A few more changes in the downtown Link tunnel.
At Westlake Station, the eastern escalator/stairs to the platforms are in alcoves. A few months ago ST moved the ticket machines (TVMs) from the back walls to the front of the alcoves. Now ST has added a yellow stripe on the floor in front of the alcoves, to make a psychological doorway. The ORCA readers stand on the stripe.So at each alcove, the TVMs are in the middle. The stripe goes left and right from the TVMs to the ORCA readers on the side walls. The elevator is on the left wall next to the reader. A “fare paid zone” sign is in front of the stripe. This makes the readers and fare-paid zone more visible, and is part of an upcoming fare-checking revival. The arrangement is especially prominent at the northeast alcove (southbound), because there’s a second elevator up to the monorail, and another yellow stripe and reader goes at right angles around it.
ST’s email update says University Street and Pioneer Square stations have been retrofitted too, and International District is in progress. When I was at Intl Dist, half the surface readers were gone, presumably for relocation. ST says to tap at the platform readers if the surface readers aren’t in place yet.
The train arrival announcements in the downtown tunnel have a new voice and wording. It sounds like the BART voice but female. Do we call it “Mrs Bart”?
The next-train displays are on. ST has them on temporarily to test how accurate they are and where the errors are coming from. They were accurate for four trains I took. The numbers in the downtown stations are nicely large. The northern stations have their own characteristic displays and the old voice.
This is an open thread.
I have been using the Cap Hill station a lot recently and the signs seem somewhat accurate. It has completely missed at least 1 train I was on (e.g. it said the next train was 21 minutes away when there was one in-between). Luckily, I used the Transit App which I’ve found to be much more reliable (a fact I don’t fully understand, how can a 3rd party app have higher accuracy than the physical signs?). Also, I found the graphical presentation on the signs at the top of the escalators is a bit confusing. I *think* that it’s supposed to be showing the northbound trains on the left and the southbound on the right, but it’s just two columns of text somewhat munged together.
Either way, there is visible progress which is great, I’m sure they can keep iterating on it.
> Luckily, I used the Transit App which I’ve found to be much more reliable (a fact I don’t fully understand, how can a 3rd party app have higher accuracy than the physical signs?).
@Stephen
The Transit App and other apps like One Busaway use the GTFS api server data from Sound Transit. This GTFS is the same across all transit agencies so many times these third party mobile apps are actually better at using it.
The (PIMS) signs Sound Transit installed then use the GTFS apis to predict what is going on. However unfortunately whatever contractor they are using seems to have trouble actually using the api to read the predictions. It is even more especially odd, considering the existing rapidride bus stations have predictions already and busses are usually harder to predict than trains.
“how can a 3rd party app have higher accuracy than the physical signs?”
Each app has its own algorithm to compensate for the errors in the data. Different apps make different assumptions, and some apps are better than others. It’s like how TikTok is reputed to be better than Instagram at predicting what you’ll want to see.
I just use One Bus Away because I know it started as an open-source student app and is now sponsored by ST, while I don’t know who’s behind the other apps or what their business model is. It may not be the best at predicting but I don’t have TikTok-type qualms about using it.
Amazing to me here in 2023 and its still an issue to get reliable real-time arrival times on major rail lines and bus lines. Its only been commonplace for the last 20 years nevermind the technological advancements since then.
The thing about predicting real-time arrival is that ST is attempting to predict the behavior of human beings. In the case of the 1 Line, the operators are employed by a contractor (Metro) which may provide sufficient training on how to operate the trains safely, but has very limited power to discipline operators for not driving at the ideal speed, dwelling at the platform longer than scheduled, or getting back late from their break. Often, this errancy from Swiss timing is caused by larger crowds, runners holding the door, or failure to wait that extra half minute at the airport.
A great article from the Seattle Times on the escalator situation in the DSLRT.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/an-escalator-is-revived-at-international-district-chinatown-station/#comments
Apparently when ST took over from Metro escalator availability was less than 50% in the old “bus tunnel”, and supposedly only 22% at PSS. Now it is at 96%.
This is what progress looks like.
Hopefully they get the elevators up to the same level of availability, but I hear those components are harder to source right now.
What about the escalator failures at the stations that ST built themselves?
It’s actually been awhile since I encountered a failure at the non-Metro stations that I typically use, which is good, but only anecdotal.
However, ST is currently reporting NO escalator service outages outside of the old bus tunnel. Hopefully that info is up to date.
However, I have heard that ST has had trouble with people hitting the emergency stop button just for “fun”. This is annoying since the escalator goes offline until verified, but it is technically not a “fault”.
And ST designed stations usually have redundant escalators, so they are a lot more fault tolerant than the old bus tunnel stations.
And I still don’t understand why Metro didn’t install down escalators.
But this is all good news.
And ST designed stations usually have redundant escalators, so they are a lot more fault tolerant than the old bus tunnel stations.
I think you have that backwards. The UW Station (which is very deep) didn’t initially have stairs. When the escalators broke, there was a huge line up as people had to take the elevators. ST now allows people to use the emergency stairs when that happens (https://www.soundtransit.org/blog/platform/take-stairs-new-backup-plan-escalator-issues-uw-station). Kudos to ST staff for their backup measures, but the design was faulty. You should always have stairs.
And I still don’t understand why Metro didn’t install down escalators.
I think the Pioneer Square and University Street Station have them. Those stations are fairly complicated, with multiple entrances and exits, so it may vary depending on where you are headed. In general, it is common for stations not to have down escalators. The deeper they are, the more likely it is to add them, which is probably why they are in those stations, and not something like CID. At one point Pioneer Square had the longest, steepest escalator west of the Mississippi. This isn’t surprising if you ride it (your first thought is “Wow, this is steep … and long”).
Anyway, ST has certainly gotten a hold of their escalator/elevator problem. Whether it is better contractors, better management or the new technology they added (to track outages) things are definitely getting better, across all of the stations.
“I think the Pioneer Square and University Street Station have them.”
Only to the mezzanine.
Metro did not put in down escalators to the platform level at any of the four DSTT they ST uses. It’s about 40 painful steps down.
Apparently, they both thought that arthritis is a rare condition. So rare that pre-ADA elevators are all that’s needed.
I believe that the lack of down escalators to the platforms is because of the narrowness of those platforms. The stairs were thought essential for safety, and once they’re included, there is only width for one escalator. Open the Link below and expand the image.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Link_Light_Rail_train_at_University_Street_Station.jpg
[Continued]
One can certainly criticize the narrowness of the platforms, but remember that to have widened them the seven feet necessary to accommodate another escalator would have required widening the station box by fourteen feet all the say to the surface.
The system would have been much better with center platforms and left-hand running, but that was not considered safe and “natural” for a bus tunnel.
Tom, there are wider spaces underneath Fifth Ave (Westlake) and the entire CID platforms are much wider (southbound even has an air well next to it). So for those two stations it looks much easier to add down escalators.
It isn’t lost on me that the new CID North/ Pioneer Square proposal does nothing to improve the existing vertical access difficulty. It’s perplexing when ST engineers say a vault can’t be breached for a down escalator on the other side but then say it can be breached for a connecting underground walkway at Pioneer Square (with a proposed elevation change halfway in that walkway).
My own anecdotal experiences over the past few weeks hasn’t matched L’s at all. On my last two trips thru Sea-Tac, there was a broken and blocked-off escalators to the platform. Similarly, on my last couple of trips to my office downtown, I encountered non-working escalators at Northgate. I’m also becoming skeptical of ST’s self-reporting of vertical conveyance outages, e.g., the last one I encountered at Sea-Tac Station never appeared on the alert page.
Progress, yes. But still lots of room for further improvement in my book.
Al, you are right about Westlake Center and CID. That certainly begs the question why theory haven’t been added at least there.
Isn’t the connecting tunnel to North of CID supposed to connect to PSS at the Mezzanine level? Connecting directly to the northbound platform would tempt people traveling from NB Line 1 to EB Line 2 to run across the trackways. Very unwise.
Urban Institute released an interesting article where one with a tool can estimate how much allowing 3/4-plexs, “legalizaing” commercial/industrial to residential, zone larger 5/6 five-over-1 apartment complexes would add to housing. Though note most of these estimated zoning changes are bounded by staying near transit stations (as that is what most of the Washington upzoning bills use)
> We considered four zoning changes. The “Plexify” reform would allow up to four-flat units on lots that currently allow only the construction of single-family residential homes. The “Missing Middle” reform would allow up to 12 units per lot on lots that now allow the construction of 3 to 11 units. The “Multiply” reform would double the allowed density of housing units on all lots within a quarter mile of transit stations. And the “Legalize” reform would allow large-scale multifamily residential buildings on lots where only commercial, retail, or public uses are currently allowed to be built.
https://apps.urban.org/features/affordable-housing-shortage-and-zoning/
Most interesting takeaway I had was that conversion of commercial to residential land didn’t seem to add that much housing.
Secondly, Bellevue oddly even with the highest level of proposed zoning changes has a very small change of 28k units versus say Bothell with 20k or Seattle with 270k. Not sure if it some oddity in how it’s calculated or if all the surrounding Bellevue stations already have proposed multi family housing. (I spot checked and it seems the calculations with Spring District and Bel/red seem too low)
Third, it seems the current legalize 3-4 plex apartments (farther range) bring the same number of increased units as allowing larger apartment complexes (only within a quarter mile) for most cities.
I think the tearing down a single family home and putting 3-4 units on it may make sense in Detroit or other rust belt cities, but there’s no way that could lead to affordable housing in Seattle. Buying a house, tearing it down and getting the permits and utility work done for 3-4 units puts the “ready-to-build” lot price at 250-400k, and the finished product at something like 700k? If you’re looking to buy a sweet condo for 700k, this helps you.
I think Seattle may see some more density with new development, but it won’t be affordable. New housing is built for people with money. The worst thing about rezoning R1 (SFH) is the places with the cheapest house (and the most non-White people) will be the most impacted. Rainer Beach, Columbia City…. these are the ‘hoods that will get most of “missing middle” housing young, educated, White urbanists crow about. Yuppies move in, everybody else moves out.
Rezoning leads to richer, Whiter cities. Hard to imagine Seattle more rich and White, but that’s been the trend for a couple of decades now.
“I think Seattle may see some more density with new development, but it won’t be affordable.”
That’s not the point. Of course it will be market rate. You’re making the same fallacy Daniel does. The point is that it relives some of the pressure of demand. If we don’t build it, prices will go higher than if we do, because there will be more scarcity. And if a house is replaced by four townhouses, each of those units and yards will be smaller than the original house, so they will cost less. The price may be $400K, so only for the solidly middle class, but that’s less than $700K or $1 million that the house would sell for. And if the house is replaced by a McMansion (as allowed under single-family zoning), it still houses only one family but now it’s a richer family.
Affordable housing for those making under $75K will have to be subsidized. It wouldn’t have if we’d nipped it in the bud twenty years ago, but now we’ve let it grow into a crisis of high inequality and unaffordability, so we’ll have to have a lot of subsidized housing to compensate for it. That’s no reason not to build more market-rate housing.
Mike Orr,
Subsidized housing? Really? You want to go down that road as a solution? I’ve lived next to Salishan for years. It’s a good mixed income project… but it did absolutely nothing for housing affordability in Tacoma. The city would need a project 10 times that size to make any sort of difference. Where would that kind of money come from?
Let’s leave Seattle out of this for a minute. Let’s look at a couple of smaller cities with housing problems first…. Tacoma and Spokane. Either of these cities could immediately fill 5,000 low income units with folks already on low income housing wait lists. Yes the need is that great! Currently the price of building low income housing is sitting at something close to 350K per unit. And no, we can’t lower the price. Nice things cost money.
So the cost of 5,000 units of subsidized housing in Tacoma would be …..
$ 1,750,000,000… This is a lot of money!!!
So how many people live in Tacoma or Spokane? Over 200K, right? So how much money would our 5,000 units cost each resident? Off the top of my head, a little over $8,000?
Where on earth would Tacoma come up with 8 grand per person?
I think the tearing down a single family home and putting 3-4 units on it may make sense in Detroit or other rust belt cities, but there’s no way that could lead to affordable housing in Seattle. Buying a house, tearing it down and getting the permits and utility work done for 3-4 units puts the “ready-to-build” lot price at 250-400k, and the finished product at something like 700k?
I don’t think you are looking at the big picture here. The “ready-to-build” lot prices are a reflection of the regulations. Consider this: There are a lot of small houses on big lots. Sometimes those lots get subdivided. Sometimes you keep the old house, sometimes the old house is so small it isn’t worth it. But because the minimum lot size in Seattle is very large, subdivisions don’t happen often enough. Or when they do happen, you still don’t end up with that many lots. A 20,000 square foot lot can only be split into two lots. Two. Of course this pushes up the cost of building.
Then there is the cost of permitting, which you alluded to. There has been a dramatic change in construction fairly recently in Seattle. They aren’t building nearly as many large, six-story buildings. Partly this is due to regulations (both old and new) on large construction. It is often just too costly to jump through the hoops and pay the various fees. In contrast, they are building dozens of triplexes. But these aren’t simple, inexpensive triplexes. These are bizarre triplexes, that all follow the same pattern. They consist of a main house, an ADU and a DADU. This pushes up the cost dramatically over a regular triplex (or quad) but they are allowed everywhere in Seattle (unlike normal duplexes, which are only allowed on a tiny subset of the privately owned land).
It is all about the regulations. Of course labor and the cost of materials pushes up the cost, but we live in a largely global economy. Labor and material costs in Germany, France or Japan are roughly the same as they are here (expensive) and yet in those countries, building is much, much cheaper.
Put it this way. Imagine if Seattle really focused on the housing shortage and streamlined the permitting process. Also imagine if the minimum lot size was dropped to 1,000 square feet, with no setbacks (in any direction). Now also imagine they allow multiplexes on every lot. There would be a huge construction boom, and prices would drop dramatically. That doesn’t mean that you could get a house with a view for cheap, but you could certainly find a place to live in say, Lake City, without spending a fortune.
It also means that if they build public houses (AKA social housing) it has a much bigger impact, and is much cheaper to build. It is damn near impossible to build yourself out of the problem with public housing in the current environment. Hell, it isn’t clear if there is enough land for sale to actually build! Once you start buying up all the land, the builders you are competing with pay way more to build, and market rate prices only go down a little bit.
In contrast, if you have a more natural market, it is relatively easy to build enough housing for lower-income people. If a condo costs $150K, and a townhouse costs $300K, it really isn’t that hard to buy a few and lower the price (or build new buildings). We are nowhere near that level, because of the various regulations that limit the ability of builders to construct new housing.
tacomee, it would issue bonds and collect the $8,000 over thirty years to pay them off. That’s about $270 (probably $500 with the amortized interest) per taxable “household” per year.
It’s only the Legislature’s strict constraints on municipal bonding — and voters’ unwillingness to assume the burden — that makes it “impossible”.
Tom Terrific,
“It’s only the Legislature’s strict constraints on municipal bonding — and voters’ unwillingness to assume the burden — that makes it “impossible”.
What part of impossible don’t you understand here? I can’t imagine the City of Tacoma, or Spokane bonding over 1.5 billion for low income housing. I’m not sure who would even loan them the money if the voters would approve it (they wouldn’t). Inslee wants to bond something like 4 billion for the entire State for affordable housing and I doubt he gets that done. A billion is a whole lot of money to pay back.
In the real world, cities have to make hard choices…. housing for subways? And no! Seattle can’t have it all.
And in the end….. 5,000 units of lower income housing wouldn’t be enough to really fix anything.
Tom misses a critical point why cities prefer levies over bonds: levies need 50% to pass, bonds 60%.
This fall Seattle voters will be asked to approve the new housing levy (in addition I guess to I-135 that authorizes up to $4 billion in municipal bonds for new housing IIRC). The total seven-year cost is $970 million and will cost the average homeowner between $300 and $500/year (the difference is due to the future property rate being unknown due to lower values for office buildings that then reallocates that property tax to other properties through a higher tax rate). According to the city the levy will create 3100 new affordable units. https://housing.seattle.gov/seattle-housing-levy-signed/#sthash.yNvH5QnV.dpbs
The other point Tom misses is bonds generally require that the money be spent within a short time frame from when the bonds are issued. One thing Tacomee has raised in the past and many miss is this area has been building housing as fast as it can for nearly a decade in perfect building conditions (increasing AMI, increasing population, increasing high paying jobs, lots of labor, very low interest rates).
At least the housing levy addresses the real issue: folks who cannot afford market rate housing need public subsidies, when new construction is the least affordable per sf. Will it create 3100 new units? I highly doubtg it. All the upzoning claims are pretty much junk because this region — according to the GMPC — already has zoning in place to accommodate 1 million new residents by 2039 when those new residents don’t look like they are coming. The good news is vacancy rental rates suggest this region is moving toward a stasis or housing glut, although the units are all market rate which is quite high especially if new because AMI is quite high.
It is ironic however that the levy asks those low-income folks struggling to pay market rate housing in some of the most marginal Seattle areas and oldest housing because that is what they can afford to pay more through higher property taxes so someone else who probably made some unwise life decisions gets a brand-new free apartment forever, without the need to become sober or work. Pretty sweet deal, which is why many consider it a housing lottery.
Interesting article in Sunday’s Seattle Times about an issue I have tried to explain: housing affordability is not so much the cost of housing, but the ratio of income needed to afford housing in any city.
Recently the National Chamber of Commerce compared 170 of the most populous U.S. cities with zero being the most unaffordable.
Tacoma: rank 22. Median household income: $109,134. Yearly housing costs: $24,780. % spending more than 30% on housing: 36.9%. % spending under 20% of their income on housing: 36%.
Seattle: rank 108. Median household income: $189,767. Yearly housing costs: $35,904. % spending more than 30% on housing: 25.8%. % spending under 20% on housing: 47.2%.
Spokane: rank 112. Median household income: $86,101. Yearly housing costs: $17,964. % spending more than 30% on housing: 25.5%. % spending less than 20% of their income on housing: 42.2%.
[The other city was Vancouver rated 126].
The article also compared how fast housing costs have risen in different areas of WA over the last five years:
Spokane: 82.6%.
Tacoma/Lakewood: 63.8%.
Seattle/Bellevue/Kent: 45.1%.
Portland/Vancouver/Hillsboro: 40.4%.
The article suggested rising housing costs in Tacoma and to some extent Spokane are from Seattleites and folks from CA moving in.
“the ratio of income needed to afford housing in any city.”
That’s what has been rising. It’s what the crisis is all about.
” % spending more than 30% on housing: 25.8%.”
Think about that again. A quarter of the population is finding it hard to afford a necessity. And it’s climbing higher and higher. And it’s happening almost everywhere in the country now. Even if you can afford Spokane or Tacoma, you’re raising the price for locals who can’t.
The post-pandemic situation keeps changing in contradictory ways, so it’s hard to tell whether rents and home prices are really slowing down or reversing, or whether this is just a few months’ volatility. So we have to assume the long-term problem hasn’t been solved, because every time we’ve thought that in the past twenty years we’ve been wrong.
“Rezoning leads to richer, Whiter cities. to imagine Seattle more rich and White, but that’s been the trend for a couple of decades now.”
Not really, your confusing gentrification and rezoning with each other. And yes they are both distinct concepts. NYC Planning Commission actually studied changes in the racial makeup of neighborhoods with the levels of rezoning and density that happened in NYC over a period of 10 years. They found that low, average, and high housing development changes in a neighborhood of <2.5%, 2.5-7.4%, 7.5-14.9% new housing developments respectively had positive impacts for Asians & Hispanics, whites having a mixed bag with no clear trajectory or correlation towards housing supply increases with whites seeing of negative impacts of population in low housing supply developments, not changing much in average housing supply developments, and moderately positive impact in high housing supply development. But had negative impacts for Blacks across the board in all three categories. But NYC also studied neighborhoods that had very high levels of housing supply increases of 15%+ and found that Blacks had a positive increase in population alongside the other racial groups.
It is a matter of the levels of housing development that is built to help keep prices stable and healthy rather than saying rezoning is solely responsible for making whiter cities in Seattle & Tacoma.
Sources:
The Housing Crisis is The Everything Crisis
https://youtu.be/4ZxzBcxB7Zc
New York City Department of City Planning | Population Division. 2021. Dynamics of Racial/Hispanic Composition in NYC Neighborhoods. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/46a91a58447d4024afd00771eec1dd23
Mike, I don’t know if the percentage of residents in Seattle paying more than 30% of their income for housing has increased or not over the last decade. Probably, since increasing AMI has created more of a gulf. Don’t forget, in Seattle 47.2% of households pay less than 20% of their income toward housing (the article suggested some of this is elderly residents who live in housing they have paid off). The article was really about the increasing unaffordability of Tacoma.
Two issues not discussed in the article are:
1. A city with a rapidly growing population and AMI will “gentrify”, meaning older and more affordable housing units are replaced with new “market” rate units that reflect the new AMI. That is exactly what is happening in Tacoma, and began happening in Seattle a decade ago. It isn’t just the creation of new higher cost housing, but the replacement of the older more affordable housing, that is the double whammy. The poorer folks are never going to be able to afford the new housing geared toward the new higher AMI, but they also are losing the older more affordable housing that is being replaced by newer higher cost housing. Some think simply creating more supply of new housing will somehow lower housing costs, without realizing those new units are replacing existing housing.
2. The percentage of residents who live alone or are in a household with one income. Obviously the more incomes in a household the lower the ratio any one income earner has to pay toward housing. For example, in Seattle AMI for an individual is $115,000, whereas according to the Chamber study household income in Seattle $189,767.
“the replacement of the older more affordable housing”
What you’re not getting is that the older buildings that aren’t being replaced are rising too! Blocking development does not mean the remaining older buildings will remain affordable. I lived in a 1920s studio with dodgy water pressure from 2005 to 2010 and it rose from $500 $750 and now I hear it’s $1600. That’s the same building with no improvements. My current 1 BR, built in 2003, has since 2010 from $1300 to $1925. Mark Dublin, an earlier commentator, had his Ballard apartment priced out from under him and had to move to Olympia. Saying that older buildings will remain affordable if we leave them as is, is just plain wrong.
Gentrification is when one neighborhood rises in value while the surrounding neighborhoods remain the same. What’s been happening in Pugetopolis is the entire metropolitan area is getting more expensive. The last holdouts like Tacoma, Everett, and Auburn have collapsed. That’s not just people flocking to a newly-hip neighborhood. It’s people desperate to find housing anywhere.
Daniel, or Mike, or anyone, can you explain this to me? It’s said that 20% of the apts in this bldg next to Bel-Red/130th station will be set aside for those earning up to 80% of the AMI. If 80% of the AMI for a single person is 60K/year, then how do they calculate the rent in that building for that 80% AMI person? Does that person then pay 80% of whatever the market rate rent for a unit in that building is?
https://vulcanrealestate.com/projects/ondina/
“Saying that older buildings will remain affordable if we leave them as is, is just plain wrong.”
What I said Mike is leaving older buildings as is will leave them MORE affordable than if they are replaced with new construction in a high AMI market. Incomes have risen too in all bands during that same time period. You can’t stop gentrification in a city with rising population and rising AMI, especially if the folks moving in have more wealth (e.g. selling their home in CA).
The reality is there isn’t any way to require older buildings to not be developed (unless market conditions depress development), especially in more desirable neighborhoods. So we replace more affordable existing units with new less affordable units. A lot of folks I know think that kind of gentrification is all good, and would probably point out Seattle has always had a percentage of citizens who paid more than 30% of their income in housing, maybe even more than 25.8% today, and now Seattle has all this brand-new luxury housing and more high-end restaurants, wine bars, malls, and so on. It wasn’t that long ago Seattle used to be pretty run down. Quirky and charming without so much crime, but still run down, with a much lower AMI.
“Market rate” housing only means the market determines the price or rent. Age of construction, size of unit, location, amenities, all influence the price. The reality is Seattle is 108/170 in terms of affordability for the 170 most populous cities in the U.S.
If the article tells us anything it is buy your housing. Most of the folks in every listed city paying less than 20% of their income in housing bought long ago at lower prices and over the years have paid down their mortgage, and recently refinanced at incredible interest rates. Unless they are super wealthy. Buying in Tacoma just five years ago would have been a smart move, and in Spokane (although for 30 years my brother who lives in Spokane lamented his house in a very nice neighborhood had never appreciated like in this area, and now that housing is appreciating in Spokane they complain about all the progressive Seattleites moving in and ruining Spokane.
Sam, IMO 80% is phony. But developers don’t think their market rate tenants will want to live with folks who earn below 80% AMI. In cases where affordable housing set asides are below 80% AMI they prefer paying a fee in lieu of.
20% is a pretty high set aside unless significant additional height is granted. Usually it is 10% (on MI it is 10% at 60% AMI for an additional 1-3 stories but we haven’t had any new development in nearly ten years). Most Seattle developers opt for the fee in lieu of so the area being gentrified like Columbia City ends having very little income mix.
Depending on the AMI used (Bellevue as a whole is $127,000/yr. while King Co. as a whole is $106,000/yr.) rent will be $2540/mo. or $2120/mo. for a single person earning 80% AMI. One problem is some codes allow the affordable units to be smaller than the market rate for the same number of bedrooms, and reserve the studios for the “affordable housing” that of course is screened very carefully (and sometimes exclude onsite parking). The biggest shortage in affordable housing is a 3+ bedroom unit/house that can house a family.
If the units are for sale (condos) usually the monthly HOA fee — which is not subject to affordability mandates — makes the unit unaffordable, and today getting a mortgage on a condo is tough enough. There was a recent article I posted on this blog in which a developer in Sodo could not sell affordable units in a new project even at very attractive prices because the HOA dues alone were $1200/mo.
Cities like Bellevue like 80% AMI affordable housing because it looks like it is meeting its affordable housing goals while avoiding mixing income levels in these new expensive projects. Cities like Seattle like the fee in lieu of because then they have all this money to play around with and waste, although the neighborhoods being gentrified end up with no income variation because there are no affordable units in the new projects because the developer paid a fee in lieu of.
housing affordability is not so much the cost of housing, but the ratio of income needed to afford housing in any city.
That is an oversimplification. If prices are really high, then of course the only people who live there will *eventually* be wealthy people. That doesn’t mean it is a good situation. It means that many have been priced out of the market. They can no longer afford to live in the city. Cities in transition will have a higher ratio of people who can’t afford to live there. They will eventually move (unless housing prices drop).
What happened in Seattle is that lots of jobs were added, and the housing supply did not keep up. This lead to a rapid rise in housing costs. Housing prices have started to level off, but it is still too expensive for a lot of people. So they move. Now those other places are getting expensive.
Zoning effects things because it puts an artificial limit on the supply of housing. Simply put, it increases the cost of new housing, which in turn increases the cost of old housing. Other things do as well (cost of lumber, labor, etc.) but zoning has the biggest impact. Other regulations (such as design review) are similar to zoning, in that they add to the cost of new housing (thus driving up the cost of old housing). If Seattle didn’t grow so fast, the old zoning probably would have been fine. People would not have been priced out of the market. If the zoning regulations were more liberal (as they are in other countries) then we would have been fine as well. We would have built ourselves out of it. But instead we artificially limited the supply of places, while simultaneously adding a lot of new jobs.
What I said Mike is leaving older buildings as is will leave them MORE affordable than if they are replaced with new construction in a high AMI market.
