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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

Downtown Bethesda is not and neverwill be NYC. You need parking for people coming in who don't live within walking distance who are happy to go to breakfast, lunch or dinner or buy whatever they are selling. Unless a lot more big businesses move in with a lot more employees (for tax base and for them to spend money there), Bethesda needs people to drive in, find parking, and be willing to spend money.

We've lived here for 20 years, and have seen nothing but increased traffic, increased taxes and decreasing quality of schools (overcrowded here). Tell me what is so great about downtown Bethesda that I would drive there, spend time looking for, and then paying for, parking. I don't think there's anything there that I can't get elsewhere either online, or, from somewhere that has free, easy to find, nearby, parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

No, you want people in downtown Bethesda without driving. That isn't remotely a universal view and most people recognize that people coming in and parking will and should still be an important part of Bethesda. The purple line won't change that since it won't impact wide areas where people drive in from now. Your vision of the future is both a distinctly minority view and wildly unrealistic.

And you can have it both ways, as we do now. You seem to think "urban" has to be extreme density where cars aren't really appropriate. Bethesda will never be that and most people in and around Bethesda wouldn't want that even if it were possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

If they keep replacing the surface parking with underground parking and it is still as heavily utilized as you suggest, AND there are all the new residents AND there is the purple line, I think Bethesda will be more than fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

If they keep replacing the surface parking with underground parking and it is still as heavily utilized as you suggest, AND there are all the new residents AND there is the purple line, I think Bethesda will be more than fine.

Right, that wouldn't be a loss of parking. I've said throughout that underground garages are a good compromise to allow greater density/use of space, but still provide ample parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Right, that wouldn't be a loss of parking. I've said throughout that underground garages are a good compromise to allow greater density/use of space, but still provide ample parking.

Underground garages are very expensive. Who will pay for them, and how? Lots of the garages are already half-empty lots of the time.

Also: "ample parking" is for suburban areas, not dense urban areas like downtown Bethesda. "Ample parking" is not what we should be aiming for. Marriott is moving to Bethesda because it's a dense urban area with good transit. If they want that AND for all of their employees to be able to drive to work in their own cars, by themselves, and park? Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Right, that wouldn't be a loss of parking. I've said throughout that underground garages are a good compromise to allow greater density/use of space, but still provide ample parking.

Underground garages are very expensive. Who will pay for them, and how? Lots of the garages are already half-empty lots of the time.

Also: "ample parking" is for suburban areas, not dense urban areas like downtown Bethesda. "Ample parking" is not what we should be aiming for. Marriott is moving to Bethesda because it's a dense urban area with good transit. If they want that AND for all of their employees to be able to drive to work in their own cars, by themselves, and park? Nope.

Bethesda isn't that dense or urban and even with the current development it won't be. First, even in the downtown core, there are plenty of spots that aren't terribly dense (lots of one story buildings, some SFH) and that isn't going to change. But even if the downtown core itself truly became that dense, you are ignoring that downtown is quite small, maybe a square mile or two. That area is surrounded by wide swaths of suburbia, much of which doesn't have good transport options into Bethesda, but can drive there quite easily and currently does to substantially sustain much of Bethesda.

Take DuPont, for example. Not only is the immediate area denser, it is surrounded for miles by other dense areas almost all of which provide public transport into the area easily. An area such as that has enough people to draw from that it can afford to have limited parking options and thrive.

Even as Bethesda develops, it won't have that. There won't be enough people in Downtown Bethesda to sustain thins alone and you will still want and need to draw people from the surrounding areas, areas that by and large don't (and under any current or feasible plan wont) have public transportation options. Neither your idea that Bethesda will be able to simply say good riddance to the huge number of people who currently park there nor that most of these people will suddenly take public transit without parking comports with reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Right, that wouldn't be a loss of parking. I've said throughout that underground garages are a good compromise to allow greater density/use of space, but still provide ample parking.

Underground garages are very expensive. Who will pay for them, and how? Lots of the garages are already half-empty lots of the time.

Also: "ample parking" is for suburban areas, not dense urban areas like downtown Bethesda. "Ample parking" is not what we should be aiming for. Marriott is moving to Bethesda because it's a dense urban area with good transit. If they want that AND for all of their employees to be able to drive to work in their own cars, by themselves, and park? Nope.

Bethesda isn't that dense or urban and even with the current development it won't be. First, even in the downtown core, there are plenty of spots that aren't terribly dense (lots of one story buildings, some SFH) and that isn't going to change. But even if the downtown core itself truly became that dense, you are ignoring that downtown is quite small, maybe a square mile or two. That area is surrounded by wide swaths of suburbia, much of which doesn't have good transport options into Bethesda, but can drive there quite easily and currently does to substantially sustain much of Bethesda.

Take DuPont, for example. Not only is the immediate area denser, it is surrounded for miles by other dense areas almost all of which provide public transport into the area easily. An area such as that has enough people to draw from that it can afford to have limited parking options and thrive.

Even as Bethesda develops, it won't have that. There won't be enough people in Downtown Bethesda to sustain thins alone and you will still want and need to draw people from the surrounding areas, areas that by and large don't (and under any current or feasible plan wont) have public transportation options. Neither your idea that Bethesda will be able to simply say good riddance to the huge number of people who currently park there nor that most of these people will suddenly take public transit without parking comports with reality.

I guess you haven't read the Bethesda Downtown Plan?

But yes, if the policy were that lots of people must be able to easily drive and find ample parking in downtown Bethesda, then downtown Bethesda would never be as dense an urban core as it could be otherwise.

I don't mean to be snarky, but I do seriously wonder whether you know anybody who doesn't have school-aged children at home and/or doesn't have a car. There are a lot of people who live in downtown Bethesda and don't have a car. (In fact, there are a lot of people in the county overall who don't have a car, but in other parts of the county, it's not always so easy to tell whether they don't have a car because they don't want one or because they can't afford one.) Don't you know any of them?

[Anonymous]

OP here

didn't read all of the last few pages, but it seems people are getting hung up on "easy" and "ample"

Its quite possible in a densifying place (eg Bethesda) that parking becomes costlier and less ample relative to the amount of activity, while still existing in sufficient quantity to enable a significant portion of visitors by single occupant vehicle.

Scenario 1 - total number of spots stays the same (possibly underground replacing surface) while the amount of activity increases.

Scenario 2 - the number of spots declines (if the County sets lenient or no parking minimums, and developers find it profitable to either build small, or no garages, because the garages are costly relative to what parkers are willing to pa This could still be a consistent with a large total number of spots, if that decline is slow (as it is likely to be)

[Anonymous]

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

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

I don't disagree with that.

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

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

I don't disagree with that.

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

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

They do for street parking, just not in lots and garages. That's done to encourage people to park in lots and garages.

During weekdays, parking in Bethesda is charged until 10pm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

I don't disagree with that.

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

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

They do for street parking, just not in lots and garages. That's done to encourage people to park in lots and garages.

During weekdays, parking in Bethesda is charged until 10pm.

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

I don't disagree with that.

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

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

They do for street parking, just not in lots and garages. That's done to encourage people to park in lots and garages.

During weekdays, parking in Bethesda is charged until 10pm.

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

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

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

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