They’re cracking down:

Beginning Jan. 15, parking guidelines will be emphasized for vehicles parked:

• Over 24 hours
• In emergency lanes, “no parking” and loading zones
• In ADA-designated spaces, where a vehicle is not marked by a state-issued disabled parking placard or license plate
• In more than one parking space
• In a manner blocking other vehicles and/or pedestrian pathways

Sound Transit will provide a one-week grace period for transit lot users. Between Jan. 15 and Jan. 22, warning notices will be given to vehicle owners who park outside the guidelines. Starting Sunday, Jan. 23, cars that either exceed the 24-hour limit or fail to observe other regulations may be immediately towed.

This is probably improvement on the status quo. If spending thousands of public dollars on a parking spot that delivers 2 boardings per day is a shaky investment, a spot used as airport parking for 7 days is even worse.

Still, a much more elegant solution is to simply charge for parking in high-demand lots. If it’s valuable for someone to park in a Sound Transit lot for an extended period, then so be it, but let them pay for it.

Furthermore, properly priced* paid parking generates revenue for transit agencies; encourages carpools, ped, bus, and bike access to transit centers; and provides customers with a reasonably high certainty that there will be a few spaces available at any time of day.

For example: suppose I live a half mile from a Sounder station. I’m a bit lazy, it’s raining, etc., so it’s easier to just drive. Charge me a couple of bucks to park, however, and that small incentive may tip me into walking, freeing up the spot for someone who has no attractive alternative. Instant ridership!

* Meaning, priced just high enough so that there are a few spaces available throughout the day. If fears that “no one will park there” are accurate, then you’re doing it wrong. At a lot usually filled to 60% capacity, the proper price is $0 (or to sell off some of the lot).

27 comments

by MARKO LIIAS

In the next four months, critical decisions will be made to shape the future of transportation in our region for years to come. As a policymaker committed to creating viable transportation choices, I need your help.

Pierce County voters will make the first critical decision on February 8th as they grapple with how to fund local transit infrastructure. Unlike King or Snohomish County transit systems, Pierce Transit has not fully utilized the taxing authority that the state has granted it over the years. By approving this increase and matching the transit investments of our other urban counties, voters would save current service and allow for some enhancements.

If you live in Pierce County, you can also do your part for transportation choices by voting YES on Pierce Transit’s Proposition 1. If you are like me, and don’t live in the county, but care about our regional transportation system, you can support the Yes campaign at their website.

The second major decision that will be made in the coming months is whether we take action to prevent devastating cuts to Metro service and restore some lost service in Snohomish County. I will be introducing legislation to provide these local transit agencies with some short-term revenue options to help them survive the recession.

You can find out more about this legislation, including the bill number and the details, by following me on Facebook or Twitter. We are still working through the final legislative details; expect the bill to be introduced later this month.

Finally, the Legislature will continue grappling with the challenges of funding long-term investments in transportation, and this discussion will take time to develop. Across the state, our infrastructure is aging and our declining gas tax revenues are not keeping up. We need a 21st century transportation policy with sustainable funding.

You can help advocate for transportation choices and real investments in transit by reaching out to the many transportation advocates we are blessed with in this region. Transportation Choices Coalition is a good place to start, but there are many good organizations that need active supporters.

The future of our region depends on whether we can muster the political will to create a connected and diverse transportation system to mirror our connected and diverse society. I am proud to be pro-choice, transportation and otherwise!

Representative Marko Liias serves Washington’s 21st district, and is a vice chair of the House Transportation Committee.

26 comments

As a self-appointed tunnel argument policeman I’ll point out some problems with this Eli Sanders post:

Because the question keeps coming up: Couldn’t we use those billions of dollars for something else right now?

The simple answer: Yes. We could definitely use those billions for something else right now. The list of needs, from social services to other transportation projects, is endless. But to re-appropriate those tunnel billions for something else you’d first have to remove them from of the place where they’re being held.

First of all:

There’s $2.4 billion in state funds allocated for building the downtown tunnel, but that giant hunk of money is cobbled together from a bunch of different sources: $339.8 million in federal funds (can’t re-appropriate those); $247.4 million in other state transportation funds (which could only be re-appropriated by an act of the legislature).

