This is an open thread.

74 Replies to “News Roundup: Sizeism”

    1. I was there the second half. 50+ people filled the room. The presentation had already ended. Most of the action was around eight table maps of the segments where people put sticky notes. Half the notes agreed with us: good transfers, extension stubs, First Hill station, Ship Canal tunnel (although I’ll exclude myself from the last two). A few others were naive: how about rail in Magnolia? The others were mostly minor issues or unreadable at my distance (sometimes behind another person). A few suggested moving Denny Station a few blocks south to fill the Belltown gap. One suggested development in SODO where the train runs east-west. I was surprised there weren’t any NIMBY or entitled-people’s comments among the readable ones. That’s a good sign.

      I made pleas for good train-to-train transfers at Westlake, Intl Dist, SODO, and Ballard; good bus transfers in West Seattle in light if route truncations; stubs for extensions; and a pedestrian tunnel/elevator/escalator to First Hill.

      1. As someone who commented on Magnolia it was less about serving Magnolia and more about making Interbay station at least serve something. If you shifted the station west over by the tracks it puts more of Magnolia in the walkshed as opposed to where they have it proposed where it serves nothing really well.

      2. On New York’s 72nd Street station problem, I wonder if it would be possible to dig a lower level trackway for the Q line dwell platform directly underneath one of the T line tracks with the platform under the main platform and escalators between the platforms. Yes, more mining, but probably not impossible.

        It would stay within the existing station perimeter.

      3. Sorry, this was supposed to be an independent comment.

        I agree with Poncho. East Magnolia is a great place for density; there are no views to block and already a few apartments. West Queen Anne is too expensive to tear down, so a station in the middle of 15th won’t serve many riders that don’t already take the RapidRide.

    2. I admit to feeling deceived. I feel like I wasted my time.

      I believe that these workshops should take the community input as motivation to do some redesigning and some broad brush technical research on unanswered questions like number of rail-to-rail transferring passengers. It should also be presenting some generalized information to the publication c about estimated costs, ridership and travel times to help frame the discussions

      Instead, little practical information beyond a general alignment map and profile was presented. That would be ok — BUT — the schedule shows that there will be an alternatives recommendation in mid-April!

      That’s simply not enough time to assess the input and do even basic follow-up consideration of the comments received at these workshops before an alternative recommendation is made in about eight weeks!

  3. I get that this is an open thread, news roundup on a privately owned and run editorial blog, but geez a lot of those bullet points had unnecessary editorial snark added to them.

    1. Not sure which ones you’re referring to specifically, but some of the snarkier ones (to me at least) like “city bureaucracy run amok” and “his infrastructure plan sucks” actually come from the source material that’s being linked to. I’m pretty sure the transitive property of snarkiness gives STB a free pass on those. :-)

    3. I commented about that too several months back. I can do without it as well. I pretty much ignore the snark/editorializing for the most part and just read the linked article if I find it of interest to me at the time. I really like the weekly roundup entry, but the unnecessary attached commentary….not so much.

      Oh well. It is what it is.

    4. I like the snark – I’m here not just for news but opinion as well. Then again, my values tend to align pretty closely with STB’s collective values. I think you’ll also notice a correlation between amount of snark and liveliness of the comment section!

      1. I tend to also mostly align with the STB and admittedly come here for the comments. But things like “SDOT unveils first five-year pedestrian implementation plan. Sweet, another plan.” or “The latest proposed fix is a cop-out.” just seem to take away from professionalism that one would expect from an established, respected transit blog that gets referenced from larger media companies. And do note that opinions can be snarky and a long time editor has every right to set the tone of their articles.

        Snark on!

    5. As someone who has occasionally walked through that 4 way stop intersection at Emerson, I see no issues with the editorializing about it needing a signal. If you aren’t driving, the thing is dangerous.

    6. I don’t see any snark, just opinions, which is what STB exists for. If it sometimes feels snarky that could be because of frustration that things aren’t moving faster.

  4. Hi! I take the train from Tacoma dome to the international district daily and try to do my homework on the train. I’m having big trouble getting good data coverage along the train route. I’m curious if you have found any providers that have good coverage and bandwidth along the rail corridor?

    The in train WiFi is quite spotty.

    Thanks in advance!!!

