The “Plague” of a Limited Parking Supply

it's even more pernicious than that.

when we require parking in residential units, that renter or condo owner who's at the tipping point in deciding to go car-free is given a firm push back into car-ownership land. I mean he's already paying for the “free” parking associated with his unit, he'd be an idiot to not have a car!

When we require stores to have parking we virtually require them to be big box, and not main street. So we incentivize car dependent shopping draining demand from the neighborhood shops. All our older single family neighborhoods had little corner stores at one time. That was the street car suburb layout; homes and stores. But today you can't have a business like that without parking. The result is to drive shoppers into their cars and drive them to the big box stores. The parking lots at those stores are also a physical barrier and dead space. No one likes to go strolling through the parking lots — the parking requirement actually makes all trips longer (more car-oriented) by physically spreading apart the destinations.

The free parking on city streets is another aspect of this. If you own a car, bingo! you hit the jackpot, you just got a subsidized parking space that is worth about $100 a month. You get rewarded for owning a car. The cost gets hidden as it is buried in general street maintenance (not to mention theiputed value of the land) paid for by the public in general. All this required parking is sort of like in the olden times when there was a state church and it was required to go and support it. There are many forms of this indirect support for the automobile.

Just ask yourself this.

What is the morality in all this support when a quarter of the adult public doesn't drive? And when another slice that does drive is only doing so because it's incented to do so with these subsidies ? There's no free market here, the game is rigged in favor of the auto.

McGinn was great on this. The new 520 will be for car owners, not poor folks taking the bus. It will have tolls, so really the better off will benefit from this expenditure of $5 billion for the bridge. For $5 billion we could build 2 more skytrain lines in seattle……….hooking up ballard and west seattle, and even adding extensions out holman road to northgate….or a mainline skytrain right above the freeway from northgate to downtown….we could be having what they have in vancouver….we just don't do it.

Just so you know, right now they're building a light rail line (Skytrain is in Vancouver, here we have light rail) to the U District, and construction on an extension to Northgate will start in a couple years.

I have to disagree with you on this. For working families the car is essential and to tax the car would just put more unfair burden on seattle families. God knows it is hard enough to work and live in this city as it stands.

Also, by your logic users of a particular transportaion system should pay their entire share. So bicyclists should pay for the bike lanes and bus riders should pay the full cost of the buses? Both now are being subsidized by tax payers.

BTW-Nice empathy towards the woman on King 5. She might not be able to pay for a spot for whatever reason or maybe she comes home late at night and has to walk several blocks alone.

Having a 'free' parking space doesn't force people to purchase, keep or use a car. The last place I lived included two parking spaces. I used one and rented out the other for a pretty nice chunk of change. If I didn't have to use my truck for work (try packing all necessary tools, ladders, lumber, conduit and wire with you daily on a bus AND getting to all of the job sites…) I would have rented out both. For daily errands, everything I needed was in walking distance or on the way when commuting in my truck. That wasn't in some grandly-planned 'urban village' in Seattle either, that was the Juanita neighborhood of Kirkland.

To all rational people who haven't been turned into Lib-Zombots.

Move..now…get out…flee Eastward or They will tax rape you into poverty.

Masterplan 2100 shows how

http://masterplan.texeme.com/

Your master plan still doesn't account for the water use issues that will become even worse than they are now if the rest of you plan began to take shape.

Yup, and most people who don't live in the privileged blog fantasy land inhabited by the so-called “New Urbanist” crowd that dominates these posts agree with you 100% about the continuing need for parking.

The lack/high cost of parking downtown scares away far more potential customers than aggressive panhandlers ever did.

…and eliminating parking to accommodate the 2.5% of Seattle residents who commute by bike doesn't exactly pass the “do the greatest good for the greatest number” test, either.

Sorry but any low income earner working downtown will take the bus. Even at $1 an hour on the street (which doesn't exist) you're paying $8 to park compared with $4 to take the bus. And of course, this doesn't include gas and insurance.

From my significant experience in the service industry in Seattle, almost everyone takes the bus if they are trying to save money. Any service industry workers who drive to work downtown do so because they enjoy driving and/or don't enjoy the bus. It is a privilege to park in downtown Seattle and I see no reason why the full cost of that parking shouldn't be paid by the user rather than the public.

