Why, it seems like yesterday that we were talking about Restricted Parking Zones (RPZs) here on the blog. It wasn’t exactly yesterday, but it was as recently as last October that Jordan wrote about RPZ changes here in the neighborhood. His article termed these changes “final.” Well, those changes may have been final then, but we now have before us a new set of changes which are anything but final. You can weigh in on these changes either by submitting comments online or attending a public meeting. More on that later.
First off, what’s being proposed? The color-coded map elsewhere on this page (courtesy of SDOT) shows the details. There are essentially two changes to the previous “final” plan. First, Zone 22, which currently runs from Stone Way east to about Densmore would be extended all the way to Pacific south of 37th St. Important note: east of Wallingford Ave., only one side of each street would be zoned. Second, the notion of extending Zone 34 south of 40th St. has now been retracted.
Where did the idea for these changes come from? SDOT cites citizen input received since last Fall. Specifically, they received a request from the Wallingford Community Council to examine parking in the area of southeast Wallingford. A parking study conducted by SDOT found that the blocks for the proposed expansion of Zone 22 met the criteria for an RPZ. These criteria are: 75% or more of curb space occupied with vehicles and 35% or more of those vehicles owned by non-residents.
I won’t revisit all the details of RPZs, but here are some key points about them:
- RPZs are intended to prevent all-day parking in neighborhoods by people taking advantage of free street parking while they head off to work
- Parking on residential streets to patronize businesses should not be adversely affected because parking for up to 2 hours is allowed in RPZs
- Residents living within an RPZ are not subject to the parking limits if they purchase a permit. Limit: 4 per household plus one guest permit.
- Employees of businesses are not eligible to purchase permits
In addition to conducting the parking study, SDOT did a survey of residents, businesses, and visitors which is well worth a read. There were a few points that I found particularly interesting. Of the responding residents, almost two out of three count on parking in the street, so it’s not too surprising that a small majority of them (56% or 92 people) support expanding Zone 22. Among business owners and employees however, opposition is very strong since, obviously, they would be frozen out of the parking. Neither residents (by a small margin) nor business people (by a much larger margin) supported extending Zone 34 below 40th St., so that’s why SDOT is backpedaling there. There are doubtless many other points one could make about this survey, so if readers want to post their observations in the comments, that would make a great discussion.
A public meeting will be held to further explain these changes and solicit citizen input:
- Date: June 20, 2019
- Time: 6:30-8:00
- Place: Hamilton Middle School, 1610 N 41st St
- Short presentation by SDOT begins at 6:30
- Public comment period begins at 6:45. 2 minutes per person.
If you can’t make the meeting, you can submit your input online here. Comments must be received by June 30. Remember, these are just proposals being put forth by SDOT. A final plan will depend on your input.
For more information, visit SDOT here.
Discover more from Wallyhood
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ideally the city would eliminate general-purpose free street parking, and replace it with paid parking with market-based prices (ideally aimed at keeping 10-15% of spaces free). The revenue could go to making non-private vehicle neighborhood improvements like parks, bike lanes, transit, a new community center, etc. All residents would get one guaranteed permit that they could use on their own, or sell/rent as they see fit. Low income folks could get a discounted/free permit.
Why do people have to pay for housing, but cars get it for free wherever and whenever they need it?
It’s just social norms that are changing very slowly. Many people are used to have free street parking, so it’s painful to take that away from them, regardless of what’s rational.
Not all houses in Wallingford (or Seattle) have off street parking, but those property owners still pay high taxes and should be able to park on the streets with out being charged.
They don’t pay more taxes than neighbors with off street parking or no cars, so you can’t deny that they are taking advantage of the general public. The idea of giving everybody one parking permit that comes with the house ownership/tax is a reasonable one, and people who need more than one can buy the permit from neighbors that don’t need it.
Hmmm maybe those home owners could sell their extra permits too…even to “non-residents”.
Yep, that’s the idea. What if someone “needs” (or at least thinks they need) to park for an event at one of the local schools? With our current system, either they have the wrong permit, or there’s no parking available because it’s after the RPZ hours and all of the “free” parking is gone. Land is a scarce resource, scarce resources should be metered, so parking should be metered.
As for folks who own property, don’t have parking on-site, and want to use on-street parking for free, why should someone without a vehicle pay to subsidize that choice/perceived need? There’s a lot of things that are basic human rights we should subsidize as a society (education, health care, housing) but I don’t see how parking can be considered to be part of that list (for one thing, it’s not even for humans).
Yeow ( c re c)
The fact is nobody is really entitled to any of this. Having been able to do something for 40 years doesn’t mean you get to do it forever. Some African American communities that has been in Seattle for a very long time are gone within less than ten years, and I am sure many of them are hopping mad. Society changes all the time.
Just to look for a moment at the purpose of this, as it seems like there may be some confusion. This is mostly about the University of Washington, which already uses Wallingford as UW West Parking Lot. The city has approved the UW’s new campus master plan, which calls for huge building projects and an increase in campus population of about 8,000 if I remember right, plus traffic meltdown conditions on U District intersections. The RPZ analysis was of course done on present usage, not predicted, so bear that in mind when considering whether you need it – they already think you might, and they aren’t looking ahead at all. UW is obliged to pay for RPZs elsewhere, e.g. Montlake, but the city lets them off the hook for Wallingford because they already pay a lot for Montlake.
RPZs are all essentially similar, they try to save some parking for local residents, in a situation where nearby large institutions or retailers have externalized their parking needs onto the surrounding neighborhoods. Bastyr, Lincoln, etc.
What they don’t do, is save parking for local residents when multifamily developments externalize their parking needs onto the surrounding neighborhoods, because the permits are issued per family, not per lot.
Montlake has the political clout to make the UW pay. Wallingford not so much.
Maybe, but I wouldn’t be sure any neighborhood has clout any more, as city hall has found out we’ll keep voting for them as long as they wave the right flags. Montlake was in at the beginning, so they got the full plan.