Do parking requirements significantly increase the area dedicated to parking? A test of the effect of parking requirements values in Los Angeles County

Abstract

Minimum parking requirements are the norm for urban and suburban development in the United States (Davidson and Dolnick (2002)). The justification for parking space requirements is that overflow parking will occupy nearby street or off-street parking. and Willson (1995) provides cases where there is reason to believe that parking space requirements have forced parcel developers to place more parking than they would in the absence of parking requirements. If the effect of parking minimums is to significantly increase the land area devoted to parking, then the increase in impervious surfaces would likely cause water quality degradation, increased flooding, and decreased groundwater recharge. However, to our knowledge the existing literature does not test the effect of parking minimums on the amount of lot space devoted to parking beyond a few case studies. This paper tests the hypothesis that parking space requirements cause an oversupply of parking by examining the implicit marginal value of land allocated to parking spaces. This is an indirect test of the effects of parking requirements that is similar to Glaeser and Gyourko (2003). A simple theoretical model shows that the marginal value of additional parking to the sale price should be equal to the cost of land plus the cost of parking construction. We estimate the marginal values of parking and lot area with spatial methods using a large data set from the Los Angeles area nonresidential property sales and find that for most of the property types the marginal value of parking is significantly below that of the parcel area. This evidence supports the contention that minimum parking requirements significantly increase the amount of parcel area devoted to parking.

On the Performance of the U.S. Transportation System: Caution Ahead

“…In practice, MPRs cause an oversupply of parking spaces, lower the density of commercial and residential development, and increase housing costs. Cutter and Franco (2011) found that MPRs distorted land use decisions by forcing developers in Los Angeles to provide more parking than they otherwise would; McDonnell, Madar, and Been (2011) reached a similar conclusion about the effect of MPRs in the New York metropolitan area. Manville (2010) evaluated a 1999 experiment in Los Angeles that exempted vacant commercial and industrial buildings from MPRs if they were converted into housing and found that developers provided more housing and less parking than they would have provided if MPRs were in place.…”

Downtown curbside parking capacity

“…Arnott and Rowse (2009) model this spatial competition, taking into account the technology of garage construction. But, here, we provide a simpler treatment, 12 in order to simplify analysis.…”

Residential parking permits and parking supply

“…We come back to this in the conclusion. Cutter and Franco, 2012). Nevertheless, they can be found in San Francisco, Chicago and Boston and have recently been approved in New York.…”