Thanks for posting this - I saw the story the other night and started throwing things at the TV. Unbelievable [even for FOX]

by MichaelDC on Aug 4, 2008 1:33 pm • link • report

I hate TV.

I really think that current TV news (and even more so FOX) is damaging our democracy. A democracy depends on a well informed electorate. Clearly, that's not possible when this is what passes for news.

by Cavan on Aug 4, 2008 2:42 pm • link • report

Michael, Please don't throw anything at your television. That'll just be one more tv tube to add to our local landfills! ;)

by Lance on Aug 4, 2008 2:48 pm • link • report

Couple things to love about this:

* A quick Google search suggests that Elaine Reyes is from Atlanta. No surprise what kaleidascope she sees the world through.

* The car they focused on at the end had Maryland plates.

by Reid on Aug 4, 2008 2:52 pm • link • report

To bad she doesn't write the news. You all should be mad at the Producer of that show. Yeah she probably should have read over the scripts and verified the article she was reading.

by Farrelley on Aug 4, 2008 3:15 pm • link • report

Heh, and also, the video was sponsored by the "new Toyota Highlander". Thank you to our friends in the automotive industry for this informative and balanced report!

by Noah on Aug 4, 2008 4:04 pm • link • report

It's funny that they picked Adams Morgan as the backdrop to their story- doesn't the garage there sit mostly empty on the weekends while suburbanites circle the neighborhood looking for free on street parking?

by jeff on Aug 4, 2008 4:31 pm • link • report

Jeff, What're the prices for the garage? Are they competitive with the prices for street parking? ;)

The more I hear about this issue, the more I think it would be better first to address the problem with "free" street side parking. I'll bet if you did a survey, you'd find that 80% of the cars parked in the side streets of Adams Morgan weren't moved all weekend. If those cars were parked in a garage or in their owners "back of the property" parking areas, there would be a lot more street side parking available for people's short term excursions. We can't know how much off street parking is really needed as long as people "storing" their cars have the option of "free" on street parking. But, I'd bet its more than is currently available in today's garages and "back of the building" parking areas. Truly, I think "market economics" for parking can be fairly easily achieved. I just don't think we should "cut off our noses to spite our faces" which I think is what we're doing if we act to reduce available off street parking. It'll be needed when the day comes that on-street parking is market priced. In my mind, getting market priced street parking should be objective #1 ...

by Lance on Aug 4, 2008 4:59 pm • link • report

Taking the opposition's argument to support your car bias, now that's impressive!

by anonymous on Aug 4, 2008 5:51 pm • link • report

I agree Lance, we should make parking more expensive and restricted. It's public space. Then the demand for garages will be made more clear, and the need for minimums will be eliminated.

my test is "wrinkles capital" - so true!

by THe King of Spain on Aug 4, 2008 6:30 pm • link • report

King of Spain,

Remember what J said about the power of the vote. The condo owners/voters (and rowhouse owners/voters and apartment renters/voters) will only agree to forego their "free" on-street parking rights when there is affordable and convenient off-street parking available to them. IMHO we'll only get there with the minimums.

The faster we can build off-street parking to increase its availabilty and lower its price, the faster we can get the critical mass of people/voters to agree to market pricing for on-street parking that will be required to get this legislation passed. Removing the minimums legislation works against you in many ways.

It's the old carrot and the stick. What is being proposed now is the stick ... and is doomed to fail.

by Lance on Aug 4, 2008 7:14 pm • link • report

Fox probably does distort even the local news. But no other channel covers the District as broadly as they do. Kind of like the Examiner - no one else covers the things they cover. You might say they cover it badly, but at least they cover it.

by Jazzy on Aug 4, 2008 7:55 pm • link • report

Too lazy to look up the proof, but the small number of residents in Adams Morgan (and Columbia Heights, Dupont, MtP, etc.) that own cars would disprove your theory, if that were even worth arguing. If the neighborhood residents are indeed storing their cars on the side streets, away from the commercial strips, well....I don't see what the problem is? I think opening up these spaces for free parking to those going to the commercial district would be a negative impact on the quality of life in the neighborhood due to the increased traffic.

