Even if that bus were extended, it only runs every 1/2 hour, and it can be unreliable. So I don’t use it.

I just gave up my U-Pass because it was too expensive and my salary has decreased in real terms and I had to cut my budget.

So I stay in my car. I’m exactly the kind of white, upper-class, guppie that you are trying to get out of his car. Is that the system working perfectly?

Your ceteris paribus arguments just aren’t convincing. You’re making crucial factors exogenous to your model. I’m arguing they’re not.

It wouldn’t even pay the taxes on the lot (not that the UW pays taxes)

Actually when a private party is allowed to use public property for private use there is something called the “leasehold excise tax” which replaces the property tax. Now determining what that tax should be is a rather arcane and specialized area of state law and tax policy.

Have the city allow parking at these outer lots, but only if they charge a rate consistent with the average rate in the downtown core?

Giving parking lot owners some warning about changes in land use policy and enforcement, and giving them time and an expedited permitting process for building replacement non-parking structures, would be the civilized thing to do.

The Nickles administration was notorious for dragging out the permitting process for small businesses. My favorite Thai restaurant in Lake City moved across the street, was ready to open for business, and was held up by city bureaucracy for over a year! Eventually, that family Thai restaurant went out of business, despite a large neighborhood following.

When it comes to stupidity like this, I hope the McGinn administration really is the new sheriff in town.

I voted for Rev. David Bloom against Sally Bagshaw, in spite of his whacko anti-transit views. He had somehow started to believe his own rhetoric about transit activists being “elitist” and in bed with developers.

While the anti-densification views of people like Bloom are laughably unsupportable, we can still make common cause here by making one-for-one (or even two-for-one) replacement of affordable housing units a piece of density legislation, and give current owners and tenants around stations some sort of security that they will continue to have a place to live.

A simple solution is to allow only currently existing lots/spaces operate as pay lots and as one previous commenter said, put a sunset date on the permit and review before renewal.

McGinn should be all over this – whatever it takes to get more people on the train. The number of riders is shrinking and this would boost the ridership.

Besides, there are plenty of transit passengers who live alone, and a good chunk of them are not able-bodied to walk or bike to the station, and don’t have a decent bus line available when they need it.

We’re hearing a healthy dose of stories from people who would ride if they could. This is a wonderful problem to have.

Right now, current wasteland along MLK is positively bad for both desirable development and LINK. Think of it as introductory marketing- people parking there now will develop the twin habits of riding light rail and going to Seattle, including the Valley. Habits that will also bring them onto transit as soon as we’ve got transit they can use.

As befits a new industry fighting for its life, transit hasn’t got the luxury of annoying either potential passengers or local small businesspeople without a powerful and immediate reason. Dory Monson’s already got enough material.

Mark Dublin