The Parking Task Force that acted and created a report during the Williams administration proposed spliting up the RPP zones from a ward basis to the Office of Planning neighborhood boundaries with some allowances for streets adjacnet to the boundaries. It was the original report that proposed some of the performance-based parking ideas that are being pursued today. Maybe someone could find a copy to post for reference.

by Some Ideas on Sep 8, 2011 3:50 pm • link • report

I wish there would be a crackdown on residents of SW Washington, especially those who live off of G St. SW between 7th and 4th Sts., who sell their visitor street parking passes to Virginia/Maryland commuters who work across the freeway in L'Enfant Plaza or other area offices. It is grating to see the same Va/Md. cars parked Monday-Friday, making already limited street parking even more scarce on my street who definitely are flouting the law, and some of my neighbors are profiting from it!

by Ehren on Sep 8, 2011 3:54 pm • link • report

So the rich folks in Upper Northwest, where there's plenty of room, would pay less?

When we first came to DC and we lived in an apartment in Cleveland Park, my wife was able to commute to Georgetown U. and park within walking distance for free because the same zone wrapped around the back of the University. :)

Also, to Ehren - the parking stickers are specific to the license plate for which they're issued, which has to be a license plate on a car registered to a DC resident in that ward. Call parking enforcement if you like. If they're bored, they'll come out with an on-foot officer.

by Tom on Sep 8, 2011 4:04 pm • link • report

@some ideas: I have a copy of that report here given to me by Lance Brown. I can scan it and put it in my scribd account.

According to the report, some areas of DC have a population of cars that is ten times the number of spaces in that same area.

The report divided DC into 39 RPP zones. It also proposed one-day visitor passes for $5.

by Michael Perkins on Sep 8, 2011 4:07 pm • link • report

One apparent change in policy is that residents of blocks not zoned for RPP can now obtain RPP stickers for their cars in their neighborhoods. This allows someone on a non-RPP block to park anywhere in the Ward. It makes no sense.

I do not understand this. How can the city allow this? It defeats the whole purpose of the program.

by William on Sep 8, 2011 4:12 pm • link • report

Hmm, a bit confused:

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/10498/ward-4-wouldnt-suffer-from-graduated-rpp/

"Total cars 137,682"

Now, that data claimed to be from RPP registered cars.

"Today, over 200,000 vehicles are registered with the RPP program. In many neighborhoods where residential street parking is restricted, open spaces are still nearly impossible to find, especially at peak times. To fix these ongoing problems, DC should learn from the experiences of Seattle, Washington and set more granular prices for RPP stickers.

Data provided by the DMV reveal that over 70% of the nearly 280,000 vehicles registered in the District are part of the RPP program

So what is:

137,000
200,00
or 280,000

Just because a car is registered with RPP doesn't mean they use it all the time, correct?

by charlie on Sep 8, 2011 4:20 pm • link • report

I do not understand this. How can the city allow this? It defeats the whole purpose of the program.

It doesn't defeat the "whole purpose" of the program. It only defeats the incentive to seek permit parking on your block because the spaces are taken up by non-residents.

Given that the parking program (rightly or wrongly) is now a ward-wide parking permit, it is not particularly fair to exclude from that only those people on blocks not zoned for RPP.

True, it highlights that reform is needed.

by ah on Sep 8, 2011 4:27 pm • link • report

Tom,

I don't think you understand. Homeowners can request up to two long-term visitor RPP passes. They are purple, printed on cardstock with a hologram boundary. It is pretty common, at least in my neighborhood for holders to sell them illegally to commuters. I've heard the going rate is $500/year.

by Ehren on Sep 8, 2011 4:35 pm • link • report

The Williams administration parking task force report appears to be here:
http://www.dcwatch.com/govern/dot0312.htm

There's a section specifically about the point of this article:
http://www.dcwatch.com/govern/dot0312.htm#3.4%C2%A0Variability%20of%20Parking%20Issues

by David Alpert on Sep 8, 2011 4:37 pm • link • report

@Tom,

Ehren is referring to the visitor pass pilot program in SW/SE ballpark area (and some other neighborhoods). Each household receives a reusable visitor parking pass dashboard placard good for one year, completely separate from our RPP stickers. I like it because I no longer have to trek down to the police station every time my mother comes to visit. Unfortunately, some people sell and/or rent these passes to people who work at L'Enfant, USDOT, the ballpark, as well as people attending ball games. Incredibly frustrating.

by Birdie on Sep 8, 2011 4:38 pm • link • report

But if your block isn't zoned for RPP, there is no reason to need an RPP sticker, unless it is to park in another neighborhood.