I'll even throw out that doing away with/minimizing available off-street parking at new residential developments will help make the decision for those debating whether it is worthwhile to own a car in this city more than it will add to more cars fighting for the same amount of on street spaces.

by jeff on Aug 4, 2008 8:11 pm • link • report

But of course Fox is telling the truth. As a car owner, every possible space on the street is mine - mine!! and so if they eliminate minimum requirements, then all those other people will be parking in MY spaces! MINE! goddam socialists - they're taking away from me. ME!!!

(see - you have to think like a Fox viewer for it to all make sense)

by Andy on Aug 4, 2008 8:49 pm • link • report

Jeff, So you'd like the see it made difficult for people who own cars to decide to move in to the city? What kind of demographic are you hoping to see move into this city? Just the single/no-kids couple, just-out of college types? If this city is going to be a healthy city, it needs to be able to attract all types of people ... including the vast majority who would never ever consider a place where they couldn't keep a car or two with them.

There was a reason the parking minimums were put into place. We don't live in a vacuum here. If you make it difficult for the average household to live in DC (and yes, the average household has one, two, or more vehicles), it will just move elsewhere.

by Lance on Aug 4, 2008 9:14 pm • link • report

The 2+ car household isn't common in DC mainly because it isn't necessary. I think policies that create more affordable and walkable neighborhoods will attract families more than the desire to park their car(s).

by jeff on Aug 4, 2008 9:32 pm • link • report

Lance, I wasn't arguing to remove zoned, localized on street parking for residents, just making the visitors parking more costly, or perhaps only offering one zone parking permit to residents, and not as many as they want (is there a limit?).

But Lance, in a more walkable city, you won't need two or three cars to go everywhere, so one is more likely to suit a family already pressed by the sheer cost of raising children. Gas, insurance and repairs cost thousands of dollars per year, and losing that is one of the first things people who move back to cities do. Consider this recent article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/27Ronecar.html.

Assuming that the "average family" will have two cars or more in a city, let alone a city in the future of high costs is mistaken. You need to take a more holistic look at this particular matter.

by The King of Spain on Aug 4, 2008 9:38 pm • link • report

King of Spain, Yes, things can change in the future. But until they do (or we know for sure that they are changing), why would we go counter to what people are currently 'demanding' in the marketplace?

As for the article, it says that going down to one car was an economic decision for the family in question. I personally don't know too many couples where one will chose to give up their job and stay home to "wait for the call" to pick up the other spouse when they are finished at work. I suspect the decision for one spouse to stay at home was a quality of life decision ... which got paid for by cutting down on many expenses ... including downsizing to one car.

by Lance on Aug 4, 2008 9:54 pm • link • report

Ok ... correction ... I read a little further down and see where she is working too (from home) and that they sometimes have problems spending time with the kids AND getting to their evening jobs because "How many times can you ask a friend to pick you up?” Wow ... after reading what they go through to make by with one car, I'd say they're hardly "poster children" for the one car family!

In any case, the article says "Americans own an average of 2.28 vehicles per household, and more than 35 percent of households own three or more cars." ... and unless we want to marginalize ourselves --- and put ourselves at a disadvantage compared to other communities, we need to be able to accomodate this average household.

by Lance on Aug 4, 2008 10:05 pm • link • report

Lance, are you sure you actually read this blog. The point is not to make Washington accommodate the typical American family, but rather remake Washington so it is a better city. The typical American lives in a suburb, I do not want to make Washington a suburb. I want to improve Washington so people do not need 3 cars. Plenty of people want to live in a more pleasant city, those are the people I want to attract to Washington.

by nathaniel on Aug 4, 2008 10:39 pm • link • report

Lance, not to pile on, but I do think you're making the same error as the Fox show. You're absolutely right that a city needs to be able to accomodate multiple types of people, not just young yuppies. That's one of the basic principles of "livable streets" philosophy or urbanism or whatever you want to call it. Jane Jacobs was adamant about having diverse types of people.

