Parking
Underpriced parking is taking potential funds from transit
Councilmember Jim Graham is trying hard to make parking easy. He's proposed reserving one side of every block for resident-only parking. That would be a valuable element of a larger, comprehensive approach to parking. Just on its own, it will make parking easier for some and harder for others. We need to approach this problem holistically, rather than piecemeal. Fundamentally, our parking policy suffers from one consistent problem: we're giving it away too cheap.
Photo by iandavid.
A house with a private parking space costs up to $100,000 more per space. If you want to park in a garage, that's hundreds a month. But on-street parking is virtually free. Why?
Bus rides aren't free. Housing isn't free. Electricity isn't free. Why is parking free?
At the last parking hearing, Graham asked, shouldn't people be able to own cars? It can be fun to own a car. Yes, it can be fun. It's also fun to ride rollercoasters or own yachts or travel to Europe, but the DC government does not pay to make these things free.
Right now, it costs $2.50 a day to ride the bus (with SmarTrip). Yet if you live in the same ward as your workplace, or work near blocks not zoned for RPP, it's free to drive and park. Why? The proposed Mount Pleasant guest parking program operates on a simple premise: let people buy day passes to park on streets in the neighborhood that aren't full during the day, and charge just a little more than round-trip bus fare. And the revenue from permits could improve that bus service for the employees who don't drive
If you go to shop in Adams Morgan by car, it's either very easy to find parking (during the day), or just about absolutely impossible (in the evening). People drive around and around, creating substantial traffic and making 18th Street more dangerous. The garages aren't cheap, while parking all evening on Champlain Street, if you can find a space there, is free. Residents should park for free, but isn't there a better way to allocate the remaining spaces beyond luckiest or most circled, first served?
How about multispace meters that let drivers (neighborhood residents exempted) pay the same rate as the meters on 18th, and set those meter rates at the right level to promote turnover? It would become easy as pie to park in Adams Morgan, just not free. But why should it be free when it's not free to take the Circulator, and even more not free to take a cab? That revenue could make the Circulator cheaper, or more frequent.
Graham's bill proposes one free visitor pass for each household. Some residents have wondered whether that would just invite abuse, like people selling passes on eBay to commuters from Maryland. Do we really trust DC to enforce restrictions against that? Why not let visitors simply buy the same permits that employees would get under the proposed day pass program, and mail each household a book of them You can buy a resident parking permit for $15 a year, and another, and another, for as many cars as you like. Some households have three or four cars (or more). $15 a year is about four cents a day. Graham's bill contains a provision to charge higher rates for the second ($50) and third ($100) RPP passes per household. What about group homes and big families? At the previous hearing, Mount Pleasant's Gregg Edwards suggested giving each household one pass free or cheap, and if they have more than two adults, one more pass for each two adults. The next pass costs $50, then $100, and doubling thereafter. However, this would require a reliable way to verify where people live, as in many households the utility bills don't list every resident.
Imagine if we let employees or visitors park on underutilized streets in residential neighborhoods, as long as they paid a few dollars a day; let shoppers park on side streets, as long as they paid a dollar or two an hour; let residents park one car for cheap, but charged more for second and third RPP passes; and poured all that money into making transit, like Metrobus and Circulator service, cheap, frequent and reliable. Wouldn't Ward 1 residents be better off?
David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. 
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- Suitland Parkway Trail is a mess. Will leaders seek change?
On the other hand, I think the coupon book idea has much merit to it. Whatever the number or the charge, give each household a certain number of day passes to use as they wish. Have scratch-off circles to indicate the date of use and prevent reuse.
by ah on Jun 25, 2009 12:36 pm • link • report
by Nathan on Jun 25, 2009 1:05 pm • link • report
I've exceeded my number of allowable emails to him this week.
kthxbai!
by JTS on Jun 25, 2009 1:13 pm • link • report
Standard anti-transit answers:
* "No, because they would be paying more taxes".
I know that a parking fee is not a tax, but any republican will name and doom it that way within a millisecond.
* "No, the fees should be used for parking improvement".
I'm forgoing comment here.
So, yes, it's a brilliant idea. But I don't see how it would survive the above empty rhetoric.
by Jasper on Jun 25, 2009 1:34 pm • link • report
by Arlingtonian on Jun 25, 2009 1:48 pm • link • report
by Cavan on Jun 25, 2009 2:43 pm • link • report
That way, if we want our streets lit at night, we can use change or credit cards.
Please, get a grip. I am trying out this site, yet am having trouble taking it seriously.
by Thomas Edison on Jun 25, 2009 2:46 pm • link • report
When a resource is scarce, it's pure insanity to expect to have both more available supply and below market rates.
