Why don't people who need storage units buy an old van, pay the RPP fee, and have perfectly legal storage on the street for $35 a year?

Because it costs far more than that to maintain, legally title and insure it, so that it won't get towed.

by goldfish on Mar 7, 2013 8:58 am • link • report

Because it costs far more than that to maintain, legally title and insure it, so that it won't get towed.

Maybe it's more of a hassle, but I doubt that it's more expensive (compared to, say, a storage unit or an off-street parking space).

by Alex B. on Mar 7, 2013 9:07 am • link • report

Plus, said van would likely be broken into and/or stolen, and then there goes your stuff.

I understand and agree with the point Rob's making, and it's a good one.

by Michael Perkins on Mar 7, 2013 9:10 am • link • report

Why don't people who need storage units buy an old van, pay the RPP fee, and have perfectly legal storage on the street for $35 a year?

Because that van would get broken into and all your stuff would get stolen? Clearly the author has never tried this on the streets of DC.

by Scoot on Mar 7, 2013 9:13 am • link • report

I doubt anyone is going to do this. Rather it can lead us to discuss why we expect the government to provide car storage at the low price of 35$/yr while its understood that if I need a place to stash anything other than my car I'm on my own to make those arrangements at whatever price the storage facility owner thinks is fair.

by drumz on Mar 7, 2013 9:16 am • link • report

We visited one new apt building, they said if residents don't lease all the parking spots they've built, they will convert part of the garage to storage units.

Clearly in many ways car storage and stuff storage are interchangeable.

by EmptyNester on Mar 7, 2013 9:24 am • link • report

Yep, that darn windshield perspective. I can't for the life of me imagine why we let bicycles park on the street -- for free! In fact they often demand more parking slots for themselves at the public purse. The horror! WHy don't we raise the Bicycle Parking Rate to match market prices!

In fact, I think we can also start taxing people to use the sidewalks.

by charlie on Mar 7, 2013 9:25 am • link • report

But drumz is a false (or incomplete) comparison useful to a discussion that we regularly have here anyway?

Why not just make the comparison of paid off-street parking to paid on-street parking, and see that the former costs at least 20x the latter?

FWIW, as a property owner I would happily pay $35/year to rent a piece of land that is ~15'x7' in front of my house, and plant a tree there as well, given land values. But it's a less direct, useful comparison.

by ah on Mar 7, 2013 9:25 am • link • report

Yeah I'm going to have to second Scoot. Most people I know who have left cars on DC city streets have gotten broken into - multiple times.

by Alan B. on Mar 7, 2013 9:28 am • link • report

Why not buy an old van to store your crap on the street? As the extraordinary observator points out, you're legally entitled to, even if it inconveniences neighbors who need street parking for cars they use to get to work.

Because it's inconsiderate and not the neighborly thing to do, and would inconvenience those who actually regularly need a parking space for a car used for work, etc. There are plenty of things that you can do legally, but would cause undue annoyance, making you a jerk (you could play music over a megaphone every morning at 7am, for example).

In addition, this example could eventually lead complaints and needlessly tighter restrictions on parking, such as reinstituting DC's old "all cars must be moved every 72 hrs" rule (which was a pain if you went out of town for a bit, and came back to a ticket).

What's more, it's important to remember that not everyone is able to live car-free or commute car-free. I have neighbors that take a car to work in Maryland, Virginia, or other places that may be inaccessible to transit. I personally commute by bike, but I don't begrudge others who can't or don't see it as a viable option for their circumstance.

Just because you're legally allowed to do something doesn't make it the "right" thing to do. And, this is coming from someone who has a car, but rarely uses it and parks it off-street behind my house.

by Matt on Mar 7, 2013 9:29 am • link • report

"What's more, it's important to remember that not everyone is able to live car-free or commute car-free. I have neighbors that take a car to work in Maryland, Virginia, or other places that may be inaccessible to transit. I personally commute by bike, but I don't begrudge others who can't or don't see it as a viable option for their circumstance.

