Gerald Gordon, president of the Fairfax County Economic Development Authority is a funny dude.

by Thayer-D on Mar 13, 2013 8:31 am • link • report

Admittedly I'm not too familiar with Gordon.. But are we jumping the gun with labeling him a bigot? My first thought when I read the comment was that he was taking a jab at Prince George's political corruption that was investigated by the FBI. Tasteless... maybe. Racist... probably not.

by dcmike on Mar 13, 2013 8:41 am • link • report

Capitol Hill has tens of thousands of residents. Some will complain about anything, including a mural.

by Tim Krepp on Mar 13, 2013 8:48 am • link • report

Now the war on planes?

by charlie on Mar 13, 2013 8:49 am • link • report

As the article points out, the ticket was not for going too slow but rather for failing to stay right to allow faster traffic to pass.

by ah on Mar 13, 2013 8:57 am • link • report

Well technically the Airline industry as a whole has never made a profit.

by RJ on Mar 13, 2013 8:58 am • link • report

I'm fine with the driver getting the ticket going two miles under the speed limit on 95, even if it was windy, as she was in the fast lane. Perhaps it seems extreme to ticket her but too many people sit in the left lane, as if they're unaware or don't care about the cars behind them. Drivers then try to pass these slower cars on the right and it can create a dangerous situation. Maybe the press her story is getting, regardless of whether the ticket is reversed, will wake more people up to the fact that the left lane isn't for just sitting in. We all need to pass whoever we're going to pass and then move back over.

by Mike Holden on Mar 13, 2013 9:07 am • link • report

"The driver, who didn't want her name used, told News4 she was driving in the left lane of I-95 on Laurel last Friday when she was pulled over and cited for failing to move right."

That seems reasonable to me. I'd say Townsend is 0/2.

by Colleen on Mar 13, 2013 9:08 am • link • report

I would assume the disproportional tickets in MD is due to a land border to DC. Virginia has 5 entrance points to the city whereas MD has hundreds.

by Doug on Mar 13, 2013 9:11 am • link • report

most drivers in virginia are unhappy if you only drive 5MPH OVER the limit in the left lane.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 13, 2013 9:12 am • link • report

Pay UP - Maryland Drivers, the article says MD owes 43 million, not 101 million.

by Gull on Mar 13, 2013 9:14 am • link • report

re Gordon

racist or not, its hardly compatible with regional cooperation.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 13, 2013 9:15 am • link • report

MoCo police keep blaming pedestrians - actually the police release gave both drivers and pedestrians a list of rules to follow when driving/walking, the did not 'blame' the pedestrians this time, as they have before, at least not in the release that was linked to in this story.

by Gull on Mar 13, 2013 9:15 am • link • report

Va. has a real problem with understanding that the left lane is the passing lane (it's not the fast lane either).

If you're not overtaking someone then get out the way.

Re: Pedestrians in montgomery county.

But I was assured that all I had to do was wear reflective clothing and I'd be safe. Surely the police and county care about pedestrian safety otherwise they wouldn't have told me that right?

by drumz on Mar 13, 2013 9:16 am • link • report

The driver was likely ticketed for violating Maryland Code 21-301(b) which prohibits blocking the left lane when driving under the speed limit. And if she doesn't even know what she was cited for, then she no doubt deserves the ticket.

by Alan on Mar 13, 2013 9:17 am • link • report

Granted the ticket was in Maryland but usually I'm too busy avoiding maryland drivers to pay attention the speed I'm going.

by drumz on Mar 13, 2013 9:19 am • link • report

I don't know or care if Gerald is racist, but to equate low income with criminality is not the brightest thing to say.

"(and I’m paraphrasing here): There is some logic for the FBI going to Prince George’s because that’s where they'll find the people they have to pick up."

So downtown Manhattan with its starched collars bamboozling millions of dollars out of retirement funds with all sorts of ponzi schemes does no harm? Maybe I'm too politically correct, but just because someone dosen't directly rob someone dosen't make them any less criminal than a thief.

by Thayer-D on Mar 13, 2013 9:21 am • link • report

RE: 2 MPH Under

There appears to be two potential points: failure to keep right and the issue of speed.

Perhaps I'm getting rusty at my traffic law, but I don't believe Maryland's Title 21 includes a "Keep Right" law.

And as for driving under the speed limit: the only reason a speed-related citation could be issued for that would be for traveling at an excessive speed for conditions (such as inclement weather or if other lanes are comparatively slower), but neither appears to apply here.

I'd sooner wonder why the officer didn't just signal for her to shift over and then proceed to cite every other motorist trailing behind her.

by Bossi on Mar 13, 2013 9:23 am • link • report

So people who are speeding and use the right lanes to pass to continue to do so are just fine? We should blame the woman who was legally driving just almost exactly the speed limit in the left lane? How about people who speed need to slow down and observe the speed limit?

by Alan B. on Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am • link • report

RE: Alexandria Waterfront Plan

2% of what? Surface area? Buildable area, including area calculated for each building level? Residential units or commercial square footage? Trip generation? The source does not appear to clarify.

by Bossi on Mar 13, 2013 9:27 am • link • report

Yes Alan B., all drivers should be on the right and if you are passing you get in the left. She was in the left lane going slowly. It creates an impediment and dangerous situation for all parties, and she should be ticketed.

Virginia is astoundingly horrible for this behavior.

by dh on Mar 13, 2013 9:29 am • link • report

@ Mike Holden:Drivers then try to pass these slower cars on the right and it can create a dangerous situation.

Wait, what? A completely legal move is now dangerous? More dangerous than speeding? During bad weather?

Are you advocating a Eurostyle ban on passing on the right, and mandatory driving on the right-most lane possible? That would be a major change of American road rules.

[I think NY State also has a rule keeping slower traffic on the right]

@ Alan:The driver was likely ticketed for violating Maryland Code 21-301(b) which prohibits blocking the left lane when driving under the speed limit.

Ah, so you have to drive exactly the speed limit, and not 3% below. And not 3% above. So, a driver should glue his eyes to the speedometer, not the road...

Also, from the MD Driver’s Manual (p8):

Drivers must recognize and adjust their speed to adverse conditions. Maryland Vehicle Law requires that motorists drive at a reasonable and prudent speed and with a regard for existing and potential hazards. You may drive slower than the posted speed limit, based on road conditions, but it is illegal to drive any faster than the posted speed limit.

(my underlining)

The lady should appeal.

by Jasper on Mar 13, 2013 9:30 am • link • report

"We should blame the woman who was legally driving just almost exactly the speed limit in the left lane?"

She was impeding traffic by not moving over. Doesn't matter if you are already going the speed limit. No one's blaming her for driving 63, but if she wants to do so she needs to move to the right.

by Ben on Mar 13, 2013 9:31 am • link • report

Bossi,

FTA,
Several speakers spoke against “massive” new development, but not only is all of the planned development the same size and scale as neighboring buildings, it increases development in the overall Waterfront Plan area by less than 2 percent, and increases potential development on the three small individual development sites in the Plan by no more than 25 percent—not the 300 percent stated by opponents and even some mathematically challenged members of the press.

