The surface parking is a complete embarrassment. No congressman or senator should even pretend to be environmentally conscious or caring as long as those lots remain (not to mention the underground ones). If Pelosi or Reid want to walk the walk, they can tell the Architect of the Capitol to tear up all the parking and tell their hoards of Maryland and Virginia employees to suck it up and take the Metro or commuter rail. Or pay for parking at market rates.

They can talk the talk about making us all use CFL lights or consider the carbon tax, etc., but on something they could actually do with their own operations, Congress can't follow through.

by Reid on Feb 22, 2009 11:20 am • link • report

@ Reid: I am sure that all the 'heroes' on Capitol Hill will start muttering the word 'security' when told they can't park at work anymore.

You know, that's really credible, that you need a bit SUV for your safety. There's a lot of people after the 3rd Rep from Nebraska. Really. And being senator of North Dakota really deserves full fledge secret service protection. If not for real threads, then at least for status.

by Jasper on Feb 22, 2009 11:42 am • link • report

Jasper: This sounds like a great opportunity for Zipcar to expand into paranoid-SUV sharing.

by Adam on Feb 22, 2009 11:45 am • link • report

Mr. Obama, tear down that (ugly) fence!

That parking lot is mindboggling. You have to figure that Congress will eventually develop it when they need more office space or space for another agency. Who knows when though. The sooner, the better.

by SG on Feb 22, 2009 12:19 pm • link • report

I always assumed the parking lots were holding spaces for new construction too. Of course the Library's new depository is at Ft Meade 27 miles away, and they ship books back and forth twice a day.

I recall that the staffer busted for attempted molestation last year apparently had a parking space on the Hill, he drove from work to where he was arrested. He was a scheduler for a senator, not exactly crucial to national security I'd say.

by Steve on Feb 22, 2009 12:28 pm • link • report

I finally made my way over the Capitol Visitors Center this weekend. They have a nice set of displays of the evolution of the Capitol building and grounds, including the area around Union Station. One thing of note was the creation of the park between Louisiana Ave, the Capitol grounds, and the Senate office buildings. During that process, I think they cleared that land.

I can appreciate that park space, though my own opinion is that it's a disorienting space. You've got the radial avenues there, but they get lost without any buildings to define the edges. If AOC were to develop those parking lots with buildings of some sort, it would not only be an improvement over the parking lots that are there now, but it would better define that park space.

My only request would be that the AOC make those potential buildings more urban than governmental, including retail space facing on to Mass Ave.

Developing those parking lots in the picture, as well as the two smaller triangular lots that border on North Capitol could really define Columbus Circle as a space, as well as make the park between the Circle and the Capitol a much more coherent space.

by Alex B. on Feb 22, 2009 12:28 pm • link • report

i'd love to go to this meeting, but i can't make it. is anyone going to be there who can report back on what is discussed?

by IMGoph on Feb 22, 2009 12:45 pm • link • report

The feds WONT play the urbanism game with this one........haven't they proven that in the FIFTIES and SIXTIES and SEVENTIES?.........the dep. sec. of HUD would call SW DC urbanism anyways; they'd call a turd urbanism if it got them an appropriation from the CRITTERS.

In the district my friend, they've marked their spaces........they've pissed on their trees if you will

Parking for Ted Kennedy's fat ass>National security>parking for tourists>urbanism

The big O claims he wants to be more involved with affairs of the district but its the CRITTERS who run the show. read your constitution.

don't expect chris dodd to endorse a gentrified coffee shop anytime soon, he's got more important things on his hands.

by MPC on Feb 22, 2009 12:50 pm • link • report

Who is up for a game of protest baseball this summer? We meet in that parking lot before the cars get there and refuse to stop playing until they surrender the space.

by Sue on Feb 22, 2009 12:59 pm • link • report

Sue, I love it. Can you deputize yourself to get it organized for some time in June?

by цarьchitect on Feb 22, 2009 1:47 pm • link • report

There's no question the parking is needed. We, the taxpayers, couldn't afford what it would take to get workers to their desks from every corner of the metro area, if they ALL had to rely on mass transit, cabs, etc. to get to their jobs.

