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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Until you see an army of parking attendants ticketing hundreds of cars at 11pm on a Saturday, it's probably safe to assume these rules will never be enforced and can be safely ignored.

You have to wonder how many parking attendants are going to be willing to work at midnight on Saturdays, let alone be willing to hand out tickets to pissed off drunk people. There's already too many fights on U Street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In this thread: many suburbanite bridge and tunnel people who don't go to DC anyway.

Hint: We are tired of subsidizing your car use. Get over it and cry more people. lol.

Pfft. Drivers pay for everything. We finance roads in this country through a combination of taxes and fees. Drivers pay the gas tax. They pay outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees to the city. They pay laughably expensive traffic citations. Both DC and the feds have a highly progressive tax system, which means rich people pay nearly all the taxes. You think your surgeon doesn't drive a car?

If you're a bike riding car hater who makes low six figures (or less), you're the freeloader here.

It cost me several thousand dollars to register my car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until you see an army of parking attendants ticketing hundreds of cars at 11pm on a Saturday, it's probably safe to assume these rules will never be enforced and can be safely ignored.

You have to wonder how many parking attendants are going to be willing to work at midnight on Saturdays, let alone be willing to hand out tickets to pissed off drunk people. There's already too many fights on U Street.

Contractors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In this thread: many suburbanite bridge and tunnel people who don't go to DC anyway.

Hint: We are tired of subsidizing your car use. Get over it and cry more people. lol.

Pfft. Drivers pay for everything. We finance roads in this country through a combination of taxes and fees. Drivers pay the gas tax. They pay outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees to the city. They pay laughably expensive traffic citations. Both DC and the feds have a highly progressive tax system, which means rich people pay nearly all the taxes. You think your surgeon doesn't drive a car?

If you're a bike riding car hater who makes low six figures (or less), you're the freeloader here.

Keep crying, oh privileged one. It's not going to make your silly notions any the more correct.

Gas taxes and "outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees . . . and laughably expensive traffic citations" don't begin to cover the costs of building and maintaining roads. Here is a deep dive into some data that might begin to get that through to your thick skull:

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/01/21/drivers-pay-4x-more-for-cell-phones-than-roads

The burden of building and maintaining roads falls on general taxation. Many of those taxpayers - both rich and poor - drive, but plenty do not (including some surgeons).

The clear takeaway is that drivers, collectively, are some of the biggest welfare queens in America. Deal with it and move on without slinging nonsense everywhere you go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In this thread: many suburbanite bridge and tunnel people who don't go to DC anyway.

Hint: We are tired of subsidizing your car use. Get over it and cry more people. lol.

Pfft. Drivers pay for everything. We finance roads in this country through a combination of taxes and fees. Drivers pay the gas tax. They pay outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees to the city. They pay laughably expensive traffic citations. Both DC and the feds have a highly progressive tax system, which means rich people pay nearly all the taxes. You think your surgeon doesn't drive a car?

If you're a bike riding car hater who makes low six figures (or less), you're the freeloader here.

Keep crying, oh privileged one. It's not going to make your silly notions any the more correct.

Gas taxes and "outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees . . . and laughably expensive traffic citations" don't begin to cover the costs of building and maintaining roads. Here is a deep dive into some data that might begin to get that through to your thick skull:

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/01/21/drivers-pay-4x-more-for-cell-phones-than-roads

The burden of building and maintaining roads falls on general taxation. Many of those taxpayers - both rich and poor - drive, but plenty do not (including some surgeons).

The clear takeaway is that drivers, collectively, are some of the biggest welfare queens in America. Deal with it and move on without slinging nonsense everywhere you go.

And here's an analysis done by the Cato Institute, of all places, that demonstrates that even California - which has some of the highest car use fees in the nation - subsidizes drivers: https://www.cato.org/blog/driving-california-subsidized-1

Our finding is that driving-related expenditures exceed revenues by over $3 billion . . . So, in California, assertions by transit advocates that driving is subsidized appear to be empirically supported. Comparable analyses in other states may yield different conclusions. Although subsidies for driving are smaller than those for transit, they nonetheless merit criticism from those of us who believe in small government and fiscal responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


Pfft. Drivers pay for everything. We finance roads in this country through a combination of taxes and fees. Drivers pay the gas tax. They pay outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees to the city. They pay laughably expensive traffic citations. Both DC and the feds have a highly progressive tax system, which means rich people pay nearly all the taxes. You think your surgeon doesn't drive a car?

