I think a large part of Amtrak's problems is it tried to preserve for too long the route structure from the 1960s and before with New York and Chicago as hubs. Not surprisingly, the country changed in 50 years. And the study suggests moving from federal subsidies to state subsidies, which is what has been done in Virginia.

by charlie on Mar 4, 2013 8:45 am • link • report

That Saturday Evening Post image in the article on old urbanism is so spot on. Just replace the convertible with an SUV and it's like you're in DC 2013:

by dc denizen on Mar 4, 2013 8:46 am • link • report

WaPo Wonkblog has a good summary of that Brookings AmTrak study too. I was amazed at how much profit Acela generates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/01/amtrak-loses-a-ton-of-money-each-year-it-doesnt-have-to/

by Tom Coumaris on Mar 4, 2013 8:57 am • link • report

If this bag tax become law, the state of Maryland will not only not get bag tax from me they will no longer get any retail sales taxes from me as I will shop exclusively in Delaware and Virginia.

by Sand Box John on Mar 4, 2013 8:58 am • link • report

The level of "whine" that comes out of the mouths of folks like Jacks, who has been getting an over the top ridiculous sweet heart deals on public property is astounding.

I guess I would whine like a child too if I was renting prime water front property for $356 a month ($4300 per/year), an amount that has not increased $1 dollar in the past 30 years, yet collect millions of dollars in revenue during the year. Jacks said they were up to 72,000 customers a year. Even if each chose the cheapest option on Jacks list for one hour (renting a canoe for a 7-12 year old at $7 dollars an hour), thats half a million a season in revenue.

Woe is me, you or your previous ownership have had a 3 decade sweet heart deal thats allowed you to pocket millions of dollars.

Just be thankful that you ride the gravy train for as many decades as you did. This is extremely valuable PUBLIC property and the public should be getting a fair fiscal deal out of it.

I will enjoy watching Jacks spend a fortune fighting this, only to lose.

by Anons on Mar 4, 2013 9:01 am • link • report

Sand Box John: Virginia taxes groceries and Maryland does not, so you are paying more in Virginia than Maryland even with the fee, not counting gas to get there.

Anyway, a lot of people said they would stop shopping in DC if the bag fee passed, and it turned out almost none really did.

by David Alpert on Mar 4, 2013 9:03 am • link • report

they will no longer get any retail sales taxes from me as I will shop exclusively in Delaware and Virginia.

Well then I guess they'll get more gasoline taxes and toll revenue from you instead.

by David C on Mar 4, 2013 9:13 am • link • report

Arlington has been tossing around the idea of a bag tax the last few years, and I believe a Commonwealth wide bag tax was proposed recently but was defeated.

Give us time.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 4, 2013 9:17 am • link • report

I think a large part of Amtrak's problems is it tried to preserve for too long the route structure from the 1960s and before with New York and Chicago as hubs.

Yes, because that was the reason for creating Amtrak in the first place. Or rather, plenty of the government people running it thought that Amtrak wouldn't last long and they could just get rid of most train service after a few years.

Not sure why we need a report from the always-esteemed Brookings Institution to tell us what we already knew - Amtrak does very well on a few short routes, extremely well on Acela, worse (but with good ridership) on state-supported routes, and the long-distance tourist trains are pouring money into a hole. It's unlikely you're going to get those mountain west and southern states to cough up money for train service to replace the federal government share. And what exactly would that accomplish?

The high-performance rail improvements that the Obama Administration has proposed (and is funding) for a bunch of shorter corridors are exactly what is needed to turn those into better routes that are competitive with auto travel. Trains that can only go 79mph will never be competitive.

RE: Jack's
At least if Jack's was getting a "sweetheart deal" the profit was going towards actual employees and the owner living in the region rather than some contracting company in Massachusetts. It does seem like this is a small company though.

It was incredibly stupid of Jack's not to participate in the bidding process.

by MLD on Mar 4, 2013 9:22 am • link • report

@ Sand Box John:If this bag tax become law, the state of Maryland will not only not get bag tax from me they will no longer get any retail sales taxes from me

Enter the small violin...

An Alexandria neighborhood is trying to fight highway ramps VDOT wants to build near their houses for the I-95/395 HOT lanes.

Good for them.

NPS finds Jack's replacement

What is the deal with the NPS and Jack? Why have they not just increased his rent?

actual war on cars: Al-Qaida wants jihadists to set people's cars on fire.

Wait, does this now make MPD and Al-Qaida be on the same side? Awesome!

@ dc denizen: +1 image.

two people ... who intentionally put themselves on the tracks.

Can we please just say they were trying to commit suicide and are now even more miserable, because they now know even that attempt failed?

by Jasper on Mar 4, 2013 9:26 am • link • report

@Sand Box John

This has to be satire right? The shortest distance from VA to Delaware is 87.5 miles, from Alexandria to just across the DE border. I cant even fathom a situation where this makes sense. Unless you commute via helicoptor?

Good for VA for taxing derelict properties. I would say this has been reasonably effective in DC, and even where not effective, at least they are paying for their blight.

by Kyle-W on Mar 4, 2013 9:26 am • link • report

MLD,

No, profit is what is left after you pay your employees salaries. And a kid of a friend I have worked there last summer and made just above DC min wage, and I doubt got any bonuses from the obvious windfall the ownership is making off paying $4300 a year to rent prime Georgetown waterfront.

I don't care who runs it, as long as the taxpayer is getting their fair piece of the pie, which they have not been getting for decades.

by Anons on Mar 4, 2013 9:27 am • link • report

Kyle-W,
Actually no. You can get from points in Sussex County DE to points in the eastern shore of VA in about 40 miles or so. IIRC, SandBox John is from the peninsula somewhere. That said, any bag tax savings would be quickly replaced by the extra gas cost, and waste of time travelling from place to place just to skirt a quarter or two.

by spookiness on Mar 4, 2013 9:37 am • link • report

So glad at a new operator for the Georgetown space. Ridiculous that he was getting such a deal.

Re Amtrak, cutting the long distance routes is a non starter. Essentially everywhere in the south and numerous smaller towns throughout the whole country would lose train service. To reduce loss per passenger, speeds and frequencies need to be increased on the LD trains.

by H Street LL on Mar 4, 2013 9:40 am • link • report

@H Street LL

Some of these routes are the only way to get to these towns. I know the route that goes through ND has been a factor in the recent success of ND. A lot of people use this route to get home to Montana and Minnesota for the weekend or whatever, and those ND stations are seeing 50% yearly increases in ridership.

Now seems like a terrible time to just give up on Amtrak. I agree, it needs to be improved. If you can get them up to 80mph consistently, it could compete. No reason it should take 9 hours to get from Union Station to Pittsburgh. Get it down to 6 and ridership likely triples.

by Kyle-W on Mar 4, 2013 9:44 am • link • report

If the Maryland bag tax will result in less litter along the roads in Prince Georges, then I'm all for it.

by ceefer66 on Mar 4, 2013 9:45 am • link • report

Re: Jacks Boathouse

What I still don't understand is why the NPS evicted Jack's without making any attempt to negotiate a more equitable lease. If they had gone to Jack's in good faith, they'd probably have an agreement by now and everyone would be happy.

by Colleen on Mar 4, 2013 9:47 am • link • report

@Kyle-W

Exactly.

