Seattle Forward

The Famous Signature

There it is, right on page one, Council President Richard Conlin's signature, along with those of two others from the Washington State Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration.  These three signatures allowed the 2010 Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project to be printed and distributed for public comment. 

The public comment period began yesterday and lasts 45 days until December 13, 2010.  There are several ways to comment, including three public hearings. Get the details here. 

Benefit for All: Market-Driven Parking Costs

Two proposals in this year's budget recommendations from Mayor Mike McGinn have generated the most controversy—reducing hours at neighborhood community centers and higher fees for on-street parking. With the city's annual budget approaching $4 billion these two items represent a tiny fraction of total spending, but they prove Tip O'Neill's famous quip, "All politics is local." 

Municipal government is closest to the people.  It's the form of government people see every day and use the most.  So when local government proposes a change, reaction can be quick and sometimes fierce.

The outcry over increased parking rates has indeed been quick and fierce.  My office has heard it loud and clear—you're just grabbing for more money, you'll hurt local businesses, you'll drive shoppers to Bellevue or the malls, don't you realize we're hurting out here.

But, what if the higher on-street parking rates are actually a benefit, a change that will help retail businesses, improve the flow of traffic, lower carbon emissions and help pay for pedestrian improvements, better lighting and more frequent cleaning?

A Pro Business Parking Strategy

Mayor McGinn's proposed 2011 budget calls for raising on-street parking prices to as much as $4 per hour in the downtown core and smaller increases in other city neighborhoods. (The Mayor's budget legislation actually sets a $5 top limit per hour on meter rates.) The Mayor is on the right track, but we should go even further and introduce demand-sensitive variable pricing as quickly as possible.

Demand-sensitive or performance-based on-street parking rates are pro business.  Here's why as explained by Donald Shoup, professor of urban planning at UCLA and the author of The High Cost of Free Parking.

"Prices that produce an occupancy rate of about 85% can be called 'performance-based' for three reasons.  First, curb parking will perform efficiently.  The spaces will be well used but readily available.  Second, the transportation system will perform efficiently.  Cruising for underpriced curb parking will not congest traffic, waste fuel, and pollute the air.  Third, the economy will perform efficiently.  The price of parking will be higher when demand is higher, and this higher price will encourage rapid parking turnover.  Drivers will park, buy something, and leave quickly so that other drivers can use the spaces.  Cities can achieve all these goals by setting curb parking prices to yield about an 85% occupancy rate." ("The Price of Parking on a Great Street," Parking Today magazine, February 2009.)

Shoup also recommends that parking meter revenue above the current base rate be dedicated to neighborhood-specific street improvement projects, including more frequent street and sidewalk cleaning, enhanced lighting, more police, litter and grafitti cleanup, and pedestrian improvements.  Shoup calls this revenue dedication "parking increment financing." 

San Francisco will soon launch a very sophisticated experiment in on-street parking management.  This three-minute video provides the essence of their program. Many of the core elements of the San Francisco program could be introduced here fairly quickly.  For example, we could adjust meter parking rates electronically by neighborhood on a quarterly or monthly basis to achieve the desired 85% occupancy rate.

And here's a New York Times opinion piece by Shoup that explains the most effective pricing model for on-street parking. 

The Council should adopt specific outcomes related to on-street parking, such as the 85% occupancy standard and then allow variable demand-sensitive meter rates.  When demand is low, for example on weekends and late at night, meter rates would be low or free.  When demand is high, primarily during the day or early evening hours, meter rates would also be high.  This approach to public policy is objective, is outcome-driven, and removes the political squabbles and conflicts of the traditional approach to setting meter rates.

 

About Town

Late last year, we started a city map to plot my neighborhood visits.  Take a look. 

I Can Do Better

Last Wednesday night I attended a meeting of the Queen Anne Community Council to listen to concerns about the closure of the community center gym and game room. (I am Queen Anne resident and chaired the Community Council in the late 1980s.)

When I was explaining how the Council would wrestle with the many hard budget choices we face, I made a statement about how the reduction in community center hours, the loss of the gym and game room and closure of programs in other centers would negatively impact certain neighborhoods. Then I made a mistake. I commented that the centers impacted by the Mayor’s recommendations were mostly in the north end of the city and then suggested the Mayor was “daring the Council to restore the funding for these centers”. I regret those words.

I know that my statement may easily be read as doing exactly what I was criticizing the Mayor for doing—artificially dividing our city. After reflecting upon my remarks Wednesday night, I’ve come to realize my quick and unthoughtful statement represents what I dislike about so much of our public discourse today. I assigned ulterior motives to the Mayor and I apologize for that.

It is far better to engage in a dialogue that focuses on facts, shared goals and the common good. I try to hold myself to this higher standard. Yes, the City faces difficult choices and we will have spirited debates over policy. That is a very good thing. But this episode has reminded me again that our words and how we frame these debates matters a lot.

KJ Visits Franklin High School

Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson—yes, the former NBA-star KJ that Sonic fans loved to boo—visited Seattle's Franklin High School yesterday.  He's still got his stuff.  Johnson slammed dunked a student-focused, three-point speech that had the Franklin kids jumping to their feet and cheering.

I had the privilege of traveling around the city with Johnson starting with a lunch with community leaders at Island Soul in Columbia City.  (The food was great!)  At Franklin, Johnson told his personal story of doing well in high school only to find he was woefully unprepared for college at UC Berkeley.  Raised by a single mom—his father drowned when Johnson was three—in a poor neighborhood of Sacramento, Johnson urged the students to (1) work hard, (2) climb the mountain to college and (3) help others.  At one point in his presentation, Johnson pulled a $20 bill from his pocket and conducted a mini spelling bee.  The challenge was to correctly spell euphemism, the word Johnson explained he didn't know in his first college class, the word that caused him to realize that he was unprepared for college level work.  