Seriously.
by Reid on Jun 25, 2009 2:57 pm • link • report
by BeyondDC on Jun 25, 2009 3:16 pm • link • report
by MS on Jun 25, 2009 3:18 pm • link • report
by David C on Jun 25, 2009 3:30 pm • link • report
by BeyondDC on Jun 25, 2009 3:32 pm • link • report
by Chris Seay on Jun 25, 2009 3:32 pm • link • report
As someone who lives next within a block of the DCUSA complex, I prefer Graham's proposal, or the current situation on my street (where one side of the street is reserved exclusively for Ward 1 residents until 8:30 in the evening). I like being able to park on my street without hordes of shoppers using spaces (which I believe would still be the case even with metered spots). So I guess an individual's answer to what is better for Ward 1 residents depends on that individual's specific situation. Selfish? I suppose.
by dcd on Jun 25, 2009 3:33 pm • link • report
by David Alpert on Jun 25, 2009 3:36 pm • link • report
And to the extent possible, have local residents decide what they like.
That being said, performance parking just seems to me a fancy way of saying "raise parking fees". I just don't think it would work. What price point would 1) keep a "substantial number of spaces open" at peak hours; 2) not be so low that more residents would get cars (and a lot of car-less folks right now would jump on the opportunity at the price points proposed) and 3) not drive customers away.
The problem is exacerbated by that most of the parking problems in the area are a result of a nightly influx of partygoers -- not commuters. Raise the rates downtown and I might switch to Metro. Raise the rates along U street and I party somewhere else.
by charlie on Jun 25, 2009 3:47 pm • link • report
I like your proposal generally, just not for Columbia Heights and its specific circumstances. (I guess that makes me a NIMBY - urk.)
by dcd on Jun 25, 2009 3:48 pm • link • report
The only problem is a technical one of implementation. Ideally the meter hours and pricing would be market-sensitive, but it could cause massive confusion as planners try to set and calibrate those parameters. With the fixed cost of signage and dissemination of parking rules to visitors, you may only get one shot at selecting the times and prices of the parking, and even then it may be hard to adjust.
"No parking on this side the street without a permit, ever" is a bit of a blunt instrument, but is easy for people to understand.
by Ward 1 Guy on Jun 25, 2009 4:10 pm • link • report
by Douglas Willinger on Jun 25, 2009 4:12 pm • link • report
by Ward 1 Guy on Jun 25, 2009 4:18 pm • link • report
by Reid on Jun 25, 2009 4:39 pm • link • report
by Erica on Jun 25, 2009 4:51 pm • link • report
Second, they will take their business elsewhere. Maybe that isn't a loss to residents, but I am not sure if business owners would agree.
Finally, and this is major point, what would people pay for unlimited street parking? $10? $20? $50? I think if you give them a space in 5 minutes it would be in the $25 range. That will drive a lot of business away. Throw in residents and the price might be higher.
Yes, parking fees can be a pigovan tax but it highly indirect and inefficient.
by charlie on Jun 25, 2009 4:56 pm • link • report
In general, people follow accepted social protocols, by definition. Using the word to assert that everyone should behave better is not a plan to solve a problem or an analysis of why the problem exists, it's a rant. Human nature & social habits (like how we respond to price alternatives) are things one builds a functional system around - if it doesn't work in the real world where people might not behave as you'd like, it's a bad system.
by Squalish on Jun 25, 2009 5:10 pm • link • report
Trying to appease one group of consitituents over another by just 'allocating' existing space doesn't really serve anyone in the long run. BUT, I guess it's what gets votes short term ... and probably long term ... because people don't always know what they could have had but won't have because someone took the shortterm view.
by Lance on Jun 25, 2009 5:15 pm • link • report
If the parking spaces are 85% occupied, as Shoup suggests, then more than 85% as many people will go there by car. (Existing occupancy is somewhat less than 100%.) Plus some, but not all, of the people who now go by car will go by transit, bike, or on foot. The maximum possible drop in the number of people is 85%, and if a significant number of people switch to other modes, there will be an increase.
by tt on Jun 25, 2009 5:30 pm • link • report
You could work for Fenty. Your ill logic is exactly how he came up with the not-so-bright idea to auction off the Tenley Library air rights to private developers.
That not-so-bright move was subsequently shot down by officials who understand the concept of "public domain" better than you, and Adrian.
