This was in the last open thread but deserves a feature position. Glimpses of Link in a few places.
This is an open thread.
74 Replies to “Open Thread 15: Steps to Transit”
Comments are closed.
This was in the last open thread but deserves a feature position. Glimpses of Link in a few places.
This is an open thread.
Comments are closed.
Another link for any transit-oriented runners: Light Rail Relay is happening September 30th. A running or walking relay stopping at every operational station along the the 1 Line. Consider organizing a team to join. There’s no cost to enter.
https://raceconditionrunning.com/light-rail-relay-23/
Reading the Aurora Avenue redesign, looks exciting, though it’s a bit unclear what they will choose. Especially since the law that provided the money mandated they must choose a design by September 30th and start some construction by 2024. The Aurora Reimagined Coalition desires quite large changes to have only one general lane in each direction.
The best idea I could think of is center bus lanes and keeping 2 general lanes in each direction similar to Mlk (two bus lanes and bus station would take 3 lanes out of 7). Though it’d have to be paired with more at-grade signalized intersections south of green lake, otherwise the bus riders would be stuck in the middle. Also wondering if they’ll run into legal challenges with it being a freight corridor.
https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/current-projects/aurora-ave-project, https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/08/04/community-options-emerge-for-aurora-avenue-redesign/
But yeah any thoughts on how one would change Aurora Ave? And what might be politically possible
While, yes, this is exciting to think about, there is absolutely no way to get a center running light rail line across the Ship Canal, unless the entire Aurora Bridge is replaced. I expect that there may come a time when that must happen, but now is not that time. The existing bridge still has long life left in it.
This would cost many billions of dollars and save perhaps six minutes per ride between 145th and Denny versus adding and enforcing red lanes for the E.
I certainly agree that re-purposing — or even “co-purposing” — big box parking lots as apartments or condos is a huge improvement over acres of hot asphalt. But that can happen with Red Lanes for the E and service frequent enough to justify them.
AI is going to “incentivize” lots of the folks now at Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and all the other TechUtopias to find “alternative means of self-expression”, which for some of them may mean driving a bus. It won’t be long before AI will “train” the next generation, much the same way that we train our young.
The aurora redesign is about the rapidride E not light rail. For center running bus lanes it’d probably be north of green lake where the busses can use the N 63rd underpass to cross from the center to the outer lanes when making the left turn at winona ave n. This would still maintain 2 general purpose lanes in each direction, though remove some left turn lanes to make it into the bus station.
There are some other ideas about adding more at grade intersections in Fremont.
ST’s long-range plan has Aurora as a corridor of interest for BRT (Stride) or Regional Express Bus Service (ST Express). The corridor runs from downtown Seattle to Everett. This doesn’t mean ST will build it, just that it thinks it might want to do so in the future.
WL, I understand that the major thrust of the planning is better bus. But the second article you linked by The Urbanist ends with a Link to a Seattle Subway article beating the drum for Aurora Light Rail. They are saying that Center Running BRT could be converted easily in the future. Not without replacing the bridge.
So far as BRT improvements, great! However the roadway isn’t really seven usable lanes wide south of Winona, except the wide section through the park. South of 50th the lanes are uncomfortably narrow with just a Jersey barrier down the middle. How much less comfortable with a “lane” for bus stations would they be?
I like 24 hour right-hand Bus/Freight lanes with “pass-throughs at 40th, 46th and 50th. And camera-enforcement outside the pass-throughs.
I also don’t get why both sides of the bridge need walkways. It’s likely that the structure is not strong enough to support a roadway widee than it is; the walkways are cantilevered from the main structure. But it sure would be nice to have one of those two three foot walkways for the roadway.
> WL, I understand that the major thrust of the planning is better bus. But the second article you linked by The Urbanist ends with a Link to a Seattle Subway article beating the drum for Aurora Light Rail. They are saying that Center Running BRT could be converted easily in the future. Not without replacing the bridge.
I don’t think light rail is too realistic nor converting to only have one general anytime soon, but just wanted list some concepts.
> So far as BRT improvements, great! However the roadway isn’t really seven usable lanes wide south of Winona, except the wide section through the park. South of 50th the lanes are uncomfortably narrow with just a Jersey barrier down the middle.
The road south of 50th is actually a bit wider than it seems. The bridge roadway width is 57 feet (6 lanes of 9.5 feet), however the roadway from 50th to Aurora Bridge is 77 feet. The existing 6 lanes are actually pretty wide https://goo.gl/maps/BHjT3XGqj7J9cetr8. With 77 feet one can easily have 7 lanes of 11 feet or 4 for 2 general lanes in each direction, 2 for bus lanes, and 1 for a bus station. Plus the 7th lane is only needed at intersections for the bus station and not needed elsewhere. South of the bridge it looks like it’s also 77 to 80 feet.
Of course with center lanes south of Winona, only works if they add trafflic lights/intersections. Otherwise the bus users are stuck in the middle.
> How much less comfortable with a “lane” for bus stations would they be?
The idea of moving the bus to center lanes is that one only needs to cross 2 general lanes at a time. Rather than 3 lanes of a bus lane and 2 general lane. Additionally technically if the bus lanes were moved to the center that also ‘soft’ removes the bus lane from being used as a right turn lane, which would now be the general lane. It’d be kinda similar to MLK way if it was a brt or Van Ness ave with much longer road sections.
> I also don’t get why both sides of the bridge need walkways. It’s likely that the structure is not strong enough to support a roadway widee than it is; the walkways are cantilevered from the main structure. But it sure would be nice to have one of those two three foot walkways for the roadway.
I don’t think both sides of the bridge needs walkways. Probably one would be enough.
[Aurora] is actually a bit wider than it seems.
That changes everything. You would do the following:
1) Drop the speed limit a bit, and shrink the lanes.
2) Add regular crossings north of Mercer.
3) Add center bus stops in various locations.
4) Add bus lanes in the middle.
5) Retain two general purpose lanes each direction, but on the outside.
Pretty much every intersection from Roy to Galer would have a surface crossing. Cars wouldn’t be able to cross, but bike and pedestrians would. In some cases, so could transit. With the various greenbelts you wouldn’t have as many crossings north of there, but you would still have plenty, as needed, for center bus stops.
There are a few spots that get interesting. If you wanted to add a stop at 38th (for Fremont riders) it might be challenging. At worst you would have to rebuild the viaduct above 38th, to make it wider. At 46th you have a viaduct, but this is one is easier, as you can probably squeeze in a bus stop by moving it a few feet to the south (where the road is wide). At that point you just need a crossing (for pedestrians). The Linden detour would no longer make sense. The bus would instead just stay on Aurora. The road does narrow there (as one lane is used for the new bike path) but I think it could work. Move the bus stop to just south of 65th. As long as there aren’t any bus stops between there and 73rd, you are OK with six lanes (two bus, four general purpose). I see it working fairly easily, with the most challenging spots where there isn’t a bus stop now (at 38th). Worst case scenario, this could be added later.
Since we are running in the middle, those ramps at South Lake Union are less of a big deal. I don’t think it would take that much work to create bus lanes the entire way. Northbound, it is basically four lanes north of there. Simply switch that up a bit: The far left lane would be a bus-lane on-ramp; then general purpose on-ramp; then two lanes coming from the tunnel. The other direction there are three lanes; the far left exits, the other lanes go into the tunnel. So you switch it up a bit. The far left lane would be for buses (which always exit). The middle lane can go straight (into the tunnel) or exit (the far right goes into the tunnel). This means two lanes for the exit ramp. As the ramp reaches Harrison, it is now three lanes, so it would be easy to just make one of those the bus lane. Overall, it looks like you would need to do some work on the ramps (a bit of extra concrete maybe) but not a lot. Even if you did nothing, it would be better than now, as the buses could stay in the middle, instead of working their way over to the outside. It looks way easier, cheaper and better than what Tom and I wrote about (for creating outside BAT lanes).
Overall, this wouldn’t cost a fortune, and it would completely change the nature of the street. Aurora would be slower, but people could cross the street in a lot more places. The bus would run in its own lane. It wouldn’t necessarily be faster (since there would be a lot more traffic lights and stops) but it would be way more useful, and considerably faster than driving if there is traffic. I would expect ridership to increase along the corridor as a result.
