Sierra Club's letter to Sound Transit

The Sierra Club's Mike O'Brien forwarded me this letter that the Sierra Club sent to Sound Transit CEO Joni Earl and the Sound Transit Board today documenting the three primary areas that the Sierra Club would like Sound Transit to address in its forthcoming new ballot measure, or ST 2.1

The three key issues are as follows:

• Green house gas emissions should be a key driver in the projects that Sound Transit selects;
• In place of allocating funds exclusively for parking garages, Sound Transit should add "station access funds" that allow spending on a variety of transportation modes, including cyclists, pedestrians and, yes, cars;
• WSDOT and Sound Transit should cooperate closely on plans for replacing the 520 Bridge so that adding light rail to the 520 Bridge in the future will be as cheap and as non-disruptive as possible.

My general take is this: the Sierra Club wants global warming to be the guiding principle behind transportation planning in the region. I guess it's an obvious point, considering the Sierra Club's messaging for Prop 1. But I bring it up because my initial read on this was that the Sierra Club was going to take a hard line and say that global warming should be the only factor in transit planning, making it impossible for drivers to choose another transportation mode. Instead, to me it feels like the Sierra Club is taking its November win out for a spin to see how far it can push Sound Transit before getting on board with the rest of us and supporting ST2.1.

Anyway, just my read. Read the letter if you're interested. It's long, though, so if you want some highlights, I have a bunch of selected quotes after the jump.

UPDATE: STB just picked this up, so I feel like I should point out that my read on what the Sierra Club is doing could be totally and completely wrong. I'm trying to be (uncharacteristically) optimistic.

THE JUMP

Here's a summary of the points in the letter, using representative quotes:

GHG Assessments Need to Influence Project Selection

"It is critical that basic GHG assessments... be incorporated into the project selection process."

"Assessments should consider the effects of GHG emissions during construction as well as maintenance and operation over the life of the project. Development of compact, walkable residential and commercial areas around transit stations should be factored in to the GHG emissions accounting..."

Integration of Transit with Land Use

"While we understand how [parking garages] can help build ridership, they also discourage access to the transit stations via more climate-friendly modes than driving alone."

"Charging for parking at existing garages should be a viable policy to help balance demand and encourage carpool, local bus, bike, and pedestrian access to the transit hubs."

"Sierra Club supports converting park & ride funds into flexible 'station access' funds, which can support all modes of reaching transit stations."

East Link Plans Integrate Twin Corridors in Future

"We are encouraging Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to design a new/retrofitted SR-520 to accommodate high-capacity transit (likely light rail) from the outset as opposed to needing to retrofit the structure later."

Better Funding Sources are Needed in Future

"Sierra Club prefers the Sound Transit sales tax authority be used as an interim revenue source until a future date when variable price tolling can pay for transit projects."

Central Link Extension to Northgate is Highest Priority

"Ridership.... and associated environmental benefit... indicate that the highest priority for the revised ST2.1 plan must be extension of the Central Link LRT to Northgate... When these steps are integrated with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes north and east, we see a significant potential for shifting people away from an increasingly congested I-5 and northern portion of I-405."

Sounder Service Expansion Builds on Existing Facilities

"As the partial closure of I-5 in August 2007 demonstrated, Sounder has an enormous potential for growth. We support increased frequency and mid-day service in the south corridor consistent with ridership growth. Increases in north corridor ridership should be made only after evaluating the effects of adding key access points to the line at Edmonds and Mukilteo."

Snohomish County Emphasis on Improved Station Access

"Investment in more frequent express bus service along the I-5 corridor between Snohomish and King Counties is one of the regional priorities in this subarea for the foreseeable future."

"A streetcar line in Everett should be considered both as a catalyst for higher

density development in the city of Everett, and to serve as the northern anchor of an eventual rail line connecting more of Snohomish County's urban area with King County. "

"Sound Transit investment in the multi-modal Edmonds Crossing station will benefit both the Edmonds area and ferry to train transfers, reducing the length and number of trips contributed by cross-Sound commuters."

Pierce County Growth Complements Sounder and Tacoma Link

"Added service in the existing South Corridor Sounder commuter rail line makes more effective use of existing investments in stations and rolling stock."

"Sierra Club supports extension of Tacoma Link to the Tacoma Community College campus... Further extension of the Tacoma Link system... are also worth consideration after the T.C.C. extension is funded [if land use policies are appropriate]."

