West Seattle Blog…

New plan for parking in The Triangle: City seeking comments

November 15, 2012 at 11:34 am | In Transportation, Triangle, West Seattle news | 16 Comments

There’s a new proposal for changes to parking in The Triangle and in the Fairmount neighborhood to its south – see the map above. It’s being circulated after the city’s followup conversations with the Triangle Advisory Group and other neighbors. So far, the postcard above has only gone out to homes/businesses in the immediate area – but it’s certainly of wider interest, so we are sharing it here. An online survey is open right now (go here), and/or you can send comments by Monday, November 26, to kiersten.grove@seattle.gov.

16 Comments

1. I’m glad to see parking allowed on both sides of 37th. I never understood why a street that wide didn’t allow it, when 36th between the same avenues (which is very narrow) did.

   Comment by Sue — 12:15 pm November 15, 2012 #

2. I see permit/zone parking in the future. And I’m okay with it.

   Comment by schwaggy — 1:02 pm November 15, 2012 #

3. They have explored that, and ruled it out, according to supplementary information I’ve seen – TR

   Comment by WSB — 1:03 pm November 15, 2012 #

4. Well I certainly hope the re-explore the idea after the surrounding neighborhoods are inundated with non-resident parking.

   Comment by schwaggy — 1:31 pm November 15, 2012 #

5. Parking on one side of 37th Avenue SW allowed the fire department to run their trucks up to Mount St. Vincent without having to wait at the intersection at 35th and Alaska. If this proposal is approved, the fire truck will not be able to use this route. Personally, I have mixed feelings about the change. Cars approaching from the south are always speeding and many are surprised at the steep hill from Edmonds to Alaska. I have watched cars and trucks land well down the hill after launching themselves, literally all four wheels taking air! Lots of kids on this block so anything to slow down the traffic is a consideration.

   Comment by Sharonn — 1:33 pm November 15, 2012 #

6. the two hour parking on both sides of the street on 38th between alaska and oregon is horrible. i live in the link apartments and they don’t have anymore parking spots in their undergound parking to buy so i MUST park on the street. their underground parking doesn’t have enough parking for even half of the people living here. right now the parking is bad but we still have a chance of getting a spot right across the street and being able to not move our car every two hours. if that is taken away how far will i need to walk everyday to get to my apartment? right now if i don’t get parking on my street i must walk around the block or two blocks up but if you make 37th two hour parking also then ill be walking many more blocks. that doesn’t make me feel safe for one and then what if i have bags from the store? there has been lots of people getting their cars stolen also. if im that far from my car how do i know it’s still safe? I know they are building even more apartments in the area and what about the parking then? I do NOT feel this “new” idea of parking is a good one. apartments either need to make enough parking for everyone in the apartment building or there needs to be street parking.

   Comment by westseattlelady — 2:10 pm November 15, 2012 #

7. Parking is very difficult in this neighborhood to begin with. I’d like to park near my house on the street that I own a home on. Our block is full of park and riders, retail employees from the junction, enthusiastic bowlers and lots of construction vehicles. While I don’t have the expectation to park in front of my home, I would like to be in my hood.

   Thanks for the update and link, WSB. I would also support permit parking. I went to the JUNO meeting where it was discussed and if I remember correctly we didn’t have enough contiguous block for permitting to apply.

   Comment by K-witty — 2:36 pm November 15, 2012 #

8. I agree about the parking at the LInk. Part of the problem is the spots are ALL compact so big SUV’s and trucks take up 2 (which.. what else are they going to do I suppose). If you don’t get home by 5:30pm you’re SOL. It gets to the point where I don’t want to make any stops after work so I can get a spot! And then it’s like no one leaves their homes in the evening. Don’t people go to dinner, shows, happy hour, dates, anything? Evidently not, just guarding their spot all night long.
   But still I’m grateful to have one seeing what the options are outside! They need to install a PARKING lot for people – how about right next to the fire station? I feel like there’s lots of room in the Triangle area – out of business buildings, empty lots, etc.

   Comment by SaraS — 6:27 pm November 15, 2012 #

9. I took a stroll via Bing maps and I could see problems for people who may work in these areas but do not live close by or even in West Seattle. Perhaps before laying on a lot of restrictions a park and ride to West Seattle should be considered.

   Comment by cj — 8:51 pm November 15, 2012 #

10. It’s so simple but not the policy, a building should house it’s own vehicles.

    Comment by dsa — 10:08 pm November 15, 2012 #

11. When are people going to realize that with the building of high density residential buildings without adequate parking is a sure fired way to force people into:
    1. Walking
    2. Busses
    3. Biking
    For those that doubt this, answer this question:
    If the above WASN’T the aim of city gov’t, why does the city allow high density oocupancy buildings without a 1 to 1 unit parking spot ratio?

    In fact in some buildings, depending how close they are to “Transit Hubs” there is NO requirement to provide parking spaces at ALL.

    All this does is to drive the residents of said buildings to park in the surrounding residential areas or local businesses lots robbing the community of business and crowding the streets.

    EVERY apt/condo building should be REQUIRED to provide 1.5 TIMES the parking spots to units, esp. when the building is replacing a open parking lot.

    Comment by Ex-Westwood Resident — 7:39 am November 16, 2012 #

12. I used to live at Link so I understand how frustrating the parking situation is, even without these proposed changes. But, Ex-Westwood Resident is obviously right, the goal of not requiring 1:1 parking is to steer people into walking, buses, and biking. By providing limited parking and permitting the residential neighborhoods around these types of high-density buildings, we might actually start to make progress toward that goal. And that is a good thing.

    Comment by higgins — 1:02 pm November 16, 2012 #

13. Really higgins????
    Try carrying 4 or 5 bags of groceries from a store, to a bus stop, on the bus, from the stop and to your house.
    Try it on a bike or walking 1/2 to 3 miles.
    While I agree with using mass transit, if able to go to work, but to use it for anything else other than recreational trips just doesn’t make sense for about 90-95% of the population.

    Comment by Ex-Westwood Resident — 3:21 pm November 16, 2012 #

14. there was an update on the ‘Hole” in today’s DPD newsletter. maybe the changes as highlighted in August here?
    http://web1.seattle.gov/dpd/luib/Notice.aspx?BID=769&NID=14443

    you can comment on the proposed changes til Dec 4
    (Smaller retail space): The alley loading dock access has been eliminated. “The number of residential units would be increased from 186 to a total of 216 residential units. Parking would be increased from 484 to 488 vehicles. “

    Comment by sam-c — 1:26 pm November 19, 2012 #

15. How about asking our city to create a super modern and safe underground PARK and RIDE lot complete with Starbucks !

    Comment by Jetcotygirl — 10:22 pm November 19, 2012 #

16. My belief is that the city goes by “If we build it; they will come,” so they’re allowing all the development of living structures. Unfortunately, they should be focusing on building a sustainable mass transit system that invites use rather than incentivizes me to keep driving because the current stops are too far apart, service not frequent enough or inconvenient. If the city would build a great mass transit, the riders will come. And they’ll want to.

    Comment by Cassandra Conyers — 2:28 pm December 3, 2012 #

Sorry, comment time is over.