Performance parking but no spaces at Barracks Row

Parking

Performance parking but no spaces at Barracks Row

by Michael Perkins • November 24, 2009 10:42 am

The performance parking meter rates must not be correct around Barracks Row, because my wife and I couldn't find a space on Barracks Row one recent evening, and ate at Pentagon City instead.

Photo by cmstaley.

It was a Friday evening, my wife's last day working in that office. I picked her up in the car so we could move boxes out. Since it was getting late, we decided to eat out. I work at the Navy Yard, and one of my favorite nice lunch spots is The Old Siam, near 8th and E SE, at the north end of Barracks Row.

The vast majority of parking meters in that area are part of the "Performance Parking" system, where meter rates are supposed to adjust based on demand to keep at least a few parking spaces available. DDOT's Damon Harvey told the community that no blocks in the ballpark zone need higher rates.

My experience at 7 pm that Friday doesn't match this report. We circled for about a mile, and we must have passed about a hundred full metered spaces, one instance of double parking, and a few instances of waiting in non-legal spaces.

Eventually, we decided to give up. As we drove out, we noticed that the meters on M street (which charge the same price or perhaps 50 cents cheaper) were completely empty, but that was too far to walk with two kids. We drove to Pentagon City to eat and paid $2 for an hour of parking. We would have been willing to pay the same or maybe a little more to park on 8th for dinner.

While this might have been an anomaly, I'm guessing it's not. According to the performance parking report (PDF) for the Columbia Heights zone, DDOT stated that only three multispace meter blocks have occupancy above 85%. However, it appears that this is based on average occupancy throughout the day, rather than maximum occupancy during the peak hour.

It's important to adjust meter rates based on maximum occupancy because the goal of performance parking is to ensure an available parking space on almost every block. If the rates revolve around average occupancy, that only ensures that the overcrowded parking during peak times is balanced by relatively empty parking at other times of the day. If demand throughout the day is highly variable, as is likely here, it's better to have two or more different rates at different times, or some other way to offer discounted parking during off-peak times. The Port of San Francisco has two tiers and highly varied prices by location in order to better match prices with demand. Their maximum is $3 per hour (4 hours max), and the minimum is 50¢ per hour. Some spaces are available for $1.00 per hour for a maximum of 12 hours.

Having the parking meter fees too low but with no spaces available is like a grocery store that offers heavily discounted bread. Sure, it's a great deal, but they never have any bread. Eventually, you give up going to that store and to to a more expensive store that you know always has some bread available. That's the point of performance parking: making sure that there's always a space available.

I'd like DDOT to report the data they've collected about the performance parking zones on a block-by-block and hour-by-hour basis. Rather than use the average occupancy to determine what areas need price changes, they should look at the maximum occupancy or throw out a couple of outlier hours and look at the nearly maximum occupancy. If the blocks are still empty even at the peak, the fees should decrease. But if at the peak, people are finding the spaces all full, then a meter fee increase is justified.

42 comments — Share	— tags: Capitol Hill, DC, DDOT, performance parking, retail

Multispace meters make performance parking easier (May 21, 2009)
Putting the performance back into the ballpark performance parking pilot (Mar 27, 2009)
M Street "performance" parking doesn't match principles, doesn't perform (Mar 26, 2009)
Show me the (performance parking) money! (Sep 18, 2008)
Performance parking coming to Columbia Heights (Feb 22, 2008)

Comments

There are so many instances of FAIL here that I can't even contemplate where to start picking.

Performance parking isn't going to work. It is too complex for governments and too greedy for contractors.

What is the price of street parking at 7pm in Barracks row? $1 an hour? You would have been willing to pay $2, but I suspect that even at that price your spots would be filled. $4 an hour? maybe, but by your own admission that might be enough to send you to Pentagon City....

