S/O What should MoCo do about parking in downtown Bethesda

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriott is moving to Bethesda because it's a dense urban area with good transit. If they want that AND for all of their employees to be able to drive to work in their own cars, by themselves, and park? Nope.

Marriott is going to have exclusive use of the 1000+ space Woodmont Corner Garage during business hours.

So they are in effect taking 1000 existing spaces off the market, for employee use (at least during business hours)

This is an example of what I said above - you can leave the number of spots the same, while increasing the level of activity. Effectively making Bethesda less autocentric without actually reducing the number of spots.

Marriott's position here seems to be: we want to make it as easy as possible for our employees to drive to our new location that we moved to because of its transit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I've only parked in a County garage in Bethesda maybe once or twice. IIRC there were plenty of spaces. Are there always spaces available on weekends, despite it being free?

As an economist, that suggests that it should remain free - the market clearing price is zero - to put it another way, it provides value to people parking at no incremental cost, and putting on a fee would reduce that value. (that ignores both the external costs of people driving in, and the benefits to retail, which as a swag I am assuming balance out)

But it also suggests that building more off street spots is probably not worthwhile, as the demand is simply not that great.

As an economist, you should know that there's no such thing as free parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've only parked in a County garage in Bethesda maybe once or twice. IIRC there were plenty of spaces. Are there always spaces available on weekends, despite it being free?

As an economist, that suggests that it should remain free - the market clearing price is zero - to put it another way, it provides value to people parking at no incremental cost, and putting on a fee would reduce that value. (that ignores both the external costs of people driving in, and the benefits to retail, which as a swag I am assuming balance out)

But it also suggests that building more off street spots is probably not worthwhile, as the demand is simply not that great.

As an economist, you should know that there's no such thing as free parking.

Thanks Mr Shoup.

I noted above that there are external costs. I did not discuss the opportunity cost of the County owning a garage, as I assumed the policy question at issue is not whether or not to sell the garage to a developer, but whether or not to charge for parking on weekends, given that the garage exists and is not repurposed into something else.

It is quite conceivable (and I think Mr Shoup would agree) that in some circumstances not charging for parking at a particular facility at certain hours, may well be the socially optimal policy.

I feel like this thread is illustrating something I (as an urbanist) believe. That sloppy writing by urbanists can feed the war on cars persecution complex, and undermine urbanist goals.

In general most of our arguments for a more urbanist approach to parking in this region, are based on the need to price parking at a market clearing price, and have the govt be neutral about its supply. EG supporting higher (market based) prices for parking permits, opposing parking minimums.

In a few cases we support parking maximums, but that is largely due to the severe unpriced congestion costs imposed by additional auto trips at peak.

Now while in theory there could be off peak externalities great enough to justify (socially - not speaking in terms of a revenue source) higher than market clearing prices for parking, I think that is unlikely here, and I think pushing for that distracts from (and may arouse opposition to) more important urbanist policies, including policies on parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
As an economist, the empty parking spaces should also suggest to you that a free service is being provided at great expense by the County that is not being fully appreciated by the public and that perhaps another use might be both appropriate. I don't understand the people who are clamoring for more parking. The garages are always empty on the weekend days when I use them.

Maybe. I did not attempt to analyze, even in broad qualitative terms, the value of the (paid) weekday parking, or the opportunity and operating costs related to the facility. My assumption is that A. The garage exists for weekday parking purpose B. It is open to the public on weekends and that the only question at issue is whether to charge a small parking fee or to have it continue to be free.

Certainly as downtown Bethesda develops further, it would make sense to consider putting the garages on the market for development. Presumably those with the fewest spaces per developable acre of land, first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things change. A lot of the free surface parking in Bethesda has been converted to underground, paid parking. This will change even more in the coming years when the area behind the cooperative is redeveloped and eventually, I assume, the Stroschneider's strip mall will be redeveloped.

It is what it is, and the businesses will adapt to it.

Underground parking is still parking. That is a change that properly balances the need for greater density with the continued need for parking.

You say businesses will adapt, but the issue is making good sure customers can get to the businesses. If customers can't reach the business, the way to adapt is to go online, but online stores don't contribute to a vibrant urban environment.

Amazon and the internet have changed retail permanently, and now our physical development is adapting to it. Underground parking is still parking. Maybe Baby Boomers demand free and open parking on demand, but the rest of us understand that parking has costs, and they need to be paid, either by the County, the property owner or the consumer, or some combination of all 3.

