Eliminating Parking Minimums: Lessons from Around the US by Katie Lockhart

Eliminating Parking Minimums

LESSONS FROM AROUND THE US

Katie Lockhart

UNC CHAPEL HILL | DEPARTMENT OF CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING

“From everything that I could see, eliminating parking mandates is just a really solid step towards turning the page away from car dependency and auto-centric practices to something that's just more sustainable in every way, financially, environmentally, quality of life, everything. It just seems to tick every box ”

- Advocate, City of Austin

Introduction

It is estimated that the United States has at least 7 parking spaces for every vehicle, taking up about ⅓ of the land area in cities (Chilton, 2017). Many blame this abundance of space devoted to parking on the prevalence of minimum parking requirements for new developments of all types. However, that is slowly beginning to change. Starting with Seattle in 2012 and Buffalo in 2017, several cities have taken the step of eliminating their parking minimums citywide or in transit-accessible urban areas. As of May 2023, 35 towns and cities in North America had eliminated citywide parking minimums, with a third of those in the last year and many more eliminating or reducing for certain land uses and specific districts or areas of the city (Parking Reform Network, 2023). In most cases, cities have chosen to switch to parking maximums or implement other measures like bike parking or transportation demand management requirements. These changes have not always been easy and there are examples of cities trying and failing to revise their parking regulations. Successful towns and cities have utilized a variety of outreach, community engagement, and education methods, often over several years.

This research paper explores four case study cities - Lexington, KY, Raleigh, NC, Austin, TX, and Charlotte, NC - to understand their planning processes, implementation, and public reactions to different strategies for changing their parking requirements. It discusses how they utilized different strategies for education and engagement, some devoting years to education and research and others moving more quickly. It also evaluates the variety of replacements or other requirements in place of minimums that these cities implemented. Finally, it draws out insights and advice for city leaders, advocates, and city staff who are interested in exploring eliminating parking minimums in their cities. Through an advocacy coalition framework, this paper investigates how the relationships, or lack thereof, between multiple individuals and organizations lead to policy change. The research questions that guide this study are: What planning processes, community outreach and education, and implementation strategies have cities used to successfully eliminate citywide parking minimums? What are the expected outcomes of eliminating parking minimums?

Coalition theory can be used to explain many aspects of the process and outcomes in all four cities and their differing levels of success. First, parking reform requires a supportive city council. Supporters must be patient until they have a majority on City Council or another major change in leadership. Second, cities should build a broad coalition of support in the public, including the involvement of advocacy groups of different interests, who can work together effectively and efficiently. Third, supporters should create a multi-faceted argument that is compelling, cohesive, and addresses a city’s specific concerns and goals. Data, research, and other forms of information exchange, including utilizing mass media, can be useful in changing public perceptions. Lastly, eliminating parking minimums does not always have a drastic or immediate effect on the amount of parking built in a city. Cities need other supplementary and complementary regulations, like parking maximums and design requirements, to function as both incentives and disincentives.

Minimum Parking Requirements

Parking in the United States Today

There are between 700 million and 2 billion parking spaces in the United States, with roughly 10% of those being paid parking. In 2023, the parking industry was estimated to have generated around $144 billion in revenue (Ferris, 2023). The two main types of parking offered in the US are on-street and off-street. On-street parking is typically provided, maintained, and monitored by a city, paid for by municipal or state funding sources. Estimates put the cost of each on-street parking space at $1,750 to build and $400 a year to maintain (Stromberg, 2014). In some cities, these spaces are metered, and parkers pay by the hour, but in others, street parking is free to use. For example, DDOT manages 18,000 metered parking spaces in Washington DC and LADOT has over 38,000 meters throughout the city. Some cities also own and manage off-street parking facilities, including surface lots and garages. Other types of offstreet parking include privately owned and operated but available to the public, private parking like for an office or apartment building, both paid and free. In New York City, the most expensive city in the US for both short and long-term parking, it can cost up to $450 a month for a parking space (Jaworsky, 2022). However, research by Donald Shoup in 1999 estimated that around 99% of trips in the US end in free parking (Shoup, 1999).

Parking is a deeply personal issue for many people. Fights break out in parking lots, in front of homes, and on street corners over parking spaces. Some of these incidents turn deadly. For example, headlines out of New York “Brooklyn dad shot dead on Father’s Day was killed because of a months-old fight about a parking spot.” and California “A man and a woman from South Los Angeles have been arrested for stabbing a woman to death in front of her children over a parking space at a swap meet” (Bliss, 2019). So, while there is an abundance of parking in some places, others see a shortage as a crucial issue.

Parking Reform Network maintains maps of many major cities in the United States and the amount of land dedicated to off-street parking lots and garages. Of the cities mapped, New York City has the least space dedicated, with only 0.4% of the central city use for off-street parking and San Bernadino has the most space at 50% of the central city used for off-street parking. For the cities studied in this research, Austin has the least with 15%, Charlotte has 26%, Raleigh has 28%, and Lexington with the most at 38%. This does not include the street space used for on-street parking spaces (Parking Reform Network, 2024).

Parking Minimums in the United States

The first known parking minimum in the United States originated in Columbus, OH in 1923 for an apartment building. With the rise in car ownership and rising popularity of the suburbs, parking minimums were essentially universal by the 1950s. Planners and engineers at the time did not trust developers to build adequate off-street parking and residents were worried new developments would lead to curb congestion (Manville, 2021). This led to a self-fulfilling cycle: as more people bought cars, cities began to separate districts by use and require parking based on that use, under the assumption that residents could reach each area by car, leading to more highways and making it more difficult to go anywhere by walking or biking (Nugent, 2022).

Parking minimums are often very specific and exact, based on square footage or number of units, but these ratios are not backed by any kind of science. San Jose used to require 1.25 spaces for every tee at a miniature golf course, while Seattle required bowling alleys to have 5 spaces for every lane. In some cases, restaurants are required to have more space devoted to parking than they have in the building (Coren, 2023). In 1995 in Olympia, WA, a typical commercial development would require 54% of the site to be devoted to parking, with the building footprint only taking up 26% (EPA, 2006). In addition, minimum parking requirements have ballooned over time. For example, in Columbus, OH, an apartment built in the 1950s would be required to have 100 parking spaces for 100 one-bedroom units, but today that number has risen to 150. Parking for a 2,500 square foot restaurant increased from 9 to 34 required spaces over the same period (Gould, 2022). What began as a way to prevent congestion, quickly turned into consuming and paving land in all parts of the country.

In many cases, minimum parking requirements are based on generic standards published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the Parking Generation Handbook. ITE uses surveys of parking demand at different land uses, often in low-density, single-use developments with limited other transportation options (Forinash et al, 2003). This strategy fails to consider local contexts and leads to parking minimums based on maximum parking demand when parking is free, requiring the provision for the 85th to 95th percentile in demand (Shoup, 1999). This results in a surplus of (often free) parking space that is expensive to build, subsidizes automobile use, and encourages driving. Since many cities use the same standard from ITE, minimum parking requirements are often very similar across cities, despite differences in geography, demographics, land use and density (Forinash et al, 2003).

Benefits of Eliminating Parking Minimums

Donald Shoup, in his book The High Cost of Free Parking, argues that minimum parking requirements raise housing costs, subsidize car ownership, increase homelessness, deter transit, and add to congestion and air pollution. He proposes eliminating minimum parking requirements, instead allowing developers and the market to determine how many private parking spaces to provide, while encouraging cities to charge market prices for on-street parking (Shoup, 2005). The National Parking Association, the trade organization for private and public sector parking operators and managers, also supports reducing or eliminating parking minimums. Their position is that reducing or eliminating parking minimums will promote development, spur urban renewal, and drive more affordable real estate projects (NPA, 2023). Evidence from cities around the world support these claims, as explained below. Eliminating parking minimums has proven to be effective in reducing the amount of parking built. After Seattle eliminated parking requirements in transit-accessible neighborhoods, research showed that developers built 40% less parking, saving an estimated half a billion dollars (Gabbe, et al, 2020). A 2021 study found that after Buffalo repealed their parking minimums, 53% of new mixed-use developments included fewer parking spaces than the minimums would have required. Across the 36 developments studied, developers built 502 fewer parking spaces than would have been required, saving $30 million in construction costs and 8 acres of land. At the time of eliminating minimums, Buffalo also introduced methods to encourage and support other forms of transportation to reduce car dependency. This included bicycle parking requirements, a transportation demand management policy guide for new

developments, and other codes to encourage transit-oriented development (Hess and Rehler, 2021). No research has shown whether the reduction in parking built in Seattle or Buffalo led to worsening traffic conditions or increased congestion.

Minimum parking requirements lead to more cars and more driving. In typical lowdensity, single-use suburban developments, minimum parking requirements lead to large surface parking lots, making places that are not pedestrian or transit friendly. In contrast, researchers found that each time residential density doubles, car ownership falls by 32-40% (Holtzclaw et al, 2010). Research and data from nine US cities found that an increase in parking requirements from 0.1 to 0.5 spaces per person resulted in a 30% increase in the automobile mode share (McCahill et al, 2016). This phenomenon can be found even in New York City - the city with the most robust transit system in the US. An analysis of three NYC boroughs found a clear relationship between an individual having a guaranteed parking spot at home and an increased likelihood to commute to work by car, even when both origin and destination are well served by transit (Weinberger, 2012). Thus, one can infer that minimum parking requirements encourage auto usage by ensuring that more individuals have a parking space.

As a result of less driving, eliminating or reducing parking minimums also offers environmental benefits, as motor vehicles are one of the top carbon emission sources in many cities. This is especially true in suburban areas. According to a 2014 UC Berkeley study, suburban households contribute over 50% of the country’s household greenhouse gas emissions, but do not make up half of the country’s population (Sanders, 2014). Additionally, building less parking and other vehicle infrastructure can reduce the heat island effect in many cities. Replacing these parking lots with green space further improves the local climate, through improved water quality, stormwater management, and heat mitigation (Jhaveri, 2021).

Many researchers and activists argue that minimum parking requirements increase housing costs, adding a burden to all residents, not just those with a car. Parking spaces are expensive to build - according to industry analysts, the cost per space can range from $5,000 for a surface lot to $50,000 in a multi-level garage (Spivak, 2022). This impacts affordable housing, both by hindering construction and development and by inflating prices. University of Buffalo researchers found that after minimums were repealed in Buffalo, not only did many developers build less parking, they also made it an amenity - instead of bundling into rent or housing prices and thus increasing them for everyone, they charged individual users fees (Hess and Rehler, 2021). Parking reform advocates attest that minimum parking requirements can add $200-$500 per month in rent or mortgage costs. Others put that value at 17% (Spivak, 2022).

