Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Question

Expand Messages
  • imgoph
    Right now, I would say the only thing you can do is advocate for rules that make it costlier for people to do this. The fact that the city only charges $15 for
    Message 1 of 9 , Feb 11, 2010
      Right now, I would say the only thing you can do is advocate for rules that make it costlier for people to do this. The fact that the city only charges $15 for a year worth of parking on the street means that we're giving up revenue that could go towards better service in a lot of ways (transit, parking in commercial districts, etc.) Maybe your neighbor would be less likely to have 4 cars if they had to pay $50 for a second car, $125 for a third, and $300 for a fourth.

      Last year, David Alpert proposed Five ways to improve the RPP system (see below)

      Just food for thought,

      Geoff

      The Council's twin bills to reserve one side of every residential block for residents only are well-intentioned, but overly simplistic solutions to the complex problem in DC's Residential Permit Parking (RPP) system. How could we do better?

      1-Change higher RPP fees for more cars. The bills already contain one good element, which the Council should retain: they increase the fees for the second, third and subsequent cars each household registers in the RPP program. The current provisions make the first permit cost $15, as today, but then charge $50 per year for the second and $100 per year for the third and additional permits. Why not go a little further? Let's make the first sticker per household completely free. $15 is already almost free, low enough that few people seriously consider whether to get an RPP sticker when registering a car. Some lower-income households do say that this is a burden. A charge of zero for the first permit, $50 for the second, and $100 for the third would bring in about the same amount of revenue as today.

      This system does contain some complications. Does a townhouse divided into four apartments count as four households, each entitled to one permit at $15 or zero? What about a group home with four bedrooms, each rented out separately but not classified as separate units in the tax records? What about basement apartments, some of which are official and some aren't?

      2-Expand the Daytime Parking Pass program. As Jack McKay explained, the DPP program is a good solution to allow employees of local businesses to park in a neighborhood. The proposed cost is only about the same as the cost of commuting by bus. We should expand this system to the neighborhoods affected by this bill.

      3-Meter more spaces, and let businesses use the revenue. If store and restaurant patrons can't use half the spaces in any neighborhood, even during daytime hours when demand is low, then we need to manage the remaining spaces better to increase turnover and ensure some available spaces. A shopper wouldn't care if there were fewer spaces as long as they could get one of them. With meters, they could.
      If residents have one side of the street for themselves, plus free parking on the other side, visitors have guest passes, and employees can get daytime parking passes, then the only remaining people who need parking are patrons of businesses. Therefore, let's allow the businesses to set up performance parking on their own.

      Let any official BID or Main Streets organization buy their own meters and place them on blocks in their territory. Residents with a sticker for the appropriate zone could park at those meters for free, as could anyone with a visitor or daytime parking pass. Everyone else would pay, and the BID or Main Streets group would get the money directly. They could spend that money to clean up the streets, install new trash cans, or fund DDOT programs like street resurfacing or new streetlights. Petrons of those businesses would be the ones paying, and so the revenue should go to the businesses to offset any deterrence effect of having meters.

      If a BID doesn't want to do it, they don't have to. The non-resident-only side of every block can stay free, and most likely overcrowded. Patrons of their businesses can park for free if they're willing to circle for a while. Or, they can let everyone get a space fairly quickly by paying. Or, a neighborhood could have a mixture of the two. The local business association knows the occupancy level better than DDOT, and could adjust meter rates without having to wait months or years for studies. Most of all, we could manage parking while ensuring, as much as possible, that it doesn't hurt businesses.

      4-Allow neighborhoods to choose smaller RPP zones. DC initially instituted the RPP system during Metro's construction, to prevent people from driving in and parking next to Metro stations. However, this still happens in some of DC's larger wards, like Ward 3, where some people from the edge of the District drive and park for free in Woodley Park or Cleveland Park. The purpose of the program was never to give some people, like Georgetown residents, special privileges to park in Logan Circle near their jobs just because they happen to be in the same ward.

      Some neighborhoods would oppose changing this system. Therefore, let's allow each ANC to decide to opt out of full-ward RPP zoning. If ANC 1B (U Street) chooses, they could vote to change their zone from 1 to 1B. All car owners registered in 1B would switch from Zone 1 to Zone 1B, and all RPP blocks in 1B would become 1B-only.

      5-Extend RPP hours. Most RPP zones restrict parking until 6 or 8 pm. That was great for the original purpose of stopping commuters, but doesn't deal with the shoppers who come to a neighborhood at night. Councilmember Wells' bill contains a provision that if 51% of the households on a block petition, they can extend RPP to a later time, up to midnight. In addition, they should be able to extend it to apply on weekends as well.

      I'd also suggest that the ANC, rather than a 51% petition, make the decision. Parking on each block doesn't only affect the residents on that block, as people frequently park one or two blocks away. An ANC single-member representative would effectively balance these needs, and ANCs as a whole could consider the needs of one representative against the rest of the neighborhood, usually deferring to the local representative as they typically do.

      ##

      Graham "intrigued" by RPP improvement ideas

      November 10, 2008-The discussion at Wednesday's DC Council hearing ranged across the full spectrum of parking topics: resident-only parking blocks, smaller RPP zones, the 72-hour rule, Emergency No Parking signs, the price of RPP stickers, loading zones, and more. Chairman Jim Graham seemed to approach the hearing with a very open mind, saying he was "intrigued" by at least some of the ideas.

      Graham contrasted his views on parking with those of his father. Graham said, "My father believed he had an inalienable right to park in front of our house," despite having a driveway. If someone came to visit, Graham's dad expected the visitor to get that space, and if someone else parked there, he'd angrily ask who was squatting in "his" space. "He had great animosity about parking meters," Graham added. "He believed he should have free parking at home and free parking at work." Recognizing that times have changed, "That's now an old-fashioned view about the rights of automobile drivers," he admitted. "We're now marching to a very different view of what parking is about."

      The idea that most "intrigued" Graham was smaller RPP zones. As she did in our interview, ANC Commissioner-elect Anne-Marie Bairstow of Woodley Park explained how people from all over Ward 3 park in Woodley all day to ride the metro - clearly not the intent of Residential Permit Parking. According to Bairstown, Dr. Gridlock once published a letter from a resident of the Palisades upset because her block wasn't RPP-designated. But the letter writer wasn't having trouble parking at her house; instead, her neighbors could drive to their offices in Friendship Heights and park for free on the surrounding neighborhood streets, while (being ineligible for a Ward 3 RPP sticker) she couldn't.

