A commenter noted the following on the Tenleytown Listerv:
I thought it would be interesting to juxtapose the following two documents. The
first being a meeting invite (it happened already) for the Ward 3 Democrats that
invites attendees to park on residential streets abutting the Methodist Home.
The second is an email posted regarding a resolution passed by the Ward 3
Democrats decrying that the proposed zoning rewrite and its impact on parking on
residential streets surrounding transit zones. I'll leave it to readers to
determine if there might be something of a contradiction here.
The Ward 3 Dems Message
Dear Ward 3 Democratic Committee Colleagues,
Please join us this Thursday evening for an "AN EVENING WITH THE MAYOR." (See
attached flyer.) This special program will provide an
opportunity for Mayor Vincent Gray to share his thoughts with the Committee on a
variety of topics to be followed by
questions from the audience. Light refreshments will be provided.
We anticipate that the program will begin promptly at 7:30 pm, so please plan to
try to arrive by 7:15 pm if possible. The event will be held at our new meeting
location at "The Methodist Home" at 4901 Connecticut Ave. N.W. (The Methodist
Home is located in the block before you reach Politics and Prose Book Store and
Café on the same side of Connecticut Avenue as the bookstore. There is parking
in the parking lot surrounding the home as well as on Fessenden St. to the left
of the home.)
I look forward to seeing you on Thursday.
All the best,
Shelley Tomkin
Chair, Ward 3 Democratic Committee
Ward 3 Dems Resolution on Parking
Resolution to Encourage Reasonable Zoning Parking Provisions
Whereas:
The By-Laws of the Ward Three Democratic Committee create a basis for Delegates to work together to encourage accountability and good government practices.
Whereas:
The DC Office of Planning's (OP) parking proposals adversely will affect residents, businesses and the vibrancy of this city by eliminating parking requirements for "transit zones", eliminating parking requirements for all new single family homes, eliminating parking requirements for new multi-unit dwellings of less than 10 units, reducing our already low parking requirements for multi-family housing and commercial uses far from transit, and reducing parking requirements for schools.
Whereas:
OP's recommended changes to parking requirements are not supported by data, do not reflect community preferences, and are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
Therefore be it resolved:
The DC Office of Planning should withdraw its proposed parking provisions and develop a new approach to parking requirements that better reflects community needs and Comprehensive Plan mandates for adequate public and private parking.
Showing posts with label Parking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parking. Show all posts
Friday, June 28, 2013
Thursday, June 09, 2011
Service Lane in Cleveland Park
A petition was posted on the Cleveland Park Listserv recently in response to discussion regarding the "service lane" on the east side of Connecticut Avenue between Macomb and Newark Streets in Cleveland Park.
The lane was created during the early "automobile era" when planners assumed that the provision of auto facilities would create a business-friendly environment. Cleveland Park is home to an early example of the auto-centric strip mall.
Petition organizers suggest that restoring the broad sidewalk will enhance the pedestrian experience, provide more lively streetscape in the form of outdoor seating for restaurants and enable the many neighborhood visitors to enjoy the commercial strip without being crammed into a pedestrian facility that is at many times of the day inadequate for demand.
Opponents suggest the retail and service businesses along the strip would not be able to survive without the necessary parking, or in the alternative, that a reconfiguration would push more vehicles into the residential areas.
What do you think?
The lane was created during the early "automobile era" when planners assumed that the provision of auto facilities would create a business-friendly environment. Cleveland Park is home to an early example of the auto-centric strip mall.
Petition organizers suggest that restoring the broad sidewalk will enhance the pedestrian experience, provide more lively streetscape in the form of outdoor seating for restaurants and enable the many neighborhood visitors to enjoy the commercial strip without being crammed into a pedestrian facility that is at many times of the day inadequate for demand.
Opponents suggest the retail and service businesses along the strip would not be able to survive without the necessary parking, or in the alternative, that a reconfiguration would push more vehicles into the residential areas.
What do you think?
Sunday, July 20, 2008
OP Parking Discussion
While note directly related to Ward 3, there has been some interesting discussion on the Tenleytown Listserv regarding the Office of Planning parking regulations proposal under the new Comprehensive Plan.
