April 16, 2018 at 9:33 am #914073
In many specific cases–Lindsey’s, friend’s of mine, maybe even yours, taking taxis and ride-shares wherever you need to go is cheaper than owning a car and paying for registration, tabs, gas, insurance, depreciation, and maintenance.
Does this work for everyone? Certainly not, and I have never and would never imply that.
But when you bring up the specific argument about costs (“…people who can’t afford a car probably can’t afford the other options you mention either…” and saying that one must “have a healthy bank account” in order to use ride-shares in lieu of owning a car) wherein you continue to argue that it is always cheaper to own a car… Well then I guess I’ll just say, again:
For many people taking taxis and ride-shares wherever and whenever is both cheaper and more convenient than owning a car. Owning a car is expensive.
I feel like this conversation between you and I is finished–I have tried repeatedly to get just a single point across and I feel like I’ve repeatedly failed. This will likely be my last reply to you here. Take care.April 16, 2018 at 9:50 am #914077
I agree about the scattered and sometimes incoherent approach Seattle takes regarding these issues. I’ve spent years in San Francisco where owning a car was simply not desirable; I’ve spent time in Portland (OR) where the transit system made getting around smooth and easy.
But in Seattle, or at least West Seattle, cars are still crucial for a lot of people. And it’s not just because we’re missing one or two pieces of the puzzle–it’s because, as you said, we’re missing a “comprehensive big picture” of how to increase mobility.
The discussion can’t just be around parking, it needs to encompass everything from sidewalks (an elderly friend lives in a Delridge neighborhood where there simply aren’t sidewalks–and wading through the street (poor water management) while dodging cars simply isn’t feasible) to getting the bus system fixed to getting a subway system to getting…well, you get my drift.April 16, 2018 at 5:28 pm #914103
We can opt for parking passes for residents of the district…
except when you add housing without adding parking you add to the number of residents who have to park on the street.April 17, 2018 at 11:59 am #914148
Thanks JoB. Just so I understand your proposal — people living in existing housing could get a parking pass for the street. But people living in new housing without provided off-street parking would not be eligible for a parking pass. Is that correct?April 18, 2018 at 6:24 am #914221
i think that would depend on a definition of housing..
perhaps those who choose newly built multi family housing without parking options should pay a higher price for any parking permits in the district ?April 18, 2018 at 10:52 am #914234
JoB – that would be one way to handle it. If you choose a newly built housing without parking then you pay more for a street parking pass.
While I think that would work, I can’t imagine it is legal. I don’t think the city can charge different prices for services based on whether a person is living in a new building or older building.April 18, 2018 at 2:24 pm #914260
Skeeter, et al,
No, that wouldn’t be legal.
The only thing I can think of that would (legally) come close to what you and others are hashing out is this:
1) Apply for the RPZ program (Problem: unlikely to be approved, only one approved area in West Seattle and the criteria are strict and specific)
2) Change the RPZ program such that the first sticker is cheap (or even free) but the subsequent stickers are ridiculously expensive.
This would, ideally, limit residents to at most one vehicle using street parking. And if people choose to pay the exorbitant rate for more than one sticker that extra money could go to better shuttle/bus/transit/etc service for the neighborhood.April 19, 2018 at 7:06 am #914324
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.