Thread by @ncoxbarrett

After a brief break to gather some public comment, ZOAC is BACK to discuss Reforming our costly parking mandates!

We have a new ZOAC member joining us today, Jennifer Rangel of the @ICPDallas!

Today is a recap of the public engagement comments.

By my own count, we had about 2/3 comments in favor of dropping parking requirements while about 1/3 were "concerns".

Lots of good comments, especially about how parking requirements distort our transportation choices.

More in the "concern category". Mostly things like areas with bad transit still need parking.

Note: THERE WILL STILL BE PARKING. Nobody is going to build something without parking if there are no choices besides driving.

Still baffled by the idea that we must have perfect public transportation to remove costly parking mandates.

ZOAC Member Rangel: Comments about transit users stand out to her. Many of these people already don't have a car (including herself).

Love to see a transit user represented!

ZOAC Behring: Appreciated comments about other city goals, NCTCOG, City, and CECAP goals about how these parking policy changes would align and contribute to these goals.

ZOAC Bagley: Says removing costly parking mandates won't make people in transit-poor area stop driving. Says our transit isn't there no matter what we do with parking.

Note: AHHHHHHHHHH. How do get people to divorce the idea of parking EXISTING from parking being REQUIRED?

Continued: Costly parking mandates=transit service is degraded. Removing parking mandates doesn't mean "everyone will take transit" but instead "remove the required expectation that everyone drives".

ZOAC Rieves: People who shared concerns: didn't hear anyone say the status quo was fine. Says people mentioned downtown where parking is not required (not true, new buildings require it) and these changes won't open up parking garages to shared use due to liability.

ZOAC Hall: Pleased to hear so much positive feedback from the public (note: thanks so much for everyone who spoke!). Also wants to think about unintended consequences.

Note: Costly parking mandates introduced the unintended consequences away from the natural result,

CPC Johnson: Doesn't favor an incremental approach as it won't make much change in long run. Notes we are not removing parking, we're just removing the req. to provide parking.

Also our regulations shape the results and behaviors and makes city more favorable to transit successs

CPC Johnson continued: If we know the solution, why would we take an incremental approach? Doesn't understand why we'd do it.

Hear hear!

Staff Udrea responds: We have to define our goal and then we can regulate towards that end. Does say we are too focused on numbers/ratios of parking. We can change discussion from a quantity to a quality discussion. We've already tried incremental approaches (PDs and downtown).

Staff continues: but we've never gotten away from number of spaces and instead thought about having a different city.

Note: I'll go further and say Costly Parking Mandates are bad policy no matter your location, mode share, city goals, transit options, topography, or weather. They are a regulation searching for a problem to solve.

Staff Udrea: A brief history of parking requirements in Dallas. We've been giving up our walkable city incrementally to a car oriented city incrementally for decades. We've tried the incremental approach to tinkering with the code.

Shares some other cities that have taken a more aggressive approaches with no minimums, starting decades ago.

Note: All of these cities still have a lot of parking.

Staff Udrea: Challenges to ask ZOAC if we want to set the next 20 years of policy with a tiny change or whether we can set more ambitious goals for the city. The cities above started 20 years ago and have made only small progress. If we reform today, we are decades from change.

CPC MacGregor: Dropping parking requirements just sets a baseline from which we can make further reforms to adapt. Also says of those who think it's too abrupt, he disagrees. These changes can be reversed if needed. We can also observe what others have done and see it's been fine

MacGregor cont: Nothing we're discussing is controversial among the experts on this topic, even though it may be among citizens. Supports a comprehensive, not incremental, reform.

CPC Johnson concurs: The experts are universally aligned in the benefits of parking reform. The public may be shocked, but those who have delved deep and studied it, know this is the right approach.

Note: Branding like "Market-based parking" or "Responsive Parking" may help.

Johnson continues: It offends him to think that we would require the whole city to provide subsidized parking when our most vulnerable and low-income citizens don't even have cars.

I'm feeling the parking reform love with 2 CPC members (who will also be votes when this goes to the Commission for a recommendation) favoring strong reform efforts!

ZOAC Behring: We've been a little distracted. We've talked a lot about number of spaces and walkability, but our discussion is really around what we are requiring in the code. All we're discussing is removing requirements not physically adding/removing spaces.

Staff Moorman: Next step will be to discuss bringing in design standards for parking to the code.

CPC MacGregor asks when we think a proposal will come to CPC.

Staff Moorman: We need to cover design standards and transit adjacency. Then preparing a formal proposal. Should have a proposed schedule in the near future.

That's a wrap! Yay parking reform!