A little light reading after a busy transit week.
Train Daddy is Andy Byford, a British transit administrator who has gotten a lot of accolades for his work at train and subway agencies in Sydney, Toronto, New York City, and London. He’s now moving to Amtrak to become executive vice president. Sound Transit needs one of these. (RMTransit video) Streetsblog article.
USDOT gave Sound Transit a grant to improve safety at fhe level crossings along Link’s MLK Way segment. SDOT will implement it.
Cancellations and maintenance: Metro’s weekly newsletter has a bit about this. “King County Metro will operate all bus routes Monday, March 27, through Sunday, April 2, although some individual weekday bus trips will be canceled. All weekend routes and trips are expected to operate as scheduled. Fleet repairs continue and our maintenance crews are focused on returning buses to service, as well as working with vendors to stabilize the supply chain challenges affecting our industry.
Does your city have enough parks? (City Beautiful video)
Upcoming articles: I’m working on an article on the RapidRide G restructure. Martin is working on an article on the WSBLE aftermath.
This is an open thread.
Since we’ve talked about rail quite a lot this week so looking at busses again.
Rapidride H is complete so the next ones are Rapidride G/I/J.
Rapidride I replaces route 160. It is pretty interesting that it’s the only rapidride not planned to connect with a link station. Though does indirectly connect to it via rapidride F from Renton transit center to TIBS station . Out of the 17 miles from Renton to Auburn there’s around 2 miles of bus lanes mainly in the form of some BAT lanes. Am slightly concerned that it seems most of the money/focus is going into bus station upgrades which while nice they should really be focusing on the bus lanes a bit more.
https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/04/28/metro-reveals-plans-for-rapidride-i-stations/
I think the RapidRide concept may be devolving into a series of bus stop beautification projects. King County needs show benefit across the county, which ends up as new RapidRide lines without much change to the roadway markings for bus lanes and bypasses.
I really think Metro should not use “I”. It looks like “1” and a lower case “l”.
With Stride 1 also stopping in Renton it’s going to get confusing.
When I rode the H last Saturday, it went down Delridge faster than I’ve ever seen the 120 or 20 do, and it was also robust on Ambaum Blvd. The problem is in the middle. It has to wait a while to turn to and from Barton Street. I wish they’d paid more attention to improving the downtown-Burien travel time from 55 minutes down to 45 or 30, because the current situation leaves Burien rather isolated.
The 160 was created a few years ago to prefigure the F, so there will be little change in routing. I haven’t been on that corridor since before the 160 so I don’t know how much has changed. Metro did do some street improvements for the H, so I think it’s still doing them on a segment-by-segment basis. It probably gave up on Delridge transit lanes because the street is so narrow. The 169 (precursor to the 160) was annoyingly slow between East Hill and Renton, especially with that Carr/Talbot Road detour, so I hope Metro has found some way to speed it up.
The problem is Metro doesn’t take travel time seriously enough, and it and the cities are unwilling to have more transit-priority lanes, but it’s a question of degree rather than doing nothing.
Mike meant that Route 160 would “prefigure” the I (eye) Line, not the F Line. The F Line replaced the Route 140 in 2014. Route 160 was implemented in fall 2020; it absorbed Route 169 and the south segment of former Route 180.
If the I line absorbed the south part of Route 106, it could connect with the Rainier Beach Link station. Stride1 and the F Line make connections.
I rode the H today to Westwood Village. Essentially just a rebranding of the 120 with a bunch of gold-plated bus stops.
The 160, I have never ridden, but I did drive a section of SR-515 not that long ago that is served by the 160 and future I line. It’s a high speed stroad with very limited pedestrian crossing points, and some homes accessible only by riding the bus *past* the destination, then transferring to the same bus going the other way on the other side of the street. The fact that the road asks people getting off the bus to spend an extra 20 minutes (or more late at night when the bus doesn’t run as often) in order to save a handful of drivers 20 seconds by not needing to stop shows just where the priorities are out there. Essentially, anyone not in a car is a second class citizen. And, of course, the minor arterials that run east/west and intersect SR-515 don’t consistently have sidewalks.
And then, of course, there’s the connection to I-405 onward to Bellevue, once you get there. In a car, you just merge onto the highway. In a bus, you get to take a grand tour of Renton, waiting for all the stoplights on city streets, then wait for a #560 bus that runs once or twice per hour. And likely needing yet another connection after getting off the 560 at the other end. STRIDE service will help somewhat by at least making the 405 bus frequent. But, all it will do is reduce the 30 minute drive from a 2 hour bus ride to a 90-100 minute bus ride. An improvement, yes, but not nearly enough.
Anecdote: the ~8am RapidRide D bus was fully crush-loaded leaving Ballard that it had to skip the Dravus stop – I don’t think I’ve see the D skip a stop for lack of space in the morning since early 2020 (but I’ve also been catching later buses or the 15X in the morning). I think there’s been maybe one or two other times in the evening where the bus has been full in the past few months. Ridership is slowly but surely returning – and with it, I’ll be curious to see the annual ridership report and if they observe a more systemic return of crush loads and stop-skipping. Amazon’s return to office in May will be interesting to see.
For those who haven’t been to downtown Redmond in a while, this guy, I think he’s on an electric bike, took a video as he toured around the downtown Redmond station area very recently. Lot’s of shots of East Link. It’s sort of difficult to make out where the actual station will be if you don’t know the area, but at around 3:30 you start to see him ride up to the future Link station location. I used to think the station was going to be next to that round, downtown Redmond park, but it’s actually a few hundred yards east of it.
https://youtu.be/FVHMzmJ1akc
I started thinking about getting a one-wheel after seeing somebody plow by far faster than walking. Has anyone used one of these? I’d use it for getting around Central and East Seattle when the bus is infrequent or doesn’t go that direction, and as a last-mile solution to get to the adult family home in Lake Hills. Does the gyroscope really prevent you from toppling over and falling, even on hills? One kind has footstands on the sides so you’re facing forward, while another kind is like a skateboard so you’re facing sideways. I haven’t used a skateboard since I was a child and can barely remember it, but I think it would be inconvenient to face sideways. Can you easily carry them on a bus? Or travel with a backpack of groceries that would make you back-heavy (thus I’d worry about being toppled over)?
Are they allowed on the sidewalks in downtown and other dense areas of Seattle? I think some of those have speeds of like 30mph. Weight is a consideration too. I’ve seen some that are 50-60 pounds.
Here’s a link to a review site. Btw, I noticed that some of these are actually marketed more toward the “trail enthusiast” rather than the urban mobility market. Hence the rider is wearing protective gear in their promotional videos.
https://eridehero.com/best-electric-unicycles/
Not on sidewalks, but there are bike lanes on parts of Pike/Pine now.
I personally wouldn’t if your plan is for steep ish hills. It is kinda hard for them to go up hills. I’d suggest getting an foldable light (30/40lbs) escooter though there are trade offs between the more portable ones versus heavier and more stability/range
My son has one. It’s pretty easy and fun until it isn’t. He asked me to take it home for him one day, and it malfunctioned. I leaned back, which a hundred times before slowed me down, and it sped up. Hit a land speed record. I ended up with a concussion, at least one broken rib, and a bunch of other injuries.
Cam,
(First off, my apologies for laughing in my head at what this might have looked like. BTDT with rollerblades)
Were you wearing protective equipment? I’ve see some riders wearing bicycle helmets, so I’m wondering what safety gear would be adequate?
(This is more of a PSA type question, since I’d probably go back to playing hockey before I try one of those high-speed personal transportation devices).
By the way, don’t try to take those devices on Amtrak.
(Hoverboards, one-wheel skateboards (of which yours is considered).
It appears they’re just prohibited , even on platforms and other railroad property. (dang kids and their newfangled devices!)
Also, the whole lithium-ion fire potential restricts electric bicycles, apparently (that and along with their weight)
I’ve been told that if the battery is small enough and can be detached, and you carried the battery in your carry-on luggage, and the bicycle itself isn’t overweight (>50lbs/23kg), you could do electric bikes.
(Throwing a flaming battery off the train from the passenger car (not the baggage car) is easier than opening a cabin door at 30,000 ft).
The link doesn’t speak specifically about electric bikes and small foldable electric scooters, but they could just say no.
Personally I would get an electric skateboard with brakes. I think these are fundamentally more stable than any option other than riding a bike. I would talk to a dealer, and tell them you are interested in this only for mobility. You aren’t trying to show off, or do tricks. I would set a max speed for it. I don’t know if the max speed automatically kicks in going downhill, or if you need to use the breaks (via the remote). Skateboards are fairly easy to carry on a bus or train (unlike bikes, or even foldable scooters).
The one wheels are pretty nice, but the emergency room doc has said he’s seen some pretty serious injuries. More serious than mine. I’ve been hit on my bike maybe a dozen times, and never had an injury this bad.
The tiny one, which is the one my son has, has a lot of power, but is regulated at 12 mph normally (the app clocked me maxing at 17.4 before it lost stability and everything went black). He’s pushed me on my bike up some very steep hills.
It is also very heavy. You can get it on a bus no problem, but you probably don’t want to carry much more than a few blocks without a backpack for it. Even then.
An electric longboard would probably be a bit more stable, but nothing compared to the stability of a bike. Even with high-end wheels, longboards struggle with gravel, potholes and rocks much more than a bike does.
There are couple of dudes with a monowheel (more like an e-unicycle) in my neighborhood. They can get it over 30, and they weave through traffic in a way that makes me very uncomfortable. But they are also decked out in leathers, knee, elbow and wrist pads and a motorcycle helmet.
An electric longboard would probably be a bit more stable, but nothing compared to the stability of a bike.
