Midweek Roundup – Open Thread 58

81 Replies to “Midweek Roundup – Open Thread 58”

1. Sound Transit Link communication. Link Operators, Control Center, Security, etc.

   https://openmhz.com/system/psern025?filter-type=talkgroup&filter-code=1497,1499,3779,3771,3769,3777,1503,3753,3754,3755,3756,3757,3759,3760,3761,3762,3763,3765,3767

   1. I don’t listen to this scanner often, but I did learn from it that ST will sometimes call a security issue a maintenance issue in their alerts. I once heard on the scanner a security issue where they stopped a train near Columbia City because of a disturbed man on board, and they had to wait for security to arrive, so ST switched to single tracking so in-service trains could get around the stopped train. I then checked the alert page, and ST announced they were, at that very moment, switching to single tracking near that section of track due to “maintenance issues.” So, I learned maintenance issues in an ST alert doesn’t necessarily mean maintenance issues.

      1. ST is ruining its own reputation by calling them mechanical issues. It makes us think the infrastructure is a basket case held together by scotch tape.

      2. @Mike Orr,

         “ ST is ruining its own reputation by calling them mechanical issues”

         LOL. You do realize that Link O&M staff aren’t actually ST employees, right? They are Metro employees.

         So in situations like this it is a little unclear exactly who is ruining whose reputation, and for what purpose.

         I’m not a Deep Metro conspiracy guy, but I do beleive that well run organizations have clear reporting lines. ST will never have clear reporting lines while their key staff report to a completely different transit agency.

         It’s a very poor operational model. Hopefully someday it gets corrected, and then we can all know for certain where the buck actually stops.

      3. Lazarus, the point is, if “mechanical issue” is used as a catch-all phrase in Sound Transit Link alerts, even when it’s not a mechanical issue, then it leaves riders with a bad impression. While I don’t think they need to be specific in alerts, they should at least be in the ballpark of the problem, and have other words they can use, even if they are generalities. And, Mike is right. If “mechanical issues” is overused as the excuse in the alerts, it’s ST’s reputation that suffers, not Metro’s.

      4. I agree about that, Sam.

         ST could just as easily have said “a temporary passenger safety issue” or “a passenger-related service disruption” or “a police-related service pause” or number of similar things.

         The use of the term “mechanical” implies that there is something wrong with the actual physical system, which could create unnecessary fears that it will be recurring. It makes ST look like they are the negligent party, even though it’s not their fault.

2. Tacoma Public Library is not as well resourced, sadly.

   1. That’s unfortunate. I’ll see if there are alternative access options.

3. The slow pace of development at Northgate is why we need to switch all property taxes (or at least a significantly larger fraction, or at least in commercial/mixed use zones if politically necessary) to land value by zoned capacity. Just listen to Simon – “We’re gonna take our time. We have no debt, no partners. We own the land.” Especially with Lynwood Link opening now, there will be very little reason to go to Northgate except for the Iceplex, and all the residents of the housing around Northgate get reminded of the empty wasteland every time they use the station.

   1. Upcoming/current projects on or adjacent to Northgate Mall: Marriott Hotel on west side of mall. 7 story, 186 unit apartment building on north side of mall. 9 story, 234 unit apartment building on east side of mall. 7 story, 235 unit apartment building on south end of mall.

      Surrounding the mall: A college. A busy bus transit center and Link station. Areas of dense, multifamily housing.

   2. Ultimately, all private development value is market driven — including the land value. The assessor can’t just increase the assessment as a way to force development only because it’s upzoned. It’s illegal.

      1. The assessor can’t just increase the assessment as a way to force development only because it’s upzoned.

         It is quite likely the assessor would do precisely that. It would be different if we upzoned the entire city. That doesn’t push up the value of the land. But if you upzone a particular area then it does. For example if the area owned by Simon was rezoned to allow forty story buildings, the value of the land would suddenly increase substantially (and the assessor would charge more as a result).

      2. My comment was simply making the point that upzoning can’t be the only reason to increase property value. It can increase value if there is a market.

         An extreme example: If all of North Seattle is rezoned for 40 story buildings, the assessor can’t just hugely increase the assessed value of everything north of the Ship Canal to the City limits. The assessor can only assess the market value. So while zoning affects market value, it can’t be the direct reason.

      3. Yes, I mentioned that exact scenario. I’m just saying that in all likelihood there is a market (and the zoning is more targeted). Glenn mentioned upzoning commercial property (already a small subset of property) next to a transit station that will soon have frequent fast connections to both downtown and the UW. It is highly likely that would increase the value of the property. You are talking about a distinction without a difference.

         In this case though, the upzoning really isn’t the issue. The land is definitely valuable under current zoning. The property owners are thus paying taxes for the land, but they just don’t care. They could pay more, but it isn’t clear that would get them to move and faster.

      4. “In this case though, the upzoning really isn’t the issue. The land is definitely valuable under current zoning. The property owners are thus paying taxes for the land, but they just don’t care. They could pay more, but it isn’t clear that would get them to move and faster”

         To state the INVESTORS in commercial or multi-family zoned property they will likely never live in or maybe even visit don’t care about paying property taxes on property (plus all the other associated costs like interest on the loan, insurance, security, etc.) because the property will not realize a profit if developed at this time fundamentally misunderstands property development. THEY ARE DOING IT FOR THE MONEY.

         The problem with a blight tax is determining why the property is blighted. Seattle recently passed legislation allowing the city to tear down abandoned buildings due to fire risk, but neither the city nor property owner has the money to tear down the building and the city doesn’t want a lien on property that is vacant. These properties are abandoned for a reason. Not a lot of abandoned buildings in Medina. Imagine what happens if a downtown office building LLC abandons a building. Those cost a fortune to deconstruct. Tearing an old abandoned building down doesn’t mean a new one gets built.

         Upzoning can increase the value of a property, depending on the sales price of similar properties located nearby. But not always because the sales price depends on whether anyone wants to develop the property to its zoning potential. It is much, much more difficult to get the financing, afford the financing, architects, lawyers, contractors, subcontractors and so on to build a 40-story building than a 7-story building, and of course the risk is much, much greater. If upzoning or height were the only consideration the downtown office buildings would not have lost half their sale value. At the same time if the zoning allows 20 stories a property owner is reluctant to build less even though no one is interested at this time in building a 20 story building on the property, but would build a 7 story building.

