America: From Blacktop to Shining Blacktop

Lee Chang

Table of Contents
Introduction
Transportation: A (Brief) History
Where Did MPR’s Come From?
The Utah County Case Study
Economics: The True Solution
Economics: The Tragedy of the Commons
Economics: Price Elasticity and the Demand Curve
Economics: Microeconomics Optimize Pricing
Conclusion

Introduction

Majestic purple mountains, amber waves of grain, fruited plains - paved away for

coal-black asphalt. As a country with over 200 million drivers, America has questionably built

nearly 2 ​billion​ parking spaces.

In Cottonwood Arizona, a rural town where the 12,000 population sleeps at 8pm, a

“local” Walmart Supercenter boasts a 1200-vehicle parking lot - a space larger than the nearby

fairgrounds. In the dense downtown blocks of most metros, over​ 50% of the land surface is

dedicated to vehicles​. From sea to shining sea, America is becoming a flat, matte, blacktop

nation.

How did it begin? And where does it end? What is the reason for building 8 times as

many parking spaces as there are drivers to use them? Surprisingly, the the problem that prompts

these questions do not lie in the economics of supply and demand so much as it does in the

encumbering outdatedness of the legal hedge surrounding the parking lots. Understanding the

history of these regulations and how they must evolve will help land use planners innovate the
paradox of parking legislation. Minimum parking requirements: the answer that yielded more

questions.

Transportation: A (Brief) History

As motors and tailpipes started populated the the streets in the early 1900’s, America’s

residents became progressively more concerned with the safety of pedestrians around vehicles.

As a result, the city of Radburn, New Jersey began to plan the residential neighborhoods around

the safety of children going to and returning from school. Other similar trends soon followed in

developments across the nation as planning committees became more aware of the consequences

of the automobile. The impact of cars on urban development is at least twofold. Firstly, with the

freedom of travel and speed of automobiles, city dwellers had the option of moving outwards to

suburban areas - and move they did. Suddenly, cities expanded outwards as people were able to

live in larger and more affordable home while being able to commute into the city for work.

Secondly, the infrastructure that came along with motorized private transportation had to be

built. Roads previously designed for buggies, horses, and pedestrians were revamped to

accommodate vehicles. Traffic lights, gas stations, drive-throughs popped up in random

neighborhoods. And in the cities, where space was already limited and constrained, there was a

growing need for repurposing space to park cars.

Because the first cars were built with open tops, leather seats, and exposed wood, many

of the initial parking structures were parking garages to protect the cars from the weather. Many

of the first public parking garages were converted from existing horse stables since the stables

were already in common destinations. The first multi-story parking structure was built in 1918 at
the Hotel La Salle in Chicago. However, conflicts with existing land use and the new structure

resulted in the parking structure being constructed several blocks away from the hotel.

Additional issues emerged from the increasing number of cars in urban areas. Drivers

would park their vehicles in the streets until they would need the cars later, which would

unfortunately prevent customers from parking in front of their destination store, causing the

businesses to lose traffic. Commercial difficulties with parking, combined with logistical issues

and safety concerns lead governments to begin regulating the use of cars. Perhaps the most

controversial type of law were those called “minimum parking requirements” or MPR’s.

Where Did MPR’s Come From?

No one knows. Minimum off-street parking requirements were widely adopted between

the 1940’s and 1970’s. The goal was to prevent parking from one business to congest the parking

needed by adjacent or nearby businesses. However, academic resources for urban planning never

fully endorsed MPR’s and to this date, the origin story of these requirements is still unknown.

Much of the municipalities that enact minimum parking requirements and other traffic

related legislation cite the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) surveys and research for

justifying the regulations. Estimations based on surveys from the ITE set the amount of trips

generated by each type of land use, along with parking need ratios, and trips per parking space

per day. This information extends to manufacturing, industrial, restaurant, motel, and many more

types of zonings. However, the unfortunate reality is that while the majority of cities and

lawmakers cite the ITE as a reliable source of traffic data and information upon which to base

restrictive and blanket regulations, the ITE itself publishes information based on scant,
widespread surveys for the purpose of education, not for becoming the keystone to urban traffic

planning.

