Parking
Evans move cuts Shaw parking privileges
Shaw residents will soon not be able to enjoy resident parking privileges in Logan Circle, while far more distant residents of neighborhoods like Georgetown and Kalorama will get special entitlements. That's the consequence of the recent redistricting and Evans' successful fight 2 weeks ago against a bill that would have kept parking zones from changing.
Photo by David Boyle in DC on Flickr.
Shaw moved from Ward 2 to Ward 6 in the recent redistricting. A line in the redistricting committee report proposed keeping parking zones fixed as ward boundaries change, and the Gray administration sent the Council legislation to do just that. But Evans successfully blocked the bill on July 10, which means that Shaw residents will soon lose Ward 2 parking stickers and gain Ward 6 stickers.
Meanwhile, Logan Circle will soon get a pilot program reserving one side of every street for Ward 2 residents only. This will make it far easier for Ward 2 residents to park in Logan, even if they live at the other end of the ward in Georgetown or Kalorama, but harder for residents of other wards to park there, including the people of newly-6 Shaw.
DC parking zones are fundamentally unfair
Unlike almost all other cities, DC sets zones for its resident permit parking (RPP) program based on political ward boundaries, rather than a some objective and geographic standard. Our zones are also very large, larger than many other cities; instead of only helping residents park in their own neighborhoods, people get special rights to park in other people's neighborhoods so long as they are in the same ward.
Some people really like that. When redistricting moved the Palisades from Ward 2, which spans downtown, to upper Northwest's Ward 3 in 2002, residents objected. They were not upset because they didn't want the Ward 3 councilmember to represent them, but because they liked having a special privilege to drive to places like Foggy Bottom or Logan Circle and park with special resident privileges.
However, this is unfair to residents of the more desirable parking areas. At a recent parking hearing, Anne-Marie Bairstow of Woodley Park argued for smaller zones. She said that many people drive from other neighborhoods to Woodley Park, use their resident privileges to park, and take Metro. This deprives actual Woodley residents of the benefits of the RPP system.
It's also unfair to people who happen to live over a line. Palisades residents suddenly lost a privilege. Adams Morgan residents, who are in Ward 1, or Bloomingdale residents in Ward 5 never had that privilege in the first place.
This isn't the purpose of RPP. DC has a program to favor residents of an area in the competition for on-street parking spaces. It could limit that to only the immediate neighborhood, which would be fair, or perhaps it could instead give the privilege to anyone in the District, but giving it to an arbitrary set of alternative neighborhoods is not.
There's reason to be extra sensitive to this issue because redistricting moved Shaw out of Ward 2 and into Ward 6. Shaw happened to be the lowest-income and most-minority section of the ward, which has now gotten even richer and whiter. That gives this policy action an added economic and racial effect, whether or not that was the intent.
When Kingman Park moved from Ward 6 to 7, it stayed in Zone 6, so there is precedent already for keeping neighborhoods in zones other than their ward.
Upcoming Logan restriction will further discriminate against Shaw
Evans' office also recently proposed setting aside one side of every street in Logan Circle for Zone 2 parking only. Normally, most residential streets allow people with the right zone sticker to park all day, and people without it can still park during the day for 2 hours and nights and weekends without limit. But a few years ago, parts of Wards 1 and 6 started having one side of each street restricted so that people without the right zone sticker couldn't ever park there at all park there at all during RPP enforcement hours.
Evans decided to suggest this for Logan as well. However, his staff and the Logan ANC turned down a suggestion to limit the special privilege to people actually in Logan. If they had done that, this would have put equal limits on the people of Shaw and people of Georgetown (and Dupont, where I live). If this bill had passed, then Shaw would have still gotten the privilege, though people of Bloomingdale, the Palisades, or Columbia Heights would not.
Instead, we have an even less fair outcome than either of those.
