Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You limit parking AND incentivize those other options.

If you build more garages, you get more cars. Its pretty simple.

One incentive is for DC to do what jurisdictions like Arlington do, which is to restrict RPP for residents of new buildings constructed without parking!or with reduced parking. That way, you eliminate the externality impact of large projects without parking placing even more demand on scarce street parking space and create incentives for transit use. Developers who seek relief from parking requirements say that in buildings built near transit corridors, residents won’t have cars and will take transit and use ride share, so this holds them accountable for that promise. Smart growth advocates contend that by eliminating off street parking requirements, building costs are reduced and passed along to buyers and tenants through more affordable housing prices, so notice of no RPP would seem to be a reasonable trade off for that price benefit.

DC already does that for the most part. However, I would ask, why should a resident of a house be treated differently than a resident of an apartment building? YOU don't own the street and YOU are not entitled to be able to park your car in front of your house. If you want your own parking spot, put one on your property or clear out the garage you are likely not using.

DC doesn’t do this really. I agree with you in the case of new SFHs (and new accessory dwelling units), but it’s the large multi unit buildings that have the greatest localized adverse impact on parking.

The developer of a new building can request that it be excluded from the RPP program if nearby residents demand it, but DDOT cannot actually block a new building from being added to the program. Source: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/10693106/5333-connecticut-avenue

This came up during the development of the 5333 Connecticut apartment building in CCDC. The developer (Cafritz) agreed to exclude the new building from the RPP program. However, DDOT discovered that a number of 5333 residents still were allowed to obtain RPP stickers, even though the building has a massive parking garage underneath it (this was apparently caused by a database issue at the DMV). After the local ANC discovered the problem, those residents were told that they would not be allowed to renew their RPP permits when they expired.

https://anc3g.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Minutes-11-26-18-draft-11-29-18.pdf

It's a glitchy system that requires good coordination between multiple DC agencies, in other words.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You limit parking AND incentivize those other options.

If you build more garages, you get more cars. Its pretty simple.

One incentive is for DC to do what jurisdictions like Arlington do, which is to restrict RPP for residents of new buildings constructed without parking!or with reduced parking. That way, you eliminate the externality impact of large projects without parking placing even more demand on scarce street parking space and create incentives for transit use. Developers who seek relief from parking requirements say that in buildings built near transit corridors, residents won’t have cars and will take transit and use ride share, so this holds them accountable for that promise. Smart growth advocates contend that by eliminating off street parking requirements, building costs are reduced and passed along to buyers and tenants through more affordable housing prices, so notice of no RPP would seem to be a reasonable trade off for that price benefit.

DC already does that for the most part. However, I would ask, why should a resident of a house be treated differently than a resident of an apartment building? YOU don't own the street and YOU are not entitled to be able to park your car in front of your house. If you want your own parking spot, put one on your property or clear out the garage you are likely not using.

DC doesn’t do this really. I agree with you in the case of new SFHs (and new accessory dwelling units), but it’s the large multi unit buildings that have the greatest localized adverse impact on parking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You limit parking AND incentivize those other options.

If you build more garages, you get more cars. Its pretty simple.

One incentive is for DC to do what jurisdictions like Arlington do, which is to restrict RPP for residents of new buildings constructed without parking!or with reduced parking. That way, you eliminate the externality impact of large projects without parking placing even more demand on scarce street parking space and create incentives for transit use. Developers who seek relief from parking requirements say that in buildings built near transit corridors, residents won’t have cars and will take transit and use ride share, so this holds them accountable for that promise. Smart growth advocates contend that by eliminating off street parking requirements, building costs are reduced and passed along to buyers and tenants through more affordable housing prices, so notice of no RPP would seem to be a reasonable trade off for that price benefit.

DC already does that for the most part. However, I would ask, why should a resident of a house be treated differently than a resident of an apartment building? YOU don't own the street and YOU are not entitled to be able to park your car in front of your house. If you want your own parking spot, put one on your property or clear out the garage you are likely not using.

I like that, at the very least. It is super unfair to neighbors to build new steuctures without parking and then close eyes to the "spillover".

Anonymous wrote:You limit parking AND incentivize those other options.

If you build more garages, you get more cars. Its pretty simple.

One incentive is for DC to do what jurisdictions like Arlington do, which is to restrict RPP for residents of new buildings constructed without parking!or with reduced parking. That way, you eliminate the externality impact of large projects without parking placing even more demand on scarce street parking space and create incentives for transit use. Developers who seek relief from parking requirements say that in buildings built near transit corridors, residents won’t have cars and will take transit and use ride share, so this holds them accountable for that promise. Smart growth advocates contend that by eliminating off street parking requirements, building costs are reduced and passed along to buyers and tenants through more affordable housing prices, so notice of no RPP would seem to be a reasonable trade off for that price benefit.

You limit parking AND incentivize those other options.

