Parking Requirements |
There are three things
you can consistently rely on a neighborhood and residents to raise concerns
over: auto-traffic is moving too fast, auto-traffic is cutting through my local
streets; AND the big one, they are trying to take away my parking.
The District’s Office of
Planning may not necessarily be taking away people’s parking, but they are
currently working to amend
the code which hasn’t been
updated since 1958. One topic which has come under scrutiny are possible
changes to parking regulations. Parking regulations is one strategy for travel
demand management. The idea is that if parking is scarce and driving is
difficult, people will have fewer cars.
The first public meeting
on the code revisions brought out a mix of stakeholders who were concerned
about the changes to parking requirements. Resident and zoning rewrite opponent
John Chelen formed a “task force” consisting of 7 opponents and 3 proponents in
Ward 3. The task force produced a white
paper purporting to be a
fact-based analysis of OP’s recommendations. Chelen then went on to pass a
resolution condemning the parking proposals, and is working to pass similar resolution in
other Wards.
Greater
Greater Washington, a
blog devoted to improving D.C., reports on the Chelen’s efforts and the task
force’s lop-sidedness and bias against rewriting the parking requirements. The
report discusses the series of events from stacking the task force, to
procedural shenanigans, to overblown and inaccurate hyperbole. The three
proponents on the task force have produced an alternative
analysis who did not agree with
the white paper.
What’s interesting to
note is that ZoningDC, the official blog of the zoning update,
mentions that “existing parking requirements are already significantly lower
than current rates of car ownership and, as a result, they are more likely to
produce too few rather than too many parking spaces”. Why then is OP looking to
reduce the supply of parking even further if the current requirements parking
requirements are low enough to undersupply demand? Given the opposition’s
determination to prevent the parking requirements in the zoning code rewrite it
makes you wonder why OP is going through the trouble at all. Maybe D.C. hasn’t
heard about Portland’s parking
woes.
It seems some people are
paying close attention to the long-term affects, an opinion piece in the Washington
Post describes how looser
parking requirements can help address equity disparities in a radically
gentrifying area. The simple version of the concept is that development can
pass along saving associated with lower construction costs because there isn’t
a need to build in parking. In addition to the cost savings, the space that
would have been used for parking can developed into residential or commercial
and further increase the supply to meet the demand in a rapidly growing area.
Interesting post CJ, thanks for bringing this high-profile example of parking policy to our attention. Tackling the parking issue as a part of a comprehensive zoning review seems like a logical way to do it, though it seems like most cities that are experimenting with adjusting the parking supply are doing so separately or as a pilot project.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like the most controversial part of this parking revamp is the elimination of parking minimums for some dense, transit adjacent areas. I was intrigued by the pull-quote from the ZoningDC blog, since I hardly ever hear about parking policy changes that increase some supply while decreasing others. However, following the link reveals that the pull-quote about having too little parking has been removed from the Wash-po op-ed.
That's unfortunate because it does sound like the zoning proposal is primarily trying to make parking requirements more accurate - whether that involves more or less required parking.