Oh Noes!

This is just a staggering story in The Washington Post. The essence of it is that the mayor of Washington DC has made a couple of fairly minor policy shifts designed to make life better for people who live in Washington DC and pay taxes in Washington DC that have come at the expense of people who don't live in Washington DC and don't pay taxes in Washington DC but do commute to work here in cars.

To which I say: More please! Obviously, there's some point at which you've made things so terrible for suburban commuters that the downtown office market totally collapses and your city is screwed. But we're really, really far from that point. Mayors' priorities should be on creating livable neighborhoods for people, and on creating circumstances in which more people move into their cities. Putting a priority on making suburbanites' car commutes as short as possible is preposterous.

Comments

I don't know why DC just doesn't impose a congestion charge on people bringing cars into DC. Set up toll lanes on all the ingresses into DC and charge for the privilege of driving in the District.

They can make a shit ton and use the money to improve the quality of life in the District.

And to those who will scream and cry and say, "They can't do THAT!", I say: there are plenty of alternatives to getting into DC. I use one of them often when I pass cars sitting on the Route One bridge trying to either get into the Pentagon or into DC depending on the time of day.

Posted by calipygian | July 8, 2008 11:35 AM

Congestion charges have worked well in London and have been at least semi-seriously proposed for New York. Might they be next?

Posted by Peter | July 8, 2008 11:37 AM

They better not start enforcing encroaching on a crosswalk. It's how I knew I had left Seattle.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | July 8, 2008 11:38 AM

Suburbanite car commuters will rule forever! Resistance is futile! You're sure gonna look stupid when all our Deloreans are powered by old beer and banana peels in their Mr. Fusion reaction chambers!

Posted by Ixnermay | July 8, 2008 11:38 AM

Yeah that was a pretty hilariously whiny article. My only question is why DC hasn't done more of this in the past? Tolls are pretty much par for the course in New York and Chicago (and a lot of the Mid-Atlantic). DC has some of the worst traffic in the nation, but ALSO one of the few really good transit systems. Why wouldn't they be doing anything they could to reward subway riders and punish congesters?

Posted by NS | July 8, 2008 11:41 AM

Of course, D.C. is free to do this because it's a company town with an industry that's never leaving and is probably never downsizing. If you depend on private business for jobs, there's a point at which you can make things hard enough for those businesses that they'll leave.

Posted by too many steves | July 8, 2008 11:43 AM

In total agreement here. I'm particularly excited to read about an initiative to get rid of the reversible lane on 16th through Mt. Pleasant and Columbia Heights -- it's a neighborhood that is developing a great mixed-use feel, and can use the help to connect the business district in Mt. Pleasant with all the new development on 14th in Columbia Heights.

I was a little shocked to hear that it's still widespread practice for the federal government to offer employees free parking in the city. I moved across town to decrease the amount of daily car commuting I do, and now walk to work. However, if my office offered free parking, there are plenty of days where I'd drive, particularly in the winter. And I live within walking distance! Give away metro passes, whatever, but free parking is too much of a temptation. Charge for the parking, and use the funds to compensate federal employees through salaries and health benefits.

Posted by Emily | July 8, 2008 11:45 AM

As somebody who routinely has to go into the District hauling a lot of stuff (for purposes of volunteer work), this sort of thing is already turning into a major pain. Not everybody is an able-bodied single adult carrying nothing larger than a briefcase. Plenty of people have to move around with lots of equipment, or with several small children. Others are not physically able to walk long distances from parking places to the thing they are parking in order to do.

Drive all the people who work with tangible objects, all the parents, and all the elderly or disabled people out of the District if you want to. Maybe that would make it all "nicer" for some of the current residents... it could be a very pretty urban park. But I'm not in favor.

Posted by M.C. | July 8, 2008 11:51 AM

Part of the problem is that the city just isn't driveable, but the city has decided to jerry-rig commuting arteries out of what are supposed to be regular roads and avenues.

If there were more arteries like the Whitehurst Freeway, or if Rock Creek Parkway extended up to the Beltway, the city would have less need to depend on 16th St. and Connecticut Avenue as pedestrian-hostile boulevards for commuters.

Posted by Tyro | July 8, 2008 11:53 AM

The card-swipe parking meters are an interesting development: instead of making municipal spaces into a game of musical chairs, which doesn't just encourage driving but driving in circles, you can charge comparable rates to the staffed private lots.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 8, 2008 11:54 AM

I especially found this passage jaw-dropping (in an alleged news piece):

"But the District is the home of the federal government, and District officials must accommodate the thousands of federal employees who need to get in and out of downtown everyday. The Department of Commerce isn't going anywhere."

