At last Thursday’s eventful Sound Transit Board meeting, a large contingent of supporters of the 4th Avenue Chinatown-International District (CID) station showed up en masse, thanks to prompting from community activists and Seattle Subway. Although the Board did not make any further alignment decisions, they did authorize a contract modification to HNTB to extend EIS planning and preliminary engineering for the Ballard Link extension.
Back in March, the Board voted to approve the “North of CID” and “South of CID” station options as part of its preferred alternative. These were relative latecomers to the game: all previous options were centered around Union Station, either at 4th or 5th. Sound Transit Boardmembers cited lower costs and lower impacts from the North and South options, in spite of the loss of a station actually inside the Chinatown-International District and the connection opportunities it would provide.
Two big champions of the North/South CID options are King County Executive Dow Constantine and Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell. A key linchpin in Constantine’s station preference has been the new Civic Campus Initiative, which he announced as part of the State of the County address back in March.
There are sensible reasons for redeveloping the civic center area. Most of the city and county’s key offices are located there and a number of the buildings are dilapidated tokens of modernist architecture. In recent years, the neighborhood has also contended with a large homeless population and street-level crime, particularly around the King County Courthouse.
None of these are good enough reasons to shift a future Link station out of an existing high-traffic hub into other areas merely on the basis of development potential. Prospects for infill TOD opportunities are always tempting to think about, but they wouldn’t warrant the loss of a station that would serve the thousands of existing residents between both the CID and Pioneer Square neighborhoods.
It’s also worth reexamining whether master planning the civic campus redevelopment is even the right approach in the post-COVID world. Rather than concentrating the bulk of key government offices in a single location, newer ways of working might instead warrant decentralizing the city’s and county’s real estate assets. Incentivizing developers to build a variety of mixed uses can help accomplish some of the initiative’s goals while still avoiding an eggs-in-one-basket situation.
But should the Civic Campus Initiative become reality, its success doesn’t hinge on the presence of a Link station right underneath it, especially if it’s at the expense of a much higher-trafficked area. The neighborhood is already extremely walkable: between the original Midtown and Jackson Street locations and the existing Pioneer Square Station, the civic campus would be well served by Link anyway.
Even if the county is keen on ensuring proximity to an ST3 station for its employees, there is no better place than the Jackson Street hub, which is already home to Sound Transit and Metro employees. The substantial amount of buildable capacity in the area also offers plenty of excuses to scratch any development itches that might otherwise be satisfied by the civic campus redevelopment.
Our newest troll is a refreshingly brief alternative to Daniel Droning, isn’t he? Light-averse monkeys ruining downtown! Ghosts in the brand-new Roosevelt station! What other creative insights can we expect in coming days?
This is vintage brew already.
Not just ghosts, but ghosts they themselves summoned with their powers!
The other one felt borderline racist, though, not just trollish, so I would watch very carefully for signs of outright racism and ban them swiftly if they cross any line. That stuff should not be tolerated.
First off, he’s not a troll. He’s written posts before. He also went to Earth Shoe U in Olympia, one of the most liberal colleges on the planet, so I doubt he’s racist. Although, Seinfeld’s Kramer went to the same college, and he said some racist stuff. But, how do either of you know what Brian Bradford is even talking about? It’s gibberish.
> But, how do either of you know what Brian Bradford is even talking about? It’s gibberish.
I mean we have take what they’re writing at face value. Aka “Poe’s Law” we can’t tell if they’re being sarcastic or sincere, so have to assume the latter — can’t excuse everything one writes as a supposed joke.
Sam: it’s the “fucked up monkey” bit that worried me. I agree that there is no way of knowing, but people use “monkey” in racist ways often enough that when I can’t tell what the troll wants to say, my prior is pretty high on it being racism of some sort. If that’s not their case, glad to hear it.
I’m going to delete trolls like this. I can’t right now because I’m not at home. Humorous metaphors need to clearly state what transit issue they’re referring to. (“light of day” is too vague. I’ll give “monkey” the benefit of the doubt for now that it’s not referring to race.) “Haunted” has already been said once, and if repeated it needs to be in an open thread.
“Fucked up” should be used sparingly, and depends on context. This is sparingly for now.
For a long time I couldn’t figure out what Tom Terrific meant by his posts. By the time I got to them all they said was, “A.H.”
Then I learned that was the acronym the site administrators used for ad hominin attack when removing a post. That then made me wonder what Tom Terrific had posted that had been removed by the time I got to his posts, and was sorry I missed the posts that had been removed because no matter what they had to be more insightful and less tedious than his posts that were not removed.
I removed the comments as they were off topic. We will have a post soon about the monkey and ghost situation, and there will be plenty of opportunity to comment there. [just kidding]
I thought it was painfully clear that that poster is suffering from some sort of mental illness impacting his commutation skills. He isn’t deliberately trying to emit word salad.
Communication skills. My darn spell-checker is responsible for much word salad.
Whether civic campus or not it’s more about finding an affordable station location.
The fifth avenue original location is still the easiest one to build, Daniel Thompson is right in that Sound Transit needs to actually negotiate and discuss some benefits to give to the cid neighborhood so that it is much more amenable to them.
The 4th avenue construction cost just isn’t reasonable.
Right, but it still goes back to the original problem: we don’t need a second tunnel. Remove that ridiculous assumption, and none of these problems occur. The second tunnel was not added because we wanted to cover more of downtown. Quite the contrary. They tried to make the stations as close to the existing ones as possible.
The second tunnel was added based on the assumption that it would be cheaper to build a new tunnel than it would be to increase capacity in the existing one. Clearly that is no longer the case, and yet the board won’t revisit the assumption that will no doubt cost the agency billions of dollars, and yet result in a much worse transit system.
The board never said a second tunnel would cost less than retrofitting the first tunnel. Clearly it would cost much more. The board just wanted a second tunnel anyway. Because why not add the capacity if voters are willing.
I think very few voters in 2016 understood their subarea would have to contribute to DSTT2, how dishonest the cost and revenue projections were in the levy, and those subareas voted no anyway.
ST 3 (and 2) was Seattle forcing its desires and fantasies on the region. The irony is Seattle blew its wad running Link to county borders and ended up with little Link in Seattle, especially if WSBLE is unaffordable. Now local bus service in the one urban area is getting cut to feed those suburban Link routes. And even if it is affordable DSTT2 will not be a good tunnel because N KC will have to make up the $2.2 billion shortfall, although Seattleites screwed the other subareas from the south by putting them on DSTT2.
There is another important point. Mike likes to say sorry, you (really Seattle) voted for ST 3. Ok. It wouldn’t pass today, and there is zero chance ST 4 would pass. ST was always a Ponzi scheme in which ST 3 completed ST 2, and ST 4 would complete ST 3, but there won’t be a ST 4. If anyone looks like it got screwed by ST 3 it is N KC. You can rip off a customer once but you lose that customer forever.
“ST 3 (and 2) was Seattle forcing its desires and fantasies on the region.”
Seattle doesn’t want Link to Everett, Tacoma, and Issaquah. It was Pierce, Snohomish, and East King who insisted on those, and insisted very strongly. Seattlites doesn’t care whether Link is built beyond Lynnwood and Federal Way or not.
“Now local bus service in the one urban area is getting cut to feed those suburban Link routes.”
It is? Which ones? There’s no direct connection between Metro changes and Link changes. Each is under a different authority, with different financial resources, and different people making the decisions.
Mike, it was the overwhelming Seattle vote that passed ST 2 and 3. Once they passed, the other subareas were required to choose projects and go forward despite their no vote. They had no choice. Whether what they chose was the best decision we can debate, but they had to spend their subarea tax revenue they never wanted in the first place.
You make it sound like the subareas that voted against ST 2 and 3 — despite “faulty” assumptions and estimates — forced Seattle to pursue the spine. No, Seattle always wanted a peak commuter Link that brought office workers from throughout the region —in part based on questionable future population growth projections — to downtown. The other subareas went along because intra- subarea Link or express buses made no sense in their rural and suburban subareas, even E KC which is proved by Issaquah Link. So they built their spine to get to downtown Seattle that made infinitely more sense than Seattle running Link to them. Pre-pandemic the spine on paper benefitted them. It never benefitted Seattle.
Today post pandemic Seattle’s decision to spend so much of its subarea revenue to run Link to county borders in a very long city and region looks questionable to me because ST 3 is the last levy, and it looks like Seattle, especially urban Seattle, will end up with very little light rail for how much the subarea spent when subways and Link really are designed for urban areas.
A place like E KC or Pierce can at the end of the day say ok, so we really didn’t get much benefit from Link — certainly over express buses — but what did they lose because Light rail was never going to be transformational in those undense areas. But done right it could have been transformational for urban Seattle if N KC’s subarea revenue had been spent on urban rail and subways. More Roosevelt Link and less Angle Lake and 130th.
The projects were chosen before ST2 and ST3 passed. Maybe they were built with strong Seattle support in mind, but saying the projects were chosen after ST3 passed is [ah].
[ah]
“it was the overwhelming Seattle vote that passed ST 2 and 3. Once they passed, the other subareas were required to choose projects and go forward despite their no vote. They had no choice.”