Removing parking minimums can also help streamline the entitlement process by reducing the amount of time, resources, and labor required to secure approvals (Ferrin, 2023).

Eliminating minimum parking requirements can also spur redevelopment of existing lots and encourage infill and adaptive reuse development in space-constrained areas. Parking requirements can be prohibitively expensive for small businesses looking to move into an area or redevelop an existing site. They can make it impossible for infill redevelopment in downtown areas. For example, Fayetteville, Arkansas became one of the first cities in the United States to eliminate parking requirements for commercial developments, in the hopes of encouraging business growth in their community. The owners of Feed and Folly restaurant purchased a downtown building that had been vacant for decades, but only had six parking spaces. Under the previous regulations, opening a restaurant of this size would have required over 30 parking

spaces, impossible given the size of the lot and available area. Under the new rules, Feed and Folly was able to open in 2020 after adding just a few additional spaces (Spivak, 2022).

Arguments against Eliminating Parking Minimums

Opponents of parking reform point to several different factors that make parking minimums necessary. The Parking Reform Network sees the two main barriers to parking reform as inertia in local politics and planning and unconscious bias based in car dependency in the US (Lefebvre, 2023) In cities around the US, opponents argue that they do not have sufficient investment in public transportation or other alternative modes to do away with parking requirements. Councilman Driggs in Charlotte, NC when opposing parking reform said, “I think we need to advance on several fronts, in terms of offering alternatives to cars, before we start to make it harder to use a car” (Thompson, 2023) Opponents to parking reform suggest that without parking minimums, developers will stop building parking and residents will be left stranded with nowhere to park or no means to get to work, school, or other places Eliminating minimums does not actually stop anyone from building parking - it just gives the option to build less parking. Many believe the market will continue to dictate the need for parking: “We should always remember that market forces will look to solve for the parking needs of the projects they create” says Michael Smith of Charlotte Center City Partners (Sands, 2022). Opponents also argue that developments without parking impact the surrounding areas and create parking issues and congestion concerns for nearby business and residents. This is a common argument especially within single-family residential areas. In Fayetteville, AK, Alderman raised this concern when voting against new regulations eliminating parking requirements, pointing specifically to the role small businesses in neighborhoods would play in worsening parking conditions by opening without parking spaces available (Gill, 2015).

Another argument focuses on how low-income households will be disproportionately burdened in a city without parking minimums. This is based on a few factors, including how lowincome areas have poorer transit access and service and less alternative options, as well as how low-income households are often forced to find street parking, while higher income households can afford to pay to park in a garage. Relying on street parking is costly and often time-intensive, with residents spending hours moving their car or trying to find a space (Hom, 2023). Commissioners in San Jose who opposed legislation to eliminate parking minimums pointed to the toll it would take on working-class families. Commissioner Bonilla said in an interview, “These are communities that aren’t driving as a luxury, but because they have to get to work. The fact of the matter is this: you’re trying to create audacious goals when we haven’t even dealt with current issues” (Wolfe, 2022).

Opponents to elimination claim that many cities currently use parking requirements as leverage in negotiating development proposals. By eliminating parking minimums, cities lose a negotiation tactic that can be used to incentivize developers to build more affordable housing and invest in transit and pedestrian infrastructure. Proponents for elimination point to a variety of reasons this concern is unwarranted. In California for example, researchers found that most developers participating in the state Density Bonus and the Los Angeles Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) Program choose density bonuses over parking reductions (Manville, 2022). Others point out that using parking as a negotiating tool highlights how unnecessary the requirement is, as cities would never negotiate with fire safety or electrical wiring (Shoup, 2020).

While opposition was voiced from elected officials in San Jose and Fayetteville as noted above, both cities have since passed parking reform, San Jose in December 2022, and Fayetteville in 2015. Not all cities have overcome opposition though. Miami implemented exemptions for parking minimums for downtown developments and small apartment buildings in 2015. In March 2022, the city commission voted 4-1 to reverse the 2015 law, despite a 9-2 advisory vote from the planning board to keep it (Grabar, 2022). The main argument in support of reimposing parking requirements was parking and traffic congestion seen in recent years.

Commissioner Joe Carollo said, “There’s no room to park in the streets. What we can’t have is this free-for-all we’re having right now.” Critics point out that Carollo has been in a longtime feud with a missing middle housing developer who benefitted from the relaxed requirements, as well as the power the new law gives Commissioners as other potential catalysts. (Carroll, 2022)

Grabar writes, “Under the new system, any builder seeking to construct less parking must come before the city commission and plead their case. That gives the city commission new power and creates an incentive for developers to make the right donations to grease the wheels of zoning exemptions” (Grabar, 2022). Miami provides a case study in the role of local politics and turnover of elected officials in parking reform.

Current Trends

The Parking Reform Network maintains a map, seen below, of all parking reform efforts in North America. As of January 2024, 57 cities in the United States have eliminated their minimum parking requirements, with 28 of those cities also implementing parking maximums. Momentum has been gaining in the last few years, with 15 of the 57 cities passing reforms in 2023 alone. In November 2023, Austin, TX became the largest city in the US to eliminate their parking minimums, with Durham, NC becoming the 9th largest the same month (Parking Reform Network, 2024). Figure 1 below highlights the US cities that have enacted citywide elimination of minimum parking requirements.

Source: Parking Reform Network, February 2024

Figure 1: Cities with Citywide Elimination

Recent months have seen efforts for parking reform at the state level as well. In 2022, California Governor Newsom signed a bill into law that banned cities from requiring parking for new developments within a half-mile of transit stops statewide (Secaira, 2022). Minnesota Democrats plan to introduce legislation to ban city-imposed parking requirements for new developments statewide, known as the People over Parking Act (McVan, 2024). If passed, Minnesota would become the first state in the country to eliminate parking minimums statewide. Organizations like Strong Towns and the Parking Reform Network offer resources and guidance to advocates and city leaders working on parking reform. Parking Reform Network hosts monthly roundtables open to planners, advocates, and organizers to share best practices and help develop new resources. They have produced playbooks and public guides on giving effective public testimony and implementing parking benefit districts. Parking Reform Network staff and volunteers also work directly with communities on how best to go about reform based on their unique circumstances (Parking Reform Network, 2024). Strong Towns’ mission goes beyond parking reform, including other topics like addressing housing availability, ending highway expansion, and creating safer streets. Their efforts include Strong Towns Academy which offers free and paid courses on a variety of topics, Local Conversation Groups which gather individuals in local settings to discuss and organize, and the Strong Towns Action Lab which contains how-to guides, case studies, and other resources (Strong Towns, 2024). Other organizations, like environmental groups and housing advocacy groups, are also interested in seeing successful parking reform.

While there is substantial evidence that eliminating parking minimums benefits communities of all sizes, there is less on how these places have been successful in bringing about parking reform. Organizations, like Parking Reform Network and Strong Towns, work around the country to educate and equip advocates and residents on a variety of topics, but not much has been written about what places of all sizes and types can do to be most effective. While each town and city face unique challenges, success stories and failures can offer best practices and lessons learned.

Methodology

City Selection

The four case study cities, seen on the map below, were chosen for a variety of reasons. They represent different approaches to parking reform. Lexington, Raleigh, and Austin all eliminated parking minimums from their land use and zoning ordinance codes, while Charlotte did not. Lexington spent over a year doing community engagement and education before sending the proposal to City Council for a vote. Raleigh completed limited community engagement and education related to parking minimums but had City Council support prior to beginning work on the initiative. Austin also had City Council support prior to beginning work and kept a very narrow scope of changes. Charlotte included parking reform in the rewrite of their Unified Development Ordinance but was unsuccessful in removing minimum parking requirements. They also represent a variety of populations, sizes, densities, geographies, and political and social contexts.

Source: Google Maps

Data Collection

The study involved a review of available online resources for each of the case study cities, including academic literature, reports from organizations and city governments, news articles, blog posts, and the relevant zoning code and ordinances. These cities all introduced parking reform within the last couple of years, so there is limited academic literature or studies on their cases and the results.

Figure 2: Map of Cities

In addition to review of materials, this study included interviews with leadership in the Departments of Transportation or Planning, City Council members and staff, developers, advocates, and other stakeholder groups for each of the case studies. Initial interview subjects were identified through online research of city transportation and planning department websites, media coverage in each city, and other available official documents. Many interviewees also recommended other stakeholders who could provide additional perspectives or represent other groups. The intent of the interviews was to gain a comprehensive understanding of the key considerations, engagement and education process, decision-making process, and preliminary and expected outcomes. These interviews focused on the decision to eliminate parking minimums, any ordinances or regulations put in place of parking minimums, and community outreach or education. They also included discussion on any changes that have already been seen in development proposals and any long-term effects or implications they foresee. The interview guide can be found in the Appendix. Prior to the interviews being held, this project was reviewed by the Office of Human Research Ethics at UNC Chapel Hill and was given the determination of Not Human Subjects Research and so did not need IRB approval.

A total of 18 semi-structured interviews with 20 participants representing individual cities and 1 participant from an external consulting firm were conducted, with organizations listed below in Table 1. All interviews were held over Zoom or Teams and with participant permission, most were audio recorded, transcribed, and then edited. The software Atlas.ti was used to qualitatively code and analyze each transcript using both topical and interpretative codes. The code list can also be found in the Appendix.

Planner, Lexington Planning Planner, Raleigh Planning Representative, Austin Department of Transportation Planner, Charlotte Planning, Design, and Development Representative, Fayette Alliance Planner, Raleigh Planning Representative, Austin City Council Office A Planner, Charlotte Planning, Design, and Development

Raleigh City Councilmember Representative, Austin City Council Office B Representative, Grubb Properties

Former Raleigh City Councilmember Austin Planning Commission Member A Representative, SpaceCraft Representative, WakeUP Wake County Austin Planning Commission Member B Representative, Sustain Charlotte

Representative, Austin Parking Reform Coalition Representative, Charlotte Urbanists

Staff, Austin Parking Reform Coalition

Table 1: Interviewees

Advocacy Coalition Framework

Coalition theory and the Advocacy Coalition Framework, developed by Paul Sabatier and Hank Jenkins-Smith, proposes that individuals have core beliefs about policy issues. These beliefs include the seriousness of the issue, its causes, and potential solutions. Advocates who subscribe to this theory believe that coordinated activity among individuals and organizations with the same core beliefs can bring about policy change. The underlying assumptions of coalition theory include coalitions are held together through agreement on core beliefs about policies, shared core beliefs mean that diverse groups can work together effectively and efficiently, core beliefs are resistant to change without significant external events or new learning that change views, and policies are unlikely to change without a change in power.