Shaw doesn't only lose out; they do gain the ability to park with resident privileges in Ward 6, including H Street, Barracks Row, and around the ballpark. That includes a lot of streets that only allow Ward 6 parkers on one side. However, while there hasn't been any kind of ward-wide poll, at least some Shaw leaders had specifically asked to stay in Zone 2, suggesting that residents preferred 2. Most of 2 is closer to Shaw than most of 6.
The best solution is to let DDOT, or some sort of independent commission, set parking zone boundaries based on neighborhoods and geographically-similar regions instead of political wards, as most other cities do. Or the zones could correspond to ANCs, with a provision that people right near an edge can still park in an adjacent zone.
But taking privileges from Shaw without taking them from other neighborhoods to the west isn't the right answer and isn't fair.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
- Latest Metro map drafts add Anacostia parks and other tweaks
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Short-term Washingtonians deserve a voice, too
- DC Council makes major policy changes overnight
- Public land deals have both benefits and pitfalls
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Parklets give every block a little park
Or I started drinking too early again.
by charlie on Jul 27, 2012 11:22 am • link • report
by Urbanette on Jul 27, 2012 11:26 am • link • report
Not sure why you find this surprising. One thing that's obvious from the last 3-4 decades is that progressives hold views that are fairly nuanced, and reactionaries hold views that you could fit on a bumper sticker and still have plenty of room left over for a picture of Ronald Reagan flying on the back of an American eagle.
by oboe on Jul 27, 2012 11:30 am • link • report
They just put stickers on the signs, they don't replace them.
by Phil on Jul 27, 2012 11:30 am • link • report
by Tom Veil on Jul 27, 2012 11:34 am • link • report
Never gonna happen though. Easy solution rarely happen.
by Jasper on Jul 27, 2012 11:34 am • link • report
by Distantantennas on Jul 27, 2012 11:35 am • link • report
The issue is where do you draw the line? I have parked 3 blocks away from my house occasionally because all the nearby spaces were taken. 4 blocks? 10? And as parking demand changes by hour and by day, so should the boundaries? And if the system is so complicated that every driver will need to look up if the parking spot he/she is consider is "legal", while driving by it, I'd say the system is too complicated to be workable.
by goldfish on Jul 27, 2012 11:38 am • link • report
Every MPD officer and meter enforcer already can look up license plates on their laptops to get a driver's address almost instantly. Thus they could ticket people who are stashing their cars, while knowing to skip people parked near their home.
The issue then is that parking attendants have to look up the license plate of every car rather than glancing at an obviously displayed number on the car to see if it says "2" or not.
by MLD on Jul 27, 2012 11:54 am • link • report
@goldfish - just pick a number. Maybe 5. If people complain they still can't find parking, go to 7. Whatever. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out.
@phil - even stickers have a labor cost.
by Urbanette on Jul 27, 2012 12:10 pm • link • report
by goldfish on Jul 27, 2012 12:26 pm • link • report
by Jack on Jul 27, 2012 12:26 pm • link • report
by JPG on Jul 27, 2012 12:30 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on Jul 27, 2012 12:33 pm • link • report
by goldfish on Jul 27, 2012 12:39 pm • link • report
by goldfish on Jul 27, 2012 12:40 pm • link • report
Increase the total number of RPP zones, and make the 1-2 block "border area" between them a hybrid zone like is currently done.
by Adam L on Jul 27, 2012 12:40 pm • link • report
by dk on Jul 27, 2012 12:42 pm • link • report
by charlie on Jul 27, 2012 12:42 pm • link • report
Not helpful commentary. And this issue is just as much about discouraging people from commuting into other neighborhoods to get free parking as it is about making sure people can park near their homes.
by Adam L on Jul 27, 2012 12:46 pm • link • report
If the license plate reader can be tied into a GPS system you just allow people with RPP stickers to park within say one-third of a mile of their home (and maybe like with the speed cameras you throw a little slack into the enforcement and only actually ticket people 1/2 mile from their home).
