I’m not looking for any ST dollars for roads. Ever.

Headed back to Olympia now, I will be off the blogs for a few days as we rush up to cut-off, try to get important bills moving on. Always appreciate your input, POV, even if we sometimes have different opinons. Don’t disagree about the transit functionality on I-90 … ditto to that. Just differ in opinion on cost/benefit of mode.

See Atlantic Monthly for great article of America, post-crash.

/d

I imagine part of the reason why Sound Transit isn’t anxious to fund HOV/transit lanes on SR-520 is because SR-520 is obviously a state highway. (Of course Sound Transit’s mandate is to build regional rail and bus service, not state highway lanes.) This mandate was backed by voters in your district overwhelmingly just a few months ago. This vote did not include HOV/transit lanes across SR-520. A delay in the I-90 HOV lane funding is not a blessing or a renewed chance for assessment — it is the child of a budget crisis, nothing more. It is the wrong victim to create, however, given the reality that the voter-approved East Link requires its construction to proceed.

Sound Transit 2 passed with 57% of the region voting yes. We have among the smartest voters in the country, and they certainly did their research and concluded that the alignment across I-90 and into Downtown Bellevue was the correct one for the region.

Aside from the overwhelming victory of ST2, it is nearly universally agreed that Two-Way HOV on I-90 is smart for the region — with or without light rail. The concept of the “peak direction” on I-90 is disappearing rapidly, and buses and carpools are getting ensnared in traffic without recourse. The need for increased reliability of bus service does not need re-evaluation and isn’t influenced by property owners.

Another analysis may conclude that Olympia is once again trying to force the Puget Sound region to pay for state road work — or trying to force ST’s hand to pay for state road work so ST can follow through on its commitments. But the state made commitments of its own to the region. There’s no reason to delay the improvements to bus service along the I-90 corridor. There’s no convincing reason to use I-90 construction to overturn the will of the region’s voters.

A light rail alignment across SR-520 does not work right now. We cannot fit those trains and trains from Northgate into the UW-Capitol Hill tunnel. Ridership between Seattle and Bellevue will be much higher than a route between Seattle and Redmond. I-90 is the right alignment.

Thanks for clarification on the I-405 widening vs ST funding. ST funding on SR520 is a big open question; especially (for me) the connection to rail at the UW.

One reason for building the ID-Bvue link “immediately” is that under the earliest possibly completion date the floating bridge that supports it will then be 37 years old. The SR520 is approaching it’s Golden Jubilee and in direr need of replacement. Any significant delay now on I-90 rail pushes completion so close to the retirement of the bridge that the project become nonviable.

It seems prudent that options for East Ling over a new SR 520, due to come on line in the same time frame as the I-90 proposal, would only be prudent. Starting construction East to West would allow deferment of the final alignment while allowing construction to begin as soon a the EIS was complete.

I simply disagree with you about the imperative to build ID-Bvue immediately and to demand that state funding be re-prioritized to get it built sooner rather than later. Pardon me if I’m a bit suspicious of the hurry. Could it be that some of the interests served by this very expensive link (mostly downtown property owners in both cities, IMHO) are afraid of a re-appraisal? You are convinced in the argument that this segment justifies the priority given to it already. I am not. I’d note that there are a number of blanks to be filled in, not the least of which is agreement on the routing through Bellevue.

As the bill gets tweaked it should be apparent that this it not the way to deal with zoning. The GMA is how that’s done and if it needs to be amended to include transit then fine. The demand will drive the changes. A different bill adding to the layers of complexity already in place may be well meaning but it’s misplaced.

I think it’s a bit of a stretch to call this a “cookie cutter” approach. Leaving aside the fact that many stations no longer have the 50 units/acre requirement, the bill has always provided a lot of flexibility on how that’s achieved. For instance, it could treat the entire 1/2 mile radius as a single unit, building projects well over 50 units/acre right around the station and leaving the rest zoned as single-family, or what have you. Alternatively, the community could go for a uniform 2-3 story apartment development pattern throughout the station area.

