Midweek Roundup – Open Thread 63

94 Replies to “Midweek Roundup – Open Thread 63”

1. A great post on the SLU Streetcar on SBB: “Seattle decided 9 years ago to kill the SLU Streetcar”

   1. I’d bet the end of the SLU trolley happens this year to bridge the budget gap.

      1. It will happen after the ST Board (feat. Mayor Harrell and CM Strauss) decide a final alignment for BLE that will take the line out of commission for 5-7 years of construction (~2032-2039) and Seattle can convince the rest of the board to pitch in for the Center City Connector Cultural Connector as a consolation.

   2. I suppose if the purpose of the streetcar is placemaking, you accomplish that more cheaply by just having a streetcar that sits there as a museum artifact. Leave the actual movement and service to buses.

   3. Streetcars just need to be well built. Run it down the center of Westlake in a shared transitway with the C and 40, and reduce stops, give it signal priority. I’d send it up the westside of SLU to Fremont and the Woodland Park Zoo, with a strong transfer with the E on Aurora by the zoo. It should be like small-scale light rail, like what you see in Amsterdam or other European cities.

      One of the things that really kills the usability of the streetcar is how short the line is and not knowing when it will leave the terminal since real time arrival is little use when it’s not underway. The automobile congestion kills the reliability preventing it from running on schedule and leaving the terminals on schedule. I can never plan around using it because it will end up unexpectedly holding at Westlake Hub or Fred Hutch off the schedule.

2. I find it funny that Mercer Island is also labeled “East Seattle”

   1. The town center was called East Seattle until the City of Mercer Island incorporated in 1960!

      1. Also, that one section of northwest Mercer Island called East Seattle was where the island’s main commercial district was. But, after the bridge was built in 1940, the commercial district moved about a mile east to its current location, on a flatter part of the island, and next to the new highway. (While the Seattle to Mercer Island bridge was built in 1940, the East Channel bridge linking Mercer Island Bellevue was built in 1923).

      2. The neighborhood along the western shore of Mercer Island just south of the I-90 bridge is still called East Seattle. Its name comes from the school that was there until 1982. Here is a link to the history of the school. East Seattle School (1914) – HistoryLink.org.

         The history of the property the school was on is interesting. The Mercer Island School Dist. deeded it to the King Co. Boys and Girls Club because this part of the Island historically has not had many recreational facilities for kids. There was no restriction on the deed because the grantee was the Boys and Girls Club.

         The BGC ran the facilities for a while, but in 2008 ran into financial distress. The BGC offered to sell the property to the city. However an Island resident offered to buy the property and promised to build ballfields for at least 10 years, so the city did not buy the property but instead built PEAK.

         The property owner reneged on his promise. Again, there was no written agreement. Instead the property owner partnered with a developer to develop the site. There was always speculation one of the council members was in on the scheme.

         In 2018 the former council that was more progressive and density focused in part to fund the gap from the 1% cap on raising the property levy, which is why they are gone, amended the comprehensive plan to allow “tiny house” subdivisions, with this parcel in mind, which turned out to be incredibly unpopular with the neighbors and citizens. The goal was to build housing for Island seniors who wanted to downsize from their single-family homes after the kids were gone.

         Some problems arose. The builders wanted smaller minimum lot sizes but higher gross floor area ratios, which had been reduced to 40% for all structures on the lot in 2017, but that was not part of the plan. So smaller lots, and smaller houses. The neighbors demanded parking minimums because there is no transit in this area despite being along West Mercer Way, or retail. Plus the amendment required a property owner taking advantage of the amendment to set aside area (around 1 full size lot) for green or open space open to the public. When the development regulations to implement the comprehensive plan amendment were proposed it became clear the “houses” would be tall and skinny, more like townhouses, just what seniors downsizing don’t want. So the tiny house subdivision was scrapped.

         The owner/developer then decided to build 14 single family houses on 8400 sf lots, the lowest minimum lot size on Mercer Island and applicable to this zone, which according to the developer was more profitable anyway. After several plan amendments to require an internal access road and some open space, there was recently a hearing before the hearing examiner who issued an odd ruling that under the local and state subdivision laws a city could determine the amount of open space required in a long plat (over 4 lots) even if zero area despite the language in the local and state subdivision laws. The neighbors and citizens were not happy, but they felt a 14 house subdivision was better than 40 tiny houses.

         The subdivision was approved but the building permits have not been submitted.

      3. Thanks for the history, Bill!

         Just a heads up that formatted links don’t transfer very well in our WordPress comments. There’s a special formatting required which involves html tags – otherwise it’s best to copy/paste the full URL and that will remain a hyperlink when the comment is posted.

      4. So at the end of the day mercer island decided to build on a prime spot just single family homes — this is why I don’t take it too seriously whenever people keep citing doing “responsible” upzoning because the number of excuses just ends up always citing only building single family homes as acceptable.

