Parking, along with traffic, is one of those issues that transcends neighborhoods. The City has reluctantly acknowledged there is a growing parking problem here in Parker-Gray, but a quick glance at the letters in the Post's Alexandria Arlington Section yesterday shows that other areas of town are also constrained.It's not hard to understand why there is a problem. The population of Alexandria is more affluent than in past generations and more people own cars. Some families own multiple cars, and the Growler has even heard anecdotally there are individuals in the neighborhood who own as many as seven or nine vehicles. One former resident used his cars as moving storage units for his overflow stash of belongings.
Parker-Gray as well as Old Town is in worse shape than many areas because between one-third to one-half of all homes have no off-street parking whatsoever. Residents are forced to rely on on-street parking for their vehicles.
On top of this we have new development. Most projects provide off-street parking, typically in underground garages, but there are often not enough spaces to hold all of the residents' or visitors' automobiles. Developers are naturally reluctant to provide more than the zoning ordinance requires. It's expensive to dig out garages and it eats into profit. But that means there's going to be spillover onto residential streets from new projects.
Couple these two trends and you've got a brewing parking firestorm in many parts of town.
So what is the City doing to ease the crisis? Pretty damned little.
Take for example, 1210 Queen Street. When this former commercial building was proposed for redevelopment as condos, the owner refused to provide the mandatory 14 spaces that were required by ordinance for residential projects.
The neighborhood would not swallow a complete reduction this large, so Planning & Zoning Development chief Jeffrey Farner proposed a "compromise" whereby only one parking permit would be issued per unit.
Problem was, as the Growler testified at the time, the City's parking permit software was too primitive to handle a restriction of this kind, since the City has never before placed limits on the number of permits issued to each household. That was confirmed in conversations with City Treasurer David Clark and now-retired Finance Department Director Dan Neckel.
Nevertheless, the smooth-talking Mr. Farner assured Planning Commission and its chairman Eric Wagner (who pressed Mr. Farner repeatedly about it) that the software would be modified to handle this task by the time the condos were ready for sale.
That glib promise was easy enough to make, since Mr. Farner and P&Z have no direct responsibility for the software, which is under the purview of the Finance Department.
And 19 months later, with the condos nearing completion, the City has yet to launch the proposed upgrade of its financial software, which includes the personal property tax management module that handles parking permits.
Money was allocated for the upgrade in FY 2006, but the project was pushed out to FY 2007. Last month, Deputy City Manager Mark Jinks requested City Council to approve various capital expenditures, including an upgrade of the cash register software. But there's no sign of any activity relating to the main financial systems or to the personal property tax software. And Mr. Jinks is dodging repeated questions about its status.
Then there's the City's GIS or Geographic Information Systems. This powerful software has many interesting uses but one of them could be to determine just how many on-street parking spaces are actually available in Parker-Gray. In essence, to define and address a shortage it's important to have reliable numbers about what already exists.
The zoning ordinance defines the dimensions of a valid parking space, and it would be feasible to use GIS to map these out on each street, while accounting for restrictions like alleys, driveways and curb cuts. (Other nuances such as handicapped-only spots would have to be added after an on-site walk-through.)
The Growler discussed this with some of the staff techies and they actually thought it would be a great project. In fact, one even suggested it wouldn't be that hard or time consuming to map out parking beyond Parker-Gray and Old Town (where the supply is most constrained) to encompass the whole city.
But will this ever happen? Not likely. The GIS staff report to Planning & Zoning and so far their activities appear to be strictly subordinated to the goal of promoting development at all cost.
So will the parking problems in Alexandria ever be addressed or eased?
43 comments:
Doubtful they will ever address this problem. With the existing budget crunch there simply isnt any money for improvements, and certainly isnt any money to create something like underground parking garages.
Not anytime soon. This is a problem that began to manifest more than a year ago with the Chatham Square project. People who bought in were not allowed parking permits because they were provided with underground parking. Well of course most new residents didn't realize that (who was going to tell them--their realtors? EYA? please) so they came to apply for permits. Some recieved them, but some didn't after enterprising citizens called to complain. Everyone knew this was a problem, and it was going to get exponentially harder to deal with as more developments with this restriction came on line, but there was ZERO impetus to fix it. I think if you read through almost every single approval from the last 2 years it says new development condo owners will be restricted from receiving parking permits. But until the neighborhood starts screaming about the problem, you can expect to see no action from the City. That's a guarentee.
"Problem was, as the Growler testified at the time, the City's parking permit software was too primitive to handle a restriction of this kind, since the City has never before placed limits on the number of permits issued to each household."
Go get 'em Growler! And if Cromley and the civic association any smarts they will join you in this fight.
