Shut Up and Feed the Meter
Why Increasing Parking Rates to $4 an Hour Downtown Will Encourage People to Shop More and Help the City
Every parking space is full outside J Sushi in the International District during a Mariners home game—or any stadium event, from boat shows to car shows—and not because the joint is filled with folks stuffing in a pregame roll. Stadium visitors pay only $5 for two hours of metered parking on the street, a great deal when private lots nearby cost upward of $7 an hour.
"The people don't come to eat or shop, mostly just to park. It hurts our business," says Jay Zeng, who owns the restaurant.
Stranger Personals
Parking isn't only a problem near the stadiums on game days; it's a downtown problem all week. "Downtown street parking is at 100 percent capacity for most of the day," says Marybeth Turner, a spokeswoman for the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). People who want to go out and shop or dine can't find a parking spot downtown—so they go somewhere else.
Downtown is defined as the area between Denny Way and South Royal Brougham Way, and from I-5 to the waterfront. In this core area, there are 55,000 off-street stalls available in private garages and lots (at an average price of $7 an hour) and only 5,000 on-street metered spots (which currently go for $2.50 an hour).
In other words, on-street parking represents only 8.3 percent of the total spots downtown, and we're giving it away for roughly one-third the price.
Drivers often can't find street parking in popular areas because, at $2.50 an hour, parking is so cheap that drivers just feed the meter and continue parking long past the city's two-hour limit. Which is part of the reason Mayor Mike McGinn proposed raising parking rates to $4 an hour for on-street parking downtown (and extending paid parking hours) in his 2011 budget plan. McGinn's other goal is to help fill the city's $67 million budget shortfall and pay for police, firefighters, parks, libraries, and other public services.
"If we can raise the rates and collect more dollars... we'll have money to support public services," McGinn said recently in an interview. "That's what attracts people to downtown—a safe place with good parks and vibrant sidewalks and walkability." Recent studies also show that the slightly higher rates mean more parking turnover and, thus, more parking for people who need it.
The Seattle City Council is balking at the mayor's $1.50 increase. "We're really struggling," says Tom Rasmussen, chair of the council's Transportation Committee, who says the council might reduce the proposed rate to $3 or $3.50. "We don't want to use parking meters as an ATM for the city's general fund. It really has to be related to turnover for parking," Rasmussen says.
The Downtown Seattle Association also opposes the hike. "Our concern is that the mayor's proposal is too expensive and people would choose not to come downtown," says Randy Hurlow, a spokesman for the DSA. Asked repeatedly for alternative ideas for increasing parking turnover without raising rates—that is, a method for actually letting people park downtown when drivers are monopolizing spaces all day—Hurlow has no answer. He says, "The city needs to research this issue a bit more before making recommendations."
Meanwhile, there's plenty of that "research" the DSA is calling for. Donald Shoup, a UCLA professor of urban planning and nationally recognized parking expert (he authored the 733-page tome The High Cost of Free Parking), says that cities with healthy business districts have 15 percent of their on-street parking available during peak hours. Seattle currently has zero or close to zero. Ideally, Shoup says, people shouldn't have to park more than a few blocks from their destination (and they pay the price for this privilege). Recent studies in New York and San Francisco show that in areas where parking was maxed out (similar to downtown Seattle) 25 to 40 percent of vehicles on the road were simply circling looking for parking. These cities raised their parking rates to fix the problem.
Seattle has also studied the issue at length. In July, SDOT sent a report to the mayor's office that detailed the effects of three potential rate increases (to $3, $4, and $5 an hour). The study concluded that an increase to $4 an hour would create more downtown parking turnover and keep roughly 9 percent of street spots vacant at any given time—well below Shoup's golden 15 percent (SDOT's report estimated that an increase to $3 would free up 2 percent of parking spots—a negligible amount—and an increase to $5 would free up 19 percent). The study also notes that San Francisco is currently piloting a program that adjusts rates according to peak on and off hours, ranging from 25 cents to $6 an hour.
The alternative thinking comes from people like Eastside mall developer Kemper Freeman, who earlier this month said that the parking hike was "putting a knife" in downtown's heart—and Seattle's best way to compete with his free suburban parking would be to keep Seattle parking rates the same. But all the evidence suggests that low rates are hurting downtown businesses—and the city—while possibly driving people away to Eastside businesses, like the ones Freeman develops. "People come to Seattle to shop because we're a great city—not because we have free parking," the mayor says.
The rate hike is estimated to generate $4.8 million in gross revenue in 2011 and $6.1 million in 2012. McGinn has ordered SDOT to begin studying cities with flexible parking rates in order to recommend an adjustable-parking-rate model next year.
Dave Meinert, owner of Big Mario's on Capitol Hill and the 5 Point Cafe in Belltown, says McGinn's $4 proposal will help businesses that "rely on a constant flow of people." In addition, he says, "raising parking rates will help pay for police and public safety services. That's all there is to it."
Decrease parking costs for most people? Are you arguing that increasing the cost of metered parking will lead private lot owners to lower their prices? On what planet?
Attract more visitors? Nonsense. The people who have to go downtown (ie - because they have to go a government building for some license or other) will pay more because they have to, and those who have a choice to go elsewhere (ie for discretionary trips to shop and restaurants) will do so.
Perception is reality where the negative effect of increasing parking costs on retail traffic is concerned.