I thought the statistic of how the area contains 40% of the city's open land already with more coming to be a more illuminating fact.

by drumz on Mar 13, 2013 9:31 am • link • report

I saw a couple of the stories in the Breakfast Links on NBC4 yesterday. At most, the MD driver under the speed limit may have been cited for the wrong violation. I'm glad posters here are reasonable and acknowledge how dangerous driving (not passing) in the left lane is especially if under the speed limit.

I'm guessing somebody just read the title of the press release, Gull.

What did Gordon say that was insulting to Loudoun?

by selxic on Mar 13, 2013 9:33 am • link • report

She was impeding traffic from violating the speed limits maybe. If that's your definition of impeding traffic I'm glad I don't have the share the roads with you.

by Alan B. on Mar 13, 2013 9:33 am • link • report

Airlines get a pass because there's plenty of opportunity for CEOs and other "job creators" to make millions on even unprofitable businesses. The titans of private industry!

RE: Speeding Ticket
The news articles seem to focus on the idea that she got the ticket for driving under the speed limit. What she got a ticket for was impeding traffic in the left lane. This is a violation all over the place - though not usually enforced. In fact, I was taught in drivers' ed to keep to the right except to pass (and plenty of states have these signs on interstates). I have to think that if a cop bothered to pull her over for this she was seriously getting in the way. Can't say I agree with John Townshend, it seems like he's just doing his usual complaining about "CONFUSION."

RE: Mural
I think the issue people have with the mural is that the mockup looks like some photoshopped pictures slapped up on the side of a building. I assume that the finished project would look more like a painted mural, correct?

by MLD on Mar 13, 2013 9:35 am • link • report

Jasper, the law exists in several states. I know it is in Pennsylvania and Virginia has tried to pass it a few times, but it met opposition from rural areas.

by selxic on Mar 13, 2013 9:36 am • link • report

re Parking Minimums:

Either do it like Arlington, or don't do it at all.

Even Arlington, which is probably the most transit progressive jurisdiction outside of NYC in terms of its policies, and even Arlington isn't dumb enough to simply let developers off the hook with zero parking minimums and not having them give up something else.

If I were a DC developer, I would love it. I save 15 million on my condo or apartment project by not building parking, and I get to still sell my units for market rate.

Point is, simply thinking people who rent or buy in these buildings aren't going to have vehicles is naieve at best, and a problem that a for profit developer used to be on the hook for addressing, now becomes the problem of everyone else who lives in that immediate area.

by Parking on Mar 13, 2013 9:37 am • link • report

Thayer-D,

I think the dig was directed at PGC's government, not the people. People like: Leslie Johnson,Jack Johnson,James Johnson...ect.

by RJ on Mar 13, 2013 9:40 am • link • report

Point is, simply thinking people who rent or buy in these buildings aren't going to have vehicles is naieve at best,

Similarly naieve is the constant drumbeat of assertion that people will always bring a car with them and keep when they move into one of these buildings.

by drumz on Mar 13, 2013 9:42 am • link • report

Re: parking minimums, I have to disagree that underground or structured parking doesn't see a return. To completely eliminate parking is silly -- even Midtown has some street parking but it's mostly structured of course. It's a needed component of the transportation infrastructure. That said the bulk should not be surface parking except some street parking. At the very least if you let developers completely off the hook for providing any parking there should be some required payments to fund community assets or alternative transportation in the area. I do think that some minimums are too high at present and should be calibrated based on Metro/bus access and walkability of the area. Off street surface parking should be pretty restricted.

by Alan B. on Mar 13, 2013 9:43 am • link • report

Frumin did not raise the most money this period. He has the most money in the bank, but he was out-raised by both Patrick Mara and Anita Bonds. Read the article more carefully.

by TheTalmidian on Mar 13, 2013 9:47 am • link • report

@ Drumz,

I suggest (if you can simply walk in) you take a random walk through any residential apt or condo building parking garage that is say, more than a year old and in any metrorail accessible neighborhood. You will find the garages well used. I would point you to the Highland Park or Kenyon SQ garages in Columbia Heights, both literally on top of the metro station, both gargaes well used, if not completely to capacity.

Please explain. If you were correct, this wouldn't exist.

by Parking on Mar 13, 2013 9:47 am • link • report

Alan B,
To completely eliminate parking is silly
It's not eliminating parking. It's eliminating the minimum requirement you need to build. We're still going to see parking space built in this city.

Parking,
Those are two examples where people buy the spot along with their condo or whatever. Many people have popped up and mentioned that they rent these spaces to others who actually use the spot. Anyway, refer to what I said above that parking won't be prohibited, just not mandated either.

by drumz on Mar 13, 2013 9:51 am • link • report

Airlines get a pass because there's plenty of opportunity for CEOs and other "job creators" to make millions on even unprofitable businesses.

Airlines get a pass because it is one of the greatest examples of successful deregulation. Consumers got much lower fares and more choice while all the losses were borne by private investors. What's not to like?

by Falls Church on Mar 13, 2013 9:53 am • link • report

Alan B.

I have to disagree that underground or structured parking doesn't see a return.

That would depend on the market conditions, no? Just because the parking is used doesn't mean it was cost-effective to install it.

To completely eliminate parking is silly -- even Midtown has some street parking but it's mostly structured of course.

Again, no one is proposing to eliminate parking! The proposal is to eliminate the requirement for providing parking. If the case for parking is so strong (and the return on investment as strong as you suggest), then it will be provided.

I do think that some minimums are too high at present and should be calibrated based on Metro/bus access and walkability of the area.

We have a very bad record of 'calibrating' these kinds of requirements at all. It is far better to just eliminate the requirement in transit zones. In fact, I would call this proposed change exactly that - a calibration of the requirement.

by Alex B. on Mar 13, 2013 9:54 am • link • report

@Parking
Target isn't used and neither is Best Buy at Tenleytown. It's irresponsible to keep building huge garages that don't see capacity. And the reason that the condo spaces are filled is precisely because no one would buy a condo or apartment that comes with a space if they don't have a car. But some people would like to get a condo or apartment that doesn't have a space. It would be cheaper, simply put. And, my understanding of parking minimums is that it's not blanket zoning throughout the city, just in areas designated for it, near public-transit in dense areas. Less dense and non-transit areas would still be subject to parking min. I personally am tired of seeing buildings being renovated and seeing the developers having to pave over good, usable space for car storage. I'm all for this parking minimums.

by dc denizen on Mar 13, 2013 9:55 am • link • report

Drumz,
Highland Park is a rental building, not condo. The spaces are rented, not conveyed. Please explain. If you were correct, this wouldn't exist.

Kenyon Sq building sold most of those spots, they weren't conveyed except for spots for the most expensive units.

Again, please explain why someone would buy a parking spot in a condo building literally on top of a metro station.

by Parking on Mar 13, 2013 9:55 am • link • report

Parking

I would not expect any spaces to be empty - a landlord can lower the parking fee for residents until someone decides its worth it - or the space can be rented out (by the building owner, or a condo owner with a deeded spot) to non-residents. And of course there will be some sorting - folks with cars are more likely to pick newer buildings, with garages, while the carfree can save money by renting in an older building or house without parking.

