Gabe Klein's comment about being unable to find a parking spot downtown on Sunday from the TBD story is awesome:

"I was downtown on Sunday with my wife to do some shopping, and we drove around for 25 minutes, and finally left because we could not find a space for my tiny Smart car. This is what often results from free, or under-priced parking."

Yo. Gabe. Perhaps you weren't aware, but parking meters are not in effect on Sunday. Result: you have a gajillion tourists/teabaggers/5k runners who are happy to leave their car all day long at a meter while they shuffle around the mall.

I too have noticed that it's a pain in the butt to find a spot on Sunday downtown. Saturday, though, not much of a problem. Actually near Chinatown, you can usually get one of those judge spots towards Judiciary Square that are only in effect M-F and the ominous signs seem to scare off a lot of people.

I'd have no problem with parking meters in the downtown area being in effect on Sunday, if that would help Gabe find a parking spot. Though I am surprised that he wasn't taking Metro to begin with.

On the other hand, I think there's a much stronger relationship between "any time limit enforcement" and "turnover" than there is with "high rates" and "turnover."

We have clearly demonstrated that having no restrictions at all causes people to leave there cars on the street all day, but we haven't demonstrated yet that $2 vs. $1 per hour would enable Gabe to park more easily.

by Jamie on Sep 28, 2010 9:03 am  

I'm not sure why everybody puts it as "speculation" that Southwest wants to serve National after this deal. The Southwest website about the merger repeatedly mentions service to National as one of the key aspects of the deal (along with the whole Northeast market).
http://www.lowfaresfarther.com/the-deal/
See the fourth bullet down for just one example. I would say service to DCA is very much their intention.

by Evan on Sep 28, 2010 9:14 am  

"I was downtown on Sunday with my wife to do some shopping, and we drove around for 25 minutes, and finally left because we could not find a space for my tiny Smart car. This is what often results from free, or under-priced parking."

Yo. Gabe. Perhaps you weren't aware, but parking meters are not in effect on Sunday.

Ok, I'm not the sharpest knife in the cutlery drawer (nor the deepest spoon), but aren't you two saying exactly the same thing?

by oboe on Sep 28, 2010 9:44 am  

Thanks for the tip Evan, I updated the link!

by Erik W. on Sep 28, 2010 9:45 am  

I reported two hot cars directly to WMATA this summer. In both cases, I got an email a few days later, detailing when the cars were taken out of service and fixed (usually about 24-48 hours after the initial report).

Although the number of failures is troubling, browsing through that report seems to indicate that complaints are being addressed in a timely manner. (A few other surprises -- the 1000 series cars were actually fairly reliable, while the 5000 and 6000-series cars were consistently unreliable)

by andrew on Sep 28, 2010 9:47 am  

@oboe, perhaps I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed either, but Gabe's comment had only to do with the price of parking, and not the days in which it takes effect. I don't recall anyone saying that we were deciding between having enforcement or not on Sundays.

Also, think about this comment in particular:

I would have gladly paid $2 to get a parking space, and I think most other people would too.

If "most other people" would gladly pay $2 to get a parking spot for an hour, then isn't the obvious deduction that this wouldn't have any effect on supply?

In order for you to have a spot available at $2, which was presumably unavailable at some lower price, then it seems logical to reason that the price must be at a point where some significant number of other people would not be willing to pay it.

Look, if the point of raising the prices of meters is to make money, then that's fine, and let's discuss it in that context. If the point is to make more parking available, then we should frame it that way: the increase in price will price some people out.

Anyway that particular debate has been had here a hundred times, I was really just trying to point out the disconnect between the policy in question, and Gabe's observation.

by Jamie on Sep 28, 2010 9:54 am  

Jamie:

perhaps I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed either, but Gabe's comment had only to do with the price of parking, and not the days in which it takes effect. I don't recall anyone saying that we were deciding between having enforcement or not on Sundays.

When we are not enforcing parking restrictions, the price is zero. When the price is artificially low, the scarce resource is in demand, and hoarded by certain parkers.