The problem with what you're saying is that it could be far more easily achieved with performance parking and no minimums. That would make it easier for people to park (and drive, since it cuts down on spot-seeking traffic), allow apartments who want to attract car-reliant families to build spots for them, and allow private parking garages to cover any additional need; all at the prices set by the market.

The problem is that by subsidizing spots and driving (and taking up all that extra space with unneeded spots) you do make the city far less livable for those people who want a car free lifestyle.

It's all about balance!

by Sam L on Aug 4, 2008 11:15 pm • link • report

Nathaniel, We all want a more pleasant city ... A city where there are too few parking spaces for the number of cars needed is not a pleasant city. It is a city where pollution and traffic increase as cars circle around searching for parking, front yards get paved over and turned into driveways, and families with children (or the elderly or the handicapped or even the "average" household)can't live a regular life. Washington isn't a private enclave for social engineering experiments.

by Lance on Aug 4, 2008 11:21 pm • link • report

Sam,

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I want to see parking spaces subsidized. Quite the contrary. I want to see people have the opportunity to PAY for their parking. In order for them to pay for their parking, that parking has to be there for them to buy in the first place. That's it.

I don't want to see the rest of us subsidize the developers with "free" street parking.

by Lance on Aug 4, 2008 11:29 pm • link • report

Great Lance, there is a whole deck of parking at DC USA which has never been touched. We are all paying for it now.

Untouched.

Who is subsidizing what?

by William on Aug 4, 2008 11:38 pm • link • report

We're mostly in agreement.

But mandating parking acts as a de facto subsidy, because those of us (young yuppies, byciclists, no-car families, etc.) who want to live without cars must bear the cost of construction, not to mention the less quantifiable costs that come from the decreased walkability that space for parking entails. If a building has to pay for parking, that cost will be passed off onto all customers/resident they use the spaces.

So how do we remove the defacto subsidy that minimums entail without forcing everyone to compete for the free on-street parking that is already so limited? The solution that this blog promotes is called performance parking. I don't know if you've followed the debates on that much, but it calls for on-street parking to charge at a rate that generates some general availability at all times, meaning those who need a spot can find one, as long as they pay for it. If those rates are too high, then we can expect private residences, businesses and parking garages to fill the gap to meet demand.

A system of performance parking + private parking is the real market based approach, because the prices for both are set by demand. The system of free on-street parking + minimums is a double subsidy that dramatically distorts the market for parking. You've been saying that it meets current demand, but what the system actually does is make it impossible to meet demand, because the parking is going for way less than the rate the market would set it at.

I get your argument, I just don't think it takes into account the full economic picture.

by Sam L on Aug 5, 2008 1:32 am • link • report

Two things:

1)That should read "onto all customers/residents whether or not they use the spaces"

2) I see above that you basically agree about pricing on-street parking. I'm glad to see that. Getting rid of minimums is part and parcel of a market based parking system. Minimums are just one more way to force free or under-priced parking onto the community, inviting people to drive and pass off the costs of parking onto those who don't.

by Sam L on Aug 5, 2008 1:58 am • link • report

Lance, there is no such thing as "demand" for anything that is independent of price. The demand for good French wine at $2 per bottle is very high, but the market doesn't meet it because it can't produce good wine for $2 a bottle. (More precisely, it can't produce more than it's producing now - what economists call the marginal cost.)

The cost of producing new parking spaces in D.C. is around $25 per day. (Amortize $60,000 construction cost at 10% per year, add something for operating costs, and divide by 250 days of use.) I'm sure there is more than enough parking in D.C. to meet the demand for $25-a-day parking.

As long as you force developers to build more parking than is demanded at the cost of production, you will drive the price down to less than that cost. You aren't giving people an opportunity to pay for their parking, you are giving drivers an opportunity to buy parking below market price and forcing non-drivers to subsidize them.

by tt on Aug 5, 2008 7:29 am • link • report

tt, I don't know about your $25/day parking cost ... At face value I have to suspect we are talking about "by the hour" type of parking vs. "by the month" or "bought outright" type of parking. $25/day works out to slightly more than $1/hr ... which is actually less than what meters charge today on the commercial streets of the urbanest of the urban streets of our city.

by Lance on Aug 5, 2008 8:20 am • link • report

tt/Lance, not all parking in DC is going to be supplied as deep underground structures at $60,000 per space. Downtown garages operate at a profit charging the general public between $140 to $275 per month, which is only $7-14 per working day.