    1. Interesting. That is a very tall apartment building. It would be very close to the Alderwood Mall station (when that is built) and be a short (and presumably relatively frequent) bus ride away from the Lynnwood station for a while. Bound to be good views from the upper floors, even if you are pretty much surrounded by the freeway.

      1. Yeah, it’s too bad that ST eliminated the Alderwood Mall and Ash Way stations when the 2007 plan was revamped into the 2008 ST2 plan. Having those two stations included as part of what is now the Lynnwood Link project, with an opening date of 2023, would have changed so many of the transit and development dynamics in this area.

  6. I read the Herald piece regarding the Snohomish County Council airing their grievances about Sound Transit yesterday and was going to post about it on the next open thread. So I’m glad to see the story being covered on the weekly roundup.

    “Mostly they seem to be complaining about the consequences of subarea equity.”

    This is pretty much a complete mischaracterization of the story. The grievances expressed by the council members can be summed up as follows:

    1. Councilmembers Sullivan and Wright were not satisfied with the representation for SnoCo that Everett City Council member Roberts has been providing as one of our three ST board members and voted against his reappointment.
    2. Another grievance is the RTA MVET fix being debated down in Olympia. Sullivan also took exception with state senator Liias’ light rail carve-out amendment.
    3. The council also expressed concern about light rail to Everett being treated as a lower priority than other ST3 projects and thus the ST board not meeting their commitment to completing the Everett-to-Seattle-to-Tacoma spine in a timely manner. Light rail is not expected to reach Everett until 2036, some 40 years since the transit agency was given the greenlight to embark on this mission.

    There was also this tidbit which came as a bit of a revelation to me:

    “All five County Council members said they would favor directly electing representatives to the Sound Transit board — an idea that never has gained traction despite support from some Olympia lawmakers.”

    Fwiw. I happen to like the job Paul Roberts has done serving on the ST board. Whenever I watch the archived meeting videos, he seems engaged in the matters being addressed and is one of the few members to actually make comments and ask questions.

    [OT Personal attack]

    1. How would the Everett extension be built in a more timely manner? The ST3 design requires the downtown tunnel to be built first, as ST did not think an Everett to Tacoma line was operationally feasible and will instead send the Everett trains to West Seattle. Unless you want to punt on that design and build the Everett extension before the downtown tunnel, I don’t see how ST can get to Everett faster, other than just generally doing everything faster.

      1. AJ,

        I would recommend a spur line for Paine Field. TransLink does it for the Canada Line to service Vancouver International Airport – but also TransLink did not build for growth in the Canada Line. TransLink also since the early 1990s has had a spur for the Expo Line – one to connect Coquitlam (sp?) and now the Millennium Line, another down to Surrey via the Skybridge.

        I just want light rail ASAP to Everett Station. I also want Sound Transit to look at our Northern neighbours for ideas, and be a font of knowledge for the other transit agencies in our regions.

        V/r;

        Joe

      2. I like the spur idea, and it could potentially continue past Paine Field all the way to Mukilteo ferry/train station to improve connections there.

      3. If by spur you mean a branch then it would lower frequency in Everett. East Link only goes to 128th, so Everett Station gets only the West Seattle line, or 10 minute frequency. One option would be to extend East Link to Paine Field. That would avoid diverting Everett trains to Paine Field.

        Both of these options would require everyone from Everett to transfer to get to Paine Field. That contradicts one of Snoho’s reported goals for the detour, which is — incredibly — that people from north and east would park at Everett Station and take Link to Paine Field. That supposedly would reduce congestion around the Casino Road intersection. Huh? How will they get from Paine Field Station to their workplace if it’s too far to walk? How many people living in the most car-dependent areas will be willing to take Link halfway from small city to suburb?

        Another option is a shuttle line. However, I don’t see why a shuttle bus couldn’t be just as effective. And it could go directly to people’s workplaces. And Swift II is being built as we speak.

      4. Mike;

        Nope, my plan for a spur is to require a transfer for everyone north of Paine Field – and a substantial # of works living south of Paine Field – to get to Paine Field/Seaway. I know the TransLink plan is to have very frequent trains run by and one train go one way, one train go another. But that only works with a Y spur, not a F spur where the lower perpendicular line is only for one in Paine Field and if ST4 allows it two destinations in Paine Field & Mukilteo.

        These transfers from the main line to Everett could be to an automated train that is very frequent. Only take a minute or two to make the walk from the main line platforms.

