Greater Greater Washington

Parking countdown #6: Parking minimums undermine neighborhood retail

Thu, 24 Jul 08 17:17 EDT

A grocery store on Rhode Island Avenue NE. Photo by AlbinoFlea on Flickr.

This is the fifthof ten daily posts about why the Zoning Commission should approve the Office of Planning recommendations on off-street parking, leading up to the hearing on Thursday, July 31 at 6:30 pm. Please attend and testify if you can, or submit comments to the zoning commission in this thread.

Previously:

Today's topic: How requirements damage the viability of our neighborhood retail.

A common topic of discussion in many neighborhoods is retail. Once upon a time, most people shopped at local stores for groceries, hardware, clothes, or vacuum cleaner repair. Today, more and more commerce happens online, at major mall-like destinations like Georgetown, or in suburban malls.

These trends have harmed neighborhood retail corridors. In some areas, like upper Georgia Avenue, the debate centers around how to bring any successful retail to the area to avoid being nothing more than fast food restaurants, check cashing establishments, and liquor stores. In richer neighborhoods like Dupont Circle and Cleveland Park, it is about maintaining a mix of stores to serve neighborhood uses instead of becoming a monoculture of bars and nightclubs.

Parking requirements undermine these neighborhood efforts. When we require parking, we force residents of newly constructed building to pay for it, either through parking spaces bundled with units or higher housing prices needed to cover the cost of the garages. If residents have already paid for parking, they're more likely to have cars; if residents already have cars, they're more likely to drive when shopping instead of patronizing neighborhood retail.

Along the Rhode Island Avenue retail corridor, retail is struggling as it is in many other areas. When we build new residential buildings with required minimum parking (and often lots of it, those new residents are more likely to drive out to Prince George's Plaza than to visit a nearby establishment on Rhode Island.

With fewer patrons, we have fewer businesses, making it even less appealing to shop in the District. It'll take a lot of work to break out of this vicious cycle. As long as our zoning code subsidizes and encourages driving, it inhibits that process. The Zoning Commission should adopt OP's recommendations and start us down a path toward stronger neighborhood retail.

I may have a reason every day to eliminate parking requirements, but the Zoning Commission needs to hear from more citizens, not just me ten times. Please to write your own comments for the Zoning Commission here and testify on the 31st.

(1 comment)

Useful statistics of the day

Thu, 24 Jul 08 15:57 EDT

I found these statistics for a reporter. They shows which cities of various sizes have the highest percentages of commuters who get to work without a car, don't own cars at all, or walk, bike, or ride transit to work. Among large cities, DC is second in percentage not driving to work (47.95%) after New York (65.55%).

We're also second to New York in the percentage who take transit, second to Boston in the percentage who walk to work, and third (after New York and Newark) in the percentage of households who don't own cars. We're a little farther behind in percentage bicycling to work, with 1.21%, placing us 11th (Tuscon, San Francisco, and Seattle are on top).

(1 comment)

HPRB landmarks Hilton because it's kind of like other landmarks

Thu, 24 Jul 08 13:28 EDT

View of the Hilton from "ground zero". Photo by bluhousworker on Flickr.

This morning, HPRB reviewed the landmark nomination for the Washington Hilton. I've argued before that this building isn't worthy of being landmarked. Many people have made respectable arguments on both sides, and I respect those who feel this building is in fact iconic. But one thing worries me: the HPRB members who voted in favor spoke less about this building's particular merit, justifying their votes primarily based on this building's similarity to other modern buildings that have been landmarked, such as the HUD building and Tax Court discussed last month.

But the HUD building is a step above the Hilton. It was more notable in its time, has been more widely recognized, and its architect is much more famous. If we landmarked the Hilton just because it's almost as good as the HUD building, where will it end? Will we next landmark a building that's a bit less significant, and then another step below that? Once we have the "momentum" (a word board member John Vlach used to explain his vote) of landmarking buildings like this, will that momentum roll unstoppably through the full set of modern structures across the city? After all, I'm sure historians can come up with something nice to say about every building.

Many residents showed up to speak about the Hilton, including Dupont ANC members Will Stephens and Ramon Estrada. All opposed the Hilton's planned residential addition, but some chose to oppose the landmarking while others chose to support it while urging HPRB to include the grounds in the landmark, grounds which the new development would disturb.

Many, including the ANC, primarily objected to landmarking based on the impact of the loading docks on the neighborhood. It's already severe, and landmarking could allow the Hilton to expand without fixing the loading problem. However, HPRB Chairman Tersh Boasberg repeatedly cut off people who talked about loading or the proposed new residences, reminding witnesses that zoning issues are not within their purview and the specific plans for development on the site are not yet before HPRB.

A few residents did bring up issues relevant to HPRB's landmark criteria. On Criterion F, work of a creative master, resident Nancy Diamond explained how she Googled architect William Tabler, finding very little to justify calling him a "creative master." The main citation is his obituary, which calls out his designs primarily for their efficiency rather than creativity. "I don't live at a bird's eye view, I live at ground zero," said Diamond, referring to the way this hotel is mostly considered beautiful for the way it appears in aerial photographs, not for its ungainly appearance and interaction with the street at ground level.

Resident Matt McCarthy criticized the staff report for being "lukewarm at best," especially with regard to Tabler. HPO staffer Tim Dennée, author of the staff report, replied that he's not tepid about this. Despite an initial reaction he described as, "They're nominating for this William Tabler guy, who the heck is that?", further research persuaded him.

It didn't persuade HPRB member Maria Casarella, who argued that Tabler is recognized for his commercial success rather than as a creative master, and further that the building itself is "largely derivative of some of the better examples we have in town," not being especially recognized either locally or nationally. As for whether the Reagan assassination attempt is historic enough, she pointed out that it didn't really change history, and if anything, the historic site is the GW Hospital where Reagan's life was saved.

Andrew Aurbach seconded these sentiments, explaining how he, too, Googled Tabler and found little to justify considering him a "creative master." He feels that the Hilton "doesn't rise to the same level" as the HUD building landmarked last month.

Other members felt otherwise, but their comments mainly focused on the similarity of this building to others as a reason to landmark it. John Vlach spoke of "momentum" in landmarking modern buildings, and felt this "has a partnership" with other already-landmarked structures. Joseph Taylor said the Hilton "is of the category of the recent buildings we've so designated" and that, while he agrees it is an "outright bully" to the neighborhood, that he is "okay with it."