I don't disagree with that.

In terms of Amazon/the internet, it has changed retail and made it I much more difficult environment to survive, leading to a lot of vacancies in many areas, including downtown Bethesda. Because I think we all believe an active retain segment is beneficial for a variety of reasons, policymakers should be wary of taking even further measures that will harm the retail sector -- such as significantly reducing parking. That doesn't mean that there should be plentiful, free, surface lots -- not all. But it does mean not substantially reducing parking or making parking expenses enough so that most people will not use it. (Exactly where that line can be debated.)

I'm a newcomer to the Bethesda area, and was shocked that MoCo doesn't charge for parking on weekends. Seems like a lost opportunity for additional revenue (it doesn't have to be expensive, 1-2$/hr).

The question is would enough people avoid Bethesda if they did that so that a) you would ultimately lose $ in tax revenue and b) hurt the overall vibe in the area.

$1-2 dollars per hour isn't a ton and many people would simply accept it. But I think more than you might expect would limit (both in #s of visit and duration) weekend trips. If you collect $4 in parking, but lose sales tax on a family's lunch and afternoon shopping, you don't come out ahead even in purely economic terms.

I don't know how this would play out in practice and I am not necessarily saying this is a bad idea, but it is important to consider how people will react to these changes, particularly when lots of people coming to Bethesda can easily get to Va or DC to spend their money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things change. A lot of the free surface parking in Bethesda has been converted to underground, paid parking. This will change even more in the coming years when the area behind the cooperative is redeveloped and eventually, I assume, the Stroschneider's strip mall will be redeveloped.

It is what it is, and the businesses will adapt to it.

Underground parking is still parking. That is a change that properly balances the need for greater density with the continued need for parking.

You say businesses will adapt, but the issue is making good sure customers can get to the businesses. If customers can't reach the business, the way to adapt is to go online, but online stores don't contribute to a vibrant urban environment.

Amazon and the internet have changed retail permanently, and now our physical development is adapting to it. Underground parking is still parking. Maybe Baby Boomers demand free and open parking on demand, but the rest of us understand that parking has costs, and they need to be paid, either by the County, the property owner or the consumer, or some combination of all 3.

I don't disagree with that.

In terms of Amazon/the internet, it has changed retail and made it I much more difficult environment to survive, leading to a lot of vacancies in many areas, including downtown Bethesda. Because I think we all believe an active retain segment is beneficial for a variety of reasons, policymakers should be wary of taking even further measures that will harm the retail sector -- such as significantly reducing parking. That doesn't mean that there should be plentiful, free, surface lots -- not all. But it does mean not substantially reducing parking or making parking expenses enough so that most people will not use it. (Exactly where that line can be debated.)

I'm a newcomer to the Bethesda area, and was shocked that MoCo doesn't charge for parking on weekends. Seems like a lost opportunity for additional revenue (it doesn't have to be expensive, 1-2$/hr).

The question is would enough people avoid Bethesda if they did that so that a) you would ultimately lose $ in tax revenue and b) hurt the overall vibe in the area.

$1-2 dollars per hour isn't a ton and many people would simply accept it. But I think more than you might expect would limit (both in #s of visit and duration) weekend trips. If you collect $4 in parking, but lose sales tax on a family's lunch and afternoon shopping, you don't come out ahead even in purely economic terms.

I don't know how this would play out in practice and I am not necessarily saying this is a bad idea, but it is important to consider how people will react to these changes, particularly when lots of people coming to Bethesda can easily get to Va or DC to spend their money.

But MD is the outlier not the norm on this. There is virtually no free parking in DC unless you find a scarce spot on the street and there is also almost no free parking in Northern Virginia either. Even Fairfax county is strongly moving towards charging for parking in high demand neighborhoods.

But as I pointed out up thread parking in Bethesda is not hard - specifically it is just the Bethesda Row garage that is hard to find a parking spot in. Montgomery County could just charge for that high demand garage and leave the others free to incentivize people to walk the couple of blocks or go out in other parts of Bethesda.

And if they did that they'd reduce the wasted time and gas.

But this is Bethesda which is the global capital of the clueless and entitled so I'm sure there would be howls of protest about charging people with HHI's of 200K and up driving 40K+ cars all proclaiming their concerns about global warming $5 to park for the night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things change. A lot of the free surface parking in Bethesda has been converted to underground, paid parking. This will change even more in the coming years when the area behind the cooperative is redeveloped and eventually, I assume, the Stroschneider's strip mall will be redeveloped.

