Parking review part 2: But for spillover, we all agree

In my earlier parking post, I concluded with this key slide from the Nelson\

Nygaard presentation that kicked off the zoning review process (at right). The minimums in the zoning code operate on the premise that since some people will drive and park, we need to provide parking. If we don’t, they’ll park on the street, interfering with residents. Therefore, we must require enough parking to handle the peak demand, which means that most of the time, there is too much.

Even in dense, transit-oriented areas, some parking is necessary. But just the street parking might be enough, or private pay lots nearby can serve. Maybe the developer will decide to build some underground spaces. But should we ever force them to build more? Which answer people gave to this question at the parking zoning review meeting came down to one question: whether they believe we can effectively manage on-street parking.

Especially in areas where denser commercial development adjoins lower-density residential (which is a lot of the city), the current residential parking rules don’t ensure spaces are available for residents, because anyone can park for two hours for free during the day and as long as they want at night. On the other hand, imagine that (to go to an extreme) all streets were restricted to residents of the nearby few blocks only. In that case, there’d be no need to force a commercial developer to build parking. If they want their shoppers to have a place to park, they can pay to build it. If they think shoppers will arrive by Metro, they won’t. They’ll determine a mix that’s probably lower than what we have today.

We’re not going to prohibit anyone but residents from parking on residential streets, but I believe we can do almost as well with parking demand management. With a combination of stricter limits and charging nonresidents for parking on the street, like that proposed for the ballpark and Columbia Heights, people who are visiting an area can make a simple choice: drive, and pay a market rate to park, or don’t drive. The market rate will ensure some availability, so residents can get spaces. In that case, even the staunchest advocates of more parking at the zoning review agreed that there would no longer be a need for parking minimums.

How about parking maximums? There was surprising consensus here too, at least in some areas. Where a zone is defined as “transit-oriented,” however that is exactly determined (which future zoning review working groups and DC agencies will decide), everyone agreed to take the “aggressive” approach, of setting some maximum for the amount of parking that can be built, and utilizing other tools like shared parking, in-lieu fees, unbundling, and more.

We also agreed about utilizing some of these other tools along with a dual parking minimum and maximum in non-transit-oriented mixed-use areas. These areas tend to be more car-oriented, but also walkable, so a balance is important. The consultants suggested an approach similar to what Arlington uses on Columbia Pike (currently served only by buses): a minimum, but one that can be served by shared parking, and a maximum on reserved parking. Reserved parking is parking dedicated only to a single business; Shared parking, as the name suggests, allows customers from multiple businesses to use the same parking. By pushing shared parking and capping reserved parking, you avoid situations like that I often encountered on El Camino in Palo Alto, where a restaurant’s lot would be jammed to capacity while the nearby liquor store’s was nearly empty, filled with signs forbidding anyone but that store’s customers from parking there.