PSRC Recommends Local Projects

43 Replies to “PSRC Recommends Local Projects”

1. Not sure about that last paragraph. We’ll have to see if we get a transportation bill before congress goes to recess.

   1. I’m not sure I would call it a transportation bill as much as a selling off future federal pensions and stripping the leaking underground storage tank fund for an 8 month band-aid. Not to mention any transit advocates should be greatly alarmed that this extension will end when a likely to be senate with a republican majority and a house with a republican majority will be in power…and hence responsible for passing a long-term transportation bill.

      This is going to go down as a huge loss for transit. Just wait and see.

2. I’m not sure what to think of the money for Route 8. I’m sure that $2.6 million can do some good for one of the city’s most important bus lines, but at the same time, it’s in the crosshairs for a major revision and truncation with the service cuts. How do these pieces of information square with one another?

   1. I’ll assume they plan to fund the gondola with it (note: I’m not actually assuming they plan to fund the gondola with it).

      1. Is there any reason they couldn’t do that? Whom do we contact to advocate for a gondola?

      2. I was told in 2012 by McGinn that we’ll have to wait for the next Transit Master Plan (the 2012 plan was the first one since 2005, so I’m guessing 2019), at which point we advocate for it, possibly get it included, then maybe someday someone decides to fund a study, then at some future date they decide to actually fund it. For a technology that could be built in a few months, that seems a little crazy to me.

         I’m hoping someone will come along and tell me that’s just the city’s broken process and there are better ways around this.

      3. As long as the gondola has ski racks on the doors, it gets my vote :)

      4. No ski racks. Bike racks.. You’ll have to carry your skis in the cabin on snow days.

      5. We have a new mayor, a new city council and a new transportation chief. Even though the council has a lot of the old members, there isn’t that much enthusiasm for streetcars, even the one that has the most going for it. I think the city should be flexible and not stubbornly insist that it follow a plan that may be out of date by the time most of it is implemented. I agree with your last sentence — I hope there is a way we can push for this extremely cost effective transportation solution to one of our biggest transportation problems (how to get to South Lake Union).

         I wonder if a push from a private source would make sense. The SLUS streetcar wouldn’t have happened if not for Paul Allen. A public/private gondola for that area might be very popular. The other gondola suggestion has a lot of strengths (in the heart of tourist town) but a lot of weaknesses as well (you can walk the same location). This area is much better in that regard. It’s no slouch from a tourist standpoint, either. Capitol Hill is one of our nicest, most tourist friendly areas. I could easily see a fun loop consisting of downtown (e. g. Pike Place) followed by a short train ride and lunch on Capitol Hill, then a short, pleasant walk to the gondola, where you experience million dollar views of the city. Then a stroll or a streetcar ride through South Lake Union (maybe checking out the park at the lake or MOHAI) followed by a streetcar ride or walk back to downtown. That sounds like a blast to me (its always nice to know that a “tourist experience”, like Pike Place Market, is fun for the locals as well). If the gondola goes all the way to the Seattle Center/Uptown, then you can complete the tourist loop by taking the Monorail back to downtown. People talk about a streetcar being good for tourists, but how about a subway, gondola, monorail loop? In my book that is way more appealing than a streetcar ride.

      6. Gondolas? crazy! what we should advocate for is frequent, grade separated, automated transit through congested/topographically difficult area.

         Oh, wait…

   2. I expect that once the Mercer two-way project completely finishes and the tunnel eventually gets built (if it is ever finished…) there will be less traffic on Denny as all the people trying to get onto 99 will have to go elsewhere and people trying to get to Queen Anne or points farther west or north will find it faster to use Mercer. Hopefully at that point the 8 will suck less.

      1. Actually, my biggest peeve down there is the SB I-5 on-ramp at Yale Avenue. During rush hour, it backs up the right lane of EB Denny for many blocks. For regular traffic going up and over the freeway to Capitol Hill, the left lane moves just fine. Problem is, the bus stops on right so it gets stuck in, of all things, freeway entrance traffic. It’s a nightmare. (Other 8 peeves: Anything having to do with Mount Baker TC; the ridiculous Jackson/23rd/Yesler deviation; the fact that E Madison St and the CD are going to lose meaningful service next year)

      2. Of course, that’s why we should close Yale between Denny and Stewart, and reverse its flow to one-way westbound between Howell and Stewart.