Agreed. I’ve only read a smidge about electric skateboards, but they make it clear that the breaks aren’t enough. You have to be able to jump off it at times. Bikes are a lot more stable.
Bikes are bulkier though. You can get a foldable electric bike, but it won’t be as portable as a skateboard. The more portable, the less stable (although again, never as unstable as a skateboard). If I was looking for some sort of combination system, I would look at those two. I really don’t see the point in scooters (cost maybe?). The handle gives folks a false sense of security. There is a reason why people ride surfboards facing sideways.
@Ross Bleakney
It’s basically a sliding scale of portability versus stability/range. electric unicycle, longboard, escooter, ebike, electric moped etc…
> I really don’t see the point in scooters
There’s multiple variations of escooters. The (30 lbs safe around 15mph) very portable ones with small solid tires can be less stable than longboards but the ones with (40~60 lbs around 25mph ish) larger rubber tires are basically more stable.
Part of the problem with electric long boards is mainly their tires are just relatively small so if the road/sidewalk isn’t smooth/has large bumps its just not going to work well. This is also why ebikes are just going to work better on many roads over escooters too with their larger wheels.
Sorry forgot to mention, monowheels/e-unicycles are a bit unique in that they are less stable but also have larger wheels than escooters/e longboards so bumps are less noticeable.
I was thinking more in terms of turns. Once you get going fast, the fact that the wheel of a scooter turns is not an advantage at that point. You need to lean. You can always turn sideways (like a skateboard) but you also need to keep the wheel facing forward. I guess you can get the hang of it, but it seems like extra work.
Good point about the bigger tires though. That may tip the advantage to the scooter (no pun intended). Oh, and to be clear, I’m talking about “scooters” as in push scooters, not like Vespas (which are more like bikes or motorcycles; confusingly enough motorcycles are also sometimes called “bikes” — jeesh, what a language).
I just came up with this in the other thread. I keep tossing configs around in my head. I think this idea has legs.
BALLARD TO REDMOND with SOUTH CID HUB.
Assuming we are bound and determined to build DSTT2 and a NoCID station…
ST will not connect Ballard to West Seattle in DSTT2 because they think it will overload DSTT1. (I think this is bogus, but I’m not the one making the call.)
Instead of connecting Ballard to Tacoma, and severing Sea-Tac from CID, connect Ballard to Redmond, thus.
Add the “South CID” station to EAST LINK (build a new approach ramp on a new alignment in the area that will be condemned anyway)
MOVE the Stadium station (lowest use in the system) to “South CID”
Result: “South CID” becomes the new transfer point on the south end with no backtracking.
This relieves the pressure on NoCID to be a great transfer experience. Go ahead and put the station further up the hill to get more coverage. Put it closer to “Midtown”, or wherever it makes the most sense.
Make Westlake transfer and South CID transfers as great as they can can be.
Leave busway alone. No second SODO station needed at all.
Whaddaya all think?
In case it wasn’t obvious, these are the resulting lines after DSTT2 opens:
DSTT1:
Northgate to Tacoma
Lynnwood / Mariner / Everett to West Seattle
DSTT2:
Ballard to Redmond
Westlake is the northernmost transfer point with all 3 lines.
South CID is the southernmost transfer point with all 3 lines.
Nobody needs to do the SODO do-si-do no mo.
The east link tracks currently lead straight into Chinatown (and hence the existing transit tunnel). I don’t know how you are going to redirect them to reach the new tunnel.
By modifying the approach further back. Go back to 7th Ave., 8th Ave., if you need to. Lengthen the approach. This is a problem for the engineers, but I’m looking at the satellite map and what I see is a district about to be condemned that is mostly a blank slate, so I figure there is surely a way.
See if you can get East Link’s SouthCID station to be more or less perpendicular the existing line for super easy transfers at the new SouthCID transfer point.
(Stadium station moves north underneath this)
This is all above ground. Way easier than mining under Westlake Station is going to be.
From East Link to South — transfer at SouthCID — avoid backtracking to NoCID and a terrible terrible transfer there.
From East Link to West Seattle — transfer at SouthCID — avoid backtracking to NOCID
The SouthCID transfer could be even more time efficient than Westlake is going to be for same direction trips (like Ballard to the Sea-Tac) since it’s a totally blank slate and it’s all above ground.
This is all about the concept of Ballard to Redmond with SouthCID hub.
Stadium station moved to SouthCID.
SODO station (modified) shared by West Seattle line and Tacoma line
Only one pair of tracks through most of SODO
I have long thought, because their proximity to SODO station, that one of the Metro bus bases be relocated further south into SODO, and the old base be rezoned and redeveloped into housing. I think it would be a great place for it. Perhaps with a CID South station, this idea has a tiny bit more likelihood of one day happening.
It’s refreshing to see someone like you wrestle with what is the right project to pursue, Jonathan .
Unfortunately, our current processes don’t shame elected officials when they do power plays. That’s because there is a larger backroom power game going on.
The best hope that we have is for ST2 to open ASAP. Then the Board will have less focus on real estate deal making and more on actually running a rail system. Let’s hope that not too much damage will be done by then.
It’s kind of like when you look for a mechanic instead of a concept car designer. I’m predicting 2027 is when things will change. Those of us who have lived with rail systems in our past see the mistakes but those in power here are too arrogant and distracted by development interests to listen.
It’s my general impression that we aren’t nearly creative enough around here at critical times. It’s not for a lack of creative people. Mostly it’s a hopelessly broken process (at multiple levels) constrained by prior mistakes. But sometimes constraints can lead to new approaches.
It’s not looking great for the “one tunnel” plan with a stub to Ballard, particularly one with smaller-scale driverless trains, but hope springs eternal. I haven’t given up.
As for me, once I got thinking about this problem I can’t seem to stop coming up with ideas. What I currently think is worth doing is finding the best lemonade that can be made of the DSTT2 + North/South lemon.
My latest thinking is, stop trying to get NoCID to be the great transfer station it can never, ever be. Turn South CID into the south downtown transfer hub.
Make a connection from this to the south end of the Amtrak/Sounder platforms and over to the stadium, and develop this and the county properties to the highest level we can.
…turn SouthCID into the south downtown transfer hub by:
— Moving Stadium station a block north so it’s next to the new tunnel station
— Adding an aerial South CID station between Judkins Park and CID (this involves building an alternate approach to DSTT for East Link in the airspace over SouthCID with this station in it)
South CID needs a catchy name. Mike Orr suggested Istanbul. It’s an improvement on South CID.
Jonathan, if you want the decision makers to consider your ideas my suggestion is to create a single plan with ideally a diagram or map and email it to the key members in the two big dawg subareas: Dow and Harrell for N KC, and Balducci for E KC. There is nothing anyone on this blog can do at this point. The ship has sailed.
The Board voted 15 to 1 to make Constantine’s and Harrell’s proposal the preferred alignment. Basically those are the only two who can change course at this point, and to be honest with the options available at the time I probably would have voted the same because realistic alternatives don’t exist.
Coming up with new fantastical capital plans or stations that disadvantage E KC or reroute E KC is a waste of time. Balducci is already on the hot seat over delays for East Link, and to her credit she is the only one who stood up for the passive subareas and neighborhoods from S. Seattle to S. KC to Pierce. Where the hell was Juarez? Or Keel. The meek inherit DSTT2.
If the funding is there the route is fixed for DSTT2.
The reality with DSTT2 is no one wants to go to Smith Cove or Ballard — or CID N/S — most of all eastsiders, but someone has to, and that begins with the poor subareas.
Where is the south portal currently planned for DSTT2 with a SouthCID station? Do we know this?
Oh, that tunnel portal is way, way south with the South CID station plan. Looking at page 32 here.
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/cid-further-studies-memo.pdf
If South CID were built an aerial station on East Link in any orientation that works such that it facilitates transfers to the existing line, is there any feasible place you can dive into a tunnel heading north from there?
Jonathan, I don’t want to rein in your enthusiasm but when the CID ststion was first presented, they showed a cross platform transfer at the existing northbound platform by adding an outside track, with the southbound track right underneath that.
Similar things happened as other stations got more detailed design . If ST does its typical thing, the new stations diagrams will change radically and likrky get worse for riders.
These initial diagrams are intended to sell the idea, but the subsequent ones will get deeper, with more level changes and fewer entrances — if ST does its typical thing.
Here is an example after a few months of discussion in 2018, for example:
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/project-documents/west-seattle-ballard-stakeholder-advisory-group-meeting-presentation-20180716.pdf
Notice how the stations here were very close to the surface.
Massachusetts and the busway.
And “No, I don’t think there is, or at least, not without some sort of quirky spiral.”
Maybe it’s not feasible to route East Link to DSTT2 because you have to go too deep too fast.
In that case, how about this:
If DSTT2 and NoCID/SouthCID are selected, build them as planned, but also:
– Relocate Stadium station one block north (still at grade) to South CID
This costs peanuts; it’s a piece of cake.
– Build a new East Link ramp from the exiting DSTT that adds a straight, flat section with an aerial station at SouthCID. The ramp is right there. This will cost some money but it’s all above ground in an area in area slated for redevelopment anyway.
The result of this is the same basic endpoint pairings that ST is planning on now, but with South CID as the transfer station between Redmond, Tacoma and West Seattle in the reverse direction, instead of NoCID.
This relieves the pressure on NoCID to even have a transfer. There isn’t any reason to transfer at Pioneer Square / NoCID anymore because same direction and opposite direction transfers happen at Westlake and South CID instead.
South CID is a better bookend for the south end of downtown than the overlapping CID / NoCID combo.
People have to transfer, but nobody backtracks in this plan. SouthCID transfer (a blank slate) has the opportunity to be better than NoCID which we know is at least a block away.
