Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Light Rail is Supposed to Get People Out of Their Cars

newfizz

1. The lead story on MSNBC.com this morning—about toxic parking lots—is by Robert McClure from Investigate West, the non-profit investigative news operation started by a group of former-PI reporters.

McClure’s lead:

Chemicals in a cancer-causing substance used to seal pavement, parking lots and driveways across the U.S. are showing up at alarming levels in dust in homes, prompting concerns about the potential health effects of long-term exposure, a new study shows.

The substance is coal tar sealant, a waste product of steel manufacturing that is used to protect pavement and asphalt against cracking and water damage, and to impart a nice dark sheen. It is applied most heavily east of the Rockies but is used in all 50 states.

But scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey say the sealant — one of two types commonly used in the U.S. — doesn’t stay put. It slowly wears off and is tracked into homes on the shoes of residents.

2. Yesterday afternoon, Mayor Mike McGinn suspended enforcement of a law that prohibits private park-and-rides near light-rail stations—effectively overturning a longstanding policy banning park and ride lots in the city of Seattle.

Last week, we broke the news that the city has been issuing cease-and-desist orders against private park-and-rides since last year; this week, the Seattle Times, KING-5, and others picked up on the story.

(The only officially sanctioned park and rides in the city are in North Seattle—one at 65th and Roosevelt and one at Northgate).

The idea behind banning park-and-rides is twofold: First, light rail is supposed to get people out of their cars; having commuters drive into neighborhoods from elsewhere defeats the purpose. Second, the parking lots that are operating as park-and-rides are actually zoned for mixed-use development (condos, shops, and apartments). If a six-story apartment building with retail on the ground floor is the highest and best use, a parking lot could be seen as the lowest and worst use.

In a statement, McGinn cited the lousy economy as a reason for the policy shift. “It’s good for local businesses and commuters to be more flexible now.”

3. We picked up a bunch of Fizz-worthy news on opening day in Olympia yesterday, including word that the Democrats are not going to  run a “Retro Reform” bill this year.  “Retro Reform” would stop workers comp money from being used for political campaigns, something Democrats have accused the conservative Building Industry Association of Washington of doing.

The Democrats ran a “Retro Reform” bill last year.  It passed the senate but stalled in the house.

4. Given that Gov. Chris Gregoire is slated to review her latest budget today, it’s worth repeating two other items from yesterday afternoon’s batch of Olympia Fizz.

govbudgetPhoto by Josh Feit

•Gov. Chris Gregoire will unveil her second budget …. where she will reportedly identify many of the $700 million in programs she wants to restore; list some tax exemption loopholes she plans to close (we posted a list here); and give a shout out to the feds and Sen. Maria Cantwell in particular, whose amendments to the U.S. Senate health care reform bill may—if they make it through reconciliation with the house bill—allow Gregoire to fund the state’s $160 million Basic Health Plan for low-income people.

•Watch for liberal groups (unions, low-income advocates) to complain that $700 million in buy backs isn’t enough (there’s still another $1 billion in programs on the chopping block). If there’s surprise money from the feds, they’ll say, (like Cantwell’s Medicaid money) use that to up the buy backs not as an excuse to forgo raising taxes herself.

Seizing on one-time federal money could compound the problem. Tony Lee, Advocacy Director at Solid Ground, says: “We’re concerned that she’s not committed to solving the long-term financial problems of the state. We are going to need tax increases because at some point the one-time federal money is going to run out. We’re concerned that she’s going to back away from her pledge to increase taxes if she’s tempted by federal money.”

5. And a budget update: Even if Sen. Maria Cantwell’s federal money for the Basic Health Plan makes it into the final federal bill, there’s still a hurdle at the state level:  Medicaid isn’t allowed to turn away anyone who’s eligible for the program. But the BHP has an enrollment cap (there’s a waiting list). Washington state would have to get a waiver from the feds in order to use Medicaid money for our state’s capped program. Gov. Gregoire’s office is currently in negotiations about this with the feds.

6. Yesterday, the city council voted 7-1 (with Bruce Harrell recusing himself) to increase building heights to 125 feet for a piece of Vulcan-owned property being developed by the University of Washington in South Lake Union.

In a strongly worded council report published in late December, Council Members Nick Licata and Tom Rasmussen said the upzone for Vulcan “violat[es] our commitment to the people in the South Lake Union neighborhood who have worked hundreds of volunteer hours on the neighborhood plan and rezone proposal.  When property owners can go directly to the Council to seek zoning changes, the impression is given that property owners or developers will be allowed to bypass the planning steps others must follow.”

Ultimately, however, only Licata (whose opposition to special treatment for Vulcan is well established) voted against the upzone.

7. Chalk this one up to total gossip, since we haven’t been able to confirm it with McGinn’s office, but there’s a rumor going around that the mayor plans to push for a ballot measure this fall to help pay for the crumbling waterfront seawall.

Such an initiative would seem to conflict with McGinn’s stated opposition to putting voters on the hook for any viaduct-replacement costs.

Asked about the rumor, McGinn spokesman Mark Matassa said “We haven’t made an announcement about anything like that.”




  • Michael M.

    Re #2 -

    McGinn did a good thing, and a smart thing.