There is a ton of low-hanging fruit out there, too. IE the huge Texas cities (which are close to one another), SWFL service (Ft Myers - Sarasota - Tampa - only 150 miles, pretty dense, lots of old people), Atlanta going in all directions etc. Of course these would need state support. Hopefully with VA's success trains can become less partisan. I'm excited about FEC's project too.

by H Street LL on Mar 4, 2013 9:49 am • link • report

I think regardless of whether you find value in Amtrak routes inND or not the report shows that giving money to Amtrak can make money and we are not at a point of diminishing returns with them. It's funded by the govt. it doesn't have to be a zero sum game.

by Drumz on Mar 4, 2013 9:54 am • link • report

I don't even bother saying "new urbanism" any more. It turns off the same people that need the most convincing right away. I say "traditional development" instead, and stress that suburbia is a significant departure (an "experiment") from the entirety of human history.

by thump on Mar 4, 2013 10:00 am • link • report

I don't understand how "New Urbanism" started meaning the same thing as "revitalizing cities." When I first learned the term it really meant "fake urban-suburban townism" like Seaside or Celebration, FL. Not, you know, "building inner cities as they have always been built."

by MLD on Mar 4, 2013 10:06 am • link • report

MLD

DPZ did Seaside and Kentlands - about the same time Peter Calthorpe was doing urban infill, and the design principles were similar. They joined to form the Congress for the New Urbanism. The general principles. Kentlands involves relaxing 1950s era codes to enforced mid 20th century layouts, grid connectivity, giving greater priority for pedestrians vs cars, and other principles that are of a piece with the principles motivating much of the inner city revitilization.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 4, 2013 10:11 am • link • report

Re Amtrak, cutting the long distance routes is a non starter. Essentially everywhere in the south and numerous smaller towns throughout the whole country would lose train service.

Brookings wasn't suggesting cutting routes. They were suggesting that the states that the money-losing routes run through pay for the losses. The irony is that these Republican states constantly complain about Federal government spending and "wasteful" Amtrak subsidies when they are the ones benefiting the most.

If they won't pay up, then yes, cut the service. Those states will suffer the economic consequences of less train service as economic activity migrates to places with better infrastructure and planning. Eventually, those states will learn from their mistakes as they see their economies suffer while Blue states thrive.

by Falls Church on Mar 4, 2013 10:20 am • link • report

Hey, just to clarify, the bag bill hearing (!) was last week and went well. The bill hasn't been voted on yet.

by Julie Lawson on Mar 4, 2013 10:25 am • link • report

I'd second thumps point about abandoning "new urbanism" as a lable. It was always just urbanism but sold to a banking culture that associated it with the urban neighborhoods they redlined. It was sold to architects who are still under the sway of modernism's "new" fetish that anything that borrowed or learned from the past was currupt. It was sold to developers who where afraid of trying something different than the existing automobile centered patterns.

In short, the term "new urbanism" was all about making a change for the positive in an environment that was resistant to change in more ways than one. But the truth is it has always been just plain old urbanism, whether in a Swiss Hamlet, an African Village, or Manhattan.

It's time to abandon the term that now is almost universaly reviled in academia and associated press who see it as a cover for re-intrudicing traditional architecture they thought they'd relegated to the dust bin of history. Forget the sociological, psychological and environmental issues it was designed to address, just hate it for the fuzzy nostalgia it peddles to a stupid public that dosen't know what's best for it. Now it get's derided becasue the developer community has found dollars in them thair grids, yet academia talks about wanting to "engage" society.
Sure.

by Thayer-D on Mar 4, 2013 10:26 am • link • report

New Urbanism was influential with coming up with the principles of Smart Growth (and the actual form and definition) to counter act Sprawl. The caps are all intentional.

It's a lot of stuff that we have internalized but its helpful to remember that those terms have specific definitions. That way we can prevent the terms from being co-opted by various interests.

by Drumz on Mar 4, 2013 10:29 am • link • report

@ David Alpert, Kyle-W,

I live less then 5 miles from the Maryland Delaware state line and 35 miles from the Maryland Virginia line.

On my daily return trip from making my courier run to Baltimore I can pass through Delaware to shop. The difference in millage traveled is nearly zero.

I make a trip to Virginia from my home west of Salisbury Maryland for tobacco products weekly, I have been saving big bucks for years by doing so.

by Sand Box John on Mar 4, 2013 10:32 am • link • report

@Sand Box John

To be honest with you, the business of some of the ~180,000 people who live down there is probably something Maryland is willing to risk in order to reduce bag use among the other 5.6 million.

by MLD on Mar 4, 2013 10:41 am • link • report

"Many on Capitol Hill, especially older residents, find that owning a car is necessary in order to live here."

Why does it follow from that that new buildings should have more parking, in order to preserve the ability to park for free, easily, using parking permits that are not priced at their actual value?

And that of course is only very peripherally connected to the desire to build with more alleys and fewer curb cuts, more small parks and smaller side yards, narrower streets than old suburban zoning codes required, etc. What it does have in common is a taming of the role of the auto, and providing things the market demands.

Those who want 1950s era codes to shelter their autofocused lifestyle are naturally going to oppose both.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 4, 2013 10:51 am • link • report

I kind of agree with a transition to state subsidies for Amtrak. The current model is not really working. It seems like more far flung areas would best be served by bus bridge service which could provide more flexible timetables.

I love trains -- I take them whenever it's a viable option, but even I am not going to travel more than 500 miles via train unless it's high speed. High speed only really makes sense because of volume anyway. I took a random Eurostar from Brussels to London once and it was packed on a Wednesday at noon. You're not going to get that very few places outside the NEC at any price. I am certainly not going to take a 24 hour train to Chicago when I can fly there in 1 or 2 hours.

The reality is that Amtrak probably needs a lot of the low performing routes to provide services throughout the country for the usual political reasons. So the current level of service is probably totally rational despite being inefficient.

by Alan B. on Mar 4, 2013 10:53 am • link • report

@Sand Box John

Fair enough, I missed that portion of Maryland. Also, I take it back, there is a plausible reason why one would shop in DE and VA, when Tobacco is included. You have proven me wrong, and I am happy to admit it.

However, the 2.5% grocery tax, and the now equal (6% MD and 6% Hampton Roads Sales Tax) will more than outwiegh any savings on .05c bag tax, so it still doesn't make sense.

by Kyle-W on Mar 4, 2013 11:09 am • link • report

Those who want 1950s era codes to shelter their autofocused lifestyle

If this how the proponents of "new urbanism" characterize long term residents with valid concerns, I want nothing to do with it.

by goldfish on Mar 4, 2013 11:27 am • link • report

Re: Amtrak and the Brookings report

Relying on the states to fund long-distance trains would mean the disappearance of almost all of these trains, and thus the end of Amtrak service to most of the country, including 9 large metropolitan areas (Minneapolis, Denver, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Phoenix, Miami, Tampa, Jacksonville).

Long-distance trains serve the important function of connecting small towns and rural areas to large cities, and act as several interconnected corridors served by one highly productive train. If funding is left to the states, the national connectivity would most likely be lost, and with it a good deal of Amtrak's ridership. It would leave people without access to cars or who can't or won't drive or fly isolated, especially in smaller communities.

To learn more about the value of long-distance trains, please read NARP's latest White Paper.

by Malcolm K. on Mar 4, 2013 12:02 pm • link • report

@ goldfish

Yet, you are here.

by sk on Mar 4, 2013 12:02 pm • link • report

@sk: Maybe you think GGW="new urbanism." I don't; I think it is nice place to discuss local land-use issues and policies.

by goldfish on Mar 4, 2013 12:06 pm • link • report

"Those who want 1950s era codes to shelter their autofocused lifestyle "

"If this how the proponents of "new urbanism" characterize long term residents with valid concerns, I want nothing to do with it."

I've never been under the impression you wanted anything to do with it anyway.

I think its fair to call it an autofocused lifestyle, since the point of the quote is that their concern is about their cars. I think its fair to say they want to be protected by a 1950s zoning code, since they are objecting to a revision to what is, in fact, a 1950s zoning code.

Is your objection to "shelter" In fact the increase in numbers of residents who desire on street parking and have residential parking permits (assuming they are not carfree, assuming there is no way to keep them from getting permits, etc) could easily be addressed by charging a market rate for the permits. That would increase their annual cost of living, but these are folks who have seen the values of their homes increase dramatically in the last few years. I suppose it could be argued that they would all prefer the way the area was and to have the capital gain, but I do not believe that. I suspect many want the capital gain, but also do not want to pay the market rate for a scarce good (parking) that is more costly due to growth that is a result of the very changes that increased the values of their homes.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 4, 2013 12:12 pm • link • report

GGW dosen't equal "new urbanism" from an ideological viewpoint, becaseu GGW isn't ideological as I see it. It does support improving the Washingtom Area and as such is aligned with new urbanism in as much as new urbanist goals work towards improving the region. This is the danger of ideological thinking, from any side. It tends to artificialy trap the proponents into a set of ideas which might not always advance their causes, unless they are creatures of pure politics.

by Thayer-D on Mar 4, 2013 12:13 pm • link • report

If pointing out that those that don't want to see the zoning changes as proposed an kept as they were in 1958 means that I'm automatically insulting them then I don't want to actually have to defend that because its not a pejorative and pointing out the obvious.

by Drumz on Mar 4, 2013 12:17 pm • link • report

On my daily return trip from making my courier run to Baltimore I can pass through Delaware to shop. The difference in millage traveled is nearly zero.

Well, then by all means, shop where you get the best bargain. That's how the market works. There are likely a few, but only a few, people on the margin who will rationally change their shopping habits - at least until Virginia and Delaware follow suit.

But remember, if you consider the value of time, bending over to pick up a penny is a losing proposition; so you don't have to drive far to "save a nickle" before the driving eats up all the profit.

by David C on Mar 4, 2013 12:19 pm • link • report

Essentially everywhere in the south and numerous smaller towns throughout the whole country would lose train service.

Only if they choose not to pay for it right?

Some of these routes are the only way to get to these towns.

Well then, it sounds like it would be worth it to those towns and those states to dedicate some of their transportation money to subsidizing Amtrak, right?

I support Amtrak, and I get that some subsidy is needed. But there has to be a line at which subsidizing no longer makes sense. Neither side does a good job of talking about where that line is. In fact, they both claim that there is no line.

by David C on Mar 4, 2013 12:21 pm • link • report

At a minimum drop all Amtrak routes between the I-5 corridor and a line along Minneapolis, Omaha, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Dallas and San Antonio.

Drop the Cardinal.

In the South, drop the line between St. Louis and Dallas, the line between southern Illinois and New Orleans, and the line between Jacksonville and points west. And maybe even the Southern line south of Atlanta.

by Frank IBC on Mar 4, 2013 12:46 pm • link • report

That would increase their annual cost of living, but these are folks who have seen the values of their homes increase dramatically in the last few years.

It is not always about money, even though some here want to portray things that way. I have neighbors that have lived on my block for 50 years, and have shown no desire to move. These are the people that went to all the community meetings and supported DC with taxes when tens of thousands were fleeing to suburbs. They are not cashing out.

OTOH looking at it from a strictly economic point of view, the point of the article was that the new zoning regs shift development cost onto existing residents, people that will not see a fair profits from these new burdens.

My only point here is that to your invective undermines your point.

by goldfish on Mar 4, 2013 12:54 pm • link • report

@ David C -

I timed myself to see how long it takes to spot a penny on the ground, stop walking, put it in my pocket, and continue on. I got about 10 seconds. The time probably would be slightly longer if I hadn't planted the penny myself and thus wasn't anticipating finding it.

10 seconds for 1 cent equals 1,000 seconds for 1 dollar, so the break-even wage would be $3.60 an hour or $7,200 per year.

Good catch. Oh, all the time and money I've wasted...

by Frank IBC on Mar 4, 2013 1:02 pm • link • report

There is no active line between Jacksonville and points west.

The New Orleans station served 230k passengers, an increase of 20.5% from 97.

Tampa had a 367.8% increase in ridership from 97.

Ya'll do realize the operating subsidy for the whole system for this year was only alloted to be 450 million, right? And Amtrak is only aiming for that to be 350 million. These are pennies, especially in the context of massive highway and airline industry subsidies.

Plus the reason a lot of the corridor services are doing well is because money was spent on improving speeds and frequencies. And as others have said, very few people ride the LD trains from end to end - they are made up of a bunch of corridors. For example, on the CONO line almost 75k passengers go from Memphis to NO alone.

by H Street LL on Mar 4, 2013 1:04 pm • link • report

If they've been here fifty years then unless they bought a brand new house then they didn't buy into the current zoning code.

Anyway, no ones forcing them to leave or give up their parking spot or sell their house and move to fairfax.

Those would all be radical changes, but deciding that in a city with metro, bike share, buses, and largely built before cars that if a developer can decide for themselves if they need parking to be viable isn't that radical.

by Drumz on Mar 4, 2013 1:08 pm • link • report

Oops, you're right, H Street LL. I had pulled up an older map which showed the Sunset Limited operating east of New Orleans to Florida.

by Frank IBC on Mar 4, 2013 1:10 pm • link • report

One thing that drives me nuts: New Urbanism and new urbanism are two different things. The former is capitalized for a reason.

Just like how some of us are Democrats, but we are all democrats.

/nitpick

by Alex B. on Mar 4, 2013 1:13 pm • link • report

I'm vaguely concerned about possible responses to the Brookings Report. The report says a lot of things that we already knew: short lines make money, long lines lose money. The takeaway from that should include the notion that operating profits more than justify our continued investment in short-haul passenger operations; however, I think there are certain people who will interpret the report's findings to solely mean that we should cut the long lines (after asking the states to pay for them), ask the states that are currently subsidizing lines to pay more, and privatize the NEC.

Regarding the long-distance lines, the report doesn't just suggest that the states pay for those lines with their own money, it suggests that they help pay for the lines with existing federal funds that are earmarked for general transportation. In other words, the federal government would still be subsidizing the long lines, it would just be subsidizing fewer long-distance highways in exchange.

For the shorter, state-sponsored lines that are nearly profitable (the Carolinian, for instance), the report doesn't just say that North Carolina should pay more for that service, it also suggests that other states that benefit from the Carolinian (VA, DC, MD, DE, PA, NJ, and NY) should also help pay for it. More importantly, the report suggests that more capitol investment by any party (state, federal, or PPP) could nudge a lot of those routes into profitable territory.

Finally, the report simply doesn't say that we should privatize the NEC; rather, it says that the federal government should make real, life-altering, investments in that corridor. The fact that the NEC pulls an operating profit does not mean that we can abandon it to the free market, it means that future public investments are justified by operating profits alone, not to mention all the other positive externalities. If only we could always expect the same from highways and airports.

