A solution to our city's parking problem – no more free parking overnight

[skeeter]

Seattle’s population keeps growing. The growth is made possible by increasing density. We’re seeing it in West Seattle – just look at the cranes in the sky. I’m sure other areas of the city are seeing it too. The density is creating problems, though. Too many cars in too small of a space. This leads to bad traffic and parking challenges. I can’t solve the bad traffic problems easily. But I have a proposal for the parking challenges.

New construction projects are often not including parking spaces. It costs $30,000 per parking space in a new multi-story condo/apartment development. Any space used for parking cannot be used for living. People don’t want to pay for a parking space. So developers are either including no parking or just one space per unit even though many people have two or more cars. Why are people unwilling to pay for parking spaces? Because the city gives us FREE street parking 24/7. It’s a no brainer to pass on building the expensive parking space. And it’s a big part of the problem.

I propose that every car parked on a city street between the hours of 2AM and 5AM be required to have an X-hundred dollar annual parking pass. Let’s just say $300 annual parking pass for now. The cost could be far more or far less. This would solve a huge amount of the parking problems in dense areas. It’s a bargain for the car owner. For only $300 you can park your car on city property for the entire year. It’s a great deal for taxpayers. A new revenue source that could go 50% to improved bus service and 50% to road repair. It would not only bring in new revenue but would also create an incentive to either get rid of a car that’s not being used regularly or clean out that garage and put your car in the garage.

The reason I propose a parking pass only for cars parked 2AM to 5AM is I don’t want to change anything for folks who are using their cars to run errands and so forth. We’d also need to be able to purchase a $20 one-week pass for the visitor coming from out of town for a few days.

I’m not against car ownership. I have a car. But we cannot continue to increase density and give people a free place to park 24/7 on city property. We’re going to run out of room. Now it’s time for the forum members to tell me this idea is terrible and the city (taxpayers) should continue to encourage car ownership by providing free parking on city-owned streets.

Share This

[JanS]

well, now…what about elderly who still drive, who are on a limited income/budget. It’s all well and good that you, as a well employed person could afford that. It’s not affordable for all. As an older person in the’hood(who still drives), it would take a greater % of my limited income…how would you address this?

That’s hypothetical…luckily, I have off street parking…for free :)

Share This

[skeeter]

Good question JanS. I suppose there are two ways the limited income could be addressed. Alternative A would be allow a price reduction for the parking pass for those with demonstrated need. Alternative B would be to not have a price reduction. Limited income people would then want to live in a place with off street parking or figure the price of parking into their decision to own a car or not (gasoline, insurance, repairs, etc.) In the Highpoint neighborhood, all the SHA low-income housing has provided off-street parking. I’m not sure about other low income developments though.

Share This

[JoB]

skeeter..

you make the assumption that people with limited incomes have the financial ability to choose to live where parking is provided…

increasingly, that is not such a good assumption

Share This

[JoB]

skeeter..

you make the assumption that people with limited incomes have the financial ability to choose to live where parking is provided…

increasingly, that is not such a good assumption

Share This

[trickycoolj]

I assure you High Point does not provide more than one space per unit , if even that much.

Share This

[TanDL]

Or… the City Planners could stop the ever-increasing density by putting growth limits in place, so that growth will match the infrastructure to support it. Frankly, I don’t see any attempt at matching density to infrastructure.

Share This

[skeeter]

That’s a valid point JoB. Maybe option “A” (free/reduced parking pass) for limited income people but only if they do not have a provided off-street parking option. And the limited income pass would be only one car pass per adult. So if a low income single person has two or more cars, only one car would be eligible for the reduced parking pass. The second car would have to pay full price for parking pass. But if there are two adults in the low income house then you’d get two free/reduced parking passes. That might be a reasonable solution?

Share This

[KatherineL]

skeeter, how do you guarantee me a parking place on the street for my $300 parking permit? Parking is limited in my area, has been completely full in the past, and is only likely to get worse. If a thousand people with parking passes live in an area with only five hundred parking spots, a parking pass doesn’t help.

Share This

[skeeter]

KatherineL – in my proposal, the parking pass does not guarantee a spot. It simply gives permission to park overnight on the street owned by the city. So if 1,000 parking passes were sold and only 500 spaces were available then the other 500 cars would have to park farther and farther away. *However* the people in your scenario have the most to gain by such an arrangement. By increasing the cost of parking, there will be fewer cars. So those willing to pay might not have to park as far away.

Share This

[datamuse]

What you describe is already in effect in Seattle’s denser neighborhoods, though the permits are $65 for two years, not $300 for one, and each residence is eligible for up to four permits (plus one for guests). They’re called Restricted Parking Zones and are established through SDOT.

Share This

[KBear]

I think the price should double with each additional permit to discourage auto ranching.

Share This

[Seattle Trash]

They also have this in San Francisco, no exemptions (except for the 4-vehicle permit limits in special circumstances), no reduced fares, and it’s fantastic. I love how they approach travel and transportation there. Straightforward, discourages car ownership, and affordable & effective public transportation.

We couldn’t afford to own a car there, so this encouraged us to get rid of ours, rather than pay for licensing and permits. We’re lucky to own a 1 car for our family up here, it’s definitely not cheap, but it’s a nice privilege.