Only if they have exactly the same number of units. Imagine this scenario: One old house on a giant lot. It gets replaced with a new house. Yes, it will definitely be more expensive. Otherwise, why would they even build the new house?
Second scenario: That house gets replaced by a 10,000 unit apartment building. Is each apartment more expensive than the old house? Of course not. Each apartment is way cheaper than the old house. If you add more units, you get cheaper housing. That is basically the only way some cities are affordable. If Tokyo had Seattle’s zoning, every neighborhood in Tokyo would be much more expensive than Seattle. That clearly isn’t the case — in fact it is the opposite. They build enough places to live. We prevent it.
“What happened in Seattle is that lots of jobs were added, and the housing supply did not keep up. This lead to a rapid rise in housing costs. Housing prices have started to level off, but it is still too expensive for a lot of people. So they move. Now those other places are getting expensive.”
I agree with your two first sentences. It was the fact that the new jobs had a very high AMI, not just the new jobs. Had all the jobs that were added been low paying housing prices would not have risen. Yes, when housing in a city gets too high, even in the “corners” of the city as the article in the Times calls formerly affordable parts of the city, folks move. In this case to Tacoma and Spokane.
“Zoning effects things because it puts an artificial limit on the supply of housing. Simply put, it increases the cost of new housing, which in turn increases the cost of old housing. Other things do as well (cost of lumber, labor, etc.) but zoning has the biggest impact.
“We would have built ourselves out of it. But instead we artificially limited the supply of places, while simultaneously adding a lot of new jobs.”
The reality is our existing zoning can accommodate another 1 million residents, who it doesn’t look like are coming. Folks on this blog simply refuse to accept the GMPC’s findings.
Any city that is growing rapidly will likely have a housing shortage because only so many new housing units can be built by builders, and builders wait until the folks show up before building, so there is always a lag. People can’t live in “zoning”. They live in housing.
The last ten years have been the goldilocks for local builders with rising AMI, rising population, low-cost labor and materials, and historically low interest rates and endless amount of housing zoning, but we could not build ourselves out of it. Housing prices have levelled off because the cost of borrowing, which has levelled off construction although the vacancy rate suggests we have built ourselves out of a housing shortage, but not affordable housing. All that new construction destroyed more affordable housing than it ever created (which was none if market rate). You simply can’t build affordable housing (50% AMI) if new construction no matter what size.
In fact, a city can never build itself out of it, if the “it” is affordable housing. New construction destroys affordable housing, for good or bad. Yes, builders will eventually build enough housing to house those earning 100%+ AMI, but simply can’t build affordable housing in an expensive city, and don’t want to. They want to buy low (older existing housing) and sell high (new expensive housing).
This area has been building as fast as it can, housing prices continued to soar, as did AMI. We have the zoning for millions more units. But the builders are slowing down due to rising interest rates, and the market rate housing market is looking like a glut. Just today there are 2026 apartments listed for rent in Seattle on Zillow. https://www.zillow.com/seattle-wa/apartments/
“the new jobs had a very high AMI, not just the new jobs. Had all the jobs that were added been low paying housing prices would not have risen.”
The first sentence is true; the second is false. Prices rise or fall based on competition for each unit. In other words, how many inquiries or offers the owner gets in the first week or the first month, and how long they’re willing to leave the unit empty to wait for a better offer.
If an influx of higher-API people come and there are plenty of units to choose from, then if one owner tries to jack up the price, they’ll go to the next building a block away that didn’t raise it. It will be difficult to sustain a price increase, much less impose it citywide on all units. In this environment, somebody can look at a place, take a week to decide, and it will likely still be available at the same price. That’s what it was like in Seattle in the 80s and 90s.
If an influx of same-income people come and the vacancy rate is less than 5%, they start competing with each other and it’s easier to raise prices, even though AMI hasn’t changed. At the extreme there will be multiple people looking at the unit the first day, and it will go in a day or a week. Some tenants/buyers will readily accept increases or even offer more than asking, in order to get the unit they want or any reasonable unit. So one person wins, four people lose. Naturally, richer people can pay more and are willing to pay more. So the top 10% or 25% get what they want, and the bottom 50% is shut out. But AMI hasn’t changed. It’s just that there are enough richer people to sustain the higher prices, and more of them become cost-burdened. The salient factor isn’t income but competition.
If a movie theater raises ticket prices from $10 to $20 and says, “You all are making more money on average; you should pay me more to see a movie,” they’ll say, “F*** you, I won’t see a movie at that price-gouging price.” Or maybe they’ll watch only one favorite movie a year, and skip the others until the price come back to a reasonable level. But housing is different because it’s essential. When there’s a shortage, it forces people to take it anyway and become cost-burdened. We should work to prevent the shortage.
Not all zoning capacity is equally attractive to owners. If a lot is zoned four stories and there’s already a two-story building on it, it may not be worth tearing down just to get two more. But if the zoning were six stories, then it would. That’s what happened on Broadway in the 2000s. A lot of this “1 million” zoning capacity is not the right size or shape to be attractive to build out, so it’s unusable.
The change to 4/6-plex minimum is a small one, so it will take at least a decade or more to see if it increases supply significantly. We should at minimum expand urban villages outward to provide more guaranteed-attractive supply, and that will also be close to frequent transit corridors as we both want.
Aren’t “levies” a part of the 1% increase limitation?
You make them sound so easy, Daniel. Why are there even any municipal bonds available for purchase?
@Sam
“Daniel, or Mike, or anyone, can you explain this to me?…”
A lot of the infirmation presented above is incorrect. There are a lot of factors involved with income-restricted rental units based on which program the property owner is participating in.
For a jumping off point, with regard to Seattle at least, I would suggest perusing the current schedules posted on the city’s Office Of Housing site linked here:
https://www.seattle.gov/housing/property-managers/income-and-rent-limits
A lot of developers are utilizing the MFTE program, the 8, 12, 20-year property tax exemption program authorized by the state way back in 1995 originally. The jurisdictions that participate have codified the state’s rules and regulations in their own municipal codes, but the basis is still RCW 84.14.
Here’s one example from a large MF rental property that was recently redone that participates in Lynnwood’s MFTE program. (I’m sure there are dozens in your neck of the woods on the eastside as well.)
https://www.liveatnovo52.com/floorplans
Finally, some additional updated info on the MFTE program can be found on the state’s Dept of Commerce site:
https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-management-topics/planning-for-housing/multi-family-housing-property-tax-exemption-program/
Happy reading!
The MFTE is not as popular on the Eastside as in Seattle. MI adopted the MFTE in 2011 but no developer used it. According to folks I talked to developers did not think the tax exemption was worth the affordable housing set aside (depending on AMI), which according to them is better suited for lower end projects.
Then some folks who were actively involved in the rezoning and MFTE fight over Columbia City moved to MI for the schools and became active in politics and convinced the council to repeal the MFTE because they thought it was a bad deal for the city because the affordability mandate ended after 12 years but not the tax exemption (on the affordable units). Of course no developer has ever opted for the MFTE on MI since 2011.
The MFTE does not lower the property levy and my understanding is applies only to the affordable units. The rest of the citizens still must pay taxes to fund the levy although new construction is exempt from the levy cap so raises both total property taxes and the cap. A council can raise the levy 1%/year without a vote of the citizens, or ask citizens to vote to “raise the levy” for parks, housing, transportation etc. The MFTE is just a fairly small exemption for certain affordable housing. The keys are number of units. AMI cut off, and amount of tax exemption. Like on MI developers don’t opt for the MFTE unless it benefits them.
MI’s affordability program is different. A building in the town center is limited to 2 stories unless it provides “significant public amenities” which includes affordable housing, and can then obtain additional height up to 4-5 stories. But the affordable set aside is permanent and there is no tax exemption. As I noted before the set aside is 10% at 60% AMI with no fee in lieu of. Maybe that is why our town center hasn’t had any major development in 10 years despite some vacant lots and huge surface parking lots. Developers don’t like affordable housing set asides, and more often than not opt for the fee in lieu of in high end projects (which is unlikely in Lynnwood).
The Seattle Times has had a number of articles on the MFTE and the fee in lieu of for affordability mandates. The Times felt the fees in lieu of were too low, were often misspent, and the fee in lieu of defeated the goal of including all income levels in gentrifying neighborhoods and new housing projects that were benefitting from upzoning.
I still think an 80% AMI affordable set aside in a city with an AMI of $127,000 does very little to create real affordable housing — even at 20% —when 30% of gross income is still 2500+ mo. for rent, especially if the developer gets a tax exemption on those units that ends in 12 years. The argument is 80% allows teachers and firefighters to live in the city they work in, but Eastside firefighters make $200,000+, and those teachers, police and firefighters bought SFH long ago in Black Diamond or Enumclaw because they don’t want to live in a small rental unit with a family and dog at $2500/mo. building no equity.
Developers building high end projects (Bellevue) don’t think very high end market rate tenants (5X AMI) mix well with tenants under 80% AMI. It may be different in gentrifying neighborhoods like Lynnwood. From what I learned during the debate over repealing the MFTE on MI is few understand it or how developers manipulate it and it generally isn’t a good deal for the city but looks good on paper.
Does anyone on this blog live in a housing unit with a reduced rent under the MFTE. I would be interested to hear your experience.
“What happened in Seattle is that lots of jobs were added, and the housing supply did not keep up. This lead to a rapid rise in housing costs. ”
I agree with your two first sentences. It was the fact that the new jobs had a very high AMI, not just the new jobs. Had all the jobs that were added been low paying housing prices would not have risen.
Sorry, but that is ridiculous. Demand went up dramatically. Supply did not keep up. At that point, prices rise. People spend more of their income on rent. This is just basic economics.
Remember the oil crisis in the 1970s? We had stagflation. Unemployment was high. The average income of workers went down*. And yet people paid more for gasoline. Way more. Why? Because they *needed* gas, and there was *less* gasoline. Supply and demand.
Same thing here. People *need* a place to live. There is no alternative. Keep in mind, the market is largely targeting the masses. They are adding as many places as possible. The only place where they tear down an old house and put in a fancy new house is where they only allow houses. They aren’t tearing down dumpy old apartments and building big houses. Despite the rules that discourage it, they are adding more units — as many units as are allowed under the law. Thus you have houses (which appeal to higher income people) being replaced by a lot of small apartments (which appeal to low income people).
* https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Median%20Household%20Income.pdf
Thank you, Tlsgwm, I wanted to understand this from the perspective of a tenant. Let’s see if I have this right … If a certain number of units in an apt bldg are designated for those earning up to 80% of the area’s AMI, and let’s say the AMI for the area is $60K, and 80% of $60K is $48K, then someone earning $48K/year, or $4000/month, would qualify to rent a designated apt in that building for 30% of their monthly income, or $1200/month. Does that sound right?
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/lynnwoodcitywashington
Lynnwood has a lower AMI and average housing costs than I would have expected. Sam’s numbers under the MFTE (at 80%) are pretty close to Lynnwood.
Ross Bleakney
How much do you think labor and materials are per square foot for stick built residential housing? Nothing fancy…. hardy plank siding, vinyl flooring, builder grade carpet. Even if you have free land, free utility hookup, zero permit fees….new housing is still expensive– it wouldn’t be affordable for a big chunk of Seattle residents no matter what the “zoning” was and even if Seattle decided to build it city owned property.
When the I-135 crowd, (social housing) sits down with a couple of bankers and a couple of builders over the next year, they’re going to be very disappointed. There’s no free lunch.
The Seattle Times has an article today reprinted from the NY Times about the “brutal” market for “affordable housing”, by which they mean subsidized housing. Most affordable housing is built by private developers through partnerships with public agencies. The costs per unit since the beginning of the pandemic have risen dramatically even for barebones construction. The listed causes are: “higher costs for materials and labor, stricter lending practices, rising interest rates and supply chain hiccups.
The Times also has a front-page article that notes one index now ranks Seattle as costly as San Francisco to live, and one of the highest in the nation. The increase in costs in Seattle since the start of the pandemic are:
Gas: 87%
Used vehicles: 39%
Takeout food: 31%
Dairy: 30%
Recreation: 29%
Food and beverages: 24%
New vehicles: 24%
Furnishings: 23%
Housing: 18%
Apparel: 14%
Education: 5%
Medical Care: 4%
Tuition/child care: 4%
I should have pointed out that after MI eliminated its MFTE the legislature amended the MFTE to address some of the concerns that folks who had just moved from Columbia City to MI raised. One of the links in a link Tisgwm provides (his last) is to the 2021 amendments.
https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-management-topics/planning-for-housing/multi-family-housing-property-tax-exemption-program/ Tisgwm’s link.
https://www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-communities/growth-management/growth-management-topics/planning-for-housing/multi-family-housing-property-tax-exemption-program/ link to 2021 amendments.
“High cost areas” are removed from the program. This previously allowed higher rent limit for “affordable” units.20 Any community that currently offers a 12-year property tax exemption based on being a “high cost” area, must remove this provision, and revert to low and moderate income, or in the case of permanently affordable housing, only low income.
Any new conditional certificates should not be based on “high cost” rents. Any projects that are completing should be based on the agreement in the conditional certificate, or may offer new regulations to the applicant at the time of the final certificate.”
fn 20 states:
“20 “High cost area” was defined as a county where the third quarter median house price for the previous year as reported by the Washington center for real estate research at Washington State University is equal to or greater than one hundred thirty% of the statewide median house price published during the same time period”.
Another amendment in 2021 was:
“Low and moderate income households definitions are both revised to require area median income (AMI) for the county, city or metropolitan statistical area where the project is located. Cities, for which AMI reports are available, should review both city and the county median family income, and choose the value that meets local goals, such as aligning with other affordability programs, or addresses regional housing issues. The Washington Center for Real Estate Research Housing Market Data Toolkit provides city specific median income data under RCW 36.70A.610. Commerce will also provide links to available data.”
I haven’t followed the MFTE closely enough since MI eliminated it to see if these amendments have helped some of the abuses that the MI transplants stated had occurred in Columbia City with the MFTE. As Sam’s post points out, and the link I provided that listed AMI and average median housing costs for Lynnwood, the MFTE — depending on which AMI % is used results in dramatically different rents for Bellevue than Lynnwood because Bellevue has an AMI twice that of Lynnwood.
“The Times also has a front-page article that notes one index now ranks Seattle as costly as San Francisco to live”
That seems wrong when rents here are still in the $2000 range and houses are around $700K, while in the Bay Area rents are often $2500 or $3000 or more and houses are well over a million.
The Consumer Price Index uses a “marketbasket” of everyday items to determine a city’s cost index, not just housing. Inflation since the beginning of the pandemic has been higher in Seattle than most other areas, at least 5% higher than recorded in other large cities like NY or LA, more than 18% during the period. Meanwhile wages grew at 16% during that period, which included a drop at the beginning of the pandemic.
Seattle is equal with SF at the top of the index, ahead of LA and NY, and well ahead of Detroit, due to the rise in the price index since the pandemic.
The article does not explain why Seattle’s price index rose higher than other cities when housing was near the bottom of the list of price increases, or why Seattle is so expensive, although my guess is the AMI. Each of the listed cities other than Detroit has some of the highest AMI’s in the U.S. I am always amazed when I visit other cities, including large cities, at how much more expensive this region is than just about anywhere else (except in the past San Francisco).
Remarkably, according to the link I provided yesterday to Lynnwood, Lynnwood is just 16.3 miles to the north and has an AMI and average housing costs 1/2 of Bellevue, which could be a big boon for Lynnwood Link, unless like Tacoma it begins to gentrify. Next stop: Mount Vernon.
I think the future housing goal is to build affordable housing outside Seattle where land and living costs are much lower, along Link routes like Lynwood Link, and the PSRC did state in its 2050 Vision Statement that most future population and housing growth in this region would occur outside King Co.
I think that’s exactly right, Daniel, and that’s why Link is built with the wrong technology to go beyond Northgate and Angle Lake or Midway.
If you want to build a Light Metro, with almost 100% grade separation, use high platforms and third rail power distribution. It doesn’t have to be full-on BART trains running at eighty, but it should be able to reach seventy and get there quickly, with all axles powered.
Unfortunately, that train has left the station…..
No, because the regional goal is also a multi-nodal job market, so Link’s primary goal is to help people travel in/out of their nearby growth centers, and bringing in workers from farther afield is a secondary concern. Snohomish, East King, and Pierce want Link to bring workers into Paine, Bellevue, and Tacoma, respectively. This is why ST3 Link in Paine/Everett, Kirkland/issaquah, and Tacoma needs to look much more like Link in Bel Red or RV and not like Link in North Seattle.
WSBLE is an intra Seattle project, and if they want to go with 100% grade separation then they need to pick a different mode.
“ No, because the regional goal is also a multi-nodal job market, so Link’s primary goal is to help people travel in/out of their nearby growth centers, and bringing in workers from farther afield is a secondary concern. Snohomish, East King, and Pierce want Link to bring workers into Paine, Bellevue, and Tacoma, respectively. This is why ST3 Link in Paine/Everett, Kirkland/issaquah, and Tacoma needs to look much more like Link in Bel Red or RV and not like Link in North Seattle.”
I agree! This is very important. So much of ST3 at a macro level hints at this, but the detailed design of tracks and stations ultimately ignores this.
It’s a reason why — if drivers are assumed on trains — surface running rail for the last mile of the trip is best for regional employment hubs. It’s why the ends of lines should ideally have two or three stations at the end near each other at the surface.
Reverse commuting is pure gravy for rail transit productivity. A fallacy that often exists is that light rail is designed for Downtown Seattle commuting. That creates overcrowded peak trains in one direction and empty ones in the other.
There needs to be better emphasis by the “end station districts” to be attractive in both design and in station area zoning.
It’s a fundamental reason why not extending Tacoma Dome Link further to UWT and Downtown Tacoma is suboptimal. It’s why Downtown Everett and Ballard and West Seattle would benefit from having two end stations at the surface rather than one that requires significant vertical movement.
I’m kind of surprised that the Everett Link refinements haven’t proposed something like a median surface design in Downtown running north-south (Broadway?) or east-west (Hewitt? Everett Ave?) with two surface stations. It would seemingly cost the same as a single grade separation station yet be a transformative economic boost that would attract new destinations or employment sites.
Fully agree, except I would say Link will be able to convert to driverless even with surface running. As long as the ROW remains dedicated (i.e. not mixed traffic like a streetcar), the technology to go driverless already exists.
For Everett, I speculate that they leaving the value engineering until after the EIS process is completed. Switching segments & stations to surface operation is a good way to absorb unplanned costs increases as they arise. This is what happen with East Link: SE Redmond station became at-grade to allow for the downtown Red station to be elevated; Bel-Red segment became at-grade to fund the downtown Bellevue tunnel.
I’m less optimistic but I hope the same happens to TDLE as it moves towards final design.
The “regional goal” has changed since ST 1, 2 and 3.
ST 1 was clearly designed to bring riders into the urban core in Seattle (and UW except ST ran out of money). When planning for ST 2 got serious in 2004 the plan was to take eastsiders into downtown Seattle, and maybe some westsiders to Microsoft, which is why there are so many park and rides and the east–west express buses were so full. In 2004 there was no doubt the benefit to Bellevue was connecting to Seattle, not the other way around, and Seattle was one of the fastest rising cities in the world.
This was before even the PSRC’s 2035 Vision Statement which is when regional planners began to espouse the “urban village” concept. In this concept more folks would work near where they live or in TOD. In fact, the GMPC allocates job growth goals to cities along with housing targets, although cities don’t know how to meet those goals because you can’t really zone jobs. I am sure that if Amazon wanted to move a few thousand highly paid workers to MI the council would not object, but it doesn’t. So the GMPC does not enforce jobs targets.
Of course, no one listened to the PSRC, and the PSRC was heavily influenced by ST and progressive idealistic planners. Eastsiders were not going to move to TOD with their families and dog, or to Seattle to be closer to their job, and employers were unwilling to open satellite offices in cities like MI or implement work from home technology.
Along the way ST 3 passed which was really to complete ST 2 with a bunch of projects designed to sell ST 3, not any kind of well thought out transit, and it also is heavily oriented toward Seattle including subarea contribution for a second tunnel through Seattle, and maybe Tacoma and Everett, but how many folks in those regions are going to drive or bus to a Link station to go to Everett. Lynnwood, Federal Way, or Tacoma? Shoreline and MLT were not dreaming of commuters to Lynnwood or Everett when they accepted higher than required GMPC housing targets for TOD along Link.
So the PSRC adopted its 2050 Vision Statement in 2021 that was similar to the 2035 Statement and was obsolete the day it was adopted, with the same stuff about TOD and dispersing jobs throughout the three counties and living next to where you work in the middle of a pandemic.
What has most undermined ST and the PSRC is not WFH, but the fact the estimated future population growth looks like it isn’t coming. The three counties are nearly 6500 sq miles, and the reality is very little of it has the density for light rail, which is slow, and usually requires a transfer which riders hate. People don’t want to live in TOD, or take transit unless they absolutely have to. Lynnwood is not going to become Bellevue, and neither are Tacoma or Everett. Other than U Dist. to CID, and maybe Bellevue Way, no other area has the density for intra-city light rail, even T-Link.
The second thing that has undermined the PSRC’s vision and all of transit is the demise of downtown Seattle, which began pre-pandemic. It isn’t coming back and yet we have a regional Link system designed around Seattle, including two tunnels. The current council has an 8% approval rating, which I think is 8% too high. Seattle and San Francisco will be examples taught for decades about how bad policies can kill great cities.
So I agree with Tom: it was foolish to spend nearly $100 billion to connect Tacoma to Everett to Redmond with mostly nothing in between, even befroe the pandemic or demise of downtown Seattle, with very slow rail with lots of stops. These are different cities with different demographics that don’t mix that often. If they were going to be connected, they need less expensive and faster rail, or express buses. You don’t spend billion to connect Fife with Federal Way, let alone Everett to Redmond when very few are going to the stops along the way.
Now nothing matches. WFH and the demise of downtown Seattle has undermined Link. People do live closer to where they work, in fact they live where they work with WFH, but that has been a disruptor the PSRC never anticipated, or really wanted because it was so urban oriented. If anything the area has de-urbanized, while ironically making fewer trips, the main goal of the PSRC. Future population growth in the region looks flat, and dispersing to SnoCo and Pierce Co.
Tax revenue has been reallocated from urban centers to where folks live and work. Downtown Seattle cannot survive with a 44% occupancy rate because the property owners will default, and banks don’t know how to run those buildings that can’t be shut for long or else like the city and county buildings they can’t be reopened. Many of the Link stations are not where folks live — especially ST 2 and 3, but must drive to and park to go someplace, which of course like Sounder S was downtown Seattle. Uber miles driven is exploding. Microsoft has abandoned 2 million sf of satellite office space, Google isn’t building a campus, Amazon has space for 80,000 employees in Seattle and Bellevue but is laying off employees, and 2023 looks like the new normal.
Progressive planners and politicians, especially in Seattle, thought they could zone and control the future, and make folks do what they don’t like to do. Imagine if someone had told the PSRC or Seattle City Council in 2016 this would be the future. I doubt they would have listened. They are still denying this is the new normal.
Wrong on ST1, Daniel. You are conflating Link with the broader ST program. ST1 also built a streetcar in Tacoma, a regional ST Express network, and a handful of freeway station projects. Yes, C-Link started in Seattle because that was the subarea in which to start, but my point still holds – Link is first about movement within a subarea. Obviously, Link in Seattle is about Seattle.
A fallacy that often exists is that light rail is designed for Downtown Seattle commuting.
Agreed. Commuter rail is designed for that. Or peak-only express buses.
Another fallacy is that you can build a cost effective metro connecting far-flung but relatively minor job markets and low-density suburbs. The problem is that you simply don’t have enough people going between the various stops along the way.
What does work, the world over, is an urban-based metro. Something that covers the core of the city. This often includes areas traditionally considered suburban, which now have a lot of density (places like downtown Bellevue). But these (now) urban places are close to other urban places. The more thorough you are in covering the urban areas, the better it is, for everyone. It is far more important to cover the urban areas than extend deep into the suburbs. This is because these urban areas are closer to other urban areas, have a lot more density (of every type) and are much harder to get to. By all means you should enable good intercepts for the suburbs. In our case, that means connecting to the various freeways that dominate the landscape. But once you do that (and cover the urban core) you are pretty much done. There is no need to extend farther and farther into the suburbs, as there just aren’t that many people making trips from one potential stop to another. Or even reverse-commuting to places like Tacoma or Everett. Or even just commuting within Tacoma and Everett. There just aren’t that many people making those trips. Pretending that these are the types of trips for which very expensive mass transit is suited is just folly.
I agree with your points Ross. Always have on this. The key about urban rail is it ideally has no first/last mile access, you are “there”, and it should be hard to get around in a car because it is …drum roll…dense so subway transit competes.
To Nathan’s point about ROW, with express buses to these undense areas you don’t need to have the brutal political fight about taking lanes for surface rail transit, which gets harder and harder as you move into undense areas like SnoCo and Pierce, in large part because no one there plans to ride Link. The buses can share the lanes, and if congestion and density get too great look at BAT lanes. Buses can serve several large park and rides along the way pretty easily with a one seat ride, and whether you hate park and rides or not no one has come up with a more cost effective first/last mile access in these undense areas we are spending billions running light rail to.
Unfortunately, ST sold the different subareas on the premise that light rail made a city important and a player, and do you want to be Issaquah or Renton, and the cities and subareas still think like that, and so do their Board members.
I agree with AJ and Al — terminals on all three lines should be at-grade in the city centers with two or stations instead of one grade-separated temple.
I wrote more I the next article’s comments.
“It’s a fundamental reason why not extending Tacoma Dome Link further to UWT and Downtown Tacoma is suboptimal.”
Can you expound more on this?
Is it suboptimal because it’s elevated, and therefore expensive? Would surface-running on 99 from Fife-Heights to 15th and Pacific at UWT make more sense, because of cost and ease of access, even if it were slightly slower and have a few problematic crossings?
It’s suboptimal because the end of this line is only at Tacoma Dome and that station is an aerial station.
Had the end been two or three stations at the surface, it would be a better catalyst for siting destinations to be within east walking distance of the 1 Line — at a likely similar cost.
Of course, I’m talking generalities here and certainly every segment has factors that increase capital costs.
Consider that if the line went one more station to end near UWT. It would be more attractive for student use, like for classes taught there attended by someone who lives in South King or maybe even Seattle.
If — in a fantasy world — the T line was retrofitted from the theater area to Tacoma Dome to accommodate Link vehicles (double tracks, power source, geometric changes, platform lengths, etc) all of Downtown Tacoma could been on the 1 Line.
Of course, ST doesn’t even propose level cross platform transfers for riders at Tacoma Done between the TvKine and the 1 Line. Not only does ST not “get” the powerful benefits of end station destinations they don’t “get” the powerful benefits of just walking across a platform to change trains either. They’ve all got blinders on to what is typically done around the world.
The transition to at-grade could occur at G street. Running at-grade on I5 is fine, no clear benefit of running along 99. I’m OK with elevated over Portland Ave, as that is a busy perpendicular arterial and the rail needs to be elevated over the river. But somewhere between East Tacoma and Tacoma Dome the rail should transition to at-grade.
At-grade unlocks a few things at are generally ture
– lower capital costs.
