What Is The Thought Process...

...of the Seattle progressive leadership? Raise parking fees to get people out of their cars? Or, is it to raise costs so much that businesses cease to exist in the city?

City blinks on parking rates, hours — in one neighborhood, at least
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020353092_chinatownparkingxml.html


Before someone simply lames out and calls me a RWWJ, it's about balance. Pugetropolous hasn't had political balance for decades. Idealism is fantastic, until reality kicks you between the eyes.

I'm not sure I expect that Seattle's progressive leadership has a thought process beyond "pluralism is representative government." Making sense, efficiency, consistency, and fiscal logic aren't inherent attributes of the process.

As for parking fees, an economic assessment would point out that if priced too far below market value, you'll never find an open spot; and if priced too far above market value, revenue will drop with many vacancies. Priced right and the city maximizes revenue with a balanced supply of vacant spaces to be had. Other logical reasons affected parking prices are if vehicle congestion is perceived as being too high, then some of that congestion can be priced out of the area with higher parking pricing. Lastly, it isn't the city's job to price parking for the benefit of individual or clusters of businesses. If parking is essential to the existence of a business, then that business should include parking as part of its facility. But that would be a logical type of analysis, which is not the province of either progressive liberal nor conservative types of government.

They don't have these problems in cities not run by progressive liberals.

Oh wait.............yeah they do.

Someone call me when businesses cease to exist in downtown Seattle, k?

In 1973 I had a urban geography professor tell the class Portland was going to do away with cars in the down town core area.
I was amused with this concept, 40 years later I think he might be right.
The best way to get rid of cars is make it hard and expensive to park.
Mass transit is the future, like it or not.

At some point the expense and hassle won't be worth it and people will instead use mass transit.

Maybe my "cease to exist" was a bit of hyperboly...? Dan, I wouldn't expect for you to see any gray in one of my comments. When you say you're going to light someone on fire, do you? Or, are we supposed to see some gray in those comments?

Salmo hit it again. Not much to add.

Really just found the article to be something that could have been written back when these parking fees were increased. It was predictable, yet our elected officials couldn't see past the the sure dollar. Progressive is what we have, if our officials were TeaPartiers I'd have used that term. I'm not an apologist for either side.

Illahee, check ridership for the Sounder, SLUT, passenger ferries that have come and gone, etc. The only mass transit system that works in this area has been buses. Metro has serious financial/funding issues but it doesn't help that billions have been thrown down the rathole that is Sound Transit. Commuters from Olympia to Marysville aren't seeing any benefit from the billions wasted so far. Not to mention what it's done for taxpayers in this region.

Look 50 years down the road and tell me how running an occassional train down BN's line into Seattle at the cost of hundreds per ride is going to help business or commuters.

Some balance might help the region, but it ain't gonna happen.

The Bon Marche. About a week after they closed Pine St.

Just sayin-

I parked last winter in downtown Charleston. Wandered around looking for a pay meter. A cop was watching me with a chuckle. First thing out of his mouth was, "You must be from the West coast."

Portland vowed 30 years ago there would be no more major freeways built in the Metro area, the city has opted instead on a 35 mile East West light rail, North South lines run to the airport and Clackamas Town Center and from downtown to the Expo Center.
New lines are being built to Milwaukie presently.
Down town has trolleys running on many side streets.

http://trimet.org/maps/railsystem.htm

Seriously? You asked this question?

First time I ever had the pleasure of eating sushi was as a wee lad in Seattle. While many rolls have rice, this had smelt eggs. True story. Hated Seattle ever since.
A city of nothing but sky scrapers. It's like an asian New York..Except it lacks any sign of character.

NYC= fuhgeddaboudit

SEATTLE=furagretabroutit

There's a fine line between sushi and bait, I think you might have crossed that line.

My Grandparents lived in The City (SF) while I was growing up (50s-60s). My Grandmother didn't drive. We took the streetcars to Downtown, the Zoo, Stonestown. If necessary, we took the cable car to the Fisherman's Wharf area. Really didn't need a car to get around then.

Why do they call themselves "Progressive" when everything they do goes backwards?

Only thing Cali has on Warshington is a 10 year head start.