      5. Bill, In 1889, the neighborhood was platted as “East Seattle.” The school, which called itself East Seattle School, was built in 1914. The name doesn’t come from the school, the school got its name from the neighborhood.

         https://www.historylink.org/file/21214

      6. It was the property owner, not “Mercer Island”, that decided to build full sized single family homes on the basis they were more profitable and easier to sell. The citizens wanted the parcel to remain open/recreational space as promised.

         The lot was large enough but not quite “prime” for tiny homes. It has no transit access, the surrounding streets don’t have sidewalks, and no walkable retail so the residents would own cars and need onsite parking to avoid clogging the narrow streets. Based on the intended demographic that meant two stalls/unit, down from three for a SFH.

         There was never any consideration of true multi-family housing on the property and the owner never requested such. These would still be single family homes, just smaller houses on smaller lots because of Mercer Island’s large lot size minimums, priced around $2+ million each with no affordable housing set asides. But since they would be tall and narrow they didn’t fit the intended customer, seniors looking to downsize from a large home.

         The zoning was there to allow the smaller lot/home subdivision but the owner in the end opted for a 14 lot subdivision. The owner has the option of including DADU’s but preliminary designs don’t include DADU’s.

         The current council however is looking at upzoning building heights in the town center to increase housing, although current zoning meets the city’s 2044 future housing growth targets. But King Co. is mandating that this new housing go in the town center near walkable transit and retail and not in the single family zone.

         The concern on the council is King Co.’s punishing affordability mandates will make any new construction unaffordable for developers, although my guess is some on the council are fine with that. Island voters are not clamoring for greater density, and nothing new would be remotely affordable.

         Despite a flat town center right next to the bus stop and future light rail station town Islanders tend to not use transit so increased density in the town center in the past has not resulted in greater transit use which plummeted with work from home.

         There is nothing the city did wrong. The property owner made his decision based on profit. The council will raise building heights in the town center to increase housing density but at 60% AMI it is unlikely that new housing will get built. For a wealthy city with a flat, walkable town center right next to transit the majority of the town center is still one story retail strip malls and grocery stores/pharmacies with surface parking lots. According to the developers I know there are just better places on the Eastside to build any kind of commercial or multi-family housing, so that is where the money goes.

         This was probably the last large undeveloped lot in the SFH zone that could work as a tiny home subdivision so future multi-family housing will go in the town center or MF zone as required by King Co. But in this case I don’t think the city or council did anything wrong. It was the market.

      7. 8400 sq ft lot sizes are necessary?

         Look no matter how you slice and dice it is just is enforcing low density

         For lack of sidewalks etc… if they built to townhouses there’s more than enough money for the development to fund that.

         I remember someone else from Mercer island saying there’s no where else to build new housing on Mercer island without destroying single family homes. This plot definitely would have been able to and instead it’s just for single family homes

      8. It was the property owner, not “Mercer Island”, that decided to build full sized single family homes on the basis they were more profitable and easier to sell.

         That is simply not true. Very early development preceded the automobile and was not just single family homes:

         Although never formally incorporated, East Seattle became Mercer Island’s first town and commercial center and the site of its first church, library, post office, restaurant, general store, and official school. Anchoring the community was the ornate Calkins Hotel, completed in 1889.

         From https://www.historylink.org/file/21214.

         By 1938 only a tiny portion of the city was developed, but the island itself was regulated by zoning (https://www.historylink.org/Content/Media/Photos/Large/Mercer_Island_map_1938.jpg). This meant that you couldn’t just build the type of things (like hotels) anywhere you wanted like the first developers did. There were various restrictions, and those restrictions exist to this very day. It is not personal preference, it is the law limiting what people can build.

      9. We don’t expect much from Mercer Island or other very small cities because the opposition to density is so high, and growth should really be the most in the largest cities. So I just make tut-tut sounds at its anemic downtown density (where it seems that even four stories is a scandal) and try to get another story or two within walking distance of the station, and leave the rest of the island as is.

      10. @Mike, When it becomes profitable to build larger buildings within the station walk shed, the politics will shift again and they will be built. I can easily see an enterprising builder convincing the council that higher buildings will buffer downtown from the freeway and enhance/preserve the “culture” of the community.

      11. But a few days ago didn’t Mike hold up the Driebergen-Zeist station in the Netherlands as an example of a high quality train and bus station?

          Here’s how that station area looks …

          https://www.google.com/maps/@52.0656938,5.2584463,1310m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu

          Why no criticism over the lack of station-area density, like there is with Mercer Island?

      12. It was profitable in the 2010s yet they didn’t do it. Imagine the marketing appeal: “Live (or have your business) so near and convenient to Seattle, but not in Seattle. A place where you can be one of the swells, and halfway between Seattle and Bellevue. And oh, the views!” People who didn’t quite want downtown Bellevue or wanted a smaller city would have jumped at it.