If you're a bike riding car hater who makes low six figures (or less), you're the freeloader here.

Everyone who pays taxes pays for the roads, including those bike riding people who don't put nearly as much wear and tear on the surface.

And no, the cost for gas is highly subsidized and the taxes on it don't come close to paying for the roads.

ironically it is the people who are driving heavily subsidized cars who are the freeloaders.

[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:

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:

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.

That is factually inaccurate, you live in a bubble that is not remotely representative of how most Americans live. More than 90% of households in the US own a car and most people use their cars as their primary form of transportation. If DC makes it difficult for people to use cars on U street most people will just not visit area at all.

DC (especially U st) is not 90% of America.

Even in DC 2/3 households have a car. Arlington 88%, MOCO, 91%. It’s going to be challenging for many DC businesses to stay open when policies are actively hostile the primary form of transportation for most potential customers.

Having a car and taking that car to night life aren't the same thing either. Probably half of DC car owners are not even car commuters. Its very easy to be car light in DC. You use the car to go to the beach, or hiking or something like that while metro/bike/uber gets you around town.

Having said that, this is probably a net improvement for U street businesses as it will increase parking availability and turn over. They'll probably lose some customers that are extremely price sensitive while gaining others that don't mind paying more to park if it means not having to circle for 20 minutes or park 5 blocks away. The people they lose are the type that camp out for 4 hours nursing a beer, while they may gain 2 new customers that come for 2 hours each and depart. That's way better for businesses.

This is how it is for my family. DH & I both have cars and live in Adams Morgan. We do not move our cars from our street after 4PM Friday night. If we decide to do evening activities over the weekend here in DC, we use a car share. Trying to find parking where we are going is usually bad enough but to then not be able to find parking once we get home is awful. I do believe the $8 parking fee will hurt businesses where customers come from out of town (MD, VA).

What would help businesses would be if DC actually charged you a reasonable price for car storage so you didn’t leave not one but TWO cars in the street most of the week that you apparently rarely drive or need. Then there actually would be space for those with a need to drive to Adams Morgan. You’re part of the problem!

PP: How are we part of the problem when we pay for residential parking?? Are you saying that people that own or rent homes shouldn't have the privilege of being able to park their cars at a reasonable distance from their house?

The amount people pay for residential parking is a ridiculous pittance, particularly in a dense area like Adams Morgan. So yes, I think households need to pay more to take up a big chunk of public space with TWO cars they admittedly barely drive.

How much do restaurants pay for streateries and the other ugly, unsanitary, barely used dining shanties they build on public property?

streeteries go through a very thorough licensing process and once the current batch expires they will probably be around a $300 fee (similar to a sidewalk cafe). And of course they serve many more people than does car storage for a single person. a much more productive use of public space.

Ok so you agree they basically pay nothing? And the dining lean-tos that I see are typically empty. Those restaurant owners would be better off if they converted the space back into parking spots. If there's nowhere to park and your shanty is empty, you're not exactly selling yourself to prospective customers. It looks like no one wants to go there.

The reason they are empty is that noone wants to eat in the road of a major thoroughfare.

The reason that this parking plan is going to fail U Street is that it’s market position is as a low cost/budget nightlife area that does not directly compete with high cost/expensive nightlife areas.

This plan makes the area into a high cost nightlife area that is still budget quality. That’s a bad market position to be in.

Perhaps low budget nightlife isn't something the city actually wants. Maybe the city is ok with pushing the quality up and the riff raff out.

The entertainment market in DC is not big enough. The Wharf and Navy Yard have cannibalized restaurants and nightlife in other neighborhoods, particularly H Street and Chinatown/Penn Quarter.

U Street right now is barely hanging in. If it wasn’t for the 9:30 Club and the Atlantic, who rent parking from Howard, the neighborhood would be in even worse shape.