We don't have the datapoints to set pricing to get to the mythical 85% figure.

by charlie on Nov 24, 2009 11:09 am

OMG, like..."really"? Are you saying that you spent 4 minutes going around "like" two blocks in search of dinner time street parking in what is probably the third most popular retail strip in DC (behind M Street George Town) and 7th street in China Town.

You poor soul. Well of course the system must be broken. I can't imagine any possible reason that there wasn't "one" spot available in that entire "4" minutes, or "one" spot available to you on 8th street within a block of your destination! "Gasp". Call the mayor!!

I mean, DDOT "promised". The system is infallible right? There couldn't be any time during the day when parking would be difficult to find in a highly popular neighborhood...during dinner right?

I mean, geez...no strawmen, cherry picking arguments there.

You're a little dramatic and self obsessed don't ya think?

by nookie on Nov 24, 2009 11:18 am

This piece is laughable

by Ivaka A on Nov 24, 2009 11:22 am

There were no spaces on Pennsylvania either? What about the 295 overpass on 8th Street? It's possible, but no one who has ever come to visit me (I live at 8th and E) has ever had trouble finding parking, you can usually go into the neighborhoods and find a two-hour spot. Anyway, you should have been going to Sanphan anyway.

by JBE on Nov 24, 2009 11:29 am

I'll go contrary to the opinions above and say that Michael makes a good point. I've tried to park on 8th and have almost never found a space. The point is not that they system is "broken" but that it needs to be tweaked. Finding the right price at times is an iterative process. And it also involves aiming for a moving target (which is true of any pricing system). If people won't buy iPhones at $299 they don't just keep hoping people will change, they change the price.

The concept of performance parking is good. The application needs work. By analyzing the data, DDOT could come up with a quick equation for determining what the rate should be at any given time to try and hit the 85% mark. By adjusting things periodically (much closer to monthly than annually) they could 1) make parking easier 2) raise revenue 3) increase alternative transportation use.

nookie, there is no need to be rude. I appreciate a civil discourse here and your comments miss the mark.

by David C on Nov 24, 2009 11:34 am

excellent report. i'd be very interested to hear 'other reports from the field,' too.

i, for one, am extraordinarily excited about the continued developments in performance parking all over the u.s. i've seen and experienced the 'economic and livability miracle' of Redwood City, California first-hand, so naturally I'd love to see DC spruced up/beautified/vitalized in the same way.

that DC is running with the big dogs on this issue makes me proud of the city. i hope they continue to pursue improvements to the program. if and when you get it right, the results will blow your mind.

by Peter Smith on Nov 24, 2009 11:59 am

I imagine it would be relatively easy to automate the parking price based on the daily parking activity. I assume the parking meters interact via some sort of network interface to process credit cards. Assuming that, it should be possible to calculate the occupancy percentage based on the purchases from the parking machine. If there are x spaces covered by the parking machines(s) and y ticket have been purchased for z time, it should be possible to calculat an average occupancy rate automatically. Taking that into consideration, the price should automatically adjust every 15 minutes in light of the currenct occupancy rate with the goal of obtaining an 85% rate. Build in pricing floors to ensure that parking doesn't become free in order to cover transaction costs and bang... automatic market based pricing.

by Cullen on Nov 24, 2009 12:06 pm

This article must be false. There's nowhere worth eating in Pentagon City.

For future reference, if you're over on this side of the river, parking in the Crystal City garages is free after 4pm, and there are MUCH better restaurants.

by Simon on Nov 24, 2009 12:07 pm

I don't think we're too far away from what Cullen described. And how long before you tell your GPS where you want to go and it takes you to the closest empty parking space (or the closest one under a certain price point even). We could create a system to know which spaces are empty (like the BWI airport garage) and then tie that into the GPS device.

by David C on Nov 24, 2009 12:11 pm

Parking around barracks row is always awful, and weekend nights are the worst. that's why people are always taking the metro. The larger issue there is that most of the parking is residential in that area. There is little public parking beyond the strip itself. That makes it very difficult for residents that don't have a driveway to find parking, add in the bar/restaurant traffic, the influx from ballgames and it gets pretty ridiculous around there.

by Shawn Gallagher on Nov 24, 2009 12:31 pm

I usually walk or bicycle to the restaurants on 8th street.

by w on Nov 24, 2009 12:32 pm

You can always find parking if you're willing to park a few blocks from the main strip.

by Fritz on Nov 24, 2009 12:55 pm

Just park north of Penn. Problem solved.