"certainly isnt any money to create something like underground parking garages."
I did not read this request into the Growler's complaint. Don't hesitate to nail Jinks. Farner is a weasal but absent a planning director he probably takes his cues from the Deputy City Manager. If The Growler has the IT know how more power to you because the proposal if it works has benefits citywide.
I agree, Growler isnt asking for underground garages. I just dont see how you solve the parking problem solely with permits enforcement.
Judging by the latest budget numbers, the City has to either keep building to meet continuing spending needs or raise taxes/cut spending.
"This is a problem that began to manifest more than a year ago with the Chatham Square project. People who bought in were not allowed parking permits because they were provided with underground parking Well of course most new residents didn't realize that (who was going to tell them--their realtors? EYA? please) so they came to apply for permits. Some recieved them, but some didn't after enterprising citizens called to complain."
Whoaaaa there, are you saying that the City caved in and went ahead and issued permits to Chatham Square residents although the special use permit for the project said no-one would get them?
Bingo. Not in a behind-the-back kind of way, but because of what you pointed out in your post. P&Z does not control the issuance of parking permits. There was zero communication about the SUP requirements between P&Z and the folks who DO issue the permits until someone actually called and asked the question. By then, some people in the development had already been issued permits that could not be taken back. To expect the burden of enforcing those requirements on other departments not typically involved with land development was and is wrong. There is no framework in place to support that particualr parking permit requirement and everyone involved knew it.
"People who bought in were not allowed parking permits because they were provided with underground parking. Well of course most new residents didn't realize that (who was going to tell them--their realtors? EYA? please) so they came to apply for permits. Some recieved them,"
Good catch Growler! My thought exactly. The permit system the SUP either does not work or is not enforced. If such a solution is available then why does the city not implement it? I know the citizen who nailed the city for the 10K study. Maybe the same neighbor will speak out again. We need some powerful voices to deliver a strong message to city hall.
Until the City actually starts enforcing its parking restrictions in PG, it's not going to make one bit of difference who has a residential parking permit and who doesn't.
In my neck of the woods, cars quite literally sit on the street for months on end and don't move. Business owners and visitors who don't have parking stickers park on the street for hours on end and never get a ticket. Unless we call and ASK the City to send some parking enforcement, they never bother coming.
Actually, the City's lack of enforcement seems to be a problem in numerous areas. It's illegal to speed, blare your radio at obscene levels, dump trash, use drugs, etc. but who cares if there is no enforcement?
"If such a solution is available then why does the city not implement it?"
A software solution implies certain efficiencies so has the Growler discussed the proposal with the City Manager? Hartmann allegedly is looking for cost effective solutions to complex problems.
"To expect the burden of enforcing those requirements on other departments not typically involved with land development was and is wrong. There is no framework in place to support that particualr parking permit requirement and everyone involved knew it."
Sounds like a city insider checking in and I, for one, appreciate the honesty of the reply. However, what you have also exposed is the corruptness. City staff, Planning Commission and Council are too busy pushing inner city development to take the time necessary to confirm the truthfulness of Mr. Farner's statements. Our quality of life is being forcibly compromised and I for one have had enough of this kind of misconduct.
"We need some powerful voices to deliver a strong message to city hall."
Reading this week's Alexandria Gazette Packet I take exception to the ink given Amy Harris-White's support of the Payne Street Condos project. Ms. White also favored The Monarch and look at the "mother" that building has now become. The devil is in the details and sadly the civic association has ignored such for years. Why don't we ask developers to underwrite the software costs as a cost of doing business here?
It seems to me that the average cars per resident is increasing. Since on-street spaces are a limited commodity, we are our own problem. New development brings in cars, but it also brings in parking. Sure it is part of the problem, but we can't blaim it for everything, especially when we are part of the problem. Perhaps the city should charge us more for parking stickers if we have more than two cars per household. I know people with kids will complain, but the streets are not made so everybody that wants one can have a car. We live near a metro, lets start living like it.
"sadly the civic association has ignored such for years."
The civic association is nothing more than a small band of 10-15 meeting attendees all under the developers' control. The President's frequent attendance at the developers' Tuesday morning meetings is at best unwise certainly not arms length. The only way that Parker Gray amenities will improve is if we extract them as part of the negotiations. The civic association is incapable of asking for squat let alone software of a type applicable to a project put forward by one of their own.
"This is an opportunity for an old warehouse to be transformed into a vital addition to our neighborhood, as opposed to a run down, unkempt warehouse that closes its doors in the evening and where everyone goes home," she wrote.
