University Transportation Committee September 17, 2012 Present: Matt Weatherford ‐ PSO representative John Schaufelberger ‐ Faculty representative Dan Erickson ‐ Intercollegiate Athletics Mark Stanley ‐ HFS & Student Life Austin Bell ‐ ASUW representative Jean Garber ‐ At‐large representative (Dentistry) Celeste Gilman ‐ Commuter Services Larry Kalahiki ‐ UWMC Peter Dewey ‐ TIP representative Bob Ennes ‐ Health Science Academic Services & Facilities Brian Ho, guest ‐ Transportation Services Michelle Rhoads ‐ guest, Transportation Services Bob Edmiston ‐ guest, UW Tower Green Team Josh Kavanagh ‐ Transportation Services Colin Morgan ‐ Cross, GPSS Representative Alicia Halberg ‐ Transportation Services Quorum is met with 18 representatives. Austin Bell is representing Miles Fernandez and Sean Wilson on behalf of ASUW. Colin Morgan‐Cross represents Melanie Mayock and the unappointed position on behalf of GPSS. Absent: Miles Fernandez, ASUW representative Sean Wilson, ASUW representative Melanie Mayock, GPSS representative TBA, GPSS representative Chuck Treser, Faculty representative TBA, Faculty representative Luther Martin, WFSE April Millar, WSNA Laura Harrington (née Davenport), SEIU 925 representative John Vinson, UW Police Department Miranda Leidich, South Lake Union Steve Kennard, Real Estate Office Patricia Riley, UWMC Rebecca Barnes, Planning & Budgeting Kristin Francisco, Disability Services Office TBA, UW Human Resources TBA, University Advancement 1. Josh would like to invite a guest to speak quickly in regards to a bicycle and pedestrian trail with potential impacts on the University of Washington.
2.
3.
4.
5.
a. Bob Edmiston works for the UW Tower Green Team helping to coordinate alternative transportation options. His office is working with UW Transportation Services on potentially promoting a new bike/ped trail. b. A large number of bike/ped commuters come from south of the Montlake Bridge and East of I‐5. A portion of these come from even farther— south of Capitol Hill or east of I‐ 90. i. It is difficult for these commuters to get to the University of Washington because of difficult terrain and navigation through the Montlake area. ii. There are areas for improvement because WSDOT and the city of Seattle are currently negotiating on the design of the West‐end SR‐520 bridge approach. iii. The current plan dumps bike/ped commuters at Montlake and leaves them with no clear, navigable way to downtown, the University District, Capitol Hill or other major destinations. c. The question here is, should a new Montlake Bridge include bicycle and pedestrian traffic? Is this something that the University of Washington will advocate for? d. Question (Peter Dewey): What you are talking about has been called the Portage Bay bike path. I can see why this is a great benefit for downtown Seattle, but how is it a benefit for those in the University District? i. Comment (Bob Edmiston): The best option off of Capitol Hill, currently, is to take the University Bridge. There is no safe route for cyclists of all types and abilities from Capitol Hill and beyond to the University District, particularly the stadium area. 1. Providing active transportation options could potential reduce the amount of car traffic and alleviate local transit routes. Approval of past meeting minutes – Josh Kavanagh a. Bob Ennes moves to approve the minutes, Jean Garber seconds. The UTC approves the August meeting minutes. Faculty/Staff U‐PASS Subcommittee – Matt Weatherford a. The subcommittee has not met since the last UTC meeting. There will be a teleconference later this week to discuss the agenda for the next meeting. South Campus Transportation Subcommittee – Bob Ennes a. The full committee has not met since the last UTC meeting, but the subcommittee on allocations has. i. They are dealing with the freeze on allocations. Currently there are 35 spots they have given us flexibility with, which the subcommittee is working on an allocation plan for. ii. Bob Ennes has a full proposal that he will send out to the committee for approval tomorrow. 1. Comment (Josh Kavanagh): There is a significant opportunity here to recognize the business need to park as a primary consideration when we do run into caps or other rationing situations. There are lessons to be learned from this subcommittee’s struggles and successes that could eventually be applied out to other areas of campus. Universal Student U‐PASS Advisory Board – Austin Bell a. NightRide and NightWalk