Meanwhile:

It is too complex for governments and too greedy for contractors.

You almost get the sense that this Palinite has a clue. The words themselves are nonsense, but they're delivered with such confidence.

by oboe on Nov 24, 2009 2:36 pm

@Charlie: It's currently $1.50 per hour I think. Like I said, if there were a space available I would have been willing to pay. It probably would be around $2.00 per hour to balance supply and demand. If it were higher, at least I would know ahead of time so I could either be aware it would be expensive and be willing to pay or not.

@nookie: The whole point of performance parking is that parking is supposed to be available even during peak hours. DDOT has been instructed to adjust prices to make that happen, they reported that no adjustments are necessary, and I reported that in my opinion it's not correct. I acknowledge that particular night could be an anomaly, sure, but I doubt it.

I understand the article does sound a little "prima donna", but when you've got a wife tired from a long day of work, in heels, that needs some boxes moved home from work, you take the car (we both normally commute by Metro, with a short bike ride for me). When it's a late night and no one's eaten, and you have a crying infant and hungry toddler, there are a couple of things you don't want to do. One is circle the block a bunch of times hunting for a parking space you were told was going to be available at a reasonble price, and the other is walking a bunch of blocks to park for free. Our first cycle around the block, we saw double parking and illegal parking. My experience is that when you see either of those, you're not going to get a space easily or quickly.

When I proposed going to 8th Street, my wife was concerned about finding parking. Based on last week's article, my impression was "not to worry, performance parking is up and running, and DC just reported that the prices are managing demand just fine".

When you get to 8th and find out that the assumption is wrong, you don't do a science experiment to see how far you have to drive to find a space, you just gather enough data to say "longer than I care to drive" and leave.

It's a side benefit that the additional money would go toward making 8th an even nicer place to be.

This was meant to be a piece that illustrates the downside of too cheap, but overcrowded parking. Sure, some of your customers are willing to walk a couple of blocks to find a space. But some aren't, or maybe they normally are but not that night.

by Michael Perkins on Nov 24, 2009 3:04 pm

...all of this is why we need to put streetcars BACK onto 8th street- which was the city's first streetcar line.
Then nobody, except perhaps handicapped people, would need to take a car there.

by w on Nov 24, 2009 3:10 pm

Oh, and thanks for the tips on other places to look, we looked on south side of Penn as we were approaching and that was full too. We don't usually have a car when we're there since it's close to the Metro and we're both usually there by train anyway. It was just that night when we needed the car.

Regarding the free parking at Crystal City, is it close to the 23rd St strip? Because I've found the parking there to be fairly terrible too. Mostly because the meters shut off around 6pm. I usually just park in the surface lot for $3.00 or get lucky at a meter a block away. Or are you talking about parking underground and eating on Crystal Drive?

Since I used to live at Pentagon City, I ended up liking Thaiphoon and Saigon Saigon. Probably unextraordinary as far as Thai or Vietnamese restaurants go, but they're familiar and I know what I like to eat there. I understand I don't have refined tastes in restaurants but that's the way it goes.

