Connecticut Towns Are Losing Millions To Parking Minimums. Will Lawmakers Act?

Say you want to build a bowling alley in Connecticut.

This article was originally published by Strong Towns.

In West Hartford, you’d be required to build eight parking spaces for every lane. In Wethersfield, that number drops to five. And in Ridgefield? Just four. The differences aren’t based on data or demand — they’re arbitrary. And they’re not just frustrating: advocates say they’re actively damaging our communities, CT Insider reports.

“These mandates aren’t rooted in any science,” said Casey Moran, a Hartford resident and co-founder of CT Parking Reform. “They differ from town to town. What is the right number? Nobody actually knows.”

Moran and fellow advocate Tom Broderick have made it their mission to show just how much space parking is taking up in Connecticut’s towns and cities — and what it’s costing us. Using aerial maps, they analyzed downtowns and mixed-use areas in 191 districts. What they found was striking: nearly a third of the land in these areas is dedicated to off-street parking.

And it’s not just wasted space — it’s lost money.

“One big consequence is that you’re not using the land for something else,” noted Norman Garrick, a retired University of Connecticut professor who has studied the issue for decades. “In Hartford, land that doesn’t have any buildings on it is taxed at a much lower rate. You’re losing all of that tax income. We’re talking about tens of millions of dollars.”

In places like Trumbull — where Broderick lives — the effects are especially stark. “Trumbull center, which really takes form in the 1960s and 70s, is 40% parking. It’s kind of a glorified strip mall,” he said. “Not only did we destroy the existing walkable centers we had, but we prevented future ones from being built.”

These policies don’t just impact municipal budgets. They drive up housing costs by requiring developers to build parking whether they need it or not — costs that are ultimately passed down to renters. And they lock residents into car dependency, turning what should be a choice into a necessity.

That’s why advocates like Moran and Broderick are calling for change — not just town by town, but statewide. With bills introduced in recent legislative sessions, Connecticut is actively exploring reforms that would reduce or eliminate parking minimums in many communities. The goal is to restore flexibility, giving cities and developers the freedom to design places that prioritize people over empty asphalt.

Moran points to Hartford, which eliminated parking mandates in 2017. “There’s been no problems since,” he said. “There are new apartments being built. They aren’t required to include parking. But every single one decided to include it. We are not against parking. It’s going to get built. Very few developers will build less parking than they need.”

The data backs it up — and so does common sense. Connecticut’s most beloved neighborhoods, with walkable streets and vibrant town centers, are precisely the kinds of places that modern zoning and parking mandates would make illegal to build today. It’s a paradox that Moran says haunts him: “The more we found out and figured out, the more we were pulling our hair. Did we really do this to ourselves?”

Connecticut has an opportunity to undo that damage — and advocates hope the state takes it. Because when land use policy favors cars over people, everyone pays the price.

Strong Towns has been leading the charge to end costly, outdated parking mandates for over a decade—because the future of your town isn’t in more parking lots, it’s in more opportunity