        Joe

      6. Yes Mike, the spur would go from Seaway Station to SR 536/Evergreen. It would remove from the North Corridor the subarea cost of a provisional station and the diversion. It could also if automated remove the operating costs of operators – which allows TransLink to almost if not make a profit on SkyTrain.

        So at the price of a quick walk to transfer to the main line from a Skytrain-style spur and one provisional station – a station dependent on good ST3 finances (fat chance!) – we could get light rail to both Paine Field and Everett Station faster. Three to five years faster.

        We elders could always entice today’s kids of the Snohomish County subarea to back ST4 when they become adults by adding back the provisional station or by taking the spur into Mukilteo.

    2. “I happen to like the job Paul Roberts has done serving on the ST board. Whenever I watch the archived meeting videos, he seems engaged in the matters being addressed and is one of the few members to actually make comments and ask questions.”

      I agree. Paul Roberts is one of the few bright lights on the ST Board,

      [OT personal attacks].

      1. Thanks for your reply. Yeah, I’m glad Roberts is staying on the board. I also hope you got to read all of my comments before [comment policy whining]

      4. Mike;

        Nope, my plan for a spur is to require a transfer for everyone north of Paine Field – and a substantial # of works living south of Paine Field – to get to Paine Field/Seaway. I know the TransLink plan is to have very frequent trains run by and one train go one way, one train go another. But that only works with a Y spur, not a F spur where the lower perpendicular line is only for one in Paine Field and if ST4 allows it two destinations in Paine Field & Mukilteo.

        These transfers from the main line to Everett could be to an automated train that is very frequent. Only take a minute or two to make the walk from the main line platforms.

        Yours;

        Joe

    3. I just read the article, it sounds like Snohomish County entitlement along with the old car-tab hypocracy. The suburbs are the ones who pushed for subarea equity because they were afraid ST might spend most of its resources in Seattle. That works both ways: they could have gotten Everett earlier and left Seattle neighborhoods out if it they hadn’t insisted on subarea equity. The length of the entire ST endeavour since 1996 is well known: too-optimistic estimates initially; followed by continual state restrictions on how much money ST could raise, from where, and how it could finance its projects or have private partners or tax station-area development-windfalls; and the multiyear recession.

      1. I’ll trade you one “Snohomish County entitlement” cliche for one “Sound Transit apologist” cliche. How counterproductive is that? (RQ)

        40 years is a very long time.

      2. My point is that everyone is responsible for it: ST, the state, and pertinent to this context, Snohomish County.

        Snoho did not even consider canceling Sounder North to get Link to Everett faster.

  7. The DSA article inadvertently hit on the solution to roadblocks in building housing and transit:

    “Katz said Seattle has to get out of its “consensus-driven” comfort zone—which, to be fair, is somewhat codified for certain projects and policies through the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, which leaves governmental action open to environmental appeals. It’s the process that brought both the current MHA appeal and a delay to the city’s plan to allow more accessory dwelling units.”

    The environmental review requirements should be modified to recognize the intrinsic benefits of more housing, transit lanes, trolley wires, and bike/ped enhancements, rather than treating them all as assaults on the status quo and forcing each project to justify them against complaints about the “character” of the neighborhood. It should recognize that requiring off-street parking has some negatives, it’s not always 100% positive. And it should recognize that cities should be responsive to everybody’s needs, not just existing homeowners in an area.

    The Spokane article says:

    “Spokane has lots of vacant lots within city limits—around 3,700, according to a recent survey.”.

    Sounds like room for a lot of infill.

    1. Or how about getting rid of environmental review for all but the most negative environmental impact projects?

    2. Some kind of consideration for pollution, public health, and habitat degradation is necessary. I’m more concerned with striking out the things that are considered environmental impacts but aren’t really, or where the benefit is more than the loss, or where the benefit isn’t even acknowledged.

  8. Pretty scary closing set of paragraphs on that article about the DC Metro. Just to put things in perspective, DC Metro is a smashing success. It is one of (if not the) most successful modern U. S. transit project. It covers just about all of the city, and ridership is high (over 800,000 riders a day). But they are struggling with maintenance problems, which in turn have hammered ridership. Here is the last paragraph:

    Metrorail service to outer suburbs is important, and necessary to the functioning of the region’s transportation network. However, stakeholders—both in suburban communities and in the District—need to recognize that this adds costs to the system that cannot be made up for simply by raising fares. Furthermore, any future suburban expansion of the system, such as Phase II of the Silver Line, will make this problem worse; such expansions will almost certainly add less ridership to the system than is proportionate with their additions to its size.