Ummmm... nor is the Federal Triangle Metro stop located DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET from the Department of Commerce. Jeez.

Posted by jkd | July 8, 2008 11:55 AM

Those proposing a congestion tax should realize that it's been floated repeatedly and vigorously warned against by the feds. Home rule only exists to the extent that it doesn't conflict with congress's priorities.

Posted by Tom | July 8, 2008 11:56 AM

I think they should split most of DC into Virginia and Maryland. The only resident of DC proper should be the president.

Posted by mike | July 8, 2008 12:19 PM

Occasionally, people get the idea of turning our big metro areas into consolidated one-government, super cities. Making the city more livable would never happen if Northern Virginians were in charge of the city.

Posted by jacobus | July 8, 2008 12:21 PM

As somebody who routinely has to go into the District hauling a lot of stuff (for purposes of volunteer work), this sort of thing is already turning into a major pain. Not everybody is an able-bodied single adult carrying nothing larger than a briefcase.

You're not thinking big picture, though - get those able-bodied single adults with briefcases off the roads, and people like you then don't need to claim a priority share of scarce resources to be able to get around. It becomes a win-win for everybody.

Posted by Ethel-To-Tilly | July 8, 2008 12:23 PM

I'm a federal employee (not in DC though) and we get transit checks as a way of encouraging the use of public transit. I always assumed this was the case in DC, though the article seems to contradict that.

Posted by roman | July 8, 2008 12:25 PM

Even Northern Virginians aren't in charge of Northern Virginia. Northern Virginia is the big mess that it is because of Richmond.

Posted by Tyro | July 8, 2008 12:26 PM

As somebody who routinely has to go into the District hauling a lot of stuff (for purposes of volunteer work), this sort of thing is already turning into a major pain. Not everybody is an able-bodied single adult carrying nothing larger than a briefcase.

You're not thinking big picture, though - get those able-bodied single adults with briefcases off the roads, and people like you then don't need to claim a priority share of scarce resources to be able to get around. It becomes a win-win for everybody.

Posted by Ethel-To-Tilly | July 8, 2008 12:26 PM

You're sure gonna look stupid when all our Deloreans are powered by old beer and banana peels in their Mr. Fusion reaction chambers!

Well, I'm going to get me one of those Doc Brown DeLoreans, that will get me to work in the morning before I leave home.

Posted by ixnermay prime | July 8, 2008 12:26 PM

"Home rule only exists to the extent that it doesn't conflict with congress's priorities.

Posted by Tom | July 8, 2008 11:56 AM"

You have to love how a bunch of Congressional members pulling down six figures a year in a metropolitan area nowhere near as expensive as New York can still complain about have to pay a toll.

What, cities are supposed to serve their residents' interests over those of suburbanites who use its services for free? Shocking!

Posted by Reality Man | July 8, 2008 12:27 PM

"My only question is why DC hasn't done more of this in the past? Tolls are pretty much par for the course in New York and Chicago (and a lot of the Mid-Atlantic). "

Tolls wouldn't work for DC. While the VA is accessed by bridges, the MD side is permeated by many small to large streets. You'd really need to hit it from the parking perspective. For a lot of parking that's no problem; it's municipally controlled. Private parking would get difficult. I suppose you could assess fees for large private lots, but I don't think you want to hit every house with a driveway.

Posted by Njorl | July 8, 2008 12:35 PM

Re roman

Federal Government employees get s subsidy to take mass transit (used to be $60.00/month) if they work in DC or Arlington, Va.

Posted by SLC | July 8, 2008 12:36 PM

I'm a federal employee (not in DC though) and we get transit checks as a way of encouraging the use of public transit. I always assumed this was the case in DC, though the article seems to contradict that.

Yes, we get the transit subsidies.

I haven't read the Post article. I am surprised to hear that substantial numbers of federal employees get free parking. In my office of 100+ people only five supervisors have spaces. Since they regularly work till 9 or later, I have no problem with that.

Posted by roac | July 8, 2008 12:36 PM

Ethel-To-Tilly -

Indeed, it would be better if more people used transit when that was convenient and they didn't have to carry an entire car full of stuff. It's just that you can't monitor that easily. Are we supposed to have customs inspectors on the 395 bridge to see who "really" needs to be driving and who doesn't? Would there be huge zoning battles over which organizations got loading zones and parking and who didn't? The cure is worse than the disease, in my opinion.