      13. Mike, I don ‘t know why you say town center density on Mercer Island and near the future light rail station is anemic, let alone purposeful. Currently along 27th the buildings are five stories. The station is basically within walking distance of the entire downtown, unlike say downtown Bellevue or even Lynnwood. The council plans to raise building heights to 5-7 stories from 4-5 stories, mostly housing (commercial only buildings are limited to two stories). You really can’t go over 7 stories with wood construction. Even if zoned over 22 stories no developer would build such a building on Mercer Island. It is no different than West Seattle’s station upzoning.

          So I don’t understand what you want the council to do to create more TOD.

          Mercer Island received a future housing growth target of 1239 units through 2044 from the Growth Management Planning Council. King Co. now says all of those future housing units must be in the town center within walkable transit and must be affordable to those earning 60% AMI and below. A city gets zero credit toward its GMPC future housing target in a SFH zone, or if not within walkable transit so why upzone the SFH zone? You see this same dynamic in Harrell’s proposed housing element.

          It is hard enough to get developers to build in the town center on Mercer Island, with a 10% affordability set aside at 80% AMI. There hasn’t been a new mixed-use project in the town center since 2014. There is zero chance a developer is going to spend tens of millions of dollars (a current four-story building under construction, the Xing Hua, has a build contract of almost $70 million under the old code) to build a rental building affordable to those earning 60% AMI or below, no matter how tall the building can be.

          Even then historically it has not been a transit-oriented demographic. Most transit use was from the park and ride to downtown Seattle. That commute has dried up on Mercer Island and the eastside as a whole. Sound Transit didn’t build a light rail station on Mercer Island because of the transit use. ST built a station because the land was cheap (40’ below grade between 8 lanes of I-90 with the old loud concrete) and for a bus intercept into Seattle.

          If you know some developers who want to build a 5-7 story mixed use building right next to light rail where the land is fairly cheap for a town center with mandatory street retail but a zillion Amazon delivery trucks, and are willing to rent or sell the units to those earning 60% AMI or less, please send them to Mercer Island because the citizens would like a more dynamic and vibrant town center, rather than having to go to Bellevue or Issaquah or Factoria or Kirkland or Seattle.

          When you say the opposition to density on Mercer Island is very high you need to distinguish where, whether a city is meeting its GMPC housing targets (Mercer Island is), and where they are being forced to locate that future housing (town center). And who will build what you want although you don’t state what you want. The word “density” is meaningless unless you define it in development regulations.

      14. > When you say the opposition to density on Mercer Island is very high you need to distinguish where

          Bill we literally talked about an example where Mercer Island refused to allow building townhouses and only single family homes, and not only that but with a minimum lot size of 8000+ sq ft. What exact more proof do you need? The new development doesn’t even remove any existing houses — the most typical excuse for stopping development.

      15. @Bill

          Mercer Island’s growth target is 1239, but it is not mandated that those units all be affordable to those earning 60% of AMI. The actual growth targets for each income band are:

          30 to 50% AMI: 202
          50 to 80% AMI: 488
          80 to 100% AMI: 4
          100 to 120% AMI: 5
          more than 120% AMI: 23

          Furthermore, cities must only have capacity for these growth targets, not mandate them. For example, cities can’t have capacity only in single-family zones since that would result only in high-AMI housing; cities must have capacity in zones that allow multifamily housing since that could result affordable housing. For very low AMI (<30%), new development will never be naturally affordable, so there has to be capacity in zones which allow uses such as emergency shelters.

          Source: Mercer Island Land Capacity Analysis Supplement (pg. 7)
          https://letstalk.mercergov.org/14217/widgets/44620/documents/53480

      16. “Currently along 27th the buildings are five stories….. The council plans to raise building heights to 5-7 stories from 4-5 stories”

          That’s news to me. If the council goes through with a 5-7 story limit over a broad part of downtown, that would be what I wanted it to do. If only it had done that in the 2010s.

          “You really can’t go over 7 stories with wood construction.”

          I know that. You can also fit a lot of people in 7-story buildings if you have enough of them and eliminate pedestrian-unfriendly dead space or car-oriented space. The Netherlands’ new model is basically all lowrise like that.

          “But a few days ago didn’t Mike hold up the Driebergen-Zeist station in the Netherlands as an example of a high quality train and bus station?”

          I’ve never heard of that station and don’t know where it is. Is that the video with a underpass under the tracks? The point there was the walkability and aesthetics of the underpass, not the station-area density.

          Even if that station doesn’t have density, that doesn’t mean other stations don’t.

      17. The current town center zoning is 4-5 stories. New zoning will likely be 5-7 but with a street retail FAR requirement. Not a huge increase in housing units. This has been the zoning since at least 2016 when the town center code was rewritten, and even before. The parking is underground so does not consume living space. I agree the large lobbies are unnecessary and a new code change converts most lobbies into retail space in new developments.