If you build more garages, you get more cars. Its pretty simple.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't drive. At all. However, parking is a good thing. If the city (and you) wish to incentivize non drivers like me, put in crosswalks, speedbumps, green paycheck benefits, tax breaks, bike lanes, invest in public transit, transit police etc. However, there is nothing worse than people circling the block and fighting over parking. I cannot endorse any development without thoughtful parking.

All of those things are happening. Granted, not as quickly as you or I would like, but the city is moving in the right direction.

Great..there is no need to limit parking if you can provide people with other, more tempting options.

Anonymous wrote:I don't drive. At all. However, parking is a good thing. If the city (and you) wish to incentivize non drivers like me, put in crosswalks, speedbumps, green paycheck benefits, tax breaks, bike lanes, invest in public transit, transit police etc. However, there is nothing worse than people circling the block and fighting over parking. I cannot endorse any development without thoughtful parking.

All of those things are happening. Granted, not as quickly as you or I would like, but the city is moving in the right direction.

I don't drive. At all. However, parking is a good thing. If the city (and you) wish to incentivize non drivers like me, put in crosswalks, speedbumps, green paycheck benefits, tax breaks, bike lanes, invest in public transit, transit police etc. However, there is nothing worse than people circling the block and fighting over parking. I cannot endorse any development without thoughtful parking.

Then don't shop at the TJ's. It's a pretty easy solution.

Or, you can walk or Uber there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No parking is a problem. Its a nightmare in some neighborhoods. Any new buildings should be required to have ample parking.

I don't think it is a nightmare anywhere in Ward 3 and in any case its not a nightmare for the many people who don't own cars.

Hopefully you are not the PP who was complaining about global warming?

Oh, it's definitely an issue in some of the newer apartment buildings in ward 3. We lived in a small building that charged top dollar for its garage and would give out more parking passes than were spots (either that, or people let their friends park in the resident garage for days, as we didn't have assigned spots). More than a few of my neighbors rearranged their schedules (e.g., getting to/leaving from work earlier) to ensure that they could get a parking spot in their own home.

I do wonder about the building next to / above the Glover Park Trader Joe's (and Cathedral Commons) -- do residents and customers use the same garage? Parking at TJ's is already a PITA; I can't imagine paying $150+/month, plus rent, for that!

Anonymous wrote:No parking is a problem. Its a nightmare in some neighborhoods. Any new buildings should be required to have ample parking.

I don't think it is a nightmare anywhere in Ward 3 and in any case its not a nightmare for the many people who don't own cars.

Hopefully you are not the PP who was complaining about global warming?

Anonymous wrote:No parking is a problem. Its a nightmare in some neighborhoods. Any new buildings should be required to have ample parking.

More people are ditching car ownership. In Tenleytown, there was a protracted battle over a new building with no parking. Fast forward 4 years, building is full, no discernible difference.

Parking and car ownership are 20th century issues. In another 10 years, most people in cities will be biking and ubering places.

No parking is a problem. Its a nightmare in some neighborhoods. Any new buildings should be required to have ample parking.

Anonymous wrote:[quote

Please. There are 1500 new housing units rising on just two blocks of Wisconsin alone. There have been a number of buildings added along Wisconsin Ave, as well as in Chevy Chase/Friendship Heights, Tenleytown, and Woodley. There’s a large development slated for the heart of AU Park. The “smart growther” Arent satiated because they’re basically the echo chamber for real estate developers and speculators who are not satiated. And they especially want windfall profit opportunities they would result from upzoning in Ward 3. As for “climate change,” go ask developers if they are willing to covenant that buyers and tenants will be ineligible for street RPP permits for their cars. They’ll look at you like you’re crazy.

DC has added something like 70,000 new housing units in the last 15 years and you can cite a couple of thousand units that have been built or in the process of being built in Ward 3. I can count on two hands the number of residential buildings that have opened along the entire length of Wisconsin Avenue the twenty years I've lived in Upper NW.

Who cares if the developers make money - the person who made my house did so to make money. Same as the person who made your house. It would be a problem if people making housing couldn't make money doing so because housing is sort of an important thing.

And you are oddly ignorant about global warming and how to address it as well as what has happened in Ward 3 - in fact a number of the developers have agreed to prohibit their addresses from being included in the RPP database though why you think that has something to do with global warming is beyond me.

But you think global warming is just about driving, probably because for you driving is the extent of how you think about getting yourself around your privileged corner of DC.

But new housing in close in neighborhoods is about the greenest housing you can build - DC has the greenest housing codes in the country (only CA has more LEED certified buildings) so people who move into this new housing are moving into about the most energy efficient housing being built. People in these buildings own fewer cars, drive the cars they own much less and use transit to a much greater degree than people living in new housing further out.

And having new people in DC supports more public transit, more neighborhood serving retail, more jobs in DC and increases the cities coffers which is why DC has spent so much money the last 10 years on infrastructure and is now sitting on 1.5 billion in the bank.

And the downside to Ward 3 is what exactly? You will have a harder time finding free parking on the street when you drive to FH to shop at Nieman Marcus? You will feel suffocated by seeing a 9 story building? You will be upset that a surface parking lot has been converted to housing?