The only thing that makes sense is to recognize that cars are extremely useful for a wide variety of purposes, that individuals benefit when there is uncoerced choice between cars and transit, and that good urban planning should deal with that fact. More underground parking is good, for example, especially if there is a freight elevator directly to the place I'm going.

There's one thing I'll grant you, though. Restaurants around the Verizon Center should be BANNED from offering valet parking. Those outfits are the latest scam, it seems, and I can't help wondering who has been bought off to make it go. I've seen the valets guarding ordinary, on-street parking spaces that should be available to anyone. If the restaurant doesn't have its own dedicated lot that it pays rent on, then it shouldn't be allowed to pull that kind of thing.

Posted by M.C. | July 8, 2008 12:54 PM

"They better not start enforcing encroaching on a crosswalk."

I disagree. I have never lived in a city where I was scared to cross the street at 4-way stop signs--even with a stroller. People just don't stop. I say fine their asses.

Posted by David | July 8, 2008 1:03 PM

I think in a lot of agencies you have a choice between a parking benefit and the Metrochecks - you can't have both. Of course, this encourages people to drive and park and defeats the purpose of the Metrochecks.

Posted by Virginia | July 8, 2008 1:08 PM

The only thing that makes sense is to recognize that cars are extremely useful for a wide variety of purposes, that individuals benefit when there is uncoerced choice between cars and transit, and that good urban planning should deal with that fact.

Well, being that you're apparently not a resident of the District, and therefore doesn't pay taxes in the District or vote in the city elections ... who asked you, anyway?

Posted by strannix | July 8, 2008 1:11 PM

I think in a lot of agencies you have a choice between a parking benefit and the Metrochecks - you can't have both. Of course, this encourages people to drive and park and defeats the purpose of the Metrochecks.

It's the opposite. Either pay to park, or get the metrochecks for free. At least at the agencies I've worked at.

Posted by aaron | July 8, 2008 1:29 PM

cars are extremely useful for a wide variety of purposes

So you'd better think REALLY hard about whether a car is the only way you can get done what you need to do.

Otherwise, you'll end up rationalizing why you REALLY need to drive into the city alone with just a briefcase and clog up the roads and then drive around looking for parking for half an hour while blaming it on the restaurant valets.

There's the carrot and the stick. The carrot is that the metro should run more often, go more places, and probably add some streetcar lines. The stick is that parking isn't cheap and that downtown streets with lots of nearby pedestrians aren't going to be opened up and widened for the exclusive use of cars.

Posted by Tyro | July 8, 2008 1:31 PM

I think in a lot of agencies you have a choice between a parking benefit and the Metrochecks - you can't have both. Of course, this encourages people to drive and park and defeats the purpose of the Metrochecks.

It's the opposite. Either pay to park, or get the metrochecks for free. At least at the agencies I've worked at.

Posted by aaron | July 8, 2008 1:33 PM

Ethel-To-Tilly -

Indeed, it would be better if more people used transit when that was convenient and they didn't have to carry an entire car full of stuff. It's just that you can't monitor that easily. Are we supposed to have customs inspectors on the 395 bridge to see who "really" needs to be driving and who doesn't? Would there be huge zoning battles over which organizations got loading zones and parking and who didn't? The cure is worse than the disease, in my opinion.

See, what you did right here is create a whole argument in your head and then assigned it to Ethel-To-Tilly. I don't know where you got the idea, but it does speak to an overanxious fear of change.

Posted by Rambuncle | July 8, 2008 1:36 PM

Nothing overanxious about it, although the accusation is rather telling. I'm living with the changes day-to-day and seeing what they do to various activities.

I don't actually think anyone is going to put customs inspectors on the 395 bridge. The idea is somewhat silly, but silly ideas are the logical outcome of thinking you can micromanage individual behavior. It doesn't work. At best you can make a series of rules and regulations that discourage people from pursuing their interests in one location and force them to go elsewhere. So go ahead and alientate people who want to contribute to the city to the extent of volunteering there. I work in suburbia as well as living there -- my only reasons for going downtown are voluntary and totally unsubsidized.

Driving people out may be the goal, if you hate suburbanites that much, but I submit that the residents of center cities should think twice about trying to get rid of us. We do spend money and pay sales tax, after all. But you don't want us ALL to move downtown either. Just think what your rents would be if we starting bidding on your properties too! The fact that people spread out and pursue various activities throughout the metro area is one reason anyone can afford to live in Adams Morgan.

For some of us, moving downtown would only give us a reverse commute anyway. The point is, provide options and don't judge. Anyway, the fact that the Metro is as full as the roads probably indicates that we need more capacity in all areas. The area has grown a lot.