"More frequent express bus service along the I-5 corridor between Lakewood and Sea-Tac Airport will... complement Sounder service through the Valley communities."

Next steps from the city on scooter parking

The two-wheeled vehicle forum was just step one in a longer conversation. Councilmembers Sally Clark and Jan Drago sent the Vespa Club of Seattle and other organizations involved a letter tallying up our concerns, and listing out next steps for the city.

For those who missed it, the entire session, it turns out, was recorded and released on the Seattle Channel. Sally Clark also blogged about the meeting.

Here's the meat of the email (the first part of the letter is below the jump):

We are committed to improving the scooter environment in Seattle! Below is a list of actions that we, and our staff, plan to take, based on the issues and concerns raised at the forum and through your emails. We'll provide an update and summary on the status of the next steps in early June.

ISSUE: Laws: Car drivers can now "legally" move scooters.

NEXT STEP: Councilmembers will contact the City's law department and the Police Department to find out what laws are "on the books." A law to prohibit moving parked vehicles may be needed.

ISSUE: Safety Education and clarity of existing laws

NEXT STEPS: Councilmembers will work with the Seattle Department of Transportation to create a website for scooters. The website can include information about safety tips and explain current laws are for two-wheeled vehicles.

ISSUE: Parking

NEXT STEPS:

1. Councilmembers will consult with the Seattle Department of Transportation to find out if they have a plan to address increased scooter ridership in dense neighborhoods. They will also find out where there is designated parking now and if additional parking is planned.
2. Councilmember Drago and staff will contact the Parking Garage Owners and Operators Association to see if a proposal could work to provide discounted daily or monthly parking for scooters.
3. Councilmember Clark and staff will research the possibility of issuing a monthly or quarterly parking pass to scooter/motorcycle drivers. Research will include the feasibility, appropriate cost, administration, etc. SDOT is also providing "pay by space" meters on Westlake Ave, west of South Lake Union. Can this technology be used as scooter designated spaces? CM Clark and staff will determine the feasibility.

ISSUE: Scooter Parking Map

NEXT STEPS: The Seattle Department of Transportation indicated that they could provide a scooter parking map on-line. Council will follow-up to make sure that is feasible.

ISSUE: Moped theft and parking

NEXT STEPS: Research the definition a "moped." Research the feasibility of allowing mopeds to park on sidewalks and/or lock-up at bike racks.

ISSUE: Traffic signal sensitivity

NEXT STEPS: Ask SDOT to review current standard signal sensitivity, report back to Council.

HERE'S THE REST OF THE LETTER

As all of you know, we hosted a motorcycle and scooter forum on Tuesday, March 11th to hear concerns, challenges, thoughts and ideas from scooter, moped and motorcycle riders in Seattle. More than 90 people came to hear from a panel of speakers and share experiences about what it's like to use two-wheeled motor vehicles in the city.

We've composed a summary of issues and concerns we heard at the forum and from your emails. These are listed in the attached document with a list of possible solutions, research still to be conducted and notable facts heard at the forum. Lastly, and probably the most important, are issues and next steps that we will begin to take in the weeks and months ahead.

For those of you unable to attend, the forum was recorded by the Seattle Channel and can be viewed at:

http://seattlechannel.org/videos/video.asp?ID=2070802.

Thank you all for taking the time to get involved in the future of Seattle's transportation system. Please feel free to contact either of our offices with your questions or concerns. We look forward to making Seattle an even better place for scooters, mopeds and motorcycles.