          The zoning has been in place for these building heights since at least 2014 if not earlier. There just has been very little development, almost none since 2014 except the Xing Hua that started one month ago and will take two years.

          Like I said, if you have any developers who are interested, and can meet the housing affordability mandates, send them to Mercer Island. It isn’t the zoning in the town center. It is the lack of developers interested in building these kinds of buildings on Mercer Island, even before the affordability mandates. Link won’t change that.

          The folks who could afford these units at market rates have lots of options. Many want a more vibrant retail town center like Bellevue or Kirkland with really tall buildings although no Link. So that is where the developers go, and where Islanders have to go for shopping and dining at a higher level. I would love a Carmines on Mercer Island. Never going to happen. So I go to Carmines.

      18. “pedestrian-unfriendly dead space”

          “I agree the large lobbies are unnecessary”

          I didn’t mean that; I meant space outside the buildings. Excessive setbacks with nothing but blank lawns; things that people don’t really use but aren’t ecosystem-enhancing habitats. The recent construction in downtown Mercer Island is fine in that regard. The spaces should either be closed up (i.e., the buildings should have been built up to the sidewalk and side property lines), or they should get a more intensive use like more shrubs or pollinator-friendly flowers or a bioswale. If there must be a surface parking lot, put it in back.

      19. Justin, yes it’s true that 32 out of 1239 future housing units can be 80% AMI up to 120%+ AMI (King Co. uses a pretty high AMI of $146,500/yr. as noted in fn. 1 on page 13).

          The problem is the estimated needed income to afford something in the SFH zone is $15,867/mo. So even with rezoning, Mercer Island cannot use anything in the SFH zone to meet these income bands for future housing.

          There will be future infill housing in the single-family zone. For example, the Boys and Girls Club subdivision will add 14 houses. But even if this property had been converted to a tiny house subdivision the units would still not meet the income bands.

          Mercer Island like most eastside cities has a catch-22: it doesn’t want to go above its GMPC future housing growth target (and as noted in the report existing zoning can accommodate 1428 housing units when the GMPC target is 1239 units), but it must create or zone for housing in these income bands that are impossible on Mercer Island, but the County will accept. It’s all a bit silly, but the County has no understanding of market forces.

          To argue a city only has to have the “capacity” for these affordable housing targets but not “mandate” they be affordable seems a bit disingenuousto me, but it really does is remove the SFH zone from consideration.

          Will anyone build this affordable housing. Not at these AMI bands, and not if the entire building has to be affordable housing.

          The only possible place Mercer Island can pretend to locate any housing at 120% AMI or below is in the town center, and that is what the report states. There is simply no way to zone anything in the SFH zone to come close to these AMI bands, and as the report notes the County requires the vast majority to be in the town center. Plus a tiny studio counts toward a housing unit the same as a four bedroom house, so look for zoning for lots and lots of studios.

          So that is where the zoning will go: in the town center. Even before the affordability mandates under 1220 future housing was going into the town center because regional planning agencies have been advocating for this kind of density for 20 years, and Mercer Island’s zoning can already accommodate its future housing growth target. Now the Island simply has to play make believe that anyone will build multi-family housing in the town center for 0% to 120% AMI.

          Who does this benefit? It benefits the no growth crowd because the affordability mandates make it impossible to make a profit building any of this 0% to 80% AMI housing. The SFH zone is off the table because it can’t meet the affordability mandates.

          So there you have it. The great progressive solution to affordable housing in King Co. I wish I had the solution, but I doubt this is it.

      20. No fan of the NIMBYism of Mercer Island but it’s light years ahead of the suburbs of the SF Bay Area. It least it has many new mixed use and multifamily housing developments built in the last 20 years in the downtown. Suburbs of the Bay Area haven’t built anything substantial in the last 50 years.

3. So Pacific Highway to Canada and Mexico was where 522 is now. I looked for Aurora but it wasn’t built yet. Holman Road has a dotted line; does that mean it was a dirt road or streetcar? But the interurban can’t have gone on Holman Road, it was near Linden Ave.

   In the early 1900s there was an unsuccessful proposal to turn Mercer Island into a park.

   In the central Eastside, Bellevue, Newport, and Issaquah are the major towns. Whatever happened to Newport, and is it related to Factoria? Newport Hills now seems to be just one bus stop with not much there except houses.

   1. Holman at the time was probably at most a dirt road, if that – the only streetcar that went north of 85th at the time was the interurban to Everett.

      There was also a proposal to turn Mercer Island into an airport at one point. Seems like a missed opportunity.

      Seem to me that whatever Newport’s commercial center was, it turned into Factoria after I-90 rearranged the transportation network over there.

      1. https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdot_photos/4110256341

         This scan indicates north-of-85th-bound streetcars on 15th Ave NW, 3rd Ave NW, and Greenwood.

