No Parking? No Problem. Now Let's Build for People Too
Bike advocates support HB 369, but real reform requires more than just removing mandates. It requires building for safety and choice.
NC could end the 20th century practice of assigning parking to new developments via mandate. Last week, Jenn Truman wrote about why NC should end parking mandates to build better cities. This past Tuesday, that crucial draft state legislation, HB 369 was discussed in a key committee and continues to move forward at the statehouse. At CITYBUILDER, we’re excited about that but also know it takes more local work too.
Read about what’s needed in this guest post by Kuanyu Chen of Oaks and Spokes.
"If you build it, they will come."
This Simplified definition of the concept known as "Induced Demand" is often applied across economies, commerce, housing, and transportation. That’s exactly what cities do today with parking.
If we build parking spaces, people will come, and people will park.
Once people are used to parking there, they always will.
So how do we then turn around and advocate to take the parking spaces away?
We do so by creatively mitigating the demand for parking.
In North Carolina House Bill 369, submitted this session, is titled "Parking Lot Reform and Modernization Act". Part one of the bill, in short, removes parking minimum requirements from local zoning regulations. If the bill passes, the impact won’t directly affect Raleigh or Durham since (thankfully) both cities have already removed parking minimum requirements in 2022 (Parking Minimums Removed Across the City) and 2024 (Durham becomes 9th largest city in US to end required parking)
Removing parking minimum requirements, or like Raleigh did, replacing them with parking maximums, is a step to deregulate development, allowing for higher density-building. For a rapidly growing Raleigh, with 37,000 units short in the housing supply (State of the City), any regulation, or de-regulation, that could potentially increase the housing supply should be celebrated by progressive thinkers.
But should we be concerned about public parking?
"The Tragedy of the Commons" is a concept that describes individuals acting on their own self-interest, rather than the greater common goods, and ultimately depleting a shared resource, rather than preserving it. On-street parking is the shared resource in this instance. As development density grows, and off-street parking is now under-supplied in an area due to deregulation, on-street parking becomes a premium. Even if this under-supply is just perception, not reality, it can still make advocacy harder.
These conditions now introduce an unintended consequence for Active Transportation and Transportation Safety advocates like us at Oaks and Spokes. Time and time again our voices advocating for the existence of bike lanes in street projects are in direct contradiction to neighbors who want to keep every on-street parking space.
And an 18-month fierce back-and-forth ensues
"Yes! Bike Lanes!"
"No Bike Lane!"
"Bike Lane on one-side only."
"Fine.
But no more road space was given for separated or protected Bike Lanes.
And these are just the conversations between the advocates and the neighbors with City Staff mediating in-between.
At times, we advocates also contend with the Parking Department that can just come in after the fact and shorten the hard fought for active transportation designation and claw those spaces back for parking. At other times, when the right-of-way belongs to the NCDOT, then the entire Bike Lane and multi-use paths can just be eliminated in the interest of "cost saving", leaving pedestrians and bicyclists in a vulnerable position in the future.
So, what’s the solution here?
We can advocate to remove parking minimums, but that’s not the end.
We must also advocate for public and private developments to build for the vehicles they expect – some parking still - and bike, scooter, bus, and pedestrian access and parking too. It’s important to require bike and pedestrian infrastructure as part of the zoning code for new mixed-use and residential developments. And it’s important for the City to connect the gaps between them. Ensuring the active transportation network is safe will give people the ability to choose alternate modes of travel and therefore reduce the demand for on-site parking.
We can advocate to remove parking minimums, while we also advocate for fuller and more connected sidewalks.
We can advocate for removal of parking minimums, and also advocate to maximize "parking alternatives" such as transit stops and bike lanes. This is what makes it feasible for people to park further away from "their parking spots" and still feel welcomed and invited to visit. The removal of parking minimums alone will not magically solve density, congestion, or mobility issues. The de-regulation of parking needs to be paired with increased scrutiny and investment in building out a connected active transportation network.
Only when users of all ages and abilities feel safe on our streets will they choose alternate modes of travel. And those choices to move by human power, walking and biking, instead of driving is what allows for the density to be built in a smart and sustainable way.
Kuanyu Chen is a long-time Greater Raleigh resident, and a bike commuter. I'm currently on the Board of Oaks and Spokes. In parallel with Oaks and Spokes responsibility I am also on the Clayton Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, covering the Johnson County end of Neuse River Greenway.
Want to learn more about parking reform?
Tune in next week on, on Tuesday June 17th, from 12-1PM for CITYBUILDER’s latest Carolina Policy Talk featuring Tony Jordan of the Parking Reform Network on the opportunities of parking reform.
Follow the link for more info and to RSVP.
 | A guest post by
|