Midweek Roundup – Open Thread 52

109 Replies to “Midweek Roundup – Open Thread 52”

1. Fyi the montlake hov ramps will open this or next month https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjtZCVjJR0s. Hopefully this helps the 255 (uw to kirkland) a bit as well.

   1. Great news. Hopefully there won’t be very many construction detours now either.

   2. That’s great news, though it looks like there’s at least one more total 520 closure next weekend that will mess up the 255, 271, 542, and 545.

2. Edinburgh: I see cars on the newly rebuilt Leith Walk in the photo as well as on Google maps. It appears to still be open to cars albeit at low volumes and low speeds. It looks really quaint! It also appears to have just opened!

   1. It’s completely different from when I walked that street in 2002. Then it was a wide quiet street to a suburb, not many pedestrians. The walk was over and hour so we took an infrequent bus back.

   2. Yes, there are some curbside parking spaces but overall there was not much traffic in the city, and the buses were very busy. It probably helps that the core of the city is now a strict “Low Emissions Zone”, where older/less efficient cars are banned from driving. https://lowemissionzones.scot/faqs

3. LA Metro K-Line South Bay Extension to Torrance:

   https://thesource.metro.net/2024/04/20/get-to-know-our-recommendation-for-the-c-line-extension-to-torrance-the-hybrid-alternative/

   In late April, staff identified the recommended 4.5 mile alternative. The work is a good example of how to develop and present a light rail extension. The video is clear and concise. The refinements included strategic trenches for the tracks to eliminate grade crossings of important streets. I really like the vertical profile diagram in the presentation and with ST featured more diagrams like it to illustrate station depths and heights.

4. New York Governor Hochul has indefinitely delayed implementation of congestion pricing in New York City: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/05/business/ny-gov-hochul-delays-indefinitely-controversial-nyc-congestion-pricing-plan/index.html

   Congestion pricing was supposed to go into effect on June 30, charging a $15 toll to enter city streets in Manhattan south of 60th street (the south end of Central Park).

   The end of the article this quote:

   “Delaying congestion pricing is a slap in the face to the millions of New Yorkers who rely on public transportation every day just to appease the program’s loudest foes. Congestion pricing is a $15 billion lifeline for the MTA – critical funding that will be lost if the program is stalled,” [Transportation Alternatives] said in a statement. “The next time your train is late, your bus is trapped in traffic, your subway station is still missing an elevator, you know who to blame: Governor Kathy Hochul.”

   1. I read the story, and it’s very disappointing. The idea that, in the middle of Manhattan, the lifeblood of businesses is dependent on people who drive there is utterly ridiculous, and most of people who do drive to a place like that are rich enough that an extra $15 would mean nothing to them.

      Meanwhile, in an effort to help downtown businesses, Hochul proposes to consider replacing the MTAs promised revenue stream with…a tax on New York businesses. (But, realistically, we that won’t happen, and the NYC subway will just continue to deteriorate).

   2. Yeah, really stupid decision.

   3. Gross.

   4. I believe Gov. Hochul is up for election in November. She is not very popular. This policy was not popular among NY residents or businesses, and faced lawsuits or retaliation from neighboring cities and states.

      The line from Hochul’s office is congestion pricing is the right tool to reduce congestion but the rollout is too soon.

      It was never clear whether the goal was to reduce congestion or place a bandaid on the MTA budget deficit. Hochul has floated a general business tax to replace the congestion tax to keep the MTA afloat but NYC is already hemorrhaging businesses and its tax base. The MTA is a subway so congestion if anything benefits it. It wasn’t like the congestion would eliminate cars or reduce car congestion much.

      Long term the financial viability of the MTA is probably hopeless. Too few riders paying too few fares with a deficit that is too large due to decades of deferred maintenance. Every year operations, maintenance and replacement costs dwarf farebox recovery.

      It also didn’t help the congestion tax was very regressive in a city with probably the greatest gulf between rich and middle class/poor. The congestion tax would have been great for rich drivers writing the tax off but devastating for poor drivers and business vehicles.

      My guess is the congestion tax is dead and so is alternative funding for MTA. Hochul can’t afford to lose anymore tax base to Florida. The MTA is going to have to increase ridership, fare payment, and reduce costs. Even then the current deficit is too great to overcome. BART will be next. The ridership just isn’t there anymore to support these expensive rail systems unless fares increase dramatically, or riders return although office vacancy rates keep rising in NYC.

      1. Dude, the MTA is more than just “the subway”. There are thousands of buses crawling through New York’s stop-and-go traffic also operated by it. Grant that only a fraction operate in Manhattan south of 60th and would benefit directly from the toll zone, the truth is that if the zone is such a burden as you and other reactionaries claim, then traffic all over the city should lessen, albeit not much in Outer Queens or Staten Island.

         I know you’re cheering because Yochul [sic] buckled under to the autoistas, the poor Outer Borough types she’s crocodile-tearing about go to Midtown three times a year, and they take the subway when they do. Like Good New Yorkers.

      2. New Yorkers weren’t against the project. New Jersey, some Long Islanders, and honestly some of upstate NY if we’re being charitable were against it. NYC folks were either for or ambivalent towards congestion pricing. Only people who really raised a fuss in NYC was some rich people who own cars and some business owners. But really the majority of New Yorkers don’t really own cars and don’t commute into Manhattan by car so they don’t see much of a hoopla over the proposal that has been a decade plus in the making.
         New Jersey was really the group of people who rose a stink about it albiet from very silly reasons about “what about if i need to take x person to a concert at MSG” despite how much any local will tell that going to Midtown Manhattan is a shitshow that makes Downtown Seattle traffic look like a quaint tea party. Still remember visiting NYC back in 2016 and saw an ambulance get stuck in traffic around 42nd & Broadway for 10+ minutes behind a bunch of tour and intercity buses.

         Alongside the fact that NJ Transit has commuter bus and rail that goes into Manhattan and there is also the PATH system, so Jersey folk have options alongside you can avoid the charge by taking the George Washington Bridge if you don’t want to be charged in the Holland & Lincoln Tunnel.

         In reality the proposal is unlikely to be dead, but rather postponed for a year most likely. Her legal authority over it is nil and I expect the backlash will force her to backpedal to save face.

      3. People who don’t own cars who live and work in the congestion pricing also complained about the toll because companies were going to add a surcharge to any bill that required travel to the congestion pricing area to recoup the toll they were charged. Example, a car-free congestion zone resident or small businesses calls a plumber and electrician. Those service workers will add a surcharge to the bill if they are coming from outside the zone. The Post did a story on this. Companies were notifying lower Manhattan customers of the upcoming billing increase.

         https://nypost.com/2024/06/02/us-news/heres-why-no-one-escapes-nycs-controversial-congestion-toll-not-even-locals-without-cars/

      4. The plumber/electrician argument is really a straw man argument when you think about it. First off, you don’t normally need contactors coming to your home every day, so we’re talking about may an extra $15/year for the resident if you need a plumber/electrician an average of once a year, which still seems high. This is already negligible relative to NYC housing costs.

         But, even when looking at the cost of a particular plumber/electrician visit, these guys get paid a lot, and the simplest visit is already going to cost several hundred dollars. Again, an extra $15 is negligible.

         Third, the value of the plumber/electrician’s time being stuck in traffic is already probably worth well over $15 (remember, these guys get paid a lot), so even from the perspective of the plumber/electrician, the toll is likely a win, especially when considering…

         Fourth, a plumber/electrician who does pay the toll is visiting several customers in a day, not just one, but is only paying the toll once. If they’re using the toll as an excuse to charge each of the 4 customers they see in a day to reimburse them for the $15 toll they are paying once, that just means they are looking for an excuse to raise prices to increase their profit margins, which, if they can do, they will do anyway, toll or no toll. Even if they are spending the entire day serving one customer, that means they are getting a very big job, which means a very expensive bill, likely well over $1000, so an extra $15 is, again, negligible.

         The only realistic case I can see an NYC resident without a car having to pay significantly more over congestion pricing is if they don’t ride the subway and get around by taking taxis or Uber everywhere. There are no doubt many New Yorkers who do this, but those that too tend to be quite wealthy and can easily afford the extra $2.50 added to each ride. Those that don’t want to pay it are free to switch back to the subway instead.

      5. I think the NJ voters have a legitimate axe to grind. They pay for a big chunk of the Port of NY/NJ budget throughs cross-Hudson tolls, which in turn get invested in stuff NJ benefits from (bridges & tunnels, PATH, etc). The new levy was going to apply to all entrances into Manhattan, including those which are already tolled (i.e. the west and south entrances), with the funds then invested into the MTA, which mostly benefits those entering Manhattan from the east & north. NJ requested that cross-Hudson tolls count towards the congestion charge, which I thought was a equitable proposal but politically it was ignored b/c the best people to tax are people who can’t vote for you (which for NY politicians are NJ commuters)

      6. As someone who lived in the outer boroughs for a number of years and worked at the World Trade Center, I can count the number of times I drove into lower or midtown Manhattan on one hand. Regular New Yorkers know it’s silly and simply don’t do it. A car is a massive liability down there. Even on the Upper East and West Sides, the subway was usually the fastest way to get to your destination. Moving my girlfriend into her apartment was just about the only time I recall driving up there. She wouldn’t even keep her car in the city, leaving it at her mom’s house in Sheepshead Bay.

         Unless you are a cabbie, work in the trades or are incredibly rich, rich enough to rent your own parking spot, which is basically the cost of an apartment, you don’t drive in Manhattan.

      7. I don’t think you understand what straw man means. The Post said no one escapes the tolls, not even the carless, then explained how some businesses will ad a surcharge to service calls, giving an example of one business that sent out notices to lower Manhattan customers. That’s not a straw man argument.