Sincerely,

Sally J. Clark and Jan Drago

Sally J. Clark

Seattle City Council

600 Fourth Ave., 2nd Floor

PO Box 34025

Seattle, WA 98104-1860

(206) 684-8802 office, (206) 684-8587 fax, (206) 233-0025 TTY

sally.clark@seattle.gov

Scooter/Motorcycle Parking Forum

Summary and Next Steps

Panelists

Councilmember Sally J. Clark

Councilmember Jan Drago

Susan Richardson, Vespa Club of Seattle

Seth Bedwell, Mosquito Fleet

Dan Nolte, Office of Councilmember Sally Clark

Captain Fred Hill, Seattle Police Department

Mike Estey, Seattle Department of Transportation

Lauren Briel, Urban Mobility Group

Issues/Concerns

• Laws and regulations regarding two-wheeled vehicles unclear amongst riders/enforcement agencies
• Safety campaign for two-wheel community – safety for riders and safety for drivers of larger vehicles
• Lack of two-wheel on-street parking
• Cost to use private parking garages – paying the same as single cars
• Not sure where two-wheel vehicles fit into the transportation system – between a bike and a car
• Parked scooters are being moved by automobile drivers who want access to their parking space
• No place to put "gear" (helmets, etc.)
• Pavement condition can be problematic
• Intersection – two-wheel vehicles do not "trip" the turning signal because the vehicles are light-weight.
• Mopeds are much smaller that scooters and are easier to be stolen.
• Parking pay stations are difficult to use for two-wheel vehicles – tickets are stolen
• Road "turtles" can be dangerous when crossed
• Lack of parking in dense neighborhoods: downtown, Fremont, Capitol Hill, Queen Anne

Possible Actions

• Clarify laws that may be unclear or poorly defined
• Safety campaign for two-wheel community – safety for riders and safety for drivers of larger vehicles
• Increase on-street designated parking
• Work with the private parking garages – can there be use of "dead space" at a discounted rate?
• Create a Scooter Advisory Committee. Conduct an on-line survey of users, like Portland.
• Create an ordinance making it illegal to move parked motor vehicles (including two-wheel vehicles)
• Rent out lockers for gear storage
• Readjust stoplight signals to recognize two-wheeled riders at intersections
• Allow moped parking at bike racks / sidewalks
• Issuance of parking passes instead of parking tickets – monthly or annual passes
• Allow free two-hour parking for scooters in marked spaces, allow discounted parking for longer term parking needs
• Revert back to parking meters at designated two-wheel parking
• Create a map of parking spaces for two-wheel vehicles – could be on the SDOT website.
• Allow two-wheel vehicles to use 3rd Ave during "transit only" period
• Include the downtown business community in the dialogue about scooters

Research

• How green are they? scooters, mopeds, and motorcycles
  • Green house gas reduction
  • Vehicle Miles Traveled reduction
  • Congestion relief
• Should we include two-wheel vehicles to Seattle's mode shift goal? Provide parking/facilities for the percentage of mode split.
• Is a Scooter Advisory Board necessary in Seattle? Scooter Task Force?
• Review other city policies: London, Paris, Amsterdam, Reykjavik, Kobe, Toronto
• How many two-wheel vehicles can fit into a single car space on-street?
• Research the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) definition of motor scooter or more correctly "scooter-type motorcycle" for regulation enforcement requirements.

Facts/Information

• SDOT processes one million transactions a month at the pay stations
• Pay-by-space is being implemented on Westlake, next to South Lake Union
• About ½ of all scooter vehicles stopped for a traffic infraction are not licensed
• Currently, SDOT only adds two-wheel parking near businesses when requested by a property or business owner
• About 150 dedicated on-street parking spaces right now out of 11,000 on-street parking space
• Toronto, Canada provides free on-street parking for scooters, but not motorcycles.

ST in 2008: I'm optimistic this is something we can get really excited about

That's what Mike O'Brien, Director Chair of the Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club, had to say about Sound Transit's potential plan to go to the ballot this year at a transportation forum hosted by Friends of Seattle this evening. Not quite what I want to hear from the Sierra Club, but better than I thought.

Here are some other soundbytes from tonight's forum:

UPDATE: Here's a story on Crosscut about the forum from its moderator.

On Sound Transit going to the ballot in 2008

"We have the opportunity to have the broadest possible electorate [for Sound Transit in 2008], a lot of young people will be voting, and young people believe they will actually live to see some of these projects built."

Greg Nickels, Seattle Mayor and Sound Transit Board Chairman

"Sound Transit in 2008? Yes we can!"

Rob Johnson, Transportation Choices Coalition

"I think Prop 1 was a forced measure, it was too big, and cost too much money, and we would be paying for it for too long. I think if we come back with a standalone Sound Transit package, I think it stands a darn good chance of passing."

Jan Drago, Seattle City Councilmember

"Commuter rail is the biggest story of this package. We're proposing a 90% expansion of commuter trips on the south corridor of Sounder. [That's thirty trips a day vs eighteen now, eight cars to a train vs. seven now]."

