Walkability is our future

Parking

"Walkability is our future"

by David Alpert • August 1, 2008 2:25 pm

Last night's zoning hearing stretched so late into the night that Office of Zoning staff started talking about what time the Metro closes, to ensure commissioners and audience members could make it home. That's especially apt given the topic, modifying the zoning code to make it easier for more DC residents to live without a car.

See what happens when you don't require any minimum parking? Photo by magandafille on Flickr.

One of the superstars of the evening was Alice Speck, a car-free new mom who testified while carrying her new baby. Speck and her husband Jeff recently built an infill house on Florida Avenue, for which the zoning code required one parking space. Without an alley, this would have forced them to remove a historic curb and sacrifice one on-street space for a single off-street space. The zoning variance to waive this requirement delayed their home by nine months, she said to general laughter.

Brian O'Looney, of Torti Gallas and Partners, delivered an extremely compelling presentation about buildings he personally worked on in Columbia Heights. Zoning and lenders forced large amounts of parking that's going unused. "If we fail with parking maximums and undersupply parking, the solution is to raise prices and build more," he said, but "if we fail with miimums and overbuild, there is greater risk and financial stress for those willing to invest in DC. "Why throw more money into useless holes in the ground," he added while showing a slide of a giant hole dug in Columbia Heights to put in the unused parking. That project has 500-700 unused spaces, or $20 million that could have provided better housing or community benefits.

Matthew Yglesias framed the key issue of spillover very cleverly (perhaps little surprise given that he writes a popular blog and recently published a thoughtful book on foreign policy). Parking minimums, argued Yglesias, cause their own kinds of spillover.

"We should consider the spillover consequences of parking minimums. I want people to come in and open businesses [near my house]. If they need to build a parking garage or buy space in an existing lot, that discourages people from opening these stores. A lot of valuable land, where we need grocery stores or places where can buy clothing, are being used up as parking spaces. ... In the name of protecting people who live near retail corridors, we shouldn't be trying to harm the interests of those of us who live there.

Some opposition arguments were downright amusing. Barbara Zartman, of the Committee of 100, held up Georgetown as an example of what life is like without parking minimums. "See what happens when you don't require any minimum parking?" she said. If I didn't know better, I might have forgotten whether she was for or against the proposal. If not having minimums means we get neighborhoods like Georgetown, that's the best argument of all to get rid of them. For someone who chose to live in Georgetown, serves on the local citizens' association, and fights to preserve the historic fabric, it's odd how much Zartman seems to loathe the place.

A complete recap of the meeting below the jump:

Harriet Tregoning, Director of the Office of Planning, led off the discussion with a presentation focusing on the financial and environmental impacts of automobile dependency. "Walkability is our future in Washington," she said, and urged steps to make more of the Walk Score map for DC green.

Tregoning also rebutted the argument some opponents have made that if we build without parking, it'll be too late to add parking later, by pointing out that building too much parking is just as difficult to rectify. "We can't convert a parking space into another convenient use," she said. "It can't be a condo; it can't even be a doghouse. If we guess wrong or force more parking than might be necessary, we're stuck with it for a very long time."

Karina Ricks of DDOT also spoke for the plan, pointing out that parking spaces are expensive (over $40,000) and that according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, DC has 5 parking spaces for every vehicle, of which (logically) four are vacant at any one time. These each cost about $3,000 per year just to exist. Ricks added that over 50% of DC's trips are made by modes other than driving, compared to 32% in Arlington and under 12% in Fairfax.

Finally, Ricks addressed the concerns about spillover. "This is not an insigificant concern but neither is it an unsolvable one," she said. DDOT's two performance parking pilots have been successful, and show "tremendous promise" for managing demand in both residential and commercial areas.

About 25 residents spoke in favor of the plan, including Neha Bhatt delivering official testimony on behalf of Councilmember Tommy Wells, compared to only 6 opposed. Opponents included two commissioners from ANC 6B, the Eastern Market area. Commissioner David Garrison said that "people on Capitol Hill don't want to abandon their ability to have a car," a surprising argument given that nothing in the zoning rules prohibits car ownership or will even reduce the number of parking spaces.

Fellow commissioner Ken Jarboe pointed out that Eastern Market was named one of the best neighborhoods in America and "we want to keep it that way." That's very laudable, but to the two Capitol Hill residents sitting next to me who enjoy walking to the great restaurants on Barracks Row, a 50-year-old zoning code that promotes automobile use over all else wasn't their idea of the right way.

Wilson Reynolds, of the Adams Morgan ANC, testified in favor of the proposal. He pointed out that "the cost of parking is very high and not usually recovered," forcing those who don't own cars to bear some of the costs of the parking spaces. The proposal, Reynolds said, is "finally addressing the balance of people who want to live in a city with cars and people who do not."

Following his wife Alice, Jeff Speck gave a powerful and poetic indictment of required parking:

The more parking you provide, the less residents will choose to walk.
The more parking you provide, the less residents will choose to take transit.
The more parking you provide, the more you will devalue the investments you make.
The more parking you provide, the dirtier the air you will have.
The more parking you provide, the more child obesity you will have.
The more parking you provide, the more difficult it will be to build affordable and attainable housing.
The more parking you provide, the more difficult you make it for the city to meet its obligations for limiting climate change and dependence on foreign oil.
World class cities—the ones people choose to visit—these world class cities do not have mininum parking requirements. It's remarkable that DC has become the world-class attraction that it is in spite of its suburban-style, distinctly not world-class parking requirements.

A resident near the Convention Center, whose name I missed, suggested some clarification of the rules for "car sharing" to ensure people don't simply use the spaces for a privately shared vehicle among a few people. By way of example, he pointed to the woman next to him, saying the two of them shouldn't get a car sharing space just for sharing a car together. Ironically, that woman was Ellice Perez, the General Manager of Zipcar, who began her own testimony by saying, "If you become a member, we will be sharing a car," creating the meeting's most hilarious moment.

Perez talked about Zipcar's ratio of 43 members per car (compared to 1.1 for private cars), the way each Zipcar takes 14.9 cars off the road. After joining, members drive an average of 2,500 fewer miles and consume 100 fewer gallons of gas. That's 215,000 tons of carbon not emitted as pollution.