The projects were chosen before the vote. Everett, Paine Field, Tacoma Dome, and the Issaquah line were added at the insistence of those subeareas. ST3 was lengthened from 15 to 25 years (nominally) both for Everett/Paine Field and for WSBLE. If the outer subareas didn’t want those projects, they could have pushed back against such a large ST3 package. They didn’t.
“You make it sound like the subareas that voted against ST 2 and 3 — despite “faulty” assumptions and estimates — forced Seattle to pursue the spine.”
That’s what ST 1, 2, and 3 were all along. Primarily a spine to Everett, Tacoma, and Redmond. Sound Transit could have been King County only, but Pierce and Snohomish insisted on latching on so that King County’s Yes votes would overcome their No votes. Otherwise they wouldn’t get anything.
“Seattle always wanted a peak commuter Link that brought office workers from throughout the region —in part based on questionable future population growth projections — to downtown. The other subareas went along because intra- subarea Link or express buses made no sense in their rural and suburban subareas,”
That’s completely false. It was the outer subareas that pushed for the spine. They wanted it both to get to downtown Seattle and to attract employers and workers to their cities.
“So they built their spine to get to downtown Seattle that made infinitely more sense than Seattle running Link to them.”
That’s the same thing both directions. Going to Seattle is the same as coming from Seattle.
“Pre-pandemic the spine on paper benefitted them. It never benefitted Seattle.”
You just contradicted yourself. You said above that Seattle wanted the spine to benefit itself.
No Mike, I said Seattle voters wanted ST 2 and 3. It was clear well before the vote that if Seattle voted No the levies would not pass because the other subareas would vote no or a very close yes like E KC. Seattle’s vote on ST 2 and 3 forced the levies and spine on every other subarea.
Spending tens of billions going from Seattle is not the same as to Seattle, let alone within Seattle. Why would Seattle want to run Link to the county borders? What a gift. Did any other subarea run Link to their county borders in the opposite direction of their downtown? Or even east/west? No.
Look, the spine is built. If you like it for the money great. I don’t think WSBLE can be built and so far it looks like a stub from WS. I PERSONALLY would have done it differently and spent the money on more intra-Seattle urban Link.
But as someone in the E KC subarea I definitely would have run our Link to downtown Seattle if we has to build Link, certainly pre-pandemic. East Link will be only marginally better than the express buses. I think Issaquah Link is foolish because once our Link made it to downtown Seattle there was no other destination that made sense for Link on the Eastside . . I even question Redmond Link now that Microsoft is WFH. You just don’t run Link in areas as undense as Redmond.
Overall depending on whether downtown Seattle recovers the spine benefits the other subareas. Same with Sounder. But if I were an urbanist I would be very disappointed at how little urban Link Seattle got, and instead got RR.
The pandemic changed the benefit of Link for every subarea, but none more than N KC, and Seattle that ended up with such little urban Link. IMO you spend the money on subways in urban areas, not suburban areas which N KC did.
I think Seattleites and transit advocates thought — and some still think — there would be a ST 4, 5 and 6. I wonder if Seattleites knew in 2008 and 2016 ST 2 and 3 were it, and ST had massively underestimated project costs, Seattleites would have balked at the spine and said let’s do the urban Link first, and then if there is money do the spine later. Use express buses to Seattle where urban Link is rather than building a spine to a series of urban RR buses. I think that approach if this is it for ST levies was backwards.
“I think Seattleites and transit advocates thought — and some still think — there would be a ST 4, 5 and 6.”
ST4 has always been iffy, and I haven’t heard any speculation beyond that. Part of what was expected to be in ST4 is in ST3 (Mariner-Everett, full Tacoma Dome). When the Spine reaches Everett Station and Tacoma Dome it will be “complete” according to the original vision. So the outer subareas may be much less willing after that because they’ll have what they wanted.
ST3’s tax rate is on top of ST1’s and ST2’s, so we’ll be paying the equivalent of ST1+ST2+ST3 through the end of ST3 construction. That’s already high, so it gets even harder to see something on top of that. And ST3 construction won’t be finished until the 2040s per the latest schedule.
And there has not been any coherent look at what might be in ST4. There are lingering wishes for extensions to Everett College, Tacoma Mall, a WSJ-Burien-Renton line. Seattle doesn’t know what it wants: maybe 45th, maybe Metro 8, maybe Lake City-Bothell, maybe Ballard-Northgate-Lake City-Bothell, maybe Aurora, maybe something down to Renton, who knows? Who knows whether people in twenty years will still have those prorities, or whether they’ll have different priorities instead?
This is all so absurd. We are wasting so much money on more studies and crappier stations when all we needed to do was get CID on board which is to build them a giant subsidized parking garage in the CID (free with validation), like what Bellevue has. This is what CID has wanted forever. I know a big garage seems at odds with transit but sometimes you need realpolitik dealing to get that 5th Ave shallow option. It’s a hell better alternative than building the jail station in North CID and the hobo station in South CID.
They didn’t ask ST for a garage. That’s just Daniel’s speculation. Some businesses have asked for parking in general, but not formally to ST as part of this project that I’ve seen. I disagree that ST has to go begging for mitigation requests: that’s what stakeholders are supposed to do in the normal EIS feedback. CID can’t expect more consideration and resources than other station areas get.
Seattle prohibits new P&R’s; only expansions of existing ones are considered. If it’s defined as “not a P&R”, that could be an exception.
> I disagree that ST has to go begging for mitigation requests: that’s what stakeholders are supposed to do in the normal EIS feedback. CID can’t expect more consideration and resources than other station areas get.
It doesn’t really matter what’s right or wrong, Sound Transit should be asking otherwise it’s currently planning to spend a couple hundred million more on some other alternatives. Also this is basically Sound Transit’s job to get the community to accept.
Especially if they can get CID to accept the more disruptive cut-and-cover station method, at the cost of a few tens of millions in community benefits, one’s really going seek vastly more expensive technical alternatives ranging in the hundreds million to almost billion more expensive?
The community accepted when ST3 passed.
They had to expect the default alignment would be built (with a 5th &Jackson station), because that was literally in the ballot measure.
“Seattle prohibits new P&R’s; only expansions of existing ones are considered. If it’s defined as “not a P&R”, that could be an exception.”
That is the excuse SDOT gave EL about its parking concerns (what is it with all these Seattle neighborhoods demanding parking).
Ok, so urbanists and transit advocates got CID N/S. Get over it. Stop whining.
It wasn’t a park and ride. The CID has asked for more street parking, cheaper street parking (which SDOT granted because street parking — and all parking — is critical to retail vibrancy) and a pie in the sky (until ST needed a station on 5th and Jackson) parking garage like the one in Old Main St. in Bellevue, not the S. Bellevue Park and Ride. You know, like Uwajimaya insisted on in its new building. (What is it with Asians and parking?) My God, look at the amount of underground parking in all those tall office towers in the Class A part of Seattle.
The $168 million extra the Board claims CID N/S will cost is around the cost of one of the new parking garages in Sumner, Kent and Auburn. Or all along LLE. If I were a minority in the CID and got the same crap from ST or SDOT about parking that EL got I would have no doubt it was because I was poor and brown, the same reasons my community (CID) has been treated like crap by the great white progressives in Seattle for decades.
Why would anyone think the CID would think a station for DSTT2 on their doorstep carrying riders from S. Seattle, S KC and Pierce Co. would be a benefit? Just go stand at the stations at 5th and Jackson or 12th or Jackson, or ask the DSA.
If you want to sell transit to a community like CID that does not like transit or see any benefit from transit you don’t sell it on the basis it is transit. Jesus, every stakeholder from the UW to DSA to Amazon to WS to Bellevue to EL to you name it does not see transit as a benefit, so they either say no thanks if they have the juice, but like Bellevue and UW still demand tens of millions of dollars in mitigation (to NOT have Link near them).
The way we are going TT will be correct: WSBLE will have no stations between WS and Ballard. Trip times will be good, though.
> They had to expect the default alignment would be built (with a 5th &Jackson station), because that was literally in the ballot measure.
Mike, sure but the political reality is that is not what is happening right now.
Also the list of things that have changed from the draft plan: West Seattle was supposed to expect an elevated light rail station at Alaskan junction which is now a tunnel station, so was Ballard supposed to be an elevated station which now is tunneled. The ballard bridge was supposed to be moveable bridge.
“Ok, so urbanists and transit advocates got CID N/S. Get over it. Stop whining.”
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I guess we all should shut up because you told us we should accept bad station access in a downtown area that doesn’t serve any group of riders well. Which is deeply ironic and hypocritical as you’re the one who keeps talking about people to “stay in their lane” in relation to Subarea issues. But I guess we all should shut up because you say so now.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> It wasn’t a park and ride. The CID has asked for more street parking, cheaper street parking
Every neighborhood asks for cheaper street parking, but that doesn’t mean they’d want giant parking garage either. I’m sure lots in Capitol Hill complain about street parking, people aren’t really demanding the creation of a giant new parking garage. It sounds more like “you or SLUer want a giant parking garage” not really “This is what CID has wanted forever. ” People who live in ballard complain how long it takes to drive there — doesn’t mean they’d actually want a freeway on 85th street.