I don't think we should do anything too drastic to the long-distance routes just yet. Rather, I think we should offer direct federal investments in new, or existing, short-haul passenger routes in exchange for states voluntarily allowing us to shift existing federal subsidies away from highways and towards long-distance passenger and critical freight routes. In the long run, some new short-haul routes in states like Texas could probably cross-subsidize the longer, money-losing, routes in those states. (Of course, if any of those short passenger routes are eventually deemed critical to a state's economic well-being, that would be a great time for the federal government to start demanding that the state contribute more of the state's own money to highway projects in exchange for a shift in federal funding away from highways, and towards other critical modes, like air and rail.)

Anyway, one day I hope to see an article in Slate or WaPo that says "The Interstate Highway System Works, As Long as It Doesn't Take People Very Far", or "What Would it Mean for the Interstate Highway System to 'Be Profitable?'"

Ugh! Sorry for the long post!

by Steven Harrell on Mar 4, 2013 1:17 pm • link • report

H Street, I think they should cut some slack for lines that are growing. But several are stagnant and losing a lot of money. If there is no demand why are we providing the service. And no you won't leave people without transportation. It could easily be provided by daily bus service for less money.

by Alan B. on Mar 4, 2013 1:21 pm • link • report

@Alex B: ok, so what is the difference?

by goldfish on Mar 4, 2013 1:21 pm • link • report

Alex b,
Same thing with Smart Growth, lord knows I've seen examples of building renderings that look like your regular 20th century shopping centers but with roundabouts instead and the term smart growth is used.

by Drumz on Mar 4, 2013 1:24 pm • link • report

@ goldfish

This is from the article - "the currently in-vogue city planning concept of creating a livable, walkable city under the rubric of 'new urbanism'"

This is from the GGW who we are page - "Greater Greater Washington is devoted to improving the vitality of Washington, DC and the walkable cities and neighborhoods in the Washington metropolitan area."

While I will admit, I don't fully understand what "new urbanism" means, I think GGW represents itself as advocating for goals and strategies that are very similar to that of new urbanism.

by sk on Mar 4, 2013 1:26 pm • link • report

Goldfish,

To start, there is the Congress for New Urbanism. There they define the design principles for New Urbanism.

www.cnu.org

by Drumz on Mar 4, 2013 1:27 pm • link • report

"It is not always about money, even though some here want to portray things that way."

The issue of more people parking on the streets could be addressed by raising the price of RPP's to a market clearing one. If its not about money, I don't know why there would be a problem with that.

"OTOH looking at it from a strictly economic point of view, the point of the article was that the new zoning regs shift development cost onto existing residents"

All it does is allow them to build new housing without adding AS many new offstreet parking spaces as the old code required. Thats only "pushing cost on to existing residents" in the sense that its making it harder park on the street (assuming that does in fact occur). Again the difficulty is created by the reserving of free parking for residents, who pay for RPPs far less than the privilege is worth. Its only shifting in the sense that its depriving them of their right of superior access to the commons.

"My only point here is that to your invective undermines your point."

I fail to see where what I said was invective.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 4, 2013 1:37 pm • link • report

I fail to see where what I said was invective.

Let me just say that reading what you wrote had me plenty steamed. Calling people 1950s dinosaurs is not a good way to win people over.

by goldfish on Mar 4, 2013 1:43 pm • link • report

Anyway, one day I hope to see an article in Slate or WaPo that says "The Interstate Highway System Works, As Long as It Doesn't Take People Very Far", or "What Would it Mean for the Interstate Highway System to 'Be Profitable?'"

Great quote!

In general, I agree with your post. I would love to be able to take a train for the short journeys that I regularly do from NoVa south. Unfortunately, those trains are either too infrequent or take too long (when compared to driving). If they were better, I would take them regularly!

by Thad on Mar 4, 2013 1:44 pm • link • report

New Urbanism is capitalized because it is a proper noun, in reference to the New Urbanism, as promoted by the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU). http://www.cnu.org/

I don't know what 'new urbanism' is; people often seem to conflate the two words so that it refers to people who like cities (e.g. urbanists) who are also 'new' to the discussion (a rather loaded term).

The point, as far as the ZRR goes, is that none of this is actually new. When most of DC was built, there were no parking requirements (for example).

by Alex B. on Mar 4, 2013 1:56 pm • link • report

@MLD,

Then by all means levy that tax only on the folks living in the counties around the Baltimore Washington area.

@Kyle-W,

There is plenty of retail in Virginia east of the Chesapeake Bay. It would make no sense for me to travel 100 plus miles across the Chesapeake Bridge tunnel to shop in Hampton Roads, the toll is $15.00.

Delaware has no retail sale tax.

by Sand Box John on Mar 4, 2013 1:56 pm • link • report

If I personally wanted to call someone a dinosaur I would. Until then let's discuss why parking minimums should or shouldn't be relaxed and if you think they shouldn't and I outline a reason (the history of the neighborhood and the 1958 zoning code) why that might be and it's automatically an insult I don't what I'm supposed to do.

by Drumz on Mar 4, 2013 1:58 pm • link • report

"No reason it should take 9 hours to get from Union Station to Pittsburgh. Get it down to 6 and ridership likely triples"

Terrain has dictated this one. I'd wager you'd never get it under eight.

The biggest problem that Capitol Limited has is the 4:50 AM departure from Pittsburgh. The eight hours (not nine) is time competitive with driving on holidays. Couple years back, it took me 11.5 hours to get from Alexandria to Pittsburgh the day before Thanksgiving. Driving often takes well over an hour just to get to Rockville, even on non-holiday reasons, once I get into the jaws of that stretch from where GW gets to the Beltway and then onto 270. I budget seven hours for what should be a five hour drive, at least for the to Pittsburgh run.

That's why the CL gets most of my travel. I take it roundtrip about six times a year and drive it once, ever since that 11.5 hour drive. Well that and I'm willing to trade few extra hours for a cheaper trip (CL is $47 each way if you book it far enough out. Gas plus Turnpike is around $60, plus wear and tear on the car).

by Another Nick on Mar 4, 2013 2:02 pm • link • report

"Calling people 1950s dinosaurs is not a good way to win people over."

good thing I never called anyone that - I said they want to use a 1950s zoning code to shelter their lifestyle.

I cannot prevent people from being offended by what I did not say.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 4, 2013 2:09 pm • link • report

AWitC: you implication with the word "shelter" was that the zoning code is antiquated and unjust. Moreover, your entire tone was dismissive of the needs of long term residents.

by goldfish on Mar 4, 2013 2:15 pm • link • report

@Another Nick: Terrain has dictated this one. I'd wager you'd never get it under eight.

Wikipedia (sorry) has the B&O's Capitol Limited (same route as Amtrak's) leaving Union Station at 5:30 pm and arriving in Pittsburgh at 12:08 a.m. -- 6 hours and 38 minutes. In 1956.

I'm certain that GGW readers who have historic train schedules can provide more examples.

by Miriam on Mar 4, 2013 2:18 pm • link • report

The biggest problem that Capitol Limited has is the 4:50 AM departure from Pittsburgh. The eight hours (not nine) is time competitive with driving on holidays.

I've driven DC-PGH in 4 hours on holidays. Even on holidays with bad snow, I haven't had such long travel times that would make an eight-hour train ride competitive.