Chairman Boasberg spoke in favor of the "creative master" designation. He hadn't heard of Araldo Cossutta either when they looked at Third Church, but Boasberg learned about his important contributions through that process, and Tabler's through this. I'm not qualified to judge whether Tabler is indeed a master, but as with the overall landmarking, it's hard to know where Boasberg would draw a line about a creative master. I strongly suspect that the original "creative master" criterion was intended to capture work by the true greats of the field; if anyone is a master just because, after learning a lot about his or her work, one can point to important contributions, then most architects are masters.

The Board ultimately voted 5-2 to landmark the building under both Criterion D, for significant architecture, and Criterion F, for the work of a master. Of the five members who voted not to landmark the National Permanent Building, Casarella and Aurbach voted against the nomination, James Kane and Elinor Bacon recused themselves from the case, and Catherine Buell voted in favor.

The real fireworks for the Hilton will come when the owners present their development plan to HPRB. But the larger questions remain. What will it take for the board to decide that a specific modern building isn't distinctive? (They rejected the Permanent Building on narrow grounds, because the construction already underway had removed many of the historic features.) Under what circumstances would they demur from calling an architect a "master"? And is there any building Tersh Boasberg, Robert Sonderman, or John Vlach have ever voted, or will ever vote, not to landmark?

(7 comments)

DDOT needs a visionary leader

Thu, 24 Jul 08 12:19 EDT

Please sign this letter to Mayor Fenty asking him to conduct a national search for a world-class, innovative new Director for DDOT, an equal of Harriet Tregoning, Michelle Rhee or NYC's Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan.

(2 comments)

Parking countdown #7: On-street management solves "spillover"

Wed, 23 Jul 08 17:21 EDT

Photo by Brave Heart on Flickr.

This is the fourth of ten daily posts about why the Zoning Commission should approve the Office of Planning recommendations on off-street parking, leading up to the hearing on Thursday, July 31 at 6:30 pm. Please attend and testify if you can, or submit comments to the zoning commission in this thread.

Previously:

Today's topic: On-street management tools, not parking minimums, are the right techniques to handle "spillover."

We do not force new apartment buildings to provide cable television or Internet access, yet there aren't legions of "neighborhood activists" fighting to require cable in all new buildings. Why? The only difference between parking and other amenities like cable and laundry is the concern about "spillover"—the idea that if we don't build lots and lots of parking, new residents will park on the street, taking up spaces that existing residents are "entitled" to.

But our Residential Parking Permit system only barely works even today. In some areas, employees move their cars every two hours; in other areas, parking demand is mostly nights and weekends where drivers from outside DC can park for free and as long as they like anyway. Besides, even when cheap off-street spaces are available, drivers will take an on-street space if they can get one for the convnience.

As experiences from other cities show, the best policy is effective on-street management through performance parking techniques. DC is already refining an appropriate mix of on-street management techniques for our city through the pilot programs in Columbia Heights and around the Nationals ballpark.

Around the ballpark, the pilot has accomplished its goal. DC built a major traffic attractor and provided vastly less parking than 1950s zoning code writers believed possible, less than most other cities who have built new stadiums, and yet we have experienced no major problems. ANC 6D, the ANC in that area, even passed a resolution last month supporting the performance parking system and asking DDOT to keep it in force.

The news media have reported with the pilots, and those are being solved. On-street management gives us a wide range of tools; in time we will perfect a system that can work in every neighborhood where conditions warrant. No city that has tried performance parking has failed to reap significant rewards.

Our zoning code will last for another fifty years. We will identify the best on-street management systems within one or two, well in advance of potential new development with slightly reduced parking. We should not enshrine bad practices in zoning for half a century because of uncertainty about a system that already works here and is so successful in other cities.

Don't forget to write comments for the Zoning Commission here and testify on the 31st. Every comment makes a difference!

(4 comments)

No Mo'neme

Wed, 23 Jul 08 15:43 EDT

Former DDOT Dir. Emeka Moneme.

DDOT Director Emeka Moneme has resigned. The Post reports that Moneme was "irked by Fenty's hands-on managing style"; my sources say there was a growing dissatisfaction with Moneme from the Fenty administration as well.

I've frequently criticized Moneme for focusing on getting projects done rather than getting the right ones done. Whether it's the streetcar, intercity bus loading, or a neighborhood streetscape redesign, DDOT reveals its internal conflict between planners who have good, progressive ideas and engineers who are still stuck in LOS-land.

But even if DDOT's output didn't always reflect it, Moneme's heart was clearly in the right place. He wanted to make the city safer for pedestrians and bicycles, and make sure our transportation network aids rather than hinders the development of walkable communities. Just look at his great comments in Eric Weiss's "war on drivers" hatchet job. And there's merit to the charge that Fenty was too "hands-on"; he would often attend community meetings and instruct Moneme to adopt a certain policy regardless of the wisdom of that approach or the research DDOT had put into making a decision.

Fenty's choice to succeed Moneme will have enormous influence over DDOT's direction. We could get an old-school traffic engineer focused on moving as many cars as fast as possible. Or we could get a visionary, progressive leader who will bring clarity to DDOT's actions. New York City stood at the same fork in the road last year when replacing their DOT Commissioner. The two finalists were Michael Horodniceanu, a "cars-first" traditionalist and DOT insider, and Parsons Brinkerhoff VP Janette Sadik-Khan. Mayor Bloomberg chose Sadik-Khan, and now we have separated bike lanes, brand-new plazas, a boulevard-like design for Broadway, and more.

We need a similarly visionary leader for DDOT. And that wouldn't be unusual for Fenty, who plucked an innovative founder of a school reform organization to be chancellor of the DC Public Schools, and picked a national leader on Smart Growth to run the Office of Planning. So far, he has stood behind them despite controversial actions.

DDOT needs a strong leader with a clear vision as much as DCPS, OP, MPD, and other city agencies. And it needs the Mayor to stand behind that leader. Just as with NYC DOT, there's a conventional, established person who could take over: Kathleen Penney, DDOT's car-centric Chief Engineer and the analogue of Horodniceanu. Neither is General Counsel and interim Director Frank Seales Jr. the visionary leader we need. Fenty should find DDOT's Janette Sadik-Khan, their Michelle Rhee, their Harriet Tregoning. Who is it?

Update: sign this petition to ask Mayor Fenty to find and appoint a world-class leader as the next Director. We should impress upon the Mayor now how important his choice will be.