Mike, it is disingenuous to claim that “the community accepted [various project components] when ST3 passed”.
Does Pierce County accept its projects despite ST3 being rejected here, only to be carried by the other counties? Does that mean Tacoma has to accept the representative features of its representative projects?
Furthermore , I distinctly recall many people accusing others of being anti-transit or anti-progressive if they were critical of ST3. They said get in line, ignore the (obviously appalling) flaws, and deliver an approval—or get out of the way. We are paying for it now, just as many predicted.
Transit investments have become part of the partisan split. In addition to that, the fact that these ballot measures have a regional scope means that any one plan or component is hardly the recipient of a localized endorsement.
“I guess we all should shut up because you told us we should accept bad station access in a downtown area that doesn’t serve any group of riders well. Which is deeply ironic and hypocritical as you’re the one who keeps talking about people to “stay in their lane” in relation to Subarea issues. But I guess we all should shut up because you say so now.”
No Zach, I am saying a station at CID is not in the DEIS, and nothing suggests Harrell, Constantine or The Board plan to consider it, and in fact are extending DSTT2 two years and spending millions to add CID N/S to the EIS. The moment for a station at CID is gone.
To repeat what I told Nathan, I never said stay in your lane. I said there are those with “standing” and those with opinions, and only one has any legal impact.
At the same time, DSTT2 is a “shared regional facility”, and will cost E KC $275 million, so it is in my lane. I have often complained about that on this blog, and wish DSTT2 were not “in my lane”, which means I am paying for part of it and see no benefit to me or my subarea. You live in Tacoma. You should really be angry at your broke subarea’s contribution to DSTT2 that means Pierce Co. doesn’t have $275 million to spend someplace else, and ironically will be the folks shunted onto DSTT2.
If you really want something, sometimes you have to make a deal. Parking in CID is hard. Businesses there want more parking. There’s got to be some quid pro quo if the urbanists and transit activists want the CID station bad enough (and it sounds like they do). If you’re going to end up proposing spending $700M more for the 4th Ave shallow option, maybe it’s not such a crazy idea to try to negotiate a couple hundred million of incentives for the CID. The fact that it was not done really shows how little urbanists care about the CID.
“The moment for a station at CID is gone”
To you, if you want to accept half baked boondoggles I won’t stop you. But other people like me who are transit dependent, we don’t lie down and accept half baked boondoggles. And I’m happy other people aren’t either.
“You live in Tacoma. You should really be angry at your broke subarea’s contribution to DSTT2 that means Pierce Co.”
I currently don’t, I live in Denver, CO but have family in Tacoma, WA I’m moving back next year to live with family for a couple years as i figure out long term prospects. I’m not angry because again my subarea isn’t broke despite you saying so. In general, I don’t care fiscal stuff like you do to the same degree because I view taxes as a necessary part of society and this is better than wasting on “one more lane” for more highway expansion.
If you want someone to bitch about our fiscal planning go bitch to Gov Inslee about his hypocritical stance on funding infrastructure. Gives a general blank check to highways, transit gets absolutely godamm nothing for what is needed to address our climate crisis like he loves to pound the drum on. For someone who talks about climate change all it does is ring hollow for people like us who’ll have to live with these decisions long after their gone or dead. If you don’t want to walk the walk when doing talk the talk then you’re not a leader but someone who is masquerading as one.
What are you talking about Zach. Inslee is going to buy you an e-bike. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/e-bike-rebates-borrowing-program-on-the-horizon-for-wa-riders/?utm_source=marketingcloud&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TSA_083123145914+WA+to+help+riders+buy%2c+borrow+electric+bikes_8_31_2023&utm_term=Registered%20User
“In all, the budget set aside $5 million for two years worth of rebates, said Chamberlain, director of WSDOT’s Active Transportation Division. Sixty percent of those rebates, worth up to $1,200, will be reserved for low-income households. Others could see up to $300. The vouchers could be applied to most e-bikes (except electric mountain bikes) and equipment like helmets and locks. Used e-bikes won’t qualify for the rebates, Shewmake said.”
Maybe this program will have S. Seattle demanding more bike lanes.
“Does Pierce County accept its projects despite ST3 being rejected here, only to be carried by the other counties? ”
They were outvoted. They were part of the decision that structured ST this way, as a single tax district including Pierce.
Mike, true, that is indeed how Sound Transit ballot measures work, but that is not the same thing as community acceptance.
“They had to expect the default alignment would be built (with a 5th &Jackson station), because that was literally in the ballot measure.”
“Mike, sure but the political reality is that is not what is happening right now.”
It’s unpredictable what future attitudes politicians might have and how they might change the projects. We’re in 2016’s future now.
The point is that 5th & Jackson was the default location, so if the CID really didn’t want any station in the neighborhood, they should have spoken up before early 2016. They can’t just be shocked, shocked, that they might get a station now, and ST has no obligation to put it outside the neighborhood. If politicians want to do it anyway, that’s politicians acting on arbitrary impulses again.
Parking in CID is hard because it is cheap or free most of the time.
Where is there free parking in the CID other than Sunday. IIRC street parking charges until 8 pm. There are a few surface lots but they are expensive.
A popular alternative is to park at Uwajimaya. Parking is free (credited) if you buy $10 worth of items/hour of parking. Plus your car has some security, and the lot is patrolled.
Cost isn’t the only factor, or according to Brooks the major factor. Obvious parking is the key. For example, Lincoln Square has 6 underground levels at N and S and everyone is familiar with it. It is mostly free at night or with validation during the day. Park, take the elevator up and you are “there”.
Even then underground parking is never as obvious as surface parking, and women prefer surface parking. Underground parking garages are just very vulnerable places for women, especially alone or with kids.
The CID doesn’t need a free parking garage. It needs an obvious parking garage with reasonable rates with some validation. Free anything can get abused.
UW Village is a perfect example and the CID would kill to get some of those shoppers/diners but it doesn’t.
Downtown Seattle has massive amounts of underground parking but whether it is open to the public, cost, entrances, available stalls, is opaque. It is too frustration to FIND parking, let alone cost. So folks go someplace else. The market is a wonderful thing. My guess is Northgate Mall will be the final nail in the coffin for downtown retail.
> Downtown Seattle has massive amounts of underground parking but whether it is open to the public, cost, entrances, available stalls, is opaque.
Then work with the existing offices for an agreement to open up parking after 5pm. Maybe have some lease agreement from the city. It’s be much cheaper and easier than building a new parking garage. But anyways back on topic, I don’t really see that CID is really asking for a parking garage, again it seems more just what you/SLUer want when you visit CID.
Definitely there should be an app for downtown parking that shows cost, location, entrance and availability, although today not many go downtown. Still if the cost is too high shoppers/diners will choose someplace else. Retail is so bad downtown today that free parking would not be enough. People drive away from downtown.
Because guess what: every other place has free parking, AND safe, clean retail vibrancy. As I have said before, we are wasting out time trying to revitalize downtown or 3rd. Will never happen with Seattle progressives. Better for the rest of us to just move on. Which is what we have done.
The CID has been begging for more parking for a long time. A garage was out of the question because of the cost when the neighborhood was so poor.
Oh wait, ST that is building massive parking garages at every station along LLE and in those urban hotspots Sumner, Auburn and Kent NEEDS a station for DSTT2 at 5th and Jackson that the CID does not want. So N KC will spend $168 million extra for CID N.
Me, I would have traded some cash and the parking garage for a station on 5th. But I can always park at Uwajimaya, (although the CID is getting so run down we go to Asian restaurants on the Eastside more and more that do have free parking), the CID will get East Link, and I don’t ever plan on transferring at CID N to go south.
So who was the loser in this showdown? Transit riders as usual, but then they hate parking so they got what they wanted, or at least deserved. Maybe the CID because they could have had the moon, but ST offered nothing so it wasn’t a choice. . And I suppose N KC that has to pay $168 million more for a station at CID N.
Well played.
> The CID has been begging for more parking for a long time. A garage was out of the question because of the cost when the neighborhood was so poor.
Again where is this weird assumption coming from. Can you find some cid activist or government official or webpage or any hard evidence of people asking for a parking garage? There are general complaints about parking but that is true for most popular neighborhoods. People complain about the long drive time to Ballard, no one realistically is asking for a freeway there.
Where did this assumption that you/SLUer want parking become CID wants a parking garage and then a separate assumption that this is what the amenity they would ask from Sound Transit?
There are always people in every neighborhood who want more parking. There are probably people in Manhattan that want it. There are also people who don’t understand walkable neighborhoods adjacent to downtown and how too many cars and parking there is detrimental.
> giant subsidized parking garage in the CID (free with validation)
lol, which exact CID block are you proposing to raze to build a giant parking garage. Btw that south bellevue parking garage is 2 CID blocks.
Additionally if one really just wanted lots of parking, just spend a couple tens of million buying parking rights in the nearby existing parking garages. Union Station Parking Garage next door has 600+ spots.
Also again where is this “This is what CID has wanted forever.” idea coming from?