   3. It squares like this:

      – No major corridor served by the 8 is losing transit service; some will have different route numbers, but it’s all going to be there. IIRC most of the 8 follows corridors that are fairly young by Seattle transit standards (that is, I think Denny and MLK didn’t have service as recently as the ’80s) but they’ve proven themselves by ridership.

      – Most of the 8 by distance isn’t in dire need of roadway improvements. The part between Seattle Center and Capitol Hill is. I imagine (though I could be very wrong) that the design would be focused there.

      Roadway design improvements (short of bus lanes) can’t fix all the 8’s problems up there, but they could fix some of them. It wouldn’t surprise me if part of the study considered whether moving the 8 a couple blocks north after the Aurora corridor was finished would be a good idea, and what roadway improvements would be needed along that route (largely on new streets) to support it. That’s the sort of question that can’t be answered without study, and the sooner it’s studied the better (as it will influence operational details of all the streets involved — with no signal changes the alternate route might be slower than Denny except in the absolute worst traffic).

   4. The 8 is really two routes in one: Seattle Center to Capitol Hill, and Capitol Hill to Rainier Valley. Much of the ridership is people in the densest part avoiding walking uphill (eastbound Denny/Olive/John). That’s the part of the 8 that’s being retained, and it’s also the same part that has severe congestion problems due to different street grids on each side of it and the I-5 exits.

      1. Didn’t the original 8 only run between Seattle Center and Capitol Hill, as way for the hill people to avoid having to travel through downtown?

3. Should we be concerned that Ballard is already at 200% of PSRC’s growth target for 2024, and adding in permits Seattle as a whole is 108%? I considered this just bad predictions on PSRC’s part (knowing the future is tough), but if transit funding is doled out using these numbers, are dense areas getting shafted? Are they actively trying to push people into the sprawled areas that haven’t met their growth targets yet?

   1. I’m a bit concerned, but I’m more concerned (in general) about Sound Transit’s predictions. I wish I could find a copy of the mailer they sent out asking for input, but the numbers were ridiculous. They suggested huge growth for suburban areas, and very little growth for Seattle. The most ridiculous part was predicting that Tacoma growth would exceed Seattle’s. Not starting now, but starting in 2010. Tacoma has grown much slower than Seattle since then, just as it did from 2000 to 2010. When you consider that Lewis-McChord (the biggest employer by far in the region) will likely shrink in the coming years, that prediction is ridiculous. It makes me wonder if they are cooking the books to justify more suburban (and intercity) light rail.

      1. It looks like ST ridership is based on PSRC’s population predictions, which are clearly far off. I’ve tried looking into what PSRC’s predictions are based on, and came up with this: “The Land Use Baseline is a long-range small area forecast developed using PSRC’s new UrbanSim model.” And this: “Must complete and sign a confidentiality agreement in order to receive the trip generation databank” (along with being a PRSC member and owning a certain software license). Ah, transparency.

      2. UrbanSim? I played that game once. Godzilla ate my town.

         Seriously, though, I think their modelling is way out of date. Suburbia is no longer popular. It’s that simple. Oh, to be fair, there will always be folks like Bailo who love that sort of thing, but for the most part, the people who move to suburbia will be those who simply can’t afford to live in urbia. That is the pattern that is prominent throughout the world. It is only America that created their 20th century ghettos in the inner city (the rest of the world created them a long time ago, and put Jews, not black people in them). It took a while, but now that we have gotten rid of red lining, we do what most countries do — have those that can afford it, live in the city, and those that can’t, live outside. Old stereotypes take a while to die out, but they are dying. The old Seattle slum — the area next to Garfield High School — is now an area with very high rents and even higher home prices. It is only a matter of time until that spreads throughout the C. D. Put it this way: if you are a fifty year investor, would you buy a dozen houses next to Rainier Beach, or in Tukwila? I’ll give you ten to one odds that R. B. is the better bet.

         All that means that it is really up to Seattle to decide how big it will grow. Ballard, which used to be way meaner, and way rougher than Rainier Valley is now, is growing like crazy despite having a horrible transportation system. Public transit is bad, but so too is driving. But despite all that, the city keeps that area from growing even bigger because it doesn’t want to upset the neighbors (and their insatiable desire for free parking). I’m sure Kent wished it had that problem (the words “I would like to build a 400 unit apartment building with ground floor retail, but I want to know if you can waive the parking requirement” are never heard in Kent, but they are commonplace in Ballard).

