The Dept. of Planning and Development Review is developing a new city-wide Master Plan, which will be called Richmond 300: A Guide for Growth

As part of the Richmond 300 process, PDR hired DESMAN, a parking consultant to study parking conditions and present parking recommendations for seven areas of the city. DESMAN presented the existing conditions at meeting in June 2018 (the materials from those meetings can be found at here). 

In December 2018, DESMAN presented a menu of recommendations for this study and asked community members to provide feedback on the recommendations via a paper survey. This digital survey is a replication of the paper survey. Please click on the links where provided to review the material shared at the December 2018 meeting and provide your comments by January 31, 2019.

For questions 1-9, please describe your reaction to described initiatives. The initiatives are summarized in this Initiatives Options Table.

Question Title

1. Standardize marking of parking and no parking areas on-street
Pros: Reduces unsafe practices. Makes the area more welcoming to outside visitors. Regulations are already in place.
Cons: Significant cost . May displace some existing parkers. Will still require enforcement.

Question Title

2. Evaluate time limit assignments
Pros: Current assignments can be confusing, lack predictability. Can be adjusted to reflect emerging development. Opportunity to get community agreement before enacting.
Cons: Current time limits are 'tuned' to adjacent businesses. Make create initial confusion with long-time residents. Will still require enforcement.

Question Title

3. Adopt ADA on-street policies for commercial districts (see Handicapped Parking boards)
Pros: Improves accessibility. Expands the supply of ADA spaces.
Cons: Could reduce curbside capacity. May not be needed on every block.

Question Title

4. On-Street Parking Permit Program
Pros: Creates a mechanism for employee & resident parking. Relatively low cost. Increases traffic/visibility through neighborhoods.
Cons: Will require enforcement if implemented. Could increase traffic through neighborhoods. Would require commitment from both parties.

Question Title

5. Create a parking benefit district (see Benefit District board)
Pros: Provides a mechanism for paying for local improvements. Ensures funds stay in the neighborhood.
Cons: Not all revenues can automatically go into the district. Dependent on mechanisms to collect funds.

Question Title

6. Promote shared parking agreements between parties to create 'public' parking (see Shared Parking boards)
Pros: Makes the most use out of existing assets. Creates resources, pedestrian traffic. Low or no cost way to expand capacity. Could help mitigate operating costs.
Cons: Would require amendment to local code. May require significant physical improvements. Still requires a third-party to broker. Does require participation from both parties.

Question Title

7. Introducing 'in lieu' payments to address parking requirements
(see 'In Lieu' board)
Pros: Creates funds for parking/traffic improvements. Allows developers to maximize footprint.
Cons: Places onus on City to build more parking assets. Can be a barrier to development.

Question Title

8. Resume active parking enforcement
Pros: Provides a mechanism for paying for local improvements. Ensures funds stay in the neighborhood.
Cons: Not all revenues can automatically go into the district. Dependent on mechanisms to collect funds.

Question Title

9. Evaluate strategic public parking asset development (see Pipeline Development boards)
Pros: Creates funds for parking/traffic improvements. Allows for waivers without putting onus on the public. Allows developers to maximize footprint.
Cons: Places onus on City to build more parking assets. Would require additional zoning revisions. Can be a barrier to development.

Question Title

10. Pro-actively initiate streetscape improvements to support walking/alternative transportation use

Question Title

11. Institute "Fee for Use" for on-street parking (see Paid Parking board)
Pros: Will increase turnover. Provides incentive to use off-street parking. Creates a revenue stream to fund other options. Creates incentive for alternative transportation.
Cons: Can create a barrier to patronage. Would require enforcement if implemented. Would require identification of off-street options. Cost and time intensive to implement.

Question Title

12. Were there solutions or initiatives that were NOT presented that you think should be included in the Parking Study?

Question Title

13. Is there anything else you would like the Consultant Team and/or the City of Richmond to know?

About you
We are asking for your demographic information so we can get a sense of the diversity of opinions that we are collecting in the Master Plan update process. This section is completely optional, but if you fill it out, it will really help us. You can skip this section if you like.

Question Title

14. What is your home zip code?

Question Title

15. What do you do in Richmond (Check all that apply)

Question Title

16. Age

Question Title

17. Race/Ethnicity (check all that apply)

Question Title

18. Is this your first time participating in a planning process?

Question Title

19. How did you learn about Richmond 300?

Question Title

20. If you would like to be added to the Richmond 300 email list, please provide your information below.

Thank you for taking this survey! 
If you have questions, email richmond300@richmondgov.com. Please follow us on Facebook and Instagram, sign up to get email updates, and peruse our website.

T