New Evidence Links Sprawl to Parking Minimums

New evidence connecting minimum parking requirements and sprawl is

bolstering the argument for an overhaul of government policies related

to much space we devote to the storage of cars.

A team of economists from the University of Munich recently released a study

examining the effects of mandatory parking minimums on development in

urban and suburban Los Angeles. The team found that parking minimums

"significantly increase" the amount of land devoted to parking, to the

detriment of water quality, pedestrian safety and non-automotive modes

of transportation.

An aerial photo of an L.A. parking structure. Image via Heli Photo

The

report offers a critical piece of empirical evidence regarding the

connection between parking minimums and oversupply. For writer Stephen

Smith at Network blog Market Urbanism, the new research is compelling evidence supporting the work of parking reform guru Donald C. Shoup, whose book "The

High Cost of Free Parking" examined the adverse effects of government

policies that subsidize parking:

Although we at Market Urbanism are big fans of Donald Shoup’s work on

parking minimums, we have to admit that rigorous econometric evidence

that parking minimums mandate more parking than the market would

otherwise supply has been a bit lacking. Randal O’Toole at The

Antiplanner quite rightly asks to see empirical proof that parking minimums are binding. Tyler Cowen appears to have found this proof, in the form of paper posted online very recently

which seeks to determine whether or not non-residential developers in

Los Angeles County build more parking than they would in the absence of

minimum parking mandates. Randal O’Toole suggested that Shoup’s residency in Los Angeles might be

biasing his research, since the City of Los Angeles is quite dense

indeed. This study, however, uses a large dataset with data points from

all over the County of Los Angeles, home to almost 10 million people,

or over a quarter of all Californians. (Many more live in other dense

areas, like San Diego and the Bay Area.) And in fact certain parts of

the paper focus solely on suburban areas, and claim to be undercounting

some of the denser areas where the discrepancy between what the market

would choose and what the law currently dictates would be even greater. The study ends up finding that at least half of all non-commercial

properties have more parking than they would otherwise choose, and that

the excess can oftentimes be quite large.

Market Urbanism

has asked O’Toole, the libertarian analyst notorious for glossing over

the role of government in promoting sprawl, for a response to the new

research and has promised to update readers if they receive one.

Elsewhere on the Network, SeattleTransitBlog peeks in on a British city that has removed it traffic lights, with surprising results; Urban Review STL

asks its readers whether they support replacing a highway that bisects

downtown St. Louis with a boulevard; and Human Transit questions whether converting buses to trams boosts ridership.