Commissioners asked about private garages which might be concerned about the security impact from having publicly accessible Zipcars. Perez listed many ways in which they can work with buildings to accommodate their security needs, from the low tech like requiring Zipcar users to go through the building's concierge to access the garage, to the high-tech like keypads with a code the user only receives before his or her rental, or (coming soon) proximity card readers that the member can only open at the appropriate time with his or her Zipcard. When asking about Zipcars as a possible amenity for a PUD, according to May, commissioners have heard from many developers about supposed difficulties with security. Perhaps, he added, next time they will press the developers harder.

Several witnesses spoke up for bike parking, though they engendered less controversy than the minimums. But the representative from WABA (whose name I didn't write down) generated one of the few real moments when Zoning Commisssioners engaged the witnesses. He suggested doubling OP's suggested bike parking requirements for schools; the current proposal calls for one bicycle space per classroom.

Commissioner Michael Turnbull, the representative from the Architect of the Capitol, jumped in. "Doesn't [two spaces per classroom] seem kind of low? What do you do, fight in the schoolyard" for who gets the space? Peter May, from the National Parks Service and the other federal representative on the board, added that the rack at his son's school certainly fills up. Commissioner Gregory Jeffries added, "What could be more important than training young people in the use of bicycles?" It sounds like the Office of Planning is going to be reexamining, and raising, some of their bicycle parking numbers.

After many hours of testimony, the handful of opposition witnesses had their turn. George Clark, of the overwhelmingly white Federation of Citizens' Associations, opposed the parking changes primarily on behalf of the residents of transit-poor neighborhoods east of the river, most of whom he doesn't represent. It's honorable to try to stand up for the rights of others, of course—too bad Clark was only thinking about the 53% of households in Ward 7 and 8 that have cars. Trying to make life better for the other 47% is anathema to Clark, who called it "social engineering."

Clark, as have many others, glossed over the important distinction between removing parking minimums and removing parking. Commissioner Jeffries pointed out this contradiction during questioning. Developers would almost certainly build parking in transit-inaccessible areas, Jeffries said, especially because he knows many people moving to Wards 7 and 8 want parking. The market will almost surely make different decisions east of the river than it would in Columbia Heights, Shaw, or Dupont Circle, Jeffries added.

The discussion of bicycle racks aside, commissioners left few clues as to their thoughts on the specifics. NPS's May listed some points he'd like to see better fleshed out, including the specifics of how in-lieu fees will be collected and used. They need to learn more about performance parking, he added, and to better understand the process for reforming residential parking permits.

The Zoning Commission will continue to accept comments until 3 pm August 29th, and then will ask its questions and give its guidance to the Office of Planning on September 8th. OP will then take 2-3 months to write more detailed language and collect public comment, which will go back to the Zoning Commission for a "proposed action" which triggers another 30-day period of public comment. That's two more chances for the public to weigh in, in addition to the still-open comment period for this hearing.

We'll know more on September 8th, but I interpret commissioners' comments on details as a good sign. It seems (but is not certain) they accept the general concepts in principle, with many questions remaining about the details. My goal for this hearing had been for enough citizens to speak for the proposal to outweigh the well-organized, established groups fighting it. Instead, the opponents looked like increasingly strident voices standing athwart the progressive evolution of our city, yelling "stop". We'll find out on September 8th how much the Zoning Commission will stop an important change just for them.

60 comments

Tags: DC, parking minimums, zoning update

Parking countdown #8: Car sharing reduces parking demand (Jul 22, 2008)
Zoning Commission supports parking reform! (Oct 17, 2008)
Parking countdown #3: The sky won't fall (Jul 29, 2008)
Parking zoning hearing: round one to us (Aug 1, 2008)
Parking countdown #7: On-street management solves "spillover" (Jul 23, 2008)

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.

Comments
Add a comment »

I'm curious as to what constitutes a "historic curb"?

by spookiness on Aug 1, 2008 3:41 pm • link • report

I was at the hearing but left early. I'm very hopeful, too, based on the part that I saw.

by tom veil on Aug 1, 2008 3:57 pm • link • report

Congrats then. I was somewhat doubtful, but I'm glad to learn I was too negative. And had I testified that would have made the hearing longer... I thought the OP report was pretty good... and didn't feel a need to merely cover the same ground.

by Richard Layman on Aug 1, 2008 3:57 pm • link • report

"Trying to make life better for the other 47% is anathema to Clark, who called it "social engineering." "

He is aware that he's the one arguing in favor of a regulation, and that the people he's accusing of "social engineering" are trying to REPEAL a regulation, right?

Maybe the phrase "social engineering" has entered the rarified air of "fascism" - it now simply means "a thing which I do not like."

by Jake H. on Aug 1, 2008 4:54 pm • link • report

Jake, no I think a simpler way of looking at social engineering is when you ignore the market cues and do instead what you hope will longterm change the market demand. In this instance, it's clear we don't have enough parking in most parts of the city for the number of people who want to be able to drive to their desitination and park there when they get there. The regs as they stand are an attempt to help satisfy this demand which doesn't get satisfied on its own because of external factors such as street parking, growing populations, etc. The proposed change to the regs aims to do the contrary and to literally force people to stop using cars because there won't be parking there when they get to there destinations. THAT is social engineering because it is an attempt at changing people's behavior. It isn't supporting their behavior, but rather supressing it.

by Lance on Aug 1, 2008 5:15 pm • link • report

That's great Lance, so while we're at it, let's stop subsidizing exurban development, the cost of roads, parking permits and other social engineering that has encourage such behavior for the past 60-odd years. Once we have done that, then we can talk about a level playing field.

by William on Aug 1, 2008 5:20 pm • link • report

William, Who's talking about a level playing field? Why should it be level? When the government devotes more of its resouces to roads than to buses or bikelanes, it is simply being responsive to the demands of the governed. If most people say they want more emphasis placed on car-transportation options than on mass-transit-transportation options, why should the government think it knows what is best for them?

by Lance on Aug 1, 2008 5:35 pm • link • report

Lance, where's my wine? Most of the governed would rather drink Chateau Margaux than Two Buck Chuck. Shouldn't the government respond to the demand by selling all wines for two bucks?

by tt on Aug 1, 2008 5:44 pm • link • report

I want to posthumously thank the brave souls who testified in opposition. I recognize some of you, and I never would have expected this turn of events, but I appreciate the newfound auto worship, and I certainly appreciate the newfound embrace of seniority against troublesome kid activists.

by Robert Moses on Aug 1, 2008 5:47 pm • link • report

Lance, people all over the country are waking up to the reality that car-dependent lifestyles are ruining their finances (why else would suburbs with good transit access be most likely to survive the housing bubble burst?). As people continue to move back into the cities, sure, some will want to use their cars -- but many will likely be ready and willing to give them up.

