There is no denying that accessible parking represents a significant milestone for millions of Americans with disabilities. This breakthrough came with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which required facilities to include disability parking spaces [1]. Typically, one must have a disability parking placard or license plate to park in these areas. To receive such vehicle identification in California, individuals must submit an application to the DMV with medical certification of a disability [2]. Other states have very similar processes [3, 4]. However, there are two major issues with this model. 

Firstly, the accessible parking system is a hotspot for fraud. Many individuals park in these spaces for convenience despite not having disability parking placards or plates [5]. In fact, two studies in North Carolina, which observed parking behavior outside supermarkets, found that drivers who parked in such spaces mostly did so without proper vehicle identification—69.3 and 51.3 percent of the time, respectively [6, 7]. Another factor that contributes to fraud is the abuse of placards and plates. At least fifteen states distribute placards that allow individuals to be exempt from parking meters, often permanently [8]. Securing free parking is an extremely powerful incentive to exploit the system. People use expired placards, placards that do not belong to them, and even counterfeit placards to subvert parking regulations [9]. In its 2010 interviews, the Alexandria Police Department discovered that around 90 percent of drivers parked were using disability placards or plates that were not their own [10]. Other areas face similar challenges. A 2013 report found that one-fourth of people using disability placards in California were doing so illegally [11]. As these studies demonstrate, accessible parking abuse is pervasive. 

This negatively impacts state and local governments, which lose revenue from parking fraud. Parking meters generate a significant amount of money. For example, San Francisco earned over fifty million dollars from meter payments in the 2023 fiscal year [12]. However, these numbers could have been much higher without payment exemptions. A 2010 study on Flower Street in Los Angeles revealed that cars with disability placards accounted for 81 percent of the total meter time [13]. As a result of this imbalance, meters earned twenty-eight cents per hour, far less than the expected rate of around four dollars per hour [14]. Thus, while the proportion of revenue that cities lose to parking fraud is unclear, it logically follows that the amount must be considerable—likely in the millions. This lost money could have funded city-sponsored projects, perhaps even ones designed to increase accessibility. Additionally, by taking their spaces, fraudulent placard users make it more challenging for people with serious immobilities to find convenient parking [15]. The accessible parking system is undeniably failing the people it intended to serve. 

The second problem with accessible parking is its universally costless structure. Some proponents of free parking claim that it is an equitable measure. After all, 26 percent of those with disabilities are low-income—more than twice the proportion of adults without disabilities [16]. However, this trend does not hold for vehicle owners. Many people with disabilities are either homebound or need assistance to travel [17]. This helps explain why only 13 percent of vehicle owners with disabilities in the U.S. qualify as low-income, a rate that is very similar to the national poverty rate of 11 percent [18, 19]. UCLA Professor Michael Manville and transportation planner Jonathan A. Williams argue that payment exemptions are “both over- and under-inclusive”—many people who park for free do not have disabilities, and many people with disabilities do not drive a car [20]. Nevertheless, it is important to note that free parking does accommodate those with mobility and visual impairments, who often struggle to operate parking meters [21]. 

To address the ongoing issues with free accessible parking, states should consider three courses of action. The first is to install vertical signs next to disability parking spaces that inform drivers that people are monitoring their use of the space. Professor John G. Cope and his team at East Carolina University observed a 42 percent and 14 percent drop in illegal parking at two supermarkets after placing standing signs that read, “This space watched by concerned citizens” [22, 23]. In both analyses, signs were more effective in decreasing fraud when displaying this message. This confirms that the two components work together to combat illegal parking. States can use signs with similar language to improve compliance with disability parking laws without increasing the burden on law enforcement. 

States should also begin providing free parking only to those with impairments that hinder their ability to pay. UCLA Professors Donald Shoup and Fernando Torres-Gil champion this solution, contending that such policies “ensure convenient parking for truly disabled drivers” [24]. As they explain, this measure is already in place in some states. Illinois, for example, has meter-exempt and non-meter-exempt placards [25]. The government only issues the former placards to those with impairments that, as determined by their physicians, “cause difficulty in accessing a parking meter”. Following the policy’s enactment, the state provided ten times fewer meter-exempt placards than non-meter-exempt placards [26]. With this model, states can eliminate the incentive for placard fraud and provide free parking only to people with disabilities who need the accommodation. 

The final way to solve the accommodation issue is to improve parking meter infrastructure. Meter failure accounted for 19 percent of Los Angeles’ unpaid parking in 2010 [27]. This issue creates an inconvenience, as spaces with defective parking meters often confuse drivers as to whether or not they can park there [28]. By 2012, Los Angeles had replaced all their coin-only meters with electronic meters [29]. These devices are relatively durable and can electronically notify technicians when they break down. Only eight of these meters malfunctioned in their first six months of full operation [30]. However, modern meter systems do not always perform as reliably as they have in Los Angeles. In the past two years, nearly half of the parking meters that the city of Charleston, South Carolina, installed have stopped working [31]. Similarly, hundreds of meters in downtown Tucson are failing [32]. These parking meters have also become targets of crime. People have vandalized more than 60 percent of downtown Eugene’s meters and 20 percent of downtown Sacramento’s meters, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in repairs [33, 34]. If states adopt the two-placard system, this poor parking infrastructure would begin preventing people with disabilities—those with non-meter-exempt placards—from parking conveniently. Thus, local and state governments must invest in technology that upgrades and protects parking meters. 

Accessible parking is a multifaceted issue and therefore requires multiple solutions. By following these three courses of action, states can guarantee accessible parking to the tens of millions of Americans with disabilities who rely on vehicles to travel [35]. Transportation barriers disproportionately exclude these individuals from society by reducing their ability to partake in everyday activities [36, 37]. Reforming the accessible parking system will allow people with disabilities to more fully participate in the society that they have every right to be a part of.