I think the zoning ordinance for parking now is fine. I actually think it is too generous in many cases. For properties within walking distance of a Metro station, the parking limits should be lower and they should be treated as a special transit oriented case where cars are strictly limited. As we become more urban and overly dense, we should do everything we can to reduce cars. If you want to own a lot of cars, then please don't live here.

Too many people driving cars causes traffic congestion. More housing development per se is not the problem. It is the cars. Why not bring back the car tax and increase it to pay for the transportation infrastructure needed? Why not hike transportation related taxes and reduce property taxes on housing. We have too many cars and not enough housing.

How many houses do you see on the beltway in rush hour?

1.6 parking spaces per townhouse unit is totally unrealistic. You have to assume each townhouse will have two cars even if there are buses and metro nearby. Most people own a vehicle even if the majority of their commuting is by bus or train. Even a lot of single units have roommates or such that their are two cars per unit. Plan for reality do not try to force people to do what you want just by lack of space. It doesn't work as evidenced by the amount of cars on roads that haven't been upgraded for many years.

Parking requirements in zoning ordinances are recognized as a bar to TOD by many experts.

Just because the minimum is 1.6 spaces/TH, for example, doesn't mean you can't submit a plan to build for 2 or 3 spaces. The public process and the developers' customers and the location are going to determine the right answer to the parking question. But 1.6 is a place to start that Fairfax has chosen. In keeping with trying to reduce gridlock, we probably ought to keep the parking requirements as they are for now. We have the bigger picture to consider.

I personally think that within TSAs, the number of spaces should be subject to a lower minimum and that a maximum might also be appropriate. Within TSAs, it is very important to attract people who will use transit. But again, there is a lot that goes into designing communities where cars are less attractive and Fairfax doesn't seem to have quite gotten "it" yet. "It" doesn't just happen, you have to really think comprehensively. We have a comprehensive plan, but it is in name only. It's really a piecemeal, disoriented process that goes to nominations and amendments that needs reforming. All of that process needs to get more into determining patterns of human movement, need for POVs, need for transit, etc. in broader areas.

When I lived in Arlington, I had to get rid of my second car. No place to park it. Only got one space. Had to find a second space in a garage - what a pain! Wow, it was pricey, too. In the end, losing the second car was a logical price to pay for the luxury building with a Metro and shopping and restaurants in walking distance, eh?

What you want to attract to TSAs are people who will cut loose the extra cars in exchange for units meeting their housing requirements. That makes it even more vital that we carefully plan TSAs.

To the County, I'd say, don't take the parking issue up now. It's the wrong time. This has to be part of the whole TOD thought process that is really quite young in Fairfax. Put this on the back burner for now.

Anne

you wrote: "...and that a maximum might also be appropriate..."

You want the government to tell someone how many parking spaces they can have at their home?

Go regulate yourself and keep your laws off my home and my body!

That's right, No Name Post, Soccer Mom is kind of off the mark. Where was that body comment from? Whew. Left field. Non seq. I guess she didn't read her own post or the prior one carefully. Ffx is becoming an urban center rapidly, if it is not one already, and all of them have parking restrictions. Start knocking down developments or denying new ones if you want to reverse urbanization. She missed the operative M-word in the post she quoted, even though she repeated the comment with it there, thereby missing the point. At the same time, she ended up giving us some much needed amusement on a topic that is controversial.