The Manhattan Project
Morning Roundup: Second Helpings Edition
Compromise Uncertain on Same-Sex Marriage Law
Fire at 17th and L NW Forces Evacuations
Sculpture Garden Ice-Skating Rink Remains Closed
Whether it's the new baseball stadium or the Target in Columbia Heights, 2008 is shaping up to be the year of the great parking debate.
As we've reported, D.C. Council member Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6) has floated a number of proposals to manage parking around the new stadium and surrounding neighborhoods, while Greater Greater Washington recently wrote that Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) has kicked off discussions on how best to handle parking for the new DC USA retail complex set to open in Columbia Heights. In both cases, elected officials are trying to find ways to best balance the expected influx of drivers and the needs of neighborhood residents who rely on on-street parking.
Those two cases are feeding a larger discussion on parking in the District. Earlier this year, urban planning blogger Richard Layman included in his 2008 wish-list a review of the city's on-street parking regulations, with an eye towards making parking permits better reflect the cost to the District of providing on-street parking. And just last week DCist co-founder Rod Goodspeed added some academic heft to the debate, quoting UCLA planning professor Donald Shoup's belief that curb parking should no longer be as cheap and easily accessible as it has been. Goodspeed also noted that city officials have kicked off a comprehensive review of the District's zoning code, including parking.
We can't say this isn't long overdue. The more the District continues to grow, the more it will be necessary for city officials to craft parking regulations that are better tailored to the specific circumstances of particular areas. And as space becomes more and more scarce, it becomes vital to carefully assess what each parking space is costing us and how it could be better employed for other purposes.
Let the great parking debate begin!
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
What each parking space is costing us? So...on my deadend street if they don't allow parking are they going to narrow the thoroughfare?
It's specious to say that on-street parking *costs* anything. The roads are there anyway. What would we use that space for instead of parking, more sidewalk space used by eateries, space on which the buildings that use them pay no property tax? And no, I don't buy the idea that letting them use public space without paying property tax is offset by the sales tax generated by the extra tables. Take a look at Rumors' permanent structure at 19th and M and tell me they pay enough sales tax to offset that.
This sounds like yet another way for the DC government to waste money (on the inevitable study) that will result in increased parking fees (which would be the result without the study) so why not just skip the study and raise the prices now?
DC simply needs to make registration fees prohibitively expensive so that only the richest honkies can afford to keep their Minis and VW Golfs downtown. How about a VA-style car tax, only make it 50% of the vehicle's assessed value, paid annually?
Also, car owners in the District should be required to wear a broomstick hanging out their a** with a banner that reads, "I AM RUINING THE ENVIRONMENT." Hey, if you can make it crime to smoke in the car with kids....
Gawd, I love these signs!!!
While driving around looking for a parking spot anywhere near the mall this weekend to enjoy the sunny day on Sunday, for the first time I found for myself thinking "would it really hurt to have a few accessible, reasonably priced parking garages down here?". Especially since Metro has used the weekends to do repair work making that into a less appealing option.
I wonder how many pollutants I spewed into the air along with all of the other people circling downtown looking for a place to park? While in general I agree that the focus should be on improving public transportation access, sometimes the obstructionism to anything relating to automobiles is a bit over-the-top. It should be noted that I only drive on the occasional evening and on weekends. Although we have a first rate public transportation system, it is still not the easiest way to get everywhere and sometimes folks will opt to drive, and when not commuting during rush hour, metro can be more hassle than its worth.
The red line is going to be a mess for the next four weekends as they do work on the Van Ness Station. Time to start biking.
1. Pricing parking spaces comes out of the most basic ec. concept there is, opportunity cost. (And speaking of ac. heft, Shoup's work infuses what I wrote about parking too.)
2. I have updated my wish list:
http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2008/02/revised-peoples-transportation-plan2008.html
3. Thanks for mentioning it.
This isn't about "downtown", it's about neighborhoods. By giving away free or cheap parking, DC is forcing families to move to the suburbs.
I live near U Street and just once a week I want to be able to go grocery shopping in a car and return to my neighborhood and park near my house to unload the goods and my small child, especially if it's raining/snowing or the child is asleep.
I would gladly pay $100,000 for guaranteed parking near my house. Go ahead and jack up those fees, as long as I get something in return.