That there are empty spaces in suburban residential parking lots is a sign of how low the equilibrium price out there is - of course since those are surface lots (where land is relatively inexpensive), the cost is low as well.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 13, 2013 9:57 am • link • report

@dc denizen,

Now you are changing the argument. You are talking retail, parking minimums discussed here are for residential developers. Not commercial retailers.

And really, do you really think a developer will sell a unit cheaper if he doesn't have to build parking? C'mon...

The developer saves ~15 million on parking, he is still going to sell the units for market price. The only person saving money out of this transaction is the developer. If you think he is all of a sudden going to start selling 1 bd condos for 300K when the guy across the street is getting 400K, you are sorely mistaken.

by Parking on Mar 13, 2013 9:59 am • link • report

Parking,

I think you're cherry picking examples to try to prove a point that I'm not talking about.

Who cares if its a rental or condo building? If the spaces are there of course you'll try to rent them. Are all the spaces being rented by the residents? No, (not in the case of Kenyon Square at least).

Anyway, the presence of a full lot somewhere does not mean that the next building to come along should be mandated to have parking.

by drumz on Mar 13, 2013 10:00 am • link • report

Please explain. If you were correct, this wouldn't exist.

One of those buildings signed a deal for remote parking for the Washington Hospital Center. Another overbuilt parking the in the first phase of the development and got a waiver to not build any new parking in the second phase to take advantage of under-used spaces from phase 1.

by Alex B. on Mar 13, 2013 10:01 am • link • report

@AWALKERINTHE CITY.

Highland Park charges $250 a month for rented parking in their rental building. Non residents can't rent parking there, yet the garage is at capacity.

Clearly the residents who rent there, also own vehicles and pay a premium to rent spaces for them. This despite them being 70 feet from a metro entrance.

Please explain how this is possible.

by Parking on Mar 13, 2013 10:01 am • link • report

"The developer saves ~15 million on parking, he is still going to sell the units for market price."

The market price will, of course, depend on whether the unit comes with a parking spot.

Go ask a realtor if the market price for a unit, all else being equal, is the same with or without a parking spot.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 13, 2013 10:02 am • link • report

And really, do you really think a developer will sell a unit cheaper if he doesn't have to build parking? C'mon...

All things being equal? Yes.

Are all things equal when it comes to the task of building an apartment building in DC? Of course not.

by drumz on Mar 13, 2013 10:02 am • link • report

@Alex,

What buildings or development are you refering to?

by Parking on Mar 13, 2013 10:03 am • link • report

RJ,
His own explanation for what he said was as follows,
"I made that comment in the context of talking about why Fairfax County is the most appropriate location for the FBI headquarters, including our safe neighborhoods and decades-long tradition of good government,"
You're right, it was a put down of PG's government, but what he said from several witnesses was "There is some logic for the FBI going to Prince George’s because that’s where they'll find the people they have to pick up". Telling a community they're home to a lot of criminals isn't the same as saying they have a lot of government corruption, especially for a public official speaking publicly.

I was agreeing with Mr. Alpert and the WBJ that Mr. Gerald made an "offensive crack", that's all.

by Thayer-D on Mar 13, 2013 10:04 am • link • report

If you think he is all of a sudden going to start selling 1 bd condos for 300K when the guy across the street is getting 400K, you are sorely mistaken.

Of course not - markets set prices. But if the 400k condo includes a deeded parking space, then you're not making an apples to apples comparison.

2 bds sell for more than 1 bd condos, too.

That's the value of the market - if the parking is as valued as everyone implies, then developers will bend over backwayrds to provide it, as the market price will demand they include it to sell their units.

by Alex B. on Mar 13, 2013 10:04 am • link • report

@Parking

I think the argument is that market rate would come down. This is because all developers would have that cost-savings and they would all be competing for the same potential buyers.

by sk on Mar 13, 2013 10:05 am • link • report

SK,
Or it would stay up as developers realize that they need to add the parking to stay viable. Either way its up to them to figure it out.

by drumz on Mar 13, 2013 10:06 am • link • report

Similarly naieve is the constant drumbeat of assertion that people will always bring a car with them and keep when they move into one of these buildings

Exactly. There's a large number of people looking to live the car-free lifestyle and these parking-min-free buildings could be designed to attract them. However, to ensure the buildings truly attract the car-free set, the units should not come with the ability to get an RPP.

As you pointed out with the Kenyon and Highland Sq examples, if you provide parking, it will attract people with cars. Similarly, if you provide RPPs, that will also attract cars.

If folks don't want to create units without RPP rights because they're worried it will create two classes of units, there's another solution. Simply require developers to pay a proffer equal to the value of the on-street parking its residents will consume. So, let's say that a condo building that has no parking mins is expected to add 30 cars to on-street parking. Simply require the developer to pay a proffer equal to the value of 30 on-street parking spots (I'd say around 20K - 50K per spot). The money from the proffers could be used to build playgrounds (and/or bikeshare stations) in the areas considering removing parking mins because lack of playgrounds is a big problem in those areas.

by Falls Church on Mar 13, 2013 10:07 am • link • report

Parking,

Some citations:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/housingcomplex/2012/03/21/park-it/

District policymakers started to see the folly of those minimums in the last five or six years, as the zoning rewrite got going. Around the same time, over-construction of parking reached its greatest height of absurdity in a set of District-subsidized projects by the Columbia Heights Metro station: Along with a retail parking garage at DCUSA that’s sized for traffic on the day after Thanksgiving, two apartment buildings and one condominium have 382 units and three quarters as many parking spaces between them. Years after the condos sold and the apartments leased up, Donatelli Development is still having trouble renting the parking spaces, and the District is keenly aware of having wasted $46 million on a 1,000-space parking garage that only fills up when it’s open for free parking before a blizzard.

On renting spaces to the Hospital:

The problem with providing lots of parking is that somebody will usually use it, even if not the building’s residents, which makes overparking less of a financial risk. In order to shift that calculus, DDOT has started to recommend that the Zoning Commission prevent landlords from leasing their excess parking to somebody else (like Donatelli’s Kenyon Square does with Washington Hospital Center, a quick ride on the H line buses from the parking lot).

by Alex B. on Mar 13, 2013 10:10 am • link • report

@Parking
So you're telling me that condos without car storage cost the same as ones with car storage? You have to be kidding me. I rent my property out and I can tell you personally that you can't rent two of the same units out, one with car storage and one without for the same price. I have no idea why someone would do the same in the condo market. And, wouldn't two condos opposite each other vying for buyers try to compete? I think the condo without the car storage would definitely lower its prices. That would be its main draw.

by dc denizen on Mar 13, 2013 10:11 am • link • report

parking

my understanding is that they are renting spaces to wash hospital center.

even if that were not the case, the fact is there is sorting. People who want to keep a car are more drawn to those buildings that offer parking, while the carfree are drawn to cheaper options which do not.

are you asking how is it possible that ANYONE who lives next to a metro will want a car? Obviously some people do - two income households where one person commutes to the suburbs, or households that just want a car for weekends, etc. Relaxing parking mins near metros is NOT based on the assertion that no one who lives near a metro will want a car - but rather that mandating parking as under the current code will result in too much parking, and costlier housing.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 13, 2013 10:11 am • link • report

I think you're missing the point, guys. Some people are always going to have cars and if you don't provide any parking they are going to end up on the street. Lower the parking minimum for sure to a much more reasonable level, could probably be 1 space per 5 units in some areas. Ban surface parking or greatly limit it. OR at least require developers to pay for some alternative transport which could be shared parking structures nearby, transit contributions, bikeshare, etc etc.