      8. People in New Jersey and suburban New York know to drive into Manhattan only evenings and weekends. I’ve seen it.

      9. Could someone explain why the Governor of New York cares about voters in New Jersey?

      10. “Long term the financial viability of the MTA is probably hopeless.”

          The subways and buses aren’t just a luxury amenity like a Broadway show; they’re a basic part of what a dense city of 8 million needs to function. So if the MTA is facing a funding shortfall, the responsible thing is to fully fund it.

          “Too few riders paying too few fares with a deficit that is too large due to decades of deferred maintenance. Every year operations, maintenance and replacement costs dwarf farebox recovery.”

          It’s a public service. Operations/maintenance cost has no intrinsic relationship to farebox recovery: it’s an arbitrary political decision what percent of expenses to target from fares, or to have a ratio at all. Do you know what the MTA’s farebox recovery target is? I don’t. King County Metro’s is around 20-30%.

          You fund transit because transit is an efficient way to move people, it increases mobility equity, it maximizes the city’s economic performance, and it improves the environment.

          If the subways and buses were to go away, New York would be plunged into a third-word transportation situation. Other American cities are car dependent, but none is anywhere near as large or as dense as New York City. My friend from Brooklyn said 70% of New Yorkers don’t drive. In third-world cities without mass transit, private van routes arise. That would increase congestion severely. And you can’t just roll out that model suddenly. Those countries have always had it since cars became available and the city gradually grew. You can’t just turn that model on full-fledged from scratch. First there would be a period where millions of people can’t get to work, so the economy would suffer. Then there’s the problem of New York’s high cost of housing and labor. People who may be willing to drive vans can’t afford to and keep their apartment, and passengers can’t afford a fair labor cost. Passengers can’t/don’t want to pay $10+ for every ride. Then you’d have to get all those vans, and park them somewhere.

          It would be much better to just fund the MTA than to do that. That’s what any responsible large city would do. There may be opportunities to make its budget more efficient for the same level of service, or restructures that could be done, but those are orthogonical to the issue of whether to keep the MTA running or what the fare rates should be.

      11. I don’t think you understand what straw man means.

          Agreed. It isn’t a straw man argument. It is simply a very poor argument. The idea that a direct tax on businesses is somehow better than an indirect tax (via tolling) is absurd. As of right now there already is a “congestion tax” — the problem is the money doesn’t go to the government. It is just economic waste. Someone who wants to have their leaky faucet fixed has to pay way more than they should because the plumber is stuck in traffic.

          This is just bad governance. Congestion pricing works. It saves businesses money, even though some businesses pay more. There is a limited amount of space and too many vehicles want to go there. Right now people are basically paying in terms of their time. It is like lining up to see a popular show. Sure, you spent hours in line, but it is worth it. Of course people almost immediately pay others to do the dirty work. They pay people to save their place in line or just pay scalpers. In this case an alternative would be to have a lottery for the periods in which you can drive. That would lead to scalping as well (and all sorts of bureaucratic messes, corruption, etc.). Congestion pricing is just a simple, straightforward way to properly allocate a limited resource: just pay more for it.

          In contrast the governor is just putting her head in the sand and pretending this isn’t a problem that costs everyone in the region a huge amount of money.

      12. I would like to address some of the comments.

          Gov. Hochul is not a “dude”, a “reactionary”, or “autoista”. She is a very progressive Democrat Governor. When someone posts these pejoratives without trying to understand WHY she made this decision not only do they violate the terms of this blog they look uneducated.

          This congestion tax had very little to do with congestion. Anyone who has been to NYC before and after the pandemic knows congestion is peak oriented, and down considerably post pandemic. They also know a large part of the congestion is taxis, Uber, and service and delivery vehicles that stop everywhere. Imagine how many deliveries a 50-story office or residential building gets every hour, and the number of maintenances working all day long on some part of that building. The fact the roads are constantly under construction doesn’t help either.

          This tax was a way to avoid a general tax increase while trying to shore up MTA’s budget. It would have never been considered if MTA was not in such financial distress.

          But fixing MTA’s budget deficit just isn’t possible. Ridership is too low, fare payment is too low, and even after federal stimulus funds the maintenance backlog is too great. Sometimes even a small tax in a wealthy city can cause a lot of citizen dissatisfaction and have unforeseen consequences. Look at the delivery fee surcharge in Seattle for delivery drivers the council just repealed.

          I used to take the subway when in NYC but not at night. Now I don’t take it at all. The fact the same governor had to send in national guard troops to patrol the stations was too much for me, and it is unfair to tell those in NYC that is an option. One benefit of a truly urban area like NYC is the cost of a taxi or Uber is very reasonable because the trip is generally short.

          Hochul’s real problem, just like Newsom and Harrell and NYC, is they need MORE workers, tourists and businesses. Businesses are fleeing NYC for Florida because it is sunny and has very low taxes. Many work from home. No, not the panhandle. South Florida. Miami today is the most vibrant and booming city in the nation. That is where the billionaires are heading.

          The reason New Jersey is important is because a lot of NYC workers live there and Pat income taxes in NYC. NJ was going to sue, so were the outer boroughs, Connecticut, and the rest of the state. Even if they lost they planned on implementing their own tax for any residents of NYC who passed through their jurisdiction.

          Don’t worry about traffic congestion in NYC. It has always been bad, is less bad today, and is basically capped by the amount and cost of parking and capacity of the streets. Congestion would be less if the subway was a legitimate alternative within the taxing district.

          The thing to worry about is the decline of the MTA, loss of riders, and from what I can see impossible job of keeping it from some kind of receivership or a tax that only drives more workers, tourists, and businesses out of the city.

          Focus on the goal NYC was trying to fix: The MTA, with a tax that doesn’t do more harm than good or get a governor thrown out of office. CNN last night had a former aid to Cuomo who explained how heavily Hochul polled this decision before making it. She is definarely not a reactionary, and her state is facing massive budget deficits.

      13. asdf2 nailed it on all counts. This is tradesmen setting up an excuse for an add-on charge that they’ll justify with a shrug and a jerk of the head toward City Hall.

      14. Um, Rail Sceptic, you are the referenced “reactionary”, not the Governor.

          How are New Jersey, Connecticut and “the Outer Boroughs” planning to identify Manhattan cars to tax in retribution? This sounds like a three-year old holding his or her breath to “getcha”.

          So far as your triumphant paean to Florida, if businesses want to move there, good for them. They can slip beneath the waves alongside Ronito DeSantolini and T-rump.

      15. Tom Terrific, cars have things called license plates that are tied to a massive data base. Cities and states have cameras that read license plates. For example if you drive through a red light in Seattle even though there are no police around, or drive across the 520 bridge without a Good To Go pass, you will get a bill in the mail that doubles if you don’t pay it within a specified time.

          After all how do you think NYC planned to collect the congestion tax? A toll booth? Gates? It isn’t the 1960’s.

          Since Manhattan is an Island it isn’t very hard to monitor cars coming into NJ, or heading north, and of course those with NY plates.

          Yes I understood you were referring to me with your pejoratives, as though I made the decision and not the Governor of NY. I was trying to suggest you consider why Gov. Hochul — who is much smarter than you and infinitely politically smarter — made this decision knowing some progressives would throw a fit.

          I simply commented on Hochul’s decision and assumed it was a political calculus, which is what politicians do. Throwing a hissy fit or claiming Hochul or I are reactionaries is unproductive. It would be like insulting Nathan for first reporting Hochul’s decision. That doesn’t mean Nathan made the decision.

          See if you can figure out WHY Hochul made the decision assuming she is much less reactionary than you and much smarter. Rarely do politicians do things without a why, even if we disagree.

      16. “She is definarely not a reactionary, and her state is facing massive budget deficits.”

          She is a reactionary, if you don’t like people calling a spade a spade then that’s your problem. She’s pulling this stunt because she’s deeply unpopular in the state and thinks that this will save votes for her in upstate New York in the upcoming reelection even though she’s disliked upstate for different reasons. She cares more about self preservation than being the governor even if kills a policy that most people in New York City agreed was fine.

          Alongside the fact that the NY state budget has absolutely nothing to do with how the MTA funds itself. As most of their funding comes from a variety of sources than just the state.

      17. Well Zach, at least you considered WHY Gov. Hochul killed the congestion tax.

          If you think a pol is being reactionary when “She cares more about self preservation than being the governor even if kills a policy that most people in New York City agreed was fine” I am afraid politics will disappoint you (although I think you mean she cares more about being governor than the congestion tax, which I agree with you on). Just because we disagree with a decision does not make the decision maker a “reactionary”.

          Believe me she polled this decision to death. It doesn’t sound like fellow heavy weight NY Democrats were in favor of this tax and they read polls 24/7. The way politics works is the person with the most votes wins, which means their decisions pleased more than 50% of the voters, not all of the voters. My guess is your assumption that this is a policy “most people in New York City agreed with” was contrary to what her polls concluded, and I don’t know the support for your statement.

          Nathan has a good post with a run down of the budget deficits for the MTA (which really just address capital projects after federal stimulus). This tax was to try and keep the MTA afloat. It really had nothing to do with reducing congestion in NY. $15 isn’t enough when parking is $50/day and there are tolls just to get to the lower city.

          I just don’t think the congestion tax would be nearly enough to keep the MTA financially afloat, especially operations going forward. Simply too few riders and too little farebox recovery to cover the huge operations costs. So you get a congestion tax that does not relieve congestion (which is down due to work from home anyway) and you still don’t have enough to cover the MTA’s staggering backlog of capital projects and future operations costs.

