Just a reminder that the public comment period for Residential Parking Zones (RPZ) around light rail stations in the Rainier Valley is coming to a close.
Seattle’s Department of Transportation (SDOT) says the RPZ Program is a critical parking management tool that helps neighborhoods ease residential parking congestion created by non-residents.
Othello Neighborhood Association (ONA) president Jenna Walden isn’t buying it. Here’s what she has to say in response to proposed changes to the RPZ program, specifically as it applies to the Othello area:
Our neighborhood plan which was approved by the City called for parking structures to deal with parking demand. Then, the city backpedaled on this and disallowed it even being an amenity for the station and the neighborhood.The solution provided? Not only will the City not create parking structures, not only will we disallow parking structures, not only will we shift the demand to be absorbed by city streets, but we’ll now ask the residents living around the station to pick up the tab.
Permit fees should be absorbed by the entity creating the impact – Sound Transit.
RPZ the way it is currently structured went to an extreme position from where it was in 2000. Besides Sound Transit picking up the tab for permits, another approach towards making sure costs are offset by the light rail users is to follow the US National Forest Service model which requires a NW Forest Pass in order to park and access trailheads or other recreational areas.
A NW Forest Pass costs $3/day, or $50/year and you put it in your car. If you offered this online, then residents could buy one and assist with the operational expenditures of monitoring the parking situation. This would also ensure light rail users that they would not be towed or incorrectly identified as an abandoned vehicle.
Othello Playground should have no restrictions during the weekend and three-hour restrictions during the day.
Our neighborhood’s current problem is abandoned vehicles and way-laid semi-trucks who’s operators park them on the streets near Martin Luther King, Jr. Way and then drive their car back to Kent, or where ever they live for a couple of days. I do not see a reason to create parking restrictions so much during the day, as during the nighttime.
If people drive and park their car on the street to commute to their job downtown five days a week, they shouldn’t have to be concerned about their car getting towed during the day. The concern is more about the people flying out of Seatac and leaving their parked cars for more than one nine to 10-hour period. Just my analysis.
The intersection of 42nd Avenue South and South Myrtle is very dangerous. This intersection needs to be considered for both safety and time restrictions. Now, users of the monastery park up to the radius of the sidewalk and make head-on collisions extremely more probably as you come around the corner in a single-lane fashion. I would encourage creating setbacks from intersection of more than 50′ on all sides of the streets in both directions in order to create view corridors. The monastery parking creates a real hazard for through-traffic there.
Make your voice heard:
Tell Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) and Sound Transit what you think about Residential Parking Zones by emailing Meghan Shepard, Keith Hall or Sara Robertson.
Trains will begin carrying passengers through the Rainier Valley this summer. To ensure that on-street parking spaces used by businesses and residents are not filled by commuters, the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) and Sound Transit are working with neighborhoods to design parking regulations, such as residential parking zones. Image/SDOT
Related:
- Letter to the community: SDOT’s restricted parking proposal = $45 for your permit (1/5/09)
- The trains are coming: Where will riders park? (12/30/08)
- City seeks input on parking near light rail stations (10/22/08)
- SDOT moves to restrict residential parking in Mt. Baker, N. Beacon Hill, etc. (8/3/08)
Who to know, where to eat & what to do in one of America’s most diverse zip codes!
{ 12 comments }
I agree with Jenna Walden's assessment of some of the safety issues, and the potential changes that could be made to address those concerns.
I don't completely agree on the parking issue.
(1) It's pretty common for urban planners to not put parking facilities that are within cities. Park & rides are more common in suburban areas. When you think about it, it makes sense: we want people to use transit and not use their cars. Plus, people are more likely to drive & park to stations on the outskirts of a system. Since the Seattle stations are sandwiched between other stations, the hope is that there won't be a huge # of commuters driving to the neighborhood and parking.
(2) On the other hand, there is a chance that some people will drive into our neighborhoods and park all day. The theory is that we should discourage such behavior and do it early with RPZs. I've lived in cities with these zones, and never had a problem with it. If there's another way to do it, I'm all for it, but I personally want to have systems in place that encourage people to walk or bus to the light rail, rather than drive and park (in my neighborhood).
As a neighbor who lives just outside the 1/2 mile perimeter of a station, I'm personally happy that they didn't build parking structures. Beyond the fact that they're ugly and I think we already do too much to design around cars, rather than pedestrians and bikers, I think having a lot of accessible parking would *encourage* people to drive to the stations and increase traffic in our neighborhoods.
Just my two cents.
Personally, I’m not a fan of parking structures either, except in the CBD. But the point being made is: promises made, promises broken, backpedal, backpedal and then “oh, residents pay for light rail users!”. Bottom line: residents around light rail are picking up the tab for users and that’s not right.