This move runs the risk of turning it from a trendy dive bar neighborhood into an untrendy Bowery type neighborhood. It will be a classic case of being careful what you wish for.

Newcomers to DC don’t know that the neighborhood suffered from riots in in ‘68 and later became and epicenter of the city’s crack epidemic.

The revitalization of the neighborhood to where it is now was a monumental effort and still not good enough. This kind of arrogant, ideology driven and frankly unnecessary policies can very easily help it in its way as it backslides from the much better neighborhood it was a decade ago.

You said it yourself that U street is already on the downswing because other better designed areas are taking the business. Those places actually have worse parking situations but are thriving. Why would that be? Maybe parking isn't actually as good for businesses as people are saying...

If you don’t live in DC, I’m not sure what you’re doing posting.

Both places are very convenient for cars. Both have garage parking which is safe and convenient. The Wharf, which has great freeway access, doesn’t have transit and would have even more parking if it wasn’t for the anti-car zealots. Not enough garage parking is in fact the biggest complaint from people visiting the Wharf.

huh? the wharf has 2 walkable metro stops, a bike lane, bike shares, and buses. And of course parking in the Wharf is like what $30?

But those of who live in DC, not near a metro stop, have to drive and park at a metro. I’m not paying $100 for an uber 2 ways, and it’s another car on the road. The Wharf is way more than $30. DC has its priorities backwards. At least you can finally park in Tenley for 4 hours. For a long time it was 2, so you couldn’t take the metro to dinner. You have to balance getting people out to spend $$ and balancing drivers. Or, else, we go to Maryland (like now, to a Target that isn’t locked up). Make it easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Pfft. Drivers pay for everything. We finance roads in this country through a combination of taxes and fees. Drivers pay the gas tax. They pay outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees to the city. They pay laughably expensive traffic citations. Both DC and the feds have a highly progressive tax system, which means rich people pay nearly all the taxes. You think your surgeon doesn't drive a car?

If you're a bike riding car hater who makes low six figures (or less), you're the freeloader here.

Everyone who pays taxes pays for the roads, including those bike riding people who don't put nearly as much wear and tear on the surface.

And no, the cost for gas is highly subsidized and the taxes on it don't come close to paying for the roads.

ironically it is the people who are driving heavily subsidized cars who are the freeloaders.

The lion's share of income taxes are paid by drivers, who obviously also pay the gas tax and and an almost impossibly long list of fees on top of that. The notion that they're some kind of welfare queens who are sponging off the rest of us is just bizarre. If drivers aren't paying their own way, then no one else in any other conceivable category is either, except maybe the crazy rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In this thread: many suburbanite bridge and tunnel people who don't go to DC anyway.

Hint: We are tired of subsidizing your car use. Get over it and cry more people. lol.

Pfft. Drivers pay for everything. We finance roads in this country through a combination of taxes and fees. Drivers pay the gas tax. They pay outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees to the city. They pay laughably expensive traffic citations. Both DC and the feds have a highly progressive tax system, which means rich people pay nearly all the taxes. You think your surgeon doesn't drive a car?

If you're a bike riding car hater who makes low six figures (or less), you're the freeloader here.

Keep crying, oh privileged one. It's not going to make your silly notions any the more correct.

Gas taxes and "outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees . . . and laughably expensive traffic citations" don't begin to cover the costs of building and maintaining roads. Here is a deep dive into some data that might begin to get that through to your thick skull:

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/01/21/drivers-pay-4x-more-for-cell-phones-than-roads

The burden of building and maintaining roads falls on general taxation. Many of those taxpayers - both rich and poor - drive, but plenty do not (including some surgeons).

The clear takeaway is that drivers, collectively, are some of the biggest welfare queens in America. Deal with it and move on without slinging nonsense everywhere you go.

And here's an analysis done by the Cato Institute, of all places, that demonstrates that even California - which has some of the highest car use fees in the nation - subsidizes drivers: https://www.cato.org/blog/driving-california-subsidized-1

Our finding is that driving-related expenditures exceed revenues by over $3 billion . . . So, in California, assertions by transit advocates that driving is subsidized appear to be empirically supported. Comparable analyses in other states may yield different conclusions. Although subsidies for driving are smaller than those for transit, they nonetheless merit criticism from those of us who believe in small government and fiscal responsibility.