Is there something that keeps you here sniveling instead of heading off to some conservative wonderland like Kansas or Missouri where they don't get bogged down by progressive liberal idiots?

Not sure 'bout Kansas but Misery is starting to get bogged down by "progressive liberal idiots".

Kansas is what I think Dante would describe as....almost as close to hell as texas.

Two words: Joe Diamond

Uhhhh...............I'm not the one sniveling about the place I currently reside, but thanks for paying attention any way.

The question was why don't you crybabies just move on off to where liberal idiots are few and far between, where you can avoid all these liberal-caused problems?

Is it that you're just not happy unless you're sniveling about something?

It sucks, there are alot of us that have to drive during the day for our work and the traffic just keeps getting worse and we keep losing lanes to Bikes and Mass transit.

And at some point you'll say fuk it and use mass transit, that's the master plan, and it doesn't make any difference what you think.
Notice mass transit measures are never on the ballot? They learned years ago that voters lack any forward thinking skills, so now they are all bond driven.

That's why you replied to the post by Dan S., right?

Oh, well it's obvious now that you've explained your idiocy.

I personally have much love for the planners who make parking a full-size pickup impossible to park in the new quite ingenious parking lots complete with beautification islands and such.

It works especially well here in this "Victorian Seaport" town........as in Duh, does that mean there might be trucks pulling boats?

Dipsticks......lots of 'em.

The ignore button is for pussies.

I'd rather tell you what a fuckhead whiner you are.

Until someone can tell me how to carry a unit of plywood across town on the bus effectively and I'll stop driving my truck..

The problem with those ass holes is they think that some ass hole that has sucked off the goverment [Bleeeeep!] their whole career knows more than the ass holes that pay their salary!

There are burbs in the portland area that are refusing to pay trimet taxes and have trimet service.. I know one local business that pays over 250K a month in tri met taxes (it works out to something like 15K an employee who uses public transit on a regular basis to get to work)

Usually a person gains knowledge from attending a institution of higher learning, but I think in your case just the opposite has occurred.

College taught me a little bit, the expirience has filled in the gaps.

I manage multimillion dollar construction projects, employees still need tools and materials, and meetings still have to be attended.. Taking an hour to get to a meeting that is 3 miles away on public transit doesn't make much sense to me, but then again I have to produce something every day at work, probably not a problem you face.

The main goal of most colleges is to teach the student how to think, you seem to have missed that part.

Sounds like a good opportunity to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and just pay the going rate for parking instead of sniveling about it.

Or, you could go the sociailist route, and ask the government to provide you with underpriced parking so you aren't inconvenienced on your ventures into downtown.

Oooooh - you have to produce results at work? I'm sure you are the only one, too. Nobody else here has a job.

Parking will always be a PIA, just pay the fee and get over it. I was complaining about out trimet sitation here in Portland. You know the one that can't get a ballot measure passed to fund it, so they use a back door process to push it or maybe there was a great idea not to long ago to take lanes away on surface streets and turn them into bike lanes. The bicyclists pay so much in road taxes you know they deserve it..

Why don't you tell me in your infinite wisdom how a non fiscally solvent program that most taxpayers don't use being forced upon is in a back door process is a good idea?

Us non thinking folks want to know why that is a good idea..

Did it ever occur to you that a cite's liveability is judged by the region's mass transit system?
Were you also aware that urban sprawl increases the cost of public transportation?
How about decision being made today concerning mass transit will effect our region's livability 80 years from now?
Your critical thinking skills seem lacking, only to be outdone by your lack of doing any research when forming an opinion, and that's generally why your a dumbass most of the time.

Spoken like a true planner.
BTW, planners suck.
Just my personal opinion.

Maybe a good look at quality of life in cities vs rural living needs a good looksee?

urban "sprawl" as is cutely coined by planners happens for a reason......and it isn't cost to live there.

When planners have everyone living in sparrow houses stacked on top of one another and everyone needs a note from whomever rules your ideal domain to wander outside the boundaries, then what?

Shouting from the rooftops again, huh?

Yeah Slab, planning is such a bad idea. Because look how good things turn out in the complete absence of planning. Do you read what you type before you post?

