Comments on Evans move cuts Shaw parking privileges - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Darren Hayward

Wed, 03 Oct 2012 00:08:26 EDT

I am in strong support of the new one side of the street parking exclusively for resident permit holders every day from 7.00am to midnight. I only wish that it would be extended to zone 1. I live just off U street on 12th and have a very hard time finding parking Thusday to Saturday after 5pm. If I arrive home later on Saturday evening I have to drive around for up 45 minutes just to find a space 4 blockscaway, as all the parking is taken up by non residents patronizing U street establishments. These tougher measures would encourage more use of the metro and have less people driving while intoxicated .

Comment by jake

Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:48:19 EDT

Any idea when the new parking permits will be issued? As a soon-to-be affected resident, I'm concerned that the residential parking signage in the area of Shaw that has joined Ward 6 still indicate that Zone 2 permits are required. Is DC doing anything to harmonize the conversion of all those parking spots with timing the issuance of the new parking permits?

Comment by Andrew Huff

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:29:48 EDT

I read with interest David’s column and have the following comments to add.

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

Comment by Hattie

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:10:49 EDT

What in the hell is wrong with our stupid concil members, they are allowing anything and everyting to take place. They need to stop this foolishness of where people park. Tony Evans is a pain in the ass along with the other people they push for this. If it not for the bikers it is for something else, the people that were born and have lived in DC all their livies are been push to the curb. It is time for us to take a stand and fight back

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

Comment by doodaday

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:09:16 EDT

And where was Wells during all of this? Shaw is his [problem] now. He couldn't round up the necessary votes to get this done? If Evans could round up the votes, why not Wells? It is his job, after all, to ensure his residents' interests are met. Who from Shaw is upset about this, by the way? Did the ANC or other civic groups lobby one way or the other?

Speaks perhaps of Wells' ability to get things done on the Council?

Comment by drumz

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:15:57 EDT

I'm willing to believe you, I just need to see something either way that confirms either way whether it was Evans himself or the council. I don't know the rules of the DC council. If the case you suggest is correct I'll certainly agree that the article should be changed.

And then I'll continue on disagreeing with the merits of the result of the vote.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:13:58 EDT

so its incorrect to say that Daniel Webster and Henry Clay achieved the compromise of 1850, because the Senate passed it?

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.

Comment by DC4Life

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:07:04 EDT

@ David C:

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.

Comment by drumz

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:02:07 EDT

But the article says he blocked the bill, why would he otherwise? Unless I'm misunderstanding what that entails.

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.

Comment by David C

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:00:19 EDT

How and why is never explained.

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?

Comment by DC4Life

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:50:14 EDT

@drumz:

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.

Comment by drumz

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:45:07 EDT

So if a council member votes no on an issue we can't infer that he is against that particular issue, no matter whether he did because someone asked him to or not?

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?

Comment by DC4Life

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:35:02 EDT

Oh Lord, this is getting ridiculous.

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.

Comment by David Alpert

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:02:34 EDT

DC4Life, I support the right of people to remain pseudonymous, but your commenting in this thread is definitely walking close to the line, if not going over the line, of astroturfing. If you have a personal reason to oppose the conclusions of the post based on your position, it is not appropriate to pseudonymously go around criticizing its credibility as you are.

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.

Comment by David C

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:50:09 EDT

But I'm sure He's welcome to.

Comment by David C

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:49:48 EDT

DC4Life, I do not understand why these stories run when filled with such inaccuracies.

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.

Comment by DC4Life

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:42:29 EDT

I do not understand why these stories run when filled with such inaccuracies. It has happened in the past where stories are written here based on some emotional response from the author without even the slightest fact checking.

What gives?

Comment by Denis James

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:07:11 EDT

David, this is not correct, at least in Ward One where I live (Adams Morgan): "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."
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.

Comment by David C

Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:46:52 EDT

Even if Evans' staff were not encouraging others to vote no, would it change any of the facts in the story above? I think that is a rather trivial point to hang on to, when everything else you questioned has been completely explained.

Comment by DC4Life

Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:05:16 EDT

"during which time I am told..."

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.

Comment by David Alpert

Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:01:53 EDT

Sorry, not 7-6, since the council only has 12 members now. I think it was 7-5 against, but I will try to find the details.

Comment by David Alpert

Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:00:36 EDT

I was at the Logan ANC meeting where this was discussed. It was an agenda item for a presentation by Sherri Kimbel, Jack's staffer, for a proposal by Jack. Here is an announcement by one of the commissioners ahead of time explaining that it was an Evans proposal. It did not originate with the ANC.

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).

Comment by DC4Life

Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:31:52 EDT

@ David C:

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....

Comment by David C

Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:26:50 EDT

DC4Life,

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.

Comment by DC4Life

Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:00:23 EDT

David:

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?

Comment by David Alpert

Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:57:33 EDT

Planher: I'm not saying Shaw ought to have special parking privileges in Logan. I'm saying that if people of Georgetown, Dupont etc. (including myself) get them, then Shaw shouldn't get them specifically taken away.

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.