To be honest, I have a little trouble appreciating your point of view because I’m not sure exactly what you’re afraid will change in the character of your community. Will some apartment buildings and walkability improvements somehow make your neighborhood less desirable? If it remains a single-family neighborhood, unit housing costs are likely to skyrocket in turn it into a very exclusive community. Isn’t that equally a change to the character of your community?

As you point out it is unlikely we will see anywhere near the level of development in the next 20 years that we’ve seen in the past 15. Even if the population in the area is expected to keep rising.

Developers are more likely to invest in development in the Mid-Lakes, Bel-Red, and Overlake as well as make the development pedestrian and transit oriented if the transit is rail rather than bus. See South Lake Union, the Pearl District in Portland, or Downtown Tacoma for examples of where streetcars have helped with redevelopment.

Given the likely increase in property values along the corridor I suspect a LID might be able to generate enough revenue to pay for a streetcar.

Over time more buildings are going to get built, with or without HB1490, but the bill wouldn’t do much in the short term.

The argument against this has always been that P&R’s are a short term fix until we can build up density around the stations. This is the last station that should be exempted.

However I think the case for justifying the construction becomes almost impossible without the connection to Central Link. Certainly any Federal funding is only likely with the ridership a Seattle connection would bring.

Given the current timetable for completing the I-90 two-way HOV project it will result in delaying East Link construction for a number of years. It is a project that will provide immediate benefit to reverse commuters and improve transit reliability for all routes using I-90 as soon as it is finished.

If East Link is delayed enough the cost will only be higher and the likelihood of it ever being built go down. As other Sound Transit projects near completion the pressure to spend East sub-area funds on something, anything for East King County will build. Furthermore as the excess funds build up the temptation will be great to attempt to raid them for other projects like I-405 widening or the SR-520 bridge replacement.

As a State Representative I urge you to:
1. Ask the Governor and the Washington Secretary of Transportation to request Federal funds for completing the I-90 two-way HOV project.
2. Ask the Governor and the Washington Secretary of Transportation to re-prioritize any state funding needed for the project so it won’t delay the construction of East Link.

My area of concern is having those densities/zoning allowances mandated at the state level all at once in a cookie cutter approach. I question whether the way to achieve the goals of better transit development can be achieved by a bill such as HB1490. It seems too forced. I’d rather see more local process(es) achieve those densities because I think we’ll end up with results which better fit the individual communities around the TOD’s.

Thanks for responding to my previous comment.

I agree East Link has great potential for transforming downtown Bellevue, Bel-Red, Overlake, and downtown Redmond. But that potential is much greater if it connects to the rest of the system.

If there is concern about East Link happening soon enough for the planned development in Bel-Red and Overlake then perhaps a locally funded streetcar could be built? I’m envisioning something similar to what both Portland and Seattle have done. Once East Link opens it could serve as a local connector between stations.

My experience has been that because my community is a desirable place to live, people/developers have built to the limits of what is allowed by the zoning codes (some of the time beyond) under the guise of highest/best use. Short plats, in-fills, and tear-downs have been the order of the day over the last fifteen years. So, it’s not a far stretch to think ((allowable zoning density) == (mandated density)).

In our area, there are no vacant lots to build townhouses on. There are no drive-up banks to build 4 story buildings on. Okay, there is a fastfood joint they could get rid of. For the most part, property has been developed to the limits of what is currently allowed. I see HB1490 as a way to take control of zoning practices out of local hands and putting it into state hands. That seems like it is unilaterally changing the rules of the game.

I do agree with you that even if the zoning changes are mandated, it would take a while to have them instantiated.

You ask: Is it fair to tell others they can’t move into a neighborhood, even though the entire city/region paid for the transit station there?

As a resident of the eastside of Seattle I would not want to be put in a position of determining what are the best zoning practices for Rainier Valley, neighborhoods in Tacoma, or communities in Spokane because it doesn’t seem fair to me.

I have faith in communities to consider their land use patterns in ways which are best for them and the region. If there are valid concerns that communities won’t accomodate the benefits of having transit stations nearby by allowing higher densities, I have faith that legislation could be crafted to address local concerns in less of a cookie cutter (arbitrary?) type of approach than is seemingly in HB1490.

Thanks.