I made this mistake at first too, but a lot of that $247.4m is gas tax money, just not from the 2003 or 2005 gas tax increases. The rest is vehicle license fees and so on. There’s no way Sanders should have known that, as I found out in a private tweet from Mike Lindblom.

Onward!

If you can get a constitutional amendment passed, then next you grab $700 million to $1 billion from the tunnel project’s pile of gas tax cash and leave the rest. It will be needed for tearing down the existing Alaskan Way Viaduct and implementing the I-5 improvements / surface transit option.

For the record, the DBT is $4.0 billion without transit improvements, surface/transit/I-5 is $3.5 billion. So the difference $500m or $700m if the state decides to keep its promises. However, in a surface/transit option the $400m in tolling money evaporates, so we’re down to the low hundreds of millions.

Lastly, a constitutional amendment is just about the most painful way to go about this kind of change. Much more direct is replacement of most of the gas tax with repeal of the sales tax exemption for gasoline. This subsidy amounts to $500m a year from the state (p.291) and $156m a year from local governments, including by my calculation about $28m from Metro. Some of this sales tax revenue would flow directly to transit agencies, and much of the rest to unrestricted funds with no constitutional requirement for highway building. That’s the equivalent of one U-Link every 3 years.

51 comments

Probably the most significant revision to B7 that Bellevue’s current study would be the addition of a new park-and-ride near the Bellevue Way on-ramps, which would substitute for bypassing the South Bellevue P&R.  The general principle of moving an existing commuter node to a freeway orientation just to avoid places where people live is pretty absurd, in my opinion.  Nonetheless, it’s obvious that this revision is simply attempting to make up for lost ridership on B7– something critics will say is the holy grail of good alignment criteria for Sound Transit.

The most glaring problem with this quick and dirty method of racking up ridership is that it fundamentally ignores what kinds of riders you would gain and what kinds of riders you would lose.  For all we know, it may actually turn out that this alignment may produce the highest ridership of all B segments.  But I’ve made a similar case before with the Vision Line, C14E– lots of riders from elsewhere will do you no good if it’s at the expense of neighborhood riders.

A look at the walksheds of the two stations below the jump.

Continue reading “Looking at South Bellevue Walksheds”

| 42 comments

The Yes on Prop 1 campaign is fighting to increase the sales tax dedicated to Pierce Transit from 0.6% to 0.9%, in line with what Metro and Community Transit collect and the maximum allowed under state law. This would restore revenues in absolute terms to pre-recession levels and avert a 35% cut in service, which would strip the system down to low-frequency runs on major routes and not much else.

Their kickoff meeting is tonight from 6pm to 8pm in Tacoma. Be there. I’m out of town but I believe Zach will find his way there.

The vote is February 8th. Register if you haven’t already, because ballots go out on January 21st.

2 comments

• Seattle plans market-based parking rates by 2012. About time.
• Times has goofy editorial proposing that Metro not sell advertising at all. ECB rightfully destroys it.
• Seattle Nightlife Initiative thinks creatively about improving late night transportation options.
• Update on D to M Sounder extension.
• New bike safety legislation, idiotic headline.
• Kill a bicyclist, get community service. Fail to show up for that, go to jail.
• Tacoma also launching a bike/ped safety campaign.
• CT had a rough snowstorm last week.
• I’m not sure I agree, but here’s a smart critique of the fare system.
• Just like Pierce Transit, Jefferson Transit will ask voters for a sales tax increase of 0.3 points on February 8th.
• No one’s stepping up to actually get legislation started to repeal the infamous cost overruns position. Somebody is the sucker here.
• Another no pants Link ride coming on Sunday.
• A history of the phrase “war on cars”. BTW, driving is subsidized.

This is an open thread.

75 comments

Erica C. Barnett complains a bit about escalating Metro fares (and pass prices) but, in the mark of a good piece, keeps perspective and recognizes tradeoffs:

Eighty-one bucks is a lot for me… Even as agencies are making service more expensive, they’re reducing its quality and frequency.