It defeats the purpose and should never have been allowed.

by William on Sep 8, 2011 4:40 pm • link • report

@Ehren, oops, you posted while I was typing. didn't mean to repeat what you had already posted.

by Birdie on Sep 8, 2011 4:41 pm • link • report

@charlie

"Over 200,000" and "over 70% of 280,000" are roughly the same number.

As for how that jives with the 137,000 number, I have no idea. Household vs. commercial vehicles?

by MLD on Sep 8, 2011 4:43 pm • link • report

@William - I used to live adjacent to a block that wasn't zoned RPP and it always filled up with cars from out of state (MD, VA) and out of zone. If you lived on that block and wanted to park around the corner in your own neighborhood, b/c there were no open spots on your own unzoned block, you would need an RPP to do it.

Besides, everyone else in the zone hwith an RPP can "park anywhere in the Ward". How is it un-just that the person who lives on the un-zoned block is given that ability too?

by Tina on Sep 8, 2011 4:52 pm • link • report

@MLD; commercial vehicles are not eligible for RPP, are they?

So, the earlier (may 2011) GGW report is incorrect, then?

by charlie on Sep 8, 2011 4:52 pm • link • report

@Ehren - Why does the ROSA program not limit their use of the parking passes?

by ah on Sep 8, 2011 4:54 pm • link • report

@tina
@ah

Then petition to have your block zoned. Otherwise, all you are doing is parking in someone else's residential area, which, again, defeats the purpose.

by William on Sep 8, 2011 5:00 pm • link • report

ah,

AFAIK, the ROSA (is that what it's called) guest parking program, was designed for regular visitors to a residence in the Ballpark area (ie. cleaners, maintenance men, in-home nursing, relatives, and the like). From talking to other neighbors, this is often ignored. I know most of those Md./Va.-tagged cars and their owners have nothing to do with any residence, because I see them arriving for work. I work the night shift, so I often return home at 8am, only to find non-residents taking up what would be normally somewhat-spacious, open parking from residents parking overnight and then leaving for the day.

by Ehren on Sep 8, 2011 5:05 pm • link • report

Good article Adam, but, basically your solution to my not being able to find parking near me in Adams Morgan... is to make more expensive to park near my house? Should only the wealthier residents be able to afford street parking in Wards 1 and 2? And if the price of street parking doubles, then the price of a private spot, ostensible a more valuable commodity, will double as well.

by Patrickneil on Sep 8, 2011 5:12 pm • link • report

@ William - My street is zoned for RPP. While I understand your point, the issuing RPPs to people on non-zoned blocks is not the major problem. The major problem is that the RPP allows the holder to time-unlimited parking anywhere within the ward. That is probably a bad policy, but why should only some people be excluded from that benefit?

by ah on Sep 8, 2011 5:19 pm • link • report

@Ehren - Sorry if I wasn't clear. ROSA limits the use of visitor parking passes. An out-of-state car can't use one all year without registering as an out-of-state automobile. The police seem to enforce this rule pretty rigorously in many residential areas, and I'm wondering why not here?

http://dmv.dc.gov/serv/registration/ROSA.shtm

by ah on Sep 8, 2011 5:21 pm • link • report

@William -there are some streets in DC that are not RPP zoned b/c they are considered "exit routes" or whatever the terminology is. River Road is an example. I heard this from someone who lives on River Rd and gets regularly pissed off by MD/VA commuters parking up and down the street for 3 blocks in front of his house. If his info was wrong then so is mine. But really I think you're over reacting to his ability to get an RPP for Ward 3.

by Tina on Sep 8, 2011 5:23 pm • link • report

Ah,

As Birdie said earlier, the purple visitor passes are unique to the ballpark area, and are an experiment (going on 4 years old) of sorts. It seems they are excluded to ROSA policies. I was unable to find any specifics on DC.gov about them. I know there are renters on the street who have been using one of these visitor passes for weeks, if not months at a time, not to mention the commuters.

by Ehren on Sep 8, 2011 5:31 pm • link • report

ROSA enforcement is done at night. So, if the commuters are only parking during the daytime, they would not draw the attention of enforcement officers.

by Phil on Sep 8, 2011 5:36 pm • link • report

This article and its ideas directly conflicts with previous articles stating that residential buildings in DC have way too many parking spots alotted to them because no one has a car. Hmm. It seems to me that if more residents had dedicated parking, they wouldn't need to look for street parking.

by RosRes on Sep 8, 2011 5:41 pm • link • report

My understanding of RPP is not that it's supposed to allow individuals to park directly in front of their homes (or in some short-distance radius), it's supposed keeping out commuters from MD/VA thus giving DC residents a good chance of parking in their general neighborhood.