         I evaluate properties for investors looking to develop. Right now the market is tough (which is why I have more time to read this blog). Commercial office development is basically dead. Other investments like bonds, cash, and the stock market are very strong with little risk. Banks are being told to deleverage anything to do with real estate other than a SFH (which is an entirely separate funding source with federal loan guarantees and easy securitization). The local market for large multi-family housing is considered risky because of a glut of market rate housing. Deurbanization is happening. Construction costs and insurance are through the roof. There are also a lot of regulatory concerns like affordable unit set asides, rent caps, eviction moratoria, tenant rights, rising property taxes on multi-family buildings because of the decline of the office building valuations shifting the levy to them, and much less population growth than predicted according to the Census Bureau which most believe because it is less politically motivated. Plus net rents after owner costs are not rising.

         So right now the smart investment money is sitting on the sidelines, earning 5% in a CD, 9% in BBB corporate bonds, 13% in C grade corporate bonds. It really doesn’t matter how tall the zoning is. Use zoning really doesn’t matter because no one is building new office towers today anyway.

         Property owners are hoping the good days return, but in the meantime pay taxes and insurance and loan interest on land no one wants to develop right now because they can make more money with less risk elsewhere.

         The days of 1% loans are over. For about 10 years it was almost impossible to LOSE money developing property, but now that developers and builders are seeing people lose their shirts on new construction they are spooked like 2009. We built a lot of buildings since 2012, and investors are taking a pause and wait and see right now. They don’t like paying taxes and insurance on land that is just sitting there but that is better than building and taking a large loss.

      5. And what will get this OMF East TOD affordable housing project, which hasn’t even broken ground yet, and is probably property tax-exempt, to move faster?

         https://www.425business.com/news/terms-ok-d-for-500m-plus-transit-oriented-bellevue-development/article_dafee7c2-4980-11ec-81a8-3f5921790798.html

   3. Right now we tax on both the value of the land as well as the value of the structures on it. Sometimes the structures are basically worthless. Either because it is an empty lot or it might as well be. Some states only charge for the land itself. This encourages development.

      A shift of that nature would be controversial. A property tax is one of the few wealth taxes. Thus if you only changed for the land, then someone who owned a skyscraper would suddenly pay a lot less in taxes (despite being just as wealthy). But it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. You could could reduce the tax on structures and increase the tax on the land.

      Then you run into the political issue you mentioned. That would go over like a lead balloon with home owners (“My bungalow gets taxed the same as that guys McMansion! Screw that!”). It makes way more sense as applied to commercial property (as you suggested). I could see that.

      Of course I could also see something a lot more complicated but more politically popular: A blight tax. Any property that is empty has an additional tax on it. Don’t just sit on an empty plot of land, waiting for the right time to build. Of course that immediately gets into loopholes and other complications. How much development do you have to have to avoid the tax? One latte stand on an otherwise empty lot should do it. You could tax empty land by the percentage it holds, but we actually encourage that.

      You could take the approach that Spokane did (more of a carrot than a stick): https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2023/mar/01/spokane-city-council-approves-pavement-to-people-o/. Give tax incentives to develop empty lots. Again this gets tricky (how empty must the lot be to qualify) but there is precedent for this. Unlike changing the tax structure, we know it is OK with the state constitution.

      I think we start by examining why there are empty lots (at a time when we have a housing crisis). Simon may be a rarity. Other companies may be stuck dealing with the various regulations, or have funding issues.

   4. Simon is usually pretty savvy about thinking outside of the box to maximize their development approach. I think Simon is merely playing the “long game” with Northgate — reacting to market forces as the evolve and change.

      It’s not like it’s sitting there unused and vacant either. They are getting development value out of it. It’s not regional mall value but it’s much more than vacant regional mall value.

      My vision for Northgate is in its symbiotic relationship with UW. It’s a great alternative for those who want to attend things on campus but check into an off-campus hotel close by, especially if it’s a statewide event if interest with people driving in to attend and then staying overnight.

   5. Simon is building 420 units in a tough market. Simon is not the only builder/developer who is taking a pause on new multi-family construction in this area. Permit applications are way down, and a number of permitted projects are on pause.

      Switching to a land use tax based on highest use would be a significant disruptor, and IMO result in less development (and more defaults) not less. It also leads property owners to fight upzones rather than support upzones. It isn’t as if these property owners like sitting on urban properties that are not developed to their fullest potential. It is that at this time they don’t see the profit, and neither do their investors or financiers. Seattle’s glow as a development capital has cooled, as has other cities similar to Seattle. That dollar has moved to the southwest and southeast.

      It is also important to understand how the property levy works. A city can collect the same amount of property tax each year plus 1% increase without a vote. So all a land use based tax would do is reallocate the levy among property owners. Due to the decline in office building valuations they will pay less toward the levy while that tax burden will switch to multi-family and residential properties increasing rents.

      The scale of the project is huge. Seattle DJC.com local business news and data – Real Estate – Here are Simon’s big plans for Northgate. Simon is probably figuring prices for units will increase once the mall is fully up and running, which is why it waited to begin on these 420 units. Current planning policies see Northgate as less of a transit hub or TOD and more as an urban village in which local residents don’t need to drive or take transit for their daily needs. If anything, with Lynnwood Link opening Northgate will see a decrease in transit boardings. This is especially true now with WFH which reduces quite a bit of travel into downtown Seattle.

      Once the mall is up and running, and assuming it is as attractive as U. Village if a little lower scale, what I will be interested in is the breakdown of customers and patrons: 1. Those who live nearby; 2. Those who came from the north; and 3. Those who came from the south which will not be good for downtown Seattle retail which is on life support already.

      If you go to U. Village that demographic is definitely not the TOD crowd. In the initial planning for Northgate Mall Simon reps were not relying much on transit for their customer base. There is an enormous disconnect between large developers and their investors and transit advocates. With Lynnwood Link opening, and a station at 130th, that likely means mall customers won’t be boarding as much at Northgate but either driving or taking Link to Northgate Mall. There would have to be a lot more housing construction around Northgate for that to support Northgate Mall without a lot of customers driving or taking transit to the mall. My guess is at most 10% of U. Village customers walk there.