For example, the ITE states that church parking lots experience a nine cars per space per

day turnover rate - a miracle of faith and devotion that even shocks the regular church-goer. This

number is then used to calculate the trip generation and space requirement for churches,

disregarding the day of the week. Furniture stores, on the other hand, received a 1.8 cars per

space per day. Perhaps those purchasing furniture move very slowly. How those stores stay in

business with such low visitation seems to be outside the ITE’s statistical calculations.

Obviously, these numbers from from surveys that observe the locations at their peak

times and exclude data such as the other six days during which the church receives very little

audience. Many of the foundational surveys were conducted just once at each site repeated at

four other locations without regard to time of day, day of week, or month of year. To compound

the injury further, the surveys could have taken place at the peak traffic hour at one location for

one category of zoning, then at the lowest traffic times for another category.

Imagine the scene: A surveyor arrives at a Walmart during Black Friday and gawks at the

vast amounts of idling engines, parked vehicles, and hearty campers lined outside the doors. The

surveyor then hurriedly scribbles down the numbers and runs back to report to their superiors.

“Walmart has ​thousands​ of people lining up to shop there!” he exclaims to the board. “Well, I

suspected as much,” says the project manager, “mark them down for a minimum of 1,000

parking spaces! At least they are busy. That downtown restaurant only needed 17 spaces in the

alley.” While this misinformation later becomes the basis for political direction, the ITE is not

responsible for the legislation that ignores the need to validate the numbers. The ITE provides
information as best as it can - the prudent politician must then prevent plans predicated on

unproven presumptions.

The Utah County Case Study

For example, the parking regulations of Orem, UT exhibit the failings of an outdated

blanket minimum parking regulation:

“There shall be a minimum of two (2) parking spaces provided for each

dwelling, one of which shall be covered. There shall also be a minimum of

one half (½) parking space for each dwelling for guest parking within the

development.” - ​(22-7-12(J))

Enacted in 1997, this regulation was last amended in 2001. In the 18 years since the last

update, Orem City has seen an increase of roughly 13,000 residents. However, more impactful

on the city was the local Utah Valley State College achieving a new status as Utah Valley

University. Accompanying this change, UVSC went from a student population of around​ 20,000

in the early 2000’s to nearly 40,000 in 2018. ​With​ 50% ​of students bringing cars to the city every

semester, Orem City experienced an increase of nearly 10,000 vehicles - with minimal change in

parking regulation for dwelling units.

The unfortunate situation that Orem city planners find themselves in is a combination of

blessing and curse: the sudden surge in attendance in the local university has pushed the student

population into neighborhoods built for families with children. Landlords, eager to cash in on

increasing rent rates, lease out two-bedroom homes to four single adults, each with their own

vehicle. In areas where the “minimum of two parking spaces” are met, the streets are suddenly
clogged over capacity with vehicles. New developments quickly take advantage of the loopholes

and outdated ordinances to build high-occupancy apartments with minimal investment into

parking. Besides the increase in population, seasonality of occupancy also increases the difficulty

of finding the solution. Each summer, tens of thousands of students flee the city in search of

internships and travel, leaving tumbleweeds and whispers to occupy the streets. Additionally, the

mosaic of single-family households mixed in with the student tenants make a patchwork of use

cases, rendering geographically oriented zoning decisions useless or burdensome. With the its

minimum parking requirements written 27 years ago, and last amended almost two decades ago,

Orem, UT is a city that is suffering from a shutdown as its asphalt arteries are choked to a

standstill by outdated parking laws.

