Paving Over Open Space: Part II

This is the second post in a series about parking reform as we explore the Manchester: Neighbors Welcome platform proposed by the City. Read part one here. In this post, we’ll share recommendations for what the Steering Committee should recommend to the BMA and provide additional resources about what happens after a city removes parking mandates.

One of the potential changes suggested in the City’s platform is to prevent paving over open spaces to build more new surface area parking lots downtown. However, the initial plan retains onerous and unnecessary parking mandates for new housing, paving over more space to add more unnecessary asphalt to Manchester, which we believe is a mistake.

What are our recommendations?

We recommend removing all mandates to pave over open spaces for new homes. In other cities and towns, this has made significant numbers of new homes possible. 

By allowing more homes to be built, we’ll create more opportunities for everyone. Removing mandates to pave over open spaces (preventing more unnecessary asphalt) will also help Manchester move forward to manage our parking better — and can even be used to fund infrastructure improvements like bike lanes, walking paths, and transit. 

What happens if we remove parking mandates?

We need to allow for smarter decisions around parking. Today, requiring a set amount of asphalt or pavement per home for new construction doesn’t allow for consideration of the location. For example, are there buses, bike lanes or walking paths nearby? Is the new home next door to an underutilized parking garage that might allow space rentals? Are the homes being built for seniors or people with disabilities who may have fewer cars than the average household? None of these factors come into consideration when the city mandates a certain amount of parking spaces. 

Removing mandates does not mean new parking won’t be built. It means that property owners and builders can consider who will live in the homes and what is surrounding the homes. Cities that have removed parking mandates find plenty of parking is still being built - but less than before, and more dependent on the specific factors of each location. As noted in our last post, studies from Washington State, which removed parking mandates show that new housing has 40% less parking spaces than previously required - correlating with data that 40% of parking spaces sit empty at the most high demand times.

In addition, removing mandates allows Manchester to put in place a parking management system - one that can appropriately regulate parking demand downtown and in neighborhoods. Parking management systems - sometimes called parking benefit districts - have a range of benefits. We can design them to provide resident parking permits while either charging visitors for parking or limiting their stays in free parking. We can use them to better understand where and when there is a demand for parking in our neighborhoods and design solutions such as shared parking arrangements (when a parking lot might both be for local residents and visitors to neighborhood businesses). The proceeds from parking benefit districts can be used to fund needed improvements such as bike lanes, bus service, safety improvements, etc.  Parking management systems will give us the data we need to better understand what Manchester needs for parking, and where. 

Want to learn more? 

Luckily, many other places have removed parking mandates before us, and a growing body of literature helps us evaluate their success. In 2017, Buffalo, NY became the first major American city to end parking mandates citywide. Since that time, other major cities including Anchorage, AK, Seattle, WA, St. Paul and Minneapolis, MN, and small towns in New Hampshire, Michigan, and Georgia. And yes, plenty of cities that get a lot of snow have removed parking mandates! And, check out this in depth report on parking mandates in Washington State.

Removing parking mandates is key to ensuring we have a range of small home types that meet people’s needs like duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes — those which might not be feasible if onerous, unnecessary mandates drive up the cost of construction, or we require large amounts of pavement on a lot where there isn’t space for off-street parking.