Just because you're legally allowed to do something doesn't make it the "right" thing to do"

Exactly. Its legally allowed to take a space for $35 a year, that is in fact worth $100 or more.

It may not be right. It certainly does not seem like good public policy.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 7, 2013 9:33 am • link • report

But drumz is a false (or incomplete) comparison useful to a discussion that we regularly have here anyway?

I agree with you on that. I was trying to move the conversation away from the specifics of the analogy back to the original reason for the thought experiment. Which is why and how we subsidize parking on city streets.

I had a similar thought if a restaurant wanted to use the parking spaces in front of their establisments as extra room for tables or something why not? This is where events like (park)ing day and so forth also help.

by drumz on Mar 7, 2013 9:35 am • link • report

I agree with the point Rob is trying to make. Parking is such a huge subsidy and everyone would call foul if the city were subsidizing storage for everyone. When it comes to cars we compartmentalize and rationalize things that we would never for any other aspect of our lives.

Another example is how we demonize cigarette smoke (rightly so) but tolerate car exhaust. Go to a school in mid-winter and you'll see the buses line up and keep their engines on, and cars lining up waiting for the kids to get out all with their engines on. Yet smoking is not allowed. We protect the children from the harmful effects of cigarette smoke, yet all the exhaust from the buses and cars is okay. Go figure.

Turn off your engine instead of idling in front of a school; stop subsidizing car storage.

by dc denizen on Mar 7, 2013 9:37 am • link • report

I wonder if you could just slap a plate on this and make your intentions obvious.

http://www.movingpods.com/

I often think about this issue whenever I see one of those on the street.

by alex on Mar 7, 2013 9:39 am • link • report

Yep, that darn windshield perspective. I can't for the life of me imagine why we let bicycles park on the street -- for free! In fact they often demand more parking slots for themselves at the public purse. The horror! WHy don't we raise the Bicycle Parking Rate to match market prices!
In fact, I think we can also start taxing people to use the sidewalks.

I think there are valid policy reasons to want to subsidize bike parking vs. subsidizing car parking.

A. You can already fit a lot more bikes into the same amount of space as a car.
B. On a given block you have X car spaces. Typically you have a bike rack that can hold about 8 bikes per block. If the number of cars you can park on the same block is greater than 8 that shows an imbalance.
C. For too long for people who live in apartments we've said you're on your own to park your bike. If you've got the room in your apt. great, if not have fun riding your bike after a rain storm.
D. Bikes are better for cityscapes and the environment so it makes sense to encourage them relative to car usage.
E. Bikes are easier to steal so it makes sense to make it harder to steal them via ways to park the bike.

by drumz on Mar 7, 2013 9:40 am • link • report

@charlie

I agree. Let's charge according to size and weight. After all, if you have a pickup truck I expect you to pay more for storage than a beat-up ten speed.

by dc denizen on Mar 7, 2013 9:40 am • link • report

Way to go NPS. You can approve a massive highway, but still can't repave the Rock Creek Trail which someone else is paying for.

by Eric on Mar 7, 2013 9:42 am • link • report

@ Scoot: Clearly the author has never tried this on the streets of DC.

>80% of Greater Washington does not live in DC, and many of those even have free street parking. Good tip! [Except for the fact that you should not rent space to store stuff. Just throw it away already].[Also funny, that van in the article in the link is a Dutch van - a rare sight].

Snowquester: >6" snow and power loss in Lorton.

I also found a nice nugget of info on the FABB site:
More bicycles are sold each year than passenger cars in the US
Yeah, read that again...

by Jasper on Mar 7, 2013 9:49 am • link • report

I guess I sort of don't get the van storage point. What's morally wrong with owning a car you dont drive much, and keep full of junk? If you legally reside in DC, and are eligible for an RPP, of course you can park it on the street. It would have to be in working order, or you wouldn't be able to crank and drive it on street cleaning days.

