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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is NIMBY just like millennial or hipster or woke these days? Everything you don’t like is a NIMBY?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If you had one bar selling beers at $8 a pop, and a similar bar selling the same beer at $20 per, most would say people will gravitate towards the first and avoid the second. Why would it be any different for neighborhoods? If you tell young people who tend not to make very much money that it will cost them $40 to park in U Street for the night, but $0 to park in a similar neighborhood with similar bars, then why is it strange to think they'll avoid U Street?

[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!

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

TBH making fun of Olive Garden or Applebees or using phrases like "Karen" and "pearl clutching" makes you seem old. That shit was played out decades ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If you had one bar selling beers at $8 a pop, and a similar bar selling the same beer at $20 per, most would say people will gravitate towards the first and avoid the second. Why would it be any different for neighborhoods? If you tell young people who tend not to make very much money that it will cost them $40 to park in U Street for the night, but $0 to park in a similar neighborhood with similar bars, then why is it strange to think they'll avoid U Street?

People are a requirement for vibrant night life. Cars are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If you had one bar selling beers at $8 a pop, and a similar bar selling the same beer at $20 per, most would say people will gravitate towards the first and avoid the second. Why would it be any different for neighborhoods? If you tell young people who tend not to make very much money that it will cost them $40 to park in U Street for the night, but $0 to park in a similar neighborhood with similar bars, then why is it strange to think they'll avoid U Street?

People are a requirement for vibrant night life. Cars are not.

ok, well in the real world, if you make it difficult for them to go to one area of town, they'll just go somewhere else. this isn't that complicated. people have lots of choices about how to spend their time and they generally avoid ones that involve lots of hassle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DDOT wants to charge $8 an hour to park on the street. They also think people should have to feed the meter 24 hours a day. They're going to charge these sky high rates in what they call the "New Greater U Street Performance Parking Zone" but if you look at the map, it covers a large chunk of NW. Likely only a matter of time before they expand this to other neighborhoods.

The Greater U Street Performance Parking Zone centers on the U Street NW Corridor and extends across a significant area in NW, Washington. In the southeast quadrant, the zone starts at the intersection of Florida Avenue NW and S Street NW and extends to Georgia Avenue NE and 17th Street NW. In the southwest quadrant, the zone runs from 17th Street NW heading east along U Street NW, then south down 14th Street and back to Florida Avenue NW via S Street NW. Parking rates vary between $3/hour and $8/hour throughout the zone. Rates change at three intervals throughout the day: 10am, 6pm, and 3am.

https://www.parkdc.com/pages/meters#performance_parking

Discouraging people from going to U Street for dining and entertainment seems like the exactly opposite of what U Street needs right now.

It's not discouraging people from going to U Street. It's simply discouraging people who drive to U Street from parking on the street for hours and hours. If anything, it will encourage people who drive to U Street, because street parking spaces will be more available.

People will just not go to U street at all if they don’t live in walking distance and are not close to public transit. I literally will never visit a DC restaurant or Bar again if this happens does. It’s not convenient to take public transit and it more than doubles my travel time to get to DC. If they make it difficult to park and start charging $8 an hour for parking I will avoid visiting DC entirely. This is a very poorly thought out plan that will kill DC businesses. Private parking garages will also raise their rates substantially if DC charges $8 per hour. A private parking garage in this zone could effectively charge $70 per day and still be cheaper than street parking rates.

There will never be enough parking for you bridge and tunnel people, so thanks for staying away. We literally don't need you. Stay in Virginia, please.

The economic illiteracy on this thread is astounding. There aren't enough people in Washington DC to support all the bars and restaurants. Half of them would close without the "bridge and tunnel people."

+1

Plus: for decades, DC policymakers have been too stupid to bother capitalizing on one of their major sources of funding:

- tourism


Yet again, DC will shoot itself in the foot. Our local government is an incompetent, single-party, disgrace.

Tourists are what's keeping U Street bars in business, and if the tourists can't park cars on the street for cheap, they will just drive to Silver Spring? How interesting.

You think tourists are driving from downtown hotels to U Street?