Obviously the best alternative is the one espoused humorously by Click and Clack. Pave it all! Pave everything. Then you can drive anywhere you want, any time. Oh, but there won't be anything when you get there, just more pavement. But at least you won't have to take a frickin' bus or train to get there.

1. No, most people don't move to a city because its got great public tranist. they move there because of Jobs. Reading some recent studies, light rail doesn't actually promote growth when the giant tax credits are removed.
2. Yes, but if a community doesn't want it. It shouldn't be forced upon them. To make it feasible, there has to be usage and in many occupations its not feasible to be without transportation on a daily basis. I could list 20, but seeing as how you are a complete twat I'll save my time.
3. NY NY is still a [Bleeeeep!] hole, and they have had mass transit for along time. Mass transit (trolley systems) were in 65 cities prior to 1910. By 1965 there were only 5 system still in place. Guess what their traffic still sucks. The great thing about Portland is that there the employment centers are spread out throughout the metro area and most people choose to live close to their work.

BTW, pop quiz list 3 public transportation systems that actually pay for themselves.. (make sure to include amortized constructions costs and initial set up costs in those figures)

If I was to commute via public transportation it would increase my time away from home by a minimum of 1 1/2 hours a day.

I don't follow any particular ideology with my head up my ass (or in the sand). It doesn't bother me that you seem to, though. Questioning policies our local government makes is sniveling...? You're a freaking riot.

A multi-billion dollar light rail link from downtown to almost the airport is the first phase of our regional transit system? Ya, that's moving a lot of commuters. It's not even moving many out of town travelers.

Serious question, Dan. Do you see any political balance in the Puget Sound region? If so, where? I don't. Wish there was.

I wouldn't fit in too well in Kansas or Missouri because I don't align with the hard right. They'd be telling me to move to Seattle where they don't get bogged down by teabagging conservative idiots...

Planning in and of itself is not the problem, Sg.
It's how it is implemented. Such as parking lots that are too cramped to move about in without danger.....seen those? How about streets that wander through neighborhoods with multiple dead ends.....how green is that?
Planning should evolve around efficiency, aka, useability. If you have trouble directing strangers to a location (like your address), you are experiencing a planning problem. If you have to back up to fit your car into a parking spot, you are experiencing a planning problem.....more, much more.
Every time I have to jump a curb with my boat trailer because some jerk planner thinks entrances only need be wide enough for compact cars, something is wrong.
Bicycles and pedestrian-only area may function for some, but they are far from functional for many.
Similarly, I have motorized boats.....because I want to get where I want to go.......I don't enjoy waiting in lines any more than I would enjoy waiting for the wind to blow in a favorable direction.
When planners and efficiency start talking to each other perhaps I'll change my view of them being obstructionists. (probably a "progressive" concept?)

Hank luckily we have tons of money for police, fire, and schools in Portlandia..

Hank don't forget those costs you quoted don't include construction costs.. Which conviently were not put out to bid on the last light rail project and just happened to be given to Stacey Whitbeck, which has family ties to Nancy Pelosi.

The whole purpose of Long Range planning coupled with the growth management plan was to help eliminate politics out of the system. What was best overall would be planned, and then changes would be hard and have to face public scrutiny through lengthy plan amendments. Unfortunately, they then allowed neighborhoods to develop their own plans. The result is that where I live we have commercial zoning on one side of us, aparments behind and across the street, and a residential neighbor one the other. We are one minute from the freeway and have a major bus line stopping in front of us. But, we are restricted to single family homes with one of the highest lot sizes within the growth area. But, 12 miles out further, in an area with no sewer, no bus lines and a 30 minute commute to the city, they have it zoned for condo's. Why, because our area was mostly developed and they needed to make their numbers.
We have state highways with residential zoning, and then 3 blocks away they are pushing for tax credits to stimulate growth. The whole idea of planning is a joke.
Regulations can be just as bad. I have flat, dry, single family lots that are almost completely gravel, and I am putting in more sediment controls then the county highway project a mile away. They have mud for a mile on the road, something that would shut me down immediately. But, it sounded great on paper.

Krijack,

Really? ". . . whole idea of planning is a joke." So things turn out better without planning?