    Yes, Light Rail is supposed to get people out of cars, but it is far from convenient at this point. As the Mayor made clear, there is no capital or plans to develop around many of the light rail stops at this point, so why not put them to good use?

    Allowing people to park and ride from their neighborhood (or close to) to downtown makes perfect sense, and keeps those cars out of downtown.

    For one, there is the convenience factor. While in a perfect world, everyone would take mass transit, because it would either all be convenient, or they wouldn’t mind sharing a bus/train with some rather unsavory folks. In reality, that doesn’t happen. Allowing people to drive a mile to catch a train, while seeming lazy to most of us, is a way to get them on that train.

    Second, the time factor. I speak to this as a parent, and as someone who drives to work because taking mass transit is not an option (due to shitty service to Eastlake). Taking a train to a light rail stop, and driving to pick up your child, is going to be easier, and more doable, than taking a train to the stop, then a bus to your house, and then going to pick up your kid from wherever they may be. Isn’t it better to have transit a part of someone’s commute than not at all?

    Once the mixed-use kicks in, then perhaps people will consider living near the light rail stops. Or maybe they won’t, and riders that currently park and lock will stop riding, but they’ll be replaced by new riders (hopefully) who live nearby. In the interim, the Mayor is actually making a good choice in this matter.

  • Michael M.

    Re #2 -

    McGinn did a good thing, and a smart thing.

    Yes, Light Rail is supposed to get people out of cars, but it is far from convenient at this point. As the Mayor made clear, there is no capital or plans to develop around many of the light rail stops at this point, so why not put them to good use?

    Allowing people to park and ride from their neighborhood (or close to) to downtown makes perfect sense, and keeps those cars out of downtown.

    For one, there is the convenience factor. While in a perfect world, everyone would take mass transit, because it would either all be convenient, or they wouldn’t mind sharing a bus/train with some rather unsavory folks. In reality, that doesn’t happen. Allowing people to drive a mile to catch a train, while seeming lazy to most of us, is a way to get them on that train.

    Second, the time factor. I speak to this as a parent, and as someone who drives to work because taking mass transit is not an option (due to shitty service to Eastlake). Taking a train to a light rail stop, and driving to pick up your child, is going to be easier, and more doable, than taking a train to the stop, then a bus to your house, and then going to pick up your kid from wherever they may be. Isn’t it better to have transit a part of someone’s commute than not at all?

    Once the mixed-use kicks in, then perhaps people will consider living near the light rail stops. Or maybe they won’t, and riders that currently park and lock will stop riding, but they’ll be replaced by new riders (hopefully) who live nearby. In the interim, the Mayor is actually making a good choice in this matter.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    What Michael said, and I agree with Sound Transit blog’s point on it. Entice people out of their cars gradually with carrots and escalated convenience over tiem. You’ll never get them all anyway, so treat as many as you can like you would training any other critter: enticements, training, positive reinforcement that driving into downtown is bad.

    This was a good move. If we have to treat park and ride like a temporary Transit Whisperer, that’s not so bad.

  • http://joeszilagyi.com Joe Szilagyi

    What Michael said, and I agree with Sound Transit blog’s point on it. Entice people out of their cars gradually with carrots and escalated convenience over tiem. You’ll never get them all anyway, so treat as many as you can like you would training any other critter: enticements, training, positive reinforcement that driving into downtown is bad.

    This was a good move. If we have to treat park and ride like a temporary Transit Whisperer, that’s not so bad.

  • Guest

    Re #2 -

    Hopefully McGinn and his administration will figure out a better solution than building a multi-billion dollar rail system with parking lots. We would have been better off to save the money and just expand the bus system.

    It is fascinating that those lobbying (Safeway seems to be in the lead – or at least their lobbyists are in the lead) for this are the property owners at light rail stations. They get higher property values because they are adjacent to a billion dollar public investment. Then they get parking revenue because they defeat the whole purpose of the investment and zoning changes at the transit stations. They seem to argue whatever serves them best at the moment.

  • stunned

    Re #2 -

    Hopefully McGinn and his administration will figure out a better solution than building a multi-billion dollar rail system with parking lots. We would have been better off to save the money and just expand the bus system.

    It is fascinating that those lobbying (Safeway seems to be in the lead – or at least their lobbyists are in the lead) for this are the property owners at light rail stations. They get higher property values because they are adjacent to a billion dollar public investment. Then they get parking revenue because they defeat the whole purpose of the investment and zoning changes at the transit stations. They seem to argue whatever serves them best at the moment.

  • Rey

    (The only officially sanctioned park and rides in the city are in North Seattle—one at 65th and Roosevelt and one at Northgate).

    There is also a Metro Park & Ride on Airport Way S underneath the Spokane Street Viaduct.

  • Giffy

    Re #2 Getting people out of their cars for part of a trip is still better than nothing at all.

    What we have now is the start of a rail system. Its a good start, but for many people, especially those say going south from Seattle, it is not really more convenient, or cheaper, that driving if you have to take a bus to the station. I know from I am at it would be a 15-20 minute trip by bus including walking to the stop and waiting, and then another 15 minutes by train. Or I can drive in 15. If I can drive to the station I could do the first part in a 5 minute drive then take the train. Plus I would not get there too early as is the case with the bus.

    I agree we should do what we can to prevent the building of parking garages and new lots, but existing ones should be available.

