By EYE ON THE CITY BY ELIZABETH RIEL
Witness the city’s proposed plan to build new parking garages for 1,712 more cars in the already congested downtown area. The lack of imagination, long-range thinking and creative solutions exhibited in this plan is appalling. What’s even more appalling is that it took officials six years to come up with this flawed and shortsighted $100 million boondoggle.
Where to begin? First, the plan is based on a “target parking ratio” that compares Santa Monica with other cities including Portland, Ore., Alexandria, Va., and Portsmouth, NH. City Hall’s plan states that these cities allocate about 1.5 to 2.2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial development. Therefore, the illustrious parking task force decided to allot 2.1 parking spaces.
The problem is that this parking ratio is just plain wrong. Take a look at the EPA’s January 2006 report, “Parking Spaces, Community Places: Finding the Balance Through Smart Growth Solutions.” It states that Portland — a city five times larger than Santa Monica — allows buildings in its central business district a maximum of.7 to 1.0 parking spaces. That’s far below the range stated in Santa Monica’s proposed plan.
Why are we setting a parking goal at the highest end of this range anyway? Are we saying that we can’t come up with any better alternatives than just allowing as many cars as possible downtown?
And I’m not sure why we’re comparing ourselves to cities like Portsmouth, Alexandria and Portland. I’ve actually lived in or nearby all three cities and they vastly differ from Santa Monica in terms of population, availability of public transportation, density and usable land.
Second, the proposed plan also is based on the presumption that development downtown will proceed at a rate similar to what’s happened over the past 10 years, roughly 50,000 square feet per year.
Is it just my imagination or have city officials and more importantly, residents, not yet decided on how much development we want downtown? Why are we basing our parking plan on development assumptions that may or may not be correct? The fact that a proposal for downtown parking has been put forth before we know what the master plan will be is the height of arrogance and incompetence.
Third, the city’s report also states that 14 intersections downtown are projected to operate at unacceptable conditions in 2015. That’s without the new parking project, folks. Doesn’t it figure that bringing more cars and traffic into the downtown area to park at the new structures would only make this congestion worse?
For a city that prides itself on its progressiveness and sustainability, why aren’t we looking at alternatives to massive parking structures? Perhaps the parking task force should consult the EPA report for innovative solutions and ways to reduce the demand for parking.
How about improving transit options, like more frequent and reliable Big Blue Bus runs and better service? Installing more and safer places to park bicycles? Encouraging employers to sell parking rights on weekends? Renting existing lots that are currently vacant on the weekends? Running free shuttle buses from hotels to downtown?
Or what about building parking structures farther away that use free shuttles and incentive-based approaches to attract people who otherwise might park downtown? Free movie tickets or restaurant coupons, anyone?
The report did get one thing right — parking is consistently cited as one of the top three issues facing Santa Monica residents. But traffic ranks as the No. 2 concern of residents, ahead of parking. So why did city officials just propose a plan that will increase traffic on some of our busiest streets?
In a March 10 editorial, the Santa Monica Daily Press called the idea of reducing parking spaces and putting a hold on the proposed plan “asinine.”
The only thing that’s asinine here is proposing an unimaginative, narrow-minded parking plan that will do nothing more than increase traffic and congestion for years to come in downtown Santa Monica. (Elizabeth Riel is a Santa Monica resident. Write her at)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 23, 2006. Read the original PDF.