There are a few strategies that advocates can use in coordination and collaboration with others with similar policy beliefs. First, advocates can support individuals with their same core beliefs to get into power or to hold elected office. Second, they can support and coordinate with those individuals already in power. Third, through things like legal advocacy and ballot initiatives, advocates can appeal to or persuade those in power. Fourth, using data, research, or other forms of information exchange, advocates can change beliefs. Lastly, advocates can change public opinion through things like demonstrations, mass media campaigns, or testimonies. Through these strategies, advocates can shift social norms, strengthen alliances and their base of support, improve policies, and impact changes in social or physical conditions (Stachowiak, 2013)

Through the advocacy coalition framework, this research investigates the degree to which collaboration among individuals and organizations in each city led to policy change or lack thereof and the similarities and differences across cities. It examines the relationship between coalition building and the degree of success in changing public sentiment and policy.

Case Study Cities

The four case study cities have varying population sizes, population density, demographic, and socioeconomic backgrounds, as seen in Table 2 below. They took different approaches at different speeds to eliminating their parking minimums. An analysis of their differences and similarities can help guide planners from a variety of communities in how best to approach parking and transportation reform.

Source: American Community Survey, 2017-2022

The following sections provide background information and context based on research and media coverage prior to conducting interviews. It then contains details on the process, community engagement, and results as reported by city staff, city officials, and other stakeholders in interviews. The Analysis section that follows discusses the results of the content analysis of the interview transcripts and notes.

Lexington, KY

Background

Lexington, KY, known as the horse farm capital of the world, has a population of a little over 320,000 (USCB, 2022). In 1958, they enacted the US’s first Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), in an effort to limit sprawl and protect the surrounding farmland. In 2016, a survey showed that only 16% of residents supported expanding the boundary, but in recent years, amidst growing concerns around affordable housing and rising housing costs, support for expansion has grown (Woodall, 2019) The UGB plays a significant role in land use and other planning issues in Lexington. Those in favor of expansion argue that expanding the boundary

Table 2: Overview of Cities

would lead to more housing, jobs, and other amenities, making housing more affordable and boosting the local economy. Opponents to expansion argue that the surrounding farmland is vital to Lexington’s culture, identity, tourism, and boosts the economy through agricultural and the equine industry. Due to this, the UGB has historically made policies that promote density, limit sprawl, and encourage smart growth popular among residents and advocates (Anderson, 2023)

During the development of the Comprehensive Plan in 2019, expanding the UGB was a contentious topic, citing concerns over population growth, job growth, and housing availability. City Planning staff at the time pointed out there were other means to add housing and commercial developments, like policies to support infill development and transit-oriented development (Gray, 2019). The Comprehensive Plan is reviewed every five years, bringing a UGB expansion back into the public discourse. In October 2023, City Council voted to expand the boundary to include an additional 2800 acres for the first time since 1996, citing a growing housing crisis as the main catalyst (Anderson, 2023).

On October 27, 2022, Lexington Urban County Council unanimously adopted the Parking Zoning Ordinance amendment, eliminating minimum parking requirements citywide. The Planning Commission began work on this amendment in May 2020, releasing a draft of the text in May 2021 (Imagine Lexington, 2021). Lexington proposed “Responsive Parking” as a replacement for minimum requirements. This includes new requirements, such as a Parking Demand Mitigation Study for zoning changes for new developments, bike parking and storage requirements, new design standards for parking lots and structures, and landscaping requirements.

In public facing materials, Lexington Planning focused on developing new requirements that “addresses the health and safety of all users” and “does not require more parking to be built and maintained than is needed”. Referencing their 2018 Comprehensive Plan, they highlight the contrast between the city’s commitment to discouraging sprawling developments and overparking and the strict parking regulations. They focus their materials on the five aspects the new zoning ordinance serves the city: public safety, equitable access, economic growth, environmental health, and desirable communities (LFUCG Planning, 2021).

Interview Findings Process

In 2016, facing a housing shortage and a changing retail landscape, Lexington updated their commercial shopping center zone to allow residential uses, eliminate minimum parking requirements, and enact parking maximums. As a result, restaurants and other uses popped up, replacing some of the hundreds of mostly unused parking spaces.

“Because it was so narrowly focused on just one zone that always had big parcels of abundant parking, nobody really batted an eye at getting rid of that minimum requirement. And so we made that change and that allowed us to start talking about all the different negative impacts of parking. We talked about that stuff a lot with the public…And so that was the first entry into talking about parking and its impacts.”

- City Staff

From there, with support from some multi-family and affordable housing developers, Lexington then relaxed parking requirements for affordable housing developments. In 2020, after years of educating the public about parking minimums, Lexington Long-Range Planners began discussing a full citywide elimination.

An important aspect of zoning and land-use in Lexington is the urban growth boundary put in place in 1958 to protect surrounding farmland. As a result of its importance in Lexington culture and politics, there is strong advocacy for infill development and avoiding expansion into the horse farms in the surrounding area. This means there is often little opposition to plans or policies that align with the goals of the urban growth boundary and encourage more development downtown.

“We’re experiencing all these increases in cost, whether that's housing or business development, or whatever it might be. And for us, especially because of our urban services boundary, we have to be really intentional about where we grow and how we grow. And so from our perspective, it's all about, how do we make the best use of our existing land and how do we lower the cost of development within the city to promote usage of that land versus sprawling out into the farmland.”

- Advocate

With this in mind, and the fact that they had already successfully eliminated parking minimums for both a commercial and residential zone over the last few years, City Council and Planning Commission were mostly supportive of a citywide elimination. Lexington Planning also pulled in expertise from peer cities that had eliminated their parking minimums through a webinar series called Mornings with Planning. They had a representative from the City of Buffalo, a City of Fayetteville Arkansas Councilmember, and a developer to discuss the changes in their respective cities. Lexington Planning was also able to show a broad range of support to City Councilmembers. They had begun working closely with developers in recent years to ensure their involvement and input. Local environmental groups were also supportive of a citywide elimination.

“So the development community, the home builders were supportive, the environmental groups were supportive - that triangulates a lot of concerns from just the general public. At that point. once you have sort of found a way to make environmentalists and developers happy. The politicians realize you've sort of bridged something important there.”

- City Staff

The planning department heavily emphasized education and the importance of engaging with community members on issues like this one. Rather than going to the public and asking what they thought about getting rid of parking requirements, they created fliers, social media posts, and webinars discussing the many negative impacts of parking minimums. They pointed to the goals in the comprehensive plan regarding walkable communities, mixed-use neighborhoods, and creating a less car-centric city and all the ways parking minimums made it

difficult to achieve those goals. They worked to frame the conversations around the limitations parking minimums created, rather than the idea they were taking away people’s parking spaces. Lexington went beyond eliminating parking minimums and implemented what they refer to as “responsive parking”, which focuses on parking lot design to create healthier and safer communities, as seen below in Figure 3. They included rules around where parking spaces could be located with the majority behind or the side of the building and no parking at major intersections, they changed minimum setbacks to maximum setbacks, and they included pedestrian and cycling infrastructure requirements. They also made some changes to address stormwater and other environmental impacts of parking. Previously, the City’s landscaping ordinance required a certain percentage of parking area to be landscaped and a certain percentage of landscaped area to include tree canopy. With the elimination of the parking minimums, they doubled the tree canopy requirement and based it on the entire parking area, not just the landscaped portion. This acts as a natural deterrent for building more parking, as the requirement and thus expense of landscaping and planting trees has greatly increased.

Source: Imagine Lexington, Let’s Rethink Parking

Figure 3: Responsive Parking Requirements

Results and Future - Looking

Lexington City Council approved the text amendment in October 2022. The planning department was honestly surprised at how little opposition there was from the public, as well as how quickly it passed, especially since they feel that they do not have a Council champion on this or many zoning and land use changes.

The City has begun to see some results. One tangible example of the impact of the elimination came very quickly. An affordable housing developer revised one of their proposals that had already been approved for a zoning change to replace some of their parking spaces with 40 additional housing units. This made clear that developers were often including parking simply because of the requirement, not because they felt they needed it. They have seen an uptick in multi-family developments that would have previously needed a zoning change due to the parking requirements but can now move forward without one.

The City can imagine a future where some commercial developments will have no or very limited parking, especially downtown and around the University of Kentucky campus, where there is less of a need for businesses to have parking available. Small businesses especially can benefit from the change, as they no longer have to find parking space to buy or lease to be able to open their doors. They do not foresee residential developments coming anytime soon without parking, but potentially scaled back parking. For now, they are excited with the results they have seen in a relatively short period.

Raleigh, NC

Background

Raleigh, NC, the capital city of North Carolina, has a population of 460,000 (USCB, 2022). Home to North Carolina State University, Raleigh and the surrounding towns are home to a number of science and technology institutions, making the area known as the Research Triangle. Research Triangle Park attracts several high-profile tenants, including Apple who announced plans to build a campus at RTP, creating at least 3,000 jobs. This news, along with other trends, contributes to the fact that according to one study, Raleigh has a shortage of around 17,000 housing units (Sparber, 2023). These are just a few of the trends and concerns that Raleigh has been working to address in recent years.

Raleigh began by eliminating minimum parking requirements for all developments downtown and residential developments in a transit overlay zone (Green, 2022). These changes were spurred on by the election of a new, younger city council, set on addressing missing middle housing, and supported by Mayor Pro Tem Nicole Stewart. Raleigh City Council held a public hearing on the topic the day of the vote with only two people speaking, one in favor and one in opposition (Johnson, 2022). Raleigh City Council, Raleigh Planning Commission, and Department of Transportation do not appear to have published much information on the planned reform, most information coming from news stories and press releases.

In March 2022, Raleigh City Council voted 7-1 to drop minimum parking requirements for all new buildings, flipping the minimums to function as maximums. Raleigh took a unique approach to parking reform, including their use of maximums. Instead of functioning as hard caps, Raleigh allows developers to exceed the maximums, but they must take additional steps to mitigate the impacts of added car parking, like reducing runoff, heat effects, and wasted

space. Some of these additional requirements include excess parking being located in a structure, 20% must be available to the public, like retail parking, and EV parking requirements increase by 50%. It also includes measures like additional stormwater facilities and landscaping requirements. The changes took effect May 14, 2022 (Jordan, 2022).