For $14 per working day, and assuming that the market will only bear a non-zero cost for an on-street parking space for 12 hours per day, the average price of an on-street parking space will exceed $1 per hour, with much higher prices during peak hours.

The competition for all-day garage parking in residential areas is not meters, though, it's resident permit parking. If the resident permit parking program charged rates that balanced supply and demand, you would expect the price to be comparable to off-street long-term garage leased spaces, with a price differential that reflects the relative security and desirability of storing your vehicle in a locked garage compared with the street. I'm going to assume that the security is worth $200 per year, and that since demand is lower in residential areas, the long-term garage storage is at the low end of the reported range.

With these assumptions, an on-street resident parking permit should theoretically sell for about $1500 per year. At that price, the prices of finding an on-street space and an off-street garage space reflect their relative desirability, and, based on market data that exists showing real garage operations at that price, should adequately compensate a commercial garage operator.

The real price will of course be lower or higher depending on market conditions, and DC could decide for policy reasons to make the first vehicle per household less expensive, with others more expensive, but I believe that if the resident permit parking program were to charge market rates, the prices would end up between $500-1500 per year. On the supply side, if the permits were selling for higher than that, a garage operator or new developer would see that as an opportunity to build more parking and sell it to residents, and less than that, and garages or lots may see their business dry up because people will shift to on-street parking.

It's less clear on the demand side. I haven't been able to find any long-run price elasticity of demand for car ownership with respect to fixed carrying costs like parking. My guess would be that people with little-used or second cars would get rid of them or find less expensive places to store them.

For revenue, DC would start collecting revenue from car owners equivalent to about a fifth of the property tax on an average townhome (20' wide townhome can park one vehicle in front, property value $400,000, tax rate 0.85%), allowing DC to reduce property taxes on all residents, improve street and sidewalk conditions, etc.

by Michael on Aug 5, 2008 9:01 am • link • report

That's a very, very good analysis Michael!

Politically it would be very difficult to get it passed (take a look at today's comments on the Adams Morgan listserv from people complaining how "unfair" it is that they need to move their cars once a week for street cleaning), however your idea about the sliding fees might make it more acceptable to more people.

One concern I see though is getting from point A to point B (i.e., from where we are now to where you are proposing we go.) It would take years to get sufficient off-street parking in place (i.e., built) to accomodate current demand via the "developers will build to satisfy demand" scenario you explain. What do you do during the 5 yr (or more) transition period?

Another concern is that given that cars play such an important part in allowing all members of society to participate on a more equal footing (e.g., access to any job anywhere), short of direct tax subsidization, how do you lower the costs associated with parking such that they are affordable by almost all? I understand that parking minimums is a blunt instrument, but it's worked so far at lowering the cost of parking by making more parking available. (A very simply concept if you think about it.) I'm not sure if your proposal will lower that "true" cost ... yes, it'll satisfy the demand generated at that "true cost of supplying it", but how do we lower that true cost so that parking is more readily available to all ... and not just the priviledged members of society? So far the US has succeeded in this respect where Europe has failed badly. How do we continue with our success?

by Lance on Aug 5, 2008 10:46 am • link • report

The great thing about cities is that parking/driving doesn't need to be available to all. In fact, what was it?, 37% of DC families don't have cars. And if you think those are all yuppies, you're very mistaken.

If you want something that takes equity into account, benefits the needy, and gives working class people more mobility, you should divert more money to mass transit. We will never have cities that everyone can drive in, unless we fully suburbanize them a la LA and some others. If we do that, the cost will be that no one can do anything beyond drive in them. Busses and the like will be left only for the very poor, again, like LA. That is not an equitable system at all. That's not the type of city most people want to live in.