How is that not an issue with price?

by Alex B. on Sep 28, 2010 9:59 am  

So the Observatory is building a tall fence within an area that's already fenced? Seems like overkill by the security bureaucrats.

A couple of years ago, neighbors complained about what sounded like explosions and rattling going on at the Observatory. The rumor was that they were building an emergency bunker for Cheney, but of course, the Secret Service denied anything was occurring anywhere.

by Fritz on Sep 28, 2010 9:59 am  

Bloomingdale to Bellagio in around five hours. I called for it last week. There will no longer be a need to truck out to BWI or IAD. Or fly an awful legacy carrier. The savvy DCA business travelers better be ready for the Southwest cattle to graze at their airport. Moooooo.

by aaa on Sep 28, 2010 9:59 am  

Do you understand the difference between a time restriction and a price?

by Jamie on Sep 28, 2010 10:04 am  

Marginal price.

by charlie on Sep 28, 2010 10:07 am  

Do you understand the difference between a time restriction and a price?

Do you realize that the two concepts are interwoven completely? Particularly when you're talking about DC on Sundays, where the 'time restriction' you speak of is, in fact, a price - the price is set at zero.

The government has set a price for on-street parking on Sundays - the only difference is what that price is.

by Alex B. on Sep 28, 2010 10:10 am  

@Alex B, you're right. In fact we should abolish RPP parking entirely, since obviously there is no difference between free parking with a two hour limit and free unlimited parking.

by Jamie on Sep 28, 2010 10:13 am  

isn't "free" a price, as in "costs zero dollars/franks/crowns/euros/pesos/yen..."?

by bing!bing! on Sep 28, 2010 10:29 am  

isn't "free" a price, as in "costs zero dollars/franks/crowns/euros/pesos/yen..."?

This is a corollary to the well-known paradox limned by the famous philosopher G. Lee, which states, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

If you give something away, you've still put a price on it.

by oboe on Sep 28, 2010 11:27 am  

We still seem to be struggling with the difference between an hourly rate and an absolute time limit.

A 2 hour time limit is not "giving something away." It's free for the first two hours, then 35 bucks after that.

If the purpose of metered parking is to encourage turnover, as Gabe says in his comment, then the effect of a $35 ticket for an expired meter would seem to be a lot more influential in achieving that goal, than the effect of an extra dollar an hour.

The existence of a time limit AT ALL is the primary driver of turnover. Unless you charge a rate that is high enough that a significant number of people are no longer willing to pay it, then it will have no additional benefit on turnover.

Since Gabe says "most people would be happy to pay $2" then I can only conclude that he doesn't believe that rate is high enough to reduce usage, and hence it will not have any effect on availability.

Why is this so hard to understand? The hourly rate for parking will absolutely not have any effect on availability unless it is high enough to influence people's decision to park there. This is contradictory to Gabe's assertion that most people would be happy to pay that rate. All of this is irrelevant on a Sunday when there are no time limits to begin with.

by Jamie on Sep 28, 2010 11:42 am  

@ Oboe--it was N. Peart.

@Jamie - what is the relevance to RPPs? On Sunday one can get unlimited free parking. That's a price of zero no matter how you look at it. Sure, one way to create "more" parking would be to impose a two-hour limit on Sunday Mall parking but still make it free. Then the price is zero for two hours and $50*probability of getting a ticket for any time in excess of two hours.

by ah on Sep 28, 2010 11:55 am  

"Jamie - what is the relevance to RPPs:"

To try to explain that there is a very significant functional difference between "free for two hours" and "free unlimited" in the context of Gabe Klein's comment.

"Then the price is zero for two hours and $50*probability of getting a ticket for any time in excess of two hours."

Sure. And the price for parking at a meter is $4 for two hours and $50*probability of getting a ticket for any time in excess of two hours.

I'd say the second half of that equation has a much bigger effect on people leaving after two hours than $2 an hour does. That's my point.

by Jamie on Sep 28, 2010 11:59 am  

So the Observatory is building a tall fence within an area that's already fenced? Seems like overkill by the security bureaucrats.