4. King County Metro is calling for photos to potentially be featured on bus shelters for up to 10 years:

   https://kingcountymetro.blog/2024/08/21/capture-the-chance-to-get-your-photos-featured-in-a-metro-bus-shelter/

5. Thank you, Nathan, for the link to the article, “King County Executive and Sheriff’s Office announce arrests as part of ‘Operation Safe Transit’ initiative”. I felt some on this blog were dismissive of my safety concerns yesterday.

   I am glad to see the professional transit and law enforcement agencies taking safety more seriously than this blog.

   I find that some on this blog feel they must be an apologist for any complaint about Seattle, even if it comes from a 25-year resident like me. I think these people, especially if they have a platform, become enablers, and have blinders on when it comes to lack of safety reducing transit ridership.

   I read this blog for the excellent transit discussions and articles. It frustrates me to read about so many interesting things happening transit wise that my partner and I don’t feel safe enough to experience.

   In response to one person’s post yesterday, I don’t always find driving a car more convenient than transit. In fact, I find just the opposite when driving and parking in Seattle, and enjoy transit and walking the streets, but not if we feel unsafe. And we are two men. I can only imagine what it must be like for a woman.

   1. I appreciate the comment. It’s hard to walk the fine line between dismissing safety concerns and overblowing them. I think there’s an instinct to defend transit since there are so many people who seriously believe public transit brings crime wherever it goes, despite the false correlation. For example, I recently had a realtor tell me that there’s no point in looking at crime maps if I’m interested in a home near transit, because crime is always near transit. In reality crime is typically near major thoroughfares around businesses and higher residential densities, and transit also serves those places.

      Driving and parking in central Seattle is certainly difficult, and it’s definitely a factor in why transit is as popular as it is in the region. But I think it’s dismissing one of the benefits of driving to say that it doesn’t generally feel safer (and therefore more comfortable) than riding transit, if only because you don’t often have strangers in your car. I think it’s okay to accept that driving is typically more comfortable than transit, but the tradeoff ought to be that driving is slower than transit (because transit ought to have traffic priority).

   2. The thing is, how to distinguish between actual risk and irrational fear, and different people having different expectations? Actual risks can be addressed with policing measures and city policies, and are being addressed in fits and starts. Irrational fear, no matter what you do, it still won’t be enough for some people.

      I grew up in the early 1980s and there was a perception among Eastsiders that Seattle wasn’t safe, especially the Central District and Rainier Valley. I first went to Rainier Valley in high school to go to a Value Village near what’s now Mt Baker Station. I had a friend in church who lived in the Mt Baker neighborhood east of the valley. In all my Metro bus and and later Link trips to the valley I never had any safety problems. My friend’s family felt concerned enough to drive is sister to her job at Baskin Robbins on Rainer Avenue, but they still had no problem living in southeast Seattle and he took the 48 to UW.

      In the 1990s the crack cocaine epidemic hit southeast Seattle, and there were reports of drive-by shootings and gangs. That lasted for a decade. At the same time in the mid 90s, middle-class people started moving to the valley in larger numbers. In the 2000s new waves mixed-use apartments started springing up. While violence affected some people at some times, tens of thousands of other people were still able to live in the valley or shop or go to church in the valley and were little affected if at all. The valley has since become even safer, and the hotspot for crime has shifted to central Seattle.

      Still, the perception that east/southeast Seattle was unsafe lasted decades longer than reality, and is still in many people’s minds. So some people won’t go to the valley thinking they’ll get shot, while others moved into the new apartments and houses and are having a fine time, and some don’t even know that it previously had a bad reputation.

      So when I see the rise of fentanyl in 2020, and the stolen-goods markets (which seem to be new), and the increase in homelessness and hate crimes in central Seattle, it seems like more of the same. Yes, it’s a problem, but it doesn’t make the area uninhabitable or that everybody’s a victim even if they only visit for one hour.

      So what can we really do? There’s a sense that even if we put in a lot more resources to clean it up, the perception will still linger. In the end, some people will go there and be fine, and other people won’t go there because they think it’s too unsafe.

      1. “Actual risks can be addressed with policing measures and city policies, and are being addressed in fits and starts.”

         The Seattle police budget is approximately $1 billion per year. Unless you go with a full fascist model and have police on every corner, and are willing to have many billions more, policing really isn’t going to solve many problems. The best they can do is either be in the right place at the right time, or show up after a crime has been committed.

         Places in Europe are safer not because of an unlimited police budget, but because they’ve addressed underlying causes.

      2. I wasn’t even thinking of problems on transit itself because most of the problems are outside transit vehicles or stations. I was thinking of the neighborhood sidewalks, as I assumed Greenlake was when they referenced a carjacking and 12th & Jackson.

   3. Greenlake, what could local transit agencies like Metro and Sound Transit do to help you feel public transit is safe?

   4. @Greenlake

      I was one of the ones who responded to your comment, and I apologize for the dismissive tone. As Nathan pointed out, I think part of it was a misplaced knee-jerk reaction to some of the narratives out there that hype doom and gloom or blame transit for causing crime that is really the result of other societal issues.

