DDOT wants to charge $8/hr for street parking, require payment 24 hours/day

[Anonymous]

$8hr is extremely cheap to pay for parking in the nightlife core of a major world capital …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of DDOT wrecking entertainment districts, biz leaders in Adams Morgan say all the whackadoodle stuff DDOT has done there has made it less safe. Shawn Fenty (noted cyclist, and brother of former mayor) says he refuses to use the bike lanes because they're unsafe.


https://www.wusa9.com/article/traffic/people-in-adams-morgan-call-out-new-hazards-ddots-new-bike-lane-project/65-4986df04-6bbb-4376-9699-dfd80b9b804c

that’s idiotic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) It's a relatively tiny area of NW.
2) The $8/hour is only from 6pm-3am (ie, nightlife time)
3) The purpose is to encourage street parking spots to turn over frequently, which I am all for.

Street parking should be expensive and, in high demand zones, it should primarily serve people who want to park for an hour or less. If you're coming for a night out? Find a garage.

So we're going to require people who are getting completely hammered in bars to move their car frequently because they will be worried about the meter, and then they will have to drive around for 45 minutes (while inebriated) looking for a new parking spot. What could possibly go wrong?

Yeah, that's what we are going to *require.*

(No, the game is actually to incentivize people to park in a garage or take an uber. Which they largely will, if the price is comparable.)

You have a lot of faith in 21 year olds to do the right thing (ironic, of course, because DC doesn't prosecute 21 year olds for crimes because supposedly they have bad judgment because their brains are still developing).

This plan incentivizes drunk driving.

The plan incentivizes drunk driving by making driving inconvenient and expensive? Huh.

It actually incentivizes people to stop going to U Street!

Exactly!!! I no longer hang out at night...I'm old, but do we really want our city to no longer have a vibrant night life? I love the crowds and seeing restaurants and clubs make money. Let's not try and kill that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) It's a relatively tiny area of NW.
2) The $8/hour is only from 6pm-3am (ie, nightlife time)
3) The purpose is to encourage street parking spots to turn over frequently, which I am all for.

Street parking should be expensive and, in high demand zones, it should primarily serve people who want to park for an hour or less. If you're coming for a night out? Find a garage.

So we're going to require people who are getting completely hammered in bars to move their car frequently because they will be worried about the meter, and then they will have to drive around for 45 minutes (while inebriated) looking for a new parking spot. What could possibly go wrong?

Yeah, that's what we are going to *require.*

(No, the game is actually to incentivize people to park in a garage or take an uber. Which they largely will, if the price is comparable.)

You have a lot of faith in 21 year olds to do the right thing (ironic, of course, because DC doesn't prosecute 21 year olds for crimes because supposedly they have bad judgment because their brains are still developing).

This plan incentivizes drunk driving.

The plan incentivizes drunk driving by making driving inconvenient and expensive? Huh.

It actually incentivizes people to stop going to U Street!

Exactly!!! I no longer hang out at night...I'm old, but do we really want our city to no longer have a vibrant night life? I love the crowds and seeing restaurants and clubs make money. Let's not try and kill that!

The idea here seems to be that cheap or free street parking is a requirement for having a vibrant night life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm curious, how much is the pay for being a shill? Do you get vacation & medical also?
I assume you can work from home.
Is there a commission for each post you write? The writing style on the post about zoning seems like this is one of the same people.

It’s the same person. I doubt they are paid. I assume they are unemployed. It’s also unlikely that they even live in the area.

You people are doing this for free?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of DDOT wrecking entertainment districts, biz leaders in Adams Morgan say all the whackadoodle stuff DDOT has done there has made it less safe. Shawn Fenty (noted cyclist, and brother of former mayor) says he refuses to use the bike lanes because they're unsafe.


https://www.wusa9.com/article/traffic/people-in-adams-morgan-call-out-new-hazards-ddots-new-bike-lane-project/65-4986df04-6bbb-4376-9699-dfd80b9b804c

That's what increasing congestion does. Everyone used to know that intuitively but somehow some relatively recent hire at DDOT thinks they know better. Congestion. It's the plan for the entire city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of DDOT wrecking entertainment districts, biz leaders in Adams Morgan say all the whackadoodle stuff DDOT has done there has made it less safe. Shawn Fenty (noted cyclist, and brother of former mayor) says he refuses to use the bike lanes because they're unsafe.


https://www.wusa9.com/article/traffic/people-in-adams-morgan-call-out-new-hazards-ddots-new-bike-lane-project/65-4986df04-6bbb-4376-9699-dfd80b9b804c

That's what increasing congestion does. Everyone used to know that intuitively but somehow some relatively recent hire at DDOT thinks they know better. Congestion. It's the plan for the entire city.