It is what it is, and the businesses will adapt to it.

Underground parking is still parking. That is a change that properly balances the need for greater density with the continued need for parking.

You say businesses will adapt, but the issue is making good sure customers can get to the businesses. If customers can't reach the business, the way to adapt is to go online, but online stores don't contribute to a vibrant urban environment.

Amazon and the internet have changed retail permanently, and now our physical development is adapting to it. Underground parking is still parking. Maybe Baby Boomers demand free and open parking on demand, but the rest of us understand that parking has costs, and they need to be paid, either by the County, the property owner or the consumer, or some combination of all 3.

I don't disagree with that.

In terms of Amazon/the internet, it has changed retail and made it I much more difficult environment to survive, leading to a lot of vacancies in many areas, including downtown Bethesda. Because I think we all believe an active retain segment is beneficial for a variety of reasons, policymakers should be wary of taking even further measures that will harm the retail sector -- such as significantly reducing parking. That doesn't mean that there should be plentiful, free, surface lots -- not all. But it does mean not substantially reducing parking or making parking expenses enough so that most people will not use it. (Exactly where that line can be debated.)

I'm a newcomer to the Bethesda area, and was shocked that MoCo doesn't charge for parking on weekends. Seems like a lost opportunity for additional revenue (it doesn't have to be expensive, 1-2$/hr).

The question is would enough people avoid Bethesda if they did that so that a) you would ultimately lose $ in tax revenue and b) hurt the overall vibe in the area.

$1-2 dollars per hour isn't a ton and many people would simply accept it. But I think more than you might expect would limit (both in #s of visit and duration) weekend trips. If you collect $4 in parking, but lose sales tax on a family's lunch and afternoon shopping, you don't come out ahead even in purely economic terms.

I don't know how this would play out in practice and I am not necessarily saying this is a bad idea, but it is important to consider how people will react to these changes, particularly when lots of people coming to Bethesda can easily get to Va or DC to spend their money.

But MD is the outlier not the norm on this. There is virtually no free parking in DC unless you find a scarce spot on the street and there is also almost no free parking in Northern Virginia either. Even Fairfax county is strongly moving towards charging for parking in high demand neighborhoods.

But as I pointed out up thread parking in Bethesda is not hard - specifically it is just the Bethesda Row garage that is hard to find a parking spot in. Montgomery County could just charge for that high demand garage and leave the others free to incentivize people to walk the couple of blocks or go out in other parts of Bethesda.

And if they did that they'd reduce the wasted time and gas.

But this is Bethesda which is the global capital of the clueless and entitled so I'm sure there would be howls of protest about charging people with HHI's of 200K and up driving 40K+ cars all proclaiming their concerns about global warming $5 to park for the night.

Your ridiculous swipe at Bethesda detracts from an otherwise reasonable suggestion. If one lot is substantially more popular than others, it may make sense to require payment for that lot while allowing free parking in slightly less convenient spots. That's what they already do with street parking on Saturday. If you want the convenience of street parking you have to pay, or you can park for free in a lot/garage.

As for VA and DC, it depends on where and when you are talking. I have virtually never had to pay to park on a weekend in VA and even in DC can often find free parking when zone restrictions are loosened.

But let's say you are right that MoCo is the outlier with free parking on the weekends. That means it currently has a comparative advantage that encourages people to come to Bethesda. Losing that would, at least to some degree, disincentivise people from coming to Bethesda. I've never said this concern should necessarily win out when various issues are collectively considered, but it absolutely should be part of the analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Marriott is moving to Bethesda because it's a dense urban area with good transit. If they want that AND for all of their employees to be able to drive to work in their own cars, by themselves, and park? Nope.

Marriott is going to have exclusive use of the 1000+ space Woodmont Corner Garage during business hours.

So they are in effect taking 1000 existing spaces off the market, for employee use (at least during business hours)

This is an example of what I said above - you can leave the number of spots the same, while increasing the level of activity. Effectively making Bethesda less autocentric without actually reducing the number of spots.

Marriott's position here seems to be: we want to make it as easy as possible for our employees to drive to our new location that we moved to because of its transit.

+1 And MoCo's position is to give them tens of millions dollars in tax breaks to move up the road to a better location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things change. A lot of the free surface parking in Bethesda has been converted to underground, paid parking. This will change even more in the coming years when the area behind the cooperative is redeveloped and eventually, I assume, the Stroschneider's strip mall will be redeveloped.

