There Is No Defensible Justification For The Public Subsidy Of Parking

They just don’t want to pay extra fees and taxes, Dan. It’s a basic and shallow argument based on a simple self-motivation that honestly most if not all business owners tend to have. The stuff about driving off commerce is intellectual window dressing for their motivation, and letting the finer points of the excuses frame the debate is like throwing punches at the wind.

Their argument hasn’t much to stand on as a whole.

Best post so far arguing to raise parking rates. I appreciate that you avoided arguing for market rates, but simply said raise the rate. I’m still not a fan of raising them above $4 or $5/hour. Any increase could also peg future increases to inflation automatically reevaluated and adjusted every four years. (although pegging everything to inflation is just going to make inflation worse.)

No, there’s “no defensible justification,” except that the majority — which is hardly the population that reads Publicola — prefers it. Welcome to democracy.

If the revenue raised from raising parking rates could be used to improve the downtown shopping experience — make the streets safer, cleaner, more attractive — I think people wouldn’t mind paying more. I can’t be the only one who thinks spending a day at the mall is depressing. On the other hand, spending a day shopping in a lively, safe, and attractive downtown is really fun.

The council should put it on a ballot and let “the people” vote if there shouldbe a tax increase, and what it is spent on.

Wow Dan, you really have no clue about how a city works.

Groan. Look I’m not a big fan of auto-dependence. But do you think you could at least treat those you disagree with a little respect? Like for instance recognizing that the city lost a great deal of retail business to the suburbs in the post-WWII decades because of FEDERAL subsidies for highways, and that increasing parking fees at the municipal level is not going to undo ongoing federal and state subsidies for suburbanization? You need to treat business and labor issues more seriously. Just saying that there’s going to be pain, or that you have to break a few eggs to make an omelete, isn’t exactly helpful. More helpful would be an explanation of economic effects, followed by a plan for mediating those effects if they might cost jobs to the Seattle area. Or holding off on increasing parking fees until we get better transit options to suburbs.

Your last sentence contains the reason businesses are happy to oppose removing the subsidy using any rhetorical means they can. The present inertia represents their best protection against the ultimate planning goal of discouraging their driving customers. Shortsighted? Sure, but until you can convince them nondriving customers will keep them in business until the goddam recession’s over, it’ll remain a battle.p.s. The hell does “defensible justification” mean? “Reasonable reason”?

Or at least a non-binding advisory vote cause those seem to create more political brouhaha.

Actually, I think the most dangerous thing of all would be to raise parking rates but NOT go to market rate. In this case consumers (parkers) would incur all the costs (more money to park) and recieve none of the benefits (actually being able to find a spot on the street).

I think the key to understand here is that while most people may be intellectually against raising parking rates, the truth is they don’t care, because as we all know, its nearly impossible to find a spot on the street. It is the nature of price ceilings that they create shortages, meaning that while a few get to pay a subsidized on-street rate, the vast majority of us pay the off-street rate (which according to this blog is around $7/hour).

If you raise parking rates but don’t go all the way to market rate, then the shortage remains and the demand for off-street parking remains relatively stable. Thus, in tandem with the on-street rates, off-street rates are also liable to go up, causing everyone to pay more for parking.

On the other hand, if you do go up to market rate, which is by definition finding the equilibrium between supply and demand (and according to Donald Shoup, about an 80% utilization rate, or a constant 2 vacant spaces per block), then everyone who wants to can find a spot on the street. This means demand for off-street parking falls dramatically and most garages would be forced to reduce their prices to at least market rate to attract demand. It would probably not be that much cheaper than current rates, but maybe a dollar or two less (they might remain slightly higher due to assumed increased protection).

Sure, on-street rates would seem exceptionally high, but the overall price of parking downtown would actually fall. This means more money in the economy for people to spend on other things, like food and retail, thus boosting the economy downtown.

Dan – as a Belltown business owner, I’m ok with the raised parking rates. I don’t buy Kemper’s arguments either. I think his vision for Bellevue sucks. I don’t want to live in in or even visit his world. He can have it, free parking and all.

That said, your argument about subsidies falls a little flat when you realize how much public transit has to be subsidized. It’s a lot. And for it to be sustainable the price people pay for it will have to rise dramatically. Or we’ll continue to see deficits like we currently see with metro.