      Northgate Mall will build more housing when it sees the market strengthen, and get clarified, which may include all the tax breaks to convert office towers to multi-family housing that will cut into the high end multi-family housing customer if it can be done. The cost just to convert an office building to residential before the cost to construct individual units is around $500/sf, which is the new construction cost for a modest or slightly higher SFH today. That means a finished unit in a current office building will run around $1000/sf when fully completed, the cost of a high end SFH today.

      1. Simon is building 420 units in a tough market

         The market isn’t tough. Rents are still really high. The quote has more to do with office space than residential property.

         These go together though. The value of the residential property was in part based on the value of office space in the area as well as the connection to Link. If the office space doesn’t get built and office commuting is also dead, then the value of the commercial property goes down. Not by a huge amount — people are taking Link — but the land there is not otherwise special (not for Seattle). It is close to the freeway, and there is not much there other than retail. It isn’t like Green Lake (it is more like Lake City). But they are still building apartments in Lake City and Link is still a valuable connection to the rest of the city.

         They may be waiting to see if the office market rebounds, but it is also quite possible that they would have built things at this pace even if there was no downturn. It is quite reasonable to be cautious and build things slowly, especially if you are in the mall business (where sudden collapse is common).

      2. Ross Bleakney,

         Of course rents are high. The cost of building new units isn’t going down. The money owed on those $2500 a month units isn’t any less. The mortgages need to get paid. There’s no way Seattle housing becomes affordable again without a total collapse like Detroit.

         Fact Check is the expert here but rents in Seattle are as high as people are currently willing to pay…. there was a time when Seattle had this seeming unstoppable rising AMI that it was possible to build units and count on getting more rent out of them. Things have flattened out now, in Seattle and nationwide. The working class just doesn’t have any more income to commit to housing.. You can’t get blood from a turnip (or more than $1800 a month for an apartment out of a restaurant worker). But I wouldn’t take this as a hopeful sign for the future. Renters are basically an investment product managed for profit by the investor class.

      3. TOD means transit-oriented development. That means the front door and walking paths are designed for a short and pleasant walk to the nearest transit stop, without going through a large parking lot — and especially not having to walk around three sides of the building.

         So this doesn’t make sense:

         “Current planning policies see Northgate as less of a transit hub or TOD and more as an urban village in which local residents don’t need to drive or take transit for their daily needs.”

         An urban village is supposed to be walkable by definition. A walkable building with a front door pointing toward transit is TOD. There’s no side category of “TOD” separate from an ordinary walkable building near a transit stop. So it doesn’t make sense to say “less TOD” and “more urban village” when they’re the same thing.

      4. TOD and urban villages/15-minute cities are not the same thing. Optimal density refers to the idea that a 15-minute city should be compact and have a range of building sizes, from high-rises to low-rise buildings. Transit-oriented development involves the idea of promoting public transportation to reduce the need for cars.

         TOD is designed to reduce reliance on cars. Planning agencies like the PSRC started promoting TOD way to reduce traffic congestion and carbon emissions from the work commute from suburban areas to urban areas, which ideally would reduce the costs of bigger roads.

         Urban villages instead promote not traveling at all from where one lives to obtain the basic living necessities. For example, someone living in Issaquah or Ballard works, shops, dines, goes to the doctor and dentist, in Issaquah or Ballard. This is why the GMPC allocates cities job growth targets along with housing growth targets.

         The idea was live near where you work. Originally that was the urban core where most of the jobs were. Now with work from home that is in the urban villages and outlying areas because some urban areas like Seattle’s CO zone have little housing.

         Granted Issaquah is not Paris, and a lot of people living in Issaquah still drive a lot because of the lack of retail density and big box stores, and folks in Ballard take transit because Ballard really isn’t that dense. But at least they don’t drive or take transit to downtown Seattle or Bellevue for work or daily needs, at least not as much today.

         That is the big shift in regional planning. Away from TOD based on a work commute to an urban area to working and living in an “urban” village.

         It is a start. Many suburban cities are just starting to build a retail and commercial core because they now have the demand. But as people travel less from their home city for work and instead work from home or in their urban villages and get their daily needs and activities their transit ridership falls along with driving.

         So TOD is in some ways the opposite of the urban village concept. You don’t want people to have to ride transit to meet their daily needs. You want them to walk or bike. The ultimate goal is to get folks out of motorized vehicles, whether buses or cars, and into walking or onto bikes, if not all the time more of the time.

         In this region due to changes from the pandemic and work from home transit ridership has declined pretty significantly while B&O and sales taxes have shifted from urban cores to urban villages, as planners had hoped, although much faster than they anticipated. So the urban village concept is designed to reduce reliance on transit (and of course cars) as much as possible. In a perfect world people don’t drive or own cars or take transit. They walk. Think WOD: walking oriented development.

      5. So this doesn’t make sense:

         “Current planning policies see Northgate as less of a transit hub or TOD and more as an urban village in which local residents don’t need to drive or take transit for their daily needs.”

         I agree. That sentence is lost in a sea of acronyms. It fails to draw a distinction between terms that are often seen as synonymous. Consider these two paragraphs:

         Locating more residents, jobs, stores and services in close proximity can reduce the reliance on cars for shopping and other daily trips and decrease the amount of fossil fuels burned and the amount of greenhouse gases emitted. Increasing residential and employment densities in key locations makes transit and other public services convenient for more people and therefore makes these services more efficient.

         It means integrated urban places designed to bring people, activities, buildings, and public space together, with easy walking and cycling connection between them and near-excellent transit service to the rest of the city. It means inclusive access for all to local and citywide opportunities and resources by the most efficient and healthful combination of mobility modes, at the lowest financial and environmental cost, and with the highest resilience to disruptive events.

         One is a definition of TOD; the other Urban Villages. Can you guess which is which?

         Of course rents are high.

         Yes, that is my point. That is why the idea that this is a “tough market” for housing construction is silly. It is definitely a tough market for office space, but not for housing.