SDOT's lust for revenue won't be satiated until there is a parking meter in front of every single family home in Seattle.

People in the service industry who have children in daycare or live pretty far away from downtown don't–can't–take the bus. If you're a childless 25-year-old waiter living less than 30 minutes from downtown, that makes sense, but not if you're a 40-year-old maid in a hotel downtown who has 3 children and lives in Renton.

Speaking of… how about if you also just became homeless?
America in 5 premiered the story of “Joy” at TEDx Seattle
http://vimeo.com/10987154

By the way this is why the housing levy and anything else we can get to help low-income workers live close to available jobs are so necessary in our broken economy.

Your pretty close that it would take 100 years to accomplish.

Its not tax rape if you yell surprise!

The city also allows removal of on-street parking for garage access curb cuts. In most cases this is a net increase in total parking in an area, but of course there is no change in the available street space for increased traffic. That's one reason car-oriented density like townhouses with garages at street level are such a big mistake.

Off the top of my head, I'm not sure how a 40-year-old hotel maid from Renton with three kids could afford $12 per day in parking. I'm not arguing for making parking cheaper; if you subsidize it more, the maid won't be able to find a spot.

Depends on whether it's 2.5% of the parking.

So no one goes downtown anymore, it's too crowded? Validated parking for customers isn't really a problem. Parking is only full (and expensive) during major events or commute times.

That doesn't seem quite right to me- there's a net loss in the street parking, and public space gets converted to private space. (and so I agree that townhouses with garaged at street level should be discouraged, not required).

I forecast that due to global warming, most if not all arid areas in the Western United States will soon have ample water. Record rainfall in Arizona is justifying that prediction.

About 85% of commuters drive in a car. The vast majority of adults drive their own car and many of the rest ride in cars regularly.

The streets are not owned by the public. The government didn't buy the property from the owner, but rather took the land as ROW. When the Westlake Mall was built Fredrick's needed to be compensated for the street being closed. When the city vacates a street end or alley it reverts to the original owning property. Many if not most streets were paved with LIDs . That means the property owner paid for the work.

Why should parking be market rate and bus service isn't? Currently, a bus ride and rail rides are subsidized about 75 to 80% or more. Obviously the transit trips are subsidized by non-transit riders. Bus riders need to pay their share of roads since buses and trucks need them as well. Everywhere a car goes we need roads for trucks, service vehicles and emergency vehicles.

As another poster mentioned, if you have a parking spot with your living space you can always rent it out. As yet another poster pointed out, high mileage cars use less fuel per mile than buses and when we move to electrics, cars won't pollute at all.

ECB, if you don't want a parking spot there are plenty of apartments on Cap Hill w/o them.

Parking rates on street have gone up so much it is hurting business. When their business is hurt, they pay less taxes and is made up by otehr taxpayers. Beware what you wish for.

I don't think this comment is at all in touch with reality. Adding in gas I think it makes even more sense for low income workers to take the bus downtown from far away. I specifically worked in a hotel and most certainly our housekeeping staff (with children) took the bus in.

Fizzy:

You write so much nonsense with so much confidence…

“About 85% of commuters drive in a car.” If this was an argument about national mode splits, you'd be close (87.7% in the 2005 ACS). As it isn't – you're way off, especially for Seattle, where only about half of commute trips are done by SOV. Including HOV's the 2008 ACS has the number at 62%.

As for subsidies, drivers currently pay about $0.02-$0.03 per mile in total taxes and fees. This doesn't look good in light of a full social cost analysis. Delucchi shows us that, adjusted for inflation from his earlier research, the real cost of driving is closer to a dollar per mile.

Mark Delucchi (1996-97), Annualized Social Cost of Motor Vehicle Use in the United States, Based on 1990-1991 Data, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis (http://www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/scalds/DELUCCHI.pdf and http://www.engr.ucdavis.edu/~its); summarized in “Total Cost of Motor-Vehicle Use,” Access (http://www.uctc.net), No. 8, Spring 1996, pp. 7-13.

Mark Delucchi (2000), “Environmental Externalities of Motor-Vehicle Use in the US,” Journal of Transportation Economics and Policy, Vol. 34, No. 2, May 2000, pp. 135-168.

Transit riders, pedestrians and bicyclists — when the same analysis is used — are much closer to break-even.