Also for the record, I walk/bike/transit everywhere. Haven't owned a car in almost 10 years BUT I know a lot of people that for work or personal reasons do need a car and they should be able to live in the city too.

by Alan B. on Mar 13, 2013 10:11 am • link • report

I think you're missing the point, guys. Some people are always going to have cars and if you don't provide any parking they are going to end up on the street.

No I realize that. I'm fine with it too. If street parking is a problem then you deal with by managing the street parking. Not by trying to mandate parking with new construction. That only solves the issue of whether new construction has parking or not.

by drumz on Mar 13, 2013 10:14 am • link • report

re Airline costs

fees cover 32% of TSA costs
and 70% of FAA costs

not 32% of total (The FAA costs are far larger)

by MW on Mar 13, 2013 10:15 am • link • report

"Simply require developers to pay a proffer equal to the value of the on-street parking its residents will consume. So, let's say that a condo building that has no parking mins is expected to add 30 cars to on-street parking. Simply require the developer to pay a proffer equal to the value of 30 on-street parking spots (I'd say around 20K - 50K per spot). "

that may well be the solution.

I would note that one disadvantage of that is that it makes clear that existing residences have a privilege (RPPs at prices well below market clearing prices) that is worth 10s of thousands of dollars. Sticking that in the faces of everyone who does not get that benefit is not necessarily in the political interests of owners of existing residences.

Its probably better politically though, than the more fully market oriented solution of allowing the existing residences to have their cheap RPPs but allowing an open "white market" in them.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 13, 2013 10:17 am • link • report

I think you're missing the point, guys. Some people are always going to have cars and if you don't provide any parking they are going to end up on the street.

This assumption is wrong.

Some people have kids, and if you don't provide enough bedrooms, those kids are going to end up on the street!

OR, the housing market will work and people will self-select into units they fit into.

And again, why are you assuming that off-street parking will not be provided? It should not be mandated, but it most certainly will be provided. It already is provided.

This is not a semantic difference.

by Alex B. on Mar 13, 2013 10:19 am • link • report

"Also for the record, I walk/bike/transit everywhere. Haven't owned a car in almost 10 years BUT I know a lot of people that for work or personal reasons do need a car and they should be able to live in the city too."

one more time - ending parking minimums is NOT the same as banning offstreet parking.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 13, 2013 10:19 am • link • report

"Simply require developers to pay a proffer equal to the value of the on-street parking its residents will consume.

So 35$?

/I'm kidding.

by drumz on Mar 13, 2013 10:24 am • link • report

Re parking minimums, this was all debated ad nauseum yesterday in another thread. But, to reiterate, I'm all for recovering saved costs from developers. I am not in favor of doign it in such a way that prefers one class of residents (people who don't live in that building) over another (people who do live in that building) when it comes to allocation of public resources. Just because you have lived in a neighborhood for 10 years, or purchase a SFH with no dedicated parking, does not mean you should have any greater right to street parking than someone who buys a condo or rents an apartment in this building. Will street parkign become more scarce? Probably. But there are ways to address that without precluding certain classes of people from using a public asset.

by dcd on Mar 13, 2013 10:26 am • link • report

I wonder how the number of RPP stickers issued compares to the number of street parking spaces reserved for residences, by ward. I looked and found nothing.

by goldfish on Mar 13, 2013 10:29 am • link • report

So 35$?

/I'm kidding.

I'm not - this is a great idea. If the citizens value their RPP at $35 a year, then why should the value be different for someone else?

If only to show the absurdity of our current RPP system, I think this is a fantastic idea.

by Alex B. on Mar 13, 2013 10:31 am • link • report

I would note that one disadvantage of that is that it makes clear that existing residences have a privilege (RPPs at prices well below market clearing prices) that is worth 10s of thousands of dollars. Sticking that in the faces of everyone who does not get that benefit is not necessarily in the political interests of owners of existing residences.

But, the existing residents paid tons of money for that privilege by buying places that had to abide by the parking min rules.

by Falls Church on Mar 13, 2013 10:33 am • link • report

MoCo police keep blaming pedestrians

the police reminded both drivers and peds to exercise caution

by will on Mar 13, 2013 10:33 am • link • report

The developer saves ~15 million on parking, he is still going to sell the units for market price. The only person saving money out of this transaction is the developer. If you think he is all of a sudden going to start selling 1 bd condos for 300K when the guy across the street is getting 400K, you are sorely mistaken.

First, to save $15,000,000, you are talking about 300 parking spaces. Not certain another 300 spot garage will EVER be built in the city again, so that point is moot.

Second, are you seriously trying to argue that prices for units WITH parking, are the same as units WITHOUT parking? This is just so absurd it borders on unbelieveable. If the building across the street is selling for $400,000 with a parking spot, then the units without parking will sell for $375,000, and isn't that the point? Giving people options?

by Kyle-W on Mar 13, 2013 10:35 am • link • report

"Simply require developers to pay a proffer equal to the value of the on-street parking its residents will consume.
So 35$?

/I'm kidding.

You may have been kidding, but it's a valid point. The DC government has determined that the value of residential off-street parking is $35 per year. So by what rationale should anyone who has to pay for the value of residential street parking be expected to pay more than that?

(Note - I think it's worth far more than that, myself, but this illustrates just how absurdly low the cost of a RPP sticker is.)

by dcd on Mar 13, 2013 10:36 am • link • report

The link is still incorrect. You now have 41M, but the story says 43M owed by MD drivers.

by thump on Mar 13, 2013 10:36 am • link • report

But, the existing residents paid tons of money for that privilege by buying places that had to abide by the parking min rules.

No they didn't.

For one, a huge portion of the city's housing stock pre-dates the parking requirements from the 1958 code.

For two, the RPP program did not exist until Metro came to DC in the mid 70s.

Remember, the RPP program is not actually for residential permit parking (despite the name). The program was (and remains) structured to prevent commuters from parking in neighborhoods to use Metro. That's why it only applies during weekdays and not at night.

by Alex B. on Mar 13, 2013 10:38 am • link • report

Ok I wasn't kidding about the 35$ thing. I just wanted to be clear on the fact that the "value" of a street parking spot apparently wildly differentiates between someone who already owns a buildings in DC and someone who is trying to build and own a new one (with multiple units).

by drumz on Mar 13, 2013 10:42 am • link • report

"But, the existing residents paid tons of money for that privilege by buying places that had to abide by the parking min rules."

large numbers of them bought places built before 1958, that have no offstreet parking, but were grandfathered in. And there was no or little premium for the RPP eligibility,when they bought, because parking was not scarce (in their particular locale) when they did buy.

as for people who bought in buildings built with offstreet parking, their RPPs are of more limited value to them, since residents in those buildings have offstreet parking available. Now if there were a white market in RPPs, then they would get the same value from their RPPs as the folks with no offstreet parking do.