      6. Part of the terminology between TOD and Urban Village are that both terms are invented.

         TOD to me merely means a denser walkable development near a major transit facility that otherwise wouldn’t be allowed. So a TOD may be entirely or mostly residential. Mountlake Terrace and Angle Lake have TODs around them. TOD is literally a “development” project; not a district. Its origin is Peter Calthorpe.

         https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development

         An urban village to me doesn’t require a major transit facility. Belltown is one of our best urban villages. Alaska Junction is an urban village and so is Ballard and Lower Queen Anne. It’s a district consisting of multiple developments near each other that allow for mixed use and full daily functioning outside of traveling to work or school. It’s been heavily promoted as a term by the City of Seattle. A place like Santana Row in San Jose is listed as one, and it feels like University Village — and neither have a light rail station anchoring them.

         https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_village

      7. TOD is the developer’s choice if it’s not mandated. An article I once read succinctly contrasted transit-oriented development with transit-adjacent development. A mall or shopping center is TOD if it has a short, safe, pleasant path to its transit stop. It’s TAD if you have to walk through a pedestrian-hostile parking lot or around the building or a fence to get to the transit stop.

         Ex-Northgate Mall is in between. It has a pedestrian path to the station, and I think you can just go down an elevator now, although it’s a way’s from the mall entrance. It used to take you to a corner of the garage, and you had to go down a stairway and walk past the garage to get to the bus bays.

      8. “Urban villages instead promote not traveling at all from where one lives to obtain the basic living necessities. For example, someone living in Issaquah or Ballard works, shops, dines, goes to the doctor and dentist, in Issaquah or Ballard.”

         That’s a theoretical ideal. The average person can do all those in the village, but real people aren’t average. I lived in the U-District, one of the most complete urban villages in the region. I went to Safeway in the neighborhood, the hardware store, library, Ravenna Park, restaurants, bars, bookstores, record stores, the university campus, friends’ houses, etc. But work was at Harborview, downtown, Licton Springs, or Ballard. There weren’t enough jobs in my field in the U-District. I went to the Vogue on weekends on Capitol Hill. Bands I liked played in Ballard, so I had to go there or miss the show. I went to Northgate a couple times a year for sheets and shoes and things that weren’t available in the village. My friend in north Lynnwood is a house cleaner, and while her clients are on Capitol Hill/Madrona, one could theoretically be in the U-District and she’d commute in for that. These are what all the remaining trips are like even in a complete urban village/15-minute city. Again, the cities with the most of these villages are the same cities with high-ridership subway stations serving them, and ultra-frequent bus routes to surrounding neighborhoods that are full.

   6. The most productive strategy for Link is to encourage more destinations at the end of the lines. Northgate is no longer an end station. There is a huge inbound morning demand imbalance (compared to morning outbound demand) north of Northgate.

      Consider that private streetcar companies pushed end station attractions like amusement parks to fill seats in the off-peak direction. Coney Island evolved for a reason, for example.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_park

      Curiously , that’s the one good opportunity with Tacoma Dome Station (and the two stations before that are near large casinos).

      In terms of Snohomish Link destination (not residential TOD) opportunities, the ELE Alderwood stop is an established destination as is the arena and surrounding modest downtown in Everett.

      I can’t envision what new destination opportunities beyond offices could evolve at Snohomish Link stations. Any novel ideas?

      1. With respect to the claim that rents are really high – I can’t speak to multi-family, but for SFH this is demonstrably false. Rents in this area are very low by both historical and regional standards. Take a SFH in the Alderwood Mall area worth, say $800k. To buy that home today you are looking at monthly payments of about $3800 on a 30 year mortgage, assuming $200k down. Add to that property tax ($8k per year, or $667/month, insurance ($200/month) and maintenance. Rule of thumb is maintenance will average 2% of the value of the structure per year. So if that structure is worth $600k ($200k for the land) you are talking $12k/year or $1k/month, That gives us a carrying cost of $5667/month for something that might fetch $3500/month or LESS in the current rental market. Hugely cash-flow negative! Yes, part of your mortgage payment is building equity, but it’s a fairly small amount in the early years of a loan. To buy a SFH as a rental at this time and place is, to me, the height of lunacy.

      2. There are some 400,000 people in north Seattle and 800,000 people in Snohomish County. That’s enough to support two destination centers, Northgate and Lynnwood. It doesn’t have to be just one.

   7. Northgate is a regional center. That means a large urban village with a mixture of housing and businesses and services so that people can theoretically both live, work, and do everyday errands there without leaving the neighborhood. But there will still be people going into or out of the neighborhood. The larger the village, the more transit riders. Every city full of walkable villages has tons of transit riders going into and out of those villages: Vancouver, San Francisco, Chicago, DC, London, etc. Nothgate is one of the three largest regional centers in Seattle. The other two are the the U-District and downtown.

      Northgate Station’s role will change but it will still get a lot of use, because the college, ice rink, apartments, offices, medical clinics, library, community center, movie theater, and other retail aren’t going away.

      In the Northgate station-area upzone, only the mall lot got 200′ — and Simon is throwing it away. The city didn’t allow highrises on the surrounding blocks, so nobody else can make up for it. And several of those blocks have recently got lowish buildings, so they won’t be replaced soon.

      The issue is not the short-term housing and office market, because that will doubtless change in a few years like it always does. Zoning and buildings are long-term for decades, while the demand for housing and offices and retail goes up and down every few years with the economy or new trends.

      1. There are a few other consideration to raising height from 7 floors to 20:

         – Need for ladder fire trucks
         – Need for a higher load to water, sewer and electricity
         – Need to bring in lots more steel and concrete to the site

         I’m not saying it can’t be done. I’m instead saying that it’s more complicated than a mere zoning code height change.

      2. But without the zoning it’s not allowed. That’s a decades-long policy in spite of the ebb and flow of the market and owners’ inclinations.

         It like a Link station at 130th or frequent buses. Those make it possible to get around conveniently without a car. Ridership only increases if people choose to use it. Without the station or frequency, people can’t use it even if they want to, so the ridership increase definitely won’t happen.

   8. I wouldn’t consider the pace of development at Northgate as particularly slow. It is a massive project. I coincidentally went by there today. I was exploring bike paths through there (the good news is they are pretty good — more about that later). It was quite busy and there was plenty of new development. It is basically transitioning from a traditional mall to a newfangled one. But they aren’t just leveling everything and starting over. That would be the quickest way to do it, but that would also mean no money at all from the property while they are busy with construction. Instead they are keeping the old places open, while building new places nearby.

      The only part that has definitely changed is that they are in no hurry to build office buildings. No one is. It is quite likely they will abandon that idea, and eventually build apartments/condos instead. One of the things that is obvious when you cruise around the area is how much parking there is. Surface parking, parking garages, free parking, very expensive parking; just lots and lots of parking. Technically it is an “urban village” but it is quite suburban. Simon is in no hurry to abandon the roots of Northgate (as a car-centric mall).

