You can sugarcoat it anyway you would like, but the truth it that you do want to make it harder for people to park, and you do want to control behavior but making it too expensive to do anything but take public transit, which is what you consider to be right.

by Mark on Jul 23, 2009 2:50 pm  

No. It's what David says it is: making it easier to park, but at a higher price. It also reduces traffic because it decreases the number of cars in the street searching for a parallel space.

And again, parking in the DC USA garage is $1 per hour. Nobody who can afford to own and maintain a car is going to be priced out of parking in Columbia Heights at $1 per hour.

by Josh B on Jul 23, 2009 3:06 pm  

How do you know for sure that the absence of close-in, appropriately priced parking garages (as opposed to scattered surface lots, which is mostly what we have) has not discouraged some people from coming back to Nats park? I'm not disagreeing, just wondering if that's conjecture or based on research.

Go Nats.

by Thomas Riehle on Jul 23, 2009 3:06 pm  

One of my pet peeves: journalists have no incentive, or sometimes even idea how, to present a planning-related situation informatively. It's ignorance (compounded by the lack of tenure and knowledge of many reporters both print and electronic), it's the drive for viewers or readers that leads to shallow, one-sided sensationalist presentation, it's a bunch of things. But I believe that until we can figure out a way to educate our residents (as this post tries to do), we'll never get good decisionmaking on planning issues. Big journalism fail here.

by Elaine on Jul 23, 2009 3:09 pm  

I've found it MUCH easier to park on 8th Street SE after the performance parking meters came in. I can almost always park on the block I want.

by Erik on Jul 23, 2009 3:09 pm  

Um, the only reason you view your verbiage as the 'right' way to talk about performance parking, is that you have already made the decision that performance parking is the answer. Your word choice is actually the way to persuade skeptics that it is the correct answer.

I don't have a problem with that, and in at least one case, availability, you are correcting erroneous assumptions about performance parking. But on the issue of pricing, it must be said that you are simply sugarcoating the issue. Harvey is correct. To get the desired result, performance parking 'jacks up' prices to discourage longer parking. That's just a fact. There's no reason that people shouldn't know that, discuss that, and be unhappy about that.

I'm a proponent of performance parking myself, but on several occasions (for instance, the issue of delivery trucks double parking), you have put forth performance parking as a solution when it is clearly not indicated as such.

by CJ on Jul 23, 2009 3:22 pm  

I attended Professor Donald Shoup's recent DC area briefing on Performance Parking and found it very convincing. Here's a short article from Shoup: http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/GreatStreet.pdf Testing market rates in Columbia Hts to achieve the goal of 85% occupancy or a minimum of one space available per block seems like the logical next step.

by Stewart Schwartz on Jul 23, 2009 3:30 pm  

I think perhaps the complaints are from those who live in the area and have on street parking at their houses. For non-residents, the maximum amount of time you're allowed to park in these non-metered spaces is 2 or 3 hours (depending on the neighborhood). This does not tend to be enforced very much.

So, when people who would otherwise park at meters get to the restaurant and realize it's 50 cents per 15 minutes or whatever in front of the restaurant, but free for 2 or 3 hours just 2 blocks away, they're going to get annoyed and/or not have the change and decide to park in the non-metered spaces in front of people's houses. This then, will make the people who normally park in the residential neighborhoods have a harder time finding on street parking which is no fun.