It also sets us up for the future. Eventually it could become two general purpose lanes, and two bike lanes (on either side). But that would be more long term. Having a step by step improvement is much better than trying to make a huge change all at once. As it is, adding crossing streets is a big change, but we’ve seen that happen on 15th NW. Not to the degree I’m proposing for Aurora, but here, for example: https://goo.gl/maps/93tdi894NJNWNenQ7. If you’ve driven in this city a long time, this is quite jarring. You aren’t use to it. Northbound, 15th is basically a freeway for a very long stretch (until you hit Market). This is a big change, but people get used to it. They have clearly slowed down as the come off the bridge (although there are still plenty of idiots). It is only a matter of time before more of these crossing (which again, don’t allow cars to cross) are added to the south. Changing Aurora in that manner would be huge, and help improve the street in many ways.
At a minimum, the Aurora bridge needs to be restriped for two lanes with shoulders and a center barrier, rather than trying to squeeze in three lanes. The current design is a classic example of prioritization of car capacity over basic safety, and the Ride the Duck crash is a good example of what can go wrong when you have so little separation from oncoming traffic.
Also, the “capacity” of three lanes is largely fiction anyway, since anytime a bus or a large truck goes over the bridge (something which happens every couple of minutes), they are forced to straddle two lanes because lanes are too narrow.
The Duck crash was terrible but I don’t know that fewer lanes would have helped much — it wasn’t a case of speeding, inattention, or aggressive driving, but mechanical failure. Adding a center barrier might help some types of crashes, but it might also make it more likely for people to speed and drive aggressively by enhancing driver comfort. My memory is that SDOT and WSDOT studied this after the crash, and concluded that the bridge is actually one of the safest parts of Aurora, because it’s such an uncomfortable experience for drivers, and there’s protected sidewalks for pedestrians.
Most of the crashes, particularly fatal crashes, occur elsewhere on Aurora, where the lanes are wider and there aren’t sidewalks at all, and too much distance between signaled crosswalks.
The I-90 bridge was restriped when the center roadway was closed to reduce lane width to increase the number of lanes in each direction from 2 to 3 to increase capacity and create a HOV lane. Before there was no HOV lane and I-90 was never going to be reduced to one general purpose lane in each direction. If East Link ever opens across the bridge a HOV lane won’t be necessary although I doubt I-90 will be reduced to two general purpose lanes like before. It will remain three general purpose lanes in each direction although traffic is relatively light.
Pre-pandemic when traffic congestion was worse increasing the number of lanes worked well (although I was skeptical) although the width of the pedestrian/bike path was reduced). Today the congestion is not much of an issue, but three lanes reduced some bottlenecks that caused a lot of UNNECESSARY congestion.
Some were concerned about the narrow shoulders — and being next to a bus or large truck can be a bit nervous especially in the tunnel but you get used to it — but cars are much more reliable today and it makes little sense to devote a lane on each side to a shoulder that is rarely used, especially on a bridge. You would have to reduce the number of lanes on all of Aurora to avoid huge bottlenecks at the bridge if three lanes reduced to two, which wouldn’t help buses.
All those cars would then flood west to east streets trying to get to I-5. Cars are like water. Thinking road diets or restricting capacity will reduce cars on the street as though suddenly people won’t need to take trips is poor planning. Planners have to anticipate where that restricted water will flow and flood. If you want to reduce cars on the road you have to reduce the need for trips. WFH and Amazon delivery are two good examples. Still the goal is always to maximize road capacity.
Crossing the Aurora bridge in the inner lane at full speed gets your attention, and of course I-90 is separated. . Since there are 3 lanes it is easier to use an outer lane.
Skylar’s point that the bridge is one of the safest parts of Aurora is interesting. Some kind of center barrier that doesn’t reduce the number of lanes would be welcome, although ironically it could increase accidents.
When traffic is light it is easy to use an outer lane on Aurora and when traffic is heavy speeds are slower. The key as always is to drive safely and responsibly.
“You would have to reduce the number of lanes on all of Aurora to avoid huge bottlenecks at the bridge if three lanes reduced to two”
Already been done, as Aurora has bus lanes in both directions for multiple miles leading up to the bridge. The only effect a lane reduction on the bridge would have is make buses merge over, but buses don’t run often enough for that to cause traffic backups.
Is the structure strong enough for a Jersey barrier? If it is I would expect one would already be there.
Ross, I agree with uour conclusions, but I would like to point out that a right-hand bus-only exit to Sixth North is very easy to engineer southbound, and it’s not the end of the world for buses northbound on Dexter to do like the 6 and 16 used to north of Mercer, but just do it at Republican. Make a bus-only lane to the right of the NB off-ramp and turn into the car-less space created by the turn to it. It would require taking down the derelict building at Aurora and Republican, but it will go because of the Link Station anyway. The building says “J.T. Hardeman Hat Co.” on it.
I would like to point out that a right-hand bus-only exit to Sixth North is very easy to engineer southbound
That would be huge. My guess is the tunnel is hardly ever crowded, so sticking to the right is just better (not only to serve more bus stops, but to move faster). It would be nice if it was tacked onto the next WSDOT freeway bill. This would add way more value than the 520-to-Express-Lane HOV project they are building, while costing a lot less.
it’s not the end of the world for buses northbound on Dexter to do like the 6 and 16 used to north of Mercer, but just do it at Republican. Make a bus-only lane to the right of the NB off-ramp and turn into the car-less space created by the turn to it.
I could see that. Like you said, it might require taking that building. It seems possible that they could avoid that, if they simply lower the speed limit. The exit at Republican makes a nice easy curve, before coming to a complete stop (at Dexter). It seems like you could make that turn just a bit sharper, and squeeze in a northbound ramp. The bus would have to make a sharp turn (slightly more than 90 degrees) and then accelerate onto Aurora. As long as it has its own lane, I don’t see that as a problem. You might have to widen thing a bit, but maybe you could just get rid of the shoulders (on both sides) through there and that would do it.
So yeah, that wouldn’t be trivial, but it wouldn’t cost a fortune, either. I think the most important project is the southbound one. It adds the most value. At least with Dexter you can keep going, and get on Aurora via Roy. There is no good way to get from Aurora to South Lake Union (via the right lane) otherwise.
Unless we want to rethink Aurora. Make Roy a cross street, but only for buses (pedestrians and bikes). Put a traffic signal there. Now the Aurora buses use Dexter (they would add BAT lanes). Northbound, the bus makes a right turn there. Southbound, the bus makes a left turn, but from a special light (only for buses) similar to the one by the UW Station (https://goo.gl/maps/ztHNSLjECr7C8KEU7). So now both buses would dogleg at Roy over to Dexter. At that point, you basically just need a lot of paint (for BAT and bus lanes). The bus wouldn’t be as much of an express, but if done right, it would be fairly consistent and still quite fast. You increase coverage quite a bit in South Lake Union as well.
It is just so aggravating that we have to spend time and money fixing the mistake that WSDOT made. Why on earth would you have left-lane exits? If there were simply exits from the right, the problem solves itself quite easily.
To a certain extent, it depends on how bold you want to be, and how much money you want to spend. Here is a bold plan, that I don’t think is realistic, at least not yet:
Start by treating Aurora like most streets — one lane of traffic each direction. Add traffic lights and regular surface crossing (for pedestrians) along the “freeway” part of it (between Mercer and Green Lake). This gives you enough room to add stops in the middle of the street, while making it easy to get to either side. Throw in signal priority and call it a day.
Of course an alternative would be to spend our way out of the problem. Keep two lanes in various areas, but widen the roadway to add bus stops in the middle, along with overpasses. It would still be a lot cheaper than a new light rail line — but it wouldn’t be cheap by any means.
I don’t think either approach is realistic now. I’m afraid we are stuck with BAT lanes for now.
Unfortunately things get tricky in a few places. To start with, the folks at WSDOT screwed up the interchange. They put access (both directions) from Aurora to South Lake Union in the middle lanes. But the buses can’t use the middle lanes, as they can’t have bus stops there. So buses are forced to move from BAT lanes (if they exist) to outside lanes going north, and the reverse going south.
North of there, they could easily take an outside lane. It would be two general-purpose lanes between Green Lake and Mercer, with an outside BAT lane. As it is, this is the case much of the way anyway. So this is not exactly radical. You might need to do some work at the little viaduct between Bridge Way and 38th (https://goo.gl/maps/5pdc8H1UJynynWU47). It gets a bit narrow there. The southbound bus lanes end as a result. You can either live with that (and just treat this as a “skip ahead” lane for buses) or rebuild the bridge. A rebuild could come with a new bus stop — something folks on this blog have requested for decades. That way you could ride the E, and then easily walk down to Fremont.
Either way, you would then have BAT lanes from Green Lake to downtown. Even then, though, there are issues. The exit to Queen Anne (southbound) is often congested. Likewise, the exit to Fremont is congested at times as well. Unfortunately, unless we make radical changes (like that described in the first couple paragraphs) we would have to live with that. But overall, we could have BAT lanes pretty much the whole way on this section without spending much money.
