Bryan (aka quux) added a bunch of great pictures of the Redmond transit center to the STB flickr pool, and pointed out the TOD that will be happening at the new transit center. There are two plans for the TOD, this one which includes building ontop of the park-and-ride center, and this one that doesn’t, with the park-and-ride intact. I am kind of surprised that the total number of parking stalls will remain just 386, which isn’t a tremendous number for an a park and ride so well served by ST express bus and Metro KC bus service.
I kind of wish they would put in more parking stalls. Is that odd? I just feel like only 386 spots might lead to people figuring the lot is full often enough to simply continue on driving to work… Maybe I am crazy, but I think in suburban areas, even with TOD, you still need park-and-rides in 2008. You can always develop them into something else later.
I disagree with your analysis. As my comments in the previous thread note, Downtown Redmond *is* a walkable community (not quite as walkable as Downtown Bellevue, but alas). The Park & Ride should be left in tact, but not expanded. For the record, I used to live in the apartments closest to what was then the Redmond Park & Ride and rode the bus every day.
Moving Park & Rides to Transit Centers, and then encouraging Transit Oriented Development is the natural way to discourage sprawl. Ideally, in 20 years, all Park & Rides will be Transit Centers with TOD. And then there will be P&R’s further out.
Downtown Redmond & Bellevue both want to encourage walkable neighborhood development. Most reading this blog know that one way to encourage that is to have interesting & useful things to walk by — not massive parking lots. I don’t think we need to force communities to urbanize, but we shouldn’t force them to expand massive parking lots either.
Yeah Rizzuhjj is right, there’s enough car parking already. Put bike parking if you want more space!!!
I live in rural Redmond and use the PnR as my conduit from the car to the transit system.
Do you want me on the bridges in my single-occupant-vehicle or do you want me on the bus?
By refusing to expand the PnRs at Redmond and Bear Creek, you are increasing the likelihood that I won’t find a space and will opt to drive instead.
(No. Moving is not an option.)
The 386 spots is actually a decline from what was there before the construction began. Couple that with the fact the Bear Creek Park & Ride is over capacity with cars parked at the end of islands and dangerously blocking passage through the parking lot, and you’ve got a situation that doesn’t deal with the reality that people are trying to take the bus but often being forced to drive simply because they can’t find a parking spot.
Metro has made arrangements with owners of the Home Depot lot to allow for some overflow parking but that’s not terribly convenient.
If you’re not going to service the street I live on with a bus I can take to work, then deal with the fact I’ll need to drive to the nearest Park & Ride , and deal with the fact that means we need to have parking capacity.
What’s with the “threats” of you using your single occupancies? Or asking me to “deal” with the fact that you need parking? Guys, east KC is a hard transit problem because it’s sprawled. Metro is dedicating more buses than ever to that area.
I live on Capitol Hill, and I cannot go one mile away to downtown without paying for parking. Almost everywhere I go, parking is either paid, inconvenient, or inconsistent. Parking is a commodity, and the direction downtown Redmond is heading in puts pressure on that commodity.
Now I would never try to lecture you about how you choose to live. You might feel suburbs are more affordable or are better for your kids. You might feel that rural areas are more peaceful. So don’t move near the Redmond TC or Bellevue TC or near your work or into Seattle proper. (FYI, I lived in Redmond/Bellevue for four years, and living without a car is difficult.)
But just because I’m a city-dweller, I’m not going to cringe if you drive your car across a bridge — you’ll probably cringe a lot more than me. We all know that park & rides are a bandaid and not a solution. Just like we cannot build roads to fix congestion, we cannot build parking to fix a dependence on driving.
More-selfishly, I work in Seattle so I don’t care about the bridges. :)
Of course I would prefer everyone have an alternative to driving, but Redmond is trying to create a transit-oriented, walkable neighborhood. A giant parking lot unfortunately undermines this goal.
People will always use subsidized parking, so the calculus needs to be more than “will they use parking and then use transit?” We need to think about the future, what the visions of King County & Redmond are in 20 years. If we have communities built around walkability that allow more people to use transit without subsidizing any parking and create more vibrant areas then I think it’s worth it.
So the short-term picture is that less people from rural Redmond will take transit, but the long-term picture is that Redmond is creating a healthy, active community that has easy access to transit. And in that community, there will be plenty of Brads, Bens, and Johns to ride transit.
“If you’re not going to service the street I live on with a bus I can take to work, then deal with the fact I’ll need to drive to the nearest Park & Ride , and deal with the fact that means we need to have parking capacity.”
I’d definitely prefer my tax dollars be put to use to encourage a lifestyle that makes car ownership optional (which are the stated goals of the Redmond local officials). Stellar transit service is clearly a big part of that shift. However, there are simply some developments in KC that cannot effectively serve.
My argument isn’t that P&R’s shouldn’t exist. I’m saying that Downtown Redmond is not your typical suburban development. They are trying to create a walkable community. Why should we undermine that? A more sustainable solution is for people to live closer to transit center, park & rides, or even just singular bus routes. I understand that may not be an option at the moment, but by virtue of you visiting this blog I bet that next time you look for a place to live it’ll be a consideration. And then you can get on a bus even quicker, without having you find parking or arrive super early!