Now, here's the thing: this could still discourage driving--either way SOMEone knows that they're going to have a hell of a time finding a place to park. But instead of getting non-residents to carpool or metro or bike or walk, you're going to get residents less willing to move thier cars. In the end it's less driving, but unduly punishing the wrong people.

by Catherine on Jul 23, 2009 3:35 pm  

While the incentives are as you state, Catherine, DC has struck me as very aggressive about enforcing the two-hour limit on non-RPP cars, particularly in areas near businesses. They may not be perfect, but I do think they go around, and at 2h1m, you'll get a ticket in most instances. Of course, the car is still there . . .

by ah on Jul 23, 2009 3:51 pm  

I think your explanation is better, but it is still flawed.
I think you argument started to fail when you tried to say performance parking provides more choices. I see what you were trying to say and I'm increasingly a big fan of performance parking, but the only real discussion that needs to be had is about what the appropriate price is for on-street parking. The bottom line is that any good is underpriced where is overconsumed. The pricing needs to be set such that parking can be shared in some reasonably equitable way. The 85% level is where that starts to happen.

by KB on Jul 23, 2009 4:25 pm  

Damon Harvey is a brilliant planner and probably knows more about parking policy and tools than anyone else in this city. The Bill Safire treatment he gets in this article was a bit much. Some of the things Mr. Harvey has implemented over the past two years have NEVER been done before in Washington. And if given the choice between hearing from a DDOT smooth-talker or someone who actually knows what they're talking about; I'll take the latter.

by IHeartDC on Jul 23, 2009 4:27 pm  

Yeah, you can stomp your foot and pout all you want, but it *is* jacking up the rates. Maybe for a good cause, but facts are facts. Also, I agree with the other poster that trying to sugarcoat this with talk of "choices" is a wee bit disingenuous. Again, maybe in the long run it is a good thing, but I have a hard time getting excited about the option of paying 50 cents per 15 minutes at a parking meter. I know there is some illogic at play here, but I'd rather take my chances at finding the free space, even if it requires walking three or four or even five blocks. Don't get the wrong idea - I drive as little as possible. But I'm thinking of certain instances when driving is what I *want* to do - I don't want to worry about do I have enough quarters, will I get a ticket if I stay too long, etc. Now, I will admit that in this case, having the dollar an hour garage in the same neighborhood does alleviate the pinch a little bit.

by Josh on Jul 23, 2009 5:08 pm  

The point is that a representative of DDOT is supposed to make the strongest case for the policies of DDOT. Expecting him to avoid unnecessarily negative language is not pouting. If Kathleen Sebelius started going around pitching Obamacare as a "jack" in taxes, anyone who supports the reform would be justifiably dissapointed in her choice of words.

He should leave it up to people who fail to recognize the money value of time and convenience to throw out words like "jacked up".

by Reid on Jul 23, 2009 5:15 pm  

Reid, you have no problem with "a jack in taxes" as long as it's not called that?

If it looks looks like a duck...

by Mark on Jul 23, 2009 5:28 pm  

Mr. Alpert is doing a disservice to the Performance Parking program, especially in Columbia Heights.

by W Jordan on Jul 23, 2009 6:24 pm  

I don't think anyone is criticizing Harvey's knowledge at all - to the contrary, actually. However, this is a political issue and language matters. You have to frame the issue in order to persuade people.

by Alex B. on Jul 23, 2009 6:26 pm  

Reid, you have no problem with "a jack in taxes" as long as it's not called that?

That's a "when did you stop beating your wife" question, so I won't bother to answer it.

by Reid on Jul 23, 2009 6:36 pm  

I don't care if its free, I still refuse to park at DC USA. And I am not the only one.

DC USA is always empty for a reason. Its a pain to get into, a pain to get back to street level, and a pain to leave. I would rather circle the block, look for a street-level spot, or park at Giant.

And for the record, I've never parked at a pay meter in CH. Just found an open zoned free spot (and stayed less than 2 hours) or Giant.

by Wayan on Jul 23, 2009 6:54 pm  

Wow. Can we get Bill O'Reilly in here? This article is so full of spin, that a twister sounds like a calm breeze.

Come on, Dave. Stop drinking the cool-aid. Performance parking is designed to create more revenue. It would never be implemented anywhere if it didn't. Seriously. That fact that the money is earmarked for something that you like, does not change the basic fact. Trust me, for any politician thinking about the subject, the supposed availability is nothing else than a good PR sideline issue.