The most logical solution, IMO, short of simply charging market clearing prices for RPPs, would be to A. Allow a full legal white market in RPPS B. Somehow recapture the windfall value from those residences that have no offstreet parking but were grandfathered in.

But A is hardly politically feasible, and B is certainly not politically feasible.

If we cannot see our way to the fairness of simply reducing the parking minimums with no offset because the landowner windfalls are simply too juicy a target, then between the Arlington solution (no RPPs) and the solution of a fund for transport improvements (either ones that benefit the community, like bike lane/transit improvements, or better, ones that benefit the residents of the parking free building - like bikeshare memberships, carsharing memberships, carsharing spaces and bike parking, etc) I prefer the latter. But again, the Arlington solution has the benefit of continuing to hide the true value of the RPPs.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 13, 2013 10:43 am • link • report

But, the existing residents paid tons of money for that privilege by buying places that had to abide by the parking min rules.

So homeowners have an expectation that municipal regulations that were in place at the time or purchase will never change? Who knew?

But, I'm glad to hear it, since the church on the corner two doors down from my house has been for sale for years. When the inevitable developer purchases it, I'll be sure to let him know that it has to remain a church - heck, I'll be generous and say it can be any kind of house of worship. Because that's what it was when I purchased my place.

by dcd on Mar 13, 2013 10:45 am • link • report

From the Housing Complex link:
"A $2.75 million investment in Independent Living Programs for 60 homeless youth between 16 and 24 years of age"

That's almost 46K dollars a head, and almost three times as much as the other programs which are about 15-16K per household. People can go to college with full room and board paid for less than that. (and, frankly, it doesn't cost too much more to straight up incarcerate a person)

by Kolohe on Mar 13, 2013 10:46 am • link • report

People who say it will all sort itself clearly haven't been to Europe -- I've seen places where double parking has become the norm due to lack of offstreet parking. I think it's silly to pretend everyone is just going to act rationally. Instead you are going to get people circling around tying up traffic looking for a space all the time. And you're going to get neighborhood backlash every time a developer proposes a dense residential structure.

by Alan B. on Mar 13, 2013 10:51 am • link • report

@will: the police reminded both drivers and peds to exercise caution

Let's summarize. In the three pedestrian incidents in the press release, the pedestrians were

1. on the sidewalk. The sidewalk was next to an elementary school.
2. in a marked crosswalk. The crosswalk was next to a high school.
3. in an unmarked crosswalk.

And all three incidents occurred in daylight.

Meanwhile, Maryland law requires drivers to stop for pedestrians in marked and unmarked crosswalks.

Please explain why the law enforcement agency in Montgomery County is not advising drivers to obey the law.

by Miriam on Mar 13, 2013 10:51 am • link • report

People who say it will all sort itself clearly haven't been to Europe -- I've seen places where double parking has become the norm due to lack of offstreet parking.

The point here is that you must match your solution to the problem.

If your problem is managing on-street parking, then you solve it with programs to manage on-street parking. Enforcement, permits, etc.

A zoning code requirement does not solve your problem.

by Alex B. on Mar 13, 2013 10:54 am • link • report

MoCo Police:

in all 3 incidents, pedestrians were struck in sidewalks and marked and unmarked crosswalks. If the drivers had obeyed the law, and yielded to the pedestrians as they should, 5 people would not have been taken to the hospital.

The police press release did NOT tell drivers to obey the law and yield to pedestrians in sidewalks and crosswalks.

by Ronit on Mar 13, 2013 10:54 am • link • report

Attn: pedestrians in MoCo.

The police (and by extension the county) aren't going to help you by making the county safer to walk across. Don't worry about following the law then because it won't help you.

Same goes to the cyclists. Don't feel bad about rolling through that stop sign.

by drumz on Mar 13, 2013 10:58 am • link • report

But, the existing residents paid tons of money for that privilege by buying places that had to abide by the parking min rules.

No they didn't.

For one, a huge portion of the city's housing stock pre-dates the parking requirements from the 1958 code.

It doesn't matter whether you bought your home before or after 1958 (although I suspect few current residents in the dense parts of town bought before 1958). Either way, the "cost" of living in a home you own outright is the opportunity cost of the present value of your home. The present value is increased due to parking mins, hence your opportunity cost is higher, hence you are paying for the privilege to live wherever you live and receive the amenities (like RPP rights) that convey to your unit.

I realize this argument is not a simple one. However, the bottom line is that there is no free lunch. If you have a special privilege, trust me, you're paying for it one way or another.

by Falls Church on Mar 13, 2013 11:03 am • link • report

@Parking

I've lived in two different locations in Dupont Circle, a rental building and a house. Both had some parking, but in both cases, none of the residents had cars. The rental building rented their parking spots out to commuters, and my house rents out our alley-facing garage to someone with a condo in another part of town. The car in our garage is rarely moved, so I don't think the owner uses it all that often. He's not so much parking his car, as he is storing it. So, in other words, just because a rental building has a parking garage, that doesn't mean that the cars in that garage all belong to residents

by Steven Harrell on Mar 13, 2013 11:07 am • link • report

Lots of comments earlier about Virginia drivers who "camp out" in the left lane. I agree there are a lot, but I wouldn't put Virginia in the top 3 for "left lane bandits". That would be Louisiana, Minnesota, and New York.

by Froggie on Mar 13, 2013 11:07 am • link • report

It doesn't matter whether you bought your home before or after 1958

You're right - it doesn't. And that wasn't my point. My point was if the home was built prior to '58, then it was not required to comply with the code. No matter when the owner buys it, it still doesn't mean that the house complies with the code. Ergo, the assumption that they have somehow bought into this 'right' to RPP is bunk.

The city is chock full of structures that do not conform to the zoning code.

RPP is not an amenity that conveys to the unit. Let's say the city decides to make a policy change and they're going to put in bus lanes or parklets or a cycletrack on an RPP street, removing those parking spaces. This is simply a reallocation of publicly-owned land to a different use, the people that parked there before are entitled to nothing. They might make a big stink about it, but there is no right to the curbside parking space on their street.

by Alex B. on Mar 13, 2013 11:11 am • link • report

Extra car space means extra place to store things, whether classic automobiles, or anything else fit-table into a storage bin. So parking minimums have the added benefit of subsidizing the arts.

Strange then for GGW to be so against such.

by Douglas Andrew Willinger on Mar 13, 2013 11:17 am • link • report

falls church

And by the same token, the value to the landowner of their land after parking minimums are relaxed, will be the opportuinity cost of the land.

You are confusing the issue of opportunity cost, as it impacts marginal decision making, with the issue of windfalls. If you are the president of Zimbabwe, and you give me a farm, when I decide which crop to grow I need to take into account the opportunity costs of growing other crops, renting out the land, selling it, etc. However the initial gift is still a windfall. If the initial gift was made when the crops the land is good at raising had a low market price, and now they have a high market price, the windfall came when the price increased, though the gift came earlier.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 13, 2013 11:21 am • link • report

Lots of comments earlier about Virginia drivers who "camp out" in the left lane. I agree there are a lot, but I wouldn't put Virginia in the top 3 for "left lane bandits". That would be Louisiana, Minnesota, and New York.