    And sadly we are not at the point where development is going to happen with no parking, but we should remove the requirement for it and potentially ban it above ground.

  • Giffy

    Re #2 Getting people out of their cars for part of a trip is still better than nothing at all.

    What we have now is the start of a rail system. Its a good start, but for many people, especially those say going south from Seattle, it is not really more convenient, or cheaper, that driving if you have to take a bus to the station. I know from I am at it would be a 15-20 minute trip by bus including walking to the stop and waiting, and then another 15 minutes by train. Or I can drive in 15. If I can drive to the station I could do the first part in a 5 minute drive then take the train. Plus I would not get there too early as is the case with the bus.

    I agree we should do what we can to prevent the building of parking garages and new lots, but existing ones should be available.

    And sadly we are not at the point where development is going to happen with no parking, but we should remove the requirement for it and potentially ban it above ground.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    @3 people wanting to take advantage of their property next to a big public facility is a surprise to no one in any way. And more power to them, as well. If I happened to own a building with a big parking lot in SeaTac literally next door to a light rail station, you can bet your butt I’d be charging a sweet premium for my parking spaces and let the public reserve spots. Who wouldn’t?

    As for the value of their properties rising, that isn’t a good or bad thing. It’s simply a thing. I’m sure the property next to SafeCo went up in price when it was built, just like the lots next to Pike Place Market went up in value after it took off. The idea that capitalism is bad is stupid and provincial. Unregulated capitalism is bad, sure, but something like this? Please.

    But your statement that somehow McGinn is at fault for anything here is comically revisionist. He’s not responsible for any light rail problems under way today or that have blossomed since the system went live, yet. He’s been Mayor a week!

  • http://joeszilagyi.com Joe Szilagyi

    @3 people wanting to take advantage of their property next to a big public facility is a surprise to no one in any way. And more power to them, as well. If I happened to own a building with a big parking lot in SeaTac literally next door to a light rail station, you can bet your butt I’d be charging a sweet premium for my parking spaces and let the public reserve spots. Who wouldn’t?

    As for the value of their properties rising, that isn’t a good or bad thing. It’s simply a thing. I’m sure the property next to SafeCo went up in price when it was built, just like the lots next to Pike Place Market went up in value after it took off. The idea that capitalism is bad is stupid and provincial. Unregulated capitalism is bad, sure, but something like this? Please.

    But your statement that somehow McGinn is at fault for anything here is comically revisionist. He’s not responsible for any light rail problems under way today or that have blossomed since the system went live, yet. He’s been Mayor a week!

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @5,

    McGinn issued the order we’re writing about. Of course he’s responsible.

  • http://publicola.net/ Josh Feit

    @5,

    McGinn issued the order we’re writing about. Of course he’s responsible.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    @6 Yes, he’s responsible for the order, but the tone and tenor are it’s a bad order as it applies to existing, already built lots that people are now using for fiscal gain and to give commuters a tiny incentive to use light rail. But the assumption it was a bad or harmful order is laughable. It’s the barest stage one of encouraging the masses out of their cars.

  • joshuadf

    On the UW SLU Phase III vote, there was an amendment to require retail and some streetscape improvements (Sally Bagshaw called it an “activated energy area”)
    along 8th Ave N.

    This was my biggest concern so I’m reasonably happy with the outcome, thought I would have preferred a podium requirement instead of 100+ ft sheer walls.

    Sally Clark and Nick Licata also gave what I thought was a good explanation of the history that helped it make sense (you can watch on the Seattle Channel, it starts about 35 mins into yesterday’s full council).

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi
  • http://joeszilagyi.com Joe Szilagyi

    @6 Yes, he’s responsible for the order, but the tone and tenor are it’s a bad order as it applies to existing, already built lots that people are now using for fiscal gain and to give commuters a tiny incentive to use light rail. But the assumption it was a bad or harmful order is laughable. It’s the barest stage one of encouraging the masses out of their cars.

  • joshuadf

    On the UW SLU Phase III vote, there was an amendment to require retail and some streetscape improvements (Sally Bagshaw called it an “activated energy area”)
    along 8th Ave N.

    This was my biggest concern so I’m reasonably happy with the outcome, thought I would have preferred a podium requirement instead of 100+ ft sheer walls.

    Sally Clark and Nick Licata also gave what I thought was a good explanation of the history that helped it make sense (you can watch on the Seattle Channel, it starts about 35 mins into yesterday’s full council).

  • http://joeszilagyi.com Joe Szilagyi
  • Guest

    Joe Szilagyi:

    When do you think a repeal of the allowance of parking lots at transit stations should occur? Because once you allow them, they are never going to go away.

    McGinn opposes the DBT because it promotes cars and takes potential funding away from transit bike and pedestrian programs. But, he is willing to allow parking lots at transit stations. Huh? Some of the biggest and most loyal McGinn supporters are staring blankly right now and trying to understand how this is all going to play out.

  • stunned

    Joe Szilagyi:

    When do you think a repeal of the allowance of parking lots at transit stations should occur? Because once you allow them, they are never going to go away.

    McGinn opposes the DBT because it promotes cars and takes potential funding away from transit bike and pedestrian programs. But, he is willing to allow parking lots at transit stations. Huh? Some of the biggest and most loyal McGinn supporters are staring blankly right now and trying to understand how this is all going to play out.