Share This

[DaveB]

Datamuse, the RPZ program allows residents of a congested area to park beyond the posted time limit (usually 2 hours, 24/6 and holidays), rather than being a more global program as under discussion here.

A couple other thoughts…

Enforcement: There would have to be group of overnight meter readers, adding to the cost of the program. Not sure what they do with the RPZ areas, but I have to admit that I have parked in them beyond the allowed time many times (mostly in Wallingford in the evening when I was seeing a movie at the Guild 45th) but never gotten a ticket.

Safety: A friend comes over and has too much to drink, you’d need a way to get a cheap one-night pass instantly so that your friend would not have a reason to want to drive drunk rather than crashing on your couch.

Share This

[skeeter]

Datamuse – see DaveB’s response. I’m proposing something pretty different than the current RPZ program.

DaveB – you are correct that enforcement would be an issue. Part of the additional revenue would be offset by enforcement costs.

I’m just trying to think big here folks. I’m seeing certain streets lined with cars and I’m seeing huge buildings going up with limited parking spaces. Sooner or later something is going to have to change. Removing the free parking subsidy seems to be the most fair way to address the situation.

Share This

[Ms. Sparkles]

Skeeter for Mayor! I LOVE this idea.

Share This

[rw]

I used to live in Oak Park and River Forest, Illinois, which are suburbs of Chicago. They have overnight parking bans, but you could “request” a waiver for visitors by calling the police department after a certain hour in the evening. I always thought this was retarded and offensive, because it meant that you had to give your visitors’ license plate numbers to the police — an incredible invasion of privacy. They even tracked it to the extent that a given license plate could only be granted ‘x’ number of waivers per year. Please spare us this kind of nanny state.

Share This

[JoB]

this kind of proposal would be punitive in Seattle since an affordable, safe and efficient public transit system doesn’t really exist.

it would unfairly punish any person who needed to use an automobile to get from their residence to their job in an even somewhat timely fashion ..

it would unfairly punish any person who is mobility impaired

and it would unfairly punish any person who simply couldn’t afford the permit.

if we are going to talk about parking shouldn’t we be talking to our city council who in their infinite wisdom decided that developers who sell housing don’t have to provide either for public transportation or adequate parking?

tanDl got it right.. infrastructure matters

Share This

[mtnfreak]

While its not presently being used as such, the RPZ program could easily be expanded to work around the clock. I also approve of the idea of charging more per additional permit.

RPZ could also be used in conjunction with meters – i.e. a non-permitted car must pay the meter, a permitted car does not.

I think several areas in West Seattle are reaching the level of density to justify RPZ’s. Does the Planning Department have a metric to determine when RPZ’s should be used in a neighborhood?

Share This

[Seattle Trash]

mtnfreak:

Working around the clock is exactly the system I’m familiar with, and I do think it should be charged more per permit.

Also used in conjunction with meters, but I would propose that anyone is a metered spot pays, assuming we don’t add an insane amount of meters to the currently existing fleet, just in major commercial areas. Everyone has to pay for meters now, right? Less people would pay with a zone permit system, since locals would have a free pass. I think that has the potential to make it even harder for those who are from out of the area to find parking?

Share This

[PLS]

Let’s just switch to “No more private cars” while we’re at it. Let the government provide car share as part of the increasing “take care of us!” mentality around here. It would eliminate all the class distinction of private automobiles, save millions of gallons of gas and help the environment.

Share This

[skeeter]

PLS – I’m not sure what you are talking about. The rest of us are discussing parking challenges and whether a proposal would improve things or not.

Share This

[KBear]

PLS, isn’t “free” street parking a government handout? Shouldn’t the people who use it be made to pay for it?

Share This

[PLS]

Sorry, should have put my <sarcasm> font on. I’m a little colored by all the recent calls for free housing, cormorant protections and dog parking at the farmer’s market. Plus, my family only has one car and we have a garage and a driveway so I sort of say “meh” on this.

But, seriously, the only reason we have a problem with street parking is too many cars, right? And how many of those are actually used regularly? In my neighborhood a lot never move.

It’s pie in the sky of course to say “eliminate private automobiles” but car sharing is a proven concept now that is efficient and cost effective and would solve the parking problems. You could not mandate away the personal vehicle, but if it was cost prohibitive for a large percentage of people to own and license a private car, vis-a-vis paying per mile in a sharing program, you’d see fewer cars owned and parked on the street. And the shared cars would be better maintained, more efficient and environmentally friendly.

Why settle for just additional taxes? Dream big.

Share This

[JoB]

Seattle trash..

not everyone pays for metered parking

i am disabled and i drive a car with disabled plates

that means I am classified as permanently disabled and nobody thinks i am going to magically become able to walk any distance to anything

i do not pay for metered parking

unless of course i choose to.

when i park in front of a meter i mostly choose to pay parking because i can afford it and i don’t have to walk far to pay

when it’s one of those pay to park spots with the pay to park meter a block or more away.. i don’t

because if i could walk that far to start with i wouldn’t need the plates.

my private car and the ability to park close to where i am going is the only thing that keeps me from being housebound.

PLS … do i think of it as a government handout?

nope .. i don’t.

i think of it as one of the few hardfought perks of being disabled.

i tell you this personal story because it’s important to remember that we are not all created equal with equal abilities and equal opportunities…

it’s a good thing to remember when setting public policy for all.

Share This

[Author]

Posts