— by Gulliver Rankin —
As the author of the section of the Eastsound Sub-Area Plan update regarding the “transportation hub,” I would like to give some history and clarification.
The Fern St. parcel and what is now the Village Green was purchased to create a road connecting down town to Lovers Lane. With considerable prodding and dedication by Eastsound residents the Village Green was converted to a park with the stormwater treatment facility satisfying the ‘road’ requirements. Fern St extension was then seen as a second one way couplet to balance “A” street so traffic didn’t have to go all the way to Main St to head north again.
Clearly we do not need that road.
Thus began our work to transform this into something that we can use without finding the money to repurchase the property.
For the last 2 years we have explored a pedestrian walk through and street side transit stop which would qualify as a ‘road’ to satisfy the requirements of the purchase funds.
The language of a ‘Transportation Hub’ is to better qualify for Grants that will help develop the Streetscape plan.
While there is continued need for more parking in the summer, I am advocating to look beyond the car. I want more tourists to be able to visit without bringing an internal combustion engine. A covered area for bikes to be secured, storage lockers to hold paniers and shopping, and tables to help pack all that away before pedaling off. Or a shuttle stop to an off site parking lot (the high school parking lot has been discussed as peak summer parking for shop keepers and staff, which use quite a few prime parking spots).
I am looking for solutions that do not ask for more pavement, more parking but for encouragement of Non-motorized Transportation. Without a dedicated parcel the most we can plan for is a bike rack and a few reserved parking spots for a bus stop.
I am heartened to see the interest in what Eastsound should look like and encourage everyone to participate in this next phase of creating a vibrant downtown that maintains what we love about Eastsound.
‘Dark sky’ pedestrian lighting and expanded walking paths are some of the topics included in this discussion as well as a new Stormwater plan for the village (rain gardens and previous sidewalks?)
Nothing will be built without a full public process and, of course, funding.
— Gulliver Rankin is a builder who has served as Chair of the Eastsound Planning Review Committee and as County Stormwater Advisory Committee Chair.
Gulliver, Thanks for the good thought you and the EPRC are putting in to this. You mention encouraging visitors to come without bringing an internal combustion engine vehicle. I am all for that. Would like to see year round shuttle. Right now it is just high season shuttle from Friday Harbor.
Also, If visitors need to come in a vehicle, we can encourage that it be an Electric Vehicle (EV). Perhaps it would be helpful to have some EV charging stations in the vicinity of the bikes and such. That would encourage people to park there, using it as a hub to stroll around town.
Gulliver,
I think the ideas for the use of this land are fantastic, and am happy to see that the EPRC is putting so much effort in to making this work. But…
In my mind there is a fundamental question that should be answered in this process: Why were road funds used to purchase this property in the first place?
In all of the discussion, it seems as though the challenge is to somehow justify the use of the property based upon the source of the money used to acquire it. The entire transaction seems backwards to me. It would seem that the proper way to administer designated road funds would be to identify the project, acquire the land as necessary, and complete the project. In this case it appears we are scrambling to find a use for a piece of property that potentially has no business being involved in a road project.
Given that we have an incomplete stormwater drainage plan on Madrona Street that adversely affecst multiple property owners, and a fully undeveloped sidewalk and street design on Main Street, it would seem that we would be better off on focusing on the problems at hand than adding yet another item to the to-do list. If the project is being driven by the fact that it was initiated with road funds then I tend to believe that the option of selling the property and putting the proceeds into fixing our existing problems should be added to our list of options.
Tell you what Gulliver, as you found serving on The Eastsound Plan Review Committee and I found serving on the Deer Harbor Plan Review Committee, there isn’t enough money available, except from private sources, to fund anything beyond the very basic needs of both residents and tourists. You and I both should be looking for grants and off island resources to fund the type of things you describe. Eliminating vehicles in all our so called “Activity Centers” is essential. One more year of having to put up with the problems created by the Washington State Ferry System like this year is a good first step into turning the San Juan Islands back into a quaint little fishing village. And yet… the solution could come from WSFS. If they, Washington State Ferry, would expand the parking in Anacortes, stop trying to haul vehicles back and forth, promote the romance of walking on a smaller ferry with more crossings and using a “Jitney” type jump on and off shuttle system in the islands operated and funded by WSFS, I bet we would be a little more able to fund some projects to enhance the experience on our islands. Add to that closing the main drag in Eastsound making it a walking mall has long been an option to beef up our economy. And why not? Add to that the need for designated walking paths with rest stops, water and benches all over. Maybe some could even be wide enough for two people walking side by side instead of single file. And speaking of pathways, last year The Deer Harbor Plan Review Committee proposed that The Council provide at least enough funds to identify the great Pathway System described in The Deer Harbor Plan of 2007. No funds! So we turned to The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee and made application to receive one of their annual grants to get the Pathway System under way. Our application was returned without even a look because we weren’t a “Non Profit”.