Thomas Edison
by Thomas Edison on Jun 25, 2009 11:28 pm • link • report
by Lance on Jun 26, 2009 12:03 am • link • report
Continually attacking DC residents who often have to possess a car so that more parking will be available for into DC auto trips is counter-productive and I don't recognize it as anything having to do with any green or smart growth policy.
by Tom Coumaris on Jun 26, 2009 10:55 am • link • report
DC's population plummeted almost overnight from close to 900,000 to 500,000 and DC became the forgotten place that most or the region's citizens only came to to work or occasionally to play. A few people stayed here and they became an isolated lot not really participating anymore in the region which the city itself had once defined. That is the perspective you are seeing when you view the parking situation as "DC residents" vs "those coming in from outside the city". But that is not "what is" nor where we're heading. Over the last 10 years or so, the District has begun to be re-integrated into the region. It's not there yet, but it is heading back to regaining its role as the leader of the region. You might even say that at least in some respects we are again equals with the donut part around us.
An essential part of the coming re-integration will be our re-integration into the region's life. Many of us ... more and more ... don't live that isolated "I'm only in the District" life. While the District may be our home, we easily transport ourselves from one part of the region to another. We may work in one part of the region have a dentist in another part and shop for groceries in a third ... all while residing in DC ... or elsewhere. Just look at the regional scope and breadth of the contributors to this blog if you doubt my word. It's no longer an "us against them" situation in regards to parking or anything else. It's a "we" situation.
And while this region needs more transit in the future, there's no denying that the predominant means of transportation for us in this region is today the personal vehicle ... a car, a bike, a motorcycle, whatever. And that requires accessibility ... not only road-wise, but parking-wise. And lacking a sudden and improbable immediate change in the current mixture of 'personal vehicle' to 'transit' ratio for the region, the one thing that will hold us back from our full re-integration into our region is a lack of accessibility ... a lack of ways for people with cars to be able to come into the District (or go from one part of the District to another) as easily as they transport themselves elsewhere within the District. Yes, someday we'll all require more mass transit everywhere in the region, but for today what we need is more integration into the current predominant transportation system of the region ... a transportation system that relies on roads (which we have) and accessible parking (which we're weak on.) We need more parking garages and less fighting over who can store their vehicles in areas whose primary purpose is supposed to be "access" and not "storage". We need to free up our access areas, i.e., our curbsides, for what they were intended, and stop using them as convenient (and free) storage areas for vehicles.
by Lance on Jun 27, 2009 7:52 am • link • report
This is done in Arlington, with high parking requirements even along the Wilson corridor, and with restrictions that make it difficult for drivers headed to the new cevelopment to park in nearby neighborhoods.
Yet DC seems to be moving in the opposite direction, limiting the parking in new projects, rather than requiring sufficient parking, and making it easier to treat residential streets as a parking lot, rather than using the parking that is designed to serve the new development in commercial areas.
Instead, we should have rules in effect that encourage new development to anticipate and provide for the parking needs it generates, where parking can be underground, not interfering with other desirable features of our neighborhoods. And we also need rules that provide appropriate ways of handling the parking needs for the existing housing stock in our residential neighborhoods, which includes making certain that residents, who have registered their cars as required, can find on-street parking somewhere near their homes, rather than seeing their streets constantly filled with customers and commutors from outside the neighborhood.
by Fred on Jun 27, 2009 4:35 pm • link • report
by Tom Coumaris on Jun 27, 2009 5:00 pm • link • report
I agree with just about everything you say except for part of your last sentence:
"... which includes making certain that residents, who have registered their cars as required, can find on-street parking somewhere near their homes
and your belief that:
and the necessary capacity cannot be added.
Historically, our curbsides were not intended for storing anything, including ones cars. Only with the invention of the automobile did people think it appropriate to store something/anything on the curbside. Imagine if people decided they wanted to start storing maybe their gas grills there ... or their lawn mower. (Of course, I'm exaggerating .... but I'm trying to make a point.) Just because people have come to feel entitled to it because it was allowed in the past, doesn't make it a 'right'. It's not. It's a privilege which has come back to haunt us in many ways. For example, if someone is just using their car one day a week, does it really make economic sense for them to keep a car at all? I guess if they get free parking it might, but if they really had to absorb the true cost of their keeping their car, they might realize that it is not worth keeping. Now, if they really did want to absorb that cost, then they (and others in the aggregate) would give developers a financial incentive to build more garages. Would there be enough immediately? Of course not. And I am not advocating that we immediately take away curbside parking to residents. I am just saying that our policy should be exactly what you state as far as encouraging (no, actually 'demanding') that new developments of any kind develop as much parking as they are generating a demand for it ... and that we stop going in the opposite direction of pretending that residents have a right to the curbside parking. They don't. They get to use it only because the taxpayers tell them it's okay to use it ... And the more we allow ourselves (or the council members) to fool ourselves that everything will be just hunky dory by reserving one side of the street for residents (and all their 'guests' with out of state plates), the more we're creating a situation were we don't get that very needed mandated garage parking.