          If I were governor I don’t think I would fall on my sword over that either, and as another poster who lived in NYC noted Hochul never takes transit and neither do other NY pols. She will have to find another and much larger tax if she wants to save MTA. Maybe Jeffries can help IF he becomes speaker of the House.

      18. lol, I know how politics works and she’s still an idiot from this view and many other people have called her out as an idiot as well, including people who were on her side before she pulled this stunt. Again, calling a spade a spade.

          I’m sorry that you want to fall on your own sword dying on this hill defending her, but hey that’s your choice.

      19. Of course the surrounding towns and counties can put in license plate readers if they want to toll for some reason. But they cannot toll only Manhattan residents, full stop. They could try, but they’d get their heads cut off in court, rightly.

          Oh sure, the Economist has an apologia today about why she did it; the villain du jour is Hakeem Jeffries because “Westchester County and Long Island are angry about the charge.” Boo-hoo. It’s just more entitled rich toffs who are too good to take the trains — which are pretty damn nice I’d remind people; they’re much fancier and cleaner than the subway cars. And faster too, though to get to Wall Street riders have to change at GCT or NYP.

          The Big Red E got in a nice shot: it called them “the Back-seat Drivers”. Sweet.

      20. And so finally, Rail Sceptic, the question comes back, as it always did with Daniel and his smug ecomia to suburbia, “What do we do to fix it?” Like him, you offer absolutely no suggestions for how the shortfall might be bridged. You appear — given your “handle” — to think that all rail transit should be abandoned and the trackways torn up.

          Maybe the tunnels can be used for the Teslerati? I think that’s Musk’s proposal.

      21. London and Stockholm also found congestion pricing polled poorly before it was implemented, but they did it anyway and, over time, support for it went up.

      22. @Tom: Hakeem Jeffries’ number one priority is to win back the House for Democrats. If he has to cater to voters in the swing districts who don’t like public transportation, so be it. Better to keep NYC in traffic hell than two more years of Mike Johnson and his MAGA colleagues in control of the chamber, in his view.

          I’m also loath to criticize a small business’ concerns abut what they deem excessive costs; a 10 pound daily charge might be nothing to one business, but the straw that breaks the camel’s back to another. And although I’m in favor of more public transit, I can’t criticize someone who prefers to drive. For health reasons like my aunt (I’ve heard of other people who get carsick if they’re not the ones driving), and even personal safety reasons; I heard of a woman who drives everywhere, even in ridiculously traffic-choked cities, because she will not get into a car driven by a male she doesn’t know (potential rapist).

      23. Michael, that was my take. I didn’t bring it up with Tom Terrific and Zach because I felt they were getting emotional about it.

          The reason Hakeem Jeffries is not Speaker of the House today is because five suburban NY suburbs unexpectedly voted for moderate Republican House members giving the Republicans the majority. These five Republicans and their districts don’t care about MTA, or even transit.

          NYC can’t afford to fund MTA. NYC today is staggering under the cost of immigrants and that burden is growing while tax revenues are falling. The congestion tax would raise about 20% of the money MTA needs, maybe less if the tax results in lower tax revenue from business or shoppers. Some on this blog think this is a hatred of immigrants by Democrats like Mayor Adams but don’t seem to understand for NYC right now the choice is housing, healthcare, education and living expenses for the immigrants that will keep on arriving, or the MTA. The decision right now out of necessity is don’t fund the MTA.

          The state can’t afford the massive backlog of capital projects for the MTA plus future operations costs, and even if it could the rest of the state will object to the state sending $25 billion to NYC for the MTA. A congestion tax would be more popular than that for the rest of the state which leans quite right. It doesn’t help that the rest of the state sees the MTA (at least the subway) as a bed of crime too dangerous for a normal person to ride requiring the state to send in National Guard troops.

          The only entity that can possibly rescue MTA is the federal government, and that can only happen if Jeffries becomes Speaker of the House, which means those five NY suburban districts will have to switch their votes. The congestion tax was very unpopular in those five districts n Unfortunately, the moment has probably passed because right now the Democrats control the Senate and Presidency and would likely approve more funding for MTA if Jeffries were Speaker, but it looks like Republicans will win back the Senate and maybe the Presidency this fall.

          In the long run all parties are going to have to get realistic about what can be salvaged from the MTA. Needing National Guard troops in the subway is a terrible look. The amount needed is just staggering, and will remain staggering at these ridership levels.

          I don’t know how you right size the MTA to meet ridership and farebox recovery. The other option is what looks likely today, and that is cold turkey with no new local, state or federal support.

          Unless I am missing some other funding source.

   5. As a former resident of New York, I was a little surprised congestion pricing got this far to begin with. Basically every politician in the city drives everywhere, and they can do it because they’re allowed to park wherever they want, with no fear of getting a ticket. In addition, the kinds of people they interact with on a regular basis (other politicians, large businessmen, small businessmen) also all drive. So despite the fact that most people don’t drive, the transportation policy is actually heavily biased toward cars, just like any other American city. It felt like subway was only still running because of inertia, and if they could figure out how to repurpose the subway tunnels for cars, they would.

      Funding the subway seems like a red herring to me. I think they have enough money already. The stations look atrocious, but overall the system is in good shape. The point is to reduce traffic.

      1. >Funding the subway seems like a red herring to me. I think they have enough money already.

         The MTA isn’t just the trains, and the trains are facing a massive maintenance backlog.

         NYT has an article today explaining how the congestion charge was planned to be spent: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/06/nyregion/congestion-pricing-mta-budget-nyc.html

         The crux of it:

         The M.T.A. capital projects now on hold include:

         – $3 billion to upgrade signals on a stretch of the A and C lines in Brooklyn and on the B, D, F and M lines in Manhattan, which have switches dating back to the 1930s.

         – $2 billion in projects to make stations more accessible, including adding elevators and updated public announcement systems

         – $2 billion for new subway cars and electric buses and charging equipment.

         – $3 billion in repairs and upgrades on the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North Railroad.

         And the M.T.A. needs $3 billion to advance the second phase of the Second Avenue subway, which would extend service north from 96th Street to 125th Street and add three new stations. New York has already received $3.4 billion from the federal government for the project.

      2. — According to The Economist ($), NY Democrats likely pressured Hochul into dropping the charge. The Dems need to gain Congressional seats this year in Westchester County and Long Island, and those places hated the charge:

         Back-seat drivers may have influenced the governor’s thinking. Democrats, including Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader in the House of Representatives, are worried about the congressional races in November on Long Island and in Westchester County, where voters are not happy about the pricing scheme. Republicans won key seats in those suburbs in 2022. Democrats do not want roadblocks in New York that could tip control of the House. (BTW, feel free to delete if we can’t repost from paywalled sources.)

         — Whenever I visited my aunts in Staten Island, they drove *everywhere*. That’s what you do in Staten Island, you drive everywhere, even to Manhattan and the other boroughs, let alone North Jersey. If you have to pay the hefty tolls, parking and potential congestion charges, big deal. Then, when they got handicapped permits (bad knees), that further disincentivized public transit, as they got prime parking spots. I’ve only ridden the NY Subway once in my decades of visiting them and my other relatives, and that was because they dropped me off at the Staten Island Ferry and let me spend the day exploring Manhattan by myself before we met up for a Broadway play.

         — As for the alleged straw-man argument about plumbers/electricians getting whammed by the congestion charge, I can understand it. I read a book consisting of interviews with myriad Londoners, including someone running a stall at one of the markets (Camden?). Because he had to drive in and out of central London to pick up his merchandise and set up shop, the unavoidable congestion charges destroyed his income. I also remember him saying that if London was going to continue with the congestion charge, they should’ve arranged some sort of workaround or discount for people whose livelihoods, like his, depended on driving their own cars or vans.

         — BTW, I do have another aunt who moved from Long Island to Manhattan, yet she still drives everywhere. It’s not because she’s anti-transit; if she’s not behind the wheel, she gets violently carsick.

      3. I messed up the HTML tag for hyperlinks. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/06/06/why-new-york-scrapped-congestion-charging

      4. The MTA’s problem is that its budget never included infrastructure maintenance, replacement, or upgrades. That’s the fault of New York’s mayors and governors for decades. The DC Metro is in a similar situation: there was no budget to maintain it for decades until trains started catching fire. Link has maintenance and fleet replacement built into the budget: that’s what the MTA and WMATA need. It can’t come out of existing revenue or fares, because those are already dedicated to other purposes. It has to come from something else, like a congestion tax or general tax.

      5. Michael, the guy in Camden’s business raised little enough revenue that a cost of £9 per day wrecked it? Pretty marginal business, laddie.

         And, anyway, it is hardly a germane example. The guy in your example is a stationary vendor in some tiny stall [see comment above]. He has absolutely no control over his clientele; they walk past randomly, and 99.999% are not looking for his product when they do.

         The plumber and electrician are providing a service that fixes a huge problem that their customers have NOW, in this moment, and there aren’t very many of them. So they dictate the price; their customers are emphatically not “choice” buyers.

         [sarcasm re health status]

      6. We don’t need to second-guess somebody’s health status.

         When I was little I used to get sick in cars if I tried to read rather than looking out the window. And when I took my mom on Amtrak Cascades to Vancouver BC, I found she’s uncomfortable sitting in backwards-facing seats.

   6. This is really terrible news, and the fact that the governor can talk with a straight face about how people who insist on driving in the densest city in the country when they have a myriad of other options are victims, and at the same time not mention the millions of transit riders who are suffering with decaying infrastructure, is beyond mind boggling and simply offensive.

5. Back in may wsdot had a meeting about high speed rail. Not really too much detail was discussed it seems they are just starting another study. In other news it seems wsdot is also moving forward with the i5 master plan and possible ramp reconfiguration.