No kidding. It also says they have limited confidence in their ability to patrol the first fence. In addition to 10 feet of wrought iron they also have motion/heat/etc. detectors. Are the guards so incompetent that if someone breaches that and sets off the alarms they can't pick him off almost immediately?

by ah on Sep 28, 2010 12:02 pm  

@Jamie In order for you to have a spot available at $2, which was presumably unavailable at some lower price, then it seems logical to reason that the price must be at a point where some significant number of other people would not be willing to pay it.

Look, if the point of raising the prices of meters is to make money, then that's fine, and let's discuss it in that context. If the point is to make more parking available, then we should frame it that way: the increase in price will price some people out.

So true. Bottom line is, like roads, the best way to satisfy demand AND lower the price is to build more of it. Many European cities have taken to building large parking garages under their ancient city squares and parks. Chicago has done something similar. The Mall is a large area. Imagine building a garage there that could house 1000 or 2000 or more cars! No one would ever need to circle for parking again. And that is a good thing. Want to reduce congestion in cities, make parking easily available so that people can park there cars and then hop on a bus, or walk somewhere, or (coming soon) hope your favorite streetcar line!

Upping the cost of existing parking just serves to ensure that (as usual) the rich aren't inconvenienced, while everone else is just 'locked' out. And that is never a good thing.

by Lance on Sep 28, 2010 12:13 pm  

@ Lance; one big problem with parking garages.

Much like Gabe, people circle when they can't find the PERFECT spot. That is, right in front of their destination. You want parking? Go two blocks away and walk. Parking garages are usually inconvenient -- by design -- and people tend to ignore them.

And the LOGIC of the "performance parking" people is at fault -- as others have said, if it worth $2 to you it is probably worth at least $2 to other people. Massive race to the top to get to be fabled "85%" performance level.

Performance parking is being driven by the "street parking complex" - cities that want more revenue, private companies willing to jump on deals, parking meter companies, and parking consultants.

by charlie on Sep 28, 2010 12:20 pm  

One additional thing to consider with parking garages is that they are obscenely expensive to build, operate, and maintain as compared to surface parking; particularly with subterranean garages which necessitate major ventilation systems. European governments have a distinct advantage in their higher tax rates, sometimes-greater investment &/or public awareness of infrastructure, and more socialised (shared interest) government structure.

...And even then, building within their historic areas is not without their own controversies -- be it parking or transit or something else -- and in many cases those very projects have been at the forefront of toppling the local government in power. Granted, in countries like Italy, we change governments like we change our clothes.

by Bossi on Sep 28, 2010 12:52 pm  

@bossi; yeah, one almost wishes there was government regulations to force developers to put in underground parking -- which will be repaid on the long (40-50) run although perhaps not by the developer -- in dense urban areas.

by charlie on Sep 28, 2010 1:00 pm  

The logic of trying to "solve" a parking problem with high rates is just fundamentally flawed. Parking is a problem that solves itself.

Take Gabe. I bet he'll decide to take Metro next time, or he'll go shopping somewhere else, or maybe he'll park in a garage. Problem solved. But that decision would be made by weighing the whole picture: how hard it might be to park, whether he has alternatives to DC, whether he's with someone else, whether he has to carry a lot of stuff. But the effect of a couple dollars on a trip involving shopping, and potentially several hours of travel would be almost inconsequential.

Personally, I've never spent 25 minutes to park, anywhere. I, like most people, just end up going farther away, or finally parking in a garage if need be. There's almost nowhere in DC that you just can't park somewhere slightly less convenient and walk in. Even in Adams Morgan. A friend of mine lived there for a decade and drove to work every day and parked on the street when he got home. On Fridays particularly, he would just go across Connecticut Avenue into embassy land where parking is plentiful and walk ten minutes.