Terrian is not the limiting factor - the old B&O version of the train did DC-PGH in 6:38, opposed to the current 7:45.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Limited_(B%26O_train)

by Alex B. on Mar 4, 2013 2:20 pm • link • report

@goldfish

If you want nothing to do with New Urbanim because at least one person who supports it thinks that DC's 1950s era zoning code is antiquated and/or unjust thats your choice.If you want nothing to do with new urbanism because at least one person who supports it thinks that the concern of any particular group for residents for their right to park their cars on the street for the current cheap price of an RPP is a something worthy of dismissal, that too is yuor choice.

However I beleive a fair examination of my language will show that I did not use invective, did not call any person a dinosaur, and nowhere indicated that ALL the concerns of any person or group of people should be dismissed. In fact I was explaining why it might make sense to group the people who object to the changes to the DC zoning code, with some of those in the suburbs who dislike the spread of DPZ style developments.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 4, 2013 2:23 pm • link • report

Rail in general seemed to be dead in the US until a few years ago. Clearly it's very much alive in Europe, Japan, and China and it could be more viable in the US if Amtrak could assume the debt necessary to update its infrastructure on a large scale. the private sector isn't going to do it. Rail has always been more than rolling stock and the real estate attached to it has always been important and a big part of the cost.

the trouble with making recommendations now is that they are based on conditions that are changing. Rail in the West has become increasingly popular and the Pacific Coast routes include some of the most incomparable sites I've ever seen.

by Rich on Mar 4, 2013 2:30 pm • link • report

Is there a parking problem on Capitol Hill? I've lived on the Hill nearly 20 years and I've never noticed such a problem...

by rg on Mar 4, 2013 2:32 pm • link • report

rg - parking on the Hill is mostly a problem near those things people want - 8th St, H St, Metro stations and the like.

I live just far enough from those things to not have much of a problem now. However, before they zoned a few blocks for residential parking permits that seemed to have been missed, it sometimes was because all the commuter with VA, MD, NY, NC, etc plates would park and then walk to the Metro. I still sometimes have a "problem" but it is manageable.

by ET on Mar 4, 2013 2:57 pm • link • report

Until then let's discuss why parking minimums should or shouldn't be relaxed

Parking mins should be relaxed but units built without any parking should not convey to their residents any right to an RPP. That way old time residents won't be robbed of their easy parking and new car-free residents can still get cheaper housing. That's pretty much how it works in Arlington.

by Falls Church on Mar 4, 2013 4:06 pm • link • report

Parking mins should be relaxed but units built without any parking should not convey to their residents any right to an RPP.

Why not?

You could make the case that any resident that has off-street parking available should not have a right to RPP.

That way old time residents won't be robbed of their easy parking and new car-free residents can still get cheaper housing. That's pretty much how it works in Arlington.

Now, I tend to agree - if that's what's required to make this politically palatable, then so be it. However, let's not dance around the fact that this is a huge give-away for existing residents for no particular policy reason.

by Alex B. on Mar 4, 2013 4:23 pm • link • report

Or you could raise the price of RPP (and allow a gradual increase for current holders so its not all at once) which would also be allow those who really want it to have an allow others to reconsider.

Or any number of things.

by Drumz on Mar 4, 2013 4:40 pm • link • report

Absolutely raise the price of the RPP. In my neighborhood, I'd say garage spots outnumber street parking spots by 5-to-1, and that is a conservative estimate. Guess which spots are grossly underused?

So people complain about a shortage of street parking, but what they are really complaining about is a shortage of (nearly) free parking. Raise the RPP prices, eliminate free weekend parking and implement performance prices in commercial zones, and I'm willing to bet that garages will start to look better. Plus, you'd reduce gridlock from all of those people circling the block in search of a parking spot.

by TJ on Mar 4, 2013 5:07 pm • link • report

"I've driven DC-PGH in 4 hours on holidays. Even on holidays with bad snow, I haven't had such long travel times that would make an eight-hour train ride competitive.

Terrian is not the limiting factor - the old B&O version of the train did DC-PGH in 6:38, opposed to the current 7:45."

I've never done it in under five hours. Sitting on the ramp off the Turnpike for 50 minutes at Breezewood was when I decided to do that as little as possible.

Actually, the B&O Cap Lrd didn't follow the same routing or even serve the same station in Pittsburgh. They're not the same train.

by Another Nick on Mar 5, 2013 12:23 am • link • report

I definitely think the city needs to step in and stop Uber immediately. If the city does not step in it may risk it's reputation as "City most likely to ruin a good thing."

Seriously, the Taxicab Commission can't get their act together enough to design a visible taxi, they can't get their act together to get credit cards in cabs and they can't get their act together enough to vote in normal fares (What's with these faires ending in random amounts like .57, .49, .33?).

In other words, the LAST people who should be allowed to say ANYTHING about Uber are the incompetents at the Taxi Commission.

by Mike on Mar 5, 2013 9:02 am • link • report

However I beleive a fair examination of my language will show that I did not use invective.../

Let me turn this around.

So happens that reducing the parking requirements in new zoning codes are aligned with developer interests. So people that support this proposal are doing so only because they will profit by them; or because they are out-of-town visitors (like you) that want easier parking.

Invective enough?

by goldfish on Mar 5, 2013 9:05 am • link • report

goldfish: "So people that support this proposal are doing so only because they will profit by them; or because they are out-of-town visitors (like you) that want easier parking."

Hang on. Weren't you just arguing that the zoning update would make parking more difficult to find? How would it aid visitors?

by TJ on Mar 5, 2013 9:10 am • link • report

@TJ: you know, you are correct. The zoning will make it harder for visitors to find parking.

OTOH, the related proposals to increase the RPP fees, that several have mentioned over the course of this thread, will work in their favor.

by goldfish on Mar 5, 2013 9:12 am • link • report

So happens that reducing the parking requirements in new zoning codes are aligned with developer interests.

You then assume that developer interests and citizen interests are not aligned. This is a bad assumption.

So people that support this proposal are doing so only because they will profit by them;

Another bad assumption. There are lots of reasons to support this policy, whether on the grounds of affordability, improving walkability, reducing emissions, making better use of scarce urban land, or perhaps just a realization of the geometric challenges that these on-site parking requirements present.

The geometry of the car is hard to reconcile with the small-scale urban development patterns we all know and love (like the rowhouses of Capitol Hill, for example). This is just a mathematical fact. If you had required off-street parking for all of those rowhouses when they were built, the end result would've been a lot different.

or because they are out-of-town visitors (like you) that want easier parking.

Another poor assumption. I live in the city, I want to remove the parking minimums.

Invective enough?

I've got no problems with the language. The logic (and the assumptions baked into it), however, leaves a lot to be desired.

by Alex B. on Mar 5, 2013 9:15 am • link • report

So people that support this proposal are doing so only because they will profit by them;

Well I think on balance, everyone will be better off. There will be more parking available to those who really need it. There will be more money for the district to improve the streetscape for transit,peds, and bicycles, there will be opportunities for people to buy or rent an apartment without worrying about paying for a parking spot, less curb cuts to go into a garage automatically makes for a better pedestrian environment.

Going all scary talk about "developers" doesn't really phase me either.