      While I do have a very different perception of risk on safety issues than your partner, it is important to stive to make transit as safe as possible, and dismissing concerns doesn’t accomplish that.

      1. The problem is even if we recognize what exactly are we supposed to advocate for on a transit blog? It’s more for police/judicial/political reforms much outside the scope for us.

         Besides that it just devolves to talking about crime everytime.

         Like there’s some smaller stuff perhaps stuff can be done like more lights at bus stops or perhaps leaving elevator doors open so people don’t damage/camp the elevators.

         But for larger goals like “make Madison valley safer” in general what exactly are you expecting king county metro to do?

      2. I mean “you” in the general sense. Perhaps replace it with “one” when reading above

      3. WL, I think there’s some space for advocacy for (or against) interventions on public transit to make it safer – some folks might call for fare enforcement, more empowerment for bus drivers to eject unruly passengers, more security personnel on buses to help buses handle unruly passengers, etc.

      4. I’m not sure what you really want the drivers to do, as by themselves they are only one person.

         My most recent unpleasant experience was on Skagit Transit 410, in which someone who is banned from riding tried to get on. The driver wouldn’t move the bus, and the passenger wouldn’t get off as well.

         The driver called for the sheriff to come extract the passenger, and so then the passenger decided to leave, but on his way out attempted to assault the driver and the farebox. After leaving he attempted to toss a landscaping brick at the bus, but it was too heavy to go very far.

         Most drivers would probably not have attempted to deal with the passenger due to the possibility of an unpleasant or violent encounter.

      5. Glenn, ideally that guy would already be locked away. He’s a known terror. All it takes is locking away the relatively small number of troublemakers and the problems go away with them while it sends a message to others that it’s not accepted and there are consequences. This was figured out in the 90s and then ignored in the last decade by ideologue criminal justice “reformers” pushing failed ideas.

6. PSRC reports percentage of hybrid/full-remote workers has decreased from 52% in 2021 to 37% in 2023.

   https://www.psrc.org/about-us/media-hub/third-regions-workers-telework-least-weekly

7. I would like to thank the Urbanist for endorsing one of the also-run candidates for Lands Commissioner.

   I am probably more gleeful than most here that the ruling party got a taste of karma, with their foil party getting the top two spots, and the ruling party’s candidate barely out of second place. The advancing candidates will have collectively gotten under 43% of the votes.

   What is the lesson to be learned here?

   For the ruling party, there will likely be talk of more party discipline and fewer candidates.

   The lesson they won’t want to talk about is how they could have pushed for a modern ranked voting system, which would have kept an outcome like this from happening.

   1. Minor correction: Upthegrove is up by 51 votes at the end of first count. A manual recount is happening but the general assumption seems to be that it will confirm Upthegrove as #2, which means he’ll likely end up winning in November.

      Meanwhile, DePoe got ~14% of the statewide vote – I wonder how much of this was the Urbanist’s nod, versus other recognition. The Urbanist is earning a strong progressive readership base, but I’m not sure it’s a much different crowd than the Stranger’s (which endorsed Upthegrove).

      I think the lesson the “ruling party” (as you put it) will take away is to work to make sure only one candidate gets the major endorsements. However, once Seattle implements ranked-choice voting in 2027, it will be interesting to see how long it takes the County and other jurisdictions to follow suit.

      1. There is still the problem that the legislature won’t let Seattle enact an n-go-forward system, which makes more sense than using ranked choice voting to winnow the field to two in the primary.

   2. I was torn between DePoe and Upthegrove. I noticed that The Urbanist and The Stranger disagreed on several downballot races including this one. There was one race where I agreed more with The Stranger, and since I was 50/50 on the land use one, I went The Urbanist’s way to balance it out.

8. While ST does not yet show the future ST Express 515’s schedule, CT’s website does.

   The 1 Line will take 31 minutes to get from Westlake to Lynnwood. The 515 will take 44 minutes, at peak of peak.

   I bet the 515 is gone within weeks. If it gets any riders, the return of rainy season will finish it off.

   1. Yeah, 44 minutes for a bus ride from Lynnwood to Westlake at peak hours sounds about right. Considering that the light rail is going to be almost 15 minutes faster, I wouldn’t be surprised if the 515 is totally empty and the light rail is packed.

      1. It will certainly be interesting to see if anyone chooses to take a guaranteed seat on a 45-min bus as opposed to potentially standing for 30 mins on the train.

      2. The tradeoff is a guaranteed travel time on the train vs an unpredictable travel time on the bus.

      3. The riders who have the option of riding the 515 also get dibs on the train seats. The riders getting on further along on the line will be the ones doing the standing, or having to wait for a non-crushloaded train. The 515 will do nothing to help them.