– lower operating costs, notably no vertical conveyance
– better station access, again avoided vertical conveyance (this is not always true, which is why sometimes it is better to elevate/bury a station if it improves station access).
In addition, for Tacoma Dome specifically at at-grade station could dip under I-705, same as Amtrack and the streetcar. This is true regardless of where Link it extended onwards.
The slower operating speeds are a modest increase in cost, but should not be view as a negative for rider due to the proximity to a terminus and therefore minimal through ridership. The framework is to view the Link terminus in Tacoma, Everett, Kirkland, and Issaquah all as “Tram-Trains.” https://humantransit.org/2009/10/karlsruhe-the-tramtrains.html
This makes sense. I can agree with that.
The reason I mention at-grade on 99 is that stretch of 99 through Fife heights is basically woods. Very few crossings, so at-grade would be pretty uncomplicated. I was under the impression the plan was elevated along I-5.
Good point about the river crossing though.
Fair, but the current 99 alternatives are all elevated. Running fully at-grade probably would require widening the road or preventing left turns in/out of a bunch of driveways; in practicality I think the I5 alignment is more likely to maximize at-grade alignment between FW & Fife.
https://oohsr522brt2020.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/2023-en/ProjectOverviewMapEnglish.pdf
The Urbanist put out a tweet about the EVLE, more specifically about the Downtown Alignment and are frustrated by one of the proposed alignments ST put out recently which would go down between Broadway and McDougall while acquiring a bunch of land in the process instead of just using Broadway instead for the alignment.
https://twitter.com/UrbanistOrg/status/1670104644901826561?t=fxpnc4rFHCTqSBKEGAkI2g&s=19
I know a couple business owners in the area as they own a couple industrial buildings next to Everett Station, through this wouldn’t affect them most likely as they wouldn’t be in the path for the alignment or staging. But I bet this is going to be a fun time when purchasing land comes and we’re left with a more expensive alignment when the thing could’ve down Broadway instead.
One has to wonder if ST has learned a thing from Lynnwood Link, an alignment that was supposed to be less elevated, mostly in the I-5 ROW, and require far fewer takings originally. (And all in for $2.4B YOE$, including proportional contributions for fleet expansion and OMF-E.)
Yeah, this looks terrible. Everett Link is a bad project that looks to be getting much worse.
My expectation is that the Everett Link station will gradually be pushed further and further away from Downtown Everett. Those influencing the project are much more likely to avoid controversy by moving things than improving accessibility for actual transit riders. Just look at where Tacoma Dome, CID, Ballard and West Seattle stations are. If the Amtrak/ Sounder station wasn’t there it probably would already be well south or east of Downtown by now.
East Link restructure phase 3. (Thanks eddiew.) It says phase 3 was in 2022 but I thought that was phase 2. Here are some new things I don’t remember in the last phase.
B: Not split. Stays on 156th between Redmond Tech Station and NE 8th Street, bypassing Overlake Village Station.
8: Detour to 23rd between Jackson and Massachussetts, serving Judkins Park Station. (Compared to detour between Yesler and Jackson.)
111: “Local” Renton Highlands – South Bellevue. (but on 405 north of 44th.) Midday/weekend/night frequency 30 minutes.
203: From South Bellevue to Factoria, Newoport Way, northwest Issaquah. Midday/weekend/night frequency 30 minutes. (Weekday night 30-60 is mistake?)
215: Mercer Island-Issaquah Highlands “local” (express) every 30 minutes, every 90 minutes to North Bend. Combined peak frequency MI-Highlands 5 minutes on 215/218/269.
226: Bellevue TC, Bel-Red Road, 164th between NE 24th and SE 24th (Interlake HS), Bellevue College loop, Eastgate Way, South Bellevue Station. This is the Bel-Red Link shadow. Frequency midday 30 minutes, weekend 30-60. This drops service east of 164th between Northup and 8th; I think the previous proposal dropped it east of 156th. “This path is within the proposed on-demand flexible service area.”
240: Returns to South Bellevue Station like it was in the 80s. Detours to Eastgate P&R, then backtracks to Factoria Blvd (eastbound on I-90, westbound on Eastlake Way). Frequency midday 15 minutes, weekend 30.
245: Kirkland, Redmond Tech Station, Eastgate. On 156th between NE 51st and Main Street. No longer detouring to Overlake Village Station or extended to Factoria. Frequency midday 15 minutes, weekend 30-60. (That’s quite a disparity.) This is the route I’ll take to the adult family home near 164th & Main, if I don’t take the 226. Both of them are more direct than currently.
270: Still moved to north Bellevue Way (compared to existing 271 on 84th). Frequency midday 15 minutes, weekends 30-60. (Another wide disparity.) “This route will be implemented in 2023, with the opening of Link to Redmond Technology Station.” Does Metro know something we don’t know about the East Link Starter Line being approved?
554: Still rerouted to south Bellevue Way and Bellevue TC (compared to downtown). Add stops along Gilman Blvd. Frequency: midday 10-15 min, weekend 15 min, night 15-30.
630 (Mercer Island – First Hill peak express): Peak frequency increased to 30 minutes (currently 30-45).
Since RapidRide G opens before full East Link, I am wondering if Metro will roll out any news on restructuring for it.
It had a first proposal in April. There will be a second proposal this fall; it will go to the county council next spring, and be implemented next fall.
Oh that’s right. I forgot this was put out there! Thanks Mike!
My initial thoughts:
240 – The detour to Eastgate is still very annoying, but it’s less awful than what was previously proposed. One easy improvement to speed it up further is to add bus stops on 140th Ave. SE and have the bus stop there rather than looping through the bus bays.
250 – Detour to Bear Creek P&R is obnoxious to anyone who lives up an Avondale Road and doesn’t even serve the big box stores very well. Eliminating the detour would speed up the connection between Avondale Road and the entire rest of the region at the cost of adding a transfer to reach the the big stores. This might be good enough in the world of online shopping where there is far less reason to visit big box stores in person than there used to be. But, if eliminating the detour is unacceptable, the bus should not be going into the Bear Creek P&R bus loops and doing an out-and-back, but take Union Hill Road to 178th to 76th to SR-202, as proposed for route 251. This option gets you significantly closer to the actual retail stores than Bear Creek P&R, particularly Fred Meyer, while also avoiding the long red light to cross Avondale Road at Union Hill Road.
While we’re on the topic of SE Redmond, the area also badly needs a pedestrian bridge over SR-202 connecting the Link station and adjacent homes to the retail on the other side without a long pedestrian detour to the nearest crosswalk at 70th St. The fact that nobody bothered to even consider this while embarking such a huge and expensive transit construction project is a huge oversight.
251 – the route between Woodinville and Redmond doesn’t have much in the way of ridership potential along the way, but it dramatically reduces the travel time between Woodinville and Redmond from at least an hour to around 15 minutes, so I think it’s worth it. The loop connecting SE Redmond to downtown Redmond and SE Redmond Link Station is also nice to have, but the frequency proposed to low for a bus trip that short to be useful. This tail might be better accomplished with a shuttle route that runs more often than the bus going all the way to Woodinville.
222 – I’m bearish about this route in general because the entire thing looks like very low ridership and people going between Microsoft and downtown Redmond have much faster ways to get there. There might be a couple trips per day where high school students manage to fill up the best, but the rest of the time, it’s going to be empty. On weekends and evenings, this bus is proposed to run hourly; I would suggest just eliminating weekend and evening service on this route and redeploying the buses and drivers to make weekend/evening service more frequent on some other route, for example, the 270.
270 – I like the route, but the proposed evening and weekend frequency is terrible. It should be running at least every 15 minutes during the daytime 7 days/week and every 20-30 minutes in the evenings, and a total shutdown of service at 10 PM is too early. If necessary service should be taken from other routes to beef this up, for example, the 222, 215, or 249.
215 – Considering that 269 also serves Issaquah Highlands P&R, this seems overkill on evenings/weekends. This could be a candidate for service reduction to fund better off-peak service on the 270.
249 – While this is definitely an improvement over the old 249, it’s 100% coverage to fancy houses of rich people, and will get very low ridership. I can see this route disappearing entirely in the next service crisis, and 45/60 minute frequency on evenings and weekends is too cumbersome to use. Suggestion: reduce this route to weekday daytime hours only and redeploy the buses and drivers to keep the 270 and/or 542 running more frequent on evenings and weekends.
542 – good route, but it should run at least every 20 minutes on weekends, given that it’s the only bus between Redmond and Seattle and riding Link all the way around would be extremely slow.
I could easily see the 240 being split. Run a bus from Renton to Factoria to South Bellevue Station (and just end there). Also run a bus from Bellevue College to downtown Bellevue via South Bellevue Station and 108th. I’m not sure you even need a bus along 36th, and if you do, it could be a less frequent coverage bus, like the 226.
There are two drawbacks:
1) It is a two-seat ride from Renton/Factoria to Bellevue College.
2) It is a two-seat ride from Renton/Factoria to downtown Bellevue.
The advantage is that Renton/Factoria to Link (at South Bellevue) is significantly faster. There is another alternative, which is to have the bus from Bellevue College end at South Bellevue Station. This has a similar set of disadvantages:
1) It is a two-seat ride from Renton/Factoria to Bellevue College.
2) Fewer one-seat rides from Bellevue College to downtown Bellevue.
I’m not sure if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, especially since either option would cost you a bit in service. It is an unfortunate detour, but sometimes a detour is worse than the alternative. To a large extent it depends on how many people from Renton/Factoria are headed to Link versus Bellevue College.
Worth noting: the detour looks worse in the northbound direction (although it will be better for those headed to the college). The bus will go to Eastgate, and loop around to get on Eastgate Way (https://goo.gl/maps/Hy75Ydde9WRdHSBE8). Southbound, the bus will stay on I-90 and use the HOV lane exit, and then just go on 36th (https://goo.gl/maps/etdMW4ePaWBm1nmo7).
The 240’s detour to Eastgate has always bothered, especially since back and 2008, the 240 did not detour to Eastgate. It took its present route from Renton to Factoria, hopped on I-90 for one exit to Bellevue Way, then followed the route of the present-day 241 from South Bellevue P&R to Bellevue Transit Center.
Besides delaying trips to downtown Bellevue, the detour to Eastgate also made life worse going to Seattle outside of rush hour, due to the 554 not running as often as the 550 does, a problem that is particularly bad on evenings and weekends.
With Link opening at South Bellevue, the change looks even more like a mistake, but now you have existing riders who might use the detour, which makes the change harder to revert.
To decide what course of action to take, ridership data on the 240’s Eastgate P&R stop won’t tell the whole story, since there is no way to tell how many riders actually need the bus to go to Eastgate vs. how many are simply switching to a bus that goes to Seattle – people who would be better off having the 240 get to Link as quickly as possible instead. I think to answer the question properly, you need to have people actually on the ground at Eastgate watching where people go as they get off the 240. Link Connections surveys can also provide an answer, but you get bias based on who is/is not willing to fill out the survey, and also people imagining what others want to do, rather than simply describing what they personally do.
Currently, those headed from Factoria to the college are way more likely to take the 245, which is a lot more frequent, and gets them a lot closer to the college. Likewise, those headed from Factoria to downtown Seattle are also more likely to take the 245 (because it is more frequent). On the 245, the stop for going downtown and the stop for the college are very different, so it is pretty easy to track. I’m sure they are mostly basing the detour on the 245 ridership to the college. The new 240 replaces the tail of the 245.
The 245’s tail, I would imagine, is very lightly ridden. It connects Bellevue College only to a commercial area, not to where people actually live.
In any case, it’s irksome when your bus is going from point A to B, passing through point C on the way, and then you’re being asked to pay for a C->D detour with your time because it is operationally more efficient for Metro than attaching it to the end of some other route or running a shuttle. It’s extremely irksome because it basically says that Metro doesn’t value the time of people on the bus, which is free to them, only the time of the bus drivers, which they have to pay for.
To which, one could make a counter argument “but, nobody rides the bus in Newcastle anyway, so nobody is being impacted, and people connecting to Link all the way from Renton have better options such as the 101, 560/566 or proposed new route 114.
But, the counter argument to the counter argument is “but then, why does Metro want to (in the future when they have the money) run the 240 every 15 minutes and make it RapidRide?”. You can’t have it both ways. If the 240 has enough ridership to justify 15 minute all day service and RapidRide bus stops, it has enough ridership that people should not be made to sit through a detour like this. An extra 5-10 minutes per day, twice day, for every trip between your home and literally anywhere except for Bellevue College or Issaquah, adds up fast. Or, if ridership is so low that more people need a replacement for the Factoria tail than would have to sit through the detour, then the route shouldn’t be getting frequency upgrades or RapidRide treatment.
Yet another possibility is that the 240 does in fact get decent ridership overall, but almost all the ridership is over in Renton along Sunset Way, and by the time the bus gets to Newcastle, it’s running empty. If that’s indeed the case, then the route should be split with only Renton/Sunset Way section getting the upgrades.
I don’t have actual ridership numbers in front of me, but it seems at first glance like, whatever it is, something isn’t making sense.
asdf2,
One possible answer to the last set of hypotheticals your raised is that “the numbers pan out better this way, than any other reasonable alternative”. For example, yes, maybe those tails or sections don’t deserve improved service, but it’s cheaper to give it to them than to split out the 240 into two or three distinct sections, each of which with their own set of drivers, vehicles, service levels, route lengths that don’t line up neatly to half-hour (or whatever) intervals, deadheading costs, etc.
On paper, it may look like costs can be cut, but the physical reality may well make it such that doing so is not quite as easy as one might hope. And cutting the “bad” sections altogether may not be feasible. Thus, we get the situations we get.
People here often say that we should trust the experts. Why do you think that we should not trust them in this particular case? Genuine question – for yourself but also others who may feel the same way as you. The reason I am asking is that Metro may be many things, but not principled and measured in their route restructuring has not struck me as one of them. None of which is to say that we should not question, of course – but I would question both by way of asking for details, rather than criticizing, and by being skeptical of one’s own question upon asking (i.e. trying to find alternative explanations).
The 245’s tail, I would imagine, is very lightly ridden. It connects Bellevue College only to a commercial area, not to where people actually live.\
That isn’t true. The loop is basically this: https://goo.gl/maps/LH6gKN6A1PGmKCCP6. This covers pretty much all of the apartment/condos/town-houses in Factoria. In some cases you have to walk a block or two, but not that far. The area it doesn’t cover is very low density housing to the east (Somerset). Somerset is also difficult to serve because of all of the curvy streets. I kinda like the loop, but for various reasons, Metro is getting rid of it. The 240 will take over covering this area.
In any case, it’s irksome when your bus is going from point A to B, passing through point C on the way, and then you’re being asked to pay for a C->D detour with your time because it is operationally more efficient for Metro than attaching it to the end of some other route or running a shuttle.
What if lots of people are headed to that detour though? The college is a major destination. It stands to reason that a significant number of folks from the apartments in Newport Hills, Newcastle or Renton could be headed there. Oh, and yes, there is also the Issaquah connection as well.
There are trade-offs no matter what you do. The simple fact is that much of the area is not especially dense. There are pockets of density here and there. My guess is, the areas that are really low density are at least very fast, which makes up for some of it. But you simply don’t have enough density to justify overlapping routes that eliminate transfers to major destinations or detours. You have to choose one or the other. The detour to the college, by the way, is not like many of the other detours folks have talked about, where people can just walk to the destination. Without that detour, you pretty much have to transfer if you are headed to Bellevue College. Unlike those other detours, there is no obvious service savings either.
There are a number of alternatives, but none of them are great. I mentioned two of them. Here is a third, which I just thought of: Consider the 554. It will run from Issaquah to downtown Bellevue via South Bellevue Station. I assume the plan is to use the freeway between Eastgate and South Bellevue both directions. Now have the 240 go directly to South Bellevue. You leave 36th without coverage (or backfill with an infrequent route). This saves some service time, and makes the trip from Factoria/Renton to Link significantly faster.
Except now the trip to the college is much worse. Talk about a detour. You have to wait for the bus to get on the freeway, get off the freeway, then ride a different bus as an express back to the college. Yuck.
So maybe you convince ST to have the 554 use 36th or Eastgate on the way. At a minimum stop at Factoria Boulevard/Richards Road (so that it connects to the 240). That works, except now you are slowing down the 554. The service savings have largely disappeared, and the 554 express is not as much of an express. They are the ones complaining about a “detour”.
As with the previous ideas, there are trade-offs. It boils down to the fact that South Bellevue is simply not a good station. There is nothing there. It is a bad hub for that reason. It also isn’t easy to access with express buses along I-90. In contrast, Eastgate is a good hub. There is a major destination there: Bellevue College. There are about 20,000 people enrolled there. Eastgate also has freeway ramps, which means it connects to express buses headed to Issaquah. I understand that it would have been a lot more expensive, but it is a shame that Link didn’t go east to Eastgate/Bellevue College for that reason.
I agree that Eastgate is a better destination than South Bellevue, but… where do you go from there? I could imagine a route like Factoria –> Eastgate/BC –> Crossroads –> Overlake (and then continue to Redmond) but that completely bypasses downtown Bellevue, and the Spring District, which is where Bellevue (rightly or otherwise) chose to focus its density improvements for the moment. Or would you just build it in addition to the current Line 2 route? Perhaps as a replacement for the Issaquah leg of the future line? I could see that, but Issaquah and other cities may disapprove. And I don’t think that crossing 405 and 90 back and forth to go from MI to Factoria and Eastgate then back to downtown Bellevue (perhaps by way of Lake Hills so you can still get to Main St. too) seems prohibitively expensive.
I agree that Eastgate is a better destination than South Bellevue, but… where do you go from there?
Yes, that is the problem. You have to get back to downtown Bellevue, and that would be very difficult. You have to loop around, back across the freeway (or under it). It just doesn’t work, really. The cheapest option would probably be to reverse course, and follow the proposed Issaquah Link route (https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/2023-04/web-map-kirkland-to-issaquah.png). That would not be cheap. Nor would it be ideal for someone just trying to get from downtown Bellevue to downtown Seattle. You’ve added another 3 or 4 miles of track, which means an extra 3 or 4 minutes of time for a lot of users, while also adding a ton of extra cost. So yeah, it just doesn’t work.
I don’t think ST did anything wrong by skipping Bellevue College; I’m just saying it is shame that the college is where it is. It is the basic problem with the East Side. The stratification in density is enormous. Not just population density, but destination density. There are only a handful of places on the East Side that anyone has any interest in visiting, and they don’t line up neatly in a row. Bellevue College is one of those places, and unfortunately, it is nowhere near the rest of the destinations. If it was 3 miles north (close to Bel-Red Road) East Link would be way more successful, and a lot of the bus restructuring would be a lot easier.
Well, to copy a page from your book, what you really need is a grid :)
So, a line to head out to Issaquah (E-W) hitting MI, Factoria, Eastgate, maybe Lakemont or whatever, then 2-3 stops in Issaquah (the last one up on the plateau, maybe at/near Swedish). Then from Eastgate you head North along 148th with another line and eventually hit Overlake, again with 2-3 stops.
Of course, building this with rail is prohibitively expensive given the distances and density of ridership that can be reasonably forecast. So, instead, you could do it with two BRT/STride lines and some judicious infrastructure improvements if needed to hop around across I-90 a few times to get to Factoria, Eastgate, and Lakemont for the East-West line I am suggesting. North along 148th and 140th should be much more doable without any major road updates, except maybe some protected turns and bus lanes wherever there’s heavy traffic during commute times.
That would be way cheaper than building Line 4 and probably more useful because you could stop a bit more often and pick up new riders (getting much out of Lakemont would be hard, for example, but you might be able to run a bus down the main road going South and still pick up riders from the housing developments there, and the same sort of thing up West Lake Sammamish). And there are enough lower income areas in East Bellevue that you might get decent ridership that way, too. I think it would be a much saner option than backtracking back and forth across SE Bellevue with some sort of chimera version of Line 2.
To play devil’s advocate against myself, I’m curious if such a thing was considered by ST (or combined ST+Metro) or if the light rail mode is so firmly entrenched that there is no escaping it.
So, a line to head out to Issaquah (E-W) hitting MI, Factoria, Eastgate, maybe Lakemont or whatever, then 2-3 stops in Issaquah (the last one up on the plateau, maybe at/near Swedish). Then from Eastgate you head North along 148th with another line and eventually hit Overlake, again with 2-3 stops.
Metro is basically doing that already. The difference is they aren’t stopping at Factoria. So far as I can tell, neither is ST. This is somewhat inconsistent, given that the new Link line is supposed to have a station at Richards Road, which looks suspiciously like a freeway station. This leads to another idea, which is painfully simple: Add a freeway station along I-90, at Factoria Boulevard: https://goo.gl/maps/6WJbqckQ2yePfo96A. Now folks in Factoria/Newport/Newcastle/Renton don’t have to detour to Bellevue College, they just make a simple transfer. The buses that go from Mercer Island to Eastgate (and Issaquah) stop there as well. The express buses are still express, and the 240 doesn’t detour.
Is it worth it? Probably not. The 240 carried about 2,400 riders in its heyday. Many of those riders aren’t effected by the detour (their trip was north of I-90). The detour just isn’t that big, from a rider or service standpoint.
All that being said, it is still a way better value than Issaquah Link. Of course the other step is to add HOV lanes from east I-90 to north 405. So basically Eastgate to downtown Bellevue via the HOV lanes (with a stop at this new freeway station). This would be expensive, but again, way cheaper than Issaquah Link, and way better. The buses from the east and west converge onto these two freeway stations (Richards Road and Eastgate). To the east they spread out, to various Issaquah locations. To the west they split as well — some to Mercer Island, some to downtown Bellevue (skipping over South Bellevue and East Main). If there is enough demand, there would be way better frequency then Issaquah Link. If there isn’t, then rail would be a terrible value, and at least you run the buses every 15 minutes (the current plan).
To play devil’s advocate against myself, I’m curious if such a thing was considered by ST (or combined ST+Metro) or if the light rail mode is so firmly entrenched that there is no escaping it.
I am pretty sure it is the latter.
Right, your HOV onramp/offramp and freeway station ideas are the sort of thing I meant by “infrastructure improvements”. Expensive, to be sure, but not new rail expensive. Cheap enough that, should rail pan out at some point in the future because the whole corridor (sic) densifies enough, you can still build it without having wasted huge amounts of money. And, if it doesn’t, you got a decent setup.
One caveat might be that I don’t remember how annoying a walk it is to go from I-90 up towards Factoria. I don’t think I’ve ever taken the 241 or 240 up there, but when I was riding in my relatives’ cars I remember it not being exactly flat. So the concern would be whether it would be too tedious a walk for people to bother, vs. catching buses along Factoria Boulevard as they would now (which is not exactly huge ridership either, at least compared to the potential). I know that some people here on the blog have no problem walking long distances (and, to be fair, I’m one of them) but it’s worth keeping in mind, especially depending on the demographics of the area (e.g. are there elderly-focused communities, etc.)
There are so many problems with Bellevue College just being where it is.
It’s tragic in that there isn’t a prominent student shopping, food and nightlife district next to campus so students can walk there. It’s isolated. There aren’t even that many student apartment buildings within walking distance. Outside of attending class, why go?
And that isolation extends pretty much to all of the new 4 Line stations. They are all in terrible locations. Factoria is in the middle of I-90. Issaquah TC is in a corner with a municipal park and hillsides next to an extra wide arterial (900). Even the vaguely placed Eastgate stop isn’t going to connect the entire area — and the interchange is pretty darn huge there which eliminates walkable sites for any development. And the South Kirkland stub is really serving low rise office buildings and a transit parkade in a place where outer 2 Line and Stride parkades will render it less relevant.
It drives me nuts when elected officials promise light rail station locations like they plan highway interchanges.
One caveat might be that I don’t remember how annoying a walk it is to go from I-90 up towards Factoria.
I used to work in Factoria, at what is now the T-Mobile building (back then it was owned by Attachmate). I would have loved a freeway stop at Factoria Boulevard. Of course I would have loved what they are building (detour and all). Anyway, I used to walk around there, and much of is fairly flat. From the freeway along Factoria Boulevard it is quite flat, until you get past the mall (and even then it isn’t what I would call steep). 36th has a bit of a rise, but it still isn’t too bad. If you want to go up to the Middle School (through the green belt) then it gets steep. But adding a stop at 36th doesn’t solve that problem (the 203 goes by the middle school, and connects it to the high school).
There would be a coverage gap between Eastgate and the new freeway station at Factoria Boulevard, but it isn’t very big. At most you could run a coverage bus. You can’t cover all of the East Side, and asking a handful of riders to walk from a freeway station at Eastgate or Factoria Boulevard would not be that bad.
Ross, did you still live in north Seattle when you worked in Factoria? If so, I’m curious how you got to work. I imaging you drove, as there was probably no quick way of getting from Pinehurst to Factoria by bus.
Right, your HOV onramp/offramp and freeway station ideas are the sort of thing I meant by “infrastructure improvements”. Expensive, to be sure, but not new rail expensive. Cheap enough that, should rail pan out at some point in the future because the whole corridor (sic) densifies enough, you can still build it without having wasted huge amounts of money. And, if it doesn’t, you got a decent setup.
Exactly. It is an iterative setup in some sense, but it also works better with the geography. There are few factors:
1) The two main destinations to the west can not easily be connected from that direction. From Issaquah, Downtown Bellevue is not “on the way” to Downtown Seattle.
2) There are numerous destinations to the east, and they are bound to be spread out. The Highlands, the historical center of Issaquah, Costco Headquarters, etc.
3) Between Issaquah and Eastgate, there are no reasonable pathways that are very far from the freeway. Lake Sammamish and Cougar Mountain limit the alternatives (it isn’t like going to Everett, where you can make the case that you should leave the freeway envelope, which they plan on doing). You pretty much have to go along the freeway, no matter what mode you choose.
4) Eastgate is “on the way” for all of the I-90 buses, and it just happens to be within walking distance of a school with 20,000 students. It is not “right there”, but similar to the walk that UW and North Seattle College take.
This is all very well suited for a trunk-and-branch bus system using I-90. Buses head west to Downtown Bellevue or Mercer Island (to quickly connect to Seattle). Buses head east to the various Issaquah/Sammamish locations. All of those buses go through Eastgate. Additional buses come from the neighborhoods to the north, because of the college and because it is a major transit hub, second only to Downtown Bellevue (on the East Side).
Unless you get so many riders that the buses are overflowing all day long (which is highly unlikely) it is actually better for riders heading to Seattle. The Seattle connection using Mercer Island is very fast. Using East Main is not.
This is really striking. It is common for folks like me to criticize West Seattle Link because the vast majority of riders will be forced to transfer, and gain no speed advantage on their trip to downtown. But it won’t be slower! And yet if you walk to the Issaquah Station and plan on going to Seattle, you are better off with a bus. It is much worse for those who aren’t within walking distance of that station, which is pretty much the entire city. It is just so bad. So, so bad.
Sam, there used to be a bus route 243 which got close to Pinehurst and went (as I recall) all the way into Factoria, don’t know if it was around when Attachmate was in the T-Mobile buildings though. I do remember riding that regularly from NE Seattle to Bellevue one summer, though.