      Despite all that, it is fairly easy to bike around. People drive fairly slowly on the roads that lead to the parking lots. There are sections that are designed for both pedestrians and bicyclists. The only area I struggled with was the connection between the mall and the bridge over I-5. I’m still not sure the best option. I can get to the station fairly easily (using the pedestrian/bike bridge over 103rd) but then what? I guess I need to go down a level (maybe with the elevator). I wasn’t seriously interested in crossing over the freeway (or I would have asked someone). It looks like another option is to drop down to the surface and then take the elevator up to the mezzanine level. But it isn’t clear the best way to connect to the street (a lot of options don’t work).

      Anyway, it is slowly coming together and while it is easy to be cynical, I think it will be pretty good. I wish there was more of a firm commitment by Simon to turn 3rd into a bike/pedestrian pathway, but there will be a way through that way. Given that it is by far the nicest way to go north-south (especially for timid bike riders like myself) it looks like it will work. Given that just about every inch of the nearby area is covered with apartments, I think it will eventually fill up as well.

      1. “ I wouldn’t consider the pace of development at Northgate as particularly slow. It is a massive project.”

         I tend to agree. Link has been open less than three years to Northgate, and the first year was still in the throes of the pandemic economy.

         I’m more struck by the rapidity of development at some other Link stations. Roosevelt, Judkins Park and Spring District got many new buildings very fast. Even notable places like Rosslyn, Silver Spring and Crystal City near DC took awhile.

         A developer usually relies on loans from banks et al. The bigger the project, the bigger the risk. So most building comes in phases. That’s true if it’s even something classically suburban like Tehaleh or Snoqualmie Ridge. Banks et al like to see sales or rentals before building more of the same.

      2. I’m more struck by the rapidity of development at some other Link stations. Roosevelt, Judkins Park and Spring District got many new buildings very fast.

         It seems similar to what happened around Northgate. The overall Northgate neighborhood has been booming for quite some time — just on 5th (not especially close to the station). Link is an influence on development, but there are plenty of neighborhoods that have been booming despite no Link stations (Ballard, Greenwood, Fremont, etc.). The key to Roosevelt’s growth is that they changed the zoning and it is a highly desirable neighborhood (with or without Link). If you changed the zoning for any part of Green Lake you would soon have big buildings.

         But it isn’t consistent. A lot depends on the developer. Much of Lake City retains its car lots because the Bill Pierre family has no interest in leaving the business. A lot of the land around Northgate is medical — it grows, but is not likely to encounter the boom of residential demand. The Simon property has likely grown slower because it is owned by one company. This shouldn’t be seen as an indicator of the market, but the drawbacks that come from one company owning too much land. But it isn’t nearly as bad as the Pierre property in Lake City. Simon is developing the land at a much faster pace.

4. RE County building redevelopment:

   I think it’s the most opportune time to push to get a Harborview incline/ funicular on the table as blocks of county buildings are planning to be redeveloped. That’s because literally half of a tunnel path will be excavated — making it much more viable to create a tunnel path to accommodate this incline.

   This is a once-in-a-century opportunity to directly connect Harborview to Link. If it doesn’t happen with this redevelopment, Harborview may never be connected to regional transit by anything more than local buses or a circuitous, slow streetcar.

   With everything being King County buildings, the incline could be built and operated by Metro with tangential ST involvement or funding.

   1. This is so obviously a smart thing to do that it’s surprising that the Chairman and Hizzoner don’t seem to see the potential. If it’s done as a part of the County rebuild the necessary supporting structures can be included in the buildings, with maybe an additional stop halfway up for the folks in the rebuilt buildings.

      1. Sadly, Tom, I can’t even get regular STB posters to see how valuable this can be.

         But the biggest drawback to an underground incline was always the existing building footprints as associated tunneling costs. With massive demolition and excavation now proposed, the circumstances are now completely changed.

         While I think the whole scheme to move transfers to Pioneer Square and eliminate Midtown Station is awful, if the ST Board insists on doing it, it seems like a possible consolation to losing the Midtown Station. It basically would restore the originally intended First Hill station in the 1996 referendum.

         And that’s on top of how the incline would not only connect Link to Harborview with a less than 90 second ride with automated inclines leaving every few minutes, and giving bicyclists a level way to climb the hill (as opposed to holding onto bicycles while climbing or descending the steep slope on the RapidRide G buses).

      2. Here is a link to the Urbanist article on Constantine’s plans to redevelop south downtown. County’s Plan for Redeveloping Downtown Campus Still Shrouded in Mystery – The Urbanist.

         Here are some quotes from the article and Constantine:

         ““The [Doors Open cultural grant] implementation plan you will consider in the coming months will move us closer to our ideal of being a place where every person is seen and heard and can thrive, people of different backgrounds, different ages, different incomes, living, working, learning, together,” Constantine said. “That is what civic vitality looks like, and it’s also the vision at the heart of my proposal to create a new neighborhood right here, where you are meeting today, and on the many underused blocks around this century-old courthouse.”

         “The executive referenced a graduate student design competition hosted by the Urban Land Institute that used the King County Campus overhaul as a test case for student teams from around the country. A proposal called “Meander” from a Georgia Tech team won the competition. Although their proposal included no skyscrapers, a series of midrise buildings managed to add about 2,100 homes at a range of incomes.

         “Constantine’s annual speech did sketch a vision that included thousands of homes in a green eco-district.

         “Why are people excited about this? Because we have the opportunity to do something truly extraordinary here,” Constantine said. “We can create thousands of units of housing for people of all incomes, with affordable retail spaces and safe public places for those thousands of residents to meet and mingle and be in community. We can restore historic buildings like this one, create a low-emission, clean-energy district, and leverage the value of the county’s considerable land holdings to help make it all possible.”

         As The Urbanist notes:

         “It is an inspiring vision, if it can be pulled off, but the County’s track record on complex transit-oriented development projects has been less than stellar. The County also owns a large park-and-ride site next to Northgate Station, but redeveloping that saga turned into a bit of a nightmare. An early study floated 24-story towers as an option, but the County ended up calling a second Request For Proposals process after not liking the first batch of submissions. Ultimately, the County opted to redevelop a small corner of the site, and leave the rest of the site as a parking lot, arguing the parking capacity would be needed until the Lynnwood Link extension opens”.

