Comments on: Let’s Do This Right

By: Andrew Smith

Andrew Smith — Sun, 17 May 2009 10:00:31 +0000

The Japanese population in North Seattle is increasing at a slow steady rate in my neighborhood…
http://seattletransitblog.com/2008/12/08/welcome-hinano-smith/

By: Andrew Smith

Andrew Smith — Sun, 17 May 2009 09:48:45 +0000

I definitely don’t think that anyone here thinks that Seattle is fought and won, in fact, I think our efforts recently (and our future efforts) show the opposite is true.

Obviously Seattle has the best potential for transit ridership:

1) Most jobs (600K of King County’s 950K jobs are in the city)
2) Most dense (twice as dense as Bellevue, and that includes a city with an airport and those aforementioned 600K jobs)
3) Most transit friendly (and taxing friendly) voters.

However, I don’t agree with the 50% number, at least not in a long, long, time. Even San Francisco, fully twice as dense as Seattle with twice as many jobs, has only 40% transit use with a far more developed transit system. Still, car use is under 50% there. Bicycles and pedestrian use has to be a HUGE part of our plans here.

But yeah, we’ve got a lot of work to do. Let’s get going.

By: Tony

Tony — Sun, 17 May 2009 07:22:58 +0000

I have no objection to your balance of coverage, but I do disagree with the premise that transit in Seattle (city) is a done deal and thus uninteresting. The vast majority of Seattlites still make the vast majority of their trips by car. Seattle’s streetcar plan leaves much to be desired, with significant unanswered questions.

There remains significant disagreement and anger over transit oriented development, particularly in Southeast Seattle. Seattle does not appear prepared to put in place the kind of upzones that Light Rail can justify.

We remain mired in 40-40-20 and subarea equity, which, absent a strong push for in-city transit funding, will prevent us from ever realizing the true transit potential of the city.

There is also little recognition on this blog that the city has a fundamentally different relationship with transit than the suburbs ever will. The bones of Seattle are old streetcar lines. We are a streetcar city. Our urban form, not just our density, but our shape, street grid, and arrangement of land uses is ideal for bringing transit back. The city has the potential to embrace New York’s level of transit ridership, a level where people don’t just use transit to get to their jobs downtown, but for every trip, work, shopping, recreation; where 50% of households don’t own a car at all and the other 50% hardly ever drive. The suburbs will never embrace transit to that level. Transit has a place in the suburbs, primarily as an alternative to peak hour congestion for the portion of the population who works in dense employment centers like Overlake, Downtown Bellevue or Seattle. Suburbanites may also use transit to get into Seattle for shopping and recreation (e.g. sporting events), but the vast majority of their trips, from suburb to suburb will continue to be made by car. The suburbs will never drop below 90% car ownership.

Certainly, there is a need for transit in the suburbs, but that need is fundamentally different, not only in magnitude, but in kind from the needs of the city.

Seattle may have a pro-transit constituency, especially compared to the suburbs, but it is nowhere near its potential yet, and there is a place for this blog to keep poking the city with a stick and pushing it to fully embrace the transit oriented future that is available to us.

NWtransit.org is not a bad start, even if Ben is a card-carrying, kool-aid-drinking member of the cult of rail. :-)

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 15 May 2009 04:11:39 +0000

Anyone notice the Legislature appropriated $400k for the Maple Valley-Auburn commuter rail study?

State Legislature approves funds for commuter rail study
http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/south_king/cmv/news/44069462.html

More detail here:
http://reichert.house.gov/UploadedFiles/TTHUD_-_City_of_Maple_Valley_-_SE_King_County_Commuter_Rail.pdf

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Fri, 15 May 2009 00:35:14 +0000

242 Shoreline-Northgate-Ravenna-Overlake too.

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Fri, 15 May 2009 00:30:51 +0000

There is still a lot of talk about at the very least extending Sounder to Thurston County.

Essentially it is up to the taxpayers in Thurston County. I believe they can cover the cost of service in their area without actually joining ST or they can opt to annex into ST.

I for one wouldn’t mind seeing the Olympia Express buses made part of ST Express service. Hopefully including some one-seat Seattle-Olympia or Olympia-Seattle rides.

By: RK

RK — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:59:19 +0000

Well, I don’t think that lidding all of I-5 through downtown would ever be feasable as one big mega-project, but it could happen piece by piece when new development is going on.

By: tres_arboles

tres_arboles — Thu, 14 May 2009 19:49:45 +0000

I’m a transit supporter and live in Burien. I’ll comment more if that makes you happy! :-) I think it would be cool to extend Link to Burien Town Center/Transit Center…and an eventual rail-based line (street car or link) to West Seattle to replace the Burien-based buses to downtown through West Seattle.

