Gordon Werner/Flickr

This is an open thread.

89 Replies to “News Roundup: More Than Snippy”

  1. The dispute between Puyallup and ST is a great example of why cities should be responsible for their P&R situations. Puyallup politicians are complaining about Sound Transit instead of proposing solutions because complaining is risk-free, and making Sound Transit look bad because they can’t solve for the politicians’ impossible combination of demands (more P&R spaces for their constituents, all free, with less congestion). Politicians have real jobs: to propose solutions and stand by them. To choose between proposed options in ways that reflect their values, and to represent those values in elections. But politicians will shirk their jobs when it’s politically convenient to do so. Their relationship with ST shouldn’t allow them to do this.

    1. You are absolutely right – parking should not be the responsibility of ST. All this whining by the politicians in Puyallup translates somewhere along the lines of, “We are upset because ST is bringing too many people into our downtown business district.” Well cry me a river.

      First, if these same pols had been doing their jobs these last few decades then DT Puyallup wouldn’t be the dead zone that it currently is.

      Second, having someone invest in a system that brings people into your downtown is a good thing. They should thank ST, then put on their big-boy-pants and do something to leverage that to their advantage.

      Third, if this really was a “problem”, then the cheapest, most effective way for ST to mitigate it without creating parking or traffic impacts would be to limit the number of boardings in DT Puyallup. Nobody wants to do that, but it is a viable option until the pols down there come to their collective senses.

      Basically what you have is a bunch of conservative politicians who are caught between an aversion to increased spending/taxes and the need to actually govern like elected officials are supposed to. So instead of governing, they whine about ST (the sub-plot being that ST is some sort of regional moneybags that they can extort money from without actually having to dip into their own local coffers).

      I say spend the money on the Tacoma Streetcar.

      1. Suburban voters will need to be reasonably happy with Sound Transit and excited about future projects in order to get a new ballot measure approved. If suburban voters demand parking garages at each of their stations, I say let’s build them.

        Remember that subarea equity requires that every dollar Sound Transit spends in the suburban subareas necessitates a proportional amount of spending in Seattle. In a perverse way it’s actually in Seattle’s best interest for Sound Transit to pay for the biggest, most expensive parking garages possible at each new station outside of Seattle’s subarea. Those garages will just add to our budget to build out the subway.

      2. If it’s that much of a problem, perhaps the solution would be to close the station.

      3. @Eric: The issue isn’t about suburban voters demanding parking. The issue is suburban politicians demanding that ST provide abundant free commuter parking without creating congestion near the station, then grandstanding and whining when ST doesn’t do that because it’s physically impossible.

        Maybe ST should be responsible for funding because of our crazy funding regime, but the politicians need to be responsible for making decisions with local impact, that strike a balance between parking capacity and traffic congestion. If that isn’t their responsibility they’ll simply drag ST through the mud about whatever decision they make, like they’re doing now.

      4. @Eric
        Me thinks you don’t understand the concept of subarea equity at all. There is NO proportionality about it. It simply requires that taxes raised in one subarea be spent in that same subarea. Seattle couldn’t pay for parking on Puyallup if it wanted to. The policy doesn’t allow it.

      5. Lazarus,

        My understanding is that Sound Transit levies the same taxes in every subarea, and in fact is required to do so by law.

        It would be great if Seattle could tax itself to build rail faster. But since we can’t do that for now, raising taxes on ourselves also means raising taxes on the suburbs. Therefore, convincing the suburbs that they want to tax themselves — even if it’s to build parking garages — also gets us more money to build things that are actually useful.

      6. Lasarus,

        Proportionality is a direct consequence of the subarea equity requirement. As long as Sound Transit is funded by taxes that are levied at a uniform rate throughout the service area (as it currently is), a ballot package that has a higher budget in a suburban subarea will need to have a higher budget in Seattle’s subarea. Otherwise, Seattle’s subarea is going to have a pile of tax money sitting around unspent.