   “””
   Continue working with the FRA to advance Cascadia High-Speed Rail through the Corridor ID Program. Upon FRA approval, WSDOT will advance to Step 2 of the Corridor ID. Program and work with its partners in Oregon and British Columbia to deliver the Cascadia High-Speed Rail service development plan

   Advance I-5 corridor planning, including a workplan for future phases. Reports due to the Legislature by Dec. 1, 2024 include:
   1. Recommendations for future phases and a funding request for work planned through 2029.
   2. I-5 Seattle Ramp Reconfiguration Study Report, in coordination with the City of Seattle.
   “””

   The ramp reconfiguration is about possibly removing some ramps in between chinatown to udistrict. I know there were also previous studies about reconfiguring the off ramp to mercer to be on the right, though everything will probably be pretty pricey. Or also the i5 lid talked about removing the olive way ramps. (I don’t know how serious wsdot is taking the ramp removal proposals, or if they are just more considering reconfiguration of existing ramps)w

   https://wstc.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-0515-BP4-CascadiaHighSpeedRailUpdate.pdf

   1. >> The ramp reconfiguration is about possibly removing some ramps in between chinatown to udistrict.

      That could be huge. When it comes to ramps, quite often less is more, even for cars. A bunch of ramps clustered together (like we have downtown) leads to a lot of congestion and accidents (which leads to more congestion). It would be interesting for us (on the blog) to come up with a list of ramps we would like to get rid of.

      One that I’ve heard people recommend is 45th. This would make adding bus lanes along 45th much easier. It would channel traffic towards 50th, which is where it should be. If the city ever comes up with money for a bike bridge over 47th you would have a nice combination (cars mostly on 50th, buses on 45th, bikes mostly on 47th).

      1. > That could be huge. When it comes to ramps, quite often less is more, even for cars.

         Here’s some of the previous concepts from WSDOT (though generally been dropped now).

         “””
         I-5 Denny interchange- eliminate Yale/Howell on-ramp. Realign the SB off ramp(S) to James street. Rebuild
         Denny Way bridge and Denny Way down to Fairview. Add direct access ramp off Denny way into the I-5 Main
         line. Revise Roy on ramp and braiding

         Reconfigure the northbound lanes between Olive Way and SR 520 to create a peak period transit lane on the I-5 shoulder

         Reconstruct the Mercer Street and SR 520 Interchanges to eliminate the left side exit ramps.
         “””

         > One that I’ve heard people recommend is 45th

         I haven’t heard wsdot recommending that removal. Generally WSDOT seems to like the one ramp flows to two intersection configuration. Aka like bellevue northbound off ramp going to 4th and 8th street. Or like kirkland northbound on ramps with NE 124th and then the new NE 132nd. Federal way they are planning on the same dual intersection ramp configuration.

      2. Coming at it from another angle: which ramps would you want to keep?

         My hot-take list of the only ramps I’d keep between the I-90 interchange and 522, south to north:
         – James Street
         – Mercer
         – 520 interchange (and maybe Roanoke/Boylston)
         – 50th

         I’d scrap the spaghetti exits around Spring/Seneca, the Yale SB onramp and the Stewart SB offramp as they all gridlock the streets around them for half the day.

         As a bonus, I’d turn the Lakeview overpass into a pedestrian/bike-only overpass with emergency access via moveable bollards.

         Of course, the ultimate anti-highway pipe dream is to rip out I-5 from the Duwamish to I-405 almost entirely, replacing the downtown (SODO to Northgate) section with a heavy passenger railway and linear park, and the north Seattle (Northgate to Everett) section with a railway and a 2-4 lane highway as a compromise.

      3. It’s hard to believe WSDOT would remove the primary exit to UW, U Village, Ballard, and Children’s. UW is large enough to have its own zip code and telephone prefix.

      4. It’s hard to believe WSDOT would remove the primary exit to UW, U Village, Ballard, and Children’s.

         You would keep 50th.

         UW is large enough to have its own zip code and telephone prefix.

         Good point. It is very dense. So get rid of 50th as well. Be like Vancouver, and just about city in Europe — the freeways end at the edge of the city.

      5. Coming at it from another angle: which ramps would you want to keep?

         Mercer and Dearborn, but nothing in between. I would remove 45th but keep 50th (my previous comment was cheeky). An alternative to just closing these ramps would be to keep them available for emergency vehicles only. That way they could respond much faster than they do today. Another alternative would be toll them. Despite what the idiot governor of New York thinks, tolling is very effective at reducing congestion. It works better than just about anything. Combine it with better transit and it works quite well.

      6. Mr. Millar, tear down this wall!

      7. My hot-take list of the only ramps I’d keep between the I-90 interchange and 522, south to north:
         – James Street
         – Mercer
         – 520 interchange (and maybe Roanoke/Boylston)
         – 50th
         

         Very close to my list but I would get rid of James. The 3/4 runs on James and any effort to speed it up runs into that issue. I might accept Madison because fairly soon we’ll have buses in protected bus lanes there. Doing the same thing for James would take more work.

      8. I-5 Denny interchange- eliminate Yale/Howell on-ramp.

         That is probably the biggest bang for the buck. It would reduce traffic on Denny, making it easier to add a BAT lane there.

         Realign the SB off ramp(s) to James street.

         How so?

         Add direct access ramp off Denny way into the I-5 Main line.

         Now they are making things worse.

      9. The Yale/Howell on-ramp is the closest to my office and one that I may use on the rare occasion that I drive to work. The backups go on for blocks and it is road anarchy with the actions that people take to bypass the queue.

         I say good riddance to that on-ramp.

      10. Removal of the 45th St. ramps would eliminate some awkward weaving from drivers cutting over to the left lane to get on 520. Of course, the same is true entering at 50th, but you have a bit more time to get over.

          The problem with ramp removal is what happens to 520 bound buses on reroute when the Montlake bridge is closed? It’s already very bad; if all the cars getting on I-5 were shunted to 50th, it would be worse. Ideally, you’d have temporary bus lanes, but we all know, in practice, that won’t happen.

      11. > Removal of the 45th St. ramps would eliminate some awkward weaving from drivers cutting over to the left lane to get on 520. Of course, the same is true entering at 50th, but you have a bit more time to get over.

          In the far distance plan, WSDOT’s not so secret plan is to move the 520 and mercer general ramps to the outside aka right side ramps. And probably keep the existing center ramps as the ‘hov’ ones.

          “Reconstruct the Mercer Street and SR 520 Interchanges to eliminate the left side exit ramps” Estimated Cost: $1,002,144,941

      12. Removing the N 45th ramps would be awesome as a pedestrian, cyclist and transit rider. It would add just a couple minutes for drivers, or they could take advantage of the improved alternatives and not drive. Right now, the 44 badly needs bus lanes in both directions into Wallingford so it doesn’t get bogged down by blocked intersections at I-5; without the ramps that might not even be needed.

6. Robert Cruickshank says he heard a Link train at Northgate announce “This is the one line to Lynnwood City Center”, which is a fun reminder that Lynnwood Link is going through Pre-Revenue testing and is only a couple months from opening.

   https://twitter.com/cruickshank/status/1798138758870786422

   1. pretty exciting to see

7. I saw a two-car train parked on the Redmond extension yesterday, adjacent to Marymoor Park. Looks like they’re doing initial testing there now.

8. Here’s a great article about wealthy people colonizing Seattle….

   https://www.kuow.org/stories/sure-bezos-bailed-but-seattle-is-minting-millionaires-by-the-thousands

   From the article above…..

   ” About 1 in every 14 Seattleites are millionaires, making it second only to the Bay Area for “millionaire density.”

   What does this mean for land use patterns? Over the last 20 years, rich people have moved in and bought up much of the real estate and construction services in Seattle…. and this trend is currently spreading to greater Seattle. I think there are a few Lefty ideas out there that some people believe will change the general nature of this “wealthy colonization of Seattle” like big zoning changes and social housing, but I have little hope these things have any meaningful impact. History teaches us that the rich pretty much get their way.

   Take NYC for example. None of us currently live in the Big Apple and I doubt any of us is rich by NYC standards. When rich people decided the $15 dollar toll was against their interests… it disappeared. Our opinions mean nothing here. Even working class New Yorkers opinions mean nothing. Rich people shouldn’t have to pay $15 to drive to Manhattan. Decided by the rich. The end.

   The reason the USA has done so well at building a middle class is we’ve found a way to even the playing field with “landed gentry”. This is a nation of home owners. Seattle is going 100% the wrong way in economic equality. Cities like San Francisco, Seattle and Mexico City are ending up with a rich owner class and renting peasant class.

   1. The bay area has literally done what you wanted of not building much besides single family homes.

      1. WL

         I think you’re reading me 100% wrong here. I am 100% pro growth. I’m also 100% for home ownership for the middle class. I do not think San Francisco’s money’d class blocking almost all development for 50 years was the least bit fair. I also don’t see much of Seattle’s new development into rentals and/or housing for people making over $100k as being fair either.

         The middle and lower class people lose out in both cities.

         My brother, who’s a real estate and construction guy in Bozeman MT, always says he’s “rich adjacent”. He’s become sorta wealthy by just catering to the real estate needs of real wealthy. He’s a talented guy who turned an aging strip mall into townhomes after every architect in town told him it couldn’t be done. The problem is Bozeman and Seattle is guys like my brother are pretty much all bought up by rich clients. Most of the land, construction labor, real estate services, developers…. serve only the top segment of the economic food chain. There’s just nothing left for the bottom half.

      2. “I do not think San Francisco’s money’d class blocking almost all development for 50 years was the least bit fair. ”

         By “moneyed class” do you mean most San Franciscans? It wasn’t just people living in the biggest mansions; it was also people living in Victorian flats. The anti-growth movement was strong in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, and 10s, so all of that contributed to blocking growth. The Victorian flats became wealthy-only in the 2000s. So even middle-class people share a lot of the blame for choking off development and creating policies that make it politically infeasible.

