Alexandria on the Cusp of Eliminating All SFH Zoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I honestly don't understand how having fewer parking spaces per unit is supposed to work until DASH service is improved. My kids take it to school and home from sports and to their weekend jobs, and the waits can be really long at times. I can't see it being a viable option for many adults.


Parking induces driving. If you make it easy to park a second/third/etc... vehicle, then people will buy those vehicles.

But that's my whole point. If you don't improve bus service, people are still likely going to pick driving, even if they have to search for street parking for the car.

DP. If parking is more inconvenient, people are less likely to have a(nother) vehicle and also less likely to use that vehicle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand how having fewer parking spaces per unit is supposed to work until DASH service is improved. My kids take it to school and home from sports and to their weekend jobs, and the waits can be really long at times. I can't see it being a viable option for many adults.

Parking induces driving. If you make it easy to park a second/third/etc... vehicle, then people will buy those vehicles. Then trips that could have been carpool/bus/walking/bike get turned into car trips because the spare car is available.

This is a bit like arguing that cutting taxes on the rich results in more jobs because they have more money to invest, and yet I'm certain you don't believe that.

It's not like that at all. Everyone seems to understand the "people choose not to go by bus because it's inconvenient" argument without any problems, but the "people choose not to go by car because it's inconvenient" argument is surprisingly difficult for a surprising number of people to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Failing schools, imploding commercial real estate, and murders are not quite enough to destroy Alexandria, so the Council is a freight train about to vote on Tuesday to eliminate all SFH zoning. Yay.

Hooray!

Don't worry, OP, they are not eliminating detached one-unit residential buildings. They are simply eliminating zoning that bans everything except detached one-unit residential buildings. Property owners - like you - will now have more options for your property.

I don’t want more options. I want decent schools, adequate sewers, and fewer shootings.

If you don't want more options for your property, that's fine. They are options, not requirements.

It is about the community that one lives not just the parcel of property one lives on. Local government is meaningless otherwise.

The community elected the local government that is making the decisions.

+10000

Love reading the comments from the hypocrites on BIBA who voted for these people. "We're outta here in 2024".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand how having fewer parking spaces per unit is supposed to work until DASH service is improved. My kids take it to school and home from sports and to their weekend jobs, and the waits can be really long at times. I can't see it being a viable option for many adults.

Parking induces driving. If you make it easy to park a second/third/etc... vehicle, then people will buy those vehicles. Then trips that could have been carpool/bus/walking/bike get turned into car trips because the spare car is available.

This is a bit like arguing that cutting taxes on the rich results in more jobs because they have more money to invest, and yet I'm certain you don't believe that.

It's not like that at all. Everyone seems to understand the "people choose not to go by bus because it's inconvenient" argument without any problems, but the "people choose not to go by car because it's inconvenient" argument is surprisingly difficult for a surprising number of people to understand.

Cars are a bajillion times more convenient than any other mode of transportation (which is why they're so popular), and making parking more difficult isn't going to change that. If you make it harder to park in one area, people will just go somewhere else. They have cars! It's easy to skip across town. This notion that people will give up their cars and start riding bikes or the bus if you just make it hard to park is nonsense (and belied by the data -- biking remains wildly unpopular, and bus ridership is lower than it was 20 years ago).

[Anonymous]

The velo lobby had entered the chat. Surprise surprise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand how having fewer parking spaces per unit is supposed to work until DASH service is improved. My kids take it to school and home from sports and to their weekend jobs, and the waits can be really long at times. I can't see it being a viable option for many adults.

Parking induces driving. If you make it easy to park a second/third/etc... vehicle, then people will buy those vehicles. Then trips that could have been carpool/bus/walking/bike get turned into car trips because the spare car is available.

This is a bit like arguing that cutting taxes on the rich results in more jobs because they have more money to invest, and yet I'm certain you don't believe that.

It's not like that at all. Everyone seems to understand the "people choose not to go by bus because it's inconvenient" argument without any problems, but the "people choose not to go by car because it's inconvenient" argument is surprisingly difficult for a surprising number of people to understand.

Cars are a bajillion times more convenient than any other mode of transportation (which is why they're so popular), and making parking more difficult isn't going to change that. If you make it harder to park in one area, people will just go somewhere else. They have cars! It's easy to skip across town. This notion that people will give up their cars and start riding bikes or the bus if you just make it hard to park is nonsense (and belied by the data -- biking remains wildly unpopular, and bus ridership is lower than it was 20 years ago).