I like the super weird blogs people cite on this thread. It's like they're citing, as an authority, some strange AM radio station they heard while driving through Alabama. This guy said it! It must be true!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Pfft. Drivers pay for everything. We finance roads in this country through a combination of taxes and fees. Drivers pay the gas tax. They pay outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees to the city. They pay laughably expensive traffic citations. Both DC and the feds have a highly progressive tax system, which means rich people pay nearly all the taxes. You think your surgeon doesn't drive a car?

If you're a bike riding car hater who makes low six figures (or less), you're the freeloader here.

Everyone who pays taxes pays for the roads, including those bike riding people who don't put nearly as much wear and tear on the surface.

And no, the cost for gas is highly subsidized and the taxes on it don't come close to paying for the roads.

ironically it is the people who are driving heavily subsidized cars who are the freeloaders.

The lion's share of income taxes are paid by drivers, who obviously also pay the gas tax and and an almost impossibly long list of fees on top of that. The notion that they're some kind of welfare queens who are sponging off the rest of us is just bizarre. If drivers aren't paying their own way, then no one else in any other conceivable category is either, except maybe the crazy rich.

This is not hard. But yet you don’t seem to get it. So let me explain it for you.

If you pay taxes and don’t drive, you are subsidizing those who drive.

If you pay taxes and drive, your lifestyle is subsidized by those who don’t drive.

The more you drive, the more your lifestyle is subsidized by those who don’t drive or drive less.

Drivers are not, by any measure, paying their own way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In this thread: many suburbanite bridge and tunnel people who don't go to DC anyway.

Hint: We are tired of subsidizing your car use. Get over it and cry more people. lol.

Pfft. Drivers pay for everything. We finance roads in this country through a combination of taxes and fees. Drivers pay the gas tax. They pay outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees to the city. They pay laughably expensive traffic citations. Both DC and the feds have a highly progressive tax system, which means rich people pay nearly all the taxes. You think your surgeon doesn't drive a car?

If you're a bike riding car hater who makes low six figures (or less), you're the freeloader here.

Keep crying, oh privileged one. It's not going to make your silly notions any the more correct.

Gas taxes and "outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees . . . and laughably expensive traffic citations" don't begin to cover the costs of building and maintaining roads. Here is a deep dive into some data that might begin to get that through to your thick skull:

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/01/21/drivers-pay-4x-more-for-cell-phones-than-roads

The burden of building and maintaining roads falls on general taxation. Many of those taxpayers - both rich and poor - drive, but plenty do not (including some surgeons).

The clear takeaway is that drivers, collectively, are some of the biggest welfare queens in America. Deal with it and move on without slinging nonsense everywhere you go.

And here's an analysis done by the Cato Institute, of all places, that demonstrates that even California - which has some of the highest car use fees in the nation - subsidizes drivers: https://www.cato.org/blog/driving-california-subsidized-1

Our finding is that driving-related expenditures exceed revenues by over $3 billion . . . So, in California, assertions by transit advocates that driving is subsidized appear to be empirically supported. Comparable analyses in other states may yield different conclusions. Although subsidies for driving are smaller than those for transit, they nonetheless merit criticism from those of us who believe in small government and fiscal responsibility.

I like the super weird blogs people cite on this thread. It's like they're citing, as an authority, some strange AM radio station they heard while driving through Alabama. This guy said it! It must be true!

You are drawing an equivalence between the Cato Institute and an AM radio station in Alabama?

Isn’t it cute when ignorance becomes a qualification?

Ignomarus: The Cato Institute is the leading libertarian think-tank. Even they admit that driving is subsidized.

[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:

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:

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.

That is factually inaccurate, you live in a bubble that is not remotely representative of how most Americans live. More than 90% of households in the US own a car and most people use their cars as their primary form of transportation. If DC makes it difficult for people to use cars on U street most people will just not visit area at all.

DC (especially U st) is not 90% of America.