    In other words, it costs a lot of money to maintain a lot more rail. If you are adding the rail in the outer suburbs, the return on investment is much smaller. This is pretty scary considering what is in store for ST3 (when we equal DC Metro in terms of mileage, despite having much, much lower ridership).

    1. But isn’t there any chance, Ross, that the farther the rail extends, the more taxpaying development and tax-and-fare-paying passenger will contribute much more than it costs to build. Seems to me that is exactly what happened with the Freeway system. Worked for them.

      Mark

      1. ” that the farther the rail extends, the more taxpaying development and tax-and-fare-paying passenger will contribute much more than it costs to build”

        That’s exactly what makes it such a bad idea. The best we can hope for by extending light rail to the suburbs is that the project will generate enough additional sprawl-development to pay for itself. We should focus rail development on dense areas, and improve zoning so that those dense areas can become even denser.

      2. Development in Everett and Tacoma and sprawl are not the same thing. If inner Everett and Tacoma grow compactly and become more self-contained (meaning that more people both live-work-shop there) then it’s a good thing. The region is almost 4 million people and growing, and has long decided it will be anchored by Seattle, Bellevue-Redmond, Everett, and Tacoma: that was the intention when Sound Transit was created.

        In contrast, sprawl is low-density residential-only areas spreading out like peanut butter in all directions, especially cul-de-sacs, as is occurring in east Pierce County, east Snohomish County, and Marysville. That’s bad and shouldn’t be happening. But while those people use ST services, especially at Everett Station, Puyallup Station, and Sumner Station, the service isn’t solely for them or primarily for them, and it shouldn’t be blamed for their neighborhoods’ existence. It was the cities and counties that allowed those developments, and the highways that attracted most of the residents. That doesn’t negate the need for robust regional transit between the city centers and other urban villages and strategic nodes along the way.

      3. Also keep in mind most of the sprawl in Snohomish, and a fair amount in Pierce, is outside the ST district. So ST neither intends to serve those areas nor expects funds from those areas.

      4. The Spine (and the ST rail network in general) is not being expanded beyond its original vision. If the urban growth boundary were extended and ST was extended along with it, then we would have more reason to be concerned. But most of the original defined area for ST is — suburbia — with only small urban “islands”, many of which are taking decades to emerge. This was known from the beginning. So let’s let ST serve the growth centers we agreed to, and improve the inner areas, and encourage the outer areas to grow smartly, and leave it at that.

      5. However, there is an imbalance between Pierce and Snohomish Counties which must be recognized, and we mustn’t let this be an excuse for ongoing unfairness. Pierce included a lot of exurban land from the edge of Puyallup to Spanwaway and Orting. King and Snohomish did not: Covington is out, as is Marysville, Lake Stevens, and Monroe. That allows Pierce to build a lot of sprawl and expect ST to serve it, while King County is moderate (ST ends at Kent and Issaquah), and Snohomish is squeezed (Marysville is the fastest-growing area, and Snohomish-Monroe can’t be left in car dependency forever). So Snoho has a good claim to adding Marysville to Smokey Point to the ST district at some point, and shouldn’t be shut out of this entirely. At the same time, getting all-day regional transit to Olympia is also important. That doesn’t mean adding all of Pierce County and Thurston County, especially the sprawly east, but a narrow corridor for Sounder and I-5 may be necessary at some point.

      6. @Mike Orr
        There my be an imbalance but we wont have to recognize it until 2040.The law is passes and I don’t think you will here anything about the imbalance until ST tries to pass ST4 and expand service to any/all of those areas. Vision 2060 come out in 2030 and by than they could be projecting 7 million people in the region and ST4 will make accommodation for the areas in the ST4 2032 election cycle

      7. The subareas have not said anything about what they might want in ST4 beyond the Everett CC and Tacoma Mall extensions. They haven’t given any indication they might want to expand the district. One of two outcomes is likely: ither Pierce and Snohomish will say “Enough!”, or they’ll ask for more infill projects. If they want to call it quits, that would dash Seattle’s hopes for a Ballard-UW line, Lake City line, Metro 8 line, or such. At that point we’d have to break ST into multiple tax districts so they can have separate votes. The suburban subareas and Olympia may oppose this. Another possibility is more infill: something for Spanaway and Orting, another Tacoma Link line, something unknown in Snoho. South King wants its Burien-Renton line, and I hope they start thinking more about something around Rainier Beach – Renton – Kent. East King I have less of a sense of. I assume they’ll want to keep extending Issaquah Link north. They’ll also know by then how fast 405 BRT is performing, and perhaps want something there.I don’t think a second Lake Washington crossing will see the light of day.