(7 comments)

Bob Novak hits pedestrian, tries to commit hit-and-run

Wed, 23 Jul 08 12:36 EDT

Novak "really despises... jaywalkers." Image from Wikipedia.

Conservative columnist Bob Novak hit a pedestrian at 18th and K this morning, then tried to escape but was stopped by a bicyclist, Politico reports. Novak claims not to have known he hit the pedestrian, but according to the cyclist, Harkins Cunningham partner David Bono, the pedestrian was "splayed onto the windshield", and that after stopping, Novak "[kept] trying to get away."

Novak was already an aggressive driver who told the Post that he hates "jaywalkers" and would like to run them over, "but as a compassionate conservative, I would never do that."

Politico uses the word "accident" once in their article. I'd give Novak the benefit of the doubt that he didn't deliberately hit this person, but given his past comments and aggressive driving behavior, it's entirely possible some legal fault could be involved.

Meanwhile, Novak was cited for "failing to yield," which only carries a $50 fine today, but which the DC Council plans to raise to $250 and three points on the license. That bill passed first reading last week, and is the one to which Tommy Wells tried to add a fine for blocking a bike lane.

Thanks to Patrick for the tip.

(23 comments)

Arbitrary parking ratios at work at UMD

Wed, 23 Jul 08 11:43 EDT

The proposed Starview Plaza. Image from the PG County Planning Department.

Minimum parking requirements in zoning codes nationwide are almost entirely arbitrary, plucked out of thin air by 1960s planners who were guessing at how much parking they'd want for each kind of development. The result is a crazy patchwork of requirements with little basis in fact. The proposed "Starview" project in College Park shows the folly of slavish adherence to parking ratios.

Rethink College Park has drawings of the project, a 6-story, 550-bed student housing development on Route 1 with ground-floor retail along the street. (I predict that UMD students will consider the building's food options inadequate and start calling the building "starve you".)

In compliance with Prince George's County zoning requirements, there are 2.5 spaces per 2-bedroom unit and 3.5 per 4-bedroom unit (why?) They then get an automatic (and arbitrary) reduction of 10% for being downtown, and another (arbitrary) reduction of 20% because students are expected to use "Alternative Modes of Transportation," like the UMD shuttle which would stop there, or bicycling or walking the 1 mile to the center of campus.

Nevertheless, we have 355 spaces for 550 people, meaning planners expect 64.5% of students to have their own cars. I don't know the current ratio at Maryland, but for people living right on the main commercial strip and a moderately short walk to campus, that seems high.

This also seems like a perfect opportunity for car sharing. And the PG Planning Department recommends it... "a minimum of two". How about more like twelve? Zipcar has 40-45 users per car. Even the 195 students who definitely won't own cars (because there are fewer spaces than students) could support 4-5 Zipcars; if there were more, more students would use them and not drive.

The arbitrary parking ratios of the PG zoning code become more absurd when we look at the shared parking provision. To its credit, this development does not have dedicated parking for the stores (which will probably serve mostly walk-in customers and residents anyway). To fulfill the requirement of 48 spaces for this much commercial square footage, they set out a schedule of times of day when commercial parkers should be able to use the residential spaces. That assumes that only 60% of spaces are filled during the day.

I'm sure at most 60% will be filled, because I doubt 355 students will fill up all of those spaces. But if they did, which the zoning code assumes, that also assumes that 40% of them will drive. For a building housing workers, that might make sense, but it strains credulity to believe 40% of students will drive one mile to park on campus. But 60% is the standard, so 60% is what the planners use.

I wouldn't be surprised if 40% of students bike to campus, though. That's why it's nice the PG Planning Department is recommending the developers add bike parking. Unfortunately, they're only suggesting a minimum of 40 spaces for both residential and commercial—way too little. DC's proposed rules would mandate 1 Class A (indoor, locked) space per 3 units, for a total of 184 bicycle parking spaces, and 1 per 20 Class B (outdoor) spaces, or 28. Plus, the 10,000 commercial square feet would require, under DC's proposal, 2 more Class A and 1 more Class B. That sounds much better than 40 spaces on "two standard bike racks".

The building itself looks okay, though Rethink College Park commenter Kevin Fallon points out the missed opportunities for a nice outdoor deck and walking/biking trail facing the creek. Instead, the building has a large and very vertical blank facade on that side.

There's a lot to praise about this project. It's fairly dense in a downtown area near campus, and will have street-facing retail. But laboring under completely arbitrary and excessive parking requirements leads to ridiculous outcomes. RCP commenter tt puts it aptly: "The empty lower parking level will make a good skate rink - they should be careful where they put the columns."

(6 comments)

Breakfast links: suburban changes edition

Wed, 23 Jul 08 10:04 EDT

Small town character? Photo by JUTP.

The official word on the I-66 deck: Infosnack HQ made some calls and found out the detailed scoop on the parking garage. One of five parking decks is free to the public, and fills up with commuters on weekdays (why can't they charge, again?) while the others are used by Arlington Public Schools.

BRAC = Bringing Really Awful Commutes: Get ready for major commuting headaches when jobs move to transit-free bases like Ft. Meade, Ft. Belvoir, and Andrews. Plus, says Former Army soldier Imagine DC, the bases aren't designed for walkability.

Small-town feel means strip malls to some: Burtonsville had a plan in 2005 to redevelop its central strip mall into a "town center" style development, but resident and environmentalist opposition killed it, writes Just Up the Pike. Though looking at JUTP's rendering, it looks like the proposal would have been only mildly more walkable, retaining surface parking on all sides and maintaining barriers to the main streets.

Biking not part of the framework: NCPC's National Capital Framework Plan, while it contains many great ideas, manages to completely ignore bicyclists and ways we could better accommodate them in and around the Mall, WashCycle points out. Too bad nobody asked about that on yesterday's fairly bland Kojo segment on the plan.

(3 comments)

Parking countdown #8: Car sharing reduces parking demand

Tue, 22 Jul 08 17:00 EDT

Photo by tvol on Flickr.

This is the third in a daily series about why the Zoning Commission should approve the Office of Planning recommendations on off-street parking.

Previously:

The hearing is Thursday, July 31 at 6:30 pm. Please try to attend and testify if you can, or submit comments to the zoning commission in this thread.

Today's topic: Why car sharing services, like Zipcar, enable lower minimums.