A contributor opened the discussion with the following:
The Office of Planning has proposed major changes in the parking regulations for new construction, eliminating many of the current minimum parking requirements. Minimum parking requirements have been used to reduce the impact of parking "spillover" on our neighborhoods. Even with our current regulations, many DC neighborhoods already bear significant costs related to spillover parking from nearby commercial and higher density residential zones. Spillover parking reduces the availability of parking for residents and brings an increase in traffic to residential streets.
OP proposes to eliminate all minimum parking requirements for residential uses. In fact, minimum parking requirements would apply only for retail, office, service, or restaurant uses in C-2 zones that are not designated "transit oriented development zones" and for nonresidential uses in low- or moderate-density residential zones. In addition, the draft regulations include an unspecified limit on the amount of off-street parking that developers can provide. These are radical changes that would set into motion a sweeping citywide experiment that could potentially have irreversible, adverse impacts on many neighborhoods across the District. The quality of life in our neighborhoods is diminished by the increased traffic and reduced on-street parking. OP's proposal can exacerbate the spillover parking problems in these neighborhoods and introduce new spillover parking problems in other neighborhoods.
There has been interesting discussion, but this response framed the conversation from a different perspective:
How does being adjacent to a piece of property somehow convey ownership? A homeowner only owns the land to the sidewalk. The sidewalk, grass strip, and street are city property.
This notion that homeowners/residents have come to view city property as there own and populate it with as many possessions as they desire seems to be a central issue here. And given that the number of cars per household correlates well with the drain such household has on the roadway system, that becomes a fairly insidious misconception.
In terms of the over-all discussion, instead of framing the situation in the pejorative terms of "spillover", "inadequate", "at the expense of stability", "reduction in their quality of life", the situation should really be described as what it is:
-The disproportionate use of land, both public and private, by some residents for their home, their possessions, and their transportation.
-These high-density residential developments aren't needed because of some fashionable desire people have to live more tightly packed together but because they are a wiser use of land than the suburban-style low density communities. It makes no sense then, to further support these low-density communities by continuing to give away public street space on the already under-serving streets.
-That street space should be used to full capacity by allocating it fairly to community residents irrespective of who happens to be closest to it (obviously this is a factor in it's usefulness, though).
These limitations on parking availability will naturally ensure a limit on automobile use, which is the ultimate goal, and one best achieved (as indicated by the previous toll discussion) by limiting source and destination parking. After all if there's one thing that's evident in this day and age it's that overbuilding roadways and parking creates a constituency that obstructs ever shrinking those structures back to more reasonable levels. The idea that failing to build a parking garage is only a missed opportunity completely ignores that fact.
Planning and the Comprehensive Plan are about the future. Maintaining discourse in a framework from a previous era which was predicated on $.20 gas and a seemingly unending source of fossil fuels seems to be short-sighted. This is an important time for staking out the future of the District. All residents should be encouraged to provide their input to the appropriate offices.
A contributor opened the discussion with the following:
The Office of Planning has proposed major changes in the parking regulations for new construction, eliminating many of the current minimum parking requirements. Minimum parking requirements have been used to reduce the impact of parking "spillover" on our neighborhoods. Even with our current regulations, many DC neighborhoods already bear significant costs related to spillover parking from nearby commercial and higher density residential zones. Spillover parking reduces the availability of parking for residents and brings an increase in traffic to residential streets.
OP proposes to eliminate all minimum parking requirements for residential uses. In fact, minimum parking requirements would apply only for retail, office, service, or restaurant uses in C-2 zones that are not designated "transit oriented development zones" and for nonresidential uses in low- or moderate-density residential zones. In addition, the draft regulations include an unspecified limit on the amount of off-street parking that developers can provide. These are radical changes that would set into motion a sweeping citywide experiment that could potentially have irreversible, adverse impacts on many neighborhoods across the District. The quality of life in our neighborhoods is diminished by the increased traffic and reduced on-street parking. OP's proposal can exacerbate the spillover parking problems in these neighborhoods and introduce new spillover parking problems in other neighborhoods.