      8. >> But isn’t there any chance, Ross, that the farther the rail extends, the more taxpaying development and tax-and-fare-paying passenger will contribute much more than it costs to build.

        That has never happened, anywhere. Again, this is coming from an analyst who lives in D. C. Washington D. C. has very large suburbs, which are the result a very restrictive growth pattern within the city proper. For historic reasons, you simply can’t build up very high in Washington D. C. You won’t find many cities as sprawling as D. C., yet they still struggle under the weight of their very large rail system. It has extended beyond their central core, and become less cost effective as a result.

        This is a Metro that has over 800,000 riders a day. It has a subway system that serves pretty much all of its urban core, which means that every new suburban station connects into the network really well. Yet it still struggles to pay to maintain it, because ridership *per mile* goes down as the system spreads out.

        That is why you are worried about the wrong thing, Mark. I’m not talking about the cost to build, (which we will pay for one way or another), but the cost to maintain. The latter is directly related to the amount of rail we have, which is why we will have a lot of problems in the future, no matter how big the areas around the stations become.

        Seems to me that is exactly what happened with the Freeway system. Worked for them.

        That is exactly the problem. Transit doesn’t work like freeways. That has been the problem all along (it is what inspired the ridiculous idea of the spine). Suburban use of freeways make up a huge portion of the overall traffic. But that simply isn’t the case when it comes to transit. Maybe it is because cities are almost always more densely populated. Maybe it is because of how subways work. I can come up with lots of different theories and examples (hour and a half trips from a neighborhood in Tacoma to a job in First Hill) but the fact remains that suburban transit always lags urban transit. In every city, the urban core always makes up a bigger share of the ridership than the commuter rail/commuter bus that folks have built. Even in the sprawling Bay Area, where folks built a state of the art commuter rail/subway line, with 80 MPH top speeds from big suburban city to big suburban city (and big stop spacing to boot), ridership is almost all within the urban core. Even the underfunded, stuck in traffic, slow as can be Muni system that just serves San Fransisco trounces BART in terms of ridership. Sorry, that is just the way it works.

      9. DC is not “struggling under the weight of their very large subway system”. It simply failed to prioritize routine maintenance. If Seattle’s roads and sidewalks have potholes and out-of-alignment panels it doesn’t mean that the roads and sidewalks are an excessive burden and we’d be better off without them, it just means we’ve failed to maintain them to standard levels.

        The article is simply alerting residents to the fact that these extensions will have maintenance costs, and they’ll be higher per rider than the inner segments. It’s ultimately a values judgment whether these extensions are worthwhile (the region has said yes), and an accounting question whether the cities can afford to maintain them without going bankrupt (since the cost is far lower than the cities; budgets or their road maintenance, the answer is presumably yes unless they calculate it otherwise).

      10. AJ says

        February 16, 2018 at 1:47 pm

        Also keep in mind most of the sprawl in Snohomish, and a fair amount in Pierce, is outside the ST district. So ST neither intends to serve those areas nor expects funds from those areas.

        But they sure want our transit fares and us outside the ST District to pay sales tax……………………..

        Which is why one if not two Citizens’ Oversight Panel members should be from outside the district who use an ORCA Card & serve on a local transit advisory panel. I don’t want neophytes on the COP, I want folks like I who have some… intelligence.

      11. That’s a usage fee. When you go to a movie theater and buy a ticket, it doesn’t mean you own the theater. If part of Snoho’s sales tax goes to sewer lines, it doesn’t mean if you buy something in Snohomish county you get a sewer line.