In other words, your basic premise is wrong. People are not, in fact, saying they want more emphasis placed on car transportation options.

by Adam on Aug 1, 2008 5:59 pm • link • report

Lance, you show a curious variance of belief - one day you're a progressive Clinton supporter, the next day you're arguing talking points from "libertarian" thinktanks that serve as the paid mouthpiece for oil companies. One day you're opposed to regulation of parking spaces (a tax on employer-provided spaces), the next day you're in favor of it(a requirement for employer-provided spaces). One sentence you agree with a more transit-oriented city, the next day sentence you think that all transit-by-fiat shouldn't be allowed. The only common thread appears to be that you like cars.

Are you going to represent a cogent, consistent viewpoint that we can debate? Or be the house contrarian? Or the house troll?

If you want to take this from a Libertarian perspective, Lance, we can do that as well, however immature/corrupted the philosophy:

How is it that the federal government's redistribution of wealth via taxation(coercion) in order to build roads throughout the land (often even seizing land from others by force in order to do it) constitutes "Market Cues"? What was the price elasticity of demand for the Interstate Highway Project? How are your neighborhood streets doing this quarter - any dividends?

The negative connotations that we today grant the concept of 'Social Engineering' involved ethnic discrimination, the forced elimination of cultures, or the forced oppression of the more extreme totalitarian governments, which decided on a "best way to live" and ignored people's objections while forcing them to live that way. The Great Leap Forward was one such plan (China was going to progress past several stages of the Marxist dialectic by simply forcing people out of their farms) - it killed 20 million people. We think of things like Newspeak, the government schools we forced Native Americans into, the Catholic missions in the middle of the Amazon spanking any child who doesn't wear Western European clothing fashions. We don't think of mass transit as social engineering because the word is currently a PC pejorative.

All elected governments get to decide what's best for us, to a certain degree - or they wouldn't be governments at all. It's ALL social engineering, strictly speaking. The difference is that Americans get a say in the process, and we get constitutional rights that aren't easy to remove (*cough*). Market signals are simply not applicable to every situation in life.

by Squalish on Aug 1, 2008 6:47 pm • link • report

Lance, you like some opponents are missing the point. This particular repeal is not regulating anything new; they're requiring them not to put in parking. Rather, they're doing the exact opposite, letting the developer look at the market and do a cost analysis of digging down. It gives the developer savings, and the architect more freedom.

If people won't buy into a condo without parking, then developers are pretty likely to respond. If they still buy into the condo because there is street parking relatively close by, then the demand is still met. Whining about spillover is really selfish. It's a tremendous waste to throw away 300sf of civically and financially valuable land to ensure that people can park in front of their houses.

If they don't care about parking, then everyone wins.

Also, Lance, oil is too expensive these days for most people to drive as much as they want. Why not subsidize it like China, to "help" the market?

by The King of Spain on Aug 1, 2008 7:19 pm • link • report

How is it that: "This particular repeal is not regulating anything new; they're requiring them not to put in parking. Rather, they're doing the exact opposite, letting the developer look at the market and do a cost analysis of digging down. It gives the developer savings, and the architect more freedom." The proposal includes a limit on the amount of parking the developer can include, this is not letting the developer look at the market and do a cost analysis. Quite the opposite.

We just don't know what that maximum is, so if you testified for this, you are buying a pig in a poke.

Also, the proposal would eliminate the requirement that a developer include at least 50 spaces in a 200-unit condominium that could be sitting next to a townhouse or detached single family neighborhood. Since the developer can unload the units and make a nice profit, with the buyers figuring they can park in the neighborhood, he can provide inadequate parking, and the excess cars, instead of being parked under the building, not increasing impervious surface, will be parked in the streets. What happens next? Cars circling the streets, polluting the air, and eventually the homeowners pave over part of their yard if it is possible so that they can park.

by JW on Aug 1, 2008 7:55 pm • link • report

The homeowner does not own the street. What gives him any more right to the roadside space than the condo-owner?

And why do you think the condo-owner is so stupid that he's not able to evaluate the parking situation?

And why does this preclude the city (or even private developers) from evaluating situations like this and saying "Let's drop a parking garage wherever our variable-rate parking meters have the lowest empty rate"

----

IMO parking maximums are overreaching - was that viewpoint conveyed at the hearing?

by Squalish on Aug 1, 2008 8:32 pm • link • report

I have to respectfully disagree with Ms. Tregoning. There is a life for unused parking spaces, especially if it comes bundled with your living space. Go out and by one of the super huge SUVs that no one wants any more. They should be cheap now. And park it in your parking space. It will make dandy storage locker.

by kenf on Aug 1, 2008 8:40 pm • link • report

I did not imply that the homeowner owned the space or have special rights to the space in front of his house, only that the nature of the neighborhood changes when, instead of being able to park within a block or two of your house, a family spends a lot of time circling the area, hoping to find a space within 3 to five blocks of their house. For many households, that makes things far more difficult. In terms of the condo owners, the developer cares only about the first round of sales, and some condo purchasers might be willing to store their cars on the street, some distance from the building, but the impact on the neighborhood, the way it changes the neighborhood and whether families find that they can easily meet all their transportation needs or need to pave over their yard or move. And pollution and safety issues that follow from the search for on-street spaces, since so many additional spaces would be used for car-storage by condo residents, creates more pollution and safety issues, both in emergency services and for people, particularly single women, coming home late at night and walking much further from their cars.

