Parking
The great Georgetown bugaboo: Cars and parking
Last week's Georgetown ANC meeting touched on a near constant theme that weaves itself through just about every ANC 2E meeting: cars and parking. It is the received wisdom that parking is a scarce commodity in Georgetown that needs to be defended against all threats of a cut in supply or an increase in demand.
Photo by La Citta Vita.
For instance, on Monday night a resident came to apply for permission to construct a basement exit to her house. The conversation soon turned to the number of square feet in the butler's pantry in the basement. What does that have to do with a basement exit? A basement with a kitchen and an exit could be turned into a completely separate basement apartment. And in the minds of Commissioners, and many residents, another apartment means another car and another car means one fewer parking spot.
This is how the great Georgetown bugaboo, cars and parking, guides many of the decisions of our elected officials.
But are they basing their decisions on a fair picture of the neighborhood or are they letting their own flawed perceptions and the voices of a loud minority guide them? The true picture of cars in Georgetown is much more complicated. The problem affects fewer residents than you'd think and the bulk of the problem come from the choices of surprisingly few. According to the 2000 census, there are 4,640 households in Georgetown (containing a total of 8,524 people). Guess how many of those 4,640 households have absolutely no car: 934. That's twenty percent.
That bears repeating. One out of every five households in Georgetown has no car. That probably comes as a surprise to the other four households, but obviously a good number of Georgetowners get by without the aid of a car. For reference, that percentage is well below that of a neighborhood like Dupont (where it's over 75%) but it's well above auto-dependent neighborhoods like Spring Valley (where it's only 3%).
Moreover, a third of all rental households have no car. If the property owner adds a new English basement apartment, there's a one in three chance that no new car will follow. That's still above fifty percent, but it's well below the certainty that the Commissioners would have you believe.
But the picture is more complicated than just houses with and houses without cars. Some households have more than one car. In Georgetown that number is 23%. That means there are only a handful more households with two or more cars than households with no cars.
And what effect do these multi-car households have on the overall population of cars? They represent 46% of all cars in Georgetown. Fewer than a quarter of the households take up half the parking spaces in Georgetown. (Yes, a minority of cars are parked off-street. But for every garage or alley there's a curb cut taking away up to three useable spots).
What if these multi-car households learned to live with just one car? The number of cars in Georgetown would fall by 25%. And if just half the multi-car households gave up just one car, there would be 529 fewer cars in Georgetown. We could then theoretically add over 700 new rental units before we got back to the same number of cars we have now.
We may already be moving towards the first part. The number of cars registered in the District fell 5.8% from 2005 to 2008 (during a time when the District population grew 1.7%) and perhaps some of that 5.8% came from Georgetown. (We'll have a better picture in 2010 or 2011 when we'll finally get census tract records from the last five years.)
Several issues arise from this disconnect between the perception and the reality of cars in Georgetown. When the ANC or other entities put parking paramount to all other issues, they are disregarding the interests of one in five Georgetown residents. How does the focus on parking affect non-drivers? When we don't let that basement get turned into a separate apartment because we're worried about another car hitting the street we're keeping another set of eyes off the street too. We're also keeping a customer out of neighborhood stores like Scheele's. Or a potential babysitter out of our rolodexes. Or just another neighbor to know. All because there's a sixty-six percent chance they may bring a car.
Moreover, these numbers show that the parking problem has less to do with the number of households and more to do with a small minority that chooses to have more than one car. So instead of browbeating a resident about the square footage of her butler's pantry, the ANC ought to be asking each applicant that comes before it "how many cars do you have and could you live with just one?"
We need to finally introduce some rationality to our discussions of cars and parking. We need to stop assuming that everyone drives and we need to realize that we're not all in this together equally. Some are taking more than what is sustainable, yet they may also be the ones making the loudest complaints. This is a crucial point. If every household followed the lead of the multi-car households, there would be 80% more cars on the street. That would be a crippling amount of cars.
