Updated with comments from Rick Sheridan, a spokesman with SDOT.

I wasn’t the only one who noticed that last week’s street parking study by the Seattle Department of Transportation, which claimed the city needs to raise rates up to $4 an hour to increase parking availability, used a dubious interpretation of the data. A city council member and business leaders also say the study didn’t jibe with the council’s intent to free-up parking spaces downtown.

Today, several sources at City Hall say officials will roll out a new set of lower proposed parking rates tomorrow or Friday. And SDOT spokesman Rick Sheridan confirms that SDOT is “is taking a critical look at policy direction, methodology, data, for setting on street parking rates.” Sheridan confirms that an announcement about parking rate modifications will likely occur in the next several days, but says that the modifications will probably not delay SDOT’s plan to systematically implement new rates in neighborhoods beginning February 1.

“As we were digging into the data, we saw some refinements that could be made to reach the council intent,” says Seattle City Council member Mike O’Brien. “I think there will be a revised parking rate schedule.”

The proposed increase was set to take place next month, hiking rates from $2.50 and hour to $4 an hour in some neighborhoods. There’s no word yet on how much lower the rates will be, which will come with a hit to the city budget.

The study claims that peak occupancy is highest in First Hill (100 percent) and the downtown core (97 percent), when calculating for the busiest blocks at the busiest time of year. But the study’s hard data from last November found that, on average in those neighborhoods—even under the old rates—we have about 15 percent parking free.

“Personally, when I saw the data,” O’Brien says, “I was surprised by the availability of parking in some neighborhoods.”

The Downtown Seattle Association held a forum at City Hall this afternoon, packed with small business owners assailing the higher parking rates as poisonous to prosperity.

15 replies on “City to Withdraw Higher Parking Rates”

  2. Some programmer must have told them that the advanced chips in their data collecting machines are capable of timed rates depending on occupancy level or something.

    Chalk one up for free parking in Belltown after 6!

    Oh, and kill the tunnel if you want to save the city money.

  4. The rate increase proposal wasn’t going very well on the PR side.
    It would have freed up some spots, gained a little parking revenue for the city, but it also would have kept some easily scared East Siders from coming downtown and spending money. All in all it would probably have been a wash revenue wise for the city if you took out the tax portion lost to lower sales, so what would really be the point of it?

  6. I can always find parking on First Hill. From First Hill I walk to downtown.
    I haven’t seen much about how motorcycles and scooters would be differentiated. “Progressive” cities like Toronto, San Francisco and Denver have incentives for scooters and motorcycles. In Seattle there are a smattering of exclusive parking spots, but one pays for those as much as one would pay to park a Hummer. Was there some conclusive analysis that the emissions of scooters and motorcycles were as bad as those of automobiles that I missed? I read that a mayor proposed transit-only HOV lanes on the 520. Were motorcycles and scooters using the 520 HOV lanes slowing the buses down?

  8. ??? I’m certainly not opposed to treading more carefully on this issue, Dominic… but the Forum wasn’t “packed with small business owners assailing the parking rates.” I saw four people sitting in the front row, who could have all been from the same business for all I know.

    Did you talk to other folks in the room? And, if so, I’d love to read some quotes and learn more about the objections from Pioneer Square business owners.

  9. Mine is usually just my fingers moving a little fast or my shitty keyboard kicking in. My handwriting and drunk typing is impeccable.
    But you’ll never see me correct another persons typo because I have a soul 🙂

  11. #10: Thanks for posting the December 2003 document EPA420-F-03-046 prepared by the US EPA. It is hoped that most of the motorcycles and the scooters in Seattle are younger than seven years old. I also read in the document you linked to that new EPA regulations affected motorcycles (and scooters, I imagine) made after 2006. As my scooter is 2006, I cannot tell if its emissions are worse than that of a 2003 vintage or older automobile. The only mention of “scooter” in the document to which you linked is in:
    “California does not regulate scooters and mopeds with small (under 50cc) engines.”

    All I know is that my scooter meets new EU-2 emission standards. At present I do not know if those are lower than 2003 EPA regulations. All I learned from the EPA document is that motorcycles made in 2003 or earlier have worse emissions than automobiles.

  12. @Mickymse – Dominic wasn’t there, so no reason to be surprised he has no true sense of who was in the room 🙂

  14. This is like saying, you must bring a red beach ball to Seattle or else you will not be able to buy a bowl of pho.

    The reason you must bring the beach ball, is that I feel entitled to it because of the value of the pho.

    Although, the reality is, you may go anywhere else in Puget Sound and buy the (same exact) bowl of pho without bringing a red beach ball.

    So the value of the pho does not justify the beach ball.

    Yet, I insist that you must bear the beach ball.

    Because I am Seattle.

Comments are closed.