To be clear, this adds SouthCID between CID and Judkins Park on the East Link line.
The ramp needs to be extended by, I don’t know, 1000 feet or something to make this happen. It isn’t miles. 400 feet for the station, plus some more on either side for the approach. Who cares if there’s a station in the air here. There is no view to block.
You then have the 3 lines vertically stacked at SouthCID, essentially, or close. One below, one at grade, one above.
Then, put thousands of units of housing there, or whatever the plan shapes up to be (guessing not primarily offices since we have plenty of that downtown.)
If not for the consolidated South CID station, every single transfer between anywhere on East Link and anything on the Tacoma line or the West Seattle line will have to backtrack all the way to NoCID and then have the terrible transfer there. That’s a hell of a lot of trip pairs that are improved.
Add another connection to south end of Amtrak/Sounder platforms (similar to Weller St.) at south corner of 4th/Seattle Blvd. It actually isn’t that far compared to what you do now from CID.
Side benefit: Improves Eastside access to stadiums.
Same connection lands you directly at the NE corner of CenturyLink field. That’s pretty darn convenient.
The vision is going to be to develop the heck out of these NoCID/South CID station areas. Obviously there’s an enormous need for housing. Public financing for that exists but is limited.
The ridership at a “South CID megastation” would have to be way, way higher than if it’s only a DSTT2 approach station. This would raise the value of this property by so much money that some kind of tax-increment-financing approach might work to help fund the station.
Moving Stadium station to South CID is an obvious move as soon as there is anything there to go to, because there is absolutely nothing at Stadium.
Trying to make some lemonade here.
Does liberating NoCID from the requirement to be a transfer station to Pioneer Square buy anything?
You could move it up the hill. You could move it north. Maybe that helps. Maybe it doesn’t.
A lot of folks in CID spoke to fears of gentrification and displacement by high-end development that might follow the new Link station.
The “South CID” mega station triples down on that location (as well as North CID) as the nexus of future major development on the south end of downtown. All the people living there are future potential customers of CID businesses who could just walk there.
The Stadium station relocation and the new South CID station on East Link can be implemented before, during or after all the other work for WSBLE, as funding, permitting, etc. allow.
They can rig this any way that works for the EIS process, I don’t care. The point is, around the time the Ballard line opens or soon thereafter, we would have this one station that supports transfers between all 3 lines on the south end that does not require any backtracking. That is a benefit that lasts forever that would not break the bank.
It’s the cost of an aerial station and a new ramp from the I-90 to the south end of the existing DSTT with a station where it crosses the other lines. This should be designed in tandem with DSTT2 so transfers are optimized.
“A lot of folks in CID spoke to fears of gentrification and displacement by high-end development that might follow the new Link station.”
The gentrification and displacement will happen with or without Link. Link just lets people get around more easily without a car, both the gentrifiers and the displaced.
North King and East King could (evenly, or in some other way) split the cost of adding this South CID station on the East Link line, and moving the Stadium station, reimbursed by TIF (tax increment financing) perhaps.
It’s mostly about the East Link connections. It doesn’t seem fair, likely or feasible to get Pierce and Snohomish to contribute to it beyond their existing DSTT2 contribution.
You can live without the consolidated station, but it would add I think about 10 minutes to every trip pair involving East Link and anything south or west. Any individual trip pair may not be that many people, but in total, it’s a lot.
I think it is also an equity issue. Are we going to make those people in Delridge who have to take the bus to get to Delridge station spend 20 extra minutes a day in a tunnel under the CID plus walking each way down a 380 foot underground corridor to get to a job on the Eastside?
This does add, like a minute or so between Seattle and Bellevue, for the extra stop with dwell time. The train is going pretty slowly at this point anyway.
It would be pretty weird to count that minute for the Bellevue folks going to downtown Seattle as some kind of terrible thing while not counting the 10 minutes for everyone with a trip pair that originates on the south end or via the West Seattle line.
And who is going to live in all these thousands of units of housing, affordable or no, to be built around the South CID station, and where are they going to work?
Any chance they might work on, say, the Eastside? Bellevue? Redmond perhaps? There are a lot of jobs there. If so, they too will be annoyed by the lack of a connection to a line that constantly whizzes by.
“It’s mostly about the East Link connections. It doesn’t seem fair, likely or feasible to get Pierce and Snohomish to contribute to it beyond their existing DSTT2 contribution.”
If you charge subareas based on whether they use the new tunnel, then the suburban subareas will try to stay in the old tunnel to avoid the charge. That’s not fair to the subareas who use the new tunnel. The center of the knot benefits all subareas because it allows them to transfer to all the others.
Re: contributions
Mike Orr’s argument is valid when applied to all subareas’ contribution to DSTT2 that they have already committed to. It’s valid beyond that too.
I’m just thinking about how to pay for an extra station on the East Link that I don’t think Pierce or Snohomish voters or their Board members would give a rip about, and if they were asked to pay anything for it, would probably say they wouldn’t even if they could, which they can’t.
My hope would be that the incremental value in the property from being connected to the Eastside directly and becoming a hub would be high enough to pay for part of it and I think the Eastside, which gains direct access to the stadiums and benefits in other ways and is flush with funds, could be convinced to contribute in a meaningful way.
“SouthCID between CID and Judkins Park on the East Link line.”
You could also add a connection from this station to the Rainier Valley line. This would allow them to do whatever they do with the middle track at CID, and replace that with a center platform.
Speaking of diversity, gentrification and displacement, we went for sushi in Columbia City tonight. The area was very vibrant and the sushi excellent. I didn’t see ONE single Black person all night, even on the empty 7 buses going by, and I looked. Tons of affected precious white Seattleites, none of whom took transit there, but no Black people. What happened to all the Black people in south Seattle who were “displaced” from The Central District?
Here, on page 18, there is an idea mentioned: “Infill East Link transfer station south of CID”
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/cid-further-studies-memo.pdf
This was screened out because: “Requires an impractical station design due to grade and curvature of approach to existing station in CID from I-90 alignment”
The grade and the curvature are issues with the existing ramp, duh. Of course you can’t add a station to that.
You build a new ramp, on a somewhat different alignment, with this station on it. The ramp is longer, so it has a straight section. The ramp has to take a different, slightly longer path through the vast airspace over the vast wasteland that is essentially going to be 100% condemned anyway. Most of it is built while East Link is running and then you shut it down briefly to insert this station.
We can fly helicopters on Mars but we can’t engineer this? Give me a frickin’ break. Let’s actually give it a try.
Sure, you can go ahead and build this whole plan exactly the way they just voted to build it, and have every trip pair between East and South or between East and West Seattle have to spend an extra 10 minutes with backtracking. I’m not one of the people who’s likely to do that all the time, but still, I can’t stand the thought that that is the asinine system we’ll end up with after all these decades and billions spent.
Got it. I’ve studied the preliminary architectural diagrams for South CID station. The station is under 6th Ave. just south of Dearborn Street. South CID is basically Dearborn Street Station.
Stadium Station is on the existing Line 1. I’m suggesting we move that north so it lines up with the South CID / Dearborn Street Station.
You then have a ground level station on 5th, and a tunnel station under 6th.
The last piece of the puzzle is the new infill station on East Link. This elevated station can be built to basically straddle 5th and 6th on whatever straight diagonal works when you rebuild that ramp. It could added built afterwards, though you’d want to build it before all the stuff around it goes in.
This way, you could exit the train closest to one line, or closest to the other, for a shorter transfer experience than you would have had NoCID / Pioneer Square.
The linked ST “Further Studies” memo claimed 3.5 minutes or so for walking between Pioneer Square and NoCID, and another “three minutes of out of direction travel”. This adds to like 6.5 minutes. I think you save closer like 10 if you can transfer at South CID / Dearborn Street Station. It’s actually a better transfer point than CID would be between the West Seattle, Tacoma and Redmond lines in the best case scenario with DSTT2.
Moving Stadium Station is easy. An aerial infill station on East Link at South CID / Dearborn Street is more work, but absolutely possible.
It doesn’t matter that 5th and 6th are a block apart because nobody needs to transfer between those two lines at South CID. One goes to Tacoma, the other to West Seattle, and those transfers can be made more efficiently down in SODO instead.
The additional aerial East Link infill station at South CID is built to straddle 5th and 6th on a new ramp connecting into the existing DSTT that replaces the current one. Probably elevator to surface, walk a few feet, then elevator to tunnel, unless you can line them up, which would be awesome.
This aerial East Link infill station and its associated ramp are the big ticket costs here.
Eastside gains direct access to stadiums and better access to West Seattle line and Tacoma line, plus this new South CID area.
Anyone who ends up living in all the future housing the Mayor is envisioning at South CID would gain direct access to the Eastside.
Anyone opening a business in this South CID area would gain a lot of potential customers.
Re: RapidRide G (Madison)
Screw moving RapidRide G that is 50% under construction now 4 blocks south in an L route that takes it further from the ferry terminal. Leave it alone.
The south entrance to “North CID” is at Terrace St., steps from 4th and Yesler. That’s where you get your First Hill bus. It’s already there.
We’ve got bus 27 right now that goes straight up Yesler to Yesler Terrace where you are a few steps from Harborview. Maybe add some trips to that, or even give that a RapidRide treatment. Anyway, that gets you up the hard part of the hill. There’s a streetcar at the top FWIW.
Yesler avoids all the I-5 jam-ups on James St. and it goes straight up to this new high-density district in a couple of minutes, where a high rise is currently going up.
The Yesler crossing over I-5 is a great place to park but we don’t really have to let people park there. Bus lane would be easy to add if it buys anything.