Florida - so many oldsters just driving whatever speed they want in all lanes.

by MLD on Mar 13, 2013 11:26 am • link • report

DAW

My wife and I were looking at apts in one building near H Street - they told us that if the parking spots (in the underground garage) did not fill, they would convert them to storage. Not for arts, but for just general storage.

Its not clear to me what the public policy justification is for mandating storage in new buildings.

by EmptyNester on Mar 13, 2013 11:26 am • link • report

@Miriam actually, one collision was before sunrise. hi-viz gear should be used during hours of darkness or any reduced visibility and that includes dawn and dusk.

by will on Mar 13, 2013 11:41 am • link • report

Another pedestrian was struck in Bethesda this morning, on Old Georgetown Road at Alta Vista.

http://bethesda.patch.com/articles/another-pedestrian-struck-in-bethesda-wednesday-morning

by Frank IBC on Mar 13, 2013 11:42 am • link • report

A question on the Montgomery County Police report on the incidents - what is the difference between "an unmarked crosswalk" and "not a crosswalk"?

by Frank IBC on Mar 13, 2013 11:43 am • link • report

actually, one collision was before sunrise. hi-viz gear should be used during hours of darkness or any reduced visibility and that includes dawn and dusk.

Welp, open and shut case. No need for the police to do anything about this at all. Driver probably doesn't even need a ticket, we all break the law sometimes.

by drumz on Mar 13, 2013 11:46 am • link • report

"So parking minimums have the added benefit of subsidizing the arts."

Mmm hmmm...

by Frank IBC on Mar 13, 2013 11:49 am • link • report

@FrankIBC, wherever two perpendicular streets meet that is a connection in the transportation network crosswalk. Sometimes the continuation of one street across the other is indicted with paint, sometimes it's not. Its not the paint that makes it a crosswalk, its the meeting of the streets, i.e. the connection in the transportation network. Walking is transportation.

by Tina on Mar 13, 2013 11:49 am • link • report

edit problem^"wherever two perpendicular streets meet that is a connection in the transportation network."

by Tina on Mar 13, 2013 11:50 am • link • report

In my condominium it's illegal to use parking spaces for anything other than parked cars. I'm pretty sure it's the same everywhere else.

by Frank IBC on Mar 13, 2013 11:50 am • link • report

@F.IBC - can you use your parking space for your bike, or motorcycle, or segway?

by Tina on Mar 13, 2013 11:52 am • link • report

@ Tina - thanks for the definition. And I didn't mean for my question to be seen as hostile to the perspective of pedestrians - I walk far more than I drive.

by Frank IBC on Mar 13, 2013 11:53 am • link • report

@ Tina - Motorcycle, yes. Bikes, no. We have bike racks. Segway, I have no idea, since there have never been any here.

by Frank IBC on Mar 13, 2013 11:55 am • link • report

frank - I'm just repeating what the rental agent said - I think they meant they would rope off part of the garage, or maybe put storage containers in there - not that residents could put whatever they wanted on a spot. Not sure how that would work with the zoning.

by EmptyNester on Mar 13, 2013 11:59 am • link • report

@ EmptyNester - sorry, I didn't see your earlier comment. I was responding to YKH.

by Frank IBC on Mar 13, 2013 12:02 pm • link • report

Wow, you guys really like talking about parking!

by Nick on Mar 13, 2013 12:05 pm • link • report

Ah, so you have to drive exactly the speed limit, and not 3% below

You can drive 3 mph under the speed limit, but you can't hang out in the left lane all day driving 3 mph under the speed limit. You have to keep to the right, except when passing.

by Alan on Mar 13, 2013 12:09 pm • link • report

There's this constant confusion that units in DC come with included parking in garages which would affect the price. They almost always do not. The spaces in garages are almost always rented at market rate. Maybe the ability to rent at market rate in-building increases it's value to some, but I doubt it's much as those rates hover around $200/mo.-$250/mo.

For a long time we repeatedly heard DDOT and OP stating over and over that the "number of cars registered in DC is decreasing". Since it was admitted that this did not include SUV's there's been not a peep. The tax office did (cited in GGW) report a huge increase in recent taxes on new vehicles coming into DC which would seem to indicate a rather dramatic increase in vehicles. Since lower income people are more likely to be car-less and since most newcomers are higher income this could be a significant statistic we need to know. It's not to further any argument but just so we can intelligently factor this.

My own feeling is that newcomers, while less dependent on cars than nationally, probably are over the 65% DC norm. But I also know there are significant pools of potential newcomers who would readily trade being car-free for lower rent or who just don't want cars period. That's why I want buildings that have no parking and no RPP either. I don't see anything in the current proposal that makes me believe it would significantly decrease the % of ownership and probably would have no effect at all.

by Tom Coumaris on Mar 13, 2013 12:10 pm • link • report

@FrankIBC- I didn't mean for my question to be seen as hostile to the perspective of pedestrians

You didn't. i just took the opportunity in my answer to emphasize that the transportation network for walking and biking is equally valuable to the one for cars-only, and to imply that so many drivers forget that the transportation network isn't just for driving; its for walking and biking too.

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

I'm not sure if this is against the commenting policy, but I'm copying and pasting from the Montgomery County Press Release:

On March 12, three separate incidents involving motor vehicles striking pedestrians occurred in Montgomery County.
At 7:19 a.m., a Watkins Mill High School student was struck while in a crosswalk in the 10300 block of Apple Ridge Road.
At 7:47 a.m., a pedestrian was struck crossing Wisconsin Avenue at Chelsea Lane.
At 8:55 a.m., a mother with two elementary school aged children were struck while on the sidewalk crossing the driveway access to a parking lot in the 100 block of North Summit Avenue.

All the incidents remain under investigation at this time. All pedestrians involved were transported to local emergency rooms with non-life threatening injuries.

As a friendly reminder, the Montgomery County Police are offering a few tips that will help make the roads a safer place.

Drivers
Look for pedestrians before you enter or exit a driveway. This is when you cross the sidewalk where pedestrians walk. Since they are on the sidewalk, they might be less alert than when crossing streets.
Look all around your vehicle, all the time. Keep your eyes moving.
With the spring coming, be on the look out for increased pedestrian traffic, increased bicycle traffic, and an increase in children playing at parks, in school yards, and in residential areas. Look for pedestrians stepping out from between parked cars. Where there are a lot of parked cars, there will likely be pedestrians

Pedestrians
Stay alert while crossing roadways. Refrain from phone use, texting, and wearing ear buds.
Be seen. Wear clothing with bright visible colors or even reflective cloth. If your clothing is dark, it is more difficult to be seen in any adverse light conditions.
Be proactive by watching traffic when crossing. Always cross at a controlled intersection. At the signal, cross only when the “walk” signal is displayed.
Before crossing, first look left, then right, then left again to check for any traffic.
Parents are the most important models of proper pedestrian behavior for children.

