15 Replies to “Podcast #27: Centrifugal Forces”

  1. Good podcast guys. I’m writing my intro monologue this week into mine.

    We in the North by Northwest has a particular problem of trying to recruit development near park & rides and transit stations. It’s maddening how it all comes back to land use, isn’t it?

  2. Just a suggestion.

    I think it’d be fun to end the podcast with a mini series of various transit news announcements that don’t deserve a full discussion. If, however, there is something that really sparks interest from listeners, it can be further discussed next time.

    I see so much potential in this podcast. It’s already one of my favorite things on STB now, but what if this podcast were to evolve and become a radio station? It could air live on weekdays to discuss updates on transit closures, delays or reroutes around the region. Then during off-peak hours it could air weekly transit news, transit hypotheticals, interviews with transit staff, political figures and transit activisits, and more.

    There may not yet be the demand for it. But if live radio is still a thing in 10 years when ST2 is done and ST3 is opening lines, this idea could be revisited.

  3. Regarding the sports banter, regional sports fans:

    There are definitely a fair number of advertisements around here for the Seahawks. There is maybe some Mariners stuff, but then the Portland Pickles seem to be an acquired taste.

    Theee is definitely no effort at promoting the Sounders here.

    Token transit content:

    They are finally doing some advertising of Amtrak to get to UO football games. Now if they would only do this for Portland vs Seattle stuff.

    1. One thing I notice riding trains on many game nights when LINK first opened, Glenn, noticed one explanation for Seattle teams’ number of wins. Also motive for “Shoeless Joe” and his buddies to throw all those games back in the day.

      I wasn’t bets. It was support for their town’s struggling business community. Because whenever visiting team won, people wearing sponge-plastic wedges of yellow cheese on their heads, and birds with wrong beaks, and forest creatures with incorrect furry ears spent a lot more money than Seattle fans when we won, more of whom just went home.

      Even though if they’d stuck around and got into fights or something, they would’ve gotten a seat on a later train. So what’s happening is that Seattle is finally using the natural forces of its own culture to aggressively prosper commercially. By making it look like we’re losing out of passivity.

      So Crosscut, face the truth about outcome of the Forward Thrusts! Not only did it cost your present leaders forty years of sanctimonious finger wagging about multi billion dollar Federal overruns, but we started carrying regional passengers through our rail subway on Opening Day, but we handled two downturns and a Depression without having a single suburb jump ship.

      So Crosscut, passively pull your cheeses over your wrong furry ears in shameful defeat, and aggressively eat your tails! And Go (at your own leisurely pace) Hawks!

      Mark

  4. Always hate anything transit related with colored lines and dots (any color) Though in those years, if we’d made them tie-dyed, we would’ve won. That’s really why SF got BART and MUNI Metro both.

    True, ear protection technology can deal with diddly elevator music, but since this is about the 60’s and 70’s, at least we deserve Bo. Also, not only some answers, but answers as to why certain questions aren’t even asked.

    For instance, Cross, since second try really passed, why no third try to make up those extra numbers in 1976? This time, concentrating on starting work immediately on some important part of a larger system, and continued as revenue came available?

    Maybe if we’d taken that to the Feds in ’76, we could’ve put service on rails seven years earlier, while also carrying passengers with buses, on corridors next in line to be built? Doesn’t anybody who means business have their fallback in their back pocket?

    All that time and Federal money wasted? How do you know how long either Thrust would really have taken? Or cost? We’re not Denver here, or Dallas, or anyplace else besides the mountains of Portugal. Every inch underground is a high stakes bet. Also: in real dollars- how much did we really lose?

    But mainly: Any chance that San Francisco had long thrived on a population compressed enough to generate the pressure and enthusiasm to tax themselves for major digging, while Seattle prayed it never would? While like most of the rest of the urban world, an every single place that cheers for standing loads, San Francisco liked being crowded?

    And had a long history of electric rail? And its version of Lake Washington shallow enough to lay tunnels on the bottom? And whole counties full of empty grasslands for surface and elevated trackway? Anyway, Crosscut, we’ve only got one more question for you:

    Now that you’ve realized our 40 year old mistake in opposing your founders’ support for Forward Thrust, how many yard signs do you need to help pass ST-3?

    Mark

  5. When zoning passed through northwest Portland not too long ago, I noticed an older apartment building of the type with garage doors under the apartments. Picture a self storage building only with apartments above.

    Some of the garage doors had “This garage available” signs on them.

    This is one type of building that would be really easy to add into the parking mixture discussed at the end.

  6. What’s the logic behind limiting the P&RS to just residential and mixed use?

    For example, would a church with a large parking lot qualify?

    1. Sorry, specifically this new metro program.

      There are a number of church parking lots that are currently P&RS. Presumably they get some sort of money, but parking is first come first serve I believe. this new program would reserve spots.

    2. I think the idea is to make potential use of spaces that would otherwise be empty at that time of day. If it’s a garage under an office building, the middle of the day is when the building’s tenants would be using the parking spaces. This is the same reason many churches make sense as P&R lots.

      For a residential building, there might be two ways of managing the parking. For a building with assigned spaces for building tenants, tenants without a car don’t need their space and it can be allocated to another use.

      For buildings with unassigned spaces, if a large number of cars are typically driven to work, those spaces could be used as P&R spaces during daytime hours. You wouldn’t want to do it like this in a building with assigned spaces, both because someone might leave their car home sometimes and you wouldn’t want to deal with the case of their space being occupied if they came home early.

      1. I think the biggest issue with using residential parking spaces as a P&R during the day would be security for the building residents. In a lot of apartment buildings, the residential parking areas are gated, and many residents would be uncomfortable with the idea of giving access to people who don’t live in the building, since each opening of the gate presents additional opportunities for thieves to tailgate in and steal stuff. For example, in my condominium building, the residential parking area is gated, and, I believe there’s actually an HOA policy in place which prohibits owners from renting out their parking spaces to non-residents.

        Of course, in practice, the number of actual new riders that ad-hoc P&R spaces will contribute to the Metro transit system is likely to be negligible.

        Another interesting option for utilizing under-used residential parking spaces would be to add Car2Go parking spots at apartment buildings. This would be good amenity for tenets, especially those that don’t own cars, and also connects the free-floating car-share system to areas that have large amounts of privately-operating parking, but little or no public street parking. If Car2Go ever wants to expand to the Eastside, parking arrangements like this will be the only feasible way to do it because virtually anywhere in Bellevue that is denser than single-family homes does not contain any public street parking.

      2. Having a parking space rented to somebody you don’t know is not really different than having a neighboring apartment rented to somebody you don’t know.

    3. Yes, why just residential. I ride the 522 on 522. At and for long stretches north of Lake Forest Park, it is just businesses offset from the road with 1/4 full parking lot after 1/4 full parking lot on both sides during the day. And the primo business parking is close in toward the business rather than at the sidewalk.

      I get that the Safeway parking lot is full up the night before Thanksgiving, but at 9 am on a Tuesday its accessible, but dead space. Heck groceries are a tight margin business – renting out the furthest edge parking to transit during the day might be appealing.

Comments are closed.