      4. @Brent — Crowding happens far more often in the evening than the morning. So the riders taking the 515 (both of them) will alleviate crowding along the entire line.

      5. The 44 minute schedule seems conservative, based on Google Maps. Not only do they have future estimates, but you can see how long it took the bus to make the trip in the past. It is also worth pointing out that the bus serves different stops and they are on the surface.

         A lot depends on the time you are willing to travel. I’m surprised but the worst seems to be early in rush hour (before 5:00 PM). By 6:00 PM the bus and train take roughly the same amount of time from Westlake (about a half hour). But much earlier than that and the train will probably beat the bus, although it depends on where you are starting from.

   2. As I’ve written before, the 515 fulfills a legal obligation, while ignoring the interests of the riders. They promised Snohomish County that they would run express buses to compensate for the lack of train cars. But rather than run useful express service, they will run the pointless 515.

      To be fair, they will continue to run the 510, as well as the very expensive Sounder North. The 510 will run in the exact same traffic that the 515 will run in. The difference is that the riders avoid a transfer.

      That is not the case with the 515. The 515 only serves Lynnwood Transit Center. Thus riders from the surrounding neighborhoods have the same two-step process:

      1) Drive or take a bus to Lynnwood Transit Center.
      2) Take transit from there.

      There are many options that are better, including several that don’t involve Snohomish County. For example they could run an old version of the 522 (in addition to the new version). That way, riders along that corridor would still have the express to downtown (during peak). The buses run in the HOV express lanes and avoid the transfer, saving riders heading downtown a considerably amount of time. This in turn means that many riders would switch. They might even be able to get away with just extending the 522 to go on the freeway. This doesn’t save riders quite as much time (the bus still has to go on Roosevelt) but it would avoid the transfer and thus likely be faster for plenty of riders.

      Even in Snohomish County there are other alternatives. There are thirteen different express buses from Snohomish County to Seattle, and ST choose the one route that is completely redundant with Link. To be fair, some of these only run a couple times a day, so it wouldn’t impact crowding. But the 413/415 combination runs quite a bit. Retaining these buses (under the ST name) would be trivial. Holy cow, you can basically just rename the 415 to the 515 and everyone just switches. Some of the riders will prefer taking Link, but like the 510, many will prefer the no-transfer option.

      I’m sure there will be some who prefer the 515. At times it will be faster. It serves different stops downtown. It is quite likely you will get a seat in the evening as soon as you board, no matter what stop you use (in contrast riders on Link might have to stand a while). But in that sense it will be self-regulating, with fairly low ridership. If the main advantage of the 515 is that you get to spread out, then few will take it. In contrast a bus like the old 522 (which would go from downtown to Lake City Way quickly) or even the old 41 (doing the same for Northgate) would be fast enough that people would use the bus even if it meant standing for a while.

      It is possible that ST knows all this, and is simply providing symbolic transit to fulfill their obligation. They don’t expect crowding on Link, but a deal’s a deal. Either that, or they will get crowding and seem oblivious as to how to handle it.

      1. I was unaware ST has a legal obligation to provide buses to reduce overcrowding on trains.

         Also, the 515 and 510 will serve Mountlake Terrace Freeway Station. Riders on the 1 Line boarding north of Westlake might take advantage of that. And the reverse.

         The schedule shows a ballooning time between Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood, but that is just the time point at Mountlake Terrace showing when riders need to be there, and Lynnwood showing the data-based arrival estimate.

      2. It sounds like an arbitrary promise ST made to Snohomish officials. Is it really legally binding or just politically binding?

      3. It is legal in the sense that the board approved it. The county didn’t sue ST (or anything like that) but ST agreed to provide extra buses because Link doesn’t have the train cars they expected (because East Link got delayed). Maybe they could back off from that, but the board would have to rescind the previous agreement. That isn’t likely to happen until the county is comfortable with the crowds on Link. My guess is the 515 goes away very quickly, and they put the money into making the 513 bidirectional. I think they keep the 510 though (indefinitely).

         The Mountlake Terrace stops have the same issue as the Lynnwood stops. In fact they are even worse. The train platform is easier to get to than the bus stop. So not only are you serving the same stops as Link (providing no benefit to riders) but you are providing an option that is worse! It is as if ST is purposely trying make the bus as bad as possible so they can say “see, everyone prefers taking the train” based on providing completely redundant and/or poor bus service. The only way to determine how many prefer the buses would be to keep the other bus routes. Or at very least the ones that carry a lot of riders, but don’t go to the stations (like the 415).

      4. We’ll have two weeks to see how many riders prefer a $2.50 bus trip to their current preferred P&R over a $3 train trip that requires a transfer or parking at Lynnwood Station. Has anyone seen the bike parking options at Lynnwood?

      5. @Brent — Yes, it will be an interesting period. I don’t know if this has every happened before. My recollection is that the restructures typically happen the day that the Link expands.