Ad cars aren’t necessarily non-sustainable. I think we’ll continue to see smaller, greener autos that will be an important part of the mix of in-city personal commuter transportation options. And larger vehicles like trucks, trains, ships, etc, always need to be considered in this conversation as non of our views of what a city should be are real without the transportation of goods.

One option few people are talking about is private transit. I assume a lot of lefties don’t like it because it’s not government controlled or subsidized, and righties just don’t seem to care about anything but their hummers. But it’s something all other transit oriented cities I know of are far ahead of Seattle on.

But yeah, I want a city I can walk around in, good sidewalks, outdoor cafe’s and bars, free wifi, community, interesting art, interesting independent businesses, water views, buses and other transit, etc. Manhattan and London are great this way. Bellevue sucks this way.

To the people who want to listen to Kemper Freeman on his vision for Seattle and Bellevue – I encourage you to move to his world. It’s already built, parking is free and housing is less expensive than Seattle. And there’s a reason for that.

While in the downtown core the rates are not at market, they are above the market rate in other parts of the city. Especially when you factor in the hassle finding a spot, the fact that you can only be there for 2 hours, and the lack of security.

I think we should raise the price, because we need the revenue, but the whole talk of subsidies is kind of silly.

Give them three(or more!) options so that none will get a majority and then everyone can claim the vote went against their opponents.

My cousin lived in China for 6 months with no car. Anytime he had to carry alot of stuff there were these guys (Bong Bong Men I think he called them) that you could hire for a few cents to carry stuff for you.

I wonder if once we start moving away from automobiles, if any of the Homeless in Seattle would be willing to fill that niche and and what rates?

I think to have a proper discussion of parking, you need to break it down further, and get beyond “parking subsidy” and “helping support downtown business.” There are at least four types of downtown parking:
1 – convenience parking so I can duck into the store and pick up a few things;
2 – mid-term destination parking so I can shop, have dinner, enjoy a show, lecture, movie, etc.,
3 – commuter parking so I can spend 8-10 hours in an office downtown and not worry about my car
4 – loading/service parking for taxi cabs, delivery trucks, drop off

The city’s interest is managing the parking via land use regulations, parking rates, time of use restrictions, and meter limits so that there is an appropriate mix of parking to serve the needs of the diverse downtown users, and make downtown Seattle a better place.

Simplifying the debate into whether “market rate” is $5/hr, $3/hr, or $7/hr runs the risk of missing the point. Parking is one dysfunctional element in our dysfunctional mobility system and needs to be considered as such. Raising parking rates may be part of the solution, but doesn’t solve the problem by itself.

You mean the kind of democracy where we elect leaders to make decisions for us rather than vote on every trifling matter?

That’s actually a pretty common thing in developing countries. People will do almost anything for a buck, including carrying your things wherever you need them.

There are plenty of homeless with “will work for food” signs, but I don’t know anyone that’s actually taken them up on their offer.

All the same, I can’t imagine some of the reactions tourists would have to Seattle’s homeless regulars asking to carry their bags around downtown. I don’t think it would go over very well.

Washington doesn’t stand for effective government!

Voting on taxes is sillier than voting for Dino Rossi: a consistently losing bet.

The zealotry on hand on certain topics is screwing up the site by denying us the more varied content we had previously. Before Dan and others went to war lately over cars, I loved reading his complex analysis on different realms of urban life. Lately it’s a weekly “God hates fags! Repent to Jesus!” but replace God with “urban life,” “fags” with “cars”, “repent” with “agree”, and “Jesus” with “the future reality several years ahead of time”. Seriously, we get it.

You know public transport is heavily subsidized too, right? All transportation is, from cars to Amtrak to aviation to buses.

Except bikes, but I’d love to see Publicola have the stones to go one calendar week with the word “bike” in any and all forms and languages, inferences, or anything else, be banned from use, discussion, or topics by the authors, except for Bike Nerd, because that’s sort of the point of his work. Seriously, you guys don’t need to nearly all constantly beat us over the head like this was the World Wrestling Federation of Advocacy.

People will vote with their pocketbook.
I don’t enjoy shopping period, but if I must I will chose the malls. Everything is centralized, you stay dry regardless of weather and you family isn’t harassed by alcoholics and drug abusers.

