Editorial: Permits can ease crush of parking

Last year, Honolulu created its first residential restricted parking zone. Inside the zone — along certain streets in Kalihi Valley’s Wilson Tract — each household gets a limited count of permits for overnight street parking. While the permit program does not guarantee anyone an on-street stall, it has significantly reduced the neighborhood’s curbside headaches.

That success story has prompted the City Council’s Budget Committee to advance Bill 70, which would allow other neighborhoods beset with parking-related woes to petition for a restricted parking zone (RPZ). Councilwoman Carol Fukunaga, who introduced the measure, maintains that it could ease everyday parking snags near “traffic generators,” such as universities and hospitals.

That’s true. In response to the posting of RPZ signage, motorists without a permit would no longer circle these neighborhoods in search of an on-street stall to snag. The zone provides permit-holders with significant possession of on-street space. A likely downside, though, is that this sort of program could push parking problems down the street, just outside of the zone.

If Bill 70 becomes law, Honolulu Hale may see petitions for as many as 15 zones islandwide, according to a City Transportation Serv­ices estimate. Such demand should prompt a neighborhood’s closer look at root causes and other parking-related solutions. Also, the city must guard against putting in place an RPZ that could essentially cut off public access to parks, beaches and business districts.

The current draft of the bill requires an RPZ petition include at least four contiguous blocks in a residential or apartment zone. If approved, only those living in the district would be eligible to obtain permits allowing them to park there during specific times, or 24 hours a day, depending on what’s requested in a petition. Each eligible dwelling unit would get up to four permits. Visitor permits also would be allowed.

The success of Honolulu’s proposal would hinge on careful oversight. The city should issue RPZ use sparingly. Signing off on a petition that limits round-the-clock parking to permit holders, for example, is tantamount to privatization of a public street. And that, of course, is unacceptable. The permit’s terms should aim for the lightest possible public impact.

In Kalihi Valley, between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., parking in the zone is limited to one hour for those without a residential or visitor permit. Those conditions alone have put a big dent in curbside crowding. In early 2017 — before the launch of a pilot program that preceded the RPZ — neighbors complained parking filled rapidly every night, with some motorists sleeping in their vehicles, loitering and littering on the streets and sidewalks.

Under Bill 70, if a majority of residents within a proposed zone sign off on a petition, Transportation Services must weigh demand with need. Among the likely considerations: Whether at least 75 percent of the capacity on the streets in the proposed RPZ is generally occupied, and more than 35 percent of parked vehicles are not owned by residents in the designated area. The City Council would be tasked with the final RPZ sign-off.

Such vetting seems sensible — and resembles that practiced in mainland cities with established RPZ programs.

Cities such as Seattle charge fees for permits, which also makes sense, given that such programs can require dedicated city staffing. Seattle oversees 34 zones involving more than 50,000 households. More than 100 city employees are involved, and four full-time staffers are dedicated to issuing and controlling permits. By charging fees here, the RPZ program could, at least partly, pay for itself.

The City Council should take a careful look at Bill 70, as it holds potential to serve as an elegant vehicle for neighborhoods, in tandem with the city, to effectively address their own chronic street-parking problems.