“DDOT Announces Proposed Rulemaking to Revise the Residential Permit Parking (RPP) Program”


From DDOT:

“The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) is seeking comments on a proposed rulemaking which would establish a process for neighborhoods to modify or expand residential permit parking restrictions. In an effort to address concerns from neighborhoods that are experiencing parking pressures from surrounding activity centers DDOT is proposing to establish clear criteria for the modification of RPP parking and for creating resident-only parking on established RPP blocks. In addition, the proposed rules would clarify and update a number of current parking and parking related regulations.

The proposed rules may be reviewed and comments submitted here.

Although the published rules indicate the time for submitting written comments will close in thirty days, DDOT has officially extended the comment period to a full 60 days

to ensure that everyone, in particular Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, has an opportunity to review and submit comments on these proposed rules. The notice of the extended comment period was posted in the DCMR on Friday, August 19 at: http://dcregs.dc.gov/Notice/DownLoad.aspx?noticeid=6179693.

Written comments are invited during the 60 day comment period and should be submitted to: [email protected]

55 Comment

  • IMO, that photo is misleading — it sounds like the proposed rulemaking deals with the regular RPP process, not the VPP (issue.

    • The VPP allows you to park on RPP streets, so isn’t it the same thing?

      • It looks like some of the proposed regulations _do_ pertain specifically to the VPP (there’s one about a $300 fine for misusing a VPP), but almost all the others refer to the regular RPP system.
        The VPP system does allow people to park on RPP streets, but it has its own VPP-specific problems/considerations/etc.

  • I cannot for the life of me figure out how to use these online regulations. Is there one link that has the entirety of the code so that I can scroll through, rather than trying to figure out which parts I want and downloading a word document? There must be a better way.

  • Some interesting changes:
    -They appear to be changing the boundaries for Zone 6
    -If you have an RPP for a zone, you get one block ‘grace boundary’ into the adjoining zone(s)
    -“STOPPING, STANDING, OR PARKING PROHIBITED: NO SIGN REQUIRED” is now also extended to bike lanes and shared use paths (i.e., these are now automatic tickets). I think this may explain why MPD has not aggressively ticketed those idling in bike lanes – they may have needed warning signs.
    -More specific definition of a legal front-of-house driveway, now requiring only “within a legal curved driveway located in the front of any one-family detached dwelling”
    -New standards for getting your block designated with RPP restrictions, with an actual balloted vote among residents on the block if vote is close and director considerations for churches, schools, etc abutting the RPP curbs
    -Those with an RPP can park overnight in Loading Zone and Entrance spaces (except at hotels and hospitals) without penalty
    -This one is YUUUUUUUGE for Mount Pleasant: “no vehicle may park within forty (40) feet of an intersection, except that vehicles displaying valid RPP stickers for the zone may park within twenty-five (25) feet of an intersection at all times. At no time may any vehicle park within forty (40) feet of a stop or a yield sign.”

    • Can someone a bit more savvy than I translate the changes to Zone 6? My residence (I’m in a ~big new apartment building) currently doesn’t qualify for a Residential Parking Permit (aka zone 6 parking).

    • For “changing the boundaries for Zone 6,” are you talking about the 19th St NE stuff? That’s not a change. When that part WOTR was redistricted into Ward 7, they kept Zone 6 parking.

    • alissaaa

      “-Those with an RPP can park overnight in Loading Zone and Entrance spaces (except at hotels and hospitals) without penalty”

      That’s a great one–they should also allow the same on street cleaning days–some blocks have very limited parking on street cleaning days due to a lot of residential buildings with loading zones. (Church St between 15th and 14th is a good example of this.)

    • Actually the way the language reads – it doesn’t specifically make reference to the adjoining zone etc – so theoretically anyone w/ an RPP from any zone can park on the border streets of any other zones.

      2433.2 A vehicle displaying a valid residential parking permit may park on any residential permit parking street within one (1) block of any street that serves as the boundary of a residential permit parking zone.

  • This NPRM authorizes DDOT to establish reserved on-street parking spaces for the exclusive use of car-sharing vehicles, specifically mentioning the cars that have “Zone 9” stickers. Those are the stickers that allow Car-2-Go users to terminate their trips in any RPP space in any of the 8 wards. Car2Go is a point-to-point system. With this NPRM, Car2Go can basically be granted exclusive rights to some on-street (currently) public parking spaces. This might also allow other car-sharing users to park in those reserved spaces while they are renting the vehicle, although they need to return the vehicle to its home space.