i. Sunday has significantly lower ridership than the service Monday through Thursday. The Advisory Board has voted to move Sunday service to Friday, hoping that students will find Friday service more helpful and convenient than the Sunday service. ii. Comment (Michelle Rhoads): The NightRide and NightWalk team is a Lean process that has been working hard to raise the profiles of both programs, providing more clarity to campus constituents through marketing materials and operational changes. iii. NightRide is also looking at shifting its hours to a later time or extending its hours. These changes are associated with higher costs, so the Advisory Board will carefully deliberate on these in the future. b. Arbitration i. The Advisory Board is looking at the arbitration issue involving academic student employees. Josh Kavanagh has more information on this issue. 6. Arbitration – Josh Kavanagh a. We are proceeding into the conversations with the UAW and it is fair to say that a broader and higher level contingent of the administration is more actively involved in the process as it stands at this moment. i. This is good thing as more people have a better understanding of the second‐ order implications of any resolution to this issue. b. Student Life has been more actively brought to the table in this issue, which Josh feels particularly good about given the shared governance framework put in place to support the universal U‐PASS program. The Advisory Board has been committed to shared governance and has stipulated this among the must‐haves of any sort of long‐term resolution. c. The students and Transportation Services are also wrestling with a question about the scope of the arbitrator’s decision. In Josh’s opinion, the decision is constrained to the previous contract year and does not bind the aforementioned groups in the current contract year. He is not sure that all parties on the negotiating table would agree with him on this issue. d. Looking forward, the group will continue in the process of clarifying the arbitrator’s ruling. 7. Husky Stadium TIP update – Dan Erickson a. In 1986, Intercollegiate Athletics started this TMP program when seats were added with the upper deck at Husky Stadium. This free transit script program has greatly exceeded initial expectations, doubling the service anticipated in 1986. The original predictions were for roughly 7,000 fans to participate. In 2008 the program served more than 12,000. The program cost ICA $573,397 just last year, and has cost them $5.9 million over the program’s lifespan. b. The proposal is to have subsidized park and ride service from eight locations around the Puget Sound. i. In the past, park and ride lots were free and fans would show their Husky game ticket for free Metro service. ii. The proposal is for fans to be charged $4 for advance sales, $5 on game day, with the option of purchasing a “transportation season pass” at the $4 rate. This
fare is for a round trip, similar to ferry services in the area. This helps to get fans out of the Montlake area as quickly as possible. iii. This fare will be similar to the fare for Sound Transit’s Link Light Rail, which will open at Husky Stadium in 2014. With these rates, there is equal incentive for fans to use different transit modes. c. Parking rates will also increase ‐ $30 for carpools and $40 for non‐carpools. i. A majority of parkers were showing up in twos, the carpool rate is only for those coming in threes. The $5 discount was not enough of an incentive to push people to carpool in the past, so ICA is hoping the $10 discount will be more encouraging. d. Fans are already paying for their transportation to CenturyLink Field – they are already developing the habits to pay, so there shouldn’t be too much negative feedback. i. These transportation plans for the new Husky Stadium mirrors what the Seahawks do down at CenturyLink Field. e. This is not a profitable service for ICA. ICA pays for half, and the fans pay for half. f. Question (Bob Ennes): Will members of the Tyee club be charged? i. Comment (Dan Erickson): Yes, they are now being charged, but it’s at a slightly lower rate. g. Question (Peter Dewey): Most people have a differential price for parking depending on how close they are to their destination – do you anticipate that will be a part of this proposal going forward? i. Comment (Dan Erickson): As of now, no. At the 45th Street garage and UW Tower there is a slightly lower rate, and there are also lower rates around the University District at private lots. As of now this option has not been explored. h. Question (Michelle Rhoads): Will people who have U‐PASS or ORCA be able to use that to pay? i. Comment (Dan Erickson): Yes, Metro would accept those as they normally would. 