The ANC boundary idea sounds good in theory but ANC boundaries are not marked anywhere on the ground so I can't imagine you could go to that system without putting up signs to indicate where one would be parking.
Then you could actually raise the price for RPP stickers - in Upper NW where I am almost the entire ward is zoned for RPP but in reality only a tiny portion of it has enough demand that RPP restrictions are justified so an awful lot of streets have the zoning to get the parking stickers not because folks can't park near their homes. Get rid of that perverse incentive and a lot of these streets get rid of the RPP restrictions.
And then the debate about a pricing system for RPP that reflects demand becomes a lot simpler because only people who live in high demand areas (which is a small portion of the city) have a political stake. In Ward 3 people in say Friendship Heights will no longer have to worry about parking demand from people in Spring Valley and the politics that go along with that because Spring Valley will no longer have a stake.
by TomQ on Jul 27, 2012 12:49 pm • link • report
by Weiwen on Jul 27, 2012 12:53 pm • link • report
You've got to have a line somewhere. Some people are going to live near that line. People who live near the line might cry foul, but then again parking spots on their street will have less demand since the people on the other side of the line can't use them.
As for transparency, I don't see how ward lines are any more transparent than ANC lines. It just takes a sign (or a sticker on a sign) to tell you what ANC you're in.
One trivial but fun aspect of a shift like this would be to enable neighborhood-branded parking stickers like they have in Boston. Could be a good way to foster neighborhood identification.
by TM on Jul 27, 2012 1:06 pm • link • report
Yet, Boston still seems to have a problem with neighborhood identification... http://www.boston.com/yourtown/specials/boston_neighborhood_boundaries/
by Adam L on Jul 27, 2012 1:20 pm • link • report
In Boston RPP goes by big neighborhoods also- North End, South Boston, etc.
One big variance in ERPP is that each block can establish it's own hours. Around the Howard Theater they now have ERPP 7am to midnight seven days. In the ward one areas of ANC 1B for some reason they did ERPP but left the hours the same- 7am to 8:30pm Monday-Friday. That's not much help. To get longer hours or more days a block has to petition for such.
In the Logan pilot the hours are supposed to uniformly be 7am to midnight Monday thru Saturday (churches). But our signs haven't gone up yet.
I like Tom Veil's proposal generally (maybe 4-5 blocks), assuming the meter people could probably do it.
by Tom Coumaris on Jul 27, 2012 1:25 pm • link • report
80-90 a month would be far more equitable.
by charlie on Jul 27, 2012 1:40 pm • link • report
A cogent explanation of why conservatives have had more electoral success than progressives in recent decades.
by Sally on Jul 27, 2012 1:44 pm • link • report
by urbanette on Jul 27, 2012 2:03 pm • link • report
You could argue that this subsidizes the choice to have a car in the first place, but I believe the amount of people who would ditch their car would be far less than the number of metro riders who would switch to driving. Even at 80-90 a month, that's $4 a work day. Add that to the cost of Metro (and the current disparity of parking tax subsidies versus transit subsidies) and it's cheaper to drive for a lot of residents.
by TM on Jul 27, 2012 2:09 pm • link • report
How does that make sense at all? Paying for what is now free will somehow make people want to pay even more?
by Gray on Jul 27, 2012 2:10 pm • link • report
David: No, I mean ANC boundaries. Too large, no doubt, especially with contiguous-ANC validity, but who in the world knows where SMD boundaries are?
by Jack on Jul 27, 2012 2:51 pm • link • report
Unlss you're thinking that people would drive to work to avoid havign to get a RPP sticker, thereby eliminating the need for an RPP sticker and saving the RPP fees? To which I reply - Saturdays. RPP operates on Saturdays, too. I'd guess the number of people who will change their habits to avoid paying RPP fees by driving to work who also have the time and energy to stash the car someplace else on Saturday will be vanishingly small.