From what I watched of the hearing, it seemed that none of the proponents that were actually proponents spoke out against the maximums, and a few spoke in favor. Some of the people who called themselves proponents but actually gave testimony in opposition spoke out against the maximums.

by JW on Aug 1, 2008 10:02 pm • link • report

JW,

Your analysis of what happens without parking minimums is a very good one. It reminds me of when as a new ANC commissioner I once remarked to an old timer in my former neighborhood: "The times our '2 hour Residential Parking' is in effect makes no sense. The 2 hour restriction should be in the evenings and not during the day when there is soooo much parking available." She laughed and said: "You only think that because the 2 hour restriction solved what was a very real problem before we implemented it. Before that restriction, there was NO parking available during the day. Commuters would drive in from the suburbs and park their cars in our neighborhood streets and then walk or bus to their jobs." I'll never forget that moment because it taught me a valuable lesson. Don't look at what is there now and say "why was this done back then?", but look at what was there THEN and say "why was it dont back then? and do those conditions still exist?"

I think that is what is happening here. In the '50s the District was dying (as described in David's own posting about rowhouses) and the parking minimums saved the District by putting it on more equal footing with the suburbs that could provide the parking that was being required by people who'd successfully transitioned from the 19th century to the 20th century. Those parking minimums are still needed for still the very same reasons. The question is, should we try to transition back to the 19th century where ONLY walkability is a desired goal? ... or transition into the 21st century where walkability can happily co-exist with the car culture which has allowed this country to absorb half again its population in a 50 year period? Personally, I say we must go forwards ... and not backwards!

by Lance on Aug 1, 2008 10:26 pm • link • report

Lance,

I'm okay with the two coexisting. However, that is not what has been going on in our nation for the past 60 years. The very fact that there are parking minimums at all demonstrates the deference and subsidy given to the car culture ( and car companies, and oil companies, and road builders ...). Minimums forces a land owner to pay good money to accomodate a car, whether they want to spend the money or not. If they own a car and prefer to cross their fingers on getting a public street spot, they should be able to. If they choose to save money and not own a car, they should be allowed to use their land for a hot tub or a ping pong table or something.

This is a case where individual property rights intersect with urban character quite nicely.

by Cavan on Aug 2, 2008 12:02 pm • link • report

Thanks for the recap. Wish I could have been there in favor.

Reading it all reminds me of how frustrated I get when I realize how hard citizens have to fight in this city simply to *begin* to embark on the kind of planning for the greater good that other urban centers have not only already embarked on and planned for, but have achieved.

If I had the resources, and if I weren't connected to DC by a job that's very hard to get anywhere else (a top tier academic job in the humanities), I would move the hell out to some place like Portland or Copenhagen so I and my family could enjoy *now* the things that make city life livable and potentially (if not in actual practice) socially just--I'm talking about streetcars, protected bike lanes, public squares, etc.--that we in DC can only dimly imagine happening in the future, if we're lucky.

by Tony on Aug 2, 2008 8:58 pm • link • report

Tony, What cities do you think have eliminated minimum parking requirements? You mention Portland, but according to the information on the OP web-site, Portland has minimum parking requirements for most of the city. OP says that Portland has minimums everywhere outside the downtown district and most of those minimums are higher than ours. Maybe you can provide a link to the official web-sites for the zoning regulations of the cities that you think have eliminated most parking minimums. I would hope an academic would take more care in their checking facts before considering testifying at a public hearing.

by J on Aug 3, 2008 12:46 am • link • report

I think Tony is talking about more than just parking regulations. He says as much - it's about transit, parks, livability, and a general mindset. DC is making progress in that regard, but it's still not quite there. Parking regulations are just one of the battles.

by Alex B. on Aug 3, 2008 11:28 am • link • report

The hearing was about parking regulations, and the focus was on eliminating minimum parking requirements. I also heard some people at the hearing state that certain cities, including Portland, had eliminated minimum parking requirements. Clearly, the information on the OP web-site demonstrates that is false. If Tony doesn't have information on other cities that have actually eliminated most minimum parking requirements, perhaps someone else might offer the names of the cities and the links to their regulations.

by J on Aug 3, 2008 1:31 pm • link • report

Folks, I wasn't thinking exclusively about the absence of parking minimums as I mused on the greater urban livability of other world cities such as Portland and Cophenhagen in contrast to DC, where good people are fighting tooth and nail to enact short/mid-term reforms that, even if enacted, would still leave us years behind these other places. I find this a source of frustration, but not a reason to give up the good fight.

by Tony on Aug 3, 2008 11:17 pm • link • report

Portland does has its share of people fighting for sprawl too—a year or two ago, Portland voters repealed part of the growth boundary, for example. I don't know Copenhagen politics, but in London, the mayor who set up congestion pricing was defeated (though congestion pricing will live on). We're not the only ones where these issues are the subject of major political fights. DC is pretty progressive in many ways.

by David Alpert on Aug 4, 2008 2:09 am • link • report

David, In advocating for the elimination of parking minimums, you and others have repeatedly made reference to cities that have done this and that we are being left behind.

We know that the information on the OP web-site demonstrates that most of Portland has parking minimums and they are higher than ours. We know that most of San Franciso has parking minimums and they are higher than ours. We know that Philadelphia has minimum and they are higher than ours. We know that Arlington, Virginia has parking minimums, and that the minimums along the Orange line are a multiple of ours. Can you provide links to zoning regulations for some city that has eliminated most minimum parking requirements?

Perhaps this hasn't been done anywhere because it is a really bad idea. As already mentioned, it changes the nature of our rowhouse neighborhoods for the worse, increases traffic and pollution in the neighborhoods, increases impervious surfaces, increases emergency response time, decreases safety and makes life as District residents more difficult for families.

by J on Aug 4, 2008 7:35 am • link • report

Livable City has a history of parking reform in San Francisco. The new Mission Bay neighborhood was the first to remove residential parking requirements in 1997. Rincon Hill was the first neighborhood to remove parking requirements for all uses in 2005. Residential parking minimums were removed for all downtown commercial zones in 2006, and a parking maximum was instituted for all other uses along with pedestrian oriented design requirements. In 2008 the parking policies of Downtown and Rincon Hill were extended into the Hayes Valley, Duboce Triangle, and North Mission neighborhoods.