I think there needs to be a balance between the prices that adjust themselves too often (even automatically as Cullen suggested) and prices that are fairly predictable for customers. Adjusting them in regular increments at regular intervals seems to be a good balance. Eventually you end up with enough data that the parking managers know what works and what doesn't.

by Michael Perkins on Nov 24, 2009 3:12 pm

Here's a solution:
-Drop the wife and kids off in front of the restaurant
-They get a table
-Meanwhile you park the car, gasp, even if it's a couple blocks away
-You arrive at the table, kids settled, wife working on here first cocktail, drink and bread waiting for you

See, it's not that hard.

by spookiness on Nov 24, 2009 3:17 pm

@Spookiness: We've done that before. It's usually a good idea.

by Michael Perkins on Nov 24, 2009 3:30 pm

@michael perkins; I don't think $2 an hour would open up spots. What you're neglecting is that you're essentially bidding against other people. Somebody would be willing to pay more. Maybe they have three kids with them that day, or a hot date, or just a bunch of boxes they need to unload. How much did you use to pay the homeless guys in Adams-Morgan to save a spot for you? I've give then at least $10, but that is also out of fear of getting some accidental scrapes.

And while creating more flexibility is fine, that results in uncertainty. Adjust parking pricing based on monthly demand? Check a website before you go? That gets unwieldy very quickly.

What I really don't like is performance parking makes a luxury brand out of public good. I'm sure people would pay more to stand in the front of the line at DMV as well. Or maybe I can pay 25 cents to make a light turn quicker.

And in DC, there are always free/cheaper alternatives a block or two away. Sure, they lose some customers because of lack of parking. They will lose more with expensive parking.

by charlie on Nov 24, 2009 4:02 pm

@Michael Perkins: Your followup posts have not helped the whining image of your initial post.

by Fritz on Nov 24, 2009 4:50 pm

I welcome comments, especially ones that disagree with initial posters, but some of these on this thread in particular are crossing the line into belittling the poster instead of the argument.

Allow me to refer everyone again to Paul Graham's excellent How to Disagree hierarchy.

Fritz's comment about whining, along with nookie's, are in the DH2 "Responding to Tone" category. And as Graham said, DH2 arguments are always unconvincing.

Most comments here are DH4, "Counterargument," and often all the way up at DH6, "Refuting the central point." I'd like to keep it that way, and therefore need to ask those of you talking about whininess to stop.

The fact that Michael had a negative experience is very valid because he's not the only one. Other people are going to encounter the same situation, and when we're considering public policy, we need to be aware of that.

Would it be right if someone wrote a letter to a restaurant on Barracks Row complaining about bad service and the restaurant just said, "Stop whining?" If we criticize WMATA for not fixing escalators, nobody calls that whining, so why here?

Whether free or not, parking is a service being provided by the government. If people feel it's not being provided correctly, it's very appropriate for them to give a personal narrative about why, and for us to seriously discuss the merits of the point.

charlie, w, and Shawn all managed to disagree in an intelligent way. Please learn from their example.

by David Alpert on Nov 24, 2009 5:21 pm

I fail to see the logic here. You tried once to get a parking space, couldn't fine one, and thus have determined that the prices for parking are too low. What if, as you were driving away, a spot suddenly opened up? Would that have changed your mind?

Is there a chronic shortage of available spaces in that area? Maybe, maybe not. But one thing is certain, you will neve be able to draw that kind of conclusion from one single trip.

By the way, if you work at the Navy Yard, can't you get a base sticker and park there and walk up 8th St?

by slopeman on Nov 24, 2009 6:13 pm

it's very appropriate for them to give a personal narrative about why

i'd go so far as to say it's one's responsibility to report the negative experience, here or to the City, if one claims to care about the livability of DC.

You tried once to get a parking space, couldn't fine one, and thus have determined that the prices for parking are too low.

not exactly, but close enough. he stated that it could be an anomaly, but then provided reasoning and evidence as to why he believed it was not an anomaly. if you disagree with his reasoning, say so, and provide a better argument, else, you're just wasting our time.