        If the next ballot measure allowed Seattle to tax itself higher than the other areas for greater local spending, the amount of spending and taxes the suburbs are willing to approve for themselves becomes less relevant.

      7. Yes, we need to decouple the subarea equity issue from the uniform tax rate issue. If suburban subareas want to have a lower tax rate and build less, that should be OK.

    2. We should certainly start discussing with politicians what ST’s minimum parking responsibility is and should be, and whether cities should take a greater role in funding anything beyond that. Until now it has mostly been assumed that because the transit necessitates the parking, the transit should pay for it, the way a mall necessitates parking so it pays for its parking lot. Of course, some P&Rs are funded by WSDOT and are mainly for vanpools, but the ones we’re talking about are at ST stations and Metro stops. The alternative view — which some have said is common with Metra and some northeastern cities — is for the transit agency to provide no or minimum parking, and for the cities to provide any parking or amenities beyond that.

      Changing that requires first defining what ST’s responsibility is and should be. Then the ST board would have to agree, and the ST board is the largest cities and the counties. ST has made certain parking promises in ST2 and ST1, so these would have to be respected for some number of years. But we’re not talking about Puyallup parking expansions beyond ST2’s minimum commitment. And there have also been issues raised about how much parking to provide at Northgate and Edmonds stations. There certainly needs to be more discussion about Lynnwood station, not only about how much parking but how it can be arranged in a pedestrian-friendly way. (I have suggested separating P&Rs and urban TCs, even if it requires adding a P&R station.) And ST3 is totally up in the air, so it’s perfectly appropriate to significantly downsize ST’s parking commitments before the ballot measure is written.

      1. After some thought, I think that ST should provide a basic number of paid parking stalls at their facilities. If, the demand outstrips the number of stalls available, and funds are available – if there are no easy expansion avenues for a particular P&R, than the funds should be made available to the local city if they wish, to design their own solution, with the caveat that x number of spots will be available during x hours and in x vicinity of the station to Sound Transit riders either paid at ST rates or free. If the city doesn’t want to do anything, than Sound Transit is free to design a solution, otherwise its up to the city to make something happen that meets the agreed upon requirements. Remember that lack of facilities is hurting Sound Transit and its customers as well, its not just the local cities problem.

  2. I really don’t get the Hilltop route for Tacoma Link. The idea seems to be to spur revitalization and development in that neighborhood, since that’s what usually happens when streetcar lines are put in, but it doesn’t seem like any thought was given to how people would use the streetcar. In the most extreme example, someone going from the end of the line at 19th & MLK to UW Tacoma, places that are just over half a mile apart, would have to travel over three miles on the streetcar. Many other trips would be similar. I honestly think the only people who would ride the MLK segment would be the few people who live there at work at the hospitals or go to Stadium High School. The 6th Ave route would be far, far more useful from a transportation perspective, not to mention it would make it so that riders on a long, high-ridership segment of Pierce Transit Route 1 would have good transit service no matter what PT’s budget situation is.

    1. since that’s what usually happens when streetcar lines are put in

      Correlation mistaken for causation.

      The correlation is the recent fetish for streetcars on the part of developers who had already taken an interest in places like SLU or the Pearl anyway.

      Streetcars in and of themselves do nothing.

      1. Also check out the non-Pearl District blocks near the Portland Streetcar which look suspiciously like non-Pearl District blocks that are nowhere near the Portland Streetcar.

    2. Ya, I’m not sure I’m completely on-board with the E1 routing either. People don’t always ride end-to-end, and it’s not exactly gradient free between the two segments, but it still seems like it is putting too many resources too close together.

      I think it is obviously a ploy to revitalize the Hill Top by adding the SC to the mix. Streetcars almost always result in investment and growth along the route, so this just seems a bit like Tacoma is hoping to solve one of their problems by controlling where ST puts the SC.

      Everyone likes to solve their own problems by spending someone else’s money, and this definitely has that smell.