Boston Metro Area Planning Council has a review of parking policies in the region. The towns of Middleborough, Ipswich, Salem and Gloucester have abolished parking minimums for residences or other uses in certain locations.

Portland eliminated central city parking minimums in 2000. The report "Smart Growth Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements" says that Portland's policies "have not led to a parking shortage because of the balance of transportation choices available."

In 2006, Seattle reduced parking required in mixed-use neighborhoods and eliminated minimum parking requirements in downtown areas.

Other cities in the U.S. and Europe have successfully removed parking minimum requirements. Many other cities have adopted reduced parking requirements and innovative policies to reduce demand for parking. VTPI's Parking Solutions page of its TDM Encyclopedia has a great deal of additional information.

by Laurence Aurbach on Aug 4, 2008 8:28 am • link • report

Laurence, I was working in the Bay Area this winter. Having lived there some 20 years ago, I found the parking situation downtown far worse than it was prior. I found myself having to circle and circle and circle before I could find parking ... IF I could find parking at all. Additionally, because of the difficulty in finding parking, I found myself frequenting the downtown far far less than I would have otherwise. (I stayed in the hotel room in the East Bay and drove around there many more miles than I would have if I could have found a place in SF, parked, and then walked around.) Net result of this "let's take away people's ability to use downtown" idea? More pollution from my attempts at finding parking, lots more traffic as I (and others) circled and circle, and .... ultimately ... less demand for downtown as people will substitute areas that do serve their needs.

Let's face it, this policy is bad policy from the get go. It's an attempt at social engineering. It's saying "I know better what's best for you than you know. And you WILL do as I say." ... It'll fail for the same reasons Communism failed. It's top down. It's a stick and not a carrot.

by Lance on Aug 4, 2008 8:40 am • link • report

Um, there is this thing called BART. He is a friend who goes back and forth from the East Bay to downtown SF everyday, several times a day.

BART is your friend. Get to know him.

by William on Aug 4, 2008 9:36 am • link • report

Lance,

And having parking minimums isn't social engineering? By having parking minimums, you are making it more convenient to use the car. Why should the car be the preferred mode of transportation? Why not a diversified transit system? There is no reason why, other than the fact that our mid 20th century forebears decided that's what they wanted. Your reasoning is purely from the view of the motorist. However, from the pedesrian and cyclist, parking minimums make things much less convenient. Isn't that "social engineering?"

I own a car but I don't use it much. (It's really expensive to use.) I'm lucky enough to take the Metro to work and not deal with paying $4/gal and traffic etc. I also use the Metro and busses for most of my daily life. Consequently, I look at things through the eyes of the pedestrian. Too many cars is bad for pedestrians. By having more parking, you encourage people to drive. With more space taken up for parking, there are less things that are close enough to walk to. Stores close and then are replaced by parking lots, which induce more cars and so on. The endgame of this cycle is Tysons Corner. Lots of traffic and impossible to walk.

I think the experience with the DCUSA development in Columbia Heights have said that there is too much parking. The development was built right next to the Metro, in a dense walkable urban neighborhood. Lo and behold, most customers to those stores walk to take transit. Imagine that!

If you build it, they will come. If you build for cars and parking, you get cars and parking. If you build for people and places, you get people and places. Removing parking minimums will allow landholders to build for people and places if they so choose and determine it to be profitable. Otherwise, you end up with an averstion to development because no one wants to spend millions to construct a parking structure that will not make money.

by Cavan on Aug 4, 2008 9:40 am • link • report

Laurence, each of your examples have to do with eliminating or reducing parking minimums in some small part of the city, only downtown. We already know from the information on the OP web-site that San Francisco has higher minimum parking requirements outside the area you describe than we have. So does Portland. Are you trying to mislead people by talking about policies that were implemented downtown, not near the single family and rowhouse neighborhoods, and using imprecise language trying to lead people to believe that San Francisco and Portland have eliminated most minimum parking requirements even near their single family neighborhoods? You mention that Seattle has only eliminated minimums downtown. Did you check the regulations to see what the reduced requirements they have are in the mixed use neighborhoods. Are they higher or lower than ours?

by J on Aug 4, 2008 10:15 am • link • report

"BART is your friend. Get to know him."

Not true. I checked in to it. From where I was at, it would have taken an hour and 40 minutes (plus waiting at station time, plus driving to station time) each way vs. 35 - 40 minutes drive time. Not practical. And that is the problem with public transport, not only is it far less efficient and far more expensive per people mile traveled overall, it is not practical for most uses. It works well for work commuting where you have someone with a regular schedule to a regular place, but that is about all.

by Lance on Aug 4, 2008 10:29 am • link • report

Where were you at? According to the BART schedules online now, there's not a single line for which transit time from one end to the other is more than an hour and a half, or transit time from the end of the line to downtown SF is more than an hour. Has BART gotten faster over the years?

by khb on Aug 4, 2008 10:46 am • link • report

khb, I am aware of that. I was near the end of the line. I asked at the hotel as well as at various places in the town. I was told that those schedules are meaningless. That I should count a minimum of an hour and 40 mins irrespective of what the schedules said. Not one single person of the 5 or 6 I asked countered this information.

by Lance on Aug 4, 2008 11:00 am • link • report

P.S. I also asked a couple people doing the reverse. (i.e., commuting out to the work site from SF in the morning.) I asked why they weren't taking the BART. Same answer. They didn't have 2 hours to spend getting to work in the morning ... including having to shuttle to the work site. Even with the delays on the Bay Bridge it was preferable to drive.

by Lance on Aug 4, 2008 11:04 am • link • report

@J: No, I am not trying to mislead, nor did I use imprecise language. I specified the neighborhoods and regions where the policies were implemented. I provided several links where you can investigate the specifics to your heart's content.

As for comparisons with D.C.'s policies, "no minimum" means less government-required parking than any policy that does require parking, no matter what level you're talking about.

@Lance: You've got it backwards. Government-mandated parking minimums are the command-and-control, top-down policy approach. It is government claiming to know better than the market how much of a service should be provided -- in this case, expensive parking spaces.

