City Hall
Times Columnist Easily Confused by Newfangled Parking System
Seattle Times editorial writer Bruce Ramsey, declaring himself "confused
" by the prospect of parking rates that vary by neighborhood, laments that in days gone by, "the parking meters in Seattle were mechanical, and gobbled quarters, dimes and nickels. Now 80 percent of street parking is paid with bank cards. ... I miss paying four quarters for an hour."
(I hope nobody tells him about those newfangled trains that only take passes or tickets!)
Ramsey's main point appears to be that a new neighborhood-by-neighborhood rate system will be confusing, and rates that change by day will be more confusing still. The problem with that argument is, rates change depending on where you are already: Seattle is divided into zones that include four different hourly rates---$1.25, $1.50, $2, or $2.50. The new system will increase that to eight tiers ranging between $1 and $4. That's more to remember, but it's not the 22 different rates Ramsey misleadingly suggests the city has adopted. (Ramsey implies that each of the city's 22 identified neighborhoods will have a different parking rate, when in fact there are only eight rates---and rates are identical in many adjacent neighborhoods, e.g. "Belltown North" and "Belltown South").
Nor is "walking to the meter" the massive burden Ramsey implies it will be. You have to walk to the meter to pay anyway. Is Ramsey suggesting people will drive to, say, Fremont, park, and leave once they discover parking is $2 an hour instead of $1.50? I think people are more rational about the value of their time than that.
Change is inevitable, especially in growing, technologically advanced cities like Seattle. Technology has changed, and now we can base parking rates on data, instead of guesswork (and pay with credit cards when we don't have a pocketful of quarters). To me, that's something to celebrate. But to the Ramseys (and Joni Balters, and Joel Connellys) of Seattle, change is de facto bad---even when it means more convenience (readily available parking; more payment options; less traffic congestion) for just about everyone.
(I hope nobody tells him about those newfangled trains that only take passes or tickets!)
Ramsey's main point appears to be that a new neighborhood-by-neighborhood rate system will be confusing, and rates that change by day will be more confusing still. The problem with that argument is, rates change depending on where you are already: Seattle is divided into zones that include four different hourly rates---$1.25, $1.50, $2, or $2.50. The new system will increase that to eight tiers ranging between $1 and $4. That's more to remember, but it's not the 22 different rates Ramsey misleadingly suggests the city has adopted. (Ramsey implies that each of the city's 22 identified neighborhoods will have a different parking rate, when in fact there are only eight rates---and rates are identical in many adjacent neighborhoods, e.g. "Belltown North" and "Belltown South").
Nor is "walking to the meter" the massive burden Ramsey implies it will be. You have to walk to the meter to pay anyway. Is Ramsey suggesting people will drive to, say, Fremont, park, and leave once they discover parking is $2 an hour instead of $1.50? I think people are more rational about the value of their time than that.
Change is inevitable, especially in growing, technologically advanced cities like Seattle. Technology has changed, and now we can base parking rates on data, instead of guesswork (and pay with credit cards when we don't have a pocketful of quarters). To me, that's something to celebrate. But to the Ramseys (and Joni Balters, and Joel Connellys) of Seattle, change is de facto bad---even when it means more convenience (readily available parking; more payment options; less traffic congestion) for just about everyone.