I personally believe one overflow parking lot should be available once we get retailers in place here. Without that one lot in Columbia City and in Fremont, parking is just a fierce hassle.
But when you say, “we want people to use transit and not use their cars” two things: transit does not go to the vast majority of the places I go, especially in a tightly scheduled manner that would allow me to get from A to B, so I will not use transit during those times. Another thing, perhaps if transit made some creature comforts available in it like wi-fi, or users could sign-up for a text message alert when they bus they are waiting for it(and is 10 mins late or 1 min. early, but never ontime), perhaps people would use it more as well.
Finally, I think that we need to retool our reasoning when we say cars are bad. Are they bad because they pollute? Or they create congestion? It’s shown that people have a high threshold of tolerance for congestion and that won’t deter people from getting out of their cars. If its pollution, then pollutant-free, clean-emissions cars are not that far away. So to plan for the elimination of cars where everyone lives in a walking utopia is short-sighted.
I wasn’t in the South end when the last neighborhood plans were developed, but I can understand your concerns about broken promises. And I definitely agree that there are many changes that could be made to buses to make them more efficient (and thereby increase ridership). It would fairly easy for the lightrail stations to do a pilot project with computer screens linked to the online bus tracker program.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean when you say that residents are picking up the tab for riders. I’m a resident and I plan to be a rider, too. But at this point (assuming nobody’s building a parking facility), I don’t think the RPZ fee is covering anything that non-resident riders would otherwise pay for.
After I left my lengthy first comment, I realized that I had a *friendly* amendment to make to your National Forest Service-inspired idea. I would be fine with a residential permit and a commuter permit. The parking fee for the commuter permit would cost a market rate and the revenue would cover the cost of administering the residential permits and the remainder would go into a neighborhood improvement fund.
I don’t think cars are evil, but there’s plenty wrong with them. I don’t care about congestion. Pollution is a concern. Even as we develop more environmentally friendly cars, the environment would still be better off if the car wass never built in the first place. But beyond that, there are a number of problems with cars. There are countless studies about the impacts on public health, suggesting that we’d all be healthier if we got places by walking, biking, using . And there’s the land use issues: think of all of the land use decisions based on cars, and all of the valuable land we devote to accomodating automobiles. I’d much rather that land go to houses, parks, etc. Finally (at least for now), cars are incredibly expensive. Based on fairly recent statistics, the average cost of car ownership is $8000/year. Imagine how many other things that $8000 could go to. I’m lucky to be able to get by without one, but for most people, a car feels like a necessity. I think we should build communities that make it easier for people to get by without a car, if they choose.
What I mean by picking up the tab is that there are costs with monitoring the on-street parking restrictions around the station. Those costs are covered by the permit revenue paid for by residents. Yet we are not the ones bringing new cars in and creating the problems. We did nothing, but the impact is bringing other users in the neighborhood who then trouble us with having to monitor the situation.
This is a backward model. The City doesn’t make businesses pay for on-street parking, they put meters out there and have the users pay for them. Or there is a fee to park in a lot. We should be treated the same.
I think there are a lot of problems with cars as well, but I use one everyday. It’s love/hate. We all have our ideals and we should strive to achieve them in a realistic manner. This is why idealism rarely works politically, but why philosophical concepts are a much better guide for policy.
That’s great you don’t have to rely on a car very much. However I think you are in the vast minority. Until this changes, I don’t think the minority should dictate to the majority, but find ways to encourage and advocate lifestyle change through incentives and education. Not through penalties and authoritative legislation/policies.
I don’t think we can reduce vehicle miles traveled through just incentives and education. I actually think that may be overly-idealistic (I don’t mean that as an insult, though). Incentives and education are certainly a part of the solution, but you need to do something to shift the cost-benefit analysis that everyone goes through in making their transportation decisions. Clearly the latest bout of high gas prices showed us that people can and will alter their driving habits.
Thanks for explaining the comment about residents picking up the tab. Now I understand. Although it does cost residents money, I guess I always think of the residential permits as a way of identifying who not to ticket, and that the non-residents who get tickets are really paying for the bulk of the program. But I agree that in the ideal parking program, most of the costs should be covered by non-residents. Hence my suggestion in my last post.
I actually think that almost everything the city does regarding parking and cars is backwards. I think its backward that the zoning code requires developers of businesses and residences to put in as many parking spaces as they’re required to put in. I think its backwards that metered parking is cheaper than the market rate. But that’s for another comments section.
Anyway, unfortunately, the example of a parking meter probably doesn’t work for this issue. Obviously if there are arterials that aren’t already metered, go for it. But the RPZ is designed to deal with side streets where you don’t want to put meters because a reasonable portion of the people parking on the strip are residents. If we put meters on those streets, the residents would be justifiably upset.