What if, as you were driving away, a spot suddenly opened up? Would that have changed your mind?

would it have changed your mind? use your common sense.

i don't know what's wrong with you guys. i don't know if you just don't like performance parking or what -- it's very strange to read your vitriolic reactions. he didn't just shoot your dog, he gave a very simple, fact- and reason-based report on the status of a city policy -- that you're reacting the way you are makes it seem like you just hate the concept of performance parking. if that's the case, just say so.

now, go out and enjoy some dinner. go check on the status of the meters yourself, and please report back here what you find. seriously.

by Peter Smith on Nov 24, 2009 6:37 pm

@slopeman: That's a fair point. Without the time or the money to go out on 8th Street every night, I can't prove the prices aren't right. However, DDOT was asked whether any meter prices should be increased, and the answer was no. I think DDOT should provide the data like they did with Columbia Heights so we can see what they base their decisions on.

The performance parking concept is to price the meters at the lowest possible price that still keeps at least one empty space per block. So a space opening up just as I was leaving wouldn't necessarily meet the goal, but it would be a lot closer to it.

When I was in Arlington the other night around 7pm in Clarendon, I noticed 6 cars pass by an empty space before the 7th took it, that indicates the demand for spaces is not at an extremely high level. If the space had been "babysat" as it were being vacated or only a couple of cars passed it by that would indicate a much higher demand.

From the other comments, it's pretty clear that on the 8th street strip there's a chronic shortage but if you're willing to walk a few blocks it's not that bad. I would note that if the main strip were properly priced it would still be possible to walk a few blocks and park for free or at least cheaper. It would just provide an additional option of paying for convenience.

I do have base stickers for the car, by the way.

by Michael Perkins on Nov 24, 2009 6:48 pm

Anybody that's interested in what's possible with constant occupancy monitoring should check out the data put out by Port of San Francisco:

http://www.sfport.com/site/port_index.asp?id=54022

They have in-ground sensors that detect whether a car is present, and communicate with the meter to see whether that car has paid. The reports include the occupancy as a function of day and time over the course of a month, and what fraction of those drivers actually paid for parking, and how long the drivers were staying.

You can browse through the block-specific reports and see which blocks need price adjustments or better enforcement. This would make it really easy for DDOT to justify their price changes and help steer DPW enforcement to blocks that actually have a lot of problems.

According to discussions with Arlington County's parking manager, the sensors cost about $500 per space. I haven't done the numbers to see whether they're a good deal, but it seems like if it could net the city $1 more in fees per day, or lower costs for surveys or enforcement, they're probably worth it over their design life.

by Michael Perkins on Nov 24, 2009 7:24 pm

Take a cab.

Take a metro.

Problem solved.

by beatbox on Nov 24, 2009 7:58 pm

@David:

Seriously? You think the comments on here are attacking Michael Perkins? Or that the comments are vitriolic? Come on!

It's one thing if posters were being abusive, but it's quite another when they're poking fun at Michael's inability to find parking one night, thereby leading to his conclusion that parking fees need to be increased.

And I give Michael credit for standing his ground and maintaining his argument. I'm not sure I agree with it, but he's good enough to not back down.

by Fritz on Nov 24, 2009 8:22 pm

@Fritz: My conclusions were that the prices probably need to increase but I'd like to see DDOT's data. Inability to find parking is what the performance parking policy is trying to prevent.

I have found other instances where DDOT was clearly charging too much for parking, using extensive data that I collected:

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=1877

by Michael Perkins on Nov 24, 2009 8:50 pm

@michael perkins; look, I love data too. But spending $500 a sensor just so you can have some numbers to point to is a waste of taxpayers money. And how long do you those sensors would last in DC?

DC gets what, about $100 million a year already in revenue from parking and fines? And that was before they doubled fines and stepped up enforcement this year.

Greater greater Washington shouldn't mean much more expensive Washington.

by charlie on Nov 24, 2009 10:13 pm

Charlie, one way or another you're paying. You can pay in time spent driving around in circles looking for parking or you can pay money to park.

