Anyone who follows Strong Towns knows that parking is a frequent subject of the articles published. This is yesterday's offering: "But Where Will I Park?" The article contains this paragraph, which summarizes the Strong Towns position on parking:
At Strong Towns, we've described a parking lot as virtually the worst use to which you can put a piece of urban land. We've published dozens of articles on the high costs of our cities' addiction to free parking. We've urged that every city eliminate its parking minimums, and start pricing parking at a fair market rate, so that parking can be adequately weighed against other, potentially more productive uses of land. Our oversupply of free parking is financially ruinous--it results in cities that have been eaten alive by parking lots at the expense of value-generating land. It cannot be sustained.
Once upon a time, Hudson had quite stringent offstreet parking requirements for new development. For eating and drinking establishments, one offstreet parking space was required for every three seats in the bar or restaurant. Hotels needed a parking space for every room. There was also a formula for providing offstreet parking for offices and work settings. Projects before the Planning Board for site plan review were regularly referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals for variances because they could not satisfy the offstreet parking requirements, and the ZBA regularly granted such variances.
In 2019, on the recommendation of the Planning Board, then chaired by Walter Chatham, a proponent of New Urbanism, the Common Council amended the city's zoning code to eliminate offstreet parking requirements. Even though the idea of eliminating offstreet parking requirements originated with the Planning Board, the Planning Board has remained obsessed with parking. Parking was an issue with the hotel proposed for 620 Union Street, it was an issue for the apartment buildings proposed for the "Depot District," and it is an issue for the hotel the Galvan Foundation is proposing for Fourth and Warren streets. Parking is a favorite concern not only for members of the Planning Board but also for members of the public.
At Tuesday's Planning Board meeting, Mark Nadolny of Creighton Manning presented the traffic and parking study done for the hotel proposed by the Galvan Foundation for corner of Warren and Fourth streets. He explained they had studied The Wick Hotel and, based on activity at The Wick, had determined that the proposed hotel would need 25 parking spaces for its 30 rooms. A five-minute walk determined the radius of the area they studied for potential parking--an area that extends to the middle of the 300 block of Allen Street to the south, somewhere in the 300 block or the 400 block of State Street to the north, the 200 block of Warren Street to the west, and Sixth Street to the east. Within this area, Nadolny reported there were 600 onstreet parking spaces, and only 211 to 226 of them were occupied between 10 p.m. and midnight on the nights they did the analysis, leaving a surplus of more than 200 spaces. Hotel would need only 25 of those.
The traffic and parking report provoked a lot of comment--from members of the Planning Board and the public. Dustin Duncan, the newest board member, noted that the parking study considered only hotel guests and not patrons of the bar and restaurant. Nadolny responded that both were small and were intended primarily as amenities for guests. First Ward Alder Margaret Morris observed, "Looking at what's available at midnight is not realistic. You need to look at when guests are parking their cars." She suggested that guests would be parking their cars in the afternoon or early evening, when they would have to compete for parking spaces with shoppers and diners along Warren Street.
Planning Board member Valerie Wray asked if they had considered valet parking and putting cars overnight down at the train station. Bill Huston expressed the opinion that this was "the wrong location for a 30-room hotel" and asked, "What hotel guest is gonna walk five minutes to a hotel?" Second Ward Alder Mohammed Rony expressed concern about parking for Warren Street venues spilling over into the neighborhoods, particularly Columbia Street. Dan Hubbell, who was standing in for Charles Gottlieb as legal counsel for the Galvan Foundation at the meeting, reminded the Planning Board that there are no offstreet parking requirements.
The upshot of the discussion at the Planning Board meeting was that a committee of three members--Duncan, Wray, and Clark Wieman--would select a consultant to review the traffic and parking study done by Creighton Manning.
Meanwhile, the City of Hudson is pursuing its own parking study, which is being called a "Parking Improvement Feasibility Study." The RFP for this study was issued at the end of January, and responses were due on February 25. It is expected that the consulting firm chosen to undertake the study will be announced next week, on Wednesday, March 16.
The scope of services outlined in the RFP is introduced in this way:
Hudson is in the midst of changes that impact parking. Tourism and visitors to Hudson is increasing, particularly on weekends. Residents are moving in and out, and some areas have experienced changes in the number of residents who own vehicles. In order to optimize for changes in parking patterns, we are examining opportunities to develop additional sites for accessible structured and surfaced parking as well as changes in parking policy.
The City is requesting development of a comprehensive Parking Improvement Strategy that analyzes current and growing parking needs, identifies challenges and opportunities, and creates a framework for safer, more accessible parking capacity and highly effective way-finding in ways that complement the City’s walk-able, attractive urban environment.