1. Comment (Josh Kavanagh): This committee will be interested in how that impacts the U‐PASS program. i. Question (Peter Dewey): Right now, does the U‐PASS work to take the bus down to CenturyLink Field? i. Comment (Dan Erickson): It works on Husky special service and extra Sound Transit service, but not on park and ride service. These details have not been arranged for the return to Husky Stadium because the operational profile for service to Husky Stadium has not yet been completed. j. Question (Peter Dewey): What will boat and biking service to the new Husky Stadium look like? i. Comment (Dan Erickson): A renovation of the floating dock is already in progress. There will be additional bike parking around the stadium and at the new light rail station. k. Comment (Josh Kavanagh): This is not an update to the TMP. We are anticipating an update to the TMP in 2016 developed during the transitional period when we have a waiver from the technical committee. The operational profile for service to Husky Stadium continues to be dynamic; ICA and Transportation Services are only getting into those other details as required to make the committee comfortable. 8. Loss of motorcycle parking – Matt Weatherford
a. There has been a perception among motorcyclists on campus that Transportation Services does not think motorcycle or scooter parking is very important. b. In 2009, construction of the new business school began, which removed 10‐15 cycle parking spaces. Some additional parking was put in at N5, but the spaces are oriented downhill, which is problematic for many people with heavier bikes. c. Other locations, such as the bottom of Padelford, can be difficult to get to and seemingly unsafe. d. There is a listserv where motorcyclists have begun posting photos of areas in existing lots that they think makes for good cycle parking. e. The group contacted Chris McDivit of Transportation Services’ Sales and Administration office who had previously told the group that more motorcycle spaces would be added. McDivit has since left TS and the plans changed. i. The group would like a contact person so that they feel like they are included in the decisions and informed. f. Comment (Brian Ho): Normally, when parking receives requests through Sales and Administration, it goes through an allocation process determining how many people are requesting parking at a particular area. Motorcycle requests have been somewhat flat over time. Motorcyclists also have a general campus permit, not for a specific lot. i. Parking will look at counting motorcycle utilization during different parts of the year. Currently lot counts take place in October. Bicyclist counts take place in the spring. 1. We’re counting cars and bicyclists in their peak seasons, but not motorcyclists. a. David Amiton, who works with bicyclist infrastructure and programming, has done some good work in modeling and distributing demand for the UW’s current bike system. He might be someone to contact for looking at modeling motorcyclist behavior. g. Comment (Brian Ho): The University’s lots are built on a crown for drainage purposes. In the future, parking can look at creating spots in different locations or sloping the spots the other way to make it easier for motorcyclists. h. Question (Matt Weatherford): Do you look at gatehouse‐issued motorcycle permits? i. Comment (Brian Ho): There is no way to tell how many have been issued. i. In one month, Brian Ho and Matt Weatherford should be able to articulate a strategy for quantifying the motorcycle demand out there and working to address it. j. Comment (Michelle Rhaods): There’s been a lot of change in the University’s parking infrastructure over the years. There have been a lot of shifts in that vehicle parkers have expressed concern over loss of parking. But all in all, the University is growing and that is a good thing that we can all support. 9. Padelford escalators – Brian Ho a. There was necessary work that needed to be done to the escalators on the very top level. This work will extend the serviceability of the escalators and stop water and leaves from getting into it. It had been deferred for quite some time, but as of this morning, the work is essentially done. b. Within Padelford, there is also elevator maintenance work going on. These are not within TS’ scope, but still of interest to those who use parking facilities in the building. Those elevators should be back online within the week.