         Seattle will grow because people will want it to grow. Sky high rents will force that. There will be plenty of bumps in the road, but as been said many times before, we don’t have to choose between nice, pretty houses on smallish lots (that even Mr. Bail admits are extremely nice) versus a land of soulless Apodments. We can easily create a pretty city with a mix of those houses along with row houses, apartments, and the like. Big cities have that, and most people like it. We have bits and pieces of that, and they are way more popular than anything outside the city. That’s the future. The market has spoken. It would make sense to build our transit system around it, instead of pretending that we live in a 1950’s, “guess how’s coming to dinner”, “let’s all go for a drive”, world.

      3. While it is undoubtedly true that Tacoma has not seen significant growth over the past 10 years, perhaps someone is predicting (whether it’s overly wishful thinking or not) that growth will come to Tacoma as the result of new urbanism in its own right, and not as a bedroom community to Seattle. Remember that, prior to 1990, the Census Bureau considered Tacoma a separate metropolitan area from Seattle-Everett. Of course, there were people who lived in Tacoma and worked in Seattle, but it was far less common. Commuter transit options between the two cities were basically nonexistent after the Interurban was shut down in 1928.

      4. @T. K. Right. I grew up in this town, and know several people who grew up in Tacoma. All of them considered Tacoma to be a separate city, not a suburb of Seattle. It is only in the last ten years or so that I’ve met people who live in Tacoma, but commute to Seattle. But that is somewhat beside the point. I just don’t see any reason why Tacoma, on its own, or as a bedroom community, will suddenly take off, while Seattle will slow. Seattle (proper) actually shrank in the 1970s and 1980s. Meanwhile, the suburbs grew. This was typical for urban areas. But the situation has reversed itself. Here are some numbers for Seattle since 1990:

         2000 563,374 9.1%
         2010 608,660 8.0%
         Est. 2013 652,405 7.2%

         Again, this is pretty typical for cities across the country. But Tacoma didn’t follow that pattern. It rose during the 1970s and 80s, suggesting it was acting more as a suburb, than a big city. It really picked up in the 1980s, then slowed down:

         1990 176,664 11.5%
         2000 193,556 9.6%
         2010 198,397 2.5%
         Est. 2013 203,446 2.5%

         Again, I just don’t see it happening for Tacoma. Nor do I do see it happening with the suburbs. But in Tacoma’s case, I don’t see how it would become a new “urbanism” city without a big employer. But the big employers are shrinking (Lewis-McChord) or have left (Russell). They still have the port, but the port doesn’t employ that many, and could be upset by the changes in Panama that will occur soon. UW-Tacoma will most certainly help, but it isn’t clear how big that will get (UW-Bothell may end up creating more jobs). Tacoma may grow a bit, or stay steady, but to suggest that it will leave Seattle in the dust (which is what the mailer suggested) is crazy.

      5. If you subscribe to some of the Tacoma news feeds like I do, you’ll get the impression that southward shift of the Puget “Center of Gravity” is exactly what is happening.

         What we call The City will end up with it’s north end in downtown Seattle and it’s terminus in Lakewood.

         Everything beyond that will be various forms of bedroom community, with transit stations to feed the center beast.

      6. I believe TK’s point was that Tacoma’s population is not growing. If you have other data that would be helpful, but building on that statement to claim that populations are shifting southward doesn’t make sense.

      7. >> What we call The City will end up with it’s north end in downtown Seattle and it’s terminus in Lakewood.

         Wow, that’s highly unlikely. Do you think Sacramento will win the NBA championship next year? Do you think Cameroon will win the World Cup? Then again, maybe Sacramento will win the World Cup. All of those seem more likely than what you just said.

         “The City” starts around the University District, and ends somewhere on Beacon Hill. It has for a long time, but it is even more entrenched then ever, as the area between those two spots has filled in (so called “South Lake Union” — perhaps you’ve heard of it?). But now, somehow, the UW, the biggest growth engine in the entire region, is going to just dry up, and head south. All those buildings to the north, and all those people to the north, will do the same (folks from Ballard will simply move to Federal Way). Sorry, that is simply ridiculous. Ballard, Fremont, Wallingford are booming right now. The city is in a battle between those who are desperate for a place to live (and are willing to share a bathroom to live in one of those neighborhoods) and those that don’t want to change a thing because it is too damn nice right now. No one is eager to leave, John, and they certainly aren’t heading to Lakewood (really, Lakewood?) — if they do.