    The NPRM does not specify the criteria DDOT should use in determining when it is appropriate to turn scarce on-street public parking for private use, and there do not seem to be any fees associated with this privatization of public space.

    • Those Zone 9 stickers are already quite a hefty price, IIRC. The fees are not falling and will only go up.
      The benefit to the District is that it will induce more people to give up their cars. Or pay for a private spot. Fine by me.

      • Agreed with Anonymous 4:36 pm (or what I think he/she was saying) — there should be fees associated with the privatization of public space. If DDOT is going to give Car2Go this additional bonus, Car2Go should be paying for it over and above whatever the yearly increase is for Zone 9 permits. The D.C. government gives way too many sweetheart deals to for-profit companies at the public’s expense.

        • What about the deal the DC government gives to the public? I’m sure it varies by area, but if I had to pay a private company for parking equivalent to what my RPP gets me, it would easily be 100 times as expensive. I don’t know anything about deals we give to the car sharing companies, but at least there are positive externalities to car sharing. There’s no societal benefit to subsidizing 90% or more of the cost of personal property storage for upper middle class residents.

          • You realize not everyone in D.C. is upper middle class, right?
            If D.C. is going to be in the business of charging people less for parking than it’s actually worth, I’d rather have them be doing it for the public than for car-sharing companies. Yes, there are benefits to having car-sharing available… but car-sharing companies are for-profit companies and shouldn’t be getting cushy deals. IIRC, when D.C. first started having reserved street parking for Zipcar, Zipcar didn’t even have to pay for it!
            I also disapprove of sweetheart deals like the baseball stadium.

          • DC is already in the business of charging people less for street parking than it’s actually worth. $35/year is extraordinary cheap for street parking by “major city” standards, and the fact that there is no limit to that “give” (you can register and park as many cars as you want for the same low fee) makes it even more of a “gift.”
            It was big news when Car2Go got “Zone 9” permits to allow their cars to be parked anywhere. That news indicated that they paid somewhere in the neighborhood of $3000/car to get that benefit (and subsequent news indicated that Zipcar paid 300+ for the benefit, even though their cars had “homes” that were not on the street). I’ve been bitched at when parking a Zipcar temporarily (generally for less than 15 minutes) or standard rental car (usually for 30 minutes or so while I load it up to go on vacation or overnight to do major errand running) around my own home. No recognition that I’m only taking up a parking spot for a very small amount of time rather than having a car I own eating up curb space and only being driven once every few weeks.
            I could buy a beater for next to nothing and park it right outside my door for, also, next to nothing. Instead, I only bring a car home when I absolutely need it. Perhaps you should think for a hot second about how that makes your life easier when parking a car.

      • The fees for the Zone 9 stickers are supposed to cover the parking meter revenue that is lost since members park for free at meters, including terminating the trip at a meter (as long as it doesn’t have further parking restrictions). That is a meter that will collect absolutely no revenue until either someone else rents the Car2Go, or a Car2Go employee moves it. And, of course, this defeats the stated purposes of having raised meter rates, the encouragement of parking turnover in commercial districts. In addition, the fee for the Zone 9 sticker is a fee for being allowed to exceed the two-hour limit in each of the 8 RPP zones, and in some strategic areas (such as near DC’s borders) exacerbating already difficult parking problems for neighborhood residents.

        • Again, what you propose as the “cost” of the “Zone 9” permits is only accurate if the people renting Zipcars and Car2Gos are not DC residents. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t own a car and uses Zipcar or Car2Go who isn’t a DC resident. You’re welcome for my former large car (Chevy Monte Carlo) being sold off and replaced with me parking a Smart Car, compact, or equivalent on my street for 15 minutes to 8 hours, about 10 times a year.