Yes, we're all talking past each other. But I do have a hang up about anyone thinking they're entitled to use the street for storing an automobile any more than any other taxpayer is entitled to use it for storing anything else. It's a privilege ... a revokable privilege at that ... and not a right.
by Lance on Jun 27, 2009 6:05 pm • link • report
Unfortunately you seem agree with them on curbside parking in residential areas being a free-market asset that should be geared mostly to rapid turn-over market rate. While I agree with market rate for commercial areas, I disagree with converting all residential curbside to that because of 1)the increased pollution and congestion from increased into-DC auto trips and 2)because DC taxpayers pay substantial taxes for roads and parking and should get preference, just as in policing, schools, and trash collection.
Our disagreement may be a strictly a matter of philosophy as from what I've seen lately market rate curbside transit parking has worked to vastly decrease it's use and suburbanites may finally being getting an education on the economics of a totally car-dependent lifestyle.
by Tom Coumaris on Jun 27, 2009 6:07 pm • link • report
There happens to be a great resource on parking minimums and their negative impact on cities...let's see if I can remember what it was. Oh yes, this very blog.
by David C on Jun 27, 2009 6:30 pm • link • report
I think we're perhaps envisioning two scenarios of what would happen were curbside made unattractive to use for storing purposes. I envision a scenario where whenever we wanted to pull up near the front of our house of apartment building to drop off groceries, pick up elderly riders, or whatever we could. I'm envisioning a scenario where you need to run to the pharmacy a half mile away from your home and you could be assured of finding parking there. I'm envisioning a scenario where you're having guests over to your home and you know they'll not come in complaining about having to find parking because they'll have easily found a space or two or three available right there on your block. In brief, I'm imagining a scenario where you'll again have the 'access' rights to your home and to the places you patronize that you would have if you were walking ... BUT be able to do it in 21st century fashion and not be limited by only as far as your feet can carry you (which seems to diminish with age) or as far as where a busline or metro happens to go. I'm envisioning a scenario where the DC taxpayers who pay substantial taxes for roads and parking get full use of those roads and parking areas. And I envision us 'paying' for those increased and bettered services simply by giving up the privilege of grid locking ourselves in by trying to use the curbside for storage purposes vs. the access purposes it was intended for. I don't foresee it being monopolized by out of towners (because they'd have the same incentives not to store their cars there during work that we would have) and I don't foresee it being taken over by commercial businesses because the people patronizing those commercial businesses would be us. We'd suddenly be free to use any supermarket or pharmacy or flower shop in the city we liked (and that offered us the best value to price) and not be limited and restricted to only the ones that were within easy walking distance. We'd introduce some competition to those neighborhood stores who now only know it from those of us already patronizing the suburban stores where parking is plentiful and easy. And I also don't see us pricing anyone out from using that curbside space for short term parking. That is why I see us saying "3 hrs free parking" and then having the steep rates set in to discourage parking.
Your issue about increased traffic causing greater pollution is indeed correct. However, I'd ask you to keep in mind that since pollution controls were introduced back in the mid 70s, cars now pollute 95% less than they did back then. I.e., Our current fleet of cars hardly pollutes ... and given that a new federal law was just yesterday passed to further improve that figure, I'm not sure that pollution can be that big a factor in justifying giving taxpayer funded parking to some car owning residents.
by Lance on Jun 27, 2009 6:35 pm • link • report
by Lance on Jun 27, 2009 6:49 pm • link • report
@David C- Even you agree that doing away with forcing new developments to not provide for their own transit needs, including whatever parking they do require, is not good and I think most sane people agree with that. Simply putting the burden on DC residents by making their parking chores more miserable is not the answer to pollution or congestion, and as a matter-of-fact helps very little with either.
BTW- I walk or bike 95% of the time and hopefully contribute to our hipness, tho that's not my main motive. Sorry, I had to give up skateboarding when I was 30 because of a knee injury. My main concerns are pollution and auto congestion.
by Tom Coumaris on Jun 27, 2009 7:09 pm • link • report
The solution here is not a one-step, too simplistic solution, it is quite nuanced. The proposal in the last paragraph imagines a method that would allow residents to park under one system, employees under another and shoppers under a third. It also discourages people from owning more than one car. And it uses the money raised from all of this parking to pay for alternative forms of transportation. That's far more than one step and not exactly simplistic. If anything it's more open to criticism that it's too complex.