With this North CID station location (south entrance on Terrace) I could see a new RapidRide bus route, like the RapidRide G, but on Yesler, something like this:
RapidRide Y (Yesler)
Alaskan Way / Ferry terminal (as close as possible)
1st Ave. / Pioneer Square
4th Ave. / North CID station (south entrance)
Yesler Terrace (8th Ave. – close to Broadway)
maybe from there via 8th/9th all the way to Madison for an interface with the Madison/Terry RapidRide station?
…from there turn around, or even continue to Denny/Terry Station?
Being able to get to First Hill from the south at minimum (and maybe the north too) on RapidRide seems useful, leveraging this North CID station and the Yesler approach.
Bus 27 goes down 3rd Ave. It does not go near the ferry terminal. This concept could be overlaid.
I see Routes 3/4 go up James and serve Harborview. Maybe that’s good enough because James is the north entrance to “North CID” station. Maybe they should shift to Yesler which has less congestion than James because it has no I-5 connection.
But by the time North CID station exists, it probably makes sense to have something like a RapidRide line connecting the waterfront to these two stations and up to Yesler Terrace. Yesler Terrace is getting a 21 and 23 story tower in addition to a 9 story apartment building and a bunch of similar stuff. And the rest of First Hill has been dense for decades.
This is from asking, what can be done to make the most out of the “North CID” station for First Hill if Midtown isn’t happening.
I see Routes 3/4 go up James and serve Harborview. Maybe they should shift to Yesler which has less congestion than James because it has no I-5 connection.
There was a move to do that, but it ran into local opposition. Specifically, people wanted access to the justice center up on 5th (the jail and the court). I think the city and Metro should revisit this idea. There are a number of options:
1) Backfill with some other route (for example, the tail of the 106). In that case you would need to find layover space, but that doesn’t seem that difficult.
2) Keep the current routing, and just fix it. You would need to add a bunch of BAT lanes, no turn lanes, etc. It would be a big project, but we’ve done bigger (e. g. Denny). It is nowhere near as costly or difficult as running buses in the middle of the street (like RapidRide G). I’m not sure that RapidRide G was even that expensive. A lot of the work had nothing to do with transit. The city does this all the time with bike projects. They use it as an excuse to fix the street. Then, while fixing the street, they work on the plumbing underneath the street (which gets really expensive). Next thing you know, you have a simple set of bike lanes (essentially paint and a few plastic bollards) that cost millions and millions.
Initially I was not happy with the idea of moving the 3/4. In general, I don’t think buses should make a bunch of turns to avoid traffic. But when I looked at the details, I realized that using Yesler has just about as many turns as the current route. That actually leads me to a variation:
3) Make the fixes on James, and then have the 3 stay on James/Cherry the whole way. The 3 doglegs to get to Jefferson, and then doglegs to get back. According to Google, this adds about three minutes (without traffic) in driving time. That doesn’t sound like much, but it is significant, and is likely a lot more during rush hour. Like so many routes, it is outdated. It is good to be by the main entrance at Harborview, but there are a lot of other destinations around there. This puts the bus a block further from Swedish First Hill, for example. The detour just doesn’t seem worth it. We should have straighter routes.
My personal preference would be for the third option, and if that won’t work, the first one. If you are going to dogleg to get to Jefferson, might as well use Yesler.
“RapidRide Y (Yesler)”
That’s an interesting idea because it illustrates the problem. A Constantinople station would be closest to the 3/4, but the 3/4 are notoriously slow. I lived at Terry & Jefferson for a while so the 3/4 was my route, bur when I was downtown going eastbound, I rejoiced when the 27 came first because it runs at normal speed. That was a slightly longer walk at the end: four blocks with a hill, so mobility-limited people going to Harborview wouldn’t be able to do it. But it worked for me.
SDOT/Metro seem incapable of speeding up the 3/4. The plan was to move it to Yesler. That stagnated for years after the 2008 recession due to no money for trolley wire. It was finally killed because jail activists wanted to keep that station. No other speedup for the 3/4 have been proposed.
I’ve long wondered why the complaints in the eastern parts of the 3 and 4 haven’t been deafening enough to force Metro/SDOT to speed them up. They’re the slowest routes in Metro. It’s one of the reasons I don’t live in the eastern parts of those routes.
Tip: To get from downtown to East Seattle reasonably quickly, take one of the Pike/Pine, Yesler, or Jackson buses. Not the 2, 3, 4, or 12. Hopefully RapidRide G will add Madison Street to the good area so the gap isn’t so large.
Earlier Metro concepts removed the 27 from downtown, so its days on western Yesler may be numbered. One concept went on 9th Avenue to serve First Hill. Another may have interlined with another non-downtown tail.
RapidRide Y would also parallel RapidRide R three blocks apart, so there would be opposition to that. Although that could become an interesting argument: we need RapidRide Y to mitigate the location of North of CID station.
Oh wait, the stair. Yesler is on a viaduct above 4th. To get to it from 4th you have to climb a stair. That eliminates a lot of passengers. Enough to sink a RapidRide.
A Constantinople station would be closest to the 3/4, but the 3/4 are notoriously slow.
By the time the station is built the bus will be fast. And automated, and running as a hovercraft. Seriously though, it is likely it will be made fast (one way or another) within ten years, let alone when Ballard Link is complete. SDOT and Metro are slowly making progress, it is just in fits and starts. For years people thought nothing would be done for the 8. They could do more, but they have made progress. I’m really excited about the 40. That seems like a major improvement, and not too time consuming from start to finish. The 3/4 should definitely be a priority. It is one of our slowest buses, and also one of our most productive (in terms of ridership per mile). Oh, and at some point it should become just the 3. The tail of the 4 is wasteful.
If the 3 is moved to Yesler, I would probably just keep the 27 as is. That is only a tiny bit of overlap. I’m also not sure what else to do with it. You could send it to SLU via Boren, but that is a major service mismatch. It also would mean that the Boren route doesn’t connect to Jackson. So that won’t work. You could send it somewhere on First Hill, but ultimately you wouldn’t be providing much value. It wouldn’t add much coverage, and would not be especially quick. I think the 27-33 pair is fine, really. I think they are matched fairly well from a demand standpoint. They are both borderline routes. If times are good, they should run every 15 minutes (all-day). When times are tough, they are the ones that get a service reduction.
I think it’s a very good idea. I know Ross has been advocating for Ballard-East Side for a long time, but physics may get you. As the trackway crosses I-5 the ground drops significantly to Airport Way. Right now the trackway structure is mostly flat to about Sixth and then at the curve starts descending to the ground. I’d estimate it at 40 feet about Airport Way. https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5931902,-122.3244607,3a,75y,45.14h,88.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPz5WwDhvErG3wGzcE8vpeA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
It is definitely higher than it strictly needs to be, so it’s possible that it could descend enough to curve into the Sixth Avenue ROW, but how do you get down deep before the station site?
I don’t think you can belly south to gain distance for the descent, because I-90 extension (Upper Royal Brougham Way) is double decked, so you can’t scoot under the upper deck and, say, loop around over Central Base.
Oh, I see in your succeeding post you’re thinking that the East Link tracks would still be in the air at South CID. But how do they then get into the new tunnel, which has to be pretty deep? Where’s the portal? Remember that right now they just drop to ground level. The UP/Milwaukee tracks through Union Station were at the same grade as the adjacent BNSF tracks. They just dead-ended at Jackson (two at Washington). Any tunnel under the ID has to be at least 50 feet down to avoid disruption. How do you get that deep?
Maybe a tight spiral? That would be weird, to say the least.
Yeah, looking at the geometry, after my mind went to that tight spiral, I thought, forget getting East Link into DSTT2. Add an East Link aerial station between 5th-6th on a realigned and (because it has to be to add a station) lengthened ramp. Given that it isn’t that curvy there now and it’s such a big area with nothing in the way, there must be a way.
And then move that Stadium station one block north to form the South CID hub. Which needs a catchier name because I don’t think Istanbul will work to sell the idea to Issaquah.
This isn’t my idea, this North/South CID thing, but with a 15 to 1 vote on the ST Board, I can see which way the wind is blowing.
The keys to the 15 to 1 vote, especially from non-N KC subareas, were:
1. They are willing to defer to N KC on the route of DSTT2 (and really don’t have better ideas although time was short), but that route will have to go through downtown (not First Hill);;
2. No more delay.
3. Control costs, which suggests to me those subareas are not sure their contribution will be limited to 12.5% of the original estimated cost in 2016 of $2.2 billion.
Neither Seattle nor the other subareas are willing to contribute another $700 million for a shallow station on 4th because Seattle could not convince the CID to agree to a station on 5th.
The chances the preferred alignment changes is remote. Any change can’t cost more or result in more delay, and I think ST is lowballing the cost estimate for the preferred alignment to begin with. If N KC had the money for an additional aerial station near CID S the Board would have gone with a station on 4th Ave S. Or a deep midtown station.
Probably the only things that could change the preferred alignment are a higher cost estimate and higher subarea contribution, much lower ridership after FW, East and Lynnwood Link open than currently estimated, or lower subarea revenue, but those would mean cuts, not additional stations, or even interlining although N KC would lose its subarea contribution.
Another unknown Rogoff raised as he was leaving is the huge gap in the O&M budget due to farebox recovery about 1/2 the estimated 40% while ST just restated future O&M costs upwards by $1.2 billion.
Some of us don’t think WSBLE is affordable for N KC and look forward to the fights over stations and routing coming up, DSTT2 won’t cost $2.2 billion even with the preferred alternative which raises the issue of subarea contributions, and supported interlining for these reasons.
