McGinn to Propose Parking Rate Increase

That will kill business downtown.

Um, it’s called “Market Rate” for a reason. It’s the price the market is willing to pay. Which means the parking spaces will still be full – just fewer people circling the block and less city subsidies to drivers who park on public land.

Um, it’s called “Market Rate” for a reason. It’s the price the market is willing to pay. Which means the parking spaces will still be full – just fewer people circling the block and less city subsidies to drivers who park on public land.

Does anyone actually expect to drive to the downtown core and find street parking?

We should be moving towards San Francisco’s pilot variable pricing model for parking, but simply increasing rates closer to market rate is a good immediate step.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-11-19/bay-area/17129006_1_parking-space-hourly-rates-demand

There are people like that in EVERY city. I’ve known friends that wanted to drive into both Boston and NYC, and would spend 45 minutes looking for a parking spot. Totally stupid.

Besides, anyone that goes shopping downtown is going to use a garage.

It hasn’t killed it in numerous other cities. DSA FUD.

How high does the price go before the risk of having your car damaged is not offset by the lower price?

Seriously? Who goes downtown, in a car, to shop during peak business periods and expects to find a parking meter? Not happening. I’m far from an anti-car zealot and I wouldn’t do that.

Listen up, ‘Reasoned,’ people who know more about this and do it for a living have put a lot of work into this. Maybe people could learn more about new programs, or even give them a chance to work, before coming out with knee-jerk reactions like that.

Did it yesterday.

The only time I ever had my car broken into downtown was in the parking garage right across from the courthouse.

First, there is no blanket “Market rate” for parking. A block across from the courthouse. Sure. In SLU, the Denny Triangle, or most of south downtown. No.

If the technology exists, I’d be all for setting the price at the revenue-optimizing price at each stall/block face – depending how the data is collected. The disastrous outcome would be for city hall to set an arbitrary price by fiat that underutilized parking and fails to maximize revenues in many areas by setting the price above market.

thanks, Misha. I should have read that.

Not only should parking rates inch up, but the hours should be expanded. And they should apply equally to Sunday. The combination of all that will bring in lots of revenue.

At the very least expand to Sunday and later north of the stadiums in both Pioneer Square and under the Viaduct so residents and football fans don’t park all day for free and block the parking for retail customers.

Soon we’ll here criticism of this tax being regressive. And of course killing business. I don’t think either are true. If businesses want more police and social services in the downtown core, the money needs to get generated somewhere, this is a great option.

We need more market-oriented initiative in Seattle!

We could start charging to use parks, I think I paid $10 per ticket for two hours worth of entertainment at a movie theater, so that seems like the entertainment rate could be around that. Unless you are gioing to sleep in them, and then we’ll use the rate from Extended Stay motels or motels on 99 if you’re going to use them for drug sales and prostitution.

We could sell city park memberships, too! Balley’s “City-wide Access” is $26.99/month so that could be our park membership (but only if you sign a one-year contract).

Private security services could dictate how much we charge you for calling 911.

Seattle will be rolling in the money!!!

For the record, the City’s intent is to even out the price difference between street parking and garage parking. This is to accomplish two goals. First, they want to make short-term garage parking just as attractive as short-term on-street parking. The trick here is to get private parking garages to see that it is in their best interests to lower short-term rates without being able to force them in any way. The second goal is to discourage long-term garage parking for people working in the city. The aim is to incentivize other forms of commuting.
-
They worked hard on this, and it deserves a chance. As it stands, people like me don’t go downtown because short-term parking is unavailable and expensive. Kicking the early-bird commuters out of the garages and lowering short-term garage rates would actually HELP downtown businesses – IF it works.

It’s always a nice bonus if I find on-street parking, but I’m not expecting it. A lap around the block, check the oft available spots and then it’s onto a parking lot.

While I agree parking rates and times should increase, be careful about arguing “market rate” on this one. At least with anyone who has even a basic understanding of economics. Parking lots in the downtown core don’t follow free market rates. Look at them as more oligopoly pricing with very, very high barriers to entry.

If someone is driving to visit just one or two higher-end stores, cost parking is probably not an issue and they probably aren’t the people driving around the block 15 times or holding up traffic cause they saw a person walking to his car. And for those that the cost does matter, are they really driving downtown to go to just one low-end store or restaurant?