Ross, one aspect I can think of in favor of the rail is that there is no good East-West route that doesn’t use I-90, and I-90 exits can get really backed up. As we both noted, judicious infrastructure improvements (e.g. your HOV lane addition ideas) can mitigate that, but I could still imagine situations where they are insufficient, so people may feel like rail is the safer bet in that sense. An example of this is (or used to be) visible in the 271 route, where the Issaquah-originating trips tend to get very bogged down “somewhere” between Issaquah and Eastgate (I assume crossing I-90 at a couple of the interchanges) because they end up arriving downtown Bellevue about 10-12 minutes late at the worst, whereas the Eastgate-originating ones are on time. That’s been my observation as a rider of the 271, anyway.
Having said that, I still think it’s a very poor use of funds, as you noted, given that it’s not likely to improve transit experience for current riders, nor pull in a lot of new riders.
If the 4 Line is ever built, it could be built much more cheaply than it has been proposed.
1. It won’t need 6 minute peak headways.
2. It won’t need four car trains.
3. The transfer setup at East Main not optimal because there are side platforms.
4. The track branching south of East Main will be complicated.
Ross is right that because buses can go to South Bellevue, that the 4 Line will make transit travel times worse for anywhere but Downtown Bellevue.
My solution would be to run only an automated stub line with a single track section where it crosses Mercer Slough and in other difficult spots. It’s got to cross Mercer Slough at some place anyway, so why not have the crossing nearer to South Bellevue station? Plus, if the Line has a stub end, a new platform can be added just for the line and anyone getting off the 2 Line will find a train idling there with open doors to board immediately when coming from either direction.
As much fun as it would be to pick station sites now, I think market forces will dictate how development happens and that could influence what best to do. I’m also not sure why someone would park to ride transit at Eastgate when Link opens between South Bellevue and Seattle. They can drive to South Bellevue in about the same time it takes to drive to the Eastgate garage for many. The garage could be poorly used soon.
@Anonymouse
The alternatives for the Bellevue-Issaquah were studied here: https://seattletransitblog.com/2014/06/21/issaquahkirkland-study-options/
(From what I know): Kirkland wanted to use the ERC for BRT since it would reach their downtown, while Issaquah and Sound Transit wanted to build light rail instead. However the high costs meant the light rail only reached South Bellevue. The Totem Lake connection was converted to the i-405 BRT which also reaches Renton.
@ Ross
> This is all very well suited for a trunk-and-branch bus system using I-90. Buses head west to Downtown Bellevue or Mercer Island (to quickly connect to Seattle). Buses head east to the various Issaquah/Sammamish locations. All of those buses go through Eastgate. Additional buses come from the neighborhoods to the north, because of the college and because it is a major transit hub, second only to Downtown Bellevue (on the East Side).
Agree with everything, the Issaquah section never made sense as light rail. Using the hov lanes with some direct access ramps added would be much more useful.
Ross, did you still live in north Seattle when you worked in Factoria? If so, I’m curious how you got to work. I imaging you drove, as there was probably no quick way of getting from Pinehurst to Factoria by bus.
Yes, I worked in north Seattle at the time (where I live now). I would go back and forth. Sometimes I would take transit, and hate it. Other times I would take the bus, and hate it. My wife remembers me coming home grumpy every evening, not because I hated my job (that was when I worked at Safeco) but because I hated the commute. I eventually quit that job, and worked at WRQ, which was relatively close to downtown. Eventually WRQ merged with Attachmate, but I had left by then.
I eventually worked at the East Side again. My wife thought I was nuts, and reminded me that of how much I hated working there before. It wasn’t as bad, as I worked in Downtown Bellevue. I do remember a bus like the one Anonymouse described. It went down 125th, over to Lake City, then U-District to downtown Bellevue. I called it “my private bus”. It had some riders, just not a lot. When I didn’t take that, I usually carpooled.
I-90, Factoria, and Eastgate are in a flat valley floor like Rainier Valley. When I lived on Somerset Hill and attended Bellevue High School, I took the 240 or 340 to Factoria Blvd or the Coal Creek exit, and if the 210 wasn’t coming (it ran every 90-120 minutes), I walked along Newport Way and it was flat all the way, even to the middle of Somerset. 148th/150th is uphill going south (to Somerset), and maybe a bit uphill going north (to Lake Hills). I don’t remember about Richards Road since I rarely saw it.
Factoria/Eastagte is what it is because of car-dependent development, combined with dumping density where nobody else wants to be. God forbid we convert any single-family neighborhoods near downtown Bellevue or Crossroads.
The area north of Bellevue College is full of apartments, all the way up to NE 8th Street. Maybe more on 140th and 145th than 148th. I don’t know where the effective walk circle ends, and I know buses have to make a lot of turns to go through campus, but there are a lot of apartments there.
If the 4 Line is ever built, it could be built much more cheaply than it has been proposed.
1. It won’t need 6 minute peak headways.
2. It won’t need four car trains.
3. The transfer setup at East Main not optimal because there are side platforms.
4. The track branching south of East Main will be complicated.
I’m not sure if any of that saves you any money though. Operations is separate than construction costs. It can run every six minutes, or every twenty minutes — it costs the same to build. The stations are elevated or surface, which means station length doesn’t matter much either. Underground stations are very different. I assume they chose the East Main merge for cost reasons. If it was cheap to merge before South Main, they would plan it that way, simply because that involves less backtracking for those headed to Seattle.
The cost is mainly because it is really long and often above ground. There are only four new stations, but it is 12 miles long. It is similar to building a new freeway section, and not like building an urban subway. My guess is it is already about as cheap as possible (by running next to the freeway).
As much fun as it would be to pick station sites now, I think market forces will dictate how development happens and that could influence what best to do.
The only station that is likely to change is the one in Issaquah. But the city is pushing this idea, and hope that things develop close to that station. They may, but it won’t look like downtown Bellevue. It will, at best, simply be a little bit more attractive than the other Issaquah locations I mentioned, scattered around. Rail will never make sense there, but that won’t stop ST.
(From what I know): Kirkland wanted to use the ERC for BRT since it would reach their downtown, while Issaquah and Sound Transit wanted to build light rail instead.
Yes. The city of Kirkland hired an independent transit consulting firm. They recommended BRT on the CKC. ST wanted rail. There was some neighborhood opposition to anything there. So they went with basically nothing. Or at least next to nothing, which is what the South Kirkland section will be. An express bus from South Kirkland to Downtown Bellevue will be just about as fast as the train. From downtown Kirkland, an express bus taking a more direct route will be faster.
The reason I brought up station locations is not because it’s fun (though it is!) but because it is fundamental to the usability of the system. To paraphrase an old software quote from an ex-CEO of a major company in the area that stuck with me from years ago, “the heart of any operating system is its interface”. Techies derided this sort of thinking early on but I think it’s actually critical, both for software and for transit. The stations are the interface to transit; figuring out where to put them, how riders access them, how much effort there is to swap between modes of travel, those are critical aspects of the rider experience. Yes, so do things like the vehicle specs and so on, of course; but it’s critical to nail the station locations and access patterns. To me, those are part of the “requirements” that should drive the design process, alongside things like the frequency of transit, the trip duration, etc.
“If the 4 Line is ever built, it could be built much more cheaply than it has been proposed.
If WSBLE is ever built, it could be built much more cheaply than it has been proposed.
Any Link project can be built more cheaply. DSTT2 could run on the surface. Or not at all. So could WSBLE. They did it in S. Seattle.
The questions are whether the subarea has the funding, and whether the political calculus has changed since the projects were included in the levies.
When it comes to the three parking garages in Kent, Auburn and Sumner, my guess is the subarea has the funding (although you never know with this Board), and the political calculus has not changed from ST2/3 even though ridership on Sounder S. has plummeted.
Today, in hindsight, probably all of East Link could have been built much more cheaply, even though it was a budget light rail line above ground and in public ROW’s or areas where there is little “there”.
The eastside could have easily gotten by with buses, especially with a dedicated center roadway across the bridge, light congestion downtown, very light cross lake travel, or with dedicated bus lanes for eastside buses. Personally, I think the 550 and 554 are better routes than East Link, so is the 630, and don’t think many eastsiders will take East Link past downtown Seattle. Capitol Hill is not a big draw on the eastside. Better to run an express bus from the eastside park and rides to the UW if necessary, both across 520 and I-90.
In the end I don’t think WSBLE will get built, or at least completed to WS and Ballard, because the subarea won’t have the revenue. The Board can cut only so many stations. I do think Issaquah Link will get built because the subarea will have the funding (a measly $4.5 billion although ST is still sticking to its original cost estimates of $3.2 billion), and this greater Issaquah/Sammamish/Snoqualmie/North Bend area is growing in population and power on the eastside, although these folks have no intent of riding transit unless they absolutely have to, when I-90 is such a great bridge (although the I-90 to 405 merges have to be solved, and that is on WSDOT’s front burner, along with widening 405 S).
Terrible transit, but so is much of Link. Any moderately intelligent transit planner would look at the HUGE Issaquah area, eastside, demographic, travel patterns, land use, and cost and say Issaquah Link (which will no doubt originate near the existing park and rides and not city center to the extent there is a center in Issaquah) to SOUTH Kirkland (not even downtown Kirkland) with a transfer 10 blocks from Bellevue Way and would say why not just run buses like the 554 and 550 from city center to city center, maybe even to downtown Kirkland, or express buses like the 630 or to UW, rather than spend $4.5 billion on light rail along a great interstate (I-90) through a green belt to nowhere? Based on what? Future TOD? Give me a break. If the buses get so numerous in downtown Seattle create bus lanes for eastside buses. Or put them in DSTT2.
Of course, any moderately intelligent transit planner would say a subarea spending $4.5 billion on above grade light rail along a freeway nearly 15 miles long when the subarea has so much revenue it doesn’t know where to spend it isn’t very good planning, but a subarea spending $20 billion it doesn’t have on WSBLE for all underground light rail for 7 miles with the same very light ridership is insane.
Lots of things in life can be built cheaper. It depends on how much the spender has, and whether it is their money or someone else’s money.
“The area north of Bellevue College is full of apartments, all the way up to NE 8th Street. ”
While I do see some apartments on Google maps, they look like they cover a minority of the walkshed. Plus they appear to all be 2-3 stories.
Given their age, the owners may decide to replace them with taller (denser) apartments by 2045 if the zoning would let them.
Ross, one aspect I can think of in favor of the rail is that there is no good East-West route that doesn’t use I-90
That is precisely why it is *not* a good place for rail. You really don’t want your rail line in the shadow of the freeway, for various reasons. One of which is that you don’t add much value over buses. Buses can encounter congestion, but even if they do absolutely nothing, that congestion only occurs a few hours of the day (people take transit all day). But here is the thing: They have done something. They built HOV lanes a while ago. Eastgate is already an HOV bus station. Mercer Island will be accessed by an HOV station. Thus the fastest way from Eastgate to Seattle — even during rush hour — will be taking a bus on I-90, followed by a transfer in Mercer Island (instead of a train to East Main, followed by a transfer there). For other trips, the time savings are minimal, because again, the route basically follows (or at least mimics) the freeway. South Kirkland to downtown Bellevue; an Issaquah station (right next to I-90) to Eastgate; these are all very fast trips on a bus.
The other changes I’ve suggested (a freeway stop at Factoria Boulevard, HOV ramps from I-90 to I-405) are more expensive. But they still aren’t nearly as expensive as adding rail. Just as importantly, a bus network with various improvements would simply be better for riders. In that regard it is similar to West Seattle. Sure, have West Seattle link branch in every which direction (serving Alki, South Seattle College, High Point, etc.) with stops a half mile apart and you’ve got yourself a nice train system. But a stub provides very little value, and is actually worse than a good bus network.
“ It can run every six minutes, or every twenty minutes — it costs the same to build. ”
To a point that is the case. A single track line with sections of double track can be sufficient for lower frequency, and be significantly cheaper to build. Europe and Japan have both proven single track lines can work well when needed.
“That is precisely why it is *not* a good place for rail. You really don’t want your rail line in the shadow of the freeway, for various reasons. One of which is that you don’t add much value over buses.”
Just to clarify, my thought is that you don’t want rail __or__ express buses aligned with the freeway because of the greatly reduced walkshed. However furthermore one of the advantages of buses over rail is the flexibility of bus stop locations, more frequent stop spacing for much lower cost, etc. – those all go away if you literally don’t have a decent through-road that isn’t I-90. That was what I was trying to convey.
I agree however that rail doesn’t add much over running express buses on the freeway (there are freeways that are congested at all times, 401 in Toronto is one of them, but I-90 between Bellevue and Issaquah is not in that situation, I agree).
Just to clarify, my thought is that you don’t want rail __or__ express buses aligned with the freeway because of the greatly reduced walkshed. However furthermore one of the advantages of buses over rail is the flexibility of bus stop locations, more frequent stop spacing for much lower cost, etc. – those all go away if you literally don’t have a decent through-road that isn’t I-90. That was what I was trying to convey.
OK, yeah. I agree.
But in this case, the advantage of buses exist outside the corridor. A trunk and branch system that uses a central busway can be quite good, especially if that trunk has decent stops. In this case, it most certainly does, as the college is very close to the freeway corridor.
Of course one of the main advantages to using an HOV lane as a busway is that you can have very good speed for very little cost. There is always a trade-off between local and express service. The RapidRide E runs along an expressway from Green Lake to downtown. This is basically a freeway, but with lower speed limits. It could avoid Aurora, and go along Greenwood Avenue, then Fremont, then Westlake or Dexter. It would pass by a lot more people. But existing riders would have a lot slower ride. Trade-offs.
There is a similar trade-off here, except that unlike Seattle, there is no equivalent to Phinney Ridge, Fremont or Dexter. There are very few potential riders between Eastlake and Issaquah. So while there is a tough trade-off with the E, the buses to Issaquah don’t have the same problem. This makes it a relatively weak line, but it does make the choice obvious: Just follow the freeway. Given that, it is also obvious that the best choice is to just run buses, since they can run just as well on the freeway as a train, while more easily branch on either end.
On several occasions I posted I thought the Eastside transit restructure was “phase 3” considering it took place in 2022 for an estimated 2023 opening of East Link, only to be corrected it was a “preliminary restructure”.
The bigger point is that now in 2023, the new normal, the restructure will have to be restructured. The 2022 restructure is based on the old normal.
First you can’t have 15 minute bus frequencies for feeder buses to Link, certainly peak work times. Anyone will just drive to a park and ride that serves East Link, or drive to their destination. Many don’t quite understand the distances East Link runs on the Eastside are too short to validate a transfer. This isn’t Lynnwood or Sounder S to downtown Seattle.
Second you can’t have 30 let alone 60 minute frequencies ANYWHERE on the Eastside because that means non-peak, which means no traffic and no congestion, which means free parking. which means folks drive. The number of eastsiders going to Seattle during non-peak hours will be very, very small. Like today.
Third, “combined” bus frequency — for example from MI to Issaquah — totally depends on the park and ride you are parked in. Issaquah is very large. The catch-22 is if there is space for everyone to park in the Highlands park and ride so combined frequency makes sense you don’t need combined frequency. Too few riders for 3 buses.
Bellevue is little different than Shoreline: each hoped Link would generate tremendous development and gentrify parts of their city, when now we know Link gentrifies very little. The only difference is Shoreline has no existing gentrified areas whereas downtown Bellevue is arguably the most vibrant areas in the region. So East Link was a no lose route. It didn’t damage Bellevue Way, and on paper would turn Wilbur ton/The Spring Dist. into SLU. Or not.
On the Eastside the very optimistic development all along East Link is probably decades away. Maybe never post pandemic. So how does Metro schedule a commuter oriented feeder bus system for with 15 minute frequencies plus a transfer to East Link that doesn’t go to anywhere where anyone works (with Microsoft mostly WFH and. 3 million sf garage). You don’t.
From what I can see in phase 4 is duplicate one seat buses to the very few areas Eastside workers need to go but can’t park, and East Link doesn’t go.
On the Eastside frequencies non-peak are meaningless because everyone will drive, unless like North Bend the real point is to claim there is “some” coverage so Eastside cities don’t demand subarea equity or a reduction of their transit taxes, especially since they are really pissed off the state upzoned their SFH zones (but allowed them to require two onsite parking spaces per unit).
Metro will compete with, not complement, Link because Eastside buses have always been clean and safe, folks are only riding transit for work, few will be going to Seattle in the future, and number of seats and not mode (from a one seat park and ride) is the main consideration.
So yes this was always phase 3, but there will be a phase 4. We are going to see more 554’s and 630’s because downtown Seattle isn’t coming back. The distances on East Link are too short to justify a transfer, and Metro frequencies from a park and ride to East Link are to great.
What would be a good thread on this blog is what phase 4 will look like, and at what point does the Eastside demand its Metro service match the taxes it pays like East Link. Kind of like what Tom demands.
“… when now we know Link gentrifies very little…”
Seattle Times quote: “Among the various metrics used to identify gentrification, one of the most common is property values. By that measure, nowhere in the city of Seattle gentrified more than the census tract that includes North Beacon Hill and a bit of the Judkins Park neighborhood.”
Which quote is research and which quote is an opinion?
I’m rolling my eyes as I look at the blocks of more recent redevelopment near Judkins Park station.
“folks are only riding transit for work”
Just in my limited experience riding transit there, I’ve seen a fair number of people on the B with shopping bags, and fairly crowded 271s ≈8 pm headed into Bellevue from the Eastside.
While it’s obvious plenty of people on the Eastside have never used transit, it’s also obvious a significant segment of them do.
@Al S as a new-construction homebuyer in North Beacon Hill I can assure you that most of the development between Beacon Hill and Judkins Park well predates even the glimmer of expanded transit at 23rd. With a mix of light industrial, small bungalows, and extra large lots; not to mention access to the 90, the lake, the bike and walking paths, and all of downtown Seattle, NBH was always a neighborhood waiting to happen. The cost of homeownership was an exceedingly good value relative to other neighborhoods within a 3-mile radius of downtown.
ST took advantage of a neighborhood that was already in transition, and had managed to bring ugliness and destruction to placid, organic growth.
@TransitGirl: I don’t dispute what you say.
I will add that it looks to me that Link doesn’t cause gentrification but it more influences where it happens. North Beacon Hill looks anecdotally more gentrified than South Beacon Hill does.
I’ll also add that developers plan projects well in advance of Link openings. That’s why there are over 2,000 new residential units in various stages of completion in the few blocks between Judkins Park Station and Walker St today. So I could see NBH getting more expensive starting about 2005-8.
@TransitGirl — I agree very much with your first paragraph. I’m not quite sure about the second one. The zoning policies of the city have the biggest impact on inorganic growth. The stations definitely effect things, but there are abrupt, unnatural borders in most neighborhood. So much so, it is actually surprising when you find a neighborhood that isn’t like that.
For example, I happened to be walking around upper Fremont the other day. I got off the E Line at 46th then walked west (along the side streets, not 46th). There is just such a mix: old houses, refurbished houses, old apartments, new apartments, all of various sizes. The Central Area used to be like that (and still is, to a certain extent) but so often in this city, the borders make for crazy growth patterns. Very nice big houses get torn down, while a couple blocks away you can see a lot of dumpy old houses (protected from anything but being converted to a McMansion). It is all about the zoning.
TransitGirl, I honor and respect your lived experience. You live on Beacon Hill, and I don’t, so thank you for educating me about your neighborhood.
“ST took advantage of a neighborhood that was already in transition”
Its purpose is to provide mobility, which it does well. The mobility was necessary regardless of whether the neighborhood was gentrifying. 22 minutes from Beacon Hill to the U-District is far better than any bus could be, or 25 minutes from Beacon Hill to the airport. The first Link proposal went around Beacon Hill, and the second went through without a Beacon Hill station (or a deferred one). The city is better off for having Beacon Hill station, and some Beacon Hill residents too, even if you are not.
I was impressed at how much the passenger traffic has increased at Beacon Hill since the UW extension. At least, the couple of times last year I used the station it had a lot more traffic than in 2009-2010. Much of the traffic seemed to originate at UW.
One thing I did not see anyone comment on is how the new 256 route acts as an express-to-downtown commuter route, just like the old 255 used to. I would have expected some opposition to that setup here.
I’m a little surprised that the 249 wasn’t continued into Somerset (to replace that section of the 246) – I guess that the 246 tail must have got really bad ridership, even compared to the 249 or the Medina segment of 271. Anecdotally, I always saw people get on and off the 271 in Medina when I rode it to/from the U District, so I am not surprised that there would be interest in preserving that section. And I know that the 249 used to get a few riders even in the Enatai/Beaux Arts tail, where I have ridden it a few times – I was never the only one on when I rode it there years ago (it may be different now).
One thing I did not see anyone comment on is how the new 256 route acts as an express-to-downtown commuter route, just like the old 255 used to. I would have expected some opposition to that setup here.
I think folks brought that up (back when we discussed the changes). There are a number of similar buses: 252, 257, 268, 311. These are all peak-only expresses that go over 520 (and most run on 405 as well). I would definitely like to see these replaced with some sort of combination of buses serving the UW and downtown Bellevue. I believe ST is going to run a bus from Woodinville to downtown Bellevue (which will certainly stop at the freeway stops). I can’t remember if that is all-day, or just peak. I would like to see an all-day bus from UW to Totem Lake, if not UW to UW-Bothell (via Totem Lake). This complements buses that run from the various suburbs to Bellevue. For Woodinville, that would mean a one-seat ride to downtown Bellevue, two-seat ride to downtown Seattle (via Link), a two-seat ride to UW (via express buses) and a lot of other relatively fast two and three-seat rides.
Another possibility is to run a bus from the main UW campus to Totem Lake, and then Lake Washington Institute of Technology (if a layover nearby can be found*). That covers pretty much all of the higher density areas that are close to the Totem Lake freeway stop, but still a pretty far walk (https://goo.gl/maps/jWM5NGrHSm9QrvKi8). Density drops off the cliff after that. By providing a route covering that area, you put less pressure on the 239/225 combo. The 225 does not perform well, which is why it is being relegated to hourly service (due to the driver shortage). With better service to the key core, riders who use the combination would not be as dependent on the poorly performing bus. There would be obvious benefit in connecting the two state campuses (for the same reason connecting UW Bothell and the main campus is beneficial). If you did this, you would enable all sorts of combinations, with Totem Lake being the transfer point.
If nothing else, it seems like it could layover inside the campus parking lot. The route is short enough that it could probably do a live loop if that is easier.
Thanks for passing along that update, Mike. I’m looking forward to better (i.e. present at all) transit service to Sammammish and Mercer Island. There’s some good parks we haven’t been able to get to since things are so commute-oriented.
Hopefully Metro puts out a proposed system map for the next phase. There’s so many changes that it’s hard seeing how everything fits together when it’s broken up by route.
I agree. They need new maps. Previous plans did have maps. I still have links to them, but they may be outdated, for example: https://oohsteastlinkconnect.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/maps/P2_NorthProposedRoutes.pdf.
I wonder if the dates on the webpage are out of date or inconsistent. As I said, I thought the past round was phase 2 not 3. And I don’t think I’ve seen some of these variations before. So maybe there will be another round of open houses for them, and the webpage hasn’t kept up with recent developments.
Metro may “restructure the restructure” but I don’t expect any major changes. Most of those local routes are important. Transit isn’t just to get to offices or jobs.
Some thoughts:
B Line — I’m glad they got rid of that little detour. Overall, it looks very good, and should complement Link quite well.
8 — If I detoured to 23rd, then I wouldn’t go back until after going by the library. Seems very weird to detour to 23rd, and then not follow the existing path back to MLK.
215, 218, 269 — This looks great for Issaquah Highlands commuters, and even visitors. During peak, the buses will run frequently (every five minutes if timed). Outside of peak, the 215 and 269 should provide 15 minute combined headways. Thus riders can commute without worrying about the schedule, and if they leave downtown Seattle early or late, they can still get back very quickly, and without much waiting.
220, 240 — Not sure what to make of it. Two buses run every 15 minutes from Bellevue College to Downtown Bellevue. This is great. The 240 runs on Eastgate Way, then by South Bellevue Station to 108th. The 220 runs on Lake Hills Connector, then crosses over the freeway to pick up 112th, running by the East Main Station. Thus both connect to Bellevue Transit Center and one other Link Station (but not the same one). I’m not sure what students (and faculty) will do. If you are coming from Seattle, I don’t think you take either bus. You get off at Mercer Island, catch a bus headed to Issaquah, and very quickly get to school. If you got on Link east of downtown Bellevue, my guess is you still get off at the transit center, simply because you can ride either bus. Which is faster? Which one gets more riders along the way? I have no idea.
Then there is the southern end of 240, as asdf2 mentioned. I’ll reply to that comment.
223, 226, 245 — This seems to be an improvement in that the buses are largely going the same direction. I wish they could be made even straighter, but that might not be possible without losing a lot of riders. The 245 runs every 15 minutes, while the other buses run every half hour. I guess the 245 is picking up most of riders, and it is straight in parts.
That’s it for now. I sure wish they had an updated map.
I must say that I’m pleased that ST is better delineating paid fare zones.
I’m especially pleased that they move the ticket vending machines to be outside of paid fare areas. Of course, anyone laying out a system would have determined that it’s logical to buy tickets first. So it’s rather like having a kid finally learn to hold onto the house key before locking the front door.
As far as the new announcements go, I’m still wondering what direction 2 Line trains will go. Will the Downtown Redmond station riders hear “Northbound (to Lynnwood)” or “Westbound (to Lynnwood)” as the train prepares to go southeast out of the station? At least the banner sign says “northbound” and “southbound” when the announcement is made (although it still has no permanent sign about the cardinal direction anywhere else. Catch that scroll quickly!
Amtrak report: coming back from Portland on 3pm Cascades Friday.
Oversold. Seating families in Cafe car. Air was off, until they realized it around Centralia. Maybe 20% masked, even though lack of air circulation was very concerning. 90+ degrees. Terrible wifi.
No seat assignments. Little space between seats. Not airline tight, but tight. Huge lines. Great communication. Helpful, upbeat staff. Only 12 minutes late to Tacoma, even with the full train.
Pro-tip: bring your bike. I showed up a little later than most 20 minutes before departure. But because they wanted me to take the bike to baggage car, I boarded right after business class and had my choice of seats.
Cam,
WSDOT’s original order for the Talgos required the seats to be reversible, but ODOT’s later order had non-reversible seating, meaning half the seats faced backwards.
Did the Horizon equipment they’re now using have the seats configured with half the seats facing backward?
As old as those cars are, I would have thought they came with reversible seating (as it seemed they all were way back in the before-times (i.e. when I was a kid living on the east coast).
Yeah, the front half faced forward, the back half faced backwards. I prefer facing forward.
Business class on the way down was maybe half singletons, and most of the rest 4 seats around a table.
Business class on the return was sold out a month out, or I would have gotten it on the return.
Amtrak doesn’t seem to be lacking passengers.
I have no idea if Metro listened to my complaint about the 44 last weekend, or maybe drivers reported passing up passengers or someone looked at the passenger counts, but yesterday there were actually some 60′ coaches out and today it’s all 60′ coaches. Things are coming back to the way they were pre-COVID, so progress!
For those that aren’t familiar with where Bel-Red/130th station is located, the platform, more than being at 130th, spans the length of the block between 130th and 132nd. In the linked aerial photo, the giant parking lot just above the station is the station P&R. Lots of apt buildings and townhomes are either currently being built, or will be, all around the greater station area.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6245216,-122.1656741,702m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
Announcement of the day: “ST Express Route 550 is experiencing delays of up to 20 minutes due to heavy traffic.” (This was yesterday at 6:25pm.)
