What’s good about capping parking requirements?
Matching market trends.
These days, not everyone wants a car, and onerous rules forcing people to build parking need to be updated to modern times.
Money-saving for families.
With our proposals, builders will no longer pass the cost of building expensive parking spots on to homeowners or tenants.
Less polluted runoff.
The more paved parking we require, the greater the threat of polluting our waterways and the flora and fauna that thrive in them.
Support Sensible Parking in Your Town!
Some Connecticut communities require more parking space than living space! Make sure your local decision-makers plan or people - not cars - by participating in planning and zoning processes!
FAQs
What did the 2021 zoning reforms change? The short version is that it capped costly parking mandates for housing at 2 spaces for 2-or-more bedroom units and 1 space for studio and one-bedroom units - and 1 space for accessory apartments. Check out the fuller explanation here!
Why reform parking requirements? Our research shows that a handful of Connecticut towns impose as many as 3 parking spaces for a studio apartment – which drives up costs for builders that are passed on to future residents. High costs have an exclusionary effect and thwart housing production and economic growth. Moreover, excessive parking requirements can limit site layouts and building size, and can result in unnecessary destruction of our natural landscape. They have led to people razing historic buildings for parking lots and have cost cities millions in tax revenue. Finally, too much parking make communities less attractive — and parking mandates actually promote more driving.
Do any towns satisfy the new state guidelines? Yes. Many Connecticut towns don’t even have parking requirements for housing. In those that do, the average amount required is 1.8 spaces per 2-bedroom apartment, which is less than what the 2021 legislation required.
What else needs to be done beyond the 2021 legislative session? Towns should continue to review whether their parking requirements make sense - both for housing and non-housing uses. We recommend that towns eliminate minimum parking requirements for multifamily housing and mixed-use developments within a half-mile of certain transit stations (like Metro North). For more on transit-oriented proposals, click here.
What do environmental groups say about capping minimum parking requirements? Full testimony during the 2021 legislative session is here, but here are some highlights!
Save the Sound: “A climate-smart approach to development has to consider alternatives to our reliance on automobiles. That means planning with mass transit in mind, as well as reducing or eliminating requirements for parking spaces.”
Sierra Club: “[T]he parking minimums in this bill are a great step in helping municipalities move away from auto-centric development by capping the most excessive parking mandates.”
Norwalk River Watershed Association: “In particular, we would like to note our support for this bill’s provision to reduce excessive parking mandates. Not only do excessive parking requirements help create vast expanses of impermeable surface and the resulting runoff of polluted stormwater into the Norwalk River and its tributaries, but they curtail the amount of green space and lead to habitat fragmentation.”
CT Chapter of the American Planning Association: “CCAPA supports… limit[ing] parking to 1 space for studio or 1-bedroom units and 2 spaces for anything larger than 2-bedroom units as most constructed multi-family developments tend to support these more realistic parking ratios.”
CT Green Building Council: “Parking mandates encourage sprawl and lead to more driving. … Parking minimums hurt water quality. Parking minimums create externalities, like congestion and pollution.”
American Society of Landscape Architects: “Another laudable measure of this bill includes reduction of parking minimums to better meet actual observed demand. Providing enough parking spaces to meet municipal standards is a significant driver of development costs, and the resulting impervious surface area requires additional investment to maintain, mitigate urban heat island effects, and manage the stormwater runoff.”
RESOURCES
New research from UCLA researchers who find that carless renters pay $440 million annually for parking they don’t use.
A publication by Dr. Norman Garrick and other researchers inferring that parking mandates lead to more driving.
Research showing that when San Diego eliminated parking mandates around transit stations in 2019, the city saw an increase in both affordable housing and housing overall.
Highlight: “[I]n 2020, one year after comprehensive parking reform was implemented, … [t]otal housing production citywide… rose, by 24 percent. More use of the density bonus program also translated into more affordable units. The program produced over 1,500 affordable homes in 2020 – six times more than in 2019. Between 2016 and 2019, the program had never produced more than 300 affordable homes in one year.”
This American Planning Association analysis on why reducing parking requirements is smart planning.
Highlight: “after slashing multi-family parking requirements [in Minneapolis]. . . New studio apartments, which typically went for $1,200 per month, were being offered for less than $1,000 per month.”
Extensive data on vehicle ownership in American cities.
Highlight: Approximately 30% of residents in New Haven and Hartford do not own cars.
This article on the deadweight loss of minimum parking requirements, finding that the cost of garage parking is 17% of housing unit’s rent.
Highlight: “We find that the cost of garage parking to renter households is approximately $1,700 per year, or an additional 17% of a housing unit’s rent.”
A Los Angeles Times editorial advocating for a total elimination of costly parking mandates.
A report about San Diego’s experience showing one year of parking reform resulted in a fivefold increase in housing permits using incentive programs.
A law review article on why parking requirements run counter to the free market and produce negative environmental externalities.