As for parking minimums, that too is a complicated solution - my position was not that we should get rid of parking, but that we should avoid over-building parking. Parking minimums raise the cost of development which means fewer other amenities or higher costs or both. Sometimes the cost of adding parking means that a good project doesn't move forward. Parking minimums also hurt retail. So ending parking minimums is not the solution to one problem, nor is it a panacea for those problems. It is one part of a menu of solutions to a host of problems. In order to explain it all and break it all out I would need to write a book - so I apologize if a blog comment seems too simplistic. It is, I'm afraid, the nature of the medium.
Furthermore, moving people from cars to other forms of transit by reducing the subsidy for cars in the form of free/cheap parking and increasing the subsidy for transit and active transportation seems a far better solution than building parking until the roads become so clogged that commuters turn to alternatives in disgust. I'm just not that excited about misery by design.
by David C on Jun 27, 2009 8:30 pm • link • report
The alternative proposed by Shoup as well as many of the contributors to this blog is to use pricing to ensure curbside availability, then eliminate any government requirements for parking off-street. I would deem this one the "low-cars" option, because this set of policies leads to low car ownership and usage. Parking is paid for by individual drivers rather than by everyone in general.
For short-term parking, both sets of policies promote or encourage having "access", that is, having a few spaces available at all times on every block. "High-cars" results in a set of rules that we have to pay city employees to be on the lookout to enforce, and in general I would say that hasn't worked too well. "Low-cars" uses price to manage a scarcity (the total number of parking hours available), which is something that price is fairly good at doing. We use price as a mechanism almost everywhere else in our society, I'm not sure why we don't for parking.
With "high-cars", high rates of car ownership and trip generation (because we've made parking cheap and access to sites convenient) leads to higher congestion, which would eventually lead to higher mass transit use. But with the exception of completely grade-separated mass transit like Metro, mass transit is terrible in congested areas. This would lead to people using transit out of frustration with congestion, only to be put on transit vehicles that are also negatively affected by the same congestion.
In general, I think it's too early in DC to start talking about completely eliminating parking minimums. When I talked with Dr. Shoup in late May, I asked him whether getting the curb prices right first was an absolute requirement before you eliminate minimums. He mentioned the experience in Manhattan and San Francisco as examples of what goes wrong when you don't manage the curbside but also don't have minimums (lots of circling for parking, parking generally unavailable except at a very high price). So I think we should be concentrating on getting the curbside pricing right before we start talking about eliminated minimums.
To David's point about improving transit, I'm not sure there's enough money in parking to really make a dent in improving transit. A really good city block may be worth $50K to $70K per year, which doesn't really buy you much in the way of buses or trains.
by Michael Perkins on Jun 28, 2009 1:21 am • link • report
Option 1: Mandatory private offstreet parking, free curb parking
Option 2: Private offstreet parking optional, high-priced curb parking based on average demand
Option 2.1: Private offstreet parking optional, real-time curb parking meters based on occupancy, residency, short-term commercial interests, etc
Option 3: Private offstreet surface parking discouraged with zoning/taxation, public offstreet parking garages constructed & managed, revert to option 2.1 wherever dense parking is not an option (not many places, now that we have very-small scale robotic parking garages).
I'm a fan of option 3. It doesn't necessitate any 'curb pricing' (which will only be right as often as a broken clock anyway). Look at the transit situation this way: if that city block can afford 1/10 of a bus, that means it can afford to have a bus in its vicinity for 1/10 of the day - for 90 seconds out of every 15 minutes.
by Squalish on Jun 28, 2009 9:27 am • link • report
by Lance on Jun 28, 2009 10:07 am • link • report
Lance suggests an economically rational motivation for the desire of homeowners to keep curb spaces empty: to provide convenient short-term parking for loading and unloading by owners of single-family and row homes. But the real-world politics of curb parking cannot be explained in a framework of utility maximization.
In my observation, the desire of homeowners to keep outsiders from parking on their streets is just as strong among those with driveways as those without. Yet the utility of empty curb spaces is much greater for people without driveways.
The political pressure to keep curb spaces empty is explained much better in terms of status-seeking. The aim is to cause a valuable resource to go to waste. As Veblen discussed, conspicuous consumption increases status. By demonstrating the political power to exclude outsiders, a neighborhood further enhances its status.