In the adjacent city of Provo, (14.37.060) the City Code sets forth requirements for

housing depending on multi-family dwelling statuts. Provo also has a large university, albeit

without the explosive growth of its neighboring university. With Provo’s parking minimum

parking regulations, a progressive system has been implemented. 1-bedroom apartments require

a complex 1.75 parking spaces per unit, plus 0.25 space per unit visitor parking for any

occupancy other than a single family. In the case of a family occupancy, only 1.5 spaces need be

provided. At each increase of bedrooms, the number of parking is adjusted upwards until:

“Minimum of four (4) spaces per unit, plus one-quarter (0.25) space per unit

visitor parking, or one (1) space per vehicle or recreational vehicle owned or

operated by a resident, whichever is greater.”

 Because of the complex nature of Provo’s population, the city government has had to

introduce additional measures to regulate the parking for “baching singles”:

“BACHING SINGLES 1 to 6 bedrooms Minimum of two (2) spaces per bedroom

plus .25 spaces per unit visitor parking, with a maximum of three (3) bedrooms

per unit, if the bedrooms are over one hundred (100) square feet. If the bedrooms

are less than one hundred (100) square feet, one (1) space per bedroom plus one

quarter (.25) spaces per unit visitor parking, with a maximum of six (6) bedrooms

per unit, if the bedrooms are under one hundred (100) square feet. Recreational

vehicles shall not be allowed in the required parking area. Joaquin South Campus

Planning Area (between University Ave. and 900 E.; 500 N. to the southern

boundary of BYU campus) Minimum .80 parking space per tenant plus .20

parking spaces per unit for visitors and for the disabled as outlined in Section

14.37.110, Provo City Code, Disabled Parking Spaces. Recreational vehicles

shall not be allowed in the required parking area.”

Provo’s parking regulations have been amended an astounding ​17 times​ since its

introduction in 1994. In fact, between 1994 to 2002, the code has been amended every year and

in the years, 1997, 1998, and 1999, the same sections were amended multiple times a year. One

becomes painful aware of the inadequacy of minimum parking requirements while reviewing the

history of Provo’s parking codes.

 Although Provo’s parking regulatory behavior is more sensitive to the public needs than

its sister city’s regulations, the pedestrian can still witness the fallout from years of inadequate

parking requirements in neighborhoods south of Brigham Young University. Within the

population of students occupying Condo Row, individuals surveyed have had to park as far as 4

blocks away in order to secure a streetside parking space without fear of being towed. In winter’s

snow or spring’s downpour, many of these tenants must trudge 10 minutes or more to return

back to their dwellings from their parked car.

To exacerbate the parking and traffic issues in Provo, a recent shift in ideology in its City

Hall has led the city’s planning committees to ​reduce​ the amount of off-street parking each

dwelling is required to have. Whereas a few years ago, 3-bedroom units required 3 spaces, now

they only require 2. The current occupants of City Hall believe that in reducing the parking

availability, and artificially congesting the streets while implementing public transportation,

government can invisibly manhandle the traffic situation to dissuade drivership and encourage

use of public transportation. This is not an incorrect plan, but it requires difficult civil

engineering maneuvers.

Unfortunately for the City’s residents, the typical inability of bureaucracy to move

quickly has caused literally 6 years of suffering from both artificial congestion and ​no public

transportation​. Even the current situation is challenging, as prior broadways of commute to

BYU’s campus are sliced in half by bus lanes, causing mass traffic to reroute. And even more,

the public transportation system struggles to accommodate students living in the majority of the

city, leaving those students still reliant upon individual vehicles ​and​ increasing traffic

slowdowns. The difficulty of implementing public transportation in a city already built comes
from a widespread residency, and lack of dense dwelling areas. Cities such as New York,

Chicago, Boston are well adapted to public transit as so much of their populations reside in the

same square footage as each other. One bus stop or subway station can service tens of thousands

of people, while in cities like Provo, one block of dwellings may only have a few hundred

residents. Daunting as Provo’s task of solving parking issues may be, any shift away from

minimum parking requirements is already a good, long-term move.

Both Provo and Orem are located in Utah County, and the two cities’ growth has

prompted other municipalities to developed quickly. Experiencing hyper-expansion from the

overflow student residents of UVU, Orem’s other neighbor city, Vineyard has sprung out of

nowhere. Vineyard has the unique opportunity to learn from Provo and Orem’s experiences, and

its parking regulations show new trends for confronting parking issues.