Finally, I like how you omitted the word “public” from public rights of way. They are, by definition, “ways open to the public.” They are also managed, maintained and policed with public funds. So, why wouldn't we manage them for the benefit of the whole public — including the large minority of the population that can't drive.

Since you are using 1990 data – Seattle had 73% drive alone to work and 12% carpools.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/jtw4.htm

2008 numbers from PSRC 68% alone 12% in carpools = 80%

http://psrc.org/data/regionalprofile/regionalpr…

I didn't say Seattle because those numbers are hard to find but since we are all thinking regionally PSRC should be good.

Commute trips are the best case for non-car travel. Other trips are even more by car.

BTW Shoup numbers don't come from Seattle at all, but no problem, right?

Please provide a link and a number for the large minority that can't drive and aren't regularly driven around.

Juanita is a grandly planned urban village and will continue to be more grand over time.

Completely understandable your need for your truck for work. Next time you are driving, take a look around you on the streets/freeways and note how many cars and trucks are less efficiently used than your truck.

I get so tired of people assuming the only folks using the bus are 25 year old waiters…and male at that, right? The bus is so scary. Only a stupid kid rides the bus, eh Sarah?

Thanks both of you for actually citing stuff.

I don't think there are any data on people with disabilities who cannot drive but can get around without a car, but here's one place in Seattle:
http://lighthousefortheblind.blogspot.com/2009/…
Teens too young to drive also like to do stuff without their parents, such as go to movies with friends.

I actually don't think PSRC numbers are good for Seattle urban centers, which have better transit, and a lot more traffic congestion and population density.

It turns out that UW provides extensive reports of commute share though: http://www.washington.edu/facilities/transporta…
In the 2008 survey 20% total drove alone, though 43% of faculty did (hint: it's the access to convenient parking). Interestingly though 17% of faculty biked.

Ah, it might have to do with the fact that most students live near campus and faculty doesn't – anyway UW numbers don't seem of mush value to me.

PSRC numbers are for the region. They include all those people that drive from out of town to Seattle and need/want to park. Obviously, DT workers are the highest transit users because they get free bus, parking is really, really expensive and buses mostly end up there. The bigger question is: Is the high price of parking DT and the reduction of spots causing non-commuters to go elsewhere.

Say, thanks for the forecast. We're surely better off listening to you than, oh I don't know, almost every climate scientist in the US.

Slight increase in rain, meet rapid decrease in snowpack. Thanks for playing though…

As an aside, why are we spending this much time on a KING 5 report? “This is KING 5, reporting from 1986…”

Reducing free parking, and overall parking supply, is a widely accepted policy goal, to reduce driving and overall VMT (vehicle miles traveled). This is a clearly stated goal (in some cases a legal requirement) of the City, the County, the region, and the State. Quit blaming the few – this is an accepted public objective, backed by good data on the overall benefits.

However, it can't happen in a vacuum. If we *only* reduce parking, we get a lot of negative impacts. But if are simultaneously building more jobs in Renton, more affordable housing in Seattle, and more transit for everyone, than there's no problem except for people whose cars/trucks are part of their jobs (who are not the majority).

Every complaint on here is about one of these other issues – not actually about parking. More/free/cheaper parking is not a solution to the problems of regional affordability and mobility.

In fact, all of the other investments and policies we're pursuing are undermined by an abundance of parking. We're trying to transition away from an auto-dependent region as fast as we can; less and more expensive parking is a critical mechanism for making it happen. If you think it's painful now, let's talk when gas is $6/gallon and we've failed as a region to make the shift…

The highest transit usage number is actually for staff, not students. Remember that UW is the single largest employer in Seattle, including a lot of middle-income professional jobs.

To me the regional numbers seem less useful because they include places where people want to go but driving is the only option available, often because there is no transit from where they're coming from (i.e., tract housing).

I love this line of thought: it's a long-winded way of saying “parking just encourages people to have cars.”

Of course, the gaping flaw in that logic is that you can't DIScourage people from having cars UNTIL you have another way for them to get around.

For the last 20 years Seattle has been all about punishing car owners, while offering next to nada as a replacement.

You simply can't do that.

And until this gets fixed, yammering on about “incentivizing” or “subsidizing” car riders is just hot air (and bad reporting).