    2. There was a deliberate decision in the Washington area made before any of Metrorail opened to put in higher activity developments around many of Metro stations. It stems from the historic height limitations in the District because buildings have to be shorter than the top of the Capitol. Federal offices knew that it would be very difficult to house a cumulative hundreds of thousands of employees anywhere near the core of DC so they were able to located in other areas like Crystal City and Rockville with Metro in place.

    3. As long as the suburbs hold their end of the bargain and develop urban nodes around future stations (think KDM, Lynnwood, Central Issaquah, etc.), we should be good. Metro (& BART & Marta) struggles because many of the suburban stations have suburban land uses around them.

      I’m also less concerned because the “spine” isn’t extending out into suburbs, but building through suburbs towards additional urban destinations, Tacoma & Everett. That helps anchor the routes & drive two-way ridership, rather than having ridership fade as lines extend away from job centers. It helps that all of our lines will end in a city that should be a reasonably dense node in 2040, rather than having lines end as Park & Rider in the middle of nowhere.

      As for Mars… “We should focus rail development on dense areas, and improve zoning so that those dense areas can become even denser.” That’s … exactly what we are doing. Sound Transit looks to the PSRC to channel investment in growth areas, and prioritizes Seattle insofar as subarea equity allows it to. Articles I’ve read in the past few months about cities up-zoning land adjacent to current or future Link stations include: Seattle, Bellevue, Redmond, Issaquah, Shoreline, SeaTac, Federal Way, and Everett, plus Bothell & Kenmore re-zoning in light of BRT to come. What more do you want?

      1. Excellent Points. Hopefully the Growth Management Act will create a positive feed back loop for transit- density and infill.

      2. “I’m also less concerned because the “spine” isn’t extending out into suburbs, but building through suburbs towards additional urban destinations, Tacoma & Everett.”

        Exactly. This was the original vision when a high capacity transit system for our region was being conceived in the early 1990s.

      3. >> “We should focus rail development on dense areas, and improve zoning so that those dense areas can become even denser.” That’s … exactly what we are doing.

        No, it is not. Here is a census map of Seattle: https://arcg.is/1v5Tfb. It is a bit out of date, but Seattle proper is actually growing faster (both absolutely and relatively) compared to the suburbs. Let that sink in. An area that is already much more densely populated than the surrounding suburbs (and surrounding cities like Tacoma and Everett) actually had a higher *percentage* growth than the suburban cities. In some ways, that is amazing. Normally a low density place has a higher rate of growth, while the more densely populated place lags. A town with 100 people can easily add another hundred, and double in size, while a mature city can not. But compared to suburban cities, we not only lead in terms of number of people coming here (by a very wide margin) but beat everyone in terms of percentages. I guess you can thank the growth management act, along with the “back to the city” movement. The point is, while the details of the map are a bit out of date, the basic idea is the same. Almost all of the population density is within the city.

        Now imagine the ST3 map overlaid on top. You have service all the way to Everett, which is questionable simply because it is a very far distance (proximity matters when it comes to transit). But every stop along the way is low density compared to most of Seattle (that doesn’t have rail). The Central Area is more densely populated than West Seattle. Tacoma and Everett (for all their charms) is low density compared to Greenwood or Lake City (to name just a couple Seattle neighborhoods). This is a profound failure to learn from previous experiments in transit (DART, BART, etc.) and ignore the densely populated areas while focusing on distance. This is not only a bad value initially, but will ultimately result in much worse transit for everyone. Can you really expect the folks in Everett or Tacoma to pony up millions of dollars in decent transit for their city if they are busy paying off the old light rail line, as well as its maintenance?

      4. Ross B. “This is a profound failure to learn from previous experiments in transit (DART, BART, etc.) and ignore the densely populated areas while focusing on distance.”

        For those of us that were here back in the early 1990s, this is exactly the point that many of us were trying to make to our elected representatives at the time but sadly we were ignored. The spine concept was pushed forward instead of concentrating on the connecting the densest neighborhoods first and building outward later, mostly for political buy-in. We are living with the legacy of this critical error and will continue to do so until the spine is completed in 2041. I won’t live long enough to see it happen.

      5. This idea that we’ll avoid the “struggles” of DC (in particular) because we’ll do better redeveloping areas around suburban stations seems off to me. DC Metro is a ridership success yet it’s struggling with maintenance. Ross’ concern is that we’re going to have the same amount of track to maintain, with fewer riders and a smaller tax base to support it — mostly because we’re a smaller city! We’re like 60% of their DC’s metro population, without DC’s close proximity to other big cities.