We need to keep in mind that mass transit gets VERY expensive when it needs to be made available to everywhere at everytime of the day and week. For example, try to imagine the cost of getting someone to the job in the capitol if they are living at the end of a 12 mile rural road in Spottsylvania. Yeah, mass transit from Fredericksburg might be an option, but first the person has to get to Fredericksburg ... and in reasonable time. Hence the need for the expensive taxi ride. And yes, this is a personal expense, but when people go looking for jobs, they take into account what it'll cost them to get there ... and we, the taxpayers, would ultimately have to pay the difference via increased salaries to cover the additional costs. And if we didn't? Well, yeah, then the worker would move closer in ... and STILL need more money because of the higher cost of living closer in (including higher renting/buying costs).

Either way, we either continue getting the staffers for cheaper by making more efficient use of all the land in the metro area (as only keeping personal vehicles in the mix will make possible) with the only cost being to provide sufficient parking at the DC end, or we raise the costs for everyone (staffers and non-staffers alike) by forcing the staffers to either rely on the far less efficient (and much more costly) mass transit/taxi combinations, or move closer in along the rail lines where they will push up prices for all.

It all comes down to efficiency and the price we pay for it. And even the relatively higher price of underground parking (vs. surface lots) is far far lower than the costs we trigger when we take the personal vehicle option out of the mix.

I agree the surface lots don't look good. But that doesn't mean we need to get rid of all parking. That is "throwing the baby out with the bath water".

by Lance on Feb 22, 2009 1:52 pm • link • report

Keyboard warriors WONT get involved, I'd bet my IRA on it.

FEDS don't play the urbanism game even if you play the baseball game.......cant they smugly say since it was YOUR representative government doing it that YOU inherently approve?

E H Norton may cry foul but what else is new?

by MPC on Feb 22, 2009 1:52 pm • link • report

Lance, your argument vaguely reminds me of the kerkuffle over parking for teachers in NYC. Teachers cried bloody murder that Mayor Bloomberg was taking away their free parking, wondering how they were supposed to get to work. But people across New York howled in derision at the idea that teachers needed to drive when millions of people commute into Manhattan and get to work just fine without cars.

There are already thousands of people who work on the Hill who take public transit. There are many offices and agencies in DC that just don't have a lot of parking available for employees, and still people can get to work. The reason Capitol Hill is wreathed in asphalt is that constitutionally, there's no one to force Congress to give up their parking lots, they would have to do so voluntarily. As it is, the 1960s-era thinking they demonstrate is just the path of least resistance.

Oh FYI, one of my coworkers at the Library commutes daily from Pennsylvania, by train.

by Steve on Feb 22, 2009 2:34 pm • link • report

you guys must be NEW to WASHINGTON....the CRITTERS use the constitution to benefit THEMSELVES? and people are shocked?

pick your battles my friends, pick them wise.....pick 1 or 2 you really want to win; there was a boy who once cried wolf.

by MPC on Feb 22, 2009 2:38 pm • link • report

I'll admit, I somewhat agree with Lance's notion that getting of any significant portion of Capitol parking is not very feasible. I don't expect a representative from rural Nebraska to immediately embrace a major paradigm shift when it comes to driving to work, nor his staff, whether or not I think he should.

However, that is one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in the Metropolitan area, and it is being used for one of the least cost effective purposes. If congressmen and staffers want to drive to work, park in a garage somewhere and let's develop some of those parcels! especially the areas on top of Union station!

by Dave Murphy on Feb 22, 2009 3:05 pm • link • report

Lance, I've got a compromise position for you. We can keep the parking around, but only the amount needed by people that are willing to pay $10 per day or whatever the market rate in the area is.

After 6 months of that policy, Congress sells off or redevelops land equivalent to the number of spaces that were used fewer than 5 days out of the year.

In the long run, as congressional staff turns over, more people will make the decision on where to live based on paying $120 a month for parking rather than getting it free, and the parking loads should decrease even further. Some people may decide that it's still worth it to live further out, drive in and park, and that's OK. (some on GGW will disagree).

by Michael Perkins on Feb 22, 2009 3:17 pm • link • report

long time reader, first time commenter: I just saw the movie B.I.K.E. , and although the filmmakers were a bunch of disaffected upper middle class trustafarian junkie pretending to be hardcore, thanks to them I feel the need for some civil disobedience. Spring must be in the air!

Sue: you are on point. Let's organize a baseball game. better yet, a critical mass-type game of dodgeball, so everyone can play easily. In fact, let's not organize it and just make it happen.