      The intent of the RPP system is to help residents find parking near their homes, not to enable some commutes and not others. I used to live at 18th and Swann, which switched from Ward 1 to Ward 2 in 2002. Why would I have had an "inalienable right" to park for free on residential streets in Columbia Heights before 2002, but not in Georgetown, and then after 2002 an inalienable right to park in Georgetown but not Columbia Heights? This defies logic. Zones the size of a neighborhood (perhaps by ANC) would give enough flexibility while also making resident parking for actual residents.

      Commissioners Brianne Nadeau, of the U Street area, and Jack McKay, of Mount Pleasant, both brought up the cheap price of RPP stickers. McKay's next-door neighbor owns four cars, and parks them all on the street for $15 each per year. An off-street parking space in Dupont rents for about $200-250 per month, or up to $3,000 per year, while we underprice these on-street spaces for only $15.

      Nadeau also criticized the city's policy of having no RPP restrictions around parks. DDOT's policy is "that people visiting [the parks] should be able to park for an unlimited length of time," she said. "I don't think that is realistic." I agree. In a neighborhood like Nadeau's, having unrestricted parking around a park doesn't mean that park users get to park in those spaces. Instead, it means that some people, especially residents who haven't registered their cars in DC, simply leave their cars around those parks for long periods of time.

      Much of the discussion focused on performance parking, the main purpose of the hearing. According to GGW contributor Michael Perkins, who testified, DC could probably earn $75,000 per year for a typical block downtown with performance parking. By comparing nearby garages and other area business districts, Perkins estimated that each space could easily rent for $2.50 per hour. At eight hours a day, discounted to account for some cheating and spaces not always being full, times 240 business days per year, each space could earn $3,600 per year. That's a lot of revenue.

      Perkins lives in Arlington, and therefore doesn't pay taxes to DC. But he would happily pay to park on the street, if paying would ensure him a good chance at finding a convenient space. Constitution Avenue, Adams Morgan, and other areas with high numbers of visitors and few spaces are perfect for performance parking. Charles Brazee, of the Adams Morgan Professional Association and Adams Morgan Partnership, felt that area businesses would be willing to try performance parking. What they wouldn't like, on the other hand, is simply dedicating some blocks to RPP-only (instead of allowing anyone to park for two hours as today), since that would limit parking for business patrons with no corresponding benefit to the businesses.

      Ellen Jones, Transportation Director for the Downtown BID, talked about congestion. Downtown, much of the congestion stems from trucks double parking for deliveries and services, said Jones. She recommends a downtown commercial vehicle ("performance loading") pilot zone, with the revenue applied directly to improve downtown. "Surface transit is the victim of our downtown congestion," said Jones. "Yes, private automobiles do sit in traffic, but it's the inefficiency of our bus service that keeps people from utilizing [buses]."

      Graham was clearly in the mood to think creatively. He asked about extending RPP hours or even "reversing" them in areas like Mount Pleasant or Adams Morgan, so the restrictions would apply at night instead of during the day (when parking is plentiful). He pondered the possibility of reinstating the 72-hour rule (that limits on-street parking to 72 hours) and said he is close to introducing legislation to limit Emergency No Parking abus.

      At the same time, Graham still showed more interest in solutions that keep parking free, but perhaps more restricted, than solutions that use pricing as a tool to balance supply and demand. He's still very happy with the large, cheap to park but expensive to build garage in Columbia Heights, and even Bairstow praised it. Just as our thinking about parking has come a long way since Graham's father's (still common) viewpoint, there's still a long way to go.

      Many residents and elected officials (like Michael Brown) still assume the solution to scarce parking is more parking. But more and more people realize that the better solution is less dependence on driving. Nadeau mentioned a new building at 14th and Florida marketing itself as "zero commute," where people can work from home. As Nadeau put it, projects like that, and hearings like this one, are "changing the conversation around parking." We're making a lot of progress.


      --- In MPD-5D@yahoogroups.com, <zomora@...> wrote:
      >
      > I live on a densely populated block in ward 5. One neighbor has
      > 4 cars parked on the block. This situation makes it difficult
      > for the rest us to find parking. Particularly in current
      > conditions. Is there anything we can do to remedy this
      > situation???
      >
      > Thanks a bunch!!!
      >
    • Steven Conn
      I d be all for the RPP system being extended to 24 hours a day. The first two reasons generate revenue for DC. Here s why: 1) Meters are now enforced till
      Message 2 of 9 , Feb 12, 2010
        I'd be all for the RPP system being extended to 24 hours a day. The first two reasons generate revenue for DC. Here's why:
         
        1) Meters are now enforced till 10pm, which means non-residents park in RPP zoned spaces @ 6:30 since they're allowed to be there for 2 hours, and at 8:30pm, the RPP restriction expires. If RPP was extended to be effective 24 hours, out of towners would have to pay for meters, or risk an RPP ticket, and RPP spaces would be kept free for residents returning home after 6:30.
         
        2) It would make people register their MD or VA (or wherver else) cars in the District. Many of my neighbors have lived here for years, but by parking in the RPP spaces only after 6:30, and heading to work the next morning, they go un-noticed with their MD and VA tags.
         
        3) It would keep the drug dealers off of our blocks, since they wouldn't be able to park there for many hours as they conduct their business into the wee hours... past when the 8:30 RPP restriction expires.
         
        And if you have aguest, you're always able to get a temporary RPP permit @ the local MPD station...
         
        Just my two cents... 


        From: imgoph <hatchard@...>
        To: MPD-5D@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thu, February 11, 2010 10:25:55 PM
        Subject: [MPD-5D] Re: Question

         

        Right now, I would say the only thing you can do is advocate for rules that make it costlier for people to do this. The fact that the city only charges $15 for a year worth of parking on the street means that we're giving up revenue that could go towards better service in a lot of ways (transit, parking in commercial districts, etc.) Maybe your neighbor would be less likely to have 4 cars if they had to pay $50 for a second car, $125 for a third, and $300 for a fourth.

        Last year, David Alpert proposed Five ways to improve the RPP system (see below)

        Just food for thought,

        Geoff

        The Council's twin bills to reserve one side of every residential block for residents only are well-intentioned, but overly simplistic solutions to the complex problem in DC's Residential Permit Parking (RPP) system. How could we do better?

        1-Change higher RPP fees for more cars. The bills already contain one good element, which the Council should retain: they increase the fees for the second, third and subsequent cars each household registers in the RPP program. The current provisions make the first permit cost $15, as today, but then charge $50 per year for the second and $100 per year for the third and additional permits. Why not go a little further? Let's make the first sticker per household completely free. $15 is already almost free, low enough that few people seriously consider whether to get an RPP sticker when registering a car. Some lower-income households do say that this is a burden. A charge of zero for the first permit, $50 for the second, and $100 for the third would bring in about the same amount of revenue as today.