So the city doesn't collect the market rate for street parking. Why is this a huge issue? We don't tax metro and bus riders the full market rate for their transit. We don't charge any bicycle registration fee at all, even though the city is funding bicycle infrastructure. (I'm a transit rider and a cyclist, who shares one car with my spouse, which we park off street, and use on weekends)

I have no problem at all with the city increasing the fee for RPP. I also have no problem with leaving it alone. I just don't see a glaring injustice being done here.

by CJ on Mar 7, 2013 10:02 am • link • report

The article was DC specific, Jasper. The page also says he works at a "think tank" after graduating from a school near Cleveland a couple years ago.

by selxic on Mar 7, 2013 10:02 am • link • report

@ CJ:We don't charge any bicycle registration fee at all, even though the city is funding bicycle infrastructure.

Let's pick that apart for a second by substitution.

We don't charge any bicycle foot registration fee at all, even though the city is funding bicycle pedestrian infrastructure.

by Jasper on Mar 7, 2013 10:06 am • link • report

@CJ
It's the footprint that is the huge issue. Cars, especially SUVs and pickups take up a lot of space. A lot more than bikes or people. Why should so much space be subsidized? It's like why do we give as much space and priority to an SUV with one person it on a major artery during rush hour as we do for a bus with 50 people in it?

by dc denizen on Mar 7, 2013 10:07 am • link • report

So the city doesn't collect the market rate for street parking. Why is this a huge issue?

Because the city considering allowing developers to build places without requiring parking in certain areas. Some people are opposed to this citing that parking is hard to find in some neighborhoods. When it is pointed out that one solution is to charge a higer rate for an RPP in order to make up for that its then charged that the city is out to make resident's lives harder.

This exercise helps point out some of the costs in the status quo and the assumptions people have about parking.

Heck even before the zoning rewrite people would complain about parking in regards to any new development. It's helpful to point out that you can complain about a lack of parking or the cost of RPP but its really impossible to do both.

by drumz on Mar 7, 2013 10:08 am • link • report

There are certainly folks in the burbs who store stuff in their vehicles (though they may not buy a vehicle just to do that). I would be surprised if there arent parts of DC where one could safely at least keep stuff in the trunk of a car. That wouldnt justify registering and insuring a vehicle to do so, but if someone did drive the vehicle occasionally, the chance to use it to store some stuff might well be the tipping point between car free and car lite, or between car lite and owning a second car.

I think the people poking fun at the absurdities that underpriced RPPs lead to are not so much claiming its a huge injustice. its that raising RPPs would be a strong net plus for public policy (as increasing transit fares, say, would not be) - and the opposition to that invokes "justice" The counter to that is to show the silly results it can lead to (like when in the old USSR people fed bread farm animals, because unlike grain, bread was heavily subsidized)

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 7, 2013 10:09 am • link • report

Parking is such a huge subsidy and everyone would call foul if the city were subsidizing storage for everyone. When it comes to cars we compartmentalize and rationalize things that we would never for any other aspect of our lives.

Well, there are some (maybe even a lot of) measurable benefits from providing some amount of car parking, as it greatly facilitates commerce and transport options throughout the city and the greater region. I'm not really sure how the city would benefit from subsidizing self-storage. So to me it does not seem like such a great comparison.

by Scoot on Mar 7, 2013 10:30 am • link • report

Well, there are some (maybe even a lot of) measurable benefits from providing some amount of car parking,

What are the benefits? How should they be provided? If the government should provide it how much should it provide?

I don't doubt that there are reasons to provide parking. The relevant question is why should it come via government mandate or the government should reserve its ROW for parking all the time rather than converting to something else (wider sidewalks for example).

by drumz on Mar 7, 2013 10:36 am • link • report

@ah and your tree: the "Community Vehicular Reclamation Project" in Toronto did just that, and in a paid-up metered parking space, no less.

by Payton on Mar 7, 2013 10:54 am • link • report

I don't doubt that there are reasons to provide parking. The relevant question is why should it come via government mandate or the government should reserve its ROW for parking all the time rather than converting to something else (wider sidewalks for example).