c. The group suggested adding motorcycle permit holders to a variety of distribution lists. Currently they receive no messages about lot maintenance or closures. They will receive more email that may not impact them, but they will at least be more informed. 10. Parking allocations in the future parking system – Peter Dewey a. Every parking lot has a certain number of permits that can be sold into that lot. Currently, we don’t have a system that designates between short‐term and long‐term parking. In the new parking system, we are hoping to have a system that can distinguish between these two better. b. What we want to do is establish two limits for each parking lot – a short‐term limit or quota, and a long‐term limit or quota. i. We would sell permits into each of those limits depending on the usage of that lot. ii. The idea is that some lots have a lot of transient customers, and some have a lot of long‐term customers. iii. The short‐term quota will help with lot utilization. 1. The new permits will have a beginning time and an ending time. This way, we can manage the number of permits in a given quota based on the number of permits active at any given moment. 2. Currently, gatehouses sell a daily permit that begins from the moment it is purchased until the following day. With an expiration system, we can see more information about how much time a customer expects to spend in a certain lot. iv. There are other products that might be appropriately assigned to the transient quota: 1. Time‐specific out‐of‐area permit a. The time is acquired based on the time someone is expected to be there (for example: 2‐4 p.m.) b. Currently, out‐of‐area permits start from the moment of acquisition until the following day. TS does not keep track of how long someone is in a lot, which can be difficult for managing how many permits are active in a given lot. c. Customers can log onto the web, walk up to a remote payment device, or show up at a gatehouse to get this permit. 2. Sponsored parking a. Currently, sponsored parking is not time‐specific. In this way, departments can pay for parking for the specific length of their event, rather than a full day of parking. 3. Departmental commuter tickets a. Departments can requisition the product in advance; this has the same benefits as sponsored parking. v. The real purpose of these products is to charge people for the time that they are here and not all day. This allows TS to manage the use of a lot more effectively so that it is no oversold. c. Question (John Schaufelberger): Would we do away with the evening parking permit? For example, I only teach two days a week, from 1 – 5 p.m. i. Comment (Peter Dewey): We will be expanding the unit‐priced parking concept, what is currently called PPUP. Faculty, staff, and students with these permits
will only have to pay for those days they are here. Those with PPUP permits have acquired a right to park, coming out of the long‐term quota, and not the transient quota. d. Comment (Peter Dewey): There will still be some facilities that will be pay‐upon‐exit, likely down at the medical center. e. Question (Bob Ennes): How would parking cards fit in? i. Parking cards act as a contract in that those who have it have a right to park whenever they wish to park. In the future system, these would come out of the contract quota, not the transient quota. 1. There are going to be customers who only want two hours on a specific day, for example, that currently use a parking card, who might find it cheaper to pay for the two hours and be allocated out of the transient parking quota. f. Question (Matt Weatherford): Will these changes result in less parking revenue? i. Comment (Josh Kavanagh): These changes are not intended to reduce the amount of money we make. There will be a benefit for those who park for shorter periods of time, but it may create more capacity for others to come to campus. 1. These changes are also within the context to a number of other changes to the University’s parking system. 2. This new system will have better cost accounting and better accountability to institutional stakeholders. Though there’s the potential to take a hit on that, it’s fairer—we’re charging people for when and where their parking occurs. g. Comment (Peter Dewey): There are some places that we cannot give out out‐of‐area permits because we don’t have a good way of requisitioning those spots. i. The new system allows TS to get a better idea of how many people will show up and better requisition those spaces. Customers will know that they have a space in advance and won’t have to play a guessing game with parking. 1. The new system will allow us to say “yes” to customers more often and take some of the conservatism out of the current system. h. Comment (Peter Dewey): There will be more gated parking areas across campus, utilized primarily for contract permit customers only. Non‐contract or transient customers will be in ungated areas. i. This will allow parking enforcement teams to better enforce ungated areas. This will enforce people who gamble just as much as those who show up and pay for a half hour, but end up staying for three hours. 11. Bylaws – Josh Kavanagh a. UTC members can find a copy of proposed UTC bylaws in front of them. Charles Kennedy will take these up as a part of chartering the UTC. Alicia Halberg, UTC staff, will send out a prompt to the group with a deadline for sending in edits to these bylaws. b. Question (Josh Kavanagh): Would it be valuable to have a public comment period as a standing item on the agenda? i. This could cut into valuable meeting time, but might also be valuable. ii. Those who want to speak should work through their representatives on the board.