Again, we will never(!) be able to make cheap parking available to all. That's what suburbs are for. Cities are a different beast.

by Sam L on Aug 5, 2008 11:24 am • link • report

Sam,

Washington isn't an isolated city. It is part of a larger metropolitan area. Unless you want to see the area "Balkanized" by city/town/neighborhood, people need the ability to cheaply and efficiently transport themselves and their families and their possessions easily from anywhere in this 50 mile (or more) radius area to another ... and do so "on demand". Public transportation is far too costly and inefficient to accomplish this.

by Lance on Aug 5, 2008 11:47 am • link • report

Sam,

Additionally, I just read a post from Barbara Zartman which I think points out a misunderstanding. Having somewhere to park your car off street doesn't equal using your car all the time and opting out of public transporation (or walking or biking) when it makes sense. It just means having a car available for those regular times that you need it. Having available parking also doesn't preclude building more trams and making the city more walkable. It's not a zero sum game out there. We can have more of both.

by Lance on Aug 5, 2008 11:51 am • link • report

Lance: The fastest way to get from A to B would be to make the local neighborhood "owners" of the revenue. DC could pass an ordinance that states very clearly that all new revenue generated from any neighborhood that prices on-street parking would be spent improving that neighborhood, with none diverted to the general fund, as long as rates are set based on some occupancy target like 85% (one space empty out of 7).

It worked in Old Pasadena.

And cars are only cheap because you don't bear all of the costs. In a crowded city, there are huge congestion and pollution externalities.

by Michael on Aug 5, 2008 11:52 am • link • report

Really good analysis.

We have to remember that removing parking minimums would not prevent a property owner from having their own off street space. It just would do away with a government mandate to have one.

If the property owner wants to pave over their back yard for a space that's accessable from the alley, by all means have fun. In fact, I would probably do something like that if I owned one of those nice town houses in one of the historic neighborhoods in the District. One of my friends lives in DuPont and he parks his car behind his house in a spot that accessed from the alley. He's definately a car guy and that arrangement works for him. (I would leave the car there and take transit except when I have to go to Baltimore or visit someone out in sprawl or whatever.)

Removing the minimums just allows the property owner to make their own decision about what they want to do with their land.

by Cavan on Aug 5, 2008 1:18 pm • link • report

They also ran a silly human interest piece about how a young woman (In Portland OR, no less) is trying to get though the entire summer on only one tank of gas in her car- and she surviving! SHOCKING! She only drives an average of 3 miles a day. And AGAIN, I'm SHOCKED!!

by Tom on Aug 5, 2008 1:32 pm • link • report

@Cavan: While it might be true for single family homes with alley access that "Removing the minimums just allows the property owner to make their own decision about what they want to do with their land," for the developer of a large apartment house or condominium, removing minimums allows him shift the cost of hundreds of parking spaces from his project and future tenants to the residents of the single family neighborhood down the street.

Removing minimums means that current residents will be subsidizing the parking for the residents in the apartment buildings near their neighborhood.

Many carowners in the District us public transportation frequently, but find that owning a car allows them to do things like visit friends who are difficult to get to with public transportation, even if they don't live "in the sprawl."

by Tom on Aug 5, 2008 1:51 pm • link • report

I think what is going unsaid is "Does a homeowner have a greater right to the curbspace in front of his/her home than someone else"? I can see how people would think they do ... But, I'd have to ask why? ...

by Lance on Aug 5, 2008 2:01 pm • link • report

I think that the effect on a single family neighborhood goes beyond the issue of the curbspace in front of any particular home. If apartment buildings rely on the streets of single family neighborhoods for parking, rather than having parking in a garage below the apartments paid for by the carowners, it changes the whole dynamic of the neighborhood, with the residential streets filled with the apartment residents' vehicles around the clock. It makes life far more difficult for families in the District, with extra traffic and pollution, while it even becomes difficult for their friends to visit them. But, I think that some posts have revealed that at least a few of those who support eliminating minimums feel that families that need to take their children to various activities, seniors, people with jobs that are difficult to reach without a car and others who might find that they need a car or that a car is desirable for some purposees should look outside the District for their housing.

by Tom on Aug 5, 2008 2:17 pm • link • report