If we are correct then DSTT2 and WSBLE will have to be fundamentally rethought, but that won’t happen for years or include additional stations. I think Dow’s claim $400 million can be “recaptured” from vacant city and county buildings near CID N is unrealistic to say the least. It took ST and the Board three years to tell the Eastside East Link would be delayed another three years so I doubt ST and the Board will admit anything negative about WSBLE or DSTT2 until they absolutely have to, not unlike this DEIS process.
So, to summarize I don’t think DSTT2 OR WSBLE will ever get built. At most a stub from WSBLE as smoke and mirrors to allow the Board to claim WSBLE will be completed someday, just by a different Board. I think a lot of Board members suspect this, at least now, which is why they don’t plan on falling on their swords over DSTT2 or WSBLE, including Harrell, and probably why more wasn’t done to negotiate with the CID over the most critical station on 5th.
One can only hope the west Seattle stub would at least have the trains continue downtown through DSTT1 rather than dumping everybody in SODO and turning around.
This also begs an interesting question, whether sub area equity will result in Issaquah Link actually opening before Ballard Link, simply because it’s relatively inexpensive (all surface) and the east King subarea has the money to pay for it.
@asdf
> This also begs an interesting question, whether sub area equity will result in Issaquah Link actually opening before Ballard Link, simply because it’s relatively inexpensive (all surface) and the east King subarea has the money to pay for it.
I agree Issaquah Link might end up opening before Ballard Link, though It’s probably less about sub area equity and more that Issaquah Link is relatively simple to build along freeway alignments. Plus practically I doubt there will be any outcry over the alignment. Unless if Kirkland wants to stop it to build the CKC brt, but even then it is unlikely as the current South Kirkland station is located completely in the city of Bellevue.
https://www.kirklandwa.gov/files/sharedassets/public/public-works/transportation/plans-and-studies/ckc-bus-rapid-transit-brt-study-2016.pdf
Jonathan, isn’t what you’re saying about creating a new station over Sixth Avenue for East Link pretty a refinement of what I said in a comment in the previous article on the ST Board meeting? https://seattletransitblog.com/2023/03/23/st-board-meeting-on-wsble/#comment-907759 I think it is an improvement because if a new trackway were built the better to accommodate a station it could also drop down to a lower level to make the station more reachable. Having it over Sixth elephant eared from the existing structure would be pretty windy and very vertigo for some people. The HOV lanes stayed high because they connected to Seattle Way which is a story above ground there.
However, again physics may be in the way, because the existing structures for the descending East Link line would prevent the eastbound track from “cutting across” to a new station a bit north of the existing one. You still need the “flying junction”! Tearing down the existing structure means no East Link for however long it would take to accomplish that and build the replacement southbound fly-over. We may be stuck with the Istanbul In The Clouds if there is to be a transfer hub at Sixth and Plummer.
You have added the refinement of moving Stadium north a block which is excellent. Presumably it would be at grade in the same place that I first suggested putting the East Link station up on the ramp at the Plummer Street right of way. That would essentially become the “King Street Station” transfer hub with all three lines stopping within two hundred feet of one another, albeit with lots of vertical separation.
As I say, it was a great idea to swap tunnels for East Link, and it would certainly meet Daniel’s aspiration for “equity” since the RV line would continue to go to UW and Northgate. But the physics of rail gradients defeats it. I like having a three line cluster of stops at South CID, though, and you could probably improve the physical access to T-Mob from it for everybody.
Interestingly just below your comment is Daniel droning on with the nine-hundred and ninety third reordering of the words in his constantly repeated 2000 word bloviation, ignoring again the one rational alternative that meets all his sneering “objections”: interlining through DSTT1 for all three lines.
But that wouldn’t “own the Libs” because it would demonstrate that Seattle and “Urbanists” are sane people, would it?
“This also begs an interesting question, whether sub area equity will result in Issaquah Link actually opening before Ballard Link, simply because it’s relatively inexpensive (all surface) and the east King subarea has the money to pay for it.”
At about 16,000 riders the question for Issaquah Link is whether FTA will even contribute. I see Federal funding shifting from a handful of urban rail projects to a much more broader interest to build higher speed passenger rail so I think FTA will be more tight fisted in the future for projects like Issaquah Link.
I think it’s running at about or above $3B but I don’t think a recent cost estimate is available.
King of Prussia rail extension failed to get FTA funding at 9,000 riders and $3B. This isn’t much better.
Very few riders go to and from South Kirkland (2.000 projected on a weekday). I could see that one station being cancelled at some point in project development — , even though it dovetails efficiently with the East OMF.
How and where the tracks tie in is a topic that I think will begin to be discussed about 10 years. Without South Kirkland, a project design can get lots more flexible. For example, it could become an automated stub line with transfers at South Bellevue when this is ready to be built. The tie in at and south of East Main looks politically perilous to me.
To be clear, I would pair East Link with Ballard Link if the trains all ran through the existing tunnel, and Ballard Link had a branch. I wouldn’t spend a bunch extra to send East Link into the new tunnel (on top of the absurd amount we are talking about to even build a second tunnel). I also think it is unrealistic. If the board is too stubborn to consider an option that is not only a lot cheaper, but better for riders and better for the community, it is hard to imagine they support a new pairing that would cost money.
In contrast, moving the south CID station seems plausible. Especially if south CID station becomes the only station. I think everyone assumes that given the overruns, there will only be one CID station, and that it will be the north one. But if south CID becomes the only station — and it has a very good transfer to the other lines — I could definitely see that. For those headed to downtown from the south, they have already essentially eliminated two stations (University Street and CID) so eliminating the third (CID) seems quite possible.
I don’t think Ballard Link will get built so by default Issaquah Link would get built first. The estimated cost from 2016 is $4.5 billion.
Issaquah Link has the advantages that like East Kink it goes where no one is which cuts down on opposition, and isn’t underground and mostly is in public ROW’s which is good for cost overruns.
2023 is a million years from 2016 on the Eastside. We don’t even want East Link to open, Issaquah chose the 554 over East Link, and the ridership will be so poor I think Issaquah will lose interest in Issaquah Link (Kirkland lost interest a long time ago).
I drove to Issaquah yesterday. It is a long way out, but on a great freeway. Most of Issaquah — except maybe Old Front St. — isn’t remotely walkable (or bikeable ) and there is a ton of free parking. Some parking lots you need to drive across like at Costco they are so large (and full). The area — both commercial and surrounding — is HUGE.
I think ST’s ridership estimates as usual are highly inflated, and the openings of FW, Lynnwood and East Link are going to be where the rubber meets the road when it comes to ST suburban ridership estimates. Those routes won’t come close to their 40% farebox recovery goal, and anyone familiar with Issaquah knows those folks won’t ride Link unless it is to a job with expensive parking, and if that returns it will be by bus (554) or driving to S Bellevue or demanding a one seat bus to Seattle. If Kenmore got the 322 Issaquah will get a one seat bus.
Builders and developers were keen on East Link because it led to huge upzones, but when East Link doesn’t create the actual construction they were dreaming of, and Issaquah has no intent of such upzones, there will be very little momentum for Issaquah Link. Just like Bellevue realized it didn’t want to be “linked” to downtown Seattle Issaquah will realize there is no point in being linked by rail to Bellevue.
To see urbanists, ST and transit advocates try to understand Issaquah, or think Issaquah thinks remotely like they do, is pretty funny, and results in crazy ideas like light rail from Issaquah to SOUTH Kirkland, which should tell you everything you need to know about Link on the Eastside. $4.5 billion dollars to go to S Kirkland.
I never said ridership on Issaquah Link would be huge. Simply that if the order that things ultimately open is determined by non-ridership factors such as budgets and NIMBY opposition, Issaquah Link opening before Ballard Link is not crazy.
It is ironic that white Seattle progressive transit riders are (rightfully) seen as racists by the last remaining neighborhood of color in Seattle, and WSBLE and DSTT2 have fallen victim to NIMBYISM (and poverty) and we haven’t even reached WS and Ballard.
Meanwhile Issaquah Link will be built as designed because the subarea can afford it but no one will ride it because it is STUPID transit and Issaquah was designed around my wife that Seattle transit advocates will never understand but who determine the world, and that world does not include transit.
If my wife gave a damn she would look at someone explaining a $4.5 billion light rail line between some obscure point in HUGE Issaquah to SOUTH Kirkland and think someone is a total idiot when that money could go to our K-12 schools, and she would be right.
Last week’s ST board vote deleting the transfer station near King Street station is the most depressing foolish and short sighted decision that I can recall. Maybe since the 1960s when Seattle passed on the chance to build rail transit that could have shaped land use in a better way.
King Street station is a natural regional transit hub. Eventually we will have an all day regional rail service here. Cutting off one of the two transit tunnels from a direct transfer here is completely foolish.
The north CID station will never be a great station location. The steep hill and proximity to I5 as a barrier are fatal and permanent.
Our leadership sucks that they would accept such a poor design
Last week’s ST board vote deleting the transfer station near King Street station is the most depressing foolish and short sighted decision that I can recall.
It is bad, but I’m not sure if it makes the top ten. I would put the Forward Thrust loss at #1, followed by skipping First Hill. After that it gets messy, as we start making assumptions. For example, I would probably put this tunnel itself as #3, but then the tunnel wouldn’t even be considered if it wasn’t for West Seattle Link, which has to rank there somewhere. Then there is Issaquah Link, which is worse than both Tacoma Dome Link and Everett Link (and that’s saying something). If we didn’t build those, would be put the money into bus service, or would we continue to pretend that buses don’t matter in all of this? Oh, for that matter, there is Sound Transit being the one tasked with building the subway system. Maybe that is #2, since all bad decisions followed. If King County was in charge, then it is quite possible they would have done the right thing, and the idea of a “spine” would be silly. Then again, with Dow in charge of the county, he would probably continue to make really bad decisions, like West Seattle rail, a second tunnel, etc.