          • Anonymous @4:36 is talking about the cost if a Car2Go is parked at a meter, rather than being parked in a zoned parking space.
            Overall, Car2Go is a good thing and D.C.’s RPP system needs reform, but that’s no reason to give Car2Go corporate a sweetheart deal.
            It would make sense to increase the cost of RPPs and institute curbs to discourage households having multiple cars… but I don’t see that going over very well with D.C. voters/residents, many of whom seem to perceive almost-free street parking as a God-given right.
            JoDa, it’s unfortunate that your neighbors are bitching at you about parking a Car2Go in your neighborhood… but just because they’re wrong doesn’t mean that D.C.’s current practicef of charging Car2Go less than $12/weekday for each Zone 9 permit is right.

      • The fees for the Zone 9 stickers are supposed to cover the parking meter revenue that is lost since members park for free at meters, including terminating the trip at a meter (as long as it doesn’t have further parking restrictions). That is a meter that will collect absolutely no revenue until either someone else rents it, or a Car2Go employee moves it. And, of course, this defeats the stated purposes of having raised meter rates, the encouragement of parking turnover in commercial districts. In addition, the fee for the Zone 9 sticker is a fee for being allowed to exceed the two-hour limit in each of the 8 RPP zones, and in some strategic areas (such as near DC’s borders) exacerbating already difficult parking problems for neighborhood residents.

      • The “hefty” fee that Car2Go pays to for free parking at meters and an all-zone RPP permit averages less than $12 per weekday. The current meter rates are $2.30 per hour, and other users are feeding the meter until 10 pm in many of DC’s commercial districts. In addition, unlike other users (who are watching the cost rack up until they move their vehicle), there is no incentive for Car2Go to move a car from a metered space if a customer terminates their trip at a meter in a high-demand area. Considering foregone meter revenue and the value of the RPP rights citywide, I question whether this is a “hefty” fee, rather than a sweetheart deal, which could become even sweeter when DDOT can reserve public spaces for Car2Go use with no clear guidelines or increase in fees.

        • ah

          Okay, so if it’s $12/weekday, that’s about 5 hours of metered parking for each car. But a lot of the cars aren’t parked at meters (either they’re driving or they’re parked in a non-metered area). And RPPs are super-cheap as it is – about 10c/day, making that virtually irrelevant. Assuming a fair percentage of Car2Go drivers could, if they had a car, obtain an RPP and park it in the same space they park the Car2Go when bringing it to home, it still seems like a net benefit to even the non-Car2Go users in terms of revenue and reduced parking space use.

    • Reserved spaces for Car2Go are not a transference from Public to Private use. It is a transference from people who own/lease cars to people who use a car sharing service. Personally, RPP for car sharing services like Car2Go should be discounted since they serve many more residents than the standard RPP decals.

      • Even that is understating the case. I can’t believe how dense some people are being here. A single car-share can be used by dozens of people. When those people give up their cars it frees up dozens of parking spaces for car owners. It’s truly truly foolish to think that the net effect of zipcar parking spaces is less parking for car-owners. Zipcar is one of the most effective tools that the city has to free up parking for car owners.

      • While trudging through some of the code to find parking regulations I noticed that any car sharing company is required to have cars located in low income neighborhoods and the code actually specifies – in spite of it not being profitable or convenient for the company. Not an exact science since the cars can be moved around, but it seems like the city was trying to look out for us.
        I think this (kind of old) evaluation does a bit to back up your argument.

        • That report is about ZipCar and FlexCar and allowing those companies to have some on-street spaces to serve as the home spaces for part of their fleets, with the bulk of their cars in privately owned spaces. Those two companies require the vehicles to be returned to their home spaces at the end of the rental period, and the report evaluates the value of allowing them access to some on-street spaces. The report is only relevant to renting spaces to a company where the car-sharing vehicles are returned to their home spaces at the end of each rental. (And of course, for Car2Go, since the cars are located wherever their customers terminated their trips, with no home spaces, a condition requiring some cars to be located in low-income neighborhoods is irrelevant.)

          OTOH, Car2Go is a very different model, where, at the end of the rental period, the renter can return the car to a metered space (as long as it doesn’t have rush hour restrictions) or an RPP space. In the first case, the vehicle will sit at the meter, without paying the time on the meter, until it is rented again or moved by Car2Go (who has no incentive to free up the metered space since Car2Go is not required to pay the $2.30 an hour for the meter.) DC loses the meter revenue and the local merchants do not benefit from the parking turnover that the meters were supposed to encourage. It seems unlikely that the fee of about $12 per weekday covers the foregone meter revenue and the value of parking in high-demand areas on RPP streets.