Slab,

Do you think they're planning for you? I'm guessing they don't. Here's how it works when planning a parking lot: Land costs money. More land for bigger lots costs more money. So you get lots with parking stalls and drive pathways that require you to jockey your bulgemobile car or truck back and forth a couple times to wedge yourself into the too-small space. From the planner's and lot owner's perspective that is your problem not their's. You got your parking space; they got your parking money for it. Whatever makes you think it's about you and your convenience? It isn't. BTW, I agree that this is a pain. I even have to jockey the Subie to get in some places. But I understand that your and my convenience is not part of their plan.

If you understood the rules of problem ownership, you might . . . naw, you'd still be pissed because the regional planners don't make it all about YOU.

Sg

City and municipal zoning is different than rapid expansion of cost inefficient public transit. Personally I think Portland and the surronding burbs have done a fine job with their city planning. No need to look farther than bend locally to see a complete lack of zoning or planning. Responsible city planning make for nucleus areas of production surrounded by close in residential and light commercial. with adaquate arterials to support the traffic.

News flash, they are not building anymore freeways in the Metro PDX area.
Populations are on the rise, what's the answer?
Mass transit connecting out lying areas to the CBD is the most cost efficient, low carbon foot print way to get commuters to and from the downtown core area.
Your thinking in the here and now, planners are thinking 50-80 years in the future.

Thanks for providing the anti mass transit position Hank, but like was mentioned above we are not talking about the here and now, but rather generations in the future.

Try some less slanted information.

http://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/factsheet.pdf


Easing traffic congestion
MAX carries 26% of evening rushhour
commuters traveling from
downtown on the Sunset Hwy. and
Banfield Fwy.
Westside MAX can carry the
equivalent of 2.9 extra lanes of traffic
on the Sunset Hwy.
Most riders (84%) are choice riders:
they have a car available or choose
not to own one so they can ride
TriMet.
43% of adults in the region use
TriMet at least twice a month.
Nearly 90% of people in the TriMet
district live within 1/2 mile of transit
service.
Clean air
Each weekday, MAX eliminates more
than 87,000 car trips from our roads,
easing traffic congestion and helping
keep our air clean. That adds up to
28.6 million fewer car trips each year.
TriMet’s MAX and buses combined
eliminate 207,300 daily car trips, or
65 million trips each year.
For each mile taken on TriMet, 53%
less carbon is emitted compared to
driving alone.

So a webste that's slanted against Trimet is somehow now creditable?
That is why I posted it.
Livability is defined in part by a regions mass transit, are you saying that's not true?

So Hank, with no new freeways on the planning drawing board, what's your solution for the next 80 years?

Portland metro area is predicted to have 3.85 million people by the year 2060, with no further expansion of the freeway system, how do you plan for these people to commute to and from their jobs?

The answer is fairly easy. For all of the bitching about liberal areas of the country they also happen to be the areas that have higher employment at a liveable wage and many other opportunities that one cannot find in a Tea Party conservative state.

Lets take my state of Idaho, run by conservatives. Yeah, there are jobs, but extremely low paying jobs; with a few exceptions, no unions and very little in the way of opportunity.

Like I tell the young people going to school. This is a great place to retire, not to have a career. Head west young man.

More freeways is off the table and has been for over 30 years, I don't see any other alternative to mass transit.
I don't know Hank, this link rates Trimet light rail 4th out of 33 US cites.
Perhaps your anti mass transit website is a bit biased?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_light_rail_systems_by_ridership

Hank,

How are you at arithmetic? Your suggestion is to put additional freeways back on the drawing boards. OK, that's a bit like Click and Clack's "pave it all" option. However, just where do you suggest they put these additional freeways? Not to mention additional arterials and supporting collector/distributor streets? There's only so much space, i.e., land, as Woody Guthrie said back in the 1930s, and God ain't making any more of it. Since downtown areas are already built up and otherwise developed, you would have to buy extremely expensive developed land and raze whatever's there to build these new freeways and supporting roads. And in that process you would be removing existing commercial and business development that is the very reason more people want access to central downtown areas. No offense Hank, but your suggestion smacks of trying to fit 10 pounds of sh!t in a 5 pound bag. Can't be done. Physically impossible. I thought you understood elementary physics. Traffic planners already figured out some time ago that we cannot build our way out of gridlock. As the driving population increases, roads and freeways can only get so large before gridlock becomes the unavoidable norm. In order to make a 4 to 6-lane freeway traffic flow smoothly, you have to DELETE on and off ramps. Access interchanges become the bottleneck limiting factor.