And the restaurant valets really do have a scam going!

Posted by M.C. | July 8, 2008 2:06 PM

M.C. the people who are causing the bulk of your suffering: the people who are coming in to the city carrying only their briefcases, instead of using metro -- are the same people you're enabling.

Don't blame DC for the problems of driving in the city: it would be a lot easier to drive into the city if fewer people were on the roads.

And in any case, since when is Adams Morgan affordable? No one who lives outside the city would be willing to pay those kind of rents. That's why they don't live there.

Posted by Tyro | July 8, 2008 2:14 PM

M.C.

First of all, "anyone" cannot afford to live in Adams Morgan, unless you count cramming more than one person per bedroom in there - starting rents for crappy 1 bedroom apartments are at least $1,000/mo.

And how many of these commuters pay sales tax on anything but maybe their lunch at Cosi? Somehow I doubt that makes up for the externalized costs that we residents pay for them to be commuters.

And, while it would indeed suck to lose people like you who are awesome and volunteer in the city (seriously, my hat off to you sir/madam), it would also give us back all the parking spaces and real estate that the commuter churches take up now. When the majority of your congregation lives outside of DC, DC is no longer a viable center for your congregation. If you want to move to Maryland, then that's cool, but find a church there, too, OK?

Posted by Conor | July 8, 2008 2:24 PM

The Library of Congress has free parking as do the Congressional offices/buildings. At the Library, they give the parking to those who carpool first. Whatever is left is given out by seniority. There is a significant amount of people driving who could commute by metro as a result. Further, there is a complete resistance to implementing teleworking provisions, even though many jobs lend themselves to that kind of work. Metrocheks are given to anyone not parking.

Posted by bperk | July 8, 2008 2:37 PM

Conor, honestly, I can't really get outraged about people who drive into the city and take up parking on Sunday. It's Sunday: there's not much traffic, and people want to continue going to church where the grew up, and it keeps them tied to the neighborhood.

Of course, in the interests of full disclosure, I go to a church whose congregation largely lives outside the District, but we have a parking lot and are not located downtown.

Posted by Tyro | July 8, 2008 2:41 PM

It's not just that the church-commuters "take up parking"; they are allowed to park illegally.

(Or rather, since the District lets them do it, it's not illegal; but they re allowed to park in places that anyone else would be instantly towed from. Including double-parking.)

Posted by roac | July 8, 2008 2:49 PM

Considering it's DC, is it even possible that the market for offices could collapse? It's not going to stop being the capital, and I can't think of any other reason why you'd locate your business there in the first place.

The mayor has what amounts to a captive audience in the commuters. Might as well soak 'em for all they're worth. Let them feel what it's like not to have a vote.

Posted by Demosthenes | July 8, 2008 3:00 PM

I realize this makes me sound like an unbelievable nerd, but I don't care: variable rate parking meters are really freaking cool. Such an elegant and simple solution to the boondoggle of cheap municipal parking.

Posted by MplsKid | July 8, 2008 4:09 PM

http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/patzek/Harmful/Materials/federal_taxing_and_spending_bene.htm

It's not just the elected officials who are parasites.

This is one reason that you bastards don't deserve statehood.

Posted by milk | July 8, 2008 6:09 PM

http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/patzek/Harmful/Materials/federal_taxing_and_spending_bene.htm

It's not just the elected officials who are parasites.

This is one reason that you bastards don't deserve statehood.

Posted by milk | July 8, 2008 6:13 PM

I suspect that $4+ gas will take care of a lot of these problems, but I'd still like to see more attention to parking and traffic infrastructure. In a non-punitive spirit, with no assumption that individuals are making irrational decisions about their residences, transportation, or activities.

I also want better transit services, and bike paths, and telecommuting options, both for city residents and for suburbanites. Suburbanites have the Metro pretty much full during rush hour, so it's not as though there is a lot of spare capacity waiting to be used by those selfish drivers.

Cramming 4 million people into a region is going to cause a certain amount of friction and congestion. It's inevitable. We tolerate that to some extent because it makes for a culturally vibrant area. We're here because we don't want to live in little villages with limited options. The whole point to a big urban area is that you have access to all of it, including a wide range of neighborhoods, jobs, and cultural activities that may be some distance from each other. And even if you do sometimes drive five miles to get somewhere, it's still a lot more efficient than having to drive several hours to a high school football game.

But we can do a lot of different things to reduce the friction of moving people from one place to another within the region. We should do them all.

Posted by M.C. | July 9, 2008 9:39 AM