Well, the government does not in fact "mandate" on-street parking, it merely subsidizes it.

I'm just finding this analogy of car spaces to self storage spaces to be very tenuous. It sounds like a fun and superficial way to poke fun at subsidized car parking, but when you dig a little deeper, the entire analogy more or less falls apart.

by Scoot on Mar 7, 2013 10:59 am • link • report

Then don't worry about the analogy. That's all it is, a way to get people to start thinking about why we subsidize parking.

And with regards to off street spaces in new developments it is a gov't mandate for the developer to subsidize the parking. I'll give you that for street spaces though, with consideration of the fact that many do treat those spaces as sacred.

by drumz on Mar 7, 2013 11:12 am • link • report

"Well, there are some (maybe even a lot of) measurable benefits from providing some amount of car parking, as it greatly facilitates commerce and transport options throughout the city and the greater region. "

storage also facilitates commerce - have you ever tried to run a retail store with no storage?

The issue, again, is not whether parking spots should exist, or even (for many of the policy issues) how many on street spots should exist - but how they should be allocated. At present they are allocated to residents at a price of $35 per year in DC (in Alexandria its $30, and in ArlCo its free, IIUC) At least in many parts of DC this is clearly too low to make it reasonably easy to find a space, and has been used as justification to mandate off street spaces. And it could, in theory, lead to absurd things like using RPPs for storage. If thats a misuse of space (and clearly many think it is) than using a space for a car, when the individual values parking that car at much less than the market clearing price of the space, is almost also wrong, in the same way.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 7, 2013 11:21 am • link • report

“Street parking is a huge subsidy”?

No it isn’t. You might have a point if we were discussing street parking in busy commercial cores, but those spots are all metered already, and if you have a problem with the hourly cost of those spots, then I suggest you lobby your council rep to change it.

Saying residential street spots are enormously subsidized when most of them in the city, save for a ~2 block radius around metro stops are empty most of the day is simply being hyperbolic for the sake of being hyperbolic.

DDOT’s entire budget last year was ~127 million dollars, its road paving and maintenance budget a fraction (35 million) of that yet we consider DC streets “hugely” subsidized while ignoring the fact that the District’s share of WMATA’s yearly jurisdictional subsidy last year was $235 million. We give nearly twice as much to WMATA every year as we do to operate the entire DDOT.

Revenue from parking meters was 40 million, and parking ticket revenue was another 92 million. Parking meter revenue alone more than pays for the cost to maintain DC’s street grid, and adding in total parking revenue (fees and fines) then parking revenue actually exceeds DDOTs entire yearly budget. If anything, “parking” in this town isn’t a subsidy, but a revenue source.

by Anons on Mar 7, 2013 11:24 am • link • report

Then don't worry about the analogy. That's all it is, a way to get people to start thinking about why we subsidize parking.

It seems like a way to get people to stop thinking about why we actually subsidize parking, but that's just me.

by Scoot on Mar 7, 2013 11:29 am • link • report

storage also facilitates commerce - have you ever tried to run a retail store with no storage?

Did you read the original post? This analogy concerns personal storage, not storage for retail businesses.

by Scoot on Mar 7, 2013 11:31 am • link • report

Re: Car Storage

The comments from that article are pretty interesting:

I'm pretty sure that someone near Sherman Circle in Petworth has already had this idea...there's an old ex-Uhaul truck that hasn't moved from the area in months.

On March 07, 2013 ES said...

You don't even need an RPP or to move the car periodically on some blocks. Kitty-corner to me in Petworth is a block near Sherman Circle that is bordered on both sides by NPS land, and it has neither street sweeping nor RPP requirements. There are always two or three large panel trucks, vans, or storage trailers (often with Maryland tags) parked there. One truck has never once moved.

On March 07, 2013 IMGoph said...

I can one-up you here. When I lived in Bloomingdale, there was a box truck that was permanently parked on 1st Street, and it wasn't storage - it was housing. A guy lived in the back of the truck, got up early in the morning and took off for the day. Saw him regularly leave the truck in the middle of the night to relieve himself on the sidewalk.