What is the “market rate” for short-term downtown parking? Bertolet has no clue.

For parking in many private downtown garages, the business you are partonizing valiates your parking, meaning you can park short-term downtown in a private garage for FREE! I suspect Bertolet is completely ignorant of this fact. For example, when I used to go to a dentist in the Medical Dental Building downtown, I parked in the private garage in that building for an hour or so during each visit, and I never paid to park in that garage! The dentist always paid for my parking. I don’t even know what the official price to park in that garage was, because I never had to pay.

If you shop at many of the major stores downtown, the store will pay for your parking in a private garage. Likewise, many restauraunts will pay for at least part of your parking in a private garage downtown if you dine in their restaurant.

So, what is the actual “market rate” that people really pay, on average, for short-term private parking downtown, Bertolet? Do, you have any idea? Or do you just enjoy spouting ignorant drivel?

Oh, thanks for telling me the whole talk of subsidies is kind of silly. That is the most convincing argument yet. You’re it no backsies.

And next year it will be hip to own cars. Then the sheeple that post here will be whining about the cost of gas and parking. Do any of you people that rally against “evil automobiles” ever listen to yourselves. “A transition away from our malignantly unbalanced, car-centric transportation system will not be totally painless for everyone” is like something Joseph Stalin would say to justify killing a few million people so he could plant wheat where they were living.

To cite a socialist counter example whilst arguing to maintain a socialist institution is exquisitely entertaining. Keep it up!

Dan, the premise of everything you write here on Publicola — that greening up our transportation system necessarily entails eliminating cars — is false.

Just thought you might like to know.

Dan, the premise of everything you write here on Publicola — that greening up our transportation system necessarily entails eliminating cars — is false.

Just thought you might like to know.

It’s worth noting that private garages set their own “market rate”. They can raise or lower their rates at will, and will do so depending on the demand for their parking.

It occurs to me that the city has such a relative minority interest in Downtown parking that this debate as a whole seems a bit silly. This has no bearing on, say, what Pacific Place charges for their parking. Demand for their spaces is always high and they charge what they will. There would be little trickle-down impact of a rate hike, and it sure as hell wouldn’t have a huge effect on how many people drive Downtown to do business.

ah yes, “ending subsidies for cars” = “eliminating cars!” thank you glenn beck.

here’s an idea for a social welfare program. Let’s pass laws forcing every business owner to provide free storage space say a space about 12 feet by 9 feet, for your car. Then let’s pass a law requiring every condo developer to provide same, and then let’s tax everyone, rich and poor alike to provide streets on which the ones well off enough to own cars can park for free in 70% of Seattle. This way, we can force everyone, the blind, the disabled, the transit users who eschew cars, and those who don’t want to subsidize cars, we can force them all to pay for your car storage! Then when we merely DISCUSS this subsidy, you can whine about “eliminating cars” the same way the right wingers say a 39% marginal income tax rate is “communism just like the gulags and mao tse tung! it’s a concentration camp!!!!”

Becuase you know, you’re right, ending picking my pocket to pay for your car storage is exactly the same as “eliminating cars!”

I’m still laughing at the notion that Northgate is a “far-flung” place! From my house in Ballard, the ride to Northgate is much quicker than to downtown, and the parking is — as ya’ll know — FREE.

But “far-flung places” sounds more dramatic, so keep it in.

What is the ‘Ballard’ of which you speak? Isn’t that in Farflungistan?

What is the ‘Ballard’ of which you speak? Isn’t that in Farflungistan?

This piece isn’t just stupid.

It’s Randite stupid, as in leading with the declaration that anyone who questions your (extremely eccentric) conclusion can’t possibly be rational.

Because cities didn’t work before there were cars, right?

How about we get rid of all on-street parking and use streets for what they’re meant for, transportation. If businesses need parking they can build and pay for it themselves.

And then if the city does move forward with something, make sure that it is none of the three options.

Pretty funny how Dan can be alternately anti-urban village and pro-urban village when it suits his argument.

We voted on the Bridging the Gap levy, an unusual amount of people like to claim that vote as a victory. Tell McGinn that he is silly the next time he waves that victory flag.
Otherwise, raising taxes, regardless of form, to fill the hole in the Bridging the Gap levy should enjoy the same form of sillyness.