Interview Findings Process

In the late 2000s, Raleigh recognized that off-street parking requirements were hindering new businesses trying to open. Requirements were prohibitive especially in underutilized commercial areas where new tenants were looking to move in, but unable to do so because their uses required more parking than was available or financially feasible. In the late 2010s, Raleigh moved to reduce, but not eliminate, minimum parking requirements for downtown mixed-use developments and those near high-frequency transit routes. In Fall 2021, city staff made the official request to City Council to fully eliminate off-street parking requirements citywide.

In Raleigh, for city staff to begin working on a text change, City Council must first formally authorize the work. This means that City Council support exists from the very beginning of the process unless there is significant turnover or change in the makeup of the Council. In this case, City Council was relatively unified and ambitious in making progress. Due to this, city staff were able to move quickly and experienced very little pushback throughout the process.

Advocacy groups, like WakeUP Wake County and affordable housing advocates, had been supportive of land use and parking reform for years. They also worked with City Council to educate on topics and provide feedback and advice on certain initiatives.

“Consistent advocacy directly to decision makers to let them know that this is important, why it's important, and what the benefits of changing this policy are. I think that's pretty key to making it happen.”

- Advocate

Raleigh also has a standing group called the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) which is composed of developers, large and small, throughout the City. They serve as a sounding board for city staff on a wide variety of topics, including procedural and policy. DSAC was supportive of elimination and offered some feedback on maximums and potential mitigations for exceeding those maximums.

While city staff completed the minimally required public engagement, many viewed strong City Council support as a form of community engagement and implied community support. Some City Councilmembers believed that eliminating parking minimums aligned with the platforms they had been elected on, like addressing missing middle housing and climate change. As seen in Figure 4 below, Raleigh clearly outlined the many reasons they believed eliminating parking minimums was beneficial, tying it to many of the goals they had for the city.

Source: City of Raleigh Ordinance 352 TC 464

“It was part of what we wanted to do overall, like what we asked the citizens to vote us in to go do around missing middle housing and climate resilience. And so in our minds it was upholding our campaign pledges.”

- City Councilmember

City staff believed that since eliminating parking minimums had been in the public discourse for several years and had been successfully done in some parts of the city, people would be less opposed than if it was a brand-new idea. They also thought that elimination would not have a major impact on most projects and the changes would happen slowly. This eased concerns around the need for an extended community engagement effort.

Raleigh went further than just eliminating minimums - they also put maximums in place, in most cases adding 25 spaces to the minimum to set the maximum. Additionally, they made changes to long-term bicycle parking requirements. The maximums themselves are somewhat soft caps, as there are options if a developer wants to exceed the maximum. In those cases, there are limitations on the additional spaces, like spaces above the maximum must be within a parking structure, 20% must be available to the public, and EV requirements increase by 50%. There are also urban design and environmental requirements for mitigating the impact of

Figure 4: Text of Ordinance

spaces exceeding the maximums, like screening in the spaces, adding stormwater controls, and ensuring a more pedestrian-friendly form.

Results and Future - Looking

Raleigh approved the text amendment in March 2022 and the changes took effect in May 2022. In the year and a half since the adoption, they have seen minor changes in the types and details of proposed developments. They have had very few proposed developments with no parking, only one-offs like small duplexes and a small-scale co-living concept. Raleigh believes the private sector will continue to require parking in new developments for a variety of reasons for the foreseeable future. For the most part, developments are still providing similar levels of parking as they would have prior to elimination, but they see potential for more parking lite developments in the future.

Austin, TX

Background

Austin, TX, home to the University of Texas at Austin and the state capital, is the 10th largest and fastest growing city in the country with a population close to 1 million. Austin’s growth has led to several concerns - housing affordability and availability, environmental issues like longer and hotter summers, and infrastructure and traffic challenges. Some residents are resistant to the changing identity of Austin, growing rapidly from a small town to a major city. This nostalgia for a different Austin leads to parts of the city being opposed to new policies around land use, infrastructure, and increasing density.

In 2012, Austin started a process to overhaul their 30 years old land use development ordinance, a process called CodeNEXT. Drafts of the new code were originally released in 2017 and received considerable pushback from home and property owners who eventually sued claiming that City Council did not follow Texas state law in informing them of the proposed changes. In March 2022, an appeals court upheld a 2020 ruling against the City Council approving CodeNEXT and siding with property owners. Texas law states that if owners representing at least 20% of nearby properties oppose a zoning change, it must be approved by a supermajority of City Councilmembers to be enacted. In Austin, there has historically not been that level of support for zoning and land use changes (McGlinchy, 2022). While CodeNEXT ultimately failed, it exposed much of the city to topics around housing affordability, land use changes, and parking reform.

In 2022, Austin elected several new councilmembers to City Council, bringing a wave of more progressive and younger members. Advocacy groups have played a major role in the progressive push in Austin, specifically around land use, zoning, and housing reform in Austin, including groups like Austin Parking Reform Coalition, AURA, a local land-use and transportation focused urbanist group, and Austin Housing Coalition. On May 4, 2023, City Council directed staff to eliminate minimum off-street vehicle parking requirements in the City Code Title 25 through Resolution 20230504-022.

On November 2, 2023, Austin City Council voted 9-2 to remove minimum parking requirements from the city’s land development ordinance. The vote made it the largest city in the US to eliminate parking minimums (Fechter, 2023). Since the vote for elimination, Austin

has initiated changes to their bicycle parking requirements and hosted a ULI Technical Assistance Panel to evaluate the impact and feasibility of instituting parking maximums downtown (Austin ULI, 2023).

Interview Findings

Process

Austin has been working on updating their land use development code for almost a decade. Lawsuits, public pushback, and turnover on City Council have caused delays and roadblocks on any progress. They had succeeded in eliminating parking minimums downtown and in certain zoning districts, like around the University of Texas at Austin campus. In some areas, these changes were more effective in reducing parking than others, but they provided results and case studies that staff and officials could point to as evidence of the potential success and lack of negative consequences.

“So we had all these places where we had either relaxed or even eliminated the parking requirements and saw really good results, like in downtown, we were still getting tons of parking and at UT, we were getting less parking and more options for other mobility and then, with our affordable housing, we were seeing the cost go down and we were able to add more units. So there were specific places where we’ve seen a lot of success with this.”

- Planning Commission

With the election in 2022, City Council now had a 9-2 pro-transit, pro-housing majority ready to move quickly and aggressively to address some of the issues Austin is facing. The 9-2 supermajority is essential in Austin to advance reforms quickly and to avoid being sued by residents. They were motivated to get some quick wins and they wanted the elimination of parking minimums to be in place by the end of 2023. In May 2023, City Council officially directed city staff to begin work on a code amendment to eliminate parking minimums from the city’s land use regulations, with the end of the year as the target deadline.

Due to the years of work on CodeNEXT, residents were already well informed about housing and land-use issues and the role of parking. Due to this, city staff completed the required public hearings, plus one with the city’s Urban Transportation Commission, but did not complete much additional or extended community engagement. Since the reform had been initiated by City Council and because of the close to unanimity of the support on City Council, many saw that as a form of indirect community engagement.

Advocacy groups were very involved in the process in Austin, more so than any other city. Advocates from a variety of organizations and interests formed the Austin Parking Reform Coalition in 2021. They brought together local leaders, businesses, and community organizations to build a unified coalition with one central message. Advocates and organizers worked to make land use and parking minimums specifically an election issue, asking many candidates for their stance on a citywide elimination leading up to the election. Another important aspect in Austin was the involvement of the ADA advocacy community. At the outset, they were concerned that eliminating parking minimums would mean that ADA-accessible parking would be limited or disappear altogether. City staff, elected officials, and other advocacy

groups all worked with disability rights groups to hear their concerns and incorporate their feedback.

“We heard from environmental groups that they wanted to see this. We heard from urbanist groups that they wanted to see this. We heard from Austin Housing Coalition and other housing groups that they wanted to see this ”

- Planning Commission

The broad range of support from advocacy groups and different interests gave City Council and staff confidence that the initiative was popular with the public.

One thing many believe was essential to success in Austin was keeping the process very streamlined and simple. They limited the amendment to include only elimination - no conditions, no substitutes, no additional requirements, as seen below in Figure 5. This simplified messaging and allowed the process to move quickly.

“Trying to really keep us to a clean and simple regulation. So not conditional removal of mandates in certain places or under certain context, but just clean across the board. And just holding to that logic of parking mandates don't make sense under any context.”

- Advocate

Source: City of Austin: Resolution No. 20230504-022

Results and Future - Looking

Austin City Council voted in favor of the code amendment on November 2, 2023. In the few months since it has been in place, they have not seen drastic changes, they believe likely due to the expense and speed of the development proposal process. Staff heard some excitement about the flexibility it would offer existing and proposed developments with how they use their space. While they do not foresee drastic reductions in proposed parking, they expect fewer developments requiring rezonings or exemptions, as well as some parking light developments.

While Austin kept the code amendment eliminating parking minimums very clean and simple, they have several ideas on what they can do next. The day after elimination was approved, they began the process to update their bicycle parking requirements. In October, the Austin chapter of the Urban Land Institute performed a Technical Assistance Panel aimed at determining the best next steps for addressing parking and transportation in downtown Austin. Their initial report, titled “Strategies to Encourage Less Vehicular Transportation and Parking in Developments Downtown” included recommendations of including parking in floor area ratio,

Figure 5: Text Amendment Language

introducing soft caps based on use, updating on-street parking program, among others. They believe some of these other programs and initiatives will help accelerate change throughout the city.

Charlotte, NC

Background

Charlotte, NC is the largest city in North Carolina and 15th largest in the country with a population of close to 880,000. In 2022, Charlotte saw the fifth largest population increase in the country, with some estimating over 100 people moved to the city each day (Hagwood, 2023). The city has found it difficult for housing supply to keep pace with increasing demand. According to city data, over 32,000 new units are needed to address their affordable housing crisis (Kauffman, 2023). Charlotte also faces transportation and infrastructure challenges. In 2023, Charlotte was named the 20th worst city in the country to live in without a car, with a walkability score of 26 out of 100. To many, this highlights how sprawling Charlotte has become and how the city developed around the car (Rose, 2023). Housing availability and affordability, as well as mobility and access, make up some of the challenges facing Charlotte today.