Car sharing provides a key piece of the puzzle to give residents a real choice between car ownership and not. Anyone should be free to own a car, but we should also ensure that adequate alternatives exist for the 37% of DC households who do not own cars, including those who choose not to own cars. 20% of new car-sharing customers even give up their cars when switching, and each shared car takes five other cars off the road and out of parking spaces.

The OP recommendations require new parking facilities with 50 spaces to provide one car sharing space, with another for every additional 100 spaces. Each of these spaces would go for free to a car sharing service interested in utilizing them, whether Zipcar or another service in the future.

Some opponents argue that this requirements subsidizes car-sharing companies. But a requirement to provide car-sharing spaces in large garages no more subsidizes a company than plumbing requirements subsidize plumbing companies. Any company can choose to provide a car-sharing service; there is only one operating in DC right now, but there were two until recently, and in the future, if market conditions make a second potentially profitable, there will be again. Meanwhile, Philadelphia and San Francisco both have car-sharing nonprofits, and in San Francisco the nonprofit City CarShare competes with the for-profit Zipcar.

Besides, many developers are already choosing to include car-sharing in their developments, since many potential residents appreciate the service. Having a Zipcar in the garage makes giving up a car more appealing, helping residents to save money. Since developers are putting in car-sharing spaces anyway, any requirement is no great burden.

A small car-sharing requirement will lower housing costs by decreasing car ownership rates, lower VMT saving money on road repair and improving our air, and make the parking minimums even more clearly unnecessary. The Zoning Commission should approve the OP draft, removing most minimums and requiring car sharing spaces in large parking facilities.

Please write comments for the Zoning Commission here and testify on the 31st.

(26 comments)

Post summaries for older posts and emails?

Tue, 22 Jul 08 14:46 EDT

Some blogs, like DCist, now show a more condensed version of posts older than the last few. Should Greater Greater Washington adopt that system? I've created a script to generate one possibility here. Should the home page look like that? Are the summaries too short? Too long? Not colorful enough?

Also, I'm working on setting up a better daily or weekly email. The current one from FeedBurner lacks much of the formatting; also, some people (like government officials) have asked for regular emails. Would you prefer an email with all posts full size, all in summary form, or a mix? Do you think your answer would be different if you weren't a regular reader of blogs?

(9 comments)

Norton berates Union Station reps over photography, intermodal plans

Tue, 22 Jul 08 10:46 EDT

Photo by theresa21 on Flickr.

Eleanor Holmes Norton is not especially happy with the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, the nonprofit entity created by Congress to oversee the station (and which, in turn, contracts with private entities to operate the station). It's not only the overreacting to photography. Norton feels USRC hasn't taken advantage of opportunities to make Union Station more of an intermodal center, as Congress has asked.

For example, according to the Congresswoman, USRC cites "business relationships" as the reason it can't accommodate intercity discount buses like Megabus in the garage, "forcing them to load an unload on already crowded streets." Norton laid the blame on station officials. "Union Station could be an intermodal center right now," she said, "if only those in charge had the vision to do so."

Back to the photography issue. Photographer Erin McCann testified that she continues to get contradictory information from Amtrak employees, security guards, and Union Station management about the legality of taking photos or what the policy is. Just last Friday, An Amtrak employee told McCann that the building was private property and refused to give her name.

New York's Grand Central Terminal has its policy (allowing and encouraging photography) posted prominently on the Web. Meanwhile, Union Station's posted rules state that their guards can prohibit photography at any time for any reason; Norton argues the courts would take a different view, and calls this an "outrageously pathetic non-policy."

Below, more notes live from the hearing.

Next up is David Ball, President of USRC. He argues that there isn't room in the garage to accommodate private parking, intercity buses, and tour buses, all of whom would like to use the parking area. Bryan Chambers of Jones Lang LaSalle, which operates the retail areas, gives a long litany of ways Union Station cooperates with the city, participates in local merchant's associations, etc.

Daniel Levy of Ashkenazy Acquisition, which leases the building and subleases to Jones Lang LaSalle and other merchants, talks a little bit about the future plans for the station, including the new Amtrak concourse, expanded auto area for buses, and Columbus Circle reconfiguration. He also complains about a proposed tax (Possessed Reinterest Tax? Assessed Interest Tax?) from the District of Columbia that would "undo decades of revitalization" and create a "downward spiral."

Norton asks the three Union Station reps to respond to the photo issue. Ball: Surprised there isn't a standard policy and thinks it should be a very simple matter to devise one. There was some confusion after 9/11 but they should be able to work it out. Levy: Never been formally presented to him. His legal opinion is that the federal government conveyed a leasehold interest to USRC, which conveyed it to Ashkenazy. Norton is absolutely incredulous.

Chambers: Has been taking steps to fix the problem and has redrafted the standard to make it more clear that photography is permitted. Norton goes back to Levy, since he is the only lawyer, and argues that Levy or another lawyer should be involved with drafting the new policy. She also admonishes Levy to familiarize himself with "an unbroken line of court cases" in favor of photographer's rights on public property even when that property is leased to private entities.

Some discussion about the redevelopment follows. Management is considering replacing the ~~now-closed~~ possibly to-be-closed movie theater with a walkway to connect to the platforms; losing some retail rental revenue would be offset by greater foot traffic in the food court area.

Transportation ranking member John Mica (R-FL) is also attending the hearing. He insists that the future new Amtrak concourse should connect to the future bus concourse, and suggests that the bike station should fit in better with the building's architecture. He also complains about panhandling, having been panhandled four times while eating lunch waiting for a train. Mica jokes that the security guards seem too preoccupied with photographers to address panhandling. The now more apparently stupid Mr. Levy suggests perhaps if it's considered public property for photographers, then it's public for panhandlers too. Norton reminds them that the law isn't that simplistic.

Chambers jumps in, again with a voice of reason to Levy's unhinged behavior, admitting there's a problem and arguing that they lack arresting power. Mica suggests they hire Officer Thompson who's about to retire from the Capitol Hill Club nearby. At this point, we might be veering into absurd levels of Congressional micromanagement.

Norton, coming back to photography, points out that these guards who can't solve panhandling because they can't make arrests seem very willing to threaten photographers with arrest. She asks them to produce, within 30 days, a plan for retraining every security guard.

Next they argue about something concerning the movie theater lease, which isn't especially relevant to me other than the entertainment value of Levy continuing to piss off Congresswoman Norton every time he opens his mouth. It's good to see Norton leaning on these guys, especially for the terrible and illegal photography policy.

