Moco’s glass introducing bill to limit parking near public transit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And yet we put bus stops 300 feet apart because otherwise it's too far to walk.

The idea that, if you make parking hard, people will switch to bikes or scooters or whatever from cars is just nutty. No one is going to do that. They'll just go elsewhere. All these kinds of projects do is just change the demographics of who lives there. People with kids or who otherwise need cars go elsewhere and people who don't need cars (invariably, childless white people in their 20s and 30s) will come in.

The idea for this bill is simply to not require developers to provide parking for housing near Metro stations. Developers would still be free to choose to provide parking. People would still be free to choose not to live somewhere without parking.

And actually, there is plenty of evidence that people with cars do, indeed, choose to use non-car transportation when it's more difficult or expensive to park, but choose to drive when it's easy and cheap to park.

The bill should provide that if parking-lite or parking less developments are built, (1) the development will get no zoned street parking rights and (2) the developer shall be required to pass along the cost savings of not providing off street parking in the form of lower rents or unit purchase prices. Otherwise the bill is simply a gift to developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think people who live in condos are regularly shopping at Costco?

They surely shop at aldi once a week when they get paid and need to get to a cheaper store like aldi or hmart to stock up. Many cindi dwellers have multiple jobs so they cant spend an hour in transit on thei limited off time. Fund more frequent and safe transit first. Then eliminate parking.

Damn you, Poe's Law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And yet we put bus stops 300 feet apart because otherwise it's too far to walk.

The idea that, if you make parking hard, people will switch to bikes or scooters or whatever from cars is just nutty. No one is going to do that. They'll just go elsewhere. All these kinds of projects do is just change the demographics of who lives there. People with kids or who otherwise need cars go elsewhere and people who don't need cars (invariably, childless white people in their 20s and 30s) will come in.

The idea for this bill is simply to not require developers to provide parking for housing near Metro stations. Developers would still be free to choose to provide parking. People would still be free to choose not to live somewhere without parking.

And actually, there is plenty of evidence that people with cars do, indeed, choose to use non-car transportation when it's more difficult or expensive to park, but choose to drive when it's easy and cheap to park.

The bill should provide that if parking-lite or parking less developments are built, (1) the development will get no zoned street parking rights and (2) the developer shall be required to pass along the cost savings of not providing off street parking in the form of lower rents or unit purchase prices. Otherwise the bill is simply a gift to developers.

We should also have a law that if you have a garage, you should not be allowed to park on the street - it's double-dipping!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think people who live in condos are regularly shopping at Costco?

My neighbor buys eight boxes of adult diapers at a time for his wife at Costco.

[Anonymous]

We also need to limit private bathrooms in housing near public transit. If you really cared about the housing crisis, we're require new construction to only be communal apartments with multiple families sharing bathrooms and kitchens and hallways. That way we could squeeze in way more people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m all for it. Enough with the cars and the fools who drive them. Use the space for parks, pedestrian areas, retail, whatever. The world does not need more parking!

People need cars. Deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And yet we put bus stops 300 feet apart because otherwise it's too far to walk.

The idea that, if you make parking hard, people will switch to bikes or scooters or whatever from cars is just nutty. No one is going to do that. They'll just go elsewhere. All these kinds of projects do is just change the demographics of who lives there. People with kids or who otherwise need cars go elsewhere and people who don't need cars (invariably, childless white people in their 20s and 30s) will come in.

The idea for this bill is simply to not require developers to provide parking for housing near Metro stations. Developers would still be free to choose to provide parking. People would still be free to choose not to live somewhere without parking.

And actually, there is plenty of evidence that people with cars do, indeed, choose to use non-car transportation when it's more difficult or expensive to park, but choose to drive when it's easy and cheap to park.

The bill should provide that if parking-lite or parking less developments are built, (1) the development will get no zoned street parking rights and (2) the developer shall be required to pass along the cost savings of not providing off street parking in the form of lower rents or unit purchase prices. Otherwise the bill is simply a gift to developers.

We should also have a law that if you have a garage, you should not be allowed to park on the street - it's double-dipping!

And if you have a 1 car garage and 2 cars?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m all for it. Enough with the cars and the fools who drive them. Use the space for parks, pedestrian areas, retail, whatever. The world does not need more parking!