Wording is important, but please don't let this blog turn into a twister spin-zone of nonsense. Let's stay on earth, and stick to the bare facts.

by Jasper on Jul 23, 2009 9:09 pm  

No, Jasper - performance parking is the acknowledgment of the basic laws of economics. Measuring supply and demand alone is pointless unless you consider price.

You're right that performance parking is only implemented where it generates more revenue, but that's only because those are areas where demand for parking exceeds supply, hence the free or underpriced spaces are in short supply.

Again, the whole point is that you must consider price.

by Alex B. on Jul 23, 2009 9:18 pm  

I've only been to the DC USA parking garage a few times. It reminded me of a European parking garage. Performance parking is jacking up the rates, and the people who advocate for it should have the balls to call it honestly. Again, the drive for performance parking and other fees is the need for increased revenue when governments can't raise taxes.

by charlie on Jul 23, 2009 10:41 pm  

Performance parking isn't the first time a proposal to charge for something that once was free (of charge) raises hackles. HOT lanes are another example. Parks are another example. Fisheries are yet another example, as is pollution. When things are consumed at low levels (i.e., the supply well exceeds the demand), there's typically little point in bothering to set up a payment mechanism. But eventually demand outstrips supply and you have to come up with a way to allocate the scarce good. One way is queuing--i.e., circling for spaces, sitting in traffic, getting to entrance early. Another way is to raise the price, which means that people pay instead of using non-cash mechanisms to assert the strength of their preferences. It's much more efficient doing it that way.

by ah on Jul 23, 2009 11:16 pm  

Couldn't we achieve the same result simply by really enforcing short term parking limits on all streets in a neighborhood such as the one in question? Say, limiting the parking to 3 hours at a clip for the entire neighborhood ... i.e., no moving your car to another spot in the neighborhood when you're about to exceed the 3 hrs.

Wouldn't getting long term parkers off the streets, such as residents and office workers cars, ensure that we all had the access to stores, homes, and businesses that the curbside is supposed to be providing? Wouldn't it be providing exactly what performance parking is supposed to provide ... but without the inequity that results when you make it 'for pay' and those with deep pockets get to essentially 'own' that public curbspace which is supposed to be public ... and therefore available to all of us?

And wouldn't barring people (residents and office workers and others) from using our curbsides for their long term storage needs create an incentive for them to demand more underground and centralized parking ... and for the developers to see a financial incentive in providing it?

It's not a matter of 'allocating' existing limited parking spaces. It's a matter of creating the mechanisms for existing curbside space to be used for what is was initially intended, i.e., providing access to homes, businesses, and offices. And letting those same mechanisms provide the financial incentives for adequate long term parking spaces to be created off street for the 'storing' of cars that don't much contribute to the traffic problem to begin with.

I.e., It's not a matter of learning how to make do with less (and letting the more wealthy just 'buy it' out from under the less wealthy) but rather setting things right so that there'll be more parking, short term and long term, for everyone.

by Lance on Jul 23, 2009 11:40 pm  

Lance, what you're proposing is essentially what we've got, or at least had for a long time. Very low meter rates combined with time limits.

Time limits are very hard to enforce, they take a lot of effort to continually survey every street, and then come back later. If you come back exactly two hours and one minute later, you get a lot of angry calls because your enforcement is too draconian. If you let it slide and come by four hours later, you end up allowing a lot of people to get away with "overparking" and you have to make the time limits shorter to compensate. Not to mention what happens when you try to apply the time limit to a whole zone and you have to track the cars as people attempt to shuffle them around.

Enforcing time limits also tends to piss people off. Who are you to say whether they "need" to park two hours or four? Let them get the parking they need, but use it efficiently.