"The addition of the townhouses... will add to the sense of the neighborhood and community...It will make the walk to the Metro safer. It is also our hope that the new addition of residential units to the neighborhood will help decrease the crime that is prevalent along and near Wythe Street and decrease the trash and debris that litter Wythe Street from Route 1 to Payne Street," Harris-White stated. "
Mrs. Harris-White certainly got the crime and trash parts right. It probably wont help parking and traffic, but thats the tradeoff you have to pay.
Yep, we all know how Braddock Lofts wiped out crime and trash in the same area. Same promises.
Harris-White is a tool. Too bad she doesn't realize Bud Hart isn't gonna lift a finger to help her get rid of public housing, and neither is Bill Euille.
"Yep, we all know how Braddock Lofts wiped out crime and trash in the same area. Same promises. Harris-White is a tool."
You said it and I support it.
The tradeoff I have to pay? I didn't support The Monarch's FAR so why should I support the Condos? These buildings are monsters. Too bad because I support redevelopment. Is it true as rumored that Farner has been hosting design meetings including both developers and carefully selected citizen? If so how are the latter chosen and when in the process is compromise discussed?
parking and traffic is such a tired issue. we have the infrastructure for development ala wilson blvd. there's going to be more density around the metro as there should be. it's comical hearing inner city residents whine about parking, traffic and density...it's the inner city, dumb dumbs!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701330.html
"Mrs. Harris-White certainly got the crime and trash parts right. It probably wont help parking and traffic, but thats the tradeoff you have to pay."
How utterly formula! How wrong! Parker Gray residents were happy to support EYA's Lofts construction proposal. The plan was limited to single family homes and smaller in cale. By comparison The Monarch and the Payne Street condos as sandwiched between are huge. If there has been any tradeoff it is that the Lofties now have complicated the development debate. What's more their presence, by their own admission, has not deterred crime.
What the neighborhood needs is thoughtful debate, a valid area plan, and better design guidelines. Neither The Monarch not the condos add significantly to Fayette's streetscape. Mrs. White's "dark shadows" are merely of a different type. Open space either is enclosed or given for the small scale benefit of Payne and Wythe Streets residents. We agree only that the traffic and parking problems remain unresolved.
"parking and traffic is such a tired issue. we have the infrastructure for development ala wilson blvd."
We do? Please explain in detail.
i don't get your sealed off argument. route one is the main route through with 'feeder streets' being braddock rd., king st and monroe from the west. there are tons of 'feeders' from the east. in fact, i would argue that we are set up just as well or better than wilson blvd. for new development. this area is a far cry from tyson's, with the biggest advantage for braddock being location. quoting an article out of context is pretty easy:
Skeptics argue that the high-density approach worked in Arlington for several reasons: It is a well-defined corridor with multiple entry points from the surrounding grid of streets; its proximity to the District makes its apartment towers attractive to young people; and the hodgepodge of car dealerships and low-slung shopping strips that predated the start of redevelopment in the 1970s was insubstantial enough that it could be displaced with something else.
see - that sums up braddock.
here's some more goodies from the article. stop being so pessimistic, it's going to be ok...
The results are the envy of transportation planners worldwide. After declining in the 1970s, Arlington's population has expanded by a third since 1980 to nearly 200,000, with much of the growth in the corridor. Yet the county has seen only modest increases in traffic on local streets. Metro ridership, meanwhile, is surging, with a 36 percent increase in the county in the past decade. In the corridor, only 40 percent of residents drive alone to work, compared with 70 percent in other area suburbs including Fairfax and Montgomery, and homes in the corridor average one car each, compared with 1.75 in other suburbs.
before you argue that we already have 2.8 cars per family, or some crazy number, remember that the number would go way down with new close into metro development residents.
Look at a map of Ballston and then a map of our Alexandria, and you will see that there is no comparison and that there are not "tons" of roads here.
At Ballston there are a variety of wide east west roads, including not just Wilson Boulevard but Fairfax Drive to its south and Washington Boulevard to its north, as well as I-66 which passes through the area and has several on ramps available. There are also substantial north-south roads, including N. Glebe Road, George Mason Drive, and N. Quincy Street. Finally, there is a well-developed network of local feeder roads leading into and around these major thoroughfares.
Our neighborhood has only two entry points from the north and south: the GW Parkway and Route 1. They are already congested at rush hour, particularly the evening rush.
As for east/west entrances, Alexandria north of King Street is served by only four roads that cross under or over the CSX and Metro rail lines. They are King Street, Commonwealth Avenue, Braddock Road, and Monroe Street. Two of them (King and Commonwealth) are essentially two lane roads where they cross the railroad lines and leave Old Town and are two lanes for some distance beyond.
