Murch- Getting screwed again?

[Anonymous]

I guess while you were frothing, you missed the logic of the PP?
PP seems to be arguing that deciding who gets to park is a problem, but once you've made a decision about who gets to park, providing those spaces via an underground garage makes the most sense.

I think the better approach is to incentivize public transit or carpooling. Not just paying for public transit and giving out gas cards, but things like prime parking spots for carpoolers, and giftcards for itunes and running shoes and commuter bags for the public transit riders. Walkers and bikers should also be attractively incentivized.

Another hilarious suggestion. Giftcards? Commuter bags? So you want to build underground parking AND then give out giftcards so it isn't used? Wow. I think I can guess what you do for a living.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Giving teachers free RPP permits to park in residential areas near schools sounds appealing, but it raises questions: First, it encourages more driving when other public policies are to encourage transit use, ride sharing, etc. Granted some teachers may have no choice but to drive, but handing out free RPP passes will just encourage more car use. Second, if teachers get free RPPs, who else "deserves" them? The school custodians? Why not. Cops? Sure. Fire fighters? Absolutely. Sanitation workers? Uh, well. DMV bureaucrats? Maybe not. And for residents who live in the vicinity of a school, etc. where employees have free street parking will find that the RPP program no longer works for them as they have to park blocks from their homes. So the best solution is to provide on-site (underground if possible) parking and then control (or require a needs based showing) for employees who get the parking. And charge them something for using it.

And quotes like this are why I can always talk about DC education policies with my friends in other cities and laugh at you all. (And I guess me, since we are here.)

Let's go over that logic again!

Giving out FREE parking only encourages MORE parking! But building an underground parking garage, like Janney has. (All schools must have what Janney has, because. Reasons.) But spending millions of dollars for UNDERGROUND parking, would not create an incentive for people to drive!

And, if you are mean and won't give us the underground parking, then obviously, you should not whine when we pave over your preK play area.

--Crazy Shepherd poster, who will at this time, mention again that Shepherd's renovation put a second floor kiln on a 50s building (actually I think they just finished driving in the steel support beams necessary), and built an atrium. And cost 30 million dollars, did no work over the summer because... I think someone forgot to put in the permits? And also did not manage to build a cafeteria. That is without the underground parking though.

Apparently cafeterias are a lot more expensive than atriums, kilns, and parking lots.

Seriously, I only worked as an auditor for a brief period of time, and I have no experience with government contracts, but I really don't know how people who defend this crap can sleep at night.

I guess while you were frothing, you missed the logic of the PP?
PP seems to be arguing that deciding who gets to park is a problem, but once you've made a decision about who gets to park, providing those spaces via an underground garage makes the most sense.

I think the better approach is to incentivize public transit or carpooling. Not just paying for public transit and giving out gas cards, but things like prime parking spots for carpoolers, and giftcards for itunes and running shoes and commuter bags for the public transit riders. Walkers and bikers should also be attractively incentivized.

Incentivize the general public all you want. But at the moment there are 100 or so Murch employees, many of whom drive and probably cannot switch to public transport at the drop of a hat. Should we upend the entire faculty as well? Murch also isn't close to any metro stop. So that should be fun for the staff, carrying all the stuff elementary school teachers carry.

[Anonymous]

Most people who drive to work pay for their own parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I guess while you were frothing, you missed the logic of the PP?
PP seems to be arguing that deciding who gets to park is a problem, but once you've made a decision about who gets to park, providing those spaces via an underground garage makes the most sense.

I think the better approach is to incentivize public transit or carpooling. Not just paying for public transit and giving out gas cards, but things like prime parking spots for carpoolers, and giftcards for itunes and running shoes and commuter bags for the public transit riders. Walkers and bikers should also be attractively incentivized.

Another hilarious suggestion. Giftcards? Commuter bags? So you want to build underground parking AND then give out giftcards so it isn't used? Wow. I think I can guess what you do for a living.

You still don't get it, do you?

[Anonymous]

Since I don't work for a corporate gifting firm distributing commuter bags and itunes gift cards on government contracts....No. I don't.

I get what you're trying to say: that parking must exist, and all we can do is try and offer incentives not to use it. But there's something wrong with your logic, if you think the answer for Murch is to go ahead, build a parking lot (aboveground, if necessary)--and then try and convince people not to use it. The other poster, the one who said, "if we give the teachers the parking, everyone will want the parking," is similarly using very strange reasoning. Should all school employees have parking permits? Sure. But that has nothing to do with policemen. Firemen. Or other government employees--all of whom are not actually AT Murch.