North of Green Lake, the roadway transitions to a regular road (with normal crossing). There are BAT lanes much of the way. As noted, it is here where the bus could transition to center running, while still allowing two lanes on either side. You would have to limit left turns, but that is often a good idea anyway. Northbound, the transition would be very easy, as the bus leaves Aurora anyway for this section (and the BAT lanes are replaced with protected bike lanes). So it is only in the southbound direction that a bus would have to move from the protected center lane to the HOV lanes on the side. Even then it would be fairly easy, as there is a big gap between stops there (over half a mile). I see it working out quite smoothly.
Further north, a lot of the work has been done. From what I can tell, the northbound BAT lanes go all the way to the county. The southbound BAT lanes disappear from 145th to 115th. I don’t think it would take that much money to fix them. It is often wide enough, you just maybe need a bit of pavement work, and getting rid of the parking (in places like this: https://goo.gl/maps/XWg2MgE7LJT3DETY9). Another even easier fix is to change the peak-only BAT lanes to 24 hour BAT lanes. Converting the BAT lanes to center running Bus lanes (along with bus stops in the middle of the street) would require more work through here (as well as in Shoreline) but it wouldn’t require widening the street. So I see it as quite possible.
Overall I can see some fairly easy, cheap ways to improve things, while there are opportunities to make it even faster would require spending more money, or boldly changing the nature of Aurora.
What is the goal or dream for Aurora considering we are talking about over 100 blocks.
As a better transit corridor?
Or as an urban oasis to replace the industrial businesses along there, which will migrate thousands of cars per day along streets to I-5.
Is Seattle proper really so built out Aurora needs to be converted to a multi-family urban oasis with a Starbucks and Whole Foods on every corner?
Doesn’t it make more sense that we focus on downtown Seattle first. If we can’t make downtown safe, vibrant and pleasant — all 15 blocks — to live in and shop in what chance do we have with Aurora and its 100+ blocks?
“Is Seattle proper really so built out Aurora needs to be converted to a multi-family urban oasis with a Starbucks and Whole Foods on every corner?”
There’s 5 story condo and apartment buildings going in along Aurora in Shoreline because there’s nowhere in Seattle to put them. Not a new thing either: many have been there for 10+ years.
Glenn, Seattle’s multi-family zone is not even close to being built out. Although land in Shoreline could be cheaper, especially along 99. My guess is the housing along 99 in Shoreline is not Seattleites but folks who live and work in SnoCo which just shows how long an area we are talking about.
> What is the goal or dream for Aurora considering we are talking about over 100 blocks.
I mean one can do multiple items at a time. It’s not like in the suburbs they only improve one area at a time. The main current goal here is to decrease the traffic deaths on Aurora. There are couple ways to achieve that.
@Ross
> Of course an alternative would be to spend our way out of the problem. Keep two lanes in various areas, but widen the roadway to add bus stops in the middle, along with overpasses. It would still be a lot cheaper than a new light rail line — but it wouldn’t be cheap by any means.
I kind of assumed changing the grade separated aurora freeway to having traffic lights at intersections would be hard fought by the freight groups.
But, actually the roadway section with the grade separation is a bit wider than it seems. If one could add stoplights to that section (green lake to slu) is like 75~80 feet wide aka around 7 lanes with 11 feet each. There’s enough space for two travel lanes in each direction and also 2 center bus lanes with an additional lane used for bus stations. For reference, the Aurora bridge roadway section is only 57 feet wide (6 lanes with 9.5 feet)
> North of Green Lake, the roadway transitions to a regular road (with normal crossing). There are BAT lanes much of the way. As noted, it is here where the bus could transition to center running, while still allowing two lanes on either side.
Yeah, more likely this is what would be practical. Installing BAT lanes on the right side until Green Lake and then using the underpass/left turn to cross to the center lane.
> So it is only in the southbound direction that a bus would have to move from the protected center lane to the HOV lanes on the side.
I’d imagine at Winona Ave and Aurora Ave with the bus traveling southbound in center lanes they could have a special bus signal to let to cross over to the right lane. Aka similar to the Westlake and Mercer (northbound) bus signal.
https://goo.gl/maps/RQ17CR52cNc8xMac7
> Converting the BAT lanes to center running Bus lanes (along with bus stops in the middle of the street) would require more work through here (as well as in Shoreline) but it wouldn’t require widening the street. So I see it as quite possible.
The only major concern I’d see is if there are utilities underneath the center lanes that would need to be moved. Politically as long as 2 travel lanes are maintained I think there’s a moderate chance of center bus lanes being accepted.
Ross, I agree with your conclusions, but I would like to point out that a right-hand bus-only exit to Sixth North is very easy to engineer southbound, and it’s not the end of the world for buses northbound on Dexter to do like the 6 and 16 used to north of Mercer, but just do it at Republican. Make a bus-only lane to the right of the NB off-ramp and turn into the car-less space created by the turn to it. It would require taking down the derelict building at Aurora and Republican, but it will go because of the Link Station anyway. The building says “J.T. Hardeman Hat Co.” on it.
Read the draft transportation plan a bit more. Interestingly was getting disappointed with the draft plan’s lack of details and ended up finding out all of the concrete details are actually in the other EIS pdf.
Currently there’s 29 miles of people streets, 38 miles of dedicated transit lanes 161 miles of bike lanes (excluding sharrows). Alternative 1 would stick with it.
Alternative 2 (Moderate Pace) would add 347 miles of people streets, 53 bike lanes, and 33 miles of transit lanes. The most likely stuff SDOT will actually work on is highlighted on this plan. There’s Alternative 3 which would add much more, but also I don’t find it too useful of a map to look/care since if one talks about adding bus/bike lanes everywhere it doesn’t show one’s priorities.
There’s some interesting ideas about extending the Freight and Bus lanes to Lake City Way NE in addition to 15 Ave W and Leary NW.
Page 3-391 of the EIS also shows what actual bus lanes SDOT would plan to implement under Alternative 2. Mainly Rainier Ave near i90, 5th Ave NE near Northgate, and additional bus lanes on SR 509. Alternative 3 adds California Ave SW, surprisingly 23rd Ave (after they just re did the street?), Greenwood Ave, NW 85th and Lake City way.
On page 2-65 it shows a picture of the Alternative 2 people’s streets. It looks a lot different than what I was expecting. Rather than corridor’s like the other health street’s it’s more of like Barcelona’s superblocks with a ~half-mile radius converted to neighborhood like streets.
Anyways there’s some interesting ideas here that might be nice to have an article on. And the EIS shows what SDOT might actually implement.
Apparently they’re down to just one bus driver on Orcas Island, so not only is OrcasShuttle service not operating, they’ve had to change the school schedule so that one driver is able to operate the various school bus routes.
So that’s how bad the driver shortage has gotten in some places.
https://wsdotblog.blogspot.com/2023/08/i-405-closure-bellevue-renton.html
I recently drove through the I-405/NE 44th St work zone — interesting to see the new northbound I-405 corridor taking shape. Tying all of I-405 onto the new corridor within next weekend’s closure period (late Fri Sep 8 to early Mon Sep 11) seems quite a task.
Related to this: I’m not finding info online that addresses what portion(s) of the I-405/NE 44th St interchange will be closed once I-405 reopens on Monday the 11th. I would think that there will be no roadway to cross I-405; if so, that by itself will warrant the posting of detour routes.
Along similar lines: if the intersection of NE 44th St and Lake Washington Blvd NE is fully closed to build the planned roundabout, with no nearby temporary road provided, this also has detour implications.
Among WSDOT, City of Renton, City of Newcastle, etc. I figured I could find something, but no luck so far. Am I missing an obvious source of info on this?
To those who doubt the population projections that support building Link there’s this: https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/01/opinions/seniors-retirees-arizona-florida-climate-change-heat-wave-carr-wing-falchetta/index.html
Yes, this is anecdata, and Arizonans are “used” to 115. But 105 in Florida’s humidity can kill a mildly infirm person pretty quickly. Without perspiration the body can’t cool itself.
Cold does kill more people historically in the US than did heat, but it was both colder when it was cold and cooler when it was hot. More to the point of Link, while people do still freeze to death occasionally between Wenatchee and Maine, they really don’t around here. The lowest it has gotten in the last ten years in Seattle is 17 in 2021, and the usual yearly low is the mid-twenties.
This is going to be a very popular refuge for people in the summer, even if they continue to live in the Sunbelt in the wintertime. The ratio will gradually shift in favor of “Seattle months” against “Sarasota months”.