      But I’m willing to wait for ST to weigh in…..

    3. What is the Hilltop route? The main part of 6th Avenue is west of MLK, so how can one line serve both?

      1. E1 goes north to Stadium, then south along MLK (mainly).

        B1 goes north to Stadium, then west along 6th (mainly).

        They are separate routes.

      2. The article must be mistaken then.

        “The preferred option would extend the Link from downtown to the Stadium District and around to Sixth Avenue, then south along the Martin Luther King Jr. Way corridor to 19th Street.”

        If it goes directly from Stadium Way to Division and MLK, it will cross 6th at a trivially insignificant point. The main part of 6th starts seven blocks west, and the 6th Avenue cultural district is even further.

      3. E1 and B1 are detailed in the on line presentation material. Please check it out.

  3. Started riding my bike to work again recently and I’m enjoying watching the progress around Husky Stadium. I saw on twitter that University Link is under budget to the tune of $100 million at this point. What does it mean for Sound Transit if the project really does finish under budget (besides being good PR)?

      1. Impossible. Wrong sub-area.

        Any savings, if they can be spent at all, must be spent in the North King Sub-area.

      2. Continuation to a N 130th station — this would provide cross-town access to Lake City urban village and Bitter Lake, neither one of which are terribly accessible to Northgate Station, and both of which are ripe for higher density.

        (yes, I’d rather have the money put towards a Ballard line if they can move it that far along)

      3. Scott, yes. A 130th Station would be a huge win for an enormous swath of North Seattle (full disclosure: including the part where I live).

      4. @Lack
        Taxes raised under ST2 fall under the policies of ST2. Subarea equity rules would apply

        The future can’t change the past.

  4. Are those modern style seats in the refurbed KSS permanent?

    Because they are really ugly and don’t fit with the 1906 building. Hopefully they are going to put in more wooden bench seating more similar to the original seats.

    1. it all comes down to $$$

      those ugly Amtrak seats are free so they’ll stay till they fall apart or something better comes along

      1. About half the seats are new, and quite comfortable. Thank God we’ve gotten past the era of wooden benches.

  5. Impressive reply by McGinn to Ed Murray. That is what advocacy for the City of Seattle looks like. I’m increasingly unconvinced that Ed realizes he’s running for mayor, rather than county executive or governor.

    My feelings about McGinn are gradually getting more enthusiastic.

  6. I went to the King County Council transportation committee meeting yesterday and was pleasantly surprised to see that the 216 stop at Eastgate Freeway station is due to be restored in September.

    A bigger surprise was that they were changing some 218s to 219s which is a new route that goes from Seattle to Redmond via I-90, Issaquah Highlands P&R and Sammamish. The 219 route pattern matches that of the 554 and uses time that would be spent deadheading into productive time.

  7. Impressive takedown of all the anti-gentrification politics in that Slate piece. It put into words something I’ve been having a hard time expressing.

    In supply-constrained regions of the country, we’ve essentially adopted bad public services as a de facto affordable housing policy.

    We’re getting into situations where people are going to their elected officials and saying “Please don’t improve my neighborhood, because I wouldn’t be able to afford rent if it was actually pleasant to live here”. This is perverse beyond words. Keeping slums terrible solves zero problems.

    1. That is the argument people like John Fox have been making for 20 years or more. It goes like this:

      1) Housing prices are too high.
      2) Therefore, too many people want to live in the neighborhood.
      3) So we want to make fewer people live in the neighborhood.
      4) So keep your improvements (including new housing) out.

      It sets up a false dichotomy between affordable slums and gentrified SFH neighborhoods, and ignores the possibility of actually satisfying some of the demand for housing that drives prices up.