Cross-posted at Georgetown Metropolitan.
 | Topher Mathews has lived in the DC area since 1999. He created the Georgetown Metropolitan in 2008 to report on news and events for the neighborhood and to advocate for changes that will enhance its urban form and function. A native of Wilton, CT, he lives with his wife and new daughter in Georgetown.   |
Comments
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
- Redeveloping McMillan is the only way to save it
- DDOT agrees to repave 15th Street cycle track
- Vienna Metro town center won't have a town center
I find parking in Adams Morgan far tougher.
by laur84 on Sep 8, 2009 10:46 am • link • report
by Local on Sep 8, 2009 10:52 am • link • report
by CJ on Sep 8, 2009 11:06 am • link • report
More tax payers in DC means lower taxes for all of us when these new citizens are self sustaining, and it means more money in the city cofferrs.
It also means less time wasted on jury duty, more eyes on the street, lower crime, more investment, etc. I could go down the line telling all of the advantages of bringing more people into DC.
Mayor Williams set a goal/ traget of bringing in 100, 000 new residents to DC. That is a great idea- and we can use even more here, and could fit them in w/o any problems.
Trouble is- there are people who want it all for themselves and their damn cars. Cutting off the options to increase density and the possibilty of adding more domiciles/ aprtments, that kind of thing, is downright regressive and STUPID.
I see this same kind of backwards NIMBY-a$$ed thinking / reactionary mentality on capitol Hill, where there is a large retired set that drives and never takes transit. They fight all changes and fight density- and now they have come out against new streetcars. These people might have saved us from the freeways in the 1960's-
[ actually they allowed the SW -SE freeway to be built- so their influence is questionable ]
but they sure are not city friendly type people and if they want a suburban car paradise they should just get out and pack up and move out to Sterling or Springfield Va. and leave those of us w/o the need for cars alone.
by w on Sep 8, 2009 11:34 am • link • report
by Nearby on Sep 8, 2009 11:35 am • link • report
Overall, I find the argument to be muddled, using data that's a decade old, and tossing out lots of statistics, rather than logic.
Reading between the lines, what Topher seems to be implying is that the government should have the authority to limit the number of cars a household should be able to own based on "what is sustainable."
If the premise of the argument is that you want more government control over people's decisions, then why not just come out and say so? I see the strategic value in hiding the ball on the ultimate goal (people rarely support options that take away their ability to have options); but it strikes me as intellectually dishonest.
by Fritz on Sep 8, 2009 11:47 am • link • report
Was not that area less affluent then Georgetown and the other areas within DC where the freeways were simplistically stopped?
by Douglas Willinger on Sep 8, 2009 11:54 am • link • report
by BeyondDC on Sep 8, 2009 11:57 am • link • report
I have lived in Georgetown 10 years and I have no car. I have a wife and a 10-month old son, whom we walk to Georgetown Hospital for pediatric visits. I own a software company in McLean and take the bus to work, as does my wife. When we need a car we use Zipcar, which has 6 cars within 3 blocks of us several of which are always available. Not everyone needs to live this way, but it is ABSOLUTELY possible, as I and hundreds of (younger) Georgetowners can attest.
What is not acceptable is Georgetowners who live in a way that would be unsustainable if we all lived that way, by driving multiple cars, preventing greater density in our neighborhood and otherwise setting the planning agenda.
by Ken Archer on Sep 8, 2009 12:16 pm • link • report
Are you somehow saying that the American right to private property is somehow to be dismissed in favor of those who wish to be able to own cars at the expense of everyone else?
yes- Douglas- SW / SE was a less aflluent place. It was also home to some of the oldest buildings in the LeNfant city and the "historic preservationists" did nothing to stop it since it was mostly Black people who lived in that area. White Capitol Hill cared nothing for this area until the developers moved in after 1999.
Nearby- you are right on target.
by w on Sep 8, 2009 12:18 pm • link • report
There is a rationing theme here that I have always struggled with. I am not a Georgetown resident, but I assume that parking in residential areas is permit parking (if it isn't, then it should be). How do you determine who gets those permits? One way might be to give preference to permenent residents with one car, then renters with one car, then continue to those with two cars, three etc. Garage parking isn't free, but it is available to those who do not get permits. There are also mechanisms (property taxes, etc) to deter people from owning cars.
