December 10, 2017 at 8:25 am By Martin H. Duke
Support Seattle Transit Blog. Make a donation to help fund our work.
Mark Dublin says
December 10, 2017 at 9:10 am
Patronizing tone, diddly music, cliche almost as bad as “density?” Leaves me persuaded to put a shelter-roof whole length of every bus line in the city. Tell you what. Start painting those lanes tomorrow morning, and get those signal-pre-empt crews working 24-7-365 ’til they’re all done. And get everybody in a driver’s uniform trained to handle lane changes.
And the transit system head offices,some regulation ear-protection. Because, believe me, while average person my age can walk the cross-training soles off whoever commissioned this piece of crap, for every Snivel out of any of the people shown here, the howling decibel level of snivelling from usual car-loving interests will break every window from Connecticut to Delaware.
Lack Thereof says
December 10, 2017 at 9:12 am
Pierce Transit could learn a bit from this video.
December 10, 2017 at 10:55 am
King and Snohomish too. Showing what happens when people fill every inch of street and road space with cars. Being a single municipality, though, New York City has one less excuse. Would only take one City Council’s worth of snivelling (and how many college kids do they really have to call the riot squad on for disrupting Council meetings to demand unbalanced bus zones?) to give transit two transit-reserved signal pre-empted lanes on every arterial.
Two bus lanes per direction to make the claim that unlike streetcars buses can pass each other in GP lanes the sniveling lie it is.
While same is in progress for all the other lanes, except maybe one for fire engines and amubulances. Now that massive choral honking can be ringing like a Bach chorale in everybody’s head-phones, what’s a single private automobile doing in New York City anyhow?
Cabs? Just so they’re all Orange.
Ben P says
December 10, 2017 at 10:13 am
We often assume here that restrictive zoning increases rents. We can even find studies stating as much. But can anyone point to a single place that experienced a rent drop after easing zoning? Obviously the city can’t have also experienced a recession at the same time. I’ll look for examples myself, time permitting, but I figured I’d ask first to try and save some time.
December 10, 2017 at 10:37 am
Look to suburbs and sprawling southwestern cities first. The suburbs are the most likely to “over” develop and depress their home prices, usually by allowing “denser” suburban-scale SFH developments on previously rural-scale zoning, but also by allowing sprawling car-centric apartment complexes on the fringes.
I remember the Seattle Times complaining a decade or so ago that we’d allowed too much density in Ballard and condo prices were tanking. That was a short-lived “problem”.
December 10, 2017 at 11:03 am
A short web search on apartments.com shows prices in Seattle and Houston.
Seattle: $1380/studio, $1720/ 1 bed, $2264/ 2 bed (9,040 apartments available)
Houston: $788/studio, $960/ 1 bed, $1208/ 2 bed (26,668 apartments available)
Seattle’s walk/transit/bike scores are 81/66/71
Houston’s walk/transit/bike scores are 51/36/52
Al S. says
December 10, 2017 at 2:07 pm
If you added air conditioning bills in the south , you would see these differences much less pronounced. Even for a studio, a $100 is easily possible and those bills can rise to be several hundred dollars.
Mike Orr says
December 10, 2017 at 11:48 am
Prices are sticky on the way down because nobody wants to take a loss, so it’s hard to see in a standalone statistic. The main affect is that when a new unit opens, it decreases competition on comparable older units, and the next level down in size/quality. But not all the way to the bottom because the person taking the worst unit can’t afford the new one, and the person taking the new unit won’t consider the worst one, so they’re effectively two separate markets. But it starts a chain reaction that somebody can now move into the second-best place and so on. This chain reaction is probably the hardest to prove, and it can sound like trickle-down economics, but it’s more probably because it’s a straightforward market activity (renting the best apartment you can afford) rather than a questionable assumption (investing in your workers rather than in dividends and stock buybacks).
The main effect is that when new units open, the most affluent renters choose those, and that decreases competition on the next level below. In the first step, multiple renters per hour will dry up, so they won’t bid up the rent, or allow landlords to price it as if a bid-up, or rent it within thirty seconds of opening. So tenants won’t be pressured to lease on the spot or it’ll be gone. In the second step, the number of inquiries will go down to a few per day. Seattle is in the middle of the first step for highly-desired properties, and in the second step for everything else. That shows the housing shortage right there. When Seattle finishes the second step, tenants will be able to look at a unit and decide over a day or more whether to take it and it will probably still be available. That’s what Seattle was like in the 80s, 90s, and early 00’s. At that point landlords start to offer sales like “First month free! Free flat-screen TV!” They do that before lowering rent because it doesn’t set a precedent: it doesn’t put next year’s rent at a lower baseline. Seattle has reportedly had sales on and off over the past year. The next step after that is lowering the rent to prevent the unit from being vacant for too long. Different landlords have different vacancy floors but 3-8 weeks is probably typical: they don’t want it vacant longer than that.