    2. We’ve been in that situation for a long time. The same argument was raised against allowing upzones in Rainier Valley and the Central District in the 1990s. And there’s an ironic dilemma there because there really are only two choices: improve (which means gentrification and rising rents) or don’t improve (which means neglect and decay). The only thing to do is to improve while providing some kind of mitigation for the gentrification. Stagnation also means no transit improvements. That’s not such a big deal in Rainier Valley where the 7 is frequent and 24 hour and reasonably fast for intra-valley trips, and the 8 and Link and 50 are nearby. But it’s a worse deal for the Central District which has slower buses, not as much frequent coverage, and a service level dropoff east of 23rd.

      1. Mike, you’re exactly right. To expand on your comment, “mitigation for the gentrification” = upzoning and making it easy to build more housing. That is what the John Foxes of the world just don’t get. They see hot neighborhoods with new housing and rising rents, and what they don’t realize is that rents would be rising far more if the same improvements were happening but no new housing was being provided.

      2. No they wouldn’t. Yuppies won’t live in slums. If there are vacant lots or abandon industrial buildings that can be torn down (or better yet repurposed) that’s great. But if you bulldoze the existing housing everyone that was previously living in the neighborhood is pushed out. That’s not to say the Detroit “solution” of killing prosperity is good but glossing over the displacement situation with rosy but wrong economics isn’t what I’d expect of young liberals with a sense of social Justice. I guess good old fashion greed is alive and well with the yuppies rationalizing their land grab. As they grow old they’ll be the next generation of NIMBYs. Ob-La-Di

      3. Bernie, bulldozing the existing housing en masse is not something anyone has been doing for quite a few years, except where that housing is creating the slum conditions by itself (i.e., aging projects). These days, new development is usually happening on land that is either underused/disused or that has been sold by longtime owners for tidy sums. Certainly displacement should be taken into consideration but it is not the enormous problem the likes of John Fox make it out to be… especially where development is allowed to have the effect of increasing the total supply of housing.

  8. Last year STB wrote a post about The Lonliest Bus Stop in Seattle profiling a stop in downtown Seattle that only had service 2x per day from a Night Owl route. But I’ve found a lonelier bus stop–at the intersection of Seward Park Avenue South and Wabash Avenue South (by Rainier Beach HS) there’s a bus stop signed for the now-deleted route 39 (local & express). I hope nobody tries to catch a bus at that stop, however. The 34 used to serve that stop, but that route has been deleted, too. It’s possible that the southend to Lakeside bus might stop there, but that would only be once-a-day service.

    1. No, the 987 (which is limited stop) doesn’t stop there either, although it passes the stop. Leaving that stop there was just a mistake.

      1. That one used to be a stop for the now-discontinued 45. I would be very surprised if a single passenger has used it on the 82 since the 45 was discontinued.

  9. In other news that I haven’t heard anybody on this blog mention yet, the eastbound Yarrow Point Freeway station has re-opened. Also, the Evergreen Point Freeway Station has been nudged further east, as it has been doing each time the highway department has moved it. It is now arguably closer to 84th Ave. than to Evergreen Point Road, although (of course), there is no pedestrian access to that stop whatsoever from 84th.

    1. Evergreen Point Road is now slightly different in length / barrier placement: on the Eastbound side, sometimes the drivers of longer buses will not let passengers off at the back door, with the benevolent reason that it’s not safe. Definitely true: you basically have to step or scoot over the barrier so that your legs don’t get crushed by the side of the bus. Downside is that folks have to wait for me to walk to the front if I wasn’t able to snag a seat in the front and had to continue moving back.

    2. As far as I can see, most of the users of the Evergreen Point stop are simply transferring between buses along 520. They could remove the walkway to the street completely and the stop would still have close to the same amount of use that it does today.

  10. Anyone else notice that the “Just Too Damn Crowded” train pictured in the BART link would appear positively empty, if only 2/3 of the floor area weren’t taken up by the World’s Most Gigantic Seats (TM)?

    1. Who the hell wants to stand for over an hour to go from either Richmond-San Bruno, or Daly City to either Dublin or Fremont?
      They should use the room for reclining seats, ala SuperLiners, and the newest fleet of cars might want to consider sleepers if they ever extent the system out to Stockton.
      Just wait till you have SRO from Everett to Tacoma.