What abolishing single-family zoning looks like ($). FeaturingKirkland, Edmonds, and Burien.
Good article, and a good selection of diverse neighborhoods to tell the story.
One thing I didn’t get from the article – what’s a cottage? Another name for a DADU/Detached ADU?
The article isn’t about eliminating SFH zoning. The new structures would be SFH. It is about the proposed Senate bill and some city bills to reduce mandatory minimum lot size by allowing a property owner to build a second home on their SFH zone property one time if the lot meets a minimum size (4000 sf so far). Regulatory limits would remain the same for each house, so total maximum gross floor area to lot area ratios (GFAR) and yard setbacks stay the same.
Opponents to the Senate bill, mostly smaller cities, argue this bill would create the opposite of affordable housing in neighborhoods with very high construction costs per sf with no transit, DADU’s are a better and more affordable approach, since most houses are built in the middle of the lot this would mostly apply to all new construction on the lot which would be the least affordable approach, there are no affordability mandates, under the international fire code a lot of lot area would be consumed by access drives and garages that count against buildable lot area for both lots, cities would then eliminate DADU laws that allow additional GFAR for a DADU, and would eliminate tree canopy.
This bill has been the holy grail of the builders for years in one form or another. When Seattle upzoned a few years back the approach was to allow three dwellings per lot without the property owner having to live in one, and past proposals for the Eastside were to require DADU’s to be a minimum 1100 to 1300 sf although those are much less affordable than smaller DADU’s to effectively subdivide expensive suburban lots.
What I guess isn’t surprising is how the housing bills in Olympia proposed by progressives no longer even pretend to be about affordability, and all affordability mandates have been removed from the bills. If you live in an apartment and think this bill will lower your rent or make buying a house affordable you are sadly mistaken. These bills have nothing to do with affordability.
To date that has varied and has been defined by the local zoning entity. I assume if the state gets involved in the zoning game that they will have to set a definition or at least give parameters. SnoCo currently includes cottage housing in its residential zoning matrix.
@AJ
Cottage is a vague term. I saw online that sometimes it says “.Cottages are usually limited to a maximum of 800 square feet and must be completely self-contained” which means a DADU. However in the context specifically for Kirkland they mean something else:
https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Kirkland/html/KirklandZ113/KirklandZ113.html#113.25
> Cottage – A detached, single-family dwelling unit containing 1,700 square feet or less of gross floor area.
Seems to mean a “small detached single family house” though small is relative it is practically the same size as many Seattle single family homes. Though a notable difference is the shared ‘backyard’ and common open space requirements.
I guess a better description is they mean a “Cottage court” not “backyard cottage” as in: https://missingmiddlehousing.com/types/cottage-court
Hmmm. Perhaps. I don’t know if the term is necessarily vague but rather that it’s not widely correctly understood and used outside of the architecture/real estate world. For example, in our neck of the woods we tend to use the term bungalow a lot when describing a cottage home and that would be correct in a lot of cases. All bungalows are cottage homes but cottage homes are not all bungalows, as there are several different types of cottage style homes. For example, you could have a saltbox cottage home, a Tudor cottage or a Cape Cod cottage. A lot of the older cottage homes in our area are Tudor or Craftsman inspired bungalows. The key to all of them is the overall size and relative simplicity, the smaller second story with an intruding roofline and their modest footprint on the lot where they have been built, thereby providing green space around the structure.
There is a regionalism to this also as here on the west coast we tend just to say bungalow whereas on the eastern side of the country they use the term cottage far more when describing the same type of structure. The same thing occurs with another housing structure type: ranch homes. We tend to call these ramblers in our area but if you use this term in the eastern US most folks won’t know what you’re talking about.
As I stated previously, SnoCo has incorporated cottage style housing into its urban residential zoning scheme. It has been codified here:
https://snohomish.county.codes/SCC/30.41G
For a better understanding of where cottage style housing fits within SnoCo’s zoning framework, I would encourage perusing the excellent resource called the “Residential Development Options Matrix” which can be found at the link below.
Interestingly under the current zoning scheme, I cannot increase the density on my own property here in Edmonds (unincorporated SnoCo) by utilizing cottage style housing units as they are not permitted under my present zoning, MR, without seeking a variance modification. My former zoning classifications before the last two comp plan upzones were Urban Low Density Residential (R-8400 zone) and Urban Medium Density Residential (LDMR zone) and those two zoning classifications, if they were still in effect for my property, would allow for cottage style housing to be built on this parcel. Specifically they would allow 1 unit per 4,200 square feet of site area for the R-8400 classification and 1 unit per 2,000 square feet of site area under the LDMR classification.
But now, under the MR zoning classification, cottage style housing is not permitted even though my lot is around a half acre. Frankly, the distinction seems rather arbitrary to me but that’s how it is presently.
https://snohomishcountywa.gov/5367/Residential-Development-Options
At least on MI, cottage housing has meant lower than minimum lot sizes for the zone but larger gross floor area to lot area ratios for the “cottage”, either to create smaller housing for seniors to downsize, or less expensive SFH’s because of the smaller size. Usually as part of a larger subdivision. It really is just a function of house to lot area ratios, with cottages being smaller and the lots they sit on smaller (although what builders want is smaller lot minimums but large houses, or McMansions).
So far no developer has gone for it on MI although there is a code and comp. plan provision for it although the actual regulatory limits are not spelled out. The smallest minimum lot size on MI is 8400 sf, and GFAR is limited to 40% with zero deviations, or 3360 sf which is about the smallest eastside SFH builders want to build when a two-car garage is required and counts toward GFAR, and many want a three-car garage and four bedrooms and a yard. King Co.’s affordable housing subcommittee wants MI to build some town homes that are “affordable” (60% AMI) but that is total fantasy.
Town houses or cottages have other problems. One is they tend to be narrow and tall to maximize GFA through height because the lot is narrow, just what elderly citizens don’t want. A single level house is lovely but requires a lot of lot area.
Another issue is the cottage, depending on GFAR, gets too small, despite having small yard setbacks. For example, if the lot is allowed to be 3000 sf but GFAR is still 40% that is 1200 sf over three stories plus at least a one car garage. So the kitchen is on the second level with steep stairs because the height limit is 30′.
Next they are expensive per sf to build and permit. So selling a full size SFH with full size yard on MI and downsizing to a “cottage” does not save a lot of money, and still has some upkeep unlike say a condo in Kirkland, and you are in a residential neighborhood with zero retail or transit.
Builders also object to the requirement that some kind of green space be included as part of the project since lot vegetation and trees are less due to smaller yard setbacks, and claim older citizens don’t like living next to a public park or vegetated public area due to safety.
Finally builders will say building for downsizing elderly citizens is not where the money is. There is almost zero risk building a 3360 sf SFH on MI with a three-car garage, usually in a high-end build where the profit is.
What is frustrating is there is a very strong demand for high end brownstone type housing in the town center because Islanders want to stay on the Island but not in a high maintenance SFH but don’t like shared wall multi-family housing, but no one builds it. The code strictly prohibits multi-family housing on the water so that is out (although there is one grandfathered waterfront project, but it is ironically affordable housing).
Any residential lot can build a DADU up to 900 sf which is the size of a cottage, although the GFA of the DADU counts against the GFAR for the main house. There are a few on the Island but they are very expensive, cannot be rented for less than 30 days, and the owner must live onsite so are very, very picky about whom they rent to. By far the most affordable housing on the Island is simply renting a room in a SFH.
The legislature was looking at a bill to allow any SFH to build a second house on the lot but that bill died today.
Westneat has a thoughtful article on the slow trudge to eliminate homeless camps. ($)
I think I found a name for CID South station. Mikado Station. A section of Dearborn street used to be called Mikado street. The guy in this article wanted to change Dearborn street back to Mikado street.
BTW, too many current and future stations, albeit indirectly, are named after white people. Rainier Beach, Wilburton, Judkins Park, Mercer Island, Redmond, Marymoor, Lynnwood, Roosevelt, UW, Ballard, Mount Baker. Naming it Mikado, the Japanese word for emperor, will start the process of making station names more multicultural.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/seattle-man-champions-changing-a-century-old-street-name/281-331786583
> Naming it Mikado, the Japanese word for emperor, will start the process of making station names more multicultural.
If you were to rename it to a different Japanese name it might be possible but to choose to rename the station to Mikado (emperor) would be pretty contentious given the world wars (specifically Second Sino-Japanese war)
Fair enough. One thing I liked about the name is the history behind. I’d love to hear some other ideas for station names.
Nobody will recognize “Mikado”, the way many Bellevue residents have never heard of Wilburton or aren’t sure where it is. Maybe “Amine”, “Pokemon”, “Sushi”, or another word people recognize.
Hmm, Mikado/emperor connects to Empire Way/MLK Way. Coincidence?
> Nobody will recognize “Mikado”, the way many Bellevue residents have never heard of Wilburton or aren’t sure where it is.
I’m pretty sure Chinatown would sooner accept the 5th avenue cut-and-cover than accept naming the station “Mikado”. It’d be kinda like naming the station Czar
> will start the process of making station names more multicultural. I’d love to hear some other ideas for station names.
I agree with your intentions, and I tried thinking of some but honestly it is difficult to think of anything that would be acceptable to all three chinatown/japantown/little saigon. It’d probably be easier to get “Royal Brougham” or “i90 underpass” lol accepted.
I mean there’s a reason why the current station is called “International District/Chinatown” and not just one or the other.
I remember when it used to be called International District station, or IDS. I’m not sure why that name needed to be changed. The word international includes everyone.