         Like The Urbanist I think Constantine’s everything for everyone political approach to a massive development when office buildings are failing and need tax breaks to convert offices to housing in the same dead corridor is pie in the sky. King Co. today can’t even deal with a $35 million dollar deficit, or fill its own buildings with its own staff so the buildings have become obsolete because they have been closed so long and are old. Who is going to actually build this green affordable oasis?

         I doubt this “vision” will ever happen even if the city and county give the land away because it will come with so many impossible progressive mandates listed in Dow’s comments, without the profit from office space, but will likely lead to an unfortunate Link station location that isn’t midtown or CID.

         Who picks the deadest part of downtown for a $100 million Link station? Someone who has been in politics all their life.

      3. > Sadly, Tom, I can’t even get regular STB posters to see how valuable this can be.

         I wouldn’t be against if this was the first or second idea. The problem is that we’ve already build the street car, then the rapidride G and then (maybe) the midtown station. I understand trying to connect harborview but at a certain point this is enough solutions attempted and other areas need connections as well.

      4. “The problem is that we’ve already build the street car, then the rapidride G and then (maybe) the midtown station.”

         You could say the exact same thing about South Lake Union and Seattle Center — except the other transit investments/ options are more extensive there and the terrain is flatter so it’s easier to walk a similar distance. There is the South Lake Union streetcar , the monorail and RapidRides C, D and E — and soon RapidRide J. Yet no one calls the much more expensive and grandiose Ballard Link project redundant or a waste even though the tunnel diameter would be bigger and the station vaults there will be two blocks long and as deep as a 7-10 story building..

         The Harborview connector would effectively be a diagonal elevator to get from Pioneer Square to Harborview with a possible middle stop for County buildings.

         And RapidRide G is over a 1/3 of a mile from Harborview’s main entrance. In a 2D world, Pioneer Square Station is closer that RapidRide G is.

      5. “The problem is that we’ve alThe problem is that we’ve already build the street car, then the rapidride G and then (maybe) the midtown station.”ready build the street car, then the rapidride G and then (maybe) the midtown station.”

         Those are for central First Hill around Madison, not southern First Hill around Jefferson. Otherwise we wouldn’t need the 3/4 after RapidRide G opens. People who have appointments at Harborview are disproportionately likely to be elderly, poor, have mobility devices, or find it hard to walk several blocks.

      6. Why would you put it underground? If you do that you have to navigate the freeway support structure, which isn’t obvious at Jefferson where the roadway appears to be “at-grade”, but is still there.

         It’s much cheaper to have it be a traditional slightly elevated balanced funicular.

         I did not notice that you called for it to be tunneled.

      7. Most of the buildings allow people to go in one side, ride the elevators and come out the other. Several of these show up on this map. From James/Jefferson you can get from 3rd to 5th (using the two county buildings) but it doesn’t look like the corrections building allows that. Even if it did there would be a “missing link” of sorts between there and the hospital. You would have to go under the freeway and then up to at least 8th (there is no way to access Harborview from the west). At that point you should be able to cut through Jefferson Terrace. I’m not sure if that is possible (for security reasons). Even if you can, that still leaves the section between 6th to 8th (which is pretty steep). So a funicular would definitely add value, but most of the work would have to be done next to the freeway and on the Harborview side. That seems like a major project.

         So yeah, every new county building that is built should be designed such that it is easy for people to use the building as a way to gain elevation. But connecting to Harborview (from 6th) would seem like a very difficult task.

         I think the best approach is to just make the 3/4 faster. The bus is fairly frequent (it runs every 7.5 minutes midday). That isn’t as frequent as an elevator or gondola, but in the same ballpark as a funicular (and more frequent than Link right now). The 3/4 works, but is is notoriously congested along that same stretch. There are two options for fixing it:

         1) Add various bus/BAT lanes to James.
         2) Move the bus to Yesler, as Metro proposed a while back.

         The latter ran into opposition from people who wanted service on James — especially service to these very county buildings. There are other reasons to serve James, but if the buildings allow egress then a lot of the issues go away. This is true for other connections as well. For example, access to 8th & James was an issue that was brought up in the survey. If Yesler Terrace allows easy egress, then this issue goes away. It is actuallya fairly flat from the bus stop on 9th to south end of the tower but walking around is not.

         The other way to mitigate loss of service on James is to send another bus there. The easiest (and cheapest) way to do that is to have it be the tail of a route. For example the 62 could be sent up there. (I’m not sure if a bus can layover at Harborview (or nearby) but it seems like there are a bunch of possibilities in the area. ) With the 3/4 serving Yesler and 9th, there is less of reason for the 60 to detour to 9th. It could stay on Broadway, and double up service with the streetcar. Thus both the 3/4 and the 60 would be faster, create a much more frequent network while losing practically nothing from a coverage standpoint. That is probably the best option.

      8. I can’t claim to know the engineering details of how to connect Harborview with Pioneer Square. I’m not opposed to an aerial connection.

         Even though I’m not a big fan, I’m not opposed to a gondola or even an escalator / elevator setup.

         I just believe that there should be a fast, higher capacity way to get up the hill without feeling like you’re on a thrill ride (steep slope) like riding the 3/4 or RapidRide G.

         My bigger point is that if the County buildings are planned for demolition, now is the time to develop a solution to connecting Harborview directly. It’s not been studied. It’s not been proposed. So we are all armchair speculators here, including me.

         Given the billions planned to build this monstrous new station, spending a fraction of that to connect the County building that gets the most activity (Harborview) seems to me to be an obvious priority.

      9. My bigger point is that if the County buildings are planned for demolition, now is the time to develop a solution to connecting Harborview directly.

         Right, but it is quite likely that every county building will have entrances on each side (as well as elevators). This should definitely be a requirement for each building. Thus getting from 3rd to 6th should be easy. The hard part is 6th to 9th. Building a connection would be great, but not cheap. It isn’t clear that it would be worth it, given that buses provide that connection (and many more).

      10. “The hard part is 6th to 9th. Building a connection would be great, but not cheap. It isn’t clear that it would be worth it, given that buses provide that connection (and many more).”

          The same argument could be made for any I-5 crossing like the John Lewis Bridge at Northgate. Plenty of buses connect North Seattle College to Northgate.

          I can’t say what design works best. I can only say that a direct way to get between Harborview and Downtown (especially Link) should be a priority for study, and a possible future project should not be precluded by a negligent County campus design.