There has been interesting discussion, but this response framed the conversation from a different perspective:
How does being adjacent to a piece of property somehow convey ownership? A homeowner only owns the land to the sidewalk. The sidewalk, grass strip, and street are city property.
This notion that homeowners/residents have come to view city property as there own and populate it with as many possessions as they desire seems to be a central issue here. And given that the number of cars per household correlates well with the drain such household has on the roadway system, that becomes a fairly insidious misconception.
In terms of the over-all discussion, instead of framing the situation in the pejorative terms of "spillover", "inadequate", "at the expense of stability", "reduction in their quality of life", the situation should really be described as what it is:
-The disproportionate use of land, both public and private, by some residents for their home, their possessions, and their transportation.
-These high-density residential developments aren't needed because of some fashionable desire people have to live more tightly packed together but because they are a wiser use of land than the suburban-style low density communities. It makes no sense then, to further support these low-density communities by continuing to give away public street space on the already under-serving streets.
-That street space should be used to full capacity by allocating it fairly to community residents irrespective of who happens to be closest to it (obviously this is a factor in it's usefulness, though).
These limitations on parking availability will naturally ensure a limit on automobile use, which is the ultimate goal, and one best achieved (as indicated by the previous toll discussion) by limiting source and destination parking. After all if there's one thing that's evident in this day and age it's that overbuilding roadways and parking creates a constituency that obstructs ever shrinking those structures back to more reasonable levels. The idea that failing to build a parking garage is only a missed opportunity completely ignores that fact.
Planning and the Comprehensive Plan are about the future. Maintaining discourse in a framework from a previous era which was predicated on $.20 gas and a seemingly unending source of fossil fuels seems to be short-sighted. This is an important time for staking out the future of the District. All residents should be encouraged to provide their input to the appropriate offices.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
DDOT to try Pilot Visitor Parking in Ward 3
From ANC 3C:
DDOT is planning to meet with Ward 3 ANCs (at Feb. 19 ANC 3C public meeting) to discuss implementing a one-year pilot program in the ward. The pilot would provide residents on RPP streets one visitor parking pass to be used at any time, but presumably when parking restrictions are in effect and a visitor intends to stay beyond the 2-hour time limit. This pilot would replace the current program that allows residents in RPP zones to secure 2-3 week passes from the police station for a particular vehicle that will be parking beyond the 2-hour time limit.
The pilot would restrict the use of the pass to the relevant ANC boundaries. Residents on non-RPP blocks would not be eligible to participate in the program. Residents who needed more than one pass could secure a one-day pass from the police station. Use of the pass outside the relevant ANC boundaries would be ignored by parking enforcement and the applicable parking rules would be enforced.
This pilot is only for visitors to the ward and neighborhood and it doesn't
change the RPP rules for residents, ie., need for sticker on resident's
vehicle. The pilot also would not exempt vehicles parked for 30 consecutive
days from registration, inspection, and other DC rules applied to out of state vehicles.
The ANCs will hear the presentation on February 19th at Second District MPD, 7:30 PM
DDOT is planning to meet with Ward 3 ANCs (at Feb. 19 ANC 3C public meeting) to discuss implementing a one-year pilot program in the ward. The pilot would provide residents on RPP streets one visitor parking pass to be used at any time, but presumably when parking restrictions are in effect and a visitor intends to stay beyond the 2-hour time limit. This pilot would replace the current program that allows residents in RPP zones to secure 2-3 week passes from the police station for a particular vehicle that will be parking beyond the 2-hour time limit.
The pilot would restrict the use of the pass to the relevant ANC boundaries. Residents on non-RPP blocks would not be eligible to participate in the program. Residents who needed more than one pass could secure a one-day pass from the police station. Use of the pass outside the relevant ANC boundaries would be ignored by parking enforcement and the applicable parking rules would be enforced.
This pilot is only for visitors to the ward and neighborhood and it doesn't
change the RPP rules for residents, ie., need for sticker on resident's
vehicle. The pilot also would not exempt vehicles parked for 30 consecutive
days from registration, inspection, and other DC rules applied to out of state vehicles.
The ANCs will hear the presentation on February 19th at Second District MPD, 7:30 PM
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Parking debates on Listservs
Maybe it is the summer doldrums, or maybe it is the lack of concentrated parking issues when many people are at the beach, but for some reason, parking seems to be a hot topic in both Cleveland Park and Friendship Heights.