        This system does contain some complications. Does a townhouse divided into four apartments count as four households, each entitled to one permit at $15 or zero? What about a group home with four bedrooms, each rented out separately but not classified as separate units in the tax records? What about basement apartments, some of which are official and some aren't?

        2-Expand the Daytime Parking Pass program. As Jack McKay explained, the DPP program is a good solution to allow employees of local businesses to park in a neighborhood. The proposed cost is only about the same as the cost of commuting by bus. We should expand this system to the neighborhoods affected by this bill.

        3-Meter more spaces, and let businesses use the revenue. If store and restaurant patrons can't use half the spaces in any neighborhood, even during daytime hours when demand is low, then we need to manage the remaining spaces better to increase turnover and ensure some available spaces. A shopper wouldn't care if there were fewer spaces as long as they could get one of them. With meters, they could.
        If residents have one side of the street for themselves, plus free parking on the other side, visitors have guest passes, and employees can get daytime parking passes, then the only remaining people who need parking are patrons of businesses. Therefore, let's allow the businesses to set up performance parking on their own.

        Let any official BID or Main Streets organization buy their own meters and place them on blocks in their territory. Residents with a sticker for the appropriate zone could park at those meters for free, as could anyone with a visitor or daytime parking pass. Everyone else would pay, and the BID or Main Streets group would get the money directly. They could spend that money to clean up the streets, install new trash cans, or fund DDOT programs like street resurfacing or new streetlights. Petrons of those businesses would be the ones paying, and so the revenue should go to the businesses to offset any deterrence effect of having meters.

        If a BID doesn't want to do it, they don't have to. The non-resident- only side of every block can stay free, and most likely overcrowded. Patrons of their businesses can park for free if they're willing to circle for a while. Or, they can let everyone get a space fairly quickly by paying. Or, a neighborhood could have a mixture of the two. The local business association knows the occupancy level better than DDOT, and could adjust meter rates without having to wait months or years for studies. Most of all, we could manage parking while ensuring, as much as possible, that it doesn't hurt businesses.

        4-Allow neighborhoods to choose smaller RPP zones. DC initially instituted the RPP system during Metro's construction, to prevent people from driving in and parking next to Metro stations. However, this still happens in some of DC's larger wards, like Ward 3, where some people from the edge of the District drive and park for free in Woodley Park or Cleveland Park. The purpose of the program was never to give some people, like Georgetown residents, special privileges to park in Logan Circle near their jobs just because they happen to be in the same ward.

        Some neighborhoods would oppose changing this system. Therefore, let's allow each ANC to decide to opt out of full-ward RPP zoning. If ANC 1B (U Street) chooses, they could vote to change their zone from 1 to 1B. All car owners registered in 1B would switch from Zone 1 to Zone 1B, and all RPP blocks in 1B would become 1B-only.

        5-Extend RPP hours. Most RPP zones restrict parking until 6 or 8 pm. That was great for the original purpose of stopping commuters, but doesn't deal with the shoppers who come to a neighborhood at night. Councilmember Wells' bill contains a provision that if 51% of the households on a block petition, they can extend RPP to a later time, up to midnight. In addition, they should be able to extend it to apply on weekends as well.

        I'd also suggest that the ANC, rather than a 51% petition, make the decision. Parking on each block doesn't only affect the residents on that block, as people frequently park one or two blocks away. An ANC single-member representative would effectively balance these needs, and ANCs as a whole could consider the needs of one representative against the rest of the neighborhood, usually deferring to the local representative as they typically do.

        ##

        Graham "intrigued" by RPP improvement ideas

        November 10, 2008-The discussion at Wednesday's DC Council hearing ranged across the full spectrum of parking topics: resident-only parking blocks, smaller RPP zones, the 72-hour rule, Emergency No Parking signs, the price of RPP stickers, loading zones, and more. Chairman Jim Graham seemed to approach the hearing with a very open mind, saying he was "intrigued" by at least some of the ideas.

        Graham contrasted his views on parking with those of his father. Graham said, "My father believed he had an inalienable right to park in front of our house," despite having a driveway. If someone came to visit, Graham's dad expected the visitor to get that space, and if someone else parked there, he'd angrily ask who was squatting in "his" space. "He had great animosity about parking meters," Graham added. "He believed he should have free parking at home and free parking at work." Recognizing that times have changed, "That's now an old-fashioned view about the rights of automobile drivers," he admitted. "We're now marching to a very different view of what parking is about."

        The idea that most "intrigued" Graham was smaller RPP zones. As she did in our interview, ANC Commissioner- elect Anne-Marie Bairstow of Woodley Park explained how people from all over Ward 3 park in Woodley all day to ride the metro - clearly not the intent of Residential Permit Parking. According to Bairstown, Dr. Gridlock once published a letter from a resident of the Palisades upset because her block wasn't RPP-designated. But the letter writer wasn't having trouble parking at her house; instead, her neighbors could drive to their offices in Friendship Heights and park for free on the surrounding neighborhood streets, while (being ineligible for a Ward 3 RPP sticker) she couldn't.

        The intent of the RPP system is to help residents find parking near their homes, not to enable some commutes and not others. I used to live at 18th and Swann, which switched from Ward 1 to Ward 2 in 2002. Why would I have had an "inalienable right" to park for free on residential streets in Columbia Heights before 2002, but not in Georgetown, and then after 2002 an inalienable right to park in Georgetown but not Columbia Heights? This defies logic. Zones the size of a neighborhood (perhaps by ANC) would give enough flexibility while also making resident parking for actual residents.

        Commissioners Brianne Nadeau, of the U Street area, and Jack McKay, of Mount Pleasant, both brought up the cheap price of RPP stickers. McKay's next-door neighbor owns four cars, and parks them all on the street for $15 each per year. An off-street parking space in Dupont rents for about $200-250 per month, or up to $3,000 per year, while we underprice these on-street spaces for only $15.

        Nadeau also criticized the city's policy of having no RPP restrictions around parks. DDOT's policy is "that people visiting [the parks] should be able to park for an unlimited length of time," she said. "I don't think that is realistic." I agree. In a neighborhood like Nadeau's, having unrestricted parking around a park doesn't mean that park users get to park in those spaces. Instead, it means that some people, especially residents who haven't registered their cars in DC, simply leave their cars around those parks for long periods of time.

        Much of the discussion focused on performance parking, the main purpose of the hearing. According to GGW contributor Michael Perkins, who testified, DC could probably earn $75,000 per year for a typical block downtown with performance parking. By comparing nearby garages and other area business districts, Perkins estimated that each space could easily rent for $2.50 per hour. At eight hours a day, discounted to account for some cheating and spaces not always being full, times 240 business days per year, each space could earn $3,600 per year. That's a lot of revenue.