Empire Way, now MLK Way, was actually named in honor of James J Hill, the rail magnate, whose nickname was the Empire Builder.
Historically the area was called Chinatown. When DSTT1 was built in the 1980s, political correctness led to the station being named “International District” to avoid slighting the Japanese, Filipinos, Vietnamese, etc that are also in the area and had their own towns. Then in the 2010s somebody actually asked the other ethnic groups whether they were offended with calling the neighborhood Chinatown, and they said, “No, it’s fine.” That led to the station and neighborhood being called “Chinatown/International District” as it is now. Now that people are used to that name and the abbreviation “CID” has emerged, we might as well stick with that. Many cities have Chinatowns and Union Stations, but Seattle is the only one with an International District and King Street Station that I know of.
Mike, I can’t speak to colloquial usage, but the debate over the naming of the neighborhood goes a lot further back than that, and definitely before “political correctness” was the term of the day.
Mayor William Devin dubbed the area “International Center” in 1951 and acknowledged the multi-ethnic makeup of the neighborhood. Ever since, many prominent local Chinese-Americans have advocated for “Chinatown” as the official name. As you mentioned, the DSTT station was originally opened as “International District” station in 1990, and was changed to “International District/Chinatown” in 2004 as a compromise.
I’m not sure when various ethnic groups expressed ambivalence as to the name like you say. But the historical record appears to show otherwise—both Chinese-Americans and other Asian-Americans have expressed strongly-held opinions about this over the years. Count me as someone who feels that Seattle is pretty well-justified to stand out from the pack here in recognizing other ethnic groups, including African-Americans, as integral contributors to the neighborhood.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/name-feud-clouds-opening-of-library/
Assuming that they are removing the Chinatown station, I really really don’t see the need for new tunnel to be on 5th avenue and especially all the deep mined stations costing basically over a billion dollars each.
In the past it was
cut-and-cover stations: Pioneer Square , University Street
open-cut: u district, roosevelt, capitol hill, uw, chinatown, westlake, convention center
mined stations: beacon hill
Now with the new tunnel there’s going to be 3~4 super deep mined stations: with Denny, Westlake, (North of CID) Pioneer Square.
I say move the Northbound Seatac elevated over to 1st avenue and then continue onto 2nd avenue (described on page 44 below). Then cut/open cut the Denny, Westlake, (North of CID) Pioneer Square at much shallower depths similar to the existing stations and have a simple walk transfer. The Westlake and new Westlake transfers weren’t going to be simple in any case. This would save a couple billion (or more accurately make it affordable to the original budget).
(https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/project-documents/west-seattle-ballard-stakeholder-advisory-group-meeting-presentation-20180716.pdf#page=44)
What’s the difference between cut-and-cover and open-cut?
Kinda the same thing, I’m using the definitions listed: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/project-documents/west-seattle-ballard-stakeholder-advisory-group-meeting-presentation-20180716.pdf#page=62.
Main difference is the (degree of) temporary decking to allow cars to continue to pass over during construction. That is why Pioneer Square and University Street are in the ‘cut-and-cover’ category since those were going north/south on 3rd avenue.
Capitol Hill was off to the side of Broadway, UW (stadium) was in the parking lot, UDistrict closed the street intersection down.
Westlake station honestly I’d consider it cut-and-cover, but Pine street was closed for (around a year or two?)
What amazing BS is the treatment of “Track interlining” along the busway. It says “Headways on both lines requires grade separation of junctions and impacts continued E-3 use by buses”. WTF? They [as in the Holy “staff and consultants”] are proposing to drive right past “impact” straight to trash so far as the E-3 busway is concerned. Their proposal is to build pylons down the middle of it! Oh, I forgot, for $200 million additional cost, they can be built alongside the roadway and retain two lanes.
And how does running trains more frequently on an adjacent track “impact continued E-3 use by buses” anyway? Are the buses going to pass one another by driving on the rails?
What a bunch of boondoggling hypocrites!
Now, how do you propose to get from Second over to Westlake? Stewart is the obvious choice because of the oblique intersections. But Stewart is pretty narrow for a two-track tunnel. I think it’d be fine for a non-revenue connection for moving trains to and from The Stub.
And not to put too fine a point on it, but Second Avenue is the wrong way from Third Avenue. It’s farther downhill from all the development in the Fourth to Sixth corridor, and Second Avenue has a lot of “arts” buildings along it. It’s not much of a trip attractor. Yes, that could change over the coming decades, and putting a subway along Second would surely accelerate such a change. And the waterfront is booming and only a block and a half away. But you have a serious potential difficulty underrunning Pioneer Square deeply enough not to wreck it and then getting shallow enough to pass over the car tunnel.
There are real geometric problems with this proposal and hand waving will not solve the equation.
“single-track non-revenue connection”
Oh, and by the way, since West Seattle will only have a train every ten minutes (“policy headways”) until the Heat Death of the Universe, a level junction up on the structure as the existing track turns from Forest Street to the busway would simply mean that occasionally trains from West Seattle might have to wait for one minute for a southbound Rainier Valley train to clear the junction.
Whoop-te-doo!
> But you have a serious potential difficulty underrunning Pioneer Square deeply enough not to wreck it and then getting shallow enough to pass over the car tunnel.
The point of the 2nd Avenue Alignment is to avoid both the existing Transit Tunnel on 3rd Avenue (North/south) and the 99 tunnel on 1st avenue. You don’t need to tunnel under either. You will still need to get under the Great Northern tunnel, but that is similar to what the existing transit Tunnel/stations already do.
You can view the existing tunnels alignment on https://www.openrailwaymap.org/
After that join up with the existing alignment to Denny Station/SLU station. Note, it might need to use the SLU Mercer alignment since it is shallower at 85 feet rather than Harrison at 120 feet.
> Now, how do you propose to get from Second over to Westlake? Stewart is the obvious choice because of the oblique intersections. But Stewart is pretty narrow for a two-track tunnel.
This is probably the most technical part if one of the buildings foundations are in the way when turning. Though the turning radius at Stewart isn’t as sharp as 90 degrees which helps a lot.
> And not to put too fine a point on it, but Second Avenue is the wrong way from Third Avenue.
Saving 2~3 billion and expediating the light rail construction in general by avoiding deep mined stations, it’s fine to move the stations 2 blocks over.
> There are real geometric problems with this proposal and hand waving will not solve the equation.
Honestly, the current route choosing to go under every existing tunnel in Seattle is more problematic which was handwaved away in the ST3 before the deep mined stations were detailed in 2022.
> Oh, and by the way, since West Seattle will only have a train every ten minutes (“policy headways”) until the Heat Death of the Universe, a level junction up on the structure as the existing track turns from Forest Street to the busway would simply mean that occasionally trains from West Seattle might have to wait for one minute for a southbound Rainier Valley train to clear the junction.
To clarify it would be an elevated alignment for the Northbound (from Seatac/Rainier Valley trains) so it can cross over the West Seattle tracks and the bnsf tracks. The West Seattle trains and Rainier Valley trains would not interact. Sound Transit did investigate it and found it feasible, though the original idea was to connect to a deep CID station (back on 4th ave) after passing over to 1st avenue which was why it was scrapped.
Since they want to move Rainier Valley trains to West Seattle it must cross over the transit line at least once. The current plan is the deep mined station at Westlake but that also forces all other stations to be deep mined ones as well, basically 2~3 billion dollars for the crossover. Instead, replaced it with a simple elevated one of around 2000~3000 feet down in sodo, probably a couple hundred million.
If the elevated span isn’t feasible, one could still stick with the South of CID station idea, and then after that tunnel west to 2nd avenue (making sure to tunnel before the Greater Northern tunnel portion. This just replaces the crossover with crossing over before the Transit tunnel becomes a ‘real’ tunnel. Then place the “North of CID” station on 2nd avenue and continue up until Stewart etc… as described before.
Since “missing-middle housing” has been discussed here, someone who has worked for building missing-middle housing offers his thoughts. https://www.postalley.org/2023/03/23/lets-talk-sense-about-solving-our-middle-housing-issues/
https://publicola.com/2023/03/27/inslee-senate-democrats-clash-over-housing-expenditures-in-unusual-intra-party-fight/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Here is a link to Ryan Packer’s article on Inslee’s request for $4 billion for housing, which the Senate rejected and reduced to around $658 million, I think.
The article Michael links to raises some inherent truths missing from the housing debate because progressives and urbanists find them uncomfortable, including the fact the area is continuing to deurbanize, and the American Dream is still a SFH. It is pretty clear the author is discussing current Senate bills or the recent article in the Seattle Times about reducing minimum lot sizes for SFH homes (although often not the gross floor area to lot area ratios).
The one thing missing from the article that so many “housing experts” miss is housing (and just cost of living in general) depends on the area’s AMI. Every time someone on this blog mentions a city with lower housing costs than Seattle, from Tokyo to Montreal to Dallas to Houston, I point out that those areas have AMI’s often 1/3 of Seattle’s, and not surprisingly the housing costs mirror that lower AMI. The real ratio is percentage of income spent on housing. You can also get a martini in Houston for $5, and gas is 1/3 less expensive in Idaho. The comment that “high housing costs are the result of policy choices” is naive. This region has basically platted 6500 sq. miles for housing and development, and a great deal remains vacant today.
When the author writes, “People who have regular incomes should be able to find appropriate housing they can afford in the market, and scarce subsidy dollars should be reserved for those who can never operate in the housing market”, he should explain whether he is talking about renting or buying, and what “regular” incomes mean, and “appropriate housing”. That is just such a lazy comment from someone apparently espousing letting the market solve the housing affordability issue.