I think there is a balance that could be struck. Have the DC Council set a price that they want to be the maximum. Say $3.00 per hour. As long as the performance parking price stays below that level, manage occupancy by price alone, without time limits. In most high-demand areas, the price will be high enough that people won't want to store their car very long, and will find off-street solutions. For low-demand areas, people will figure out whether it's worth it to just keep the car on street or to find something else. As long as the prices are adjusted to keep a space or two open on each block, I think that meets the need that you're concerned about having convenient access.

Now, if the demand for an area is so high that the unrestricted price would be very high, then DDOT should consider applying a time limit in addition to the maximum price established.

This is a balance between the equity concern that you don't want the prices too high with the efficiency concern that time limits are hard to enforce and somewhat arbitrary.

I really wish DDOT could get this right on just one block so we could all see whether it works well or not. Obviously I think it would, but it's easier to demonstrate when you can go there and observe.

by Michael Perkins on Jul 24, 2009 12:24 am  

I've said it once and I'll say it again.

Privatize on street parking by selling off spaces, and fire 100% of the city's parking enforcement force. You make money on one end and save a ton on the other.

by MPC on Jul 24, 2009 12:39 am  

MPC - I want to take your point one step further.

Do you think government regulations should forbid the owner of an automobile-sized piece of land next to the curb from using his land for purposes other than parking? Should the owner be able to erect a hot dog stand? A small house?

by tt on Jul 24, 2009 8:15 am  

Thomas Rhiele asks, "How do you know for sure that the absence of close-in, appropriately priced parking garages (as opposed to scattered surface lots, which is mostly what we have) has not discouraged some people from coming back to Nats park? I'm not disagreeing, just wondering if that's conjecture or based on research."

Umm, Thomas: The Nats are 28-66 right now, and 26 1/2 games out of first place. They have by far the worst record in the majors, the worst bullpen, and they can't field a lick. That might have something to do with the low attendance numbers. If masochism is your thing, you can always watch Congressional floor debate on C-SPAN or the City Council Channel for free. Why pay big bucks and suffer the Nats when you can cringe in the comfort of your own home? I don't think parking has anything to do with it, other than the fact the Nats are parked in the NL East basement for the foreseeable future.

by Mike on Jul 24, 2009 8:42 am  

I love that I would have the option of paying a lot more than what I currently pay to park at a meter in the Columbia Heights area! What a fantastic option!

Councilmembers should adopt this Orwellian doublespeak and let us know that by increasing taxes and government-mandated fees, we now will have the option for the same city services, but at higher price!

And isn't it sort of a conflict that in Columbia Heights, your option is to either park on the street for a higher fee or park in the DC USA parking garage -- the same parking garage that has been losing money hand over fist, which means the city isn't collecting anywhere near as much revenue as it had expected and budgeted?

The amount of spin and doublespeak in this article is truly amazing. I wish Alpert and others would simply be honest about what their plans mean for the average Joe: If you drive, you will have to pay a lot more to park in the city because you're not making the right decision (as determined by some self-appointed elites) that public transit, bicycles, or walking is the only allowable form of transportation.

It's Nanny Government dressed up in the clothes of environmentalism.

by Fritz on Jul 24, 2009 9:17 am  

Mr. Albert makes the mistake of mixing the politics around pushing a particular transportation agenda with what mix of tools and policies that would work best for Columbia Heights and its visitors. It's easier for him politically to go at Mr. Harvey, than the Council Member who was at the very same meeting who drafted sometimes contradictory legislation and policies.

It's called the DCUSA Garage, but the garage really belongs to the city. The deficit at the garage is being paid with money, $2.1M, coming from the neighborhood investment fund. The garge is under utilized in part becuase of poor planning by DDOT and the politics of development. A failure to properly address egress and traffic flow in a timely manner. New urbanist want to say the garage was unnecessary from the start, but we won't really know that until traffic, signage and other issue are addressed and implemented.