        Perkins lives in Arlington, and therefore doesn't pay taxes to DC. But he would happily pay to park on the street, if paying would ensure him a good chance at finding a convenient space. Constitution Avenue, Adams Morgan, and other areas with high numbers of visitors and few spaces are perfect for performance parking. Charles Brazee, of the Adams Morgan Professional Association and Adams Morgan Partnership, felt that area businesses would be willing to try performance parking. What they wouldn't like, on the other hand, is simply dedicating some blocks to RPP-only (instead of allowing anyone to park for two hours as today), since that would limit parking for business patrons with no corresponding benefit to the businesses.

        Ellen Jones, Transportation Director for the Downtown BID, talked about congestion. Downtown, much of the congestion stems from trucks double parking for deliveries and services, said Jones. She recommends a downtown commercial vehicle ("performance loading") pilot zone, with the revenue applied directly to improve downtown. "Surface transit is the victim of our downtown congestion," said Jones. "Yes, private automobiles do sit in traffic, but it's the inefficiency of our bus service that keeps people from utilizing [buses]."

        Graham was clearly in the mood to think creatively. He asked about extending RPP hours or even "reversing" them in areas like Mount Pleasant or Adams Morgan, so the restrictions would apply at night instead of during the day (when parking is plentiful). He pondered the possibility of reinstating the 72-hour rule (that limits on-street parking to 72 hours) and said he is close to introducing legislation to limit Emergency No Parking abus.

        At the same time, Graham still showed more interest in solutions that keep parking free, but perhaps more restricted, than solutions that use pricing as a tool to balance supply and demand. He's still very happy with the large, cheap to park but expensive to build garage in Columbia Heights, and even Bairstow praised it. Just as our thinking about parking has come a long way since Graham's father's (still common) viewpoint, there's still a long way to go.

        Many residents and elected officials (like Michael Brown) still assume the solution to scarce parking is more parking. But more and more people realize that the better solution is less dependence on driving. Nadeau mentioned a new building at 14th and Florida marketing itself as "zero commute," where people can work from home. As Nadeau put it, projects like that, and hearings like this one, are "changing the conversation around parking." We're making a lot of progress.

        --- In MPD-5D@yahoogroups. com, <zomora@...> wrote:
        >
        > I live on a densely populated block in ward 5. One neighbor has
        > 4 cars parked on the block. This situation makes it difficult
        > for the rest us to find parking. Particularly in current
        > conditions. Is there anything we can do to remedy this
        > situation???
        >
        > Thanks a bunch!!!
        >


      • Julia Wilton
        I tend to disagree. While I see the advantages RPP, the disadvantages are also there. I am unable to get a RPP because my street isn t zoned, but all the
        Message 3 of 9 , Feb 12, 2010
          I tend to disagree. While I see the advantages RPP, the disadvantages
          are also there.

          I am unable to get a RPP because my street isn't zoned, but all the
          streets around me are, so if my block has no parking, I get ticketed
          for parking on a street with RPP...sorry that's ridiculous. I own my
          home, and should be able to park without issues.

          Many of my neighbours and friends have received tickets for having out
          of state plates. It is actually quite annoying when you have friends
          come and visit and they are constantly getting ticketed or warned...

          Getting temporary permits is also a hassle. I should not have to
          continuously do that in order to have guests to my house. Again, I
          own my home, and my guests should not have to worry about receiving
          tickets when coming to visit me.

          While I understand the benefits, re: dealers etc, the dealers in my
          neighbourhood roll in and out, regardless of the timeline. Limiting
          them to two hours only makes them have to drive around the
          block...which they typically already do.

          While we are at it...I get the whole meter machine thing and the huge
          money maker it is to the city - the machines are much better than
          having to constantly carry quarters, but most of the time the machines
          aren't working, which makes it difficult to pay...perhaps the
          investment should come into higher quality machines...

          Just thoughts...