If the human population of urban areas like Portland and Seattle continue to increase, and they are, then the only way to physically efficiently (as opposed to $$ efficiency) accommodate all those people is by transportation alternatives to single occupant motor vehicles operating on conventional streets and freeways.

Do the math Hank.

Sg

You nailed it salmo... my sentiments exactly...





speaking of efficiency... As I'm looking out my window in the office, I am seeing the physically efficient solution to gridlock... condo's and apartments close to the downtown core...

Right now, there are no less than 7 cranes building residential highrise on capitol hill.

Look Hank compared to SF Bay area, Trimet light rail is heavily used.
SF area has a population of just over 7.46 million people Muni Metro has a daily ridership of 173,500 passengers, where Portland Metro area has 2.2 million people and 141,000 of them ride the train every day.
SF has 46.6 miles of track where Portland has over 59 miles.
So why doesn't SF have more mass transit projects?

So, you want Portland to be more like San Fran ?

No I don't, but I also don 't want voters deciding on an issue that they clearly know nothing what so ever about.

Well, I've rethought the whole thing. You guys are dead on right. Please do keep everyone living in apartments, high rise yet, and stepping out of their abode and onto a bus or train and go to work. Please have them trade their lives in for a man-made wonderland of work and play.

I'll continue to live my life daily in an area that people would travel hundreds of miles just to camp in for the night. Where I can pick my strawberries in my underwear if I so desire, and no one will be offended.

It's all a matter of perspective. Best of luck with yours.

Just a thought on those 50 to 80 years in the future thinkers.....If people are now retiring at a rate of 10K/day.....they will be dying at that rate in about 30 or so years.......whatchagonnna do with all the extras you build today......fill 'em up with immigrants?

I thought the basic tenant of our nation is we are governed by the people and popular majority.. Are you pushing for dictator ship now with the goverment imposing its will on the people as it sees fit, or is that only okay if it conincides with your agenda?

Have you considered petitioning the university you attended for a refund?

Quadruple the number of park and rides, invest in on and off ramps to accomodate the buses, and make the carpool lane bus only.

Thanks for answering my question twat.

Power-hungry is ugly stuff.

It's one thing to have people think your stupid, then there's opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

Wntrrn,

Buses are presently the most cost efficient alternative to single occupant motor vehicles, but adding on/off ramps contributes to gridlock, not smooth traffic flow, unless you mean ramps for buses only. What we are more likely to see is a bus only lane and the carpool lane, further reducing lanes available for single occupant vehicles. That is ultimately how people will be motivated to use a transportation alternative. When driving one's own car takes a good 10 to 15 minutes longer each way than using buses or trains or whatever, that is when people will switch.

As Hank points out, 84% (in Portland, but likely similar in many places) prefer to drive single occupant cars, and that is just what they will continue to do until it becomes less preferable. It becomes less preferable when it takes significantly longer or when it costs just too damn much, which varies according to individual affluence.

Hank,

I drive. I could take the bus by riding my bike to the bus stop, riding the bus, transferring to another bus, and then finishing off my commute on my bike to the office. Or I can just ride my bike the whole 10 miles. So why don't I? Because I don't have heavy traffic on my route, nor is it too expensive. Yet.

I want to thank all of you drivers for subsidizing my commute...

I walk on the ferry in the morning and work an hour while commuting. in the evening, I walk on the ferry, drink a beer, and work an hour...

so basically, I'm getting a free ride, drinking on the job, and getting paid to do it...

suckers...

Typical response, avoid the question and resort to insulting someones intelligence. I at least think you are reasonably intelligent, but I also think you are a complete twat.

Livin' the good life Piper! What could be better than beer on the job?

The issue with that is that it negatively effects people who's jobs require daily additional travel once onsite to their work place. Which coincidentally are the same ones who foot the largest portion of the road work costs through gas taxes etc, which trimet does not pay in a proportionate sum. The cost per trimet rider is nearly 85 cents a mile, almost what a cab costs, light rail is 1.11 per rider without costing in the nearly 3 billion dollars in construction costs to date.