Overflow parking at the Home Depot? Sorry, but I could be on the 520 bridge in the time it takes to drive there, and walk back to the PnR.
That’s a huge waste of money. No one will use that adjunct lot.
It’s hard enough getting Eastsiders on the freekin bus. My friends/neighbors literally laugh at me for the hoops I already jump thru to ride the bus. The Home Depot surplus lot is simply stupid.
I meant to say that living without a car in Bellevue is difficult. I lived in near Downtown Redmond right next to the P&R and there were banks, a QFC, restaurants, a mall, a post office, and more within walking distance. While clearly still suburban, it was much less suburban than where I lived in Bellevue.
Why do you deal with the bus, brad? Is it more relaxing, more guilt-free, or..?
I used to work in Bothell and felt pretty guilty driving all the way from Seattle :)
Rizz is wrong. Park and Ride lots encourages people who would otherwise driver their car to work, to take transit, instead. There should be many more spaces at the RTC.
Rizzuhjj, you live in a far more urban setting than many of us. Have you seen the transit service out in Snohomish County? Where routes are present it’s pretty good, but there are gaps of square miles in some areas, even just east of Lynnwood. Heck, even in Metro’s service area, East King is served pretty darn poorly. Without park and rides between people’s houses and their destinations, there are no options. Would you want to walk a mile in the twilight of the morning to get to a bus stop? Some people have that as their only alternative to park and rides or driving.
And not all of us can afford housing in Seattle, either, hence the possibility of the exurbs becoming low-income areas.
sam, why should communities such as downtown Redmond be forced to sacrifice their priorities for people who aren’t members of that community? Downtown Redmond does not want sprawling parking lots — they want walkable communities. I am not against the concept of park and ride at all, but this is simply the natural progression of a park and ride to a transit center — and a transit center encourages transit-oriented development and walkablility.
47, no I might not walk a mile but I do walk a half-mile every to my bus stop to get to work. Your post raises some good points though and I don’t mean to seem contradictory for no reason, apologies. I just wanted to say that right now my bus doesn’t run near my front door, and I am in fact seeking housing closer to my route. I am making a choice to move closer to transit, but I also understand that this is a choice not many are lucky enough to make.
I have two main points, and unfortunately I may be intertwining them:
Poorly served areas are poorly served for a reason
Many suburb/exurb development simply cannot sustain transit. You’ll hear people on the east side seeing buses nearly empty and saying transit is ineffective. In reality, that type of land use is ineffective if transit is a priority. However, downtown Redmond is not like this.
Downtown Redmond has or is moving toward the density to sustain a transit center without parking
Pretty self-explanatory, right? Downtown Redmond has fostered density and smart growth. The local government has made some smart choices to encourage smart land use, and it’s paying off. They don’t need parking lots because people can now use transit options without driving at all.
I would have zero problem with more park & rides being developed: They are not the enemy. However, park & rides do not encourage a walkable neighborhood and I feel that this aspect of life is more important for the residents of downtown Redmond and our region’s future growth patterns. To summarize, moving toward better land use and growth patterns is far more important in the long run than keeping a few hundred transit users using prime parking real estate (at no charge). These communities are going to create more transit users, and more people who can even skip the bus/car every once in a while and walk to the store, the bank, or even their jobs.
Listen, I know I come off as a wild-eyed idealist, but this is the goal of the Redmond local government. Some people prefer to live in the burbs, some in rural areas, and others in the city. If you choose to live in an area poorly served by transit, I’m definitely going to respect your choice. On the same token, we need to respect the goals of downtown Redmond. They want to displace the power of the automobile in their community, and getting rid of massive parking lots is a way to do so.
I think park & rides are good things, but they are bandaids and it would be impossible to have enough parking to end our dependence on oil (as this oxymoron of a statement proves). So when a community wants to move away from that dependence, let them.
Rizz, I’m going to give you a homework assignment. I want you to Google “world population.” Then I want you to look at the population growth over the centuries. Do you see how in the year 1900 there was just 1.6 billion people, and today there are over 6.6 billion on earth. And that trend isn’t reversing. Let that sink in for a minute. That’s what’s creating sprawl. “But we can’t control population growth!,” you argue. That may be, Rizz, but it’s not the evil, SUV-driving suburbanites that are creating the problem. It’s a question of numbers. As the centuries go by, and billions upon billions more people are added to this planet, one day you will get your wish. Every square inch of earth will look like Capitol Hill.
As I’ve mentioned before, the solution is introducing a nominal charge to parking at P&Rs on workdays, so that people that do have other options to get to the bus (walk, bike, local bus) have an incentive to do so.
It’s sure better than paving over all of downtown Redmond to insure an infinite supply of spaces.
Sam, suburbanites aren’t evil and I don’t want the entire world to be like Capitol Hill.