Removal of parking mandates is the market-oriented solution. It allows the market to work more freely and efficiently.

As for circling and parking management, that is very effectively addressed by performance parking (as has been implemented in Pasadena, Redwood City and DC's ballpark district) and other parking demand policies. The VTPI encyclopedia I referenced above has much more information.

by Laurence Aurbach on Aug 4, 2008 11:05 am • link • report

Laurence, So we still have no examples of a city that has eliminated minimum parking requirements except downtown. OP is proposing to eliminate minimum parking requirements even in the areas which allow large apartment buildings next to rowhouse neighborhoods and single family neighborhoods.

In terms of the performance parking, JW asked: "Exactly how do you expect to sustain that high price for permit or prohibition when there are many more condominiums, and there isn't enough parking, and the residents of those buildings are DC voters?" If you plan on pricing neighborhood parking so high that enough residents of rowhouses either give up their cars or pave over their yards, and enough residents of condominiums and apartments either give up their cars or find off-street parking, how will you sustain those high prices?

Eliminating minimum parking requirements on this scale hasn't been done elsewhere, and with good reason. It is an anti-family policy and bad for the neighborhoods and the environment.

by J on Aug 4, 2008 11:20 am • link • report

Basically we have people going to and from the suburbs complaing about parking. Why should I have to subsidize their behavior? Why should my quality of life decrease because they choose to live that life, and they feel they can't be inconvienced by taking public transportation or driving in circles looking for parking.

You know what, I don't feel bad for you at all. If you want a guaranteed spot, buy one. Why should we subsidize your habits? The building I live in, which has too many spots do to parking minimums, offers spots for sale. Buy one.

by nathaniel on Aug 4, 2008 11:27 am • link • report

One other thing that is pissing me off about this debate, the opponents of the measure are deliberatly misrepresenting the situation. No one will be prevented from building parking, rather the developers will have the opportunity to build what they feel are the correct number of spots. Some may try to cheap out and build none, but as those units won't sell as well, I venture to bet very few will do it.

by nathaniel on Aug 4, 2008 11:29 am • link • report

J: I covered this topic in Countdown #9.

You're mistaken when you say that cities have only eliminated parking minimums downtown. Some of the cities you're listing have only done it downtown so far. But San Francisco, for instance, has also eliminated minimums (and implemented maximums) in other neighborhoods where there is new development. Their Market and Octavia plan eliminated minimums in that area, which is a mixed-use neighborhood (not downtown). Laurence also mentioned Mission Bay and Rincon Hill, which are residential and mixed-use areas.

You seem to be arguing that no city should do anything another city hasn't already done. Eliminating minimums has worked elsewhere, but we should be a leader among cities. We have a better public transit system and higher ridership than any city except New York; DC should be ahead of San Francisco or Portland in implementing a policy that's good for the city and has worked in commercial and residential neighborhoods alike.

by David Alpert on Aug 4, 2008 11:30 am • link • report

@J: Read my post above one more time. In San Francisco, for instance, the neighborhoods outside of downtown that have removed parking minimums include Mission Bay, Rincon Hill, Hayes Valley, Duboce Triangle, and North Mission.

In addition, my list of locations was based on five minutes of Googling. It is by no means a comprehensive list of all the locations in the U.S. and Europe where parking minimum have been abolished. Therefore, using my list alone to draw global conclusions about the state of parking reform would be erroneous.

by Laurence Aurbach on Aug 4, 2008 11:33 am • link • report

"You know what, I don't feel bad for you at all. If you want a guaranteed spot, buy one. Why should we subsidize your habits? The building I live in, which has too many spots do to parking minimums, offers spots for sale. Buy one."

Nathaniel, Whether you realize it or not, you have just given support FOR parking minimums. Without them, there won't be that "extra" parking available for these folks to buy ... at any price.

Intermediate result is increased pollution, paved over yards, increased traffic, and lots of other bad things. Long term result is a dying area that can't compete with places that don't have parking minimums. Much has been made of Georgetown's viability as a walkable city. What is not being realized by the proponents of this change in regulations is that it is these very regulations which allowed Georgetown to survive. The folks pushing this change in regulations do not remember when all Georgetown had to offer were rate shops, a few good restaurants, many many bars and an empty (and dangerous) warehouse district south of M Street. (It was very much like Adams Morgan was in the 90s if you can remember that.) The parking minimums turned Georgetown around.

by Lance on Aug 4, 2008 11:44 am • link • report

*second rate shops

by Lance on Aug 4, 2008 11:46 am • link • report

Lance: do all of those garages in Georgetown have only the very minimum required number of spaces?

by David Alpert on Aug 4, 2008 11:52 am • link • report

Whether you realize it or not, you have just given support FOR parking minimums. Without them, there won't be that "extra" parking available for these folks to buy ... at any price.

No. What it means is that parking will only be provided if it makes sense for developers to provide it, which means it will be available when the market makes it profitable. With required parking, it is available whether its profitable or not, which is a subsidization.

Also, it's invalid to say parking minimums saved Georgetown unless developers were *prohibited* from building parking in Georgetown before minimums were introduced, which as far as I know, they were not. Fact is, Georgetown suffered in previous decades because the whole inner city suffered in previous decades.

by BeyondDC on Aug 4, 2008 11:54 am • link • report

Laurence, take a look at the Nelson\Nygaard report, Existing Zoning Review, posted on the OP web-site. Figure 2 lists the requirements for San Francisco and compares them with DC's. Several charts in that report also compare the requirements. For residential uses, Nelson\Nygaard show San Francisco and DC as both requiring one space for every four units in high density zones and one space for every unit in low density zones. Nelson\Nygaard list DC as requiring one space for every 2.5 units in medium density zones and San Francisco as requiring one space for every unit in medium density zones. Even if you can list some areas where they have eliminated minimums, they have minimums in large parts of the city.

David, while you say you covered this in your post #9, the information that you have in that post is incorrect. You wrote: "Many U.S. cities, from Los Angeles and Philadelphia to Boston and San Francisco to the cities of Coral Gables, Fort Myers, and Fort Pierce in Florida, have all removed parking minimums, and found great success in doing so. Nelson\Nygaard compiled a detailed report for OP about parking "best practices" around the U.S."