The recommendations from the Williams administration were that RPP parking zones be shrunk to such small areas that most people living in dense neighborhoods would effectively be precluded from finding parking in their zone. I live in an apartment-rich neighborhood in Adams Morgan and from what I remember about the report, I would have been limited to parking in a "zone" that by my count included something like 1,500+ residential units. If that plan had been implemented my odds of finding parking in the zone would have gone down exponentially to something approaching zero.

The needs of dense neighborhoods are for more spaces than on the street - so the zones are big to allow folks to park several blocks away in less dense areas.

What's so inequitable about people in dense neighborhoods getting a shot at parking in less dense areas nearby? Why punish those who live in dense neighborhoods by shrinking their zones or making them pay more while encouraging people in less-dense neighborhoods to have multiple cars by making them pay less?

by Anon2 on Sep 8, 2011 5:42 pm • link • report

How about not basing the zone on wards? Police and parking enforcement have license plate scanners, so make the permit valid for some radius, say 10 blocks, of the owner's residence. That should cut down on in-zone commuting. You could even charge by radius- larger pays more.

by Liam on Sep 8, 2011 5:45 pm • link • report

Also, there are some pretty significant areas on Captiol Hill (near the Capitol, near Barracks Row) where Zone 6 residential parking is enforced 24/7 and allows no 2-hour exemption. Is this a pilot? Has any analysis shown such an approach is more effective at allocating parking?

When I drive over that way I often find a surplus of vacant spaces in the 24/7 Zone 6 areas and almost no vacant spaces in the regular 2-hour exempt spaces.

by Anon2 on Sep 8, 2011 5:48 pm • link • report

Those rates should be priced to better reflect the actual demand for street parking to encourage car owners to find alternate spaces for their vehicles.

In order for this to work as advertized, the price must be comparable to the two-year cost of renting an off-street parking space in each parking zone. In W6 (my neighborhood), spaces rent for about $50/month (varies by location, of course), so the cost would be $1200 for a 2-year sticker. Downtown it will be much higher, like $10,000. Ain't gonna happen.

For the fee considered here, something like $50 for a 2-year sticker, the result is that this will be just another bite on car owners -- each and every one will pony up those few extra bucks to get the sticker. That means there will be just as many cars searching for the same limited parking, and the problem will be just as bad.

by goldfish on Sep 8, 2011 6:09 pm • link • report

@Anon2:
This is also being done in parts of Columbia Heights so I think it is possibly beyond the pilot stage. Don't have any additional info beyond that, unfortunately.

by prognostication on Sep 8, 2011 11:10 pm • link • report

$65 for 2 years is nothing. I wish you would have referenced Toronto's pricing system, which I have written about multiple times. Their lowest price is still almost 5x more expensive than this "great" Seattle program. Otherwise, the general point of the article makes sense.

http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/onstreet/index.htm#type

Permit fees vary according to a priority system based on need as reflected below:

No access to on-site parking for resident's first vehicle:
$13.15/month plus HST
No access to on-site parking for resident's second and any subsequent vehicles:
$32.87/month plus HST
Resident does have access to on-site parking (permit is for convenience):
$46.02/month plus HST

by Richard Layman on Sep 9, 2011 7:25 am • link • report

Look to Arlington. Everything's far more logical there (as usual).

by Dave on Sep 9, 2011 8:18 am • link • report

the price must be comparable to the two-year cost of renting an off-street parking space in each parking zone.

Not necessarily. Your own reserved space has a much higher value than a "right" to a space somewhere on a street in the general vicinity of your house.

Anyway, the general thrust of this article is right on. But I think for political reasons it needs to be a two-step process. First, move from ward-based zones to neighborhood based zones. Get that settled.

Then, once there's a better handle on that, you can move towards some sort of scarcity pricing.

by ah on Sep 9, 2011 8:57 am • link • report

ah, you misunderstood the word "comparable" -- it takes in consideration factors such as what you mention. Point is, the cost of the two different ways of storing one's car must be in the same ballpark, otherwise it will not do any good.

by goldfish on Sep 9, 2011 9:23 am • link • report

On-street parking in the RPP program is free. The 15.00 is just an administrative fee. Thus all participants are treated equally, regardless of Ward.

by Denis James on Sep 9, 2011 9:24 am • link • report

@Anon2,

I believe that parst of Capitol Hill does the 2 hour exempt and zone-only parking set up for the same reasons the ballpark neighborhoods do: because it's very popular with non-residents and they are trying to make on-street parking as difficult as possible for them to use it. My street near the ballpark has the same set up (as well as a whole bunch of "Local Traffic Only" signs). The idea is non-residents who are not in the neighborhood to visit residents should be parking at meters or pay-to-park lots.