  • Guest

    How about a special Transit Area Parking Tax that all goes directly toward improving walkability transit in station areas?

  • stunned

    How about a special Transit Area Parking Tax that all goes directly toward improving walkability transit in station areas?

  • fascinating

    Item #2 is fascinating. A week in office and the new mayor throws the anti-car puritans under the bu… er, SUV. So much for the 2007 conventional wisdom that any car trip is a bad car trip, even if it’s a much shorter one to the transit station.

  • fascinating

    Item #2 is fascinating. A week in office and the new mayor throws the anti-car puritans under the bu… er, SUV. So much for the 2007 conventional wisdom that any car trip is a bad car trip, even if it’s a much shorter one to the transit station.

  • Matt the Engineer

    Re: #2. I think it’s a reasonable compromise to leave these parking lots for the time being. As we build ridership they should be phased out. Simply impose a grandfather clause for park-and-rides that ends 10 years after the nearby light rail station opens.

  • Matt the Engineer

    Re: #2. I think it’s a reasonable compromise to leave these parking lots for the time being. As we build ridership they should be phased out. Simply impose a grandfather clause for park-and-rides that ends 10 years after the nearby light rail station opens.

  • Brian K

    @11 Would that apply to downtown?

  • josh

    These are existing lots — city code continues to prvent construction of new park and ride capacity near the stations.

    The choice for now is empty parking lots or full ones. There’s no money to redevelop the whole area, many of the lots used to serve businesses that have gone under. Is a fenced-off parking lot full of weeds really so much better than a parking lot full of commuters?

    In the long run, development will make these parking lots go away. Without the ability to build parking garages, the owners have limited parking capacity that restricts parking income. It doesn’t take all that much retail activity to make $50/month parking seem like an uneconomical use of the land.

  • Brian K

    @11 Would that apply to downtown?

  • josh

    These are existing lots — city code continues to prvent construction of new park and ride capacity near the stations.

    The choice for now is empty parking lots or full ones. There’s no money to redevelop the whole area, many of the lots used to serve businesses that have gone under. Is a fenced-off parking lot full of weeds really so much better than a parking lot full of commuters?

    In the long run, development will make these parking lots go away. Without the ability to build parking garages, the owners have limited parking capacity that restricts parking income. It doesn’t take all that much retail activity to make $50/month parking seem like an uneconomical use of the land.

  • Giffy

    @10 He is allowing current lots to continue to operate without restrictions on how many hours they can provide space. This is not new lots or garages.

  • Giffy

    @10 He is allowing current lots to continue to operate without restrictions on how many hours they can provide space. This is not new lots or garages.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    @12 I’m sure the extreme anti-car biker zealot Critical Mass fundies are the ones going particularly nuts over this, but the 99% of the people that aren’t that crowd recognize that the McGinn’s move was a good one as it applies only to existing already built lots. The city still prohibits new ones being built for this purpose. Or, as #15 says, would you bike gurus prefer we leave these lots empty?

  • http://joeszilagyi.com Joe Szilagyi

    @12 I’m sure the extreme anti-car biker zealot Critical Mass fundies are the ones going particularly nuts over this, but the 99% of the people that aren’t that crowd recognize that the McGinn’s move was a good one as it applies only to existing already built lots. The city still prohibits new ones being built for this purpose. Or, as #15 says, would you bike gurus prefer we leave these lots empty?

  • morning fizzy

    How can the city restrict what a parking lot can do in terms of length of time a car can remain? If the lot was renting to a local would that be illegal? They have restricted parking in the neighborhoods near the stations so where are workers that can’t take transit there supposed to park? Perhaps they should drive to Tukwila where they can park for free and then take the train, would that be better?

    Second, the time factor. I speak to this as a parent, and as someone who drives to work because taking mass transit is not an option (due to shitty service to Eastlake).

    And what is the problem with bus service on Eastlake?

  • morning fizzy

    How can the city restrict what a parking lot can do in terms of length of time a car can remain? If the lot was renting to a local would that be illegal? They have restricted parking in the neighborhoods near the stations so where are workers that can’t take transit there supposed to park? Perhaps they should drive to Tukwila where they can park for free and then take the train, would that be better?

    Second, the time factor. I speak to this as a parent, and as someone who drives to work because taking mass transit is not an option (due to shitty service to Eastlake).

    And what is the problem with bus service on Eastlake?

  • Blue Swan

    Light rail is taking a complex, community centric bus system and clear cutting it into a travesty. A system designed to cattle shut people into centralized stations that are in turn designed to maximize land value to the speculators.

  • Blue Swan

    Light rail is taking a complex, community centric bus system and clear cutting it into a travesty. A system designed to cattle shut people into centralized stations that are in turn designed to maximize land value to the speculators.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    @19 What? That’s like a slam against every single city in the world that has developed rail systems. New York, London, Boston, all because of the fact that adjacent property values will increase? Who possibly cares about that? It’s like complaining that it’s wrong because my house’s value increases if the city decides to build a new city park brushing up against my backyard.

  • http://joeszilagyi.com Joe Szilagyi

    @19 What? That’s like a slam against every single city in the world that has developed rail systems. New York, London, Boston, all because of the fact that adjacent property values will increase? Who possibly cares about that? It’s like complaining that it’s wrong because my house’s value increases if the city decides to build a new city park brushing up against my backyard.