"the City has to either keep building to meet continuing spending needs or raise taxes/cut spending."
I vote for the latter. It will be hard for a Mayor who likes being all things and ran unopposed, but Euille is an accountant by trade. Sometimes the best choices are born of the hardest choices and given that people now admit to the ARHA scam I repeat thr point I made long ago. The neighborhood has erred in that it has not demanded the city begin the Braddock discussions with public housing. Sorry, Growler, I have again taken you off point.
"Reading this week's Alexandria Gazette Packet I take exception to the ink given Amy Harris-White's support of the Payne Street Condos project. Ms. White also favored The Monarch and look at the "mother" that building has now become."
"I didn't support The Monarch's FAR so why should I support the Condos? These buildings are monsters."
"By comparison The Monarch and the Payne Street condos as sandwiched between are huge."
"The President's frequent attendance at the developers' Tuesday morning meetings is at best unwise certainly not arms length."
"If so how are the latter chosen and when in the process is compromise discussed?"
Has anyone noticed that both The Monarch and the Payne Street condos, although built by different developers, are both products of development attorney Bud Hart and architects Rust, Orling? It's no accident that the buildings met with little residence as they are civic association groupies. That's not a compliment.
i may not have the semantics correct, but i read the 'feeder'roads reference in the article to mean neighborhood roads that feed to wilson blvd. my reference to 'tons' meant pendleton, wythe, queen, oronoco etc. don't forget there is also 395 and a little road called 495/95 that bring you to alexandria. this gets away from the whole point of the ballston corridor model, which is that there wouldn't be a huge increase in traffic if you have, yes, dense development around the metro. your argument is that more people means more cars and congestion. i just see it differently...if there are more people walking the community becomes a pedestrian freindly neighborhood. cars slow down, people learn to/are forced to take the metro and it's a much LESS car-centric area. if people want to drive through alexandria on 1 or GW but have to slow way down to do it, be my guest. otherwise take the highway. growler, i hear your traffic arguments and i sympathize - it's just that we didn't create the mess, so we shouldn't have to pay for the clean-up. it sounds to me like you live on or close to patrick henry and your pyssed about the traffic - i would be/am too. i also sympathize with your argument that this should be kept a residential neighborhood free of huge buildings and everything that goes along with it. i just think that there are a contingent of people who feel that good things can come from denser development and this area is primed for it.
"Yep, we all know how Braddock Lofts wiped out crime and trash in the same area. Same promises."
It actually did wipe most of the crime and trash that used to occur at the Wythe/Henry/Madison/Fayette block.
If I recall, that warehouse was actually used by the DEA to run drug stakeouts on Adkins and Bland.
The crime and trash in that area come from Andrew Adkins and James Bland. I am not sure how ICCA or Harris White or Cromley or anyone else can change that.
"Harris-White is a tool. Too bad she doesn't realize Bud Hart isn't gonna lift a finger to help her get rid of public housing, and neither is Bill Euille."
No Hart fan, but what can he do to change Resolution 830 or any of ARHA's ways? Only one body I know of that can do that. Starts with a C and ends with an L.
"What's more their presence, by their own admission, has not deterred crime. "
I believe the Lofties don't have a complaint about crime on their properties so much as the crime that occurs around their block.
Braddock Road is certainly no Ballston but that shouldnt be the point. Ballston supports far higher density than Braddock Road Metro ever will have, with a FAR at 6 and buildings frequently in the 200-300 foot range (the highest I have seen proposed in Braddock is 77 feet)
Using Ballston as an example of what Braddock will become is highly questionable. Furthermore, the article misses the fundamental point; neither Clarendon nor Ballston nor any of these other turnarounds cited had the problem of a high concentration of public housing right by the Metro. Lets stick to that debate instead of worrying that we are going to look like Manhattan.
"i just think that there are a contingent of people who feel that good things can come from denser development and this area is primed for it."
No one is really opposed to development denser than what is already in place, i.e., low-density light industrial and commercial.
The question is one of extent. And it goes back to this question, which the Growler is gonna keep asking:
How much and what kind of development and density can be added to our neighborhood before the balance tips? How much density can we achieve before the benefits offered by redevelopment are outweighed by serious issues of traffic, parking competition and pollution?
"How much and what kind of development and density can be added to our neighborhood before the balance tips? "
Thats extremely hard to say, because each person has different opinions about what the current balance is:
1. People usually deal with the here and now. You are asking them to imagine a future of problems based on density, traffic, and pollution when there are already problems based on crime, lack of amenities, and poor education. So I can get why people choose the NOW (promises that redevelopment will change things) over what might or might not happen.