Sure, some suburbanites do, but most take metro or uber. If you consider those tourists, then ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If you had one bar selling beers at $8 a pop, and a similar bar selling the same beer at $20 per, most would say people will gravitate towards the first and avoid the second. Why would it be any different for neighborhoods? If you tell young people who tend not to make very much money that it will cost them $40 to park in U Street for the night, but $0 to park in a similar neighborhood with similar bars, then why is it strange to think they'll avoid U Street?

Because a) they are not driving to U St and b) there is no comparable neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If you had one bar selling beers at $8 a pop, and a similar bar selling the same beer at $20 per, most would say people will gravitate towards the first and avoid the second. Why would it be any different for neighborhoods? If you tell young people who tend not to make very much money that it will cost them $40 to park in U Street for the night, but $0 to park in a similar neighborhood with similar bars, then why is it strange to think they'll avoid U Street?

People are a requirement for vibrant night life. Cars are not.

ok, well in the real world, if you make it difficult for them to go to one area of town, they'll just go somewhere else. this isn't that complicated. people have lots of choices about how to spend their time and they generally avoid ones that involve lots of hassle.

Laughs in H St NE

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Half the storefronts in this city are empty, at a time when the economy is friggin' booming. Obviously the DC government's policies are not working. Maybe we should try something different.

This proposal will reduce the number of people who go to U Street, which seems like a strange goal to have.

This won't reduce the number of people going to U street. It will reduce the number of people driving and parking on public streets there.

[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!

Most people under 30 don't own cars, certainly 25. Most people under 30 are already conditioned to uber places, not drive. This isn't grandpa's city anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If you had one bar selling beers at $8 a pop, and a similar bar selling the same beer at $20 per, most would say people will gravitate towards the first and avoid the second. Why would it be any different for neighborhoods? If you tell young people who tend not to make very much money that it will cost them $40 to park in U Street for the night, but $0 to park in a similar neighborhood with similar bars, then why is it strange to think they'll avoid U Street?

young people are not driving to bars, they are taking public transit and uber. So they don't care how much it costs to park. get it?

[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!

Most people under 30 don't own cars, certainly 25. Most people under 30 are already conditioned to uber places, not drive. This isn't grandpa's city anymore.

In urban centers? Probably.

Overall?

Nah.

https://www.thezebra.com/resources/research/car-ownership-statistics/#age

https://www.marketwatch.com/guides/insurance-services/car-ownership-statistics/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If you had one bar selling beers at $8 a pop, and a similar bar selling the same beer at $20 per, most would say people will gravitate towards the first and avoid the second. Why would it be any different for neighborhoods? If you tell young people who tend not to make very much money that it will cost them $40 to park in U Street for the night, but $0 to park in a similar neighborhood with similar bars, then why is it strange to think they'll avoid U Street?

Not to mention:

Locals from the DMV are not tourists. But the monuments and museums do attract real out of state tourists.

If you hit them with absurd parking fee, they won’t bother coming back in the future.

This proposed policy is incredibly shortsighted and foolish. But DC typically makes terrible decisions such as this, so; whatever.

Can’t wait to move away from here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If you had one bar selling beers at $8 a pop, and a similar bar selling the same beer at $20 per, most would say people will gravitate towards the first and avoid the second. Why would it be any different for neighborhoods? If you tell young people who tend not to make very much money that it will cost them $40 to park in U Street for the night, but $0 to park in a similar neighborhood with similar bars, then why is it strange to think they'll avoid U Street?

Because a) they are not driving to U St and b) there is no comparable neighborhood.

LOL. Sure there are no comparable neighborhoods. However, there are a lot of neighborhoods that are better, cheaper, funner and safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If you had one bar selling beers at $8 a pop, and a similar bar selling the same beer at $20 per, most would say people will gravitate towards the first and avoid the second. Why would it be any different for neighborhoods? If you tell young people who tend not to make very much money that it will cost them $40 to park in U Street for the night, but $0 to park in a similar neighborhood with similar bars, then why is it strange to think they'll avoid U Street?

young people are not driving to bars, they are taking public transit and uber. So they don't care how much it costs to park. get it?

This is the fundamental dynamic at play in this thread and others like it. People above a certain age are used to things being car centric, and that's not appealing for most people under 40 now.