Sound Transit to Sell Permits for Parking Spots at transit centers (insurance, subsidized)

[tigger865]

Issaquah Transit center ended their "pilot fee" program many months ago, stating it wasn't viable (if I recall correctly). The designated floors have been repainted over. I observed many of the "reserved spots" exceedingly empty at various times of the day and bus ridership was noticeably down. Why am I not surprised they are now trying to institute the program elsewhere. If at first you don't succeed.....

[HuskyDawg]

Originally Posted by mkarch

It's not that people shouldn't live out there, it's that establishing an economic incentive (cheaper housing, heavily subsidized transit) should not be a public policy goal. Seattle isn't particularly dense, so I'm not sure why you conclude there isn't room in the city. No, there isn't room for everyone to have a 3000 sq ft house on a 1/4 acre, but I also don't see the point in subsidizing that kind of luxurious lifestyle through transit and roads out into the rural areas. Why not just give everyone a really nice apartment and a Maserati if we're going to lavishly spend public funds on people who would otherwise choose to live in Puyallup?

As for whether you pay for it in higher ticket price - no, generally you do not. A 1 mile bus trip from one end of Ballard to the other costs as much as a 10+ mile single zone trip from outside the city. Even if you happen to cross 2 zones, the cost only goes up a small % compared to the actual distance covered. Try achieving cost savings like that using any other form of transportation, it's not possible. If the cost of a Tukwila to downtown commute was charged the way in city rates are, you'd be paying $2/mile each way. So

Not everyone can live on Queen Anne, and not everyone outside Seattle lives in a 3000 Sq foot home. People are going to commute to Seattle for work from Everett, Issaquah, Federal way, etc... We need transit to these areas.

[CrazyDonkey]

If you want light rail stations to stimulate mixed-use development adjacent to or surrounding them, then you don't want to surround or abut them with significant parking. That means that what parking that is available needs to be allocated in some manner, either first-come/first-served or by reservation or permit. The former has the drawback of riders driving to the station and, when they can't find parking at the station, stealth-parking in surrounding neighborhoods. Nothing stops Park-n-Rides feeding light-rail stations, however.

Sounder stations don't have a development mission and have more available parking, although some have more (Tacoma Dome Station) and others have less (Edmonds Station).

[mkarch]

Originally Posted by HuskyDawg

Not everyone can live on Queen Anne, and not everyone outside Seattle lives in a 3000 Sq foot home. People are going to commute to Seattle for work from Everett, Issaquah, Federal way, etc... We need transit to these areas.

I don't understand what you're getting at. Other areas need transit, yes, my point was we shouldn't be subsidizing it to the degree we are currently just because people who live there demand free parking and $2 fares.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by mkarch

I don't understand what you're getting at. Other areas need transit, yes, my point was we shouldn't be subsidizing it to the degree we are currently just because people who live there demand free parking and $2 fares.

I'm in favor of enticing people out of their cars, so they won't be clogging the roads, polluting the air, and warming the planet. North Bend to Seattle will cost $3.25 (peak) on Metro, however. Residents of any area with low ridership and that votes heavily against transit, on the other hand, should be surrounded by a moat and charged ransom if they want to pass...

The original plan was to not provide any parking at light rail stations, so I'm assuming they bent to pressure from local communities worried about stealth all-day parking, and included some token spots. As I said earlier, I see no reason why Park-n-Rides can't feed light-rail stations, although they might need to add capacity.

[CrazyDonkey]

I think the idea is that walkable urban villages and large parking structures are not very compatible.

The basic problem is that the density being developed is not affordable for most "workers". It is not the rich who are moving out to Lynnwood or Federal Way. Personally I'd rather develop (and preserve) working- and middle-class housing in the City, than exile them out to the deep suburbs.

[GatsbyGatz]

The alternative that I would've liked to see is for park-and-ride parking garages to be built over I-5, and have our suburban commuters commute into Downtown by bus. To support this model, we could have a dedicated bus lane on the freeway.

Doing this would clear up our freeways as well as allow the surrounding area of our future Light Rail Stations to not be plagued by massive parking garages.

[pvande55]

One possibility is remote parking lot with shuttle to the terminal. Example: Naperville IL train station seems to have insatiable demand for parking, even after they built a station with thousands of spaces. So they rented space from a church (whose parking lots are pretty empty on weekdays) and ran a shuttle bus to the station. Why can't Sound Transit do that?

[GatsbyGatz]

Originally Posted by pvande55

One possibility is remote parking lot with shuttle to the terminal. Example: Naperville IL train station seems to have insatiable demand for parking, even after they built a station with thousands of spaces. So they rented space from a church (whose parking lots are pretty empty on weekdays) and ran a shuttle bus to the station. Why can't Sound Transit do that?

I suppose the issue with that set up is that it requires a transfer. You park your car, wait for a shuttle bus to pick you up, then you get to the station and have to wait again for a train. While transfers are perfectly reasonable, they are generally disfavored.

[CrazyDonkey]

It's the "first-mile/last-mile" issue - how do you extend the reach of timely and convenient transit services? Many suburban developments are not transit-friendly. One option is ride-sharing, both public and private, coordinated through ORCA, which could pick-up riders at their doorsteps or designated locations and drop them off at light-rail and Sounder stations, and at other transit centers (and the reverse). Public ride-sharing could take advantage of van- and carpools that have open seats, while private ride-sharing contracts with Uber, Lyft, etc., would allow riders access to those networks at a subsidized fare.