A couple of hundred million dollars is a lot of incentives to buy CID favor. But they didn’t even try. They jumped on the $700M plan over even spending a cent to negotiate with the major CID stakeholders. Doesn’t have to be a parking garage (although I do think CID needs a big underground one).
Or, don’t’ let the CID not being fully on board stop CID2. The Surrey Downs neighborhood in Bellevue was against East Link being located next to their neighborhood. Sound Transit put it there anyway, proving ST does have the ability to ignore neighborhood objections.
Mike, true, that is indeed how Sound Transit ballot measures work, but that is not the same thing as community acceptance.
This plan reminds me of SDOT’s recently released plan of subways throughout Seattle, solely on Seattle’s nickel. Or as Dan Ryan called it, ST 6, but really would be SB 5528 1.
I get it: the city and county would love to revitalize this NINE BLOCK area of town in which they have vacant and obsolete buildings. Of course, Harrell is desperate to revitalize the rest of downtown too. In part, this would help pay the extra $168 million CID N/S will cost (based on the Board’s estimates so take it with a grain of salt).
Let’s see. Office occupancy in downtown Seattle right now is around 44%, and vacancy rates (no lease) are rising rapidly. In 2024 and 2025 a lot of loans on downtown buildings will reset so very nice buildings in much better areas will be very cheap if there are any buyers (because the cost of these buildings was based on 95% occupancy rates). Huge, gleaming new towers in Bellevue along East Link are on “pause”. This area is Class C office space in Seattle, which is why the city and county built their buildings there in the first place. Although city and county employees refuse to return to in-office work downtown other private workers will if new buildings are built. The idea that Link or any transit is a benefit or tool for urban revitalization is faulty. Just look at 3rd. Or the decision to abandon a midtown station, which is Class A office space. Transit does well when urbanism does well and is vibrant, not the other way around.
But all that does not change the decision that the DEIS does not include a station for DSTT2 next to the CID because the CID cannot see any benefit to the CID of such a station, and at $800 million N KC and Seattle don’t have the money for a station at 4th S. If anything, it only means DSTT2 and WSBLE are an extra $168 million in the hole. The recent decision to extend DSTT2 two years at a cost of $50 million/mo. to amend the EIS for CID N/S pretty much is the nail in the coffin for a station on 5th and Jackson.
If DSTT2 is built there will be a station at CID N. that will handle mostly riders from S. Seattle and S KC and maybe Pierce. That is not going to excite developers. There just won’t be some grand revitalization of the area, or a ton of new construction, for the same reasons there wasn’t in the past (which is why the city and county got the land for cheap), plus something called a pandemic and WFH. Oh, and this is one of the worst areas of Seattle when any green shoots are sprouting west of 3rd toward the waterfront, and toward the north of downtown.
Personally, I don’t think a station at CID N is all that bad. What is so great about the CID? But based on peak commuting and WFH and declining office occupancy and rising vacancy rates and declining safety and dying retail I don’t think a station will be necessary at all, and think the nine-block revitalization plan is about as realistic as SDOT’s future subway map.
Folks on this blog and transit folks in general have to get over it: there won’t be a station for DSTT2 next to CID, and I don’t think there is the money for DSTT2 to begin with, or WSBLE, at least as designed. Even worse I don’t think there will be a need for one, let alone a 9 block revitalization program for a Class C area of town. King Co. and Seattle could give the land away and it still won’t pencil out.
You’re confusing a long-term goal with a proposal to build it now. There are discrepencies between this and Metro Connects’s last bus vision that would need to be reconciled. I don’t see the comprehensive plan draft as “Build exactly this now”, but as general concepts to be discussed with the public when it gets to each area and has resources. For instance, it suggests three levels of service for different parts of the eastern 50. That’s impossible for a single bus route, and splitting the route into three parts would have to be discussed in a more specific proposal. What this directly directs SDOT to do is street improvements in the higher-tier segments, which doesn’t depend on a route terminating at those exact boundaries.
The rail concepts I’m less sure about, but I also don’t worry about them getting concrete proposals any time soon. Some of them hearken back to the six-line monorail vision in the early 2000s. So it’s not just Seattle Subway they’re resembling.
As for the Georgetown Bypass (route 124 area), that was in ST’s long range plan in ST2. It was removed before ST3 as unneeded. So that would have to be reconciled too.
“Personally, I don’t think a station at CID N is all that bad. What is so great about the CID? But based on peak commuting and WFH and declining office occupancy and rising vacancy rates and declining safety and dying retail I don’t think a station will be necessary at all…”
No doubt, Chinatown is seeing some grossness right now. But it has always been like that, a stark mix transient activity and legitimate activity. Lately it has been magnified just like everywhere else in the city post-Covid. We must build to serve a major neighborhood for the next 100 years and not for what it’s temporarily experiencing now. Go to Chinatown and there’s still bustling with tourists, shoppers, shopkeepers and workers.
Besides, we also must consider regional transfers between Link lines, Amtrak and people attending events at Lumen Field. A CID-north also means south-end riders will lose direct access to the stadiums and Chinatown. So if they want to attend events, they’ll be forced to get off at Pioneer Square and backtrack southward…likely causing crush loads during events.
“So if they want to attend events, they’ll be forced to get off at Pioneer Square and backtrack southward…likely causing crush loads during events.”
Or transfer at Sodo if coming from south of there — which is another reasoni why same direction transfers at Sodo should be made as easy as possible.
> A CID-north also means south-end riders will lose direct access to the stadiums and Chinatown. So if they want to attend events, they’ll be forced to get off at Pioneer Square and backtrack southward…likely causing crush loads during events.
CID-north causes the most issues for transferring from East Link heading south to West Seattle or to Seatac. Or vice versa from Seatac/South Seattle heading north you’d have to transfer at Pioneer Square rather than CID.
For Seatac to Northgate there isn’t much issue as you can transfer at Westlake or Pioneer Square. Same for East Link to Northgate. For West Seattle to Seatac one can transfer at Sodo station.
Ironically, Chinatown in San Francisco WANTED a rail tunnel barreling through their neighborhood and supported MUNI’s rail expansion.
I recently read up on San Francisco’s decision to tear down the Embarcadero Freeway (their version of the Alaska Way viaduct). Who was one of the biggest opponents? Chinatown leaders. They decried that Chinatown would disappear because they’d lose direct express access to/from the freeway. Of course, that never happened and Chinatown continued to thrive and be a major tourist attraction.
Fast-forward to the 21st Century and S.F.’s guess who was one of the biggest supporters of the MUNI rail expansion? Chinatown leaders.
The 5th Ave option is by far the best and if it weren’t for today’s political/cultural climate, I think groundbreaking would’ve already occurred.
It’s not at all ironic, necessarily – the details matter. I don’t know enough about the SF projects to comment on the details, but I can imagine how the mitigation approaches may be different enough that they worked better in SF.
It is also worth noting that the populations themselves may be different – both in terms of ownership models, storefront types, etc. between the two locations, but also in SF the before-and-after. “Chinatown” is not a single, monolithic entity. It is entirely possible (again, speaking in the abstract here, as I do not know the details) that a lot of the opponents of that project did get priced out of the neighborhood, just as some CID residents/businesses worry about in Seattle. That is not to say that the CID will die, but it could well become more corporate or soulless or just different. To outsiders this may not matter, because the Chinatown Gate will still be there and therefore the CID is still there. But to the locals it very much may matter.
Finally, I will briefly comment on your last comment, which I believe could be summarized, in one version, as “if not for racism, things would be better”. You are correct, but racism is here and so we should all be mindful of it and attempt to minimize its impacts. That entails, among other things, giving deference to already impacted communities, such as the residents of the CID. Another read of that statement could be “if not for having to mitigate impacts on marginalized communities, we could move faster and break things, consequences be damned”, but I have no reason to believe that that is how you meant it. If you did mean it that way, though, I am sorry.
Indeed, it is important to recognize that the two Chinatown’s may be different. But judging by maps of tunnel/station placement, there’s one big similarity: both tunnels skirt the edge of Chinatown and don’t directly go through the middle of it.
Regarding my last comment of political/cultural atmosphere: there’s no doubt that the state (meaning, government) is extremely sensitive o the issues brought about by people of color in this post-BLM world – for better or for worse. In this case, CID has a valid concern about the impacts to their neighborhood. However, we ought not to detrimentally affect the daily commuting experience for thousands of people based on temporary effects that are routinely brought about by construction. Officials are more worried about temporary consequences and not offending constituents rather than valuing the next 100 years of infrastructure. I don’t see the apocalyptic demise of the CID like the community is prophesying.
Unless the 4th Ave option, which is an excellent compromise, miraculously comes down in costs, 5th Ave is the optimal choice.
The way to address the temporary concerns while building the right infrastructure is to mitigate the concerns by paying the people being affected. So the proper IMHO approach to support the outcome you desire (a station along 5th) is to advocate for throwing more cash at the CID, alongside any other remedies that would get their support. This isn’t bribing them, it’s acknowledging the impact on their livelihoods. And it would likely be a small amount of money relative to the size of the project, as has been pointed out before. Not insignificant, but affordable.