Greg Walker, Sound Transit Planning Group

On the 520 Bridge

"We [environmentalists] want lanes 5 & 6 [on 520] to be transit only. We can give a discount to carpools, but if we have tolls, we have enough pavement to handle the traffic."

Rob Johnson, Transportation Choices Coalition

"I want to put the rails in there when we build the new bridge. We don't want to have to close those lanes down later to put rail in. It can't be that much more to put the rails in the concrete when we build the new bridge."

Mike O'Brien, Sierra Club

On congestion pricing

"I believed if we couldn't find the money to fund the Viaduct, if we couldn't find the money to fund 520, if Prop 1 went down, then we would get to the point that we would need to fund these projects with some other kind of money... I think that [tolls] will be life in the Puget Sound region, and I do believe that it will eventually be a region-wide system."

Jan Drago, Seattle City Councilmember

TCC wrap-up of the 2008 legislative session

(Between crises at work) I spent my lunch hour at a Transportation Choices Coalition Friday Forum today, and here's the skinny from TCC on what became law in Olympia this session.

Reducing per capita VMT

By 2020, if we take no action, Washingtonians will drive 75 billion miles every year.

The 2007 Legislative session had a single line about the state reducing it's greenhouse gas emissions, and the plan that come out of that focused on clean fuels and clean cars. When that plan was mapped out, however, the state realized we were barely halfway there.

Two bills were introduced into the House and Senate on VMT reduction, but passage was uncertain, so Ecology Committee Chair Dave Upthegrove inserted the language into a much larger green jobs bill which had a great deal of support. The end result are per capita VMT benchmarks--not caps, not goals--of 18% by 2020, 30% by 2035 and 50% by 2050. The bill the governor signed yesterday will kick off a research cycle starting in July, with a report due to the legislature this December on how to meet  these VMT reduction goals in different areas. That research will become the basis for the legislative session in 2009.

The end result WILL NOT be handing drivers a number of miles they can drive, and having that number decrease over time. Far from it. It will go to various regional governmental planning organizations and say "here's what we think your region contributes to GHGs, here's the VMT reduction target we think you should hit based on your geography and density, and here are the best practices that we think could be implemented in your region that will encourage residents to chose alternate transport mode when appropriate.

The other challenge? This is per capita only, not overall. If we achieve a 50% reduction by 2050, that will work out to only a 15% reduction overall simply due to population growth.

My take on this? I think this will eventually (like in a decade) become a way to distribute state dollars. Regions that can reduce VMT but choose not to won't get as many transportation dollars from the state as regions that do make a big effort to encourage their residents to try alternate transportation modes, whether its for moving people, or moving freight.

Tolling

The tolling legislation was originally introduced in 2007, but there were too many differing opinions to move the bill forward.

The current law does not authorize any tolls, but establishes broad statewide policies on how tolling should be implemented in the future. This bill was attacked by both the right and the left, and legislators tried to insert forty amendments gutting or weakening the bill. Everything from restricting toll revenues to road only expenditures, to preventing any money being spent on operations (including transit operations) rather than transportation capital expenditures, and several others. But somehow, it all held together and the bill survived intact.

This could all be taken apart in the next legislative session, but with this bill now law, any encroachments will likely occur as project-by-project, corridor-by-corridor exemptions rather than a re-write.

In the meantime, the law requires a roadshow of open, public forums to discuss tolls across the state and the Puget Sound region.

520 Bridge

I write about 520 a lot, so I won't go into this in depth. The main piece of this bill focused on how many lanes the bridge will have: 4x2, four general purpose lanes, and two HOV/transit lanes.This bill did authorize the state to talk to the federal government about tolling I-90 (which requires federal approval). It also authorizes pre-construction tolling, but does not actually implement them--a bill to impose tolls would likely be introduced in the 2009 legislative session.

Transportation Education for Kids

This bill's predecessor went down in flames in 2007 because it reached too far. This time, it only required that bicycle and pedestrian education be required in grade school classrooms and in the basic curriculum for new drivers. This time, around, the bill was so non-controversial that only two Senators voted against it.

The Republican caucus officially opposed the bill because it authorized $76,000 for pilot programs in three schools that will instruct physical education teachers to instruct kids on how to get around safely via bike, foot and bus. The Republican caucus dubbed the bill the "Learning to ride the bus" bill.