The data says the opposite:

"Cheap, excessive parking has been linked to more drive-alone commutes, worse traffic congestion, higher rents, and all the other social costs of over-reliance on cars for urban mobility."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-12/study-the-strongest-evidence-yet-that-abudant-parking-causes-more-driving

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand how having fewer parking spaces per unit is supposed to work until DASH service is improved. My kids take it to school and home from sports and to their weekend jobs, and the waits can be really long at times. I can't see it being a viable option for many adults.

Parking induces driving. If you make it easy to park a second/third/etc... vehicle, then people will buy those vehicles. Then trips that could have been carpool/bus/walking/bike get turned into car trips because the spare car is available.

This is a bit like arguing that cutting taxes on the rich results in more jobs because they have more money to invest, and yet I'm certain you don't believe that.

It's not like that at all. Everyone seems to understand the "people choose not to go by bus because it's inconvenient" argument without any problems, but the "people choose not to go by car because it's inconvenient" argument is surprisingly difficult for a surprising number of people to understand.

Cars are a bajillion times more convenient than any other mode of transportation (which is why they're so popular), and making parking more difficult isn't going to change that. If you make it harder to park in one area, people will just go somewhere else. They have cars! It's easy to skip across town. This notion that people will give up their cars and start riding bikes or the bus if you just make it hard to park is nonsense (and belied by the data -- biking remains wildly unpopular, and bus ridership is lower than it was 20 years ago).

Your assertions are factually incorrect, and also irrelevant to the topic, which is housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand how having fewer parking spaces per unit is supposed to work until DASH service is improved. My kids take it to school and home from sports and to their weekend jobs, and the waits can be really long at times. I can't see it being a viable option for many adults.

Parking induces driving. If you make it easy to park a second/third/etc... vehicle, then people will buy those vehicles. Then trips that could have been carpool/bus/walking/bike get turned into car trips because the spare car is available.

This is a bit like arguing that cutting taxes on the rich results in more jobs because they have more money to invest, and yet I'm certain you don't believe that.

It's not like that at all. Everyone seems to understand the "people choose not to go by bus because it's inconvenient" argument without any problems, but the "people choose not to go by car because it's inconvenient" argument is surprisingly difficult for a surprising number of people to understand.

Cars are a bajillion times more convenient than any other mode of transportation (which is why they're so popular), and making parking more difficult isn't going to change that. If you make it harder to park in one area, people will just go somewhere else. They have cars! It's easy to skip across town. This notion that people will give up their cars and start riding bikes or the bus if you just make it hard to park is nonsense (and belied by the data -- biking remains wildly unpopular, and bus ridership is lower than it was 20 years ago).

The data says the opposite:

"Cheap, excessive parking has been linked to more drive-alone commutes, worse traffic congestion, higher rents, and all the other social costs of over-reliance on cars for urban mobility."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-12/study-the-strongest-evidence-yet-that-abudant-parking-causes-more-driving

Uh, no it doesnt. Bus ridership is in the toilet. Biking is the least popular mode of transportation in the DMV, other than scooters. Subway ridership is so bad Metro is talking about dramatic cuts in service. But cars are everywhere and only getting more popular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't have a problem with the zoning changes, but I do have a problem with no transparency and wasting time and money. If the end goal is to truly make what HUD defines as affordable housing to people who would qualify under the regs, then the focus should be on enhancing and supporting programs that actually attract developers to commit to this. I see NONE of that being discussed.

But it wasn't. That was not the end goal of this particular zoning change. Which is probably why you didn't see any of it being discussed.

The goal is to increase the number of affordable housing by either decreasing the cost of housing (make prices go down) or increase supply of housing that is affordable by building new units. I am not sure you understand what affordable housing means. It is a term of art in the housing industry, defined by HUD. It doesn't mean only section 8. It doesn't mean only one kind of housing. City Council knows this. You should know this. YIMBY knows this. If there is no definition of affordable, and it is a completely subjective term, then what are we even doing here.

No. The goal is to contribute to more accessible and available housing opportunities in the city by increasing the types of dwellings – two to four units in one building – in the single-family zones and allowing the building code to determine occupancy numbers.

https://www.alexandriava.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/Zoning-for-Housing-TA-Summary-Document-20231002.pdf

If PP is wrong, don’t tell our Mayor. He made that exact argument several times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand how having fewer parking spaces per unit is supposed to work until DASH service is improved. My kids take it to school and home from sports and to their weekend jobs, and the waits can be really long at times. I can't see it being a viable option for many adults.