So, we keep pluggin’ Maybe,some day.
To answer Justin’s question, “Why were road funds used to purchase this property in the first place?”…road funds were used because the property was specifically purchased by SJCDPW in order to acquire the right of way for an extension of Fern Street thru to N. Beach Rd…and SJCDPW has now abandoned that plan.
I think I grasp some merit in Gulliver’s proposal for a “Transportation Hub”; to some extent, it builds on an option which Bill Trogdon and I, under the auspices of EPRC, put before the Prune Alley property owners and the public at-large which showed a six foot wide pedestrian path widened to ten feet and allowing for one-way “community transit only” vehicles
to use it as a drop-off and pick-up point in Eastsound. Part of the reasoning behind this proposal was to raise Eastsound’s score in the competition for grant funds…an effort which was unsuccessful. However, it was clear that the public had an overwhelming preference for a six foot wide pedestrian only path thru a community garden.
As Gulliver’s mentioned, he’s the author of the “Transportation Hub” language included in the Eastsound Plan revisions; it was not language created within the EPRC.
I’m aware of a group of artists who are talking about using the space for outdoor art and sculpture…Antoinette Botsford’s recent Guest Column in Orcas Issues makes the case for the lot being a community garden; a Column which prompted 13 positive comments.
While there are some aspects of the “Transportation Hub” proposal which I’m sympathetic with, I continue to believe that it’s premature to so tag the property and I’d be much happier to see the language deleted from the plan revisions while together, as a community, we determine its use and a design which is satisfactory to all.
If that sounds like wishful thinking…I point to the consensus-based design of our Stage on the Green…a design which evolved from an agreed-upon definition of “consensus”,
namely:
“…a decision by two or more people…a decision which everyone may not believe is the best decision…but a decision which EVERYONE can live with, and commit themselves not to undermine”.
Fred,
Thanks for the additional information.
Hopefully my comments are NOT seen as critical of Gulliver’s work to try to make the “Transportation Hub” work in some viable way. I think his efforts are to be commended – however, I still fell like we are trying to wedge a square peg (the property) into a round hole (a road-fund project).
Perhaps road funds are indeed suited for this property, but it would seem that the sale of the property (even to a different county entity) should be considered as an option to help open up the possibilities for its use. Since the original project is no longer needed/viable it makes sense that we consider all options and also consider where our road-fund money is best spent.
Thanks to everyone on the EPRC for taking on the grueling task of keeping Eastsound relevant in discussions at the county level! It is good to know that we are locally represented while decisions are being made at the county level for us.
Jay, Justin, Fred, Charlie, Antoinette
What we need is someone to step up and organize another community vision workshop. Peter Fisher’s 2007 Community extravaganza had a musical play, 135 people in a day long workshop and so much spirit, each neighborhood was named…. Lets read a copy of the Eastsound Vision Partnership summary (Peter can you help?) and meet again.
A strong community needs to discuss and agree on its vision in order to work together. Only together are we able to pull off the fundraising, volunteering and lobbying demanded of any worthy community project. (My involvement with the Stage on the Green is my proudest contribution to the community to date.)
There is no group focused on the commercial core (Eastsound Preservation Group filled the void way back). Could we find the momentum to host an annual retreat, open to the public, with EPRC, Chamber of Commerce, Community Foundation, Port, Schools, Library, Pathways, Property Owners, County, Utilities..
A coordinated discussion and understanding of our shared vision would direct scarce funds to projects.
Our job as visionaries is to ask what we really want for our grandchildren.
PS and outside Eastsound
Bike paths form the ferry to town and around the island are possible. Europe is way ahead of us in investing in bike infrastructure. The Roadside Hazard Mitigation line on the 6 year Transportation Improvement Plan from Public Works would pay for (but has not identified) removal of hazards BIG trees on Crow Valley among others. The county will never look for the ‘vision’ solution but only what is in the budget. Our job is to find out how much it would cost to chip out the bank to widen the road and leave the trees in the example. Pervious concrete shoulders over existing ditches and instant bike lane.