      3. Mike Orr,

         Mike Orr,

         Oh, everybody is always looking to get paid. If you owned a modest home in S.F. in 1979, you’re likely real estate rich now. As the working class cashed in on the dividends of home ownership, the city has just collected more and more “real” wealthy people.

         I know plenty of middle class construction workers who used to own a home in Greater Seattle who cashed it out and moved to someplace with cheaper housing. This is one of the biggest problems now…. the very people who can help fix the housing problem (skilled labor) aren’t able to buy housing.

      4. > I think you’re reading me 100% wrong here. I am 100% pro growth.

         What are you talking about, you literally comment all the time fearing apartments and townhouses.

      5. California has this thing called Proposition 13 passed in the 1970’s. It froze property taxes to allowing only a small increase in tax assessments on a specific property. It’s the primary driver of the real estate market.

         One thing it does is it keeps families from moving for generations. Selling one home to buy a smaller one at half the price can actually double your real estate assessment and its taxes if you or your family owned it long enough. Add to that are the companion laws to limit commercial property tax assessment increases and loopholes so that long-deceased parents could keep the assessments low for their kids and grandkids living there. Two houses may be adjacent and identical, but one could easily pay 15 times more (1500%!) in property taxes than the identical one next to it if it was recently sold because of the lower assessment.

         So it is pretty much creating a legalized “gentry” in every income class whose parents or grandparents could buy a home, especially in the 1960’s. It also keeps houses from being demolished or reconfigured for apartments because there are fewer opportunities to do that because of the way that moving ultimately costs more than doing nothing. (It is a big reason why same-sex marriage even had giant repercussions because same-sex couples were previously excluded from inheriting the low property tax assessments.)

         Any state that adopts ceilings on property tax assessment increases runs this risk. It’s basic economics.

         When a local government faces this, they quickly learn that residential growth doesn’t ultimately pay for itself through property taxes. So they do what they can to attract big box retail that generate more local sales tax rather than housing that would have restricted assessments. They then come up with a ton of fees to assess to new construction or denser redevelopment to “pay their fare share” upfront.

         This game doesn’t play out like this here. Our ceilings apply to the city property taxes in aggregate rather than to individual property assessments. If we did have an identical Proposition 13 law, our local government would ultimately be more likely to suppress new housing much more than they do here. Our empty-nesters are more free to sell out and downsize through relocation — and pay lower property taxes on a more modest home rather than more.

   2. “Nashville’s housing boom is forcing locals to sleep on the streets …”

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13438625/Nashville-housing-boom-locals-homeless-unaffordable.html

      1. Sam,

         Thanks for posting this.
         It’s worldwide!

         CNBC is packed with articles about how easy it is for Liberals with money to “escape” a Trump dominated USA and live in places like Mexico City or Portugal. You think that’s a good thing for the working class of Lisbon? It’s pure Leftwing colonization….

         The answer is to realize that colonization is the story of human history and it will not and can not be stopped. What can we do to make it less egregious?

         I think that just understanding the concepts behind the history of colonization changes a person’s world view. Like the idea of building more housing in Seattle would somehow lower the price. Not if millionaires keep pooping up faster than units built. We do not live in some Leftwing fishbowl….. any progress Seattle makes on affordable housing is likely gobbled up by people escaping California. California is a huge place full of “colonizers” looking at moving North. That’s what messed up the Seattle housing market. Not zoning. Colonizers… tech bros and like…. moving here by the thousands every fucking month for a decade.

         On a personal level…. a person needs to keep on the move for the money. Making say, $75k a year in Seattle, renting an overpriced apartment and hoping to retire in the Emerald City is just a terrible idea IMHO. Because as a renter, you’re not really a real citizen of the city. It’s very possible you could end up living in tent at 65. There’s plenty of old people living in tents who believed their social security was actually going to be enough to rent an apartment in Seattle. Nobody cares now. With the waitlist for public housing what it is… if you’re 50 and homeless…. chances are you’ll die that way.

      2. Like the idea of building more housing in Seattle would somehow lower the price. Not if millionaires keep popping up faster than units built.

         So what would happen if they don’t build more housing but millionaires keep popping up?

         California is a huge place full of “colonizers” looking at moving North. first studies of the subject:

         This paper argues that in much of America the price of housing is quite close to the marginal, physical costs of new construction. The price of housing is significantly higher than construction costs only in a limited number of areas, such as California and some eastern cities. In those areas, we argue that high prices have little to do with conventional models with a free market for land. Instead, our evidence suggests that zoning and other land use controls play the dominant role in making housing expensive.

         (Now you can add Seattle to that list.) Can you cite a study that refutes that? Of course not. If there was it would be huge news. Can you cite any evidence at all that refutes that? No. Your arguments ignore that paper (and similar ones) while bringing up side issues. You are fixated on demand (millionaires!) while ignoring supply. You even ignore the fact that other cities (like Austin) have plenty of ridiculously wealthy people but are now seeing lowered rents because of the boom in development. You ignore cities around the world that have kept prices low for a long time despite really high demand and plenty of millionaires (Tokyo has about 300,000 millionaires — imagine that).

         Hell, you even ignore the fact that many of the millionaires in Seattle are made millionaires simply because they own houses! You just assume it is all people from California, when a lot of the millionaires are middle class people who have simply paid off their mortgage. Does this somehow change the politics? No. The increase in value is worthless unless they move or take out a reverse mortgage. Either way they want to make the most off their property which means they are likely to benefit with upzoning (so you can build more on the property). If they “cash out” and move, it is quite possible they want to stay in the same area. Instead of selling that house in the Central Area and moving to Renton they could sell the house and get a condo nearby. The more that the value of the land increases and the cost of a unit of housing decreases the better off they are. Upzoning does that.

         You keep ignoring the evidence while fixating on different issues. You are like the guy who denied that global warming was real and when temperatures started rising you blamed it on sun spots. You are welcome to your theories, just remember that no one in the scientific community believes you are right.

      3. The question I have is why are home prices continuing to rise pretty significantly when population growth is flat or declining throughout King Co.?

         According to the article the biggest factor today is lack of supply of houses for sale (we are not talking about apartments or rentals). Why is there a lack of supply? Because so many are sitting on 3% or lower mortgages for the life of the loan.

         Plus the companion articles are about the huge wealth in Seattle. Housing prices always mirror AMI, in part because builders build based on AMI.

         When mortgage rates begin to decrease there will be more supply, but prices will increase as well because like buying a car buyers focus on their monthly payment thinking values will never decrease and with inflation their loan actually decreases. Lower mortgage rates mean a buyer can buy a more expensive home for the same monthly payment.

         Affordable housing experts and King Co. only consider rentals when focusing on affordable housing. Whether a single-family house in Seattle is $900,00 or $1 million is not what the state bills addressing housing affordability are about. Same with million dollar condos in downtown Seattle although those buildings are quite dense. If density alone determined affordability Seattle would not have affordability set asides in new construction.

         The bills are about rentals for those earning between 0% and 60% AMI, although no one will build that even if they could afford to, and most of the housing that comes close to that AMI band is in existing older multi-family rental buildings, usually in less desirable neighborhoods, that gets displaced by new construction.

         Right now cities in King Co. are zoning in their updated comp. Plans based on the county mandates under 1220 (when many think the council has exceeded the statute) but none think any of it will get built at 0% to 60% AMI.

         Cities like Bellevue and Mountlake Terrace that accepted higher future housing targets than mandated by the GMPC because they planned on massive TOD along Link are pissed because they know a 0% to 60% AMI mandate will grind all new construction to a halt. Cities like Sammamish that don’t want increased density are very happy.

         A very good example of progressive policies hitting the reality of development, and these are progressive cities really interested in TOD and using market rate housing in TOD to support some affordable units. Now nothing will get built, and we are talking about the highest density zoned land in the county.

         My guess is next session depending on the Governor the Legislature will dip its toe into rent control, which will be a real political fight. I don’t see Seattle going there under Harrell and Nelson.

      4. Ross Bleakney,

         Austin Texas has falling rents…. but because the rents went so ridiculous for years, are they actually affordable for locals now? Has the building boom in Austin stopped?…. moved to other Texas cities?….. You think rents will climb in Austin in the future?

         Rent only goes in on direction Ross. The profits only flow in one direction as well. There absolutely is no substitute for owning real estate in the USA for lower income people. Renters sign away at least half of their retirement. That will not change.

      5. Fact Check,

         Nice post! I have a general contractor friend who is remodeling the same house (back side of Capitol Hill) for the 3rd time. Three different owners, three all cash sales, three high dollar remodels…. since 1999. Each owner just passed Glen’s business card to incoming one. He’s become a servant to the rich at this point…. but the money is good and work is easier than banging starter homes.

         I built 1400 sq ramblers with this guy in late 80’s… the sort of housing that doesn’t exist here any longer. You couldn’t even hire somebody to build it.

         The problem with having so many millionaires around is they just buy up anything worth a damn…. local dive bar? not after the yuppies get done with it. Want to hire a contractor to fix something? be prepared to pay yuppie prices for it! If you can even find somebody who’s not years overbooked by yuppies. Starter home? Got a 800k? to outbid the 9 other yuppies?

         There’s just too much money in Seattle.

      6. Nashville is the major growing metro in Tennessee. The others grow but the Nashville metro area (not just the merged city-county referred to as “Metro”) dwarfs the others in numerical growth.

         Tennessee has designed its economy to encourage low-pay job growth. New single-family suburban housing that gets built there is often much smaller than here.

