{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019777503090234856, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.717842323651452, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Assessing Alternative Approaches to Setting Parking Requirements

Jurisdictions can revise minimum parking requirements in order to reduce parking oversupply and encourage more compact forms of development and transportation choice. There are many approaches to revising and specifying new parking requirements. Each alternative offers some advantages and disadvantages. This paper identifies the key features of each approach and compares them based on their accuracy, support for long-term transportation and land use goals, ease of enforcement, predictability for developers and ease of integration with existing codes. Four basic approaches are considered: generic minimum parking requirements, area-specific parking requirements, flexible parking requirements, or form-based codes. The analysis shows that generic parking requirements are easiest to implement, but offer the least accuracy and correlation with long-term policy objectives. Area-specific approaches rank high in alignment with long-term policy objectives, predictability for developers and ease of integration with traditional zoning codes. Flexible approaches are very accurate in terms of alignment with actual parking demand, but difficult to enforce. Form-based codes offer the best alignment with long-term policy objectives and predictability for developers. However, they would require an entirely new approach to the zoning code. Choosing the best approach might depend on a jurisdiction’s goal and the market forces that drive parking supply decisions. A hybrid approach that incorporates several approaches might be useful in some areas.