To put it even more bluntly: the way to mitigate past racist decisions with economic impacts is not apologies, it’s cash.
> The 5th Ave option is by far the best and if it weren’t for today’s political/cultural climate, I think groundbreaking would’ve already occurred.
I don’t think it is really about the political/cultural climate. If CID instead had some other community group there, I think it’d be similar push back. I mean let’s say in another world Amazon was situated there; they’d probably be pushing back on the cut and cover station too. Sound Transit just has dropped the ball on engaging with the community there in accepting the more disruptive plans.
I’m not against a stop at City Hall, but I wish it had just been added into the fold of the other stations in the second tunnel proposal instead of the Frankenstein monster Harell and Constantine are proposing as a “good” project for Seattle.
lol what if we rename the 4th avenue station to be the “midtown+cid” station and use two stations worth of money to build the 4th avenue alternative dropping the midtown/pioneer square station and just heading straight to westlake after cid 4th avenue.
Because Midtown station serves one of the densest neighborhoods in the city and also provides strong bus connections from east Seattle to the Ballard line, which is currently a pretty obnoxious trip to take via transit.
I think it is interesting to see how Dow Constantine has his fingers all over what will likely be one of the biggest transit boondoggles in history. I’m not suggesting graft (although it wouldn’t surprise me) just mismanagement. It isn’t that this will won’t carry any riders. The countryside is littered with projects of that nature. But when you consider the massive cost, it is striking how little value will be added.
Of course Dow isn’t completely to blame. There are several problems that evolved over time. From a roughly chronological standpoint, it went basically like this:
1) Subarea equity, with equally expensive projects in each area. This was a really bad idea, as capital transit spending should be focused on the central city.
2) The spine. This is a similar problem. This will be one of longest subway lines in the world (spreading out from the center farther than systems like the London Underground) for a city that simply isn’t that big. The assumption was that it would be cheap — so why not? Light rail isn’t that expensive when you run it on the ground, next to existing right-of-way (such as old rail lines). But we aren’t building that kind of system.
3) West Seattle rail. This should never have been a priority for Seattle or the region. Here we see how Dow Constantine’s influence lead to the creation of a system that will be worse for many of the folks living in his beloved peninsula. Either that, or we keep the express buses, and they largely ignore the train, creating one of the worst rider-per-dollar projects in the world.
4) Second downtown tunnel. At some point, somebody got concerned that suburban riders would have to stand for the first few minutes of their trip back home. So someone else said the only good solution is to build a second tunnel. It isn’t, of course, but too late now.
5) Building a second downtown tunnel with stations remarkably close to the first one. This is quite unusual, really. It just isn’t done. Yet I distinctly remember Dow shooting down the idea of running the train to First Hill, by stating that First Hill just isn’t the destination that downtown is. It was clear that he was basically saying that West Seattle riders shouldn’t have to transfer just to go downtown, even though transfers of that sort are common with the best subway lines (as long as they have good transfers).
6) Design really deep tunnels, with bad stations as the best option. Can’t blame anyone for this, really. The engineers were just playing the hand they were dealt. They were asked to come up with ideas based on the criteria, not asked to rethink those assumptions.
7) Split the spine, so that West Seattle riders aren’t sent to Ballard, but to the U-District. I’m not sure if Dow was responsible for this, but I wouldn’t put it past him. West Seattle wins. Rainier Valley and the south end loses.
8) Move the stations again. Not far enough that they actually add coverage (no one will transfer to the other train to get to a downtown station). But far enough away to make transfers much worse. The stations themselves will be worse as well, which means that someone from Rainier Valley or Ballard has to walk much further to get to their destination. I don’t think item 8 would have happened without item 7. I don’t think it is a coincidence that as soon as riders from West Seattle were going to be sent on the old tunnel (with its superior stations) the new tunnel got worse.
9) Moving Ballard Station away from Ballard. Remember when this was the subject that got everyone upset? Now it is way down on the list.
10) Putting the South Lake Union Station in the worst part of South Lake Union. So far, there has been little effort to improve the situation. In fact, they are still considering making it worse (by eliminating a station).
Nine and ten are similar, in that they appear to be mainly cost cutting measures, but dig deeper, and it is clear that it is just basic incompetence. Leadership has often painted themselves into a corner. The Ballard Station is a great example. Fairly early on, ST ruled out running the trains to the west, even though most analysts understood that it would be superior. It would just cost more. Better to go with the cheap option, which was 15th. Fair enough. Sometimes you have to cut costs. But then we found out that running to 15th would be very problematic. They might even have to dig a tunnel. Did they revisit the idea of running to the west? Of course not. It is basically the same routine. Make an assumption, decide on a path based on that assumption, find out that the assumption is wrong, stick with it, but come up with an alternative that is much worse.
Yeah it’s pretty pathetic. In the meantime Vancouver has doubled their coverage and placed stations all over the city proper. We still can’t decide on where to put the single most important station of the Ballard Link line (the Denny station, aka real SLU station). At this point I’m hoping the floating bridge is such a disaster that a need for a second tunnel never arises since East Link can’t get to Seattle.
Sadly, the fact that East Link Starter Line suddenly became a reality with no further opposition makes me wonder how likely that may end up being. I guess an interesting question is – what then to salvage the East Link project, but that’s probably a topic for an open thread.
“Subarea equity, with equally expensive projects in each area.”
Proportional, not equal. What’s equal is the tax rate. How much that raises in each subarea depends on their population, wealth (for property/car taxes), and spending (for sales tax).
“Split the spine, so that West Seattle riders aren’t sent to Ballard, but to the U-District. I’m not sure if Dow was responsible for this, but I wouldn’t put it past him. West Seattle wins. Rainier Valley and the south end loses.”
ST staff introduced it in the December 2015 board meeting. Its purpose was to avoid a 2 1/4 hour Everett-Tacoma line, which would be too long for drivers to go without a break.
I finally agree with Ross on something. This needs to be called out for what it is: a shameless money grab, trying to use ST $$ to pay for new digs for King County. It’s as cynical as it gets.
We have a pretty nice new city hall and a pretty nice new courthouse paid for by city funds and federal grants. Why can’t KC finance their own capital improvement plan? There is already a great Link station right there. The bones are in place.
Dow has always seen ST more as a land use driver than a transit investment.
“I finally agree with Ross on something. This needs to be called out for what it is: a shameless money grab, trying to use ST $$ to pay for new digs for King County. It’s as cynical as it gets.”
How is this a money grab by King Co. (the same King Co. that had to bail out the Convention Center in Seattle to the tune of $100 million, thank you very much east King Co.)?
First, there really isn’t an alternate station, unless the N KC subarea wants to pay an extra $800 million for a station at 4th Ave. S. If not CID N than where? The way things are going we are going to end up with TT’s prediction of a tunnel with stops at Sodo and Westlake and nothing in between.
Second, N KC is actually doing a money grab from the four other subareas for DSTT2.
Third, how does this fantastical development plan post pandemic take money from the N KC subarea? ST isn’t paying for the development. Instead Dow and the Board are using the fiction that a DSTT2 station filled with riders from S. Seattle and S KC/Pierce Co. will magically increase the value of the surrounding land where Seattle and King Co. have a number of obsolete and vacant buildings no one wants, and no one wants to work in, in a marginal area of the city. Apparently, the DSA and CID didn’t see the profit from a station for DSTT2, but maybe Dow and the Board saw something they didn’t.
The problem is stations at CID N/S cost $168 million than one at CID according to the Board, so the Board has to create a fiction about how it will pay for that (let alone DSTT2 and WSBLE). According to the Board, “capturing” development revenue from the vacant and obsolete buildings that I doubt Seattle and King Co. could give away will do this, which sounds exactly like something Balducci would say not understanding any of the realities.
The cost to ST and N KC will be the same for DSTT2 (around $2.2+ billion for its 1/2 before the recent two-year extension). If King Co. and Seattle can somehow realize $168 million from developing properties surrounding CID N that money will be used to defray the costs of CID N for N KC. If not, then N KC (or Seattle although I can’t see Harrell ever agreeing with it) will have to come up with the extra $168 million, or $800 million for a station on 4th Ave. S.
No one is grabbing any money. There is on money. They are just desperately trying to find an extra $168 million to pay for CID N because neither the county nor Seattle have that extra money, and neither does the N KC subarea.
It is pretty to think there is a money grab, but the reality is there is no money.
@Daniel Thompson
> No one is grabbing any money. There is on money. They are just desperately trying to find an extra $168 million to pay for CID N because neither the county nor Seattle have that extra money, and neither does the N KC subarea.
Honestly, the first plan Dow Constantine proposed for civic campus (2023 March 8) for the dropped the CID S station completely and only built the CID N (Pioneer Square 2) station. That proposal doesn’t even need the extra developmental funding. CID S was only kept/added on later to prevent ‘removing’ the CID station.
> https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/03/08/constantine-backs-north-of-cid-light-rail-station-bypassing-cid-and-midtown/
A bit into guessing territory , but Dow probably wants the new civic campus whether with or without link.
“A bit into guessing territory , but Dow probably wants the new civic campus whether with or without link.”