You know, when people believe in it they will organize carpools:

“One of the first practical problems that the ex-bus riders [had experienced] is that in finding some way to get around the city. The first thing that we decided to do was to use a taxi, and they had agreed to transport the people for just ten cents, the same as the buses. Then the police commission stopped this by warning the taxis that they must charge a minimum of forty-five cents a person. Then we immediately got on the job and organized a volunteer car pool. And almost overnight over three hundred cars were out on the streets of Montgomery. [applause] They were out on the streets of Montgomery carrying the people to and from work from the various pickup and dispatch stations. It worked amazingly well. Even Commissioner Sellers had to admit in a White Citizens Council meeting that the system worked with ‘military precision.’ [applause] It has continued to grow and it is still growing. Since that time we have added more than twenty station wagons to the car pool and they’re working every day, all day, transporting the people. It has been an expensive project. Started out about two thousand dollars or more a week, but now it runs more than five thousand dollars a week. We have been able to carry on because of the contributions coming from the local community and nationally, from the great contributions that have come from friends of good will all over the nation and all over the world.” — Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, 1956 speech in San Francisco on the Montgomery Bus Boycott

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/home/pages?page=http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/publications/papers/vol3/560627.003-The_Montgomery_Story,_Address_at_the_47th_Annual_NAACP_Convention.htm

I don’t understand the aversion to charging the exact market rate for parking in those areas deemed suitable for short-term parking (e.g., not bus zones, commercial loading, etc.). If the fear is too many people taking up stalls for 2 hours at “market rates” manage some space for 15 mins rates or free loading/unloading. the trick is hitting the market – which will take some commuter wizardry to variably price each stall – or each section of town even – based on actual usage.

Is this about the past or the future? If it is about the past, the streets of cities used to be crowded with horses, carriages, wagons, carts way before the advent of the car. The dimensions of streets in Seattle were made to accommodate all that crazy non-car traffic back then… imagine that (or at least take a look at some historic photographs).

Just for grins I looked at two bedroom apartments in downtown Seattle.

The base price seemed to be $3000 a month!

So as far as a dense urban core being for everyone, I don’t think so.

Therefore, you have to assume that the majority of people who have to be there are going to either use transit or drive.

So basically what Publicola advocates daily is a means of bilking these poor people for the maximum extraction.

Electric bicycle gets 60-mile range with portable hydrogen fuel cell

Claiming to have developed “the most energy dense power solution for electric bicycles,” SiGNa Chemistry, Inc., is hoping to greatly improve not only electric bicycles, but many other electric applications. The New York City-based company has developed a cartridge containing sodium silicide, a stable metal powder. When the powder comes in contact with water (including polluted water, sea water, and urine), it instantly produces hydrogen, and the hydrogen is then converted into electricity. According to the company, one cartridge can power a bicycle for a range of up to 60 miles without pedaling.

http://www.physorg.com/news205599186.html

Call me a socialist, I just don’t think that the City should build stuff with tax payer money and then pimp it at for the most that they can get out of it. Also, who decides market rate, the mayor or some multimillion-dollar system built by a company taking a chunk of the money back for themselves?

We could make a lot of money by charging market rates for everything the city does.

[Jake] Then how do you feel about Seattle City Light? All electricity should be free?

See I liked HugeAssCity before he came here and interspersed with painful analyses of useless political news (Murray’s up by 0.5 points again! Murray’s down by 1 point! etc.). Also, the readers there were well versed on the finer points of urbanism and therefore the debate could raise to higher levels.

That being said, I admit it wasn’t much more than preaching to the choir there and the tedius and uninformed dissent here occasionally brings with it seperate but valid points of view. Actually, I’d say lately we’ve been getting more than a few rounds of outright intellegent debate with far ranging points of view. And it probably doesn’t hurt me to take in some politics as well.

Don’t like the HAC posts? Skip ‘em.

I’m ok with subsidising public transit. In the same way that I’m ok with subsidising libraries or fire stations. We’re collectively agreeing to provide ourselves access to a way of getting around our city easily. This argument falls apart in the suburbs, where a bus is a vehicle for commuting only and perhaps a direct payment would make sense (though there are environmental reasons to keep this subsidised). But in a city, you can get anywhere on a bus relitively easily. And that’s a real shared benefit with anyone in the city.