        The boosters of greater Seattle often forget that. It’s cool that so many Seattleites are well educated and well traveled, and that we bring home expansive ideas from the great cities of the world. But by metro we’re 60% of DC or Atlanta, less than half of Chicago or the Bay Area, a third of LA, a quarter of London. A tenth of Tokyo. Our path to sustainability, environmentally and financially, is going to have to include some simpler and smaller solutions.

      6. The key difference between ST and WMATA is that WMATA does not have a dedicated permanent funding source like ST’s various taxes. It depends on contributions from the budgets of its component jurisdictions: the District of Columbia (and the federal government), and the states of Maryland and Virginia.

        It’s difficult to have a maintenance plan when you have to go beg for money from multiple governments to keep yourself running every fiscal year.

      7. “What more do you want?”

        If we were focusing rail development on dense areas, ST3 would be connecting Link not just to Ballard and Lower Queen Anne, but to Fremont, Wallingford, Greenwood, Lake City, and the Central District. Instead, ST3 will leave some of highest-density neighborhoods in the entire state disconnected from Link for decades to come, while we waste time and money running mile after mile of interurban rail through low-density suburbs all the way out to Everett and Tacoma.

        Build the urban networks first; that should be the priority. Inter-urban lines are connectors, and their value comes from the strength of the networks they connect. We can worry about building the “spine” later, after Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma are already well under way on their individual transit networks.

        I don’t care about upzoning out in Bothell, Issaquah, wherever. How does it make sense to build new urban areas out in the sticks when we could just upzone the underdeveloped neighborhoods we already have right here in the city? We have dense areas in the city which need transit service, and we have low-density areas in the city which could absorb development, and we could easily build a small amount of transit service connecting them – but instead we are choosing to continue pushing development out into remote suburbs like Shoreline and Federal Way, thereby obligating us to build long, expensive, energy-intensive transit networks to connect them! It makes no sense. If we need more development, the sensible thing to do would be to upzone the neighborhoods most closely adjacent to existing density.

      8. “This idea that we’ll avoid the “struggles” of DC (in particular) because we’ll do better redeveloping areas around suburban stations seems off to me. DC Metro is a ridership success yet it’s struggling with maintenance. Ross’ concern is that we’re going to have the same amount of track to maintain, with fewer riders and a smaller tax base to support it — mostly because we’re a smaller city!”

        That’s mixing two different issues. Maintenance funding is built into the ST1/2/3 budget. If you think that’s not enough than you’re arguing that (A) costs will be higher than expected or (B) ST will be forced to reduce taxes further than its operations-and-maintenance estimate. Neither of these is related to density around station areas. Mediocre density will dampen ridership compared to a theoretical ideal, but everyone is expecting mediocre density so it’s built in to the projections. Lynnwood and Federal Way may aspire to the size and wealth of downtown Bellevue, but nobody is expecting zoning as free as Vancouver’s Metrotown or highrise station areas at the other stations. Density probably won’t turn out worse than expected, and it might turn out better, especially when the 2020s and 2030s generations start thinking about what kind of present/future they want, and as housing prices and traffic continue to rise.

        “Build the urban networks first; that should be the priority…. We can worry about building the “spine” later, after Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma are already well under way on their individual transit networks.”

        There are two things we can discuss, ideals or feasible changes. As an ideal, I agree of course. But this decision was made two decades ago, and the majority of the public, councilmembers/mayors, and legislators disagree with you. It’s not worth lambasting them forever: let’s just work together and get something done. If we don’t do anything we’ll be like Santa Clara County is now. The cities are excited about regional transit first, and the legislators will only allow a significant funding increase for regional transit, not for the local transit agencies.

  9. Those e-bikes feel like a game-changer for bikeshare. Shot from Boston St. in Upper Queen Anne to 1st and Columbia in a little over 20 minutes last night, without ever breathing terribly hard.

    Never been a fan of the heavy, clunky, step-through frames deployed in bikeshare fleets, but the electric boost compensates nicely–much better than expected, actually. You’re not going to shoot up the Counterbalance, but on a traditional LimeBike even small grades feel like you’re lugging cat litter in both panniers. Those kinds of climbs are a breeze on the e-bike.

    Pricier trip, though.