The city should go further and implement Donald Shoup's recommendation of setting prices such that the onstreet spaces are 85% utilized on average. This actually attracts visitors because (1) they know that they will always find a space and (2) the money is invested in improvements to the neighborhood, making it a more attractive destination. This is how Old Pasadena was transformed from a ghetto into one of the most happening places to visit: it's one of the few places in southern CA where you can see throngs of people on the sidewalks. For more on the subject, see Shoup's presentation on the web titled 'The High Cost of Free Parking'.
Parking charges don’t eliminate visitors, as you can see from the fact that people do use paid parking lots.
You might ask UDPA about the magical consumer attracting properties of paid parking lots (or, for that matter, you might also ask U-District merchants what they think about how the perception of the lack of/high cost of parking affects their bottom lines).
15 new meter maids.....$1,000,000
New meter maid uniforms, and electric jet skis...$1,000,000
Police........$0
Fire...........$0
Crappy art for public park....$500,000
Endless meetings between the highly paid city intellectual ineffectual group that get nothing accomplished other than decide what private school is best for their children and where is the best place to do yoga is these days...$3,500,000
Organic Trader Joe Cheetos for meetings and cost to mock up a new arty bike rack that has a pacific northwest feel...$1,000,000
I think the article makes a good point. Yes, a parking rate increase would suck, but in the long term, I suspect more people would actually save money. How often has it happened that you would spend fifteen minutes circling for a cheap metered spot, only to give up and pay the significantly higher parking garage fee? Instead of paying the "higher" four dollars, you are now paying ten. This has happened enough to me to think that a four-dollar meter could work if it does create more revolving spots.
In the end, taxes and tolls are not always your enemy.
I have been driving in Seattle for over 20 years now (including downtown, though at the current rate of $2.50/hr I only go there during the day when I have to - which means that I usually get reimbursed by work) and the answer to your hypothetical question is NEVER. Not once.
(on the other hand, there is a small pay lot on Capitol Hill that charges less than $5 for evening parking that I've been known to resort to occasionally when there isn't any on-street parking, but I'm not telling anyone where it is)
Scenario 1: you want to shop for 2 hours or lunch, etc; currently, almost all space are full so, if yo drive, you'll probably spend $15 or so in a private lot. With $4 parking, if you find a spot, you'll spend $8 otherwise your no worse off.
Scenario 2: you need to drop off something and then rush off to another place. With $4 parking, you have a chance of finding a space and pay $1 for 15 min. Otherwise $7 - and another $7 at the next place, and so on.
Side note: I am not hogging up retail space. She doesn't live in a retail area, and there is usually 20% of spaces available.
I'm going to have to break up.
Side note: I am not hogging up retail space. She doesn't live in a retail area, and there is usually 20% of spaces available.
I'm going to have to break up.
These lots charge us an arm and a leg to park so it's much cheaper for us "downtown workers" to "feed" the meters.
And don't try to force us to A] ride our bikes or B] take the bus.
This doesn't even touch on the issue of them wanting to make street parking restrictions and fees go until 8pm M-S [that's Sunday, not Saturday] How about the no parking on 1st ave till 8pm stretching from Seneca to Belltown plan? They don't seem to be talking about this with the public, yet.
This is an outstanding example: from her coverage of all the salient points, to allowing for the Downtown Seattle Association's typical nonresponse of vacuousness.
Bravo and well done, Ms. Madrid!
Had we similar reportage on that so-called healthcare reform legislation, actually nothing more than health insurance industry consolidation of control and power legisltion, when President Obama made the claim that premium rates would go down by 18% to 20%, when it goes into effect in 2014, a realy journalist would have mentioned that premium rates by that time would have increased by 300% (actually a rather lowball figure), so that any decrease would allow for a conservative estimated increase of ONLY 280% in premium rates.
True, there are several good points with that health insurance industry (written) legislation, but as this legislation is riddled with various financial chokepoints (points where congress stops funding, and thereby renders the several improvements useless) it is designed to be effective nonoperative.
In other words, it's a crock and a sham, much the same as this so-called financial reform.
Which is why Murray, who has been in congress for almost 20 years while they have worked to dismantle the US economy, is running such a close race with that vile clown, Dino Rossi.
This will certainly improve downtown.
Yes, it will make parking more expensive, but it will make customer turnover higher and increase business. For city dwellers it may convince more to bike or bus. For suburbanites they can either pay less to park at a lot that's far away (and then bus or bike). Or they can pay more.
Either way, the cost incurred by the car should be borne by s/he who benefits (the owner). Currently the price for having a car and parking it in downtown Seattle is too low. Well priced markets work more efficiently (and not in a mortgage default swap blah blah kind of way).
Economics tra-la-la-la
Without improvement to in-city public transit, it seems there would be a negative impact for these neighborhoods ... and an unfair disincentive to visit for those without the means to add $5 in parking to their farmer's market tab.
Seattle's public transit between neighborhoods is clunky and inconvenient to say little and an insult to public transit supporters to say more, and it should be taken into consideration with any changes to parking/driving incentives in neighborhoods.
Typically one can at least get downtown in a single shot. Trips between neighborhood require transfers ... often lengthy, often downtown. So, why not just get out and shop/dine there? Leave Ballard and Fremont as exclusive enclaves for trendy/wealthy patrons and their condo overlords.
30








RSS
Comments (31) RSS