The Connecticut legislature may soon weigh in on parking policy, joining an expanding movement across the country to cut down on the number of parking lots in favor of denser, more walkable neighborhoods.
The Planning and Development Committee on Friday heard public testimony on House Bill 7061, which would eliminate minimum off-street parking requirements in local zoning regulations.
Parking policy has been a topic of conversation among land use and housing advocates across the nation over the past few years as more cities have moved to eliminate these requirements.
“These parking mandates are completely arbitrary, lack consistency town to town and often within the same town,” said Casey Moran, co-founder of CT Parking Reform, pointing to parking requirements for bowling alleys in several different towns across the state.
In New London, he noted, bowling alleys have to have three spaces per lane. In Wethersfield, it’s five per lane and one per employee. Meanwhile, in Westport, there must be one space per 180 square feet.
Several advocates who have researched parking policy pointed out that large swaths of many municipalities’ downtowns are taken up by parking lots.
But opponents said they worried about what the impact would be on small towns where parking may be limited. Some argued that there should be site-specific parking requirements for each development.
“By removing local authority over parking regulations, Bill 7061 disregards professional planning and engineering practices and creates unnecessary challenges for municipalities that must manage transportation demand effectively,” wrote Francis Pickering, executive director of the Western Connecticut Council of Governments, in public testimony.
Researchers have found that the number of parking spaces in the United States far outpaces the number of cars. There are about 2 billion parking spaces in the country, enough square feet to pave over the states of Connecticut and Vermont.
Advocates for parking reform argue that more parking means that buildings have to be built further apart, necessitating more driving. They said that reducing parking requirements would encourage people to walk or use public transit, which would benefit the environment and public health. Advocates also say eliminating minimum off-street parking requirements would make it easier and cheaper to build housing and make better use of available land.
The conversation around parking minimums come as the state is looking at ways to increase housing density near train and bus stations.
There have been a couple of bills this session that aim to push towns to allow more residential construction near transit hubs, and Gov. Ned Lamont’s administration has already implemented measures to encourage more transit-oriented development around public transportation, including setting up the Municipal Redevelopment Authority. The authority focuses on helping towns improve development near their transportation hubs.
Daniel Herriges, policy director at the national Parking Reform Network, said parking requirements make it harder to create more housing or businesses and maintain the walkable feel of many Connecticut downtowns. He called minimum parking requirements an outdated policy.
“This was a reactive solution in a prior era to the problem of parking shortages amid the dramatic growth of motor vehicle ownership, and it was a blunt force solution to mandate the oversupply of parking everywhere,” Herriges told lawmakers.
He said the bill would help Connecticut join a growing national movement. Cities such as Buffalo, Minneapolis, and Austin have eliminated minimum parking requirements.
Hartford was among the earliest adopters of parking reform.
Before changing policy, the city saw major growth in the number of parking spaces. Hartford had about 15,000 parking spaces in 1957. By 2009, there were 46,000 parking spaces despite a declining population, said Henry Grabar, who published a book in 2023 about parking policy, during a presentation in Stamford this fall.
Still, some opponents to Connecticut’s bill argued that the bill ignores the possibility of future parking needs and could dilute local control.
Rep. Doug Dubitsky, R-Chaplin, said he worried that small towns wouldn’t have enough parking if the bill passes.
“How does a small town with very narrow dirt roads deal with large developments with no off-street parking?” Dubitsky asked.
Advocates responded that developers likely wouldn’t build in small towns without putting in parking, and that lenders wouldn’t finance projects that didn’t account for parking. It’s a matter of allowing the market to regulate parking, rather than governments, they said.
“I think we have to look at this from a frame of reality,” said transportation advocate Kate Rozen, a Woodbridge resident.
Maria Weingarten, a co-founder of the group 169 Strong, said she fears the bill would weaken local control.
“To do these things and to expect that the builders will just do the right thing is not a good assumption to make,” Weingarten said. “You may not have adequate parking.”