  • morning fizzy

    Curious how McGinn can just stop enforcing a law?

    I happen to think it is a bad law but a law never the less.

  • morning fizzy

    Curious how McGinn can just stop enforcing a law?

    I happen to think it is a bad law but a law never the less.

  • rtm

    I thought the City had to pay for repairs to the seawall independent of whether AWV is replaced by DBT, surface/transit, or any other mechanism. If it’s a necessary repair (and I haven’t hear anyone argue that the seawall doesn’t need repairing), then how is putting a measure on the ballot to pay for something we know we need to do inconsistent with having a position on how AWV should be replaced?

    I know the work will likely need to be coordinated, but raising the money to pay for seawall (which is purely a City responsibility) needn’t be. What am I missing here?

  • rtm

    I thought the City had to pay for repairs to the seawall independent of whether AWV is replaced by DBT, surface/transit, or any other mechanism. If it’s a necessary repair (and I haven’t hear anyone argue that the seawall doesn’t need repairing), then how is putting a measure on the ballot to pay for something we know we need to do inconsistent with having a position on how AWV should be replaced?

    I know the work will likely need to be coordinated, but raising the money to pay for seawall (which is purely a City responsibility) needn’t be. What am I missing here?

  • Cleve Stockmeyer

    Most rail systems and most cities with far superior transit to ours allow private parking garages. Many rail systems have them at outlying stations, owned by the transit entity. DC is an example. Some of their metro stations, such as Ballston, now have thousands of housing units and hundreds of commercial spots where there used to be only a desolate suburban strip mall….and yes, in that mix of uses, you will find private parking garages.
    Many cities that allow private garages have a great deal more density and less auto use than Seattle. NYC has private garages all over. The garages in a city facilitate the separation of the “car storage” place from the “dwelling palce” — and thus make it possible to do away with requiring the parking spaces to be tied to the dwelling unit (creating costly underground garages). There is a large set of people who want to own cars, but not use them daily for every trip, and not use them for commuting, and to accommodate this market private garages provide long term monthly parking for residents of a few blocks in all directions…..letting them then take the train or bus to work every day. Obviously a huge portion of Seattleites would adopt this practice since many people here live for the weekends trips to ourdoors activities. Allowing private parking is thus a key to getting rid of the mandatory parking inside apartments and condo buildings so that the other 30-50% who don’t want or can’t use a car are not required to buy the parking space with their dwelling unit. MANY people in NY park their car in a garage 3-15 blocks away and only see it once a month. This facilitates urban density and transit, because this allows the format of the city to accommodate ALL types of folks…those who don’t use a car and those who do only sometimes. The West Seattle junction is a good example of how a node of density, walkability and small business is fostered by having parking. I doubt some of those businesses would survive without the parking behind California, also used for the farmer’s market.

    In SE Seattle, getting an outlying driver (say from Renton or Tukwila) to get on board light rail means they may not be driving all the way to downtown. Allowing the parking could lead them to patronize the shops near the light rail station, stopping for dinner or a movie, adding to the vibrancy of that area, its walkability, supporting the businesses there. This car/train commuter also now is more likely than a purely car commuter to stay downtown after work (they don’t have their car to jump into) for a drink or meal or shopping ….or to stop along the light rail line….supporting perhaps the Columbia City node….before hopping back on the train to go to the station where they parked. So the parking actually helps desnity and businesses all along the line. Whereas someone parking downtown is just as likely to drive off to patronize suburban malls and not spend a dime in the city.

    Reasonable parking facilities help business and vibrancy and ehlp make the whole urban areas served by rail more lush with choices, and it is this which draws people to cities esp. the parts served by rail. And, letting lot owners get this huge boost in their income stream could one day allow them to pay a loan to develop their sites into multistory or multifamily. Now that this light rail segment is in place we should make every effort to connect more people to it more easily, through all means, including adding more bus routes to the light rail line. I know one guy who now drives from WS to Beacon Hill and takes light rail into downtown—instead of driving into downtown….this is faster, helps Beacon Hill businesses, and in fact has led him to exploring all the stops on the light rail line and and getting out to coffee shops, hearing music, going to parks, all along the line. Why not express busses from the Junction to the Beacon Hill station, too? Would the locals say that’s too much “activity,” too much use of “their” light rail station that we are all paying for, whether we live along the current line or not?

    Bringing more people to light rail makes the whole area along the line more lush with varied urban choices — easily accessed, unlike in the burbs. We want more and more trips to be on and along the line, even if users keep one foot in the suburban world, so to speak. Putting up a barrier to entering the urban zone of transit enhanced choices is not a good policy. We should be opening multiple pathways to transit use, not closing them off. Transit versus car use should not be a mandatory all or nothing choice with the welcome mat only extended for those who are 100% transit all the time.

    Transit is for everybody.