      1. People can fucking stand for the 10 minutes it takes to get to Oakland.

        At that point, the train empties out significantly (yes, even at the peak of peaks). By two or three stops later, everyone can have two seats to themselves if they’re so inclined.

        But calling a train “crush loaded” when fully 2/3 of it is filled with La-Z-Boys* is just lying.

        *(Really. BART’s seats, though disgusting and uncomfortable, are the largest seats I’ve ever seen in my life. The seats in the conference room on Air Force One aren’t as spacious.)

    2. DP took ET 9, CT 101, MT 358, MT 124, MT A, and PT 500 as a protest against Swift, Link, and ST Express, which are putting too many resources where they’re not needed and neglecting urban places that do need it. He wanted to avoid the A too but couldn’t because the 174 is gone, and he decided that 140+150+180+181 was too much out of the way. Sam joined him for the downtown to SeaTac part to protest the loss of the 194.

      1. Or maybe it was Norman, not Sam. I forget now. By the way, Norman has been away for months. I hope he’s all right.

      2. Not me. If I wanted to go to some strip mall in Edmonds, I’d just get a car and drive, like all the people who actually go there already do and will continue to do even after some silly, pointless, overpriced train of no use to them starts running vaguely in their vicinity.

  11. You want to live in Manhattan? Move there.

    One of the reasons San Francisco is so attractive is that it’s still a human-scale city. I’ve spent a lot of time in Manhattan, and the rush is pretty cool, and some urbanists say that’s how we’re all going to have to live in the future — packed into tall buildings in dense cities — but that’s not how I want to live. I know I sound old and I’m becoming a curmudgeon and one of those “you should have seen us in the old days” people, but I like the fact that there are no highrises in the Mission.

    Yeah, San Francisco is going to have to grow in population. There are ways to do that — to make dense neighborhoods that are still very livable. See: North Beach. But San Franciscans have generally taken the position that we don’t want to be Manhattan. We want to be San Francisco. [subst. Seattle – jb]


    1. LOLOLOL that article jumped the shark when he made this comment:

      “And it should be allocated by seniority — that is, the people who have been a part of a community for the longest get the better housing.”

      1. To quote:

        I know that’s commie shit, but that’s the way it is.

        Actually, the fact that we regulate our housing like communists is why housing is much more expensive than it was in 1900, while food and apparel are way cheaper.

        It turns out that capitalism is a pretty effective way to give people what they want, for a good price. Who would have thought?

      2. If repealing the GMA was the price we’d have to pay for simultaneously and permanently repealing the huge number of anti-density regulations that we have on the books, then sure, I’d take that trade.

        In practice, I personally believe that there are major negative externalities from greenfield suburban development. So for the same reason that I support carbon taxes, I would also support imposing taxes on *all* development, proportional to the environmental costs of that development.

        If these taxes were high enough, then the amount of greenfield suburban development would fall to the optimal level. That might be higher than 0, but it would be significantly lower than the amount you’d have without any such taxes — as it should be.

      3. So, we’re in a agreement.

        Getting rid of GMA would be a fair exchange for relaxing restrictions on super density.

        Open up the land to new development and stop restricting sprawl.

        At the same time stop restricting height.

        Let people live in the region, density and cost of their choosing and means, without being socially engineered by government.

      4. Government subsidies and incentives are what turned the minor buffer of development beyond the streetcar suburbs into giant sprawl. Eliminating the remaining subsidies and charging a carbon tax would make it significantly less attractive to live in sprawlsville or develop greenfields. It wouldn’t stop sprawl cold but it would make infill development more popular.

  12. Spanish urban entrepreneurs yield to the lure of rural living

    Rural areas are becoming bedroom communities, with 40 percent of Spain’s rural population working in cities. Large industries in pursuit of lower costs are also slowly relocating to rural areas adjacent to cities. But in the future, rural development will specially depend on attracting entrepreneurs and professionals like Juan Hurtado, owner of a small renewable-energy equipment firm.


