Most members of the Parking Reform Network see the fight against free parking as a fundamental step for fighting climate change, addressing runaway housing costs, and creating a more equitable and safer built environment, yet we also have to recognize that for many people driving a car is the only viable transportation option.

As rent goes up in neighborhoods that are well connected to jobs by various forms of transit, those who cannot afford the rising housing costs are forced into further-flung neighborhoods or suburbs where having a car is, for all intents and purposes, a must. Forcing these already over-burdened residents to then also have to pay higher parking costs just because they cannot afford to live in transit-rich areas is one of the many ways our transportation system makes being poor very expensive.

What reforms can our cities make to adjust parking prices so that those who can afford it have to pay a fair price to park their car in the city, while those who have no choice but to drive still have access to all parts of the city? And how do we make sure that parking tickets and fines are not used as a tool to collect revenues from those who are least able to afford it? In essence, a healthy parking system collects more revenue from fares than it does from fines (see Westworld blog post on healthy parking systems here). It is often the case that fines fall disproportionately on those who are least able to afford them, and this is a situation that parking agencies should address.

This will be one of the major questions we explore as we move into the next phase of data collection where we reach out to municipalities to confirm the data we have collected. If any members of PRN know any good examples of parking management strategies that address equity concerns, we would love to hear from you.

Next Step: Presenting results from Data Collection

Love our work? Subscribe to this blog on the top right of this page. Then join and/or donate!

How Do We Grade Parking?

By 2 Comments

Part 1: It’s a work in progress.

One of the persistent questions at the Parking Reform Network is what services can we provide for our newly formed community? What services will help advance the various initiatives of our members? One of the most useful tools for persuasion that advocates can use to advance their goals is comparison. “Peer city X has had success with policy Y, we too could benefit from policy Y!” But within the parking reform community, there is no standard model for comparing parking policies across municipalities. The Parking Reform Network exists for sharing information, strategies and educational materials to help support a nationwide (multi-national even- with members in Canada, Australia and Singapore) network of parking reformers. But the first task for sharing is having a shared set of criteria.

How do we compare parking management strategies? There are many other grading systems available for comparing different aspects of urban life, such as walk or bike scores, or cost of living scores, but a comparable parking score does not exist. Creating a similar parking score is a very challenging task as, much like a snowflake, each city is unique and has its own reform and regulatory needs. One city may need to reform parking to create more space for housing, another might be preparing to build more bike lanes, and some cities might simply be looking to recover parking revenues. How each of these municipalities measures the success of their parking policy will vary wildly. Who determines what parking policy is objectively “good”? What the heck does good mean anyway? In order to build a tool for comparison, first we had to determine a standard model for what “good” parking policy looks like.

Research for the project started with data collection on parking policies across several large American cities. We chose to start with the cities that have the most PRN members. The cities that we chose to collect parking policy data on were Austin, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Los Angeles, Nashville, New York, Phoenix, Portland, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Washington D.C. and Madison Wisconsin (not technically a large city, but it is my hometown, and I couldn’t resist).

The first step in creating a scoring model was to gather all of the relevant sources for each city. We collected sources on residential requirements, residential parking permits Transit Demand Management (TDM) Programs, on-street meter parking, public garages and parking authorities. Then we determined that the most practical place to start was to compare on-street meter parking. Meter parking is the aspect of municipal parking policy that has the most abundant information and materials on municipal websites. It is also one of the primary places that residents regularly encounter parking policy. This is also the area of parking reform where some of the most interesting work is being done to reform parking policy changes such as dynamic pricing, parking benefit districts and especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, parklets and pedestrian streets.

Part Two: Creating a Survey.