They aim is not to use the curb spaces, but to prevent the curb spaces from being used. This sends the message that we live in the kind of wealthy neighborhood where people don't park in the street.
by tt on Jun 28, 2009 10:40 am • link • report
I have a godchild in rural Calvert county Maryland I have to drive to chemotheraphy once a week in eastern Baltimore. Am I a polluting pig because that's my one main weekly trip in my tiny econobox? A neighbor has a dying impovrished mother outside Hagerstown she visits every Sunday. How strongly do we punish her irresponsibility? From Thursday to Sunday we both often have to park in cheap suburban metro garages and metro and walk home because our homes are surrounded by Cadillac Escalades and other big SUV's with out-of-state plates who insist on having free parking available at both ends to drive from 14th to 17th Streets. They also are accustomed to driving drunk at night with the occasional dead resident the pro-business result. Living in a city as polluted as DC is the equivalent of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. Are the few dollars in increased business revenue worth the billions in extra health care costs and resulting fewer years of life expectancy? Can you begin to understand where the resentment to applying abstract textbook principles and going primarily after DC residents comes from?
As a second-generation socialist and a new urbanist I'm never going to agree with David or Lance's free-market pro-business approach to traffic. And at the risk of being unbearably long-winded I would like to make some humble suggestions from experience that may not be from any textbook.
1) Suburban Auto Traffic into DC Must be Curtailed.
The pollution and traffic mess DC's in is a crisis and suburbanites are way too tied to their cars for every little thing and have to be educated as to the real social costs of that addiction. Congress would never allow tolls into DC and certainly wouldn't allow a London type fee to drive in central DC. However DC is accustomed to traffic bans for many events. If we started with a once-a-month no auto-traffic moritorium and expanded to a once-a-week one we would not only have an extra day of breathable air but would gradually force people to devise other ways in and out using transit which they would learn is also more economical. Of all things in the world breathable air is our most legitimate to reclaim and we should never as a society be timid on that right.
2) Insist the Comprehensive Plan's Goal to Eliminate all DC Freeways be Followed.
The Comprehensive Plan is law and recent actions to enlarge that freeway system with the stimulus money in order to provide more auto traffic into DC is appalling.
3)Eliminate Main Artery Curbside Uses in Favor of Transit.
DC used to have a fantastic streetcar system and the neighborhoods along 14th developed with the arrival of the Columbia streetcar line just as 7th Street grew with it's streetcar line. The reason San Fransisco and most European cities are so livable is the surplus of streetcars. The new Circulator bus on 14th is a good start but it only stops at a few intersections. Bike lanes should also be enhanced. Now DC's main curbsides are often blocked by delivery trucks because DC doesn't require all loading through alleys. Losses in curbside parking can be more than made up for with diagonal parking on many sides streets which also eliminates the dreaded car door opening in front of a bike.
4) Incentivize the Removal of Concrete Parking Pads
At least from Mass Avenue to Florida Avenue, the greatest threat to the critical ground water level is the predominance of concrete parking pads behind residences and the city's trend toward allowing 100% lot occupancy. If our tree canopy and resulting air quality is going to remain better than downtown this trend has to be reversed quickly. The new parking plans are a perfect vehicle to also promote incentives to homeowners to remove these concrete pads.
5)Enlarge and Revitalize DC's Main Sidewalks
We'll all fans of sidewalk cafes and know how important numerous businesses on sidewalks are to livability. U Street had it's sidewalks largely removed in preparation for a freeway with a resulting unbearable sidewalk. Narrow U Street and return wide sidewalks. Remove as many dangerous curb cuts as possible. Does the gas station at 15th and U really need 5 curb cuts? (Should a gas station even be there?)
I'm a big fan of the back room at the Black Cat and a friend of Dante's. But does the entire 100' length on 14th need to be shuttered all day for 2 doors open only at night? Get incentives for daytime sidewalk-friendly uses and reconsider linear-foot limitations as opposed to draconian moritoriums to limit sidewalk use by certain businesses that only need small entrance doors to businesses not adjacent to the sidewalk..
Ban sidewalk power-plant grates and force them into alleys. Ban new buildings from blocking trash truck access into collection alleys which causes trash cans to have to be placed on sidewalks. Use some smaller trash trucks that can access service alleys already blocked. Put bicycle racks on every block.
I know these are local examples but I'm sure there are others.
6) Ban or Tax-Out-of-Existence Free Office Parking
It's amazing how many businesses, professional organizations, and Congress provide free in-building parking and by doing so make it econe can pressure Congree and the government but we have the power to stop this nonsense in businesses and organizations any time we want.