If you actually did raise street parking prices to the point where people would care enough that it significantly impacted their decision on how to get there, then you really should worry that that decision might be that they won't go there at all. But $2 an hour doesn't come anywhere close to this, though, it's just another slightly regressive tax that will have no impact on parking availability.

by Jamie on Sep 28, 2010 1:05 pm  

It sounds like Jamie Charlie and Lance have all decided that they will be happy to pay more for parking (it's not changing their behavior), and therefore, everyone else will too. Never mind that if they were really willing to pay more for parking, they probably wouldn't spend endless hours bitching about higher parking rates.

Let me try this: I drive from Dupont to Columbia Heights sometimes to shop in the retail there. I now park in the garage because the street parking is more expensive, and it is metered later int eh evening. Using Jamie's hypothesis, since I do it that way, EVERYONE must also park using the same logic.

Then, why are there still cars on the street in Columbia heights?

Could it be that a complex set of variables, including in my case, price, are involved in the choice of where to park, what mode of transportation is utilized, etc.?

People do care about 2 dollar an hour parking. I know. I'm one of them.

by CJ on Sep 28, 2010 2:45 pm  

CJ:

"I now park in the garage because the street parking is more expensive"

No, you park there because street parking is by and large unavailable. There is no 2 hour exclusion in RPP around DCUSA and few meters.

"Using Jamie's hypothesis, since I do it that way, EVERYONE must also park using the same logic."

Let's see. There are probably about 20 parking meters within walking distance of DCUSA, and about a thousand spots in the garage that is, in fact, located in your destination.

I would say that almost everyone who drives to DCUSA parks in the garage. Not because I do it that way, but because it is, by far, the easiest place to park.

As far as the price goes, it's 2 bucks an hour either way.

"Why are there still cars on the street in Columbia heights?"

People live there dude.

"Could it be that a complex set of variables, including in my case, price, are involved in the choice of where to park, what mode of transportation is utilized, etc.?"

Absolutely. That is what I've been saying all along. But the price of a parking spot is a much smaller variable than the convenience.

You know, you could park about 2 blocks away from DCUA FOR FREE on 13th Street, 11th Street, Monroe, there are many options.

Yet you pay to park in the garage.

Obviously 2 bucks is less valuable to you than walking two blocks, exactly proving my point.

by Jamie on Sep 28, 2010 2:51 pm  

Jamie, Let me try again. Please try to comprehend what I say,and not just what you want to hear.

In the past, I parked directly on 14th street when possible, when I drove to DCUSA. Now I utilize other options for parking, due to the price and hours change to the parking I once used. The relative price of the parking in question, the possible availability of free parking elsewhere, and the reasons for using the parking, are certainly factors in which spot I choose, but those are all variables which you gloss over in your own sweeping generalization that no one cares about a 100% increase in price.

Now. I'm willing to take you at your word when you tell us that you aren't impacted by the parking price change from 1 to 2 dollars. You need to do the same when I tell you that it most certainly did impact my behavior.

Only one of us is arguing that our own experience is representative of all other drivers.

by CJ on Sep 28, 2010 3:10 pm  

@CJ, are you saying that, before the meter rates went up (during which time, by the way, 14th Street was almost always under construction) you used to try to find a metered space on the street, in horrible traffic, rather than simply parking in the garage?

And the only reason you park in the garage now, is because it's 50 cents cheaper (and even that is only true if you stay for more than 45 minutes, since it's $1.50 minimum)?

So, the difference in price of about 50 cents has been the driving factor in choosing to fight for one of approximately 20 legal street parking spaces within a block of DCUSA, versus park in a garage that is always half empty and features an elevator that takes you directly to your destination?

Wow. You are absolutely right -- I know nothing about how some people make decisions.

For example I can't understand why someone who is so cheap that they were willing to try to find street parking when shopping at a mall that has its own very cheap parking garage that is never even half full to save 50 cents, would not just park a block further away in an RPP zone with 2 hours of free parking and save a full $1.50!

