Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

x close
The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Parking Rates to Go Back Down?

Politics   January 26, 2011 at 11:21 am Erica C. Barnett

In the runup to a Downtown Seattle Association-sponsored forum on parking rates (11:45 this morning at City Hall), PubliCola hears the city plans to propose major changes to the new parking rates proposed just two weeks ago, reducing rates in some neighborhoods where meter parking was going to cost as much as $4 an hour. Those new rates (most of them increases) were based on analysis by the Seattle Department of Transportation aimed at reaching an “optimal” parking rate on every metered city block of 78 percent— a level that leaves one or two spaces free per block.

In that analysis, SDOT measured parking demand throughout the city and determined rates based on how heavily parking was being used at “peak” hours.

However, some council members the DSA, and other business and community groups have expressed skepticism about the department’s findings, asking city staffers to do more analysis of the parking stats before raising rates. They’re not disputing SDOT’s numbers; what they disagree with is the city’s interpretation of how those numbers should be used. Focusing on hours of “peak” use, they’ve pointed out, doesn’t take into account that parking is used much less heavily for most of the day.

SDOT is expected to announce the results of that analysis, including changes to parking rates, later this week. City council member Tim Burgess, one of the hosts of today’s forum, would only say that he expects to see “some further refinements to the numbers.”


  • Jakers

    Funny that $4/hour would supposedly give a 78% usage but somehow is considered below “market rate.” If $4/hour was so far below the market rate, wouldn’t its be closer to 95% or virtual maximum capacity? In other words, it seems that SDOT’s own findings show that market rate for on-street parking (capped usually at two-hours) during PEAK times is $4/hour or less. Maybe the could increase the time limit in some areas cost less to increase the percentage of use.

  • Jakers

    Funny that $4/hour would supposedly give a 78% usage but somehow is considered below “market rate.” If $4/hour was so far below the market rate, wouldn’t its be closer to 95% or virtual maximum capacity? In other words, it seems that SDOT’s own findings show that market rate for on-street parking (capped usually at two-hours) during PEAK times is $4/hour or less. Maybe the could increase the time limit in some areas cost less to increase the percentage of use.

  • Jakers

    The second half of my comment would read better like this:

    Where usage is low, rather than decreasing the rate, increase the time limit. This would both increase usage and revenue while maintain the same number of cars on the road. A decrease in rates to increase usage would suggest that more cars would need to be driven to that area to increase the usage and maintain revenue.

  • Trevor

    I was surprised the DSA let Burgess get away with jacking parking rates. Looks like they didn’t.

  • Steve M

    I have no problem with market rate pricing but HATE that they’re extending metered parking from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM. This will discourage going out at night. Opting for mass transit is fine during the day when the streets are relatively safe and occupied and when buses run fairly frequently. I do it most of the time. But for the city to suggest that folks leave their cars at home when they go out at night or “pay the price”, when its dark, the streets are relatively unoccupied and buses run local routes only about once/half hour is a non-starter. Until Metro runs routes at least every 15 minutes I will be going out less frequently if my only other choice is to find a lot or pay “market rate” after 6:00. Under the upcoming plan one can’t park on the street and go to dinner and a 7:00 movie or a Mariners game. You would have to “feed the meter”, find a lot or take Metro or a cab. In a word, Nope.

  • Anonymous

    Pricing should really be set by time of day. $4 an hour is too much in the morning or evening when lots have specials. But during the day it might be too little. Street parking will never be a one to one comparison with lots, the two are different.

    They should also do away with the two hour limit after 5 and charge all night. Make the pricing a bit less than a lot would charge for evening to am parking. I don’t mind having to pay for parking, I mean really, we are talking about the price of one drink, but don’t make me come back and plug a meter or move my car.

  • Jakers

    I believe that you like the market dictating price except for when you find that it effects you. If occupancy will remain at 78% during those hours with parking rates in effect, isn’t that the market saying that free is too low of a price? And in effect, the tax/fee-payors are subsidizing your underpriced parking.

  • ivan

    Looks like I’ll be dining out for Chinese food in Bellevue. McGinn has stuck it to the ID but good.

  • Johns

    Can the current meters do time of day though?

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    They are just bowing to skepticism expressed by Dominic Holden.

  • Steve M

    You may have a point, Jakers. It may be just selfishness on my part. But please consider that market forces do not dictate everything that goes on in our society. Public policy has a big say. If “the market” dictated, without public subsidy (taxes) then Metro would not exist since only 19% of their operating expenses are covered by the farebox and more than 50% is covered by taxpayer subsidy.http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/budget.html
    What I’m looking for is public policy that is responsive to our demands. We want a bus system. We pay for (subsidize) it (one way or another). We want a vibrant city with a lively nightlife. We help to foster it by makking it safe and convenient for folks to step out at night.
    I do like giffy’s idea (below) that we take the 2 hour limit off after 5:00 and reduce the rate to reflect the lots’ reduced evening rates. That would help. Doesn’t have to be free.

  • Jakers

    Extending the limits during lower usage times is a great idea (which I also suggested above). I’m against using market rates for any city services.

  • Jakers

    Thanks to Tim Eyman keeping tolls off of I-90 that actually might make economical sense.

  • Mickymse

    Metro already runs a number of routes at 15-minute frequency for much of the day, as Seattle Transit Blog discovered. I imagine this tapers off in the evening, though…

    Catch-22: Ridership is too flow to keep frequency high late at night, but would ridership be higher if frequency was higher?