In short, pointing out that people have an incentive in status quo isn't insulting them.

by drumz on Mar 5, 2013 9:20 am • link • report

With regard to raising RPP fees, is this simply a pipe dream? Even if they do get around raise the fees, the best they are going to do is double (or triple) them. That still keeps us under $10/month. Can you imagine if they tried to raise the prices to an appropriate amount? Say $1200 in Adams Morgan. How much howling would you hear about an attempted 3400% raise in RPP fees? That would be absolute political suicide. Best case scenario are step increases, because a number like 3400% is very scary sounding.

My guess, someday they raise it to $55 and pat themselves on the back, while AAA still acts like the council actually went Al-Queda and lit a car on fire.

by Kyle-W on Mar 5, 2013 9:20 am • link • report

"So happens that reducing the parking requirements in new zoning codes are aligned with developer interests. So people that support this proposal are doing so only because they will profit by them; or because they are out-of-town visitors (like you) that want easier parking.

Invective enough?"

inaccurate. I commute by transit, I don't park on weekdays in DC. And relaxing parking minimums, assuming the current RPP rules and prices remain in price, will actually make parking in DC on weekends MORE difficult for visitors like me (and that has in fact been an argument made by parking minimum defenders).

And why would alignment with developer interests demonstrate my motivations? Does we learn about the motivation of every Capital Hill resident who supports new suburban highways by noting that it aligns with the interests of suburban developers of low density residential developments? Alliances of convenience are inevitable.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 5, 2013 9:21 am • link • report

@Alex B: you are too well know in these parts, and I have no desire to mix it up with you.

Judging from your reaction, I think I made my point about invective. So thanks.

by goldfish on Mar 5, 2013 9:24 am • link • report

"OTOH, the related proposals to increase the RPP fees, that several have mentioned over the course of this thread, will work in their favor."

As long as the RPP fee increase is only high enough to offset the increase in on street parkers due to the relaxed parking minimuns and maintain the status quo parking spot search time, it would NOT help visitors. It would do so only if it was increased beyond that, which I do not expect to happen. A white market in RPPs that enabled out of district residents to purchase them from DC residents would help some out of district residents, but not myself, as I do not take my car into the district enough to make purchasing a market priced RPP worthwhile (although I can't be sure, since I do not know for sure what the market clearing price would be)

Expanding performance parking, metering more spots and raising the short term rates, would make parking in the district costlier for me in dollars, but more convenient.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 5, 2013 9:26 am • link • report

RPP's are underpriced, but there's no way the opportunity to park in an available street parking spot is worth $100 a month. Let the people with cars complain about how hard it is to park - raising prices to astronomical levels isn't going to make more spots available. I say raise prices slightly and let inconvenience sort the rest of the marginal users out.

by MLD on Mar 5, 2013 9:29 am • link • report

@goldfish: I support raising RPP prices. People on some blocks in my neighborhood complain that parking is hard to find, but what they really mean is that free parking is hard to find. Meanwhile, garages in the high-rise apartments and condos around me are half-empty. Those cost anywhere from $1500-$2500/year, and versus $35/year for the RPP, it's really no contest.

by TJ on Mar 5, 2013 9:29 am • link • report

So we can't help if you feel insulted or not. So anyway, urbanism means that you are interested in the form of the city. New urbanism was the revived interest in the formal design practices that existed largely pre-WWII.

We can quibble at the margins at how much parking should be needed or mandated but I think that the best cities are also some of the hardest to park in. Moreover, I don't know why the city must have a compelling interest to mandate parking, especially in neighborhoods that were largely built before cars. If its radical to allow a building with no parking then I think its equally radical to mandate that a building provide it.

by drumz on Mar 5, 2013 9:38 am • link • report

@TJ: your own point suggests that to really discourage auto ownership, as well as provide spaces for people that only can afford them, the RPP fee should be raised to something comparable to private garages -- something like $1000.

Good luck with that one.

by goldfish on Mar 5, 2013 9:41 am • link • report

Well you're already storing your car on public property. Surely there is a middle ground between 35$ and 1000$. Outside of "it's always been this way" why shouldn't the RPP fees change?

by drumz on Mar 5, 2013 9:44 am • link • report

Good luck with that one.

I think $200/year for RPPs would discourage "marginal" users who use the street mostly for car storage. Just outside my window, I can see cars that haven't moved for days, even weeks.

We can have waivers or lower rates for disabled drivers, or those with low income users.

by TJ on Mar 5, 2013 9:55 am • link • report

And charging more for RPP isn't even the only solution I should add.

by Drumz on Mar 5, 2013 9:56 am • link • report

@TJ: Raising the RPP to $200/year will run the politicariate straight into the teeth of the taxpaying electoriate. As the Republican say, this is a non-starter.

by goldfish on Mar 5, 2013 10:10 am • link • report

I think, to prevent car storage, the district should prohibit parking your car on the street, in the same spot, for more than 72 consecutive hours.

by sk on Mar 5, 2013 10:23 am • link • report

I think, to prevent car storage, the district should prohibit parking your car on the street, in the same spot, for more than 72 consecutive hours.

Many other jurisdictions have a policy like this. I think in DC the car has to be damaged/undriveable for some period of time.

by MLD on Mar 5, 2013 10:34 am • link • report

Wow!!! Over 90 comments, most of them about parking. That boggles my mind. We are in a sad, sad place when our number one urban design issue is car storage and when any change to any neighborhood usually boils down to that issue. I have lived on Capitol Hill for nearly 20 years (and plan to live out my life here -- so until I die, nothing "transitory" about me) and I have yet to notice that we have a parking problem. It's wonderful -- I guess ignorance really is bliss, at least in this case.

After reading this debate, I think I am going to spend this weekend tearing up my parking spot. The extra garden space will be nice and it sits empty pretty much all of the time anyway. Plus it will make the parking, parking parking, parking,PARKING people nuts. A Capitol Hill homeowner tearing out his oh, so precious parking spot!?! The horror....

(When I actually get to tearing out the parking spot, which I will do eventually -- it's on my list of projects, it will make them even crazier to know that under the River Smart Homes Program, the District will subsidize the removal costs. :-))

by rg on Mar 5, 2013 10:35 am • link • report

rg:

Please restart your bible studies! Parking is a god given right enshrined in the Constitution and because Ronald Reagan said it was true. How dare you attempt to turn pavement into grass and flowers. Some damned nerve you have. What's next? You'll want parks and playgrounds?

Do you know how many parking spaces we could make in Meridian Hill Park? It would end a lot of the problems in Adams Morgan on the weekends. Plus... it already has PARK in it's name. It could become Meridian Hill Park and Ride.

by Mike on Mar 5, 2013 10:43 am • link • report

Ok so don't raise RPP then. But understand that even with low RPP fees its a net benefit to not mandate parking with every new structure. So someone's unwillingness to pay one cent more for an RPP sticker could (emphasis on could) lead to more time looking for a parking spot. If you'd rather spend time than money thats your perogative.

by drumz on Mar 5, 2013 10:49 am • link • report

Ok so don't raise RPP then. But understand that even with low RPP fees its a net benefit to not mandate parking with every new structure.

Exactly.