Obviously, I did not account for the fact that some people are completely irrational. I stand corrected.

by Jamie on Sep 28, 2010 3:19 pm  

Just because some people (including me) are SOMETIMES willing to pay $2/hour for parking, doesn't mean that EVERYONE is ALWAYS willing to do so.

Personally, I would rather have parking rates that are high enough to discourage me (and some others) from regularly driving & parking for a full two hours, but not so high that I wouldn't/couldn't OCCASIONALLY drive & park in certain circumstances (eg carrying lots of stuff, several people with me, running a short errand, etc). Its not that people would NEVER pay $2/hour, just that many people would drive & park less often than they would if parking were free.

Regarding RPP, IMO it is ridiculous for the city to give away free parking to non-residents, even with the 2 hour limit.

by jj on Sep 28, 2010 3:27 pm  

Jamie,

There's a huge difference in how you and I are approaching this exchange. I'm not trolling here and arguing just for the hell of it. I'm simply giving you a real world example of how a change in parking price changed my behavior.

Yes, I am cheap. Yes, I am motivated by price and proximity. Yes. I used to look along 14th street as I drove up it from the South, for a parking space, and yes, I used to drive a block around the complex before giving up on that parking possibility. Finally, yes, I really did start parking in the garage after the price change, instead of doing the above.

The fact that you find my actions irrational is just more proof that you shouldn't be talking for all drivers when you make your sweeping generalizations.

by CJ on Sep 28, 2010 3:30 pm  

@CJ; if I may, I'm not trying to ascribe my behavior to a larger set.

Clearly, street parking has some price elasticity. As you say, there are a lot of factors that go into it and there is a lot on the demand side as well.

If I read my Shoup right he found a lot of price elasticity going to zero to something, but not a lot after that. So yes, free parking is nice. But once you start to raise the price, where is the upper limit? Clearly, parking at $20 a hour is going to deter almost everyone. But 2, 4? 6?

And I am very opposed to any street parking price raises. But my point is that it is legitimate revenue source, and that the money should go to the general fund, not to fund empire building at DDOT.

And this all go back's to Gabe's comment, which is "well, shucks, we don't don't charge on sunday so the street parking is full". The levels of BS in there are tremendous. And who shops "downtown"? But the point is that if Gabe was willing to pay $2 a hour for his preferred spot, somebody else would be willing to pay $4. Performance parking is just a race to the top. Reverse auction?

by charlie on Sep 28, 2010 3:36 pm  

@Jamie - CJ never said he/she always found parking on the street at DCUSA, just that it was his/her first choice and that now, because of the chnages it is no longer his/her first choice.

You are insulting CJ, calling him/her irrational and cheap, and mocking his/her decision making process. CJ did none of that to you.

He/she only tried to point out that: he/she is an example of someone for whom the changes were meaningful, that your extrapolation of your own priorities to everyone else doesn't include him/her, and that he/she does not claim (as you are) to represent everyone.

To the penalty box with you for the rest of the period.

by Tina on Sep 28, 2010 3:38 pm  

@charlie-

The idea is that the price would be consistently adjusted in response to demand at defined intervals; perhaps once a week or every month with additional intervals to differentiate between weekdays, weekends, and any other special needs. Hence, the price goes up until it balances with demand; or the price goes down if no one is using it.

by Bossi on Sep 28, 2010 3:40 pm  

@Bossi; umm, yeah, that is theory.

In practice, I don't see that happening. Why?

1) Maybe "they" don't care; i.e. if you are making enough revenue from a block at xx dollars it doesn't matter who full the block is.

2) the "85%" rate Shoupians set for ideal usage is a bit imaginary. Again, revenue trumps usage. Double that when DDOT takes the money.

3) Predicability -- and information. How are you going to KNOW how much a block costs if it changes every month.

by charlie on Sep 28, 2010 3:48 pm  

Charlie, still amounts to bucking against basic economics. Shoup's research may lead us to the conclusion that the demand price curve for parking is not linear, or even smooth, but it clearly trends from the bottom left to the upper right. Both you and Jamie persist in your assumption that the utility of parking is the same for all drivers. That is demonstrably not the case.