I believe KC transit is having trouble because we’ve shifted toward suburban service (see: 40/40/20 rule), yet most of the farebox recovery is in the city. We have overcrowded buses downtown, where there are people left on the curb that are willing to pay their $2.50 to travel just 2 miles. Add to that our terrible tax structure that practically takes an act of congress to add taxes, and we get a struggling bus system.

“Especially when you factor in the hassle finding a spot” Nobody goes there anymore – it’s too crowded.

No, it should be provide at cost, not at market rates. SCL’s rates are below market rates right now, look at the PSE’s rates. What I’m saying is, don’t use market rates for anything the city does. Charge more, charge less, but don’t let the market dictate a commonly owned resource.

Who lives downtown? There are a few condos for the rich that want beautiful views, but overall downtown is made of office buildings. Belltown and Cap Hill are the hip places to live. And they’re walkable to downtown.

But what does this have to do with the cost of 2 hour parking?

First of all, I’m fairly sure SCL charges above cost, and they should probably charge a bit more to reduce use.

But mainly: Why? What is it about government that should make everything available to us at cost? I think we (as voters and through our representatives) should and do have the power to influence our society through price signals. It doesn’t cost the library an extra penny when you’re late in returning a book – but they charge you a fee to send a price signal discouraging this behavior. Remove the price signal, and we end up with a poor library system. Add a price signal to parking and we may just end up with a good parking system.

Yes, raising parking fees is exactly like the systematic murder of millions.

It’s okay as a policy issue if you want to charge more for conservation purposes or library fees to change behavior. One of the reasons rates might go up at SCL is because they are able to subsidize their already cheap and subsidized electricity from BPA by selling electricity on the wholesale market from its other dams and wholesale market sales are down.

What I’m against is those that want government involved in my life but still want the market to dictate the cost of those government services. When the government is involved in an industry, it screws with market pricing, so don’t use market pricing to set the price. If were using the market to dictate pricing, why not then let the market dictate supply, too? Raise the parking rate to market rate (many have said $7) and if it’s still full, start creating more on-street parking, cause that’s what a market does.

I go downtown/ballard/caphill because it’s convenient and fun, for that I pay to park (street or garage), or pay to take the bus/train. This is true for all the other people I see there, be they rich, middle, poor, hipster, boomer, XX, XY, etc. They came to the rational decision that it was the place they needed to go and the cost (time/money) was worth

I can buy anything I might ever drive north/south/east for from amazon and get it to my house (shipped for free) before I’ll drive north/south/east. I don’t think Seattle want’s to try to compete in this race to the bottom. We’ll never be cheaper than the mall or online.

http://www.good.is/post/vancouver-creates-continuous-network-of-protected-bike-lanes/

Just throwing this out there.

Where the government screws up open markets is where they compete at something other than market rates. I’d say there current cheap parking is doing just that. We’re undercutting the parking market with our subsidized, cheap spaces. So cheap that you can’t find one without circling many times.

Oh, and your answer of adding more street parking – where exactly are we going to add new streets? What a company would do is charge more until the spots aren’t alway full.

Where the government screws up open markets is where they compete at something other than market rates. I’d say there current cheap parking is doing just that. We’re undercutting the parking market with our subsidized, cheap spaces. So cheap that you can’t find one without circling many times.

Oh, and your answer of adding more street parking – where exactly are we going to add new streets? What a company would do is charge more until the spots aren’t alway full.

I agree but to be effective and produce a uniform-ish 80% utilization rate, the rates would have to vary a lot. The market cost of parking is very geographically specific. Parking at 3rd and Pike is much more valuable than parking at 3rd and Virginia. And I see some um.. advertising problems with having the rate be geographically accurate- in that a person picks a parking spot before being able to read what the meter will charge for it. Parking garages advertise their rates where you can choose before you enter whether the price is okay for you.
I guess big numbers on the meter would work fine.

Take out a lane of driving and make angled parking instead of parrelel parking.

I’m not advocating this, I don’t want the market to dictate price or supply of public parking. Let the private lots deal with that. Let us set our prices based on other factors (e.g. the need for revenue, policy to reduce driving/parking, less impervious surfaces, demands of businesses and neighborhoods, etc.).