If only there were ways for people to get where they're going in DC without driving in their own car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of DDOT wrecking entertainment districts, biz leaders in Adams Morgan say all the whackadoodle stuff DDOT has done there has made it less safe. Shawn Fenty (noted cyclist, and brother of former mayor) says he refuses to use the bike lanes because they're unsafe.


https://www.wusa9.com/article/traffic/people-in-adams-morgan-call-out-new-hazards-ddots-new-bike-lane-project/65-4986df04-6bbb-4376-9699-dfd80b9b804c

That's what increasing congestion does. Everyone used to know that intuitively but somehow some relatively recent hire at DDOT thinks they know better. Congestion. It's the plan for the entire city.

Don’t criticize meme based transportation policy. Just think of all the likes and RTs these DDOT folks are going to get posting about this. Obviously some DDOT dude earning clout online is more important than an actual functioning and vibrant city.

[Anonymous]

most of this area has had meters for over 8 years - they are just increasing the per hour rate. Residents with parking stickers should be exempt from the meters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of DDOT wrecking entertainment districts, biz leaders in Adams Morgan say all the whackadoodle stuff DDOT has done there has made it less safe. Shawn Fenty (noted cyclist, and brother of former mayor) says he refuses to use the bike lanes because they're unsafe.


https://www.wusa9.com/article/traffic/people-in-adams-morgan-call-out-new-hazards-ddots-new-bike-lane-project/65-4986df04-6bbb-4376-9699-dfd80b9b804c

That's what increasing congestion does. Everyone used to know that intuitively but somehow some relatively recent hire at DDOT thinks they know better. Congestion. It's the plan for the entire city.

Don’t criticize meme based transportation policy. Just think of all the likes and RTs these DDOT folks are going to get posting about this. Obviously some DDOT dude earning clout online is more important than an actual functioning and vibrant city.

It seems like the real issue is that they didn't create loading zones while they were redoing the street. That pretty much would have solved all the problems we're seeing so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) It's a relatively tiny area of NW.
2) The $8/hour is only from 6pm-3am (ie, nightlife time)
3) The purpose is to encourage street parking spots to turn over frequently, which I am all for.

Street parking should be expensive and, in high demand zones, it should primarily serve people who want to park for an hour or less. If you're coming for a night out? Find a garage.

So we're going to require people who are getting completely hammered in bars to move their car frequently because they will be worried about the meter, and then they will have to drive around for 45 minutes (while inebriated) looking for a new parking spot. What could possibly go wrong?

Yeah, that's what we are going to *require.*

(No, the game is actually to incentivize people to park in a garage or take an uber. Which they largely will, if the price is comparable.)

You have a lot of faith in 21 year olds to do the right thing (ironic, of course, because DC doesn't prosecute 21 year olds for crimes because supposedly they have bad judgment because their brains are still developing).

This plan incentivizes drunk driving.

The plan incentivizes drunk driving by making driving inconvenient and expensive? Huh.

It actually incentivizes people to stop going to U Street!

Exactly!!! I no longer hang out at night...I'm old, but do we really want our city to no longer have a vibrant night life? I love the crowds and seeing restaurants and clubs make money. Let's not try and kill that!

you can still drive to Olive Garden and park there. The young people will continue to metro/uber to go out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) It's a relatively tiny area of NW.
2) The $8/hour is only from 6pm-3am (ie, nightlife time)
3) The purpose is to encourage street parking spots to turn over frequently, which I am all for.

Street parking should be expensive and, in high demand zones, it should primarily serve people who want to park for an hour or less. If you're coming for a night out? Find a garage.

So we're going to require people who are getting completely hammered in bars to move their car frequently because they will be worried about the meter, and then they will have to drive around for 45 minutes (while inebriated) looking for a new parking spot. What could possibly go wrong?