Charlotte began work on a complete overhaul of the City’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) in 2021. The public was able to submit comments and feedback on both drafts through a portal on the UDO website. Changes and edits that were made to the drafts were based on feedback from the community, City and County staff, the UDO Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, County Commission, and City Council. The first draft was released in October 2021 and over 1200 comments were submitted by the public. The second draft, known as the Public Hearing Draft, was released on June 3, 2022, with a City Council UDO Public Hearing on July 11, 2022. Prior to the rewrite, the UDO was seen as fragmented and difficult to understand, comprising eight different sets of regulations, often neighborhood based. The new version combined all regulations into one Zoning Ordinance and was intended to align with the Charlotte Future 2040 Plan more fully. The final version was adopted in August 2022 and took effect on June 1, 2023.

In Charlotte, parking requirements are included as part of the Unified Development Ordinance in Article 19: Off-Street Vehicle and Parking Requirements. In the rewrite, they were reduced in many parts of the city and other changes were made. While advocacy groups, like Sustain Charlotte, pushed for an elimination of parking minimums citywide, it was ultimately not included in the final approved version of the UDO. While there was some support on City Council, the overwhelming sentiment in Charlotte was that they were not in a place to eliminate parking minimums, due to the sprawling nature of the city, the lack of transit and alternative infrastructure. Mayor pro tem Julie Eiselt said “We have to invest in (public transportation) to make it robust and usable. But while we do that, we’ve got to transition on parking. You can’t just take it all the way from people” (Sands, 2022).

Interview Findings

Process

Unlike other cities that changed their parking requirements through a singular text amendment or text change, Charlotte included parking reform in their Unified Development Ordinance rewrite process. Parking was just one piece of the zoning, land use, and transportation changes put in front of the public and City Council. Eliminating all parking minimums citywide was never included in a public draft of the UDO, but it was suggested in feedback and public comments. Advocates and city staff say there was never really any appetite for a citywide elimination on City Council.

“I don't think that it was really ever fully like a feasible option.”

- City Staff

Advocates submitted comments in favor of elimination or drastic reduction of minimum parking requirements, but they were not optimistic that they would be included in the final version. There was also concern that if they pushed too hard on parking reform, they might lose other progressive policies that had been included, like lifting restrictions on single-family zoning and increasing building height limits.

“We also had the situation where duplexes and triplexes are adding more housing types, which was very controversial. And we were afraid that, you know, the UDO wouldn't be passed if we added too many controversial items to it ”

- Advocate

On the other side, some were concerned about the lack of transit options and infrastructure for alternatives. Pointing to the sprawling nature of Charlotte, opponents of parking reform say it would be a burden on many communities, especially those with limited access to transit. The size of Charlotte and the sprawling way in which it grew was commonly used as an objection to eliminating parking minimums.

“Charlotte is very car centric. I mean we have some alternative transportation options and things are definitely expanding, but it's a very sprawling city. So the reality of complete elimination is met with some pushback from the community as well in certain neighborhoods, just because some people really don't have access to transit or very limited access to transit, I should say, that makes it challenging, too.”

- City Staff

There was also significant pushback from business owners and single-family residential areas concerned that their lots and streets would become filled with people looking for parking or parking in their spaces.

“So you get some kind of pushback from neighborhood groups that are, you know, well people just come park in my neighborhood and then I can't park and then school buses

can't get through. And it's kind of this trickle-down effect so I would say that's one end of the spectrum of being against the parking elimination or reduction.”

- City Staff

In some ways, Charlotte has actually regressed on this issue. Multi-family housing developments within 400 feet of a low-density housing neighborhood now need at least one space per unit. Previously, there were no parking minimums for housing in transit-oriented development districts near the light rail. Bars, restaurants, and live performance venues within 400 feet of neighborhoods now need to add at least one spot per 500 square feet, plus more for outdoor space, up from 200 feet under previous regulations. The buffer in the final version was further increased from the buffer originally included in the first draft. After the release of the second draft, Sustain Charlotte posted a summary of the changes and a response. On parking specifically, they wrote “This increase from 200 feet to 400 feet near our transit stations could have serious consequences, including the perpetuation of auto-oriented development and transportation patterns in areas that should become highly walkable. Minimum parking requirements this close to mass transit stations would add to the costs of building workforce/affordable housing in areas where a car is least needed” (Sustain Charlotte, 2022).

Results and Future - Looking

Charlotte has one development expected to open in the next year that includes no parking and renters agree in their lease to not own a car. Some view the changes in the UDO as making it more difficult to build developments with no or limited parking, with the single-family residential buffer of 400 feet as restrictive. With the elimination of parking minimums having passed in Raleigh and Durham, some developers expect to look more towards those cities to build the types of development that are now more difficult to build in Charlotte.

Analysis

Through qualitative analysis, several themes emerged in the interviews and media coverage across the four cities. These themes are split into categories covering process, community engagement and education, and future looking. Process delves into the timeline, mechanics, and other procedural elements of parking reform. Community engagement and education covers messaging tactics, educational topics, and community engagement. Futurelooking includes preliminary results and expectations. Coalition theory is used to support and explain the process and outcomes across the four cities. Lastly, there is a summary and analysis of the advice and insights provided across the four cities.

Process

When it comes to the process and timeline for each city, a few things emerged as crucial to their success. First, cities that were successful had significant city council support from the beginning, with some waiting years until they had a supportive council to begin work. Second, each city had a phased approach, where in years prior to full elimination, they had eliminated or greatly reduced requirements in certain districts, within certain distances of transit, or their

downtown core. Lastly, each city that was successful experienced some kind of catalyst that made parking reform more popular. All three of these success factors align with the strategies suggested by coalition theory.

City Council Support

Coalition theory suggests that policies are unlikely to change without a change in the group in power or the change being imposed by a hierarchically superior jurisdiction. The results in the cities support this, as City Council support, or at least lack of opposition, was vital to the success of parking reform in the cities that succeeded. In the three successful cities, it took time and patience to build the public and council support, including waiting for turnover of elected officials, but a positive outcome was unimaginable without it. A majority, or in Austin’s case a supermajority, of Councilmembers supporting the initiative from the outset was the only way an elimination was passed. The reasons for council support differ slightly across cities and can be attributed to different factors. In Lexington, the urban growth boundary appears to play a significant role in most decisions. City staff spent years educating the city on how parking minimums were hindering them from reaching their goals. Austin is facing unprecedented growth, grappling with a housing crisis and experiencing the effects of climate change. Advocates in Austin devoted years to building support in the public, recruiting elected officials who were supportive, and pushing elected officials to think progressively about land use and housing issues.

“There was an aspect of waiting for conditions to be right specifically with Council. And one thing with the Council elections in November 2022, because we had been meeting for the best part of 2 years at that point. But it took a while, you know we had to bide our time and wait for conditions to be right. So we had to be patient”

- City of Austin

On the flip side, Charlotte lacked the political will and support from City Council. Businesses, especially small businesses, feared that eliminating parking will drive away business and they exercised their political pull to minimize reform. While these concerns were raised in other cities, elected officials, advocates, and staff were able to address them through messaging and overcome them through political will. Charlotte is unlikely to succeed to implementing parking reform without turnover of elected officials or a significant push by advocates to educate and persuade those currently in power.

“We wanted to do something like Durham or Raleigh in terms of eliminating parking minimums altogether. But we knew that the appetite for such a dramatic change in the document was going to be fairly impossible at that time”

- City of Charlotte

Incremental Progress

All three cities that were successful had eliminated minimums for certain zoning types or districts in years prior to a citywide elimination. This offered a few benefits. First, residents and elected officials were familiar with the topic and had discussed it before. Second, it meant

Councilmembers and city staff had results they could point to that could alleviate concerns around the possibility of parking or congestion issues. Most cities saw minimal changes in the amount of parking being built and none saw anything detrimental to residents or businesses. Elected officials and advocates were able to change public perception over time by pointing to these results, which aligns with the coalition theory idea that research and information exchange is an effective avenue for persuading the public.

“We've already had the elimination of parking minimums downtown for about 10 years. And they're still building well and above what they actually need…But we thought this was a good step forward to eliminate parking minimums [citywide].”

- City of Austin

“I think a lot of council members used that when they started talking to their constituents about it like, ‘Hey, we've already done this in other places in this city and the world has not ended’.”

- City of Austin

“In our long-range planning section for at least the last 7 or 8 years we have wanted to eliminate minimum parking requirements. We were not sure whether or not that was going to be possible, politically or practically, with the community. Back in 2016, there hadn't been a lot of cities that had done it. But we were aware of all of the literature around the pseudoscience of predicting a number of spaces for each use and that data was pretty clear that we were engaging in basically junk science, so we were looking at: How could we do that? How could we incrementally get us to that point?”

- City of Lexington

Local Catalyst

According to the Advocacy Coalition Framework, core beliefs are difficult to change without significant external events, like changing socioeconomic conditions or public opinion, that supporters of a policy can utilize to advocate for change. This can be seen in the successful cities, which all have unique circumstances that make land use changes, including eliminating parking minimums, more palatable for those who might generally be opposed. Lexington’s Urban Growth Boundary plays a major role in land use and zoning decisions. Over the last decade, they have been faced with choices about how to handle a growing population. Infill development has become popular, and parking requirements are regularly seen as a hindrance.

“There was very little opposition by that point because we have the urban service boundary. And so, we have a strong advocacy for infill redevelopment, because they don't want to expand and grow on the horse farms. So we had a lot of support around getting rid of the minimums.”

- City of Lexington

Austin is facing a growing housing crisis as the population continues to grow at unprecedented rates. A report by the Austin Board of Realtors saw a shortage of nearly 152,000 homes

considered affordable for two-person middle-income households (Fechter, 2023). They are also facing environmental challenges, with longer and hotter summers. One goal for addressing this is decreasing drive alone rates and shifting the commute mode split to 50/50.

“We need to address that there are pollution issues, safety issues, transportation choice issues, housing issues. There's a lot more work to be done on parking. But this is this is great first step.”

- City of Austin

Community Engagement & Education

Each city highlighted the importance of having a clear narrative around the specific benefits of and reasons for elimination, often directly tying it to the vision or goals in their comprehensive plan. They also noted the importance of showing a commitment to investing in transit and other alternative modes. Lastly, advocates played a role in each city, to varying degrees of involvement, in building a broad coalition of support.