         Add to that the Nashville area is naturally hard to develop. The limestone is pretty much just a foot or two below the ground in many places. Even building a simple sewer line can require dynamite blasting on a residential street. Developers avoid new sites where they can’t lay pipes easily — a situation particularly true to the west and north of the current suburban development there.

         Finally, road construction there can be terrifyingly expensive to do. The state won’t issue standard road bonds. Even adding a bus pull out or turn lane may require blasting rock. The original layouts never included enough right of way and were done before autos were invented in the 1800’s — so there were never enough straight roads easy to drive like here in middle Tenessee.

         I suspect that the Nashville transit referendum there even fell partly because locals ultimately just didn’t believe the TBM’s would get through the limestone.

         The amazing oddity of it all is that West Tennessee (west of the Tennessee River) beginning about a hour or so west of Nashville doesn’t grow at all — and that’s where land is easier to develop and roads much easier to build. And unlike the mountains here, the only major barrier to connectivity in West Tennessee are rivers.

      7. Oracle is moving its world headquarters to Nashville. Oracle moving HQ to Nashville: Why and what to know about the company (tennessean.com). Nashville is a U.S. leader in healthcare, and Vanderbilt is the Harvard of the south. It is also becoming a tech hub. Here is an insiders view. 15 HONEST Pros & Cons of Living in Nashville (Let’s Talk) (thehonestlocal.com). Young people today are abandoning the traditional large northern blue cities for smaller cities in the south.

      8. Add to that the Nashville area is naturally hard to develop.

         Add to that that Nashville has very restrictive zoning, although a couple member of the city council are trying to change that. I wonder if they adopt zoning as liberal as Spokane, or stay as conservative as San Fransisco? Time will tell.

      9. Austin Texas has falling rents…. but because the rents went so ridiculous for years, are they actually affordable for locals now?

         Rent is lower than average for the country (https://www.apartments.com/rent-market-trends/austin-tx/). Whether you consider that affordable or not depends on your perspective.

         Has the building boom in Austin stopped?

         You mean the giant boom in employment? Yes. Just like it has in Seattle. The difference is that Austin built a lot more places to live. To quote this article: One factor pushing rents down is an increase in supply …

      10. The question I have is why are home prices continuing to rise pretty significantly when population growth is flat or declining throughout King Co.?

          Zoning (and other regulations). There is your answer.

          If you have a shortage of food and the government prevents farmers from making food then food prices will keep climbing and eventually people will move. Same thing happens with housing. It is not just Seattle, but “California and some eastern cities” as well. That study was done over twenty years ago. Those cities haven’t changed their policies. As a result the cost of housing has increased while many of those cities have shrunk. Meanwhile other cities (like Seattle) have joined the club. To be fair, Seattle is growing, just not nearly as fast as it would if we had a liberal zoning policy (like Spokane’s). Seattle would be bigger, and rent would be cheaper (like Tokyo). To quote this article:

          In the past half century, by investing in transit and allowing development, [Tokyo] has added more housing units than the total number of units in New York City. It has remained affordable by becoming the world’s largest city. It has become the world’s largest city by remaining affordable.

      11. “Add to that that Nashville has very restrictive zoning…”

          I was in Downtown Nashville just two months ago. I was stunned at the many new blocks of apartments and condos under construction or already open there. Compared to just 10 years ago, it looks very different.

          It doesn’t seem more or less restrictive than most other major cities. Surely it does need reform (with a similar population to the city of Seattle, the Metro council there has 40 members!) but the site costs of developing there are surely more difficult than here. That basic fact cannot be ignored.

          Because Metro is only 1/3 of the metro area, the outer counties need to shoulder blame too. Williamson and Rutherford Counties and their cities (combined their population is about 90% of Metro Nashville) seem more restrictive than Metro does. The limestone issue seems less onerous in those counties. And traffic in those counties is pretty bad too yet they don’t even have basic bus service that Metro offers (albeit inadequately).

      12. Average median income in Austin is $85,354 in 2021, down from $85,838 in 2020. Median homes sales price was $567k in 2023, up 0.4% from the prior year. These figures are about 1/3 lower than in Seattle which has an AMI of $117,000 and median home sales price of $965,000. Home prices almost always mirror AMI. My guess is construction costs and permitting are less in Austin as well.

          Average apartment rent however in Austin is $1707/mo. which is a bit high compared to AMI. In Seattle average apartment rent is $2078/mo. I don’t think anything can be concluded from these figures, certainly re: zoning. Seattle has massive amounts of unrealized residential zoning. I imagine Austin does too. If AMI continues to increase in Austin then so will rents and home prices.

      13. “Why is there a lack of supply? Because so many are sitting on 3% or lower mortgages for the life of the loan.”

          And they can’t get a house as good as the one they already have for the price they can sell it for. The lack of supply also means a lack of trade-across or trade-up opportunities for sellers.

   3. It is not clear to me whether the chart reflects the metropolitan area or the city. There is a big difference when it comes to wealth and politics. From what I can tell it is the metropolitan area. They list 11 billionaires, and that sounds about right for greater Seattle (and not Seattle proper). Most of those people live on the East Side.

      It is interesting to see Austin on that list. Plenty of millionaires there as well. When you look at the really rich people (centi-millionaires, billionaires) there isn’t that much difference between Seattle and Austin. Interesting thing about Austin: rents are dropping. Rents are dropping because they have a relatively liberal zoning code and have built plenty of housing. I’m sure some of the wealthy people are bothered by this, but so far there is no movement to help the suffering landlords.

      Anyway, in Seattle proper many of the millionaires are left-leaning. Given that the average value of a house in the Seattle area is worth over a million, there are plenty of middle-class people that bought a house, paid it off, saved money and are now millionaires. It is also worth putting things in perspective. More people rent than buy in Seattle. I don’t think Seattle is going to go the way of Aspen, and become a rich enclave that ignores the concerns of the middle class (and just expects the “help” to commute in from the outside). There are too many renters. There are too many left-leaning people (of all income levels). For example the last public housing proposal passed easily. There are also a lot of people in this city who want to see more housing built. These range from public interest groups (concerned about the cost of rent) to labor and business organizations.

      I see some similarities with cannabis legalization. It isn’t a classic left-right issue. It isn’t just a local issue either — it is more of a national movement. Like cannabis legalization there are cynical people who somehow think it will be worse or won’t make a difference. (It seems silly now but at one point people were suggesting that “big weed” would take over and sell crappy weed at sky high prices.) Same sort of thing with zoning reform. People who ignore the science and logic and think it won’t make a difference or people who think the real answer is to get rid of private ownership of housing (good luck, comrade). Another similarity is that what is becoming a fairly mainstream idea is opposed by the politicians. No state government wanted to legalize weed — it had to pass via initiative (in Washington and Colorado). If they held a vote in Seattle to adopt the Spokane zoning code I think it would pass easily. Yet the city council and the mayor aren’t proposing that. They are simply behind the times.

      It is worth noting that we have a reactionary city council now. It is really quite shocking how incompetent many of the members are. There are a number of factors that led to us electing such a council (a lot of which had to do with the timing of the election) but it is inaccurate to assume that the council has a good feel for how the public views a particular issue. For example they have been reluctant to ask for a bigger transportation project for fear that it wouldn’t pass. Yet polling has shown that is exactly what people want.

      The timing of this particular set of zoning reforms is terrible. But that doesn’t mean that the trend will be stopped or reversed. Seattle will get there, eventually, it will just take us longer than it should (just like it took much of the country a long time to legalize cannabis).

      1. Ross Bleakney,

         I’ve got a question for you. If Seattle was somehow able to reverse climbing housing prices with some political change like zoning… or rent control…. or social housing…. or any of the pie-in-the-sky Lefty dreams posted here…..

         …….Wouldn’t thousands upon thousands of people who can no longer afford markets like L.A. and Bozeman MT. show up in Seattle and drive up the price of housing so locals can’t afford to live there? That’s the problem, right? It’s a Free Country with open boarders.

         Let’s step back a minute here. Think about every city in America you personally want to live in. Is the rent in any of those places cheaper than Seattle? Why? Because of zoning? Are just a lot of people wanting to live in those places

         Regardless of what you personally think about the current mayor and city council….. do you really believe local politics can reverse national housing trends?

         I wouldn’t doubt we see the US Congress pass a “Landlord Protection Act” wiping out any local rent control Liberal cities like Seattle pass giving landlords Federal protection to charge whatever they want for rent and wiping out any “affordable housing set asides”.

         The government of Seattle may end up with much less control over housing prices than it currently has…. and it’s damn near nothing now.

         Political solutions rarely work on economic problems.

      2. @tacomee

         Rent control and social housing don’t lower the cost of housing. More housing units lowers the cost of housing. Even “luxury” housing reduces the price of rents elsewhere. If a wealthy family buys a “luxury” condo in First Hill, they won’t buy (and renovate) a SFH in the Central District. If enough wealthy families buy expensive condos/town homes, then they won’t “gentrify” the outer suburbs and working class families can start to afford houses.

         https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-05/what-adding-luxury-housing-does-to-rents-elsewhere

         People don’t pack up and move just because a place has cheap rent. Why doesn’t everyone in LA or SF move to Austin? Hell, why doesn’t everyone in SF just move to Seattle? Because they have friends, they have families, they have jobs, and it takes more than just cheap rent to get people to pack up and move across the country.

         The economic problem is that it’s politically difficult to build housing. Developers want to build more housing, but they’re only allowed to increase housing density in a handful of places throughout the city, and it takes years of permitting to build anything. If zoning was loosened and the permitting process improved, then home builders would have an easier time keeping up with demand.

      3. @tacomee by that flawed logic no city should build single family homes either.

      4. “Because they have friends, they have families, they have jobs, and it takes more than just cheap rent to get people to pack up and move across the country.”