Mr. Alpert unfortunately is attempting to take advantage of folks' ignorance about the challenges and opportunities in Columbia Heights to push his own agenda vs. really testing his agenda in a real live situation/test bed like Columbia Heights. Mr. Harvey, can't sell Performance Parking in Columbia Hieghts, because as a policy implemented in a vacuum it makes little sense and is more political than good policy. For some Performance Parking gives cover to scoring political points/votes around parking issues".

The issue about "jacking up" came about in the discussion about the community fund in which a portion of the fees get deposited. "Jacking up" would mean more funds for community non-auto projects.

While, Mr. Harvey had to manage policy, community conerns, needs and confusion. Mr. Alpert and the CM basically sat back leaving Mr. Harvey to take the heat and do the work. It not Mr. Harvey's job to spin. I support Performance Parking in principal, but want community influences at the table in directing it, vs. politicians and new urbanist with little at risk.

If Mr. Alpert is serious, I challenge him and Greatgreatwashington to co-sponsor a real community dialogue on this and related issues in Columbia Heights.

by W Jordan on Jul 24, 2009 10:14 am  

The parking options in CoHi need to be clearer.

As an Lanier Heights resident, I'm regularly near DC USA and have noticed one major flaw with the parking: signage. The entrance to DC USA parking is practically hidden on Park Rd. I'd bet many DC residents drive to Target because their purchase is too large to take home on public transit. But they're unfamiliar with the neighborhood and don't know that short-term and long-term options exist, let alone that the rate is just $1/hour. Personally, I didn't even know that Target had a parking garage until a friend from Virginia pointed it out and I didn't know about the $1 rate until I read this post. Clarifying that info to the public would go a long way to helping parking in the area.

by Ditro on Jul 24, 2009 10:30 am  

Here's the thing about saying prices are being "jacked up". "Jacked up" implies unfairly raising prices, price gouging and a slew of other unfavorable associations. That slant only applies if you think the government is taking something from you.

But parking isn't like income. Those street spaces don't belong to you and you don't pay (directly) to maintain them. Just because parking and roads have been subsidized in the past doesn't make them a right.

Finally, take a step back and think about the prices here. These amounts are piddling compared to what you spend on car payments and insurance, or groceries, or cable TV or any other regular expense. So suck it up and lets move on to something that actually matters.

by Daniel on Jul 24, 2009 11:12 am  

Avoiding negatively loaded phrases like "jacking up" is not spin. In fact, using such phrases could be considered spin, albeit inadvertant. Of course public officials should not use deceptive or confusing language, but something like "raising the per-hour price of street parking, in order to make more spaces available throughout the day" straightforwardly explains the proposal, without emotional baggage.

But I agree shifting people to off-street parking will be difficult in CH. The DCUSA garage seems to have been purposely constructed to discourage anyone not shopping at DCUSA from using it. Not only is there no indication to newcomers that it exists, pedestrian exits to the street are either nonexistent or incredibly confusing (the last time I parked there and tried to walk back onto the street I got scolded by a security guard telling me this was not allowed. He then directed me through some impossibly byzantine route adding at least the equivalent of a block to my walking distance.)

by Erica on Jul 24, 2009 11:32 am  

Mike has hit it on the head. The Nats' problem is underground parking in the National League standings.

by Ben Ross on Jul 24, 2009 11:42 am  

Focus on the "Jack up" phrase is why Mr. Alpert has done such a disservice. That phrase used near the end of the meeting and clarified right away by Mr. Harvey, but Mr. Alpert ran with it anyway. As well this was the first in a series of meetings designed to educate about and refine the Performance Parking Zone and related issues in CH. Most of the meeting went to addressing community questions and explaining data collection, boundaries and getting feedback.

by W Jordan on Jul 24, 2009 12:35 pm  

The DCUSA obsession is wrong. Of course it's a failure as it's for-pay and the ugly above-ground Giant garage across the street is free. As the 2nd half of DCUSA is built and more businesses and residences fill CH, I'm sure the lot will be used more. If not, there's plenty of possibilities for it. But long-term it's the free Giant garage that will keep down parking prices.