WL, agree. Same with Harrell. Who wouldn’t want a 9-block commercial revitalization plan in a dying city in an area with vacant and obsolete city/county buildings?
But wanting is not getting, and this plan is just not realistic today. DSTT2 is irrelevant either way to this plan. Transit does not revitalize an area (some looking at 5th and 12th and Jackson and 3rd and Pine/Yesler would argue just the opposite) but it wouldn’t be a negative either. Transit just follows. If people want to work or visit or shop or dine in an area and need to get there transit will follow. If this development plan actually worked there would be lots of riders at CID N. If not there won’t be.
Nothing in this proposal makes transfers easier. Building a bunch of new county buildings doesn’t make transfers easier.
The biggest problem I see is the terrible transfers from the Constantine unanalyzed scheme. I see this proposal as a diversionary tactic to make the option sound good.
It certainly appears that 1 Line transfer will be 3-5 times (300-500%) the magnitude of station boardings here. The stations will be very deep too and take a few minutes to navigate..
And of course no one wants to force the discussion of making transfers easier at Westlake or SODO. ST does tell anyone and our elected leaders don’t directly ask “How many daily riders are expected to transfer between the 1 Line and the 2 and 3 Lines? Where can we build cross platform transfers?”
The biggest problem is the transfers! Please let’s keep forcing this! We need to ram it down the throats of the Board until they treat the riders with respect rather than ignore us.
Sound Transit Board adopted resolution R2021-14 stating not to create stations with almost duplicative names. The the Board now proposes having two more stations with almost the same name as an existing one: CID. (Note: the official station name is actually International District / Chinatown.)
The ST Board doesn’t even take their own recently adopted resolutions seriously!
nice post by Sherwin. nice comments by RossB. Yes, Dow seems to leading transit astray, just as fellow West Seattle leader Nickels did before him. Dow’s decision to go for ST3 before a Metro local option seems a large mistake; likewise, the CPS sale to the WSCC led transit ridership to decline in 2019 before Covid. With Nickels, we got Link south-first Link, freeway alignments, deferred Aurora sidewalks, and dumb local streetcars.
ST3 included a CID station on South Jackson Street for easy transfers.
ST3 would be stronger without a second tunnel. The Ballard line is the best project in ST3 and is being further delayed.
the civic campus could be marketed and successful around Pioneer Square Station alone; a second tunnel and second station are not necessary and would actually degrade the network. huge capital projects are not what is really needed to address the distress on the surface. They need software solutions, not hardware. See the latest Westneat column on Little Saigon; the same issues are apparent near PSS and Westlake stations.
“the civic campus could be marketed and successful around Pioneer Square Station alone; a second tunnel and second station are not necessary and would actually degrade the network.”
Two things are driving DSTT2:
1. Harrell and Constantine don’t want to lose the contribution from the four other subareas. This may get resolved when ST and the Board are willing to accept DSTT2 will cost $4.2 billion (or more after the recent two year delay) not the original estimated $2.2 billion in 2016, and the four other subareas make it clear their contribution is $275 million each, or $1.1 billion, 1/2 of $2.2 billion, which means Seattle or N KC would have to make up the difference, which Harrell will never do, and N KC can’t afford.
2. ST won’t budge on its pre-pandemic ridership estimates through downtown Seattle. The levies, certainly ST 3, were based on some very optimistic projections about future population growth, urbanism, and Link ridership, especially through downtown Seattle. If ST admits actual future ridership doesn’t support DSTT2 it admits its funding model for O&M is fundamentally flawed.
So the Board is doing what any board of elected politicians would do: delay making these decisions, hoping either the future changes or they retire.
My guess is way down the line fans of interlining all Link traffic through DSTT1 will get their wish, but that isn’t good for ST in the long run because it means its future ridership projections and farebox recovery (40% of O&M) were rubbish.
“Harrell and Constantine don’t want to lose the contribution from the four other subareas”
That doesn’t matter if the costs go away. :)
“”Harrell and Constantine don’t want to lose the contribution from the four other subareas” That doesn’t matter if the costs go away. :)”
Mike, if the costs went away (interlining all lines in DSTT1) but the $1.1 billion contribution to Seattle from the four other subareas stayed I think Harrell would be very interested, although the four other subareas would and will argue if no DSTT2 no subarea contribution (whether three of the four even have their contribution is another issue I have raised in the past).
I am speculating, but Harrell and Constantine could be thinking Seattle spent quite a bit of its subarea revenue running Link to other subareas to complete the spine that today really benefits these suburban subareas, rather than on urban Link for Seattle. Just like if Auburn, Kent and Sumner were given the money for their new parking garages (which make absolutely no sense with declining Sounder ridership) with no strings attached I think they would find better uses for the money, I think if Seattle got the $1.1 billion contribution with no strings attached it would find better uses, like maybe a station on 20th, better SLU station, mitigation for the CID for a station on 5th or a station on 4th, etc.
Making 100+ year decisions based on current commercial rental tenants is INSANE.
We need leaders, not flakes.
“Making 100+ year decisions based on current commercial rental tenants is INSANE.
“We need leaders, not flakes.”
Who is making 100+ year decisions today? If you are talking about commercial office buildings, the owners have until 2024, maybe 2025. Banks are required to mark all loans and security for loans to market as part of their stress tests, so these properties have already been reduced to current values, and will remark as they fall further, which puts most loans underwater. Unless occupancy recovers to 95% by next year these buildings will default. Many like the city and county buildings are already permanently vacant.
If you are talking about transit, no one makes decisions on buses 100+ years out, or even five years out. Bus coverage and frequency is easily changed to meet changing conditions, although some believe a certain grid is necessary despite ridership. Transportation and transit will be something we can’t fathom in 50 years, let alone 100. Who would have predicted Uber 10 years ago. Not our problem as we will be dead.
Link was based on very optimistic assumptions decades out re: population growth, transit ridership growth, urban growth, inflation, farebox recovery, future 0&M costs, TOD, and so on, and those assumptions post pandemic look questionable, not 100+ years in the future but five years in the future. The two big problems are: 1. underestimated project cost estimates plus rising inflation mean there is inadequate subarea revenue to complete many of ST 3’s projects; and 2. reduced farebox recovery and underestimated future O&M costs (including more trains and OMF) mean there isn’t enough money to run the system.
If anything today, little planning is being done for the future. Much is on pause. People are just happy the pandemic is over, and still have stimulus to spend. This is probably the new normal, but the consequences for commercial buildings and urban cities and transit are significant enough folks still want to wait (except Metro can’t), probably until the foreclosures on office buildings begin next year, or as the Times noted yesterday Seattle’s $250 million operating budget deficit arrives next year.
I think compounding this in some urban cities like San Francisco and Seattle is the decline of safety, and the feeling the urban city is no longer the heart of culture, retail, dining, drinking, and so on. I think if cities like Seattle were safe and clean and still centers of culture but with fewer work commuters the citizens who don’t live there and no longer work there would be more concerned about making sure they survive, and the transit to them.
Transit does not lead. It follows. Transit flourishes best in a vibrant urban city when cars truly don’t scale, at least in the urban part. Smart urbanists don’t spend time trying to eliminate cars; they figure out ways to make those cars park on the perimeter so all those car drivers can get into the urban core that is carless and spend lots and lots of money and be eyes on the street. An irony some on this blog just don’t get is if you kill the car you kill urbanism because the folks with the money can’t get to the city.
Daniel,
Light Rail is looked at by stakeholders as a long term investment and is talked about in multi-decade terms. We aren’t going through decades of planning and construction purely for the benefit of near term returns.
“Building light rail in a dense urban environment is no simple task. That said, we are planning a 100-year investment with all the responsibilities that entails. ”
https://downtownseattle.org/2018/05/designing-st3-future/
” However, East Link is a 100-year investment for the region and it will be a defining feature for Bellevue.”
https://bellevuewa.gov/sites/default/files/media/pdf_document/cob_pref_letter_on_east_link.pdf
“This project provides long-term improvements along a regional high capacity transit corridor. Per FTA guidelines, light rail stations have a useful life of 40-50 years and can last much longer.”
https://www.psrc.org/media/6157
Alonso, I did not question that any infrastructure investment — roads, bridges or transit — is not “long term”, I just questioned 100 years into the future. 100 years ago today the car was barely beginning, there was no interstate highway system, and folks were claiming the street cars would last 100 years. Commercial flights hadn’t even started. With today’s technology changes are much more rapid. WFH is revolutionizing the world in three years.
That said, one still must be honest about the benefits and costs of any longer-term infrastructure project because so much of it is based on projections. So many public projects are sold to the citizens based on faulty cost projections, faulty revenue projections, faulty use projections, and when those turn out to be false the promoters claim just wait and stay the course for 100 years, when conveniently we will all be dead.
“Building light rail in a dense urban environment is no simple task”. Well, that is part of the problem. ST began that claim in the 1990’s. We are building much of ST 2 and all of ST 3 on the claim this region will become a dense urban environment, in 100 years, even though ironically most of ST 2 and 3 is being built above grade, which is rare in an urban environment like Mercer Island or Surrey Downs.
