| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bdweller
Joined: 04 Feb 2005 Posts: 118
|
Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:24 pm Post subject: emergency parking Lamont |
|
|
This emergency parking crap is getting out of hand...
On Thurs/Fri last week there were emergency parking signs all over the 1700 block of Lamont (b/w 17th and 18th) saying no parking Sat July 9th from 7am to 7pm. Not only were there signs in their normal places (taped to trees), each car parked on Lamont had flyers put on their windsheilds saying "YOU WILL BE TOWED. CRANE WILL BE PARKED HERE" But then Saturday morning all the signs were gone and of course, no crane. And again today there are emergency parking signs all over Lamont. It seems as if people are putting these signs up to ensure parking for themselves.
What's going on?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kericain
Joined: 27 Jun 2006 Posts: 23
|
Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've also had problems with the emergency no parking signs. I don't drive my car that frequently so it may sit for days or weeks in the same space. I check on it every other day to make sure there are none of the evil signs or that nothing has happened to it. I thought this was a great plan since I understood that the city was required to post those signs for 72 hours before the no parking went into effect.
This apparently is not the case however as in June I got a ticket on one of the days I did not check on my car for violating the emergency no parking zone, though there was no sign posted the day before.
Does anyone know what the actual rules are for this? It's unrealistic to expect people to check every morning, especially when I live on Mount Pleasant and can't always park right in front of my house.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jack
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 Posts: 4400 Location: 19th & Lamont
|
Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:27 pm Post subject: Emergency no parking |
|
|
| kericain wrote: | | I've also had problems with the emergency no parking signs. I don't drive my car that frequently so it may sit for days or weeks in the same space. I check on it every other day to make sure there are none of the evil signs or that nothing has happened to it. I thought this was a great plan since I understood that the city was required to post those signs for 72 hours before the no parking went into effect. |
The 72-hour posting law was inadvertently rescinded by City Council. There is a proposed bill that would restore it. DDOT policy remains to post 72 hours ahead of time, but that's only policy, not law.
Considering the scarcity of on-street parking in this neighborhood, I think it's inconsiderate of your neighbors to use curbside parking for a car that "may sit for days or weeks in the same space". That's a disservice to the many residents who use their cars daily and have great difficulty finding parking when they come home at night. If your need for a car is so rare, you should consider giving up your car and using Zipcar/Flexcar instead. Alternatively, rent garage space somewhere, leaving curbside space for the residents who really need it.
-- Jack
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bdweller
Joined: 04 Feb 2005 Posts: 118
|
Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:15 pm Post subject: EMERGENCY PARKING SIGNS! |
|
|
yet again the thread takes a wrong turn...
I don't want to turn this into a thread about the rights of residents to own seldomly used cars. I DO want to know why the emergency parking system is being abused consistently and no one does anything about it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
josh
Joined: 20 Oct 2004 Posts: 58
|
Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Last week I went to the much-vaunted "permit center," where it seems that whether you're seeking a permit to construct loft condos or obtain emergency no parking signs you wait in the same line. The staff there, and the permit itself which you have to post, state that the signs must be posted 72 hours in advance. So, regardless of the council's actions/inactions, at least people are being told the right thing.
And Jack, if you could post a chart of how much car usage per month per individual/family constitutes a justifiable use of public parking space on your considerate/inconsiderate scale, that would be most helpful for all.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jack
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 Posts: 4400 Location: 19th & Lamont
|
Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:42 pm Post subject: Re: EMERGENCY PARKING SIGNS! |
|
|
| bdweller wrote: | yet again the thread takes a wrong turn...
I don't want to turn this into a thread about the rights of residents to own seldomly used cars. I DO want to know why the emergency parking system is being abused consistently and no one does anything about it. |
The ANC has protested the abuse of "emergency no parking" (resolution attached, from September 2004), and I've voiced this issue directly to the Public Space Office of the Department of Transportation. Nothing, however, changes. I believe it will take City Council action to put a stop to this.
-- Jack
| Description: |
|
 Download |
| Filename: |
emergencynoparking.Nov 04.pdf |
| Filesize: |
10.74 KB |
| Downloaded: |
308 Time(s) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PRN
Joined: 24 Mar 2004 Posts: 114
|
Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Before chastising a DC resident that lives in the neighborhood for parking their car - where they live - even if it is not used often - how about a little focus on the plethora of MD and VA tagged cars parked overnight in Mt. Pleasant on a consistent basis. Permits aside - surely tax paying DC residents should not feel bad about parking one car curbside in their own neighborhood.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jack
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 Posts: 4400 Location: 19th & Lamont
|
Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:54 pm Post subject: seldom-used cars |
|
|
| josh wrote: | | And Jack, if you could post a chart of how much car usage per month per individual/family constitutes a justifiable use of public parking space on your considerate/inconsiderate scale, that would be most helpful for all. |
Until a few years ago, there was a law prohibiting parking for more than 72 hours in one spot. That was the foundation of the 72-hour warning time for "emergency no parking" posting (because presumably every driver parked in the area would have returned to, and moved, his car).
That was troublesome, because people going away for work trips or vacations found their cars ticketed for overtime parking. So the law was nullified, and now there's no limit to how long a car can be left in place. We are now plagued with "warehoused" cars, stuck on our streets for weeks on end.
I'm fortunate in that I do not depend on curbside space for parking. But many of my neighbors do, and I think it's unfair to them to occupy a good parking space for a car that is so seldom used that its owner could clearly do without it.