It’s all going to depend on the wildfires. If climate changes makes them bad enough and long-lasting enough, Seattle won’t be a popular city for the summer anymore.
As another anecdote, elderly relatives are planning to move back to live in WA full-time (from AZ) to be closer to family as they’re aging, and are already dreading the winters (they were already coming here for the summer). So I think you’re right that there will be more of this “reverse migration in summer” in the future.
One thing that we locals may not want to be so glib about: the implications on politics which this may have. If the Florida and Arizona retirees bring their politics with them, good luck getting ST4 passed, and I wouldn’t be so keen on a King County-only measure, either.
They routed the Amtrak thruway bus I was on to King Street Station via I-405 and I-90. This avoids the mess where the HOV lane ends near Northgate. Got to King Street a few minutes faster than scheduled.
It was interesting to see the progress on East Link. Somewhat disappointing the bridge seems farther along than the segment east through CID.
At 13:45 of the video at the top:
I like the illustration of light rail trains operating with 150 foot headways. Someone really should show that to SoundTransit and Harrell.
I love RM videos. But I don’t really worry about his Seattle references. He will use examples of Link for wrong technology used or in the wrong places. In another video he will say that Seattle is one of his favorite transit cities in the U. S. Then he will say how trolley busses are not that good for cities. Eight months later he will do a video defending them. He has had so many different opinions on street car systems, I do not actually know where he stands. I watch all of his videos, and enjoy the examples he provides, but his opinions are all over the place. From what I can tell.
I’m just okay with RM videos, though I find him generally consistent.
> Then he will say how trolley busses are not that good for cities. Eight months later he will do a video defending them.
It’s probably more that he is speaking in context of the Canadian Transit system sometimes. The trolley busses he’s describing is about Vancouver and how he prefers streetcars more.
> He has had so many different opinions on street car systems, I do not actually know where he stands.
He just prefers streetcars over busses, but wants Toronto and Montreal to implement a new subway/regional rail not continue to build more streetcars/trams.
It might be just me. I appreciate your input. Thank you.
I do recognize his videos are bit confusing as he’s usually talking about some specific thing he wants to fix with a Canadian city; but generalizes the video to be applicable to all transit. That’s why he ends up “flipping” back and forth on a topic
Reese has some very persuasive videos. He says lots that I agree with.
However he is effectively a niche YouTube celebrity that doesn’t live or has spent lots of time in Seattle. He’s also never actually managed a transit system or built a simulation of travel effort or demand. It’s all often his observations.
I contrast that with Ray at CityNerd on YouTube. He often brings a quantitative aspect to his work, which I actually appreciate more. Ray is more of a “head” while Reece is more of a “heart”.
RMTransit, CityNerd, City Beautiful, Not Just Bikes, City for All, Adam Something all seem the same to me. Each is a little different in their own way. RMTransit seems to focus more on rail. But it’s hard to tell the channels apart. I don’t have a problem with this blog always linking to them, but I would like to see more of an effort made to find and link to POC content creators, and local content (other than the Urbanist).
@Sam: Banks Rail might be your best bet for a non-white urbanist/transit YouTuber. (He hasn’t posted a picture of himself, but his cartoon avatar is of a Black person, so I feel safe in assuming he’s Black.) Banks Rail is also not shy of challenging the other channels. He recently posted a video rebutting Reece’s CASHR routing opinions, and even commented on Reece’s video about said subject. https://youtu.be/nMloZgMt35I?si=QzHn93qZdWjOKXBW
Another unusual YouTuber is “Lucid Stew”. While Stew is an unabashed transit fan, he does produce straightforward transit news recaps each month. He’s also not afraid to criticize terrible decisions by transit agencies; witness his ire at the bad spending and planning record of CASHR. (Started in the middle where he begins his critiques) https://youtu.be/SG_DLyxQP14?si=pV1T-tX_b4dqE-ZN&t=683
Thank you, Michael, I’ll check them out. I try to do my little part by sometimes linking to videos from PNW 4K and ActionKid. While not transit vloggers, they do sometimes include transit in their mostly walking and biking tour videos. ActionKid, an asian man from NY, made the “Walking Seattle’s Depressing Chinatown-International District” video that I linked to a few months ago.
I’ll add “Bus Driver Life”
https://youtube.com/@BusDriverLife?si=0Vq6VBiV7ZyhzR_n
He’s a POC bus driver in the Sacramento area. His content is a mix of entertainment and information. Some videos lean one way or the other depending on what he’s talking about. But he does try to provide context to what being a bus operator is like and why bus drivers will do x or y when either driving or at a stop. Alongside talking about the ups and downs of dealing with passangers.
Another is Urban Caffeine
https://youtube.com/@UrbanCaffeine?si=KguKAVGuBCvDFhCb
Who’s is NYC based and talks about issues and topics related to NYC like OMNY, IBX (InterBourgh Express), Subway, etc
Thanks, Zack. I like that Sacramento bus driver channel! Great attitude, informative, and funny. Btw, he said Sacramento bus drivers make between $24 – $34/hour.
“I would like to see more of an effort made to find and link to POC content creators, and local content (other than the Urbanist).”
Are you volunteering to send article links to the contact address? I don’t have time to go through and evaluate all the channels that have been suggested. Putting them in a comment is also effective. My everyday sources are the SDOT newsletter and the Seattle Times, and I’m subscribed to RMTransit and CityNerd. The SDOT newsletter silently stopped sending to the STB address a few months ago and I only realized it this month, so that’s why other local links went down. I subscribed my own address but I haven’t gotten much content yet so maybe it’s not publishing them. RMTransit is my favorite of the transit YouTubers. CityNerd I don’t like his whiny bored attitude but some of his arguments are so compelling I have to include them. And YouTube recommends other channels so I look at them. And other editors send in links, especially Martin Pagel.
Occasionally I remember to look around at Human Transit and Pedestrian Observations to see what they’re saying, and less often The Urbanist and Not Just Bikes. Streetsblog is another one I dip into occasionally, and it would be useful if somebody monitored it for us.
I think when he refers to Seattle having good transit, he refers to the good bones it has for a system alongside the trolleybus network. For all intents and purposes Reese is more of a cheerleader than a planner.
Even if he doesn’t fully understand the nitty gritty nuance of building transit he gives people the sparknotes version. Which for many people is what they need to get a ground level understanding of why transit matters.
RMTransit’s (Reece Martin’s) argument is nuanced like mine and many others are; they have to be to address a real world of complex human beings and situations. Sometimes he seems inconsistent (“He says trams are good, then he says trams are bad?”), but I think there’s a nuanced argument that comes out best in his high-level overview videos like this one. What I see repeatedly is:
1. Frequency is king. All high and medium routes should run at least every 10 minutes or at a bare minimum 15. I interpret this as including routes down to the 75 and 226, for instance.
2. American and Canadian cities aim much too low.
3. High-quality trams and automated metros are more cost-effective than many North Americans think. In Germany or Switzerland it would be absolutely common to have a high-quality tram in a city like Spokane or Bellevue or Tacoma.
4. One reason for automation is to have high frequency, because frequency is a goal in itself (see #1). High frequency enables the most trips and generates the highest ridership.
5. High-quality BRT should also be considered. High-quality meaning in transit-priority lanes, and again frequent.
At least this is my interpretation of his argument off the top of my head. Did I forget anything?
“I think when he refers to Seattle having good transit, he refers to the good bones it has for a system alongside the trolleybus network.”
There are two ways to look at Pugetopolis.
A. Pugetopolis transit is far behind Europe, Asia, and Latin America. That’s a large part of why it has lower ridership and people drive so much for everyday things. Link is so the wrong train technology and alignment design and station design; we could have gotten more and a more effective system for less.
B. Pugetopolis has one of the highest ridership-per-capita and choice-rider ratio in the US outside the Big Six (New York, Chicago, San Francisco (city), DC, and a few others, not necessarily exactly six). Pugetopolis in the 2010s invested more in transit than the rest of the US (RapidRide A/B/C/D/E/G, ST2/3, Move Seattle, Transit Now, etc), and had increased ridership when other cities were contracting their service and losing ridership. This is what gives promise for ST2 Link, even if it’s not the ideal technology/design for the market.
Sometimes Reece looks at one, and sometimes the other. And when there’s a Link clip in the background, it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s making one or the other arguments, sometimes its just to show a Link-sized line in action.
Two YouTube videos this week are in my recommendation list.