Even the OFM is only predicting 1 million new residents by 2050 in a three-county area that combined is nearly 6500 sq. MILES. According to Wiki, ST actually estimated over 700,000 annual riders when ST 3 is completed.
With WFH and issues in downtown Seattle we are actually deurbanizing today. Transit ridership along East Link has plummeted. I don’t think East Link will be a defining feature of Bellevue or it would access Bellevue Way. I live in E KC. Show me the urban environment, and ironically East Link doesn’t even go there on the claim that in 100 years Wilburton and The Spring Dist. will be “dense urban environments”. Don’t get me started on the projections underpinning Issaquah Link.
Planning 100 years into the future is fool’s gold, unless an agency is trying to explain why its projections are so wrong today. ST is somewhat unique because its tax rates are fixed. There is no general fund tax subsidies. If O&M cost projections or capital cost projections are way off there isn’t much ST can do, because extending taxes and project completion in a high inflationary market (or a market simply more than 1%/year) takes you backwards, something the recent outside consultant pointed out.
So no, I don’t think East Link or ST 3 will be a defining feature for those areas, certainly based on transit ridership today in those areas, and I don’t think four subareas will be able to complete their capital projects or afford to operate them. And that is not 100 years into the future, but like office building defaults in the very near future, because people want to get paid today, not 100 years in the future.
By the way, the I-405 Corridor Program was based on a 20yr lifespan. That is, it was assumed back in 2001 that the additional 4 lanes added to I-405 to reduce congestion would be finished around 2012. (Depending on funding from the Legislature).
The horizon year was 2030.
Roughly, the added lanes would have filled back up, and I-405 would be just as congested as, when the FEIS was completed.
Another tidbit I’ll add is that transit does not lead but follows isn’t entirely true. While building transit makes to existing dense areas makes the most sense, there’s examples to the contrary.
In the early 20th century, as part of real estate speculation, the NYC Subway (which at the time was comprised of a handful of private transit companies) expanded into low density and even greenfield zones, such as Flushing Meadows in Queens, in order to help drive and incentivize development. Just check out this brand spanking new rail line flanked by empty parcels. The key is if there is demand for people wanting to live somewhere.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D591gPhXsAEzcNJ?format=jpg&name=900×900
“Another tidbit I’ll add is that transit does not lead but follows isn’t entirely true. While building transit makes to existing dense areas makes the most sense, there’s examples to the contrary.”
It can truly be an either or in terms of following or leading. Some projects are followers, some are leaders tho sometimes the line can be blury between the two.
La Défense Station is a case of being both, it was built because of the existing business district there but also led the way for a new financial & business district in the 80s/90s.
Stockholm Metro’s Blue Line was built in response to the post war building boom and the Millions Programme Housing Project set out by the Swedish government in the 60s/70s.
I know there’s some new Amsterdam developments in the last decade or two that were built with transit in mind so they didn’t have to do extensive construction after the new urban development was opened.
> Another tidbit I’ll add is that transit does not lead but follows isn’t entirely true. While building transit makes to existing dense areas makes the most sense, there’s examples to the contrary.
That’s always been true; the real problem is that American cities refused to upzone their land next to their transit stations. We’re more able to build transit than upzone land. LA neighborhoods around the blue line were only recently upzoned. DC’s falls church station is still single family zoning after 50 years etc. Dallas train system has the same problem, it works fine, but they refused to build near their train stations. Seattle’s link is a bit better as in we do upzone; though not all stations areas have been successful
The federal government realized it was wasting ludicrous amounts of transit money and changed the analysis for funding semi-forcing cities to actually upzone or have real plans of upzoning to attain transit funds.
Any agency that spends billions to build light rail to a SFH zone is stupid (eg ST). So we build link from Issaquah to 112th but not First Hill. Genius.
Here is something that urbanists and transit advocates simply have to understand: at best 10% of trips are by transit, much less in “suburbia”; and these areas value their SFH zone character at the very top of their priorities and transit at the very bottom, especially if buses do a better job. Especially now that we work from home. Metro can tell you we don’t need transit ever again. So why run frickin light rail to us if Metro has to eliminate buses because lack of ridership? This isn’t rocket science. Mode won’t move the needle.
If you want to live in a quasi-urban middle housing zone, or a real urban zone, (and IMO Seattle has some of the worst urbanism in the world) go for it. But don’t believe the developer shit that upzoning SFH zones you can’t afford to live in will mean you can live in them. Upzoning creates unaffordable housing. Surely we know that by now in Seattle in which 15% of apartments are under $1800/mo.
But don’t be naive enough to spend billions (of our money) to run light rail to these SFH zones and act surprised they never wanted it, have zero interest in changing their zoning, and have a ton of political juice because those SFH cost a fortune, which is at the heart of the desire to upzone SFH zones, and why those suburban folks want transit riders to pay the actual cost of their ride and stop freeloading, especially in expensive N Seattle neighborhoods.
I think once we go to true subarea equity for Metro to serve all these newly upzoned Eastside neighborhoods and transit riders have to pay double their grossly subsidized fare because the suburban subsidy is gone they might think differently about upzoning neighborhoods that will never be affordable.
“But don’t be naive enough to spend billions (of our money) to run light rail to these SFH zones and act surprised they never wanted it, have zero interest in changing their zoning, and have a ton of political juice because those SFH cost a fortune, which is at the heart of the desire to upzone SFH zones, and why those suburban folks want transit riders to pay the actual cost of their ride and stop freeloading, especially in expensive N Seattle neighborhoods.”
But they voted for ST3.
Ah, wait, I see “and have a ton of political juice because those SFH cost a fortune“, Got It.
So, when do you lead the charge to have ST3 repealed within the Sound Transit Taxing District with another ballot measure?
(I-976 was a statewide initiative, so that doesn’t count)
Then, after that passes, then you can put that Roads Initiative out there to see what people really think.
(Don’t want it shot down because of the ‘single subject’ rule)
Some voted for ST 3 including E KC. (I voted no). It was a dishonest levy and we were all naive, and many Eastside non-transit folks just couldn’t believe a government agency would lie like that.
DSTT2 was going to cost $2.2 billion and WSBLE $6 billion. East Link was going to open in 2020. The levy would expire in 2041.
No need to repeal ST 3. Four subareas can’t afford their ST 3 projects, and ST 3 in E KC that can afford its ST 3 projects is the poster child for terrible and wasteful transit.
I just can’t believe any transit advocate would use ST 3 as an example of good transit and wise spending. Anyone who voted for ST 3 should be ashamed if they knew anything about transit.
Eastsiders don’t know shit about transit. Where were all the transit geniuses on this blog to tell us ST 3 was fraudently estimated and just horrible transit. They were just as stupid as we were which is why I take everything they say on this blog with a f grain of salt. Because they voted yes for ST 3 and even I could see through the lies.
> Any agency that spends billions to build light rail to a SFH zone is stupid (eg ST). So we build link from Issaquah to 112th but not First Hill. Genius.
> Here is something that urbanists and transit advocates simply have to understand: at best 10% of trips are by transit, much less in “suburbia”;
This isn’t really a differing statement from what urbanists think Daniel, Many here do not quite like build the spine idea to the suburbs
> But don’t believe the developer shit that upzoning SFH zones you can’t afford to live in will mean you can live in them. Upzoning creates unaffordable housing. Surely we know that by now in Seattle in which 15% of apartments are under $1800/mo.
And are the single family homes magically cheaper? Also you never really quite answer where you will build the housing instead Daniel. It’s always hoping some other far flung city builds it. And if that city has the same attitude as you then wouldn’t they also refuse to build more housing?
Daniel,
In rebuttal to your comments regarding upzoning single family neighborhoods, please see the following article from the Brookings Institute:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/diverse-neighborhoods-are-made-of-diverse-housing/
“Single-family zoning is an opportunity hoarding mechanism. Persistent residential segregation exacerbates racial disparities in income and wealth.”
“In high-demand places, single-family zoning can also further limit access to educational and employment opportunities by restricting the housing supply, thereby increasing housing prices and decreasing affordability.”
“Neutralizing the power of some neighborhoods to exclude would expand opportunity for traditionally isolated groups such as Black people and immigrants, reduce social tension, and balance power between neighborhoods. Many higher-income residents of predominantly single-family neighborhoods fear that zoning changes that increase housing inventory diversity will negatively impact their property values, because new residents will be lower-income. However, our findings show that neighborhoods with diverse housing inventory are not substantially lower-income than exclusively single-family neighborhoods.”
Increasing supply in high demand communities allows more people to access and leverage the resources those communities provide, maximized human capital and is a net benefit to society per the aforementioned reasons.
The following article from the American Enterprise Institute specifically analyzes Seattle through the lease of “naturally occurring affordability” (not subsidized housing) with modest upzoning.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Light-touch-Density-Seattle-case-study-April-2023.pdf?x91208
Alonso,
Not to dispute most of what you said, but:
“However, our findings show that neighborhoods with diverse housing inventory are not substantially lower-income than exclusively single-family neighborhoods.”
I would point out that “not lower income” is not the same as “not lower wealth”. So it is entirely possible that the income level of the residents of the neighborhood is preserved, while the wealth level drops due to reduced property values, based on what you stated.