Salmo,
I think we all are in favor of planning, but planning that makes sense, not a just a liberalist view of how to force people to live. A market approach to the solution would say that when roads get bad enough, then people will move to the city. Developers would find the initiative to provide inner city living that people want. The liberal planners view is to try to force people to live in the certian areas, regardless of efficeincy or desirability or cost.

Take Tacoma, no one wanted to live in Hill top. They have great mass transit, easy access to the freeways and down town, great views, but derelict buildings and high crime. Then the city changed the zoning to allow high rise buildings, offered tax credits, and built the Tacoma branch of University of Washington. Despite a set back with the current housing crisis, there are multiple condo complexes in the area. I have freinds who love living in the area and others who have invested there. No amount of mass transit or traffic would have got them to live in the area, but the prospect of walking to work and school in a safe enviroment, to clubs, the waterfront and other things were. The biggest draw back to the area is a lack of shopping. This is partially related to the high levels of crime in the areas open for the construction of shopping centers. Some rezoning and incentives may take care of the problem, but eventually economics should rule since once the need is high enough someone will find a way to make it work.

An example of economics over planning can be seen in a housing development in our area. When prices were very high, people started moving out to a housing development in Yelm called Clearwood. Clearwood is a rural subdivision with a lake and lots of neighborhood amenities. For a family, it is a fairly nice place to live. Unfortunately, it is about 20 minutes to the nearest shopping and most owners commute 45 minutes or more to get to work. When housing appeared to be in a crunch, people were willing to sacrifice to be able to own a home. Now that prices have fallen in closer to town, the prices here have collapsed. With gas at $3.00 a gallon, an average family could easily spend an extra $15.00 a day to live here. At $450 a month, that translates to about $70,000 purchasing power in closer. Surprise, Surprise. Right now homes here sale for about $60,000 less than in town. Since noone can build that cheap, development here is almost nill,while in town it is starting to take off. Economics and desirability took care of the issue. If the county came in and starting running busses and car pools, the effect would be the opposite, as some people would then find it more affordable to live there.

WRO,

People who have to travel SOV (single occupant vehicle), each way, or throughout the day, are always going to be the ones experiencing the worst of what the transportation system offers. I don't see the evolution towards a dedicated lane reserved for those forced to SOV, although one possibility would be purchase of a pass allowing one to use bus and carpool lanes.

I'm not denying the high cost of transportation alternatives either. My main reason for entering the discussion is that at some point in terms of human population, the conventional SOV approach fails to function. Then what? Many simply argue that more freeways and roads should be built. I used to be one of "those people." Then I learned to understand the transportation experts who know that we can't just simply build our way out of gridlock by way of endless accommodation of SOVs. Since that's the case, we have to choose an alternative, and all the viable alternatives are not what most people would prefer.

Krijack,

Planning that makes sense. Yes, but makes sense to who? And why? And how? As for forcing people how to live, I thought that was a conservative's attribute. Joking; both sides do it, usually failing to recognize it.

Unfortunately I think the market approach fails to solve the issue, and to the extent that it does solve it, it does so with attendant gridlock, extreme pollution, and significant reduction in quality of life. But hey, it's a market solution, and if you want to count on that to always float your boat, by all means advocate for it. The problem with that approach is that most leftys and rightys don't really want that as the outcome.

I suppose you're right in assuming that most planners are liberals, since a true conservative is likely wedded to market forces alone, no matter how badly it degrades the environment or human experience, but I digress. Planners work for governments, and planners that work for liberal governments will develop plans that reflect the goals of those governments, which may or may not have any relevance to economic efficiency.

I disagree with your contention that when gridlock is bad enough, developers will create inner city living that people want. They will do that for the affluent. But they will develop something marginally affordable for those who qualify only for low paying inner city jobs that they cannot afford to commute to, even if that results in 6 people living in a 2 person apartment, or equivalent. By definition, the unregulated market solves problems, but the unregulated market doesn't care how ugly the solution is or how low the quality of life that results. Effective planning can offset some of the disadvantages of an unregulated market, and I guess I'm taking the long way around in saying that is the purpose of transportation planning. The vast majority of Americans prefer an SOV, but we know that isn't a solution for downtown sections of large cities. Therefore, what is the next best, most preferable alternative?