iii. The UTC is not bound by the public meeting law, but it does publicize minutes and other minutes through the TS website. 1. The agenda will include five minutes of public comment period which will be split evenly between guest speakers. Groups or members of the public wishing to speak with the UTC can get on the agenda with two days advance notice. 12. Agenda for next meeting a. Parking system update – Peter Dewey b. Other suggested agenda items can be sent to Alicia Halberg at
[email protected]
Wallingford, Fremont, Ballard: homes, recreation, jobs, sales
SR 520 Bicycle, Pedestrian, Transit and Water Network Synthesis Partnering to Connect the Gaps between Seattle’s Neighborhoods, Parks and Activity Centers Description
Design Goals
Seattle has a vibrant and growing bicycle and pedestrian network. Existing
Through the SCDP work, the SR 520 project worked with stakeholders to identify critical issues:
The SR 520 non-motorized planning process established ambitious formal goals for non-motorized
routes help people to connect safely and efficiently to work, home, parks and other activity centers. The
•
Provide improved and more direct routes for all users (pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users)
SR 520 regional shared-use path will improve mobility in the local and regional
•
Provide multiple connections that accommodate for all levels, abilities and needs such as daily
network by filling gaps in the network with a major new east/west non-motorized
guide design and serve as a catalyst for future non-motorized planning and improvements.
Access and mobility
link between Redmond and Seattle. Through the Seattle Community Design Process, we worked
•
Provide safe and clear connections through underbridge areas
closely with diverse stakeholders to analyze existing non-motorized infrastructure and improve the
•
Reduce area for conflict between pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles
efficiency, safety and experience of the SR 520 regional shared-use path and its connections to the
•
Use pathways to activate spaces
local Seattle network. These stakeholders include: City of Seattle, Seattle Bicycle and Pedestrian
•
Continue to identify routes that need more exploration
the University of Washington.
and routes to
remont Ballard and Puget Sound
B
allard Locks and Puget Sound
South Passage Park
Lake Union
compliance with Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements
NE
idge rsity Br
NE
Av e
E Ea
E
Sh
el
Rogers Playground
D
to
E
Lo
ui
owntown Seattle
ton
yls Bo
sa
rd
r va
Seward (TOPS) School
Ha E
St
Ro a
Br
no
eE Av
ke
St
oa
ay dw
E
10th
E Ave
E Ave
E Ave
m hr Fu
lum
Ravenna Creek
t
d nR
S
Community-requested shared-use path on bridge
E
E
D
m
el
D
ar
Av eE
Seattle Preparatory High School
e riv
West Montlake Park
Seattle Yacht Club
U
Sh
E
E Everett St
Ha
by
Interlaken Park
lin
St
Regional shared-use path connects to transit area and Bill Dawson Trail without crossing vehicular traffic
Enhanced landscaped shared-use path on west side of lid provides visual relief and separation from vehicles
m
Portage Bay Bridge
niversity of Washington Multimodal HUB ULink Burke Gilman Trail
Lake Washington Ship Canal WatersideTrail
el
Bo yer
1
eE Av
Shared-use overcrossing provides efficient and safe connections from transit to UW, Burke Gilman Trail
Rainier Vista
bia
er
Portage Bay
E ve lA
1th
Burke Gilman Trail
t ic S
Co
ill
Queen City Yacht Club
Proposed pedestrian-only ADA path and recreation court activates underbridge area for safety and provides connections to bus stops and Montlake Playfield
First Hill, Capitol Hill, N. Capitol Hill, Roanoke, 2 Colleges 3 Hospitals homes, jobs, sales
Continued coordination with City of Seattle, King County Metro, UW, Sound Tranist and other stakeholders to explore design opportunities for bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements on Montlake Boulevard
Bill Dawson Trail undercrossing improved with 14-foot wide path, ADA-accessible grade, higher vertical clearance, gentler curve for better sight lines and safety
era
d Fe
orth Seattle and Sammamish River Trail
St
M
NEIGHBORHOOD
to
N
University of Washington
St
Roanoke Historic Ed District ga rS t
1
CAPITOL HILL
Sakuma Viewpoint