          On 2/12/10, Steven Conn <steven_conn@...> wrote:
          > I'd be all for the RPP system being extended to 24 hours a day. The first
          > two reasons generate revenue for DC. Here's why:
          >
          > 1) Meters are now enforced till 10pm, which means non-residents park in RPP
          > zoned spaces @ 6:30 since they're allowed to be there for 2 hours, and
          > at 8:30pm, the RPP restriction expires. If RPP was extended to be effective
          > 24 hours, out of towners would have to pay for meters, or risk an RPP
          > ticket, and RPP spaces would be kept free for residents returning home after
          > 6:30.
          >
          > 2) It would make people register their MD or VA (or wherver else) cars in
          > the District. Many of my neighbors have lived here for years, but by parking
          > in the RPP spaces only after 6:30, and heading to work the next morning,
          > they go un-noticed with their MD and VA tags.
          >
          > 3) It would keep the drug dealers off of our blocks, since they wouldn't be
          > able to park there for many hours as they conduct their business into the
          > wee hours... past when the 8:30 RPP restriction expires.
          >
          > And if you have aguest, you're always able to get a temporary RPP permit @
          > the local MPD station...
          >
          > Just my two cents...
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ________________________________
          > From: imgoph <hatchard@...>
          > To: MPD-5D@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Thu, February 11, 2010 10:25:55 PM
          > Subject: [MPD-5D] Re: Question
          >
          >
          > Right now, I would say the only thing you can do is advocate for rules that
          > make it costlier for people to do this. The fact that the city only charges
          > $15 for a year worth of parking on the street means that we're giving up
          > revenue that could go towards better service in a lot of ways (transit,
          > parking in commercial districts, etc.) Maybe your neighbor would be less
          > likely to have 4 cars if they had to pay $50 for a second car, $125 for a
          > third, and $300 for a fourth.
          >
          > Last year, David Alpert proposed Five ways to improve the RPP system (see
          > below)
          >
          > Just food for thought,
          >
          > Geoff
          >
          > The Council's twin bills to reserve one side of every residential block for
          > residents only are well-intentioned, but overly simplistic solutions to the
          > complex problem in DC's Residential Permit Parking (RPP) system. How could
          > we do better?
          >
          > 1-Change higher RPP fees for more cars. The bills already contain one good
          > element, which the Council should retain: they increase the fees for the
          > second, third and subsequent cars each household registers in the RPP
          > program. The current provisions make the first permit cost $15, as today,
          > but then charge $50 per year for the second and $100 per year for the third
          > and additional permits. Why not go a little further? Let's make the first
          > sticker per household completely free. $15 is already almost free, low
          > enough that few people seriously consider whether to get an RPP sticker when
          > registering a car. Some lower-income households do say that this is a
          > burden. A charge of zero for the first permit, $50 for the second, and $100
          > for the third would bring in about the same amount of revenue as today.
          >
          > This system does contain some complications. Does a townhouse divided into
          > four apartments count as four households, each entitled to one permit at $15
          > or zero? What about a group home with four bedrooms, each rented out
          > separately but not classified as separate units in the tax records? What
          > about basement apartments, some of which are official and some aren't?
          >
          > 2-Expand the Daytime Parking Pass program. As Jack McKay explained, the DPP
          > program is a good solution to allow employees of local businesses to park in
          > a neighborhood. The proposed cost is only about the same as the cost of
          > commuting by bus. We should expand this system to the neighborhoods affected
          > by this bill.
          >
          > 3-Meter more spaces, and let businesses use the revenue. If store and
          > restaurant patrons can't use half the spaces in any neighborhood, even
          > during daytime hours when demand is low, then we need to manage the
          > remaining spaces better to increase turnover and ensure some available
          > spaces. A shopper wouldn't care if there were fewer spaces as long as they
          > could get one of them. With meters, they could.
          > If residents have one side of the street for themselves, plus free parking
          > on the other side, visitors have guest passes, and employees can get daytime
          > parking passes, then the only remaining people who need parking are patrons
          > of businesses. Therefore, let's allow the businesses to set up performance
          > parking on their own.
          >
          > Let any official BID or Main Streets organization buy their own meters and
          > place them on blocks in their territory. Residents with a sticker for the
          > appropriate zone could park at those meters for free, as could anyone with a
          > visitor or daytime parking pass. Everyone else would pay, and the BID or
          > Main Streets group would get the money directly. They could spend that money
          > to clean up the streets, install new trash cans, or fund DDOT programs like
          > street resurfacing or new streetlights. Petrons of those businesses would be
          > the ones paying, and so the revenue should go to the businesses to offset
          > any deterrence effect of having meters.
          >
          > If a BID doesn't want to do it, they don't have to. The non-resident- only
          > side of every block can stay free, and most likely overcrowded. Patrons of
          > their businesses can park for free if they're willing to circle for a while.
          > Or, they can let everyone get a space fairly quickly by paying. Or, a
          > neighborhood could have a mixture of the two. The local business association
          > knows the occupancy level better than DDOT, and could adjust meter rates
          > without having to wait months or years for studies. Most of all, we could
          > manage parking while ensuring, as much as possible, that it doesn't hurt
          > businesses.
          >
          > 4-Allow neighborhoods to choose smaller RPP zones. DC initially instituted
          > the RPP system during Metro's construction, to prevent people from driving
          > in and parking next to Metro stations. However, this still happens in some
          > of DC's larger wards, like Ward 3, where some people from the edge of the
          > District drive and park for free in Woodley Park or Cleveland Park. The
          > purpose of the program was never to give some people, like Georgetown
          > residents, special privileges to park in Logan Circle near their jobs just
          > because they happen to be in the same ward.
          >
          > Some neighborhoods would oppose changing this system. Therefore, let's allow
          > each ANC to decide to opt out of full-ward RPP zoning. If ANC 1B (U Street)
          > chooses, they could vote to change their zone from 1 to 1B. All car owners
          > registered in 1B would switch from Zone 1 to Zone 1B, and all RPP blocks in
          > 1B would become 1B-only.
          >
          > 5-Extend RPP hours. Most RPP zones restrict parking until 6 or 8 pm. That
          > was great for the original purpose of stopping commuters, but doesn't deal
          > with the shoppers who come to a neighborhood at night. Councilmember Wells'
          > bill contains a provision that if 51% of the households on a block petition,
          > they can extend RPP to a later time, up to midnight. In addition, they
          > should be able to extend it to apply on weekends as well.
          >
          > I'd also suggest that the ANC, rather than a 51% petition, make the
          > decision. Parking on each block doesn't only affect the residents on that
          > block, as people frequently park one or two blocks away. An ANC
          > single-member representative would effectively balance these needs, and ANCs
          > as a whole could consider the needs of one representative against the rest
          > of the neighborhood, usually deferring to the local representative as they
          > typically do.
          >
          > ##
          >
          > Graham "intrigued" by RPP improvement ideas
          >
          > November 10, 2008-The discussion at Wednesday's DC Council hearing ranged
          > across the full spectrum of parking topics: resident-only parking blocks,
          > smaller RPP zones, the 72-hour rule, Emergency No Parking signs, the price
          > of RPP stickers, loading zones, and more. Chairman Jim Graham seemed to
          > approach the hearing with a very open mind, saying he was "intrigued" by at
          > least some of the ideas.
          >
          > Graham contrasted his views on parking with those of his father. Graham
          > said, "My father believed he had an inalienable right to park in front of
          > our house," despite having a driveway. If someone came to visit, Graham's
          > dad expected the visitor to get that space, and if someone else parked
          > there, he'd angrily ask who was squatting in "his" space. "He had great
          > animosity about parking meters," Graham added. "He believed he should have
          > free parking at home and free parking at work." Recognizing that times have
          > changed, "That's now an old-fashioned view about the rights of automobile
          > drivers," he admitted. "We're now marching to a very different view of what
          > parking is about."
          >
          > The idea that most "intrigued" Graham was smaller RPP zones. As she did in
          > our interview, ANC Commissioner- elect Anne-Marie Bairstow of Woodley Park
          > explained how people from all over Ward 3 park in Woodley all day to ride
          > the metro - clearly not the intent of Residential Permit Parking. According
          > to Bairstown, Dr. Gridlock once published a letter from a resident of the
          > Palisades upset because her block wasn't RPP-designated. But the letter
          > writer wasn't having trouble parking at her house; instead, her neighbors
          > could drive to their offices in Friendship Heights and park for free on the
          > surrounding neighborhood streets, while (being ineligible for a Ward 3 RPP
          > sticker) she couldn't.
          >
          > The intent of the RPP system is to help residents find parking near their
          > homes, not to enable some commutes and not others. I used to live at 18th
          > and Swann, which switched from Ward 1 to Ward 2 in 2002. Why would I have
          > had an "inalienable right" to park for free on residential streets in
          > Columbia Heights before 2002, but not in Georgetown, and then after 2002 an
          > inalienable right to park in Georgetown but not Columbia Heights? This
          > defies logic. Zones the size of a neighborhood (perhaps by ANC) would give
          > enough flexibility while also making resident parking for actual residents.
          >
          > Commissioners Brianne Nadeau, of the U Street area, and Jack McKay, of Mount
          > Pleasant, both brought up the cheap price of RPP stickers. McKay's next-door
          > neighbor owns four cars, and parks them all on the street for $15 each per
          > year. An off-street parking space in Dupont rents for about $200-250 per
          > month, or up to $3,000 per year, while we underprice these on-street spaces
          > for only $15.
          >
          > Nadeau also criticized the city's policy of having no RPP restrictions
          > around parks. DDOT's policy is "that people visiting [the parks] should be
          > able to park for an unlimited length of time," she said. "I don't think that
          > is realistic." I agree. In a neighborhood like Nadeau's, having unrestricted
          > parking around a park doesn't mean that park users get to park in those
          > spaces. Instead, it means that some people, especially residents who haven't
          > registered their cars in DC, simply leave their cars around those parks for
          > long periods of time.
          >
          > Much of the discussion focused on performance parking, the main purpose of
          > the hearing. According to GGW contributor Michael Perkins, who testified, DC
          > could probably earn $75,000 per year for a typical block downtown with
          > performance parking. By comparing nearby garages and other area business
          > districts, Perkins estimated that each space could easily rent for $2.50 per
          > hour. At eight hours a day, discounted to account for some cheating and
          > spaces not always being full, times 240 business days per year, each space
          > could earn $3,600 per year. That's a lot of revenue.
          >
          > Perkins lives in Arlington, and therefore doesn't pay taxes to DC. But he
          > would happily pay to park on the street, if paying would ensure him a good
          > chance at finding a convenient space. Constitution Avenue, Adams Morgan, and
          > other areas with high numbers of visitors and few spaces are perfect for
          > performance parking. Charles Brazee, of the Adams Morgan Professional
          > Association and Adams Morgan Partnership, felt that area businesses would be
          > willing to try performance parking. What they wouldn't like, on the other
          > hand, is simply dedicating some blocks to RPP-only (instead of allowing
          > anyone to park for two hours as today), since that would limit parking for
          > business patrons with no corresponding benefit to the businesses.
          >
          > Ellen Jones, Transportation Director for the Downtown BID, talked about
          > congestion. Downtown, much of the congestion stems from trucks double
          > parking for deliveries and services, said Jones. She recommends a downtown
          > commercial vehicle ("performance loading") pilot zone, with the revenue
          > applied directly to improve downtown. "Surface transit is the victim of our
          > downtown congestion," said Jones. "Yes, private automobiles do sit in
          > traffic, but it's the inefficiency of our bus service that keeps people from
          > utilizing [buses]."
          >
          > Graham was clearly in the mood to think creatively. He asked about extending
          > RPP hours or even "reversing" them in areas like Mount Pleasant or Adams
          > Morgan, so the restrictions would apply at night instead of during the day
          > (when parking is plentiful). He pondered the possibility of reinstating the
          > 72-hour rule (that limits on-street parking to 72 hours) and said he is
          > close to introducing legislation to limit Emergency No Parking abus.
          >
          > At the same time, Graham still showed more interest in solutions that keep
          > parking free, but perhaps more restricted, than solutions that use pricing
          > as a tool to balance supply and demand. He's still very happy with the
          > large, cheap to park but expensive to build garage in Columbia Heights, and
          > even Bairstow praised it. Just as our thinking about parking has come a long
          > way since Graham's father's (still common) viewpoint, there's still a long
          > way to go.
          >
          > Many residents and elected officials (like Michael Brown) still assume the
          > solution to scarce parking is more parking. But more and more people realize
          > that the better solution is less dependence on driving. Nadeau mentioned a
          > new building at 14th and Florida marketing itself as "zero commute," where
          > people can work from home. As Nadeau put it, projects like that, and
          > hearings like this one, are "changing the conversation around parking."
          > We're making a lot of progress.
          >
          > --- In MPD-5D@yahoogroups. com, <zomora@...> wrote:
          >>
          >> I live on a densely populated block in ward 5. One neighbor has
          >> 4 cars parked on the block. This situation makes it difficult
          >> for the rest us to find parking. Particularly in current
          >> conditions. Is there anything we can do to remedy this
          >> situation???
          >>
          >> Thanks a bunch!!!
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >

          --
          Sent from my mobile device

          Our life is what our thoughts make it - Marcus Aurelius
        • Thembi Butler
          For what it s worth, I initiated the RPP designation for our block because I couldn t park anywhere near our house during business hours. I worked half days
          Message 4 of 9 , Feb 12, 2010
            For what it's worth, I initiated the RPP designation for our block because I couldn't park anywhere near our house  during business hours.  I worked half days at the time and arrived home each day to bumper to bumper MD and VA plates because XM employees were using our non-rpp block for commuter parking.  Then, I'd get a ticket for parking on another block, 50 feet from our front door.   It's been wonderful for us.  

            On Feb 12, 2010, at 10:05 PM, "Julia Wilton" <julia.wilton@...> wrote:

             

            I tend to disagree. While I see the advantages RPP, the disadvantages
            are also there.

            I am unable to get a RPP because my street isn't zoned, but all the
            streets around me are, so if my block has no parking, I get ticketed
            for parking on a street with RPP...sorry that's ridiculous. I own my
            home, and should be able to park without issues.

            Many of my neighbours and friends have received tickets for having out
            of state plates. It is actually quite annoying when you have friends
            come and visit and they are constantly getting ticketed or warned...

            Getting temporary permits is also a hassle. I should not have to
            continuously do that in order to have guests to my house. Again, I
            own my home, and my guests should not have to worry about receiving
            tickets when coming to visit me.

            While I understand the benefits, re: dealers etc, the dealers in my
            neighbourhood roll in and out, regardless of the timeline. Limiting
            them to two hours only makes them have to drive around the
            block...which they typically already do.

            While we are at it...I get the whole meter machine thing and the huge
            money maker it is to the city - the machines are much better than
            having to constantly carry quarters, but most of the time the machines
            aren't working, which makes it difficult to pay...perhaps the
            investment should come into higher quality machines...

            Just thoughts...