    1. Rural areas have always been dependent on cities, from their initial reason they even exist, to their continued worth as providers of raw materials and land intensive uses.

      Their residents commute to cities for entertainment, medicine, education and jobs – always have.

  13. I really wish Seattle would stop calling Ballard an urban village. Urban villages tend to have reliable, rapid, frequent transit. Ballard has nothing that fits those three criteria.

    And pointing to something that could potentially happen in the future doesn’t count. Just ask the monorail.

    1. You know where else we don’t have reliable, rapid, and frequent transit? All of Seattle. (With the exception of the lucky people who are within walking distance of a Link stop.)

      Anyway, while there may be a correlation between “urban village” and good transit, I think you’re really stretching. The official City of Seattle definition of a hub urban village (which Ballard is classified as) is:

      a balance of housing and employment, lower density than urban centers; focus of goods, services and employment

      It also must meet the following criteria:

      1. Zoning that allows a mix of uses to accommodate concentrations of employment and housing.

      2. Sufficient zoned capacity to accommodate a total of at least 2,500 jobs within 1/4 mile of the village center, and to accommodate at least 3,500 dwellings units within 1/2 mile of the village center.

      3. The area presently supports, or can accommodate under current zoning, a concentration of residential development at 15 or more units/acre and a total of at least 1,800 housing units within 1/4 mile of the village center.

      4. A broad range of housing types and commercial and retail support services either existing or allowed under current zoning to serve a local, citywide, or regional market.

      5. A strategic location in relation to both the local and regional transportation network.

      I think Ballard certainly qualifies. In fact, I’d argue that Ballard meets these criteria better than some neighborhoods which are officially classified as part of “urban centers”, like Ravenna.

      Say what you will, but Ballard has a lot of good density (by Seattle standards), and it can accommodate a lot of growth. That’s what counts.

      1. RapidRider is right, Aleks. Exponential density increases with perpetually lousy transit is a recipe for an urban-connectivity experience that gets worse before it gets better.

        Serious investments in transit that make car-free living, working, and visiting in Ballard feasible has been the implicit promise ever sense the “Urban Village” designation took effect. And if you want the market to start rejecting massive garage infrastructure and the lights to stop subordinating pedestrian needs to auto throughput, such transit is required.

        Instead, decades on, we’ve got a BRT that misses the neighborhood center (while doubling its run time to detour into smaller and frankly less interesting urban center), that isn’t nearly fast or frequent enough to compete with driving, and that drops at 11pm to half the frequency that existed a year ago (smothering any demand that might have existed for car-free living in the evening or at night).

        Oh, and there are plans on the table for a slow-ass streetcar with poor connections and crappy network integration.

        Seattle had a responsibility to leverage political weight to follow through on the promises and the duties of transformed urbanity, and it has failed.

      2. I’m not disputing in any way that transit in Ballard is terrible, and needs to get a lot better. But I’m not sure how removing Ballard’s “urban village” designation would be a step in the right direction.

      3. @Aleks What about redefining Urban Villages as having “adequate” transit and put a moratorium on all development in potential Urban Villages until adequate transit is available or at least underway to those Urban Villages? If the neighborhoods are in fact prime locations for profitable density and to be truly defined as Urban Villages, wouldn’t the developers lobby along side the residents for “adequate” transit?

    2. I would like to see the city/county/etc. make plans for transit improvements when planning an urban village/center/whatever. Like, do the upzone, increase density, that’s awesome, but also make plans for how all those people are going to get around. Ballard teaches us what it looks like when we wait until the development has already been built to make our transportation plans.