[population growth]… That’s what’s creating sprawl. “But we can’t control population growth!,” you argue. That may be, Rizz, but it’s not the evil, SUV-driving suburbanites that are creating the problem. It’s a question of numbers.
Urban sprawl is a type of land use not a type of population growth. Do you think population growth in India forces people to live in rural areas and others to drive SUVs? No, people choose where they live and what they drive. There is nothing wrong with living in rural parts or driving an SUV, but it is a choice not something the world has done to you.
Given that people choose where they want to live, the residents of Downtown Redmond should be able to choose how they live as well. They do not want a large parking lot in their backyard.
I have no qualms about anyone’s lifestyle, however those who want to live in walkable communities right now aren’t able to do so at a reasonable price. As towns across the country, like Redmond, realize the appeal of walkability then supply will increase and people will have more choice in where/how they live. So Redmond will always be suburban, but maybe its downtown area won’t be sprawly — wouldn’t that be nice for people who want to live like that?
Now, I made a choice to live on Capitol Hill because of the appeal of city life. It’s mean-spirited of you to say that just because I live in a city I feel that SUV owners/suburbanites/car drivers are evil. I don’t feel that way, and I’ve never said that. I’m not going to respond to you if you attack me personally.
Rizz, the fact is P&R lot’s encourage people, who would otherwise drive the entire commute, from house to job, to drive a short distance to a centralized transportation hub, and take transit the rest of the way in. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than the alternative of having commuters drive their car the entire way into work? Yes. Life is not a game of Sim City. But I agree with you, in a perfect world people would get on their recumbent bikes and bike 3 miles to the nearest parking lot-free transit center, and hop aboard a soy-powered bus. But life isn’t, and never will be, a utopia. The reality is, P&R lots do a lot more good than harm.
Sam, is it possible for you to make your point without demeaning someone who disagrees with you?
Sam and Rizz, a question for you both. The P&R cannot go downtown (for whatever reason that isn’t relevant.) Where is the best alternative for it to go?
Rizz-
The bus, for me, frees me from some guilt of driving too much, saves some extra miles on the car, saves $10 for parking downtown, relieves the stress of 520, and serves as a proxy for my support of public transit. Every time I ride the bus, I feel like I’m doing the right thing and in a very small way, helping the cause of a more rational transportation policy.
That said, you lost me entirely, when you said Redmond has an intelligent growth policy.
Redmond Ridge, anyone?
Hey Brad-
I know how that feels! Maybe they should make a new P&R somewhere as nickb suggested. I would something near that new whole foods would be nice… Though I just realized I have no idea where Bear Creek is!
Most of Redmond & a lot Bellevue are well-planned for suburbs, but I wasn’t talking about the whole cities (Redmond sprawls a lot too)
But Downtown Bellevue is very well planned and pretty transit friendly. A relatively small swath of Downtown Redmond is walkable, but the goal of that government is to expand that walkablility and great a more dense neighborhood. This is basically right where the P&R is and a half-mile radius.
I don’t know, I’m not a wonk, I can’t say whether everything local governments in Bellevue & Redmond are right, but both groups talk about walkable neighborhoods in their downtown areas.
I think Brad is right on there.
Thanks for calling attention to the pics. It was a short walk for me (I live just a few blocks away, because I chose a walkable lifestyle years ago), and an enjoyable little afternoon expedition.
I wonder how many other STB readers could spend an hour or so on a nearby expedition – and bring back pics and commentary?
Enjoyable chain, everyone.
I’m a daily RTC user (ST 545)for about 20 years now – some observations:
1) No one has mentioned the changing structure of transit service on the Eastside. Sound Transit has pretty much cherry-picked the high-performing express routes from Redmond to Seattle and consolidated them onto 1 route. Not surprisingly, that route is packed. The consequence for Redmond residents is that there is far LESS express service in the neighborhoods (I’m in Grass Lawn up the hill from downtown)that is easily accessable on foot.
As a result, ST and Metro have forced more people to downtown to catch Express service – at least if they want to have a seat for the 35 minute trip. The Overlake TC at 40th, BTW, is a disaster for the residents of Redmond who want to go to Seattle – walking through two freeway on-ramps to get to a stop is diabolical, at best.
2) I have no issue with the RTC developing structured parking next to the TOD, but given 1) above, I was stunned that they shrank the overall capacity. The RTC serves more than just downtown Redmond, like it or not.
3) Redmond Ridge is King County’s fault, not Redmond’s. Redmond fought that project for years ;-)
4) Bike parking must grow in capacity at the RTC, and will when the garage is built. Unlike parking lots and travel lanes, bike parking is not a “built it and they will come” proposition. More needs to be done to make bicycling attractive in Redmond – they are doing a good job in some corridors (NE 85th road diet), but there are still way too many barriers to circulation.
The RTC is a pretty good project, in spite of some irregularities with pedestrian design and the capacity issue. IF (and it’s a huge if) LRT ever comes to Redmond and the line ends at RTC, we will probably regret the size of facility chosen.