But, actually, I live in Burien but commute to Thurston County so my transportation choices are limited to my vanpool (which is a pain) and SOV (which is bad for the environment, but necessary). So mostly I come here (to this blog) to lament that Thurston never joined RTA thus eliminating any chance of my taking Sounder to work.

David

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Thu, 14 May 2009 19:10:27 +0000

D to M street, and Lakewood!

By: Bernie

Bernie — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:19:31 +0000

There is a stop planned for Overlake Village. The “Village” (low income apartments and a transit center) was an early attempt at TOD. It pretty much failed miserably so now the idea is to double down and see if they can prove it’s viable. Overlake Village P&R has a usage below 50% when everywhere else on the eastside is beyond capacity. Once again money is being gambled on future development (Group Health site, Owagimia sp?) and the existing demand, those footing the bill, is being ignored.

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:09:07 +0000

I still suggest you talk to the msft folks to understand their position. You mention how overcrowded otc is. If you needed to save a few bucks its easy to see that ST might stop at overlake “village”. Really what does village serve now that the hospital is closed? Its not near a lot of housing, and its not near a lot of employment. (at least compared to otc)

By: eddiew

eddiew — Thu, 14 May 2009 07:05:36 +0000

Federal Way is about 30 miles from downtown Seattle (long way off?). South Link LRT is expecte to reach South 277th Street, the north edge of Federal Way is about 2023(long way off in time?). But Federal Way has plenty of ST presence today: the South 317th Street center access ramps go in both directions to the center HOV lanes of I-5; There is a ST funded transit center and garage; Route 577 is a one-way route oriented to downtown Seattle; Route 574 is a two-way route connecting with Tacoma and SeaTac. Soon, Route 578 will be added.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Thu, 14 May 2009 05:49:37 +0000

There’s also the 586 Tacoma/UW stays on I-5 and makes no Downtown Seattle stops

By: Jessica

Jessica — Thu, 14 May 2009 05:45:28 +0000

I used to live in Fed Way (easy wheelchair distance from the Transit Center) but after graduating from UW I moved to Renton then I settled on my now home of Bellevue

At the time I liked being close to Pierce County (for my Dad) yet still in King County

True: I hardly hear about South King or Pierce on this blog

By: John

John — Thu, 14 May 2009 05:21:35 +0000

31 winds up being a UW commuter route, and doesn’t go downtown. Neither does the 46 – although that route confuses the heck out of me, as I don’t understand exactly who it’s designed to serve.

By: John

John — Thu, 14 May 2009 05:18:46 +0000

I think many of us would like to see I-5 lidded through downtown…but it’s an enormously expensive proposition. I doubt SHA could pay for it.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Thu, 14 May 2009 04:28:15 +0000

Redmond picked the lowest cost alternative and made it cheaper by eliminating the stupid right turn at the end and keeping the tracks on existing ROW (saving about a 1/4 million in property acquisition). In fact Redmond did there own HCT study in 2006 which identified this route. All of the “alternates” in the draft EIS were a complete waste of time and money. E2 was pretty much cut and paste from the City of Redmond study.

By: Zed

Zed — Thu, 14 May 2009 01:20:56 +0000

At the ST board meeting tomorrow they will be discussing deferring one of the Bel-Red stations.

By: alexjonlin

alexjonlin — Thu, 14 May 2009 01:17:32 +0000

I was just realizing that it’s kind of a ways between Overlake TC and Redmond Town Center, especially since they’re planning stops in Bel-Red less than half a mile from each other… Has anyone talked about an intermediate station along 520 between Overlake and Redmond, and has anyone talked about eliminating one of those Bel-Red stations or at least making them a little farther apart?

By: Zed

Zed — Thu, 14 May 2009 01:12:16 +0000

Bellevue has never said that they expect ST to pay the entire cost of the tunnel. They have said from the beginning of this year that they would help finance the additional cost and I think most people expect them to pay the entire additional cost. They stated this at the recent ST board meeting and also in the recent Times op-ed.

“Bellevue is committed to partnering with Sound Transit to fund a tunnel segment for East Link. We look forward to creating a finance plan that includes direct investments by the city, pursues federal funding opportunities and identifies where project savings can be made.”

I have yet to see Microsoft and the City of Redmond commit to finding additional funds to get East Link to Redmond. They should be more proactive in finding funding or reducing costs on their end instead of trying to play the blame game with Bellevue. It has been known from the outset that the extension to Redmond was unfunded.