         OK, enough with the crazy talk. Let’s discuss something a little more plausible. Is it possible that the center of the region will move south? Certainly. Is it possible that the city will spread out some more? Also possible. But how about we break those down a bit, shall we?

         UW Tacoma is not that big of a deal. It is balanced (geographically) by UW Bothell. Meanwhile, the main campus sits north of downtown. What sits south of downtown? Well, the V. A., but that is (as I mentioned) on Beacon Hill. It is possible that the main V. A. and the American Lake V. A. will continue to grow and they will add a bunch more clinics between them. So, there is that. What else? Why Boeing, of course. Ooops, they moved. Let’s see, there is Weyerhaeuser, but they are not exactly a growth company. What about Tacoma? Again, look at the top ten employers (listed on Wikipedia). I’ll save you the trouble:

         1 Joint Base Lewis-McChord 55,603
         2 Local public school districts 13,735
         3 MultiCare Health System 6,756
         4 State of Washington 6,662
         5 Franciscan Health System 5,507
         6 City of Tacoma 3,670
         7 Pierce County 2,947
         8 Washington state higher education 2,720
         9 Emerald Queen Casino 2,230
         10 Boeing 1,450

         First on the list, and dominating everything else is Lewis-McChord. It is possible that this country will ramp up another war (followed by a ramp down) and that should keep everyone in business, but I would bet against that. You have schools, and local hospitals. They are simply serving the local clientele. I’m not sure what the state is doing down there, but my guess is much the same (local services for local people). Which leaves with the casino and Boeing to bring in outside money. But Boeing only employs 1500 in Tacoma, and in case you haven’t noticed, they aren’t going through a big hiring phase right now. In contrast, Amazon (one company) has around 15,000 employees in Seattle, and is building new buildings that can hold 30,000. As should be obvious, Tacoma — no, the entire South Sound region — is highly dependent on military spending right now. As this fades away (and it will fade) nothing will replace it. I wish it wasn’t so — I love Tacoma — but a city of destiny it ain’t.

         As for the city in general spreading out, I go back to my earlier post. Much of suburban growth was based on cheap land and ethnic fear. The fear has gone away, as the pot has finally started to melt. Meanwhile, land has simply been used up. You can’t buy a new cheap house in Shoreline anymore because there is no new uninhabited land up there. Or if there is, it is rare, and thus expensive. People will move to the suburbs, and the suburban houses will be cheaper than the city houses, but that is only because they are less desirable. Compounding the problem is that the suburban housing was built with really big lots. So now, if you want a small house on a small lot, you have to destroy the old house. Meanwhile, there are lots more of those (as is) in the city. Since many will go to the suburbs since that is all they afford (as with most areas of the world) the city, meanwhile, will simply release the pressure valve by easing up a bit on zoning. Seattle has done so little in that regard, yet growth in the city has outpaced the surrounding areas.

         That is what is so funny about your prediction, John, It is based on some company (or companies) somewhere, deciding to move to Tacoma (or Lakewood) and then people will flock there. All it would take for faster growth in Seattle (which is already much faster than Tacoma or the suburbs) is to ease up a bit on the zoning laws.

         Sorry, John, you would have better luck betting on the Kings.

4. Why does sounder cost $50m / round trip? Is that how it costs lease the tracks from BNSF for a single trip? That seems very expensive. I was hoping that we’d be able to convert the south sounder into an all-day frequent thing (like the LIRR) but at these prices I doubt it could ever happen w/o building new tracks :(

   1. 50 million / round trip = $192,000 per round trip if you divide by 52 weeks, then dlvide by 5 weekdays.

      1. Glenn, that’s just over one year. Isn’t it a perpetual easement?

         Supposedly, at these prices, BNSF will do what it takes to maintain sufficient capacity on their tracks for the new trips. If that means building new tracks and crossovers, they do it. I think ST is on the hook to do the environmental documentation and remediation in this case.

         This contrasts with the Sound Move South Sounder trips where ST paid for specific capital projects in order to run the trains. The ST2 trips are more like what was done with getting North Sounder started where BNSF will complete the double track between Seattle and Everett when they decide they need to.