Yes screw those mobility impaired people and families with multiple young children. Make them all live as shut ins! /s

[Anonymous]

I am assuming both commercial and residential developers will build based on their customer demand rather than a law that says they might build less. If I can never find parking near your store, I am probably not going. Fine if you have a customer base without me but I live 1 mile from the metro. I use it to go into DC frequently. I do not walk 7 minutes to a bus that runs only every 30 mins to take a 20 minute bus ride transfer to an other bus to get to Target and then reverse to go home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And yet we put bus stops 300 feet apart because otherwise it's too far to walk.

The idea that, if you make parking hard, people will switch to bikes or scooters or whatever from cars is just nutty. No one is going to do that. They'll just go elsewhere. All these kinds of projects do is just change the demographics of who lives there. People with kids or who otherwise need cars go elsewhere and people who don't need cars (invariably, childless white people in their 20s and 30s) will come in.

The idea for this bill is simply to not require developers to provide parking for housing near Metro stations. Developers would still be free to choose to provide parking. People would still be free to choose not to live somewhere without parking.

And actually, there is plenty of evidence that people with cars do, indeed, choose to use non-car transportation when it's more difficult or expensive to park, but choose to drive when it's easy and cheap to park.

The bill should provide that if parking-lite or parking less developments are built, (1) the development will get no zoned street parking rights and (2) the developer shall be required to pass along the cost savings of not providing off street parking in the form of lower rents or unit purchase prices. Otherwise the bill is simply a gift to developers.

We should also have a law that if you have a garage, you should not be allowed to park on the street - it's double-dipping!

Should a developer be able to add a 200 unit complex without parking and simply add all of those additional vehicles to nearby streets (that may already be above capacity)? And for anyone who claims that this would be unfair to all of the new residents (who won't need parking because they'll take public transit), won't they be getting an offsetting benefit in cheaper prices from the savings that the developer passes along to them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

Using transit (for example, Metro or a bus), their feet, a bike or e-bike, an e-scooter, a taxi, a ridehailing service, a rental vehicle, and/or delivery. How is this even a question?

What's more, the proposal would not forbid developers from providing parking spaces, and also would not require people to live in units without parking spaces. So if the developers were worried that people would be unable to shop without having a parking space, all they would have to do is: provide parking spaces. Similarly, if potential residents were worried that they would be unable to shop without having a parking space, all they would have to do is: not move there.

Are you seriously suggesting that the county must continue to require developers to provide parking spaces for condo units within one-half mile of a Metro or Purple Line station (a 10-minute walk) or within a quarter mile of a bus rapid transit station (a 5-minute walk), because otherwise people will be unable to escape from domestic abusers?

There are currently, right now, plenty of people in Montgomery County who don't own a car. If you don't know any, then it might be a good idea for you to get out more and meet some.

https://www.mymcmedia.org/council-considers-reducing-parking-requirements-for-new-housing/

Poor people, generally poor Black people, don't own cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m all for it. Enough with the cars and the fools who drive them. Use the space for parks, pedestrian areas, retail, whatever. The world does not need more parking!

You know you can support these measures without sounding so damn ableist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll need to read this bill myself but this sounds discriminatory or eliteist (I’m searching for the right word). How are the people supposed to get to work, shop, visit family, go to places not accessible to metro? It does not seem like a well thought out bill. It seems like a pat yourself on the back bill.

You know how, when you're driving around in your car, and you look through your windshield, you sometimes see people out and about who aren't in cars? Have you ever asked yourself what those people are doing?

Not taking their two kids to daycare before heading to work? Not doing a big grocery shop for a family of 4?
Or do just expect the poors to have 2 hour commutes between dropping off their children to school/daycare before heading to work?
I bet you are one of those cyclists that have their wife to do all the labor so you can get into your spandex and ride to work.

[Anonymous]

I think proposals like this only work if the residents are forbidden from registering cars in the state. What happens is that they all park a couple of blocks down and parking gets horrendous for everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am assuming both commercial and residential developers will build based on their customer demand rather than a law that says they might build less. If I can never find parking near your store, I am probably not going. Fine if you have a customer base without me but I live 1 mile from the metro. I use it to go into DC frequently. I do not walk 7 minutes to a bus that runs only every 30 mins to take a 20 minute bus ride transfer to an other bus to get to Target and then reverse to go home.

Exactly. Let them build based on their customer demand. Currently they are not allowed to do that; they have to build based on government requirements.