Will her browbeating solve the problem? Will they really send her a plan for retraining security guards? Will they really retrain them, and will guards stop harassing photographers? We'll be watching.

(19 comments)

I-66 deck never much used

Tue, 22 Jul 08 10:07 EDT

Photo by Rich Anderson on Flickr.

Reader ~~mfs~~ alexandrian discovered this Washington Post article from 1983, revealing the parking deck over I-66 to be a $5 million boondoggle that was never much used:

The State of Virginia spent $5 million to erect a three-story, 352-car garage over I-66 in Arlington that sometimes is filled with more teen-age lovers from a nearby high school and abandoned refrigerators than cars. "It's way underutilized," said Dennis Johnson, chief of Arlington's public works operations division. He said he has counted anywere from none to five to 45 cars parked during the day in the cream-colored garage.

Copyright prevents me from posting the entire article, but it explains how the county decided not to advertise the free garage to avoid competing with nearby taxpaying pay garages. VDOT built the garage to replace lost parking spaces from the construction of I-66, but almost as many discarded appliances seemed to find their way into the garage as motorists. The state built this garage before another deck over I-66, the park at the intersection with the Key Bridge.

The article also quotes officials about the feasibility of charging, writing that "they scrapped the plan after the county attorney's office said the garage could not make a profit." If this is the county attorney, does that mean it's not allowed to make a profit, rather than that it wouldn't attract enough parkers? Interesting if so. They may not have had tools like parking districts to handle pay garages properly in those days, but unless refrigerators went at a higher rate, charging for that garage might not have even made enough to pay for staff to collect payments.

(10 comments)

Hyattsville approves sidewalks over objections

Tue, 22 Jul 08 09:27 EDT

Photo by rafaelm on Flickr.

Sometimes, even sidewalks are controversial. In Hyattsville, many narrow streets never had sidewalks; as the city has grown, this has become a pedestrian safety problem. Yesterday, the Hyattsville City Council passed a resolution to add sidewalks to a few neighborhood streets around Prince George's Plaza.

Some residents had argued against the change, of course. Some feared they would lose on-street parking (they would not). Some feared the streets would become too narrow for trucks (they would not, and the traffic calming effect will help the neighborhood). Some cited "character of the neighborhood". As a compromise, the Council added sidewalks on the main neighborhood through streets and left some more lightly used streets alone.

More broadly, the Council also approved the city's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which identifies safety priorities and promotes more coordination between city officials and citizens around safety.

(2 comments)

Dinner links: The many faces of government edition

Mon, 21 Jul 08 19:03 EDT

Metrobuses of the future. Via WMATA.

Meet the bubble bus: WMATA released images of their new Metrobuses, slated for service in August. DCist has more.

Where's the Bethesda of the West? The Bay Area is behind Greater Washington in creating dense, walkable places (think Bethesda) around their BART stations, but they're making progress, reports Transbay Blog.

Youth and seniors living together, mass hysteria: We need greater age diversity in our cities, argues Ryan Avent. Currently, the property tax system pushes for towns to "specialize" in high-quality education for families, communities for seniors, or nightlife centers for young singles. Instead, we should build places that appeal to all and sustain more integrated communities.

Does it have a bottle opener? DC has started issuing the OneCard, combining a library card, ID card for DC rec centers, and a SmarTrip in one, reports Infosnack HQ.

A delegate never forgets: Remember when Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton promised hearings over Union Station's harassment of photographers? Well, they're tomorrow. Via DCist.

(11 comments)

Auto-centric "imprinting" and our consumer products

Mon, 21 Jul 08 15:35 EDT

The Zigo.

Richard Layman pens a defense of parking reform in the usually anti-change themail@dcwatch. Explaining the anti-urban views of many city dwellers, he writes, "Most of us who live in the city came from other places where the car was dominant. So we don�t understand that we are imprinted with a particular paradigm, and that this paradigm is inappropriate for the city."

One reason we're locked into an auto-oriented way of thinking about life is that our consumer economy is primarily designed for households with a car. For example, instead of corner grocery stores like they have in Europe, where people walk down the block to buy what they need for the day, Americans buy a week's worth of groceries all together. Thus, corner stores mostly just sell liquor and supermarkets grow ever huger to compete. And of course, it's extremely difficult to transport that many groceries without a car.

This doesn't doom us to a society of mandatory car ownership; car sharing makes it eminently reasonable for carless households to shop this way. But it's also not the only way. In New York City, small portable shopping carts are a common sight, and teenagers to grandmothers easily transport a few bags of groceries home from the store without ever driving.

I had one of these carts, but it was in storage; consequently, I ended up driving to a big supermarket with parking (usually the Georgetown Safeway or the Van Ness Giant) every few weeks, making smaller trips to the Dupont Safeway in between. But now I have the cart back, and it's easy as pie to wheel heavy groceries home from Safeway. The biggest obstacle: while almost all NYC grocery carts have hooks to easily hang a portable cart while shopping, Safeway's carts have no good place to attach one. Since too few people use portable carts, I'll need to get some hooks of my own.

The technology problem becomes especially acute for families, which some argue have too difficult a time living in the city. As more families choose to do just that, we'll see more products that make their lives easier. For example, Layman points us to the Zigo, a combination bicycle and baby stroller. A parent can ride with one or two children in the pod in front, detach the bike to create a traditional stroller, connect bigger wheels for jogging, or use the bike without children attached at all.

I expect future products of this type (if they don't already exist) will also contain cargo space, allowing a parent to ride to the grocery with children, park and lock the bicycle while shopping, then load groceries into another compartment. It's almost like a car, only it takes up less space, burns no fossil fuel, and is much less likely to kill pedestrians.

(13 comments)

Parking countdown #9: Removing minimums is proven elsewhere

Mon, 21 Jul 08 14:04 EDT

San Fransisco is reforming their parking requirements to avoid being entirely like this. From Nelson\Nygaard.

This is the second in a daily series about why the Zoning Commission should approve the Office of Planning recommendations on off-street parking.

Previously:

#10: Row houses aren't obsolete after all

The hearing is Thursday, July 31 at 6:30 pm. Please try to attend and testify if you can, or submit comments to the zoning commission in this thread.

Today's topic: how parking minimums have worked around the county and the world.

Many U.S. cities, from Los Angeles and Philadelphia to Boston and San Francisco to the cities of Coral Gables, Fort Myers, and Fort Pierce in Florida, have all removed parking minimums, and found great success in doing so. Nelson\Nygaard compiled a detailed report for OP about parking "best practices" around the U.S. The United Kingdom even removed all parking minimum requirements nationwide.

