Transit on Thursday: The Zoning and Parking Edition
Here's a question: if you have access to a car, have you ever driven it to the DCUSA complex? Or how about your local supermarket?
If you have, chances are that it was under abnormal conditions - you were purchasing a whole boatload of bulky items, or you were running late to a party across town and needed to stop off for something to bring. We'd bet good money that your experiences with parking at these places is a lot like Marc Fisher's, or David Alpert's, or Rob Goodspeed's - that is to say, there's an awful lot of empty spaces. But the District's zoning requirement which forces new developments to build parking lots that often go woefully unused could soon be coming to an end.
The current zoning rules (PDF), which have been in place since 1958, requires builders to go through a complex set of calculations depending on the type of operation they run in order to quantify the minimum number of spaces they must create on their property. The changes to the code would remove that requirement.
It seems like common sense to us. The reduction in space devoted to cars certainly has great potential. Fewer required spaces for parking means more space for dense, mixed-use building. Financially, having to include parking spaces (which can cost as much as $40,000 a piece) presents a significant cost barrier to developers, who often times will never see that money back. The current code is unkind to new potential development, practically presenting builders with a hefty bill before they even open - never mind the potential delays involved in creating such space, or the built-in costs consumers are forced to pay for residences that automatically come with a parking space they may or may not use.
Photo by maxedaperture
It's important to note that the proposal wouldn't force developers to stop building parking lots - it would just no longer be a requirement.
If you need an example of a successful project that didn't (at least initially) include parking, look at Nationals Park. The new stadium's first few weeks were mostly parking-free, and people managed to get there successfully. In fact, Metro and the Nats did such a good job of promoting taking transit to the ballpark, that when the parking lots did open, they sat mostly vacant - strikingly similar to other such lots that have been recently built.
A Zoning Commission Hearing will take place next Thursday, October 16, to discuss the proposed changes in policy. If you're planning on going, details and materials to review before the meeting can be found here.
It's understandable that people who drive into D.C. consistently might be upset about this change. But think about your answer to the question at the beginning of this post - how much would it really affect you if new developments around town used Metro and biking exclusively to bring in business and people? We know that there's a great many of you in the commentariat who drive regularly - how would the (assumed) decrease in parking affect your tendencies to go to places inside the city? Let us know in the comments.
Good News In Cycle-Land: Here's some positive news that we missed last week: WashCycle posted a pair of reports which indicate that not only are people riding their bikes more places, but they're also combining their usage of mass transit with their love for two-wheeled transportation. According to the two reports, Metro is planning on increasing the amount of bike parking near Metro stations that are seeing an uptick across the system, from Cleveland Park to Falls Church to Silver Spring.
In addition, SmartBike is off to a smashing start - so smashing, in fact, that Montgomery County is thinking about implementing a bike sharing system of its own. We'd love to see more bike-sharing programs, as long as they're somewhat intertwined - much in the way that Metrobuses and RideOn buses can be shared with a SmartTrip card.
Of course, with so many more people on the road, we're always sure to remind people to wear a helmet and bike safely - WABA is trying to work with MPD and the Council to get more safeguards in place, but sometimes the best offense is a good defense.
"Brown" Line Prods Historical Look At Metro Maps: Last night was the Rider Advisory Committee meeting concerning the proposed Blue line split, for now dubbed the 'Brown line,' which would divert some trains from the Blue line to help the burgeoning ridership on the Yellow line into the city's center. The proposal has prodded some discussion about Metro's past, current, and future maps over at Greater Greater Washington - necessary reading if you're a nerd for both transit and maps. Frankly, I've always thought that the lines on Metro's map were always too thick. A similarly thick brown line mushed next to the Blue and Yellow lines would be fairly unappealing for us locals and downright confusing for tourists. The case can be made to just keep the Yellow moniker, as GGW quite thoroughly suggests. (Or WMATA, just, you know, make the lines one-third thinner. We don't have to go crazy like New York or anything. Just a little trim, that's all.)
Engines and Cabooses: Eric Weiss is often hit or miss, but this report about the true cost of congested traffic is completely on the mark... Transitway to connect Shady Grove Metro station to points northwest will be delayed for years to come... Just in time to celebrate the station's 100th birthday, plans for security and pedestrian improvements to Union Station got the OK... As economy declines, all three local airports are seeing fewer passengers... How much station art can you recognize? We got about five - slightly disappointing, if you ask us.