Comment by FoggyRez

Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:41:58 EDT

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

Comment by Planher

Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:19:01 EDT

David, I'm somewhat surprised that you would be advocating for a resident in Shaw to be able to drive to and park in Logan Circle. These neighborhoods are close enough in proximity that walking or biking or even transit would be a better/faster option. It's this type of movement that the District (and usually you) supports.

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.

Comment by Ms. D

Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:10:36 EDT

I'm for SMD-boundary designated with contiguous SMDs. We're in the "one-year visitor permit" pilot (or maybe it's no longer a pilot? This is 2.5 years in at least) and it's for the ANC only, not all of Zone 5. The pols/DDOT assume we can figure that out, so residents with a car should be able to figure out the SMD situation. Here's what you do: you put the SMD on the parking sign, and you put all the SMDs that the resident can park in on their zone permit. If you're unsure if you can park there, look at the sign, then look at your sticker. If the number/letter combo on the sign matches one on your sticker, you can park. This is not rocket science.

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.

Comment by David C

Sun, 29 Jul 2012 01:16:41 EDT

And now I agree with goldfish? Am I in bizarro world?

Comment by goldfish

Sun, 29 Jul 2012 01:07:02 EDT

My impression is that residential parking privileges in most large cities are divided into neighborhoods. The borders are along geographic features or major thoroughfares -- such as Seattle.

Seems like a very reasonable way to settle this problem.

Comment by David C

Sat, 28 Jul 2012 10:50:59 EDT

I can't believe I'm going to say this but I agree with dcdriver. Decouple the ANC from parking. The two have no business being linked and it actually makes drawing ward boundaries more difficult.

Comment by Rich

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 23:11:37 EDT

"Objective"? Any boundary system will be bound up in political decisions. The GPS idea upstream would be great, except a great many people can't read a map and GPS makes it even worse. The ANCs and police subdistricts might work although smaller areas will dienfranchise those on the fringes and cross-bornadary stuff will be more complicated to do than for ward borders--Logan Circle includes 4 of the police subdsitricts, for example. Neighborhood naming is fraught with problems. The real problem is the micromanagement of parking on a block by block basis which makes it absolutely confusing for all but those with the most exquisite knowledge of a given area.

Comment by @CCCAPrez

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 20:22:26 EDT

That's why so many Shaw residents still LOVE Jack so much. Abused spouse syndrome. Just another example of Jack coming out into the community to ask what residents wanted before catering to the needs of his biggest donors. But in all fairness, maybe he did a survey at the Thorpe campaign launch earlier this month:

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.

Comment by dcdriver

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:39:41 EDT

Why do the zones have to match ANC or council boundaries at all? Why not draw an entirely new map?

In any case, DC has 8 parking zones. The city of College Park has, I believe, 11 zones. Something isn't right there.

Comment by Adam L

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:21:09 EDT

@Shipsa01

Money. Programmers. Time.

Comment by Shipsa01

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:03:35 EDT

RE: "Yet, Boston still seems to have a problem with neighborhood identification... http://www.boston.com/yourtown/specials/boston_neighborhood_boundaries/"

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?

Comment by dcd

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:55:19 EDT

@TM - Like @Gray, I am similarly puzzled. The (financial) reason I don't drive to work is that parking in my building is north of $250 per month. That doesn't change no matter how much I have to pay for RPP.

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.

Comment by Jack

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:51:50 EDT

Jack: You mean SMD boundaries, right? For example, a resident of, say, 2B04 would be able to park in 2B03, 2B04, 2B05, 2B07, 2B09, and 2F01?

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?

Comment by Gray

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:10:08 EDT

@TM: Making people pay to park near their home would have the effect of incentivizing people to drive to work who would normally take other modes. If they're going to pay to park, they'd reason, might as well pay to park near my job.

How does that make sense at all? Paying for what is now free will somehow make people want to pay even more?

Comment by TM

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:09:48 EDT

Charlie, I support making the RPP more expensive (particularly for multi car households), but not so much that it ends up having the result of making it cheaper for people to drive to work. If there is any subsidizing going on, it's the city subsidizing people who decide to leave their car at home and take metro to work.

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.

Comment by urbanette

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:03:49 EDT

@goldfish I think that most people could figure out what is five blocks from their house without a computer. Following on TomQ, you could actually only ticket if people are 7+ (or10+) blocks from their house, to give a buffer if that is really a concern.

Comment by Sally

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:44:48 EDT

"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."

A cogent explanation of why conservatives have had more electoral success than progressives in recent decades.

Comment by charlie

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:40:23 EDT

@TM; really? So now in addition to cats and dogs, people on GGW want to subsidize car owners so they can park for free (or 80/year) near their houses?

80-90 a month would be far more equitable.

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:25:17 EDT

Just back from a trip to Boston where I got a ticket for non-resident parking on a rental ($40). In Boston RPP is even more severe though as it even includes the main commercial streets in neighborhoods. I was on Huntington, the main street in North End and ass-sumed it was open to all.

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.

