From: Jed Weeks Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 4:31 PM To: Austin, Natawna B.; Dorsey, Ryan Subject: Fwd: Council Bill #20-0497 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Baltimore City IT Network Systems. Reminder: DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know that the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to BCIT.ServiceDesk@baltimorecity.gov / 410-396-6648. Hi Natawna, Councilman Dorsey requested I forward this email to you because my correspondence was not included in the relevant materials package to City Council on the Reedbird Conditional Use Parking Lot. I will also forward a thread with the Rec and Parks response to my original email and my reply to that. Thank you, Jed Weeks ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jed Weeks Date: Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 4:59 PM Subject: Council Bill #20-0497 To: Cc: Hi Eric, Not sure if I'll be able to make it onto the commission call because I have a conflict I'm trying to reschedule. I was hoping someone could put the below questions and statement regarding the Conditional Use Parking Lot at Reedbird Avenue into the record on my behalf if I can't make it: 1) What is the estimated cost of the parking lot infrastructure? 2) Was a parking study done to estimate the parking need, and if so, what were the results for peak and off-peak needs, and when is peak need estimated to be? 3) Was a parking utilization survey done to estimate the availability of on-street parking along Reedbird Avenue during peak and off-peak needs, and was there any study or discussion about potential utilization of adjacent large privately owned surface lots during peak recreation hours that are likely off-peak business hours? I have concerns that Rec and Parks continues to be planning investment in new parking infrastructure when existing facilities could potentially meet that need and allow us to pass the savings from not having to build parking onto improved recreational facilities. In the 21st Century Parks survey, Rec and Parks asked existing park users to rate citywide park and recreation facilities. Only 2% complained about parking. For non-users, the biggest barrier was "not easy to walk to/not easy to get to by public transit," not parking. Of those that reported regularly driving to parks, over 70% did not live in South Baltimore, and most made $75,000 or more per year. Continuing to invest in parking that is utilized predominantly by households making far above the median household income is a strike against equity, especially when Parks and Recreation facility users, and those who want to use facilities but currently can't access them desire that money to be spent in other ways. And at a minimum, we should be pursuing all available avenues to maximize parking opportunity in the existing right-of-way before ripping up park land and spending money on more parking. Thanks, Jed Weeks -- Jed Weeks Policy Director facebook | twitter Support better biking in Baltimore by making a donation today. -- Jed Weeks Policy Director facebook | twitter Support better biking in Baltimore by making a donation today.