“Joint use of parking is encouraged in order to reduce trips...Parking lot design

shall consider development on adjacent sites.”

Unfortunately, even with hints of innovative planning, Vineyard still relies upon the false

simplicity of minimum parking requirements that depend on the Institute of Transportation

Engineers’ data and city surveys.

Aside from residential parking, another one of the faults of relying upon the Institute of

Transportation Engineers for information on parking is the use of basing the parking

requirements on the square footage of a building. Regardless of the actual use of the square

footage, many cities have blanket requirements addressing total square footage of retail space,

restaurants, etc. These requirements do not distinguish space used for customer traffic from

space used for storage of garbage.

 Halls, janitorial closets, staff corridors, etc. all fall under the calculations whereby “one

(1) space per three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area” satisfies the need of an art

gallery while “One (1) space per two thousand (2000) square feet of land area” suffices for a zoo

- regardless of how much running grasslands the giraffes and zebras would like to have. In

finding a correlation between the area of a property and the parking usage, the relation between

usage and square footage yields a meager 0.038 coefficient - specifically in the case of fast-food

restaurants. This means that essentially the floor space can only account for 4% accuracy in the

parking space usage - essentially not related to parking at all. However, reports used by

municipalities report an exact 9.95 parking spaces per 1000 square feet of floor area. These

unproven standards are taken as fact and applied in lawmaking in land use planning.

To use an example in the aforementioned Utah County area, Orem City’s local Walmart

Supercenter has nearly an astounding count of 2,000 parking spaces. On the Orem Walmart’s

18.48 acre plot of land​, over half is used for parking - parking that sits empty 67% of the time,

and is almost never full on the average day. In fact, across the nation, Walmart stores use only

25% of the land they sit on for store building square footage, leaving ​75% o​ f the 60,000 ​acres

owned by Walmart stores to be used by parking. Just to reiterate, Walmart stores essentially use

3.7 acres of parking for every 1 acre of store coverage. This incongruous allocation of space is

due to the minimum parking requirements set by municipalities relying upon data such as that

provided by the ITE.

 - The Orem Walmart Parcel Map

Planning committees also often neglect to recognize that the ITE conducted its surveys in

areas with drastically different situations and that its data attempts to capture representations of

traffic across a very large area and vastly different scenarios. The data provided is better used as

an indication of how the nation’s traffic behaves rather than being applied to a specific locale.

However, many committees create assumptions founded upon the ITE’s information without

further in-depth review. Information based on suburban traffic is extrapolated and applied to

laws of metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles. Surveys conducted in areas without public

transit systems are implemented in neighborhoods serviced by subway, bus, and taxi.

The stream of communication existing between the transportation engineers and the city

commissions seems to echo that of the corporate CEO and his development department: the team
reports the delivery time of a prototype to be roughly 1-4 months, and Elon goes on stage to

report a 20-30 day shipping date for the final product.

What urban planners also fail to calculate into their lawmaking is the math of costs.

Though often free, parking spaces do cost money - and an immense amount at that. The Los

Angeles, the average cost of an office building is about $150/foot. The cost of building a single

parking space is approximately $10,000. Converting the cost of the parking space into dollars per

foot, parking spaces cost approximately $40 per square foot. Underground parking, on the other

hand, costs $100. LA minimum requirements set four parking spaces to every 1000 square feet

of office space. If the builder were to use above ground parking to service his property, his cost

for construction per foot of the building increases by $27 per square foot, not including the

purchase price of additional land for above ground parking. If using below ground parking, the

building may save on land purchase costs, but then his costs of construction for each square foot

of the building increase by ​67%​. And the true folly of American parking requirements is the

American expectation of free parking - at least in appearance.

Lawmakers seem to glaze over the fact that the costs associated with mandated free

parking actually rob the public. The costs are passed down into the price of products, rent, or

services. Indeed, when the contractor develops the land into, for example, retail space and then

rents the space out to clothing stores, restaurants and offices, the developer calculates the total

costs of capital investment into the rents and fees which he sets upon his commercial tenants.