And developers will likely still provide parking when it is beneficial to do so. Again, this is about changing the requirement - not necessarily what actually gets built.

by Alex B. on Mar 5, 2013 10:54 am • link • report

Alex B: that needs a much better sales job. Long term residents, that have lived with the parking requirements for decades and never fail to show up at their polling place, understand all too well how much this change will cost them. Why should they vote for it?

by goldfish on Mar 5, 2013 10:59 am • link • report

Residents don't get to vote for it. The Zoning Commission will make the decision about the rules. If we had politicians involved in zoning decisions, can you imagine the impact on ethics in the city?

by William on Mar 5, 2013 11:05 am • link • report

Keeping things as they are has a cost as well. These costs have been demonstrated by the decades of the requirement and it strangely hasn't done a whole to keep parking free and easy.

by drumz on Mar 5, 2013 11:07 am • link • report

1. Why should it be voted on? We have various governance structures in place to deal with these kinds of issues. We do not live in a direct democracy.

2. I don't think residents do actually understand how this change will cost them, or even if it will cost them at all.

3. Even if they did understand the costs, their perspective as individuals is not the only perspective that matters. The city has larger goals to meet.

Imagine if you had a system where every resident had a veto. You then have the challenge of siting some necessary but undesirable land use (like a power plant or a dump or a waste water facility). Everyone agrees that the facility is needed. Everyone agrees that it has to be located somewhere in this hypothetical city. But if you give everyone a veto, then you'll never be able to solve the issue.

This is the balancing that is required between larger city-wide interests and more local and parochial ones. Both are perfectly valid public interests. We shouldn't favor one over the other.

by Alex B. on Mar 5, 2013 11:10 am • link • report

@William: politicians and ethics, don't get me started.

Zoning rules rest upon laws passed by the city council. The council has the power to change them, and they do that all the time. The voters know this.

by goldfish on Mar 5, 2013 11:10 am • link • report

"Zoning rules rest upon laws passed by the city council. The council has the power to change them, and they do that all the time. The voters know this."

the residents of capital hill all live in Ward 6, correct? The council member that ward has elected is Tommy Wells. Is there any indication he would oppose the new zoning code based on the alleged cost to long time residents? Is there a serious move afoot to elect a CM in ward 6 who is more "friendly to autos"?

Sounds to me like the failures in selling are coming from the other side.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 5, 2013 11:17 am • link • report

Alex B: I don't think residents do actually understand how this change will cost them, or even if it will cost them at all.

This is not sales; in fact, this is anti-sales. Kvetching about the current system will not get this passed, and calling the voters ignorant will get the door slammed in your face.

The voters have to to be made aware of its advantages to them personally.

by goldfish on Mar 5, 2013 11:17 am • link • report

The voters have to to be made aware of its advantages to them personally.

Voters are not voting on it. I don't follow you.

by Alex B. on Mar 5, 2013 11:19 am • link • report

Moreover, are you expecting me or anyone to start knocking on doors with a trifold and a brochure?

The city has a public hearing process that allows people to come and learn the benefits and suggest changes.

The Office of Planning has a blog that allows you to read up at home.

If you email anyone from OP they'll try to answer you.

Failing that, you can come to GGW where people actually go to the meetings and report on what happened.

No one wakes up one day and has an informed opinion on how parking minimums impact cities. It's all out there for people to learn about.

by drumz on Mar 5, 2013 11:24 am • link • report

going to the zoning meetings won't give you an opportunity to kvetch about the mean nasty urbanists, which is undoubtedly good for the soul.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 5, 2013 11:28 am • link • report

Alex B: I don't follow you. See here.

At the end of the day, the zoning change is an issue that will be settled by the city council.

A little story: at a recent talk about education by Mr Wells, he was asked about funding for librarians at cluster school. He answered by saying at a recent meeting with DC schools Chancellor Kaya Henderson, he personally requested this and implied that if they were not provided, he could get his way through legislation.

So if Mr Wells is willing to intervene over a couple of librarians, imagine what he would do over parking, to get elected. Every member of the council understands that parking is where the votes are.

by goldfish on Mar 5, 2013 11:33 am • link • report

So everyone cares about parking enough to call their council member to demand that he do something but no one cares enought to be expected to go to meetings or at least read up online about the proposed changes without having to be "sold" something.

by drumz on Mar 5, 2013 11:36 am • link • report

Goldfish,

At the end of the day, the zoning change is an issue that will be settled by the city council.

This is incorrect. The final decision will come from the Zoning Commission.

I write this not to be obtuse or deliver invective, but to correct an error in fact. The public can testify before the ZRR, but the Council has no direct role in this. It is not a matter of 'will' by any council members.

http://dcoz.dc.gov/info/zrr.shtm

Zoning in DC is a hybrid of local and federal authority, established in the home rule act. Council's role is largely in the formulation of the District elements of the comprehensive plan.

by Alex B. on Mar 5, 2013 12:51 pm • link • report

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems there is a lot of support for pricing parking in DC so expensively that only the wealthy can comfortably afford it on a regular basis. I'd rather DC maintained a more welcoming stance toward the general public.

by Chris on Mar 5, 2013 12:56 pm • link • report

I do not find it unwelcoming that DC wants to charge market rates for a scarce commodity.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 5, 2013 1:12 pm • link • report

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems there is a lot of support for pricing parking in DC so expensively that only the wealthy can comfortably afford it on a regular basis. I'd rather DC maintained a more welcoming stance toward the general public.

This. The people who are complaining about how hard it is to park should just be told that they have a couple choices: cheaper street parking but it will be harder to park, or astronomical costs for street parking and you can easily find a space.

Personally I do not have enough sympathy for the parking complainers to try to make parking super simple for a select group. Also I question whether "how much you can afford to pay for RPP" is the correct measure of "how much you need a car." It's not.

by MLD on Mar 5, 2013 1:14 pm • link • report

"Personally I do not have enough sympathy for the parking complainers to try to make parking super simple for a select group."

having people circle for spots wastes gasoline and adds emissions - quite apart from the internalized costs such as loss of time.

"Also I question whether "how much you can afford to pay for RPP" is the correct measure of "how much you need a car." It's not."

In a philosophical sense, how much you are willing to pay for clothing, or a cell phone, may not be the correct measure of your need, in a society with dramatic inequality of income. but charging prices below market clearing ones, and letting people qeue for them instead is an inefficient way to address income inequalities.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 5, 2013 1:21 pm • link • report

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems there is a lot of support for pricing parking in DC so expensively that only the wealthy can comfortably afford it on a regular basis. I'd rather DC maintained a more welcoming stance toward the general public.

I support pricing parking because its the most efficient way to handle a lack of parking. It saves time and I don't necessarily want to see an increase in the supply of parking in the city because providing parking means an opportunity cost of something else in its place. You just really can't provide a nice neighborhood and lots of parking at the same time. Further, I think the negative externalities of car ownership means that its something that shouldn't be so heavily subsidized by the government in the first place.

Plus the general public encompasses a lot more than people who drive in.

by drumz on Mar 5, 2013 1:46 pm • link • report

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems there is a lot of support for pricing parking in DC so expensively that only the wealthy can comfortably afford it

I'll play devil's advocate.

What if this is true, what would be wrong with that? There are many things that only the wealthy can afford. Sometimes we step in and make them available to all (like CAT scans or enormous libraries) and sometimes we don't (like private jets and super model girlfriends). Why is parking like the first group and not the second?

by David C on Mar 5, 2013 2:44 pm • link • report

Because driving a car is a primary or at least major means of basic transport for many or most Americans from all social classes. It is not an indulgent luxury activity. Raising parking rates to keep the Average Joe riff-raff out of downtown DC sounds a little too country club to me.

by Chris on Mar 5, 2013 3:11 pm • link • report

because middle class people can't take the metro, ride a bike, etc. The only way to get there is by car. and you can drive in and spend 50 bucks to take your family to dinner, but you can't spend 4 bucks to park your car. Got it.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 5, 2013 3:38 pm • link • report

@Chris: It's not a major means of basic transport for me and I live in a city. I'm tired of the deference given to cars because of selfish people. In the vast majority of cases, driving to work in DC IS a luxury (and a selfish one at that). There are plenty of public transportation options in the suburbs. You just have to care more about society than you do in your nice air conditioned car.

by Mike on Mar 5, 2013 3:44 pm • link • report

Because driving a car is a primary or at least major means of basic transport for many or most Americans from all social classes.