As far as suggesting that people curb in their driveways, that gets into dictating what people do with their private property and I would hope that those types of proposals be last resorts.
by OddNumber on Sep 8, 2009 12:24 pm • link • report
2) How do you determine who gets those permits? One way might be to give preference to permenent residents with one car, then renters with one car, then continue to those with two cars, three etc. This is the fundamental problem--if there is concern over parking, then the ANC should propose some sort of rationing by the house. If done that way, there's no issue because the homeowner could either use his space(s) (per allotment) or offer an apartment with a parking permit right. That is, either the owner uses both the permits to which he would have a right (under a rationing scheme) or use one and rent the other.
by ah on Sep 8, 2009 12:31 pm • link • report
As for how to limit multi-car households, I think the obvious answer is to make a second RPP much more expensive than the first (and so on). Some households have five cars. I imagine those are mostly group houses, but at least some were owner-occupied.
As for the question of oppressive government control, that's pretty much life in Georgetown. If a resident has a problem with the government limiting their choices, they're living in the wrong neighborhood. I don't really want more control, I just want it exerted with a little better balance of interests.
by Georgetown Metropolitan on Sep 8, 2009 12:33 pm • link • report
Some of us live in areas with great transit (I have two Metro rail stations within a half mile of my home), but my office is out near Dulles. Public transit simply isn't an option. I hate it, and the commute sucks, but it's employment.
by Chris on Sep 8, 2009 12:41 pm • link • report
by fpteditors on Sep 8, 2009 12:42 pm • link • report
I'd love to see the numebrs for Cap Hill / Navy Yard.
Can it be broken down by age?
Or proximity to Metro stations?
Where I live there are far too many residents who own 3 or more cars and live within a block or so of Metro.
I know this sounds like meddling- but I think this shouldn't be tolerated. There are far too many people in CapHill that simply do not walk/bicycle or use transit and yet they have incredible access to it.
by w on Sep 8, 2009 12:42 pm • link • report
@w -- shouldn't be tolerated?? are you serious?
by Chris on Sep 8, 2009 12:44 pm • link • report
by Joel Lawson on Sep 8, 2009 1:13 pm • link • report
Simple logic suggests that they are trying to keep people (tenants, who might have less money than themselves) out of Georgetown, not cars. I wouldn't be surprised if they would prefer to have what apartments do exist occupied by carowners rather than non-carowners.
by tt on Sep 8, 2009 1:35 pm • link • report
by beatbox on Sep 8, 2009 1:41 pm • link • report
"the ANC should propose some sort of rationing by the house. If done that way, there's no issue because the homeowner could either use his space(s) (per allotment) or offer an apartment with a parking permit right. That is, either the owner uses both the permits to which he would have a right (under a rationing scheme) or use one and rent the other."
This could work. To me- priority for parking should first go to handicapped or to emergency people who require a car- such as doctors. I see far too many people who have the suburban car mentality and yet they live atop a Metro station and are too elitist to make use of this incredible assett. Yes- it should not be tolerated and people foolish emough to have more than one car should be taxed more for each additional car- and Im not talking a slap on the wrist- but tax them REAL money.
To me- these people in Georgetown are nowhere near as egregious or pathetic as the old farts on Capitol Hill who drive everywhere and try to stop all change no matter how good or bad. In Georgetown the transit is not quite as good as on Cap't'l Hill.
I always amazes me to see how many of my neighbors on CH own multiple cars .
These people are slugs.
by w on Sep 8, 2009 1:41 pm • link • report
Did you ever stop and think that maybe they have jobs that are located places Metro doesn't go?
by Chris on Sep 8, 2009 1:44 pm • link • report
by Mark on Sep 8, 2009 1:53 pm • link • report
I am planning on another post over at the Georgetown Metropolitan for this week that will explore the commuting statistics. Again, they will show how Georgetown is less car-dependent than the ANC probably thinks.
by Georgetown Metropolitan on Sep 8, 2009 1:59 pm • link • report
...and why does someone need 3 cars to commute to a job that is not accessable to transit?
The reason these people have 3 or more cars and never use Metro , bicycle or walk is that..
..they are simply SELFISH and LAZY.
So what- I can be judgemental
it is totally within my rights to say this when I see these people every day complain abput lack of parking when it is their own selfish and short-sighted behavior causing the problems-
NOT ME
by w on Sep 8, 2009 2:04 pm • link • report
by ah on Sep 8, 2009 2:12 pm • link • report
by Chris on Sep 8, 2009 2:27 pm • link • report
Most of my neighbors have one car (like myself). Many have non, and a smattering have two.
Ironically, the excellent mass transit options near my house means my car is parked here more often than it would be otherwise. I normally walk/bus/metro places and don't move the car. But with small kids, I can't really get rid of it entirely.
by TimK on Sep 8, 2009 2:39 pm • link • report
yes- many people have only one car per household- and many of these people use them only on weekends- this is true.