I haven’t seen an announcement like this, but I have been on the 550 a few times this year when it has gotten caught in I-90 congestion westbound, at peak hours or or a weekend afternoon.
It’s a detour route for car driver’s if southbound 405 is slow at Coal Creek Parkway and through Newcastle.
Anyone else ever notice how ST CEO Timm always refers to Link as “The Link”?
https://twitter.com/JulieETimm/status/1669762241007325185?cxt=HHwWgsDQqar6l6wuAAAA
The whole “the” thing inevitably reminds me of SNL and their recurring sketch “The Californians”, featuring an instant Fred Armisen classic character.
https://la.curbed.com/2017/9/6/16264074/socal-los-angeles-the-freeways
I’ve always struggled with calling it “Link” in conversation since it doesn’t sound natural to me. It’s different than saying Bart since Bart already sounds like a proper noun, while Link is already a word that is both a noun and a verb. I’m overthinking this but kind of wish our system ended up with a better name that flowed more naturally. I find people referring to it as light rail in conversation. Some months back I had some friends visit from Europe and they kept calling it the “One Line” based on the announcements they heard. When I called it the light rail they got a bit confused at first. I do wonder how as the system expands people will refer to it.
I struggle with calling Link “1 Line”. I can see “the 1 Line” or “Line 1” ( feels like Route 1) but “1 Line” just feels awkward.
I get her struggle.
On a related matter, does anyone prefer saying a “Link train” over “Link light rail”?
https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/03/08/concerns-persist-over-safe-access-to-judkins-park-light-rail-station/
Is the Judkins Park Station suppose to serve many riders who walk there? It is in the middle of I-90 and a long walk from Rainier Ave. let alone Beacon Hill in an area that is pretty sketchy.
I have never understood who the riders are suppose to be at Judkins Park. Some on this blog state the riders will be service workers on the Eastside who can’t afford to work on the Eastside. Is this the gentrification Al is talking about? What stops on the Eastside are where they work?
Some say downtown Seattle office workers from Beacon Hill but does it make sense for them to go to Judkins Park for that short trip.
I can’t imagine anyone from the Eastside getting off at Judkins Park. Why?
So what is the expected demographic who will use Judkins Park Station, how will they get there, and where will they be going that Judkins Park is the fastest, most convenient or safest option?
The station has an entrance on 23rd, and the 8 will be routed to serve it. That’s in addition to the 48 which already serves 23rd (unless the 48 routing is changed now?). 23rd is before I-90 comes out of the tunnel so isn’t disrupting the street grid, and the Mountains-to-Sound trail goes right by it, and the Dearborn protected bike lanes aren’t far away which gives a safe connection to the ID and downtown. Beyond buses, there will be tons of walking/biking potential, not just for people coming from the Eastside, but people going to the Eastside as well.
The 7 also serves it on Rainier.
Demographics will only get you so far. The route is for everybody who goes between the Eastside and south to southeast Seattle, or north to the 23rd corridor. That’s more than just service workers who work on the Eastside and live in Seattle. My cousin-in-law had a condo in Rainier Valley and worked at a law firm on Mercer Island. Other people go to the Eastside for shopping and events. Other Eastsiders go to Seattle to visit people. Judkins Park Station is for all of those.
” What stops on the Eastside are where they work?”
Everywhere. There’s no point to leave anyone out. East Main: the offices there and on Main Street. Bellevue downtown: the offices and retail there. Wilburton: the hospitals and medical clinics. Spring District: the offices there, and the technology college if it’s still around. Bel-Red and Overlake Village: not many; those stations are mostly for local residents. Redmond Tech: guess which company. SE Redmond: I don’t know enough about the area, but people will go to Marymoor Park events. Redmond downtown: everything there.
Going the other way, there’s the Mercer Islander I met who works in southwest Capitol Hill.
The trips from the Eastside to Judkins Park will mostly be transferring to the 48 going south or north, and the 7 going south. For Eastsiders they’re probably going to a house or to a neighborhood center (e.g., Columbia City).
There is a brand new station entrance from 23rd Ave directly down to the platform (platform is actually closer to 23rd Ave than it is to Rainier) which saves riders as much as a third of a mile of walking. There are also now entrances on both sides of Rainier Ave. There is a brand new escalator from Rainier waiting to be turned on. The prior freeway stop had only one way to get to it and no vertical conveyances.
And for riders willing to walk more than a few blocks many choose a downhill station rather than an uphill station. If someone lives halfway down a hill, they often will walk downhill from home to get to one station and get off at another station to walk downhill home. These are normal things for a transit rider to do that people who rarely use transit don’t think about.
Eastside access is not essential for gentrification.
The safety issue in the Urbanist article is about the freeway ramps flowing into Rainier Ave with no red light for traffic coming off the exit ramp so pedestrians can safely cross the lane. It’s not about crime. Walking by a new elite private school and new townhomes and apartments doesn’t seem sketchy to me so that statement is in my mind silly with bigotry overtones.
There are plenty of reasons for the station to be used to make Eastside trips. They may even be new Judkins Park area residents who will go to dinner and shopping on Mercer Island. That’s the beauty of frequent rail: it can be used for many reasons by different people.
“The safety issue in the Urbanist article is about the freeway ramps flowing into Rainier Ave with no red light for traffic coming off the exit ramp so pedestrians can safely cross the lane.”
It’s particularly about disability access. The video shows a narrow cracked sidewalk with a pole in the middle. Able-bodied people can walk around these but wheelchairs would find it harder. The Lighthouse for the Blind is nearby. The article talks about “accessible pedestrian signals”, the ones that beep.
Seattle does a mediocre job of maintaining sidewalks. The ones on major arterials are the most likely to be smooth. Southeast Seattle has a lot of sidewalks that look like they were built in the 40s and left to deteriorate.
One example is the east side of Rainier between Mt Baker Station and the Mekong Rainier grocery a few blocks south of it. The activists are asking that at least the sidewalks and intersections around the station be upgraded.
The old Rainier Freeway Station bus stop, connecting Seattle to the Eastside via “The 90,” was always an underused bus stop. Almost no ever got on or off there. So when people say that it will magically become a very busy light rail station, it tells me that they aren’t familiar with that area. Like the 130th infill station, only time will make Judkins Park a good station.
Five years ago, the stop got about 400 riders a day. I wouldn’t call that “underused”. To put things in perspective, at the time that was roughly what Mountlake Terrace got for the 511 and 512 combined. Also keep is mind that the stop and the route are much improved. The 550 ended at downtown Bellevue. The train will continue to Redmond (home of Microsoft). The neighborhood around the station has grown, as has the areas that feed it. I don’t think it will be a great station (not for Seattle) but it should be a pretty good one.
I think the big question for the line (as well as that station) is whether people will go back to commuting to their tech jobs at rates seen before the pandemic. The train does more than serve tech workers, but ten years ago, it would mostly serve rush-hour commuters from both sides of the lake. It was very peak-oriented, but bidirectionally peak-oriented. If those workers are spending most of their time at home, ridership should be good, but not great.
Alonso I am looking at CBD office occupancy rates and foot traffic rates. Both are 44% compared to April 2019. Metro ridership is 59% of pre-pandemic and Eastside express buses like the 554 and 550 are down over 50% from peak in 2017. Sounded S is down around the same.
“was always an underused bus stop. Almost no ever got on or off there.”
Maybe if you’d tried catching a bus there you’d understand why. The stairs up to the stop were as neglected as some of the sidewalks. You were waiting right next to freeway lanes, for a bus that may come every half hour or less. There was a sign directing you to bus routes on Rainier; it looked like it was from the 70s and mentioned the 42, years after the 42 had been deleted. The only access was from Rainier, not from MLK, unlike the Link station.
“people say that it will magically become a very busy light rail station”
What does “very busy” mean? I imagine thirty people a the platform for every midday train like at Capitol Hill. I don’t expect Judkins Park to be like that. I imagine it will be like the other Rainier Valley stations, with two or four people getting on at a time off-peak. The advantage of Judkins Park station is its strategic value in the network: it makes getting between the Eastside and southeast and central-east Seattle much easier than it is now or if the station were skipped. That doesn’t mean dozens of people will board every midday train.
Judkins Park station has another advantage over 130th: it already has two frequent bus routes passing by, and is rapidly building housing. 130th will require a brand-new route segment, people changing which way they go, and future residents to realize the transit option exists and to move to Lake City or Bitter Lake. All that is partly already set at Judkins Park.
I hardly think I’m saying anything controversial or provocative. I’m saying the old Freeway bus stop was underused, so the expectations for the Link station should be tempered, but over time it will become a better station. Some stations will be a hit from day one (Capitol Hill), some will take a few years to come into their own (Judkins Park), and some may take a decade or more (Bel-Red/130th).
If the strategic value is in allowing 2-4 people getting on at a time, that is a little frightening. Even at 6 minute frequency that is… not a lot of people, and could have easily been served by the 550 serving a new freeway stop.
For the record, while I did not ride the 550 often when the old freeway stop was there, I do remember riding it a few times, and there were 1-2 people getting on then, too. I also remember having to get on at other freeway stops along 520 before, either to get to Redmond on the 545, or (once or twice) to switch between the 242 and some other bus. The usage was similar, a few people were waiting there with me.
Also for the record, I’m not disputing that usage will improve with time. But the cost-benefit is worth considering. People complain about South Bellevue and whether it should have been built at all; I expect that South Bellevue will get similar usage (2-4 people a train), too, just from the connections to Factoria and Bellevue Way buses. If we expect that Judkins Park won’t do better, that’s sad.
The controversial part was when you said, “People say it will magically become a very busy light rail station.” Do they say that?
I think Judkins Park will become popular in less than a few years, but not reach the level of “very busy”. Anyone trying to take transit from southeast Seattle or east-central Seattle to the Eastside now (or before the Rainier freeway station closed) to be quite an ordeal. When they realize Link goes to the Eastside and they start to look at their options, they might thing first of transferring downtown, but it won’t take long to notice Judkins Park Station on the Link map, and when you travel once you’ll see it stops there. People in southeast and central-east Seattle will notice that that station is close to them, and from there they’d only need to know about the north-south buses. So I think people will catch on pretty quickly, within a few months.
There are some things about Judkins Park that you skeptics are missing.
1. It has a much bigger walkshed than the old freeway station so getting to a platform will be fast. The 23rd entrance is a game changer. The better Street access to Rainier is a game changer.
2. The trains will come more often.l than the buses did. 10 minute reliable service up until 10 pm is pretty enticing.
3. Northbound 7 riders heading into Downtown Seattle may move to using it because they won’t need to cross Rainier Ave and it’s a faster way to reach Westlake than transferring to Link at Mt Baker will be.
4. There are 3K to 4K new residential units within walking distance. That’s a population 1/4 of Mercer Island in just new residents — with many more of those residents without a car. While no supporting retail is announced just yet, that many new residents will attract more restaurants and convenience shopping.
5. The 2 Line also goes to UW as well as both Downtown and the Eastside. Few people rode the freeway ststion bus to Downtown Seattle and UW students from SE Seattle used Route 48.
6. It makes getting to the Eastside much easier. Keep in mind that retail is much different than it was 10 years ago. The Bellevue Macys will literally be the only Macys near ST2 Link for example (there were three other Macys near ST2 Link 10 years ago).
Maybe I’m more bullish than most about the station. I don’t think it will be as high as Capitol Hill, but I think it will match and even surpass other Rainier Valley stations.
ST is saying 3,000 daily boarding by 2030 and I think that that forecast will come about. I’m more doubtful about East slink opening across the slake than I am about this.
Al summarizes it well. The station is much more than an improved bus freeway stop.
“If the strategic value is in allowing 2-4 people getting on at a time, that is a little frightening.”
That’s just part of it. It’s an off-peak average, and it’s also my guess, which may not be accurate. The station is also for the larger peak-hour crowd, when it might be “busy”. And for bulk events like ballgames and parades when we need high capacity. And to bypass traffic congestion and car collisions and highway maintenance. And to improve non-car mobility options throughout Seattle and the region. Somebody in Judkins Park might benefit in being able to go to Roosevelt station, and reciprocally sombody in Roosevelt might benefit in being able to go to Judkins Park station. But only if both stations and line segments are built.
Some on this blog state the riders will be service workers on the Eastside who can’t afford to work on the Eastside.
It will serve workers on the Eastside who live on the east side of Seattle (Rainier Valley, Central Area, etc.). These are mostly service workers (tech workers, specifically, like programmers). Most can afford to live on the East Side, but prefer not to. The 7, 8, 48 and 106 will connect to the stop. It will also serve people who walk to the station from the neighborhood. Those riders might be heading to the East Side or Link locations in Seattle . It isn’t just work, of course, but people visiting other people, going to school, out for the evening, etc.
In 2016, the Rainier Avenue Freeway Station (as it was known then) got about 250 riders heading east, and about 150 riders heading west. Seattle has grown substantially since then, especially around the station. I believe there is more East Side employment, although the current tech downturn has likely hit the Eastside pretty hard. The station will be easier to get to than the old bus stop and the train will run more frequently (and faster). It will also directly connect to Redmond, which is the global headquarters for a company called Microsoft.
I meant to say those who work on the Eastside but can’t afford to live there. Others said it not me. My guess is most service workers on the Eastside live in the Renton or crossroads regions.
In the past there have been mostly younger single tech workers who worked on the Eastside (Microsoft) but wanted a more urban setting, but they mostly chose Capitol Hill, and Seattle was much safer. Now they prefer to WFH.
I agree with Anonymouse that 2-4 boardings per train is very few for the cost of a Link station. Seattle’s population has grown little since 2016, and based on Seattle’s office occupancy rate and WFH in the tech industry (and layoffs) I would think cross lake transit would have declined steeply, and that is what we see on the 550 and 554, and I doubt very many boardings are at Judkins Park.
I know the area fairly well. Just from Rainier and I-90 it is a tough walk. I would think most riders will need to walk at least 1/2 mile to get to the station.
Time will tell. My guess is boardings at Judkins Park by bus today will be the same when East Link opens. The 550 mirrors the route East Link takes, and the 554 is a one seat ride to Issaquah, so in many ways buses today are faster and more convenient from Judkins Park than Link will be, although boardings on buses are low today.
dp, a one-time regular on these pages, believed the purpose of Judkins Park station was to stick Seattle with the bill for building East Link between downtown and the lake. Daniel, at least, should take some satisfaction from that.
Dan, I don’t understand why E KC is paying 100% to build East Link over the bridge. Or has paid 100% of the east-west express buses that have cost over $1 billion. Based on ridership on buses crossing the lake from the east and the complete disinterest in the delays in opening East Link I think the Eastside would be ok with a route that terminates at MI (and MI would be happy with a route that terminates at S Bellevue).
If the station at Judkins Park were eliminated it would not affect the Eastside at all. Based on boardings today I don’t think it would impact Seattle either. Just a very odd station IMO on a transit route across the bridge that is dropping significantly let alone a station from 23rd or Rainier.
Just terminating the line at Mercer Island is not ok. It’s tolerable for an interim period, but people expect a train to Seattle – a train that permanently ends at Mercer Island would not get enough ridership to justify building it, and it would become a boondoggle.
Also, Judkins Park station is charged to North King subarea, not east king. East king is charged for the I-90 crossing and everything east of it. And even if North King were charged with half of the I-90 crossing, what would have east king do with the saved money? Open Issaquah Link sooner?
Daniel, the purpose of running rail from the eastside to Seattle is part of a regional effort to interconnect Puget Sound’s regional growth centers. This isn’t about provincial thinking of “eastsiders don’t go to Seattle” but about an economic base that extends across the region that is the 10th largest regional economy in the United States. Mobility in all its forms correlates strongly with regional prosperity. Some people drive and others rely on transit or other modes. Many rely on various combinations of these options depending on their needs. What is being built with light rail is another option to foster mobility in order to create resiliency in our ability to move people where they want or need to go.
This is, from a regional economic standpoint, about maintaining our competitiveness with our peers.
Why are we as a region investing in expanding our airports through billions in investments? Why have the ports of Seattle and Tacoma merged to form a more robust Seaport alliance? Why have billions been poured into infrastructure projects in the greater downtown area over the last decade? And also why have our business leaders behind the scenes pushed to land the MLB All-Star game and the World Cup in 2026? There’s a lot of money on the line here and regional decision makers on both the public and private side (can’t forget the taxpayers) have agreed that mass transit plays a part in the future of this region and economy.
“Judkins Park station is charged to North King subarea”
East King was originally going to pay for everything east of Intl Dist including Judkins Park Station. That’s because the Eastside is a satellite, both geographically and population-wise. It depends on the center, so it pays to connect to the center and the rest of the region. Judkins Park Station was almost an afterthought to keep stop spacing from being too wide. North King at the time saw only a little value in it. It wasn’t a North King priority; a line to Judkins Park alone wouldn’t be built; it was only built because East Link was being built for the Eastside.
Then Bellevue wanted a downtown tunnel, and East King begged North King to take on the cost between Intl Dist and Judkins Park to free up East King money for the tunnel.
Some time after that, more people in North King started realizing Judkins Park had a strategic value they have overlooked. Namely, that the Southeast Seattle-Eastside was larger than they had thought. And that Judkins Park station would be a good way to get from southeast Seattle to downtown or UW. Because it will be much faster than the 1 Line, which has three intermediate stations and is surface in SODO. Line 2 has no intermediate stations and is grade-separated.
And then housing growth around the station started happening.
And the first Women’s March brought tens of thousands of people to Judkins Park, who didn’t know the park or neighborhood existed or where it was, and they found the crime rate in southeast Seattle was exaggerated and it was OK to go there.
All that led to the the growing bullish outlook for Judkins Park station, as seen in the comments. And East King should be glad a kind of accidental situation got North King to pay for the station and the segment west of it, before its value for North King was fully perceived.
“I don’t understand why E KC is paying 100% to build East Link over the bridge. Or has paid 100% of the east-west express buses that have cost over $1 billion.”
I don’t understand why Seattle residents should pay 100% of the street maintenance costs for Eastside resistants to drive on downtown Seattle streets, when they pay no property taxes to pay for those streets.
In fact, it’s fairly well documented that urban areas spend a significant amount of money subsidizing suburban areas, but that’s probably worth a dedicated entire post to discuss that.
If anyone wants some links to write such an article, let me know.
In 2004 Bellevue and the Eastside did think connecting with downtown Seattle was important to the Eastside.
Which is why there is I-90, and buses ran in the center lanes across the bridge and through the transit tunnel. And even a station at Judkins Park with great frequency based on the buses no one used.
2004 was a million years ago. The Eastside wants nothing to with Seattle, a city that was once a rising star but now has 44% office occupancy and foot traffic rates compared to 2019. I am dead serious when I say a majority of eastsiders would opt for an East Link that never crossed the lake. And it is their money.
The idea that replacing all the one seat buses that go from the Eastside to Seattle with Link that includes a transfer and doesn’t go to the key Eastside areas will dramatically increase cross lake ridership — let alone boardings at Judkins Park — is fantasy.
Some of these posts make me wonder if anyone on this blog has ever used Judkins Park, and why. For 32 years I would drive Rainier from Dearborn to I-90 and I never saw any pedestrians on this undense hostile street with car washes, rug cleaners, vacant lots, and car repair shops with 7 lanes of very fast traffic.
Look, it is N KC’s money and if they have the money and think Judkins Park is a wise use of their ST revenue that is their choice, just like the parking garages in Sumner, Kent and Auburn. And Issaquah Link where I live. A stupid waste of money IMO (all of them) because we must “plan for the future” that is completely different from the present.
It isn’t my subarea’s money, Thank God, so God Bless with a station at Judkins Park. Even if there hadn’t been a pandemic I never understood a Link station at Judkins Park without a Link transfer to First Hill, but there is no Link to First Hill so I still don’t understand a station at Judkins Park. Sounds like TransitGirl doesn’t either, but she only lives there.
My guess is Mike was correct: Judkins Park will see 2-4 boarding/train when/IF East Link opens. It it were a Metro route we would be talking about suspending the stop.
I suppose that was a fair argument Glenn pre-pandemic, if you did not understand how Seattle generated its tax revenue, 2/3 of which was generated by the CBD. .
The major source of Seattle’s property tax is from the commercial office towers in the CBD which subsidized every other property owner in Seattle. Those office buildings are already resetting at 20-25% lower values because the out of city work commuter is gone. They will go lower, so all other property owners (apartment buildings) will pay higher taxes.
The next largest tax revenue source is B&O tax that is an income tax on a business’s gross receipts. That is way down.
Then you have sales tax, especially on new commercial construction. Plus head tax and parking taxes. Way down because workers are not driving on Seattle’s streets.
So today there are 60% fewer non-Seattleites driving Seattle streets and commuting to Seattle and The Seattle Times is estimating Seattle will have a $250 million deficit in its operating budget.
And you actually thought the loss of all those work commuters would financially benefit Seattle because fewer non-Seattle folks were driving on Seattle streets.
Where did all that tax revenue reallocate? To the Eastside. Drive on over. We don’t care if you use our roads, although I would be leery of transit because frequency is getting cut to the bone because no one is commuting to work, especially in Seattle.
Judkins Park has good bones from an investment and development standpoint. Note the following:
– large tracts that don’t require assemblage of small sites for large scale development
– access to two of the Washington’s most productive urban centers (DT Seattle and DT Bellevue) via I-90 and the future light rail line.
– heavily used bus routes down Rainier, MLK and 23rd Ave S
– a string of parks from Judkins Park, Mt Baker Lid and down to Lake Washington
– adjacency to established desirable lakeside neighborhoods such as Leschi and Mount Baker (easier real estate play)
– Quick access to Seattle’s inner ring neighborhoods
– concentration of both public and private schools (Thurgood Mashall Elementary, Seattle Girl’s School, future French American School, Hamlin Robinson School, Gidden’s School, Lake Washington Girl’s School
There’s a reason when you drive on I-90 that there’s a large concentration of construction cranes just north and south of I-90. The latest crane count for the area accounted for 15 cranes in their index. This is the largest growth in a 6-month period in the Puget sound region. See the article below.
https://www.djc.com/news/co/12155865.html
Rainier Ave S is a mess but the value lies in adjacencies and the perceived value over time in the area’s development.
One last item I’ll leave for Daniel is the WDOT trends data for king county with counts taken at I-90, I-5 and at other state managed assets. Traffic coming into Seattle is averaging 94% from baseline 2019. If 60% (this is in fact outdated now) of workers aren’t coming into the city and people are abandoning coming into the city, then what explains the volume of people moving through the region and through Seattle at similar volumes to pre-pandemic? What I see is likely selection bias. Perhaps people you know don’t travel into Seattle at the same frequency as before but for whatever reason others are. People continue to move in patterns that aren’t totally foreign. There’s been a shift but it’s not what you might expect.
https://wsdot.wa.gov/about/data/travel-trends-dashboard/dashboard/volume/default.htm
“Traffic coming into Seattle is averaging 94% from baseline 2019…. what explains the volume of people moving through the region and through Seattle at similar volumes to pre-pandemic?”
Freight? Amazon deliveries? :)
The Eastside has some 400,000 people. They don’t all think the same or do the same things. asdf2 is one of them. The others on the existing buses are more of them. Even just 12% of the Eastside is 50,000 people.
I meant to say those who work on the Eastside but can’t afford to live there.
It was an arrogant statement, suggesting that the Eastside is more appealing than Seattle. Now you are saying that arrogance was intentional. Fair enough. That doesn’t make it any less ridiculous.
My guess is most service workers on the Eastside live in the Renton or crossroads regions.
So now you are saying that software workers on the Eastside mostly live in Renton and Crossroads? Not other parts of Bellevue, Redmond, Sammamish or Kirkland?
Seattle’s population has grown little since 2016
It has added 40,000 people in six years, according to the latest estimates. That is about half the current population of Redmond, and more than the entire population of Mercer Island.
I know the area fairly well. Just from Rainier and I-90 it is a tough walk.
Wait, what? No one lives at Rainier and I-90 (if you know the area really well, you know that). You do realize that the station can be accessed in several directions, right? (https://goo.gl/maps/ViexUpFXSHKzp7s59)
The 550 mirrors the route East Link takes
Except, of course, for the fact that it serves Redmond You have heard of Redmond, right? Maybe you know that area really well, too. There is a fairly big company there. They make software. Tiny software.
I would think most riders will need to walk at least 1/2 mile to get to the station.
Riders will either walk or take the bus, just like every other station. Again, no one is saying it is a great station. As Dan pointed out, dp used to rail against the station (no pun intended) because he felt like Seattle shouldn’t have to pay for something that was clearly an afterthought (ST could have built much better stations in the area). But that doesn’t mean it will be a terrible station. It is still in Seattle, and will still connect that part of Seattle to the East Side, where there are jobs, activities and hundreds of thousands of people.
Judkins will be a great station. The connections to SE Seattle via the 7 & 48 alone justify the station, in particular by connecting SE Seattle and the East Side. The TOD coming from the 2 urban villages immediately to the north & south are gravy.
I was not aware that Judkins was at one time to be charged to eastside. That would have been weird – it’s a Seattle station and Seattle benefits. Who pays for the I90 floating bridge segment is petty subarea politics and not relevant to any decision making.
RE Daniel’s non-transit comments
1. People who work on the eastside but can’t afford to live there generally live in Snohomish or South King and take 405 (bus or car). Judkins Park area will rapidly gentrify once the station opens. After adjusting for age, I’d wager people commuting east on East Link are higher income than people commuting west. I moved to the eastside because it was more affordable than Seattle. Because Bellevue/Kirkland/Redmond has almost no naturally affordable housing, people don’t realize that those 3 cities are more affordable than Seattle on a per square foot basis when comparing equivalent housing stock.
2. Property Tax – my understanding is that washington is different than most states in that property values impact the allocations of property tax but not total amount collected (aside from adjusting for new construction). So if property values in Downtown Seattle collapse, that means property owners outside of downtown may pay a higher share of the various levies, but the total amount levied doesn’t change.
The cyclical nature of Seattle’s municipal finance is driven by permitting fees and sales tax associated with new construction, not from property taxes or proper values.
Judkins Park has good bones from an investment and development standpoint.
OK, let’s not get carried away here. Judkins Park does not have good bones. Putting a station at the intersection of a freeway and a 6-lane thoroughfare (with freeway ramps going every which way) is not a great idea. Throw in surrounding parkland and you are really limited in terms of walk-up ridership. But guess what?
You can say that most of the stations. Mount Baker Station is awful (https://seattletransitblog.com/2012/04/18/the-awfulness-of-mt-baker-station/). Every station north of Roosevelt abuts the freeway. Northgate Station doesn’t even allow east-west travel. East Main is way too close to the freeway. UW Station picked about the worst possible place on campus to put a station. Even the surface stations in Rainier Valley are too far from the center of things, and often abut green space. This is just the way it is.
There are only a handful of good stations. The downtown stations, Beacon Hill, Capitol Hill, U-District, Roosevelt stand out. Oh, and the only reason Roosevelt is really good is because the community pushed to move it east, away from the shadow of the freeway. But here is the thing: Even if the Roosevelt Station was under the freeway, it still wouldn’t be that bad. Even the station that Martin rightfully called awful still averaged over 2,500 boardings a day. Of course we wish these stations were better, but that doesn’t mean they will be complete failures. We can go on all day about how many of these stations are really poorly designed, and how we wish we would have done it differently. But the biggest weakness, by far, is simply that we don’t have *enough* stations. Judkins Park is not a great station. It does not have great bones. But at least it exists — which is more than I can say about First Hill Station, or stations on lines that will likely never get built.