But if we charge people for that parking than that gives us money to make transportation better and create options. If we charge people time - that's just squandered. And it makes traffic worse as people drive more total miles.

by David C on Nov 24, 2009 10:18 pm

I call shenanigans. First of all, there are no good restaurants on Barracks Row (maybe excepting Matchbox and Belga). Second, why did you keep driving up and down the busiest part of 7th and 8th? Did it occur to you to drive east or west one block? Or, perhaps park 2 blocks to the south, where there are plenty of empty spots all the time?

by Michael on Nov 24, 2009 11:08 pm

@Charlie: good data drives good decisionmaking. Bad data or no data drives bad decisionmaking.

If you don't have the sensors, you have to pay employees to drive around in a car collecting license plate numbers once an hour for a week. You also have to pay for the car and the photo gathering equipment. That's how DC got its data for the Columbia Heights pilot zone.

In addition to this savings by not having to waste staff time on monthly surveys, you also avoid doing damage to your businesses by overcharging. If you had the data, you could quickly detect if the meters were suddenly going empty or something and bring down the rates.

Alternatively if you found the parking was overfull you could figure it out much more quickly if you had real-time data.

Better enforcement driven by data could increase compliance. Better rates of compliance are significant. In the San Francisco data I linked above, typical compliance rates were about 50%. Half of the people parking were essentially stealing parking while the other half paid. If better compliance could get those people to either pay or go somewhere else, the price for parking as set by the market might be even lower while still increasing revenues and available parking, and also without increasing the fine or wasting money on unnecessary staff.

I've seen cities like Santa Monica and San Jose drive real-time occupancy displays using sensors, which helps people find available parking easier, resulting in less congestion and increased visitor satisfaction.

by Michael Perkins on Nov 24, 2009 11:09 pm

Take the bus

by Mike on Nov 25, 2009 8:18 am

Michael,

Barracks Row parking problems got worse 1 and 1/2 years ago not because of the new meters with higher rates but because the available parking was cut in half. By making one side of the street parking for all of the streets from the ballpark to Barracks Row and Penn. Ave. restricted to Capitol Hill residents only has made it almost impossible for non- residents to find parking. Even the side streets ( E St., G St., I St, ) that go right through Barrack's Row are 1 side residents only and now 9 TH St is 1 side Capitol Hill residents only.

There are 110 parking spaces under the freeway at 8TH and I st. that DDOT was supposed to turn into performance parking before the new Nats Park opened. It still has not happened. Those 110 spaces would be filled every day and night with people spending money on Barracks Row and would also generate a lot of income for the city and Capitol Hill.

John

by John on Nov 25, 2009 10:15 am

Thanks John. I'll follow up with DDOT to find out what happened with the Marine Corps lot you mentioned.

by Michael Perkins on Nov 25, 2009 10:41 am

It's always amazing that people bend over backwards on this blog to make fantastic suggestions of bike lanes and pedestrian safety but seem so oblivious and ignorant to the needs of people with cars.

I realize that most of you are from car centric places and are ( admirably) rebelling against that, but you must come to an understanding of the diversity of this region.

Sometimes people drive. Accept that. The buses SUCK if you have kids and boxes. There needs to be viable solutions to th parkng issue.
A parking garage near barracks row would be ideal.

Street cars will be great ( and that's how I'll get there) but the more options we have the better. You guys ridicule someone for giving up and heading the the dark continent of virginny but we're the ones that lose out.
Everytime someone thinks it too hard to spend money in dc, they don't.

by A on Nov 27, 2009 5:57 pm

@A,

There's no free lunch. Making things 'easy' for cars involves two basic options - increase the supply to match demand, or increase the price to lower demand to the point where parking is readily available.

Building more parking for the sake of building more parking is a fools errand in an urban area. That comes with real costs, and not just the cost of the parking structure. Downtowns and other urban areas that have tried to making parking as ample and easy as suburban malls have failed miserably.