            On 2/12/10, Steven Conn <steven_conn@yahoo.com> wrote:
            > I'd be all for the RPP system being extended to 24 hours a day. The first
            > two reasons generate revenue for DC. Here's why:
            >
            > 1) Meters are now enforced till 10pm, which means non-residents park in RPP
            > zoned spaces @ 6:30 since they're allowed to be there for 2 hours, and
            > at 8:30pm, the  RPP restriction expires. If RPP was extended to be effective
            > 24 hours, out of towners would have to pay for meters, or risk an RPP
            > ticket, and RPP spaces would be kept free for residents  returning home after
            > 6:30.
            >
            > 2) It would make people register their MD or VA (or wherver else) cars in
            > the District. Many of my neighbors have lived here for years, but by parking
            > in the RPP spaces only after 6:30, and heading to work the next morning,
            > they go un-noticed with their MD and VA tags.
            >
            > 3) It would keep the drug dealers off of our blocks, since they wouldn't be
            > able to park there for many hours as they conduct their business into the
            > wee hours... past when the 8:30 RPP restriction expires.
            >
            > And if you have aguest, you're always able to get a temporary RPP permit @
            > the local MPD station...
            >
            > Just my two cents...
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ____________ _________ _________ __
            > From: imgoph <hatchard@gmail. com>
            > To: MPD-5D@yahoogroups. com
            > Sent: Thu, February 11, 2010 10:25:55 PM
            > Subject: [MPD-5D] Re: Question
            >
            >
            > Right now, I would say the only thing you can do is advocate for rules that
            > make it costlier for people to do this. The fact that the city only charges
            > $15 for a year worth of parking on the street means that we're giving up
            > revenue that could go towards better service in a lot of ways (transit,
            > parking in commercial districts, etc.) Maybe your neighbor would be less
            > likely to have 4 cars if they had to pay $50 for a second car, $125 for a
            > third, and $300 for a fourth.
            >
            > Last year, David Alpert proposed Five ways to improve the RPP system (see
            > below)
            >
            > Just food for thought,
            >
            > Geoff
            >
            > The Council's twin bills to reserve one side of every residential block for
            > residents only are well-intentioned, but overly simplistic solutions to the
            > complex problem in DC's Residential Permit Parking (RPP) system. How could
            > we do better?
            >
            > 1-Change higher RPP fees for more cars. The bills already contain one good
            > element, which the Council should retain: they increase the fees for the
            > second, third and subsequent cars each household registers in the RPP
            > program. The current provisions make the first permit cost $15, as today,
            > but then charge $50 per year for the second and $100 per year for the third
            > and additional permits. Why not go a little further? Let's make the first
            > sticker per household completely free. $15 is already almost free, low
            > enough that few people seriously consider whether to get an RPP sticker when
            > registering a car. Some lower-income households do say that this is a
            > burden. A charge of zero for the first permit, $50 for the second, and $100
            > for the third would bring in about the same amount of revenue as today.
            >
            > This system does contain some complications. Does a townhouse divided into
            > four apartments count as four households, each entitled to one permit at $15
            > or zero? What about a group home with four bedrooms, each rented out
            > separately but not classified as separate units in the tax records? What
            > about basement apartments, some of which are official and some aren't?
            >
            > 2-Expand the Daytime Parking Pass program. As Jack McKay explained, the DPP
            > program is a good solution to allow employees of local businesses to park in
            > a neighborhood. The proposed cost is only about the same as the cost of
            > commuting by bus. We should expand this system to the neighborhoods affected
            > by this bill.
            >
            > 3-Meter more spaces, and let businesses use the revenue. If store and
            > restaurant patrons can't use half the spaces in any neighborhood, even
            > during daytime hours when demand is low, then we need to manage the
            > remaining spaces better to increase turnover and ensure some available
            > spaces. A shopper wouldn't care if there were fewer spaces as long as they
            > could get one of them. With meters, they could.
            > If residents have one side of the street for themselves, plus free parking
            > on the other side, visitors have guest passes, and employees can get daytime
            > parking passes, then the only remaining people who need parking are patrons
            > of businesses. Therefore, let's allow the businesses to set up performance
            > parking on their own.
            >
            > Let any official BID or Main Streets organization buy their own meters and
            > place them on blocks in their territory. Residents with a sticker for the
            > appropriate zone could park at those meters for free, as could anyone with a
            > visitor or daytime parking pass. Everyone else would pay, and the BID or
            > Main Streets group would get the money directly. They could spend that money
            > to clean up the streets, install new trash cans, or fund DDOT programs like
            > street resurfacing or new streetlights. Petrons of those businesses would be
            > the ones paying, and so the revenue should go to the businesses to offset
            > any deterrence effect of having meters.
            >
            > If a BID doesn't want to do it, they don't have to. The non-resident- only
            > side of every block can stay free, and most likely overcrowded. Patrons of
            > their businesses can park for free if they're willing to circle for a while.
            > Or, they can let everyone get a space fairly quickly by paying. Or, a
            > neighborhood could have a mixture of the two. The local business association
            > knows the occupancy level better than DDOT, and could adjust meter rates
            > without having to wait months or years for studies. Most of all, we could
            > manage parking while ensuring, as much as possible, that it doesn't hurt
            > businesses.
            >
            > 4-Allow neighborhoods to choose smaller RPP zones. DC initially instituted
            > the RPP system during Metro's construction, to prevent people from driving
            > in and parking next to Metro stations. However, this still happens in some
            > of DC's larger wards, like Ward 3, where some people from the edge of the
            > District drive and park for free in Woodley Park or Cleveland Park. The
            > purpose of the program was never to give some people, like Georgetown
            > residents, special privileges to park in Logan Circle near their jobs just
            > because they happen to be in the same ward.
            >
            > Some neighborhoods would oppose changing this system. Therefore, let's allow
            > each ANC to decide to opt out of full-ward RPP zoning. If ANC 1B (U Street)
            > chooses, they could vote to change their zone from 1 to 1B. All car owners
            > registered in 1B would switch from Zone 1 to Zone 1B, and all RPP blocks in
            > 1B would become 1B-only.
            >
            > 5-Extend RPP hours. Most RPP zones restrict parking until 6 or 8 pm. That
            > was great for the original purpose of stopping commuters, but doesn't deal
            > with the shoppers who come to a neighborhood at night. Councilmember Wells'
            > bill contains a provision that if 51% of the households on a block petition,
            > they can extend RPP to a later time, up to midnight. In addition, they
            > should be able to extend it to apply on weekends as well.
            >
            > I'd also suggest that the ANC, rather than a 51% petition, make the
            > decision. Parking on each block doesn't only affect the residents on that
            > block, as people frequently park one or two blocks away. An ANC
            > single-member representative would effectively balance these needs, and ANCs
            > as a whole could consider the needs of one representative against the rest
            > of the neighborhood, usually deferring to the local representative as they
            > typically do.
            >
            > ##
            >
            > Graham "intrigued" by RPP improvement ideas
            >
            > November 10, 2008-The discussion at Wednesday's DC Council hearing ranged
            > across the full spectrum of parking topics: resident-only parking blocks,