The top end is sometimes an exception, where owners with deep pockets will let units sit empty for several months because they see lower rents as a bigger long-term problem, or because they promised their investors a high rate of return so it’s empty until bankrupt. That also explains some of the empty storefronts on the Ave: there are prospective tenants, but not top-paying ones, and the landlords would rather wait for a high-paying corporation if it ever comes. But most landlords can’t do this, they need rental income within a few months.
December 10, 2017 at 10:10 pm
Why does anybody think that zoning has a thing to do with the economic development that’s made Seattle unlivable for what used to be known as the average person these last three years? Remedy like I’ve been saying:
If this is what “The Free Market” makes homes cost, it also carries its own remedy. Employ average person at a wage level that can let them afford to live in them. As their work used to.
With the bargaining tool that served them so well for so long: labor unions.
Also, proliferation of abandoned homes that don’t help anybody’s property values? Pay their former owners to stay in them as caretakers. At high enough wages to buy a home someplace else. Probably not necessary to buy them a ticket or pay any of their moving expenses.
Just when their garage door opens, step aside, because it’ll be really hard to get the tire-tracks out of the suit you were wearing.
December 11, 2017 at 7:39 am
Mark, I’m in a union and make a pretty good salary, and while I can afford to rent in Seattle without hurting too much, homeownership looks to be out of reach for the foreseeable future. House prices have everything to do with zoning. I would like nothing more than for rowhouses and small condo buildings to be allowed in current detached single family house zones, because then I might actually be able to afford to buy one.
December 11, 2017 at 1:17 pm
It’s both. The shift of the gains from productivity improvement from workers to owners that came from union-busting and deregulation affects everybody in the US. But the steep rise in housing prices affects only a few metro areas, those where the population has significantly increased but zoning prevented the increase in housing to match it. If the minimum wage were raised to $20 or $25 as I think it is in some European countries, it would restore people’s security in the areas where house prices haven’t risen steeply, but those in high-priced areas would still be somewhat cost-burdened. Even if they’re secure in their housing and retirement, there’s still their childrens’ college and now the cost of raising children, and oh yes a car.
December 10, 2017 at 8:10 pm
I find it difficult to find any data on the subject. I think it would be great to compare the cities of the world and see which ones have seen increased rental prices over the years and which ones haven’t. But I haven’t seen that, and have instead seen anecdotal comparisons (e. g. Tokyo has relatively low rents and has relatively liberal zoning laws). I would be most curious about Buenos Aires, having visited there. It seems like they allow just about any sort of development, and it wouldn’t surprise me if rents are very low as a result.
December 10, 2017 at 10:14 am
An open thread speculation question: what city is going to get the new Amazon HQ?
I don’t have any inside knowledge but I’ve heard other people make pretty strong arguments for Toronto or Baltimore. I’ve also heard credible arguments for Portland, Detroit and possibly Pittsburgh.
Toronto seems to win on quality of life issues (including transit) and access to high tech workers, Baltimore for proximity to political power, Portland for proximity to Seattle, Detroit for available real estate with nearby universities and Pittsburgh for highly trained workers.
December 10, 2017 at 11:06 am
My top 3 guesses are Toronto, Austin, and Atlanta.
Toronto for all the above reasons. It’s probably the most likely urban-style location.
Austin and Atlanta share a set of reasons, but at different urban scales. They both provide a vastly different physical climate to the Northwest (i.e. warmer), and it’s been implied that one of Amazon’s key priorities is to expand their hiring pool to include workers who don’t want to live in damp, dreary places. Both have all-day long-distance rail transit. Both have large university computer science programs in the region to keep them supplied with fresh entry-level workers. Both have (relatively) low housing costs. Both offer a choice of urban and suburban campus location options along their transit lines. Both score high on various “livability” rankings.
I look upon anything close to Seattle with skepticism. I don’t think they want their two campuses to be sharing a labor market and competing for employees. I think they want zero crossover between the two campus’ hiring pools.
December 10, 2017 at 12:30 pm
Northern Virginia is also a possiblity, simply because because that’s where their major east coast data centers are. And physical proximity to hardware matters sometimes. But if they were going to do that, they probably wouldn’t have bothered with the whole continent-wide search
December 10, 2017 at 12:39 pm
The continent-wide search is probably a probe to see how many freebies cities will give them right now. That’s “the market”, and it doubtless appeals to Bezos’ no-tax sensibilities. It’s information that will be useful when Amazon sets up more satellite offices, or when Bezos sets up future companies.
December 10, 2017 at 12:45 pm
> Northern Virginia is also a possiblity, simply because because that’s where their major east coast data centers are. And physical proximity to hardware matters sometimes.
Not really these days. Datacenters are “automated” to the point where all you need are a few people to physically pull failed servers from racks and slot a new one in and turn it on, the rest is automatic. The company I work for has decided running a datacenter – in the respect of buying the hardware and managing it is yesterdays news, and is planning on sunsetting them over the next two years and moving everything into AWS. Bad news for the VMWare and storage guys, the writing is on the wall for them.
December 10, 2017 at 12:08 pm
Toronto is in Canada which is much more open to skilled immigrant workers from throughout the world and doesn’t have arbitrary bans or threats of bans. Toronto is also the most international city in North America, probably more than New York. And its feel is like an old northeastern city with a firm commitment to density, a complete street grid, and transit, and walkable neighborhoods like Kensington Market. The only thing that would be a bee in Bezos’ bonnet is higher taxes. That could be a dealbreaker since Bezos is a tax avoider and low-tax activist, but on the other hand if he needs immigrant workers and can’t bring them to the US, that may outweigh the tax issue. It’s interesting to speculate how he’d weigh the healthcare issue: Canada’s universal-healthcare taxes probably annoy him, but on the other hand it takes the biggest personnel burden off companies’ shoulders, so maybe it would be a net positive. Toronto’s cold is a negative factor, but given that the US is lurching in alarming directions and we don’t know where it will end up, cold may be better than that. At least it puts half his eggs in another basket, and one that now has a solid economy and policies and good trade agreements with both the US, Europe, Asia. and Latin America.
December 10, 2017 at 3:53 pm
I didn’t consider Toronto to be a serious contender, but with the political climate in the US right now it must be in the conversation along with Pittsburgh, Chicago, New York & Atlanta. One of the issues with both Austin & Portland is the lack of international flights. Pittsburgh has that problem as well but it’s a short hop to NYC, & other international gateways. Dallas & Houston both have good international coverage, but Chicago & NYC can get you across the globe far easier.
Portland would be an interesting choice, for people traveling between the two HQs the dilemma would be fly or use Cascades? Both take about the same amount of time with all the waiting around/security at airports.
Personally I like Portland, and my wife is in-love with the place. If the job market was better I’d consider moving there.
December 10, 2017 at 12:42 pm
Tekkies are more likely than average to take the train. Maybe Amazon in this scenario could get a good deal from BNSF on additional passenger capacity. Especially since Amazon must ship a lot of freight by train. That’s the kind of leverage that Sound Transit doesn’t have.
Glenn in Portland says
December 10, 2017 at 1:18 pm
In Portland they’d be competing against typical tech companies (Intel, etc) plus tech hires from Nike, Addidas and the like.
The only likely land down here they are likely to be interested in is the old Esco foundary. I think it’s already zoned for housing or for keeping it industrial.
It does have a railroad into the place, so if Bezos ever wants to expand past truck shipments there is that.
All the other land that is likely down here is way out on the middle of nowhere. It fits Intel operating philosophy but isn’t likely to be what Bezos wants.
December 10, 2017 at 2:58 pm
I’ve always found taking the train to be more productive than flying when I’m traveling to Portland. Once I’m seated on the train I have about 3 hours to work if I need to. The airport to airport experience doesn’t allow as much concentrated time to work. But taking the train both ways for a one-day business trip to Portland can make for a long day. Sometimes it’s nice to take the train one way and fly the other direction, especially if someone else is paying for the airfare.
I’m surprised Amazon hasn’t been more involved with high speed rail. In CA, for example, Amazon could set up a warehouse on the HSR line in Bakersfield or Fresno that would serve LA, Sacramento and the entire Bay Area. An order placed by noon could then be available to pick up at any HSR train station by 4:30pm the same day once the HSR system is fully built out.
Every HSR trainset could have a dedicated baggage car that would deliver parcels to all the stations along the line. Amazon should be able to save on delivery costs and the rail operator would have a new line of revenue.
