It's interesting how people react to change. Some consider the options and make a decision based on personal preference. Others reject change outright. "No way," they say. Some look at the facts and try to make a reasoned decision.
Take on-street parking meter rates. Yikes! Talk about opinions.
There's a front page story in today's Seattle Times on the city's switch to data-driven parking strategies. Reporter Mike Lindblom does a good job covering the policy decision the Council made in November when we adopted next year's budget. I've written a lot on this topic and you can read my thoughts here, including much more discussion of the underlying public policy implications of parking strategies.
But, keep this fact in mind: current parking policy does not provide adequate turnover and it is very difficult to find parking at some times of day in our business districts. For example, have you tried to find on-street parking downtown on a weekday afternoon? Or in Pioneer Square? On on Capitol Hill in the late afternoon and evening? The status quo is not acceptable to many drivers and retail business owners. And that's exactly why the new approach is designed to keep one or two spaces open and available per block face.
Ultimately, meter rates will be variable based on neighborhood parking area and time of day, an approach that makes rates highly sensitive to demand. This means that meter rates will decrease in some areas, a key fact that has been lost in most of the public discussion of this topic. For example, on-street parking rates in Belltown are likely to be relatively low in the morning because demand for spaces is low. But those same rates will likely increase significantly later in the afternoon and evening when demand is likewise high.
The choice we faced in our Council deliberations centered on continuing the city's revenue-oriented approach to setting meter rates—raise them every few years to generate more revenue—or switch to a fact-based, data-driven approach designed to achieve a specific policy outcome. We chose the latter.