The two urban villages – ’23rd and Union-Jackson’ and ‘North Rainier’ – have good bones. The immediate blocks around the station are indeed a freeway interchange and a park, but the broader station walkshed is quite good.
There’s a bridge at Northgate station that allows east/west travel?
Hey Ross, I do agree that the Judkins Park station is not a great station due to the reduced walkshed from I-90 and the park land that bisects the area. My comment regarding real estate development is not exclusively tied to the location of the station but related to the physical characteristics of the area south of I-90 that make it enticing for real estate speculation.
As for Mount Baker, I was involved some years back in an analysis of the area on why the area has been a bust from a development standpoint. One of the challenges with the immediate station area is that the diagonal roads (Rainier and MLK) create many small parcels that are difficult to patch together. Additionally, many properties are owned by various public agencies such as UW at the laundry site, Sound Transit with scattered plots, King County at the bus transfer station as well as Seattle Public Utilities. One other major challenge is that parallel to Rainier there are large utilities related to storm water (if I recall correctly) that limit the ability to build to the zoned capacity on some large parcels such as the QFC site. Unfortunately the concentration of subsidized housing within the area has also caused private developers to shy away from investing in new buildings.
Anyways, the city of Seattle has created a multi-agency group to coordinate among public entities under a Mount Baker Station development group to entice private development. There’s actually an RFP for an assemblage of properties out right now for what was formerly the UW laundry site for a mix of subsidized and market rate units. The UW (who is one of the landowners) under law is required to build a certain percentage of affordable housing tied to the development projects that are taking place at the main campus. The laundry site is one way for them to fulfill their affordable housing obligations but at a remote site in Mount Baker. The hope from the city is to help kick-start private development in the area to help stitch back the neighborhood from its car dependent uses.
AJ,
“People who work on the eastside but can’t afford to live there generally live in Snohomish or South King and take 405 (bus or car)”.
That is what I said although Crossroads and Renton (some areas) are more affordable too, and closer. Ross conflates someone working in the service industry like a janitor with a tech worker at Microsoft. Totally different situations based on income. Whether they can take transit to work depends on their job, and whether they need to carry things like tools, or transit goes to where their job is (or they get free parking).
“Judkins Park area will rapidly gentrify once the station opens.”
Who knows. I don’t believe gentrification is caused by Link, especially a station in the middle of a freeway with a tough walkshed, although apparently, they believe this with TDLE. The “build it and they will come” mentality has led to a lot of poor Link stations and planning IMO. I think lower and upper Beacon Hill are gentrifying, but that is an entirely different area, and gentrification does not necessarily translate into transit ridership. Sometimes just the opposite.
One frustrating thing on this blog is folks just invent a future they want to justify their dreams, especially transit ridership. I tend to look at the present and think the future will look pretty much like the present, maybe modestly different (unless an exogenous event like a pandemic occurs but those are rare). At the same time, I don’t claim transit ridership will decline another 20% in the future due to more WFH or other reasons.
Judkins Park never made sense to me as a station, except it was in the middle of I-90 and the buses had to go there anyway. It always has had light ridership. I don’t think it “has good bones”, and when I look at future ridership I ask two questions: 1. how will riders get to the station, and from the station to their destination; and 2. where are they going that they chose this station which will often include a transfer very close to downtown Seattle. Then of course if there is an existing bus route at the same station I look at that, except the 550 is a one seat ride to Bellevue Way (and downtown Seattle) and Microsoft is mostly WFH and looks to be that way for a while, so East Link will be marginally worse than the 550 because so little of East Link has any development near it, although many claim all those areas will gentrify.
“After adjusting for age, I’d wager people commuting east on East Link are higher income than people commuting west.”
I don’t know what the point of this statement is, or why one adjusts for age. In prior posts some on this blog, including Ross, stated TOD and upzoning in this area made sense because it is some of the most affordable land in Seattle, and could support a lot of service workers taking transit to the eastside and within Seattle. TransitGirl also noted this area is some of the most affordable in Seattle, although she was really talking about Beacon Hill.
Transit is not competing for the wealthy citizen. People ride transit because they have to. It is why higher income eastside cities have such little transit service. The issue for this thread is not which rider is higher income, but why are they going to Judkins Park, or boarding there going east if they are so wealthy.
“Property Tax – my understanding is that Washington is different than most states in that property values impact the allocations of property tax but not total amount collected (aside from adjusting for new construction). So if property values in Downtown Seattle collapse, that means property owners outside of downtown may pay a higher share of the various levies, but the total amount levied doesn’t change.
The cyclical nature of Seattle’s municipal finance is driven by permitting fees and sales tax associated with new construction, not from property taxes or proper values.”
You are correct that the “property levy” stays the same except for additional levies passed by the citizens (over 1/2 of Seattle’s property tax is special levies, and will go up another $400 to $500 if the $970 million housing levy passes). Commercial office towers because of their very high values in the past have paid a significant portion of the property levy, which in the future will likely be reallocated to other properties as those office towers decline in value and pay less in property taxes, or the city cuts property taxes.
When it comes to permitting fees, under state law a city can only charge its actual costs in permitting fees. Cities actually lose money in permitting because not all projects are private development. Sales tax from construction mostly goes to the state and county, but in very large projects like new office buildings a city does realize a significant sales tax bump, and new construction is exempt from the property levy which is why councils like new development. What really generates a lot of tax revenue in a CBD like downtown Seattle is the B&O tax that is an incomes tax businesses pay on gross receipts.
The two urban villages – ’23rd and Union-Jackson’ and ‘North Rainier’ – have good bones.
Yes, a station at 23rd and Jackson would have excellent bones. For those who don’t know the area, here is an aerial map: https://goo.gl/maps/4pivMwdk44EXzRe48. There is a mix of housing every direction. There is a school nearby, as well as apartments. But there is also plenty of room to grow (Walgreens, AutoZone — areas that are now mostly just parking). It is a normal street grid, which means easy access from every direction. 23rd as well as Jackson are arterials, but they aren’t major arterials. You can walk along the side streets most of the way, and then when you do hit the main street, it isn’t that bad.
But they aren’t building a station there! That is the point. Look at where they are building the station: https://goo.gl/maps/26beWDUd7yZJp15z8. It is a freeway station. This means that much of the land adjacent to the station is taken up be the freeway. Farther out, much of the land is taken up by freeway ramps. Development nearby is also limited because of park land. But just because there is nice park nearby, does not mean it is that easy to get to. Imagine you are at 21st and Atlantic. At that point, you are about 80 yards from the platform. Except you can’t get there that way. You have to go around, on 23rd. Instead of 80 yards, it is about 1,400 yards. The same thing is true on the other side. As a result, people along those streets have to detour to a busy street instead of taking a more direct path. It isn’t bad if you are a stone’s throw from the station (like 21st and Atlantic) but it is bad if you are farther away.
Mike got it right. This was basically an afterthought station. But the folks who actually built it did the best they could with it, and now it is OK. Not great, maybe not even good, but OK. It will work well for those headed to the East Side, especially folks taking a bus. Some will walk. It is possible that the city will make Rainier far less dangerous and far more comfortable for walking. It will get decent, but not spectacular ridership.
There’s a bridge at Northgate station that allows east/west travel?
I meant east-west bus travel, but yeah, the bridge was an essential addition. But the bridge doesn’t solve the development problem. It is an 8 minute walk from the edge of the bridge to the platform: https://goo.gl/maps/d9h8hmiHY1gpx3Gv5. So even if they built something right up to the very edge of the bridge, it isn’t an easy walk. Look at a station like Capitol Hill, and see how many people can walk there within 8 minutes. Now look at Northgate, and you have nothing to the east and relatively little to the west. It is not a great station when it comes to walk-up riders. Nor is it a great station when it comes to bus feeders (since you can’t access it in a perpendicular direction) and yet with all of that, it still has a lot of riders. A lot of this has to do with it being a terminus station, but is also in the city. it connects to much better stations. If you are headed to Capitol Hill or downtown, it is quite reasonable to walk a long ways to the train, or take a bus that winds its way around before finally getting to the station. Because one you get to the station, you can get to the other station very quickly, and once there, you can get to a ton of places just by walking a little bit. Clearly a lot of Northgate’s ridership is based on being the north end terminus. But even after Link gets further north, it will do OK. College students are willing to walk a ways. There are at least some clinics nearby. For some, it will remain the only fastest way to get to a station (by foot, bike or bus). It is in the city.
This is the nature of many stations within our system. They aren’t nearly as good as they should be, but they are still are OK. But again, the worst part is not the flaws within each station, but the fact that there aren’t nearly as many of them. Capitol Hill is an excellent station, but it still doesn’t make up for the fact that there is no station between it and downtown (or it and the UW).
@AL,
“Judkins will be a great station”
You are correct, Judkins will be a great station. Transportation connections are excellent for transfers, and walk-up ridership will be robust.
That is an area I currently only go to a few times a year. I find today’s Link connections to be too remote to access the neighborhood easily, and the bus connections are just too slow and painful for my liking. So currently I always drive.
My friends who live in the area are also looking forward to the station opening, but often for oddly short trip reasons. They (mainly) live north of the station, and used to enjoy walking down to Mariners games and to grocery shop in the ID. However, it’s a bit long to carry a lot of groceries, and with the current public safety situation in the ID they don’t walk back from night games anymore. They now always drive.
So for them the opening of Judkins represents a huge improvement. They will leave the car at home (most times) and switch to transit.
night When the station opens they will have a safe, fast, 1-stop trip. They can’t wait.
The excuses commenters come up with as to why they rarely, or never, take public transit is funny. I don’t believe any of it.
Lazarus, I don’t understand why your friends wouldn’t walk to Judkins Park to catch one of the buses that stop there to go to a Mariner’s game, but will use East Link. The combined buses are frequent and go to the same place East Link will go: CID. The buses are clean and pleasant and the 550 pretty direct. In fact, my point about Judkins Park is I don’t see the benefit of rail over buses for that station so I don’t see how Link will transform the area or the station. For your friends, there is no difference between the ST buses and East Link if their trip is Judkins Park to the Mariner’s game.
A lot of people who are close to Judkins Park will just walk to the game. But some will ride the train, while others take the bus. Depends a bit on where exactly you are, and whether you are concerned about traffic, and all that.
Trying to pin down exact uses is pointless. That is now how good transit works. You need to look at the overall network. East Link will connect to far more places than the 550 does. For example, consider this trip: https://goo.gl/maps/HpbcsubQbeRJoA8h8. That goes from 53 minutes to 23 minutes. You save a half hour. This is a big enough savings that anyone south of there (who has to transfer) finds it appealing. Ride the 7, transfer to East Link. But again, that is just one combination. Link goes the other way as well. The train won’t just go downtown, but will continue to Capitol Hill, UW, Roosevelt, Northgate, etc. Not everyone will find this the best option. But many will.
Ross, it is an 11 minute walk from your pin drop to the station entrance; the urban village is within the station walkshed. If someone isn’t able/willing to walk to the 10 minutes from 23rd, they’ll have a frequent bus to catch.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/47.5992859,-122.3021805/47.5903235,-122.3020261/@47.5959885,-122.3060576,1681m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!4m1!3e2?entry=ttu
Also, the urban village extends all the way to S Judkins street. The midrise development along Rainier is just as much within the urban village as the buildings clustered around 23rd & Jackson, and for pretty much the rest of the urban village the freeway interchange is irrelevant because most people will access the station via 23rd given the topography. Many blocks of the lowrise development pattern you champion on this blog are contained between 16th & 28th before a rider gets to your pin drop at Jackson, all within the urban village; hopefully the city allows missing-middle midrise on those blocks.
https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/OPCD/OngoingInitiatives/SeattlesComprehensivePlan/UrbanVillageMaps.pdf (warning – large file. See page 12).
21st & Atlantic is a 4 minute walk to the station entrance … not sure what your critique here is, that riders have to walk to the entrance of a station to enter the station?
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/47.590297,-122.3022765/21st+Ave+S+%26+S+Atlantic+St,+Seattle,+WA+98144/@47.5899094,-122.3043919,209m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m9!4m8!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x54906a8d7ff6c677:0x967141e2ec3af23a!2m2!1d-122.3051642!2d47.5895198!3e2?entry=ttu
Not
I always thought of Judkins Park as just as much about Pike/Pine in downtown Seattle, Capitol Hill, and UW as it is about the east side. Transferring there seems much more efficient than riding the busses all the way to 4th and Jackson. There will be more than a handful of people per train doing that, especially at congested hours. Although if you were just going to the International District or Pioneer Square, you’d probably just stay on the bus. The neighborhood itself is changing, and if you had a choice between a one seat ride on the rail or the bus, many would opt for the rail.
Nice multi-use regional trail connection too! Not too many places one can get off the train and have a traffic-free running route right there, UW is really the only one? Soon there will be Judkins Park, South Bellevue, Lynnwood, and arguably Mountlake Terrace (one street crossing to deal with there).
Nice multi-use regional trail connection too! Not too many places one can get off the train and have a traffic-free running route right there, UW is really the only one? Soon there will be Judkins Park, South Bellevue, Lynnwood, and arguably Mountlake Terrace (one street crossing to deal with there).
I think Redmond has good bike paths as well.
The Spring District stations in Bellevue will be close to the SR520 trail, and the Wilburton and 120th stations will be close to Eastrail as well. It looks like there’s already direct connections to Eastrail from Wilburton, and I think there’s a two-way bike facility on 120th that connects up with a spur. Hopefully 130th can get similar treatment, since the 520 trail is only accessible from the west side of the street right now.
Ross, it is an 11 minute walk from your pin drop to the station entrance; the urban village is within the station walkshed.
The fact that they overlap is meaningless. I honestly don’t know why people are so obsessed with this silly urban village nonsense.
You are missing the point. The pin drop I made would make a great station, because you have density in every direction, immediately next to it. What density doesn’t exist could easily add it, simply because what isn’t dense is largely just parking lots. In contrast, the Judkins Park Station does not have that. Much of the land surrounding the station is essentially “dead space”: freeway ramps, wide roads, and yes, even green space. People don’t live there, work there or visit there. Even as the area redevelops, this will be the case.
Put it this way. Imagine a stop where I dropped that pin. Now imagine what that area would look like in twenty years. Now imagine how many people would walk to that stop within five minutes. These are your core riders. These are the ones that will take the train to downtown, even a bus stop is a little closer. Now do the same with the Judkins Park Station. It isn’t even close. Way too much of the land around the actual station is taken up by dead space. Here is a handy tool for that (or you can just use your imagination). You have to hover over each entrance.
Speaking of entrances, my point is that the gap between the entrances is also really big. This adds to the distance that riders have to walk to the station. For example, compare it to Columbia City. It is about 1250 feet from 23rd to Rainier Avenue. It is about 750 feet from Edmunds to Alaska. Some riders do have to go out and back to access the platforms (https://goo.gl/maps/bpHxJkLSKhZgqLAd9) but it is not much of a detour. Furthermore, simply because of the street layout, few are effected. Pretty much the only way to go east-west is on the same streets that are the entrances to the station. In contrast, 21st and 22nd (south of the station) go all the way to Rainier and Grand (respectively). If you are far enough south you can go via Rainier, but that is involves walking along a nasty road, as well as well as taking the escalators/elevators and all that. So people will walk this way: https://goo.gl/maps/xvURVKTnfcBrECYN8 (along with the extra distance from the entrance to the platform). Or they will save five minutes of walking, and just catch the 7, around the corner. If, on the other hand, the entrance was on 22nd, riders from that same spot could reach the station in under five minutes, even thought the difference between platforms would be less than Columbia City. The same thing is true from the north. This seems like a little thing, but it all adds up. The maximum distance someone will walk is not the same for every person. It also varies on where the vehicles is going, how often, how fast, what the competition is, etc. But the farther you have to walk, the less likely you are to use it. All of these things add up to a station that is simply not as great.
But again, it isn’t horrible either. Mount Baker Station is awful in many ways, and yet it still gets decent ridership because it is in the heart of the city. Same with this station. I also want to be clear — I have no problem with the people who designed the station. This is in the middle of the freeway, and there is only so much they can do. I think they did a very good job, considering. But it is still in the middle of the freeway.
> Judkins Park area will rapidly gentrify once the station opens.
I spot checked google maps and seattleinprogress.com and it does look like there’s plenty of construction currently. There’s the melody apartments and the joya townhouses recently finished.
For actively under construction there’s the grand street commons with around 700 units and then other apartments like 1700 21ST AVE S with another 150 units.
There’s other plans at 2101 22ND AVE S for a 7 story apartment, 900 RAINIER AVE S is going to build a 400 unit apartment.
While Judkins park station definitely wouldn’t be built if it wasn’t for East Link, it does look like housing is being built around the station. And honestly it seems it has more housing planned than say what is planned for 130th or 145th station.
> Judkins Park area will rapidly gentrify once the station opens.
I spot checked google maps and seattleinprogress.com and it does look like there’s plenty of construction currently. There’s the melody apartments and the joya townhouses recently finished.
Pretty much anywhere that allows apartments is building apartments. Basically the growth has little to do with the station, and everything to do with the fact that they allow growth there.
There are exceptions, but usually a simple explanation for them. For example, much of Lake City has grown like crazy, but not all of it. There is a stretch of Lake City Way south of 125th, which has basically stayed the same. This is because the family that owns the car lots doesn’t want to sell. The city really doesn’t need mass transit to spur development — it just needs to change the zoning.
Because of the lack of income tax in Washington, those car lots on lake city are perversely valuable to the city. They pull an outsized amount of revenue in sales tax. So the city is not eager to motivate them to sell.
@Ross
> Pretty much anywhere that allows apartments is building apartments. Basically the growth has little to do with the station, and everything to do with the fact that they allow growth there.
I agree that the Seattle area housing demand is so high that any spot allowing apartments would have development.
I was more referring to the part about how others thought there was few housing going to exist around Judkins Park station. And while that is kind of true as of now, it is at least being rectified with a lot more apartments being constructed.
@WL — Yes, and I agree with you. I should have made that clear. The area has grown considerably, and continues to grow. The same thing can be said for Lake City, Greenwood, Fremont, etc.
Because of the lack of income tax in Washington, those car lots on lake city are perversely valuable to the city. They pull an outsized amount of revenue in sales tax. So the city is not eager to motivate them to sell.
Yes, and throw in a housing crisis as well as antiquated zoning, and you have a weird situation on your hands:
“I don’t like car lots, but they bring in money. Where should we put them?’
“How about busy, ugly streets — like Aurora and Lake City Way?”
“Brilliant!”
“I don’t like apartment buildings, but poor people gotta live somewhere. Where should we put them?”
“How about busy, ugly streets — like Aurora and Lake City Way?”
“Brilliant!”
“How come there are so many homeless in Seattle now? Those guys at the UW said it was because we don’t have enough housing. What should we do?”
“Focus on drug treatment.”
“Brilliant!”
If the light rail line ran down Lake City Way instead of I-5, maybe those car lots would be less necessary. mic drop
“If the light rail line ran down Lake City Way instead of I-5, maybe those car lots would be less necessary. mic drop”
Back in my anonymous ranting days (which I pretend are behind me) for the northern alignment was settled, I spent a fair about of useless energy advocating for 2 horns instead of a spine – up Lake City and up 99. It would have served so many more people with such a better walkshed. Alas.
Car lots do generate a tremendous amount of sales tax (for the state, county and city), along with Costo’s. Car lots are on Lake City Way because when they were first sited LCW had low value land but allowed commercial businesses. Same reason LCW had so many strip joints. Same reason they are located on 116th in Bellevue.
They could be redeveloped today, except the alternatives are not as profitable for the property owner, at least in LCW. A franchise from a major automaker is like printing money, although King Co.’s and Seattle’s higher sales tax puts car lots in Seattle at a disadvantage. Low income or affordable apartments are not very profitable for the property owner, at least compared to a car franchise.
WA State does not have an INDIVIDUAL income tax (unless you count the recently adopted state capital gains tax). It does however have a business income tax called the Business and Occupation Tax that both the state and city apply. https://dor.wa.gov/taxes-rates/business-occupation-tax
“What is the business and occupation (B&O) tax?
“The state B&O tax is a gross receipts tax. It is measured on the value of products, gross proceeds of sale, or gross income of the business.
“Washington, unlike many other states, does not have an income tax. Washington’s B&O tax is calculated on the gross income from activities. This means there are no deductions from the B&O tax for labor, materials, taxes, or other costs of doing business.”
One of the criticisms of the B&O tax is it doesn’t take into account the profitability of a business because it is an income tax on gross receipts, which can hurt a business just starting out trying to grow the business. It also does not capture individual passive income, which the capital gains tax is supposed to do at very high gain levels.
Another criticism of the B&O tax is it allocated all the B&O tax in the commercial cores, namely Seattle and Bellevue and Redmond, rather than the city where the workers live. As a result, Seattle’s CBD generated 2/3 of Seattle’s tax revenue, whereas smaller cities where all those workers lived like Mercer Island or Sammamish received none of the revenue their residents generated because they worked in Seattle, although they had all the costs of servicing those residents.
WFH and the pandemic have helped reallocate that B&O tax revenue to the cities where workers live. Mercer Island and Sammamish have seen a nice bump in their tax revenue from WFH and just businesses leaving the CBD, which has allowed each to stop relying on development to keep pace with the 1% cap on raising the property tax levy without a vote of the citizens. This has helped MI for example to spend money on infrastructure and other needs that had been put off for years, and MI is seeing a lot of exciting park infrastructure renovation and other city expenditures. These smaller cities have always had to struggle to make ends meet while Seattle was awash in money.
Now in 2023 Harrell is looking at a projected $250 million deficit in Seattle’s operating budget. Some council members are looking for more taxes like a city capital gains tax to fill that hole. Personally, I think Seattle has spent its revenue very inefficiently over the last 10 years when more money was coming in than the council knew what to do with, and looking for efficiencies to meet new budget realities will be healthy for Seattle. The citizens can always vote to increase the property tax levy for expenditures they agree with. More than ever Seattle needs the revenue from those car lots.
One of the results of an individual income tax some miss is it would really reallocate tax revenue from CBD’s to where citizens live (not unlike the head tax in Seattle). Cities like Medina, Clyde Hill, and Mercer Island would get a cut of the individual income tax even though their residents live in Redmond or Seattle or Bellevue, and have relatively high-income residents. CBD’s and cities with lower income residents would suffer.
Unless there is a change in position by the state supreme court on adopting an individual income tax it would need a vote of the citizens, and I doubt that will ever pass. It isn’t like WA state is not rolling in tax revenue. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/higher-revenue-forecast-excites-washington-tax-reformers.
I think an individual income tax amendment that was tied to a provision like in CO that requires that total state tax revenue is limited to a percentage of state GDP could pass, but progressives will never go along with that because an individual income tax is more about more tax revenue and not tax revenue equity, at least the voters think that way. I would favor an individual income tax over a B&O tax as a business owner, in part because it would greatly benefit my city that has a low B&O tax base but would have a very large individual income tax base.
Car lots are on Lake City Way because when they were first sited LCW had low value land but allowed commercial businesses.
They could be redeveloped today, except the alternatives are not as profitable for the property owner, at least in LCW.
Yes and no. The land is not leased to the folks who operate those lots. They are owned by the Pierre company, which is owned by the descendants of Bill Pierre. They sell cars. That is what they know how to do. It would be different if the land was owned by someone else, and leased to them.
Of course the Pierre family has talked about selling the land for quite some time. But then what? They have to buy land somewhere else, move, and start up there. It is a big hassle. Basically this is just business inertia. It happens all the time. When a small company does it, folks get nostalgic. The kid doesn’t want to go into the family business, so they sell, and cash out. Same thing here, except with a lot more land, and in this case, the kids like the business. It is possible they are trying to time the market, but I doubt it.
The point is, the land is not cheap. Similar land in the area has sold for a lot of money, and has been developed. By my estimates, they are sitting on over $20 million of land, give or take. The land would certainly be worth more as apartments, but they just don’t feel like selling.
The point I was making was the land WAS very cheap on LCW when the car lots were sited there.
If selling the land and relocating or closing the car dealerships were more profitable I would think the property owners would look at that. But the property owners are figuring the value of the land is not going down, it remains an unrealized gain while holding it so like a 401k the property owners get the appreciation without paying any tax at this time, the cost to move to another location would be expensive both for the land, logistics, and loss of good will (and could jeopardize the dealership), and LCW land at this time really is not that valuable. If the lots were in Ballard or on 116th in Bellevue yes, they probably would have been sold or developed. But they are in LCW, near Pandora’s Adult Cabaret and Dream Girls at Rick’s and Deja Vu Showgirls.
People think there is more money in the multi-family development game then there really is, especially in this market and for lower end housing, and with affordable housing set asides. Add in a marginal neighborhood like LCW which is known for being affordable, a Seattle apartment vacancy rate that is rising, and I don’t know what kind of bids Pierre would get today to develop the property into multi-family housing. Obviously not high enough. Once they sell the land they no longer own it, or its appreciation, and probably have a pretty big tax bill, and will take a hit in the business by moving.
This region has massive untapped zoning for multi-family housing. If I were a lower end developer, I would look for properties that don’t have a very lucrative existing business on them to buy and develop, and maybe in a better area. I would begin with Lynnwood Link for properties to buy and develop, although my concern there is the farther north you go the lower the AMI and lower the housing values which means lower rents.
Right now Pierre is not getting the offers that would make them sell the land, because developers don’t see the profit in developing the land after the purchase price. LCW will have to gentrify a lot before that happens IMO.
@Ross/ Daniel
Regarding the Pierre lot conversion to apartments, while definitely the current worth of the car companies makes them unlikely to move. One large factor is also just that the current zoning on that lot is a bit lower than the other lots that have built apartments.
Checking the seattle zoning map, it’s NC3-55. While the other apartments north of the Pierre lots recently built have NC3-75 or NC3-95. Additionally, the Pierre car lots are also south of NE 120th ave which means it is outside of the Lake City Urban Village, meaning all parking requirements are still required.
https://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Research/gis/webplots/k227E.pdf
https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/HALA/FocusGroups/MHA%20Building%20Examples%20Neighborhood%20Commercial%2055.pdf
Most likely the low height limited combined with the relatively high parking requirements makes converting it over to apartments unreasonable. If either the zoning is increased or the urban village boundaries extended south of NE 120 st, they’d be much more likely to sell/convert over to apartments.
A multistory car dealership would seem like an easy place to add parking spaces for residents. They’re building the garage anyway, so adding a floor or half floor of residential parking would cost less than a building with only a residential garage. And if the apartments are above open-air carport decks, that’s not much worse than being over a one-story car dealership.
That is a valid point WL. However, are there no other lots available for development in the UG zone or NC-75/95 that have modest or low value development on them now?
Generally, developers don’t go to a zone and look for the most expensive piece of property to develop with a high-income generating business on the property, especially if the future development is likely to be affordable or modest rent/no parking units. As I mentioned before, there is not a lot of room for profit in development like that, especially with today’s interest rates which make just getting a loan or REIT investment difficult.