December 10, 2017 at 5:54 pm
Wasn’t Bezos involved in the current Cascadia HSR study?
AJ McGauley says
December 10, 2017 at 9:56 pm
I think Portland is a no-go because it doesn’t give Amazon the geographic diversity it’s looking for.
December 10, 2017 at 2:19 pm
I think the selection will be significantly based on recruiting oppprtunities and numbers from nearby universities. That’s where Seattle has really suffered, and tech firms are importing most workers from elsewhere. A place like a mid-Atlantic or eastern Midwest city is going to offer many nearby grads.
Chicago, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Baltimore or Virginia are going to offer so clear advantages. Sure government incentives might influence things, but I think that training and recruitment costs are likely a bigger factor on the bottom line.
December 10, 2017 at 11:04 am
Toronto also has the perk of not being in the USA, i.e. easier international recruitment.
December 10, 2017 at 10:29 pm
Easy to ascertain where Amazon will put its next headquarters. Just put out a search for which city has the most desperate need for biggest increase of in-street-residency on Earth. And will also, out of civic pride, firmly refuse any offer of relief from someone struggling along on a pathetic net worth of a hundred billion dollars.
Especially by the insulting insinuation as to how many skilled workers presently residing in their cars between shifts a fraction of that money could re-employ- at wages where they’ll finally be able to earn toe right to complain about paying taxes, only to be ignored by elitists. Who, being elitists, should accept that life isn’t fair.
But more important question right now is what Seattle is going to do when Amazon decides that two headquarters are an unaffordable luxury, especially considering property prices in Seattle. See above suggestion about paid caretakers.
Bill Boeing built aircraft, so at least Seattle understood, and generally approved being its company town. Same with Kenworth trucks. Microsoft as well. Would ask to know same about Jeff Bezos. Though worry about legal precedent set by Donald Trump a few years ago: Suing somebody for suggesting that maybe Donald didn’t really have any money.
Here’s an interesting article on why completely autonomous cars might never happen:
December 10, 2017 at 3:14 pm
I wonder if autonomous cars would also have high tech features that would allow for tracking of time and distance traveled by the driver. Autonomous vehicles with tracking devices could be billed for road usage instead of paying an annual licensing fee. Every month the owner would get a road use utility bill, just like their electricity, garbage and telecom bills.
December 10, 2017 at 4:22 pm
You wouldn’t need autonomy for that
December 10, 2017 at 4:55 pm
You could implement RUC or road user charges where you have to prepay milage and scrub the taxes on gasoline and diesel, that could be also easily be means tested so it doesnt unfairly tax lower incomes.
Think it cant work, it does because its used in New Zealand for diesel, but there its based on class of vehicle and weight (trucks pay more). If you dont use diesel in a vehicle or in vehicles that dont drive on roads, then you dont pay the road tax for it.
December 10, 2017 at 6:25 pm
Under such a system, how would you account for the various jurisdictional issues? Additionally, for us residents living in an unincorporated area of the county, we already pay a county road tax for roads and arterials that are used by anyone, including those users not subject to the tax. How do you envision all of that being restructured? (For those property owners/taxpayers living in the municipalities who may not be familiar with this, this tax is not insignificant.)
December 10, 2017 at 10:43 pm
Thing I wonder is why any automobile whose sole distinction is not being driven by a human doesn’t autonomously self-[OT] in Seattle Transit Blog.
Win-win if transit is completely separated, as it should be, from any automobiles at all. Whatever these machines’ fate, train passengers can entertain themselves watching these cars’ maneuvers out the window, and maybe lay bets on what happens to favorite individual ones.
But also transit benefit when car-passengers realize that who- or what- ever is controlling the car, same number of cars will spend same amount of time jammed solid. Would be great if out of species solidarity, train passengers can visibly give thumbs up to the human at the controller.
A direct-advertising dream.
December 10, 2017 at 6:08 pm
” ‘The vehicles, however, will no longer be driven by humans because in 15 to 20 years — at the latest — human-driven vehicles will be legislated off the highways.’ When that happens, Lutz predicts, “everyone will have five years to get their car off the road or sell it for scrap or trade it on a module.”
There’s no flippin way this will happen. The federal and state governments have spent a century prioritizing cars over everything else, and it won’t even subsidize transit or build bus lanes because that’s too heavy-handed social engineering — that same government is going to suddenly ban cars and force three hundred million people to trade them in or scrap them in five years? And at least two hundred million of them will not be able to afford a new autonomous car or taking a robotaxi every day. That would be a huge thumb on the scale. It’s as fanciful as dedicating one lane on I-5 to autonomous cars and soon after that the entire freeway. What about rural areas that will be the last to be mapped and sensored out, and which have the poorest people, and simultaneously the most influence in Congress?