One is Alan Fisher’s video on noisy freeway median stations:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uM5cGZRWUUw
The other is a review of the SF Central Subway, where the deep station access negates better travel times:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EmbJW8MERQU
The thing that both have in common is that they stress that transit access plays a bigger role that often gets considered. Long access efforts and time are not only bad for transit riders, they actually suppress transit use.
I would even go as far to say that having to take 5 minutes to get in and out of two deep or badly sited platforms is as bad as having train/ bus frequencies as 15 minutes rather than 5 minutes crowding notwithstanding. At least a rider can get lucky and not have to wait as long, while bad station access ALWAYS adds time and that fact cannot be remedied by simply adding more frequent vehicles.
https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/09/07/the-chamber-of-commerces-seattle-budget-fix-is-slashing-city-services-and-freezing-wages/
I think this is the existential issue for Seattle I have posted about for some time.
Naturally The Urbanist supports more tax increases and lists nine proposals:
Changes to JumpStart Payroll Expense Tax;
City-level Capital Gains Tax;
High CEO Pay Ratio Tax;
Vacancy Tax;
Progressive Real Estate Excise Tax;
Estate Tax;
Inheritance Tax;
Congestion Tax; and
Income Tax.
The Urbanist is correct inflation is one cause of the deficit, but incorrect that population growth is a cause. The increase in tax revenue in Seattle over the last ten years dwarfs the increase in population, and those new folks pay taxes.
Harrell’s dilemma is he knows the true reason for the deficit (other than inflation): empty office towers in the CBD, and anemic retail sales tax revenue, both in some part due to policies The Urbanist has pushed for years. He also knows Seattle can’t afford to lose any more businesses and their tax revenue, or high net worth individuals who are getting fed up with Seattle anyway.
The tax proposals The Urbanist lists are all great if you are poor, but bad if you are rich. Unfortunately, the upcoming budget deficits are due to the fact too many rich people have left Seattle, and the poor have stayed and just don’t contribute enough. A basic rule is money can move.
Mike posted a day or two about planning for 100+ years in the future. Well, this budget debate has to be solved by 2024, and then another deficit in 2025, and another in 2026.
UW study on fentanyl and other drug exposure on transit is out.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/health/uw-fentanyl-exposure-study-findings-transit/281-344f2ac7-fe20-40d7-9972-9097ded885c0
It may be like how all dollar bills have traces of cocaine, because when one infected bill gets into the central banks’ sorting machines it spreads to all bills. One question to ask is what the levels are in public buildings, and how much the levels on transit differ from it.
From the article:
“For example, the Environmental Protection Agency’s occupational exposure guideline for fentanyl in the air is 0.1 micrograms of fentanyl per cubic meter of air, which one of the 78 air samples collected exceeded.
The Washington State Department of Health’s decontamination guideline for methamphetamine is 15 nanograms of methamphetamine per square centimeter, which two of the 102 surface samples collected exceeded.”
Are you suggesting that you expect 2% of public buildings to have decontamination-warranting levels of meth? I guess that’s possible, certainly – but one would not be wrong to consider this a health emergency of some sort if that were the case.
FWIW, I always wash my hands after handling cash if I am likely to use my hands to handle food right after. Perhaps I am paranoid in that sense.
The transit agencies did a clever sleight of hand. They studied something nobody complained about. Drivers complained about people smoking fentanyl on buses. The agencies conducted a study of the air and surfaces of buses when nobody was smoking fentanyl, and declared riding transit is safe.
“Are you suggesting that you expect 2% of public buildings to have decontamination-warranting levels of meth?”
We need to determine whether it’s only on transit or everywhere. Spin doctors often freak out about the crime rate in one city as if all other cities are zero. 2% is a tiny fraction of transit vehicles, what about the other 98%? Maybe there’s a gap in regulation of transit vehicles or they aren’t getting as much inspections as buildings. That’s something that could productively be addressed. But when this will immediately be spun as, “All transit vehicles are unsafe; you’d better drive or you’ll die from drug poisoning,” we need to look at whether the problem is really unique to transit and how much worse it might be compared to other places.
Actually, the headline says, “UW study on fentanyl, meth level aboard transit finds ‘no public health risk’. So there you go.
Yeah, I’m not particularly worried, myself – but I’m paranoid enough that I still use masks and wash my hands after I get where I’m going, so the chance of exposure is very low.
I will quibble with two things though.
First, saying “2% is not worth worrying about” is very much dependent on one’s viewpoint. Let’s say that I had a 2% chance of dying tomorrow. I would probably consider that high enough to make sure my will were up to date. You (Mike) seem like a very optimistic person – or maybe optimistic isn’t the right term, “care-free” maybe? Either way, stuff like that does not bother you, but you’re not necessarily typical of the population at large (neither am I, to be sure). More importantly, there is no value judgement attached with either position, nor should there be – this is key. Live and let live. But that means we need to acknowledge that this __is__ an issue for people, even reasonable ones. I have at least one family member who read that and was concerned enough about it to ask me if riding buses was safe – this is someone who generally votes in favor of transit measures, etc. so by no means an anti-transit person.
Second, the question examined by the study is different from the issue raised by drivers, as Sam pointed out. So there is no “there you go”. Being dismissive about it, IMHO, is misguided. There __may__ not be an issue, yes, we just don’t know based on the study as executed.
“First, saying “2% is not worth worrying about” is very much dependent on one’s viewpoint. Let’s say that I had a 2% chance of dying tomorrow. I would probably consider that high enough to make sure my will were up to date. ”
It’s also not an either-or case. It’s been pretty consistently shown to cause permanent damage even when there aren’t symptoms. Polio has a lower injury rate, and we decided to actually do something about that one.
That said, we’ve had 4 outbreaks at my workplace (2 deaths, one debilitating stroke) and so far a KN95 mask has protected me quite well.
Nationally, the excess death rate among those 20-29 is pretty bad right now, so obviously those not taking precautions are still highly at risk.
Here is an anecdote that proves Sam’s point yesterday that whoever commissioned the UW study (my guess is ST and Metro) made a colossal error.
Last night I was lying in bed watching the 11 o’clock news with my wife. Both KIRO and KOMO did big, pretty sensational pieces on the UW study.
The pieces began with a beautiful picture of the UW campus because any study by the UW will have credibility. Then the rest of the video showed men in hoods smoking drugs on buses and trains, and passed out on the streets in downtown Seattle. One bus driver stated that he has had to pull over in the past because he becomes lightheaded from the drug fumes and had to be taken by ambulance to the hospital.
My wife turned toward me and asked if I had heard about this. I said yes, actually I read the study earlier in the day, and that I think the point was supposed to be that the levels of drug contamination on the buses and trains were not dangerous to the rider, just maybe the driver.
Of course, just like KIRO and KOMO she didn’t hear that, and couldn’t get over the finding (by the UW no less) that 100% of buses and trains tested had evidence of methamphetamine, and 75% had evidence of fentanyl. Meanwhile, the video continued of hooded dirty men leaning over smoking something on the bus or train.
The point the news pieces was making was the opposite of what the study was designed to prove: that if you get on a bus or train you will be sitting next to a dangerous criminal who would stab you for $10 smoking meth or fentanyl when a lot of us don’t have a lot of experience with either except telling our kids that if they even try either their lives will be ruined forever, and they will be like the folks in the news video.
Now my wife doesn’t ride transit, ever, because she thinks it is not safe. She also doesn’t walk across a park and night in the dark, even on MI. Any woman knows other women who have been sexually assaulted, and that never goes away for the victim.
But what she extrapolated from the news pieces is that greater downtown Seattle is just as dangerous as transit, and these days she is as likely as going downtown to shop or dine as she is to wait for and catch a bus on 3rd and Pine. So the sensational news pieces, at least to normal people watching the news in bed at 11 pm, is downtown Seattle is just as dangerous as buses and Link. Yes, part of it is the residue of drugs (many of us prefer to be exposed to zero meth or fentanyl), but really it is the men smoking the meth or fentanyl on the buses or Link or passed out of the streets downtown that are the danger.
Harrell doesn’t have to get people like my wife to take transit to downtown, but he has to get her to go downtown somehow, most likely by car. Right now U Village and Bellevue are the beneficiaries of terrible policies that are killing downtown Seattle.
After the pieces ended my wife said she hopes East Link never opens (across the bridge, she has not idea about the ELSL), and if it does we are going to build a fence around our property because it abuts the Lid Park.
The TV networks intentionally sensationalize everything because it boosts ratings and drives up advertising revenue. My anecdotal observation on transit says that the 11:00 news is grossly distorting things and making problems appear far worse than they actually are.