The nationwide trend continues to point toward fewer to no minimums. Its Market and Octavia plan turned minimums into maximums in several new neighborhoods in April, and last November, San Francisco voters overwhelmingly rejected a measure to restore minimums across the city. Then in June, San Francisco passed another set of parking reforms, unbundling parking from new housing citywide and removed minimums on housing for seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income residents. Elimination of minimums citywide is the logical conclusion of San Francisco's current path.

Opponents of the parking reform argue that DC should not adopt the draft because many cities listed in the Nelson\Nygaard report reduced parking requirements in targeted downtown districts rather than citywide. But those cities listed in the report have had remarkable success with parking policies just like those in this proposal. Just because other cities have not implemented the changes citywide does not mean they are a bad idea, or even that the cities in question had any clear reasons for limiting parking.

DC will not be alone. San Francisco and the other cities are rapidly catching up. And we should be a leader in this area, not just because we are a great city that should become a model across the nation, but also because we are in a better position for citywide parking reform. The District of Columbia is different from Portland, Milwaukee, and all the others. It has a vastly superior rail transit system, a comprehensive bus network, and the second highest percentage in the United States of commuters who get to work without driving.

Every resident has alternatives to driving. Not all will choose those alternatives, and we should not force them to. But artificially mandating land for car storage, whether or not market conditions warrant it, is foolish. In particular, it is the public policy of DC, and a tenet of the Comprehensive Plan, to encourage non-automobile use in areas adjacent to Metrorail stations. We have made multibillion-dollar capital investments in our rail infrastructure. Parking requirements undermine that investment by forcing—not just permitting, but forcing—market conditions that subsidize driving.

Please write comments for the Zoning Commission here and testify on the 31st.

(comment)

Huge deck over I-66

Mon, 21 Jul 08 11:33 EDT

Reader mfs asks a question I've always wondered about too: There's a very large deck over I-66 in Arlington, which from satellite photos appears to be just a parking lot. Anyone know why this is here, and why anyone would spend the money to deck over a freeway just to put parking atop it?

(12 comments)

Now that is a starchitect

Mon, 21 Jul 08 11:21 EDT

A year after moving into their newly renovated Fifth Avenue apartment, a New York couple received a poem in the mail from their architect, Eric Clough. It directed them to a secret panel containing a book, which in turn led them through 18 puzzles built into their house.

Door knockers removed from the wall connected together to make a crank that opened hidden panels in their dining room credenza. A decorative leather trim spelled a message when wrapped around a removable bar from a bed. Secret panels contained a cloth crossword puzzle, a magnetic cube that opened more secret panels revealing a poem, and more.

He even used Le Corbusier's Modular Man in a piece of art which contained puzzle pieces. This (not this) is the way a truly star architect should build on the work of Le Corbusier.

(1 comment)

Arlington waters down, passes accessory dwelling legalization

Sun, 20 Jul 08 15:12 EDT

Arlington Republicans campaigned against accessory dwellings. Photo by Blacknell on Flickr.

After hearing numerous arguments by residents against legalizing accessory dwellings, the Arlington County Board passed the proposal, but not without first watering it down further. According to the Sun Gazette, the Board amended the proposal to only allow 28 accessory permits per year (the number planners had estimated people would apply for) and to require an owner to live in the house for a full year before adding an accessory unit.

The plan had already taken many steps to preserve the single-family character of neighborhoods, including requiring owners to live in their houses (so investors would not buy houses to subdivide) and limiting the number of people in a unit to two (in effect keeping lower-income families away from neighbors that don't want them).

Nonetheless, this very limited accessory dwelling law is a big step in the right direction. "It will benefit the elderly, students and young professionals - it's going to be good for everyone, I believe," said supporter Sharon Williams. (Everyone without children, that is.) Opponents, of course, still hate the plan.

Via Ryan Avent.

(9 comments)

Takoma: some space is green, garage will be optional

Sat, 19 Jul 08 12:46 EDT

The parking lot that would become townhouses, and a project opponent.

Yesterday, I wrote about the Takoma development proposal, and criticized the characterization of it as replacing "green space." Commenter DC_Chica pointed out that some of the space is in fact green; from the satellite view, it looks like it's about half. But much of that will remain green, and become a more usable green space.

The other half of the site is a WMATA parking lot. At the WalkingTown DC tour I attended in Takoma, the guide stood at the edge of the parking lot with a picture of the lively commercial district that used to be there, and argued against turning the parking lot into townhouses.

Plus, there's good news on the two-car garages: according to Cheryl Cort of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, EYA will give townhouse buyers in the proposed Takoma Metro development the option of having extra livable space and only one parking space instead of two parking spaces. I suspect many or most will still pick the parking spaces, but at least there's an option, and people can make a real choice between more space and more parking.

(5 comments)

Metro passes will work with SmarTrip

Sat, 19 Jul 08 11:51 EDT

A few of the passes sold by Metro.

It's a little-known fact, but WMATA does have weekly unlimited passes. They're much more expensive than NYC's popular weekly and monthly bus and subway passes, but they're there.

At the moment, you have to use a paper card, and if you have the kind of pass that only goes up to $2.65 per trip, you have to use the Exitfare machines instead of a SmarTrip to pay the extra. But that'll change. Infosnack HQ found out that Metro is working on letting riders buy passes directly on their SmarTrips. For the passes with maximum fares or that only work at certain times of day, the system will automatically deduct the remaining cost from the SmarTrip's stored value.

WMATA currently hopes to have the integration done in 2009, though delays are possible (and perhaps likely). What about the E-ZPass-style credit card integration that was promised for this year?

(12 comments)

MoCo "transit-oriented" zoning would encourage non-transit-oriented sprawl

Fri, 18 Jul 08 16:05 EDT

An attractively designed but sparsely used "public use space." Photo by sevenblock on Flickr.

The Montgomery County Planning Board reviewed proposed zoning rules yesterday that would create transit-oriented mixed-use ("TMX") zones. It's a good idea, but as written, it will also encourage building low-density, auto-oriented development in areas far from transit.

How did that happen? First of all, the TMX zones don't just apply around Metro stations or even bus hubs. They also apply to planned stops for BRT lines. Unfortunately, there's a long history of planning transit lines and then not actually building them. There's a real danger that we'll get development in these TMX zones but no transit.