These tenants in turn calculate these fees into the prices which they charge for their

consumer-facing products. In the end, the government sets these arbitrary parking regulations,

determined by hollow ITE data, and the public pays the price. Regardless of if a customer takes
the train, an Uber, or walked to the local grocery store, they are still paying for the price of that

1000-space black, asphalt, and half-empty parking. Yes, the parking lot that sits half empty for at

least 30% of the time each day with its $10,000 per space price tag - the American “free” parking

system’s truth.

“But this local benefit comes at a high price to the whole city. Minimum parking

requirements increase the density of both parking spaces and cars. More cars

create more traffic congestion, which in turn provokes calls for more local

remedies, such as street widening, intersection flaring, intelligent highways, and

higher parking requirements. More cars also produce more exhaust emissions”​ -

Donald Shoup

Economics: The True Solution

Donald Shoup, a research professor at UCLA, Georgist economist and the most

prominent voice on parking regulations in the nation, posits that the core cancer of the parking

issue is the American perception that free parking is an entitlement. Over 95% of the parking

America is free and politicians recognize that attempting to eliminate free parking is a touchy

subject. Spillover parking into neighborhoods results in complaints from the local taxpayers and

voters. Enforcing minimum parking requirements calms the residents, but levies the cost onto the

developers. As established earlier, developers and retailers have come to incorporate the cost of

such parking in a way that passes the burden down to the consumer. However, although the

consumer still ends up paying the price, the perception of free parking is still dangerous.
 With parking free for about 99% of all automobile trips, drivers are more prone to use

their personal vehicles for trips instead of public transportation or ridesharing as the price of

parking lowers. In fact, the typical american driver takes 3.3 trips in a day on average. In a nation

of 222 million drivers, that yields over 700 million trips ​per day​ resulting in over 260 ​billion

trips per year.

But what is the REAL problem with minimum parking requirements? To begin solving

the parking issue that MPR’s address, city planners must hearken back to Econ 110 and cover

some basic subjects.

Economics: Tragedy of The Commons

The Tragedy of The Commons describes the unfortunate situation when a consumers

attempt to maximize the value they take away from a shared resource - often an under-priced or

free resource. In a classic tragedy, the consumers are not burdened with a strict duty to care for

the resource. The common example is a shared grazing pasture for cattle ranchers. In a natural

environment, the grasslands should be able to balance its renewal with the population of grazing

animals. Any over grazing would reduce the amount of feed for the cattle, thereby restricting

population growth. Under-grazing provides more food for the herds and increases the population.

However, when business-oriented farmers each attempt to bring their stock to the grasslands and

graze, the priority to maximizing their stocks over preservation of balance ends up decimating

the feeding grounds.

Likewise, the American parking ecosystem faces the same issues. With the majority of

parking priced at “$free.99”, there is little restraint on consumption. The priority on American
transportation is largely placed on each driver obtaining their own personal vehicle. This is the

American dream - realized at age sixteen and used as a symbol of achievement and

independence. With an average of 1.3 adults to every car on the road, 222 million American

drivers are maximizing their consumption of traffic resources.

Are minimum parking requirements the solution to solving the blacktop creep? Almost

certainly not. While in some circumstances, parking space requirements can help drivers find

spots quickly, MPR’s do little to resolve the 30% of all downtown traffic that is caused by

parking activity. If MPR’s were the answer to parking challenges, the average american driver

wouldn’t need to spend 17 hours a year looking for parking. In fact, the resources wasted on

parking in the US equates to one thousand cars driving around the block, nonstop around the

clock, for six months. Minimum parking requirements seemed to have spawned an excessive 8

parking spots per driver, which does nothing to reduce the 6 ​billion ​gallons of gas wasted on

looking for parking each year, just in America. Essentially municipalities are countering the

certain arterial stroke of traffic and parking with the flimsy “maybe” of minimum parking

requirements.

