Opposition to Decrease Parking when Transit Vouchers Provided. Opposition to Decreasing Parking Supply Based on Flawed "Right Size Parking Experiment"
16 Comments
J
j Goldalmer
11 years ago
More parking, not less!
J
j Goldalmer
11 years ago
Rejecting the recommendation for Parking space reduction
K
Kevin Palmer
11 years ago
To reduce the parking requirement is absolutely wrong! downtown Kirkland is starving for parking, more parking should be required of every development.
F
Faustine Samec
11 years ago
Please do not cut down on parking. We need more parking in DT Kirkland.
T
This is idiotic
11 years ago
Also, l disagree that the earth is round and the lake is full of water. Maybe you can forward that petition to Council too?
T
Titti Ringstrom
11 years ago
We need to reduce street parking, not increasing it. Guests to my complex already have a hard time to find street parking due to overflow from Mira Apartments and/or Seattle commuters who can't find parking at the P&R - this would just worsen an already bad situation
K
Kevin Dunlap
11 years ago
Kirkland Highlands Resident for 28 Years. I say no. City should require one car parking space per adult resident.
M
multi-family resident for 24 years
11 years ago
There are other less restrictive ways to deal with this problem. What have other cities done successfully?
L
Loralee Leavitt
11 years ago
Featured
As more housing is added to our neighborhood, there is more and more parking on the street, which in turn makes the streets barely useable. Driving is often down to one lane. I hate to see this kind of congestion increase, but this is what would happen if Kirkland allows parking lots to be smaller. I don't think that transit vouchers can replace cars for all workers--they are great when the bus takes you to the right place, but if there is not a direct bus route it is not an answer. Even when families can use transit to get to work, other errands often make it necessary to have a car--one that would stay in the lot during the day and need a parking space.
K
Katie Perez
11 years ago
Parking in downtown is already difficult and if we hope to grow as a community we need to increase access.
L
Liz Hunt
11 years ago
The proposed reductions would significantly strain the already limited parking available in the downtown core and in the surrounding neighborhoods. More multi-family housing will increase the load on the already busy buses and parking lots. We should not stop multi-family residential development, but we need to ensure that sufficient infrastructure accompanies such development.
L
L Christensen
11 years ago
Our street parking is already so crowded that we may need to issue neighborhood parking permits as they do in Seattle neighborhoods. Transit in Kirkland is not good enough that we don't need cars.
V
Virginia De Forest
11 years ago
We need to increase off street parking not downsize it. Make developers include public parking over and beyond what is needed for the residents in their buildings.
M
Michael Radcliff
11 years ago
Featured
The City theory is based on only one person in a studio. Usual you have a boyfriend and girlfriend, or twwo partners sharing the housing cost. The present system of 1.7 spaces takes this into account.
C
Camille
11 years ago
Set a trend and "Do The Right Thing." One person = one car space. Two people per apartment = two car spaces. As so visually demonstrated two cars do not fit in 1.3 spaces. Forget about counting bedrooms & count people instead...unless of course the City Council is willing to regulate only one person per bedroom.
Bothell has already figured it out - so can Kirkland.
More parking, not less!
Rejecting the recommendation for Parking space reduction
To reduce the parking requirement is absolutely wrong! downtown Kirkland is starving for parking, more parking should be required of every development.
Please do not cut down on parking. We need more parking in DT Kirkland.
Also, l disagree that the earth is round and the lake is full of water. Maybe you can forward that petition to Council too?
We need to reduce street parking, not increasing it. Guests to my complex already have a hard time to find street parking due to overflow from Mira Apartments and/or Seattle commuters who can't find parking at the P&R - this would just worsen an already bad situation
Kirkland Highlands Resident for 28 Years. I say no. City should require one car parking space per adult resident.
There are other less restrictive ways to deal with this problem. What have other cities done successfully?
As more housing is added to our neighborhood, there is more and more parking on the street, which in turn makes the streets barely useable. Driving is often down to one lane. I hate to see this kind of congestion increase, but this is what would happen if Kirkland allows parking lots to be smaller. I don't think that transit vouchers can replace cars for all workers--they are great when the bus takes you to the right place, but if there is not a direct bus route it is not an answer. Even when families can use transit to get to work, other errands often make it necessary to have a car--one that would stay in the lot during the day and need a parking space.
Parking in downtown is already difficult and if we hope to grow as a community we need to increase access.
The proposed reductions would significantly strain the already limited parking available in the downtown core and in the surrounding neighborhoods. More multi-family housing will increase the load on the already busy buses and parking lots. We should not stop multi-family residential development, but we need to ensure that sufficient infrastructure accompanies such development.
Our street parking is already so crowded that we may need to issue neighborhood parking permits as they do in Seattle neighborhoods. Transit in Kirkland is not good enough that we don't need cars.
We need to increase off street parking not downsize it. Make developers include public parking over and beyond what is needed for the residents in their buildings.
The City theory is based on only one person in a studio. Usual you have a boyfriend and girlfriend, or twwo partners sharing the housing cost. The present system of 1.7 spaces takes this into account.
Set a trend and "Do The Right Thing." One person = one car space. Two people per apartment = two car spaces. As so visually demonstrated two cars do not fit in 1.3 spaces. Forget about counting bedrooms & count people instead...unless of course the City Council is willing to regulate only one person per bedroom. Bothell has already figured it out - so can Kirkland.
Opposed to "Right Size Parking"