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 to play fast and loose with the facts while arguing for the city to allow parking to eat up more of Manhattan’s valuable space. One hand didn’t seem to know what the other was doing, and with New York’s powerful real estate industry lobbying against the parking maximums, parking reform was in a precarious position.

At the end of the year, though, DCP released the final version of its Manhattan core parking study. The internal conflicts seem to have been resolved, and the results are far more encouraging. The sloppy and misleading analysis is gone and the positive reforms remain.

Assuming that DCP continues on its current path — and that the City Council eventually agrees — Manhattan’s precedent-setting-but-decades-old parking regulations are on track to be updated for the 21st century. Specific language for the new regulations is due in the next few months, according to DCP.

In the final version of its Manhattan core study, DCP says unequivocally that the 30-year-old system of parking maximums has been successful, an endorsement nowhere to be found in the earlier draft.

“The Manhattan Core parking regulations have proved to be compatible with population and job growth and a thriving Central Business District,” the authors write. “In almost three decades since the Manhattan Core regulations were enacted, the Manhattan Core has added population and jobs and has strengthened its position as the vital heart of a world city. Travel into the CBD has shifted toward transit and away from private vehicles.” Those trends aren’t all the result of parking maximums, of course, but the regulations have helped shape the areas below West 110th Street and East 96th Street.

The reforms, which at this point are only described in broad strokes, appear to be the same as those summarized by law firm Kramer Levin last year. One of the last remaining parking minimums in the Manhattan core, which perversely covers affordable housing, is slated to be eliminated. DCP notes that the requirement to build parking “places additional cost burdens on affordable housing developments,” a lesson that will hopefully carry over once the department turns its attention to parking regulations in the rest of the city.

The reforms include a number of other beneficial changes. They would eliminate an incentive to build above-ground parking. Developers seeking to build more parking than allowed as-of-right will face tougher oversight under the revised rules, including new requirements that garages be designed for pedestrian safety. Large-scale developments, perhaps like the parking-stuffed Riverside Center project, will receive comprehensive assessments of the need for parking.

In perhaps the most sweeping change, the distinction between accessory parking, intended only for residents of a given development, and public parking would be eliminated. All parking would be open to everyone — what’s known as a “shared parking” model — which experts hailed as far more appropriate to a dense urban environment.

The details of all these changes are still forthcoming. That means there is still an opportunity for the city’s formidable real estate lobby to weaken these proposals or overturn the city’s strict parking controls. The Real Estate Board of New York is pushing for the maximums to be raised, allowing developers to build more parking in Manhattan. There isn’t any mention of that in DCP’s proposal so far, however.

Revisions to the study send a positive signal that DCP is going to stay strong in support of its parking regulations. The final version corrects mistakes in earlier drafts highlighted by Streetsblog and parking reform advocates, making the study far more accurate, useful, and supportive of the parking requirements.

No longer does the study look at changes in car ownership for the entire island of Manhattan, much of which is covered by high parking minimums, to make the case that the maximums have failed. Similarly, DCP took the advice of environmental planner Dan Gutman, who said that looking at rush-hour traffic volumes instead of 24-hour traffic volumes would more clearly show the effect — and benefits — of parking maximums. DCP clearly heard the criticisms of the draft and addressed them.

Perhaps most importantly, DCP now admits that parking maximums reduce automobile ownership. The department notes that residents of the Manhattan core own fewer vehicles than residents of the rest of New York City, controlling for income, in part because parking is so scarce and expensive. The high price of parking, in turn, is in part attributed to parking maximums. In other words, parking maximums reduce car ownership. That logical conclusion is the opposite of what DCP’s draft implicitly argued.

In its study, DCP concludes that “the 1982 Manhattan Core parking regulations have been successful and do not require fundamental changes.” Those changes they are proposing are beneficial reforms. Slowly, the Department of City Planning and its director Amanda Burden are moving toward parking reform. Once the Manhattan core changes are complete, DCP is expected to try to reduce the high parking minimums that govern development in the “inner ring” of neighborhoods around the Manhattan core: an issue with higher stakes and trickier politics.

  • Jk

    Welcome news. Well done City Planning. And, credit Noah Kazis and Streetsblog for their unrelenting, incisive and insightful coverage of City Planning’s parking struggles.This is a big deal. City Planning just reversed course after an inexplicable few years of backsliding on parking policy. Thank you Streetsblog for helping City Planning see the light.

  • Cberthet

    Many good proposals but the idea of opening accessory parking to the public presents many risks that must be weighted against the apparent benefits.
    First and foremost will it increase the stock of public parking , and by how much? Unless we have a clear precise answer and it is proven that thos public parking spaces are needed we risk adding large volume of public parking in the system .
    Second will it give incentives to those developers who were planning for NO parking , to add a revenue generator to their building?
    Third, cars in residential parking generate few trips per day, sometimes being used on the week end only. By contrast cars in public parking, cars turn over rapidly and generate many tips probably increasing traffic and interference with pedestrians on the sidewal by five to ten times. This is very detrimental to residents, and increase risks to elderly and school children in residential areas,

    In contrast, this proposal would make sense if it advocated parking shared between multiple buildings where users have to travel a few hundred feet to reach their cars, TA repotr on parking showed that type of configuration had a high correlation to lower car usage. It would also minimize the number of sidewalk obstructions with a single access point.

  • Cberthet

    Continued:

    I believe this measure is geared at appeasing the parking industry by giving them a compensation for the future capacity they may be losing with the other restrictions.

    There is certainly no reason to apply it retroactively and open existing accessory parking to public usage.

  • Dan

    Although better in some respects, the study is still flawed.  It claims that occupancy of parking spaces in the Manhattan core has shifted from 85% by commuters and businesses to up to 70% by residents, implying that more parking is needed for business or major non-profit institutions (hospitals).  But the 85% figure is wrong — it was less than 39% in the CBD in 1981 and is 36% today.  With a 20% vacancy rate at the mid-afternoon peak, the same as in 1981, there is no need to increase the number of spaces.

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 […]

Reforms to Parking Minimums on the Table for Many NYC Neighborhoods

|
Last month, the New York Times gave some much-deserved attention to the parking reforms working their way through the Department of City Planning. In a pair of articles, real estate reporter Marc Santora revealed how efforts to reform the city’s outdated parking minimums, which promote driving and make housing less affordable, are progressing. (Santora unfortunately made […]

DCP Releases Timid Parking Reform Study for the Boroughs

|
A report from the Department of City Planning issued during the final days of the Bloomberg administration is a trove of data about parking, but a look behind the pretty maps reveals a department that remains focused on dictating the supply of parking spaces and reluctant to use its power to reduce traffic and improve housing […]

Planning Commission OKs Paltry Parking Reform for Downtown Brooklyn

|
The New York City Department of City Planning announced yesterday that the City Planning Commission has approved a measure to reduce Downtown Brooklyn’s onerous parking minimums. But the commission, chaired by Amanda Burden, appears to have wasted an opportunity to improve on the timid reforms. The good news is that new developments in Downtown Brooklyn, […]