Economics: Price Elasticity and the Demand Curve

Price elasticity is a measure of used in economics to quantify the responsiveness of the

demand curve of a good or service to a shift in price. Elasticity relationships between price and

demand are almost always negative, meaning that an increase in price results in a decrease in

demand - and vice versa. Essentially, price elasticity is a measure of how sensitive the consumers

of a product or service are to its price.

 The issue with minimum parking requirements is that these standards ignore the basic

functions of supply and demand. Almost always, when government steps in to interfere with the

economics of a commerce ecosystem, the result is a large swath of deadweight loss, or the loss of

economic efficiency. In some situations, such as illegal drugs, the deadweight loss caused by

government regulation can be acceptable if the external, or non-economic, benefit outweighs the

loss. In relation to parking however, any panel would be hard-pressed to show that the benefits of

MPR’s outweighs the loss. Deadweight loss in parking is largely represented by three elements:

the excess empty parking in under-trafficked locations, the extra land use and expensive tied to

parking, and the plethora of cars circling the block looking for parking in high-density areas.

At any given time in America, ​at least​ 67% of all parking is sitting empty. 30% of all

downtown and metro area traffic is caused directly by cars searching for parking. This

percentage equates to 118 ​trillion​ pounds of greenhouse gases released into the air - just parking

search, just in America, just in a year. Beyond the land use and space issues caused by minimum

parking requirements, environmental externalities extend from such regulations as well- and

there has yet to be conclusive quantitative benefits for cities that use MPR’s to regulate parking.

As mentioned before, all the current solutions largely implemented by urban planners are

supply-side. Cities need to begin controlling parking issues through demand-side strategies. A

tragedy is occurring with the commons of parking lots. Free parking renders any supply-side

moderation useless as the appetite of the driving population matches its growth. The answer is

for regulators to enact laws that require all businesses to charge for parking.

According to Prof. Shoup, the pricing of parking should begin with curbside spaces.

Charging for curbside parking to balance the supply and demand curves to ensure a 15% vacancy
rate of spaces at any time gives motorists fast and efficient ways to find parking. The pricing of

parking should be responsive to the demand and seek to maintain that minimum of 15%

“The economic argument to charge for curb parking is efficiency - the benefits

would outweigh the costs. The political argument to create Parking Benefit

Districts is distribution the benefits for neighborhoods would lead residents to

vote for the proposal...Fig. 4 illustrates the policy of market prices for curb

parking. Because the supply of curb spaces is fixed, the supply of curb spaces

available with a 15% vacancy rate is a vertical line positioned above the

horizontal axis at an 85% occupancy rate. The demand curve slopes downward,

and the market-clearing price of parking occurs where the demand curve

intersects the vertical supply curve. For example, when parking demand is high

(demand curve D1), the price that will yield a 15% vacancy rate is high (P1 is

60¢/h). When demand is lower (demand curve D2), a price of only 20¢/h will

yield a 15% vacancy rate. When parking demand is lowest (demand curve D3),

the vacancy rate will be 50% even when parking is free.”

 Since the parking demand curve varies throughout the day, but the supply of spaces is

fixed, a dynamic pricing structure avoids the issue of a high price yielding too many spaces

remaining empty and low prices resulting in packed spaces and spot hunting.

Additionally, for the reelection-sensitive lawmakers, publicly using the proceeds and

revenue of the parking would offset the backlash from reducing free parking. Parking fees can

fund municipal projects and public services. The important attribute of these projects and

services is their ​visibility​. Having the public understand that the proceeds from parking fees

return back to the public well-being creates a political reasoning of ​distribution​ - the

neighborhoods receiving the benefits would seek to vote in the policies of charging for parking if

the voters experienced a comparable beneficial outcome - such as maintaining sidewalks, paving

roads, or more street lights for safety.