In Cleveland Park, the issue seems to stem around residential versus commuter parking in zoned areas, given the proximity of the Metro. Residents are being creative in possible solutions including the creation of sub-zones, alteration of the duration of allowable time, or the creation of visitor passes.
On the Tenleytown Listserv, residents share a similar fate, but are also concerned with the folks are are using the surface parking to shop at Mazza Gallery and other retail along Wisconsin Avenue. The concern is that while there is plenty of available parking, it is dramatically underutilized, according to a recent Friendship Heights Traffic Study(PDF):
Mazza Gallery - 850 Garage Parking Spaces
Weekday AM 20% Utilization
Weekday PM 30% Utilization
Saturday 40% Utilization
Chevy Chase Pavilion - 675 Garage Parking Spaces
Weekday AM 60% Utilization
Weekday PM 80% Utilization
Saturday 50% Utilization
5225 Wisconsin (Bambule/Elizabeth Arden) - 235 Garage Parking Spaces
Weekday AM 80% Utilization
Weekday PM 80% Utilization
Saturday 20% Utilization.
On contributor complained that the existing parking structures are underground and "creepy". This combined with the expense (as compared to public lots in Bethesda, MD) prompted calls for a municipal parking garage in Friendship Heights.
For a group of people who have consistently opposed new development, partially on the basis of traffic issues in the community, this is an odd request. As noted by one commentor:
You believe that the city should spend money acquiring a piece of property and then spending 30 Million plus on a parking garage (and also preclude generating any future property or sales taxes from the lot) so someone can drive...and have cheap, convenient and essentially subsidized parking?
So the question isn't whether there is adaquate parking because there clearly is but whether the public sector should spend money to make parking, and hence driving, easier?
But the same folks who are clamoring for a parking garage are the same people who routinely are complaining about traffic which is clearly contradictory unless you intend to beam the cars into the garage somehow?
It will be interesting to see if the ANC's and City Council pick this issue up again. The last time proved to be too difficult to arrive at any conclusions for best practices going forward.
In Cleveland Park, the issue seems to stem around residential versus commuter parking in zoned areas, given the proximity of the Metro. Residents are being creative in possible solutions including the creation of sub-zones, alteration of the duration of allowable time, or the creation of visitor passes.
On the Tenleytown Listserv, residents share a similar fate, but are also concerned with the folks are are using the surface parking to shop at Mazza Gallery and other retail along Wisconsin Avenue. The concern is that while there is plenty of available parking, it is dramatically underutilized, according to a recent Friendship Heights Traffic Study(PDF):
Mazza Gallery - 850 Garage Parking Spaces
Weekday AM 20% Utilization
Weekday PM 30% Utilization
Saturday 40% Utilization
Chevy Chase Pavilion - 675 Garage Parking Spaces
Weekday AM 60% Utilization
Weekday PM 80% Utilization
Saturday 50% Utilization
5225 Wisconsin (Bambule/Elizabeth Arden) - 235 Garage Parking Spaces
Weekday AM 80% Utilization
Weekday PM 80% Utilization
Saturday 20% Utilization.
On contributor complained that the existing parking structures are underground and "creepy". This combined with the expense (as compared to public lots in Bethesda, MD) prompted calls for a municipal parking garage in Friendship Heights.
For a group of people who have consistently opposed new development, partially on the basis of traffic issues in the community, this is an odd request. As noted by one commentor:
You believe that the city should spend money acquiring a piece of property and then spending 30 Million plus on a parking garage (and also preclude generating any future property or sales taxes from the lot) so someone can drive...and have cheap, convenient and essentially subsidized parking?
So the question isn't whether there is adaquate parking because there clearly is but whether the public sector should spend money to make parking, and hence driving, easier?
But the same folks who are clamoring for a parking garage are the same people who routinely are complaining about traffic which is clearly contradictory unless you intend to beam the cars into the garage somehow?
It will be interesting to see if the ANC's and City Council pick this issue up again. The last time proved to be too difficult to arrive at any conclusions for best practices going forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)