Ever since I sold my car and bought a carriage drawn by a pair of Oompah Loompahs, I have yet to worry about a parking space. Sure, their droppings are enormous and it's kinda awkward using a taser to get them to accellerate. Still, it certainly beats my old method of being pulled in a Radio Flyer buttwagon by a wild Wangdoodle and getting him to accelerate by throwing flaming toilet paper at his head. Better for the environment as well. Did you know that an Oompah Loompah's carbon footprint is almost as low as a circus clown's miniature bicycle? Try getting those white wing republotards on Fox News to cover THAT little piece of science.
Besides, it's not like it's that difficult to haul a refrigerator on the Metro. And by "refrigerator" I mean "my penis" and by "the Metro" I mean "your mama."
Shawn,
If parking around the mall were priced according to Donald Shoup's principles (see Rob Goodpseed's post linked above - basically, the price varies so that at least 15% of the spots are always vacant - eliminating the need to cruise for parking), you wouldn't have been cruising.
Parking deals with both supply and demand. Pricing parking, even on city streets, helps regulate that demand for parking - and thus, demand for driving.
Good luck Columbia Heights. If CM Graham does as much to help out your expected parking situation as he's done to help Adams Morgan's parking situation, you're screwed.
My plan: on Sundays people going to baseball games are allowed to triple-park, but only if they're blocking in double-parking church-goers.
I would like to see new apartments, offices, and commercial buildings built with additional below-ground pay/free-with-validation parking lots for visitors. These public lots should be accessible via separate entry gates so that residents and employees that have assigned parking would be unaffected by the lines, and enter quickly and directly through private entrances.
I'm not sure how deep the bedrock is in the various neighborhoods, but if they could build the Empire State Building into a creekbed in the 30s, they surely can survey and find feasible places in most DC neighborhoods to extend new parking lots down a few extra stories to accommodate for public parking.
And on the topic of metered street parking, with the rates as high as they are in parts of DC and surrounding areas such as Bethesda, there need to be machines to get change near the meters at the very least. Or universal implementation of the payment machines that you can find in Georgetown and Adams Morgan, which should be expanded to accept bills as well as coin and cards.
One other suggestion: Rates could be restructured to encourage people to park cheap or free at lots near Metro stations further away from downtown areas, instead of in street spaces that would have higher rates and shorter time limits. Maybe businesses operating near Metro stations could even be compelled to contribute revenues directly into WMATA's budget to subsidy low-cost satellite parking at Metro stations, and maybe even neighborhood shuttle buses that could circulate around Metro stations to make it easier for people to arrive to shop and work after riding Metro into the city.
Finally, these suggestions would apply not only in the District, but in urbanized areas like Bethesda, Silver Spring, Arlington, Tyson's Corner, etc.
"I wonder how many pollutants I spewed into the air along with all of the other people circling downtown looking for a place to park?"
Are you suggesting that somehow there would be less pollution if we just had abundent enough parking? That's a fallacy. If you increase parking supply, without increasing price, you will still end up circling the block and there'd be more traffic too boot. This is through the magic of induced demand. Right now, a certain number of people who would like to drive to the mall on a sunny day choose other options because they don't think they'll find parking. Increase available parking without charging more for it and more people will drive, up to the point that you'll end up circling the same you are right now. And with those more cars will come more congestion. And more pollution.
Sure we could overwhelm the National Mall with parking lots like the Mall of America, such that you'd find your parking space without the same circling (although still plenty of the congestion), but I don't think that's a particularly sane idea.
How hard would it be to require all new multi-unit housing to have a significant number of parking spaces programmed into the building plans? No parking no zoning. Say 1 space per unit. This will not be perfect as there are those without cars and dwellers with more than one car. This would count for those who take houses and convert them into multi-unit dwellings too which are a blight in Mount Pleasant, Columbia Heights and Adams Morgan and a neighborhood near you. I love the idea of including visitor parking with separate entrances in larger facilities.
Another idea would be to have permits to leave your car on any street for longer than 2-4 hours day or night regardless of the zone. If you have a DC registration then you would be cool but those without DC credentials have to either get a visitor permit or out of dodge.
I agree with DC Daddy that it is no fun coming home with groceries and kids in tow to find all of the spaces on our block filled with Maryland and Virginia tags.
I was not suggesting free parking, and my comment about the pollution spewing was meant as snark. What I was trying to say is that parking lots aren't necessarily the anathema that people always make them out to be. The fact that I couldn't find an open garage in the basement of any buildings located near the mall that were open as for-pay parking was a major part of the problem. I was more than ready to cough up some dough just to be through with the search if the opportunity had presented itself.
