Will DCP Withstand the Real Estate Lobby Assault on Parking Maximums?

At last week’s Transportation 2030 conference, Real Estate Board of New York Senior Vice President Michael Slattery made clear that his industry wants to eliminate one of the bedrock policies of traffic management in the New York City core. As Streetsblog reported last month, REBNY is mobilizing against the parking maximums which have helped to hold Manhattan traffic in check for a generation. Slattery went public with REBNY’s vision at Friday’s conference, articulating the real estate lobby’s belief that fulfilling so-called market demand for more parking spots will aid new construction.

The powerful real estate lobby is waging a campaign against Manhattan parking maximums, which help hold traffic in check. Will Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden withstand the assault?

Amidst a discussion of Manhattan’s parking maximums, Slattery suggested that the time has come to raise the limits on the amount of parking allowed in residential buildings, which the city enacted in the early 1980s in response to lawsuits brought under the Clean Air Act. “Despite regulations, auto ownership is rising,” Slattery asserted, echoing a draft study from the Department of City Planning that experts say is riddled with flaws. “Cars and trucks are a regular part of city life and we have to recognize the value they create.”

In addition to faulty DCP studies, Slattery is relying on logic that will harm New York. REBNY is betting that consumers buying apartments in the most transit-rich part of the country will pay a premium for in-house parking (upwards of $16,000 per space) instead of using subways and buses. New York loses in this scenario. When new residents decide to opt out of the very transit system that made their property valuable in the first place, the city loses a rider with a vested interest in sustaining transit in the city. Value is destroyed and New York takes a step toward becoming Houston.

The Department of City Planning seems to be in danger of caving in to real estate industry demands to eliminate parking maximums. At last Friday’s discussion, DCP’s Howard Slatkin did tout the use of zoning to promote sustainability: allowing for more density where there is transit and less density where residents are more apt to drive. But he also acknowledged City Planning’s desire to accommodate Manhattan developers.

Slatkin told the audience to anticipate the December release of a DCP study about automobile ownership that will explain where the agency seeks to change parking regulations, and where they won’t be touched. It may include both notable reforms and egregious backsliding.

In stark contrast to DCP, Bruce Schaller of the Department of Transportation demonstrated that at least one part of New York City government understands how parking policy can affect traffic and congestion. Following in the steps of San Francisco’s revolutionary SFPark system, New York is also finding, through DOT’s Park Smart program, that as prices for parking go up during high demand times of day, more curb space becomes available and drivers spend less time cruising for parking.

The panel also included two people with vested interests in curbside space: Carl Hum, president of the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce and Vincent Marino, delivery truck driver and representative of Teamsters Local 917. Hum stressed the importance of parking meters and the availability of curbside spaces for businesses in east and south Brooklyn. He said that he still has member businesses complain to him about eliminating metered parking on Sundays – a move that hurt their bottom line because customers no longer had spots available to park for short shopping visits.

Marino stressed that delivery truck drivers never want to double park but do so under pressure to make their deliveries on time. They would benefit greatly from more curbside space to pull up. Perhaps at the next forum Marino and his fellow delivery drivers will voice support for parking-pricing reforms that could make curbside space more abundant.

  • Dan S.

    Fine.  Eliminate the parking maximums.  As long as:
    – Parking minimums are eliminated as well.
    – Urban design guidelines are in place to prevent excessive curb cuts, blank walls, etc.
    – Traffic calming, road pricing, and parking pricing are in effect to internalize to negative effects of driving on public streets.

    Wealthy individuals will pay for a private parking spot, even in Manhattan.  But driving around NYC (and parking) sucks.  Many of these people will still walk, bike and take transit.  They will use their cars for weekend trips or commuting out of the city.  They are not going to drive to the corner store.

  • Larry Littlefield

    “REBNY is mobilizing against the parking maximums which have helped to hold Manhattan traffic in check for a generation. Slattery went public with REBNY’s vision at Friday’s conference, articulating the real estate lobby’s belief that fulfilling so-called market demand for more parking spots will aid new construction.”
    The demand for housing in Manhattan seems limitless at an affordable price.  If construction is not proceeding, it is because REBNY’s price is too high.  Blame the development site owners, the developers, the construction companies or the unions, but not the parking maximum.   That’s absolutely absurd.

  • Marketing

    This can be a superb subject to talk regarding. We appreciate you setting up this site. I’m sure there are a lot searching for these kinds of discussion.
    http:/www.websolutioncentre.com

  • I agree with Dan S. and have often held the opinion that most sane Manhattanites will only use their cars for weekend trips outside of the borough particularly if there is little, no or only VERY expensive parking at business destinations within Manhattan.

    But eliminating parking maximums should be only applied to high-end residential developments for those that would be willing to pay dearly for the privilege of parking a car in the city.  More parking in middle class and low income housing would make those housing options more expensive to build which would be an issue as affordable housing options are already a big problem in all Five Boros. 

    Finally, maybe as a stipulation to allowing the open market determine how much parking should be built in high-end housing options, the parking should be detached from the purchase price of the residential unit.  If a customer doesn’t want to pay for the parking then they shouldn’t be forced to buy it.  Maybe then the developers might find out that parking really isn’t such a big selling point.

  • fj

    Real estate developers might want to imagine the value of their property if the Hudson had been allowed to remain the beautiful ecological treasure it was when the first explorers arrived and should be asked what part of climate change they understand and how cars fit into its accelerating impact on our civilization and the home that must support it. 

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Flawed DCP Studies Might Undermine DCP’s Own Parking Reforms

|
What appears to be an internal rift within the Department of City Planning could disrupt attempts to reform the city’s parking policies for the Manhattan core, in the face of opposition from the powerful real estate industry. Streetsblog reported yesterday that DCP is preparing significant revisions to parking policies in the Manhattan core. Limits on parking […]

DCP Advances Promising Manhattan Parking Reforms, Fixes Flawed Study

|
When plans to reform parking policies in the Manhattan core leaked out of the Department of City Planning last fall, the documents presented a riddle. The proposed changes were solid reforms to successful policies, closing loopholes in the existing parking caps and rationalizing the current system. The draft study which accompanied the reforms, however, seemed […]

Planners Tackle Big Questions About How to Shape NYC Development

|
New York City’s unpassed 1969 comprehensive plan. Photo: Historic Districts Council Though the Charter Revision Commission looks likely to take a pass at reforming the city’s land use process this year, the door will remain open in the years to come to tackle the complex and controversial issues that surround planning and development in New […]

The Parking Cure Part 2: Do the Right Tests

|
We continue with our look at recommendations proposed in "Suburbanizing the City," a report issued by a cross-section of public interest groups on the detrimental effects of off-street parking policies on city traffic. Last week we visited the city’s parking doctor and got the wrong medicine. In this episode of city parking malpractice, the parking […]

To Curb Congestion, Parking Reform Must Be in PlaNYC Update

|
Three years ago, the Regional Plan Association held a panel on congestion pricing at its annual conference. The title of the discussion was “Making Cars Pay Their Way.” At the 2011 conference last Friday, a similar panel on curbing traffic took the more generic title, “Strategies to Manage Congestion.” The difference is telling. Instead of […]