I didn’t look at the study so perhaps this is explicitly refuted; if you have seen such a refutation, would you be so kind as to provide it, also, and save us the trouble of reading through it?
Anonymouse, what that is eluding to is that upzoning in-demand single family neighborhoods helps those in the 80-120% of area median income. For those of lower and no income, the only tenable approach is government subsidy and private charitable contributions. There was a time when tenements and SROs allowed for market driven low income housing but we as a society made the decision to clear slums and mandate building codes that legislated such housing types out of existence.
Again, not disputing that, but that is still not an answer. The reason I am bringing it up is because if we are asking people to vote themselves to lower wealth, we should be prepared to be told to pound sand, and arguments like “but you’re not really” should not be made if they are dishonest. If they are honest, then let’s make them full-throatedly. Hence why I wanted to know.
Regarding this:
“There was a time when tenements and SROs allowed for market driven low income housing but we as a society made the decision to clear slums and mandate building codes that legislated such housing types out of existence.”
This point brings back something I try to point out repeatedly when people complain about things like code requirements, etc. These things are often established not out of malice but to solve specific problems. Clearing slums is at the very least well intentioned; as I recall, they were not good places to live. I’ve personally lived in social housing in another city as a kid, and while I would definitely prefer them over homelessness, the place I was in was not by any means “nice”, and that was decades ago, when it was in better shape than it is now. What I have read of the place as it currently stands makes me pretty uncomfortable, to say the least. The problem is that we mandated improvements without providing the cash to institute them, and the cost is high. And thus here we are where we are. We (as a society) need to be honest with ourselves about the cost of achieving what we want to achieve. We can build a good life for everyone, but it won’t be cheap. So we need to build the societal mindset to drive that.
@anonymouse
While partially true in the past that is not always the case especially more recent bans of sros
The recent ban on sros for instance inn Wallingford was purely to prevent change of the neighborhood not due to any safety reason. Even the term single family housing it is even now sometimes used by (outside Seattle thing) hoas to evict houses with more than one ‘family’ living there even if it’s the same number of people.
Anyways besides that it is kind of a catch 22 for multi family housing that we are debating. If it is built and only high income people move in then detractors say “upzoning only helps the wealthy”. If on the other hand it is built and low income move in then detractors will say “upzoning destroyed this neighborhood”
One is magically expecting only the exact character and income level some Goldilocks socioeconomic person to be acceptable
I cannot speak of the Wallingford issue as I am not familiar with the specifics. I assume that this was a neighborhood association imposing the ban? I would normally (i.e. outside of HOAs) assume that this is a city level ordinance, if not county or state level.
I would not conflate SROs with multifamily living in SFH – they attempt to solve similar problems but IMHO both the problems and the specific solutions are different. I say that the problems are different because (as I understand it) SROs were, in the past, the best option for a category of people (unstable income source, potential mental illness, etc.) Essentially cheap housing that’s one step up from homelessness but otherwise offering independent units. Multiple families in the same SFH unit are a very different setup, and I do not imagine that having SRO inhabitants from say the 1960s being likely to live in a room rented in someone else’s home (I may be wrong, admittedly). I can see them being a solution for things like student housing and the like, though (and I have in fact seen them used that way in the past – my grandmother used to rent out a room in her apartment to university students, when I was a kid; I have no idea what regulations were in place in that jurisdiction, to allow this).
The Catch 22 is a real issue, and I am not trying to convince people that both options are bad and thus nothing should be done. What I am advocating for is finding ways to emphasize the positives __for those already living in those areas__ while acknowledging the downsides and attempting to minimize them in that plan, as to build grass-roots support. For example, I think that displacement due to gentrification is a real problem, and I would love to see requirements that building in upzoned “poor” area comes with guarantees that those whose housing is being removed will get guaranteed below-market rates on the new, better housing. This allows them to benefit from the gentrification, even while paying some of the costs of it (disruption in life, etc.) For another example, if (and I emphasize, __if__) wealth reduction for middle class SFH owners due to upzoning is a real issue, then we should not claim otherwise; we should acknowledge the issue and attempt to emphasize general societal benefits (less disruption in their life due to homeless in the area crowding up parks and other public spaces might be one). I do not pretend to have the solutions, but this is the direction I would explore.
@Anonymouse
This happened around 10 years ago. Seattle legalized SRO’s (modern versions) which were then effectively banned.
> Seattle had a micro housing boom that started more than 10 years ago, during which developers built thousands of units of the dorm-style apartments. Then in response to public backlash, the Seattle City Council heavily regulated where micro apartments could be built, what amenities they had to include, how large they had to be and other guidelines developers said made them more expensive and less appealing to build. The result is vastly less micro housing being built in recent years.
https://crosscut.com/news/2022/07/will-mayor-harrell-revive-seattles-apodment-fight
> Seattle was the modern birthplace of micro-housing in North America. It went strong from 2009 to 2013, but building micro-housing projects has since become an uphill battle. In fact, the local war about micro-housing is over… and micro-housing lost.
https://www.sightline.org/2016/09/06/how-seattle-killed-micro-housing/
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/homeowners-demand-halt-to-stalinist-looking-cityscape/
(This is also why I kind of laugh whenever people say “zoning”s not the issue and cite a long list of other xyz reasons. Sure we can solve all those other reasons, but if one cannot legally build it, it doesn’t matter)
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/homeowners-demand-halt-to-stalinist-looking-cityscape/
This is the link to the article linked to in the article WL linked to outlining neighborhood objections. Most of the objections went to scale and design, designer end runs around regulatory limits, not so much the size of each unit in the building. IIRC Seatle leads the nation — still — in micro housing.
When I was in Pioneer Square a number of micro housing units were built. They had no onsite parking, bike storage, and very small unit. The developer could not lease them out (not sure if it was the area or just the tiny units) and so King Co. bought the buildings for low-income housing, but when I left in Sept. 2022 the buildings although new were still empty. One reason not mentioned in WL’s post is developers are not keen on micro unit buildings as the profit is not very high. You are essentially building for a class one step above subsidized affordable housing, and there is a lot of tension between tenants who are market rate and low income subsidized tenants who are moved into the building.
Without a doubt one way of addressing the cost of housing is to reduce the size of units. They have been doing this in Tokyo for a long time, and some units are 177 sq ft. In NYC, although technically allowed, some rent a closet.
As the photo notes, if these micro units are market rate they mostly appeal to the young (and the photo of the pretty young woman in the article is not typical alas), those who can’t find a roommate, and students, so locating them is important. Think a dorm. Unless we are talking subsidized affordable housing these units are not long-term solutions, and if we are talking about subsidized affordable housing neighborhoods are always going to be concerned about that.
Another solution is more congregate living, whether 2, 3 or four per unit. One of the great wastes of modern multi-family housing — especially micro units — is we are building separate kitchens, bathrooms and living rooms for each person who lives alone. At least in a dorm the kitchen and bathrooms are shared.
Yeah, I remember some of the discussions on microhousing. As I recall, one of the issues was that they were also just really expensive relative to what was obtained. They were pretty popular with students, it seemed, though.
I agree with DT in this case that it would be perhaps more efficient (from a resource allocation perspective) to build multi-room units with shared kitchen/bathroom facilities. But I also think that it’s not what people want. Some reasons are just changing expectations, but some are for good reason. I am familiar with a (admittedly small) number of people who live in shelters or are entirely homeless (living in their vehicles, essentially) because the alternative has been to live in unsupervised shared housing, and due to past trauma this is not an option. Having the ability to lock a door when there is no staff to monitor one’s safety is critical in some cases, and we (as a society) should find a way to fund this.
To wind the discussion back towards the topic of the post a little: it is disheartening to see the city and county leadership invest in glorious projects like a new civic campus, instead of pushing for zoning changes that allow for microhousing to be built, and keep people safe and off the streets. To me that’s the big tragedy, much more than where the CID station will be located.
I would also argue that just because the idea was killed a decade ago it isn’t worth trying to revive it now. It was clearly pretty popular, and IMHO if I were a SFH owner in Seattle and my two alternatives were “tents on sidewalks” or “Stallinist bloc microhousing” I’d hug that Stallinist bloc like it were made of gold. It’s better for the people living in them, it’s more appealing to look at, etc. etc. It probably even devaluates my property less!
So maybe it’s worth another push.
The extraordinarily higher costs for a 4th Avenue station are predicated on the cost of 5th, which Mayor Harrell says is not culturally feasible to build. The costs need to be recalculated. In a conversation, ST board member and State Sec. of Transportation Roger Millar shared that construction methods for 4th as outlined in the DEIS were the most costly and inefficient so that drove up costs also. We need to start with more realistic costs based on more contemporary construction methods. Several nearby bridges need re-building. Construction time could be saved if all were re-built during the various phases of building on 4th instead of tying up Pioneer Square and CID with decades of serial bridge re-building on top of light rail construction.
“In a conversation, ST board member and State Sec. of Transportation Roger Millar shared that construction methods for 4th as outlined in the DEIS were the most costly and inefficient so that drove up costs also.”
Do you have anything else on this front? (Really, the question is — will the EIS work over the next couple years realize this and fix it?)