Much appreciation to anyone who may have read through this verbose rant, especially on an iPhone. But none of these are pie-in-the sky expectations. They are all easily doable suggestions that are critical to livability in DC and are glaringly over-looked.
by Tom Coumaris on Jun 28, 2009 3:51 pm • link • report
I'm all for curtailing suburban driving, but I think a more reasonable approach is to improve alternatives (carrot) and increase the price of driving to capture all of the negative externalities (stick).
by David C on Jun 28, 2009 4:39 pm • link • report
In DC prior to the inauguration we've had many instances where central core traffic was effectively banned for demonstrations and other events or emergencies. Yes, folks would realize the capacity for mass transit into DC is too low and would encourage more mass transit capacity from their states.
Sorry for the sloppy editing on my rant but my new netbook's trackpad is too sensitive.
by Tom Coumaris on Jun 28, 2009 5:31 pm • link • report
Your suggestions that rules should be instituted forces others to do what you view as best are good examples of the terribleness of socialism. Why should I buy on to your claim to knowing what is best for me or for others?
The free market is fair, and the way I definitely prefer to see us continue doing things, because it is not the will of a single individual or even of a supposed intellectual elite. It is the will of everyone in the aggregate. People all get a vote in the free market, and that vote is proportionate with a person's stake in a situation. And the people have been voting to keep DC a car friendly place to all.
by Lance on Jun 28, 2009 5:45 pm • link • report
And Amsterdam only banned some cars (SUV's and other low gas mileage cars) and only from the centre city.
by David C on Jun 28, 2009 6:51 pm • link • report
Lance, how can you write this and yet insist that a landowner must be required to build parking spaces that he does not want to build on his property?
Why should I buy on to your claim to knowing what is best for me or for others?
And why should I buy on to your claim to know that more off-street parking is best for me and for others?
by tt on Jun 28, 2009 7:22 pm • link • report
by Lance on Jun 28, 2009 8:26 pm • link • report
by Lance on Jun 28, 2009 8:29 pm • link • report
by tt on Jun 28, 2009 8:30 pm • link • report
Lance- Whether calling themselves "social conservatives" or "social democrats" all of Europe is Hegelian socialist and has been for some time. Even France and Britain where our notions of "laissez-faire capitalism" supposedly came from. (They distinguish individual freedoms from individual greed). Canada and most of the rest of the world are also very socialist compared to the US. Even in the over-planned economies of China, India and Japan there's no longing for unfettered capitalism with it's boom-and-bust as their state-planned economies are doing very well. The standard of living in much of socialist Europe and certainly life expectancy is much higher than ours, largely because of smart social planning, including urban planning. Recent surveys have shown Americans are no longer so sure about the merits of capitalism over socialism. Certainly most people now think that society has the right to limit individual greed, promote social well-being, and that people should at least shoulder the social costs of their individual actions. (Totalitarian systems whether disguised as socialism or openly corporatist hopefully do always eventually fail).
Without some acknowledgement that we have a social contract with each other as members of society it is indeed hard to discuss what the rules should be. As we get to be an ever-more-dense society and more inter-related that basic acknowledgement in favor of planning is more critical.
by Tom Coumaris on Jun 28, 2009 10:13 pm • link • report
And the "social contract with other members of society" you speak of ... Aren't Marylanders and Virginias and other out-of-towners members of society too?
by Lance on Jun 28, 2009 11:08 pm • link • report
by Lance on Jun 28, 2009 11:18 pm • link • report
The whole point of this is developers should have the choice to know what market forces will dictate and cater to their target without mandates from zoning codes.
by William on Jun 29, 2009 6:37 am • link • report
by tt on Jun 29, 2009 7:44 am • link • report
If residents weren't allowed to store their cars at curbside (as I am suggesting should be our longterm goal), then as you say 'the space will get built without any requirements'. The perceived ability to get free parking on the street is what causes the disconnect between the amount of parking the developer will build left to market forces alone and what is really required to provide the new people coming in a place to store their cars. The situation Jim Graham mentions about 'even people who've paid $15 a year to park their cars on the streets are unable to find parking on the streets'. Once we stop this misperception, than I agree that parking minimums would not be needed. Knowing that there was no chance of getting a 'free' space on the street, buyers and renters with cars would demand off street spaces from the developers.
by Lance on Jun 29, 2009 8:16 am • link • report
by Tom Coumaris on Jun 29, 2009 10:39 am • link • report
by Lance on Jun 29, 2009 1:15 pm • link • report
I think an unintended consequence of Graham's proposal to open RPP to all buildings including those that now have their own and new ones is that the value of those private parking spots is going to plummet and condo fees and rents in those buildings are going to rise. Neighborhoods are different but in mine parking sells for $50,000 per spot and rents for at least $200/mo. Residents of those buildings are going to pay dearly for the ability of their car-owning co-residents to now park free curbside. Economically I wouldn't have as much trouble with those buildings not having a parking requirement IF the alternative weren't that we will in the future subsidize free parking for them.