It’s unreasonable to drive down to Pike Place, circling the Sanitary Market between Pike Place & 1st in endless loops for a free spot, just to buy a quick pirosky for lunch?

The only time my car was broken into was in a “secured” parking lot that that had a full gate (not just an arm).

7 seems awfully high an estimate.
Glancing at the rates here it only seems like 7 in few very high demand areas. Most at 4-5 or less. Plus you have the advantage of being able to park for more than 2 hours and you don’t have to drive around looking for a spot.

But raising it to 3-4 in the heart of downtown does not seem like a bad idea.

Well, so true.
What is the current “market rate” for on-street parking?
That would be $2.50.
Off-street?
that would be $7.

Hey Apple!

And then stand in line for 15 minutes to buy one. But come on, of course it’s realistic cause those piroskys are pretty darn good! But to be able to make in back in time I have to eat it while I’m driving.

How is street parking’s “market rate” $2.50? There’s no market, just a flat fee. Would people pay $3 for street parking? $4? $8? (hey, it’s more convienent than a lot) I don’t know, because there isn’t an open market for street parking. I do know that the price most people would pay is more than $2.50, as evidenced by how hard it is to find street parking.

If you can’t find an open spot for on-street parking when you want one, then the price is probably too low IF (let me repeat IF) the goal is to have market-based rates. Who cares what off-street parking charges. but we subsidize lots of other things, so why not on-street parking, too?

Well, now the odds will be better that you’ll find a pay spot. And maybe have time left over to sit down to eat.

It’s called a reply button. It helps keep the comment section organized and relevant.

this would be a great way to look at this – http://www.humantransit.org/2010/08/san-francisco-a-free-market-in-parking-begins.html

an interesting part of this conversation is how economic terms are tossed about by both sides. Ironically, downtown business interests want subsidized parking on City streets because they want the City to pay some of the weight of getting shoppers downtown. Very socialist of them. And suddenly many on the left who would normally have all sorts of issues with government pricing being determined by “market rate” are arguing that it should be. End of the day, most peoples’ only world view is “me”. But they sure do argue with lots of philosophical points from a certain side as long as at the end “me” wins.

I was being sarcastic.

I’m not too afraid of that. That would be a visible and obvious failure, and even if city hall was brave enough to allow a visible and obvious failure by coming close to a real market price, the public outcry would be so loud that it would be repealed immediately.

McGinn will have a moderate price increase nowhere near $7 an hour, and that’s fine with me. It’s still a small step in the right direction.

I’m not too sure the city is in any position to hire more parking enforcement officers right now. There’s more than one reason for the current hours and days.

I am assuming the fees and revenue from tickets would more than pay for the cost of parking enforcement.

The problem with this kind of parking rate increase is that the affluent benefit by economically forcing the less affluent to drive to Southcenter Mall instead of shopping downtown, leaving more empty parking spots for those with the dough.

(remove the “w” at the end of [giff]‘s link to view it)

From your link, the average hourly rate in 2006 was $6.47. A bit under $7, but not strongly so (actually, only $0.03 under when rounding, and that’s back in 2006). But I think the general point that parking should be more expensive in some areas is valid.

Fixed the link!

Where did you find the average rate or did you just calculate it?

Oh, so car driving, consumeristic poor people will no longer be able to do their shopping at the downtown outlets they currently frequent????
-
Sorry, no more Nordstrom Rack for you!
-
That’s a pretty lame argument. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

I calculated it (excel was already open, just copy & paste and run a few sums).

Maybe. But you get into tricky issues. Extend it just an hour or two and now what? Hire people for 2 hours a day? Pay overtime? Two overlapping shifts with twice the number of officers in the middle of the day? Considering demand for parking probably drops quickly after 7, I don’t think it’s a given that this would pay for itself plus add a significant amount of revenue to the city.

The poor people mostly live close to Southcenter already, I am talking about the ever shrinking middle class. Like it or not, they vote with their feet. Many already have already given up with the downtown. I realize that private parking lot owners in the city like the idea of a rate increase, but personally I’d rather see those lots developed rather than being speculative real estate for a few wealthy families.

So you’re either missing the point of the whole exercise, OR you’re just engaging in cynical government-bashing (judging the program as a failure on the day they cut the ribbon).
-
The point, and I’ll say this slowly and clearly, is to help people find a parking spot more quickly, so that it is less frustrating to drive around in circles through congested downtown streets.
-
The other objective is to incentivize the parking garages to lower short-term rates in order to attract more shoppers.
-
As for downtown development in private parking lots, what do you propose? More condos? More office space? More retail? Or maybe you have some new proposal for low-income housing? Let’s hear it.