         Pretty much, it’s whu you don’t see much movement to go live in rural or semi rural areas with the cheap rents unless you’re retired. Because the economics and social life just isn’t there to justify moving somewhere so cheap. You have seen more movement to second or third tier cities, but not everyone can realistically do that either. I know plenty of people who are unlikely to leave Seattle because of how intertwined their social and family life is to them. People say that’s irrational, but for others money isn’t the driver of everything and people just need to respect that.

      5. A possible solution from Denmark, from an article popping up on my browser home screen.

         When Danes buy mortgages, their bank sets up “covered bonds” for other investors to buy. When a homeowner decides to sell the house or pay off the mortgage, they can either pony up the remaining balance, or pay the market value of what their covered bond would fetch if it were sold. In case of increasing rates, that means they’ll likely pay less for the bond value versus the mortgage payoff amount, because bonds with lower interest rates are cheaper. (At least, as far as my limited recollection of college economics classes goes.)

         If they then decide to buy a different house, they’ll have a bigger cushion from the increased mortgage rate because they had to pay less to settle their previous mortgage. They could even get a profit, depending on the size of the new property.

         The article, from Business Insider (one free read before you have to sign up): https://www.businessinsider.com/denmark-mortgage-rates-lock-in-effect-home-buying-selling-easier-2024-5?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us

         The official Finance Denmark explanation of this policy, including clickable PDFs: https://finansdanmark.dk/en/the-association-of-danish-mortgage-banks/the-danish-mortgage-model/

      6. John D

         I’m from Montana, moved to Seattle, got pushed out to Tacoma, Recently moved to Utah for employment reasons (still own real estate in my beloved T-Town) and there’s a good possibility I’m headed for Central California soon.

         I have old high school classmates back in Montana who are broke and sitting on the same bar stool as the last time I stopped in to buy them a beer.

         I find that rich people are more likely to move around…. for better jobs and to play the real estate market. There’s been a lot of media coverage about California losing residents…. My guess is home owners looked the price of real estate in places Arizona and Oregon and sold out in Cali for a payday in another State. Now that real estate prices are closer to equal between Cali and rest of the West…. California isn’t losing population any longer. This isn’t rocket science.

         A stand alone house is what 80% of America wants. High end condos don’t stop gentrification of SFH in central Seattle. The couple buying that high end condo is still butt hurt over being outbid on that funky little house. Condo? Isn’t that French of “second choice”? I would never buy a condo because of poor resale value. Condos take the hit looong before houses do in a down market. I play to win. Because I have no formal education I really have no choice about that. My house is my fortress. I never had the money to feed the rent monster. Never will.

         I’m not saying there isn’t a way to add density and keep single family homes (with the 30 year home mortgage intact) I might settle for a house with small yard… maybe a townhome in the right location. I’ve a big user/supporter of public transit and bicycling for my family. I’ve raised tons of food in my backyard mini farm. I care about the environment deeply. I just think “pack and stack” housing is mistake. I think young people surrendering the dream of home ownership is a mistake. I think the idea we can trust the government to come up with solutions to transportation and housing problems is a mistake.

      7. “I think the idea we can trust the government to come up with solutions to transportation and housing problems is a mistake.”

         It sounds like you would support unzoning, removing all zoning restrictions, and thereby completely removing government from the housing equation.

         It also sounds like you would disband WSDOT, UDOT and department of transportation, and never build or maintain another bridge, road or highway.

         I’d support never building another highway. But I support most functions of or various transit agencies.

   4. tacomee, so what if millionaires move to Seattle? It is one of the most beautifully-situated cities in the world, and it’s a climate-change refuge because of the cold waters of the North Pacific flowing by. Fifty years ago, before the tech revolution, it had four industries: shipping, timber, aerospace, and being the economic lifeline for Alaska. That’s why it was still affordable; it took a special kind of person to survive the eight dreary months.

      No longer. The summers are actually warm; you can get a tan if you try. It’s home to two enormously successful tech companies and dozens of spin offs; in case you hadn’t noticed, the quickest way to get rich these days is to solve a problem that people didn’t realize they had with some performant code.

      So who do you think is going to come to such an Eden? Why, a whole lot of people would love to, but the only ones that actually will are those who can buy one of those “overpriced” homes near Green Lake with cash. The Seattle lifestyle is pretty darn nice, even with all the traffic and single-lane (because of all the parked cars) streets.

      You can’t fight economics, which you’ve certainly said yourself. You were smart to hang onto your Tacoma property, because you never know when the next heat dome will kill 2,000 people in Phoenix and the rest say, “$#!? I gotta get outta here!” The smoke may be a PITA, but having that gigantic blue air-conditioner in front of the City is priceless.

9. Making the congestion pricing debate local, where should Seattle’s congestion pricing zone be? Where would you draw the boundaries? Here are mine. (It’s big). Dearborn to the south. Broadway to the East. The waterfront to the west. Mercer to the North.

   1. Sounds good.

      1. Thanks. A more compact downtown congestion pricing zone might be Jackson to the south, I-5 to the east, the waterfront to the west, and Denny Way to the north.

   2. I don’t see a congestion pricing zone happening here. Just a few key reasons:

      1. Many jobs have variable hours. Higher pricing at peak hours will more likely hit lower paid workers more than the higher paid ones. So the time of day debate would be messy.
      2. Downtown has lots of functions — particularly medical serving places — in and close to Downtown. That’s will create equity problems and outcries. Many unique things can only be found there, like many medical specialists. .
      3. Wherever the line is drawn will create a surge in traffic just outside of it. To prevent that, the line would have to either stop west of I-5 or go all the way to Lake Washington. In particular, the First Hill medical offices would push back as would residents in the CD/ Madrona unless it reaches Lake Washington
      4. Much of the Downtown traffic isn’t going Downtown but is going through it. If someone living in Magnolia wants to go anywhere, they’d likely want to go through Downtown or SLU to most places.
      5. There are many politically easier ways to generate revenue without targeting vehicles moving through Downtown or a central area. They include parking taxes, higher parking meters, auto tabs, lower transit fares or passes, ticket surcharges to sporting or arts events, and even a VMT tax for EVs and gasoline powered cars. These will be much easier to collect and administer, and less money would be taken up in administrative , infrastructure construction and maintenance expenses by the implementing agency.

      If places like Manhattan and San Francisco aren’t embracing it — and frankly most other major European cities too, it seems like a pretty tall commitment to consider for Seattle.

      The “best” geography I see happening is a line all the way from Puget Sound to Lake Washington at either the Ship Canal/520 line or city limits on the north, and either a I-90/ Holgate line or just north of a BAR / 112th line on the south. A smaller zone Downtown without SLU and First Hill seems unlikely due to the problems listed above. These and other nearby areas already function as part of Downtown in the public mindset.

      I see a GPS VMT tax as the end state tax method. Such a method could then be used for congestion pricing to enter some areas at certain times. Of course, even that could be vulnerable to systemic avoidance tactics.

      1. I’ll point out that none of these reasons are unique to Seattle. We have a literal downtown bypass tunnel that has a mild toll for anyone hoping to skip downtown congestion. East-west connections across Downtown should be improved by increasing transit priority in projects like the Harrison street transit corridor.

         I think once ST3 finishes up in the 2040’s and Metro can funnel folks to the new WS/BLE lines, we’ll have more leverage to say there are real transit alternatives for getting into and through downtown. Ideally, at that point we’d be getting more serious about planning additional capacity and connectivity for light rail and buses.

         The other necessary half is loosening zoning restrictions so folks don’t need to drive to or through downtown for daily life, and instead can find everything they need near their homes in whatever neighborhood they choose to live in. In a proper city, there are transit alternatives that get people where they want to go when they need to leave their neighborhood, whether to go to work, socialize, attend cultural events, see professional specialists, etc.

      2. I agree, downtown basically doesn’t even have people / traffic after 5/6 what is the use congestion pricing right now?

         If we did want to toll something, I’d just start with the hov lanes/ express lanes in seattle first.

         Aka “I-5 Express Lanes Toll Feasibility Study”

         https://app.leg.wa.gov/ReportsToTheLegislature/Home/GetPDF?fileName=I-5_ExpressLanesReport_063011_web_6b0cc9e9-ed6e-4d31-8947-c401ebd1fa17.pdf

      3. Downtown Seattle could implement a congestion tax because I-5 allows drivers to pass through Seattle without exiting into the congestion zone. Of course I don’t know if downtown congestion is all that bad today, certainly off peak.

         With District Council elections I think a congestion tax in one district would be a tough sell. Even the old very progressive council never went there. The Chamber and DSA would be opposed. So would Sara Nelson. The edges of the zone would see a huge increase in car traffic to avoid the tax.

         Harrell would have to be convinced the tax would at least be revenue neutral, i.e. the tax would offset any loss of retail customers and sales tax, and business taxes. It isn’t like this part of downtown is the only commercial or retail area in the region, or even the most vibrant. Excluding cars is certain to reduce shoppers and diners who will go someplace else. Usually a congestion tax makes sense because an area is too vibrant.

         Probably the one big supporter would be U. Village.

         What I would be more interested in is a pedestrian only zone from Pike to Pine and from the Convention Center to the Pike Place Market. The issue there is where to reroute the north/south buses and cars, and of course how to clean up the streets if shoppers and diners have to walk this area. . A tunnel for buses would be too expensive. Plus in the past the retailers have opposed such a plan, and Seattle can’t lose any more retail in this part of Seattle.

      4. Nathan, first thanks for your recent articles. I greatly appreciate them.

         When you write, “The other necessary half is loosening zoning restrictions so folks don’t need to drive to or through downtown for daily life, and instead can find everything they need near their homes in whatever neighborhood they choose to live in” I would argue that already exists.