It is what it is, and the businesses will adapt to it.

Underground parking is still parking. That is a change that properly balances the need for greater density with the continued need for parking.

You say businesses will adapt, but the issue is making good sure customers can get to the businesses. If customers can't reach the business, the way to adapt is to go online, but online stores don't contribute to a vibrant urban environment.

Amazon and the internet have changed retail permanently, and now our physical development is adapting to it. Underground parking is still parking. Maybe Baby Boomers demand free and open parking on demand, but the rest of us understand that parking has costs, and they need to be paid, either by the County, the property owner or the consumer, or some combination of all 3.

I don't disagree with that.

In terms of Amazon/the internet, it has changed retail and made it I much more difficult environment to survive, leading to a lot of vacancies in many areas, including downtown Bethesda. Because I think we all believe an active retain segment is beneficial for a variety of reasons, policymakers should be wary of taking even further measures that will harm the retail sector -- such as significantly reducing parking. That doesn't mean that there should be plentiful, free, surface lots -- not all. But it does mean not substantially reducing parking or making parking expenses enough so that most people will not use it. (Exactly where that line can be debated.)

I'm a newcomer to the Bethesda area, and was shocked that MoCo doesn't charge for parking on weekends. Seems like a lost opportunity for additional revenue (it doesn't have to be expensive, 1-2$/hr).

The question is would enough people avoid Bethesda if they did that so that a) you would ultimately lose $ in tax revenue and b) hurt the overall vibe in the area.

$1-2 dollars per hour isn't a ton and many people would simply accept it. But I think more than you might expect would limit (both in #s of visit and duration) weekend trips. If you collect $4 in parking, but lose sales tax on a family's lunch and afternoon shopping, you don't come out ahead even in purely economic terms.

I don't know how this would play out in practice and I am not necessarily saying this is a bad idea, but it is important to consider how people will react to these changes, particularly when lots of people coming to Bethesda can easily get to Va or DC to spend their money.

But MD is the outlier not the norm on this. There is virtually no free parking in DC unless you find a scarce spot on the street and there is also almost no free parking in Northern Virginia either. Even Fairfax county is strongly moving towards charging for parking in high demand neighborhoods.

But as I pointed out up thread parking in Bethesda is not hard - specifically it is just the Bethesda Row garage that is hard to find a parking spot in. Montgomery County could just charge for that high demand garage and leave the others free to incentivize people to walk the couple of blocks or go out in other parts of Bethesda.

And if they did that they'd reduce the wasted time and gas.

But this is Bethesda which is the global capital of the clueless and entitled so I'm sure there would be howls of protest about charging people with HHI's of 200K and up driving 40K+ cars all proclaiming their concerns about global warming $5 to park for the night.

Your ridiculous swipe at Bethesda detracts from an otherwise reasonable suggestion. If one lot is substantially more popular than others, it may make sense to require payment for that lot while allowing free parking in slightly less convenient spots. That's what they already do with street parking on Saturday. If you want the convenience of street parking you have to pay, or you can park for free in a lot/garage.

As for VA and DC, it depends on where and when you are talking. I have virtually never had to pay to park on a weekend in VA and even in DC can often find free parking when zone restrictions are loosened.

But let's say you are right that MoCo is the outlier with free parking on the weekends. That means it currently has a comparative advantage that encourages people to come to Bethesda. Losing that would, at least to some degree, disincentivise people from coming to Bethesda. I've never said this concern should necessarily win out when various issues are collectively considered, but it absolutely should be part of the analysis.

You should learn about an economic concept called marginal costs. For someone going to Bethesda to eat at one of its expensive restaurants or shop at its overpriced retail, a few dollars for parking will not be a substantial factor in this decision-making.

[Anonymous]

the Montgomery county lots are several blocks away from the restaurants. that is a deterrant. I live 1.5 miles away from downtown Bethesda and never go there. I am driving because it is more convenient and I dont want to park too far when the weather i s bad and hate waiting over 30 minutes to get a table at a mediocre restaurant. I also think the retail shopping is lackluster. I find it easier to do to downtown silver spring or rockville for.much better restaurants and to shop at the retail stores i.prefer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. But Bethesda won't. Bethesda relies to a significant degree on people who cannot walk there. There simply aren't enough people in walking distance to sustain the vibrant area we seem to all want. If it got to the point that people 2 mikes from Bethesda really didn't go there, Bethesda could not sustain itself.