Place - Specific Benefits

Coalition theory proposes that one method for creating policy change is through changing perceptions through information exchange, including affecting public opinion through the media. Many stakeholders in each city emphasized the importance of tailoring messaging and education to their city’s local concerns and values to persuade residents and officials most effectively. Tying the benefits of eliminating parking minimums to the vision and goals laid out in their comprehensive plan was also beneficial in crafting a compelling story. This helps contextualize the changes and show tangible ways reform can benefit individuals and the community. While peer cities can be helpful in showing success stories and that a city is not the first, residents and officials need to have a clear understanding of how it benefits them specifically.

“Wrap it up into a broader goal, right…Address it as a part of your city's goals. So whether that's around housing affordability or climate or stormwater runoff, there's a way to get this, and then get that as a piece of it. Don't look at things piecemeal. Look at them holistically.”

- City of Raleigh

“I think you have to put the changes in context with housing and with equity and with accessibility…I think putting all of this into context this isn't just about you and your car. This isn't just about your convenience. This is really about the future of the city and future generations. So putting it in the 20-30 years, generationally down the line [context] is important.”

- City of Austin

In contrast, supporters of eliminating minimums in Charlotte have struggled to connect parking reform with the specific issues facing Charlotte, prioritizing other policies and strategies in media campaigns and messaging.

Investment in Alternatives and Transit

The cities had slightly differing views on which needed to come first - parking reform or mass transit infrastructure. They did agree that it was important to show a commitment to investing in public transportation and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure Raleigh believes their existing investments in transit made it easier for residents and City Council to support parking reform.

“We have been making strides in other areas like we are making massive transit investments. So I think that helped in a way, I mean it's not like there's going to be perfect transit service everywhere, but being able to say that we're doing these things sort of in tandem…I think that had value”

- City of Raleigh

On the contrary, many in Charlotte see a lack of transit investment as a significant roadblock to enacting parking reform. Until Charlotte City Council can point to a robust and efficient transit system, they cannot be seen as taking away people’s parking. The perception in Charlotte is that the city is auto-dependent and car-centric, creating obstacles to parking reform. The other three cities are also car-centric except for small transit-rich areas in their downtowns, but they see parking reform as a step in reducing auto-dependency.

“You have nothing to tell your constituents - okay, we're going to start reducing parking, but we have no other solution for you, right?”

- City of Charlotte

Addressing this concern directly, Austin sees parking reform as a necessary step in boosting transit investment and receiving federal funding for transit projects. Without parking reform, it would be significantly more difficult to build the residential and commercial density required to win federal funding for major transit projects.

“Austin Transit Partnership did a ton of site studies and lessons learned and across the board everyone said: build next to the railway, like for the actual investment, because the FTA and government funding, and the long term success really depends on hav ing ridership that makes every stop worthwhile.”

- City of Austin

Role of Advocacy Groups & Developers in Coalition Building

In most of the cities, advocacy groups and other stakeholders like developers played a significant role in enacting parking reform. The Advocacy Coalition Framework suggests that diverse groups that have a shared core belief can work together effectively and efficiently. This is seen in the three successful cities, where advocacy groups represented a variety of issues, including environmental and climate change, affordable housing, land use reform, smart growth, and parking reform specifically. Many city officials and city staff highlighted the importance of having advocates and developers involved in the process and supportive of initiatives throughout the process. Advocates played a number of roles - rallying support in the community

and on Council, educating residents and Councilmembers, and providing feedback and helping write legislation. It is difficult to imagine the cities would have been as successful without advocate support, especially in Austin, where advocates had spent years working to educate elected officials and build a broad range of support in the community.

“It helps to have a non-technical group of advocates in your community who really want to push this forward, having that support from the start was huge”

- City of Austin

“In the past, we've had issues with developers just opposing everything that we're working on. And we've started working with them more closely, having conversations with them and getting them involved in the text writing and saying ‘Look, this is coming. This is your chance to weigh in on it. Don't wait till the end’. That relationship, I think, is very helpful, because I think there's a certain segment of your elected officials, who are always going to give more credence to the builders and developers. So, having done the work of outreach and talking with them. It pays off in the end.”

- City of Lexington

While there are multiple groups with an interest in parking reform, they have not successfully built a unified coalition to advocate for eliminating minimums. Once these diverse groups align, they will be better able to work effectively in bringing about policy change.

Results & Future-Looking

Each city approached replacing or adding to elimination differently. Lexington and Raleigh put additional regulations in place at the same time as eliminating parking minimums. Austin intentionally limited the amendment to elimination, but quickly moved to update bicycle parking requirements and has begun working on other policies. Looking to the future, while each city has had their reforms in place for varying lengths of time, their expectations are similar.

Replacement of Minimums

Most cities believe that eliminating parking minimums on its own does not have an immediate result of people building less parking. They say other policies and regulations are required to make a larger impact, both incentives to build less parking and disincentives for building more parking. Raleigh replaced their minimums with maximums, but offered ways to exceed the maximum if certain mitigation efforts were put in place. They also adjusted their long-term bicycle parking requirements. Lexington added bicycle parking requirements and included urban design requirements, like the location and design of parking lots. They also greatly increased their environmental mitigation requirements, including the tree canopy requirement for parking lots. Austin kept the actual amendment that eliminated parking minimums very simple to expedite the process. The day after it passed, they began the process for updating their bicycle parking requirements and have discussed other things like maximums downtown, including parking in floor area ratios, and expanding their parking benefit district program.

“We know that this isn't going to solve everything. And so what we've done is kind of pivot more to the opportunity of what downtown can offer in terms of being able to be that case study again of what’s next, what’s after eliminating parking mandates.”

- City of Austin

“In conjunction with revising parking requirements, I also think there can be other policy incentives. I think the open space ZOTA [Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment] going along with it was important, but I think layering all these changes on top of each other is going to be how we encourage better use of land. And so I think that was one step, but we actually need all these things to go along with changes like that to actually make a difference.”

- City of Lexington

Preliminary Results & Expectations

Since eliminating minimums alone does not require less building of parking, the cities have not seen dramatic changes in proposed developments. All of the cities expect to see very few, if any, developments with zero parking in the near future, but do foresee some parking light developments or at least developments with less parking than the minimum would have required. They believe there will need to be other incentives or disincentives in place to see drastic change. Cities do expect that the change will reduce the number of developments that require an exemption or zoning change and allow more flexible redevelopment of existing lots. They see some excitement about using what would have previously been parking space in other ways, or at least having the option to use it how they want.

“In the last 6 weeks or so, I've gotten emails from lots of people who are wondering if the ordinance is already in place and are representing an existing development who wants to reuse some of their parking for something different, which is allowed now. There will be no parking minimums so they can take part of their lot or their dedicated parking space and do something more productive with it.”

- City of Austin

“Suddenly, they went from having the ability to do nothing on their site to being able to do just about anything and so that was very exciting to them.”

- City of Lexington

Advice

The most overwhelmingly common piece of advice was simple: do it. Beyond that, each city had similar recommendations related to process, education, and implementation. First, take small, but bold, steps quickly, and have each individual step be tied to a holistic vision for the city. Keep the proposal straightforward and simple - eliminate parking minimums - and work to add other layers later as necessary.

“Try to really stay at this level of keeping it simple because there are so many other things that you can layer on later. But you know with this, there's really no downside.

That's why it's so easy. I think when it comes to eliminating parking mandates, there's kind of no downside because the market's going to take care of it.”

- City of Austin

“Do it one at a time. Get regulation changes passed. Don't tie it to anything. Don't have a big loaded omnibus thing, but have a coherent narrative in your head that like, yes, this is all the actions we're doing as part of this strategy to steer the ship in a different direction.”

- City of Raleigh

“Always go big and spend the time educating, but definitely go for your gold standard that you want and if you have to compromise to get to something in between - I think that's fine. That's part of the process.”

- City of Lexington

Second, be willing to be patient to have the right political and social environment, especially on City Council. Lay the groundwork with residents, other advocates, and those campaigning for local office so that people are educated on parking reform and understand the benefits of an elimination of minimums. Doing the work beforehand allows you to move quickly once you have a Council in place excited about it.

“To the extent that you can have the change initiated by elected officials. It gives you all the backing in the world to be very purposeful with your changes. Three years ago this discussion was unimaginable. Among people here in Austin, we knew that it was the right thing to do, but it was a dream to think that it would ever happen. And then overnight, we were going to do it.”

- City of Austin

“So I think having a progressive Council in place, and having laid the groundwork, and knowing that we had a lot of support before this was even discussed at Council, and then moving pretty quickly was a big piece of why it was successful in Austin…This would never have passed under any iteration of our previous Councils.”

- City of Austin

“So we had a very ambitious and relatively unified Council at that time. And so when it was authorized, there was pretty broad support…there was a lot of buy-in throughout the process, and we never really experienced any push back or anything from the Council.”

- City of Raleigh

Lastly, build a large coalition of support, with representation from a broad array of residents, businesses, and interests. Eliminating parking minimums offers benefits in multiple areas of a city: housing affordability, addressing climate change, and building a more walkable and bikeable city. Ensure you have stakeholders from each group involved and engaged.

“My best advice is on the education side, and it's do it early and often, and it's giving people visual depictions and tangible evidence of the impact. The sooner you get out in the community and start talking about these things, the more likely and more successful you can be with preventing the spread of misinformation about these kinds of changes, because it is a shift in the way we've been developing for 60 years. I think getting out to the communities, talking to neighborhoods, talking to local businesses as much as possible, and as early as possible is the key.

- City of Lexington

“That's one of the biggest things I recommend: create a coalition. Make sure it's broad, and make sure that that coalition understands what the ultimate goal is, and that can be a small repeal first for places that haven't done anything, or it can be a broad repeal like we did, because we'd already done some of this previous work.”

- City of Austin

“I think the multi-prong argument is impactful - you're probably not going to convince everyone on one aspect of it, not everyone's going to care about the climate or sustainability impacts, not everyone's going to care about how it makes housing more expensive, not everyone's going to care about urbanizing places. But when you present all of that in a cohesive and coherent way, I think that can be really impactful. People start to see the overwhelming benefits as opposed to the downsides.”

- City of Raleigh

Conclusion

At its core, this is an education and messaging issue. Proponents of parking reform must be able to clearly articulate the challenges facing their city and how eliminating parking minimums can be a tool to address those challenges. There are also misconceptions about what eliminating parking minimums means that must be addressed and some cities have provided good examples of how to do that. Eliminating parking minimums on its own does not solve climate change or create affordable housing, but it can be a means to an end. Coalition theory offers insights into why three cities succeeded, while one did not.

