Skip to Content
Streetsblog USA home
Streetsblog USA home
Log In

In an effort to patch a budget gap, city officials in Washington D.C. are considering increasing the annual fee for a residential street parking permit from $15 to $30.

The idea seems like a winner overall: It would help move parking fees ever so slightly more in line with the true value of street space (though still woefully under-priced from that standpoint). And it would raise revenues rather painlessly, spreading the price increase broadly.

false

Topher Mathews at Greater Greater Washington says there's still a better way to structure the increase. He argues for leaving the price static on households with only one car, while doubling the fee for each additional car owned by a given family. He offers this example of how such an increase would work for the neighborhood of Georgetown and its parking crunch:

According to the 2000 Census, there are roughly 4,936 cars in Georgetown. There are only 4,640 households in Georgetown. Of those households here's how the car ownership breaks down:

  • 20% of households have no car
  • 57% of households have one car
  • 23% of households have more than one car

You might think that since only 23% of households have multiple cars, they can't be causing much of the parking shortage. But that's wrong. Almost half (46%) of cars in Georgetown are owned by households that own more than one car.

Essentially, these multi-car households are taking more than their "fair share" of street space and can do so simply because the majority of people don't do it. Moreover, they only pay an extra $15 per car to do it. That's not right.

Fee increases that deter multiple car ownership not only have the potential to raise more revenue than across-the-board fees, says Mathews, they could also reduce congestion by helping ensure the costs of owning more than one car better reflect the associated social costs. That's a true win-win.

Elsewhere on the Network today: The Urbanophile outlines a proposal that makes developers accountable for future costs they may impose on municipalities in the event they eventually abandon the development. The Overhead Wire rebuts a Megan McArdle article in The Atlantic, which contrasted China's high-speed rail development plans with the United States', based on relative population. And Human Transit explains how transfer avoidance among transit systems can lead to complicated routes that have the effect of deterring casual users.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog USA

Friday Video: The Utopia of London’s Low-Traffic Neighborhoods

Streetsfilms follows an urban planner around the “low-traffic neighborhood” of St. Peter’s in the London borough of Islington.

November 7, 2025

Friday’s Headlines Got Lucky

Crash data doesn't nearly capture the near misses cyclists have to endure.

November 7, 2025

San Diego Is Latest California City to Welcome Waymo

The Alphabet-owned company announced plans to begin mapping city streets and launching limited operations sometime next year — but whether that move will help advance San Diego’s safety and climate goals remains to be seen.

November 6, 2025

Talking Headways Podcast: Why Are We Going Backwards?

A very special discussion about why America keeps building highways, how President Trump is targeting transit and how we can all get a better federal transportation bill if we want it.

November 6, 2025

Thursday’s Headlines Won Big

It was a good day for transit on Election Day Tuesday.

November 6, 2025

Transit Wins Big Again In Local Elections Across America

Several candidates who ran on ambitious transportation reform platforms won at the ballot box on Tuesday — but even more communities said yes to supporting transit directly.

November 6, 2025
See all posts