|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Transportation = Movement of People and Goods]
[Parking = The Exact Opposite of Transportation]
Transportation, as a function of government, includes words like ‘for the purpose of promotion of economic activity,’ meaning the transportation your government provides must also create value in some way, shape, or form.
For many developers, housing advocates, public transportation planners, and even environmentalists, parking is considered a costly waste of space. It can cost anywhere from $2,000 to $20,000 and even $50,000 to create a parking spot. Who is paying for this, and is it even worth that much?
When we talk about ‘parking,’ we usually differentiate between two major versions: A) business parking and B) residential parking.
Unfortunately, squatters and rankers transformed this two-headed snake of wasting space into “The Holy Trinity of Parking” by sneaking in the form of parking that is just storage. And car-centric cities have stopped enforcing the difference between Dead Ranking and Live Parking. Neither Tombstone, Chicago, or New York City could stop the squatting – only Menlo Park could.
So is all parking good, bad, or evil? Let’s divide and conquer.
1. Residential Services Vehicle Parking (RSVP)
“Curbs are some of our cities’ most valuable assets. They can be so many more things than where a vehicle sits for free”. Public streets serve a clear purpose, and they are not long-term storage. Curb space must be made available for all the essential services that might have to use the street during a typical day: U.S. mail and package delivery (multiple times per day), other deliveries (medicine, newspaper, groceries), meal deliveries (breakfast, lunch, dinner, party), food or ice cream truck, rideshare or ride-hail services (carpool, Taxi, Uber, Lyft, Waymo), Public and Active Transportation (bus, bikes, scooters), Recology Garbage collection (three trucks), Emergency Services (EMT, fire, police, PG&E), Public Works (street cleaning, water, sewage, phone, T.V., internet), moving trucks, contractors, gardeners, tree trimmers, plumbers, cleaners, nannies, and many many more.
These are basic services every city needs to provide or support with the highest priority. None of those services requires long-term parking. Most use the curb space for a few minutes, even seconds. The city’s highest transportation priority must be to support these services and by all municipal code means necessary.
2. Parking and Transportation around business districts
Usually, retail businesses or restaurants must provide a certain amount of parking for themselves. These are called parking minimums. High-density downtowns with better walkability have higher business value for businesses and higher tax income for the city. To support the higher density, the city could provide garages and central off-street parking through public or private funding. In low-density, non-walkable business districts, car-centric businesses can plan their off-street parking themselves.
This isn’t the worst form of parking; this one can create value. The city can and should make it its job to support businesses by providing necessary short-term bicycle and vehicle parking. And if capacity is really low at times, some demand-based pricing can’t hurt either.
But transportation is still key and must have a higher priority. So in both cases, getting rid of on-street parking increases necessary transportation capacity to reduce congestion. The curb belongs to bus lanes, bike lanes, street cleaning, garbage collection, emergency vehicles, and loading zones. By replacing on-street parking with off-street lots, the city would help run a smooth, clean, and safe business district with less congestion and no circling around.
3. Residential Invasion Parking (RIP)
The earlier described Residential Services Vehicle Parking (RSVP) requires street space only for a few minutes, maybe a few hours, but never overnight. Meaning when parking takes longer than 8h or even overnight, we are talking about RIP or REM (Rapid Encroacher Mess). It’s the city’s job to promote RSVP by putting RIP to rest.
In Redwood City, any single-family zoned home (R.H., R-1) has to have 1-2 garage spots and 1-2 driveway spots. All R-1 homes have to have Front Setbacks of min. 15 feet. Only 40-45% of the lot size can be used for housing. Statistically, every R-1 home around here has 4 parking spots for 2x cars and over 3,000 sq ft available to add even more. There is no need for REM in most parts of the city. All these rankers could use their own garages, driveways, front yards, side yards, and backyards to store their property on their own property. And many actually do. But there seems to be quite a number of squatters and rankers that take advantage of the city’s leniency towards people with too many cars. They own too many vehicles, R.V.s, boats, “classic cars,” “clunkers and family heirlooms” – and want society to pay the storage fees.
Developers want in on this grift
If a street has little congestion and only a few cars parking curbside, who cares? But once street sweeping, mail delivery, etc., becomes impossible without double parking, something is wrong with that street. And when garbage collection takes longer and longer, we all pay the price. Instead of constantly increasing the rates for garbage collection, the city could discourage on-street parking, which would avoid the yearly rate hikes.
Residents with too many vehicles pretty much get on-street storage for free. And whenever the government provides something for free, corporations especially show a high interest in getting in on those subsidies.
So it wasn’t a huge surprise to see that Businesses wanted a piece of the free on-street parking cake; they got a nice present with the Developer friendly AB2097. And housing advocates, public transportation planners, and even environmentalists seem to be happy about this new law.
Post.Scriptum.
In the words of one developer: “That’s why owning a car doesn’t make any sense,” said Councilman Jeff Gee, who serves on both the SamTrans and Caltrain boards of directors. “The peak period of car ownership has passed. Younger people have figured that out. Now the rest of us need to figure that out.”
By 2040, the city is aiming to have over 50% of all trips to be taken by a mode other than driving. Redwood City’s new Parking and Transportation Demand Manager Christian Hammack said: “So if we want to try to hit that goal, we need to find ways to encourage people to use those other transportation modes.”
Has Redwood City, Mayor Jeff Gee, and Christian Hammack finally figured this out? And will they finally start the quest for 50%? [imagine ominous cliffhanger music here]
… to be continued.
More Information:
- They paved paradise, put up a parking lot
- NPR: Alaska, Texas, Florida – U.S. cities opt to ditch their off-street parking minimums
- CNN: Why cities are cracking down on free parking
- Cities are leaving parking up to the market
- Reclaiming Our Space: How Parking Reform Benefits Everyone
Editor’s Note: The views and opinions expressed in all blog posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Redwood City Pulse or its staff.
