Anonymous wrote:DC's unemployment rate is almost double that of the surrounding region. We should be encouraging people to come into the city not discouraging it.

Wouldn't it be great if DC had ways for people who don't live in DC to come into DC without having to drive and park their own cars?

DC's unemployment rate is almost double that of the surrounding region. We should be encouraging people to come into the city not discouraging it.

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.

Let's reframe that. Even in DC, 1/3 of households don't have a car. And how many of those households that do have a car use that car to drive to U Street? Or, conversely, how many people who go out on U Street got there in their private car?

The idea here seems to be that DC needs to have cheap parking for the people who go to U Street to spend lots of money.

Reframing?

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.

Let's reframe that. Even in DC, 1/3 of households don't have a car. And how many of those households that do have a car use that car to drive to U Street? Or, conversely, how many people who go out on U Street got there in their private car?

The idea here seems to be that DC needs to have cheap parking for the people who go to U Street to spend lots of money.

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.

Most customers of bars in U st are not driving and parking. You are seriously delusional if you think even a significant portion (>5%) are doing that. This proves you are a suburbanite and have no idea how a city works.

So much hand wringing in this thread from the bridge and tunnel crowd, it's hilarious.

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.

ok, so we need to charge people exorbitant rates to park on the street because there's so much demand for parking there, except no one needs to park because no one drives anymore. got it. y'all need to get your story straight. fewer cockamamie theories about what young people supposedly do would be cool too.

You clearly haven't tried to find parking around U st during peak times. This thread has too many suburbanites complaining. Seriously, your opinions on this simple don't matter, at all.

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!

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

The only thing unique about U Street is how many street fights break out.

Great - so you won’t be going there, by car or otherwise

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.

The only thing unique about U Street is how many street fights break out.

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.

ok, so we need to charge people exorbitant rates to park on the street because there's so much demand for parking there, except no one needs to park because no one drives anymore. got it. y'all need to get your story straight. fewer cockamamie theories about what young people supposedly do would be cool too.