Roughly half the households in Mount Pleasant get by without owning any car at all. With Metro, buses, taxis, and Zipcar/Flexcar, it is possible to do without a car. People who need a car only a couple of times a month can clearly manage quite well with Zipcar/Flexcar.
There's not enough curbside parking space to go around, as anyone who comes home from work late at night will confirm.
-- Jack
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PRN
Joined: 24 Mar 2004 Posts: 114
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think it is pretty difficult to make a judgement based solely on frequency of use as to whether a person "needs" a car. It is clearly difficult to park on the street at night but again - and I wont even venture a guess as to the total percentage - but my observation of cars parked in the neighborhood overnight is that a large number are tagged from MD and VA. Granted, some of those folks may have just moved to DC - but in that case they should get DC tags. I think attention should be paid to non-residents taking up street parking before worrying about a bona-fide neighbor that may not use their car often.
Has anyone ever given thought to some sort of overnight RPP? Perhaps this would open up some space - or the city could even sell permits to folks from VA and MD that need to park here overnight (or as Jack has often noted - household help, contractors etc during the day).
Like Jack, I have parking, in fact we take four cars off the street - including one seldom used that belongs to a neighbor. That is unless someone blocks our driveway - which happens surprisingly often. It is interesting, I think, that of the 20 odd cars we have had to get towed over the last 2 years or so - I can only recall one from DC.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jack
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 Posts: 4400 Location: 19th & Lamont
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:50 am Post subject: Non-DC tags |
|
|
| PRN wrote: | | Before chastising a DC resident that lives in the neighborhood for parking their car - where they live - even if it is not used often - how about a little focus on the plethora of MD and VA tagged cars parked overnight in Mt. Pleasant on a consistent basis. Permits aside - surely tax paying DC residents should not feel bad about parking one car curbside in their own neighborhood. |
Many of those MD and VA tags belong to residents. If a car is parked here late at night, it's a fair bet that the owner lives around here. Nobody's going to leave a car here, then take the bus out to the 'burbs.
I have neighbors here with North Carolina, New Jersey, and Washington (state) tags. That may be wrong, from the point of view of paying registration fees to the District, and being subject to District annual inspections (one reason why some people don't), but this isn't a mechanism for reducing the number of cars parked on our streets.
Just consider the arithmetic. Your standard row house here is about 22 feet wide, just wide enough for one car parked along the curb. Now consider how many row houses have basement apartments, or rented rooms. Add in the condos springing up everywhere, and the big apartment houses along 16th Street. I know people who live in those buildings, but park their cars on the back streets of the neighborhood.
There's just not enough curbside parking space to go around. This is a problem that is going to get worse, because of the conversion of rental units to condos, because car ownership among homeowners is much higher than among renters. Trouble is, there's no place to put more cars. So we have to be concerned about inefficient use of our limited curbside parking space.
-- Jack
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
brett
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 Posts: 214 Location: MtP
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:08 pm Post subject: Re: Non-DC tags |
|
|
| jack wrote: | Many of those MD and VA tags belong to residents. If a car is parked here late at night, it's a fair bet that the owner lives around here. Nobody's going to leave a car here, then take the bus out to the 'burbs.
I have neighbors here with North Carolina, New Jersey, and Washington (state) tags. That may be wrong, from the point of view of paying registration fees to the District, and being subject to District annual inspections (one reason why some people don't), but this isn't a mechanism for reducing the number of cars parked on our streets.
snip
-- Jack |
Alternatively, if they were forced to go through the process of registering their cars and paying fees to the city, maybe a few of the scofflaws might have second thoughts about owning them. I'm assuming here that laziness is what keeps them from changing their registration and not some ideological issue with DC.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PRN
Joined: 24 Mar 2004 Posts: 114
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Obviously there is not enough parking. The limited parking that is available should go first to DC residents - or folks legally licensed in other states that work in DC (i.e. people for Congress). I made no comment about far out of state licenses - I assume most of them frequently parked in Mt Pleasant fall into the above listed exceptional category. I have no sympathy for anyone that lives here and simply chooses not to register in DC for whatever reason. I stand by my position - DC residents with DC plates (taking into account the above mentioned exception) should have first priority to park curbside.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
denisew
Joined: 25 Mar 2005 Posts: 162
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:31 pm Post subject: signs on Lamont |
|
|
The signs on Lamont were removed by DDOT. The poster, Nancy Schemrai posted them on part of the block then moved the signs down when they realized they were in the wrong place.
They reposted them still wrong, not using official signs. Please note, DDOt does not issue orange signs and the signs (except tree ones) should have a contact number and the permit or work to be performed.
While the legislation may have changed, it is still a permit condition that signs be up 72 hours in advance.
Denise
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DW
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 Posts: 1
|
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I recently received a ticket in the same situation - signs banning park on Adams Mill were up and down for about a month. I didn't check on my car for a day and I had a $50 ticket for violating the emergency no parking signs. They had been posted the day before - and most of them were laying on the ground due to a big rain storm. I contested the ticket by mail adjudication and was successful - so I'd suggest you do this!
Yeah, brand new to the forum (after living in the neigbhorhood for about ten years) but I gotta say: I park my car in the same spot all week long and use it only for my bigger shopping trips, out of town trips on the weekends, etc. Some may say you're taking someone else's parking spot - but I prefer one less car on the road on a daily basis. So thanks for not driving every day!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|