I don't know what you are smoking Fizzy, but downtown workers don't get “free” bus passes. Yes some companies do provide a bus pass as a benefit and some companies allow employees to buy bus passes with pre-tax wages, but it certainly isn't all downtown employers.

Since the discussion on parking was about the City of Seattle, mode shares for the city proper are the appropriate metric not the entire 4 county region.

The price of private parking downtown is set by the market. I think the on-street spaces should be priced the same as the nearby private lots and garages on a per-hour basis because otherwise you are creating subsidized spaces for those lucky enough to find them.

In order to create enough parking spaces for those who refuse to pay for parking about half of the buildings downtown would need to be torn down and replaced by parking garages (at $40k per parking space).

It isn't so much that Seattle lacks parking, what it lacks is more below market rate parking.

Mr. X,

The people who shop downtown already go there to work. Yes, a few people travel to the Nordstrom's anchor store, but the vast majority of shoppers were already downtown for some other reason.

The one's who weren't mostly take public transportation (including cabs) to get there. The stores downtown are very busy and quite profitable for Nordstrom's and Macy's. Not everyone is addicted to driving, X.

You can kick the habit, too.

SWAN! Dude, you do get around!

Unfortunately, “getting around” doesn't seem to make you any brighter. Travel usually broadens one's perspective, but even it has its limitations.

FizzBrain,

Evergreen certainly misspoke. He should have specified “CBD mode split”, not “Seattle” which implies the entire city at a minimum, and in many peoples' minds, the region.

He's right about the CBD mode split, though. Because of the physical barriers which surround downtown, the Seattle CBD has very high transit usage for a city of its size.

FizzBrain,

“Causing people to go elsewhere?” I guess you have some sort of private pass to the Market, because the rest of us have to navigate some bodacious lines there.

WingNuts! The economic house is always on fire if one thruppence is spent on rational planning.

You might wanna take a head count of all the parking spaces (that are full during the day) downtown before declaring “a few people” travel downtown. Likewise, daily turnover is actually quite high so the myth that 'they're already downtown' is misleading too.
The parking structures downtown (near nordy's alone) are massive and numerous. The 3rd/Pine garage, the Olive/6th garage, the Pacific Place complex… these are HUGE. There are clearly PLENTY (read: far too many) of people driving downtown… and I would warrant we'll only make a significant dent in those numbers when we connect the region by rail/subway with a truly viable SYSTEM.

lust for revenue? You're talking about the same dept that kept trucks parked during the snowstorm… right?

Besides, the single family homes** are clearly the blight in your example: get rid of those and the parking meters won't be such an issue. And besides THAT the parking meters the city uses now only require One per block, not house, so GET OUT OF THE 80's YOU DINOSAUR.

**besides, SFH host more free parking, citywide, than even the city itself does on it's streets. WTF are you complaining about, Mr. Alley-access garage? (oh right, you use THAT for storage…silly me).

“back to suburbia, ye infidel!”

perhaps use the daycares downtown?
i.e. Walk from hotel work to daycare. Then, you and the children take the bus to renton? Used to make that run myself, long ago, and even then I saw families doing JUST what I'm suggesting (you're not the first mother-of-3 maid living in renton).

Gont: look at it like this: 4 house lots (surrounded by, say, 8 street spots) get converted to a 100 unit apartment with parking garage. House folks may have been using all 8 spots, but let's be optimistic and say only 6 spots. Parking access cutouts and curbbulbs drop street spot inventory in same stretch of street down to 4. Those 4 houses-worth of people then hypthetically move into the apartment, along with 96 other households, none of which have to park on the street.
The net inventory of open street spots hypothetically increases by 2 in this way.
This all of course ignores that fact that if we had fast transit every four blocks we wouldn't need much parking at all…

I have 2 parking spaces at my apartment (required by law at the time it was built in the 1980's), and only have 1 car. I asked if I could rent out the extra space, and was firmly rejected. I could try to do it against my landlord's wishes, but I don't want to risk eviction for $100 a month. Meanwhile, there are no less than 4 classic cars, barely drivable, parking on my street for free, owned by one of the guys in our building who likes old cars. And this is a narrow street that was made one-way to allow “free” parking on both sides! Our priorities are messed up.

State laws should be changed so that parking spaces are rented separately from apartments. Why should my tax dollars and rent subsidize my neighbor's desire to own 1/2 dozen cars-as-sculptures?