Comment by Adam L

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:20:34 EDT

@TM

Yet, Boston still seems to have a problem with neighborhood identification... http://www.boston.com/yourtown/specials/boston_neighborhood_boundaries/

Comment by TM

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:06:30 EDT

Charlie: Making people pay to park near their home would have the effect of incentivizing people to drive to work who would normally take other modes. If they're going to pay to park, they'd reason, might as well pay to park near my job.

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.

Comment by Weiwen

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:53:06 EDT

If we want to keep things simple, is there an argument for more zones? I live in B-More, and we have over 30 zones. B-More is about the same geographic area as DC.

Comment by TomQ

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:49:00 EDT

Tom Veil is on the right track here.

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.

Comment by Adam L

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:46:23 EDT

@dk & charlie

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.

Comment by charlie

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:42:34 EDT

REally, I don't see people should assume they should be allowed to park near their houses. You want a spot -- pay for it.

Comment by dk

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:42:22 EDT

ditch the car.

Comment by Adam L

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:40:50 EDT

I like Jack's idea, but it gets to be a bit complicated. You need something that can be easily communicated on a sign.

Increase the total number of RPP zones, and make the 1-2 block "border area" between them a hybrid zone like is currently done.

Comment by goldfish

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:40:33 EDT

does NOT strike me as workable

Comment by goldfish

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:39:33 EDT

@Jack and @David Alpert: a resident would have to drive around with the SMD map in his/her head. This does strike me as workable.

Comment by David Alpert

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:33:43 EDT

Jack: You mean SMD boundaries, right? For example, a resident of, say, 2B04 would be able to park in 2B03, 2B04, 2B05, 2B07, 2B09, and 2F01?

Comment by JPG

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:30:47 EDT

I live about 100 feet from the Brookland Metro. Every morning drivers from all over Ward 5 descend on my street, take all the parking, and ride the Metro to work. I completely agree that its unfair to offer RPP permits by ward alone, because it allows people from all over the ward to use my street as a park-and-ride. It is especially unfair to my elderly neighbors who are forced to park several blocks from their homes because commuters are taking all the spots. As someone else said, ANC boundaries would be much better.

Comment by Jack

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:26:58 EDT

Way back in 2003, as a member of the Parking Task Force, I proposed that RPP zones be ANC areas, with the permit for one ANC valid also in contiguous ANCs (to avoid border discontinuities). Conformity to the political boundary is appropriate so that the ANC can decide whether the area should be RPP-zoned or not. As for the tag-lookup system to designate smaller areas, that's way beyond the intellectual capabilities of our Parking Enforcement officers.

Comment by goldfish

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:26:50 EDT

@Urbanette -- OK, let's say it is 5 blocks. And lets say you live on the corner of 6th and E Streets SE (actually this is Marion Park). Does this mean parking on the 600 block of M St SE is legal? How could a resident know without looking it up on a computer while driving?

Comment by Urbanette

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 12:10:57 EDT

I think Tom Veil's solution is brilliant. A lot the tickets now are being done with LPRs (license plate readers) anyway - the parking enforcement officer isn't typing in any license plate #s or reading any stickers - they have a camera on their car, and they drive slowly by, and the LPR alerts them if any car has been there more than 2 hours. I believe it has RPP license plate #s in the database already.

@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.

Comment by MLD

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:54:41 EDT

@Tom Veil
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.

Comment by goldfish

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:38:43 EDT

@Tom Veil: We actually now have the technology to do a zero-paperwork system that grants a DC resident free parking, say, within 2 blocks of his house.

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.

Comment by Distantantennas

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:35:27 EDT

@oboe You're clearly misinformed. The Blessed Reagan rides a velociraptor: http://i.imgur.com/AyFet.jpg

Comment by Jasper

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:34:03 EDT

The solution is very simple. Reduce the RPP to ANC boundaries. So, instead of a Zone 1 RPP, you now get a Zone 1B RPP.

Never gonna happen though. Easy solution rarely happen.

Comment by Tom Veil

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:34:00 EDT

We actually now have the technology to do a zero-paperwork system that grants a DC resident free parking, say, within 2 blocks of his house. 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. No need for permits, stickers, etc.; all a driver has to do is keep their up-to-date address on file with DMV, which they have to do to get their current permit anyway.

Comment by Phil

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:30:03 EDT

"Granted, parking signs are hardly the largest part of the DDOT budget, but it's a huge waste to keep moving border areas from one zone to another."

They just put stickers on the signs, they don't replace them.

Comment by oboe

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:30:00 EDT

St. Tommy arguing for lower speed camera fines. Dave Alpert fighting for parking rights. Dogs and Cats, living together.

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.

Comment by Urbanette

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:26:17 EDT

They need to have smaller zones that are NOT decided by politicians but by OP or DDOT, and don't change every 10 years (when we redistrict). Granted, parking signs are hardly the largest part of the DDOT budget, but it's a huge waste to keep moving border areas from one zone to another.

Comment by charlie

Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:22:19 EDT

St. Tommy arguing for lower speed camera fines. Dave Alpert fighting for parking rights. Dogs and Cats, living together.

Or I started drinking too early again.