"People Over Parking Act" Could Eliminate Local Parking Minimums Near Transit Hubs

Here's the deal: a new bill called the "People Over Parking Act of 2025" aims to shake up how parking is handled for new buildings. If a developer puts up a new residential, retail, commercial, or industrial building—or does a major renovation—within half a mile of certain public transit stops, this federal bill says they get to decide how many parking spots to include, if any. This rule would override any state or local laws that currently require a minimum number of spots.

Freeing Up the Parking Lot, Federally

So, how does this work on the ground? The core idea is federal preemption. If a project meets the criteria—specifically, being within 0.5 miles of a "covered public transit point"—then local mandates about minimum parking spaces no longer apply. What counts as a 'covered point'? The bill defines it as access to rail lines, certain ferry terminals with connecting transit, or bus stops where at least two routes intersect and run every 15 minutes or less during peak commute times. This applies to new construction and buildings undergoing "significant renovation," though the exact definition of 'significant' isn't detailed, leaving some room for interpretation. The goal seems clear: nudge development towards relying less on car storage and potentially encourage more transit use.

Who Gets a Spot? Real-World Ripples

This shift could mean different things for different people. For property developers, it could slash construction costs and offer more design flexibility—less space for cars means potentially more space for housing units or commercial areas. Supporters might argue this leads to denser, more walkable neighborhoods and boosts public transit ridership.

However, it's not all smooth sailing. Imagine a new apartment building goes up near a qualifying bus stop, but the developer opts for zero parking. What happens to residents who still need a car for work, childcare, or because the transit options, while technically meeting the bill's definition, aren't practical for all their needs? This could particularly impact families, people with disabilities needing accessible parking, or those working non-standard hours when transit is less frequent. Local city councils also lose a tool they currently use to manage neighborhood density, traffic flow, and ensure residents have some parking access. Businesses relying on customer parking might also feel the pinch if nearby spots vanish.

The Bottom Line: Convenience vs. Control

The practical effect hinges on how developers use this new discretion and how well the defined transit access actually serves the people living and working in these new buildings. While the bill aims to prioritize 'people over parking,' it does so by shifting decision-making power from local governments to property owners for developments near transit corridors. The lack of specific requirements around assessing actual community parking needs could lead to situations where parking becomes scarce, even if a transit stop is technically nearby. It essentially bets that proximity to transit is a sufficient substitute for mandated parking, a gamble that could pay off in some areas but create headaches in others.