Even in DC 2/3 households have a car. Arlington 88%, MOCO, 91%. It’s going to be challenging for many DC businesses to stay open when policies are actively hostile the primary form of transportation for most potential customers.

Having a car and taking that car to night life aren't the same thing either. Probably half of DC car owners are not even car commuters. Its very easy to be car light in DC. You use the car to go to the beach, or hiking or something like that while metro/bike/uber gets you around town.

Having said that, this is probably a net improvement for U street businesses as it will increase parking availability and turn over. They'll probably lose some customers that are extremely price sensitive while gaining others that don't mind paying more to park if it means not having to circle for 20 minutes or park 5 blocks away. The people they lose are the type that camp out for 4 hours nursing a beer, while they may gain 2 new customers that come for 2 hours each and depart. That's way better for businesses.

This is how it is for my family. DH & I both have cars and live in Adams Morgan. We do not move our cars from our street after 4PM Friday night. If we decide to do evening activities over the weekend here in DC, we use a car share. Trying to find parking where we are going is usually bad enough but to then not be able to find parking once we get home is awful. I do believe the $8 parking fee will hurt businesses where customers come from out of town (MD, VA).

What would help businesses would be if DC actually charged you a reasonable price for car storage so you didn’t leave not one but TWO cars in the street most of the week that you apparently rarely drive or need. Then there actually would be space for those with a need to drive to Adams Morgan. You’re part of the problem!

PP: How are we part of the problem when we pay for residential parking?? Are you saying that people that own or rent homes shouldn't have the privilege of being able to park their cars at a reasonable distance from their house?

The amount people pay for residential parking is a ridiculous pittance, particularly in a dense area like Adams Morgan. So yes, I think households need to pay more to take up a big chunk of public space with TWO cars they admittedly barely drive.

How much do restaurants pay for streateries and the other ugly, unsanitary, barely used dining shanties they build on public property?

streeteries go through a very thorough licensing process and once the current batch expires they will probably be around a $300 fee (similar to a sidewalk cafe). And of course they serve many more people than does car storage for a single person. a much more productive use of public space.

Ok so you agree they basically pay nothing? And the dining lean-tos that I see are typically empty. Those restaurant owners would be better off if they converted the space back into parking spots. If there's nowhere to park and your shanty is empty, you're not exactly selling yourself to prospective customers. It looks like no one wants to go there.

The reason they are empty is that noone wants to eat in the road of a major thoroughfare.

The reason that this parking plan is going to fail U Street is that it’s market position is as a low cost/budget nightlife area that does not directly compete with high cost/expensive nightlife areas.

This plan makes the area into a high cost nightlife area that is still budget quality. That’s a bad market position to be in.

Perhaps low budget nightlife isn't something the city actually wants. Maybe the city is ok with pushing the quality up and the riff raff out.

The entertainment market in DC is not big enough. The Wharf and Navy Yard have cannibalized restaurants and nightlife in other neighborhoods, particularly H Street and Chinatown/Penn Quarter.

U Street right now is barely hanging in. If it wasn’t for the 9:30 Club and the Atlantic, who rent parking from Howard, the neighborhood would be in even worse shape.

This move runs the risk of turning it from a trendy dive bar neighborhood into an untrendy Bowery type neighborhood. It will be a classic case of being careful what you wish for.

Newcomers to DC don’t know that the neighborhood suffered from riots in in ‘68 and later became and epicenter of the city’s crack epidemic.

The revitalization of the neighborhood to where it is now was a monumental effort and still not good enough. This kind of arrogant, ideology driven and frankly unnecessary policies can very easily help it in its way as it backslides from the much better neighborhood it was a decade ago.

You said it yourself that U street is already on the downswing because other better designed areas are taking the business. Those places actually have worse parking situations but are thriving. Why would that be? Maybe parking isn't actually as good for businesses as people are saying...

If you don’t live in DC, I’m not sure what you’re doing posting.