December 10, 2017 at 7:44 pm
I agree. They will simply be phased out, the way that lead vehicles were phased out. A handful of people will drive “manually operated” cars, and most likely, they will be classic sports cars (cars that are fun to drive, and turn heads).
December 10, 2017 at 11:52 pm
Mike, they’re all stuck now. Fact that We The People and our Government have approved this situation for forty years not a cause for hope. But still can’t understand why trading autonomous cars for electric ones and also motorcycles will change the traffic flow at all.
But Ross, you’ve hit on something I can foresee and be willing to pay for. I really love to drive a car. Which is different from being trapped in the middle of a herd of them. So transportation world I’d go for would offer fast trains and buses where I already avoid driving.
At a city hearing on some 2005 changes in Occidental Park, I met an architect named Grant Jones. He explained to me that, being conceived as military emergency corridors, the Interstate system was interested in “Fast and Flat.” All other considerations, irrelevant.
So he had been commissioned to design, in Kentucky, a highway designed so that in addition top being a pleasure to drive, would control speed and spacing of traffic by skillfully adjusting grades and curves to do this without artificial assists like signals.
Of course the road I want will be tolled, and not cheap. But access will mainly be granted on the basis of proven driving skill. Not NASCAR, but more like rally driving, where control is more important than mere speed. Frequently closely observed by professional instructors from the State Police or other competent authorities.
Also, goes without saying, periodic ramps to transit stations to pick up passengers. With possible parking if I want to go someplace I love my car too much to take it. Frankly, think that “Love of Driving ” became a forced marriage years ago.
But with my plan, nobody will be able to deny they’ve still got the right to drive. Conditioned, as firearms should be, on proof of ability to handle conditions lethal in unskilled hands.
Incidentally, one of the changes removed a badly-neglected shelter structure, on which as mounted a combination fountain and drinking fountain. Maybe some readers remember it. Also the streetcar that used to go by it. Hope both get restored.
Matthew M says
As much as the ‘balancing’ philosophy applies to bus routes, it’s even more important for light rail. It seems like we still haven’t figured out the right density of stops for Link. There may be a case for having three stops close together in the central business district, but adding yet another one in the low-density Rainier Valley at Graham Street is absolutely insane! Speed is a huge factor in the viability of rapid transit, and allowing the planning process to be hijacked by a few loud-mouth neighborhood groups in the RV would be a historic mistake.
December 10, 2017 at 8:06 pm
Graham to the nearest station (Othello) is well over 1/4 of a mile. It is over half a mile, by my measurements. This means it is a completely new station, for all intents and purposes. You will find very few people — if any — that currently walk to Othello, but will switch to Graham. Thus every rider will save a significant time over the current option, which involves taking a bus and transferring. The amount of time saved for those riders is way higher than the extra time spent stopping at the stop.
December 10, 2017 at 11:05 pm
You have a strange definition of low density. I’m worried about Des Moines and Surrey Downs and 145th and you’re worried about Rainier Valley, It’s a ten-minute walk from the Asian barbecue near Graham to Othello Station if I recall, and going the other way it’s a 15-20 minute walk. That’s enough to warrant a station in a multifamily area. I didn’t support Graham or even Othello Station initially, but they make the difference in putting all of the central valley south of Mt Baker near Link vs putting only part of it near it. And if you’re coming from east or west of MLK the distances are even longer. Graham was one of the original planned stations but it was deferred to keep the budget below a ceiling. So it’s not an add-on for one loud household.
The stop will add twenty seconds to each run. We could add twelve such stations before the delay reaches five minutes. While I think some cities have stations too close together (like New York and Duesseldorf), Link is on the low side and could comfortably add a few more. And if you’re concerned about Link’s hybrid nature, you should be more concerned about its extremely long tails to Everett and Tacoma than about its city stations. A thirty-mile distance should use a different technology, one that goes 80 or 90 mph instead of 55. That’s why it takes an hour or more to get to Everett and Tacoma, depressing ridership.
December 11, 2017 at 12:35 am
Matthew and Ross, interesting system in Philadelphia area. Interesting we could do this to Sea-Tac Airport- looks close to same distance, but more stops. Requiring serious accelerating and decelerating. But also completely reserved right of way.