These are not the people Im talking about .
However- you guys are ignoring the fact that these car oriented maniacs
[ who are mostly the older NIMBY set]
come out against any new construction, all density, streetcars ,
and they are the ones pushing very very hard for excess parking in the new Hines development plans.
The longer you live here, the more you will see these people.
I do not know how long eiter of you have been in the area, but maybe you do not know the entire neighborhood that well.
Chris- it is not one neighbor I have a beef with- it is an entire block.
by w on Sep 8, 2009 3:09 pm • link • report
While you and I may disagree on these peoples' rights to have the number of vehicles they please without being unduly penalized, I think we do both agree that their penchant for automobiles shouldn't shape new development and appropriate density construction.
by Chris on Sep 8, 2009 3:11 pm • link • report
I was not trying to sound overtly hostile-
not all of these people are bad people
it is just that their behaviors are rather regressive -
what is funny is that most are very liberal and yet they buy into the suburban "American Dream " fallacy hook/line & sinker.
The power that some of these older folks have the CH neighborhood amounts to draconian /chilling to say the least.
As I was saying- the longer you are here, the more you will see them.
by w on Sep 8, 2009 3:20 pm • link • report
And most of the posts tack onto the original post's implied argument that this discussion is really nothing more than wanting control over how people live. Too many cars in a household has been determined by our smart growth elites to be unsustainable and bad. So the answer is to limit who can have cars by coming up with all sorts of restrictions (all the while claiming that these aren't really restrictions, they're just more choices).
And if these restrictions have an adverse impact on how people want to live their lives? Well, that's just too bad because their living choices are not considerate of the greater good, as determined by our enlightened elites.
A household has five cars! Good heavens, the outrage! Shouldn't we shun and boycott Jay Leno, Jerry Seinfeld and all other celebrities who dare to have more than one car? Shouldn't we move to outlaw antique and classic cars that pollute the air with pre-Clean Air toxins?
There's an undercurrent to many of these discussions - whether the rationing of car ownership, the supremacy of bike lanes, the superiority of mass transit - that borders on the totalitarian.
by Fritz on Sep 8, 2009 4:25 pm • link • report
From my perspective, you should be free to own as many cars as you like. However, public policy shouldn't encourage such behavior, nor should it be forced to accommodate that behavior with on-street parking and the like.
Public policies with regards to cars ought to focus on internalizing the externalities - bringing the costs they bear on society on to the user instead.
by Alex B. on Sep 8, 2009 4:34 pm • link • report
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=1412
If there are more people wanting to own cars than there are street spaces, it's not totalitarian to try to limit or reduce car ownership, it's reality.
So if people have a tendency to own more than about 1.7 cars per house, we could ration by price, inconvenience or fiat. I'm sure there are other methods, but these seem like the most common.
Price: As I've proposed before, the first parking permit could be relatively inexpensive. Parking permits beyond the first per household should be expensive enough to reduce the pressure on neighborhood streets. In popular neighborhoods, this provides a lot of revenue which can be used to upgrade street lighting, clean and repair sidewalks, etc. In less popular neighborhoods, perhaps the price for a second permit won't be that high because there's lots of street space around.
Inconvenience: Give out parking permits to anyone who wants one, at a price that just compensates the city for administrative costs. These permits are essentially a hunting license for a space. If you can find one, it's yours, but there will be a lot of people hunting. Even worse would be to not have a permit system at all, as in Manhattan.
Fiat: By law, each house will not be allowed more than X number of permits. We do this here in Arlington. It generally works, but I have to believe that some people would be willing to pay a decent sum of money for the privilege of parking an additional car, and who are we to refuse the revenue? This generally works when there's enough space to limit people to three cars, but probably wouldn't work to limit people to one or two.
by Michael Perkins on Sep 8, 2009 4:52 pm • link • report
AWESOME !!!
by w on Sep 8, 2009 5:18 pm • link • report
For goodness sake, one person's desire to own and conveniently park a car is not more important than another person's desire to have a home.
Apparently s/he thinks the big bad planning elites are ruining everyone's lives, meanwhile it's the cars-all-the-time ANCs that are quite literally forcing people out of potential homes.