            > smaller RPP zones, the 72-hour rule, Emergency No Parking signs, the price
            > of RPP stickers, loading zones, and more. Chairman Jim Graham seemed to
            > approach the hearing with a very open mind, saying he was "intrigued" by at
            > least some of the ideas.
            >
            > Graham contrasted his views on parking with those of his father. Graham
            > said, "My father believed he had an inalienable right to park in front of
            > our house," despite having a driveway. If someone came to visit, Graham's
            > dad expected the visitor to get that space, and if someone else parked
            > there, he'd angrily ask who was squatting in "his" space. "He had great
            > animosity about parking meters," Graham added. "He believed he should have
            > free parking at home and free parking at work." Recognizing that times have
            > changed, "That's now an old-fashioned view about the rights of automobile
            > drivers," he admitted. "We're now marching to a very different view of what
            > parking is about."
            >
            > The idea that most "intrigued" Graham was smaller RPP zones. As she did in
            > our interview, ANC Commissioner- elect Anne-Marie Bairstow of Woodley Park
            > explained how people from all over Ward 3 park in Woodley all day to ride
            > the metro - clearly not the intent of Residential Permit Parking. According
            > to Bairstown, Dr. Gridlock once published a letter from a resident of the
            > Palisades upset because her block wasn't RPP-designated. But the letter
            > writer wasn't having trouble parking at her house; instead, her neighbors
            > could drive to their offices in Friendship Heights and park for free on the
            > surrounding neighborhood streets, while (being ineligible for a Ward 3 RPP
            > sticker) she couldn't.
            >
            > The intent of the RPP system is to help residents find parking near their
            > homes, not to enable some commutes and not others. I used to live at 18th
            > and Swann, which switched from Ward 1 to Ward 2 in 2002. Why would I have
            > had an "inalienable right" to park for free on residential streets in
            > Columbia Heights before 2002, but not in Georgetown, and then after 2002 an
            > inalienable right to park in Georgetown but not Columbia Heights? This
            > defies logic. Zones the size of a neighborhood (perhaps by ANC) would give
            > enough flexibility while also making resident parking for actual residents.
            >
            > Commissioners Brianne Nadeau, of the U Street area, and Jack McKay, of Mount
            > Pleasant, both brought up the cheap price of RPP stickers. McKay's next-door
            > neighbor owns four cars, and parks them all on the street for $15 each per
            > year. An off-street parking space in Dupont rents for about $200-250 per
            > month, or up to $3,000 per year, while we underprice these on-street spaces
            > for only $15.
            >
            > Nadeau also criticized the city's policy of having no RPP restrictions
            > around parks. DDOT's policy is "that people visiting [the parks] should be
            > able to park for an unlimited length of time," she said. "I don't think that
            > is realistic." I agree. In a neighborhood like Nadeau's, having unrestricted
            > parking around a park doesn't mean that park users get to park in those
            > spaces. Instead, it means that some people, especially residents who haven't
            > registered their cars in DC, simply leave their cars around those parks for
            > long periods of time.
            >
            > Much of the discussion focused on performance parking, the main purpose of
            > the hearing. According to GGW contributor Michael Perkins, who testified, DC
            > could probably earn $75,000 per year for a typical block downtown with
            > performance parking. By comparing nearby garages and other area business
            > districts, Perkins estimated that each space could easily rent for $2.50 per
            > hour. At eight hours a day, discounted to account for some cheating and
            > spaces not always being full, times 240 business days per year, each space
            > could earn $3,600 per year. That's a lot of revenue.
            >
            > Perkins lives in Arlington, and therefore doesn't pay taxes to DC. But he
            > would happily pay to park on the street, if paying would ensure him a good
            > chance at finding a convenient space. Constitution Avenue, Adams Morgan, and
            > other areas with high numbers of visitors and few spaces are perfect for
            > performance parking. Charles Brazee, of the Adams Morgan Professional
            > Association and Adams Morgan Partnership, felt that area businesses would be
            > willing to try performance parking. What they wouldn't like, on the other
            > hand, is simply dedicating some blocks to RPP-only (instead of allowing
            > anyone to park for two hours as today), since that would limit parking for
            > business patrons with no corresponding benefit to the businesses.
            >
            > Ellen Jones, Transportation Director for the Downtown BID, talked about
            > congestion. Downtown, much of the congestion stems from trucks double
            > parking for deliveries and services, said Jones. She recommends a downtown
            > commercial vehicle ("performance loading") pilot zone, with the revenue
            > applied directly to improve downtown. "Surface transit is the victim of our
            > downtown congestion," said Jones. "Yes, private automobiles do sit in
            > traffic, but it's the inefficiency of our bus service that keeps people from
            > utilizing [buses]."
            >
            > Graham was clearly in the mood to think creatively. He asked about extending
            > RPP hours or even "reversing" them in areas like Mount Pleasant or Adams
            > Morgan, so the restrictions would apply at night instead of during the day
            > (when parking is plentiful). He pondered the possibility of reinstating the
            > 72-hour rule (that limits on-street parking to 72 hours) and said he is
            > close to introducing legislation to limit Emergency No Parking abus.
            >
            > At the same time, Graham still showed more interest in solutions that keep
            > parking free, but perhaps more restricted, than solutions that use pricing
            > as a tool to balance supply and demand. He's still very happy with the
            > large, cheap to park but expensive to build garage in Columbia Heights, and
            > even Bairstow praised it. Just as our thinking about parking has come a long
            > way since Graham's father's (still common) viewpoint, there's still a long
            > way to go.
            >
            > Many residents and elected officials (like Michael Brown) still assume the
            > solution to scarce parking is more parking. But more and more people realize
            > that the better solution is less dependence on driving. Nadeau mentioned a
            > new building at 14th and Florida marketing itself as "zero commute," where
            > people can work from home. As Nadeau put it, projects like that, and
            > hearings like this one, are "changing the conversation around parking."
            > We're making a lot of progress.
            >
            > --- In MPD-5D@yahoogroups. com, <zomora@...> wrote:
            >>
            >> I live on a densely populated block in ward 5. One neighbor has
            >> 4 cars parked on the block. This situation makes it difficult
            >> for the rest us to find parking. Particularly in current
            >> conditions. Is there anything we can do to remedy this
            >> situation???
            >>
            >> Thanks a bunch!!!
            >>
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >

            --
            Sent from my mobile device

            Our life is what our thoughts make it - Marcus Aurelius

          • Hughes, Corinne (MPD)
            Are they registered tags and are they parked legally? ________________________________ From: MPD-5D@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MPD-5D@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
            Message 5 of 9 , Feb 14, 2010
              Are they registered tags and are they parked legally?

              ________________________________

              From: MPD-5D@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MPD-5D@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
              Of zomora@...
              Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 1:02 PM
              To: mpd-5d@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [MPD-5D] Question





              I live on a densely populated block in ward 5. One neighbor has
              4 cars parked on the block. This situation makes it difficult
              for the rest us to find parking. Particularly in current
              conditions. Is there anything we can do to remedy this
              situation???

              Thanks a bunch!!!
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.