I live on 13th and Columbia, so I'm REALLY not looking forward to the Target's opening, but I'm not as panicked about the parking issue as others seem to be. The Target's going to have a 1,000-car garage, and frankly anyone doing big box buying isn't going to walk 2-3 blocks from a street space anyway that they'd have to potentially scout for when the Metro's just across the street.
The most frequent place I go with the car is Trader Joe's, and if weekends make parking a bitch because of the Target I'll just shift my shopping times to weekdays at 8:30, when I can drive back just in time for the stores to close and tons of street spots to open back up.
I live on 13th and Columbia, so I'm REALLY not looking forward to the Target's opening, but I'm not as panicked about the parking issue as others seem to be. The Target's going to have a 1,000-car garage, and frankly anyone doing big box buying isn't going to walk 2-3 blocks from a street space anyway that they'd have to potentially scout for when the Metro's just across the street.
The most frequent place I go with the car is Trader Joe's, and if weekends make parking a bitch because of the Target I'll just shift my shopping times to weekdays at 8:30, when I can drive back just in time for the stores to close and tons of street spots to open back up.
When I read this headline, I immediately thought about Shoup's High Cost of Free Parking. Does that make me a dork? I say yes. Yes it does.
Mommyworks #14: Let's say you saved up to buy a nice new condo near the U Street Metro that's going to be constructed soon. Say the comparable sized places cost $450,000, so that's what you'd expect to pay. But whoops, turns out condo is $510,000, because you've convinced the DC government to require that every new condo have a parking space, 1 for 1, and it costs the developer $60,000 per space to construct underground parking (at least; if they have to build more underground levels, it could be more).
And if the building had to have visitor parking, say 1 visitor space for every 4 units, now you're adding another $15,000 to the cost of that condo. So you're paying $450,000 for the apartment and $75,000 more just for the parking.
Parking minimum requirements make housing more expensive for everyone. Instead, let the developer decide how many spaces they can sell and let people decide if they want the space. DC Daddy #7 would pay up to $100,000 to have a guaranteed space. Great, he should be able to buy it (and probably for less than that). But if someone doesn't want the space, they shouldn't be forced to pay for it.
mommyworks - Your thinking like a 1950s city planner. In fact most cities already have requirements like the one you suggest. What has it resulted in? Permanent gridlock and sprawl. Many cities are now taking the opposite and having parking maximums in the zoning laws. Like Greater Greater Washington i think that we should let the market decide and buildings can make as many or as few spots as they want depending on what the market dictates and the DC Govt should charge market rates from street parking and get rid of time limits.
For more background see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/realestate/12nati.html
In suggesting more parking options above, I just want to add that I realize that more people driving leads to congestion, pollution, and inconvenience and hazard for pedestrians and people using public transportation.
People in this country still rely on cars to a very large extent. In the long term, getting people to drive less is certainly a goal that serves the common good. But to bring about this change, it is premature to focus on discouraging automobile use. Penalizing car use might become increasingly important, but first there needs to be more positive incentive to walk and/or use public transportation in the meantime. Without 24-hour Metro, bus, shuttle, fair taxi, and satellite parking services to provide access, safety, and convenience, we can not realistically expect to discourage people from driving. And demonizing drivers as inconsiderate, environment destroying, pedestrian-hitters-and-runners just makes them less likely to bend. So please realize that driving is for now a very necessary evil, and that people who drive are likely just as conscientious overall as those who avoid driving.
I believe that penalties to driving such as steep increases to parking and HOT lanes only serve to allow driving based on wealth and not necessity. Furthermore, those who do not drive are left with a mediocre system of public transit that quits at midnight, and features scary, confusing bus options and security officers who provide zero security. Please, help make this town a "Walking City" before expecting people to part with their steering wheels. I think the first place to start is figuring out a way [hopefully involving corporate subsidies] to extend Metrorail's hours 24-7.
It's time for DC to grow up and become a true city, not just a dense cluster of people, attractions, and businesses.
Greater Greater Washington,
Why is it unreasonable to ask people who live in a city--especially those who buy into new neighborhood-changing buildings before ground is even broken--to contribute to the overall health and livability of the community outside of their own domestic bubble?
You have to shovel your sidewalk so others can walk past, even if you don't leave your house...why is it so crazy to also attract guests to visit and do business in DC by allowing a little bit of parking to the way that so many people move about?