  • Cleve Stockmeyer

    Most rail systems and most cities with far superior transit to ours allow private parking garages. Many rail systems have them at outlying stations, owned by the transit entity. DC is an example. Some of their metro stations, such as Ballston, now have thousands of housing units and hundreds of commercial spots where there used to be only a desolate suburban strip mall….and yes, in that mix of uses, you will find private parking garages.
    Many cities that allow private garages have a great deal more density and less auto use than Seattle. NYC has private garages all over. The garages in a city facilitate the separation of the “car storage” place from the “dwelling palce” — and thus make it possible to do away with requiring the parking spaces to be tied to the dwelling unit (creating costly underground garages). There is a large set of people who want to own cars, but not use them daily for every trip, and not use them for commuting, and to accommodate this market private garages provide long term monthly parking for residents of a few blocks in all directions…..letting them then take the train or bus to work every day. Obviously a huge portion of Seattleites would adopt this practice since many people here live for the weekends trips to ourdoors activities. Allowing private parking is thus a key to getting rid of the mandatory parking inside apartments and condo buildings so that the other 30-50% who don’t want or can’t use a car are not required to buy the parking space with their dwelling unit. MANY people in NY park their car in a garage 3-15 blocks away and only see it once a month. This facilitates urban density and transit, because this allows the format of the city to accommodate ALL types of folks…those who don’t use a car and those who do only sometimes. The West Seattle junction is a good example of how a node of density, walkability and small business is fostered by having parking. I doubt some of those businesses would survive without the parking behind California, also used for the farmer’s market.

    In SE Seattle, getting an outlying driver (say from Renton or Tukwila) to get on board light rail means they may not be driving all the way to downtown. Allowing the parking could lead them to patronize the shops near the light rail station, stopping for dinner or a movie, adding to the vibrancy of that area, its walkability, supporting the businesses there. This car/train commuter also now is more likely than a purely car commuter to stay downtown after work (they don’t have their car to jump into) for a drink or meal or shopping ….or to stop along the light rail line….supporting perhaps the Columbia City node….before hopping back on the train to go to the station where they parked. So the parking actually helps desnity and businesses all along the line. Whereas someone parking downtown is just as likely to drive off to patronize suburban malls and not spend a dime in the city.

    Reasonable parking facilities help business and vibrancy and ehlp make the whole urban areas served by rail more lush with choices, and it is this which draws people to cities esp. the parts served by rail. And, letting lot owners get this huge boost in their income stream could one day allow them to pay a loan to develop their sites into multistory or multifamily. Now that this light rail segment is in place we should make every effort to connect more people to it more easily, through all means, including adding more bus routes to the light rail line. I know one guy who now drives from WS to Beacon Hill and takes light rail into downtown—instead of driving into downtown….this is faster, helps Beacon Hill businesses, and in fact has led him to exploring all the stops on the light rail line and and getting out to coffee shops, hearing music, going to parks, all along the line. Why not express busses from the Junction to the Beacon Hill station, too? Would the locals say that’s too much “activity,” too much use of “their” light rail station that we are all paying for, whether we live along the current line or not?

    Bringing more people to light rail makes the whole area along the line more lush with varied urban choices — easily accessed, unlike in the burbs. We want more and more trips to be on and along the line, even if users keep one foot in the suburban world, so to speak. Putting up a barrier to entering the urban zone of transit enhanced choices is not a good policy. We should be opening multiple pathways to transit use, not closing them off. Transit versus car use should not be a mandatory all or nothing choice with the welcome mat only extended for those who are 100% transit all the time.

    Transit is for everybody.

  • Michael M.

    @18 -

    Oh lord, where do I begin?

    For one, it is completely unreliable. Granted, not by as much as the Capitol Hill buses that I used to take when I lived there, but if one of those just doesn’t come when it’s supposed to, you’re within a block or two of another one that will be there soon. In Eastlake, you have a half hour wait.

    Plus, they are uncomfortably full, yet not articulated (at least not during the times when I would ride, which are peak commute times).

    Then there’s the Mercer Mess, which inevitably makes it almost 100% unlikely that delivery home on time isn’t going to happen.

    And, of course, the lack of connections to any part of the city except SLU, Downtown and U District, and the transfer points downtown are not well coordinated.

    But, of course, the worst of it all is the time factor. Because of the mixture of the Mercer Mess, how un-often a bus can be caught, and the poor connections, taking a bus would take away valuable time that I have with my little girl. And fuck that. She’s way more fun than a bus. :-)

  • Michael M.

    @18 -

    Oh lord, where do I begin?

    For one, it is completely unreliable. Granted, not by as much as the Capitol Hill buses that I used to take when I lived there, but if one of those just doesn’t come when it’s supposed to, you’re within a block or two of another one that will be there soon. In Eastlake, you have a half hour wait.

    Plus, they are uncomfortably full, yet not articulated (at least not during the times when I would ride, which are peak commute times).

    Then there’s the Mercer Mess, which inevitably makes it almost 100% unlikely that delivery home on time isn’t going to happen.

    And, of course, the lack of connections to any part of the city except SLU, Downtown and U District, and the transfer points downtown are not well coordinated.

    But, of course, the worst of it all is the time factor. Because of the mixture of the Mercer Mess, how un-often a bus can be caught, and the poor connections, taking a bus would take away valuable time that I have with my little girl. And fuck that. She’s way more fun than a bus. :-)

  • jargon

    Should McGinn be worried that declining to enforce development regulations against principal use parking in station areas could create some perverse economic incentives? For example, could declining to enforce the regulations, encourage property owners to demolish older structures that house small, neighborhood- serving businesses (think pho shops, hair salons, etc…), if they can get more rent from a parking lot operator. Wouldn’t that work at cross-purposes to the goals of neighborhood plans for those areas, i.e. small business incubation and neighborhood serving businesses to which people living in the station area can walk.