Look at this way, Bethesda garages are currently packed with people throughout the week and weekend. Those thousands and thousands of people are all shopping, eating, working, etc. If parking were curtailed so that only half that number could come into Bethesda, you really don't think that would have an adverse impact?

This is a circular argument. There has to be parking because people drive to get to downtown Bethesda so there has to be parking because people drive to get to downtown Bethesda so...

Lots of people ALREADY don't drive in downtown Bethesda. After the Purple Line opens, and more housing in downtown Bethesda gets built, even more people won't drive in downtown Bethesda. We want people to be in downtown Bethesda without driving. So why would we keep building parking that encourages people to be in downtown Bethesda with driving?

You can have a dense urban place, or you can have a place with lots of easy parking that people drive to, but you can't have both.

YOU. Not equal to WE.

I live 1 1/52miles away. I am not taking a bus to dinner/shopping/lugging bags of purchases home. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

1 1/2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. But Bethesda won't. Bethesda relies to a significant degree on people who cannot walk there. There simply aren't enough people in walking distance to sustain the vibrant area we seem to all want. If it got to the point that people 2 mikes from Bethesda really didn't go there, Bethesda could not sustain itself.

Look at this way, Bethesda garages are currently packed with people throughout the week and weekend. Those thousands and thousands of people are all shopping, eating, working, etc. If parking were curtailed so that only half that number could come into Bethesda, you really don't think that would have an adverse impact?

This is a circular argument. There has to be parking because people drive to get to downtown Bethesda so there has to be parking because people drive to get to downtown Bethesda so...

Lots of people ALREADY don't drive in downtown Bethesda. After the Purple Line opens, and more housing in downtown Bethesda gets built, even more people won't drive in downtown Bethesda. We want people to be in downtown Bethesda without driving. So why would we keep building parking that encourages people to be in downtown Bethesda with driving?

You can have a dense urban place, or you can have a place with lots of easy parking that people drive to, but you can't have both.

YOU. Not equal to WE.

I live 1 1/52miles away. I am not taking a bus to dinner/shopping/lugging bags of purchases home. Sorry.

You are not representative of the universe. Most people realize this at age 6. We already read your posts that you barely go into Bethesda because you find the parking so onerous (it's really not).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree someone has to pay for the parking so I guess the question is whether the benefit to the property owners is worth the cost. There’s a lot of UMC families with disposable income in the Bradley hills, wyngate, ashburton and KP neighborhoods that are basically equidistant between the Bethesda retail and the Rockville retail areas. One has free and relatively convenient parking, the other less o. (I do tend to think that Bethesda has enough parking for weekends, at least in the Bethesda row area), but it’s worse on the other side of Bethesda and terrible on weedkdays).

Well, then county residents have a choice. Some can live in downtown Bethesda and walk to their amenities, others can live in the neighborhoods you describe and drive to Rockville Pike and park for free to get their Amenities. I am pretty sure Bethesda will do just fine either way.

+1 to the first poster.

And to the second poster, if you think all will be fine without all the disposable income from the Bethesda SFH neighborhoods... you could be mistaken. Look at the vacancies of the past few years as more and more "locals" vote with their feet (and CARS - HA!) to go elsewhere. Fewer niche shops. More fast casual dining with food served in bowls and banks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree someone has to pay for the parking so I guess the question is whether the benefit to the property owners is worth the cost. There’s a lot of UMC families with disposable income in the Bradley hills, wyngate, ashburton and KP neighborhoods that are basically equidistant between the Bethesda retail and the Rockville retail areas. One has free and relatively convenient parking, the other less o. (I do tend to think that Bethesda has enough parking for weekends, at least in the Bethesda row area), but it’s worse on the other side of Bethesda and terrible on weedkdays).

Well, then county residents have a choice. Some can live in downtown Bethesda and walk to their amenities, others can live in the neighborhoods you describe and drive to Rockville Pike and park for free to get their Amenities. I am pretty sure Bethesda will do just fine either way.

+1 to the first poster.

And to the second poster, if you think all will be fine without all the disposable income from the Bethesda SFH neighborhoods... you could be mistaken. Look at the vacancies of the past few years as more and more "locals" vote with their feet (and CARS - HA!) to go elsewhere. Fewer niche shops. More fast casual dining with food served in bowls and banks.

The trend is towards fast casual dining (higher revenue for more hours of the day) rather than Persimmon type places. "Niche shops" are suffering everywhere as Amazon substitutes for them in price and convenience. You sound like an elderly person complaining about the world changing too quickly.