Existing buildings don't need to be retrofitted with more parking, but new buildings such as PN Hoffman's GentrificationScrapers should provide a little for the common good and not just homebuyers and corporate interests. I mean, you're already driving out lots of lower-income people to artificially jack up the value of the new home you've financed...at least help people who can't afford to live downtown find a place to park when they come to work, shop, visit, etc. Fewer parking troubles equals fewer drive-bys.
Re: the remark about a 1950's city planner... Now it makes sense how my apartment building, built in the mid 50's in Cleveland Park, has an enormous parking garage beneath it. It hasn't managed to cause any sort of gridlock, though.
Pricing parking, even on city streets, helps regulate that demand for parking - and thus, demand for driving.
I'll second this. I haven't set foot in Georgetown in years for just this reason. Having to blow $17 an evening for garage space in Dupont and Gallery Place keeps me out of there as well.
Are there really people out there willing to pay through the nose for the privelege of parking at a Ruby Tuesday's in Columbia Heights?
I'm not so sure about that 202 - the DC metro area certainly has some of the worst traffic in the country and providing tons of subsidized parking certainly doesn't help.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/09/AR2005050900408.html
Yes, DC has some of the worst traffic at rush hour, but outside those hours, it is fairly easy to drive in this city.
indiecognition: Nobody is arguing to "penalize" drivers, or at least I'm not. I drive too, sometimes, like to a doctor's appointment in the suburbs or to get a lot of groceries at Trader Joe's.
But we are actually subsidizing driving right now. That means that public resources are going toward making it cheaper to drive and more expensive not to. If parking is free, someone is paying for it, it's just not the driver. Let's level the playing field.
That means that public resources are going toward making it cheaper to drive and more expensive not to.
Even if you make parking more expensive and public transit cheaper, people still aren't going to stand out in the rain for 20 minutes so they can take the bus to DC USA. They're going to drive to the suburbs to shoplift at a store with ample parking that's more convenient.
"It's specious to say that on-street parking *costs* anything. The roads are there anyway. What would we use that space for instead of parking, more sidewalk space used by eateries, space on which the buildings that use them pay no property tax?"
That's ridiculous. Street parking costs money to build (roads wide enough to both travel and park on), maintain (in parkable condition), program (with appropriate signage) and enforce (through MPD and DPW).
Many DC homes have actually lost lot size over the years because roads have been widened to accommodate increased traffic and parking. These things do have a measurable costs. But I feel you on the public space rental rate thing.
Greater Greater Washington,
Clarification: I was only suggesting subsidized parking outside of denser urban areas...no free parking in Bethesda, Arlington, DC, etc.
I think that'll at least be a start. Yes, it subsidizes some drivers, but only the ones willing not to bring their cars into the city. And along with satellite parking, I also want to see lots of subsidies from local governments and corporations to bring more truly pedestrian-friendly developments and services as well. (Bridge walkways over busy streets like Connecticut and Wisconsin Aves, free shuttles between stores and metro for people with heavy bags, and most importantly 24-hour Metrorail service.)
>That's ridiculous. Street parking costs money to build (roads wide enough to both travel and park on), maintain (in parkable condition), program (with appropriate signage) and enforce (through MPD and DPW).
I disagree. On existing roads you have four basic scenarios:
1) No parking: use the space for travel lanes only. Financial result: Cost only; tarmac must be maintained regularly in addition to plowed, etc to stay drivable.
2) Mixed use: parking during some times/travel during others. Financial result: Costs to maintain tarmac in parkable/drivable condition; maintenance of signage; parking enforcement. Revenue from charging for parking and from parking enforcement.
3) Parking only: use the space for parking 100% of the time. Financial result: costs to maintain tarmac in parkable condition; maintenance of signage; parking enforcement. Revenue from charging for parking and from parking enforcement
4) No travel or parking: space used for other purposes (public green space, side walk, etc). Financial result: costs to maintain. Revenue: zip unless you give that space over to commercial use and collect sales and/or property tax.
So on existing roads parking is actually the most financially beneficial scenario. You're right: it's overstating to say it costs "nothing" but on existing roads the cost isn't any more onerous than maintaining travel lanes.
>Many DC homes have actually lost lot size over the years because roads have been widened to accommodate increased traffic and parking. These things do have a measurable costs. But I feel you on the public space rental rate thing.
True. Rhode Island Avenue used to be a beautiful boulevard with a wide, tree-filled median. They expanded it to three lanes in each direction to accommodate more traffic from the 'burbs after the street cars went bye-bye. But it doesn't sound like increased parking is the problem; it sounds like increased traffic is the problem.