Good morning
- Lon Anderson of AAA and neighborhood activist Sue Hemberger argue against removing parking minimums. They blame bike facilities for making parking more difficult.
- "Curbside parking is already limited and, as the D.C. Department of Transportation acknowledges, will become scarcer as roads are reconfigured to accommodate streetcars and cyclists" Curbside parking is limited - as it is everywhere in the world because space is finite - but it might not be scarcer if other facilities are added. Even if there are fewer parking spaces if more people bike and take transit, then they'll be less competition too.
- "Residents frequently ride Metro, bike and walk, but many of us also own cars. And the less we drive, the more we park." No. If driving becomes infrequent enough, we can sell our cars and rely on walking, biking, transit and car sharing.
- "Why not simply avoid the problem by retaining the requirement that new buildings include some off-street parking spaces?" Because it forces non-car owners to subsidize car owners.
- "There’s a stark choice: Should we use zoning policy to make it difficult for people to drive into the city? Or should we use it to accommodate cars in ways that preserve a walkable urban fabric while minimizing the hassle, congestion and emissions associated with finding parking?" Stark or false?
- WABA will host a bike ride and party during the National Women's Biking Forum.
About 40 percent of D.C. residents don't even own cars. Car ownership rates are much higher among residents of the more distant suburbs, but that's their choice to live farther out.
Posted by: Michael H. | February 09, 2013 at 07:59 PM
we SHOULD accommodate cars, and the need to park - by ALLOWING developers to build parking IF they choose. The supporters of parking minimums are doing the rhetorical trick of implying that eliminating parking minimums (in SOME areas) is equivalent to banning or limiting parking, which it is not.
Posted by: aCyclistIntheSuburbs | February 09, 2013 at 08:02 PM
If you really want to make it easier for suburbanites to drive into the city, reduce the number of spots covered by residential parking, and turn them into metered spaces available to all who pay. Its got nothing to do with parking minimums - someone driving in from fairfax can't park at an apt buildings garage.
Posted by: aCyclistIntheSuburbs | February 09, 2013 at 08:05 PM
Road space is to precious to let cars that aren't even moving sit there.
Posted by: Jack Cochrane | February 09, 2013 at 09:15 PM
She actually cares little about the car issue. She cares about making it more expensive for developers so there is less new development in her neighborhood in Ward 3. Oh, the stories I could tell about how she has tried to quash new building. She sees the elimination of parking minimums as something that will spark a lot of new development.
BTW: She may not drive but she is driven - lives near me and has her husband drive her.
Posted by: Ward 3 Guy | February 10, 2013 at 12:30 AM
Free socialized car storage -- it's an entitlement in the Constitution somewhere, isn't it?
Posted by: Greenbelt | February 10, 2013 at 09:24 AM
It is interesting (and bad reporting, IMO) that the article makes it clear why Lon Anderson is speaking (spewing) out, but Sue Hemberger's agenda isn't clear at all.
Posted by: Jonathan Krall | February 10, 2013 at 06:40 PM
Oops! I should have said "misleading writing" instead of "bad reporting", since it was Lon and Sue who wrote the piece.
Posted by: Jonathan Krall | February 10, 2013 at 06:42 PM
"the less we drive, the more we park"
They actually wrote that?
The less you drive, the less you park, geniuses.
Posted by: me | February 11, 2013 at 09:11 AM
AAA assumes that everyone has a car, so a car not being used by the owner is one being parked. Car sharing, or alternative methods of transport, do not exist for "real people"
Posted by: SJE | February 12, 2013 at 02:05 PM