Monday, June 1st. Before work. It's happening and I'll be there. Will be making flyers and distributing. Happy to leave piles at major nodes (the circles) for others to pick up and distribute as well.

by mountain man on Feb 22, 2009 3:33 pm • link • report

Mountain Man, Don't you think you should get David's permission before you start planning and

not-organizing" an illegal action via his blog? I'm sure David would love the opportunity to testify before Congress ... but not in a "jailhouse suit"!

by Lance on Feb 22, 2009 3:37 pm • link • report

congress doesn't have to COMPROMISE...you're missing the point

they've been willing to almost 250 years without allowing representation of the district.....they went 200 years without even allowing a MAYOR or home rule

.....and you think they're gonna COMPROMISE? and give up a piece of parking lot which they WANT? im looking at you, Perkins COMPROMISE?

why should they compromise?.....they CONSTITUTION gives them carte blanche on situations like these

leverage your political capital WISELY my friends

by MPC on Feb 22, 2009 3:47 pm • link • report

fair enough, Lance. no more comments regarding so called illegal activity will be posted on this excellent website. however, what should be illegal is free parking.

that said, save the date.

by mountain man on Feb 22, 2009 3:49 pm • link • report

Haha. Sue was the one who gave him the idea. We've got a conspiracy brewing!

by JTS on Feb 22, 2009 3:57 pm • link • report

MPC: Meh, it's a thought experiment anyway. I don't really expect congresspeople to be reading the comments feed at GGW and making decisions based on what I argue.

I saw the argument going like this:

Post: Look at this change. It used to be a baseball field and now it's a parking lot. How terrible!

Lance: We need parking. It's unreasonable to expect every person to take only transit (or transit and cabs).

Me: Compromise position: We have parking, but people have to pay for it. Sell off or develop for income the land people don't use when you have to pay for parking.

by Michael Perkins on Feb 22, 2009 5:02 pm • link • report

Does anyone have any information about when the bike station at Union Station will be built?

by Erik on Feb 22, 2009 6:44 pm • link • report

Is there a way to draw in the baseball diamond with chalk? Just to show what it used to be? That would be cool.

by The Overhead Wire on Feb 22, 2009 7:36 pm • link • report

Ok, I'll take the bait.

Tell me who would play baseball if there was a diamond there now?

by MPC on Feb 22, 2009 7:55 pm • link • report

Seeing that photo of Union Station conjours up one of my most treasured urbanist dreams for this city. Building an arc of 6-7 story apartment buildings with possibly a portico at the retail level. This would charge up that demi-lune space with the beautiful Columbus statue to say nothing of framing up the Capitol views and providing some of the greenest apartments in town. If not, baseballs cool.

by Thayer-D on Feb 23, 2009 7:21 am • link • report

I live around there and know one congressional staffperson who lives only three-four blocks away and still drives to work. That's what a boondoggle that parking lot is.

by lou on Feb 23, 2009 12:52 pm • link • report

i found at last night that a friend who works on the hill and lives about 13 blocks east drives to work every day. i didn't really have a chance to ask her about why she does it, but i hope to find out if free parking has something to do with it (i'm going to ask her later today).

by IMGoph on Feb 23, 2009 12:54 pm • link • report

I know plenty of hill staffers that live nearby and drive to work precisely because they have free parking. I know a couple that park in that very lot, too.

To be fair, I also know several that have specifically passed on the free parking in favor of Metro subsidies. I think there's also a sense of wanting to do that so they don't get tapped to drive their representative/senator around on their whims.

by Alex B. on Feb 23, 2009 1:14 pm • link • report

Late to the game on this one, but one point I don't think has been made yet:

The folks on Capitol Hill (most of whom I'm no big fan of) often work very late. We all know that the Metro (due to its perennial dearth of funding) doesn't run very often after rush hour. And consider: If you were a woman--we all seem to be men on this blog--would you want to walk in the dark to Union Station at 8:30 PM, through all manner of unsafe pedestrian crossings and then past the ever-present gantlet of panhandlers?

I wouldn't.

I'm 100% for getting more transit and getting more money to the transit we have. But I believe that making "pro transit" synonymous with "anti-parking" or "anti-driving [ever]" is the familiar "you're either with us or against us" argument and will only repel some would-be supporters of public transit.

by JB on Feb 25, 2009 7:52 am • link • report

jb: are you including buses when you talk about "metro"? i'm just curious, because i know i've spoken to people say they don't have any transit where they live, but it turns out they do have bus service. they just never think of it, they only think "train" when it comes to metro.

by IMGoph on Feb 25, 2009 8:31 am • link • report