Riding the bus is still a great deal compared to owning a car… With prices that high, I’ll take a $9 monthly fare increase over car ownership any day…

The problem with ever-higher fares, of course, is that fare increases are a known disincentive to riding the bus (as are cuts to service). At some point, you get a drop-off in ridership, creating a vicious cycle: Fewer riders means less fare revenue means cuts to routes means fewer riders, and so on. The solution, instead of raising the regressive general sales tax even higher, is to create sustainable, long-term options to fund transit, something groups like the Transportation Choices Coalition plan to push for next session in Olympia.**

Of course, there is some revenue-maximizing fare level. My suspicion is, based on the political pressures at play, that we are well below that level, at least with certain types of service.

But really, I want to take this occasion to remind anyone in a position of influence at an employer that there are low-cost ways to help out your transit-riding employees. First, transit expenditures can be deducted from paychecks pre-tax, up to $230 per month, at no cost to the employer aside from the paperwork.

Secondly, if your workforce largely uses transit, cutting pay and replacing those dollars with a transit subsidy has positive tax benefits. Not only is the pay no longer subject to payroll or income taxes, but the subsidy itself is also tax-deductible to the employer.

57 comments

Probably one of the Bellevue city council’s more common talking points against Sound Transit’s preferred East Link alternative is the purported tunnel inequity between Seattle and Bellevue alignments.  Bellevue Mayor Don Davidson has decried Sound Transit’s decision to fully fund the Beacon Hill and U-Link tunnels, but not one for downtown Bellevue.

Recently, Kevin Wallace followed in those same steps by countering my Seattle Times op-ed with his own piece, declaring that “Sound Transit protected these neighborhoods in Seattle and should do no less for Bellevue.”  What’s interesting about Wallace’s piece is that while he uses Maple Leaf and Montlake as the ST-favored poster boys for protected Seattle neighborhoods, he conveniently forgets that Link’s longest segment in Seattle is at-grade.

More below the jump.

Continue reading “Light rail tunnels revisited”

| 86 comments

The Sunday Times had what I thought was a reasonably fair portrait of the McGinn administration’s first year. In my view, an ideal mayor is both right on the substantive policy merits, and able to cajole the Council and State, through love or fear, into supporting his agenda.

On the first point, I think anyone that thinks Seattle’s transit, pedestrian, and bicycle agenda should be a higher priority than the free flow of cars has to be happy with policy coming out of the Mayor’s office.

On the other hand, just about everyone would agree that it’s the latter point where he needs to improve. Still, I have to object to one aspect of media analysis of this problem, well illustrated by this Times blurb about the seawall:

[The Mayor made a seawall] announcement that clumsily excluded Council members. The perceived slight hurt the new mayor-council relationship. The council struck back by punting a sea-wall ballot measure all the way into 2011.

Bad on the Mayor for not optimizing his council relations, but the Seattle City Council is not a collection of inanimate objects; they are actual humans with moral agency.  If they postpone an important safety measure mostly because the Mayor failed to show them proper deference, that’s a damning indictment of the Council.

Many differences between Council and Mayor have legitimate policy and interest group roots, and that’s entirely proper. To the extent that this is about who’s showing enough respect, both sides should grow up.

And that goes for Olympia too.

21 comments

Take this for what it is. I was cleaning my house while listening so it certainly isn’t a complete record, probably has inaccuracies, and is certainly biased. I feel like a writer for The Stranger! I kid, I kid. It has a few interesting tidbit so I decided to pull it over to the blog from twitter.

• Bellevue East Link study session lime stream http://bit.ly/eC73Jo
• It’s funny watching Bellevue council members trying to pick apart the SDEIS. Don’t even try to nit pick with engineers. You will lose.
• If you want to get nit picky you should first read the appendixes http://bit.ly/eMXq0B
• … and by nit picky comments (Robertson) I mean snarky and condescending comments, not detailed and genuinely inquisitive comments.
• Paraphrasing Degginger [in response to Wallace] “how can we write into the scope of work the conclusion of what the study is supposed to determine is true or not“

More after the jump

Continue reading “East Link Bellevue Council – The Tweet Edition”

| 5 comments