Sorry, but you'll get no sympathy from me.
by BeyondDC on Sep 8, 2009 5:28 pm • link • report
WMATA actually did have a free weekend about 4 or 5 years ago paid by ING and the system was packed as hell. So it can be said if there was a free system people would use it.
Free trumps everything besides safety and time.
Some people do live near stations but there are other factors such as
Age; do you expect a 60, 70 or 80 year old to walk as far as a 20 or 30 year old and the same goes for people that would be carrying lots of equipment or bags such as high-school and colleges students who do not live close to their place of education
Health do you expect a person that may have breathing or walking problems to walk however far it is to the rail-station or bus stop. Then you have other disablities such as being blind and many other things.
Place of Work; everybody don't live and work in areas with transit or good transit. Some places have transit but only certain times of the day there are a few bus routes that only run during rush hour what if you have to come early, stay late or go somewhere when the bus isn't running you got a problem.
I live and work near metro stations but that does not mean there convenient; I live near the end of one line and work near the end of another if I took the rail for this daily it would take twice as long as it does driving because I have to go out of my way (Downtown DC)when if driving I would not.
There are many many things about this issue and they can not be summed up with their lazy that is not always the case. Some of these may or may not pertain to Georgetown but pertain to why people do and dont use transit.
by Kk on Sep 8, 2009 6:06 pm • link • report
-1 for you.
by fritz on Sep 8, 2009 9:11 pm • link • report
Yes, blind people need cars and parking for them because they can't see to walk to the station or the bus stop.
(Seriously, I was once on a list for deaf people which featured some folks who were only deaf and had no mobility issues complaining bitterly about being denied the permits allowing use of those convenient parking spots reserved for the disabled.)
by davidj on Sep 8, 2009 9:37 pm • link • report
If it isn't how you feel, then come on record now as being against that sort of nonsense NIMBYism. Say that you think density should not be reliant on parking capacity, and that residents of Georgetown are wrong to fight on those grounds. Do that and I'll happily apologize for misinterpreting you.
by BeyondDC on Sep 8, 2009 11:19 pm • link • report
No one "gets to live" in Georgetown. A person gets to live wherever their economic ability allows them to pay rent or buy a home. I'd love to live in Katherine Graham's old mansion in Georgetown. Unfortunately, I don't just "get to live" there.
I'll go on record as saying that ANCs have way too much power over how people run their lives. And that ANCs have way too much leeway to make decisions affecting people's lives and livelihoods based on nothing more than their personal biases, quirks, and arbitrary subjectiveness. Furthermore, I don't expect any city official to ever try to limit ANCs' powers because they are viewed as nearly sacrosanct embodiments of Home Rule.
But you appear take the more enlighten authoritarian approach, whereby residents don't have the right to argue that increased development in their neighborhood would have an adverse impact on their lives. Surely a person who feels that their home life would be impacted by a multi-story building (and let's imagine for the sake of feel-goodness that the building has all the latest green technology to make it LEED Super-Duper Platinum) being built next door to their single-family home has every right to complain about such a development? Or have our smart growth elites now determined that such protests are illegitimate because they ignore the greater good in favor of the rights of the individual?
I strongly supported the new Giant to be built on Wisconsin Avenue in Cleveland Park/McLean Gardens. Yet the residents of Idaho Avenue were rightly concerned about the impact of delivery trucks on their homes and the effects of the delivery driveway right next to their homes.
Were those residents being stubborn, obnoxious, and NIMBYs by expressing those concerns? Should they have simply sat down and shut up because a new Giant would be a benefit for the greater good, even if it had serious impact on their lives, their homes, and their home values? Or were their fears and concerns legitimate in the eyes of our smart growth elites?
by Fritz on Sep 9, 2009 8:43 am • link • report
The question should never be how to avoid the adverse effects of living in a large city. It should be how to contain them.
You can't oppose a supermarket because you worry about the noise of delivery trucks. You can ask the supermarket be conscient of its neighbors (presumably its patrons) and not have delivery trucks arrive at 4am, or let them idle forever.
A neighborhood like Georgetown has always had and will always have parking issues. The answer is not to knock down a few blocks and build parking garages, or to outlaw parking right out. At hand is the problem how to divy up the available parking space in the fairest way possible.
by Jasper on Sep 9, 2009 9:01 am • link • report
We're talking about density and NIMBYism in Georgetown, not child molestation. You ignored part of the argument actually going on, which is entirely different than not talking about a completely unrelated matter. You know this, but if you want to try and score points by making unrelated arguments, that's your prerogative.