The key findings from this report include:

• Parking reform requires a supportive city council. If necessary, supporters should be willing to be patient until they have a majority on City Council. It can be effective to make parking and land use reform an election issue.

• Cities should build a broad coalition of support in the public, including the involvement of advocacy groups of different interests. Advocates can play a significant role in educating the public, providing feedback and advice, and garnering support.

• Supporters should create a multi-faceted argument that is compelling, cohesive, and addresses a city’s specific concerns and goals. It should bring together all the benefits of parking reform, including increasing housing availability and affordability,

mitigating environmental impacts, and supporting a safe walkable and bikeable urban form.

• Cities should be able to show investment in transit and other alternatives or a commitment to investing in transit and other infrastructure in the future. This helps with messaging, as well as can make parking reform more effective.

• Eliminating parking minimums does not always have a drastic or immediate effect on the amount of parking built in a city. Cities need other supplementary and complementary regulations, like parking maximums and design requirements, to function as both incentives and disincentives.

Implications

Existing research concludes that eliminating parking minimums offers several benefits to cities - reducing car dependence, lowering construction and housing costs, and simplifying the approval and development process. Researchers have also looked at the outcomes related to reduced or eliminated parking minimums in a few cities, namely Seattle and Buffalo. This study adds to existing research by examining how cities have recently been approaching the process of adjusting parking minimums in their zoning ordinances. Identifying how cities of different sizes and types have successfully navigated the planning process of eliminating citywide parking minimums can aid future planners, developers, and activists. Successful community engagement and education examples can also serve as a guide. It can provide guidance and tools for cities who have been unsuccessful in the past or are currently considering adjusting their parking requirements. Additionally, understanding any substitutes cities put in place can offer alternatives to cities who are hesitant to eliminate parking minimums outright. This becomes increasingly important as parking reform becomes more popular and moves into the mainstream.

Appendix

Appendix 1: Interview Questions

Background

1. When did the idea of eliminating parking minimums enter your discussions at your office/organization?

2. How was this idea received by others in your office/department?

3. What prompted <city> to begin work on eliminating parking minimums?

4. How would you describe your department’s goals in regards to eliminating parking minimums?

5. What were some of the things you considered regarding these goals?

a) Equity consideration?

6. How long did you spend working on initiative/proposal before it went to the public or before it went to City Council for a vote?

7. Can you talk about this timeline?

a) Can you talk about why it took as long as it did?

b) What, if anything, do you wish had been different about this process?

8. Were any outside groups such as advocacy groups or developers involved in this process?

a) YesàWhat feedback, if any, did you get from developers regarding eliminating parking minimums?

b) How were advocacy groups involved?

9. What are the one or two top organizations or departments involved in updating your parking requirements?

a) Can you talk about any collaboration happening around these efforts?

10. Since the effort to eliminate parking minimums began, have your goals changed over time? If yes, how have they changed?

Community Engagement & Education

1. Was there any community engagement related to eliminating parking minimums?

a) YesàWhen did you begin community engagement and outreach efforts with the public?

b) Can you describe the community engagement and outreach? i. (E.g. public meetings, flyers, surveys, focus groups)

c) Did you work with any community organizations or advocacy groups?

i. NoàCan you tell me more about that?

d) How long did community engagement and outreach efforts last in your city?

2. Was there any education related to eliminating parking minimums?

a) YesàWhen did you begin education related to eliminating parking minimums?

b) Can you describe the educational efforts?

c) How long did education efforts last?

3. How did the community respond to this initiative?

a) Did your organization adapt or change their approach based public feedback?

Implementation

1. How did you move from the idea of community engagement to making it a reality?

a) Did you model off of another city?

2. Now that you have implemented this change, are there are unforeseen challenges or outcomes that you did not anticipate?

3. What advice, if any, would you give to other cities considering eliminating parking minimums?

Future Looking

1. What have been some of the outcomes of eliminating parking minimums?

a) Have you seen an uptick in applications for developments that would have previously not been approved or would have required an exemption?

4. Do you foresee an increase in developments with minimal parking facilities?

a) What about developments with no parking? i. Can you tell me more about that?

Appendix 2: Code List

Concerns / Reasons Against

• Transit system / availability of alternatives

• No parking available / limited parking

• Too sprawling / too big

• Pushback from business owners

• NIMBYism

Considerations

• Impact on development

• Expensive to build

• Managing growth Process

• Downtown / district elimination

• Supportive city council

• Council initiated

• Alignment with comp plan and local goals

• Replacements for minimums

• Advocacy groups involvement

• Community engagement - indirect

• Community engagement - direct

• Streamlined/simplified process

• Public knowledge/education

• No appetite on city council Messaging

• Broad range of support

• Market-based parking

• Peer city case studies

• Clear, city-specific benefits Pros / Benefits

• Walkable / bikable / livable

• Environmentally friendly

• Housing affordability

• Housing availability

• Better use of land / space

• Minimums prohibitive of new or certain uses Results

• Reuse parking space for different use

• Car-light possible

• Zero parking developments

Appendix 3: Bibliography

Anderson, Kit. “The Urban Service Boundary.” CivicLex, June 26, 2023. https://www.civiclex.org/big-issues/urban-service-boundary

“Austin Eliminates Parking Requirements for New Projects, Becoming Largest US City To Join Bandwagon.” Accessed January 22, 2024. https://www.costar.com/article/1774549486/austin-eliminates-parking-requirements-fornew-projects-becoming-largest-us-city-to-join-bandwagon.

Berkeley. “Suburban Sprawl Cancels Carbon-Footprint Savings of Dense Urban Cores,” 2022. https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/01/06/suburban-sprawl-cancels-carbon-footprintsavings-of-dense-urban-cores.

Carroll, Patrick. “New Miami Parking Requirements Are Making It Harder to Build Low-Cost Housing | Patrick Carroll,” May 19, 2022. https://fee.org/articles/new-miami-parkingrequirements-are-making-it-harder-to-build-low-cost-housing/.

“Charlotte Growth up & Extending beyond City Center, Analysts Say | Wcnc.Com.” Accessed January 15, 2024. https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/local/113-people-a-day-moving-tocharlotte-region-analysts-say/275-29757df1-c856-40a0-ad62-903af766c019

“Charlotte Posts Nation’s Fifth-Largest Population Increase in 2022 – WSOC TV.” Accessed January 15, 2024. https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/charlotte-posts-nations-fifthlargest-population-increase-2022/S7OBXKLZ3RHSFBC43ULVUTQ6ZE/

Chilton, Will, and Paul Mackie. “The High Cost of Free Parking.” Vox, July 19, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akm7ik-H_7U

City of San José. “Parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance Update.” Accessed September 27, 2023. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/yourgovernment/departments-offices/planning-building-code-enforcement/planningdivision/ordinances-proposed-updates/parking-policy-evaluation

“CodeNEXT, Austin Land Development Code Rewrite, Effectively over after Appeals Court Ruling | Kvue.Com.” Accessed January 16, 2024. https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/austin-land-development-code-codenextappeals-court/269-3a8e70ae-5848-45e3-bf82-e3fe12bc61bb.

Coren, Michael. “Advice | Why Free Street Parking Could Be Costing You Hundreds More in Rent.” Washington Post, May 2, 2023. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climateenvironment/2023/05/02/eliminating-parking-minimums-liveable-cities/.

Curry, Melanie. “Parking Requirements Are Not a Useful Bargaining Chip for Increasing Affordable Housing - Streetsblog California,” May 19, 2021. https://cal.streetsblog.org/2021/05/19/parking-requirements-are-not-a-useful-bargainingchip-for-increasing-affordable-housing.

EPA, Development, Community, and Environment Division. “Parking Spaces / Community Places.” EPA, January 2006. https://archive.epa.gov/greenbuilding/web/pdf/epaparkingspaces06.pdf.

Fechter, Joshua. “Austin Will Try Again to Tame Its Housing Affordability Crisis with Zoning Reforms. Can It Do It This Time?” The Texas Tribune, September 19, 2023. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/19/austin-housing-affordability-zoning/

Ferrin, Robert. “As More Cities Eliminate Parking Minimums, What Happens Next?” NAIOP | Commercial Real Estate Development Association. Accessed September 28, 2023. https://www.naiop.org/research-and-publications/magazine/2023/Summer2023/development-ownership/as-more-cities-eliminate-parking-minimums-whathappens-next/

Ferris, Robert. “How the $8 Billion Parking Industry Is Evolving to Stay Alive.” CNBC, May 6, 2023. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/06/how-the-8-billion-parking-industry-is-evolvingto-stay-alive-.html

Forinash, Christopher, Adam Millard-Ball, Charlotte Dougherty, and Jeffrey Tumlin. “Smart Growth Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements” 566284 (January 1, 1544).

Friedman and Shoup. “Cities Need Housing. Parking Requirements Make It Harder.” Bloomberg.Com, April 26, 2021. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-0426/to-save-the-planet-kill-minimum-parking-mandates.

Gabbe, C. J., Gregory Pierce, and Gordon Clowers. “Parking Policy: The Effects of Residential Minimum Parking Requirements in Seattle.” Land Use Policy 91 (February 1, 2020): 104053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104053.

Gaviola, Anne. “Cars Make Your Life More Expensive, Even If You Don’t Have One.” Vice (blog), January 29, 2020. https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7jezg/cars-make-your-lifemore-expensive-even-if-you-dont-have-one

Genter, Julie, Lorelei Schmitt, and Stuart Donovan. “The Missing Link: Parking as the Integration of Transportation and Land Use,” December 10, 2013.