Sg

Salmo,
For all the planning Seattle has, where is the affordable housing within the city core? I have had planners tell me that economics has nothing to do with planning, eventually the costs will justify the outcome they want.
For all their planning, what happens is usually the exact opposite of what they want. They dictate 6 houses per acre, then ask for community parks, sidewalks, 60 foot roadways, and then can't figure out why the lots are only 3500 sq ft or how to get adequate storm water reabsortion. So then they dictate bigger storm water ponds, resulting in smaller lots. Since the lots are smaller, they dictate on site drainage for all the homes and driveways. When they are done, we have a 3500 to 4000 sq ft lot with $60,000 in development costs, but raw building sites outside the growth area selling for the same price for an acre to 5 acres. What they do is drive anyone who wants a parcel of land to build a decent size house outside the growth management area, creating even more sprawl. Then, when every inch of land outside the GMA is developed people are forced into the GMA and they declare it a success. Since the GMA was passed in Pierce County, I feel they pushed the development of Non-GMA land up 20 years. People who would have been happy on a 10,000 to 12000 sq ft lot were forced to buy up existing acreage, usually at one acre to 20 acre lots. The recent down turn has given some retrieve, but eventually people will be forced inward simply because they have allowed almost 100% development of the land outside the GMA. A slanted market approach with simpler requirements would have stated no land subdivision outside the GMA until all utilities are present and lots of no more than 20,000 sq ft. Development would have followed more natural paths, with expensive areas justifying larger lots, and lower income areas smaller lots and areas with high development costs or natural constraints generally being skipped over.

Salmo,

I'm talking about dedicated park and rides, on off ramps and lane for buses only. Instead of investing billions on systems that people don't ride, invest in one that people do ride. Our commuter buses are packed to overflowing and park and rides along I-5 and 405 are also at max capacity.

People will ride the bus. A study showing that xxx percent of people prefer driving solo doesn't take into account having a system that actually works. Light rail doesn't and won't, IMHO.

When Sound Transit went thru all the pre-planning and had their EIS completed, it showed that statiscally ZERO automobiles would be removed from the streets. Most ridership would be pirated from already existing bus routes. How does that make sense to spend however many billions it's going to end up when there is a system that works, and, the cost is substantially less? It's not about providing the best transportation system, it's about extracting the most amount of money from John Q Public and putting it into the hands of those who help our local politicians get elected. I believe the overall goal isn't about solving transportation issues, it's about leaving a legacy of social engineering that isn't working.


Looks like LA figured out how to reduce congestion.
http://blogdowntown.com/2013/02/7142-las-traffic-lights-now-synced-aims-to-increase

Looks like Washington doesn't know how to complete a single project without having to pass around the collection basket, AGAIN.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020398639_transpo52099xml.html

No argument with that Wntrrn.

I often watch who is driving in the HOV lanes. While buses and vans are visible during peak hours, a large portion appear to be the following: Husband/wife combinations, Construction or delivery crews, Mother and children ( a large portion), Police man, and other people who would already be commuting together. I wonder if a study has ever been done to see how many people truely are car pooling.

HOV lanes encourage me to carpool. I refuse to attend a meeting in Bellevue unless I've got a carpool to go up I-405. It's the only lane in motion in the morning; the other lanes stand still. HOV lanes only encourage people to carpool or pay for it if they value their time. That people will sit in the standstill lanes while the HOVs whiz by is a testament; those people are voting with their time and the choice they make. Obviously the slow lanes aren't yet slow enough.

If you take the "actions have consequences" and "stupidity should hurt" principles into consideration, people are saying and voting that their time isn't valuable enough to bother with the hassle of finding someone to ride with them.

That's why I'd like to see the center of the freeway with a Metro like rail system flanked by HOV lanes flanked by slow lanes. Everyone in the slow lanes watching the train and buses and HOVs zoom by deserves to be sitting in the slow/standstill lanes by the very choice they make to be there.