Only Fenty even tangentially addressed the question.

by Michael Perkins on Sep 14, 2010 8:30 am • link • report

RE the "Editor's Note":

THANK YOU!!!

by Froggie on Sep 14, 2010 9:18 am • link • report

@Michael P. Only Fenty even tangentially addressed the question.

Fenty's answer demonstrated that he didn't understand the problem. The problem isn't 'getting turnover' or ensuring no one stays (in Georgetown/not 'in a parking space') for '6 to 8 hours!'

The problem is 'how do you allow everyone who wants to be in Georgetown (or other urban area) to be there when they want to be there and for how long they want to be there. Gray addressed the issue well in that he expressed the need for various transportation modes to accomplish this. Well planned and well designed modes at that.

Under Fenty's view of the world the parking problem is a static issue. I.e., how do you let more people use the available parking spaces. Under Gray's view it is dynamic because by understand it's not the parking that's the issue but rather the larger picture of making the city friendlier for all, he opens up the possibilities. One of which could be, and in my opinion should be, mandating more and not less underground parking for each and every new development.

Real Smart Growth is about 'growth' to meet needs. And not about 'allocation' of existing resources ... that is stagnation rather than growth.

by Lance on Sep 14, 2010 9:50 am • link • report

@Lance: so your solution is to require enough parking that everyone gets as much as they want for free or low cost, regardless of how much those spaces cost?

How would you balance the high cost of requiring additional parking spaces?

And Fenty's buzzword of "turnover" is the old way of thinking about parking. The new hotness is "availability". What you need is to have a space available so that you can get out of the way of traffic that just wants to go through.

by Michael Perkins on Sep 14, 2010 10:01 am • link • report

Of course, whether you think Fenty "even understood the question" or not, there should be a much higher bar for Gray to clear than Fenty. After all, Fenty has demonstrated repeatedly that he "believes in putting the right people in place", whereas Gray has said over and over that he'll micromanage his appointees.

I'll leave aside your strategy, Lance, of characterizing anyone who disagrees with you as "not understanding the question," other than to say that I disagree with you as well.

by oboe on Sep 14, 2010 10:02 am • link • report

The problem is 'how do you allow everyone who wants to be in Georgetown (or other urban area) to be there when they want to be there and for how long they want to be there.

Do you mean people or cars? Having lots of people around is cheap, and people usually pay money to hang out in places like bars or restaurants in an area like Georgetown. Or at least the businesses want to have lots of people around window shopping.

by Michael Perkins on Sep 14, 2010 10:16 am • link • report

@Lance:

The problem is 'how do you allow everyone who wants to be in Georgetown (or other urban area) to be there when they want to be there and for how long they want to be there. Gray addressed the issue well in that he expressed the need for various transportation modes to accomplish this.

The larger issue, Lance, is that many of these goals you're looking for are diametrically opposed to each other. You can't just add more parking - since more parking would need to be structured underground, which is expensive, which demands high charges for it. You can't just ensure availability at all times and keep the cost low or free, or also allow people to park all day long.

As yesterday's discussion about Van Ness shows, you can't even require underground parking in all new developments - the narrow, historic lots that make Georgetown storefronts great for walking and shopping are also fundamentally at odds with underground parking structures (which require a lot of space).

by Alex B. on Sep 14, 2010 10:23 am • link • report

@Alex B:

The larger issue, Lance, is that many of these goals you're looking for are diametrically opposed to each other.

Well, it explains why Lance is supporting Gray. As the City Paper endorsement pointed out:

Polls have shown the courtly Gray benefiting from voters’ conclusion that Fenty is a jerk. Content with riding that into office, he's settled—wisely—on a strategy of being all things to all people. Take transportation: He wants to get people out of their cars. But he wants cheaper parking, too! Or growth. Should a D.C. mayor push for new residents? "Yes, within limits," he says. "I don't know what those limits are at this stage." Thanks for clearing that up.

"Abortions for some! Miniature American flags for others!"

by oboe on Sep 14, 2010 10:47 am • link • report

Both Fenty's and Gray's answers encompass their views on many transit issues, and both are very reassuring.

Wow, not for me. I went into this with an open mind, but Fenty is the only one who answered the question. He gave the technically accurate answer: we have a basically fixed supply of parking spaces, demand is always going to exceed supply, and we maximize the utility of those spaces by ensuring that they are used for a short time by many visitors, rather than filled with a single car all day. Gray completely dodged the actual question, either because he doesn't understand parking issues or because parking fees are politically unpopular.

I think this exchange clearly illustrates the differences that people have been talking about. Fenty is less charming but more substantive. Gray says a bunch of stuff that sounds good. Transit-oriented development is fine and good, but it doesn't do much about parking shortages, because it comes in addition to all of the people who still want to drive.

by David desJardins on Sep 14, 2010 3:42 pm • link • report