Next, City Hall for a meeting with Mayor McGinn and the mayors of Tacoma, Federal Way and Burien.  Our conversation focused on regional cooperation in education reform and the importance of aligning city services with school district needs.  Johnson was recently elected chair of the U. S. Conference of Mayors education task force. 

Our last two stops of the day were a private reception for Democrats for Education Reform and a rip-roaring speech to a packed Mt. Zion Baptist Church.  It was a whirlwind day, for sure.  I appreciated Johnson's passion for students, his desire to tell the truth about America's failure to prepare our children for college and globally-competitive career choices and our urgent need to reform public education so all kids receive the high quality educaiton they deserve.  Johnson was right when he told the Mt. Zion audience that education should be the civil rights issue of the 21st century.  And that got me thinking . . .

Over the past year, right here in Seattle, our community came together with one goal in mind—create a movement to demand reform in our public schools.  And we did just that!  Working together, Seattle school district officials and leaders of the teachers' union negotiated a new contract that puts kids at the center, introduces important reforms and, for the first time, links teacher performance evaluations with student academic growth.  The new contract is not the end, it's a beginning.  It's one step on a path to make sure all students in every school, in every neighborhood, successfully graduate from high school prepared for college.  That's our vision.  That's our hope for Seattle's children.  Together, teachers, parents, school district leadership, union leaders, elected officials, the whole community can rally around this vision.  It's the right thing to do.

Seattle's Good Side

I saw two perfect examples of Seattle's good side last week. 

Last Friday at lunch I sat and listened as Lily Tomlin made us laugh at ourselves.  She was in town to help Plymouth Housing celebrate its 30th anniversary of effectively and efficiently serving our homeless neighbors. (Nicole Brodeur writes about Tomlin's visit in today's Seattle Times.)

Plymouth Housing got its start when parishioners at downtown's Plymouth Congregational Church stood up and took action to help homeless people living on our sidewalks, in our doorways, and under trees in our parks.  That direct action 30 years ago has grown into one of our finest social service organizations that houses over one thousand individuals in small, comfortable apartments.  Many Plymouth residents struggle with chronic mental health, alcohol and drug problems.  Many are military veterans.  Plymouth not only provides each with an apartment, but they staff their buildings with professionals who are especially equipped to lend necessary and important assistance to the residents.  Often called "housing first" or "wrap around services," this link between an apartment that brings dignity to residents and services to deal with very real and specific challenges is the core reason for the organization's success.  

Plymouth is an excellent partner of the City, which has provided funding for more than 900 units of housing in 12 different Plymouth developments over the years.  It is well managed and recognizes the value of accountability and measuring effectiveness.

Last Thursday morning at breakfast I marveled at how the newspaper, Real Change, has given a boost to thousands of homeless and low-income women and men over the past 16 years.  The Real Change breakfast was a bit more edgy, provocative, even prickly, compared to the Plymouth lunch.  Real Change follows the personality of its founder and editor Tim Harris, who, as I've written before, makes us uncomfortable in a good way.  There were a few gentle barbs thrown at me because of my sponsorship of an aggressive solicitation ordinance earlier this year that was passed by the Council but vetoed by Mayor McGinn. Joe Martin, a long-time Seattle humorist and passionate advocate for the poor, delivered a very funny roast of Harris, who was celebrating his 50th birthday at the breakfast.  Tim himself was designated Seattle's "brutal humanist," and gave a thoughtful speech about what he sees right and wrong with our good city. 

While listening to Harris, I thought of my neighborhood Real Change vendor.  His name is Walter and he's stood at exactly the same spot in front of my favorite grocery store for years.  We have interesting conversations about his life, my life, the banner headline on this week's edition of his paper, how sales are going.  I remember when he told me he had moved into a more permanent shelter.  Walter is my most personal link to Real Change, but the breakfast gave me a better glimpse of the scope and breadth of their work.

Two meals last week.  Two examples of the good side of Seattle.

Another Step for Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement

The City Council voted 8-1 this afternoon to affirm the City's role as a co-lead with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) on environmental review of the viaduct replacement project. 

Today's action should not be a surprise to anyone—unless you believe the project should be scrapped.  Even Councilmember Mike O'brien voiced support for the action Council President Richard Conlin took late last month to advance the City's partnership with the state and federal authorities.  Why shouldn't anyone be surprised by today's action?  Because since 2001 the City has worked closely with WSDOT and the FHA to study the project.  The Council's vote today affirmed that partnership and advanced the environmental review work to the next phase—public comment on the draft environmental conclusions.  (Public comment will last 45 days from the date of publication of the draft EIS.  The final EIS will be issued early next summer.)

So, where do things stand following today's Council action.  The EIS process will continue with the City sitting at the table.  We are waiting for construction bids to be received by WSDOT for the deep-bore tunnel.  We have reserved until early next year the Council's final action approving City participation in the project; we want to see the bid prices and review the assignment of risk language in the final construction contracts between WSDOT and their preferred design-build team.  We have clearly stated our view—supported by our City Attorney—that Seattle taxpayers are not responsible for cost overruns on this state highway project.  In fact, we have been quite emphatic on this point.  This is a state highway, a state construction project, a state controlled process.  Despite confusing language in state law about who should pay for cost overruns if there are any, every council member has been bluntly clear—the state and not city taxpayers is responsible for all state costs, including potential cost overruns.  Period. 

No serious and objective observer, including the many lawyers who have examined this issue, believe anyone other than the State of Washington is responsible for the costs of this project.  But, the opponents of the tunnel keep raising it, a desperate attempt to create doubt and fear. 

The City Council is strongly united on this project.