  • jargon

    Should McGinn be worried that declining to enforce development regulations against principal use parking in station areas could create some perverse economic incentives? For example, could declining to enforce the regulations, encourage property owners to demolish older structures that house small, neighborhood- serving businesses (think pho shops, hair salons, etc…), if they can get more rent from a parking lot operator. Wouldn’t that work at cross-purposes to the goals of neighborhood plans for those areas, i.e. small business incubation and neighborhood serving businesses to which people living in the station area can walk.

  • morning fizzy

    the 70, every 15 minutes, has been slowed by the SLUT but the 66 which runs about every 20-30 minutes bypasses the Mercer mess – only connects directly to DT, UW and SLU, pity.

    In addition the 25 runs every 30 hour during peak.

    Basically you will never take transit, which is fine, but don’t pretend it’s the local service. If transit doesn’t work from Eastlake it won’t work anywhere around here.

  • morning fizzy

    the 70, every 15 minutes, has been slowed by the SLUT but the 66 which runs about every 20-30 minutes bypasses the Mercer mess – only connects directly to DT, UW and SLU, pity.

    In addition the 25 runs every 30 hour during peak.

    Basically you will never take transit, which is fine, but don’t pretend it’s the local service. If transit doesn’t work from Eastlake it won’t work anywhere around here.

  • jargon

    Sorry about grammar and punctuation in previous post – feeding the baby and posting at the same time.

  • jargon

    Sorry about grammar and punctuation in previous post – feeding the baby and posting at the same time.

  • joshuadf

    @26, the SLUT only crosses paths with the SLUT at Mercer/Valley/Fairview, where SOV traffic by far the biggest problem. The 66 is a decent option and it really should be more frequent service already.

    IMHO the transit problem is Eastlake is due to geography. You can’t connect easily to Fremont because there’s a lake in the way, or to Capitol Hill because there’s a cliff.

  • joshuadf

    @26, the SLUT only crosses paths with the SLUT at Mercer/Valley/Fairview, where SOV traffic by far the biggest problem. The 66 is a decent option and it really should be more frequent service already.

    IMHO the transit problem is Eastlake is due to geography. You can’t connect easily to Fremont because there’s a lake in the way, or to Capitol Hill because there’s a cliff.

  • Michael M.

    @26 – the 25 also includes a very steep incline hike to get to any stops.

    The 66 suffers the same over-capacity issues and poor connections with other routes.

    If the SLUT were extended, even by a few miles, to actually include the residential portion of Eastlake, I would gladly hop that every day, but it won’t be any time soon.

    Like I said – when I lived on Capitol Hill, I rode the bus every day. Until there is real transportation infrastructure, right of way, and increased capacity, it’s not going to happen.

    But then again, it’s Eastlake.

    Back to the original point of what I was getting at, however – park and ride lots near outlying stops is a good thing. Cleve really said it best.

  • Michael M.

    @26 – the 25 also includes a very steep incline hike to get to any stops.

    The 66 suffers the same over-capacity issues and poor connections with other routes.

    If the SLUT were extended, even by a few miles, to actually include the residential portion of Eastlake, I would gladly hop that every day, but it won’t be any time soon.

    Like I said – when I lived on Capitol Hill, I rode the bus every day. Until there is real transportation infrastructure, right of way, and increased capacity, it’s not going to happen.

    But then again, it’s Eastlake.

    Back to the original point of what I was getting at, however – park and ride lots near outlying stops is a good thing. Cleve really said it best.

  • VinceInSeattle

    Doesn’t anyone believe in democracy anymore? Prohibition of long-term parking at light rail stations is not a “policy” – it has been in the Seattle Zoning Code since 2001, was debated at the time, and passed by the City Council. Only the City Council has the authority to change the city code. I think it’s outrageous for the new mayor (who I voted for, BTW) to unilaterally decide he will not enforce a section of the city code, passed by the City Council after public debate, hearings, etc.

    As for the substance – if light rail had been presented to the voters as merely a satellite parking shuttle system for downtown workers, who thinks it would have passed?

    Good grief, does anyone on the City Council have any balls to defend, not just their turf, but their legally delegated authority to make the laws of this city? Perhaps one of the community councils will sue the city to enforce its own laws. Lonely stations surrounded by windswept parking lots was not the “vision” of light rail.

    And finally, wasn’t it nice how Diamond Parking, which you think would know where it’s legal or illegal to establish a parking lot in Seattle, just went ahead and established these lots and dared the city to enforce the law? What a bunch of sweethearts…why should the mayor reward this kind of behavior?

  • VinceInSeattle

    Doesn’t anyone believe in democracy anymore? Prohibition of long-term parking at light rail stations is not a “policy” – it has been in the Seattle Zoning Code since 2001, was debated at the time, and passed by the City Council. Only the City Council has the authority to change the city code. I think it’s outrageous for the new mayor (who I voted for, BTW) to unilaterally decide he will not enforce a section of the city code, passed by the City Council after public debate, hearings, etc.

    As for the substance – if light rail had been presented to the voters as merely a satellite parking shuttle system for downtown workers, who thinks it would have passed?