Clearly, the blogger's thought experiment isn't so far-fetched.

by Falls Church on Mar 7, 2013 11:31 am • link • report

If we want to point out inconsistencies with parking and storage, perhaps we should look more directly at the cost of putting a storage container in a parking space (public space):

$50 for up to 5 days. Now that's bizarre.

https://tops.ddot.dc.gov/DDOTPermitSystem/%28S%28dq13addsgcluemutn3cxeupm%29%29/DDOTPermitOnline/FeeSchedule.aspx

by ah on Mar 7, 2013 11:34 am • link • report

If anything, “parking” in this town isn’t a subsidy, but a revenue source.

The biggest cost of parking is the ROW or cost of the land. Maintaining the asphalt, only represents a small fraction of the cost of parking.

by Falls Church on Mar 7, 2013 11:39 am • link • report

"Did you read the original post? This analogy concerns personal storage, not storage for retail businesses."

clearly one could do the same thing with a storage van for a business, as long as one had the right to an RPP.

And its not terribly clear to me that subsidizing residential parking is of benefit to commerce, in the way that subsidizing visitor parking in a commercial area might be.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 7, 2013 11:40 am • link • report

"Saying residential street spots are enormously subsidized when most of them in the city, save for a ~2 block radius around metro stops are empty most of the day is simply being hyperbolic for the sake of being hyperbolic."

if there are so many empty spots, why the fuss about the parking minimums?

Clearly its parking spots in places where parking is scarce that is at issue.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 7, 2013 11:42 am • link • report

@Scoot I'm just finding this analogy of car spaces to self storage spaces to be very tenuous.

I know a man who lives in a condo bldg w/ no parking, who gets to work by metro, shops in Cleveland Park by walking in his walkable neighborhood and visits NYC by train, yet stores two vintage cars on the street. (Maybe its just one by now). He covers them. They sit there covered never moving. There is no street sweeping so he doesn't need to move them for that. About once a year I see him take the covers off and fiddle about with the machine. This is in a neighborhood where street parking is difficult especially on weekends due to its close proximity to the zoo when RPP is not in effect. Other than this habit he's a very nice man whom I like.

by Tina on Mar 7, 2013 11:48 am • link • report

So what if we take this to the next level. What if someone wanted to park a semi? What would stop someone from buying a semi truck, registering it in DC, putting up signs to move into a place (to clear enough space) and then parking it there, permanently?

by Kyle-W on Mar 7, 2013 11:54 am • link • report

@ Tina

What is your neighbor doing wrong? Just because we have some normative notion of what street parking should be used for doesn't mean everyone agrees with us. Your neighbor isn't breaking a law, and he's using a valid RPP for his parked car. Just because he doesn't drive his vintage car that often doesn't mean he can't park like everyone else.

by cj on Mar 7, 2013 11:55 am • link • report

Awalkerinthecity

As I said above (save for a ~2 block radius around metro stops are empty most of the day).

If the GGW set was trying to treat parking issues individually, that would be fine, but all I see here is "All DC's residential parking is massively subsidized". You aren't, and it isn't.

Folks here seem to want to treat every residential spot in the city the same, when you have enormous swaths of the city, every place that isn't within a couple blocks of a metro stop where parking isn't a problem any time of the day.

Just like real estate in Stafford isn't as valuable as it is in Dupont, residential street parking spots at 46th and Davenport, or Forest Hills, North 16th Street, Anacostia, the entire NE quadrant of cap hill etc aren't worth as much as the ones in Dupont Circle either.

by Anons on Mar 7, 2013 11:57 am • link • report

@Kyle-W, I think trucks w/ capacity over a certain tonnage are prohibited on most residential streets in DC. (Except R St NE? I see 18 wheelers on R St NE fairly often..)

by Tina on Mar 7, 2013 11:57 am • link • report

@cj, exactly! That he's "not doing anything wrong" is a problem. He's not using those vehicles for transportation. He keeps them as a hobby and stores them on the street.