For example, where in Barracks Row would you put a municipal parking garage? You'd have to start tearing the very attraction that lures people in. There may be some visitor parking included there, but there's hardly going to be enough to meet the suburban mall model of free parking available all the time.

Thus, any urban parking strategy needs to consider price.

Performance parking, that is, pricing scarce spaces so that there are always some spaces available both preserves the comparative advantage of urban shopping areas (the urban experience) while ensuring parking will be available.

Performance parking requires adjusting the price according to demand, which will shift over the course of the day.

Michael's point is that DC should be commended for the big picture decision to pursue this strategy, but the system needs tweaking for full effectiveness.

by Alex B. on Nov 27, 2009 6:34 pm

I'm not sure I would want anything in the area to be torn down for a parking garage and there's practically no empty space around there.

I just realized that the amount I was going to spend at a meter was approximately the amount DC was going to net in sales taxes. That's probably true for a lot of areas too.

by Michael Perkins on Nov 27, 2009 11:22 pm

Michael -- two points:
1) there is a whole row of meters on 8th just north of Penn next to the Hine site -- which are usually completely empty.
2) next time you write a story about zoning and cars (ie using zoning to make it more difficult for people to own a car in the District) remember what you just said "but when you've got a wife tired from a long day of work, in heels, that needs some boxes moved home from work, you take the car"

by Ken on Dec 1, 2009 9:10 am

My position on cars is that people should be able to buy off-street parking spaces, and that in areas where there is on-street space appropriate for residential use, that DC should make one permit available per household for a reasonable price, but that additional permits should be sold at a market rate which balances the supply of parking in the local area with the people that want to own permits. If there's a lot of space and not many people, the price might be quite low, even as low as the first space. But in an area like Georgetown or Adams Morgan, the spaces are going to be expensive, and rightly so, because there are a lot of people that want to use them, and not many spaces.

I don't typically write the articles about zoning and cars. I think it would not be a smart idea to reduce or eliminate parking minimums until you get the on-street management better than it is now. Once you get the on-street management right (where prices adequately balance supply and demand), people have incentives to find off-street parking or to decide whether they really need to keep multiple cars. For some, having the additional car will be worth it to them (the people with the boxes and the tired wives). Others may want to just ask the wife to take a cab with the money they save by not owning and parking more cars.

by Michael Perkins on Dec 1, 2009 9:01 pm

Ken,

Relaxing rules that essentially force people to own cars, or to pay for cars even if they don't own them, isn't the same as making it difficult to own a car.

Performance parking makes it easier to own a car by ensuring that those willing to pay for a parking space can find one. We've also advocated for lowering RPP fees for the first car and raising it for additional cars. Maybe that makes it more difficult to own extra cars, but easier to own the one. I think we should also let people park during the day in areas that have low parking demand, making it easier for home health care workers or housecleaners to drive if they need to. We oppose curb cuts which provide parking for one person but take it away from others, making it more difficult for everyone to own cars.

Owning a car should be a choice. Many people want to make that choice. I own a car. So does Michael. I simply don't ask taxpayers to subsidize my own car ownership or to pay for services for me when I'm driving at the expense of bus riders, walkers, bikers, or other drivers.

Parking minimums don't make it easier to own a car, they make it harder to rent or own an apartment or house. I'll gladly take policies that help people have housing over policies that push additional car ownership by forcing developers to pay for parking garages that won't get used.

by David Alpert on Dec 1, 2009 10:38 pm

2) next time you write a story about zoning and cars (ie using zoning to make it more difficult for people to own a car in the District)

though i don't think that has ever been the message/goal of any post on this blog, i think it could have been, and one could make a very reasonable, even compelling argument that using zoning to make it more difficult for people to own a car in the District is the right strategy for making DC a better place for everyone, or at least most people.

there are valid moral, practical, and political reasons why such a strategy would make sense, but it's (still) wrong at this time to pursue that strategy, imo. (because Jane Jacobs made a good case)

by Peter Smith on Dec 2, 2009 2:04 am