Private lots charge a premium because of the convenience factor. Their “market” isn’t the masses, but the segment of the population whose time is worth more than money.

market rate would be somewhere in-between the on-street and off-street rates. You can find it bycharging on-street at a rate that provides ample enough street parking. Once that happens, the price of private lots will actually come down, because they no longer have the convenience factor.

By bringing DOWN garage rates, you also have the added effect of new construction building less parking. Similar to garages, new buildings tend to over-build parking because they can charge a premium if they always have space available. With market rate developers will be more inclined to build the amount they think will actually be used.

Neither missing or being cynical, DBT. Parking rates influence decision making for people going shopping, I’m just stating a fact. I do agree with you that availability of parking is just as important, so no need to make this into an argument. As for developing those empty lots, I’d like to see all of the uses you list. The downtown is full of gaps that prevent it from being cohesive.

Market rate is such a meaningless term. If you truly want to see what the “market” is, take a page from Radiohead and let people pay whatever they think their spot is worth.

Fine. But I’m middle-class (just barely these days) and I stopped shopping downtown years ago, because of the reasons you cite. PERHAPS the City actually developed a program that is capable of reversing that trend. The one thing it WON’T do is make the situation any worse.

I am paying 2.50, that is the market for on-street parking.
Where it isn’t 2.50 it is free.
Maybe it should all be free.

For the mayor to claim that on-street parking is the same “market” as off street parking is absurd.
Real estate data could provide some indication of the price difference/value of on-street vs off-street parking.

Where Would Jesus Park?

Radiohead letting people pay what they want is not how market rates are set. It’s “pay what you want” was for a digital album, and thus presumably endless supply of downloads, not physical albums. Market equilibrium is achieved when supply and demand are in harmony, usually done through raising and lower prices when supply is fixed as in our case with on-street parking.

Under your example, the first person to arrive would say it wasn’t worth paying anything for parking all day long and then all the spots would immediately fill up for free.

The best way to achieve a fair market clearing rate would be to have some kind of dutch auction (how google did its IPO: everyone bids and the price is set for everyone at the lowest successful bid). But it is probably infeasible to set up such a system.

But hey, if you want to create endless virtual parking spots and let people pay what they want for them, go ahead.

That’s a market as much as there was a toilet paper market in soviet Russia. If you have 2.5 rubles and wait in line, you can get a roll of toilet paper if they don’t run out. A real market would take into account that some people would pay more than 2.5 rubles for toilet paper if they could actually buy it for that price.

Maybe they should have made all of the toilet paper free. That would have fixed the problem [/sarcasm].

@Mr. Baker: You failed to also make the point that our tax dollars paid to build the on-street parking. If the city will pay for me to build a private parking lot, I’ll charge you only $2.50, too!

Parked across from Top Pot, had lunch at Dahlia Lounge, Bento Box was great, and my parking was cheap. The private parking lots were almost empty.

All we need to do is sense the number of parking spots available (a single camera per block? road sensors?), install a large LED sign with the current rate at every ticket machine, some basic fuzzy logic programming, and we can really charge by demand. One spot open on a block? Make it expensive. All spots full, and someone pulls in as soon as a spot opens up? Make it more expensive. Same thing happens every weekday at that time? Make it really expensive. Many spots open? Make it cheap.

Using this method we could make sure there’s almost always a space open, while nearly maximizing income for the city and almost never overcharging.

Or we could sell (rent) the rights of on-street parking to private businesses and let them figure out how to charge for it without the expensive infrastructure costs to set up such a system. And an added benefit is that they’d have to pay the private parking taxes too on the revenue. If a business thinks that the on-street parking in front of it is beneficial to its business, they can rent the space and then either charge or validate for its use.

Most of the dialogue above sounds like how Seattle Dept of Transportation does its “planning” that is by making up stuff and calling it analysis.

The thing that interest me is the political impact. Beyond fact that Mayor Mike is anti-auto he’s calculating that a) downtown business hates him anyway and will never back him for reelection; and b) that majority of Seattle voters do NOT intend to park downtown anyway except once or twice in a blue moon.