So, despite your understandable concern about backpedaling on the parking facilities, I’m operating under the assumption that they won’t be putting in parking facilities near stations. Given that assumption, the question is: should there be a parking management plan or should we just maintain status quo and see if that causes a problem? If there’s a parking management plan, what does it include? At the meetings (about parking management) I’ve attended, people have been so focused on the fact that there won’t be parking facilities, that they haven’t really given any creative suggestions for the parking management plan.
I think no parking around the stations will have an impact on any retail that may go into those areas as some people may have limitations on walking and such (I myself have a hard time getting around when my Ankylosing Spondylitis is acting up)
So I will be forced to do my shopping somewhere that has parking. It almost seems like Seattle is trying to make people shop elsewhere with their bag taxes, no parking,etc. Seems like that would be bad for City revenue.
But this could be a nice little cash cow for whoever is getting the money for the RPZ permits.
If you have to buy one anywhere within a half mile and the stations are 2 miles apart that’s 4 miles of permits in an 8 mile stretch = lot’s of money for someone.
I think we agree that a model like the NW Forest Pass (online and printable at home of course) would be a good solution! The City could implement that successfully and people could buy city-wide printable permits that could be transferred from neighborhood to neighborhood if you like…as long as you pay for the impact, why not?
I agree with you Gidge, again idealistically, however Mark B has nailed it on the head. Othello neighborhood (not so much Columbia City) is in a real tough spot right now. We do not have the density yet to justify to retailers why having very limited parking is OK, so if we don’t offer that, then retailers won’t come yet. As someone who models developments like these, its the retailers who are driving the feasibility of cashflow with a building who will have tenants, and they want parking. If you don’t have it, many won’t even consider your site.
Meanwhile, we have a drive-through only Starbucks on the light rail corridor on Graham and MLK.
Our neighborhood is in transition and it is unreasonable to think it will become like Capitol Hill within 5 years. It will take 20 years to develop minimum, what is ideal. In the meantime, I would advocate having Sound Transit or the City take a land-banked parcel and provide a ground lease (about 25 years) to a parking operator and provide that car-oriented choice for consumers like Mark. Then, when the ground lease is up, it can be developed into something that is a bit more pedestrian friendly.
Simple enough solution to all of this: don’t service a transit stop at Othello until the neighborhood wants it. Sure, it might hurt property values, but at least we won’t have to pay $23/year to make sure there is room for us to park on the streets.
Let’s be clear, I don’t think there should be no parking. As I’m sure Jewalden knows, RPZs typically only limit non-permit holders to 2 hours during business hours. So non-permit holders are allowed to park in the area–they just risk a ticket if they use the neighborhood as a park and ride during their commute to work. And although I think the amount of parking developers are *required* to provide under the zoning code is crazy (and a lot of developers would agree with me on that), I have nothing against developers being *choosing* to install parking.
I agree that the proposed RPZ isn’t ideal, but again I’m operating under the assumption that they won’t build parking, and trying to come up with a different solution. Of course, maybe we don’t need to do anything right now. Maybe the parking issue won’t be the problem anticipated and we should wait to assess it after light rail open. I don’t agree with Anonymous about not putting a transit stop at Othello. That’s (a) never going to happen and (b) only going to cause the neighborhood’s redevelopment more challenges.
And I hate that Starbucks that is drive-through only.
@jewalden, you said “Another thing, perhaps if … users could sign-up for a text message alert when they bus they are waiting for it(and is 10 mins late or 1 min. early, but never ontime), perhaps people would use [transit] more as well.”
I think that you’ll love this service: OneBusAway. It’s not bulletproof, but I think it’ll help take the hassle out of taking transit.
Love the real-time bus arrival information provided by MyBus for King County Metro transit routes? We certainly do. We also think it can be an even better tool with a few improvements. We aim to provide the following:
* Arrival info for every bus stop, not just a few timepoints.
* A telephone number you can call to quickly get real-time arrival info when you’re waiting at your stop.
* An updated website that makes it easier to find arrival info when you’re waiting at home.
* Enhanced mobile tools for iPhones, text-messaging and other mobile devices.
Why? We’re Metro KC riders just like you and we don’t like waiting for the bus any more than we have to.
@Gidge, so where have you been all my life? I think I am starting to get a blog-crush on you. I am known to unleash a rant on occasion, but the reality is that I am a big sucker for sensible, respectful voices. Stay a while, won’t you.
@jewalden, you’re cool too, even if I disagree with you.
Thanks, trellis. I will stay, and I’ll try to keep it sensible and respectful.
And I’ll echo trellis’ comment about jewalden. I appreciate the polite debate.
Comments on this entry are closed.