Economics: Microeconomics Optimize Pricing

While Prof. Shoup proposes various intricate mathematical models for determining the

optimal tradeoff between rising cost of parking and decreasing cost of walking, his mathematics

can be summarized as follows: the personal need or desire and microeconomics will yield the

pricing and permissions of spaces more conveniently located in a parking lot versus those spaces

further away.

Market prices give the most proximate spaces to drivers who are maximizing the

efficiency of their travels or value reduced walking time highly. When prices of more convenient

spaces are higher than those spaces far away, the result is that travelers that carpool willing to
split the price are able to park closer while solo drivers are allocated spaces further away. The

market pricing creates an aligned behavior between efficient travel and efficient parking

arrangements. Additionally, drivers in a hurry or placing a high value on short walking distance

can have closer spaces to park in, provided that they have the willingness to pay. The high

turnover rate services more drivers in need of convenient spaces than non-dynamic parking

pricing models.

“Can market forces alone supply enough spaces to meet the demand for parking?” Prof.

Shoup asks. Yes and no. Pricing parking spaces to manage market forces in parking will spark a

movement to change the transport ecosystem in many ways, but without follow-up actions from

the urban planners, eliminating MPR’s and mandating pricing models may fail and result in

negative public backlash. A vital part of any comprehensive plan to eliminate MPR’s and

introduce parking pricing must incorporate compensatory alternatives to driving. As pricing

affects the behavior of drivers to either reduce or abandon solo-pooling, each city needs to

stimulate programs that include ride-sharing, carpooling, and cycling. Additionally, public

transportation sufficient to serve the city’s financially challenged population is a crucial to the

success of MPR removals. The relationship between financial standing and method of

transportation in America is unique and the effect of any new movements to eliminate MPR’s

must be examined to optimize its effect on land use planning.

At the outset of the 1900’s, as automobiles were rising in popularity, ownership and use

of private vehicles indicated wealth and status. Fast forward a few more decades and efficiency

in production decreased the prices of vehicles to allow nearly all economic classes of America to

have the ability to own a car. Lower and middle class families could purchase the older cars
discarded by or reclaimed from the upper class. A new relationship between car ownership and

economic standing developed: the correlation between car ownership indicating wealth became a

correlation of ownership of ​new​ cars indicating wealth. However, old and new cars alike, all

these vehicles needed parking spaces.

As cities across the nation attempt to eliminate minimum parking requirements and

introduce priced parking, it is likely that a reversion in the wealth/vehicle-ownership relationship

perception will occur. Increasing the cost of driving with parking prices will naturally discourage

lower-income individuals from driving, and encourage them to either carpool or take public

transportation. This shift in behavior can be observed when comparing cities like Chicago.

Chicago is notorious for its parking prices - a single space can cost upwards of $600/month to

reserve. More people use public transportation because of this cost, resulting in Chicago having

dense public transportation. With MPR-eliminating changes, cities will need to ensure that the

public transportation and services are sufficient to support those that can’t afford to pay for

parking.

Conclusion

Where did minimum parking requirements originate? The answer is still in the wind. The

flimsy, faulty foundation for MPR’s have caused America to suffer through decades of arbitrary

urban planning restrictions. Even the standard resource for sound planning processes, ​Urban

Land Use Planning​ by F. Stuart Chapin, makes no attempt to suggest mandating parking

minimums.
 Minimum parking requirements levy huge, unnecessary, and obscure costs upon

developers, drivers, and voters while still remaining an inadequate “solution” to a growing issue.

Without academic merit, practical proof, nor sufficient validation, municipalities have blindly

implemented decades of crippling parking restrictions in the same spirit when the phrase, “let

them eat cake” was uttered.

The solution to parking congestion and issues is less a question of public support and

political ambition and more about a basic understanding of economics and the powerful forces of

supply and demand. Dozens of cities such as ​Boston, San Francisco, and Minneapolis​ are leaving

MPR’s behind and adopting economics-based methods of managing parking. Using market

prices to regulate the volume of parking and allocation of parking will increase efficiency in

land-use, reduce negative environmental impact, and increase municipal revenue sources. It’s

time to get rid of minimum parking requirements.