Speaking with Gossips today, Third Ward Alder Ryan Wallace, who had a role in drafting the RFP, said that parking studies done for specific projects consider only a two or three block radius and do not take into account the "wave effect" on a broader area of the city. The parking study being undertaken by the City will be holistic--looking at all of the city, at different times of day, on different days of the week, in different seasons (spring to summer), and on at least one holiday weekend (Memorial Day). It is expected the study will be completed by the end of June.
The RFP can be found here. More information about the project provided in response to questions from those considering making a proposal can be found here.
COPYRIGHT 2022 CAROLE OSTERINK
I don't think the Planning Board has been obsessed with parking in years past, Carole. Last year I did my best to point out to the Planning Board all the false data, mistakes and shoddiness in Galvan's parking studies (the first was so bad they went and created another one with fewer glaring "mistakes") for their mega development at 7th and State. I also got many of my neighbors to write the Board about the real situation with parking in the area. Even after the Board hired a so called traffic consultant to supposedly review Galvan's laughable study, the Board approved the project and concluded with this: "We can't make a decision on the basis of parking, it's up to the common council to figure out parking issues should they arise. They can and will figure it out." Pointing out, in great detail, a deeply flawed parking study to the Board was a big waste of my time, and I won't bother to do it again. It seems like this Board, at least the new members, are asking the right questions about parking. Maybe their efforts will have an effect on the approval process for this bad proposal. Let's hope so.
ReplyDeleteB Huston
Around the same time this past fall when Galvan got approval from the Planning Board for their mega- development project on State Street, the 2 alternate-side overnight parking rule signs in the City Hall Municipal Lot disappeared, along with the rules themselves. Soon thereafter, 12 meters in the lot were replaced with PERMIT PARKING ONLY signs. These 2 things, erasing the overnight rules and creating permit spaces in this lot, were exactly what Galvan wanted for their project, and they requested them, or demanded them, of City Hall during the approval process. The way Galvan and their engineering firm mentioned them in words on screen and in letters to the board was as if it were a fait accompli. And it was.
ReplyDeleteGalvan is desperate for parking for all their tenants and customers and guests for their new developments surrounding this PUBLIC parking lot. This includes the hotel one and a half blocks away on 4th. What Galvan wants and needs more than anything are lots of parking spaces, preferably with no meters and no restrictions so that guests, tenants, etc can park in a space as long as they need to without worry of a ticket or tow, including overnight, of course. The city hall lot is becoming much more attractive to them, and I expect that trend will continue with more meters removed for them. Galvan's tenants, guests, etc will be offered parking permits from city hall to park in our municipal lots.
A few days ago I asked at the city clerk's office if they knew what city department was responsible for removing the signs and overnight parking rules for the lot. "All we can locate is a mention of it from the minutes of a Planning Board meeting last year" was the response I got. There has never, as far as I know, been mention of this change at a Common Council meeting. What about the meter removal and signs swap in the lot? I was told that this was done by the Budget Committee.
Somethin' don't smell right.
Bill Huston
I am very happy to see the extremely well-researched and documented ideas behind the elimination of parking being discussed; as opposed to the emotional gut-reaction that the idea of increasing the parking load will make it more difficult to park. Thank you Carole for referencing the Strong Towns material. Bill, please read it; since you clearly haven't. Good luck on the next City traffic consultant and the hope that they will come-up with radically different conclusions. We need parking management in Hudson- a rational plan that looks at the whole city and it sounds like steps are being taken in that direction.
ReplyDeleteI like to close by saying that we do not live in the Hamlet of Hudson; its the City of Hudson and the County seat- it should be urban and have urban parking policies; not rural or suburban ones.
Ridiculous. Chatham is indulging in lip service. We are aware of his bias. Municipal lots are public. Where applicable, except for doctors and handicapped, special permit parking has no place there or anywhere else on public avenues. In an already tight market, reducing public space is suspect of movers and shakers doing as they like for private gain. If you are coming into town for a concert at Hudson Hall, good luck! For a city dependant on just these sort of events, it's a sorry state of affairs. Sure a city needs urban policies but where are they? He's right on this one but blocks it's implementation by not offering remedies during construction applications to begin with. Hudson has been a visitor magnet for years and years and the struggle has only magnified. City government has delayed it time and time again because simply it's a specially difficult one. Urban solutions like multi level garages may be needed to be built. Recently, I had to travel to Poughkeepsie Vassar Medical, there are multi level garages among other spaces because you know, it's a city. Imagine not finding parking for an important medical appointment. Who's going to be brave enough to tackle this one? I wish the newest members the best of luck. Sorry to displease, this is not an emotional gut-reaction (what's wrong with that?!) but a practical one that illicits stressors which could be alleviated by competent government and honest developers.
Delete