You are talking about one specific school in a residential area where most of the houses actually have parking. Much like Shepherd Park, in this specific area, more cars parked on the street is not going to cause an apocalypse. And it is cheaper--so much cheaper than any of your other options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Giving teachers free RPP permits to park in residential areas near schools sounds appealing, but it raises questions: First, it encourages more driving when other public policies are to encourage transit use, ride sharing, etc. Granted some teachers may have no choice but to drive, but handing out free RPP passes will just encourage more car use. Second, if teachers get free RPPs, who else "deserves" them? The school custodians? Why not. Cops? Sure. Fire fighters? Absolutely. Sanitation workers? Uh, well. DMV bureaucrats? Maybe not. And for residents who live in the vicinity of a school, etc. where employees have free street parking will find that the RPP program no longer works for them as they have to park blocks from their homes. So the best solution is to provide on-site (underground if possible) parking and then control (or require a needs based showing) for employees who get the parking. And charge them something for using it.

And quotes like this are why I can always talk about DC education policies with my friends in other cities and laugh at you all. (And I guess me, since we are here.)

Let's go over that logic again!

Giving out FREE parking only encourages MORE parking! But building an underground parking garage, like Janney has. (All schools must have what Janney has, because. Reasons.) But spending millions of dollars for UNDERGROUND parking, would not create an incentive for people to drive!

And, if you are mean and won't give us the underground parking, then obviously, you should not whine when we pave over your preK play area.

--Crazy Shepherd poster, who will at this time, mention again that Shepherd's renovation put a second floor kiln on a 50s building (actually I think they just finished driving in the steel support beams necessary), and built an atrium. And cost 30 million dollars, did no work over the summer because... I think someone forgot to put in the permits? And also did not manage to build a cafeteria. That is without the underground parking though.

Apparently cafeterias are a lot more expensive than atriums, kilns, and parking lots.

Seriously, I only worked as an auditor for a brief period of time, and I have no experience with government contracts, but I really don't know how people who defend this crap can sleep at night.

I guess while you were frothing, you missed the logic of the PP?
PP seems to be arguing that deciding who gets to park is a problem, but once you've made a decision about who gets to park, providing those spaces via an underground garage makes the most sense.

I think the better approach is to incentivize public transit or carpooling. Not just paying for public transit and giving out gas cards, but things like prime parking spots for carpoolers, and giftcards for itunes and running shoes and commuter bags for the public transit riders. Walkers and bikers should also be attractively incentivized.

Incentivize the general public all you want. But at the moment there are 100 or so Murch employees, many of whom drive and probably cannot switch to public transport at the drop of a hat. Should we upend the entire faculty as well? Murch also isn't close to any metro stop. So that should be fun for the staff, carrying all the stuff elementary school teachers carry.

BS! I live just north of Murch and walk to the Van Ness Metro stop every day, and then take the train to get to my job. There are also buses on Connecticut Ave. (1 short block away from Murch) that connect to the Metro. I'm not saying that public transit is feasible for every staff member, but to say that the school is basically inaccessible via transit is plain flat wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since I don't work for a corporate gifting firm distributing commuter bags and itunes gift cards on government contracts....No. I don't.

I get what you're trying to say: that parking must exist, and all we can do is try and offer incentives not to use it. But there's something wrong with your logic, if you think the answer for Murch is to go ahead, build a parking lot (aboveground, if necessary)--and then try and convince people not to use it. The other poster, the one who said, "if we give the teachers the parking, everyone will want the parking," is similarly using very strange reasoning. Should all school employees have parking permits? Sure. But that has nothing to do with policemen. Firemen. Or other government employees--all of whom are not actually AT Murch.

You are talking about one specific school in a residential area where most of the houses actually have parking. Much like Shepherd Park, in this specific area, more cars parked on the street is not going to cause an apocalypse. And it is cheaper--so much cheaper than any of your other options.

It's actually a very relevant question for Murch, where there is a fire station one half block north. The point is, public school parents can get all warm and fuzzy about how public school teachers "deserve" convenient, free parking, but where do you draw the line? Do first responders deserve the same benefit? If the answer is yes for Murch, then why not the fire station? What about nursing home workers? Where do you draw the line, especially without undermining the street parking system? Of course, with teachers and firefighters taking RPP zoned street spaces in the same area, one can see how it would have a pretty big impact on residential neighbors. I fully agree with another PP's observation, that if parking is provided, staff should have to pay something for it. Few workers, at least in Washington, get free parking anymore. Why shouldn't staff have to pay, even if parking is provided as subsidized, same as other workers have to pay to park or to ride transit?

[Anonymous]

But at the moment there are 100 or so Murch employees, many of whom drive and probably cannot switch to public transport at the drop of a hat. Should we upend the entire faculty as well? Murch also isn't close to any metro stop. So that should be fun for the staff, carrying all the stuff elementary school teachers carry.

