Comments by Washington Regional Network for Livable Communities regarding: Arlington County Integrated Parking Plan Before the Arlington Transportation Commission February 18, 2004 My name is Allen Greenberg and I am honored to testify before this commission today on behalf of the Washington Regional Network for Livable Communities - or WRN. WRN is a non-profit organization that advocates transportation investments, land use policies, and community designs that enhance existing communities and the environment of the Washington, D.C. region. We recognize that how we choose to handle parking in our neighborhoods and commercial corridors will substantially influence the health of our communities and the environment. As a community, Arlington has shown leadership in integrating transportation and land use concerns and is in many ways a model for transit oriented development. Arlington can be justifiably proud that only 7% of its land, located in the Metrorail corridor, provides a major share of the County's tax base. The high and growing rates of transit ridership (balanced over the course of the day), low building vacancy rates, and low property tax rates together suggest that Arlington is doing something right. Still, there is too much driving and congestion in Arlington, harmful parking subsidies remain, and developments are less walkable and affordable than they could and should be because of minimum parking requirements. Parking policies affect all of these issues, and while Arlington has done a commendable job articulating parking-related challenges and thinking about policies to address them, few of the best ideas that have come to fore have been implemented. There is much to like in the draft Arlington County Integrated Parking Plan. It recognizes that: demand management can and should play a key role in maximizing available parking capacity; all-day commuter parking should be discouraged; transportation alternatives including carsharing need to be expanded; one-day scratch-off visitor parking permits should be sold; business improvement districts should be authorized to pilot parking brokerage services where there are concentrations of surplus evening and weekend parking; parking permits should be limited to available curb spaces (although the mechanism for doing the limiting isn't specified); better data collection is needed, including related to determining appropriate market prices (and a realization that one needs to know what one is managing to manage it well); and signage, enforcement, and design control related to parking are all essential. While key ideas that would solve parking woes were raised in public meetings and are included in the draft report, the report shies away from calling for their implementation if any controversy surrounds them. The most innovative ideas are never without controversy and Arlington will never be at the forefront of innovation, nor will it ever solve its parking and development related challenges, if it isn't willing to take at least a few measures that some people oppose. Charging for on-street parking to match demand, including charging for residential parking permits if demand for curb spaces exceeds supply and recycling the revenues back into the community, having neighborhoods with an abundance of parking supply "rent out" their unused parking, and unbundling development and parking requirements are among the ideas that, while controversial to some, are worthy of implementation. On the site level, it appears from the draft integrated parking plan that progressive ideas are sometimes being implemented, such as parking costs being unbundled from leases and sales; liberal use of density bonuses for affordable housing, pedestrian connections and bicycle facilities, and market-rate parking charges; the provision of shared parking; and the designation of short-term metered spaces in and around certain developments. While even occasional implementation of such ideas is commendable, public policies must guide the best ideas into routine implementation. We need to use pricing and market mechanisms to manage curb space-an asset that belongs to all Arlingtonians. Such a system would be politically achievable if we guarantee better service for everybody, design it to be equitable, and are judicious and transparent in our use of revenues. The report fails to call for the elimination of Arlington's worst parking policies. Once on-street parking is well managed through the use of zoning and charges, and this is a necessity, there simply is no need to continue minimum parking requirements, which currently call for between one and 2.2 parking spaces per home. Arlington is choosing to prioritize convenient, subsidized car parking over affordable housing. Each required parking spot increases, by as much as $30,000, the cost of new housing and takes up valuable space in desirable neighborhoods that could be used to provide desperately needed housing and other community amenities. With minimum parking requirements, we demand more housing for cars and less housing for people than the market would otherwise provide. We would never consider requiring developers contemplating building a parking garage to build a certain number of housing units or commercial dwelling for every parking space they build, but we routinely tell those who build housing and commercial space that they must build parking too. Thank you for this opportunity to testify and to address the challenges we face in making Arlington a better place through better parking management. We commend Arlington for its open, participatory process in updating its parking policies. I welcome any questions and speak for WRN in pledging our continued constructive involvement in this process.