      11. The same argument could be made for any I-5 crossing like the John Lewis Bridge at Northgate. Plenty of buses connect North Seattle College to Northgate.

          Come on, Al. The John Lewis Bridge is a bridge. Prior to the bridge people had to go around. The bridge reduced the walking/rolling distance by over a mile.

          In this case, you aren’t talking about a bridge, because there is no need for one. You can walk under the freeway.

          As for buses, it is the same issue. The buses that go from Northgate Station to North Seattle Community College have to go around. In contrast, the buses that go from 3rd & James to 9th & Jefferson take a straight shot. It is too very different things, and you know it.

      12. > You could say the exact same thing about South Lake Union and Seattle Center

          I mean i would say the same except they are going to other places. Rapidride E up aurora, Rapidride d to Ballard, route 40 to Westlake. Rapidride j goes to u district and honestly should probably be merged with Rapidride C.

          Sure slu is lucky for the extra routes but that’s just a benefit/side effect of being on the way to other areas.

          > 2) Move the bus to Yesler, as Metro proposed a while back.
          > The buses that go from Northgate Station to North Seattle Community College have to go around

          Fyi the rapidride route 40 as described in prioritization actually does extend to first hill though via yesler and then broadway.

          For the northern terminus they investigated both northgate way and the meridian and found the same delays though slightly preferred northgate way

      13. I agree some way to get from 3rd and James to 9th and James is critical since Link skips it, although as noted there are buses today making this trip.

          I like the idea of a gondola because of the views so it would serve as a tourist attraction as well although I don’t know what the rules are about going over I-5 (although they are talking about capping I-5). Some of the problems I see are:

          The reason for the long one seat buses to First Hill that mimic the route Link takes is suburbanite healthcare workers don’t want to transfer at 3rd and James, day or night, and Seattle desperately needs those workers (we all do). There is not a lot of retail along this part of First Hill. These are mostly healthcare commuters, and a majority of those are women. Seattle needs to pick one of the three downtown Link stations and make the surrounding area 100% safe, secure the station, and then run all the intra-Seattle bus transfers from Link from there. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. We don’t have to wait until all of downtown Seattle is safe because that might be never. You could build a gondola or funicular, but no one will wait for it on 3rd and James today (and 9th and James near Harborview isn’t great either). According to Bob Ferguson’s recent ad WA state has the lowest percentage of police per capita than any other state. 50th out of 50. He plans to “fix” that, and Seattle needs to fix that.

          The problem with using new city/county buildings as a kind of escalator is the chances those buildings will ever get built are slim, if they do it will be decades, and they will probably be closed to the public. If current city and county staff won’t return to the buildings because of safety concerns new buildings are not going to be open to the public unless there is a sea change in Seattle re: safety. Who wants someone urinating in an elevator in their new office building (which is exactly why a private developer will never build Dow’s utopian vision).

          To be honest, I think if 3rd and James was safe and pleasant we could just use the buses to get from 3rd and James to 9th if the transfer was quick from Link. A gondola is just the cherry on top. Until then don’t be surprised if buses and suburban workers going to First Hill skip Link and a transfer in downtown Seattle, so no point in spending the money on a gondola or funicular if people won’t transfer to it on 3rd and James.

      14. “The other way to mitigate loss of service on James is to send another bus there…. For example the 62…”

          Oh dear, that would make one of the most unreliable in the Metro system routes worse. You’d be combining the 3/4’s congestion around the freeway entrance with the 62’s inexplicable delays of 10-15 minutes on almost all runs every day between 10am and 7pm.

      15. It is worth noting that you don’t have to transfer at 3rd & James. If you are on Link, you could transfer at 3rd & University. With a lot of other buses you have additional options.

      16. “is quite likely that every county building will have entrances on each side (as well as elevators)”

          Those are only available weekdays before 5:30pm.

      17. “We don’t have to wait until all of downtown Seattle is safe because that might be never.”

          At the same time, the hotspots are only 10% of downtown. You don’t need to make all of downtown safe because it already is; you just have to address the dozen blocks where sketchy people concentrate. Those are one or two blocks around 3rd & Pine, another in Pioneer Square, and 12th & Jackson. You can literally walk 1-2 blocks around 3rd & Pike and the only people you pass are middle-class pedestrians.

      18. Rail Skeptic, you’ve never ridden the 3 or 4 from Third and James up to Harborview, have you? Especially when it’s full. It is very hard to hold on for standees. I’d even go to “extremely hard”.

          And, for the kicker, it’s close to terrifying to ride down standing, because you can actually see how loooooooong the grade is.

          The buses should have been routed around on Yesler/Eighth long ago. Yesler is steep but nowhere near as steep as James. Metro won’t do it because of the cost of hanging five blocks of wire.

          Penny wise, pound foolish.

   2. If they can get the county building by King Street Station demolished, it would be good to rebuild that lot so that the thruway buses can actually extract themselves from the station without 15 minutes of folderol.

      1. That’s what the King Street Station upper plaza on Jackson Street should have been, instead of another unprogrammed empty plaza that no one has ever sat in.

         Buses could loop in right from Jackson to a dedicated drop off/pickup.

         The county building right next to KSS is not a bad building IMO.

   3. “Come on, Al. The John Lewis Bridge is a bridge. Prior to the bridge people had to go around. ”

      And an aerial funicular is a bridge with a cable pulled vehicle going back and forth added to it.

      And an escalator / elevator tower off of Sixth Ave at Jefferson attached to a county building could be on one end of a bridge that crosses I-5.

      And a gondola doesn’t even need a bridge at all.

      The connection can be a bridge — or a bored tunnel well below I-5. There are many ways and technology to provide a level connection. My point is that the connection needs to be STUDIED. I highly doubt anyone in a wheelchair or carrying heavy luggage or pushing a stroller is feeling good about climbing or descending James or Yesler.

5. South Downtown Hub Open House tonight at Union Station 4-7pm
   —
   On the heels of our announcement that Union Station has reopened to the public, Sound Transit is excited to share information about an upcoming workshop and exhibition in the Great Hall to showcase the ongoing South Downtown Hub (SDH) planning work. Sound Transit is producing this exhibition in partnership with King County and the City of Seattle to engage community members about SDH planning in Chinatown-International District (CID) and the Pioneer Square neighborhoods, show what we heard at our first workshop and related engagement series, and present our proposed direction for further study.