Building in anticipation of future transit isn't such a bad idea, though. In the early 1900s, governments ran transit lines out to farmland (like the Upper West Side and the Bronx in New York), and dense, walkable development followed. Today, development generally far precedes transit lines. Until we change that, it makes sense to create zoning that at least ensures that greenfield development is designed a walkable community. Then, if and when we build a transit line there, there's some density to put the stop among instead of just endless single-family homes where all you can build is a park-and-ride.

Plus, having built-in riders helps a lot if we stay stuck with today's federal funding formula. That formula discounts potential future development, instead prioritizing funds that move existing residents long distances. As long as we have that formula, the best way to get a transit line funded is to already have the residents in place.

Unfortunately, the proposed TMX zones don't ensure we'll get walkable communities. Developers get to pick a "standard method of development", which is a low-density form with freestanding buildings, and an "optional method of development," which allows higher density. Both the standard and optional methods include some decent design principles, like facing buildings to the street, including sidewalks, and putting parking behind or underneath buildings. But both also require "public use spaces" which usually end up as empty plazas in the fronts of buildings, creating voids, and lots of parking.

According to Christopher Leinberger, an FAR of 0.8 is the minimum for "walkable urban development." 0.8 gets you a walkable but low-density village. The "optional method" requires an FAR of 3.0, but the "standard method" allows FARs from 0.25 to 0.5—too much for an auto-oriented suburban design, but not enough to create a walkable community. The most common example of development with that intermediate FAR is the suburban office park, two-story office buildings surrounded by parking lots a few times the footprint of the buildings and the occasional, sparsely used public park unconnected to much else. In other words, we'll get the Shoreline area of Mountain View, California.

The Action Committee for Transit is fighting the bad parts of TMX zones.

(6 comments)

Afternoon links: Against stupidity edition

Fri, 18 Jul 08 14:09 EDT

A few trees don't make a parking lot "green space."

Still stuck in the 1960s: The Takoma Park City Council voted to keep spending city resources fighting a plan by WMATA and EYA to turn the big parking lot and dead space around the Takoma Metro into townhouses and a "village green." They're right that the townhouses have too much parking—two spaces per house, in many cases—but wrong about "green space," which is only green if you park a fleet of green cars in it. Sadly, opponents fooled the Gazette reporter into calling the parking lot with a few grassy berms "6.8 acres of green space."

Our neglected front yard: Newsweek looks at the sorry state of the Mall, with its dead fish, cracked sidewalks, outdated maps, and nowhere to sit let alone eat. "If 25 million people walked through your front yard, it might not look so nice either," says the Parks Service. Of course, most people spend a larger percentage of their budgets on their front yards than the federal government does on its.

The Examiner is really stupid: Someone at the Examiner read a paper by crazy anti-transit activist Randal O' ("the") Toole, then went and misunderstood it. That the only possible way they could have come up with an editorial claiming rail uses more energy per person than cars. Really, no. Ryan Avent rebuts. Via Matt of Track Twenty-Nine.

(17 comments)

Parking countdown #10: Row houses aren't obsolete after all

Fri, 18 Jul 08 12:02 EDT

July 31 is a very important hearing. The Zoning Commission will be hearing public comment about DC's proposed off-street parking reforms. As I've written before, these are vital changes to modernize our 1958 zoning code which required each new development to build large amounts of parking, pushing a suburban pattern of development over the existing historic urban one.

We need as many people as possible to submit comments and/or testify. Opponents of reform are aggressively fighting this; we need to stand up for progressive urban policies. And this is one of the most important opportunities. The new zoning rules may last another 50 years.

The hearing is Thursday, July 31, 6:30 pm at 441 4th ~~Avenue~~ St (One Judiciary Square). Show up at the beginning to sign up to speak. You can also submit written comments. To make it easy, you can post written comments as comments in this thread, or email them to me.

I'm going to write about one different reason why we should reform our parking zoning code each day until the hearing. Today's reason: the people who wrote the zoning rules were totally wrong about the future. They thought that row house living was a dead form, and if cities didn't lower their density and become more like suburbs quickly, they would die. In reality, suburbanizing the cities contributed to their decay, but today, row houses are more popular than ever and we're extremely glad 1965's planners didn't get more of their way.

Here's an excerpt from the zoning report:

Please stand up for parking policy that promotes row houses. Leave your comments for the Zoning Commission here and testify on the 31st!

(7 comments)

Zoning commission comments thread

Fri, 18 Jul 08 12:01 EDT

Leave your comments here for the Zoning Commission. I will forward everything posted in this thread to them. Please sign these with your real name and use a real email address (I will include both when I send it, but your email won't be shown here or posted anywhere online.)

(9 comments)

Arlingtonians: speak up for accessory dwellings

Fri, 18 Jul 08 10:58 EDT

Photo by M.V. Jantzen on Flickr.

Tomorrow, the Arlington County Board is having a hearing on the proposal to legalize accessory dwellings. This would allow homeowners (but only those who live in their homes) in single-family neighborhoods to create an apartment for two people (like a garage apartment).

Accessory dwellings are an important way to increase affordable housing. Healthy communities aren't just families in big houses, but a mix of younger and older, singles, couples, and families, different incomes and races. Arlington's proposal takes many steps to "preserve the character" of residential neighborhoods, like limiting the accessory dwellings to two people so that big families don't use them. Renting out a part of one's house is also great for aging homeowners who can't afford to keep up their homes and would otherwise be forced to move.

According to the Arlington Connection, board members are leaning toward voting for the measure, but the Planning Commission recommended against it and many residents want to maintain the exclusivity of their enclaves.

You can testify at the meeting, which starts at 9 am tomorrow at 2100 Clarendon Boulevard, Room 300. (Who schedules meetings for 9 am on Saturdays? Apparently Arlington.) According to the Web page, you can still speak as long as you arrive and turn in your slip before the last speaker, so it's probably fine to get there a little later. You can also comment online.

(6 comments)

Walk Score launches maps for DC and others

Thu, 17 Jul 08 08:10 EDT

Walk Score just launched walkability maps and rankings for the 40 largest U.S. cities. Washington, DC ranks 7th (between Seattle and... Long Beach?!?!) Baltimore is #12.

