For other articles on parking, see: Parking in Arcata — Selected Articles
See also: Moi comes to Washington, D.C. for an Ecuadorian Amazon indigenous person’s view of how many cars we have.
Colin Fiske on parking policies in the General Plan
This is a segment of the letter sent by Colin Fiske to the City Council and Planning Commission, February 11, 2024.
We can note that Colin Fiske has written about reducing the parking MINIMUMS — to eliminate the minimum amount of parking required. That is, to make the minimum be zero. He makes no mention of marking MAXIMUMS.
Colin wrote “The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the documents also clearly states that the city will eliminate parking minimums citywide.” (I added the bold.)
This is not a true statement. Actually, the draft EIR quotes the draft General Plan 2045 Policy CM-6c (twice, and mentions it once). That policy states that Arcata “should continue to specify maximum parking requirements for new development and eliminate minimum parking requirements.”
As every planner knows, there is a big difference between will do something and should do something. The draft EIR does not state that the city will eliminate parking minimums citywide.
We can also note that much of Colin Fiske’s presentation of the need for less parking has to do with having the streets have fewer cars, and for there being less driving. Less pollution, less congestion, better public transit, and a more walkable and bikeable city are concepts that all of us can agree with and support.
What’s missing
What’s missing in Colin Fiske’s continued presentations on providing better bike paths and less congested roadways is the question: Even if people drive less — How many people, realistically, are going to not own a car?
Certainly reducing car ownership by, say, 5% is better than not reducing car ownership at all. But will this make a real difference in the how cars are owned in Arcata? I don’t think so.
It is my belief that, for at least the next 20 years, people will continue to own cars. And if people cannot park their cars in an off-street space near where they live, then they will simply park in a space on the street.
And with the reduction of street parking in Arcata — particularly in the Gateway area — this will have the effect of having more driving and more congestion. People will be out there driving around while looking for a parking space — a place to park their car for the night.
Having less congestion in the downtown and populated areas of Arcata is great. But as long as people own cars, they will need to park them somewhere.
I hate what the presence of cars has done to our planet and, essentially, to our lives. “Hate” is a strong word, and I don’t use it lightly. But, like or not, we have cars, we own them, and we use them. And even if we use cars only infrequently, we still have them. And they have to be put somewhere when they’re not being used.
Here is a conversation between a US journalist and Ecuadorian Amazon indigenous person, on the number of cars we have here. For the full article, see Moi comes to Washington, D.C.
“There are so many cars,” he said. “How long have they been here? A million years?”
“Much less.”
“A thousand years?”
“No. Eighty, perhaps.”
He was silent then, and after a while he asked, “What will you do in ten more years? In ten years, your world will be pure metal. Did your god do this?”
Colin Fiske letter
Segment on General Plan parking policies
Ensure Consistency with New Parking Policies
The latest draft documents also reflect Planning Commission recommendations to remove all minimum parking mandates from the city’s zoning code and make other modern parking management updates.
The updated General Plan Policy CM-6c reads in relevant part: “The City’s should continue to specify maximum parking requirements for new development and eliminate minimum parking requirements.” The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the documents also clearly states that the city will eliminate parking minimums citywide. In implementing this policy, the city is following the lead of academic researchers and other communities nationwide which have documented the many environmental, economic and social costs of forcing developers to provide more parking than needed with their projects.
Additionally, one of the Guiding Principles and Goals of the new Circulation and Mobility Element is to “establish a set of fee‐based parking prices that are high enough to drive more active and shared transportation.” This goal is derived from extensive research showing that well-designed parking pricing strategies can reduce the overall amount of driving (and therefore pollution) and the perceived need for more parking, while at the same time improving parking accessibility.
CRTP strongly supports these important parking reforms, which will reduce sprawl, reduce reliance on automobiles, and increase long-term housing affordability. However, just as with congestion management, some relics of older parking policies remain in the draft plan:
- General Plan Policy LU-1c calls for the city to “reduce or eliminate” minimum parking requirements citywide. It should be updated to just “eliminate,” in order to ensure consistency with Policy CM-6c and the direction of the Planning Commission.
- General Plan Policies CM-6a(2), CM-6a(3), and CM-6d all call for reducing or mitigating the impact of parking minimums. These policies were important in the past, but with all such minimum parking mandates slated for removal, they no longer make sense.
- General Plan Policy CM-6a(1) calls for the city to “explore implementing a smart parking meter system in the Downtown area to manage parking demand while generating revenue to support public transit and/or active transportation.” This is the only policy to directly implement the goal of “a set of fee-based parking prices.” It should be amended to remove the word “explore” and straightforwardly commit to implementing a smart meter system. (The details of system design can be “explored” at a later date, but the decision to implement a system should be made now.)