As Tacomee has pointed out, there is just a fixed floor cost for each unit in any new construction today, and a ceiling for multi-family rents in LCW. That gulf is a real no man’s land for developers, even at 1-2% interest rates let alone 10% today. Many are predicting a real shakeout in commercial office properties in 2024 as over $1 trillion must refi, but some area also predicting the same for the multi-family market. I certainly would not invest in a REIT today, in part because you can’t get out.
I thought the goal of urbanists was a mix of housing types in an area, whether 55, 75 or 95. The so called missing middle housing, that is more human scale and more suited for mixed use retail (and usually higher end). If everything is going to be upzoned to NC-95 why not begin with Capitol Hill that already has a light rail station?
I don’t think these lots are critical to Seattle’s housing supply or affordability. There are thousands of lots zoned multi-family in Seattle today — including surface parking lots in downtown Seattle — that are ripe for development. Of course, there are also 2201 (down from 2500) apartments for rent in Seattle today. https://www.rentcafe.com/apartments-for-rent/us/wa/seattle/?campaign=Seattle%20-%20Search&term=zillow%20apartments%20for%20rent%20seattle&msclkid=f39f4df9ac5a1e0b737b296d0daa928b&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Seattle%20-%20Search&utm_term=seattle%20apartments%20for%20rent&utm_content=Seattle%20-%20Apartments%20for%20Rent
It will be interesting to see if Seattle’s 2024 Comp. Plan update includes upzoning the property the car lots are on, and whether that leads to their sale and development. Right now, I think we are a few years away from market and financing conditions that would encourage selling and developing the property (even if NC-95), and whether Seattle is entering a rental glut when new units currently under construction come online. In today’s market, if the car lot properties were totally vacant, I am not sure a NC-55 wouldn’t be more attractive to a developer than a NC-95 project because there is just such little financing for a large NC-95 development at this time. Probably the best thing to encourage development in LCW is gentrification, although low/moderate income/no parking units are not really gentrification.
Thanks again for raising an important zoning consideration.
There are a few fairly big empty former car dealership lots near 123rd & LCW, for example, whose zoning allows for apts, so I’m not sure why people here are getting worked up over still-in-business LCW car dealerships. And if Bill Pierre still owns those empty lots, I’m sure if they’d sell for the right price. Then, when apts are built there, it’s just a quick, one mile bus ride over to Golf Course Station.
@Daniel
> I thought the goal of urbanists was a mix of housing types in an area, whether 55, 75 or 95. The so called missing middle housing, that is more human scale and more suited for mixed use retail (and usually higher end). If everything is going to be upzoned to NC-95 why not begin with Capitol Hill that already has a light rail station?
To clarify while the zoning is called is 55 feet limit, in actuality there are some setback rules etc… The 75/95 zoned ones typically end up more like 5/6 stories not actually always 7/9 stories tall. There’s also height limitations when abutting residential houses which I see the Pierre lots are next too so some of it ends up being more like 3/4/5 stories tall not actually 5 stories allowed on all of the lot.
The point I was making was the land WAS very cheap on LCW when the car lots were sited there.
Yes, and I agreed with that point. The point I am making is that they wouldn’t locate there NOW. Thus there is a disconnect. It made sense to locate there at the time, but doesn’t make sense to locate there now. This is just business inertia. Not every owner sells, even though there are more profitable uses of the land. It is relatively common for businesses to ignore the fact that they can maximize profits by moving, and stay where they are. You can see it in pretty much every neighborhood, including downtown Seattle. Look around and you can see tiny buildings, surrounded by huge ones. These are just folks who for whatever reason, aren’t developing the land right now. Maybe they are trying to time the market. Maybe they are OK with their business right now, and in no hurry to sell. Maybe they inherited the property and business, are loaded, and just don’t want to bother moving.
This is even more the case with housing. There are plenty of people sitting on lots that are worth way more than their house. They get offers all the time. They just aren’t interested in moving. This is why the idea that “there is plenty of room to build all the housing we need under current zoning” misses the point. Not every bit of land is used for its most profitable use, or what the real estate folks call the highest and best use. It just doesn’t work that way. There is bound to be some inertia.
Thus you have areas (like Lake City) where the land is now expensive, and yet some of it has not been redeveloped. For example, just like car lots, Savers Incorporated tends to operate their thrift stores on cheap land. Eventually they sold the Value Village in Lake City, and now it is apartments. Same with the land next door, which is in the process of becoming apartments (https://www.seattleinprogress.com/project/3039896/page/1). The buildings on this lot — such as the are — are way more valuable than car lots. In other words, it is closer to the “highest and best use” than the car lots. The only reason the car lots haven’t changed is just inertia.
Where Toyota of Seattle used to be …
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6172808,-122.3392859,3a,75y,158.64h,120.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1T3iYj6kE5fglbBYvuk4aQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Isn’t the Alfa Romeo dealership on 12th on Capitol Hill in the old Ferrari dealership space? Bellevue has car dealerships along 116th and over on 124th.
When I was in Honolulu in February the Waikiki strip had several high end car dealerships in the street level retail space mixed in with the shops. Some of the cars are like art.
*
Boy, I hear you, Daniel! Those people; yeah……
Does Metro have to wait two more years until Judkins Park Station opens to use the bus stops on Rainier? There’s a nice wide bus stop with a bus queue jump southbound on Rainier that can’t be used until ST opens it up. It looks ready for bus riders today!
This will impact virtually nobody here, but I do remember in the past a few here, including dearly departed dp, having stayed in hotels near the airport when visiting Portland, using the Portland airport, etc:
Red line MAX trains will not be operating to Portland airport or north of Gateway until October 21 or so. A second track will be installed at the airport. During that time, TriMet will also perform rail replacement, grinding, welding etc on the 22 year old infrastructure.
Buses will replace MAX trains for this segment, but will generally take 30 minutes longer.
https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2023/06/trimet-shuts-down-max-red-line-to-pdx-for-more-than-4-months-beginning-sunday.html
It’s good to see that Trimet is fixing a lot of the bad about the Airport Red Line segment with the initial build out of it.
Yeah, it definitely shows the disadvantages of having a private equity firm build a line for you. The whole thing was built in 2 years for $200 million, and in 2001 that wasn’t anything to sneeze at.
At least they’ve proven the line well enough to get the airport to grant them enough land for a second track.
I was in Bel-Red today and walked up to the 130th station, and it is exactly what a light rail station should be. Link has dedicated ROW and grade separated crossing over major arterials, but then the station itself is at-grade and incredibly easy to access on foot or bike. A handful of midrise apartments are already going up. I’m very excited to see how this station area looks in a few years.
Also, at East Main the crosswalk at the south entrance of the station (signed SE 300, but it’s really just the entrance to the Hilton) is already in service, which was cool to see even though the station itself is fenced off.
Thanks, AJ. At-grade stations are best when they work.
Here’s a now&then of 132nd Ave and Spring Blvd, looking northeast from Bel-Red/130th station. The first photo is from 9 years ago. The second is from a couple of days ago. The station is behind the camera.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6243703,-122.1644463,3a,75y,61.42h,70.87t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sM4U0RCNX5qUsXIR4voRpVg!2e0!5s20140901T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137037664@N08/52986143749/in/dateposted-public/
I don’t know why it bothers me so much but I cant stand the fact that a multi billion dollar agency can’t afford real, human-sounding voiceovers for the automated announcements. They’re worse now with the new PA system. It sounds like a robot trying to give an announcement while be waterboarded.
But it’s not just an aesthetic issue. I asked my gf if she understood what the announcements were saying and she only got half of them right. So what if there’s an urgent message that needs to be broadcasted?
AI generated speech from mere text.
See how close we are to self driving vehicles?
We used to have human voiced announcements, they then proceeded to disappear with the UW extension . Why they did that I don’t really know other than a weird cost savings measure that doesn’t make sense in the grander scheme of fhings.
This is also despite the fact that Vancouver SkyTrain has changed their PA information every few years with additional information like new stations, RapidBus Lines, and other important intermodal connections and yet still use the same person, Laureen Regan.
https://youtu.be/y2XIBIZk6cE
I think voice tones matter a great deal. I think many people don’t naturally like to listen to robotic voices.
This study found that only 7 percent of listening are actual words:
https://online.utpb.edu/about-us/articles/communication/how-much-of-communication-is-nonverbal/
Another 38 percent is the tone. That totals 45 percent as the aural comprehension, so that only 15 percent (7/45) are the words heard and 85 percent is the tone. This is often ignored when announcements get programmed.
Personally, I wish they contracted the voice recordings to Rick Steves. His voice is higher pitched, and many are already used to hearing him giving calm but authoritative advice — even travelers from out of state.
I vote for Sound Transit hiring the AOL “You’ve got mail” guy to record the announcements. Then, every time there’s an announcement, older people would go “Where do I know that voice from?”
My college Russian teacher told me that if you get on a bus in Russia and start murmuring mm-mm with the right intonation pattern (rising/falling), babushkas around you will start nodding and saying “Da, da” or replying to what they thought you said.
I never tried this, but I did have another experience. When I was in St Petersburg in the 1990s, I’d been told that to ride a bus, you buy a strip of paper bus tickets outside metro stations, and then validate a ticket on a mechanical puncher inside the bus. If the bus was full, you passed it to your neighbor, and they passed it down until somebody near a puncher could punch it, and then they’d pass it back to you. I imagined passing it from the back of the bus to the front and worried I might not get it back, but they reassured me that people always pass it back to you. When I got on buses, I found that the punches were distributed every five feet or so, and the buses weren’t packed midday, so I was able to punch it myself. And if I did have to pass it to somebody, it would be only laterally to one or two people, not all the way to the front of the bus.
Mike,
Did the ticket punchers vary the patterns every day? I remember stories of this from other places in Eastern Europe which used hole punching validation methods. And then they also had different ticket colors for different modalities, as I recall – something like green for buses and blue for trolleys or whatever. Was that in place in St. Petersburg too?
I remember riding KC Metro buses in the 90s, before I got monthly passes, when drivers had special punches for marking paper transfer tickets. Inevitably these transfers wound up in my backpack or coat pockets and when I would periodically clean them out I would take a look at them and note the different types of punches that had been used. I always wondered how that all worked and whether drivers ever inspected transfer tickets that closely.
For the youngsters on the blog, some examples from Oran’s flickr page (I never saved any myself)….
https://www.flickr.com/photos/viriyincy/5132417163/in/photostream
Tired of waiting for Metro to put in a bus shelter, neighborhood builds a guerrilla bus shelter at 39th & Othello back in 1982.
https://digitalcollections.lib.washington.edu/digital/collection/imlsmohai/id/9603/rec/33
https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/06/19/seattle-plans-to-extend-and-upgrade-third-avenue-transit-mall-in-2024/
See new Urbanist piece on SDOT on 3rd Avenue.
Note error in last paragraph. The Council did not endorse the SDA 3rd Avenue Vision, but only sought to study it; the study was expanded to include the CCC Streetcar and other parallel avenues; the final budget cut the study allocation and shifted the ask to SDOT from the OED. No news so far. I would caution against conflating the issues of 2019 with the issues of 2023. Major capital projects, as envisioned by the DSA, are probably not necessary or affordable. The same is true for the CCC Streetcar.
Seems like a weirdly semantic argument to say that the Council did not “endorse” the DSA’s vision(s) for 3rd avenue just because they chopped an appropriation for additional study from a budget that faced major deficits.
The Council asked SDOT to study the study.
The bus lanes should go all the way to Denny. Simply preventing cars from turning onto Third from Denny would be really nice. It would also be easier on drivers — instead of having to remember where on Third they can drive, it would be obvious.
The DSA vision reduces the lanes from four to two or three. It has a few alternatives including regular bus routes or an exclusive dedicated shuttle, stations on the side or in the middle, etc. So for the city to endorse it, it would have to choose one of these alternatives, and the Urbanist article didn’t go into any of it.
In any case, it can’t reduce the four lanes until Lynnwood, Redmond, and Federal Way Link open and free up space for buses on 2nd, 4th, and 5th Avenues, and more RapidRide lines open and absorb some of the other routes.
From an earlier thread discussing bus pathways in the Eastgate area…
Somebody indicated that the 554 will use Eastgate freeway station and take I-90 to Bellevue Way, but I don’t think that is actually possible – too many lanes to get over in too short of a distance, similar to trying to take 520 to I-5 and get off at Mercer St (which Metro also refuses to do). I’ve done it in a car before on a Sunday, but a bus doing it on a weekday would be tough.
Assuming that this maneuver is not possible in a bus, this means the 554 must take surface streets between Factoria and Eastgate rather than using the freeway station, a big time sink which explains a lot of why the proposed Metro routes will use Mercer Island instead.
Hopefully, the 554 can at least stay in the street rather than crawling through the Eastgate Transit Center bus bays. This crawl is several hundred feet at 5 mph, often requiring buses to slow down to 2 mph to squeeze past buses in layover that park in the bus loop. The Eastgate bus loop really only makes sense for routes that start or end there. Routes that continue onward should be serving on-street stops instead. Delaying everyone on the bus by two minutes just so people waiting there get to wait in a fancier bus shelter is not worth it.
https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/routes-schedules/556?direction=0&at=1687330800000&view=table&route_tab=schedule&stops_0=1_64561%2C1_11352&stops_1=1_10912%2C1_64566
Please see Route 556. (This is not an endorsement, only a confirmation).
Yeah, it is a lot of lanes to change, but the bus does it. In contrast, a bus can’t serve Eastgate and go north on 405 (to downtown Bellevue) which is a shame.
Note the updated plans for the 240:
New to Phase 3, Route 240 uses SE Eastgate Way (in the northbound
direction), I-90 (in the southbound direction), Bellevue Way SE, and
108th Ave SE between Eastgate Park & Ride and Bellevue Transit
Center.
It took me a while to wrap my head around this sentence. From Eastgate to Bellevue Way, the bus will use Eastgate Way, then get on the freeway (in the right lane) then off the freeway. Coming back, the bus will stay on the freeway, change lanes until it is in the HOV lane, then exit at Eastgate. Technically it uses I-90 each direction (hard to get across without it) but eastbound they call this “using I-90”. I’m not really sure why it is imbalanced — maybe Eastgate Way is much easier heading one direction, but not the other.
It is also worth noting that there are three lane changes in about 1.4 miles, or a lane change every 30 seconds. In contrast, the infamous Mercer to 520 lane change takes place in well under a mile.
Interesting. I guess it can be done then. In that case, the obvious compromise solution for the 240 is to serve stops on 36th St., then Eastgate Freeway Station as the only Eastgate stop, with South Bellevue as the next stop.
This seems like a good enough solution for existing riders of the 245’s Factoria tail, while substantially reducing the magnitude of the detour for thru riders over looping down the hill, into and out of the bus bays, plus waiting for the long light to cross Factoria Blvd.
This approach also has the advantage in that it allows riders headed from Eastgate to Link to wait at one stop at take either the 240 or the 554, whichever comes first. This is much better than having to pull out OneBusAway to see which bus is coming first and scramble up or down the stairs to the correct stop for that bus.
Bart has both male and female voices (George and Gracie: https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2009/news20090309) and they apparently pick which one to use based on the platform number that the announcement corresponds to.
Yeah. SF Muni Metro does that too — male in one direction and female in the other.
George and Gracie — cute.
I’ve never heard them together so I always thought they were the same voice.
Route 550 and 131/132 report.
550 eastbound 1pm. At the Bellevue High School stop, 13 school-age kids got on going toward the transit center.
550 westbound 4pm. Traffic congestion around the South Bellevue P&R. The Mercer Island Bridge between Mercer Island and Seattle was down to 30 mph and the bus was stuck in it.
3rd & Seneca 4:30pm. I waited for a 131 southbound. I should say at the outset that the 131/132 are almost always 5-20 minutes late. This time One Bus Away said it was coming in 4 minutes and was 6 minutes late. I waited longer than that, and checked again. Now it said 6 minutes and it was 14 minutes late. I checked a third time and it said -1 minute and that it had arrived 14 minutes late. But it didn’t. Sometimes when this happens the bus comes a couple minutes later; other times it never comes at all and you have to wait for the next one. Two minutes later it came. By that time the 132 was supposedly 1 minute away.
https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/06/22/transit-advocates-push-to-save-south-lake-union-light-rail-station/
I’m surprised to see a number of transit advocacy organizations listed as co-signers, but not STB. I think that the majority of the commenters would support the position in the letter.
If activists can’t keep CID station near Jackson, I can’t see how they can keep the Board from eliminating this station.
I also believe that we always need to discuss station depths going forward. The current Harrison alternative platform is goosed to be 120 feet deep. The UW station platform is 95 feet deep. How useful will that depth be for short trips?
Of course, if ST would just add an alternative to study running shorter automated trains as a stub line, every subway station would be much shorter (and maybe shallower) and that would mitigate construction impacts everywhere along the line. Maybe we could even get CID back!
I hadn’t heard of it and nothing came to the contact address. I don’t have time to pursue the Denny alternatives or outreach, so we’d need another champion for that. I haven’t heard from Andrew in a few weeks so I assume he’s busy moving to graduate school.
I and a few other STBers disagree with one of the letter’s premises. The Denny/Westlake station is probably better but not because of the Aurora/Harrison station. The important thing here is walkshed. Aurora/Harrison has a poor walkshed, largely taken up by the expressway ramps and the tower-in-the-park Gates Foundation. There’s an excellent walkshed east of the location, but the station doesn’t serve it very well.
Who will transfer between the E and Link at Aurora/Harrison who couldn’t transfer at Westlake? There’s a little overhead in traveling a short distance on surface streets, but that doesn’t seem like enough of a reason to put a station there. People going from Aurora to SLU, Seattle Center, or Capitol Hill will still have the E stops. So it would really be mainly people going from Aurora to southeast Seattle or the airport. The small overhead of taking the bus to Westlake would be a tiny part of the total trip. If somebody is already on Link, I can’t think of why they’d need to transfer to the E at Harrison instead of Westlake. And they’d have the other Link stations for Uptown, SLU, and the 8 transfer.
So this seems similar to the proposal for a Sounder-Link transfer at Boeing Access Road. Who would use it? It seems like they’re better off staying on Sounder or Link and transferring at King Street or not transferring at all. The transfer would only facilitate the 167 corridor to the airport or southeast Seattle. Taking Sounder to the airport is fraught with peril because if you miss the train it will take a lot longer. Kent, Auburn, and Puyallup will have other bus routes going to Federal Way or KDM Link Stations to transfer to the airport. And ridership from the 167 corridor to southeast Seattle can’t be very much, not compared to all the other Link and Sounder trips.
As to the Denny station location, I instinctively prefer the current Denny/Westlake location because it’s next to destinations like Whole Foods, BECU, Xfinity, the 8 and Westlake Avenue. The southwest alternative will be a bit further from these and I don’t see any compensating advantages (although there may be).
One point in the article stands out: “The changes to the plan … all fit a pattern of placing temporary construction impacts over the long-term health of the transit network and attracting more riders.” This has been the perennial problem with Link’s alignment decisions and other transit projects. People put three years of construction over a hundred years of an excellent station location. That hinders the transit network from reaching its potential or catching up to our European/Canadian/Asian peers. We have advocated against this shortsighted thinking all along but gotten nowhere, so I wouldn’t think this SLU-area decision would be any different. ST will probably choose the alternative because “construction impacts”, and that will be that.
As for delaying the Ballard Link Extension (BLE) with additional EIS options, to me that’s better than committing to bad transfers or waksheds now. We have Link in the east side of the city. It doesn’t directly serve the west side, but it’s better for the west side than if we didn’t have any Link. At least you can take a bus from Ballard to Westlake or U-District Station, and if that’s the best we can do, that’s something. A like that claims to serve Ballard and have good transfers but doesn’t, what’s the point? Why is there a hurry for that?
The Harrison Street station could be shifted west to serve the Seattle Center, Gates Foundation, and routes 3-4 on 5th Avenue North. It might be shallower.
“ST would just add an alternative to study running shorter automated trains as a stub line, every subway station would be much shorter (and maybe shallower) and that would mitigate construction impacts everywhere along the line”
A good point to raise with the SLU and CID activists. If you want less construction impacts, here’s a way to do it.
“Mayor Bruce Harrell and Amazon have pushed to add a last-minute alternative for Ballard Link that would drop a station in South Lake Union in order to shift Denny Station west off Westlake Avenue.”
That is the first sentence in The Urbanist article and says it all. From the beginning I have predicted SLU is where the rubber would meet the road, especially after a station at CID and midtown were dropped (Amazon and the DSA simply don’t have to go to the public to get their desires).
Harrell is terrified Amazon will start moving thousands of workers to Bellevue (or Virginia, I think a future increase in Seattle Amazon workers won’t happen and if anything, the total number of Amazon Seattle workers will decline over time), or just go back to 100% WFH, and he should be terrified. I had dinner with two senior Amazon VP’s last night who both complained about the commute to SLU now that workers are back in the office (although both work a lot from home or remotely), but both also noted the policy at this time is really aspirational, not mandatory, and Amazon is beginning to move Seattle workers to Bellevue, albeit slowly. One tried the bus (he lives on MI) but frequency was too terrible, according to him 18 minutes, if that.
Next up are Ballard and WS. Ballard will be easier to deal with stakeholder objections to years of disruption: build the station on 14th, underground, unless Ballard wants to pay several hundred million dollars to move it to 15th.
WS is much trickier since there are three stations, and I don’t think that neighborhood is very transit oriented, or will agree to years of disruption at three station locations for worse service than the current buses (including transfer), especially after the bridge closure and disruption. WS is suburbia, and suburbia simply prioritizes the things that make it suburban over transit, or light rail over buses. I think some on this blog just have a hard time understanding that, and think it is some kind of moral failing.
I think in 2008 and 2016 people thought that light rail would tunnel underground out of sight and sound and magically a station entrance would appear on the surface, not years of massive and very sloooooooooow construction for stations that are huge above and below grade, even for underground stations. Then when stakeholders did pay attention, like Bellevue or CID or DSA or SLU, they decided they wanted the station and disruption “over there”. Although Link is usually the last to the party because an area has become too vibrant and dense to serve with buses, ST thinks Link brings the party, when those who created the party know the party existed long before Link. That is why ST always looks so surprised when stakeholders object, and was caught so flatfooted with the CID.
“Of course, if ST would just add an alternative to study running shorter automated trains as a stub line, every subway station would be much shorter (and maybe shallower) and that would mitigate construction impacts everywhere along the line. Maybe we could even get CID back!”
This isn’t part of the DEIS, and wasn’t even a consideration during the hearing for adoption of the DEIS. If anything I wish interlining in DSTT1 was made part of the DEIS (certainly over a, $850 million station of 4th Ave. S.) but Harrell and Constantine wanted they $1.1 billion in subarea contributions, light rail to SLU (irony now) and ST refuses to give up the ghost on its pre-pandemic ridership and population growth estimates.
“Amazon and the DSA simply don’t have to go to the public to get their desires”
That’s not anything new. Government entities and large employers have clout as individual stakeholders, while the entire ridership and transit activists are lumped together into one stakeholder.
“Harrell is terrified Amazon will start moving thousands of workers to Bellevue (or Virginia)”
That sounds like hyperbole. Amazon is doing what large companies have been doing since the beginning of Link, and ST is responding typically.
In any case, multinational corporations and stadiums can’t expect to ask for major concessions from cities and then refuse to pay the taxes needed to support their impact or the city’s health. Bezos has long been known as a tax-hater, and its shifting growth to Bellevue was really posturing over a small amount of taxes, and it tries to hinder unions. Amazon benefits Seattle but it also takes from Seattle, and tries to hold it hostage to extract more concessions, like it does with its suppliers.
How does Amazon take from Seattle, Mike? In 2020 it is estimated Amazon paid to Seattle $297 million in taxes. https://www.geekwire.com/2020/amazon-pay-enough-taxes-source-says-local-tax-bill-297m-last-year/#:~:text=It%20isn%E2%80%99t%20clear%20how%20much%20Amazon%20paid%20in,insurance%2C%20totaled%20%24297%20million%2C%20according%20to%20the%20source. I wonder what Bellevue would do for that $297 million?
When Amazon announced it would require SLU workers to return to the office 3 days/week Harrell and The Seattle Times and transit fans treated it as if it was the second coming of Jesus for downtown.
The Seattle Times has an article today about whether a capital gains tax for Seattle on top of the state capital gains tax would fly. About 54% of Seattleites support it, but those 54% support any tax increase, especially if they don’t have to pay it (and don’t understand levies increase their rents). Otherwise, Seattle will have a huge hole in its operating budget from WFH.
Originally Amazon told Seattle the 25,000 eastside workers in those new towers along Bellevue Way would be new hires, and the 55,000 Seattle workers would stay the same, although I agree Bezos was trying to make a point and prepare for the future, not expecting a pandemic.
Amazon is now cutting employees, but has office space in Bellevue and Seattle that can nominally accommodate 80,000 full time employees. If Amazon moved 25,000 of those 55,000 SLU workers to Bellevue a Link station at SLU wouldn’t be necessary, and the hole in the operating budget for Seattle would double just from the taxes Amazon pays, let alone from workers who live in Seattle.
Amazon doesn’t owe Seattle anything. Amazon has purposefully set up plans that give it the option of leaving Seattle with very little disruption to Amazon. That is just good planning by a CEO who felt he couldn’t trust Seattle politicians, and Bellevue capitalized on that. Harrell is desperately trying to rebuild that trust with Amazon so that the huge amount of Seattleites who contribute very little to the tax base but will see a big change with the 44% office occupancy rate don’t see a huge cut in benefits or have to pay more themselves in taxes to maintain the current levels of services.
If I were Harrell I would take Amazon over a Link station all day long, which of course is what Harrell is doing. Harrell doesn’t care what transit riders think. Harrell threw ST under the bus for the CID. What do you think he would do to keep Amazon happy and in Seattle? If Amazon left Seattle Seattle would begin to look like Detroit.
Why Amazon hasn’t left Seattle I don’t know, although my friends last night said Jassy is more progressive than Bezos. Amazon stock is down over 30% since the day Bezos left on July 5, 2021, although up 25% this year. Progressive but with a stock price down over 30% in two years generally isn’t good for a CEO.
@Daniel Thompson
You might want to reread that geekwire.com piece you’ve linked to and then amend/correct your comments to reflect what the piece is actually reporting (via unnamed sources). You got so many of the details wrong. Seattle did NOT receive $297 million from Amazon for 2018.
“I think in 2008 and 2016 people thought that light rail would tunnel underground out of sight and sound and magically a station entrance would appear on the surface, not years of massive and very sloooooooooow construction for stations that are huge above and below grade, even for underground stations”
Building a light rail station in a dense enough area to get good ridership without big construction impacts for a few years is simply not possible. Capitol Hill endured years of construction hell, but that’s over and the neighborhood is now reaping the rewards. If that tradeoff is not acceptable, that’s tantamount to saying that you can never build light rail under any circumstances, as no matter where you build it, either the ridership will be too low or the construction impact too high.
“Building a light rail station in a dense enough area to get good ridership without big construction impacts for a few years is simply not possible. Capitol Hill endured years of construction hell, but that’s over and the neighborhood is now reaping the rewards. If that tradeoff is not acceptable, that’s tantamount to saying that you can never build light rail under any circumstances, as no matter where you build it, either the ridership will be too low or the construction impact too high.”