"Jacking-Up" is a loaded term sure to be latched onto by opponents. I'm sure "Performance Parking" was also seen as a positive term when it was first used but it's getting a bad rap. I'd stick with "market rate" as a neutral and fair name.

My only objection to the concept is that the increased funds are set aside for housing rather than transit. I think if the public knew the funds were for say streetcars, they'd support it overwhelmingly. There are more appropriate sources for housing funds like fair market tax assessments on existing large commercial buildings.

by Tom Coumaris on Jul 24, 2009 1:09 pm  

Giant Parking is not free, validated is not free. Gaint/Horning did a good job to ensure parking was not ugly quite the opposite as for a garages go. Also the Giant Garage was paid for in part with Federal TIIF ($2M?) funding because it is near a Metro.

by W Jordan on Jul 24, 2009 1:18 pm  

Michael, What I'm proposing really isn't what we have now. What we have now is curbside space being used for more than just 'access' (i.e., short term parking.) I think if we managed to keep the 'storers' (i.e., long term parkers) from using the curbside as free storage space, a lot of our problems would be solved. Market mechanisms would kick in and adequate off street and, 'for pay' parking would be constructed, and we'd have sufficient on street parking available for everyone's short term access needs. The curbside would be returned to what it was designed for ... providing access to people's businesses, homes, and offices.

Essentially, what I am proposing is really no different from what 'Performance Parking' envisions, except that I think that that short term parking (aka 'access' for motorists) should stay free. You want the market mechanisms to kick in by forcing those who cannot afford high rates to be those who 'demand' new off street parking. I want the market mechanisms to kick in for the construction of these off street parking spaces to happen because everyone who wants to store a car somewhere will have a vested interest in seeing the construction of these new off street garages ... And not just those least able to push for them ... i.e., those who have been priced out of street side parking.

I think my plan would stand a better chance of putting in place the market mechanisms to bring in adequate and cheap short AND long term parking facilities for all who desire them. Your plan would ensure those with the means all the public access they desire, while relgating those without the means into abandoning personal vehicles because they can neither afford to access by motor vehicle those places they need to access (i.e., they can't afford curbside parking rates) and won't have the clout to demand the construction of more off street parking.

by Lance on Jul 24, 2009 4:25 pm  

Urban slang dictionary definition of "jacked up":

Refers to pricing of items for sale. Generally implies that the marked price is higher than the item is worth for marketing reasons (to get a higher discounted sale price), or raised due to high demand (gouge price).

My definition of free validation: free parking.

by Tom Coumaris on Jul 25, 2009 1:09 pm  

Again I suggest a real-time rate adjustment set at an electronic block-serving meter. Enacting performance parking by increasing the price to park in areas that are very popular at a particular time is a crude measure that is indistinguishable from "jacking their parking rates up". Put into effect for a large area a rate algorithm based on the number of cars parked & the time they're parking for, and you have an impartial way to administer performance parking.

Tom -
Validated public parking at least allows for beneficial sharing of uses, which private free parking does not.

by Squalish on Jul 25, 2009 3:47 pm  

Squalish, how do you propose to gather the real time metrics which your proposal would require? Would sensors be built along all curbsides? (And how could these sensors distinguish 'new cars' from a car simply being moved from one spot to another?) Lacking 'smart' sensors, would parking enforcement have to circle constantly? (And would they really be any smarter than any sensors out there?)

by Lance on Jul 26, 2009 9:59 am  

Smart sensors are one option, if you want to make enforcement easier. They've been implemented in garages like Rockville Town Center(though without performance parking).

But if you don't care about investing in that to save money on enforcement, all you really need is the centralized box - it would figure out fares based on which spots are paid for, not which cars are present.

by Squalish on Jul 27, 2009 3:39 pm