Remember, be an engaged pedestrian. It may save your life.

The first group that is given a "friendly reminder" is drivers. That is contrary to the GGW summary that says "just tells pedestrians to be careful without also reminding drivers to watch out for pedestrians as well." Unfortunately, the headline is "Police Remind Pedestrians to be Careful" and some may not have looked past that when forming opinions.

by selxic on Mar 13, 2013 12:15 pm • link • report

@ Alan B:People who say it will all sort itself clearly haven't been to Europe -- I've seen places where double parking has become the norm due to lack of offstreet parking.

The difference being that most European cities were built before cars existed and can not make more space. You can't fill up an Amsterdam canal, move over the Colosseum or Brandenburger Tor to get some parking spots. In DC we are talking about new buildings and the requirements they should follow.

by Jasper on Mar 13, 2013 12:22 pm • link • report

selxic: I could swear that wasn't there before. I think they amended it. Let me ask the ACT folks who had that link if they saved the original.

by David Alpert on Mar 13, 2013 12:28 pm • link • report

@selxic-the friendly reminder to drivers only specifically mentions
before you enter or exit a driveway.

The rest is general "look for pedestrians".

But people were hit in crosswalks with the right of way.

Why aren't drivers specifically told "look for people legally crossing the street who have the legal right of way". Thats where the biggest problem is.

by Tina on Mar 13, 2013 12:36 pm • link • report

With all the laws that go unenforced, it's pretty outrageous for the Maryland police to issue a ticket for an infraction that does not exist.

Maryland law has a definition for what "impeding traffic" means: If one is driving >10 mph under the speed limit (or the safe speed if road conditions requir a slower speed) then one must pull to the right.

Now clearly, some people were taught to never use the left lane except to pass. But that is not the law in Maryland. It is polite behavior which should be encouraged.

Someone should put the officer on pedestrian enforcement duty for a week.

by JimT on Mar 13, 2013 12:37 pm • link • report

@will: @Miriam actually, one collision was before sunrise.

This is true. The incident occurred six minutes before sunrise. When, in Maryland, it is not dark.

@Frank IBC: If there are crosswalk lines on the road, it's a marked crosswalk. If it's "within the prolongation or connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks at any place where 2 or more roadways of any type meet or join, measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway" but there aren't any crosswalk lines, it's an unmarked crosswalk. The pedestrian hit crossing Wisconsin Avenue at Chelsea Lane was in an unmarked crosswalk because it's an intersection but there aren't any crosswalk lines.

by Miriam on Mar 13, 2013 12:42 pm • link • report

That may be the case, David Alpert, but it has been that way as long as it has been up as a Breakfast Link.

by selxic on Mar 13, 2013 12:49 pm • link • report

OK, I checked with ACT, and you are correct, or maybe they switched the order of the 2 sections. I've corrected the breakfast links, and I agree that the police press release isn't so terrible or worthy of so much scorn. I was going off their press release and didn't scrutinize the MoCo one closely.

by David Alpert on Mar 13, 2013 12:52 pm • link • report

I mean I was going off the ACT press release primarily rather than the MoCo police one.

by David Alpert on Mar 13, 2013 12:54 pm • link • report

Re: Parking minimums in new buildings

How many of those renters or condo owners would bring their cars to DC if they actually had to register, title and insure them in DC? At least half the vehicles currently parked in DC's alleys, garages and lots are left registered out-of-state.

by Sydney on Mar 13, 2013 12:55 pm • link • report

The press release is a 70% at best, not failing but still not good. It doesn't specifically address the most fundamental problem -- drivers hitting people in crosswalks when the walkers have the right of way.

Why take the time to remind drivers in detail about crossing the sidewalk, and in general to be aware of pedestrians, but fail to mention specifically "don't hit people who are crossing the street legally"? They missed something fundamental.

by Tina on Mar 13, 2013 12:59 pm • link • report

The problem with the MoCo press release is not that it reminds people to be careful, but fails to remind drivers that they
(1) they have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to yield
(2) that the interection of two streets is a legal crosswalk, even if unmarked.

Most drivers do not know (1) and (2), and think that they are just being nice when they let people cross the street. Press releases should aim to correct such ignorance.

by SJE on Mar 13, 2013 1:02 pm • link • report

@David Alpert:

From the police press release: Always cross at a controlled intersection.

Not even "Always cross at a crosswalk" (which is understandable, given that the incidents involved two crosswalks and a sidewalk). "Always cross at a controlled intersection."

by Miriam on Mar 13, 2013 1:05 pm • link • report

@Miriam, Always cross at a controlled intersection..

I noted that too then forgot about it as I wrote my comment. Why not tell drivers, "Always drive a 2013 or newer Volvo that will brake for you when you're about to hit someone". Its the same type of advice -not useable.

by Tina on Mar 13, 2013 1:10 pm • link • report

@Jim T: you misread the statute, in particular, you missed the word "or". Driving 2 mph less than the speed limit in the left lane of I-95 is a violation of Maryland Code 21-301(b). More generally, if you are driving at less than the "normal speed of traffic" then you must stay to the right unless you are (a) overtaking another vehicle, or (b) preparing to make a lawful left hand turn, or (c) driving the speed limit (not even one mph less).

by Alan on Mar 13, 2013 1:15 pm • link • report

It's a friendly reminder in a press release, Tina.

Look all around your vehicle, all the time. Keep your eyes moving.

We can't reasonably expect every scenario to be listed.

by selxic on Mar 13, 2013 1:18 pm • link • report

Sorry about leaving that last blockquote open.

by selxic on Mar 13, 2013 1:19 pm • link • report

The press release was in response to people hit yesterday. Two of the crashes were drivers hitting people in the crosswalk legally. Why can't we expect the press release in response to the incidences to address specifically the incidences? It specifically addressed one of the crash types (on the sidewalk), but not the other -drivers failing to yield to people crossing - which is far more prevalent.

by Tina on Mar 13, 2013 1:27 pm • link • report

It's a press release issued by a law enforcement agency - why doesn't it include a friendly reminder drivers to obey the law?

by Ronit on Mar 13, 2013 1:41 pm • link • report

""Always cross at a controlled intersection."

Ridiculous. Along Rockville Pike between Cedar Lane and White Flint Mall, in an area that is not quite urban but still very densely poupalated, the traffic lights are an average of a half-mile apart. Folks are going to add up to 15 minutes to their walk just so that they can meet this condition?

by Frank IBC on Mar 13, 2013 1:50 pm • link • report

Er, "populated".

by Frank IBC on Mar 13, 2013 1:51 pm • link • report

For all the people suggesting that Maryland law does not prohibit driving slower than the surrounding flow of traffic in the left lane, the law seems unclear enough to me that this is probably something for the courts to sort out. This website does indicate that MD law is fine with left-lane hogging as long as you're not travelling >10mph less than the speed limit: http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html

Just note that if you ever are on I-95 in Virginia, you should heed the various signs clearly posted indicating that slower traffic must keep right. Virginia law and the Virginia State Police are quite unequivocal on this point: http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/022006/02092006/166829

by johnleemk on Mar 13, 2013 2:04 pm • link • report

@ johnleemk: That website says the same things as Maryland Code 21-301(b): driving 10 mph under speed limit *OR* slower than speed of traffic. That word OR is very important. It makes both things prohibited.

by Alan on Mar 13, 2013 2:36 pm • link • report

All three pedestrians were struck in places where they had the right of way. Yet the press release is entitled "Police Remind Pedestrians to be Careful." No drivers in headline - why should a driver go on to read the warnings?

