Posts about Parking Minimums

Rein and Alcindor go on to exhibit a primary sign of windshield perspective: assuming that "you" are a driver. They write, "When you do park, you'll pay what the market will bear." Too many articles introduce an issue with language like, "Your commute may get longer with the construction on I-95." That's totally true, if you are a driver. But not every reader of the Washington Post is an auto commuter. A large percentage of people in our region commute in other ways. Assuming that "you" only drive is like assuming every Virginian voter is a Republican.

Besides looking at this issue through a very thick windshield, Rein and Alcindor then go on to get the policy issues entirely wrong. Start with the "dream" parking space at Wildwood Towers. They write, "The amenity that makes residents swoon is likely to disappear soon, though — along with thousands of parking spaces in office buildings and shopping districts across the county." But this is completely false. Under Arlington's plan, no buildings will have to give up their parking spaces. No existing private lots will suddenly go up in price. Large, private lots surround Wildwood, and Arlington's proposal would not touch that. It's as if Rein wrote that under Obama's health care plan, government squads would come to your door and infect you with H1N1. It's not just wrong, it's comically wrong.

Fact-free, inflammatory assertions thickly fill the first few paragraphs:

The goal of today's planners and politicians is maximum inconvenience for drivers. The District is pulling up parking lots and putting in expensive meters to get drivers out of their cars and onto a train, bus, bike or their feet. Montgomery and Fairfax counties are thinking along similar lines, considering changes to codes to reduce the number of parking spaces builders have to include.

The insanity goes on and on. When introducing performance parking (scare quoted, of course), Rein and Alcindor write, "If it cost $100 a day to park in Friendship Heights (a hypothetical price), drivers might reconsider." If it cost $100 a day to read the Washington Post, people might not do it, either. So? Nobody has ever proposed prices anywhere near $100 a day for any parking. Even market rate garages in downtown DC cost about $15 a day.

"Market rate" doesn't necessarily mean "really freakishly high rate." Most of the time, it doesn't mean that at all. But Rein and Alcindor seem to react to the concept of a "market rate" and assume that it means major pain. In fact, a market rate at many locations is lower than the current rate. We've written about many examples in the past.

Market rate pricing also increases driver convenience, rather than creating "maximum inconvenience." If it's too hard to find a space, a driver won't go somewhere. The 85% occupancy target of performance parking isn't an attempt to force people out of cars, but to provide a real choice between actually finding a space (for a fair price) and transit, rather than no choice because there are no spaces.

Arlington is going to base their policy on actual data. They'll measure real parking usage and set policies appropriately. Rein and Alcindor, on the other hand, simply go off the deep end because someone said the word "market" or "reducing" in the same sentence as parking, and because the narrative about governments waging war on "you" drivers is good for a rise if completely ridiculous. The Post Metro section should hold its reporting to a higher standard.

Another piece of the proposal, also recommended in Shoup's book, is to "unbundle" parking. Housing and offices will be encouraged to offer parking separately from the rent or condo fee. That allows workers or residents to choose between paying for a parking space, or letting someone else rent it. This reduces the demand for parking spaces and for trips taken by car. We strongly support giving people a choice to pay for parking rather than getting it included automatically.

For some districts like Columbia Pike, Arlington is proposing "in-lieu fees." These fees allow a developer to build less than the required amount of parking if they contribute to a public parking fund. Arlington will use this fund to partner with local private garages and ensure that private garages are available to the public. Arlington should ensure that these fees are related to the costs of building additional parking spaces, so that developers face a real choice. Very expensive spaces should not be built (because it's unlikely people will pay enough to use them), but this fee should not allow developers to pay very little to get out of such a requirement.

For off-street parking, although Arlington will continue to have "free or subsidized parking" around retail businesses, there won't be an effort to entirely satisfy that demand, shifting resources "to more efficient and beneficial public amenities". The county is going to take into account available transit, transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and other factors in reducing required parking.

The county will continue to require "by-right" buildings to include the minimum parking spaces required by the Zoning Ordinance. However, based on site conditions, the County may allow reductions below this minimum. Any developer building more than the minimum site needs may be allowed to donate excess parking to other nearby sites to count toward their requirement.

The draft element promotes on-street parking in residential neighborhoods and commercial streets as a traffic calming measure. For single-family homes, residents should be able to park "within a block" of their home, and high-rise apartments should expect guests and service vehicles to have to park "a few blocks away" at peak times.

The resident parking permit program, the first in the nation, will continue much as it exists today. One change recommends implementing a process where residents can have their zone reviewed to reduce its size and eliminate cross-commuting.

Arlington is proposing an official policy discouraging off-street surface parking. "Nowhere in the County should pedestrians have to walk through a parking in order to access a structure," it reads. Parking lots should be underground, structured, or at worst, screened behind or to the side of a building. Buildings, not parking lots, should face the arterial streets.

There's a lot in this plan to like. Arlington's policies are slowly moving away from the old-style "minimum requirements and low-priced curb parking" used in most of the US, and toward parking policies that reflect demand, the cost of supplying parking, and available alternatives. It doesn't eliminate parking minimums or time limits or attempt to push retail parking prices up to the cost of comparable off-street parking, but this is the policy that can pass politically. Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good, and the most important policy (getting on-street pricing correct) is in the draft element.

The Arlington County Board wants to hear your comments. Comments should go to Ritch Viola at rviola@arlingtonva.us.