However, I will posit you this question: if you were CEO of Metro, what would you do about it? And you can’t just say say “enforce the rules” because somebody has to be there to actually do the enforcing, which is not a job that bus drivers signed up for, and hiring a security guard to ride on every bus for every trip would be prohibitively expensive.
There is little transit can do because transit serves.
There is nothing transit can do about WFH. Those were the eyes on the street.
RE: Link the solution is secured stations. Like the rest of the world.
When it comes to Metro it is Harrell gets off his ass and hires 500 new police officers and prosecutors stop treating crime as cute. Except he doesn’t have the money. Seattle has spent its levy wad on other things.
When it comes to farebox recovery raise fares. And enforce fares.
The reality is it is too late. Downtown Seattle won’t come back. The city of Seattle is facing crushing budget deficits. Transit ridership will likely decline. Development has to pause due to interest rates. Online sales tax revenue and WFH are reallocating sales tax revenue to the suburbs. Seattle’s tolerance on drugs and crime means that is where drug addicts and the homeless go.
On the other hand this is a golden age for suburbia.
Things shift. The 1970’s to 1990’s were terrible for urban cities based on the same policies and problems as today. The residents got fed up and hired conservative mayors and prosecutors. Big cities flourished. Now we are restarting the cycle except WFH is a game changer, as is the $31 trillion national debt.
To quote Dickens, for some it is the best of times, and for others it is the worst of times.
asdf2, I don’t know the organizational structure of Metro, but if I were a high-up in Metro and I cared about society, as opposed to my job, I would advocate for less money to go to Metro and ST expansion, and more to solving homelessness, funding new addiction management centers, etc. I would probably lose my job in the process, though, yeah. Hence the “I cared about society” bit.
We should all advocate for that, by the way. I’m willing to live with 30 minute coverage routes. I would support any effort to cancel ST3 in a heartbeat if the money went to the things I mentioned instead. I will continue to advocate for those things here, too. Solving homelessness “today” is critical, IMHO. Transit necessarily must take a step back to that, also IMHO. And I say this as someone who is dependent on transit for any trips taken independently, and who has always been that way (as I have never held a driver’s license). I believe that most of you are not in that boat, so you have more options than I do. I hope that you can join me in advocating for reducing homelessness and treating addiction.
Ball’s in your court.
Asdf2, I don’t think it is Metro’s problem, or something Metro can fix.
In this environment I would make sure the driver is secured and has ventilation. That would probably require bullet proof glass for the driver booth (but maybe result in more drivers willing to work for Metro). . But a Metro bus driver isn’t a policeman.
The city council has to pass drug laws that allow the police to arrest people using drugs in public, and like homeless camps they need to do sweeps. Harrell needs to hire 500 police officers, if he thinks he has the money, and if not take a levy to the citizens. Jesus, Seattleites will vote for a levy for anything, but are never given the chance to vote for more police even though public safety is their number priority by far.
As with ST the key is to keep non-fare paying, disruptive and drug using persons off transit. Metro serves King Co but this problem boards at a few stops. So station police at those stops, and have the police as part of their beat ride the bus. Progressive policies in Seattle are unfair to the law abiding citizen and transit rider.
Metro is doing its job with the drivers it has. Its job is enormous but buses serve the county.
When it comes to ST it will have to secure its stations like every other rail system, especially with underground stations where riders are most vulnerable. Then ST is going to have to use its huge budget to hire POLICE OFFICERS to walk the stations and like Metro ride Link as part of their beat, and criminals need to know they will be arrested and charged and prosecuted. . “Fare ambassadors” are the same progressive crap in which we treat criminals who are making life unpleasant for everyone else better and driving away riders than we treat fare paying law abiding riders.
After all, who is getting screwed: the affluent Eastside or North Seattleite rider with a car in the garage (and clean safe buses on the Eastside) who can go to U Village and park for free or the poor rider who had to ride transit during Covid before vaccines and has to today. Some equity.
The other people getting hurt are Metro and ST. Of course the news sensationalizes things, but there is enough smoke for people to think fire. How stupid could Metro and ST be to commission a study (and they commissioned it because the study required access to place monitors in buses and Link) when they KNEW what the findings would be. Did they really think normal discretionary transit riders would feel relief that the levels of ambient meth and fentanyl are probably not dangerous to the casual rider who is in good health? The persons that commissioned the study should be fired. You don’t bring in UW researchers to prove what you are trying to hide, or think discretionary transit riders would be relieved that the ambient levels of drugs is probably not a health risk to a healthy person when you have riders already wearing masks for a virus that studies show isn’t on the train.
Just like with my wife all of Metro and Link get tarnished when a lot of people (especially women) think being alone in public especially at night, is dangerous, and so is riding transit which is why they have women only train cars.
Brent thinks we should dedicate train cars to those who wear a mask. What transit — certainly Link — really needs is a car for women only, and one car with a policeman in it. Those cars would be packed. If necessary .25 more for those cars to offset the costs. Or maybe just dedicate a train car to the criminals and drug users, no fare required. Who would take that train car, even if free.
When I worked in downtown Seattle it really made me angry that the council let the criminals take over the downtown that forced out the law abiding shopper, diner, and worker. All I could do is leave, but that is gutting Seattle’s tax revenue. A vibrant large city has an enormous advantage when it comes to tax revenue, but Seattle has squandered that on top of WFH.
“this is a golden age for suburbia.”
Fortunately the suburbs are becoming more urban; i.e., more walkable, and more effective transit. That makes it more practical to live in the suburbs than it was twenty or thirty years ago.
The Eastside has always been practical if you own a car and moved to the suburbs for public safety, schools, parks and open spaces, and the SFH zones.
The SFH zones have changed very little. Same minimum lot size, same limits on number of dwellings, with just more infill SFH development. In many cities GFAR has gone down because as money goes up houses get bigger and out of scale. I have lived on the Eastside since 1970 and it isn’t the wooded forest it once was, but most SFH zones try to preserve mature trees and a rural character, and don’t want change.
The commercial/retail zones have grown. But except for a few areas not very walkable. Old Front St., Old Main, downtown Kirkland (maybe less walkable due to the density) but the rest like east Bellevue, Factoria or Issaquah are not walkable IMO.
Bus service got better for peak riders but that service has since been cut. Most bus routes rely on park and rides. Most Metro service on the Eastside is to Seattle or coverage routes.
Downtown Bellevue has changed the most but maybe a 4 block area from NE 4th to NE 8th (Bellevue blocks which are looooong) along Bellevue Way is walkable. But once you start getting east of Bellevue Way to across 405 it isn’t very walkable. MI’s town center has actually declined due the loss of Farmers Insurance (600 employees) and the mixed use buildings displaced a lot of retail area.
Downtown Bellevue has been hurt by WFH (including new development) and so far the reluctance of Amazon to move SLU workers to the Eastside. Much of downtown Bellevue’s vibrancy is a gift from downtown Seattle.
Is it practical? Yes for what the citizens want, with plenty of free surface parking. An urbanist might not want that but an urbanist probably shouldn’t move to suburbia, unless they need public safety, good schools, large parks and open space, and less human density.
Just like for decades suburbanites had to commute on transit to downtown Seattle to have the things suburbia offered, an urbanist in suburbia is probably going to need to buy a car.
Actually, the amount of free surface parking in downtown Bellevue is trending downward. There are a lot of construction sites in areas that were once parking lots and I’ve seen signs indicating that more are planned.
“Actually, the amount of free surface parking in downtown Bellevue is trending downward. There are a lot of construction sites in areas that were once parking lots and I’ve seen signs indicating that more are planned.”
It depends on what you mean by “free”. There haven’t been any standalone surface parking lots in Bellevue….well, forever…. because it is so unwalkable and every business offers customers free parking. Long ago a few banks up by 110th would open up their lots at night for like $2 but that is long gone, in part because there is so much free parking at Lincoln Sq. N and S if you are a customer.
As a sliver of Bellevue has densified parking has moved underground and Bellevue mandates huge amounts of underground parking that is 100% below grade, and today a lot of that still is not available to the public although I think it will be as property owners try to scrounge up the revenue to make up for declining work commuters and leases. There is very little street parking in Bellevue. There is also free parking for the park. But really if you are going to Bellevue to simply walk around and not buy or eat/drink anything you should probably take transit (which of course is why East Link was shunted to 112th) or go someplace else.
The biggest surface parking is Bellevue Square (other than big box stores east of 405). It kills Freeman he has $500 million — according to him — tied up in surface parking when Lincoln Square across the street each have 6 stories of underground parking, but his favored customers prefer surface parking, and Bellevue Sq. is — like U Village — the attraction that makes housing on Bellevue Way so valuable, and Freeman owns most of it. Even suburbanites like to be able to walk or take a short Uber ride to dense retail vibrancy if the walk is safe and clean.
I don’t see Bellevue and Bellevue businesses ever making the catastrophic error downtown Seattle did by discouraging shoppers and diners coming by car (which of course when downtown Seattle was still vibrant just resulted in Uber). The only area remotely dense enough to not offer free surface parking is Bellevue Way from NE 6th to NE 8th and Old Main St.
This is even more critical post pandemic because with WFH the number of work commuters already arriving by transit has plummeted, so retail really depends on the car, and onsite free parking. Just like U Village and Northgate Mall, and everywhere on the eastside. My wife categorically will not pay for parking on the eastside as a matter of principle since they want her business (and she is Freeman’s favored customer) and won’t go into Seattle except U Village.
I always thought it was foolish for Urbanists to apply their animosity toward cars and drivers to retail and urbanism (although I can understand the hope by transit fans that if folks can’t drive they will have to take public transit which is probably why Uber is the hottest stock in 2023 https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/watchlist?tab=Related&id=bptw77&ocid=ansMSNMoney11&duration=1D&src=b_fingraph&relatedQuoteId=bptw77&relatedSource=MlAl and I did recommend on this blog in January to buy this stock) but all the car animosity has done in a post pandemic world in which work commuters don’t have to commute to an office on transit anyway is further decimate the one true urban area in the region, downtown Seattle, while U Village and Bellevue Way flourish.
No way will Bellevue ever make that mistake, or will Freeman allow them to, and no one has more money tied up in surface parking in THE prime parcel in Bellevue than Freeman.
> As a sliver of Bellevue has densified parking has moved underground and Bellevue mandates huge amounts of underground parking that is 100% below grade, and today a lot of that still is not available to the public although I think it will be as property owners try to scrounge up the revenue to make up for declining work commuters and leases.
> The biggest surface parking is Bellevue Square (other than big box stores east of 405). It kills Freeman he has $500 million — according to him — tied up in surface parking when Lincoln Square across the street each have 6 stories of underground parking, but his favored customers prefer surface parking, and Bellevue Sq. is — like U Village
He’s planning on redeveloping the surface parking, that southeast corner of the mall https://kdc.bellevuecollection.com/developments/the-bellevue/
> 625,000 sf of 5-Star retail, dining, hospitality, residential and a premier health & wellness resort are coming to The Collection.
Anyways actually perhaps that is a good article discussion. Beyond just no parking at all and completely free surface parking why not much better shared use of the existing parking. Why not open up those underground parking garages for the public to use more. It doesn’t have to be free, but this strict parking only one’s customers leads to very high parking ratios to accommodate peak times.
And it seems exceedingly wasteful to have apartment garages empty during work hours, office garages empty after 5pm and then retail garages empty at night. I know there is some shared parking already with say Lincoln Square charging money for office workers and making it free for retail after 5/6pm, but there still lots of other missed opportunities.
WL, I think one interesting question with the setup you are advocating for is that of liability. For example, would home insurance prices change because now there is a quasi-public parking area connected to the apartment building. The apartment building I lived in in Seattle for a while had a “public” area and a “resident restricted” area, presumably to bypass those sorts of things. Another concern is that of availability. Who decides whether to make the vehicle spot available at what times of the day – the resident? The building owner? What happens with assigned spots – are all spots free-for-all, or can residents risk coming home only to find that vehicles are hogging their spot? What happens if people overstay past the “residents-only” time – do residents have to call a towing company then? And who pays for that?
Not saying that any of these problems are insurmountable, of course they are not. But I would advocate taking an adversarial approach to these ideas to work out the cost of making it work in practice, and to me it seems like the cost is fairly high.
@Anonymouse
> WL, I think one interesting question with the setup you are advocating for is that of liability. For example, would home insurance prices change because now there is a quasi-public parking area connected to the apartment building.
Definitely I do understand there are concerns and it is not as easy as just changing signs. The first easier opportunity I see is opening office parking garages for retail use as generally most would not be leaving their car overnight and there (usually not always) is more security. For residential sharing generally it’s been the first floor or so retail and then the residential ones deeper underground sometimes with a separate gate.
> Not saying that any of these problems are insurmountable, of course they are not. But I would advocate taking an adversarial approach to these ideas to work out the cost of making it work in practice, and to me it seems like the cost is fairly high.
I mean while the cost is a bit high, it’s definitely much cheaper than building a massive garage in say downtown Seattle or even CID for that matter. I haven’t really considered it too deeply, but the city could potentially lease out some spots for retail use.
But in general of “better shared use of the existing parking” there’s more opportunities than just office/residential underground parking. There’s even strip malls where one strip mall might be overstuffed parking but across the street that parking lot is empty. There’s no ‘real’ way to use that other lot since it’s all ‘free’ but only for their customers.
What they should have done is got a hold of an unused bus parked at the base. Then, turn on the bus and turn on the air system, place a dish with some burning fentanyl it on a bus seat, then the researchers should enter the bus and conduct their tests.
Maybe the bus manufacturers should do that when they stress-test new bus models? Rather than every agency doing it with a publicly-owned active bus, at a time when Metro has almost half its buses out waiting for parts or maintenance workers.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/09/07/how-london-bus-drivers-changed-the-world
TL;DR
“In the 1940s, a single study of London’s transport workers transformed epidemiology, medicine and the way we live now. Every time you go on a run, check your stepcount, or take the stairs instead of the lift, you are treading a path forged by the feet of the workers on London’s buses.
…
At this time a young doctor called Jerry Morris started to suspect that the excess deaths from heart disease might be linked to occupation. He began studying the medical records of 31,000 London transport workers. His findings were breathtaking: conductors, who spent their time running up and down stairs, had an approximately 30% lower incidence of disease than drivers, who sat down all day. Exercise was keeping people alive. Morris looked at postal workers, and found a similar pattern: postmen (who walked all day) had far lower rates of disease than telephonists (who typically sat).”
Since this is the latest open thread… I will post here yet another link.
https://www.thestranger.com/housing/2023/09/11/79157567/white-people-dont-need-safe-seattle-black-people-need-black-legacy-homeowners-network/comments
I don’t always (or even often) agree with Mudede but I found it interesting that his post echoes a lot of the comments other posters here make, who are generally viewed as having opinions contradicting those of the typical Stranger article.
Anonymouose, here is the text from a recent Dept. of Commerce email on displacement: https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/WADOC/bulletins/36ecf73
—————————————————————————————
‘SEPTEMBER 6, 2023
Final Housing Element Guidance Published and Draft Displacement Risk Map
Please note: Commerce will host a webinar tomorrow, Thursday, September 7, 2023 from 1-2 p.m. to show the Draft Displacement Risk Map, briefly explain the methodology, and get feedback and answer questions. Please register today for tomorrow’s webinar.
Final Housing Element Guidance Published
In 2021, the Washington Legislature changed the way communities are required to plan for housing. House Bill 1220 (2021) amended the Growth Management Act (GMA) to instruct local governments to “plan for and accommodate” housing affordable to all income levels. The amended law also directed the Department of Commerce to project future housing needs by income bracket. Commerce has provided these by county as the basis to plan for housing in the housing element of their comprehensive plans.
Commerce has finalized the guidance for updating housing elements based on the Legislative changes. The guidance is incorporated into three “books” to help users find what they need as they complete their comprehensive plan update.
Book 1: Establishing Housing Targets for Your Community – covers countywide planning policies, countywide projections of housing need from Commerce, and how to use the Housing for All Planning Tool (HAPT) for allocating projected housing needs to individual jurisdictions.
Book 2: Guidance for Updating your Housing Element – updates 2021 guidance including land capacity analysis and adequate provisions requirements for all housing needs.
Book 3: Guidance to Address Racially Disparate Impacts – provides new guidance on how to identify and address racially disparate impacts, exclusion, displacement and displacement risk in a housing element with a recommended 5-step process.
An overview of the content of each book is available in recorded webinars on Commerce’s Updating GMA Housing Elements webpage. We encourage jurisdictions to review this material before they start their comprehensive plan update.
Please contact Laura Hodgson with any questions or if you would like her to present on the updated requirements at a local planning commission or city/county council meeting. Laura can be reached at laura.hodgson@commerce.wa.gov or 360-764-3143.
Support Materials and Feedback Requested on Draft Displacement Risk Map
Commerce has developed a Racially Disparate Impacts (RDI) Data Toolkit to provide jurisdictions with a base level of data to help identify racially disparate impacts and exclusion. RDI data is available for 2024 jurisdictions. Data for 2025-2027 jurisdictions is forthcoming.
Commerce has also developed a Draft Displacement Risk Map to support jurisdictions with the new housing element requirements. This map will help jurisdictions “identify areas that may be at higher risk of displacement from market forces” (RCW 36.70A.070(2)(g)). For those jurisdictions in the central Puget Sound area, this memo explains how the Commerce map supplements the regional displacement risk map.
Commerce is requesting feedback on this map and the methodology. Commerce will host a webinar tomorrow, Thursday, September 7, 2023 from 1-2 p.m. to show the map, briefly explain the methodology, and get feedback and answer questions. Please register today for tomorrow’s webinar. Please send questions and feedback about the map and methodology to Laura Hodgson at laura.hodgson@c
——————————————————————————————-
To say the state’s actions in 1220 were a little after the horse had left the barn would be an understatement. Each county formed a subcommittee (King Co.’s was chaired by Balducci) to look into displacement, and there were some wild ideas like requiring all new multi-family housing to be 100% affordable (60%) AMI until a city had reached its GMPC housing targets. Cities like Sammamish loved this idea because they are anti-growth, and builders don’t build 100% non-subsidized 60% AMI housing, and in fact prefer a fee in lieu of if the AMI cut off goes below 80%. So a city like MI could mandate under 1220 that all new multi-family housing be 60% if it wanted to stop all new multi-family development (which is does not).
In the end, the subcommittees concluded (effectively) something Ross once stated: you can’t stop gentrification, and I have now come to believe that, certainly in a city with one of the highest AMI’s, and population growth from out of state people with higher AMI’s and wealth (selling old house in CA) than the local residents, which is a core grievance among white progressives in Seattle because they got priced out of the housing market (north Seattle) despite good college degrees.
Every city including MI went through the mandated process, and every city found they didn’t have any housing policies that discriminated against racial minorities, and some of the cities like Bellevue are much less white than Seattle (in fact today MI has the same percentage of white citizens as Seattle does, 70%), except they are often wealthy Asians and for some reason they don’t count (which is legitimate if wealth and not race is the test, but of course 1220 was adopted in the summer of 2020 when race was everything).
What the subcommittees learned is displacement is wealth based, certain minority groups have a higher percentage of poor residents, and upzoning and new construction displaces them from their historic neighborhoods. Anyone with a brain who had studied The Central Dist. would know this, and then Georgetown, then Columbia City, and now most of the RV. Look how quickly Harlem disappeared, at least the Black residents who lived in Harlem as gentrification marched north.
This isn’t something I am going to say there is a bad person. Displacement of a city’s poorer residents saddens everyone. So far no one really has discovered a solution, because the favorite solution of progressives — because they have taken the bait from Realtors and builders that upzoning and building more market rate housing is the solution — which unfortunately converts older –often multi-generation — more affordable housing into new less affordable and more white housing.
It is true that more new construction does create more 100%+ AMI housing, and does offer a greater selection and moderate price control on new multi-family housing, but at the expense of displacing poor and minority residents, mainly because some minority groups tend to have higher percentages of poor and then tend to live in the same neighborhoods (S. Seattle) in multi-generational SFH and that is the low-cost land builders where can make a big profit on with gentrification, which really picks up speed once the white population in the neighborhood reaches a certain tipping point, which The Central Dist. did long ago, Georgetown has, and now Columbia City has.
Yeah, not saying that I have a solution. And I have no concerns with the idea of building (and replacing older housing stock that is less dense with denser, but more expensive stock). I just think that it’s worth understanding the consequences. People do pay a price for this, and it’s almost always the less advantaged (economically) in our society who do. This isn’t the only way it can happen – gentrification doesn’t always increase housing stock. Where I lived in Lynnwood years ago there was an old apartment complex that was pretty shabby and someone (either the old owner or a new one) decided to turn it into condos. Most of the residents had to move, the buildings were spruced up a little and the individual units were sold at a hefty profit (this was close to the peak of the mid-2000s era). Did the area “gentrify” in the way South Seattle did? Well, no, but it did grow a little, and the places are a little nicer, but the same people who lived there were pushed off farther out. So some benefited and some lost, and very likely the ones who lost were poor.
So my point, as always, is – let’s not socialize the costs to the poor. Others already advocate for changes which do exactly that. We, as a community, should not do the same. If that means that certain things are just expensive to do right, so be it.
gentrification doesn’t always increase housing stock
No, certainly not. When it doesn’t, you have displacement. This is largely caused by restrictive zoning. Basically gentrification + zoning = displacement.
I’m using these terms loosely. “Gentrification” simply means an increase in living standards. “Displacement” means people can’t afford to live there anymore. Maybe someone wants to go back into the neighborhood after going to school — technically they aren’t displaced, but it still feels that way. “Zoning” is just a loose term to mean restrictions on development.
Without the zoning you will have gentrification, but not displacement. Japan is a good example. Coming out of the war, living standards were very low. Various neighborhoods were extremely poor. But the Japanese economy (with the help of the U. S.) got much better very quickly. As a result, various neighborhoods gentrified. A lot more wealthy people lived there. The living standards skyrocketed. But poor people weren’t pushed out onto the streets. They built enough housing for everyone, and have continued to build enough housing for everyone — even in the most popular cities. Tokyo grew like crazy AND they added units like crazy. In contrast, cities like New York squeezed more people into the same places. The population grew, as neighborhoods gentrified, while few units were added. Because of restrictive zoning (and gentrification) there was a lot of displacement, as rent skyrocketed.
There are other causes of displacement, but gentrification and zoning are the main ones. Loosen the zoning, and you will have a lot less displacement.
“There are other causes of displacement, but gentrification and zoning are the main ones. Loosen the zoning, and you will have a lot less displacement.”
Gentrification (which is a combination of factors) yes, zoning not so much, at least in Seattle.
I have pointed out many times before that based on Census data housing growth matched population growth in Seattle from 2010 to 2020. In fact, in 2010 the housing unit to population ratio was the same as in 2020. https://sccinsight.com/2021/09/14/what-the-2020-census-data-tells-us-about-housing-in-seattle/ So it isn’t zoning, especially when the GMPC just noted King Co. has the zoning capacity for another 1 million residents today.
Displacement and gentrification occur when you have population growth with rising AMI, because you start to get a bigger gulf between wealthy and poor, or really poor and less poor because it is the less poor who are driven into the affected low-income communities. The wealthiest white Seattleites are not buying in Columbia City or Georgetown, or even The Central Dist.
Whatever housing shortage Seattle has today it is the exact same ratio of housing shortage as in 2010. Unfortunately, all that new construction targeted 100%+ AMI folks, and much of it replaced older, existing, affordable housing (buy low, sell high).
This was the conundrum the rep. for Seattle pointed out during the hearings on HB 1110. He wasn’t concerned about the increase in 100%+ AMI housing in Seattle. He was concerned by the shrinking pool of 60% AMI housing that had been lost to redevelopment. If you go on Apartment.com today you will find that of the over 12,000 rental units currently listed maybe 15% are below $1800/mo.
Few areas have built as much new multi-family housing as Seattle since 2010 — every day there are 20,000+ rental units available in Seattle — and yet displacement is as bad as ever. Actually worse, because as AMI has increased dramatically so has the gulf between the rich and poor, and the supply of housing targeting each. That is why every city that is touted as having more affordable housing than Seattle — Montreal, Houston, Tokyo, et al, has an AMI that is lower than Seattle’s AMI almost directly proportional to the difference in housing costs. What is the key metric is the ratio between AMI and housing costs, which surprisingly is pretty consistent across the cities despite different AMI’s.
The zoning is already there, even before HB 1110. Construction will take decades to realize the existing zoning capacity, but even then in Seattle construction has kept pace with record population growth. Unfortunately, the number of 100%+ AMI units has increased while the number of 70% AMI and lower units has decreased.
There are two solutions: like some older midwestern cities a steep population decline, or a decline in AMI, both usually due to a decline in good jobs. If zoning were the remedy, we wouldn’t have enough zoning capacity for 1 million new residents, and new construction would not have kept pace with record population growth over the last decade plus.
I think gentrification is very painful for Seattle progressives, most of whom are white. They don’t like to see poor Black and Brown residents forced to leave their historic neighborhoods for white transplants, or have to leave the city, and they don’t like to think their urbanist policies are racist. So they want a bad guy they naturally dislike, the wealthy SFH suburbs, and conveniently the realtors and builders who want to build in those SFH zones because the new construction will be so expensive feed them what they want to hear: they are not racist, their policies are not racist, and the bad guys are the SFH zones, when really the “bad guys” is just the market.