Yeah, that's what we are going to *require.*

(No, the game is actually to incentivize people to park in a garage or take an uber. Which they largely will, if the price is comparable.)

You have a lot of faith in 21 year olds to do the right thing (ironic, of course, because DC doesn't prosecute 21 year olds for crimes because supposedly they have bad judgment because their brains are still developing).

This plan incentivizes drunk driving.

The plan incentivizes drunk driving by making driving inconvenient and expensive? Huh.

It actually incentivizes people to stop going to U Street!

Fully agree. The mayor complains that people aren't coming downtown etc. These policies aren't going to help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of DDOT wrecking entertainment districts, biz leaders in Adams Morgan say all the whackadoodle stuff DDOT has done there has made it less safe. Shawn Fenty (noted cyclist, and brother of former mayor) says he refuses to use the bike lanes because they're unsafe.


https://www.wusa9.com/article/traffic/people-in-adams-morgan-call-out-new-hazards-ddots-new-bike-lane-project/65-4986df04-6bbb-4376-9699-dfd80b9b804c

That's what increasing congestion does. Everyone used to know that intuitively but somehow some relatively recent hire at DDOT thinks they know better. Congestion. It's the plan for the entire city.

Don’t criticize meme based transportation policy. Just think of all the likes and RTs these DDOT folks are going to get posting about this. Obviously some DDOT dude earning clout online is more important than an actual functioning and vibrant city.

Pro-tip: it’s invariably the attention-seeking NIMBY cranks that accuse others of seeking attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) It's a relatively tiny area of NW.
2) The $8/hour is only from 6pm-3am (ie, nightlife time)
3) The purpose is to encourage street parking spots to turn over frequently, which I am all for.

Street parking should be expensive and, in high demand zones, it should primarily serve people who want to park for an hour or less. If you're coming for a night out? Find a garage.

So we're going to require people who are getting completely hammered in bars to move their car frequently because they will be worried about the meter, and then they will have to drive around for 45 minutes (while inebriated) looking for a new parking spot. What could possibly go wrong?

Yeah, that's what we are going to *require.*

(No, the game is actually to incentivize people to park in a garage or take an uber. Which they largely will, if the price is comparable.)

You have a lot of faith in 21 year olds to do the right thing (ironic, of course, because DC doesn't prosecute 21 year olds for crimes because supposedly they have bad judgment because their brains are still developing).

This plan incentivizes drunk driving.

The plan incentivizes drunk driving by making driving inconvenient and expensive? Huh.

It actually incentivizes people to stop going to U Street!

Exactly!!! I no longer hang out at night...I'm old, but do we really want our city to no longer have a vibrant night life? I love the crowds and seeing restaurants and clubs make money. Let's not try and kill that!

The idea here seems to be that cheap or free street parking is a requirement for having a vibrant night life.

It certainly helps. Duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) It's a relatively tiny area of NW.
2) The $8/hour is only from 6pm-3am (ie, nightlife time)
3) The purpose is to encourage street parking spots to turn over frequently, which I am all for.

Street parking should be expensive and, in high demand zones, it should primarily serve people who want to park for an hour or less. If you're coming for a night out? Find a garage.

So we're going to require people who are getting completely hammered in bars to move their car frequently because they will be worried about the meter, and then they will have to drive around for 45 minutes (while inebriated) looking for a new parking spot. What could possibly go wrong?

Yeah, that's what we are going to *require.*

(No, the game is actually to incentivize people to park in a garage or take an uber. Which they largely will, if the price is comparable.)

You have a lot of faith in 21 year olds to do the right thing (ironic, of course, because DC doesn't prosecute 21 year olds for crimes because supposedly they have bad judgment because their brains are still developing).

This plan incentivizes drunk driving.

The plan incentivizes drunk driving by making driving inconvenient and expensive? Huh.

It actually incentivizes people to stop going to U Street!

Exactly!!! I no longer hang out at night...I'm old, but do we really want our city to no longer have a vibrant night life? I love the crowds and seeing restaurants and clubs make money. Let's not try and kill that!

The idea here seems to be that cheap or free street parking is a requirement for having a vibrant night life.

It certainly helps. Duh.

Does it, though?