Appropriate according to federal guidelines means no more than 30% of one’s income is spent on housing. For Seattle, even if living alone, that means around $2900/mo. for someone with a 100% AMI, which means half of the residents earn more. Does anyone believe you can’t find “appropriate” housing for $2900/mo.?
And what does “appropriate housing” mean. A SFH in Clyde Hill? A one bedroom for one in Capitol Hill? Appropriate means the housing fits the income, and exists, which often means sharing housing, or not living in the most desirable neighborhood, or living in a smaller unit. We have all been there if you have lived long enough and like most start out with little money and alone.
If the goal is to lower minimum lot sizes in expensive SFH zones — which is what the builders want — with the idea new SFH construction on those lots will create any kind of “appropriate” housing for regular incomes that won’t happen unless two individuals (spouse, partner) combine their 100% AMI incomes and use the nearly $6000/mo. to buy a SFH home, which is how most folks get into SFH ownership.
What this author is discussing is the huge SFH subdivision tract developments the national home builders build in areas like Phoenix and Texas like this https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=qogGd64r&id=074440FC5E2176E2F25A78E25A3CA8E4C8612EE6&thid=OIP.qogGd64rPUYTyQ3eVGqElAHaFc&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fc8.alamy.com%2fcomp%2fHJFJH0%2faerial-view-of-residential-subdivision-HJFJH0.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.aa880677ae2b3d4613c90dde546a8494%3frik%3d5i5hyOSoPFrieA%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=957&expw=1300&q=large+aerial+view+subdivision+single+family+home+phoenix&simid=608022895481864499&FORM=IRPRST&ck=AC1932B89B86B45D6699E62CE36E82AC&selectedIndex=5&qpvt=large+aerial+view+subdivision+single+family+home+phoenix&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0, with low labor and construction costs due to scale (and illegal labor), low-cost land, and many fewer environmental restrictions, which most progressives and urbanists oppose in areas like Issaquah, Black Diamond, North Bend, S. King Co., Snoqualmie, and so on, but still reflect the area’s AMI in their cost (I think Black Diamond had the largest increase in home prices in the state last year).
“housing (and just cost of living in general) depends on the area’s AMI.”
That’s nice but it ignores the fact that housing prices are severely out of whack with people’s incomes. Most people’s incomes haven’t risen as fast as housing prices. The change in AMI means wealthier people are moving in and lower-income people are being pushed out beyond a municipal boundary If there were more units available the price wouldn’t rise as much and the other people wouldn’t be pushed out of the city. When people get pushed out as far as Auburn or Everett or Mt Vernon, I worry about how difficult it is to get around there without a car. It’s not healthy for a city or metro area to have such rapidly-changing housing prices and hundreds of thousands of people displaced or worried about displacement. If the other cities were like their European counterparts and actually liveable it wouldn’t matter as much. And the problem has spread to most of the US so soon there won’t be any place to be displaced to, or you’d have to go to a state that doesn’t respect your voting rights or other rights.
“housing (and just cost of living in general) depends on the area’s AMI.”
“That’s nice but it ignores the fact that housing prices are severely out of whack with people’s incomes. Most people’s incomes haven’t risen as fast as housing prices. The change in AMI means wealthier people are moving in and lower-income people are being pushed out beyond a municipal boundary If there were more units available the price wouldn’t rise as much and the other people wouldn’t be pushed out of the city.”
Actually, the problem for Seattle is AMI has risen as dramatically as housing costs. Without a doubt wealthier folks moved in and AMI went up and so did housing costs. There has been a lag between population growth and housing production although that gap is closing, mostly in the most desirable neighborhoods, but at the same time more and more Seattleites insist on living alone which increases their housing costs dramatically. Plus taxes and inflation are just increasing the costs for property owners and landlords and those costs get passed on in rents. Property taxes alone have gone up 50% or more over the last 8 years.
You can’t conflate all AMI groups and all housing costs in every neighborhood. In Seattle half of the folks make $115,000/year or more and so even if living alone have $2900/mo. to spend on housing using the 30% gross income rule, which is enough in any multi-family Seattle neighborhood. Two people each earning 50% AMI would have $2900/mo. for a two bedroom, again enough for just about any Seattle neighborhood depending on how new the building is.
I have posted about this before, but the AVERAGE Median housing costs are rising for two reasons: 1. new construction is the least affordable per sf and builders build to the AMI since that is where the profit is; and 2. new construction usually replaces older more affordable housing.
It is the loss of the older more affordable housing that is the bigger problem, and the author of the article Michael linked to did recognize that as did Seattle’s speaker to the Legislature on HB 1110.
When you write, “If there were more units available the price wouldn’t rise as much and the other people wouldn’t be pushed out of the city” what you really mean is if the bottom half of the housing was not being eliminated and replaced with new more expensive housing (gentrification) so the average median cost of housing was rising from the bottom end people would not be pushed out of the city. Poor and moderate-income people living alone cannot afford new construction.
It is why no one on this blog answered my question from last weekend: what happened to all the Black folks who used to live in Columbia City despite quite a building boom down there? They got driven out because the affordable housing they used to live in was replaced by newer more expensive housing for the white high AMI crowd builders build for.
King Co.’s Affordable Housing Subcommittee that is working on implementing last year’s ESB 1220 affordability mandates finally recognized the pernicious effects of gentrification on Black and poor communities, but the current zoning encourages replacing older more affordable housing with new expensive housing, because that is how the market works in a high AMI city.
“new construction usually replaces older more affordable housing”
The PROBLEM is that older housing is going up in price even though it’s still there and not improved. Only a small percent of older units are replaced each year, yet the price increases are much more widespread than that. The increases are often faster in older buildings than in newer buildings.
“what happened to all the Black folks who used to live in Columbia City despite quite a building boom down there? They got driven out because the affordable housing they used to live in was replaced by newer more expensive housing for the white high AMI crowd builders build for.”
They got priced out because the rents in their older buildings went up.
When there’s an increase in housing demand, we need to increase supply to match it. That way the newer richer people can move into vacant better units rather than displacing lower-income people.
“There has been a lag between population growth and housing production although that gap is closing”
How long do we have to wait? We’ve already been waiting twenty years. Price increases ebb when there’s a recession, but nothing fundamental has changed, so any softening of increases will probably last only a year or two. Hopefully Seattle is starting to catch up, but you need more than one or two years of softening increases to tell for sure.
Some say upzoning is the most harmful to lower income and minority communities. They say advocating for zoning reform is advocating for their displacement. It’s been said that changes in zoning doesn’t increase affordability, it increases gentrification. Others say the single best thing a we can do to increase the housing supply and affordability is to abolish the urban growth boundary.
So is anyone going to this: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/boost-transit-now-social-hour-tickets-588344523307
the venue is pretty good.
Nice article about the state of transit in the US, which I think has a lot of relevance here:
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23653855/covid-transit-fares-buses-subways-crisis
I wonder if this assumption that nobody questions that DSTT2 is necessary for capacity is really about maximizing chances for federal funding. Independent of actual ridership, the higher the ridership estimates, the better the project ranks against transit projects in other cities. Thus, saying that the capacity of DSTT2 is not actually needed after all weakens the case for federal money for Link extensions to Tacoma and Everett, so even if each and every board member secretly believes that DSTT2 is a waste, they can never say it.
Of course, this point is likely all moot anyway, as federal funding for transit has been dying a slow death for the past 40 years and is not nearly non existent anyway. But, it would not surprise me the least if every statement coming out of board members’ mouths was carefully guarded to avoid being used as an excuse to move Everett/Tacoma Link further down in the federal funding queue.
I wonder if this assumption that nobody questions that DSTT2 is necessary for capacity is really about maximizing chances for federal funding. Independent of actual ridership, the higher the ridership estimates, the better the project ranks against transit projects in other cities. Thus, saying that the capacity of DSTT2 is not actually needed after all weakens the case for federal money for Link extensions to Tacoma and Everett, so even if each and every board member secretly believes that DSTT2 is a waste, they can never say it.
Of course, this point is likely all moot anyway, as federal funding for transit has been dying a slow death for the past 40 years and is nearly non existent anyway. But, it would not surprise me the least if every statement coming out of board members’ mouths was carefully guarded to avoid being used as an excuse to move Everett/Tacoma Link further down in the federal funding queue.
Anecdote: the ~8am RapidRide D bus was fully crush-loaded leaving Ballard that it had to skip the Dravus stop – I don’t think I’ve see the D skip a stop for lack of space in the morning since early 2020 (but I’ve also been catching later buses or the 15X in the morning). I think there’s been maybe one or two other times in the evening where the bus has been full in the past few months. Ridership is slowly but surely returning – and with it, I’ll be curious to see the annual ridership report and if they observe a more systemic return of crush loads and stop-skipping. Amazon’s return to office in May will be interesting to see.
Interview with Sound Transit CEO Julie Timm.
There’s good info on how she plans to tackle rider experience and operations.
https://mynorthwest.com/3865029/6-months-in-sound-transit-ceo-julie-timm-sits-down-with-sully/
Since there is no other open thread yet…
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/28/technology/carlos-moreno-15-minute-cities-conspiracy-theories.html
A discussion on recent conspiracy theories about the “15 minute city” idea, and how it has been affecting the researcher who (in part) drove the concept a decade or so ago. Paywall since NYT.
Let me see if I have this right. 15-minute cities are really a leftist global authoritarian plot to leash citizens to their neighborhoods under the guise of fighting climate change, and if people want to leave their 15-minute zones, they will first have to get permission from the government? People who leave their zones without permission will be charged with the crime of contributing to climate change, and will have to go before a ecosocialist-antifa tribunal?
There’s no other way!
You won’t believe how they plan on how to enforce it: robot dogs.
“Return to your sector, stranger, or prepare to be formally de-clawed!”