Pathways’ Cathy Faulkner is looking for opportunities for bike paths with any new road project.
We are big thinkers, remember Turtleback seemed impossible.
Here is the brief I created for EPRC prior to discussion and amendment. The final language included in the Sub Area Plan Update was voted on and approved by EPRC.
For the full Subarea Plan Update follow the links at the county website.
To: Eastsound Planning and Review Committee
From: Gulliver Rankin
Brief: on Eastsound Transportation Hub
“This is to be used as a starting point for creating specific goals for Eastsound Village; as an addendum to the recently updated County Transportation Element of the County Comprehensive (See pages 38-44 Transportation Element (page 44 in PDF))”
Timeframe: This addition to the Sub Area Plan update will be moved forward independently of Draft #2 (4/25/14).
Goal: Add to Transportation Element of Sub Are Plan:
1) “Non-motorized Transportation Hub for Eastsound”
2) Update Map, Fig 130.1., compile Non Motorized Transportation components (Air, Water, Trails and Paths Figures 1,2,3,4,10,11)
Purpose: This goal will guide county improvements and support grant funding for a Transportation Hub, paths, and street improvements to improve non-motorized transportation into and around Eastsound.
Funding: Portion of the $408,000 2013-2014 Non Motorized Transportation budget in 6 year TIP, Grants or Local Improvement District.
Transportation Hub
The Fern Street Parcel should be developed to fulfill the needs of non motorized transportation, pedestrian access, and public transit.
The location of the parcel, in the center of town and directly across from the public bathrooms and village green, is ideal.
Possible uses could include:
ADA Pedestrian pass through and off street transit stop (grass pave N. Beach to Prune Alley).
Shuttle stop to off site parking, Ferry and Hamlets.
RIDESHARE location.
Covered area with solar powered lighting from roof panels.
Rainwater catchment for grass pave, rain gardens and community gardens.
Storage lockers and bike racks/lockers.
Drinking fountain / self closing water faucet.
Map of walking paths around Eastsound and Public Access to shoreline. (Coordinate with Scenic Byways)
Dedicated spots for Food trucks or licensed street vendors.
Permanent or temporary Kiosks.
Pick-nic tables with trash and recycling receptacles.
Public art.
Announcements of community events.
Emergency Phone.
??
In all due respect I totally disagree. I have nothing but the deepest respect for people who volunteer for commissions and bodies like the EPRC.
My comments here will be direct as to my thoughts and in no way are intended to besmirch anyone’s character.
“Clearly we do not need that road.” I will start with this conclusion in Gulliver’s comments. We may not need the road but we do need more parking. In the summer there is an extreme shortage of parking, forcing our tourist base to park in the hinterlands or on private property. The strip of land in my opinion should have a one lane drive with diagonal parking on one side and parallel on the other. A parallel spot could be surrendered for the bus stop which we need like a whole in the head.
This is the real world not a Phd thesis at the Northwestern University traffic school. Tourists are coming. The population is growing. More people more cars. Unless you can put a parking lot in Rick and Marlice’s field and shuttle people to town, (which isn’t going to happen) there will be more cars, not less. Wishful thinking will not create less cars. I consider myself a pragmatic environmentalist, but get real.
The County did a study and said we do not need more parking. WHAT MONTH WAS THAT IN? I could go on and on but a drive through parking lot is the ONLY rational use of this land. We have a community garden at Mt Baker and North Beach. We have the Library Park. We have the Village Green. We do not need another postage stamp sized “park” in Eastsound. We ned to support commerce so that these stores are here for us in the dead of winter.
Portland, Oregon is often lauded for its relatively small block dimensions of 200 feet, which make it very walkable (From Archinect, a site that has become a top online destination for progressive-design oriented students, architects, educators, and fans). Well, the distance from Main Street to Rose Street (the first real usable 2-way street) is 1040 feet. Something wrong here. The Fern Street property should absolutely be utilized for traffic (and parking). But how about at least one sidewalk/path from Prune Alley to North Beach Road, anywhere between Main Street and School Road (currently there are NONE!) If EPRC can’t figure this mess out, then hire a professional!