But this is metropolitan Washington DC, where we have metro and such. Moreover, there are a lot of people here. Eventually something has to give. I'd rather it be the parking before the bike lanes, or blocks where people could live instead.

by drumz on Mar 5, 2013 4:11 pm • link • report

Slight edit: we are talking about DC (and one particular neighborhood at that). Not the whole of America.

by drumz on Mar 5, 2013 4:13 pm • link • report

Raising parking rates to keep the Average Joe riff-raff out of downtown DC sounds a little too country club to me.

Let me address this first. This is not the goal, it would (in the scenario we're working with) only be a byproduct. In reality parking wouldn't be priced so high that only the wealthy could use it - this is the Lexus Lanes argument for HOT lanes. It would manage a scarce resource so that parking would go to those who most need it. The price may not be comfortable, but it would be something most people could pay. But even if we did price parking so that only the wealthy could afford to park downtown, that wouldn't necessarily be "country club" as anyone can choose to be a parker.

Because driving a car is a primary or at least major means of basic transport for many or most Americans from all social classes. It is not an indulgent luxury activity.

So the argument best argument I can make from this is: Driving and thus parking is an integral part of many people's life and livlihood. The government has a key roll in providing - and even subsidizing - transportation and so parking should be kept affordable.

That may work in a lot of places, but not downtown DC. Most trips into and out of downtown probably aren't by car. There is nothing to stop people from parking elsewhere and riding into town via transit. Parking downtown IS in fact a luxury. It's a luxury to ride quickly to your chosen destination and park very close to it, because most people can't do that. So that's why it should be priced like a luxury. Because it is.

by David C on Mar 5, 2013 5:09 pm • link • report

@Alex B: Zoning in DC is a hybrid of local and federal authority...

That is not what your link says; it says that the "City Council approved a new Comprehensive Plan that calls for 'substantial revision and reorganization, ranging from new definitions to updated development and design standards'." The city council made the law the city council can change it. There is nothing about the federal authority -- I presume you are referring to the height act. In any case, that has nothing to do with parking.

So this parking issue is entirely within the authority of the city council, and thus subject to the whims of the electorate. As it should be; and that is why the zoning commission is taking the trouble to have all those public meetings: to sell this to the voters. They understand that if people feel that this is unjust, they will vote accordingly for council members that will overturn it.

Btw, the invective thing was nothing to do with you, but you were kind enough to back me up, however inadvertently. Obviously my attempt at it was successful, but I am sorry you got caught up in it.

by goldfish on Mar 5, 2013 5:18 pm • link • report

The City Council passed a law, that is great. Ultimately, the Zoning Commission will determine the fate of the zoning rewrite. It will happen sometime in the next 6-12 months. Other than a special election where most of the candidates support the zoning rewrite, there won't be much to change the political landscape with the current Council or the Office of the Mayor.

by William on Mar 5, 2013 5:39 pm • link • report

@William: if the current council anticipates that the new zone regs are parking train wreck, they won't wait for an election; they will change the law in order to save their own jobs.

by goldfish on Mar 5, 2013 6:01 pm • link • report

Why would the current council anticipate a train wreck? Because a incredibly small minority of the DC population thinks it is true? really, you are talking about fewer than 300 people in a city population of close to 630,000. Even if it were 30,000 people opposed, it still wouldn't make a difference, in my opinion. The fact is, the Mayor, the previous Mayor and a majority of the Council Members are in support of these changes.

As others have noted in this thread, in other threads on this blog and on other blogs and local Yahoo Groups, a representative democracy has to try to look out for the greater good. In this case, that good is not subsidized parking or an auto-centric planning paradigm.

by William on Mar 5, 2013 6:10 pm • link • report

@William: where did you come up with 300, or 30,000? And the relevant figure for comparison is not 630,000, but the total number of residents that vote.

I doubt that most voters have thought about this yet, so the relevant question is how they will swing. I certainly haven't decided. As with most issues, the initiative is with the government. The opposition is just getting started, and you won't see much evidence of that for a while.

by goldfish on Mar 5, 2013 6:27 pm • link • report

Well, I guess I'll agree to disagree. I just don't see driving the family downtown for dinner or museums as a luxury activity. Unless it's in Beverly Hills or some similarly ritzy place.

More interesting to me is the repeated comments about "1950s" planning in a derogatory sense, as if those old codes/zoning laws could not possibly accommodate a growing DC population. Yet, when I look at DC's population history, it was at its all-time peak of 800,000 in the 1950s, and today is still well below that at about 630,000. So maybe they did know a thing or two about population density in the 50s. Even with a lot of cheap parking.

by Chris on Mar 5, 2013 6:30 pm • link • report

A. No one is saying you can't drive downtown. What's proposed is that new developments in certain areas can decide how much parking they need.

B. what was the car ownership ratio in the 1950s? I can't say offhand but I'm fairly confident it was lower.

by Drumz on Mar 5, 2013 6:39 pm • link • report

So if the changes are implemented as they are now we will likely still see a net increase in parking spaces. The only difference being the number is found via the market than by government decree.

by Drumz on Mar 5, 2013 6:44 pm • link • report

@David C: There are many things that only the wealthy can afford...(like...super model girlfriends).

Ouch.

by Miriam on Mar 5, 2013 6:56 pm • link • report

Not sure about the ratio of car ownership in the DC area, but nationally, at least according to Wikipedia, it was considerably lower in the 50s - 323 vehicles/1000 people in 1950 vs. 828 vehicles/1000 people in 2009.

So that data would seem to indicate that car ownership was probably significantly lower in DC back then. But then again, isn't the car ownership ratio falling today? One hears many studies asserting that today's youth aren't as interested in driving. So maybe DC will come full circle and return to its 1950 population size and number of cars. Problem solved! :)

(Of course the wildcard left unmentioned here is the growth of the surrounding DC suburbs, which presumably were tiny in the 50s. Certainly Bethesda was.)

by Chris on Mar 5, 2013 7:53 pm • link • report

Also, parking minimums came around as a response to falling population anyway.

Then if you want to grow population you would prefer not to have to dedicate space to parking anyway.

by Drumz on Mar 5, 2013 8:10 pm • link • report

"Well, I guess I'll agree to disagree. I just don't see driving the family downtown for dinner or museums as a luxury activity. Unless it's in Beverly Hills or some similarly ritzy place."

Folks here in NoVa often take the metro in for museum visits. Or you can try to find a spot by the smithsonian (I dont think the spots on the mall are going to be effected by RPPs or parking minimums)

"More interesting to me is the repeated comments about "1950s" planning in a derogatory sense, as if those old codes/zoning laws could not possibly accommodate a growing DC population" Its not a question of the level of the population, but an attitude in planning and zoning in that era that was very auto focused and hostile to traditional wys of living in cities.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 5, 2013 9:11 pm • link • report