by dcd on Jul 27, 2012 2:55 pm • link • report
Adam L or anyone else - that's an awesome exercise, which I would love to see replicated here in DC. Anyone know what it takes to design something like that?
by Shipsa01 on Jul 27, 2012 3:03 pm • link • report
Money. Programmers. Time.
by Adam L on Jul 27, 2012 5:21 pm • link • report
In any case, DC has 8 parking zones. The city of College Park has, I believe, 11 zones. Something isn't right there.
by dcdriver on Jul 27, 2012 5:39 pm • link • report
http://shawcommunityeast.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/dsc_2093.jpg?w=605
Lowering speed camera fines makes zero sense to me, but maybe someone is just looking out for the people who don't mind making our roads less safe.
by @CCCAPrez on Jul 27, 2012 8:22 pm • link • report
by Rich on Jul 27, 2012 11:11 pm • link • report
by David C on Jul 28, 2012 10:50 am • link • report
Seems like a very reasonable way to settle this problem.
by goldfish on Jul 29, 2012 1:07 am • link • report
by David C on Jul 29, 2012 1:16 am • link • report
Although if we want to be really brutal, the point of the RPP is to allow people to storage park their cars NEAR HOME, and so just your SMD, and maybe the one next door if you're within 2 blocks of the border, should do. If you want to go shopping or dining or to visit friends and want to drive, you should be treated like any other commuter, even if your destination is in the same political ward or ANC but more than a few blocks away. But I'd argue that we need to couple that with ending the "one-side-zone-only" special zones we have now. We could extend RPP hours to keep barhoppers and baseball-watchers out of neighborhoods near these attractions, but would need to expand the space eligible for 2-hour parkers so that people may freely run errands or visit with friends. We could also make the rule such that non-RPP 2-hour parking is limited to the whole SMD and not just that particular spot, so that people couldn't "cheat" the system by moving their car a few spaces every 2 hours.
by Ms. D on Jul 30, 2012 1:10 pm • link • report
Also, it's a bit disingenuous to harp on how Shaw is 'losing' a privilege. You briefly mention that yes, Shaw residents will be able to park in Ward 6 now and I would argue that b/c of the size of Ward 6, these folks are actually getting more parking accessiblity in an area with more (or at least newer) activity nodes than you mention (H Street, Barracks Row, Stadium, new waterfront development, Capital Hill).
I do agree wholeheartedly with you that the RPP system is broken and needs to be updated to better serve residents. I just see this Shaw example being contradictory to a lot of your positions. It certainly does not support reducing RPP boundaries and encouraging walking, biking and transit use for short trips.
by Planher on Jul 30, 2012 1:19 pm • link • report
by FoggyRez on Jul 30, 2012 1:41 pm • link • report
Better yet would be that only Logan residents get special privileges in Logan, while other people can park using the opportunities available to the general public.
by David Alpert on Jul 30, 2012 1:57 pm • link • report
Why is Councilmember Evans called out here specifically? Did he introduce or co-sponsor some legislation? You do not offer any of this information in the posting and I am curious as to how it all unfolded. Wouldn't Wells have been involved as well to advocate for his newest residents?
by DC4Life on Jul 30, 2012 2:00 pm • link • report
From the article. "Evans successfully blocked the bill on July 10...", "Evans' office also recently proposed setting aside one side of every street in Logan Circle for Zone 2 parking only", "Evans decided to suggest this for Logan as well. However, his staff and the Logan ANC turned down a suggestion to limit the special privilege to people actually in Logan"
These are things that only Jack Evans did. That's why he alone is called out.
Wouldn't Wells have been involved as well to advocate for his newest residents?
No.
by David C on Jul 30, 2012 2:26 pm • link • report
To be more specific - what was blocked? What bill? Were others involved? What about the chairman, who sets the agenda for the Council? I have a very hard time believing that Tommy Wells would not have been involved with a parking related issue in his Ward. None of this info is provided, which leads me to think that part of the story is missing as well.