As for the rest of your post: Of course this is a democracy and everybody has the right to be as selfish as they want. That doesn't mean the rest of us in the city should let their selfishness go unanswered. The city government has to give them a podium, but guess what! We're not the city government here. We can fight them, and the city has to give *us* a podium too. Speaking out against somebody isnÂ’t the same as silencing them. If the problem with ANCs is that a small group of people have concentrated too much power by virtue of being loud, then for goodness sake, the rest of us should speak up against them, or we have no room to complain.
If you're so concerned about insulting a group of loud insulting people that you think not doing so is more important than the issue at hand, then my earlier criticism was accurate.
by BeyondDC on Sep 9, 2009 9:17 am • link • report
I'd like to pose that selfishness is not necessarily in your best interest. If you want to be a self-proclaimed selfish person, you should not be surprised if other people do not care about your position.
The point of living in a community and democracy is that people try to work problems out in a civilized way. That is different from reverting to the right of the strongest. Or the loudest.
People are social beings. Being asocial seems to contradict that.
by Jasper on Sep 9, 2009 10:09 am • link • report
Really?
So if a bar/restaurant opens up next door to my house (which, being the smart grower that I am, is located very close to a Metro station), I shouldn't complain about the noise, crowds, or any other aspects that will adversely affect my quality of life? And if I do complain, my complaints are illegitimate because they're too selfish and narrowly focused and don't take into consideration the greater benefits to the community at large?
I'm simply trying to gauge exactly what qualifies as a legitimate complaint in the eyes of the smart growth elites?
* Complaints about not enough bicycle lanes for the roughly 2% of our population that uses them: Totally legitimate.
* Complaints about not towing cars parked in the bike lane outside of a church because of a funeral: Totally legitimate.
* Residents concerned about an influx of cars in their neighborhood that comes with any significant real estate development: Illegitimate, unless the residents are asking for Zipcar parking and bicycle parking.
* Residents concerned about noise or other quality of life issues with real estate development going on in their immediate vicinity: Illegitimate because they need to take one for the greater good team.
* Residents complaining a development is too big for their neighborhood: Illegitimate.
* Residents complaining a development is not green enough for their liking: Legitimate.
* Residents being selfish about neighborhood amenities they want: Legitimate if they want smart growth approved amenities; totally illegitimate if they want anything else.
by Fritz on Sep 9, 2009 11:30 am • link • report
by Reid on Sep 9, 2009 12:03 pm • link • report
by Mattyoung on Sep 9, 2009 2:57 pm • link • report
A person that is legally blind can still drive it is only when a person is fully blind or has one eye fully blind and the other way off normal that they can not drive. Depending on the place a person that is blind in one eye and has 20/20 vision in the other can also drive.
by kk on Sep 9, 2009 3:28 pm • link • report
you made the best comment yet!!!
by w on Sep 9, 2009 4:09 pm • link • report
Why? Because you can not have a city without a supermarket, highway and police station.
The point of local democracy is making sure that nobody is in a position of too much inconvenience. Make sure the supermarket gets it deliveries during the day, and not at 4am. Put some sound barriers around the highway, while making sure that there are also plenty of underpasses, so the highway does not become a large barrier. Check if the cops can leave their sirens off at night, so you don't wake up every time they go somewhere.
Don't want any of these conveniences, go live in Montana, Alaska, or a Dakota. Then, accept you need to drive an hour to the nearest supermarket, accept that you only have a private gravel road, accept that the nearest police station is 45 miles away.
by Jasper on Sep 9, 2009 4:18 pm • link • report
by fpteditors on Sep 9, 2009 8:56 pm • link • report
The argument that Topher and others are making is more fundamentally about changing minds than changing any laws - and we are trying to change the minds of neighbors who think they can live in Georgetown AND have several cars AND drive for almost all trips (even within Georgetown) by showing that, if everyone did that, none of us would want to live in Georgetown anymore. It's therefore unsustainable.
Living in urban community requires trade-offs, but they are fundamentally voluntary trade-offs that people make to live in urban community. We want to change minds.
by Ken Archer on Sep 10, 2009 1:53 pm • link • report
Add a Comment