2. Density, parking, and pollution are just three issues; there is also crime, trash, education ,etc... all issues which affect the balance (I believe you are using balance to define quality of life). So if redevelopment tipped traffic in the wrong direction but cleaned up the streets and lowered the PG crime rate, then the tradeoffs might be acceptable.
3. There is also the external factor of city spending, public housing, etc... all which play a role in why the City wants more density
"Lets stick to that debate instead of worrying that we are going to look like Manhattan."
Please define the debate if it is not the inevitable of quality of life issues like parking and traffic. Why, for example, do I want to endure more autos if there is no change in public housing units? I feel no obligation to "build" my way out of ARHA's or the city's financial crisis. The city can cut wasteful programs instead. Efficiency is not a word I associate with city staff.
Does anyone know where the signs posted on Fayette, Oronoco, and Pendleton banning construction parking came from? They look homemade and unofficial.
"I believe the Lofties don't have a complaint about crime on their properties so much as the crime that occurs around their block."
From where I sit the Lofties complaint is no different from anyone else's. However we have lived here long enough to know that construction of The Lofts did little to deter the crime that occurs around our block. We
advocate a reduction in public housing units in and around the metro. Scattered housing is what will solve the crime problem not new construction per se. Too much construction and parking will become more of a problem than it already is.
"The city can cut wasteful programs instead."
They dont want to; they would rather build there way out of the looming financial imbalances. Which begs the obvious question that no blogger seems to want to answer; why do you keep voting for the same slate of candidates Kellom always puts out there?
"Scattered housing is what will solve the crime problem not new construction per se. "
Agree, but the city also doesnt want to do that. To do that would piss off everyone else in the City who would have to take the scattering.
Face it, you elected gutless leadership that would rather spend the next 10 years fighting Mirant and helping homeless residents with whatever they want than caring for the needs of citizens.
"Ms. [Amy Harris-]White also favored The Monarch and look at the 'mother' that building has now become."
Ms. White was president of the great Inner City Civic Association at the time she supported the Monarch. The ICCA members voted for it, based on a building model of what attorney Bud Hart said it would be like. According to Ms. White, the model included additional units that were not discussed (or mentioned by Bud Hart). Since the members liked the model, reason goes that the members also approved of the additional units. Even though additional units were not mentioned, not discussed. We members voted the poke and got the pig along with it, for free.
Be that as it may, it was a real hoot to watch Bud Hart's lips move as he silently mouthed the words of the speech Ms. White gave at that City Council meeting where the Monarch was approved... with the extra units. Wonder who wrote her brilliantly reasoned speech?
God bless the ICCA.
"God bless the ICCA."
As long his finger points south. Hart revealed his style when negotiating the Hopkins House proffer. Most know the proffer has little future value because the Mayor will argue that Hopkins House has "earned" an adequate return on investment when the property sells. Has anyone looked at Hopkins House's recent 990s? Noticed how the institution is leveraged? Contributors lists including Cromley and crowd? It's all much too cozy. But mouthing the words of Harris' speech? Who among the bloggers mentioned arms length? It's become too depressing to contemplate.
Here we go again, off on another rant about Hart and White and Rust Orling, as if they created the problems in PG all on their own and the Monarch is the worst building in Alexandria.
Seriously, when are we going to get a rip job article on ARHA mismanagement, or City Council gutlessness, or the fact that City leadership cant control spending, which leads to these non-stop building crusades to pay the bills.
It seems pointless to blame a development attorney, an architect, a 77 foot incomplete building and the former president of a tiny civic association for all the problems of PG past present and future.
Give it a rest already.
"Here we go again, off on another rant about Hart and White and Rust Orling, as if they created the problems in PG all on their own and the Monarch is the worst building in Alexandria."
As they sow so shall they reap.
"It seems pointless to blame a development attorney, an architect, a 77 foot incomplete building and the former president of a tiny civic association for all the problems of PG past present and future."
Nope, not pointless when the ethics are lacking. We would have a much better product if theirs was an arms length relationship. With four projects in the pipeline, partially completed or not, the team needs to be held in check. Harris White's issue was public housing and I know that she and others once met with the Mayor to discuss it. So far I have not seen any visible progress.
Growler, if this dude wants to write a "rip" article on ARHA management are you game to host it in the comments section?
"Harris White's issue was public housing and I know that she and others once met with the Mayor to discuss it. So far I have not seen any visible progress.
"
Growler just said that ICCA isnt using its "bully pulpit". What else do you want White to do; bring crack pipes and 40 bottles to Council meetings?
"What else do you want White to do; bring crack pipes and 40 bottles to Council meetings?"
How else are you going to embarrass Council into action?
Post a Comment