How does this proposed legislation compare with established enhanced residential parking restrictions in other other wards and neighborhoods?

What proposals are there for the Visitor Pass portion of this legislation? Based strictly on on prior experience with implementation and enforcement of "yet another district program," I don't have much hope that this will do anything but annoy the affected residents. This is a significant portion of the proposal and, in my mind, should be detailed within, not tacked in a "we'll get to that" fashion.

Thanks for writing.

We've heard many positive reports from residents who live on blocks with one side reserved for zone 6 permit parking only -- an enhancement tool authorized last year as part of the performance parking pilot. This technique helps reduce the number of spaces being taken up by non-residents, particularly after the designated RPP hours.

The bill is designed to give DDOT additional tools to help neighborhoods address residential parking concerns. We've heard from many residents and ANCs near commercial corridors and high-traffic areas (such as the new Capitol Visitors Center, H Street, and Eastern Market) who experience extremely tight on-street parking. The additional tools offered by the bill allow DDOT to work with the impacted community to effectively address their specific issues. Not every neighborhood will need extended RPP hours, for instance, but for others, that might be just the thing to ease congestion.

The Visitor Parking Pass program has been piloted here in Ward 6 in the blocks surrounding Nationals Park and Barracks Row; Mt. Pleasant has a similar pilot. You can read a bit more about the existing pilots at the DDOT Visitor Parking Pass page.

I think this plan will hurt Ward 6 residents, more then help. This makes it hard on visitors.

Again, the plan provides the tools -- it doesn't require that they be used. In some neighborhoods, residents want enhanced protections. In others, they may not need them. The legislation provides the neighbors the flexibility they need to make it work for best for them.

@ Charles Allen

Understood, however once implementation begins (by choice of residents, as noted) there's a domino effect that's bound to happen. As parking is restricted on one block, unregulated (or less regulated, non-E-RPP) neighboring streets will feel the effects. This will, most likely, encourage adoption of the "tools" enabled through the E-RPP legislation in the affected locations. Lather, rinse, repeat across the Zone.

While some areas wouldn't consider curb parking an issue now, this per-block installation sets up a situation where the pain is pushed out far further from the initial location of overcrowding. The only recourse is to accept the inconveniences associated with getting some "tools" on the block.

What's the opposite of paying it forward?

I took a look at the DDOT pilots that have been performed (recommended above). All seem to essentially work the same way, distributing one visitor parking pass per household. The one for Ward 4 concluded in November 2008, and there's a link for a survey, but it's the actual form, not the results.

Any idea where to find the analysis and, specifically, comments from the Ward 4 constituents?

I did a quick check of the 1800 block of Mass. Ave. SE. A majority of our households with more than one car are young working couples who for whatever reason do not use METRO for work. Also, every house on the block has off street parking for at least one car if not two.

Our main parking problem involves cars with Md. tags coming in to buy drugs from our two drug houses or to visit friends in DC Jail. These cars don't need RPPs.

Ok, so the last paragraph is extremely disturbing.
First, would the extra money paid out by Ward 6 residents for parking be used solely for Ward 6 transportation issues? If so, how can that be monitored?

Second, how does a fee increase deter someone from parking their car on the street? If you already have a second car, paying more to park that car does not alleviate the increase in parking congestion. It's not like increasing it by $1,000. That kind of increase might discourage someone, but a $50 fee is punishment. If you have two car payments for the next 3-4 years, you are not going to sell one of the cars to avoid a $50 parking fee. If you have two cars and one of them is paid off, you are not going to sell it to avoid an increase in the parking fee.

Third, how does this affect motorcycles?

Here are some of the things I think about regarding parking. Some Ward 6 residents have garages, but they are full of STUFF so they must park their cars on the street. Some Ward 6 residents have very nice size back yards that can easily fit cars, but they park their cars on the street because of ally and trash issues. Some Ward 6 residents have junk cars in their back yards harboring rats and possums, so they can not park their cars in their back yards. Some Ward 6 residents have made renovations to their homes which have made their back yards smaller so they can not park their cars in their backyards.

But for the life of me, I can’t think of why my city Councilmember would want me to pay more to park my car on a city street because I am not fortunate or lucky enough to have a garage or a home with off street parking. I can’t think of why paying more for parking will change the fact that my family needs and will continue to have two cars for all sorts of reasons. I can not understand how $50 will change anything at all except add another issue to your re-election campaign.

How about some consistent enforcement of the current rules before throwing new legislation at the problem? Or is that deemed a less efficient means of revenue generation?

Mr. Wells,

I live in Montgomery County (yes, I'm an evil suburban resident who exists for no other reason than to come to Ward 6 and block up a parking space).

Actually, I am a contractor who has been driving to Capitol Hill daily for over 10-years. Prior to that, I was a resident in the 200-block of 10th St, NE.

Here is my problem:

I visit 5-8 houses, businesses daily on the hill. Parking (during working hours) is now much more difficult due to the one-side resident restriction because it has decreased the availability of spots for non-residents by half in the areas where this program is in force.

Many times during the day, I have to now park a block or two away from my intended destination in order to get a "legal" spot just so I can do my work.

You would probably say; just get the permit from the resident you are visiting and put it in your window...

Mr. Wells, this causes a lot more extra interaction with my parked truck than I would care to have!

First, I park the truck in a residential only spot (hoping to avoid the rabid enforcement hounds) which are waiting.. watching.. my every intention.

Secondly, I go to the residents door which may be as far as one or two blocks for away. No big deal on a nice day, but how about rain, snow, 110 degrees when I am laden with equipment and material.

Thirdly, I ask the resident for the pass. Usually its no problem but many times I hear the "My son is in from school and has it in his car..." story and now I'm out of luck.

Fourthly can go two-ways, I leave the truck there and hope for the best, or, I must now leave, walk the distance back to the truck again, get in and circle looking for something "more suitable" THUS WASTING MORE TIME where I could have already been parked in front of the residents house and been working.

Fifthly, I finally find a spot 5-10 minutes later, then have to walk back to the house. I often need equipment from the truck which means multiple visits back. At least in the "old days" I had a better chance of parking somewhat closer and only had to worry about the 2-hour restriction.

Oh, and even if I get the pass, I have to walk back to the truck to put it in, then back to the resident. Then, when complete, walk back to the truck, get the pass, then return in to the resident. Multiple times a day, this gets a little old.

Since it bothers me, I will often ask residents what they think of the new rules and the honest answer I get most of the time is they think it is ridiculous. One lady says its been hard for her to have friends over because she only has one pass. Another person told me an out-of-state house guest was towed simply for not understanding the signs. Someone else said that two contractors almost got in a fight over who would have the pass first. Yes, some people have said it doesn't bother them in the slightest but NO ONE has jumped around with glee exclaiming how wonderful this new policy is!

A proposal:

How about DURING WORKING HOURS, when those ward 6 residents who do leave the area by car are elsewhere, that the resident-only rule be reverted back to the 2-hour rule. It seems to me, that you are most worried about out-of-ward people coming to take up spots for metro, or the ball-game. Well, let the two-hour rule take care of them like it has since it was instituted years back.

If you don't like that, how about letting established contractors (DC-based or not) apply for a pass which would be valid during working hours that they could keep in their vehicles so they would not be penalized for attempting to do nothing more than park for LEGITIMATE WORK REASONS.

Mr. Wells, all I want to do is park, do my job and move on. I have slowly shifted some work out of Capitol Hill and SW due to this rule change. I'm am wasting far too much time dealing with this and think it is unfair and unnecessary during the day.

Thank You