1. Car 2 go it if you have stuff to carry. Or.... park on the street! With your RPP.
2. It is much easier to switch to taking public transportation than it is to switch to driving, which requires a car purchase.
3. I'm sorry you live in VA and teach at Murch. Life sucks. I'm sorry for my kid's classmates who live in far SE and commute to upper NW too. Commutes can suck. We all make choices.
4. Giving the faculty RPP would allow them to continue to drive, if that was their choice. I just took a look on streetview. Yes--the immediate area around the school has the heavy traffic, no parking streets--but there are tons of side streets not so far away. And, as I said, most of the residents in this neighborhood have parking behind their homes. Are teh streets still slightly crowded? More than I expected. At least on street view. But perhaps having a harder time parking might incentivize THEM not to have three cars per household.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Giving teachers free RPP permits to park in residential areas near schools sounds appealing, but it raises questions: First, it encourages more driving when other public policies are to encourage transit use, ride sharing, etc. Granted some teachers may have no choice but to drive, but handing out free RPP passes will just encourage more car use. Second, if teachers get free RPPs, who else "deserves" them? The school custodians? Why not. Cops? Sure. Fire fighters? Absolutely. Sanitation workers? Uh, well. DMV bureaucrats? Maybe not. And for residents who live in the vicinity of a school, etc. where employees have free street parking will find that the RPP program no longer works for them as they have to park blocks from their homes. So the best solution is to provide on-site (underground if possible) parking and then control (or require a needs based showing) for employees who get the parking. And charge them something for using it.

And quotes like this are why I can always talk about DC education policies with my friends in other cities and laugh at you all. (And I guess me, since we are here.)

Let's go over that logic again!

Giving out FREE parking only encourages MORE parking! But building an underground parking garage, like Janney has. (All schools must have what Janney has, because. Reasons.) But spending millions of dollars for UNDERGROUND parking, would not create an incentive for people to drive!

And, if you are mean and won't give us the underground parking, then obviously, you should not whine when we pave over your preK play area.

--Crazy Shepherd poster, who will at this time, mention again that Shepherd's renovation put a second floor kiln on a 50s building (actually I think they just finished driving in the steel support beams necessary), and built an atrium. And cost 30 million dollars, did no work over the summer because... I think someone forgot to put in the permits? And also did not manage to build a cafeteria. That is without the underground parking though.

Apparently cafeterias are a lot more expensive than atriums, kilns, and parking lots.

Seriously, I only worked as an auditor for a brief period of time, and I have no experience with government contracts, but I really don't know how people who defend this crap can sleep at night.

I guess while you were frothing, you missed the logic of the PP?
PP seems to be arguing that deciding who gets to park is a problem, but once you've made a decision about who gets to park, providing those spaces via an underground garage makes the most sense.

I think the better approach is to incentivize public transit or carpooling. Not just paying for public transit and giving out gas cards, but things like prime parking spots for carpoolers, and giftcards for itunes and running shoes and commuter bags for the public transit riders. Walkers and bikers should also be attractively incentivized.

Incentivize the general public all you want. But at the moment there are 100 or so Murch employees, many of whom drive and probably cannot switch to public transport at the drop of a hat. Should we upend the entire faculty as well? Murch also isn't close to any metro stop. So that should be fun for the staff, carrying all the stuff elementary school teachers carry.

BS! I live just north of Murch and walk to the Van Ness Metro stop every day, and then take the train to get to my job. There are also buses on Connecticut Ave. (1 short block away from Murch) that connect to the Metro. I'm not saying that public transit is feasible for every staff member, but to say that the school is basically inaccessible via transit is plain flat wrong.

Yes, they can take the bus or walk for 15-20 minutes uphill from Van Ness. But have you ever done that carrying a large box of crayons or a huge pile of workbooks?

[Anonymous]

g home workers? Where do you draw the line, especially without undermining the street parking system?

I admit, I am all for undermining the street parking system. I'm sure it pays for itself with tickets... but I doubt it makes much of a profit beyond that. And it seems like it is diverting traffic manpower to enforce.

DC. A city that doesn't require crossing guards for schools... but has the resources to hire a bunch of people to check every car on a block for the right permit sticker.

And again, THESE HOUSES ALL HAVE PARKING. These homeowners are not deprived.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Giving teachers free RPP permits to park in residential areas near schools sounds appealing, but it raises questions: First, it encourages more driving when other public policies are to encourage transit use, ride sharing, etc. Granted some teachers may have no choice but to drive, but handing out free RPP passes will just encourage more car use. Second, if teachers get free RPPs, who else "deserves" them? The school custodians? Why not. Cops? Sure. Fire fighters? Absolutely. Sanitation workers? Uh, well. DMV bureaucrats? Maybe not. And for residents who live in the vicinity of a school, etc. where employees have free street parking will find that the RPP program no longer works for them as they have to park blocks from their homes. So the best solution is to provide on-site (underground if possible) parking and then control (or require a needs based showing) for employees who get the parking. And charge them something for using it.