Yet, there are no studies showing great success and it doesn't seem that these cities have done anything like what OP is proposing. Certainly, the information I listed for Laurence shows that San Francisco didn't eliminate all their parking minimums. Certainly, you don't expect people to take your unsupported statements as evidence, particularly in light of documentation that shows those statements to be false.

Nathaniel, Check your facts. You wrote: "No one will be prevented from building parking, rather the developers will have the opportunity to build what they feel are the correct number of spots." But, OP is proposing exactly that. The proposal includes a parking maximum that could prevent them from building some of the parking they want to build.

by J on Aug 4, 2008 12:08 pm • link • report

"Lance: do all of those garages in Georgetown have only the very minimum required number of spaces?

posted by David Alpert on Aug 4, 2008 11:52 am"

David, I don't know (assuming you mean the 'legal' minimum). I'd guess they did though. However, remember that in general I am in agreement with you on market pricing for street parking. If street parking were priced such that people currently "storing" their cars on the street had to park either on their own property (i.e., off the alley) or in an underground garage (most aboveground garages put a "hole" in the fabric of the neighborhood), I think you'd find that there isn't enough parking in those existing garages to satisfy the demand that would come about.

by Lance on Aug 4, 2008 12:41 pm • link • report

Laurence, you stated: "The towns of Middleborough, Ipswich, Salem and Gloucester have abolished parking minimums for residences or other uses in certain locations."

The information posted at http://transtoolkit.mapc.org indicates that these are not broad eliminations of parking minimums, as proposed by OP, and they all involved limited uses and proximity to municipal parking facilities.

Instead, elimination of the parking minimum is very limited, such as:

(1) business uses need not provide off-street parking if it is in the central business district and within 500 feet of a municipal parking facility, no mention of an elimination of the parking requirement for residential uses or elsewhere (Ipswich);

(2) businesses and municipal uses that occupy more than 10,000 square feet of space and are locatied within 400 feet of a municipal parking facility and residential above the first floor in a building that existed in 1990 in the central business district need not provide off-street parking (Gloucester). The Gloucester regulations include the following statement: "It is the intention of this Ordinance that all new structures and new building and land uses be provided with sufficient off-street parking spaces to meet the needs of persons making use of such structures and land uses." Again, no mention of an elimination of the parking requirement for residential uses anywhere.

(3)waive parking requirements for second or third floor residential units if it is within a quarter-mile of a public parking area (Middleborough);

(4) no off-street parking requirement for churches and schools, and non-residential uses in a B-5 district, but new construction in a B-5 district should include one space per unit for existing buildings and 1.5 spaces per unit for new construction, although some of the requirements for rehabilitated buildings can be accommodated at municipal parking facilities in the area. (Salem).

Given that we don't have municipal parking facilities and given the limited scope of these sections that "sbolish" minimums, I don't quite see how you jump from these regulations to OP's proposal to eliminate most minimum parking requirements citywide.

by J on Aug 4, 2008 3:15 pm • link • report

@J: You may be imagining things. I did not make any such jump.

If you would like to research large-scale implementation of liberalized parking policies, I recommend looking into the UK national policy. For instance, Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport outlines national policy with respect to transport in general, and includes policy guidance on parking in particular. Some excerpts:

The availability of car parking has a major influence on the means of transport people choose for their journeys. Some studies suggest that levels of parking can be more significant than levels of public transport provision in determining means of travel (particularly for the journey to work) even for locations very well served by public transport. Car parking also takes up a large amount of space in development, is costly to business and reduces densities. Reducing the amount of parking in new development (and in the expansion and change of use in existing development) is essential, as part of a package of planning and transport measures, to promote sustainable travel choices.
In developing and implementing policies on parking, local authorities should:
1. ensure that, as part of a package of planning and transport measures, levels of parking provided in association with development will promote sustainable transport choices;
2. not require developers to provide more spaces than they themselves wish, other than in exceptional circumstances which might include for example where there are significant implications for road safety which cannot be resolved through the introduction or enforcement of on-street parking controls
where appropriate, introduce on-street parking controls in areas adjacent to major travel generating development to minimise the potential displacement of parking where onsite parking is being limited
Policies in development plans should set maximum levels of parking for broad classes of development. Maximum standards should be designed to be used as part of a package of measures to promote sustainable transport choices, reduce the land-take of development, enable schemes to fit into central urban sites, promote linked-trips and access to development for those without use of a car and to tackle congestion. There should be no minimum standards for development, other than parking for disabled people.

The UK national policy is not an anti-parking policy; rather, it is a balanced policy with definite goals for the environment and sustainability, economic performance, congestion, social fairness and more.

by Laurence Aurbach on Aug 4, 2008 6:19 pm • link • report

Can you provide any example of a US city where minimum parking requirements have been eliminated for all resudential development throughout the city as well as for most other uses for most of the city? So far, all the US cities that have been suggested have not eliminated minimum parking requirements and most have minimums higher than ours, including the ones mentioned by OP and Nelson\Nygaard.

Also, do you have any examples of regulations that any jurisdictions in the UK have adopted following this policy guidance and evaluations of the results? It seems that those who advocate this new policy for DC should be doing the research to demonstrate that it will work, especially given the advocates' track record so far in claims about cities that have eliminated all minimum parking requirements.

In one of your messages, you referred to the towns of Middleborough, Ipswich, Salem and Gloucester as examples, but those examples clearly have no relevance. I assumed that you listed them because you thought it was relevant, thus I assumed the jump.

by J on Aug 4, 2008 6:44 pm • link • report

@J: Planning Policy Guidance Notes are legally binding and apply to all local authorities in the UK.

by Laurence Aurbach on Aug 4, 2008 7:14 pm • link • report

Laurence, Can you provide any example of a US city where minimum parking requirements have been eliminated for all residential development throughout the city as well as for most other uses for most of the city?