But I think potential Graham Street stop can be quickly investigated, and decided on, by taking an actual LINK train out MLK after hours some night, or before hours some morning, and check length of dwell time, comfort of ride, and effect on train signalling and spacing.
We should know the answer after a very few tries. My own call is that as long is this is our main Airport line, we at least check dwell and other delay time carefully before we add a station. If we eventually build an express line past Boeing Field, we can always add the stop.
December 11, 2017 at 12:47 am
Come to think of it, where else in the entire south line is as dense as New Holly and Rainier Vista or the Kingway Apartments? The suburbs are building only two or three buildings and calling it density, but New Holly is equivalent to about four of those. Federal Way may have a big downtown someday but who knows if it will ever happen.
December 11, 2017 at 2:12 pm
I strongly disagree about Graham Street being superfluous. If it were up to me the train would stop every half mile in areas with housing as dense as (or denser than) the Rainier Valley. The walksheds of the train stations should look more like a ribbon than a string of beads. If you’re in walking distance of the train tracks, you should be in walking distance of a station.
If having the line run through your neighborhood without stopping means that you and all your neighbors have to spend 15 extra minutes getting to the station so that everyone else already on the train can save 30 seconds by not stopping, is that a fair trade? Maybe so if your immediate neighborhood only has a dozen people who would use transit, but not so much if it has hundreds.
December 11, 2017 at 7:44 pm
Superfluous is having a light rail station every 250 feet, like certain light rail lines in certain other cities.
December 12, 2017 at 12:00 pm
The problem is that Link is trying to do two jobs at once. If it stops every ten blocks it would take two hours to get to Tacoma. We should have had an 85 mph system to Tacoma and a separate 40 mph system for neighborhoods like Rainier Valley and Ballard. But the politicians would not consider building two rail networks, so we got one hybrid instead, therefore it does both jobs mediocrely, but it does have the advantage of one-seat rides all around the region.
Martin H. Duke says
December 12, 2017 at 3:25 pm
I dunno, I think we’re building that. The 85 mph line is Sounder and the 40mph line is Link. Tacoma Link is best understood as a line for Tacoma’s needs independent of Seattle, though I have no doubt it will be used for the long haul.
December 12, 2017 at 1:06 pm
We have built two systems between Seattle and Tacoma – Link and Sounder. Sounder is the inter-city option, so if you are worried about long distance speed, fret about Sounder, not Link.
Joe "AvgeekJoe" Kunzler, A 12 for Transit says
December 10, 2017 at 1:03 pm
Well my dad’s and my Seahawks are about to play so if I’m going to lob a comment into the open thread and expect responses, better do it now or never. See tomorrow the King County Council at its meeting continues to go over spend the ST3 taxpayer accountability account moneys. Full details on the King County Council’s progress are up HERE.
a) I am hopeful that we can work together, put aside past grudges, and lobby as one pro-transit coalition for some of the money to go towards apprenticeships in the transit industry. As I e-mailed the King County Council, “It’s worth noting as well that all Puget Sound transit agencies are scrambling to find and train good, quality transit operators and transit maintainers. So if you want to as per your staff report, “Close the opportunity gap for children and youth of color and low-income children and youth” – then initiate apprentice programs for these youth to gain employment in public transportation.” There’s clearly a growing market for these jobs, not to mention these jobs come with union protections & the community building that unions provide that clearly youth of color and youth from low-income families need to succeed.
b) I am real torqued at serious talk from the Word Docs at the link of spending some of the money on, “Identifying innovative strategies to empower students to be change agents in their schools and communities who can identify and address social and racial injustice through advocacy and organizing”. Really? Seriously?!? A questionable use of public funds at best, a horrid use of transit dollars at worst.
c) At least according to the Word Docs, there will be TWO Town Hall Committee of the Whole debates about this. So I guess I will have to attend one of these gatherings. I’ll stop there.
Henry Rodgers says
December 11, 2017 at 10:21 am
Sound Transit has appeared to have changed the long term plans for the Blue Line. In their updated (Nov 2017) Future Service Map PDF (https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/future-service-map.pdf), in 2036 the blue line now goes all the way to Mariner Station in South Everett, instead of stopping in Lynnwood station. Was this planned the whole time, a mistake, or just a new idea?
December 12, 2017 at 12:04 pm
That was the plan. It goes as far north as ST thinks needs two lines of capacity. Originally that was Lynnwood peak-only, then Lynnwood full time, and now Everett 128th. That’s partly to serve the Ash Way P&R on 164th, and Mariner is another big draw, and maybe something about Swift 2.