Both places are very convenient for cars. Both have garage parking which is safe and convenient. The Wharf, which has great freeway access, doesn’t have transit and would have even more parking if it wasn’t for the anti-car zealots. Not enough garage parking is in fact the biggest complaint from people visiting the Wharf.

huh? the wharf has 2 walkable metro stops, a bike lane, bike shares, and buses. And of course parking in the Wharf is like what $30?

But those of who live in DC, not near a metro stop, have to drive and park at a metro. I’m not paying $100 for an uber 2 ways, and it’s another car on the road. The Wharf is way more than $30. DC has its priorities backwards. At least you can finally park in Tenley for 4 hours. For a long time it was 2, so you couldn’t take the metro to dinner. You have to balance getting people out to spend $$ and balancing drivers. Or, else, we go to Maryland (like now, to a Target that isn’t locked up). Make it easy.

Park-and-ride should be much cheaper. Metro should be building a lot bigger parking garages.

[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:

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:

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.

That is factually inaccurate, you live in a bubble that is not remotely representative of how most Americans live. More than 90% of households in the US own a car and most people use their cars as their primary form of transportation. If DC makes it difficult for people to use cars on U street most people will just not visit area at all.

DC (especially U st) is not 90% of America.

Even in DC 2/3 households have a car. Arlington 88%, MOCO, 91%. It’s going to be challenging for many DC businesses to stay open when policies are actively hostile the primary form of transportation for most potential customers.

Having a car and taking that car to night life aren't the same thing either. Probably half of DC car owners are not even car commuters. Its very easy to be car light in DC. You use the car to go to the beach, or hiking or something like that while metro/bike/uber gets you around town.

Having said that, this is probably a net improvement for U street businesses as it will increase parking availability and turn over. They'll probably lose some customers that are extremely price sensitive while gaining others that don't mind paying more to park if it means not having to circle for 20 minutes or park 5 blocks away. The people they lose are the type that camp out for 4 hours nursing a beer, while they may gain 2 new customers that come for 2 hours each and depart. That's way better for businesses.

This is how it is for my family. DH & I both have cars and live in Adams Morgan. We do not move our cars from our street after 4PM Friday night. If we decide to do evening activities over the weekend here in DC, we use a car share. Trying to find parking where we are going is usually bad enough but to then not be able to find parking once we get home is awful. I do believe the $8 parking fee will hurt businesses where customers come from out of town (MD, VA).

What would help businesses would be if DC actually charged you a reasonable price for car storage so you didn’t leave not one but TWO cars in the street most of the week that you apparently rarely drive or need. Then there actually would be space for those with a need to drive to Adams Morgan. You’re part of the problem!

PP: How are we part of the problem when we pay for residential parking?? Are you saying that people that own or rent homes shouldn't have the privilege of being able to park their cars at a reasonable distance from their house?

The amount people pay for residential parking is a ridiculous pittance, particularly in a dense area like Adams Morgan. So yes, I think households need to pay more to take up a big chunk of public space with TWO cars they admittedly barely drive.

How much do restaurants pay for streateries and the other ugly, unsanitary, barely used dining shanties they build on public property?

streeteries go through a very thorough licensing process and once the current batch expires they will probably be around a $300 fee (similar to a sidewalk cafe). And of course they serve many more people than does car storage for a single person. a much more productive use of public space.

Ok so you agree they basically pay nothing? And the dining lean-tos that I see are typically empty. Those restaurant owners would be better off if they converted the space back into parking spots. If there's nowhere to park and your shanty is empty, you're not exactly selling yourself to prospective customers. It looks like no one wants to go there.

The reason they are empty is that noone wants to eat in the road of a major thoroughfare.

The reason that this parking plan is going to fail U Street is that it’s market position is as a low cost/budget nightlife area that does not directly compete with high cost/expensive nightlife areas.

This plan makes the area into a high cost nightlife area that is still budget quality. That’s a bad market position to be in.

Perhaps low budget nightlife isn't something the city actually wants. Maybe the city is ok with pushing the quality up and the riff raff out.

The entertainment market in DC is not big enough. The Wharf and Navy Yard have cannibalized restaurants and nightlife in other neighborhoods, particularly H Street and Chinatown/Penn Quarter.

U Street right now is barely hanging in. If it wasn’t for the 9:30 Club and the Atlantic, who rent parking from Howard, the neighborhood would be in even worse shape.