  10. I’ve always thought that, partly by widening existing bike trails, it would be good for a streetcar line to run down the canal shore from Ballard, through Fremont, past the Gas-Works, and into the U-District. Maybe terminating at one of the light rail stations.

    Would be part of the same system as the car-line from South Lake Union, which could switch into the waterside line at Fremont. Wouldn’t be surprised if back in the days of Independence, that wasn’t an industrial spur. Needs less lateral room than a bus.

    And….since stats I found have it that the Stuttgart cars with their climbing mechanism could do the Counterbalance, at least every so many trains, one would pull or push a bike-rack trailer.

    Mark Dublin

  11. As to;

    Snohomish County Council members air their Sound Transit grievances ($). Mostly they seem to be complaining about the consequences of subarea equity.

    a) I really hope they do pass their “elect the ST Board” resolution.

    b) I also hope some of us can come together and push getting a Paine Field spur back on the table. Especially if it would speed up light rail to Everett Station! Because that’s an at least public source of the angst as much as the accountability angle.

    c) Full YouTube of their debate:

    1. b) There seems to be a bit of naïveté among public officials about the difference between rail lines and rail stations in the Paine Field area. People will only be able to get on or off trains at stations, and not anywhere on the line. That’s important because a separated spur service — similar to Tacoma Link — could be a more attractive option for such a lower-density area because it could provide more stops and cheaper, less intrusive track without degrading travel times between Everett and Seattle.

      I’ll also observe that a failing of ST3 was to not propose a cross-platform loading area to change between Link and Tacoma Link. Having something like that makes the current Tacoma Link service design look much less attractive than it could be. If this spur was ever built, the places where Link connects to it should be designed to allow for eventual cross-platform boardings and not the disconnected scheme that is currently visioned in Tacoma.

    2. What is ST3 planning? An elevated-surface interface? Anything like that is better than the current situation of getting off ST Express and walking through a parking garage to Tacoma Link a block away. Since the Tacoma Link and the 594 both go go the same place, it’s no wonder Tacoma Link’s ridership is minus those riders.

      1. Thanks. I meant to mention it above that your link was missing. Much appreciated. And I agree. I like my sources to be unfiltered also.

  12. Ever since yesterday’s posting o+n the Benson cars, my attention’s been renewed about Seattle’s streetcar system. I know at least one of the authors, Tom Gibbs, who goes back to the founding of the streetcar revival world, and I trust him implicitly.

    Thinking back, last evening I sounded overly-dismissive of the Benson cars, connecting them much too exclusively to museum status. I do have some questions about whether the controls will be clumsy in street running. But unwise to have Australians think you don’t know how to operate something from Australia.

    Every piece of track west of Third is already part of one section of same system. Cliff between Belltown and the Waterfront is only thing like a real division. But the two will eventually become one system. My “take” on the Central Waterfront is that the exponential increase in Seattle’s population has already started providing the people who’ll decide that Waterfront is much too valuable to be abandoned to listless mediocrity.

    A very early poster for the Waterfront project presented the Elliott Bay shoreline as a neckless of energy and activity, from Alki to Magnolia. For me,an electric railroad, freight and passenger streetcar, the tracks being the chain, and every activity a bead. Or jewel.

    Providing a miles long human-friendly industrial area all the way around the bay. Providing the atmosphere a working waterfront, as every city waterfront used to be. But enjoyment only really secondary.

    The real goal: Foundations able to spend their money to finance other worthy things. Like the rest of the taxpayers. Because most satisfying outcome all around will be a Waterfront that once again pays for itself as a powerful part of a strong,live city. As every working waterfront in the world used to.

    I’ll gladly help with Tom Gibbs’ efforts to return the Benson cars, and the rest of the streetcar program already planned, as a vitally necessary stage in the whole plan above. No conflict at all: The more important any goal of mine, the less of it I plan to live to see.

    Just so I can get in one lick of effort toward a fast moving force that nothing retrograde will ever able to withstand. A Future that nothing can ever develop Proof against.

    Mark

  13. On New York’s 72nd Street station problem, I wonder if it would be possible to dig a lower level trackway for the Q line dwell platform directly underneath one of the T line tracks with the platform under the main platform and escalators between the platforms. Yes, more mining, but probably not impossible.

    It would stay within the existing station perimeter.

Comments are closed.