Debunking Trimet false propaganda daily. Blog owner reserves the right to edit all content at his discretion.
So, what is TriMet doing about this?I find this little tidbit from the LACMTA rather interesting - and absolutely honest:http://thesource.metro.net/topic/why-you-dont-ride/
How about "I don't ride because my city thinks I shouldn't have to take transit, and discourages effective transit service?
What the fuck does that have to do with anything Jason?If you actually READ the code, you'd see this little tidbit:F. Reductions in minimum required vehicle parking. Reductions in the required number of vehicleparking spaces may be permitted as follows:1. The Director may reduce off-street vehicle parking spaces per Section 18.765.070.H by up to20% in new developments for the incorporation of transit-related facilities such as bus stopsand pull-outs, bus shelters, transit-oriented developments and other transit-related developmentthrough a Type II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteriacontained in Section 18.370.020.C.7.b. Applicants who qualify for this adjustment may alsoapply for further parking reductions per 18.765.070.F.2. below.2. The Director may reduce the total required off-street vehicle parking spaces per Section18.765.070.H by up to a total of 20% by means of parking adjustment to be reviewed through aType II procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.040, using approval criteria contained inSection 18.370.020.C.7.a.3. The Director is authorized to reduce up to 10% of existing required parking spaces at aconversion ratio of one parking space for each 100 square feet of transit facility fordevelopments which incorporate transit-related facilities such as bus stops and pull-outs, busshelters, transit-oriented development or other transit-related facilities through a Type Iprocedure, as governed by Section 18.390.030, using approval criteria contained in Section18.370.020.C.7.c.
Not only that, I found at least five or six more references just within the Development Code that specifically referred to encouraging development that is pedestrian and transit friendly, including specifically to make access distances shorter for pedestrians and transit riders than for motorists. But you're only choosing to read what you want to read and not the whole story...no surprise.
And I'm pretty sure that Tigard's Mayor has made it clear that he wants to improve transit, AND the City of Tigard has been a big supporter of WES (never mind TriMet's failed promise to improve bus service at the same time)...And Tigard has two Transit Centers and a third immediately outside of city limits...plus one very well used park-and-ride facility owned by TriMet.
Having to pay for parking is a major inducement for taking transit. If Tigard really wanted people not to drive, they would reduce the requirements by 100% and encourage businesses not to provide free (100% subsidized) parking. As well as not restrict density and make sure there's an excellent pedestrian environment citywide.And have those *possible* (as in not guaranteed, and must be approved) reductions existed since the start of the requirement?(never mind TriMet's failed promise to improve bus service at the same time)Could that maybe be because, due to less employment and people riding to jobs, payroll tax and fare revenues have gone DOWN while expenses have gone UP?
Post a Comment