          And now, in mid-August, initially scheduled for a 30-day comment period, DDOT proposed regulations (in a basically unrelated rule-making) that would provide an additional, very valuable subsidy to this private company, allowing (without any guidelines) DDOT to set aside currently publicly used on-street spaces for the exclusive use of Car2Go, with only some other use by ZipCar renters while they are paying ZipCar’s rental fees. I see red flags when a valuable subsidy to a single firm is slipped into a rulemaking (unlikely to be noticed by others) in August with a very short comment period. Perhaps I am alone in that.

          • This thread meandered a bit from . I see your point. It would be helpful to have the new rule pointed out, I didn’t see it going through the endless links. I’m a fan of car sharing and see it as replacing a car owner with a car driver. The report showed that in 2007 20,000 citizens shared 400 cars.
            I might playfully counter that you’re completely on target, we should be opening this subsidy up to ALL car sharing companies.
            I thought part of the point to the article was that the comment period was extended because of the delayed notice? You still have time to call a journalist!

  • RPP is great except when Uber/Lyft drivers hang out in the open spots waiting to get pinged. My street is like an airport waiting lot for ride-shares…

    • Can you get the block changed to eliminate the 2-hour allowed parking for non-permitholders?

      • It is hard to imagine a street of homeowners (or even DDOT) switching a street from zoned to unzoned. Maybe it happens, it just seems unlikely!

        • Presumably it’s already zoned, but with the green signs that allow for 2-hour visitor parking. I was talking about the idea of changing from that kind of parking to the red-sign kind where visitors don’t get a two-hour window.
          I think usually DDOT allows this only on one side of the street, though (not both). So it might solve the problem JohnH describes only for half of the street. (And with regard to Uber drivers who don’t have the appropriate RPP for the ward.)

          • Oh oh, got it. I’ve been to several ANC meetings with DDOT reps – they are not posting those red “Zone 6 permit holders ONLY” signs any more. Those signs are on hold, until after these rules are enacted. Apparently DDOT was throwing them up near high traffic corridors, without any evidence to show a need. IDK, I’m in favor of making it harder for non residents to park, but DDOT feels otherwise.

      • There’s resident only parking which is where the problem happens because it does free up spaces in an otherwise fairly “busy” area. The problem is that even if they are sitting in their cars there’s not really enforcement that can be done other than me asking them to move so I can actually park. I’ve literally seen a row of 3 uber drivers with their seats back taking a snooze waiting for a ping.

  • If like to see new colored road marking (red or yellow, maybe diagonal lines) to indicate resident only spots. I live near restaurants and retail and many MD and VA drivers don’t understand/ look for the resident only signs. At the times out of state drivers park in these spots there are seldom parking enforcement around and a call to 311 is pretty much a waste of time. I’d love to see towing and much higher fines $200 or so for parking in resident parking spots!

    • I think that’s a bit steep, even as a staunch supporter of resident only parking. I don’t know what enforcement is like, but better enforcement would be helpful. The resident only signs are often right below the 2 hour parking signs, so I don’t think “reading” is the problem. They probably think they can just get away with it. And in my area, they can on most days (particularly Sundays…)

  • For folks in the Ward 6 section of Shaw, does this mean that we are no longer going to be part of the Zone 2 area? That’s how I read it. Can someone please clarify? It will be HUGELY annoying if this gerrymandered section of the ward only has RPP parking in Capitol Hill (where the rest of Zone 6 is) and no longer has access to the areas in Ward 2.

    • I can’t figure that out and was also curious. This will create an uproar as the ward map is stupidly laid out and creates a tiny pocket above Rhode Island primarily – and when the wards were adjusted, it was recommended this area still remain in zone 2 parking. But Jack Evans disagrees and that’s all that matters.

  • Who has heard of anyone receiving a misuse ticket?

  • I think they need to rid the system of the VPP’s and issue Homeowners/Leasers 2 RPP’s per abode. Saves citizen a hassle and they always have two to give to their visitors… more then two visitors…make other parking arrangements.

    • ah

      Disagree. RPPs should cost more, especially for a second and third car in a household and in parking-congested areas (perhaps variable pricing).