The true cost of parking for heavily used vehicles is not just maintenance. It's the billions of dollar we taxpayers pay in increased medical costs and insurance premiums from living in such a polluted city. Having a 5-year shorter life expectancy here because of the pollution in DC doesn't exactly tickle me either.
by Tom Coumaris on Jun 29, 2009 3:10 pm • link • report
I've got to disagree with you there. We've got many neighborhoods that are less congested. Navy Yards for one. Why don't you go ahead and live there? Oh that's right, there is nothing attractive about the place.
by dcdc on Jun 29, 2009 4:47 pm • link • report
by David C on Jun 29, 2009 6:04 pm • link • report
by Lance on Jun 29, 2009 6:14 pm • link • report
Ozone is caused by traffic and is the real killer as it's the same as smoking a pack a day but usually invisible. As they comment, ozone pollution gets deep into lung tissues.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/28/pollution-ozone-air-lifestyle-health-ozone-pollution.html
by Tom Coumaris on Jun 29, 2009 7:33 pm • link • report
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/11/AR2008111101148.html
by Tom Coumaris on Jun 29, 2009 8:19 pm • link • report
One first hand anecdote about parking. Where I live on Barracks Row, they put in place really really strict non-resident parking restrictions when the stadium first opened. It killed the bars. One even offered to pay peoples' fines if they got ticketed. Sure, as a resident I liked all the empty spaces, but I saw the impact it was having on local businesses. Fortunately, they eased them up a bit to accommodate the nightlife crowd.
by blgo on Jun 29, 2009 8:22 pm • link • report
While I think Graham's night time parking bill is a step in the right direction, I don't think it's the answer to our problems.
There should be an absolute ban on non-resident parking after 6:30pm on residential streets in Adams Morgan. The non-residents mostly drive in from Maryland and Virginia, blasting their loud music, stumbling back to their cars late at night, only to drive home drunk. Weekend after weekend, I see accidents, fights, and drunks driving home...all because they choose to/are allowed to park in Adams Morgan.
Business owners in the neighborhood, who of course have a lot of clout, are protesting this bill- saying it will drive their customers away. Some of them are audaciously stating that they think it would allow Adams Morgan residents to drive more and that shouldn't be promoted by DC. Their argument is flawed- they want to provide incentive to non-residents (who are driving longer distances) to drive to Adams Morgan.
Let's not forget that Ward 1 property owners are some of the highest property and income tax payers in the district. Why shouldn't our concerns take priority over non-residents?
Business owners will survive. There is nothing like Adams Morgan in Maryland or Virginia. Drivers who choose to drive to Adams Morgan currently are spending over 30 minutes to look for parking- and that's not proving to be a disincentive.
The answer is to build another parking garage. Make non-residents park at metered spots on 18th Street and Columbia Road, or park in a parking garage. If they choose to drive to Adams Morgan at night, they should pay for their parking spot.
Visitors passes are a bad idea. When we have contractors or visitors come to the house, they deal with the parking. When you look at the number of residents that live in Ward 1 and then multiple it by even 25%- it would be absurd to have that many visitors passes out there.
I applaud Graham's efforts in the night time parking arena, but we need a more effective, more permanent solution- no night time parking for non-residents.
by elham on Jun 30, 2009 2:30 pm • link • report
by anonymous on Jun 30, 2009 2:41 pm • link • report
My horror at the sense of entitlement of suburbanites not only to free curbside parking in DC but to drive drunk (in DC) is only surpassed by my horror at our corrupt DC government continually rolling over and even encouraging this frankly anti-social behaviour. This all reminds me of so many times publicly pro-mass-transit politicians wink at me and say that "that's for PR but you know only riff-raff uses mass transit" (as they get in their SUV's to drive 5 blocks).
For those who to continue to think the best way to proceed is to spit in the face of DC voters and make their lives miserable, all I can say is I'll sit that spat out and let you get back to me with how that turns out. We all need to curtail driving habits but I'm afraid that includes suburbanites. And no, I don't apologize to those who fashionably think driving drunk is a God-given entitlement. Canada doesn't let a person with even a single DUI ever enter their country.
by Tom Coumaris on Jun 30, 2009 5:46 pm • link • report
by Anon on Sep 15, 2010 3:59 pm • link • report
Add a Comment