At least raising parking rates make more sense (at least politically) than cutting summer wading pools for tots (and related summer jobs for students) as alternative to chickening out on throwing hundreds of exempt (that is, politically featherbeded) city employees.

Speaking of the latter, will be interesting to see if they get wacked anyway, in the 10% reduction (which is likely underestimate) resulting from the municipal budget red ink.

OR will they be spared from the ax (that Mayor Ceis SHOULD have wielded) in part because they’ll spend significant part of their city work day propagandizing in their own self-interest on Publicola & other blogs?

if we want to generate some money we should take a cue from San Francisco who has arcane street parking rules because of weekly street cleaning. when i left a decade ago they were generating well over $100M/year in parking ticket revenues.

i do believe that for many Seattle residents that need to transact business downtown, cheap street parking is important. for example, if someone wants to come make public comment at a council hearing mid-day (only 2 minutes!) or needs to drop off documents at city hall, a 1 1/2 hour round trip bus commute sometimes doesn’t fit into the schedule. (not speaking for myself as I only have a 40 minute round trip, just saying this is why people get upset with a proposal like this – a friend just paid $9 parking to pay a ticket).

who really continues to benefit from these type of changes are those that have the status and position of a parking space in the downtown towers (or in industrial areas w free street parking). they can commute daily to work in a car, as well as transact business and shop downtown for free (free bus zone too).

with over 200K more people in the city during the day than live here, many of them arriving by automobile from outside the city, we are forced to spend billions on roads and regional transit projects in order to keep our downtown office towers filled.

penalizing Seattle residents that need short term downtown parking and not going after the out-of-town commuters – who are the real source of our daily VMT – just tells me that McGinn is missing the mark.

Yeah, because parking lots have proven to be so open and competative. [sarcasm]

I think the main problem you’d hit with that scheme is standardization. Imagine 20k seperate little parking lots, each with a complex rate sign and their own payment system…

Oh, go back to running your church in Gainesville.

Oh, go back to running your church in Gainesville.

here’s how SF is trying to set parking rates by actual demand. Pretty interesting and innovative. If we’re going to do this I say we take a cue from them

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/08/san-francisco-a-free-market-in-parking-begins.html

here’s how SF is trying to set parking rates by actual demand. Pretty interesting and innovative. If we’re going to do this I say we take a cue from them

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/08/san-francisco-a-free-market-in-parking-begins.html

If only we had a quick method of payment that would allow you to tap in and tap out of a spot so you only get charged for the time you use and you can’t go over…

Oh, stop gobbing up your medicine chest. AND smearing other posters so lamely.

Sorry. I should’ve just ignored you. But:

1. The City doesn’t have any higher frequency of lame, lazy, no-talent fools or lower frequency of talented, hard-working, committed employees than any private employer. I’ll put my City friends against my Microsoft friends any day of the week.

2. It’s a fallacy that they’re all political appointees. I haven’t heard anyone spouting that crap in Publicola for months.

3. City employees are shit scared of getting laid off, just like private sector folks. I know a really great guy in Planning, and today’s article about their budget has me worried. Why would you wish that on anyone? They’re already doing more with less, just like everyone else. How did they become your personal scapegoat/whipping boy?

TV, you’re lucky he didn’t accuse you of being Hermann Goering’s love child!

DBT could use Metro (that’s what I do, don’t currently own a car) which I’m sure he thinks is good policy . . . for others.

Well, at least you’re trying to make a case as opposed to assassinating a character.

In Rebuttal:

1. Agree with this comment. Did I say something different above? AND are your “city friends” exempt employees and/or incompetents, the targets of my screed?

2. My criticism directed at EXEMPT employees. That is POLITICAL appointees. Don’t you know what “exempt” means? Break out your dictionary and you’ll discover it does NOT mean “all”.

3. I do NOT wish that some “really great guy in Planning” gets laid off. Instead, prefer that the really bad Planning employees get the ax. Or are you saying that they’re all “above average” like in Lake Woebegone?

You clearly have a rich inner life! You take a few comments and – without paying attention to the actual words – spin out an entire fantasy land. Is this your blogging MO, to twist the statements of others to fit your own pre-conceptions and prejudices?

Amusing but NOT persuasive.