Gould, Catie. “Parking Reform Legalized Most of the New Homes in Buffalo and Seattle.” Sightline Institute (blog), April 13, 2023. https://www.sightline.org/2023/04/13/parkingreform-legalized-most-of-the-new-homes-in-buffalo-and-seattle/

Gould, Catie. “Why Communities Are Eliminating Off-Street Parking Requirements and What Comes Next.” LILP, October 12, 2022. https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/2022-10-shifting-gears-eliminating-offstreet-parking-requirements

Grabar, Henry. “Miami Decided Parking Is More Important than Housing, Dropping Developer Exemptions.,” May 6, 2022. https://slate.com/business/2022/05/miami-parkingdevelopers-housing.html

Gray, Nolan Bloomberg.com. “Is the Greenbelt Around Lexington, Kentucky, Choking Its Growth?” May 16, 2019. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-0516/lexington-debates-the-future-of-its-greenbelt

Green, Geoff. “Rethinking Parking Requirements.” Clarion Associates (blog), November 29, 2022. https://clarionassociates.com/whats-new/re-thinking-parking-requirements/

“Here’s What Changed in the New Draft of Charlotte’s Unified Development Ordinance - Sustain Charlotte.” Accessed January 31, 2024. https://www.sustaincharlotte.org/new_udo_draft

Hess, Daniel Baldwin, and Jeffrey Rehler. “Minus Minimums.” Journal of the American Planning Association 87, no. 3 (July 3, 2021): 396–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2020.1864225 . “Parking Reform Could Energize Downtowns.” Accessed September 28, 2023. https://www.buffalo.edu/ubnow/stories/2021/06/conversation-hess-parking-reform.html

Holtzclaw, John, Robert Clear, Hank Dittmar, David Goldstein, and Peter Haas. “Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socio-Economic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use - Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco.” Transportation Planning and Technology 25 (October 29, 2010): 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060290032033

Hom, Annika. “No Parking at Mission Affordable Housing Means Tenants Pay the Price.” Mission Local, May 5, 2023. http://missionlocal.org/2023/05/no-parking-at-missionaffordable-housing-means-tenants-pay-the-price/.

Hoyt, Hannah, and Jenny Schuetz. “Parking Requirements and Foundations Are Driving up the Cost of Multifamily Housing.” Brookings, June 2, 2020. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/parking-requirements-and-foundations-are-driving-upthe-cost-of-multifamily-housing/.

Imagine Lexington. “Applicant Info-Sheet on Parking Regulation Changes,” November 1, 2022. https://issuu.com/lexingtonky1/docs/parking_one_pager_applicants_221027v3.

. “Rethink Parking.” Accessed September 27, 2023. https://imaginelexington.com/rethinkparking

“Is Charlotte Ready to Start Ditching Cars? - Axios Charlotte.” Accessed January 22, 2024. https://www.axios.com/local/charlotte/2020/06/21/is-charlotte-ready-to-start-ditchingcars-222232

Jaworsky, Amanda. MJE. “The Economics of Parking – Michigan Journal of Economics,” June 20, 2022. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2022/06/20/the-economics-of-parking/

Johnson, Anna. “Raleigh City Council May Vote Tuesday to Drop Parking Requirements on New Developments.” Raleigh News & Observer, March 12, 2022. https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/wake-county/article259312014.html

Jordan, Tony. “Raleigh Joins Ranks of Cities with No Costly Parking Mandates.” Parking Reform Network, March 18, 2022. https://parkingreform.org/2022/03/18/raleigh-joinsranks-of-cities-with-no-costly-parking-mandates/

KUT Radio, Austin’s NPR Station. “Appeals Court Confirms Austin’s Land Code Rewrite Skirted State Law, Effectively Killing the Decade-Long Effort,” March 17, 2022. https://www.kut.org/austin/2022-03-17/austin-city-council-codenext-zoning-plan-violatedtexas-law

Lexington Planning. “We Are Proposing Responsive Parking for Lexington.” Accessed September 28, 2023. https://e.issuu.com/embed.html?d=rps_stakeholder_group_full_page&pageLayout=singl ePage&u=lexingtonky1

LFUCG Planning. “Rethinking Parking Regulations.” Accessed September 28, 2023. https://www.lexingtonky.gov/news/05-21-2021/rethinking-parking-regulations.

Manville, Michael. “How Parking Destroys Cities.” The Atlantic (blog), May 18, 2021. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/parking-drives-housingprices/618910/.

Margolies, Jane. “Awash in Asphalt, Cities Rethink Their Parking Needs.” The New York Times, March 7, 2023, sec. Business. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/business/fewerparking-spots.html.

McCahill, Christopher T., Norman Garrick, Carol Atkinson-Palombo, and Adam Polinski. “Effects of Parking Provision on Automobile Use in Cities: Inferring Causality.” Transportation Research Record 2543, no. 1 (January 1, 2016): 159–65. https://doi.org/10.3141/254319.

McVan, Madison, Minnesota Reformer January 23, and 2024. “DFL Lawmakers to Introduce Bill to Ban Parking Minimums Statewide.” Minnesota Reformer (blog), January 23, 2024. https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/01/23/dfl-lawmakers-to-introduce-bill-to-banparking-minimums-statewide/.

Meyersohn, Nathaniel. “This Little-Known Rule Shapes Parking in America. Cities Are Reversing It | CNN Business.” CNN, May 20, 2023. https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/20/business/parking-minimums-cars-transportation-urbanplanning/index.html.

National Parking Association. “Land Use and Zoning.” Accessed September 29, 2023. https://weareparking.org/page/land-use-zoning.

Parking Reform Network. “A Map of Progress Eliminating Costly Parking Mandates.” Accessed September 28, 2023. https://parkingreform.org/mandates-map.

Planning, LFUCG Division of. “Let’s Rethink Parking in Lexington, KY.” ArcGIS StoryMaps, September 3, 2021. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/6feec415a3aa411ca55f5e539efd0bc5

“Plans for Apple at RTP Campus Show 6 Buildings, 700,000 Square Feet of Office Space | WRAL TechWire,” June 30, 2023. https://wraltechwire.com/2023/06/30/apple-files-plansfor-324000-square-feet-of-office-space-at-rtp-campus/

“Proposed Affordable Housing Communities Request Charlotte Funds | Wcnc.Com.” Accessed January 15, 2024. https://www.wcnc.com/article/money/markets/real-estate/affordablehousing-crisis/affordable-housting-solutions-charlotte-nc-local/275-b0f78002-6b58-453db4f2-14f5ce25db8d

Rose, Lowell. “Charlotte Listed as ‘Car-Dependent’ City; Ranks among Worst Places to Be without a Vehicle.” https://www.wbtv.com, March 8, 2023. https://www.wbtv.com/2023/03/08/charlotte-listed-car-dependent-city-ranks-amongworst-places-be-without-vehicle/

Sands, Alexandria. “Charlotte Is Stopping Short of Eliminating Parking Minimums.” https://www.wbtv.com, July 26, 2022. https://www.wbtv.com/2022/07/26/charlotte-isstopping-short-eliminating-parking-minimums/

Seay, Jr, Warren, Dean Roy, and Lucas Longo. “Spaced Out – The Shift Away from Minimum Parking Requirements.” The National Law Review. Accessed September 28, 2023. https://www.natlawreview.com/article/spaced-out-shift-away-minimum-parkingrequirements

Shoup, Donald. Parking and the City. 1st ed. First edition. | New York, NY : Routledge, 2018.: Routledge, 2018. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351019668

. The High Cost of Free Parking, 2005.

. “The Trouble with Minimum Parking Requirements.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 33 (September 1, 1999): 549–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S09658564(99)00007-5.

Sparber, Zachery Eanes, Lucille Sherman,Sami. “Built-to-Rent Housing Is Surging in North Carolina.” Axios, July 10, 2023. https://www.axios.com/local/raleigh/2023/07/10/built-torent-housing-surge-north-carolina.

Spivak, Jeff. “A Business Case for Dropping Parking Minimums.” American Planning Association, June 1, 2022. https://www.planning.org/planning/2022/spring/a-businesscase-for-dropping-parking-minimums.

Stachowiak, Sarah. “Pathways for Change: 10 Theories to Inform Advocacy and Policy Change Efforts.” Orginzational Research Services. October 2013. https://www.orsimpact.com/DirectoryAttachments/132018_13248_359_Center_Pathway s_FINAL.pdf.

Stromberg, Joseph. “Why Free Parking Is Bad for Everyone.” Vox, June 27, 2014. https://www.vox.com/2014/6/27/5849280/why-free-parking-is-bad-for-everyone

Strong Towns. “Lexington Uses Nationwide Precedent To Repeal Parking Mandates,” February 8, 2023. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/1/24/lexington-uses-nationwideprecedent-to-repeal-parking-mandates

Talhem, Matt. “Raleigh to Reduce the Number of Future Parking Spaces to Encourage Residents to Bike or Take Public Transit,” March 25, 2022. https://www.wral.com/story/raleigh-to-reduce-the-number-of-future-parking-spaces-toencourage-residents-to-bike-or-take-public-transit/20205647/

Thompson, Ben. “Charlotte’s Mayor Pro Tem Wants to Curb City’s ‘expensive’ Parking Regulations.” wcnc.com, May 12, 2023. https://www.wcnc.com/article/money/charlotteparking-regulations-local-money-life/275-168e2117-5b31-40a1-8f74-a12e6f9519b9

TIME. “Americans’ Addiction to Parking Lots Is Bad for the Climate. California Wants to End It,” September 28, 2022. https://time.com/6217873/parking-lots-climate-change-california/

ULI Austin. “Technical Assistance Panels - Americas.” Accessed February 2, 2024.

https://austin.uli.org/resources/technical-assistance-panelsadvisory-service-panels/

United States Census Bureau. “U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Austin City, Texas.” Accessed February 6, 2024.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/austincitytexas/LND110210

. “U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Charlotte City, North Carolina.” Accessed February 6, 2024.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/charlottecitynorthcarolina/PST045222.

. “U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Lexington-Fayette Urban County, Kentucky; Kentucky.” Accessed September 29, 2023.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/lexingtonfayetteurbancountykentucky,KY/P ST045222.

. “U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Raleigh City, North Carolina.” Accessed September 29, 2023.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/raleighcitynorthcarolina/POP060210.

Wamsley, Laurel. “From Austin to Anchorage, U.S. Cities Opt to Ditch Their off-Street Parking Minimums.” NPR, January 2, 2024, sec. National. https://www.npr.org/2024/01/02/1221366173/u-s-cities-drop-parking-space-minimumsdevelopment.

wcnc.com. “9 Affordable Housing Projects Hoping to Build in Charlotte,” April 13, 2023. https://www.wcnc.com/article/money/markets/real-estate/affordable-housingcrisis/affordable-housting-solutions-charlotte-nc-local/275-b0f78002-6b58-453d-b4f214f5ce25db8d.

Weinberger, Rachel. “Death by a Thousand Curb-Cuts: Evidence on the Effect of Minimum Parking Requirements on the Choice to Drive.” Transport Policy, URBAN TRANSPORT INITIATIVES, 20 (March 1, 2012): 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.08.002.

“What Drives Parking Rage? It’s Not Just Economics. - Bloomberg.” Accessed January 27, 2024. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-22/what-drives-parking-rage-its-not-just-economics

Wilson, Kea. “What Happened When Buffalo Changed Its Parking Rules Streetsblog USA,” June 14, 2021. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/06/14/what-happened-when-buffalochanged-its-parking-rules