E
eE Av 0th
Building connections to and through green open space networks
University ofwhichWashington can support multiple uses of paths to activate open spaces and lids, and make easy connections to UW MedicalUse Center activity centers Greenlake, Greenwood Clear wayfinding (good signage) to promote cycling and walking as an everyday activity for travel education, homes, jobs
if Pac
St
Harvard Roanoke Annex
UNIVERSITY
Character and clarity
NEIGHBORHOOD
NE
11th
n
n Ly rd
r va
Ha
eE Av
NE
congestion, and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction
am
lin
E
separation, path widening, separation from vehicles and signage to prevent accidents and promote traffic calming
H
eE Av
Roanoke Park
e Av
ty
si
NE
10th
E Ave
by
r ive
NE
Agua Verde Boat Rental
NEIGHBORHOOD
NEIGHBORHOOD
e Av
Un
an
PORTAGE BAY
EASTLAKE
St
yn
Reduction of potential conflicts among cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles by
St
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Sh
el
by
St
M
on
tla
ke
lv d
N
E
E
B
Montlake Playfield
E
n Ly
th
n
16
e Av
ak e
Bill Dawson Trail
St
tl on
lin
ke
al
C
ng
to
n
t
S
UW Canoe House
East Montlake Park
Enhanced hand-carried boat launch connected by new paths for improved water access and recreation
stormwater facility
Bl
vd
East Montlake lid undercrossing completes Arboretum Waterfront Trail planning and provides shared-use connections to Arboretum, lid transit and UW
Lake Washington Historic Boulevard E Montlake Pl E
MONTLAKE NEIGHBORHOOD
existing hand-carried boat launch
E
Lo
ui
existing water trail e
e Av
E
sa
Marsh Island ke
St
St
nd
M
ill
er
Lid paths provide a variety of experiences and connections for strolling, commuting
St
Coordination of trails and viewpoints with Arboretum north entry design
Portage Bay Bridge
14-foot wide regional shared-use path provides new east-west connection across Lake Washington with belvederes with interpretive signage and space for viewing, resting and turn arounds
E
C
al
ho
un
St
Washington Park Arboretum
25 th
viewpoint
E
A ve
E
E
Coordination with community Neighborhood Greenways groups and Seattle bicycle and pedestrian masterplanning to ensure good connections to and from project area
A ve
22
WSDOT supported renovation of Arboretum Waterfront Trail and boardwalk to Foster Island
Lake Washington Ro a
no
E
Union Bay
St
Montlake Lid
E
h
th
19
e Av
24 t
St
footprint of historic Olmsted parks and boulevard plan
W as
hi
un ho
w
ra cG
M e Av
t
ontlake Mobility HUB
La
E
E th
18
E
Cu
m
M E
proposed green network enhancements
Ha
Canal Reserve
E
existing City of Seattle green network
E
Lake to Locks Water Trail
UW Open Space
Montlake Historic Boulevard
M
WSDOT shoreline permit requirement to support completion of Montlake Playfield master plan path and boardwalk
E
A
w
to
ra cG
M St
C
apitol Hill and downtown
E
to
rboretum and Madison neighborhood
July 2012
Seattle Neighborhood Greenways
Montlake, Madison Valley homes & businesses From Madison Park, Madrona, Leschi homes & businesses
to
astside Communities
DRAFT
N. Capitol Hill, Central District, Rainier Valley homes
Northeast Seattle: homes, Children’s Hospital
t
eE Av ke
stla
kl
oo
S at Bo
Cheshiahud Lake Union Loop
Br
NE
Fairview Park East Boulledrome Park
Pa cif
ic S t
yant Bryan Bryant Site te
Fairview Park
E
Downtown, South Lake Union, Amazon, 3 Colleges, jobs, sales
40th
Unive
Safe and interesting cycling and walking routes to attract the most
users for recreation and health and activate bridge undercrossing areas
convenient travel options
Access to all levels, abilities and needs through best practices and
F
North Passage Point Park boat launch
to
Enhanced shared-use crossing at Roanoke separates users from vehicle edge with widened bridge and provides visual relief with plantings as part of Lake Union to Portage Bay movements
connections. Stakeholder input has helped to refine these goals. Moving forward, these goals will
commuters and neighborhood users
Advisory Boards, Cascade Bicycle Club, Seattle Neighborhood Greenways, King County Metro, and
Health and safety
Montlake Parks UW Arboretum Playfields Japanese Garden
N not to scale
Kirkland, Redmond, Bellevue, Microsoft, Google, 3 Colleges 1 Hospital homes, jobs, sales