Nobody persuades anyone on this, or any other similar blog. It’s all about venting.
-
The articles headline is typically misleading and off point. All hype, no substance.
-
The comments are equally uninspiring and uninsightful. I took a month or two off Publicola before being drawn back to this issue. Clearly, I didn’t miss anything. I’ll go back to my oil paintings, my charity work, and the three screenplays I’ve been writing in my spare time. Enough of this Internet crap!

@ jackers, I did not fail to make that point. Had I gone that far I would have mentioned the sales tax benefit of being able to park and shop.
There are all kinds of trade-offs.

McGinn failed to make the point of what exactly he was funding with the tax hike.
If this is just a random and disconnected tax grab, then, f-him.

A tax hike is not a plan, it is a resource.

Maybe he should make all of the downtown parking free. Maybe more people would go downtown and spend money.

“Enough of this Internet crap!”

I’m surprised that you would bug out now.
You’ve been a fixture here for a long time.

And “Nobody persuades anyone on this, or any other similar blog. It’s all about venting.”
I’d disagree. You’ve persuaded me quite a few times (but I’m easy.)

Don’t let someone with a reasonable argument keep you away.
You do contribute quite a lot.

Belltown != Downtown core

I’m talking south of Olive, north of Yesler between 1st and 6th.

Clearly the shoulder areas like Belltown, International district, and Pioneer Square all have a lot of parking and won’t necessarily be able to support higher parking prices that downtown will.

That’s why we need some sort of variable rate.
Or we need some sort of variable parkers, who don’t mind walking a bit.

Who knows if the people parking in the cheap spots are hoofing it?
I’d park in the first open spot to be on my way to my destination.

And I’d pay the cost of one margarita if I didn’t want to walk.
But I’d rather walk. Up the prices, and let the users figure it out.

Raise prices until nobody shows, then back off a bit.

Agree.

Upon mature reflection, which was difficult in immediate aftermath of being called a despicable (and unpatriotic!) bigot, realize I inadvertantly pushed one of Truck’s hot buttons.

Partly because I cast aspersions on the Seattle ciy planning process (mercy!)

But mostly becasue he clearly did NOT understand what I ment by the technical-govermental term “exempt” which in this case means except from normal hiring requirements.

AND subject to dismissal upon request. Since the vast majority (certainly at beginning of the year) were hired at the request/bequest of the previous administration would have made excellent govermenmetal, political and PR sense for McG to bid them a fond farewell. Thus helping save the jobs of folks that Truck cares about who are truly serving the city.

That’s the theory, anyway. The reality of personnel matters as McG has already discovered in this very same context, is a wee bit messier . . .

Anyway, I share Truck’s disdain for reflexive bashing of public employees in general. As opposed to specifc criticism when it’s (possibly) warranted.

Thanks for the warm fuzzies. It makes me want to park across from Top Pot and take you out to lunch at Palace Kitchen. And no hard feelings, Greenwood.

“It makes me want to park across from Top Pot”

No, that’s Master Baker.
I’d say we park in front of my house and walk across the street to the halal gyro place, watch Al Jazeera on the TV while they prepare our goat. Then take it back across the street, pop open a few very hoppy beers, and figure out how we all can get along.

In most cultures, including bonobos, that involves sex.
But there is none of that at my house, so argument is it.

Elliott Bay, but not for 2.5 shekels/hr.

He’s a ped, for G-d’s sake.

Isn’t pretty much a condemnation of Mass Transit, that the Mayor can raise parking rates?

Seattle is the nexus of all Mass Transit in the Salish Sea. It is the supposed hub. Seattle is a peninsula with more mass transit per density than anywhere else in Washington State.

Yet, despite that, people still continue to use their cars, and what is more, they are willing to pay high premiums to do so, all the while revenues for Mass Transit fall!

When are the Planners going to admit an obvious defeat?

Personal Transit Systems (bikes, taxis, cars) are the transit of choice for Puget Sound!

Ridership is doing fine, it’s the tax funding that’s drying up. I’ve never seen more standing-room-only buses than I have a few days ago when the rainy season started.

Don’t you ride the train to work?

As someone who prefers to drive downtown rather than sit with hobos and crazies on the bus, I have no problem with the higher rates. If you ask me, parking downtown is ridiculously cheap. Just driving into a lot in Chicago sets you back $25.

Next to the courthouse? You mean Gangbangerville?

It’s more about setting a price on a limited commodity so that availability is always guaranteed. Until all parks are so full that nobody can visit them, your analogy doesn’t work.