Parking Minimalism Plans in Cambridge: Why Facts Matter

Ending parking minimums (laws requiring a specific number of parking spaces in different city contexts) is now being proposed by City Council. This across the board (city wide) proposal will detrimentally impact many residents and businesses. The unintended consequences of removing parking minimums citywide are significant. Lack of adequate parking could lead environmental harm from circling the neighborhood for the increasingly rarer space or greater green space loss for more onsite parking, leading to increased heat island impacts harmful and could push us further behind in addressing economic, racial, and environmental equity.
 
The removal of parking minimums is part of a set of goals, that dovetails with efforts of some to up-zone residential areas to add more, and larger, market rate housing. Cambridge is already a very dense city, and the City has plans to make it even denser. One strategy to do so, that is being pushed by some on Council currently is to stop requiring housing and commercial property developers to provide some minimal amount of parking for new residential or commercial owners and tenants.
 
Please read the City’s Envision and Moving Forward Report data on this issue:
 
Our city’s ENVISION FINAL REPORT calls for a moderated parking plan, removing parking minimums only in those areas where this can be done sustainably and without impacting the community. Envision DOES NOT call for ending parking minimums citywide and indeed seems to oppose such a plan. In some areas, for example in Harvard Square’s commercial area, parking minimums have already been removed because there is ample public transit. Each public square and neighborhood has its own particular needs and requirements. The Envision Final Report also expresses concern about spillover on residential streets. Again, the Envision Report never suggests removing parking minimums city wide. Let’s make sure we follow what Utile’s planning efforts provided by way of a city plan. Smart planning matters.
 

• Point # 5 of the Mobility section states: “Change zoning to reduce maximum parking requirements near transit nodes and in key squares and corridors, with lowered parking requirements.”  
• Point #1 of the Urban Form section states: “Eliminate minimum parking requirements for development along the corridors.”
•  Point # 2 of the Urban Form section states that the city should “just zoning in residential districts to be more compatible with prevailing patterns of development, including building setbacks, maximum heights, open space, parking requirements, and uses.”

 
The Cambridge  2020 Moving Forward Report Transportation/ParkingData) breaks need down by neighborhood
General Findings:

• Who and Where: 61,925 Cambridge residents (just over half of all residents) work either in Cambridge or in other areas. Many of these workers (55%) are employed outside Cambridge (including 29% who work in Boston).
• Travel to work: 28% drive to work; 29% take public transport; 25% walk; 7% bike 
•  Neighborhoods: Travel data from Cambridge neighborhoods vary significantly across the city, based on various factors including proximity to local, public transport and how close residents live to work. 

Different Neighborhood Concerns/data in the 2020 Moving Forward Report
 
Alewife/Fresh Pond 

• Travel to work: 71% drive, 13% public transport, 6% walk, 5% carpool, 2% bike
•  Distance/Time: more than 50% of residents commute by car and take more than 30-44 minutes getting to work 
•  Income:  below $74K, 60% drive, 0-22% take public transit, 0% bike. 
• People Living Outside Cambridge who commute to this neighborhood to work: 92% of total worker group is non-residents. Total workforce in this area:  8,200.
•  Conclusions:  60% of lower income employees or residents drive to work.  For equity and pragmatic reasons, parking will continue to be prioritized here for both Cambridge residents and those who commute here to work.
  
  

Harvard Square 

• Travel to work: 32% public transport, 27% walk, 25% drive, 7% carpool, 6% bike
•  Distance: 35% travel 8 >24 miles; 23% travel 3-7 miles; 43% travel <3 mi.
•  Income: below $74K, 20-30% drive, 30-50% take public transit, 20-30% bike.
• People Living Outside Cambridge who commute here to work: 82.8% of total worker group is non-residents. Total workforce in this area: 21,700.
• Conclusions: We know from the City’s Town/Gown Report that a significant number of Harvard employees use public transport or ride-share. The Envision Final Report recommends that the city should decrease parking minimums near transit hubs. This is already in place in the Harvard Square commercial district. 20-30% of lower income workers drive there. 

 
Central Square and University Park

• Travel to work: 49% drive, 28% public transport, 9% walk, 8% carpool, 1% bike
• Distance: 48% travel 8 >24 miles; 24% travel 3-7 miles; 27% travel <3 mi.
•  Income: below $74K 20-40% drive, 20-60% take public transit, 1% walk, 1% bike.
• People Living Outside Cambridge who commute here to work: 91.1% of total worker group = non-residents. Total workforce in this area: 8200.
• Conclusions: Nearly have the workforce travels 8 miles to over 24 miles to reach their destinations. Between 20-40% of lower income workers drive to work, so for equity reasons one needs to maintain viable parking options for them.

 
Kendall Square/MIT

• Travel means: (no data)
• Distance: (no data)
•   Income: below $74K 30-38% drive, 42-50% public transit, 10-18% walk, 0-8% bike.
• Workers Here Living Outside Cambridge: 87.9% of total worker group = non-residents. Total workforce in this Kendall Square/MIT area: 43,000.
• Conclusions: The vast majority of workers (87.9%) arrive here from outside Cambridge; 30-38% of those who drive to work here are lower income. Regardless of income, this is a large number of people to squeeze on these narrow streets. It is largely through parking minimums that the city holds employers accountable. In short, CDD negotiates with new companies about the way their employees commute and how much parking they will need to provide. MIT parking also comes up in the annual Town/Gown report.

 
East Cambridge/North Point

• Travel to work: c.39% drive, c.42-50% public transport, 8% walk, 1% bike 
• Distance: 46% travel 8 > 24 miles
• Income: below $74K 30-38% drive, c.41-50% take public transit, 0-1% walk, 1-10% bike.
• Workers Here Living Outside Cambridge: 90.6% of total worker group = non-residents. Total workforce in this area: 12,300 
• Conclusions: Over 90% of the workforce comes from outside Cambridge. While many take public transport, 39% still drive to work and 30-38% of these workers who drive are lower income. Nearly half the workers travel from 8 to >24 miles to work, precluding walking and biking. Parking minimums will likely remain until we get a local and regional transport system.

 
Conclusions:

• Nowhere in the Envision or the 2020 Moving Forward Reports is the idea of ending ALL Parking minimums presented.  
• As a responsible City (and City Council) we must follow our own planning guidelines and reports (Here Moving Forward AND Envision).
• Parking in the abstract is one thing. But we also must address how all our residents can get to work, reach grocery and other shopping destinations, commute to medical appointments, and travel to work or commute to visit family and colleagues. We also must address how local small businesses depend on parking for their economic survival.  And, with the projected increase in both large commercial enterprises and population, the need for parking is likely to expand rather than decrease.
• Before removing parking minimums citywide (making it harder to reach places, even by car), we must assure that there is a viable Cambridge and state transit system.  Former Mayor Alice Wolf recently advocated for this on the Porter Square listserv [listserv], noting that there were efforts to promote such systems when she was on City Council, 1984-1994. Only with a citywide transport system will enough residents be able to get where they need to go in a timely and effective way. In the meantime, we must address the different needs of our various neighborhoods, residents, local businesses, and other large employers. 
• With this P.O. we are prioritizing ideology over reality, and the misplaced assumption that by making parking more difficult for everyone, somehow, even without viable public transport, residents needing to work or undertake activities in various settings will end car use.
• Is this Parking Policy Order needed? No. Currently one can remove onsite parking through special permit and often simply making other non-conforming changes to a non-conforming property (say adding a garden instead of on-site parking space) comes without legal ramifications.