RantWoman's latest moment of internet accessibility enabled public meeting nerdery: the Monday January 22 meeting of the Shoreline city council
For background
The Urbanist article about Shoreline Ordinance
Shoreline City Council Video 1/22/2024
Two reasons to post the whole meeting
--To allow readers to form their own opinions about what was or was not said
In particular, Councilmember Scully's inflammatory comments as reported by The Urbanist came right after 4 different people with various disabilities testified in really stark terms during public comment about how much they depend on paratransit services. RantWoman finds Councilmember Scully's comments sort of an "ouch" specifically because he spoke closely on the heels of the public comment.
--After the ordinance in question was enacted, there was a discussion about Shoreline's Transportation Impact fees, (TIFs) and who gets discounts or how rates are set for different categories of use. RantWoman has not read up on the TIFs but does have a couple observations that might be relevant.
RantWoman has limited impressionistic information: there are some areas of Shoreline that could REALLY use better sidewalks. RantWoman has no information about how the TIFs apply in existing neighborhoods for existing construction. RantWoman, though, did note mention of many adult family homes and the city doing what seem to be the right thing about reducing the TIFs for this kind of facility.
RantWoman imagines that people living in adult family homes are much less likely than other Shoreline residents to be driving cars and much more likely to use paratransit services. In other words, even though Shoreline means well about its TIF policy it might be getting in its own way as far as further disrupting the lives of people dependent on paratransit.
Further mixed up and incompletely researched in RantWoman's head:
--Building new housing is not the same thing as building affordable housing.
--The concentrate multifamily development within 1/2 a mile of major transit arteries when more housing and more pleasant and walkable neighborhoods could result if the terms of Transit Oriented development extended further to, say, within a mile of transit arterials.
But for the moment, the biggest concern: paratransit already struggles to meet required on-time performance standards. It would be very nice if city council members would not just expect their uninformed suggestions to, poof, magically materialize into the vehicle maintenance facilities Metro and MV need.
RantWoman's submittal for public comment.
To the mayor, deputy mayor and city council of Shoreline. I am writing, commenting on ordinance 991, to strongly urge Shoreline elected officials and staff to collaborate with King County Metro about any changes in the location or zoning provision of the King County Metro Access north base.
I am very concerned about a short timeline for any decision-making. Lack of time to budget for the costs of any changes and then to implement changes will have a disruptive impact on the already challenging need for Metro and its contractor MV to maintain the standards of On-time performance required by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the contract between Metro and MV.
I am also concerned about lack of consultation between Shoreline officials and Metro staff knowledgeable about space requirements for a maintenance facility and environmental considerations which come with any vehicle maintenance facility. I have served for 3 years on King County Metro’s ACCESS Paratransit Advisory Commission, a volunteer body of ACCESS riders and people who serve them. ACCESS Services provide critical transportation for people who cannot ride regular transit, buses and light rail, or who cannot use services such as Uber or Lyft because of need for special lifts and other equipment.
I am legally blind and transit-dependent. I myself do not ride ACCESS, but my mother and many people I know who rely on it, tell endless stories of difficulties scheduling rides on preferred timelines and great uncertainty about whether their rides will arrive on time according to the terms of the contract. The views here are my own but reflect information learned during that service, as well as consultation with another citizen transportation advocate.
One additional comment: as a white cane user I am acutely aware of built environment features such as many driveways and vehicle noise that negatively affect my pedestrian experience. It is vital for transit users and other pedestrians in an area to be able to get safely from the nearest bus stop to any intended pedestrian entrance on travel networks designed to be safe and continuous for users in all modes.
Metro must maintain sufficient fleet on the road and in reserve To address performance requirements and must have sufficient time to plan for changes in ways that disrupt paratransit services as little as possible in North King and for limited situations in south Snohomish counties. Pedestrians have specific need. Both of these sets of concerns must be addressed in whatever changes occur.
Thank you very much for noting these comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment