A little open thread while the editors are working on six pending articles.
International District/Chinatown Station has spiffy new next-arrival displays. They only have room for two short rows like “Angle Lake 10; Angle Lake 20”, but the text is large, the font and icons are contemporary but elegant, and the whole thing looks like a real subway display.
Also, at the exit there’s an overhead yellow stripe saying to tap out and that your fare depends on the distance you traveled. This complements the other things ST has been doing since 2023 to make the fare-paid areas more visible, like moving the Westlake TVMs on the north side in front of the escalators, and putting yellow stripes on the floor leading to the ORCA readers.
A call for statewide rent stabilization. ($) House Bill 2114 would limit rent increases to 7% for renewals (not new leases). It would exempt new buildings for the first ten years, and has other exceptions and tax breaks for maintenance and rising property taxes. The article says that similar measures have not led to mom-n-pop landlords exiting the market en masse as some have claimed.
Homeless politics in Burien. ($)
The movement to replace water-starved lawns ($) with the native plants most missing in the local ecosystem. I was impressed by the range of suggestions on how front and back yards can help partially restore the ecosystem that was lost when residential neighborhoods were built.
This is an open thread.
Mike, I know you said you plan on using the starter line in your regular trips to Bellevue, but do you, or Ross, or anyone here, plan on riding it from end to end when it opens, then writing a post or comment about it? I’d enjoy reading someone’s thoughts or evaluation of the line, stations, etc.
That’s a good idea. A train’s eye view will probably be more valuable in this corridor than others, because it has more sightlines to destinations that are hard to walk to from existing bus stops, and there’s no existing road comparable to it. I’ll be riding end to end or almost end to end, depending on whether I end up transferring at Overlake Village or Redmond Tech.
Redmond Tech seems like it has bus stops closer to the station than Overlake Village currently does. I believe it’s about a 3+ minute walk to get from Overlake Village to the nearest BTC-bound B Line bus stop, and maybe a 5+ minute walk to get to the nearest southbound route 245. Redmond Tech has both route’s bus stops right outside the station on the street. I hope they move the bus stops a little closer to OV Station. Same with Wilburton. The westbound B Line bus stop is around 200 yards from the station.
I’ll also need our star photographer to come along so we can get pictures of the station areas.
I recommend that you also ride the Route 249.
The Route 249 is the only bus route that connects BOTH terminals (ends) of a Link light rail line at South Bellevue P&R and Redmond Technology station.
With this line, you can visit two lakes, two high schools, three towns/cities and four P&R!
I plan on doing this. I took my mother on a Link joyride in one of its first months, and my nieces from Maui (which has very little public transit) want to go on it because it looks like the coolest thing in the world.
I’ll especially focus on the accessible focus of the trains. Since last year my mother has had to rely on walkers at home and wheelchairs in public, and I want to see how easily her wheelchair can get to the trains and where on them we can ride.
The new real-time displays at IDS are INCREDIBLE. As stickler for wayfinding signage, the displays are a giant leap forward from the currently archaic boards. I wonder if the same font and graphics will be installed at other stations with similar displays, such as Cap Hill…?
@Jordon,
Ya, the new displays at IDS are a huge improvement. I don’t know why they didn’t upgrade more of the old bus tunnel stations during the shutdown, but it was clear early on that they didn’t intend to.
It will be great when all the other station displays are upgraded. I suspect they will try to get that done before the full 2-Link comes online.
I don’t know about the displays on the ELSL, but apparently all the displays on LLE are of the modern variety. Very good news.
Apart from existing DSTT limitations are there frequency limitations on east link that bar it from running more than every 8 minutes rather than something like every 6 minutes without infrastructure upgrades?
I imagine that the at grade segment has capacity for more frequent service than the one line along MLK given that it seemingly has more traffic priority (crossing gates) while on MLK Iink does not
Vehicle capacity may be an issue. Unless the runs could be made any faster the question of whether more vehicles can be ordered and OMF yards expanded may preempt any question of whether frequency could be increased
There may be lots of potential TOD along this corridor to be seen. Bellevue’s recent land use proposal calls for some up ones east of I-405 around wilburton station and further east (currently commercial mixed light industrial)
Notably absent is any residential upzones near any other bus or rail lines. This continues the dynamic our region has seen about the apparent ease of upzoning areas where no one lives vs upzoning areas that are currently residential (It was easy to upzone SLU. Not so easy to upzone Queen Anne)
I hope this issue can be addressed however I imagine such fixes happening at the state level rather than the local one. The “local cafe” bill receiving unanimous support in the house indicates to me that on some level people are starting to warm up to or want at least certain levels of urban amenities (even if other residential oriented zoning reform bills have received much dismay and controversy from Seattle area legislators)
The only frequency limitation ST has cited is the I-90 bridge. Some reports have said the bridge is limited to one train at a time due to weight. I don’t know how true that is. ST hasn’t mentioned particular maximums at the level crossings in Bel-Red. None of the long-term scenarios for East Link have said anything about frequency beyond the planned 8-10 minutes. So either ST doesn’t think it would ever be necessary for capacity, or 8 minutes is the maximum due to the bridge.
MLK is limited to 6 minutes in order to give time for cross traffic (including pedestrians). Or so ST said until last year. Then some Ballard Link scenarios suggested SDOT might be willing to raise MLK to 5 minutes.
The East Link EIS assumed 8 minutes” (really 7.5 minutes) at peak, or 8 trains an hour. ST3 promised 6 minute frequency (10 trains in an hour) but that was not required as far as I can tell.
It’s a reason why I feel that West Seattle stub should never operate, and should run through to at least Northgate. ST3 promised 10+10 trains an hour in the DSTT. If DSTT ran RV@8+ East@8+WS@4, that’s still just 20 trains an hour. Or 8+6+6 is still 20 trains an hour.
I don’t know if ST ever published how to get to 24 trains at peak hour per direction. I don’t think they want to merely ask the question.
It is why some of us keep wondering if ST can present what is required for DSTT to maximize its already stated ST3 capacity goal.
“It is why some of us keep wondering if ST can present what is required for DSTT to maximize its already stated ST3 capacity goal.”
Exactly. I asked this very question to my representation on the board following the hijacked (I’m looking at you Dow) board meeting last March. You know the one, where the board chair declared that they weren’t going to “relitigate” these matters, like he’s presiding over a courtroom rather than a boardroom. To this day I have not received an answer from my reps on the matter.
I guess we could try filling a freedom of information of act request to see what it actually is? Or just request it from the portal https://soundtransit.govqa.us/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(kbfwisshzrzjmglgifiqfp4u))/supporthome.aspx
Though I’m not quite sure what exactly to request. “documents pertaining to the train frequency limitations?”
“Plans and studies for how Ballard Link (list other names) could connect to the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel”
“Notably absent is any residential upzones near any other bus or rail lines.”
I don’t understand what this means. Every East Link station has substantial upzones except South Bellevue, where it’s blocked by the protected wetland. I think the garages at South Bellevue and TIB are convertable to housing if driving becomes less popular someday. The west side of Bellevue Way the city has never been interested in upzoning. East Main Station has tower upzones on three corners of 112th & Main. The southwest corner (Surrey Downs) the city declined to upzone, due to heavy opposition from residents. Marymoor station I don’t know much about.
Lynnwood Link has an upzone at 185th station, and in the area between 148th and 185th stations, and along the north side of 145th near the station. 130th Station has a small pending upzone on the east side. We haven’t heard about the south side of 145th. Mountlake Terrace densified its downtown (on the other side of Veterans Memorial Park from the station), and the 236th and 244th street station areas. Lynnwood aspires to a Bellevue-like downtown someday, or so it says. It has apparently upzoned east of the station in the Alderwood Mall area.
In Federal Way Link, at KDM station, Kent is eager to build an urban village on the east side of 99. On the west side, Des Moines is offering just a couple token buildings. Federal Way has big ideas for downtown if it ever implements them and employers come.
In Tacoma Dome Link, Fife has promised walkable TOD at the station. Tacoma says the Dome District will be TOD. They haven’t been in any hurry to implement it, but that’s what they say. I assume South Federal Way will get something.
In Everett Link, Everett has downtown upzone underway. It said 99/Evergreen Way is perfect as it is (i.e., full of car dealership lots), so I don’t see an upzone there. Paine Field is reserved for industrial. Ash Way has been getting more apartments. I haven’t heard about 128th/Mariner.
In Issaquah Link. Issaquah is planning an urban growth center in the northwest where the station is. I haven’t heard about Eastmont (the deferred station west of it in the middle of nowhere), or about Eastgate.
On bus routes, Seattle is updating its comprehensive plan so everything is uncertain. But some of the scenarios talk about higher density along major bus routes like RapidRide. I haven’t heard of anything similar for the Eastside or South King County. Shoreline and Lynnwood have zoned urban villages around all their RapidRide E and Swift Blue stations. Shoreline asked for so many stations because of that.
TOD alert!
The entire corner at 8th NE and NE 188th has been leveled. This is directly across the street from the massive apartment building that is nearing completion right at the 185th St Station.
So this is really good news. North City continues to grow.
What’s happening at the community center/former school?
@Mike Orr,
I know they have plans to improve the community complex on the west side of the freeway, but I don’t know the details and I don’t think they have started anything yet.
There are also plans for a large park on the east side of the freeway at 185th and 10th. A large portion of this land is under the high tension lines and/or utilized currently for the North City pumping station. So not developable, although they will add a few developable lots to make it contiguous.
All the land for the park is currently government owned, but it appears that they are using some of the land for construction staging for Link. So I’m not expecting any progress on the park until at least after LLE opens.
I looked into the Motion renaming University Street Station. The motion states that the renaming is to occur with the “East Link Extension opening”.
Should this be amended to occur with the Lynnwood Extension opening instead? When the motion was made, East Link was expected to open first.
It could also be argued that the opening should be when ELSL opening but since that doesn’t make sense since its opening doesn’t affect this station.
And more generally, how is ST rolling out the graphics of so many openings within 18 months?
Source:
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/prda/activedocuments/motion%20m2021-61.pdf
It’s probably still when the full Line 2 starts. Lynnwood Link’s opening is now an abnormality, and there won’t be any direct changes in downtown Seattle operations. It would also have to be done in six months, and installation of the new destination-sign style, station numbering, and wayfinding signs hasn’t even started.
I was thinking that ST will have to not only new stations for the 1 Line, but ST may look at operating part of the 2 Line for North Seattle stations when testing begins across the lake. I also remember that the name switch was postponed due to the implementation costs of doing things like changing station name arrival announcements and system diagrams. Since the vote was in 2021, I can see why it didn’t happen when Northgate Link opened — but it would seem less effort to make the switch when Lynnwood Link starts to operate.
It’s only a year’s difference. No need to rush on renaming or changing signs. Additional 1 Line frequency north of CID would be welcome, both to alleviate crowding concerns and for the rider convenience promised in 2021. It would probably take a year to change all the signs and displays anyway. If the spiffy new CID displays are going to be the ST2 standard in all tunnel stations, then Westlake still needs to be done, and I haven’t checked the two stations in between. It would be nice to get rid of the ugly displays at Capitol Hill to Northgate, although they’re so new that they may not be changed. But ST has to change all the signs and migrate to the line-station numbering scheme.
I hadn’t thought about full 2 Line testing. I’m waiting to see if the plinth repairs will be certified reliable on time. But if testing starts six months ahead, that would be around spring 2025. And all the previous precedents with U-Link and Northgate Link had test trains carrying passengers through the existing stations, and then kicking them off at the last station before the unopened segment. ST may be quietly counting on the testing period to shrink the gap between when Lynnwood opens and frequency is upgraded.
House Bill 2114 is interesting…. a rent stabilization bill allowing a 7% month annual increase, no limits on new leases and a 10 exemption on new construction?
If the building industry could get an inflation kicker tacked on…. so the rent increase would be 7% plus the annual inflation rate, that would perfect for landlords. Honestly, this bill is has a op-ed the Seattle Times by a landlord and a real estate agent? I wouldn’t call it renter friendly. In fact, Bill 2114 looks something like a Trojan horse by the housing industry to stave off rent control.
What needs to happen is a real discussion about two questions surrounding Seattle housing. The first is return on investment… the realization without a hefty return, nobody will build any housing in greater Seattle.
The second is that there’s zero future in low income housing, subsidized housing, social housing. Nobody loans out a billion dollars without a hefty return. The the Seattle market, 50 million or even 100 million just isn’t enough to change the market dynamics.
7% is very lenient. Inflation was 2% or less for twenty years, and that’s the Fed’s future target. Even when inflation was high the past few years it didn’t go above 6%. Typical rent increases in the 2000s were 5% (3% above inflation). In the 2010s increases went up to 10-15% (7-13% above inflation). That’s what people have been screaming about and demanding rent control for. So 7% every year is more than reasonable, and still gives a loophole for price-gouging. But tenants would be relieved that the threat of 10-15% increases would be gone.
Of course, owners might adjust and charge new leases higher, like rent stabilization works now. As I’ve heard it, current stabilization programs are in 5-year increments, and the initial rate is padded to mitgate for the first few years of restrictions and the uncertainties of market rates. But owners can do that depends on how captive tenants are at the time: whether they can find another unit down the street that doesn’t jack it up like that.
“If the building industry could get an inflation kicker tacked on…. so the rent increase would be 7% plus the annual inflation rate, that would perfect for landlords.”
Dream on. That’s completely unrealistic, unfair, and unsustainable (meaning you’ll run out of rich people who can pay that).
“the realization without a hefty return, nobody will build any housing in greater Seattle.”
That’s what the drug companies say about needing double-digit billion dollar profits to incentivize them to do new drug research. It’s all about giving the investors ridiculously high dividends. If their Icarus wings were clipped down to size, some companies would continue to research, because some profit is better than no profit. And the government could step in and subsidize research, or do the research itself. It probably should, since drug innovation has a public benefit.
Germany has statewide rent control, and it’s similarly generous to landlords as this (although probably not as generous). Developers still build, because some profit is better than no profit. The system guarantees a modest but steady profit. And developers can’t just jump over the municipal boundary to a suburb or unincorporated area that isn’t restricted, so they either develop there or nowhere.
The idea that developers or drug companies would stop developing with even modest restrictions is just scaremongering.
Before the 1980s development was mostly local, the owners had modest demands, and they intended to keep the building for a hundred years and pass it down to their children, so they had an incentive to build quality. What changed in the 1980s was the influx of Wall Street investors, who have higher profit demands, and have no connection to the cities their buildings are in. They’re the ones who are most driving this no-regulation push because they want to keep their outsized profits. Wall Street investors have deep pockets so they outbid local and mom-n-pop developers for the lots, so the latter can’t compete and have been driven to the margins. Especially when restrictive zoning means only a small percent of lots are eligible for multifamily housing or commercial. If Wall Street went away, local developers could step in, build smaller (i.e., less expensive) buildings, and make more modest demands, and would have a sense of responsibility to the community because the community’s success means their success.
“there’s zero future in low income housing, subsidized housing, social housing. Nobody loans out a billion dollars without a hefty return.”
Subsidized housing would have to be financed by the government. That’s what subsidy means, and most people understand that. The idea that you can build your way out of a low-income housing shortage by requiring market developers to reserve a percent of units for low-income tenants is a cop-out that will lead to failure. There’s no direct relationship between the number of buildings developers want to build and the number of lower-income people who need subsidized housing. It’s like the problem with a carbon tax or an arbitrary HOT-lane rate. The burden on carbon emitters has no direct relationship to the amount of carbon we need to block. If the price is set too low, emitters will feel no burden and the amount won’t be met. The HOT lanes ran into that problem because the maximum toll ($10?) wasn’t enough to to stop drivers from clogging the HOT lanes and slowing them down. A cap-and-trade system targets the desired amount of carbon directly, and gives more of a guarantee it will be met. I don’t know what the cap-and-trade equivalent to housing would be, but that’s the problem with relying solely on 25% low-income in new private buildings. It’s far lower than the need, and whether it’s built depends on the whims of developers and the boom-and-bust market. The proposed tax on people making over $1 million to build a 2,000 units over ten years is laughable, when the number of homeless is 5,000 (probably more now), and the need to completely eliminate cost-burdens is more like 100,000 units. 2,000 units is something, but what about the other 98.000 missing units? And how can people wait twenty or thirty years for them when the need is now?
Mike Orr,
So with a yearly 7% rent increase, how many years until the rent doubles? I guess the don’t teach the rule of 72 in Jr. High school anymore? Personally I wouldn’t want that sort of math wreaking my life. One the other hand, investing my money in real estate with the rule of 72? That’s a good idea!
The rule of 72 is always something to keep in mind. Investors like to double their money in 10 years. If HB 2115 became law it might just lock in a 7% rent increase across the board on every unit. That would keep the investors happy. With no limit to the increases on new leases or new units for 10 years, I can’t see new construction lowing rents under the 7% increase.
If investors can’t double their money in a decade, why invest in Seattle? As the city turns into a city of renters from what used to be a city of home owners, there’s bound to be more and homelessness. What people get paid for low wage jobs or even worse, fixed incomes isn’t going to keep up with investors expectations. And the investors are the shot callers here.
I’m in a 2004 building owned by local investors. While my rent increased above 10% at times between 2015 in 2019, an in 2020-2021 there was a ban on increases, in 2002 my rent didn’t increase at all, and in 2003 it increased 1%. Their original letter wanted 8%, but they offered to negotiate it down to keep a 13-year good tenant in a soft market. I don’t see why supply and demand wouldn’t still rule even with a cap.
“Investors like to double their money in 10 years.”
I read that Wall Street investors expect to get all their investment back in 19 years.
“If investors can’t double their money in a decade, why invest in Seattle?”
Good, let them leave. Then maybe local people who want to build something and keep it for a hundred years won’t be outbid so much. And they can build smaller buildings, which wouldn’t cost as much. And not pack them with granite countertops and rooftop event spaces.
There was a viral social media post where someone shared the current rent on an apartment in another city that had gone up substantially in nominal dollars over a long period of time. Commenters were appalled.
The actual average annual rent increase was something like 4-5%.
That makes me feel like a 7% cap is going to get pushed down to something much lower in the future.
Nathan D.
Good question!
In Seattle, I’d fire the whole “urban forestry department” at City Hall and get rid of the “tree police” for once and for all. The whole stupid idea of “urban tree canopy” needs to go away. I’d loosen parking regulations and just do away with them in much of the city. I’d change FAR regulations to promote development.
As far as zoning…. I’m for better “YIMBY” ideas, starting for lot splitting. Right now we’re looking at Seattle allowing for investors to buy a SFH, knock it down and build 4 apartments on it. This isn’t a bad idea and it’s got a lot of support from big investors because it suits their agenda. But it doesn’t help the little guy enough.
Current homeowners can’t sell their back yard to a developer for another house to be built. 1 house becomes 2 houses, 2 new lots, taxed (and sold) as 2 different houses. That gives a lot more flexibility (and profit) to current home owners and it increases density as much as knocking a house down for 4 one bedroom apartments. Bigger units, more ownership, more family style living. It should be possible for a homeowner to build a house in their back yard for their kids, or to sell at a profit for retirement…. and not have to move out of the house they love.
Any house in Seattle should be allowed to remodel into a duplex with the city for $100 permit and no questions asked. As long as the remodel meets National code, just let ‘er rip.
All the silly rules around ADUs need to go. Every stand alone house has it’s own lot and tax ID and can bought and sold just like any other house in Seattle.
Nationally, the solution is tilting the game more towards home ownership and less rentals. The State of Washington should bond 4 billion dollars and plan a couple of new cities on State land…. using the very best urban planning for water use, alternative energy, and land use. Plan on 30,000 30 year private mortgages to pay off the bond (new homes for sale).
====================================================
Here’s what I think will actually happen, (Really not good)
I’m guessing when Trump wins in White House next year…. (or another GOP candidate 4 years later) the housing problem gets solved by an orgy of building SFHs with government money helping out. This increase will be great for home ownership, but will be completely car dependent and not that great for the environment…. focused 100% on Red States. Big Business, starting with Big Tech, will be encouraged to leave the West Coast with Federal tax breaks (and even cash payments) and relocate in Red States. (Hello Amazon! Welcome to Texas!)
Growth in Red States will fueled by public money taken from Blue State projects (Bye Bye Sound Transit). There’s going to be a full court press to take anything of value from California and pay back the GOP supporters in Red America.
I can even see Texas arresting homeless people for drug use, (and let’s be honest, most of them are addicted) tossing them in an overcrowded jail for 2 months…. then “paroling” them by busing them to Seattle or San Francisco. They’d be free to use drugs in Seattle but tossed back into jail the minute they come back to Texas.
The problem here is Liberal America can’t seem to come up with any solutions (starting with housing) and Fascism always has answers (I don’t like them, but they are answers). It’s going to get real ugly for awhile.
“ Any house in Seattle should be allowed to remodel into a duplex with the city for $100 permit and no questions asked. As long as the remodel meets National code, just let ‘er rip.“
Well that idea just made a group of Seattle home-owning urbanists clutch their pearls! All joshing aside, there are building code standards for sound buffers between units, wiring and plumbing systems when master shutoffs are needed, and many similar retrofitting requirements. However, you are right in the sense that the regulatory systems appear to add additional needless hurdles.
The one ADU regulation I find the most odd is Seattle’s 1000 square foot maximum limitation; if a monster house has 4000 square ft, why not let the owner create two 2000 square foot homes?
Tacomee, thanks for your actual suite of recommendations and predictions. That gives us something worthwhile to debate: one person’s solutions vs another’s.
“get rid of the “tree police” for once and for all”
Irrelevant and trivial issue. And you’d have to address the need of trees for trees to mitigate the urban heat-island effect, clean the air, provide a habitat for birds and critters to keep the ecosystem healthy, and the psychological benefit of having trees adjacent to sidewalks (one of the few nature respites for lower-income people). I have no expertise on the best minimum number of trees, but I’m hesitant with a policy of “just let them cut them all down”.
“lot splitting… Any house in Seattle should be allowed to remodel into a duplex… All the silly rules around ADUs need to go….”
I have no categorical objection to these; they’d just need to be analyzed by somebody smarter than myself to identify any non-obvious impacts or unintended consequences.
“Nationally, the solution is tilting the game more towards home ownership and less rentals”
That’s wasting resources on a non-problem. National policy is already heavily tilted toward home ownership.
“The State of Washington should bond 4 billion dollars and plan a couple of new cities on State land…. using the very best urban planning for water use, alternative energy, and land use. Plan on 30,000 30 year private mortgages to pay off the bond (new homes for sale).”
Well, OK, let’s plan two cities of 100,000 in Western or Eastern Washington. They should expand existing cities rather than being totally greenfield, so the number of people would be somewhat less than 100,000. We can build a third city for the rest.
Three problems arise. One, you think you can build two entire cities for $4 billion when that won’t even buy a fraction of subsidized apartments needed for lower-income people or one underground Link line?
Two, “using the very best urban planning for water use, alternative energy, and land use” means multifamily middle housing. Something beyond just duplexes, fee-simple ADUs, and splitting lots. That seems to contradict your vision.
Three, “30,000 30-year private mortgages to pay off the bonds” leaves out everybody who can’t afford a house or doesn’t want to go into long-term debt for it.
As I asked before, what would be the percent of single-family to multi-family units in your cities. Since you’re writing the specs and getting the legislature and cities to approve it, you can set it to anything you want. So what is it?
tacomee, thanks for the rundown. Glad to see you agree with a significant portion of the “YIMBY-Left” agenda, which also explains your general frustration with “Liberal America”.
I’d like explore your idea to build “new cities on State land…. using the very best urban planning for water use, alternative energy, and land use” since you often loudly proclaim the futility of absorbing growth in our existing urban areas, with this being the only viable alternative.
Here’s a map of WA’s State Trust Lands: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/eng_rms_trustlands_map_nu2.pdf
Assuming those 30,000 mortgages are paired with some amount of non-subsidized construction, and each represent something like a 1,200-sq-ft lot with a ~3-story lot-line rowhouse (basically as dense as you can get with direct land ownership), that’s ~826 acres of just housing. Assuming that’s half the land of the city, and the other half is non-residential (streets, parks, city services, businesses, etc.), which 1,600 acres of forest or wildlife areas would you pave down?
A series of rhetorical questions: What would be the commercial/industrial base of these new cities? The folks who can’t afford current housing prices are people who have low-paying jobs where the housing is too expensive -do those people just quit working in the “old” cities to buy housing in the new ones? If a white-collar worker would otherwise be shopping in [city of their choice], what would interest them in [new city in the forest/mountains/desert]? Would building these cities include some form of new high-density transit (e.g. trains, either light or heavy) to the current economic centers of the State?
An actual, non-rhetorical question: how is this better than incentivizing the retrofit of current large-lot suburbs that already have connections to water, power, transportation infrastructure?
Mike Orr,
Life isn’t easy. In the USA you have two choices for housing. Long term debt or paying rent in ever rising monthly installments. There’s no “social housing” third path or the capital (or will) to invent it.
Look at Tacoma. 220,000 people and I believe 50 square miles? Not counting the urban sprawl of Pierce County. Honestly, it’s a mess. Tacoma will prove impossible to fix because buying up all the sprawl and building something environmentally better, or walkable or even “something not butt ugly” isn’t possible. There’s only a few walkable neighborhoods in Pierce County.
Let’s look at building a new city of 220,000 out in the Rattlesnake Hills area somewhere, (By Zillah Wa.) You wouldn’t muck up 50 square miles, would you? I’d keep it at 20 or even less. As far as water…. it’s agricultural land we’re already spraying millions of gallons of water on… to grow grapes and hay we export out of State. By just outlawing grass and putting in a gray water treatment plant (and giving the water back to agriculture ) the whole development might be close to water neutral. There’s no better place for wind and solar energy in the State, save the Gorge. More growth, less water, less fossil fuels! It’s the future.
The State needs a couple of billion to start the ball rolling, but because Washington has such a huge pent up demand of house buyers, the State has a good chance of getting much of the money back right away. There’s got to be rental units mixed in, but something like a 65% / 35% would be a good mix for ownership.
Civic spaces, like a minor league baseball stadium, performing arts center and world class park system need to be baked in. Once again, I’m not an urban planner, but I do know that a 1300 sq ft mobile home is worth 100K retail. I’m pretty sure the folks at UW can figure out how to fit a 40,000 apartments and town homes with 60,000 moblies on small lots and keep the whole thing walkable. It’s just easier than retrofitting something that’s already messed up beyond all repair.
“Germany has statewide rent control, and it’s similarly generous to landlords as this (although probably not as generous). Developers still build, because some profit is better than no profit. The system guarantees a modest but steady profit. And developers can’t just jump over the municipal boundary to a suburb or unincorporated area that isn’t restricted, so they either develop there or nowhere.”
They also build rentals more like homes over there.
Like, the main difference between ours and theirs is that most rental contracts in Germany are unlimited with no defined end date so a person can live as long as they please unless given good reason and enough notice (3 months) by the landlord to vacate. Although most German rental contracts do have an initial expectation of living in the rental for like 2 years, you incur an early exit fee if you do leave before this. Which can be x months of rent or something based on how far you are into living in the rental.
Germany also puts a hard cap on rental increases for x years. You can technically raise rents to the cap but then you have to wait x years till the cap is reset. So most landlords in Germany will either abstain from rental increases some years or increase it in small amounts YoY.
You can also do whatever you want to the flat, including renovating the kitchen and bathroom. It’s why if you rent in Germany, you may be surprised to find that some Germans will actually take their whole kitchen (cabinets and all) with them to the next rental so you’re left with no kitchen or will have the option to buy the kitchen from the previous tenant. Just depends tho and not all rental properties are like this.
There is also just strong renters rights and the eviction process is lengthy compared to the US. It’s why expats and most Germans will tell you that renting in Germany is less like renting is in the US and more like owning a home from how strong rental rights are and how there are multiple applications for the same property when a rental comes on the market in Germany.
For instance, applying for an apartment in Germany requires like..
– Rental Application itself
– SCHUFA (Germany’s sorta equivalent to a credit score)
– Photo ID
– Residence Permit (in the case of foreign nationals)
– Proof of income
– Employment letter if you cannot provide pay stubs
– Certificate from previous landlords to say you have no outstanding debts with them
– Sometimes a Resume or CV as a character reference
– Sometimes a guarantor for cases where the person’s income is not clearly defined like a student
In general, Germany’s rental market is treated more like homeownership or owning a condo than traditional renting
I’ve had to provide all this for every place I’ve rented in my life, but I’ve also only lived in high-cost cities with limited housing on west coast.
Zack B
Well America isn’t Germany. One thing popular on this blog is interject Japanese or European ideas as solutions to American problems. This just isn’t going happen. We are our own country with our own problems and our we’ll need our own solutions.
Social housing (just like Vienna!) is a popular idea in Seattle. The city might even build some…. House Our Neighbors is trying to raise 50 million dollars over a decade for 2,000 units. Why bother? Dumping 50 million into Seattle’s housing market has no real impact. The numbers needed are in the billions! It’s is possible to raise that sort of capital for housing, but then we run into that pesky rule of 72. Investors want to double their money in 10 years. So there’s zero real funding for social housing. Maybe a couple of hundred units here and there, but not nearly enough. Pure political theater!
The USA made a grand bargain with housing over the last century. We allow investors to maximize profit on rental property AND we allow homeowners the same access to profit and privilege. I’ve been knocking down my tax bill by deducting mortgage interest for decades. Why shouldn’t I have the opportunities as the big boys?
Seattle renters have a problem. Seattle home owners? Naw, they’re happy with the windfall they’ve made on their houses. There are young people that have moved heaven and earth to buy units in Seattle under the understanding that those ultra-high mortgage payments and early years of suffering will pay off with big equity on the back half. Hooray the them!
Homeowners are maybe the biggest force in American politics. Good luck changing that.
[Another] Alex,
HB 2115 caps rent increases at 7% and the back of envelope math points to developers doing business as usual with healthy profit on investment. Want to ratchet that number down to 4% or 3 1/2%? Politically that might be possible, but watch the money disappear. Investors can be like spoiled kids…. make ’em mad and they take their “toys” and go home. And there’s not other game in town…. there’s not billions of public money to fill the gap if the investors leave Seattle.
> Homeowners are maybe the biggest force in American politics. Good luck changing that.
tacomee, the entire reason why the yimby movement is growing is because while in the past only the “lower income” brackets were priced out of buying a home now the middle and even higher brackets are priced out.
> Why bother? Dumping 50 million into Seattle’s housing market has no real impact.
Well that’s the great thing about just upzoning — the market will built it for you. Doesn’t cost the city coffers anything.
WL,
I support the whole “YIMBY” movement, but I don’t think most Lefties really understand it. “Yes In My Backyard” translates into “How do I cash in?” for anybody who owns real estate. I’d even go as far to say that many Boomer homeowners on the Left Coast who have been life long “NIMBY”s their whole adult lives (because that drove up the worth of their house) are flipping to “YIMBY” now, (because their in their 60s and want CA$H in now). The whole YIMBY idea matches dovetails into the very American idea of “This is my land and I’ll do whatever I want with it”.
“Upzoning” is sort of the last “Hail Mary pass” of progressives to “fix” housing on the Left Coast. I support zoning changes, but honestly zoning really has very little to with the cost of rent in Seattle. Zoning fallows Money’s lead… not the other way around. For the last 20 years, the construction industry built as many units in Greater Seattle as possible because there was a lot of money in it. Wasn’t much money in building in the 1970s, so not as many units got built.
Upzoning gives investors the chance to make even more money in a hot market, If they can find contractors to build. That’s good for investors and good for builders. Of course money is always served first and most of new units will be high end. The flaw with upzoning is, there always seems to money to build lux projects, but when it comes down to building units with sub $2000 a month rent… well investors start to bolt. So it’s never been about zoning…. and all about the rule of 72. Give investors the chance to double their money in 10 years, and you have plenty of capital. Lower the profit margin and the money goes away.
Seattle is part of a National problem…. it’s there’s too many renters and not enough home owners. As more and more of America is stuffed into apartments, Big Money is going to manipulate rents for the maximum profit. The idea that the brain trust of the “Urbanist” or this blog is going outsmart Big Money with an upzoning scheme is laughable. I mean the State government is looking at passing a very pro-landlord false rent control bill (HB 2115) capping rent at 7%.
The only solution is owning your own home. Privilege comes with being part of the “landed class”. It’s been that in America even before our independence. The solution is very simple. Add more land owners to equation .
tacomee, if you were a dictator for a day, what you would do to make housing affordable again?
> Seattle is part of a National problem…. it’s there’s too many renters and not enough home owners. As more and more of America is stuffed into apartments, Big Money is going to manipulate rents for the maximum profit. The idea that the brain trust of the “Urbanist” or this blog is going outsmart Big Money with an upzoning scheme is laughable. I mean the State government is looking at passing a very pro-landlord false rent control bill (HB 2115) capping rent at 7%.
Lol, no the great delusion is that people insisting and forcing single family homes for everyone think they can outsmart economics and car traffic.
Look at California, they insisted on single family homes — no apartments which then increased property values since there weren’t enough homes. They then had to pass prop 13 to lower property taxes. Or all the traffic that came from people driving far away they then built massive freeways to try alleviating traffic — which famously has no traffic now. And then with all the cars they then built their suburbs to to be circuitous to try stopping car traffic from going through their neighborhood.
Regarding “big money”, why do you not decry the same when it is built for single family homes. It is ‘big money’ as well. It is not some artisan craftsmen building swaths of single family homes. Is dr horton or lennar some ‘small business’?
““Yes In My Backyard” translates into “How do I cash in?” for anybody who owns real estate.”
The problem is the system that allows and incentivizes this. The problem has been building since 1979 with Prop 13 and the later housing shortage that started in the 1990s. People can speculate on stocks and companies and gambling, not on houses/apartments are necessities for others to live in
“I’d even go as far to say that many Boomer homeowners on the Left Coast who have been life long “NIMBY”s their whole adult lives (because that drove up the worth of their house) are flipping to “YIMBY” now, (because their in their 60s and want CA$H in now).”
Then why does California still have such difficulty upzoning? Really, it’s worse than here.
“Upzoning” is sort of the last “Hail Mary pass” of progressives to “fix” housing on the Left Coast.
There’s a whole other part of upzoning you’re missing. Upzoning allows more people to live in walkable neighborhoods with relatively good transit. Regardless of income, more people want to live in that kind of environment than currently can. Christopher Leinberger estimated that 33% of Americans want to live in walkable urbanism (like Capitol Hill), 33% want to live in driveable sub-urbanism (like northeast Kent), and 33% are equally satisfied either way. Yet the built environment is 80-90% driveable sub-urbanism. So 13+% of people live in lower density/walkability than the want to, and 46+% would be satisfied living in walkable medium density but aren’t currently. That’s a supermajority that would be satisfied with walkable medium density, but the built environment and zoning is the opposite.
Having a high supply of walkable middle density would mean that all the rich people who want it would have it, and there would still be plenty left over for everyone else who wants it. The price premium on living in walkable neighborhoods would disappear, because it’s being propped up by scarcity. It’s a long-term change so it would take many years to fully adjust, but that’s all the more reason to start now.
“If they can find contractors to build.”
The problem of construction-labor capacity is a secondary issue. We should fix the structural things we can, and not let the construction-labor bottleneck be an excuse not to. The same number of workers can build different kinds of buildings than they’re doing now. That in itself would get us closer to our goal, and allow more people to live in walkable neighborhoods. If we’d started doing that twenty years go — with the same number of workers — we’d be in a lot better position now.
The market has bifurcated into huge wide breadboxes and low-density single-family houses. Both extremes are too much and we should aim more toward the middle — the missing middle. There can still be single-family houses, just as there are a few scattered around in Chicago’s North Side. Just not such a large emphasis on so many, or on entire low-density residential-only neighborhoods where you can’t walk to anything and providing good transit is hard. Looking at you, Lake Meridian, Covington, Maple Valley, and Black Diamond.
“Seattle is part of a National problem…. it’s there’s too many renters and not enough home owners.”
Ha ha ha. Seattle and the US have a higher percent of homeowners than in other industrialized countries, and yet you think it’s not enough?
Housing should just be a stable thing that doesn’t have rapid spikes and dropoffs in value, so that people can just live in them and not worry about price volatility. Those who want to make a killing in investments can invest in stocks, companies, well-chosen art, or go to the casino.
“The only solution is owning your own home.”
If only it didn’t cost half a million dollars or more to do so.
Mike Orr,
Labor shortages for building housing is NOT secondary issue, it’s front and center. Labor shortages for transit are NOT a secondary issue either, labor is the #1 front burner issue to anything. Without workforce nothing gets done.
I like Capitol Hill, worked there off on and on for years and have a lot of good memories there. It’s a freakin’ expensive place to live however. Way out of my income bracket. I honestly don’t see that neighborhood ever becoming affordable in my lifetime because demand is so high. If you want an affordable walkable neighborhood in Washington State, plan a whole new city. Retrofitting is what I’ve been doing my whole life… it’s not working. Leave Capitol Hill like it is (a very nice place). Build something like it on cheap land out East. People who can’t afford Capitol Hill now would flock there.
and….
“People can speculate on stocks and companies and gambling, not on houses/apartments are necessities for others to live in”
That’s your opinion and a totally respect it and even agree with it to some extent. But it’s not the way America works. Without speculation, nothing gets done. Look, the 2 ingredients to getting anything done in America are…. Speculation and Labor. There’s no planning anything without bowing to this.
WL,
“Lol, no the great delusion is that people insisting and forcing single family homes for everyone think they can outsmart economics and car traffic.”
Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. People want to own homes, that’s a fact. So work with that. Figure out some new growth policy that enshrines home ownership. Otherwise, the “great unwashed masses” aren’t interested.
The difference between me and other posters on this blog is I don’t believe I’m that smart. The world is the way it is, changing it it requires understanding the desires and motives of others and working with them. Having a really great idea? Doesn’t change anything by itself. Why do you think there’s such hatred towards “15 minute city” plans? Because nobody likes smartypants telling them how to live.
Tacoma, why do you think that investors “double their money in ten years” simply by doubling the rental rate?
If a relatively inexpensive unit costs $300,000, what average rent will yield $600,000 in ten years? There are 120 rental periods in that ten years, so the answer is $5,000 / period. That’s pretty hard to imagine for a “relatively inexpensive unit”.
But that ignores that the building certainly participates in the general rise in value along the way. Later in its life the building will no longer appreciate, but during the first ten years it will. Say it gains 30%, merely three percent a year. That’s $90K of the $300K increase in equity desired. The total rental yiels desired then becomes $510,000, or $4250 / period.
So I think you’re using the Rule of 72 accurately as far as it goes, but incompletely.
“Labor shortages for building housing is NOT secondary issue, it’s front and center.”
As I said, the same number of laborers can build different-shaped buildings than they’re building now. They could focus on all middle housing instead of single-house lots, McMansions, and breadboxes.
“[Capitol Hill is] a freakin’ expensive place to live however.”
That’s because there aren’t more Capitol Hills. None in the Eastside, South King County, or Snohomish County. Renton talks about making The Landing like Fremont, but it doesn’t understand what that would need and hasn’t even tried to implement it.
“Build something like it on cheap land out East. People who can’t afford Capitol Hill now would flock there.”
Only if it’s like Capitol Hill. I.e., if it has a similar mixture of density, walkability, variety of businesses, transit, and traditional-style architecture (even if it’s new). I have no faith that developers or city leaders would be willing to do that. They can do it when they restore a pre-WWII building (or add a new multistory building behind an old facade and storefronts), but they rarely do it with new buildings — see all the new buildings in downtown Bellevue, Roosevelt Way, 15th Ave NW, and the Bothell-Everett Highway. Old Bellevue Main Street is the only place I’ve seen them do a good job. Also, the residents would have to have jobs to go to. From Capitol Hill they can go to a variety of employers in Seattle, the Eastside, and South King County, a 2 million person area. Where would they find comparable employers in this new city?
“Later in its life the building will no longer appreciate”
Unless it’s in a region with a housing shortage, then it will appreciate rapidly even in its fortieth or fiftieth or hundredth year.
I can’t get autocorrect to let me write your handle, but here goes. WTF do you think all those hundreds of millions of people living in ultra high-rises in coastal Chinese and Japanese cities and in Singapore think of their lives? Many of them are breaking the hukou law in China because life is so much better for city dwellers than country folks.
If you are right about Americans being unwilling to live in high rises, because “Ah want muh own hahse” so be it.
We don’t want their stupid reactionary politics muddying the crystalline purity of western Washington’s waters anyway. As I have said many times, Omaha is a great value proposition. Oklahoma City has a good symphony. Indianapolis let’s you buy a house for $250K that would cost you more than a million in Puget Sound.
Of course, your neighbors are hypocritical jerks in Indianapolis, and vote for the most extreme Klansman on the ballot, but if one “passes” (we’re ALL Africans after all) it’s no problem.
Tom Terrific,
I actually know a bit about the rental game, but I’d rather not get into it here.
Let’s just talk general finance in the US.
There is the rule of 72 (double your money in 10 years)
There is Wall Street and the S&P 500. The gold standard for investment.
Every single investment in real estate in America is measured against these two things. I’m not making the rules, they just are.
The USA isn’t Japan. It isn’t China. Why do you even bring these countries into the equation? China and Japan have deep real estate problems. They’re not a solution.
And dude, Lay off Eastern Washington and the Midwest. So you hate Indy. So you hate Nebraska. Good for you. Nobody cares. Yakama isn’t broken hearted and sobbing because of your opinion.
> Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. People want to own homes, that’s a fact. So work with that.
Lol the swathes of single family zoning isn’t forcing it?
> Figure out some new growth policy that enshrines home ownership. Otherwise, the “great unwashed masses” aren’t interested.
Tacomee theyve been trying for decades already to force single family homes. The freeway expansions, the single family home loan assistances that just increase the prices. Literally billions have been spent and countless ink has been written to try holding onto single family homes for all already.
There is no “solution” when the root of the problem is forcing single family housing.
WL,
I’m not going to argue with you, but please share if you have any State or National office holder who’s said a single negative thing about “home ownership” or the need to move away from single family homes.
You are certainly entitled to hold your opinions, like we all are. That doesn’t mean our political or economic systems are wiling to adapt to your way of thinking. Can’t you feel the dark clouds of the GOP moving in? I certainly think if Washington State can’t figure out a way around the housing crisis…. Trump and his ilk certainly will on the National stage. And after they build thousands and thousands of units of housing for people to buy…. good luck ever getting them out of office, environment and transit be damned. People want to buy houses!
Liberals are going to have to come up with a product people want to buy.
Well America isn’t Germany. One thing popular on this blog is interject Japanese or European ideas as solutions to American problems.
That is absurd. That is a classic example of Not Invented Here syndrome. Why limit ourselves to other countries? Something that works in Oregon can’t possibly work this far north. Something that works in Spokane can’t work on this side of the mountains. Everyone has to develop their own way of solving the problem. You reasoning is just silly.
If you want to explain why it can’t possibly work here, by my guest. Spokane has already liberalized their zoning code (to be more like Japan or Germany). I guess they didn’t get the memo.
“Nobody cares.”
Stop lecturing people as if we’re stupid for not buying when we were children. I’m sorry but I couldn’t buy housing when I was more interested in Sesame Street or Blues Clues at the age of 5.
You may not like hearing that, but you are being annoyingly condensending towards younger people for the hand they were dealt and then expecting them to swim a 200 backstroke against Olympic swimmers.
You’re also being condesending to people who don’t want to live in fucking Indianapolis. I don’t want to live in a state that treats me like a second class citizen for being gay because that is who I am. Are second tier cities important, yes. It’s why Chicago has staved off unaffordable housing problems compared to other big cities despite its problems with the CTA. But making first tier cities affordable is also important for tax, culture, and income equality reasons.
I’d also point out that making areas unaffordable for people out of college doesn’t do much to build local culture. A lot of famous people only are famous because cheap housing (like SoHo back in the 70s) was affordable in their 20s and 30s to what they wanted to do with low risk instead of just only for nepo babies who can just have mom and dad pay for their first apartment or condos during their out of college internship. Ease of upward mobility for young people even if they are renters is key to staving off a wide gulf between the haves and the have nots.
I think Tacomee has developed rules of thumb to navigate the builder space that have worked throughout his life, and I think he is largely right, as far as they go. He struggles a bit confusing cause and effect, but that’s fine. They generally do make sense in the building environment of the past.
I think what he doesn’t get is that what we are often proposing here, however, is how to change that builder space. Basically change the environment in which those rules of thumbs were developed, so they won’t be “true” any more.
And when that happens, and it is currently happening now around zoning and regulations (though not fast enough for me), that’s where you get that expression about elderly hounds and sparkly hula-hoops.
@tacomee
> You are certainly entitled to hold your opinions, like we all are.
Lol, tacomee, even the state freeway builders have given up on just building more and more general lanes and have switched to tolling since they can’t build out of traffic.
> That doesn’t mean our political or economic systems are wiling to adapt to your way of thinking
Let me guess. Changing all of our incentives to favor freeways and single family homes in the 1950s/60s is the most perfect system ever and should be set in stone forever?
Tacomee you are entitled to your *opinions* as well. But it’s curious isn’t it: we’ve done everything already from massive freeways, mortgage subsidies, parking requirements, edge cities, malls, property tax changes… Everything and the kitchen sink has been thrown at trying to enforce and mitigate the effects of single family zoning.
Except actually removing it.
“applying for an apartment in Germany requires like..”
My first apartment by a mom n pop owner in 1989 didn’t require anything except a deposit and first month’s rent. My subsequent apartments required everything in the German list except a resume. Americans only write resumes to apply for a job or to be seen by potential future employers.
“Americans only write resumes to apply for a job or to be seen by potential future employers.”
Resume thing is really more of an optional thing for expats trying to rent because renting can be difficult in competitive rental markets like Munich or Berlin where landlords get multiple offers when putting a property on the market. And expats often have difficulty because they technically aren’t in Germany’s walled garden for renting when you dont have all typical paperwork a German citizen will already have.
For instance, It’s there if you don’t have an employment letter or pay stubs but have the means to pay rent upfront while looking for work or already have work lined up from a company that isn’t a big German corp or firm. It’s basically a nice to have but isn’t generally required once you get into the system and are established in Germany.
Does anyone know if Metro plans on moving bus stops closer to the Overlake Village Station once the starter line opens? Look at a map if you don’t know where they currently are.
Unsure if you mean are they going to align more bus routes closer, or if you mean if the busses that are going there will stop closer.
For the former it’s in east link connections. Generally the major buses are skipping Overlake Village and heading for Redmond Technology Station: rapidride B and 245.
The minor routes: 222 and 249 (half-hourly to hourly) will run to Overlake Village.
For the latter the 222 and 249 will not run detour to the station bay but stay on 152 Ave NE. Here’s a station diagram
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/styles/carousel_images_desktop_extra_large/public/2022-04/Overlake-Village-Site-map-20220408.png?h=24b0121f&itok=gma2spc5.
Aka at 152nd Ave NE & Da Vinci Ave NE.
Let me make myself more clear. I am talking only about when the East Link Starter Line opens in the next couple of months, will Metro move bus stops, like for the B Line, closer to the Overlake Village station? For example, the closest Bellevue TC-bound B Line bus stop is 300 yards+ from the Overlake Village station.
East Link Connections changes won’t occur when the starter line opens, they will occur when the full 2 Line opens. I am talking only about when the starter line opens, and asking will bus stops be moved closer to the station?
I have no inside knowledge on Metro but I doubt it. Overlake Village station just won’t be well connected to bus stops. Since the Stater Line is extra service, bus transit won’t be any worse than it is now, and people can choose whether to use the Starter Line or not. If Metro does intend to close stops or reroute buses in March, it would be putting signs on the stops now.
If I had to guess, Metro might be planning, or might be forced to because of complaints, to set up those short, orange, delineator posts as temporary bus stops closer to some Link stations for the duration of the starter line.
The problem is not a shortage of bus-stop poles and shelter components so Metro has to resort to orange cones for a year.
@Sam,
I don’t think Metro is planning much of a restructure in support of the ELSL.
They seem to just be ignoring the whole thing, but I suspect they will get pressure to do some sort of limited restructure after ELSL opens and people start complaining.
As per orange delimiter poles, I don’t think things are that bad at Metro. But you never know…,
This is what I’m talking about. This is a streetview pic of the nearest Bellevue-bound B Line bus stop to the Overlake Village Station. Where’s the station in the pic? It’s so far in the distance you can’t even see it. There’s no way Metro can have the B Line bus stops this far away from the Link station for the duration of the starter line.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6328675,-122.1376354,3a,75y,359.42h,91.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sj9wbqhpp35ygk0gvZNCAYg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
@Sam,
Ya, that doesn’t make a lot of sense. Particularly since the B is running in 152nd. Seems like an easy solution to just add a stop near the LR station.
But maybe we are missing something.
In any case, contact Metro with your questions/concerns. And good luck with that!
@Sam
> I am talking only about when the starter line opens, and asking will bus stops be moved closer to the station?
I’d assume Metro will just add a bus stop and have the rapidride b stop there as well for now. It’s on the same path for the bus aka no reroutes needed. I don’t see why king county metro wouldn’t stop there if they are already planning on a bus stop there.
It seems like they should move the bus stop as soon as possible. They aren’t going to change the network for this period, which means that the B comes close, but doesn’t actually connect to it. If you are coming from the north it can be argued that the connection at Redmond Tech Station (RTS) is “good enough”. From what I can tell that connection will be really good, so you can transfer there, and spend a little less time on the train, and a little more time on the bus.
If you are coming from the southeast (e. g. Spring District) using the other station would require a fair amount of backtracking if you are headed to someplace south (e. g. https://maps.app.goo.gl/qtF2jMLnVt4mfm2VA).
In the long run, moving the stop becomes more important. The B will be straightened out. Thus it won’t come close to that station. But other buses will run close to it. The 222, 223 and 225 will connect to it. The Alternative stations don’t really work for any of those routes, which makes the connection more important.
It also looks fairly easy to move the station. From what I can tell, it is about a five minute walk right now. It wouldn’t be that hard to move it to a different part of 152, which means the walk would be much shorter.
My guess is Metro doesn’t want to do this, and then turn around in a few months and change the sign again (with different numbers on it). Likewise, it would be really weird to move the B, then have the B abandon the corridor entirely. I believe that is a “station”, not a “stop”, which means it has a kiosk for off-board payment, a reader board, a shelter, etc. Moving that stuff isn’t trivial, and they probably don’t want too much churn. My guess is Metro is basically just ignoring this project.
It would not surprise me if the folks in charge of ST Express are doing the same thing. The only route change that everyone agreed would make sense with the starter line is truncating the 566 at Bellevue Transit Center (have it only run between Auburn and Bellevue). I’ve seen nothing suggesting that will happen.
@Sam,
There you go Sam.
Apparently Metro won’t add a stop near the OV Station. Because of signs or something.
So RapidRide B will go right past the LR station, literally less than 200 ft away, but won’t stop. Because doing so might involve changing some signs. Or something like that.
Sometimes it is just too unbelievable.
Apparently Metro won’t add a stop near the OV Station. Because of signs or something.
No. Read it again. We don’t know what Metro will do. We also don’t know what Sound Transit will do. I tried to explain the various issues, but apparently you don’t understand them, or are just looking for an excuse to bash Metro. As for Sound Transit, I still have no idea why they continue to run the 586 in the middle of a driver shortage. It is like they are purposely trying to screw over some riders from Tacoma, while pampering others.
I realize you like to attack Metro, but why do you ignore what Sound Transit is doing with their buses? You have repeatedly said that Metro should truncate their buses and yet Sound Transit won’t get rid of the 586, and so far as know, won’t truncate the 566. Why aren’t so hard on them? Do you work for Sound Transit?
@Ross,
Sam asked a very specific question about what Metro is intending to do to support the ELSL. And he asked specifically about why Metro apparently isn’t going to add a RapidRide B stop at OV Station, which is a very valid question since the B will run literally within 200 feet of the Link station.
We all know exactly what ST will do with the ELSL. We’ve known it for a long time. You can see it on satellite photos. It’s not a mystery. At least not to most of us.
So what exactly is Metro going to do? Why can’t anyone answer Sam’s question?
@Lazarus
I’m just a bit unsure why are you so worried in this case. The rapidride B, 249 and 269, will not need to be rerouted it is on 152nd Ave ne. And they were already planning/building a bus stop on that road next to the station
All that needs to be done is just tell the bus driver to stop there.
“You can see it on satellite photos.”
You can see ST Express routes on satellite photos? You can see how those routes might or might not change in the future?
The 566 was outside the scope of the East Link restructure. It’s probably waiting for the Stride 1 or RapidRide I restructures. Just because it’s not being restructured now doesn’t mean it won’t be in a few years. South King is paying for the 566, so the issue is what South King needs. South King has less overall transit access to the rest of the region because of geography, and it takes a long time to get to the job centers in Bellevue and Redmond even with the 566. Deleting the 566 wouldn’t free up drivers for the 59x because they’re different operators and subareas. Metro operates the King County ST Expresses; Pierce Transit operates the Pierce County ones.
“So what exactly is Metro going to do? Why can’t anyone answer Sam’s question?”
We don’t know because Metro hasn’t said publicly. You can ask Metro directly and see if they give you a more specific answer. We’re going by Metro’s and ST’s general indication that bus routes won’t change much if at all with the Starter Line. ST at first said ST Express won’t change, then it said a few routes might, but it never followed up on it. I think they’re positioning the Starter Line as an extra pilot experiment, not something to restructure the bus network over. Even if the B is 200 feet from a station, the bus network is no worse than it was before the Starter Line. So riders don’t get better transfers, but they don’t get anything worse either. And it’s only for 12 to 18 months when a more far-reaching restructure will occur.
Our star photographer could go look to see if there are any reroute/closure signs at bus stops.
@Mike Orr,
“We don’t know because Metro hasn’t said publicly.”
We are only a few weeks out on the opening. And Metro isn’t exactly known for being nimble in things like this. I would think that we know by now.
But maybe we will know more later today. Stay tuned.
What we know is that Metro generally puts signs on bus stops a month ahead if the stop is to be closed or a route routed away from it. And any significant change needs to start months ahead with a public hearing and county council vote, and that hasn’t happened. If WL is right that Metro can simply activate a new stop on the same street, that wouldn’t need advance notice or council approval.
Link’s escalator reliability seems to be eroding again.
University Street’s south exit (to Seneca St, aka Exit C) mezzanine to street up escalator has been broken since at least last Wednesday. What at first seemed like something minor is apparently not. There were steps removed when I passed by on the down escalator on Friday so it seems like a more severe problem.
Now the down escalator is broken as well. Until the escalators are fixed that exit is only served by the for-now-working, often trash-strewn elevator or a lengthy set of stairs. There’s no signage or communication from ST about this.
It is 50/50 that one of the U District escalators is OOS, although these often seem to be back operating within a day. To be fair there are 8 of them, so it will be more likely one is out, but the impact is high given it is a very busy and very deep station.
Sometimes I get the feeling when it comes to the jobs at ST, they have an abundance of white collar employees, but when it comes to the lower down on the totem pole type of jobs, like customer service, or janitors, that’s where they scrimp. Has anyone here ever tried calling ST’s customer service line to ask a question? ST has either hired a person to answer live customer calls, who has decided to not answer any calls, and let all calls go to pre-recorded information, or ST hasn’t hired anyone to answer customer service questions by phone. Try it. 1 (888) 889-6368
I can always tell when things are going well at ST because people on this blog circle back to talking about escalators. So I take this as a good sign.
I remember last year going to the University Street entrance, finding the down escalator closed and only the stairs available, and being too tired and sore to walk a block to the Seneca entrance and see if its escalator and elevator were still closed too, so I went to a different station instead (Westlake).
“I can always tell when things are going well at ST because people on this blog circle back to talking about escalators.”
Ha ha ha. I think we’re so relieved the reduction is over, and we’re slowly getting back to our regular ridership routines, so we haven’t had the attention capacity to notice other ST problems.
But I have been checking Link’s frequency when I’ve been riding it midafternoon, and it’s been within the 10-12 minutes that’s typical for 10-minute service.
I’m at University St Station now and at Exit C the up escalator is under repair and the down escalator is in service and working well.
So score one for ST!!!
Btw I got the new human transit book if anyone has any question about it.
Most of it is around the same. Notable new sections are the chapter 3 “Access to Opportunity”. chapter 14 “Network Design and Redesign”
Notable items “… rail has a big disadvantage: when you get to the end of the tracks, everyone has to get off. bus lanes or busways, by contrast can be designed so that buses can use them and then exit them to continue on local streets this difference should show up directly in an access comparison if you set two options side by side”
I kinda wonder if sound transit has created some transit isochrones of west seattle created for before and after west seattle link.
for network redesign’s most of it we’ve already talked about with coverage versus ridership and communicate the trade offers. another interesting point is about how the decision makers are different in other countries. “in the us and canada decision usually lies with the board that governs a public transit authority”… “in other countries, senior staff of a transport authority, answering to elected officials, are often in this role.”
I think it gets down to leveraging the existing infrastructure. Existing rail should be leveraged whenever possible. Existing roadways are pretty much everywhere, and easy to leverage. It is the basic idea behind Open BRT. You aren’t spending a fortune on a busway the entire way — you are only fixing the worst parts, and leveraging what exists already.
In the case of West Seattle, it would be silly to just run buses from The Junction to downtown, even though establishing a busway along that corridor would be fairly easy. It makes more sense to make the BRT open, and extend it outward, even if the bus gets delayed a little bit (by traffic lights) on those sections.
If you are building new rail, you really have to “go big or go home”. Not in terms of size, necessarily — there are some great small railroads out there — but in terms of walk-up riders. It has to be big enough to get enough riders, otherwise it doesn’t work. Unfortunately, West Seattle — with its three stations — is not big enough. Not enough people will walk to the stations to justify the extremely high price. It would have to cover West Seattle (with multiple branches) to gather enough riders to justify running rail, and that would increase the cost even more. The problem lies in the section of nothingness that lies between West Seattle and downtown. It is basically two miles of extremely expensive track with literally no stations.
It is frustrating when the alternative is right there, and can be leveraged easily. But the existence of this extremely fast roadway makes things even worse. It will be a tougher sell for drivers. Imagine we didn’t have the expressway connecting West Seattle to downtown. No West Seattle freeway, no viaduct — none of that. Imagine it was like other parts of the city. That would mean that the drive would be considerably slower. As of right now (during rush hour) it takes about 8 minutes to drive from the Delridge entrance to downtown. It is 3.8 miles. It turns out a drive from the far end of Ballard (24th) to the U-District Station is also 3.8 miles. That drive takes a lot longer (at noon it typically takes 14 to 35 minutes according to Google). There is no expressway connecting the destinations — only normal city streets. Thus someone in West Seattle has every incentive to drive for a lot of the trips. It is just a lot faster. Not only do you avoid having to transfer and wait, but the drive is actually quite fast if you are driving to say Northgate. The only incentive to take transit is for trips where parking is difficult, like downtown. This is where the buses go. That means that the most attractive trip for the train is the one that the bus does much better (for the majority of riders) since it doesn’t involve a transfer.
I’ve said it before: West Seattle is really a textbook example of an area where Open BRT makes sense.
sorry yes exit
SDOT/king county they are planning on rebuilding the 3rd Ave S and S Main St bus stop [Currently in final design]. It’s the last southbound 3rd avenue bus stop for most bus routes next to king station. Notably they are planning on expanding the sidewalk. This would change 3rd avenue to be southbound-only for this block though doesn’t matter that much since 3rd avenue merges into southbound 2nd avenue here already
Picture: https://www.seattle.gov/images/Departments/SDOT/TransitProgram/3rd%20Ave%20Improvements%20Landing%20Page/3rd%20and%20Main%20bus%20stop/01_24_FinalDesign.PNG
SB – southbound; NB – northbound
Currently: [SB lane, SB lane, NB lane, parking]
Future: [Sidewalk, SB lane, SB lane, parking]
https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/transit-program/3rd-ave-s-and-s-main-st-bus-stop
Should hopefully be a bit more comfortable to use that stop.
As an extra aside saw that they are planning on replacing the kiosks on third avenue.
> Many of the existing real-time information kiosks don’t work anymore, and King County Metro will be replacing these kiosks. To get ready, SDOT will remove the existing kiosks and their foundations and build new foundations so Metro can install the new kiosks. The new kiosks will have real-time bus arrival information and ORCA cards readers to help people board the bus more quickly. King County Metro expects to start installing the new kiosks as soon as late 2024.
I’m kinda hoping they’ll prioritize easy sturdiness and easy replaceability as the kiosks sadly get damaged pretty often
> To get ready, SDOT will remove the existing kiosks and their foundations and build new foundations so Metro can install the new kiosks.
Guessing that the contractor that punched through the roof of Westlake Station installing the foundations for that clock is on the blacklist.
“Many of the existing real-time information kiosks don’t work anymore”
I noticed that. Metro has just left the displays to rot for years instead of maintaining them.
So the final restructure plan is out? Anyone have a link?
Metro is still planning to eliminate the 20? Why?
Yeah, what Mike said. You can think of the new 61 as the old 20, but with a different (western) tail. It is actually quite a bit shorter (and in my opinion, far more effective).
I never thought the segment (they are removing) was a good idea. In the past it had riders, but it was the main way to the college. Remember, the pedestrian bridge did not get added until Link opened. So if you were coming from downtown, you would either have to take the 41 and then another bus around the horn, or take the 26. Thus it wasn’t obvious how many people would prefer crossing the bridge (after taking Link) versus a bus that gets you right there. Clearly not that many are taking the bus. The other issue is that Metro originally was going to alter the 62 like so. I think this would have been an excellent improvement. Unfortunately, SDOT didn’t approve of the changes (apparently the road would need to be hardened). With the 62 as is, Metro at least wanted to cover Latona, and thus they proposed the 20. It was initially designed as a coverage route (with low frequency) but folks using the northern section (between Northgate and Lake City) wanted better headways. Thus the whole thing got decent frequency, but as expected, the southern section did not carry many riders, so it is going away.
The final Lynnwood and G proposals came out last week and are with the county council for a vote. Ross is writing a Lynnwood article, and I haven’t gotten as far on a G article. The Urbanist has some coverage in the meantime. Route 20 south of Northgate was always a weak route. Metro has a history of a two-step route elimination, first putting a short coverage route to blunt opposition, then deleting it in the next restructure or recession. That happened with the 42 (MLK-downtown), 61 (32nd Ave NW-15th & Leary), and now with the 20. In the case of the 20, the 62 is a few blocks away, and there’s a long-term plan to move the 62 to Latona when the street is upgraded to handle more buses. And the northeast’s limited service hours need to be put on the most useful corridors, so that requires tradeoffs when there’s a shortage of drivers. Latona lost the tradeoff.
As for the Northgate-Lake City segment, Metro has been going back and forth between 5th and LCW/Northgate Way or both. In the last restructure, 5th won out, but public pressure got Metro to keep service on LCW/Northgate Way, which it did by extending the 20 north. In this version the LCW/Northgate Way corridor is replaced by a new route 61, which continues west to 85th & Greenwood, another public request in this restructure.
@Mike Orr,
Devious in regards to the 20.
And I don’t understand what Metro is thinking with the 303 and 322 either.
Seems like Metro’s plan with the 303 is designed to specifically prevent giving riders the opportunity to transfer to Link, which will just drive them to tale CT’s Blue Swift instead.
And i don’t know why the 322 goes past Northgate Station. Seems like most riders would be switching to LR anyhow at that point since LR serves more destinations.
Devious in regards to the 20.
What do you mean? Are you talking a deviation?
And I don’t understand what Metro is thinking with the 303 and 322 either.
Metro has been doing this for a while. It stems from Sound Transit’s failure to add a station on First Hill (as planned). So they run a handful of express buses to First Hill. The number of buses have been decreasing (as some of the routes didn’t carry enough people). One slight modification (with this phase) is that they will stop at South Lake Union along the way.
Seems like Metro’s plan with the 303 is designed to specifically prevent giving riders the opportunity to transfer to Link
Huh? It will go to Northgate Station (along the way).
And i don’t know why the 322 goes past Northgate Station.
So wait a second. You complain that the 303 doesn’t connect to Link (even though it does) and now you wonder why the 322 goes by Northgate Station?
Seems like most riders would be switching to LR anyhow at that point since LR serves more destinations.
Most will, but not everyone. At least that is the thinking behind these routes. They are combination routes. Some riders (heading to South Lake Union or First Hill) will take the one-seat ride to those destinations. In some cases it saves them two transfers. The reason it stops by Northgate is twofold. One is to address your concern: It gives those riders a chance to connect to Link. The second is that it allows them to pick up other riders heading that way. For example, someone from Pinehurst could take the 348 to Northgate, and then either the 303 or 322 to South Lake Union or First Hill.
I can’t say I like these routes, but that is the reasoning behind them. I would say it is easier to defend them then it is to defend the 586. Most express buses perform poorly. The buses spend a significant amount of time without picking anyone up. But the old 41 performed quite well, especially during peak. When the express lanes are in its favor (i. e. when the bus is running peak direction, which is the only time these buses will run) the bus is quite fast. Thus it not is attractive to riders, but it doesn’t cost that much. It isn’t too hard to imagine that this gets enough riders to justify the cost. In contrast, with the 586 is an extremely long route that was always a very bad value. They should eliminate the 586 and put the money into improving the express buses that don’t mimic Link (the the 590 or 594).
“the 20. It was initially designed as a coverage route (with low frequency) but folks using the northern section (between Northgate and Lake City) wanted better headways.”
The original 20 proposal terminated at Northgate. LCW/Northgate Way lost all service when the 75 was rerouted to 5th to prefigure 130th Link station and backfill 41 service and serve the apartments there. There was a dilemma between serving 125th/5th or LCW/Northgate Way. Much of the public thought LCW/Northgate Way was better but Metro chose 5th. So then there was public clamor to serve LCW/Northgate Way too for southern Lake City, the mosque at 15th, eastern Northgate stores, and everything in between. Metro had proposed and withdrawn the 61 (or refused to include it) citing the loss of revenue in the recession. Nobody expected LCW/Northgate Way to be attached to the 20, but that’s what Metro finally did. That allowed Latona to piggyback on the frequency Lake City needed.
Now Metro wants to delete service on Latona because it’s the lowest priority in this restructure. Service might come back someday if the 62 is rerouted or if Metro gets enough funding and drivers for a full Metro Connects level of service.
Word is the opening date will be announced later today for the Eastside Startler Line apparently at a press conference later at Bellevue City Hall plaza.
1 pm today. Media will be there.
If Metro officials are there maybe someone should take the opportunity to ask them what changes they plan to make to support ELSL?
New stops at OV Station for Sam?
Any route terminations at ELSL Stations?
Anything else?
I have two guesses. March 30th or June 1st.
If I had to pick between the two, I’m going with March 30th.
I can’t make the event and I don’t know if any of us can, so we’ll just have to see the announcement afterward.
April 27 it is.
Yep. Just heard the same.
Interestingly enough, if you go by the 4 month rule, that puts the opening of LLE as late August or early September.
@Sam,
I doubt that it will be March 30th. That is the date for Orange Swift to open, and I don’t think ST would stomp on another agency’s party.
It they aren’t going to wait until June either. And probably not even May.
Sorry. That was meant to nest to Sam. I’m outdoors with a wet screen.
Also: *Bit they aren’t going to wait until June either. …”
I chose March 30th because that’s around the time the pedestrian bridge at Red Tech station is supposed to open (mid to late March), and the 30th is also a bus service change date. Lazarus, it sounds like you’re guessing sometime in April?
@Sam,
I’m
Guessing not as soon as March and not as late as June. After that, it seems like Balducci is pushing an “as soon as ready” opening date.
Which brings up an interesting question, if “as soon as ready” is the right philosophy for ELSL, then why isn’t “as soon as ready” also the right philosophy for LLE?
Does LLE have a powerful Claudia Balducci-type advocate who is pushing a as soon as it’s ready opening? I’m not being snarky. I honestly don’t know.
@Sam,
“ Does LLE have a powerful Claudia Balducci-type advocat”
Not to my knowledge. But I would think that if Balducci has designs on the KC Executive’s chair she should pay attention to all the regional voting blocks. Not just Bell-Red.
Does LLE have a powerful Claudia Balducci-type advocate who is pushing a as soon as it’s ready opening?
I don’t think it needs it — not in the way that this starting line did. Balducci pushed for this, even though a lot of people didn’t think it was worth it. In contrast, Lynnwood Link will happen as soon as it is ready.
“I doubt that it will be March 30th. That is the date for Orange Swift to open, and I don’t think ST would stomp on another agency’s party. ”
That’s in another county. Practically nobody in Lynnwood will be paying attention to the Starter Line or vice-versa. Their biggest interaction with the Eastside is the 535 or future Stride 2 to downtown Bellevue. If any of them want to travel further to Redmond Tech or the Spring District, they can learn about the Starter Line like the rest of us. Swift Orange in contrast is right in their neighborhood, and will make it much easier to get from Ash Way to Edmonds CC or Mill Creek or shopping destinations, and maybe to Lynnwood and Alderwood Mall too.
https://www.instagram.com/p/C3WPM9YPiTb/
instagram post with drone shots from sound transit if yall want to see it run
Poke I got an email response from WSDOT regarding the N 8th street renton direct access ramp
> This project is funded by toll revenue and the Move Ahead Washington funding package that was passed by the Washington State Legislature. With the current law budget, the I-405, North 8th Street Direct Access Project is scheduled for preliminary engineering in mid-2025, for construction in 2027, and to open to traffic in 2029 and will build a new direct access ramp from I-405 express toll lanes (currently under construction as part of the I-405, Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes project) to North 8th Street in Renton.
Apparently even though the direct access ramp was dropped from Stride 1 aka Sound Transit, it’s actually part of the original i-405 master plan so it’ll still be built but from toll funds instead.
Also citing a document which had a picture. Apparently it’ll be similar to federal way’s hov direct access ramp. Additionally, it’ll elevated N 8th street from garden ave n over the rail tracks.
The Urbanist, reporting from the Downtown Bellevue Link Station:
“The date for the 2 Line’s launch is SATURDAY APRIL 27TH.
First train will be at 10am.”
https://twitter.com/UrbanistOrg/status/1758236632808067415