The question is not really about whether to build light rail (assuming the money is there), or WSBLE, but where, especially the stations (and a “few” years is a bit optimistic). Different stakeholders have different power and different goals. Years of construction at the location on Capitol Hill may have provided greater benefits for those residents — if not businesses — than it does for CID, Bellevue Way, or Amazon.
So we got stations at east main and 110th/112th, CID N/S, and no midtown, CID or maybe SLU (but close). I thought urbanists believed walking is good for you.
Don’t forget the ST and transit mantra: “build it and they will come”. So we have stations along I-5 and 405 where no one lives today with huge park and rides, but one day they will come and some claim the park and rides will become Totem Lake. Same with 14th in Ballard.
The fundamental disconnect is ST and transit advocates on this blog think light rail provides such a benefit to businesses and local residents that any amount of disruption over many years is worth it, at least to transit riders, all 5% of them. So they don’t understand when the stakeholders who actually live or work near these stations don’t feel the same, or don’t see the huge benefit over buses, and say no thanks.
ST has not helped itself with its incredible arrogance and incompetence, and endless construction periods. An idiot should have seen negotiations with CID should have been begun long ago rather than a day before the hearing on the DEIS, and included a ton of cash and mitigation, there was money for a tunnel under 104th if not Bellevue Way, and Amazon was going to object if the DSA did at midtown, because ST never made its case that asdf2 does above for Capitol Hill. That is the whole fucking point: they don’t see the benefit from a light rail station near them, and no one let alone ST has shown them any benefit, certainly compared to years of disruption. It isn’t like the DSA, CID, Bellevue or Amazon are rejecting a Link station because they don’t want the benefit. They don’t see the benefit. What is the benefit, let alone the benefit that is worth many years of disruption?
Is a Link station on Capitol Hill the reason Capitol Hill is vibrant or popular. If that Link station had never been built would Capitol Hill be any different today? Probably not, just more buses and one seat rides. If Ballard never gets Link will it harm Ballard’s future growth. Probably not. Will Bellevue Way suffer because East Link runs along 405? They don’t think so. Will WS see any benefit from WSBLE and three stations when the DEIS estimates 600 total drivers will switch to Link?
The stations will get built, just at locations that have the least resistance, and maybe fewer than the number originally planned. Just like East Link. ST, and especially Harrell, have no leverage today to force stakeholders to accept anything with downtown on life support, and Harrell is not going to fall on his sword over a Link station, even if it is the CID that has no economic might. Asdf2 put it well: the tradeoff is not worth it to them, in large part because ST never explained the benefit of a Link station, for just about any section of Link. ST thought it could use the abusive tactics it used in S. Seattle (and MI), but those don’t work on Bellevue, Amazon, CID, the DSA, etc.
“Why Amazon hasn’t left Seattle I don’t know”
The location is at a major Internet interchange. AWS is its most profitable division. Amazon hasn’t gone all-out on suburbanism like you have. It may in the future. It still probably has some employees who want to work in the city.
The difference between Amazon and companies with headquarters in Eastgate and Issaquah and Kent, is that downtown Bellevue has become more like Seattle.
There are a lot of people who don’t frequent (by living, working, studying, etc.) areas affected by construction who comment on what risks (or hardship) those who do should take, all in favor of the rewards that can be reaped once construction is finished.
First, let me say that I have no problem with the comments supporting such a stance.
Second, let me bring up something that I do not see mentioned often, and I think is worth being considered by those who support such positions. There is an unspoken aspect of the ‘social contract’, if you will, which says that even if those who suffer the downsides of construction are potentially different from those who benefit, in the long run things even out because someone else will also suffer the same effects somewhere else, and those who suffer e.g. in CID will benefit if they move or frequent such new places later. In other words, both the benefits and the costs are socialized, as it were.
Where this argument breaks down is in the context of ‘gentrification’ (and I use the term very loosely here, perhaps a better term would be ‘cost of living increases’ or whatever, too). If the cost of frequenting the area of construction is higher once construction is over, e.g. because living there gets even more expensive than it would have otherwise, or the businesses currently there end up priced out by the loss of customers during construction, etc., and they cannot find an _equivalent_ location (including the improvements in transit as a result of construction) as a result of the move, then the costs are socialized to them, but the benefits are not.
Now, I am not saying that this is the case everywhere; nor am I saying that this is the only argument made in opposition of construction. However, it is, I think, one that I have seen made (if not quite in the way I phrased it, no doubt), and I think that it is a position worth considering in the discussion, not sweeping it to the side.
“I think in 2008 and 2016 people thought that light rail would tunnel underground out of sight and sound and magically a station entrance would appear on the surface”
We can’t cater to people’s unrealistic expectations.
“Don’t forget the ST and transit mantra: “build it and they will come”.”
Don’t forget the other part: it works best when the stations are in the center of pedestrian concentrations. Those same companies and city governments and non-transit oriented activists you think ST should defer to are the reason it doesn’t. We tried to get Link on Bellevue Way, Aurora, and Pacific Highway.
“An idiot should have seen negotiations with CID should have been begun long ago”
What you’re asking for is deference to CID activists that no other station area gets. The CID got equal access o the proposals and plans and EIS that everyone else got, and had the opportunity to state its wishes. Never did it suggest it might support a station if got more mitigation than any other station area gets.
“If the cost of frequenting the area of construction is higher once construction is over, e.g. because living there gets even more expensive than it would have otherwise, or the businesses currently there end up priced out by the loss of customers during construction, etc., and they cannot find an _equivalent_ location (including the improvements in transit as a result of construction) as a result of the move, then the costs are socialized to them, but the benefits are not.”
Everyone loses out if it’s not built. Both the riders, and indirectly people who live in a city/region with below-average non-car mobility, and the companies in getting fewer walk-up customers. Gentrification will happen anyway in this environment. And the city is less resilient to economic shocks and energy-price shocks.
“Don’t forget the other part: it works best when the stations are in the center of pedestrian concentrations. Those same companies and city governments and non-transit oriented activists you think ST should defer to are the reason it doesn’t. We tried to get Link on Bellevue Way, Aurora, and Pacific Highway.”
I agree with this statement Mike. In some areas the Link station is in the pedestrian/neighborhood zone, in others it is not. That is why I never supported running Link to so many suburban areas that essentially have no pedestrian density on the hope Link will create that density or TOD. The two major mistakes I think that were preventable were Bellevue Way which would have required a tunnel probably on 104th, and CID which would have required some humility and understanding of the community, and cold hard cash.
“What you’re asking for is deference to CID activists that no other station area gets. The CID got equal access o the proposals and plans and EIS that everyone else got, and had the opportunity to state its wishes. Never did it suggest it might support a station if got more mitigation than any other station area gets.”
In fact Mike, most station areas got the same deference: Bellevue, the DSA, UW, Amazon, and so on. Originally Link was at grade in Ballard and WS. The CID just had so little economic or political power they had to use the racism card. That is why so much of Link runs along freeways: no one lives there or wants to live next to a freeway. The good news is Link riders love park and rides.
The reality is no one studies those early EIS’s, and half the time ST doesn’t follow those (like on MI). ST 3 was sketched on the back of an envelope with no understanding of future subarea revenue (or suburbia). Issaquah is famous for waiting until the very last second to make up its mind, and doesn’t care about an “EIS”. The DSA and Amazon have lawyers and lobbyists and so their objections are done in private, and next think we know Harrell is skipping a station at midtown (with no explanation) and now one at SLU at Amazon’s demand, again without an explanation although I am guessing construction disruption is the main objection.
I think the disconnect is thinking urbanism or transit or Link is the greatest good, or even better good, which makes these decisions by stakeholders seem incomprehensible.
Mike,
Your reply to my comment is:
“Everyone loses out if it’s not built. Both the riders, and indirectly people who live in a city/region with below-average non-car mobility, and the companies in getting fewer walk-up customers. Gentrification will happen anyway in this environment. And the city is less resilient to economic shocks and energy-price shocks.”
Am I correct in understanding that you are dismissing my suggestion to take into account the potential belief that the costs of construction are socialized, but not the benefits?
You are certainly welcome to do so, of course. I just want to make sure that I understand, as your comment appears to dismiss the concern, without explicitly stating it. If you do believe that the concern is unwarranted, can you please say so in a clear way?
They’re the ones dismissing transit riders’ and pedestrians’ concerns. I don’t know how else to say it without sounding dismissive. We can talk about all the factors with them and try to come up with some kind of compromise, but we need to get to a situation with high-capacity transit to all quarters of the city and the ST2 peripheral transfer points, and good walk-up access to the stations from the most things. They may say they’re bearing the full impact of construction and getting no benefit out of it, but there’s a benefit to their customers and staff and children, and of having a city where it’s easy to get around on transit. Not having it is distorting things.
Well, if you truly believe that they need to compromise, one way to convince them to do it might be to advocate for them getting more financial support during the construction time. That would alleviate the difficulty and get them some immediate benefit, vs. relying on them to “take one for the benefit of the children”. After all, not everyone has children, or their children may have already moved away, etc.
In other words, talk is easy, but convincing often takes more than that. It’s obviously not something we, as advocates, can or should fund ourselves; but the advocacy should help build some good will, as well as perhaps move the needle with those in power who can actually make it happen.
Anonymouse – the problem with your line of argument is the conclusion that the best way to create & sustain naturally affordable housing is to starve those neighborhoods of public investment. The anti-gentrification argument, when stripped of its race & class undertones, boils down to “please don’t make this place more desirable to live.”
We should strive to make the most vibrant and healthy neighborhoods possible, and then deliver abundant housing in those neighborhoods. Protecting naturally affordable housing by restraining public investment is a loser* mentality and only make sense in a region that is managing decline (like small towns in the US rust belt, cities in east Germany, rural Japan, etc.)
*not meant as an ad hominem … I mean that it’s a tactic that will necessarily fail in the context of a growing region and neighborhoods that have latent desirability.
AJ, to be clear (and I apologize if it was not), my point is not that investment should be restricted; my point is that the investment should account for the burden imposed by the process, in a form that compensates those likely to suffer the burden while not reaping the benefits.
To put it a bit more bluntly: it is not sufficient to hide behind “gentrification happens” and throw one’s hands up at the air, and say that society may as well benefit from it. Of course building sufficient housing should happen, too, and so one way to compensate those who “live” near heavy construction where prices are likely to go up is by ensuring that public housing is also built in the process, and that those who are displaced are given first shot at getting those new units. That is one form of compensation, too. It may well not serve everyone’s needs, of course; and it may well be that there are far better ways of doing it (I am not a community organizer, social worker, or urban planner, etc.) I make no claim of optimality, the only claim I make is that those who are likely to pay the brunt of the cost of the change should be given a better shot at reaping the benefit.
And to be a little provocative (I am allowed to, it’s Friday :) ), let me turn the topic around. If the only path to society’s prosperity is by absolutely making some people (who are likely already not well off) suffer, is that really a society you want to live in? It is not one which I can be proud of, anyway.
@AJ,
“The anti-gentrification argument, when stripped of its race & class undertones, boils down to “please don’t make this place more desirable to live.”
The anti-gentrification argument, at least by those who live in the neighborhood, is:
1. Please don’t make our neighborhood less desirable through “gentrification”, which is generally not the cause but the result of certain changes.
2. Please don’t gentrify our neighborhood so we can no longer afford to live here, because if a neighborhood is being “gentrified” by definition it was a more affordable neighborhood.
“We should strive to make the most vibrant and healthy neighborhoods possible, and then deliver abundant housing in those neighborhoods.”
This depends on what you mean by vibrant and healthy.
The SFH zones certainly don’t want vibrancy — retail/commercial or population density. That is the whole point of a SFH zone. In fact, nearly every zone except maybe the CBD has some restriction on “vibrancy”. Traditional zoning segregates uses by zone, partly because a lot of folks don’t want to live in a retail/commercial zone, and because if you don’t restrict and condense retail there isn’t enough to go around and so no neighborhood will have the retail density to be “vibrant”. People like retail vibrancy, but a huge percentage want to drive or take transit to retail density, not live there.
Healthy is a vague term, probably best measured by housing prices. Usually healthy means safe, pleasant, good schools, good neighborhoods, lots of green spaces, some place someone wants to live, which of course makes that neighborhood less affordable. Too often “healthy” means imposing one’s desired density or zoning on someone else. One could argue that both Clyde Hill and Capitol Hill are “healthy”, at least based on housing prices, but that does not mean the residents of one want to live in the other.
To argue that gentrification will result in “abundant housing in those neighborhoods” is the opposite of what actually happens, unless you mean non-affordable housing, or at least less affordable than the existing housing before gentrification.
“Protecting naturally affordable housing by restraining public investment is a loser”.
The catch-22 anonymous was getting at is there is no “naturally affordable housing” if construction is new, or a neighborhood is gentrifying. The whole point of gentrification is ALL housing is increasing in value and cost, and the most affordable housing is the first to be redeveloped and gentrified. Natural actually means “existing” because older existing housing is the most affordable, especially in an ethnic zone in which several generations live together in one house, unlike the fetish among urbanists to all live alone.
Restraining public investment (really private investment) is a “loser” in a city that is growing and has a rising AMI. That is what Seattle went through, and many other popular cities, although the Wall St. Journal has an article today noting housing prices just posted their biggest drop since 2011.
The reality, at least in Seattle, is no one has figured out how to “deliver abundant housing in those [gentrified] neighborhoods”, and as Anonymous was getting at the most vibrant and healthy neighborhoods are going to have the highest housing prices and the least private market affordable housing, whether we are talking about Capitol Hill or a desirable SFH zone.
You are right: you can’t stop gentrification in a city with a rapidly rising AMI. Seattle hasn’t even tried. No, upzoning is going to provide that new affordable housing in a gentrifying zone. So most poor folks have to choose a new neighborhood or leave Seattle to afford to live in Seattle. The one bit of good news is Seattle is a huge city with a pretty modest population and density and so there are still affordable neighborhoods like LCW and some in S. Seattle, although those are gentrifying too.
Anti-displacement efforts should happen in parallel to public works, meaning that we should invest in public works where needed, and independently work to support people impacted by displacement. Most displacement is caused by private investment, but the mitigation will be public (or non-profit). Transportation infrastructure should go where it is best situated, and one population does not have a superior moral claim to avoiding displacement than another (equally sized) population. Put another way, I care that I am bulldozing someone’s home and should try to avoid that, but I don’t care about the particular economic or social status of the person occupying that home.
And no, I don’t view “avoiding suffering” a compelling moral framework, and in fact I find it counterproductive. From a philosophical angle, there are several compelling theodicies to address your question. From a technical angle, public works should minimize surplus extraction. From a colloquial angle, you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet.
“Of course building sufficient housing should happen, too, and so one way to compensate those who “live” near heavy construction where prices are likely to go up is by ensuring that public housing is also built in the process, and that those who are displaced are given first shot at getting those new units. ”
The key here is to upzone in both the rich areas and the poor, not just the poor.
In most cities, landlords prefer to own and build in poorer neighborhoods, because that’s where they make the most profit.
That is not true in super-star cities like the Seattle region. The greatest profits are in the richer neighborhoods, or what is called resource-rich neighborhoods, with good schools, parks, grocery stores and other amenities.
So you up-zone everywhere, and then the poorer neighborhoods aren’t targeted for undue building. Just the opposite.
So if you up-zoned Mercer Island within a 10 minute walk of the light rail station, that’s where the building would (and I would suggest should) be most attractive to landlords and developers, and in so doing, we can mitigate the gentrification of the poorer, culturally rich and historic neighborhoods of South Seattle that have born the brunt of our housing shortage to-date.
Cam, HB 1110 does upzone the residential neighborhood 1/4 mile to the north of the light rail station on MI (and to the south although that is the town center which is already upzoned).
Now instead of 2 units per lot (main house and DADU) a developer can build 4 units in this 1/4 mile residential zone. Without parking minimums, when on the rest of the Island duplexes can have mandates for 2 parking stalls each.
Of course, MI has very restrictive regulatory limits since the 2017 code rewrite. All four units will need to fit within 40% of lot area with a pretty small building envelope with yard setbacks, tree regulations, and impervious surface limits are factored in. Plus the city can petition the Dept. of Commerce to add parking limits for safety reasons, which I imagine the city will do. Can’t have kids walking to school run over by multi-family renters on streets with no sidewalks.
The real goal was TOD, not affordable housing, ST’s last gasp, except no Islanders are riding the ST express buses today. After the cost of the lot and whatever structure that is on it, which will be either newish or very well maintained so expensive that has to be torn down, building 4 1000 sf units on MI on a 10,000 sf lot with common walls and four separate very small kitchens will not be attractive to folks who can afford $1 million plus/unit, or $2000/mo. plus rent. because most Islanders don’t live alone and 1000 sf is small. If I have $1 million, the kids are gone, and I am going to live in a small multi-family unit I want somewhere with some real retail vibrancy, like downtown Kirkland, not a residential MI neighborhood. Plus there is no affordability mandate for any of these units.
The other problem is upzoning these lots does not subdivide them. There will be common ownership, which banks hate. A developer could opt to hold the loan and property and rent out the units, but that would mean in today’s market holding a 10%/year loan forever, and good luck on getting that financing or making a profit.
Here is the dirty little secret: those 1 million new residents are not coming, and the region is entering a rental glut. The builders know this. The MI town center has large lots that are vacant or surface parking lots, that are not developed, with four and five story height limits, minimal parking requirements (one stall/unit), and no yard setbacks, and haven’t been in the last 10 years and cost less than a waterfront residential lot.
I thought you hit the nail on the head after Issaquah got done amending HB 1110 (at the last second, naturally) when you state HB 1110 is designed to and will be as effective as the city and council want.
If they want to discourage the upzoning in HB 1110 they have the tools to do it. MI lobbied for and got a population limit of 75,000 so for the rest of the Island there is no change, except there will be rules to discourage duplexes, but hopefully not DADU’s. The council is hell bent of preventing four-plexes, or three-plexes, in the residential zone north of the station (but would love to have some of the vacant or underutilized town center properties developed).
Upzoning needs to be done by the city because the city controls all the regulatory limits, so really it depends on whether the city or council WANT to upzone or not. The councils and city planning staff love unzoning poor areas because it leads to gentrification and more tax revenue, the existing citizens are poor and politically weak, and many think gentrification is great even if poor folks have to move to another city. For the last 7 years MI has been downzoning, so don’t look for a lot of tri or quad plexes in the residential zone north of the light rail station. Upzone the poor areas in South Seattle along Link, because as ARCH has always says affordable housing begins with affordable land, which was supposed to gentrify all those areas.
“the anti-gentrification argument, when stripped of its race & class undertones, boils down to “please don’t make this place more desirable to live.””
That was the third point I was going to make but couldn’t find a coherent way to say it. Rejecting transit or other infrastructure improvements in neglected neighborhoods to avoid gentrification and displacement, means those areas will continue to have limited transit opportunities and infrastructure, and if the areas are in decline they’ll continue declining further. That’s not good either.
There will be a new open thread in a little bit.
AJ,
I respect your philosophical differences, even though I strongly disagree with them.
One bit I will quibble with as a matter of policy is decoupling the anti-displacement mitigation strategies from the transit (or any other infrastructure) building, specifically when the displacement happens as a result of the building. To give a more direct example, I would make the same argument about mitigating building I-70 or whatever freeway cut across some of the very poor, racially diverse communities in LA, back in the mid-century period. Those communities should have been compensated more, specifically because they started out at a disadvantage to begin with. I am sure this comes back to the same philosophical differences, though, I am just pointing out the explicit implications of my position.
Regarding zoning changes as a matter of addressing the displacement risk, I see that as necessary but not sufficient.
I will bow out of further comments on the topic in this thread, as I think that I would only repeat myself at this point.
One of the challenges with Seattle’s urban village strategy is that it concentrates development in certain areas resulting in large scale demolition of existing properties. This exacerbates physical displacement since many of our urban villages are where old and affordable apartments and homes are located. One of the goals of the recently passed multi-plex housing bill at the state level was to open up larger areas of land (what will now be former single family zoned areas) to increase the development capacity for the region. The principle at play her is diffusion which is intended to relieve development pressure for areas that allow for higher density of development and that are at higher risk of displacement. It’s the “spread the peanut butter” principle.
In Jane Jacob’s book “The Death and Life of Great American Citires”, she advocated for gradual growth to foster neighborhood diversity and vitality and to help existing residents to have the option to remain in their neighborhoods. Existing multi-family buildings that make up our older housing stock are one of our greatest assets for preserving lower cost housing. That’s why I’m glad that one of our regional housing strategies is to purchase existing apartments and motels to preserve those units as affordable through the life-cycle of those buildings.
Another strategy for keeping existing residents in their neighborhoods is what we see with Africatown in the CD and Pride Place on Capitol Hill, which takes advantage of the city’s Community Preference Policy to allow people belonging marginalized groups in high displacement neighborhoods to remain in their communities.
> Is a Link station on Capitol Hill the reason Capitol Hill is vibrant or popular. If that Link station had never been built would Capitol Hill be any different today?
I mean part of the reason is that only areas with Link stations really get drastic upzonings. Honestly one could upzone more behind just those walksheds but then other detractors would then say it creates too traffic and refuse to allow the upzoning.
Daniel, don’t take this the wrong way, because I mean this as a sincere suggestion. Have you ever considered starting a blog of your own? You have a passion for land use and housing, and for writing. It seems like something you would be good at. I even have a couple of blog name ideas I could give you.
@Daniel Thompson
> Upzoning needs to be done by the city because the city controls all the regulatory limits, so really it depends on whether the city or council WANT to upzone or not. The councils and city planning staff love unzoning poor areas because it leads to gentrification and more tax revenue, the existing citizens are poor and politically weak, and many think gentrification is great even if poor folks have to move to another city. For the last 7 years MI has been downzoning, so don’t look for a lot of tri or quad plexes in the residential zone north of the light rail station. Upzone the poor areas in South Seattle along Link, because as ARCH has always says affordable housing begins with affordable land, which was supposed to gentrify all those areas.
Daniel, it’s already been tried the let each individual city decide not to upzone method. It’s called the bay area. I’m not sure why you keep pretending it’s going to work/hasn’t already been tried.
“Daniel, it’s already been tried the let each individual city decide not to upzone method. It’s called the bay area. I’m not sure why you keep pretending it’s going to work/hasn’t already been tried.”
I don’t believe new construction creates more affordable housing than the existing housing in a neighborhood. Especially if the neighborhood is gentrifying, which is the opposite of creating more affordable housing.
The basic principle for affordable housing is to begin with the most affordable land. Not because of class warfare or equity, but because you can create more affordable housing for the same amount of limited funds because land is not free. At least that is how the affordable housing pros like ARCH approach it.
The entire upzoning argument is based on a false assumption: 1 million new residents will move here by 2039, when there are 12,238 available apartments for rent from Edmonds to SeaTac today. https://www.apartments.com/seattle-wa/?bb=7n7kn8883Q-xul1mpH
I don’t know what you mean by “pretending to work”. Five years ago San Francisco was the most vibrant and wealthiest city probably in the world. It also had the highest AMI of any city, which naturally meant the housing was very expensive. No amount of upzoning or new construction would have changed that because the builders would have selected the oldest and most run-down properties to redevelop and built new construction targeted at the very high AMI buyer. If you don’t have a high income don’t move to San Francisco. Look at Seattle: it has been on a 10-year building tear, all geared toward high AMI buyers because it is new construction, and housing prices have continued to rise.
Some on this blog think upzoning and new construction will create housing that is more affordable than the housing in the zone it replaces. I disagree and haven’t seen it yet. And even if it did, I would concentrate that new housing where the land is cheapest, not the most expensive.
Daniel, concentrating new housing where it is cheapest is how you displace the most amount of people with the lowest incomes. It on average has the highest potential for impact to low-income, people of color and immigrants. We’ve as a society have tended to protect affluent communities due to their outsized political power compared to their relative population.
Another approach is to build housing where people want or aspire to live. I always fall back on the mantra of providing choice. Provide choice where people want to live as opposed to excluding them.
“Provide choice where people want to live as opposed to excluding them.”
You can live wherever you want, Alonso. Who is being excluded?
A healthy society is where as many people as possible have the potential for upward mobility through access to great schools, employment opportunities, etc. Time is money so the farther you have to commute, the less time you have to spend on other things that can improve your life. I know your statement is rhetorical but let’s give people the opportunity to pursue their American dream.
> If you don’t have a high income don’t move to San Francisco. Look at Seattle: it has been on a 10-year building tear, all geared toward high AMI buyers because it is new construction, and housing prices have continued to rise.
We have been over this already, one needs to build more housing than jobs/offices approved.
Also It is not only San Francisco not approving housing but also Daly City, San Mateo, Redwood City etc…. This idea that some other far flung city will always provide the housing just isn’t reasonable nor going to work.
This problem can be solved by using the Mercer option; it crosses SR99 north of the tunnel portal. Grant, it can’t be a “bus intercept” for Aurora, but how many people on the “E” are going to get off, descend a hundred feet and wait for an every-ten-minutes train when the E passes through all of downtown Seattle? Folks headed for Central Link destinations can take east-west buses in the sections of Aurora between 42nd and 50th, 80th and 90th, 105th to Evergreen-Washelli, 125th to 135th, 140th to 150th, 155th to 165th and 170th to 180th by walking to the street at the center of the strip. That’s at least 50% of the potential riders, and perhaps more.
ST is missing the HUGE development potential on southeast Queen Anne Hill.
P.S. It is possible for the system to have a station at 4th North and Mercer AND swing south to a station at Queen Anne and Republican. It’s being dug by a TBM! They can “wiggle” in both horizontal and vertical planes.
Al is right to remind ST (once again) that automation solves a LOT of problems with “BLE”. It does make surface stations impractical, but to get full automation I would be fine with giving up the possibility of surface stations.
Can anyone confirm this observation I’ve had on buses of late? I now notice a much greater number of people not paying the fare vs pre-covid. Before 2020ish, I used to see the occasional rider stop and ask the driver for a free ride. Now, on every trip, I now notice multiple riders walk straight to a seat without slowing to tap, pay, or show a transfer. So, not only do many more riders now not pay, the way they don’t pay has changed. It used to be they stopped and briefly said something to the driver. That rarely happens now. Non-payers now just walk on without stopping like there is no such thing as a bus fare. (And, of course, I’m only talking about routes where it’s pay as you board. This doesn’t apply to routes where off-board payment is an option, or proof of payment routes). Has anyone else noticed this change?
I haven’t seen an uptick in that. There may be more RapidRide riders treating the fare as a suggestion. Occasionally, but not often, I see people going in the back door on a regular route. I myself sometimes go in the back door to avoid the risk of the bus leaving before I can get to the front door or making everybody wait for me, and then it’s too much of a hassle to go up front and tap when the sneeze shield is blocking the aisle.
During covid it was kind of a hassle to talk to the bus driver due to both people wearing face masks and the shield. Also it was kind of encouraged not to get too close to the bus driver as well. I guess that expectation has carried on to now?
Or the months of free fares.
I haven’t seen much more than before, with the exception of groups that are almost certainly middle/high schoolers taking the bus for school. They’re all fare-free anyways, and honestly it speeds the boarding process up so I don’t mind.
I’ve noticed more non-RR buses getting rear-door card readers so I’m guessing there’s going to be a shift in how fare is paid and enforced anyways.