Parking induces driving. If you make it easy to park a second/third/etc... vehicle, then people will buy those vehicles. Then trips that could have been carpool/bus/walking/bike get turned into car trips because the spare car is available.

This is a bit like arguing that cutting taxes on the rich results in more jobs because they have more money to invest, and yet I'm certain you don't believe that.

It's not like that at all. Everyone seems to understand the "people choose not to go by bus because it's inconvenient" argument without any problems, but the "people choose not to go by car because it's inconvenient" argument is surprisingly difficult for a surprising number of people to understand.

Cars are a bajillion times more convenient than any other mode of transportation (which is why they're so popular), and making parking more difficult isn't going to change that. If you make it harder to park in one area, people will just go somewhere else. They have cars! It's easy to skip across town. This notion that people will give up their cars and start riding bikes or the bus if you just make it hard to park is nonsense (and belied by the data -- biking remains wildly unpopular, and bus ridership is lower than it was 20 years ago).

The data says the opposite:

"Cheap, excessive parking has been linked to more drive-alone commutes, worse traffic congestion, higher rents, and all the other social costs of over-reliance on cars for urban mobility."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-12/study-the-strongest-evidence-yet-that-abudant-parking-causes-more-driving

Uh, no it doesnt. Bus ridership is in the toilet. Biking is the least popular mode of transportation in the DMV, other than scooters. Subway ridership is so bad Metro is talking about dramatic cuts in service. But cars are everywhere and only getting more popular.

I come with a source and you come with bald assertions. Cool.

Have you looked into the overall decline in drivers license applications?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand how having fewer parking spaces per unit is supposed to work until DASH service is improved. My kids take it to school and home from sports and to their weekend jobs, and the waits can be really long at times. I can't see it being a viable option for many adults.

Parking induces driving. If you make it easy to park a second/third/etc... vehicle, then people will buy those vehicles. Then trips that could have been carpool/bus/walking/bike get turned into car trips because the spare car is available.

Lack of parking per unit does not reduce vehicle reliance where street parking is readily available, as is the case for most of ALX outside of Old Town.

Efficient, reliable mass transit, as PP pointed out, can reduce the reliance on vehicles.

[Anonymous]

Good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand how having fewer parking spaces per unit is supposed to work until DASH service is improved. My kids take it to school and home from sports and to their weekend jobs, and the waits can be really long at times. I can't see it being a viable option for many adults.

Parking induces driving. If you make it easy to park a second/third/etc... vehicle, then people will buy those vehicles. Then trips that could have been carpool/bus/walking/bike get turned into car trips because the spare car is available.

Lack of parking per unit does not reduce vehicle reliance where street parking is readily available, as is the case for most of ALX outside of Old Town.

Efficient, reliable mass transit, as PP pointed out, can reduce the reliance on vehicles.

If street parking is ready available, why are people so concerned that the 2-4 plexes won't have enough on-site parking for their residents' cars, and the residents will instead park their cars on the street?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand how having fewer parking spaces per unit is supposed to work until DASH service is improved. My kids take it to school and home from sports and to their weekend jobs, and the waits can be really long at times. I can't see it being a viable option for many adults.

Parking induces driving. If you make it easy to park a second/third/etc... vehicle, then people will buy those vehicles. Then trips that could have been carpool/bus/walking/bike get turned into car trips because the spare car is available.

Lack of parking per unit does not reduce vehicle reliance where street parking is readily available, as is the case for most of ALX outside of Old Town.

Efficient, reliable mass transit, as PP pointed out, can reduce the reliance on vehicles.

You know what helps make mass transit efficient and reliable? When there are more people living in a given area. For example, if duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes are allowed in an area where previously only uniplexes were allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand how having fewer parking spaces per unit is supposed to work until DASH service is improved. My kids take it to school and home from sports and to their weekend jobs, and the waits can be really long at times. I can't see it being a viable option for many adults.

Parking induces driving. If you make it easy to park a second/third/etc... vehicle, then people will buy those vehicles. Then trips that could have been carpool/bus/walking/bike get turned into car trips because the spare car is available.

Lack of parking per unit does not reduce vehicle reliance where street parking is readily available, as is the case for most of ALX outside of Old Town.

Efficient, reliable mass transit, as PP pointed out, can reduce the reliance on vehicles.

You know what helps make mass transit efficient and reliable? When there are more people living in a given area. For example, if duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes are allowed in an area where previously only uniplexes were allowed.

Really? So the presence of those housing types solves hiring issues for transit providers and reduces delays in schedules times?