This move runs the risk of turning it from a trendy dive bar neighborhood into an untrendy Bowery type neighborhood. It will be a classic case of being careful what you wish for.

Newcomers to DC don’t know that the neighborhood suffered from riots in in ‘68 and later became and epicenter of the city’s crack epidemic.

The revitalization of the neighborhood to where it is now was a monumental effort and still not good enough. This kind of arrogant, ideology driven and frankly unnecessary policies can very easily help it in its way as it backslides from the much better neighborhood it was a decade ago.

You said it yourself that U street is already on the downswing because other better designed areas are taking the business. Those places actually have worse parking situations but are thriving. Why would that be? Maybe parking isn't actually as good for businesses as people are saying...

If you don’t live in DC, I’m not sure what you’re doing posting.

Both places are very convenient for cars. Both have garage parking which is safe and convenient. The Wharf, which has great freeway access, doesn’t have transit and would have even more parking if it wasn’t for the anti-car zealots. Not enough garage parking is in fact the biggest complaint from people visiting the Wharf.

huh? the wharf has 2 walkable metro stops, a bike lane, bike shares, and buses. And of course parking in the Wharf is like what $30?

But those of who live in DC, not near a metro stop, have to drive and park at a metro. I’m not paying $100 for an uber 2 ways, and it’s another car on the road. The Wharf is way more than $30. DC has its priorities backwards. At least you can finally park in Tenley for 4 hours. For a long time it was 2, so you couldn’t take the metro to dinner. You have to balance getting people out to spend $$ and balancing drivers. Or, else, we go to Maryland (like now, to a Target that isn’t locked up). Make it easy.

you said it - you drive to a metro then metro in. Or you pay the actual price for parking. There’s zero evidence that urban nightlife centers in cities need acres and acres of parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I can’t follow 20 pages of comments, but does this new policy impact residential parking permit holders? I like street parking and don’t want to pay $8 an hour to park my car outside my row house.

There's going to be a lot less residential parking.

Says who?

DDOT.

They're implementing this over Christmas break because everyone is going to absolutely hate it.

It's for your own good. Just like the congestion and camera tickets. Who doesn't love an activist ideological government?

If you don't like getting tickets from the cameras, all you have to do is stop at stop signs, and not speed.

But my son is only 25. His brain is not fully developed and he can't be held responsible for his actions. It's not fair that he's allowed to drive dangerously when he carjacks someone but if drives that way in my car then I have to pay a fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Pfft. Drivers pay for everything. We finance roads in this country through a combination of taxes and fees. Drivers pay the gas tax. They pay outrageous registration and inspection and tag fees to the city. They pay laughably expensive traffic citations. Both DC and the feds have a highly progressive tax system, which means rich people pay nearly all the taxes. You think your surgeon doesn't drive a car?

If you're a bike riding car hater who makes low six figures (or less), you're the freeloader here.

Everyone who pays taxes pays for the roads, including those bike riding people who don't put nearly as much wear and tear on the surface.

And no, the cost for gas is highly subsidized and the taxes on it don't come close to paying for the roads.

ironically it is the people who are driving heavily subsidized cars who are the freeloaders.

The lion's share of income taxes are paid by drivers, who obviously also pay the gas tax and and an almost impossibly long list of fees on top of that. The notion that they're some kind of welfare queens who are sponging off the rest of us is just bizarre. If drivers aren't paying their own way, then no one else in any other conceivable category is either, except maybe the crazy rich.

This is not hard. But yet you don’t seem to get it. So let me explain it for you.

If you pay taxes and don’t drive, you are subsidizing those who drive.

If you pay taxes and drive, your lifestyle is subsidized by those who don’t drive.

The more you drive, the more your lifestyle is subsidized by those who don’t drive or drive less.

Drivers are not, by any measure, paying their own way.

There's approximately 300,000 cars registered for the city, and there's approximately 315,000 households in the city. "Drivers" and "taxpayers", by and large, are the same people. The likelihood of someone owning a car(s) increases with income and you know what else increases with income? That's right! How much they pay in taxes!