Don't you think the rationale behind subsidized parking is to facilitate transportation for economic reasons? Even if that model is outdated, don't you think that's why it was originated?

by Tina on Mar 7, 2013 12:01 pm • link • report

And if "storage" is the problem, then a simple amendment of DC parking regs forbidding street storage is simple and to the point.

by Anons on Mar 7, 2013 12:02 pm • link • report

@cj Just because he doesn't drive his vintage car that often doesn't mean he can't park like everyone else.

I've never seen him drive it. Its not a transportation device for him.

by Tina on Mar 7, 2013 12:02 pm • link • report

@Anons, Folks here seem to want to treat every residential spot in the city the same,

No, this is not the case.

by Tina on Mar 7, 2013 12:03 pm • link • report

Parking is scarce in some places. I agree that increasing the fee for an RPP might, over time, decrease the number of RPPs sought by residents. There's a lot of discussion on here about how some residents' parking actions are somehow less worthy than others. In the absence of any public policy encouraging or mandating some parking behavior over others, this all sounds pretty entitled.

12 years ago, my partner and I lived on Seaton Street, NW. We were within sight of the 17th street police station. One summer, a resident of the house across the street (at that time a notorious flop house and pot source) pulled up an old van and left it in front of the house. One evening, there was a blue tarp stretched from the door of the house to the door of the van, and later that night, a tarp over the parking space behind the van. One orange extension cord, six folding chairs, and a TV later, evening theater commenced.

It all made for interesting street theater, and I was sorry to see the police come and break it up.

No real point here, except that living in the city should, in my mind, entail keeping an open mind when it comes to how we view others' use of public space.

by CJ on Mar 7, 2013 12:06 pm • link • report

@Tina,

I guess that's the central issue. To me, the RPP system is for residents to store their cars. Is there some history or record that shows it came about to facilitate economic activity?

Otherwise, I see absolutely no difference between a resident who owns a car for commuting, and a resident who owns one as a hobby.

by CJ on Mar 7, 2013 12:13 pm • link • report

"If the GGW set was trying to treat parking issues individually, that would be fine, but all I see here is "All DC's residential parking is massively subsidized". You aren't, and it isn't."

Ive suggesting RPPs should be set at market clearing rates. Ive never suggested that should be in the same in parts of DC (or in all parts of Arlington County - note well this is an issue larger than DC, although the zoning code update has focused attention on DC). I see plenty of good reason for it being different in different places. There are, I suppose, many ways such differentiation could be accomplished.

Can you link to someone here suggesting that RPP prices must be identical in all parts of DC?

The discussions have not been about particular areas so much (except some about Capital Hill, or Cleveland Park) because the key policy issue under discussion right now is NOT the RPP price, but the zoning code.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 7, 2013 12:15 pm • link • report

@CJ there are still places in the city with that kind of freedom, but they aren't in places where on street parking is scarce. If you like that kind of urban experience you can find it in DC but it won't be any place where on street parking is an issue.

by Tina on Mar 7, 2013 12:17 pm • link • report

"To me, the RPP system is for residents to store their cars. Is there some history or record that shows it came about to facilitate economic activity?"

scoot, above, suggested that the comparison of parking to storage was inappropriate, because subsidized parking helps commerce.

Clearly someone has the legal right to park a vintage vehicle using an RPP and not driving. Arguably they could also legally buy a beater van and use it for storage. Both would seem to illustrate some of whats wrong with undercharging for a scarce good, from a policy POV.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 7, 2013 12:18 pm • link • report

Heck, there isn't even RPP in all parts of DC.

If by "treat every parking space the same" you mean I think the gov't should look at what that parking space is really worth and work out a price at or approaching that number then yes I do believe that. Of course that means in some areas of the city the value of that space will be zero and that's fine we can keep that as is.

by drumz on Mar 7, 2013 12:22 pm • link • report

AWITC - How does using the RPP system to park a car illustrate what is wrong with the system? Both the hypothetical storage solution and the vintage car example are instances where residents who are eligible for a RPP obtain one and use it.

