One advantage of increased
bus service over light rail extensions is that buses can be routed to where
the commuters are while commuters who don’t live within walking distance of
light rail stations have to find ways to get there. Buses can be routed to P&Rs
near where people live.
Pay-to-park lots could offer commuters the opportunity to pay a fee to
reserve a parking stall for priority access to a bus route for where they want
to go. The buses they ride
on could include access to Wi-Fi during their commute into and out of Seattle,
Bellevue, or Overlake.
However, buses can also be routed
to wherever there are sufficient numbers of commuters. For example the entire eastside
has seen an explosion in high-density housing with hundreds of apartments and
condominiums in Bellevue, Redmond, Issaquah, and Sammamish. (Presumably other areas have seen
similar developments.) Many of
those developments could surely provide sufficient numbers of commuters who live
within walking distance of where a bus could park to justify providing access.
Rather than paying parking fees to
assure access to a particular bus route, commuters could pay a monthly or
yearly “Ride Assurance” fee. The
rate could be set such that fees from half the bus capacity cover the typical
35% of bus operating costs, leaving half the bus capacity available for free
rides. Potentially thousands of additional commuters could be attracted to
public transit, reducing roadway congestion without the need to create
expensive P&R lots
Implementing “pay-to-park” lots
and “ride assurance” bus stops requires a comprehensive survey of all the major
employment centers in the area.
Find out where commuters live, and when and where they want to go. Also how far they would be
willing to walk to a “ride assurance” stop or drive to a “Pay-to-Park”, walk to
and from their destination, and how much they would be willing to pay to assure
access. While the results would be used to prioritize pay-to-park locations they could initially be used to locate "Ride assurance" stops.
Buses could be sized to meet
current demand and increase with future growth. Again the goal being to find a single acceptable pick-up and
drop-off location for each route so free access to “unpaid” capacity would be
available. Again the “Ride
Assurance” fee approach would enable Sound Transit to quickly attract thousands
of additional commuters, the only expense being providing additional bus
routes.
The current Sound Transit Board is far more interested in constructing a light rail spine than in implementing a transit system that reduces congestion. The area’s commuters surly deserve
they consider "Ride Assurance" as a way to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment