As we reported would happen, the Seattle Department of Transportation today scaled back its plans for raising on-street parking rates in Seattle neighborhoods. An arguably flawed parking study, released last week, had suggested increasing the hourly parking fees in nine neighborhoods as a means to increase parking turnover.
Now rates will increase in only four neighborhoods (instead of nine) and drop in 11 neighborhoods (instead of four) compared to the rates we have now. For instance, parking fees in in Pioneer Square, which will still increase from last year’s level, that were proposed for $4 will only increase to $3.50. Parking in Greenlake will drop from $1.50 an hour to $1.
Here’s a map of the new hourly parking rates that will begin kicking in over the next couple months…
- SDOT
“We think this is a fairer, more business-friendly way to establish rates, and frankly, it is more easily understood,” says SDOT traffic director Charles Bookman. (A table is after the jump that compares the rates in 2010, proposed rates last week, and the rates the city has finally settled on.)
The proposed rate hikes (to $4 through downtown) spurred protest from business leaders, who also took issue with the city’s parking study, and concern form city council members. Bookman says the new rates are intended to promote parking saturation of 71 to 86 percent occupancy (previous rates targeted 58 to 78 percent occupancy, which would require higher hourly fees).
But the change comes at a $3.5 million cost to the city’s already-emaciated bank account. When Seattle City Council members approved the 2011 budget last fall, they expected $35 million in parking revenue; with this reduction in fees, that estimate drops to $31.5 million. Bookman says that the city has not calculated where it would find alternative revenue or make cuts—if these estimates hold true. “The good news is that it’s January; it’s not the mid or late part of the year,” he says. “We have 11 months to manage the expenditures to the estimated revenue.”
But they continue to benefit from sales taxes. And if they get too greedy about parking, they’ll lose sales taxes. As it is, I’d rather avoid pay parking and go to Northgate. The downtown stores need business. Don’t kill the golden goose.
My wife works next to what was originally an open pit of a hole that existed on 2nd and Pine. They lost funding to build a high rise, so they filled it up and paved it for parking lots. Since they lost alot of money on the failed high rise investment, they decided to help re-coup this loss by jacking up the parking fees. Theyre losing even more money as rarely does anyone park there and having a 5 story parking garage with cheaper rates right next door, sure as hell didnt help.
Of course, we could just kill the Deathly Drilling Tunnel, and then we’d have no probs with massive deficits.
But that would take guts.
@2 there are other ones beside that. Location, location, location.
Arguably FLAWED!? BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAH
My fucking GOD you libtards really do think your shit don’t stink! OMFG! I spit water all over my monitor when I read that tripe! Dom do you really believe the shit you write? This type of article shows exactly how much of an incredulous fucking hack that you truly are! BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This compromise is indeed a MUCH fairer solution, and should go over AWESOME! Thankfully this action, will only further delay the long term raising of rates above $1 for most of the rest of the currently metered locations. Residents and businesses (you know …actual citizens in those locations) will fight tooth and nail to keep rates as low as possible, as contrary to popular belief from you greentards, people still do have to drive from place to place, as they have neither the time nor patience to deal with the shitty bus system in this fucked up town that caters to hipsters and the poor as it’s primary customers. Those customers are NOT visiting the vast majority of businesses in the affected locations.
Chalk one up for the good guys.
@4) Uh… I was one of the first people–maybe the first–to publicly call bullshit on that study. If you follow the link, you’ll see it’s my analysis about it.
This entire thing is fishy
@5: Yeah, obvious troll is obvious.
@5
“Libretard” is a dead givaway as to who the TROLL is.
I’m afraid some of Goldy’s trolls followed him over here.
Ooops — well, they came here instead of Publicola, probably because the comment system is so horrible there.
Everything makes sense in theory: If street parking is always full, raise rates til there are always a few open spaces. That cost should obviously be variable throughout the day. Just need a legit study to understand capacity and at what rate that changes.
Seems like this day in age we should be able to have our meters wired in to have a somewhat accurate count of parked cars in a given area and then issue prices based on scarcity in the area.