      VPPs should not come with unlimited use – they should be a book of tickets (or an online equivalent) that limits people to, say, 20 free per year, with additional passes available for purchase at a reasonable cost (and obviously trackable so that one house doesn’t buy 10000 and sell them).

      • I think the tricky part is what constitutes a single-family household? If 2 roommates are living in a 2 bedroom, should they have to pay a premium to get a second RPP vs. a couple who live together in a one bedroom getting 2 RPPs? For rented households, do you count based on separate leases?
        VPPs are tricky too because there are often GOOD reasons people use them, but there’s also people who take advantage of it. It would also be virtually impossible to enforce that – is parking enforcement going to count each coupon?

        • ah

          Agree it’s tricky, but I don’t see why roommates should get 2 passes cheap where as 2 spouses would get only one cheap. apartments present a challenge no matter what, but if it’s a house, I’d say one RPP cheap, second and a decent price, and 3+ starts to get more expensive.

          On VPP, agree that there are plenty of legitimate uses. But someone who has a nanny using it daily is using it more than the person who occasionally uses it for a maid/handyperson/etc. They should pay more. Idea with coupons is there would be some date indicator – either a scratch off or a required use of ink pen to indicate date. Plenty of colleges and other places use these – you scratch off year/month/day so any enforcer can see if its for that day or another.

          • While there is a way to get around the VPP, if they count you using that VPP too much within a time period, you get a notice on your windshield and would get ticketed after a certain time period. So a nanny using it every day would not be a great example unless other lengths are taken (which are separate issues, and those exemptions are the problem, not the VPP).

    • 2 per household is not a necessary limit for the fast swathes of DC that is essentially single family home suburbia. Ah is correct–these need to be priced appropriately to reduce demand and tradable so people without cars can share in this subsidy.

      Also, RPP zones needs to be reduced in commercial areas like 14th st. Why residents have special rights over customers is beyond me.

  • Car2Go needs 2 go. Pay your fair share or get lost.

    • stuck in time eh? Car sharing services, regardless of what permitting fees they do or don’t pay to DC, reduce pressure on public parking availability. It is the present and the future in a crowded city. Moreover, they use gasoline, and presumably that gas in purchased in DC where taxes are levied. Meanwhile, residential parking on DC streets is extremely underpriced. For $35 a year one can park on the street indefinitely in an area where off street parking—an alley space with no added security benefit—is worth $125-$200 a month.

      • Motor vehicles don’t belong on the streets of a crowded city, at all. Perhaps it is you who does not have a clear understanding of where we’re headed.

        • In the almost 15 years I have lived in DC, I never had a car. I used Zipcar. Only after having a baby and enrolling in daycare did we finally decide to lease a car. I hate having to have a car, but with a baby in this city, it is needed. I can’t take the metro or bus to daycare as it’s several blocks from the closest metro stop or bus stop. However, I am fortunate (or unfortunate) in that my apartment building has a garage and we pay a ridiculous amount to have a spot – but it means my car is not on the street.

          It kills me driving around DC with cars parked on BOTH sides of tight, residential roads. It makes driving in this city a nightmare. You can barely fit two cars on the road and forget about it if there is a bus or a truck coming. There are also rarely places to pull over to let another vehicle pass. It’s terrible and unsafe. I would love to see more restrictions in place to provide parking for actual residents only. It is also necessary for parking restrictions to be enforced.

          Honestly, the issue isn’t Car2Go or Zipcar – it’s too many people with too may cars all trying to park on the same streets.

  • It would help if we all actually started with the same understanding of what the goals are. I don’t really know, but I believe in some cases it is to promote faster turnover of parking to benefit business.

    But many posters seem to think (or want) the point to be so that residents have guaranteed parking spots no matter what.

    What is not clear to me is whether or not a reduction of cars on the road is a goal. I would love to see one day per week be carless. Every week. I’d love to be less dependent on my vehicle.

    • ah

      That’s part of the challenge – and it depends on where you are in the city. Dupont Circle is different from Chevy Chase DC in this regard.

      • Exactly.
        My understanding was that DDOT usually puts metered spaces in commercial areas where they want to ensure parking turnover.

  • Comment if you have something to contribute, they’re generally required to respond

Comments are closed.