      2. I don’t know how many trips there were in 2011 but in a 30 second google search it said the total annual operating cost for the sounder was $32 million. So it sounds very wrong that per trip it would be $50 million

      3. These are capital costs, not operating costs.

         http://www.soundtransit.org/documents/pdf/about/board/motions/2010/Motion%20M2010-72.pdf
         http://www.soundtransit.org/documents/pdf/about/board/motions/2010/Motion%20M2010-72sr.pdf

      4. It’s a perpetual easement (not operations) for the four roundtrips. It’s seems like a fair good deal.

5. [ot]

6. I’m still aggressively opposed to splitting the 48, especially if it happens north of the cut. 48 spends a lot of time waiting for the light at Montlake and 520. If this is not fixed, all you do (aside from electrifying 48, which is a plus) is screw another CD route from having access to somewhere north of downtown. Right now, 48 is one of the easiest routes to Ballard given how overloaded and slow the 44 tends to be.

   1. I like the 48/66 route suggested by Aleks. (48/73 post-cut; i.e., Mt Baker to Northgate.) That would connect southeast Seattle well into north Seattle, and avoid the problem of overlapping routes or layovers in congested Pacific Street.

      1. I’d happily go with Mt. Baker to Northgate and electrification (or even without it). But with wires is going to be a long time in coming if it ever happens. Until then, I’ll still do my little bit to keep 48 basically as-is.

      2. If the is split and nothing else happens, they would still overlap between 45th and UW station because that segment is the primary ridership generator. So what you would specifically lose is a one-seat ride to Roosevelt, Greenlake, Greenwood, and Loyal Heights. Do you really go to those places more often than you go to Ballard, Wallingford, Fremont, Northgate, Lake City, Bitter Lake, or northeast Seattle? Even if you do, why should we expect that the average 48S passenger is doing the same?

         Re truncations at Northgate, I’m not expecting any. The Lynnwood Extension will open two years after Northgate, so there’s no reason to build four times more layover space and I-5 access ramps that will only be used for two years.

      3. The TMP also includes maybe extending the Eastlake streetcar to Northgate. That segment could possibly be reassigned to a Northgate – Mt Baker trolleybus.

      4. I used to want to have the 48S by itself, in order to keep it as reliable as possible. It stands by itself in both of the network plans I’ve released to date.

         But recently after more reflection (and some prodding from Bruce) I’ve come to prefer Corridor 5 of the Seattle TMP, which combines the 7 and the 48S, and I like it better than the 48S/new 73 combination. First, it would be more reliable than any route trudging up and down 15th and Pacific in both directions. The 48S/new73 combination would be just as unreliable as the current 48. Second, it preserves the Central District/Rainier Valley trip as a one-seat ride, which is in high demand and which is not really helped by Link. Third, it allows rationalization of frequency on the 7 corridor — Rainier south of MBTC needs more frequency than Rainier north of MBTC. Fourth, it allows for a fantastic grid south of the Ship Canal, in conjunction with Link and TMP Corridor 3 (the 36/49 combo).

         My upcoming 2014 +0% network plan has a new 7 which is just like TMP Corridor 5.

         There is no justification for pairing the 48S and 48N. Each badly hurts the reliability of the other, and vanishingly few people are through-riding. Even fewer people will through-ride when Link reaches Roosevelt. It would be more justified in terms of ridership (although horrible operationally) to through-route the 48S and 44.

      5. The 48 really needs to be split in the U-District. There are few through riders and if the new routes are frequent enough a transfer isn’t a huge burden.

         I like the idea of combining with the 7 as in TMP corridor 5.

      6. There is already a connection from middle Seattle to south Seattle. The connection I don’t want to lose is middle Seattle to north Seattle, so linking the 48 and 7 is also a bummer.

         Yes, going to Greenlake over Northgate is not worthy tradeoff but losing the ride north of the cut is worse. If Metro can work out timed transfers (and a way to handle late connecting buses, even if it is just as simple as more frequency), great. Right now, it can’t, it lacks the resources so I’ll keep the bus to Greenlake and, indirectly, Ballard. Maybe that’s hardheaded of me so I’m open to other options prior to Northgate Link opening…

7. Swift II is seemingly chugging along nicely. Hopefully it can debut with full Sunday service (along with the rest of CT’s core routes) in a few years.

8. If you are sick of Seattle traffic and the inadequate and barely (not even) improving transit infrastructure please join this group and we’ll create protests https://www.facebook.com/groups/318679168295847/

9. Pingback: What We’re Reading: Saving Metro and Planning the City | The Urbanist

Comments are closed.