The reasons that your argument (First, that the optimum price for parking is unknowable, and second, that it is far too high to be politically attainable), and lance's and now Jamie's is suspect are two-fold. Either of these assumptions are great for supporting your basic desire for cheap parking, but neither are supported with evidence. The only evidence Jamie provides is personal experience, which he uses to make a generalization regarding all drivers. I simply pointed out that my own experience directly contradicts that generalization.

As for your issue with Parking fees, I could make an argument for or against, but I really don't care either way.

by CJ on Sep 28, 2010 3:53 pm  

@CJ; so, to paraphrase you don't care about the issue, but think Jamie is extending his experience to an entire universe.

Wonderful, thanks.

As I've said repeatedly, if a city wants to increase parking rates, great. Let the money go into the general fund. You'll see some sort of equilibrium when your revenue starts to drop.

However, when parking consultants come in, charge you a lot of fees for a fancy pricing model based on demand and variable pricing, check you wallet. You are being fleeced -- and so is the public.

by charlie on Sep 28, 2010 4:03 pm  

@CJ the reason I think your behavior is irrational is because you arrive at a different conclusion than is logical based on your priorities.

If price is the biggest priority, then you should park a block away.

If proximity is the biggest priority, then you should park in the garage.

If time to park is the biggest priority, then you should park on the street if a spot happens to be open on your way to the garage, and otherwise park in the garage.

I can't think of any rational balance of those priorities that would lead you to spend some amount of time driving around the block in awful traffic, when simply parking on 13th Street would both cost less AND take less time then circling for a meter.

It doesn't make any sense at all. No balance of those priorities would rationally lead one to have chosen to park on the street (unless a spot happened to be open as you drove by) before the rates changed, since parking a block away would almost always have resulted in a net positive on all criteria.

The reality of DCUSA is that the garage is roughly equivalent in price to the street, but generally more convenient since it's not heavily used, and so it doesn't take very long to park.

Since at any given point in time there are several hundred cars parked in the garage, and under 20 parked on the street, it seems pretty clear the choice that most people make.

The meters are generally full because most people act rationally. If they happen to see one open, they will probably park there since it's about the same price as the garage. If not, they will probably just go to the garage. Really cheap people probably park a block away on the street, which is kind of how I act when I'm downtown (e.g. I'll go park near Judiciary Square and walk a few blocks to Chinatown). But no rational person would waste time AND pay extra.

by Jamie on Sep 28, 2010 4:05 pm  

@CJ, at the end of the day, however people choose to act is completely irrelevant to my point, though I am fascinated by your thought process.

Can we agree that parking at meters in some places is difficult? Isn't that why this discussion is happening at all?

If you believe that raising the price to $2 from $1 will have an affect on parking availability, then that means that Gabe Klein is wrong when he says that "most people would be willing to pay $2." The other possibility is that he's right, in which case parking availability will not be affected by this increase.

That was my whole point. Gabe Klein's selling this price hike as one which is both palatable to most people, but will also increase parking availability. How is that possible? How could something be not a problem for most people, yet result in a lot of people changing their parking habits as a result of it?

by Jamie on Sep 28, 2010 4:19 pm  

Jamie. I've already explained that I prioritized street parking when it was marginally cheaper than garage parking, and I prioritized garage parking when it became marginally cheaper than street parking. In all cases, proximate parking trumped hypothetical free parking several blocks away.

That's rational, and reasonable.

In the meantime, you have not addressed the central issue. Do you concede that your generalization about all or most other drivers is incorrect? If you do not, then we are left with two test cases, yours and mine. You have a no evidence to support your assumption, and 50% of all data presented refutes it.

Shall we discuss the rationality of your assumptions?

by CJ on Sep 28, 2010 4:22 pm  

@Charlie

1. I commented that I don't care into which fund parking fees is allocated. Don't put words in my mouth.

2. You seem to be saying that hiring consultants is a waste of money. That leaves us with the status quo, in which bureaucrat arbitrarily set our parking fees with no methodology beyond political expediency.