Do you have studies of areas that have implemented of this policy in the UK? What is the implementation process for the Planning Policy Guidance Notes? Does every municipality have to have a zoning rewrite process, like DC is doing now? Is there a moratorium on enforcement of existing zoning standards until the new zoning regulations are written? Has this gone into effect anywhere? Have projects been completed under the new regulations, with people having moved in? And if those buildings have been completed and fully occupied, has there been a study to determine whether there is spillover parking in nearby neighborhoods? Do these cities have municipal parking?

by J on Aug 4, 2008 10:05 pm • link • report

J: Why is it important if another city has done it to exactly the same scale? We already know many US cities have done it in both residential and commercial areas (and one country has done it at a national scale). What's different about putting them all together? Why not argue that we can't make this change because it hasn't been done in any diamond-shaped cities, or any cities with height limits, or any cities master planned by Frenchmen?

I make the point because DC is unique. We can learn from other cities, but need not simply follow them.

by David Alpert on Aug 4, 2008 11:45 pm • link • report

David, You say that we know that "many US cities have done it in both residential and commercial areas," but all the US examples provided are for very, very limited areas with no minimum parking requirements. Those US cities have minimums for most of their areas that are higher than our current minimums. None of those cities have eliminated minimums near low density neighborhoods. Some of those cities have only eliminated minimums for projects near municipal garages. Why can't you find cities that have eliminated minimums near low density neighborhoods? Why is Arlington requiring more than one space per unit near Metro, far more than our requirement of one space for every three or four apartments? Might it be because it is well understood that eliminating minimums especially near single family and rowhouse neighborhoods would be a really bad idea? Initially, OP told us that we need to do this to catch up with all the other cities that are eliminating minimum parking requirements. But their consultant's report showed that the other cities haven't done that and had higher minimums than we have.

by J on Aug 5, 2008 8:07 am • link • report

@J: Sounds like a good outline for a graduate dissertation.

I don't know why you are so keen to find U.S. cities where minimum parking requirements have been eliminated everywhere. That is certainly not what OP is recommending. The OP recommendation to remove parking minimums:

1. Would not apply to noncommercial uses in or near single-family detached or rowhouses. Assuming that is R-1 through R-3, that's about half of the city. David blogged about the buffer issue back in April.

2. Would not apply to areas where on-street parking controls are limited.

3. Would not apply to areas that merely have a history of sensitivity to overspill conditions.

4. The OP report refers to the consultant's report for details. The consultant's report recommends that current minimums be maintained in single family residential districts.

The scope of the exempted areas is large. The reformed parking minimums would apply to a fraction of the city only. In addition, institutional inertia and risk-aversion in the financial sector will cause the old parking standards to be applied in many cases, even where government requirements are removed.

For these reasons, I believe the OP is correct when it states, "for the foreseeable future most development will continue to contain as much or more parking than our current regulations require." As OP notes, the changes will lessen the large number of parking related variances that currently inject an unnecessary and wasteful amount of red tape into the planning and development process.

More importantly, the changes address the goals of the Comprehensive Plan -- to make DC more walkable and more sustainable -- and in the long-term future, minimum requirements in other parts of the city can be phased out if it becomes apparent that excess parking is available.

by Laurence Aurbach on Aug 5, 2008 9:10 am • link • report

Laurence, I suggest that you go back and read the hearing notice. There is no reference to not eliminating minimum parking reqruirements where on-street parking controls are limited.

The fact that there would be minimum parking requirements for churches and schools in low-density residential zones and the fact that that about half the city is low-density residential certainly does little to address spillover concerns about spillover from large apartment buildings and commercial buildingson the edge of those neighborhoods.

You say that the scope of the exempted areas is large. The scope of the exempted areas is not large, it is very small. OP has proposed that there should be no minimum parking requirement for any residential use anywhere in the District.

While you describe an evaluation of the impact of eliminating minimum parking requirements in other jurisdications as an outline for a graduate dissertation, it actually is work that OP should have done before bringing this proposal to the Zoning Commission.

In David's earlier blog on the buffer zone, he showed that a very large percentage of our land is in or near the low density neighborhoods. This demonstrates how large the area is that will be subject to spillover. Rather than throwing up their hands and saying that too much of the land would be in the buffer, OP should have said: eliminating minimum parking requirements in large parts of the District would put most of our neighborhoods at risk, and there are very few areas where this policy can safely be followed. Had they done that, they might have come up with a proposal more in line with what other cities seem to find reasonable.

by J on Aug 5, 2008 11:05 am • link • report

@J: No, sorry, you're just putting out false statements. I've read the hearing notice and your characterization of the provisions is demonstrably false. I see no reason to continue this discussion if you are not willing to stay with reality.

by Laurence Aurbach on Aug 5, 2008 12:04 pm • link • report

@Laurence: Page 3 of the hearing notice has all the minimum parking requirements that OP is proposing. It is in table form. There is no minimum parking requirement for any residential use anywhere.

This is the enitre list:

Low Density Residential Districts (currently R-1 & R-2): All Non-residential uses: 1 for each 1000 ft.2 of gross floor area and cellar floor area

Moderate Density Residential Districts (currently R-3 to R-5-B): All Non-residential uses: 1 for each 1000 ft.2 of gross floor area and cellar floor area

Commercial Corridor Districts (currently C-2): Retail, Office, Restaurant or Service Uses: In excess of 3,000 ft.2, 1 for each additional 300 ft.2 of gross floor area and cellar floor area

TOD Districts: All Uses: All Uses:

And the Final Report suggests defining TOD districts as including, among other things, everything within a half-mile of a Metro stop.

There also is a provision to cut the few minimums that remain in half.

Please, let's try to stay with reality.

by J on Aug 5, 2008 12:12 pm • link • report

Sorry, the last line of the table should read:

TOD Districts: All Uses: None

Note that there is no residential use listed in the table for minimum parking requirements.

There also is a table with the maximums, all listed as "to be determined."

by J on Aug 5, 2008 12:15 pm • link • report

"historic curb" is an old granite curbstone from pre-mid-C.

by Citizen on Aug 5, 2008 1:21 pm • link • report

@J: I stand corrected and apologize for my previous post. The discrepancy between the OP Proposed Amendments and the Zoning Hearing Notice is something that OP should explain in more detail.

by Laurence Aurbach on Aug 5, 2008 2:34 pm • link • report