And quotes like this are why I can always talk about DC education policies with my friends in other cities and laugh at you all. (And I guess me, since we are here.)

Let's go over that logic again!

Giving out FREE parking only encourages MORE parking! But building an underground parking garage, like Janney has. (All schools must have what Janney has, because. Reasons.) But spending millions of dollars for UNDERGROUND parking, would not create an incentive for people to drive!

And, if you are mean and won't give us the underground parking, then obviously, you should not whine when we pave over your preK play area.

--Crazy Shepherd poster, who will at this time, mention again that Shepherd's renovation put a second floor kiln on a 50s building (actually I think they just finished driving in the steel support beams necessary), and built an atrium. And cost 30 million dollars, did no work over the summer because... I think someone forgot to put in the permits? And also did not manage to build a cafeteria. That is without the underground parking though.

Apparently cafeterias are a lot more expensive than atriums, kilns, and parking lots.

Seriously, I only worked as an auditor for a brief period of time, and I have no experience with government contracts, but I really don't know how people who defend this crap can sleep at night.

I guess while you were frothing, you missed the logic of the PP?
PP seems to be arguing that deciding who gets to park is a problem, but once you've made a decision about who gets to park, providing those spaces via an underground garage makes the most sense.

I think the better approach is to incentivize public transit or carpooling. Not just paying for public transit and giving out gas cards, but things like prime parking spots for carpoolers, and giftcards for itunes and running shoes and commuter bags for the public transit riders. Walkers and bikers should also be attractively incentivized.

Incentivize the general public all you want. But at the moment there are 100 or so Murch employees, many of whom drive and probably cannot switch to public transport at the drop of a hat. Should we upend the entire faculty as well? Murch also isn't close to any metro stop. So that should be fun for the staff, carrying all the stuff elementary school teachers carry.

School construction is going to take two years, if and when it gets going. That's hardly "at the drop of a hat" to give teachers and other staff notice to explore other ways of getting to work. No one is talking about eliminating all parking and some staff will have no other reasonable way to get to school than by driving, but DCPS should be strongly incentivizing its employees to use transit. I have been following the GDS expansion saga in the NW Current and note that that school is committing to all sorts of transit carrots and sticks, including for staff, and may charge market rates for parking. Private school teachers on average make less than public school teachers, so why should public school staff be entitled to free parking as well? The DC government is going out of its way to get the private sector -- businesses, developers, institutions -- to reduce parking and incentivize transit use. Why should DC public employees then be themselves immune from that policy? Talk the talk, walk the walk.

[Anonymous]

Can we take the theoretical discussion on the merits of public transport somewhere else? What's happening at Murch is real and will affect 600+ students. Let's focus on the realities at hand.

[Anonymous]

The debates over parking and the size of the school enrollment really miss the point. The Murch community cares more about the educational components of the school than parking. Most of the staff can't park onsite now and wouldn't be able to in the future. The Murch community does not want a super-sized school. The Murch community has tried to figure it out for years and has told DC to engage and figure it out for years -- with all of the suggestions people are offering.

DC didn't make any tough choices or do the work to make changes. The school is in atrocious condition and needs to be redone NOW. So we can only work with what we have now. The city requires the parking, the school lot is small, and the school population is big. Even the basic educational components won't fit without something going underground. The city promised the school and the Council they had given the project enough to do that and settled on a design that was pretty bare bones in terms of space based on what was needed. Now the city says they don't have enough money budgeted because they did not estimate correctly. So the city is proposing to redesign four months before construction starts. They will include the required parking, even if it comes at the expense of things like a cafeteria and a library/media center (or at least one that is much bigger than a classroom). That is ridiculous and should not happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we take the theoretical discussion on the merits of public transport somewhere else? What's happening at Murch is real and will affect 600+ students. Let's focus on the realities at hand.

The reality at hand is that the Murch community needs to organize and demand LOUDLY of Bowser, Cheh and the Ward 4 council member to find $10M to restore the Murch plan and get started with construction! $10M isn't that much money to find in the rather bloated DC budget -- it's far, far less than amounts that have been reported in the past as being embezzled from the DC government:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902928.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we take the theoretical discussion on the merits of public transport somewhere else? What's happening at Murch is real and will affect 600+ students. Let's focus on the realities at hand.

The reality at hand is that the Murch community needs to organize and demand LOUDLY of Bowser, Cheh and the Ward 4 council member to find $10M to restore the Murch plan and get started with construction! $10M isn't that much money to find in the rather bloated DC budget -- it's far, far less than amounts that have been reported in the past as being embezzled from the DC government:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902928.html

Agreed. Murch people, tell us what we can do to help!