I attend the Logan Circle ANC every month and I can tell you (and David Alpert) that the parking pilot there in no way came from Evans' office. It was created and voted on by the ANC. They asked him for support and got it.
It would be interesting to hear David Alpert's thoughts on these questions and to see if he could provide additional info. For some reason, I think this thread will slowly die....
by DC4Life on Jul 30, 2012 2:31 pm • link • report
As for that recent Tuesday Council vote, the executive branch's Office of Policy and Legislative Affairs introduced the bill, which I linked to above. Mary Cheh introduced it at the request of the mayor; I'm not sure why, either because she is the committee chair in the relevant area or maybe because she was temporarily chairman at the time.
Mendelson (now the chairman) spoke in favor; Evans spoke against. Nobody else spoke besides those three. There was them a period where some members seemed unsure if they were voting for or against, during which time I am told Evans' staff were encouraging other members to vote no.
Then they voted it down. I had the detailed vote breakdown in a window but my browser crashed and I lost it; I will try to get it again. I know Cheh, Wells and Mendelson voted yes. Evans voted no, and enough people voted no to defeat it (it was an "emergency" bill, so they needed 6 nos, and it was 7-6).
by David Alpert on Jul 30, 2012 3:00 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on Jul 30, 2012 3:01 pm • link • report
Did you confirm with Evans himself or his office or just take the word of this mystery person? Still feeling too much of an editorial slant for this to have any meaning at all.
by DC4Life on Jul 30, 2012 3:05 pm • link • report
by David C on Jul 30, 2012 3:46 pm • link • report
The restriction is that no one without a Ward sticker may park on that side of the street during the stated RPP hours. The RPP regs allow expansion of the hours up to midnight by petition of a majority of the residents on the block and certain findings of high parking competition by DDOT.
by Denis James on Jul 31, 2012 8:07 am • link • report
What gives?
by DC4Life on Jul 31, 2012 11:42 am • link • report
I don't think that one (unconfirmed) error of trivial importance counts as "filled" with inaccuracies. But there's a reason that papers and magazines have a correction section in every issue.
The reason there are errors is because God doesn't blog here.
by David C on Jul 31, 2012 11:49 am • link • report
by David C on Jul 31, 2012 11:50 am • link • report
Denis: You're right, I had thought that the enhanced RPP applies to all hours, but it appears that at least in Ward 1 it's only during RPP hours. I will find out whether that also applies to the performance parking zones and update the post.
by David Alpert on Jul 31, 2012 12:02 pm • link • report
How many other comments here are posted anon? Yet somehow I am walking the line because I cannot understand your reasoning or conclusion? You obviously have no reason and that is fine by me. Just say that. Well, you sort of did already.
You don't know the vote count, you "heard" something from someone about something that someone else said. I get it - you are a blogger, not a journalist. You'll have a free pass the rest of your life I suppose.
by DC4Life on Jul 31, 2012 1:35 pm • link • report
It would make it easier if Evans explicitly stated his reasoning but there is still the record of his vote. Moreover, if he voted no shouldn't we be able to infer that he would prefer it if the rest of the council voted his way? If I'm voting for Obama I'm going to hope you do as well even if we never discuss it.
So therefore why is it slanted or unjournalistic to report an anonymous source on something that still doesn't really have bearing on the facts or outcome of the vote?
by drumz on Jul 31, 2012 1:45 pm • link • report
Because the whole article pins the decision on Evans alone. How and why is never explained.
"Evans move cuts Shaw parking..." Unless the decision was all his or he was the single deciding vote, the move was one of the Council, not Evans.
I know GGW's views on Evans - they make them obvious on a regular basis (to their detriment, in my opinion). Still, one would expect a minimum level of accuracy, even from a blogger.
by DC4Life on Jul 31, 2012 1:50 pm • link • report
It absolutely is.