And if the driver does read, they are told that pedestrians on sidewalks may not be watching for them. What difference does it make to the driver whether the pedestrian on a sidewalk is watching, unless someone thinks that a pedestrian who is watching will get out of the driver's way. So, in effect, the police are telling drivers that pedestrians can be expected to get out of the driver's way. Which is exactly wrong. Pedestrians on a sidewalk have every right to be in the driver's way, and it is the driver's duty to avoid getting in the pedestrian's way. And it's the same in crosswalks.

Which provision of the law the police do NOT remind the driver of.

by Ben on Mar 13, 2013 2:41 pm • link • report

RE: DC Speed Tickets

Maryland drivers probably have more tickets because far more people drive to DC from MD (using local streets), than VA. MD also surrounds DC on 3 sides with no physical border between the two and border neighborhoods are more or less congruent. VA is separated from DC by a huge river with only 7 crossings (not to mention the ideological/cultural divide).

Another possible factor is that VA drivers drive like geriatrics (especially in the left lane of highways, where they think it's ok to drive 55).

Personally I've only received 1 ticket in DC which I did consider not paying due to the eye-popping amount (MD's $40 ticket are far more reasonable), but was uncertain about the repercussions so I caved.

by King Terrapin on Mar 13, 2013 3:11 pm • link • report

RE: Ignorant Fairfax insult

Yet another reason to not live in Fairfax: arrogant officials. I'd live in PGC any day over Ffx Co land of 0 culture (relatively speaking), homogeneous subdivisions, just 4 Metro stations, and traffic as far as the eye can see.

by King Terrapin on Mar 13, 2013 3:25 pm • link • report

Montgomery County pedestrian 'safety' initiatives have targeted pedestrians for tickets at four times the rate that drivers have been ticketed.

It's easier to ticket pedestrians than drivers.

by Capt. Hilts on Mar 13, 2013 3:34 pm • link • report

"Ffx Co land of 0 culture (relatively speaking), homogeneous subdivisions, just 4 Metro stations, and traffic as far as the eye can see."

0 culture? Homogeneous subdivisions? Really? Fairfax County is quite diverse - and has large numbers of immigrants from all over the world.

Horribe traffic? Yes. However I do not belive PG County has anything to brag about on this score either.

by Fred on Mar 13, 2013 4:09 pm • link • report

@Tina - Is it really necessary to remind people that running over pedestrians is not a good or legal idea? There may be some dimbulbs in the county, but I think that point is pretty common knowledge.

by Chris S. on Mar 13, 2013 5:18 pm • link • report

@Alan @Jim T: you misread the statute, in particular, you missed the word "or". ...More generally, if you are driving at less than the "normal speed of traffic" then you must stay to the right unless you are (a) overtaking another vehicle, or (b) preparing to make a lawful left hand turn, or (c) driving the speed limit (not even one mph less).

I have no idea why which of the fur instances of "or" you think I missed. Or do you think I missed all foiur? Anyway, I think you'd have to more clearly parse the sentences to explain how you construe the statute to mean anything other than what ordinary rules of construction imply.

21-301(b) says: "On every roadway, except while overtaking and passing another vehicle going in the same direction or when preparing for a lawful left turn, any vehicle going 10 miles an hour or more below the applicable maximum speed limit or, if any existing conditions reasonably require a speed below that of the applicable maximum, at less than the normal speed of traffic under these conditions, shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic.."

Clearly that sentence only applies to drivers that are either

(a) >10mph below the speed limit, or
(b) slower than other traffic when the conditions require people to drive more slowly than the speed limit.

That is, on I-95 with a 65mph limit, on a nice day, move right if you are driving more slowly than 55mph. On a snowy day the traffic is going 45mph, move over if you are going 44mph. Note also: that no where does it suggest that you have to be passing.

Even that requirement, however, has exceptions for overtaking or making a left turn.

by JimT on Mar 13, 2013 5:21 pm • link • report

@jonleemk: I'd love to know why you think the statute is unclear. Maybe you see something I don't see.

In Maryland traffic control devices take precedence. If there is a sign saying "keep right except to pass" that would generally apply, except for during heavy traffic when all 4 lanes need to be filled for traffic to move at all.

by JimT on Mar 13, 2013 5:24 pm • link • report

Chris S,

Yet they do it anyway.

by Drumz on Mar 13, 2013 5:31 pm • link • report

@Drumz - People who hit children on the sidewalks of elementary schools probably can't read anyway.

by Chris S. on Mar 13, 2013 5:38 pm • link • report

@Chris S., Is it really necessary to remind people that running over pedestrians is not a good or legal idea?

with the rate that people crash into other people who are legally crossing the street, it does seem necessary to remind drivers repeatedly;

"Look for people crossing the street. Be prepared to stop for people crossing the street. The law requires drivers to stop for people crossing the street".

Why wasn't this simple message included in the press release that was itself a response to people getting hit while legally crossing the street?

"look for people crossing the street. Be prepared to stop for people crossing the street. The law requires drivers to stop for people crossing the street".

"look for people crossing the street. Be prepared to stop for people crossing the street. The law requires drivers to stop for people crossing the street".

"look for people crossing the street. Be prepared to stop for people crossing the street. The law requires drivers to stop for people crossing the street".

"look for people crossing the street. Be prepared to stop for people crossing the street. The law requires drivers to stop for people crossing the street".

"look for people crossing the street. Be prepared to stop for people crossing the street. The law requires drivers to stop for people crossing the street".

by Tina on Mar 13, 2013 5:48 pm • link • report

Chris S,
So maybe in addition to a PSA people who hit pedestrians should face a punishment of more than a slap on the wrist?

by Drumz on Mar 13, 2013 6:03 pm • link • report

That goes without saying.

by Chris S. on Mar 13, 2013 6:16 pm • link • report

@ Fred

Homogeneous was referring to the type of housing, not the people. As for 0 culture, I said "relatively speaking." Fairfax county just seems sterile compared to the communities in DC and Eastern MoCo/Northern PGC/Arlington inside the Beltway.

As for traffic, Fairfax County is a nightmare (especially around Tysons, I-66, and I-95 south of the Beltway) and hardly comparable to anywhere else, much less Prince George's "normal" rush hour congestion.

by King Terrapin on Mar 13, 2013 7:59 pm • link • report

Fairfax vs Prince George's typical rush hour traffic:
http://goo.gl/maps/hg91v

by King Terrapin on Mar 13, 2013 8:02 pm • link • report

Traffic is awful anywhere near I-66, but the "0 culture" comment seems bizarre. Not sure what kind of evidence there is for that claim.

by Chris S. on Mar 13, 2013 8:17 pm • link • report