  14. Would love to see a thread on ideas for improving transit connections between Queen Anne and Fremont that don’t involve walking up the hill from Dexter, walking across the Fremont bridge, or transferring downtown. Noticing serious amounts of traffic trying to get onto the north end of the hill from the Aurora Bridge during the evening commute, and I bet a lot of those trips could be avoided if there was a better connection between Queen Anne and Fremont.

      1. I was hoping for something more along the lines of a reallignment of existing service, rather than a new crossing…I mean, something that is doable this decade.

    1. You’d have to look at where these people are actually coming from — the Aurora Bridge is the ship canal crossing of choice for almost anyone crossing south toward Queen Anne (a small pocket in lower Fremont will prefer the Fremont Bridge, people close to 15th will likely prefer 15th, but all the crossings east of there force you to go around Lake Union, through the Mercer Mess).

      I’d guess these trips are coming from all over the region, especially from north and east of Fremont. Fremont (especially lower Fremont) doesn’t have much in the way of regional transit connections with areas north and east of it (thinking especially of employment centers: Northgate, Lake City, Bellevue, Redmond), so Fremont would seem like the wrong place to think about.

      On the other hand, the U District has a significant number of connections from places north and east of it. The 45 used to make this run from the U District (through lower Wallingford, and I think it made the Fremont Way/38th stop in Fremont on its way to Aurora) and was recently cut. As it was cut, it couldn’t have been all *that* effective…

      1. The 45 was a one-way peak-only bus, with 3 trips in each direction. I’m also pretty sure that it didn’t make very many local stops along the way.

        If it ran at 15-minute frequency all day, and if it made local stops (e.g. SPU, Fremont, Wallingford), I imagine that it would have gotten a lot more use.

      2. Like Fremont, Queen Anne also doesn’t have much in the way of transit connections to the north, as I am learning when I try to get from my kid’s (public and awesome) school on Queen Anne back home to Bitter Lake via transit. If he wasn’t a wiggly kindergartener, I guess we could walk down the hill to Galer and hop a 358, but I just don’t feel safe waiting for the bus there with him, with all those cars flying past…so we take a 3/4 downtown and transfer. Pick up by car isn’t a picnic either because the access points to Queen Anne are jam packed all the time. But the school is awesome, so, there we are.

      3. How about Car2Go in the direction where the child is going, while walking to the 358 to go back the other direction where you’re by yourself.

    2. The suggestion that keeps coming up is to extend the 13 into central Fremont, and possibly as far as the zoo (which would give it a connection with the 358 at 46th). This would incur significant capital expense for building wire and 2-4 full-time buses’ worth of ongoing operating expense. It would also have a very nasty impact on 13 reliability given the current configuration of Fremont. I think you would have to build the new 3rd Ave W/NW Ship Canal crossing, relieving traffic on the Fremont Bridge, for a 13 extension to work reasonably well.

      1. The ongoing operating expense could be mitigated by having the 13 turn east after Fremont to go to the U-district, at which point the 32 becomes redundant. If the extended 13 replaces the 32, the total service hours would actually be a little bit less than what we have today, for the better service.

  15. Seattle taxpayers foot bill for students’ pricey rides to school :

    KIRO 7 investigators followed one taxi carrying two students from Seattle’s Beacon Hill to Bothell, where they are cared for by their grandmother. The trip is more than 60 miles round trip, and costs taxpayers more than $100 every day.

    The first commenter remarked, “Kill two birds with one stone. Put those little darlings on the Metro buses and give the funding for the taxie,s and the limo’s to public transportation!”

  16. Developer challenges Sumner’s plan to sell golf course:

    Six Kilns Apartments is planned near Sumner Meadows Golf Course. Its complaint alleges the city’s action would cause traffic, noise, loss of aesthetics and views, and other problems for the proposed apartment complex and its residents.

    Beautiful, all the developer has to do is regurgitate all of the complaints made against them when they were going through the development process. Shoe on the other foot much?

    1. It seems like if the developer likes having a golf course there, they could just buy it from the city and operate it themselves. It’s an amenity for the apartments.

Comments are closed.