    Good grief, does anyone on the City Council have any balls to defend, not just their turf, but their legally delegated authority to make the laws of this city? Perhaps one of the community councils will sue the city to enforce its own laws. Lonely stations surrounded by windswept parking lots was not the “vision” of light rail.

    And finally, wasn’t it nice how Diamond Parking, which you think would know where it’s legal or illegal to establish a parking lot in Seattle, just went ahead and established these lots and dared the city to enforce the law? What a bunch of sweethearts…why should the mayor reward this kind of behavior?

  • Michael M.

    @30 – are you dense?

    Part of the reason light rail without lots was going to be awesome was because there was supposed to be density. Unfortunately, every time anyone tries to make that happen, residents near the stops cry foul, claim gentrification, or increased crime with increased density, or too much noise, or blah blah blah, and keep that density from happening.

    Your whole argument is premised on the “all or nothing” mentality, and that is just stupid, and why people on the hard left (ie: Dennis Kucinich) never get anything done.

    The council may have passed the bill, but it is up to the Mayor to implement the law, so he is well within his rights in his role.

    And if you love light rail so much, than you should support this. Ridership needs to increase, period. This helps to increase ridership, which allows for proof that light rail is good, and makes it that much easier to move forward on extending and/or increasing taxes to expand light rail throughout the region.

    I sure as shit didn’t vote for McGinn, but I am glad to see that he is not behaving like an anti-car zealot in this particular instance.

  • Michael M.

    @30 – are you dense?

    Part of the reason light rail without lots was going to be awesome was because there was supposed to be density. Unfortunately, every time anyone tries to make that happen, residents near the stops cry foul, claim gentrification, or increased crime with increased density, or too much noise, or blah blah blah, and keep that density from happening.

    Your whole argument is premised on the “all or nothing” mentality, and that is just stupid, and why people on the hard left (ie: Dennis Kucinich) never get anything done.

    The council may have passed the bill, but it is up to the Mayor to implement the law, so he is well within his rights in his role.

    And if you love light rail so much, than you should support this. Ridership needs to increase, period. This helps to increase ridership, which allows for proof that light rail is good, and makes it that much easier to move forward on extending and/or increasing taxes to expand light rail throughout the region.

    I sure as shit didn’t vote for McGinn, but I am glad to see that he is not behaving like an anti-car zealot in this particular instance.

  • Michael

    “If a six-story apartment building with retail on the ground floor is the highest and best use, a parking lot could be seen as the lowest and worst use.”

    And we’re building all sorts of 6 story apartments right now… Seattle has a public transit system that is incomplete (at best) and a bunch of vacant lots. It’s much better to keep those lots in use, doing something, than letting them sit idle. And it’s much easier for people to drive and ride, in some cases, than it is for them to bus and ride.

  • Michael

    “If a six-story apartment building with retail on the ground floor is the highest and best use, a parking lot could be seen as the lowest and worst use.”

    And we’re building all sorts of 6 story apartments right now… Seattle has a public transit system that is incomplete (at best) and a bunch of vacant lots. It’s much better to keep those lots in use, doing something, than letting them sit idle. And it’s much easier for people to drive and ride, in some cases, than it is for them to bus and ride.

  • steve

    Look, the density isn’t there yet at Henderson or Othello, so riders have to go some distance to reach the station. East-West bus service is terrible in the South End, and is arguably worse since light rail opened. Many can’t walk the (hilly) distances involved, and exposure in high crime neighborhoods is is an issue for many who can. I would have preferred improvements to bus service–maybe a station shuttle–but metro can’t or won’t fund that. In that context, this is the right move. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.

  • steve

    Look, the density isn’t there yet at Henderson or Othello, so riders have to go some distance to reach the station. East-West bus service is terrible in the South End, and is arguably worse since light rail opened. Many can’t walk the (hilly) distances involved, and exposure in high crime neighborhoods is is an issue for many who can. I would have preferred improvements to bus service–maybe a station shuttle–but metro can’t or won’t fund that. In that context, this is the right move. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.

  • Mr. X

    Actually, light rail is supposed to move the people who take buses more quickly and efficiently. In their more honest moments, ST never made any bones about the fact that relatively few drivers were going to switch to light rail…

  • Mr. X

    Actually, light rail is supposed to move the people who take buses more quickly and efficiently. In their more honest moments, ST never made any bones about the fact that relatively few drivers were going to switch to light rail…

  • Lisa

    The mayor did the right thing.

    That light rail line is just a ridiculous as it is now, unless your destination is to/from the airport. The Tukwilla station is by nothing convenient (a more sensibly approach would have been to place it near where people may want to go…like the mall).

    Thus, any move to make it move convenient and a working option for people to use the thing to encourage transit is a good thing.

  • Lisa

    The mayor did the right thing.

    That light rail line is just a ridiculous as it is now, unless your destination is to/from the airport. The Tukwilla station is by nothing convenient (a more sensibly approach would have been to place it near where people may want to go…like the mall).

    Thus, any move to make it move convenient and a working option for people to use the thing to encourage transit is a good thing.

  • Rey

    (The only officially sanctioned park and rides in the city are in North Seattle—one at 65th and Roosevelt and one at Northgate).

    There is also a Metro Park & Ride on Airport Way S underneath the Spokane Street Viaduct.