Unfortunately in the ballpark area, enforcement is rather lax and when I did have a car, it could be a struggle to find parking on game days. That goes double if the opposing team was the Phillies or Mets.

by Birdie on Sep 9, 2011 10:07 am • link • report

@Tina

Last time I checked, most of River Road had RPP, so the information you have is partially incorrect. There are parts of commercial corridors that are not zoned, but given rush hour restrictions and commercial turnover needs, that makes sense.

Why should some people in a ward enjoy this while others do not? Because some people live in congested areas while others do not. Those who do not do not need the ability to park in another neighborhood for more than two hours. If you live on a street that is not zoned, and it gets parked up by commuters, then the residents of that street should move to get the street zoned. It does not mean that if you are a resident of that block, you should get a zone sticker so you can park in another neighborhood. As I already typed, that defeats the purpose.

If that means making the zone areas smaller, instead of by Ward, that should be fine.

by William on Sep 9, 2011 10:19 am • link • report

I believe there is already a rule in place that with an RPP or not, you're not allowed to park in the same spot for more than a certain amount of time (measured in days). Enforcing this would go a long way toward alleviating the problem. There is a car on 12th or 13th st NE North of G St that has been there for many months. There are cars in every neighborhood that dont move for days at a time. If you're going to go out of town, maybe you get 2-3 weeks a year, that if you notify parking enforcement, they flag your plate in the system so that you dont get a ticket when the folks make their rounds.

by idea on Sep 9, 2011 10:44 am • link • report

@William, River Rd is not zoned at 44th. Its all residential there. The nearest business is at least 3 blocks or more away. How is 44th between Fessenden and River not the same neighborhood as River at 44th? Do you always park directly in front of your home, or do you sometimes park around the corner on a different street half a block or more away in the same neighborhood? Many people do this by necessity and need an RPP to do it.

Your insistence that people who live on a street, or the part of a street, thats not zoned should be denied an RPP would be unfair and unjust to those people, which is why they are not denied.

by Tina on Sep 9, 2011 11:10 am • link • report

@idea - I believe there is a DC regulation that says your car must be moved every 3 days. Although it's on the books I believe it's lightly, if ever, enforced. There is a car parked in front of my building whose owner died (I know this because she was my neighbor) and though it hasn't been moved in nearly 6 months, it has not received a ticket.

by Anon2 on Sep 9, 2011 11:15 am • link • report

@anon2: the 72 hour rule was repealed. The only thing that will get an RPP car off the street if the owner doesn't move it is for the vehicle to be declared abandoned, which takes a lot:

http://www.infosnack.org/2008/10/parking-efficiency-and-abandoned-cars.html

by Michael Perkins on Sep 9, 2011 12:15 pm • link • report

People who choose to live in densely populated areas (Adams Morgan) that have an over-abundance of public transportation really shouldn't complain about not being able to find a parking spot. Now if you live in W3 boondocks like I do (which has limited public transit options), ample parking is a must when you need to drive everywhere.

by snowpeas on Sep 9, 2011 12:43 pm • link • report

So if I understand Tina correctly, someone who lives in a non-RPP block should have an RPP sticker so they can park in another neighborhood for more than two hours for free, and this is necessary because why?

The R in RPP is for residential. If you are not a resident of that block, then you are not entitled to park there for more than two hours for free. If there is a problem at 44th and River, then the residents of that area ought to talk to Damon Harvey and or Mary Cheh and resolve it by granting the street RPP zoning. But someone who lives at 44th and River will, if I know the neighborhood, simply drive 5 blocks so they are parked closer to the Friendship Heights or Tenleytown metro stations - all day. This then makes it harder for patrons of businesses etc to utilize that space.

by William on Sep 9, 2011 2:00 pm • link • report

@William -So if I understand Tina correctly, someone who lives in a non-RPP block should have an RPP sticker so they can park in another neighborhood for more than two hours for free,

no William, you did not understand me correctly. I said, briefly, an RPP is necessary to park in your own neighborhood when there are no spots directly in front of your house. In your own neighborhood 1 block away on a different street.