My original point was that drivers (I, at least) do respond to changes in parking price at the levels of 1 and 2 dollars an hour.

I find RPP to be both theoretically reasonable, and theoretically superior to bureaucratically derived rates. Essentially, if the only argument for low, unchanging parking rates is that it's the way we've always done it, then I think there's room for improvement.

There are many ways to regulate the consumption of scarce public services. Pricing them is one among many.

by CJ on Sep 28, 2010 4:25 pm  

@Tina: "You are insulting CJ, calling him/her irrational and cheap, and mocking his/her decision making process. CJ did none of that to you."

Well said (although given what we've seen from Jamie in the past, that kind of behavior from his can't be entirely unexpected).

by dcd on Sep 28, 2010 4:27 pm  

@Jamie.

Why do you think that the 2 dollar price is ineffective if "most" people will still pay it? After all, we want an optimum percentage of 85% to utilize the parking at a time. Isn't that "most?"

Gabe Klein's verbiage was spot on.

by CJ on Sep 28, 2010 4:28 pm  

@CJ, Gabe was talking about "people trying to park." You are talking about parking meters.

So you think that if the number of people trying to park was reduced by 15%, there would be 15% of the meters open at any given time?

Wow. Just wow.

Sorry, but that is just completely wrong. It would mean some slightly lower number of people would park in garages, or people would on average be able to park slightly closer to their destination.

If the availability of street parking in the areas we're talking about was anywhere close to demand, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

by Jamie on Sep 28, 2010 4:42 pm  

@Jamie. No. That's not what I think. What I think is that your parsing of the word "Most" was wildly incorrect. I'll leave it at that.

You seem to have a very hard time engaging people in conversation. I simply can't shout over what you think I said.

by CJ on Sep 28, 2010 5:00 pm  

Oh, and Jamie? Is this flood of additional drivers originating from the same parking garages you argued a few posts ago I was irrational for not using?

by CJ on Sep 28, 2010 5:03 pm  

@CJ, instead of continually ascribing motives to me: "troll," "hard time engaging," "arguing just for the hell of it," why don't you try clarifying what you've said instead?
If you aren't interested in debating this with me, then why respond at all?

Your words:

"After all, we want an optimum percentage of 85% to utilize the parking at a time. Isn't that "most?""

I took this to mean that you think when gabe klein said "most," he was referring to parking meters, since that is the context in which you said it. "Isn't that [85%] most?"

Now, you say that that is wildly incorrect.

What did you actually mean, then? Gabe was pretty clearly referring to "people looking to park." I can't think of any other way I could possibly interpret your comment above except as "most parking meters," not "most people looking to park."

If your "most" and gabe's "most" are the same thing, the only way I can imagine that would be true, is if there are roughly the same number of people looking for parking as there are meters. Which we both seem to agree is not the case.

Please help me resolve my wildly incorrect parsing and clarify your statement above.

by Jamie on Sep 28, 2010 5:05 pm  

"Oh, and Jamie? Is this flood of additional drivers originating from the same parking garages you argued a few posts ago I was irrational for not using?"

I honestly don't understand what you're asking.

In DCUSA, there is a parking garage that is about the same price as street parking. This is not the situation that Gabe Klein was facing. If so, then I would say he was extremely irrational for driving around for 25 minutes rather than paying $1.50 to park in a garage.

The dynamic is obviously quite different downtown. Parking garages are usually a minimum of $10 for the first half hour. People will spend much more time looking for street parking, or park further away, because the cost differential is much greater. Some will end up parking in a garage -those for whom cost is less of a concern, or time is a greater concern. Some, like me, are happy to park 4 or 5 blocks away in, say, Judiciary Square when I'm going to Chinatown.

If parking were easier in Chinatown, I wouldn't have to park as far away, and some people at the margin who end up in expensive garages might not have to end up there.

by Jamie on Sep 28, 2010 5:10 pm