All I'm trying to point out to you and Tina is that there is no current "approved use," for cars in the city. Cars are cars. One person's commuting use is exactly equal to another person's hobby car. Unless and until that is addressed in a public policy context, then you guys are making a value judgment based on your personal order of preferences in regard to a public good.

I'm personally all for a more varied use of public parking. I have zero problem with a hobbyist, or an elderly person, parking a seldom used car on the street. At the same time, I'm Ok with the RPP being more expensive so that the hobbyist, and the commuter, are helping to pay for the parking. and yeah, I'm OK with market rates for parking, although I think that's unrealistic for political reasons.

I'm incredibly leery of value judgments regarding what appropriate parking behavior might or might not be. And I don't really think either of your examples "illustrate what is wrong with the current system."

by CJ on Mar 7, 2013 1:29 pm • link • report

"How does using the RPP system to park a car illustrate what is wrong with the system?"

Because its obviously a suboptimal use of the parking space in places where people drive around to find spots, or where people object to more development with limited parking because its already too hard too park (it may be a fine use in places where parking spots are abundant)

"Unless and until that is addressed in a public policy context, then you guys are making a value judgment based on your personal order of preferences in regard to a public good.

This is all about the public policy context. perhaps you are new here, but for months theres been a debate about the new zoning code, and that is why this is on the table.

"I'm Ok with the RPP being more expensive so that the hobbyist, and the commuter, are helping to pay for the parking."

And that is the point I think was being made - plus that if RPP prices more expensive, then there is no harm in relaxing parking mandates for new buildings.

" and yeah, I'm OK with market rates for parking, although I think that's unrealistic for political reasons."

I will defer to others on what is politically feasible in the district.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 7, 2013 1:39 pm • link • report

True but when proponents of keeping RPP as is (or cheaper, or unobtainable by certain residents) generally state that the District must provide as much parking as it can in order to keep the city vibrant and economically healthy then I think its prudent to point out that the system they're defending has its unintended consequences wrt that goal.

But again, some have countered that its ludicrous to simply use a car for storage. Apparently its not as ludicrous as it seems.

by drumz on Mar 7, 2013 1:41 pm • link • report

I guess that's the central issue. To me, the RPP system is for residents to store their cars. Is there some history or record that shows it came about to facilitate economic activity?

Read any story regarding the zoning update on the post, or other news site/blog. You'll find many people commenting to that effect. Is that the position of the city? I'm pretty sure its not (otherwise they wouldn't be suggesting what they are) but it sure is how a lot of people defend it.

by drumz on Mar 7, 2013 1:44 pm • link • report

@CJ - I used the example of the hobbiest as a response to @Scoot who claimed it was preposterous to think anyone would use on-street parking as storage.

until that is addressed in a public policy context,

This is what the post is about and what I some others think should be done in certain areas where on street parking a scarce.

I'm Ok with the RPP being more expensive so that the hobbyist, and the commuter, are helping to pay for the parking.

Then we agree.

by Tina on Mar 7, 2013 2:03 pm • link • report

What if someone wanted to park a semi?

RPPs aren't available for commercial vehicles and vehicles longer than 22 feet, among others.

by ah on Mar 7, 2013 3:15 pm • link • report

I amend this to include extension of RPP to weekends and/or a performance parking model of some sort for weekends in areas where street parking is under a lot of weekend pressure from visitors to attraction, not visiting residents or businesses, e.g. the area around the entrances to the zoo:

I'm Ok with the RPP being more expensive so that the hobbyist, and the commuter, are helping to pay for the parking.

Then we agree. -- With asking for a performance parking model of some sort so visitors to attractions in some areas also pay for parking

by Tina on Mar 7, 2013 4:05 pm • link • report

charlie, it's actually illegal to park your bike on the street unless its at the curb so as to not prevent a car from parking as well, so the answer is that we don't.

by David C on Mar 7, 2013 11:01 pm • link • report