         I know of very few eastside residents who go into downtown Seattle for anything.

         I live in Issaquah. Issaquah probably has the largest selection of retail in the region, and if you drive (since we are talking about car traffic) plenty of parking. Also hospitals, restaurants and bars, parks, government offices, dentists, schools, you name it. Issaquah dwarfs downtown Seattle for access to daily needs.

         Just about every eastside city from Redmond to Kirkland to Bellevue to Mercer Island to Bothell to Factoria to Issaquah has a commercial and retail center with grocery stories, retail, restaurants and bars, pharmacies, hardware stores, bookstores, tailors, post offices, you name it. Most neighborhoods in Seattle from West Seattle to Ballard have their own retail centers, although not as extensive as many on the eastside since each eastside city is its own city.

         I would interested to find out why folks drive through the downtown and where they are from. If I had to hazard a guess I would say most are workers, which is why most congestion is during peak hours. Does Seattle really want to move these workers to other cities?

         I think Seattle residents and businesses should make this decision. It wouldn’t affect me although sometimes I like to go into Seattle for a show or art exhibit. But I thought Seattle had huge budget deficits because so many workers no longer commute to downtown Seattle.

      5. “Issaquah dwarfs downtown Seattle for access to daily needs.”

         As long as you have a car. Seattle’s “Center City” as it’s sometimes called is not just downtown but all the way to South Lake Union, 23rd, and Pioneer Square/CID. There you can find the supermarkets/retail/gyms/schools/parks and other things that downtown doesn’t have much of. It’s a continuous 2D area where you can walk 20 minutes in every direction and find these destinations, and pass other destinations along the way.

         I doubt Issaquah really has as much retail as Renton or Tukwila, or has that much more than downtown Bellevue or downtown Kirkland, but that’s a secondary issue. In any case, you can only walk to a fraction of it, especially from typical Issaquah residences.

      6. Mike, Nathan was talking about people DRIVING in downtown for their daily needs. So we are talking about people driving cars, not walking or taking transit.

         All of Bellevue has more retail than Issaquah, considering Bellevue Way and the mall/Lincoln towers. But if you are talking daily needs Issaquah beats even Bellevue because of the big box stores many like.

         I agree Issaquah is not walkable, although Old Front Street isn’t bad, but again Nathan was talking about drivers. Someone on the Eastside is not going to drive I-90 west into downtown Seattle for their daily needs, with or without a congestion tax, if they can drive east to Issaquah and find loads of free parking and every kind of retail right off I-90.

         Granted if you are on foot Issaquah is not the place to get your daily needs, but neither is downtown Seattle. Where is a grocery store or pharmacy or hardware store downtown? To be honest I don’t know where people without a car go for their daily needs because on foot you can’t carry much.

      7. Issaquah Resident, I was more referring to folks who live within Seattle who drive to or through downtown to get to other parts of Seattle, where they may need to travel for work or errands or socializing. I get that most Eastsiders are fine staying on their side of Lake Washington, which is why ST is planning to connect Kirkland and Issaquah via the 4 Line in the 2040’s.

      8. I’m talking about people shopping where they live, not driving to another city to shop.

         “Where is a grocery store or pharmacy or hardware store downtown? To be honest I don’t know where people without a car go for their daily needs because on foot you can’t carry much.”

         That’s my point: if you live downtown the supermarkets are just across the border in the adjacent neighborhoods, a 20-minute walk (or less) or full-time frequent bus ride. Pike Place Market has produce, and H-Mart and two pharmacies are within three blocks. Urban hardware stores are often overlooked, but there’s Pacific Supply at 12th & Pine on Capitol Hill.

         (Other walkable hardware stores include True Value on the Ave at 50th, Hardwick’s at Roosevelt & 42nd (if it’s still open), one in southern Ballard, Tweedy & Popp on Rainier or MLK somewhere, etc.)

         If you live in an apartment and already have furniture, you don’t need bulky/heavy stuff very often. I go to Costco on the bus once or twice a month, with my backpack and two canvas bags, or a rolling cart. We rent a car or carpool to Costco less than once a year, to get something large or when we have a car anyway.

      9. I have a friend who lives in Belltown. We often hike Discovery Park, and I often drive through downtown to pick him up. These trips are all weekend/, holiday, so not much in the way of traffic congestion.

         If there were a $15 congestion charge, details would determine how our routine would be altered to avoid it. For instance, of the boundary were Denny, maybe I park north of Denny and ask him to walk a couple blocks to be picked up so I don’t have to pay $15. This is sort of a problem with congestion zones in general – when you’re driving to somewhere within a couple blocks of the boundary, things can get quite awkward.

   3. Seattle is more problematic for congestion pricing. Central London or Lower/Midtown Manhattan is a much larger area, with several times more home/work/shopping opportunities within it, so there’s less need to cross the boundary. And there’s much more transit opportunities to cross it, with several subway corridors running every 2-5 minutes, several regional rail corridors, and frequent buses going everywhere. In London the congestion fee funds more transit alternatives. In New York it would keep the MTA from falling behind, but the MTA is already several times better than Metro/Link.

      In Seattle, what would the money go to? Would it remain downtown (station-area amenities, Link/Metro downtown service), or be diluted to; e.g., other Metro equity corridors, or taken for non-transit purposes? It would be much less money any case, since fewer cars cross the boundary.

      It’s also problematic because it separates downtown (mostly commercial) and adjacent (mostly residential) neighborhoods, so people in adjacent neighborhoods cross it a lot.

      And with Seattle’s and the north-south region’s X shape, downtown is the center of the X. East of it is narrow with few alternatives, and west of it is the Sound with no alternatives. So people going north-south would have to crowd into the narrow eastern area to avoid the toll. People living in the adjacent neighborhoods often go through downtown to elsewhere and may have few other options.

      For instance, going from southwest Capitol Hill to Costco in SODO, in a car because we’re getting more than we can carry. One alternative is Pine-5th-4th S or Pine-2nd-4th S. That would require crossing the boundary twice and paying the toll. Another is Broadway-Jackson-6th-4th S, That gets into the small/confusing/congested Chinatown streets, and may still cross the boundary. Another is Broadway-Beacon Hill-Holgate Street. That avoids the toll but it seems like a large detour, and requires going through small Beacon Hill streets.

      It’s hard to imagine that kind of dilemma in London or New York. Because inside the cordon is so much larger and more dense so the issue doesn’t come up as much, and in London it’s easier to go around it, and the transit alternatives are so much better.

   4. “so many workers no longer commute to downtown Seattle.”

      That’s another issue. Even if congestion pricing might have been seen as worthwhile in the 2010s, it’s harder to make a case for it now.

      The folly of the 99 tunnel is that so few people use it, the toll has to be set below the reimbursement cost of the tunnel. it’s touted as an overall north-south bypass, but it’s really only useful if you’re coming from West Seattle/SODO/Burien/SeaTac and going to north-central or northwest Seattle or further north. And if you do go further north, there’s a gap between Aurora and I-5 that you have to use lesser streets to get to. If you’re going from the south/southwest to the U-District, you have to go two miles on narrow congested 45th and pass an freeway entrance bottleneck, which negates much of the advantage of using the 99 tunnel in the first place.

      1. “ The folly of the 99 tunnel is that so few people use it, the toll has to be set below the reimbursement cost of the tunnel. ”

         This folly would be Exhibit A on why not to attempt congestion pricing here anytime soon. There seems to be just two primary goals of the congestion pricing idea:

         1. Generate revenue. There are many easier and simpler ways to accomplish that.

         2. To push people away from driving Downtown at peak times. Many of our most terribly slow congestion spots are not on Downtown streets. They are on freeways a few miles away from Downtown, like 405 between Bellevue and Renton or I-5 north of 520. It even takes longer to cycle though signals in many neighborhoods than in Downtown (it can take up to four midday signal cycles to get through Beacon Ave and Columbian Way or Rainier Ave and Charlestown St in my SE Seattle neighborhood). Congestion pricing wouldn’t significantly help with these problem areas by reducing demand.

         Plus, Sounder ridership is still down about 40-50 percent from 2019. That ridership would need to fully recover to put congestion pricing on the table for consideration.

10. The road closures for striping work at 185th St Station habe been rescheduled for this coming weekend. This had to be done due to last weekends rain event.

    https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/WASOUND/bulletins/3a0e4c0

    This should mainly finish the road work at 185th St Station, although 8th Ave NE adjacent to the station will probably still have some issues. But those issues are more related to the amount of TOD being built in the area.

11. Not much new in this article, except at the end:

    https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/practice-trips-begin-for-light-rail-train-to-lynnwood/

    At the end of the article Sparrman reports that the ELSL is now carrying 3,900 to 4,300 daily passengers. That is really good news.

    4000 was at the low end of the predicted ridership range for the ELSL, so this means that ST is already meeting its ridership goals. Additionally, the line is only a little over a month old, so one would expect ridership to continue to grow as people become more acquainted with the system and learn the advantages of rail. So things should get even better in the coming months.

    Of course the really big event for this year will be the opening of Lynnwood Link. That will represent a monumental improvement in local mass transit. The next 2 years are going to be awesome.

12. Hopefully this is the control place for this:

    I run http://www.rosecitytransit.org/ as well as the King County Metro radio scanner at http://kcmscanner.ddns.net/

    I have never actually been up to Seattle but am looking at a side trip as flights to Boston were significantly cheaper than from PDX. The current plan is to be up there June 28th or 29th to July 2nd and am wondering if anyone here would be interested in doing things with me (one idea is the Big Wheel) or maybe hosting me.

    If so, contact me at stblog@jasonmchuff.net

Comments are closed.