Dupont Circle, our highest scoring neighborhood, is 17th among all neighborhoods, though 12 of the higher ranking ones are all in Manhattan (the others are San Francisco's Financial District and Chinatown, Portland's streetcar-developed Pearl District, and Old Westport, Kansas City. Ten DC neighborhoods break a 90 and win the label "walkers' paradises": Dupont, Logan, Downtown, U Street, Foggy Bottom, Mt. Vernon Square, Adams Morgan, Kalorama, Friendship Heights, and Georgetown.

The map shows what we intuitively know: the row house part of the city is very walkable. To a lesser extent, so are the main retail concentrations elsewhere, like Wisconsin and Connecticut Avenues, Takoma, and Brookland. We don't do better in the overall rankings (just above Long Beach and Los Angeles) because of large swaths of unwalkability around the perimeter of the city, especially in Northeast and east of the river.

The algorithm still is far from perfect, but it does a pretty good job of quantifying what areas are more or less walkable. I'd quibble with the neighborhood breakdowns, especially outside the center; they label Crestwood and 16th Street Heights as "Petworth", and Petworth (plus Park View and others) are lumped in with CUA-Brookland. Likewise, the area labeled Takoma Park is west of Georgia Avenue, making it more Shepherd Park, with the actual Takoma area in Fort Totten-Upper Northeast. And the entire area east of the river, except Deanwood, is "Anacostia".

Getting decent neighborhood boundaries is remarkably difficult, as there are no official lists of neighborhoods (except in a few cities, like Chicago). I tried once in a pervious job, when building a service to find restaurants over the phone. We wanted to let users say a neighborhood, but it was nearly impossible to get a decent list of neighborhoods for even major cities nationwide.

(21 comments)

Dinner links: Doing it better edition

Wed, 16 Jul 08 18:33 EDT

Photo by David Boyle in DC on Flickr.

S is for slow: At last night's public meeting for the S1/S2/S4 buses, participants suggested limited-stop service, removing parking for bus-only lanes, and fewer stops (in Columbia Heights, there's a stop almost every single block) were among the suggestions. (Post)

MARC is for unpredictable: Maryland Politics Watch identifies key ways to improve MARC service. Making those lines run with the frequency and efficiency of transit lines is one of the best investments Maryland could make.

How to double park properly: NYC DOT has a diagram on the right way to double park near a bike lane. (In NYC, it's legal for trucks outside the central business district.) If you park this way, you too can evade the future bike-lane-blocking fine and only have to pay the double parking fine, satisfying Chairman Gray's concerns. (Streetsblog)

World still hasn't ended: The new ballpark is working well, even with very little parking. It contributed to Metro hitting its highest ridership day ever on Friday. I wonder why the Post didn't chalk this success up to DC's war on fans? (Post)

Congress would probably reject it here: New York City converted a parking lot in DUMBO (in Brooklyn) to a public square in a matter of weeks. We could use some of that speed and vision. (Streetfilms)

(8 comments)

The ridiculous world of Emergency No Parking signs

Wed, 16 Jul 08 16:08 EDT

Photo by JamesCalder on Flickr.

Any DC driver has seen them: handwritten Emergency No Parking signs posted on the side of the street. They signify Pepco work, moving zones, and much more.

I moved last weekend, and got my first opportunity to try to use these signs. I searched the Web, and found this page from DDOT telling you how to get a permit for the signs. So, I headed down to DCRA with my completed form.

The DCRA rep informed me that I could only get three parking spaces taken out of service, even though the movers would be bringing two trucks (one for a local move, and one for my stuff that was in storage) at the same time.

Oh, and by the way, since my old apartment has meters out front, I had to pay for the meters. No problem, I had written down the numbers. No, said DCRA, actually I had to go to the Reeves Center for an invoice from DDOT. When I got to the Reeves Center, they informed me that the one person who does this was out of the office, and that DDOT suggests you leave several days for that one person to get around to providing the invoice. By the way, all they are doing is telling DCRA how much the meters cost; not even collecting the money. Yet for some reason, it requires a separate person and several days.

Those of you who have ever used Emergency No Parking signs are thinking right now, "Wait a minute. You don't go to DCRA and DDOT. You just get them at the police station." That's right: contrary to what the Web site says, when I called 311, they informed me that you can just get the signs at the police station. I headed over, and within 15 minutes had signs which, according to the officer on duty, I could place as far apart as I wanted.

Of course, when a car parked in the middle of my zone on Saturday morning, about 10 minutes before the truck arrived, nobody from MPD came to ticket or tow the car. Not after one hour, not after five hours. There's one very lucky Delaware driver owning a red Neon, who should have been towed, but instead just created a few headaches for my movers. (This was the part of the process that surprised me the least.)

Whether issued by DDOT or MPD, these signs are ridiculous for so many other reasons. Here are just a few:

They don't tell you clearly where not to park. Each sign just says "Emergency No Parking." It doesn't say whether it's no parking to the right, the left, or what. If I see two signs, it's in between (I now know), but visitors or new residents have no way to tell. And what if there are multiple signs (3 or 4 on a block)? Is it between all the signs? Between the pairs, when there are 4? It's a sign—they are, by definition, surfaces on which you can explain rules. Let's do that.
They're hard to see. If you're parking at night, it's easy to miss these signs.
The hours are unclear. 9 am 7/11/08 to 5 pm 7/12/08... does that mean 9 am to 5 pm both days, or no parking all night?
There's no contact information. The signs should say why there is no parking, and whom to call for questions, whether the police or the person requesting the signs.
They have to go up 72 hours before the no parking restriction, but it's entirely possible people park and then don't move their cars for over 72 hours, since street cleaning is only weekly (and not at all in the winter). (In my case, I put them up during street cleaning time, so nobody could have legally parked before they were there.)
My moving is not an emergency. Neither are most of the other uses. Why can't they say "Temporary No Parking"? (Thanks to commenter Michael for reminding me of this one.)
Different DC agencies don't even agree on who is supposed to issue them, and the DC Web site is totally wrong!

Readers know I'm in favor of measures that discourage car ownership, but not ones that create confusion and uncertainty. You should not be able to park your car legally, leave it there until the next street cleaning, and find it towed or ticketed in the meantime. And if an area is marked no parking, it should be absolutely clear where.

The DCRA permit process seems fine, but you should be able to go to DCRA and get the signs without having to tromp all over the District to collect forms hither and thither. That's the purpose of the one stop permit office. And DCRA should reserve a large enough space to meet the need.

Meanwhile, here's a tip: completely disregard any regulatory information found on the DC government Web site. It's probably totally wrong.

(12 comments)