Do you really think everyone always and only parks in front of there own house all the time? Do you? Its very very common to park around the corner, on a different street in your own neighborhood.

So if I understand you correctly you think "one block away on a different street" is a different neighborhood?

Look, there is some regulatory reason related to public safety and/or transportation that prevents River Rd from being RPP zoned. MC can't do a damn thing about it. And my friend walks to the metro. Besides, if you knew the area you would know that parking is metered for 2-3 blocks around the metro. Thats why River Rd. fills up with MD/VA commuters -who park there and walk to the metro/Wisc. Ave bus.

by Tina on Sep 9, 2011 2:30 pm • link • report

*do you [always park directly in front of your house]?

by Tina on Sep 9, 2011 2:37 pm • link • report

According to Google Street View, there are plenty of sections of River Road that are zoned for RPP. Specifically right at 4350 River Road. That seems to be pretty close to 44th and River.

I am not sure what the issue for your example is, but generally speaking, residential parking permits are for residents of an area to be able to park in areas which are high demand for other reasons (amenities, metro etc). Residents of a block have the right to petition DDOT to zone their street for RPP. There are obvious exceptions such as public safety, commercial zones etc. If the 4300 block of River has RPP, there is no reason why the other blocks up to around GDS shouldn't either.

But, that is up to the residents.

by William on Sep 9, 2011 3:39 pm • link • report

...and after you cross 44th "outbound" (towards MD) it is marked as an emergency Rte and is no longer RPP zoned. Don't you think the people who live there have tried to get it zoned to stop the MD/VA commuters from parking there all day? There's an over riding reason why it isn't RPP zoned.

So if someone who lives at 4419 River parks on Ellicott or 44th b/c there are no vacant spots on River from 44th -46th, do you consider that parking "in another neighborhood"?

by Tina on Sep 9, 2011 3:53 pm • link • report

No, I do not think that is parking in another neighborhood, but it doesn't make sense that 1 block can be zoned and the next cannot, if the "Emergency Route" is the only justified reason. There are other blocks of River that are zoned that are also Emergency Routes. This seems like an easy solution, but given DDOT, nothing is easy.

by William on Sep 9, 2011 4:01 pm • link • report

Actually, if you check the DDOT web-site, you will see that all the residents of River Road are eligble for RPP. You can also review the RPP petition form, which includes a specific criteria for blocks that have other parking restrictions but are adjacent to an RPP zone.

by Allison on Sep 10, 2011 3:28 pm • link • report

Why aren't we discussing the real issue here? Whereas in NYC where most residents don't keep cars because the subway system is so accessible, here in DC, cars are an absolutely must for those of us that don't live near a metro. The public transportation system is failing us! So we keep cars and struggle to find parking and get GAUGED by the DC government everywhere we turn. The whole system is broken - not just the parking system. It makes DC so much of a harder place to live than it needs to be. There are so many places in the city I won't even try to go because I know it will take an hour to go 5 miles and will be impossible to find parking once I get there anyway. I'm wasting my life trying to get places and enjoying less of my time just being there. FIX IT, DC!

by Tricia on Sep 16, 2011 11:51 am • link • report

I don't know if anyone is still following this entry, but in one of the first comments, William asserted that

One apparent change in policy is that residents of blocks not zoned for RPP can now obtain RPP stickers for their cars in their neighborhoods.

Was this to mean this was a proposed change in policy, or that the policy has, in fact, changed? My reading of William's post is that he believes that the policy has, in fact, changed. But the RPP pages of the DMV and DDOT websites presently appear to state that one still needs to be a resident of an RPP block in order to get an RPP. If the policy has, in fact, changed, does anyone have a link or other reference to this?

by thm on Sep 16, 2011 2:19 pm • link • report

First let me say thank you for organizing the RPP Committee. I just got a car 3 weeks ago. And last week I received 4 parking tickets because I'm on fixed income while I am attending Georgetown University at night and work part time at Georgetown Law School. Please advise me on what I should do as far as obtaining a Ward 6 decal to put on my car. Once my income increase from for going to school I shall be able to afford to pay $80.00 a month to park in my own residence parking lot. In which this law is quite unethical to me. Even my visitors has to pay to park in order to visit me in Ward 6. I assumed my residence is scoring big revenues for parking from those who do not live in our apartment complex, but because they live in the neighborhood they can afford to pay for parking. Any how, my car has out-of-town tags on them, so will that be a problem?
Thank you for your response.

by Ms. NoWhereToPark on Dec 12, 2011 8:23 pm • link • report