   Join us on Wednesday, July 17, for the exhibition’s opening day and our second SDH engagement workshop, co-hosted with the City of Seattle and King County from 4 to 7 p.m. Help us shape the future of community and transit connections in the CID and Pioneer Square neighborhoods.

   1. The “South Downtown Hub” as envisaged by Skycastle Transit is actually a rim with spokes but is missing the hub thingy.

   2. Didn’t realize under the CID-South and CID-North plan that the planned Madison St area station goes away. Essentially CID-North is the replacement for Madison Station (just moved much further south) so there would be a huge gap of Downtown without a station on that line… Yesler St to Pine St. As if another reason was needed to oppose the insane CID-North and South concept.

      1. Yep. That is why there are basically three camps:

         1) Build things similar to how they promised.
         2) Build CID-South and CID-North.
         3) Don’t build a second tunnel.

         The first group is led by Seattle Subway, although The Urbanist has often supported their cause. The second group is led by the politicians. The third is well, us. A relatively small group of people that spend a huge amount of time reading about and discussing transit issues. We tend to have a more realistic and more subtle approach towards solving transit issues. In these polarizing times this makes it more difficult to actually gain support. It is much easier to argue for unrealistic visions (two subway lines to Woodinville!) then it is to argue that we would actually be better off if we didn’t build a second downtown tunnel (or waited until we could actually add significant coverage with it).

      2. The series of ST decisions only says to me that the riders aren’t as important to our representatives on the ST Board as development interests are. These crazy new alternatives were never a part of ST3 studies.

         Over time, I’ve felt that we have a shadow government making decisions for DSTT2 to create profit for corporate donors or blackmailers. Keep in mind that the pre-ST3 studies assumed that West Seattle Link would use the original DSTT, which is why the ID interests felt so left out originally.

         There must be lots of secret backroom meetings going on. Doling out billions sets the stage for massive lobbying by developers.

      3. Poncho, welcome to the club. We have been howling about this for three years since Midtown was initially proposed for “deferment”.

6. I’m visiting Portland today. Tapping my Google Pay enabled phone to ride the MAX was just as quick and easy as tapping an Orca card. Why do we not have this capability back home? Accepting Google Pay and Apple Pay on buses and trains makes it so much easier for visitors to use the system.

   1. Enjoy your visit to our frying pan of a summer.

7. Three upcoming items today from Sound Transit Meetings

   1) SeaTac will build another elevator ($5 million) since the existing one keeps breaking down.

   https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/Presentation%20-%20Contract%20for%20Second%20SeaTac%20Elevator%20-%2007-18-24.pdf

   2) Sound Transit is looking into “auto-ped” gates for rainier valley which I assume means automatic pedestrian gates. Also went over the already existing enhancements of louder train bells and signage and pavement “look” improvements.

   > Design and installation of auto-ped gates at Rainier Beach, Othello, Columbia City, and Stadium stations.

   https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/Presentation%20-%20At%20Grade%20Crossing%20Program%20Overview%20-%2007-18-24.pdf

   3) informational session on fare capping. No concrete recommendations yet. mostly just highlighted need to work together with king county, community transit and others.

   https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/Presentation%20-%20Update%20on%20Fare%20Capping%20and%20Reduced%20Fare%20Simplification%20-%2007-18-24.pdf

8. How is one elevator $5.9 million? That sounds like $5 million too much. Corruption?

   1. The hourly rate an elevator company charges for even one technician is unbelievably high.

      The amount of paperwork ST requires is also unbelievable.

      It’s probably just the cost of doing business in this region with a governmental-type entity.

   2. I’m not sure how it is so expensive. A cursory search online only brings up costs of around 100~200k for a commercial grade elevator.

      1. It’s not commercial-grade, though – it’s transit grade, and the cost includes the construction of a entire structure to house the elevator. I wouldn’t be surprised if the cost of the elevator itself is a relatively minor aspect of the project.

      2. There’s a lot that goes into these things.

         One of many examples: As it’s government money, it’s very difficult for any foreign parts be used, and if they are used you must not use a foreign flagged vessel/aircraft to transport whatever foreign made parts are used. Trying to track the supply chain to that level of detail gets really complicated and expensive.

9. “The four existing easements that Sound Transit purchased from BNSF in 2003 cost $258 million, a price that was dramatically higher than the $65 million had been assumed when Sounder North was promised to voters in 1996. That existing agreement is set to expire in 2030, which may prompt another round of discussions about the future of Sounder service in Snohomish County.”

   https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/07/20/doubling-sounder-north-service/

   Anybody know how to interpret that $258 million? For both N and S? For 27 years? So 10 million a year?

   1. Rereading, clearly just north. But that was for 2003 to 2030?

      1. In Perpetuity is my understanding.

      2. Yeah I’m confused checking the new articles

         For sounder S
         > The BNSF deal provides the agency easement rights in perpetuity for four additional trains. The expansion from nine to 13 round trips per day might begin in July 2012 with a first new round trip added to the Seattle-to-Tacoma, Wash., Sounder schedule, according to Sound Transit. Other additional trains then would be launched in fall 2014, summer 2015 and sometime in 2016.

         https://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news.aspx?id=23907

         For sounder N:

         > Instead of the 100-year lease Sound Transit signed last May, the transit agency now has a perpetual right to Burlington Northern tracks from Everett to Seattle, something board members said is well worth paying $8 million extra.

         https://www.heraldnet.com/news/sounder-to-finally-get-going/

      3. Did the sounder S original agreement only sign until 2030??

      4. I thought all Sounder track-time leases were perpetual. If North is perpetual and South isn’t, that sounds like the wrong way round. However, I’m sure BNSF would be interested in buying the North one back if ST decides to stop using it someday.

      5. https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2002/Motion%20M2002-90.pdf

         Found this, which projects commuter rail operating expenses at $40M in 2005, bumping by about a million every year.

         I assume that includes the leases, though not just the leases. Can’t find a operating expense breakdown…

      6. https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2003/Motion%20M2003-136.pdf

         Perpetual easements of Everett to Seattle ($250M) and Tacoma to Nisqually ($30).

         Can’t find anything for the Tacoma to Seattle section, regarding a lease agreement with BSNF, though lots of documents on capital improvements.

Comments are closed.