1. Evans was the only one who spoke against the bill.
2. Evans voted against the bill.
3. Evans' staff were reportedly encouraging other members to vote no
So those are the reasons. Evans was against it, and he actively tried to persuade others to vote against it. Even if you want to discount item 3 because it comes from an unnamed source, item 1 still establishes that Evans was trying to encourage others to vote against it. Only Evans did this. This was the "move" named in the title.
That makes the title pretty accurate in my opinion. Which statement do you see as inaccurate?
by David C on Jul 31, 2012 2:00 pm • link • report
To clarify, I don't really have a dog in this fight except for interest in seeing the RPP reformed as a whole (I don't even live in DC) but you're accusing GGW of accusing Evans with something you saying he had nothing to do with. When you know, there's evidence in the voting record. Maybe the next step should be to ask CM Evans to clarify why he blocked the bill and whether he agrees with the ANC or not.
But that's still irrelevant to what you think GGW's (because its a huge monolithic entity that will assimilate all) views on CM Evan's are.
by drumz on Jul 31, 2012 2:02 pm • link • report
1) The title: "Evans move cuts Shaw parking privileges"
A Council move blocked this, supported by a majority of the members. This was a Council move.
2) "But Evans successfully blocked the bill on July 10."
Evans did not block the bill. No individual member did or could. The Council blocked the bill. Evans does not have the power or authority to block anything on his own.
Done here. Alpert has a bone to pick with Evans and I'll let those two jokers have at it. He could do a better job of hiding it, we all know, but why bother.
by DC4Life on Jul 31, 2012 2:07 pm • link • report
We routinely speak of a legislator as "doing" something when they are influential in obtaining a result, though of course they are only one vote, technically.
You are just quibbling.
by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 31, 2012 2:13 pm • link • report
And then I'll continue on disagreeing with the merits of the result of the vote.
by drumz on Jul 31, 2012 2:15 pm • link • report
Speaks perhaps of Wells' ability to get things done on the Council?
by doodaday on Jul 31, 2012 5:09 pm • link • report
You have people coming into the city and taking total control and telling others where they can and can not park.
My point is this, the churches and other homer owners were here when they arrived, if you don't like the churches and where they are parking, please find another area to live in.
They were here first and they should not be forced out by people that do not attend a church, we need to fight back and regain our neighbor hood. Let those that are displease with the parking move ASAP and the council members that go along with them vote them out of office ASAP. I am tired of this mess and we need to fight back now
by Hattie on Jul 31, 2012 10:10 pm • link • report
Since the beginning of home rule, residential parking permits have tracked ward boundaries, with one exception in Kingman Park in Ward 7. Because this neighborhood is west of the river, the residents were allowed to keep their Ward 6 parking privileges. If David is interested in changing from this ward-based system to a neighborhood-based system, he should seek to have a member of the Council introduce a bill to that effect. Then such a proposal can go through the legislative process, including a public hearing.
It should be noted, however, that even under David’s proposed plan, Shaw residents would not be able to park in Logan Circle or Downtown – Shaw residents would have Shaw permits, and Logan residents would have Logan permits, with neither getting RPP “special” privileges in the other.
As to David’s point regarding it not being fair to grandfather Kingman Park but not Shaw, I have no problem with also moving Kingman Park to Ward 7 – keeping them in 6 was presumably a concession to the Ward Councilmember.
As to comparing the Shaw situation with Logan Circle, that is really apples and oranges. First of all, the assertion that the enhanced Logan parking initiative came from our office is not accurate – ANC 2F voted for enhanced parking on its own as a solution to the parking problems their residents were having. Second, the assertion that the ANC wanted neighborhood parking passes is also not accurate. When David’s proposal came up at the ANC 2F meeting, it was apparent that most residents did not share his view.
I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight.
Andrew Huff
Office of Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans
by Andrew Huff on Aug 2, 2012 12:29 pm • link • report
by jake on Sep 4, 2012 3:48 pm • link • report
by Darren Hayward on Oct 3, 2012 12:08 am • link • report
Add a Comment