         As far as ridership goes, my understanding is that Link sees a lot of riders as soon as it opens (who are basically checking it out). This includes midday rides, but also commuters exploring it as an option. Then things settle down a bit. Then, over months and months ridership grows again. Hard to say what will happen here. I don’t think price will matter that much. I think the people who drive to the park and ride lots may just drive to Lynnwood, even if it is a longer drive. I think the people who walk and take a direct bus to downtown (like those on the buses I mentioned) will continue to do so (for two weeks). It will be difficult to track because ST measures things monthly and Community Transit doesn’t reveal bus ridership numbers (at least I’ve never seen them).

   3. The delayed restructured operations is a curious event. It’s also happening after secondary school starts but before UW starts. I can’t say whether or not it’s a good strategy. It may however be driven by other factors such as driver assignment changes.

      Anyway, I see October as the true “test month”. Schools and colleges will be fully operating. There will be UW and Seahawks football games. By the end of October the mode shift to rail or RapidRide G will have mostly occurred.

      At that point, I could see a tweaking of operational strategies.

      My expectation is that ST will find Route 515 barely used, especially in the mornings. Everyone boarding Link in Lynnwood is pretty much guaranteed a seat. (It’s boarding in north Seattle that may get overcrowded.) at the end of the day, those riders will instinctively go downstairs to Link and tap on. If there is overcrowding they will just wait a train or two rather than run out of the station to go back upstairs. Some may try it — but the extra time to go upstairs and wait will feel longer than boarding the next train.

      Having dealt with daily overcrowded commuting on other light rail systems, I can tell you how it naturally works. People line up parallel to the track next to the boarding spots. The doors open and as many people as possible squeeze on. Those that can’t squeeze on generally stand next to the tracks and try for the next train. It’s very similar to overcrowded elevator behavior. Later arriving riders in Seattle are also generally polite, so they will hang back and let those already waiting get on the next train first.

      I expect the afternoon problem to be most possible at Westlake and Capitol Hill — two stations that are in places where some riders will also leave the train. (Using Route 515 from Capitol Hill is not logical anyway.) So the waiting line will move. Unless a rider is extraordinarily shy, they will almost certainly board the next train.

      Westlake is close enough to Symphony that riders from Downtown can switch the station they board from in the afternoons too. Depending on where they’re leaving from, I could see riders just walking further south maybe up to a few blocks to be more assured of boarding. If I work near the Central Library and I’m headed to Lynnwood, I would head to Pioneer Square just because I will have a better chance to get a seat.

      In late October or November , ST will assess what to do with those 515 service hours. Depending on driver shortages/ availability, they may just cancel the assignments and Route 515. There may be demand elsewhere so I could see other ST Express services getting more service too if warranted.

      1. Yeah, I agree. I just don’t see how the 515 gets riders, other than those who are close to the downtown stops.

      2. “The delayed restructured operations is a curious event. It’s also happening after secondary school starts but before UW starts.”

         I’ve never quite understood why schedule changes in the Puget Sound region happen when they do.

         TriMet nearly always has its late summer schedule change a week before Labor Day. Eg, this year they happen tomorrow.

         TriMet’s fiscal year begins Dec 1st, so it’s not like it even corresponds to the fiscal quarter either.

         It seems like this makes sense for a system that is used by so many students.

   4. I had a terrible time trying to get the 515 schedule to show up, until I realized the default display was Saturday.

      I guess if I could wave a magic wand at it, I’d change the 515 to continue running more 400 series buses on I-5 and stop at the same freeway stations and transit centers, but also go places that are closer to where people live. Eg: more 412s could do 515’s job just fine, while serving park and ride lots in neighborhoods away from I-5 where it’s not possible to otherwise get to transit.

      1. I agree, but I think the 415 is the best choice for Snohomish County. I think it gets the most riders based on how often it runs. I also think it makes sense to look at other routes (like the 522 or a version of the old 41) as they accomplish the same thing but would likely save people more time and cost less money to operate.

         This again just shows how poorly they addressed the issue. If there is crowding this won’t help very much because it doesn’t offer much. Let’s say I live on 164th. Every weekday I walk over to the bus stop and catch the 415 which gets me downtown quite quickly. Now I am forced to go to Lynnwood Transit Center. That is the part of the trip I am really not looking forward to. Yes, the Orange is fairly frequent and fairly quick. But it still requires an extra transfer. Once I get to Lynnwood TC I might as well take the train. The bus should not be competing with Link, it should be competing with Link and a transfer.

         ST also ignored the fact that by the time a northbound train reaches Roosevelt, crowding isn’t an issue, which means that you don’t have to run the buses to Snohomish County. Nor did they focus on buses that would save riders a lot of time. It is the worst possible routing. It is less likely to attract riders (because Link does the exact same thing) while those who do ride are not getting much out of it (because Link does the exact same thing). Yet somehow this fairly obvious fact was missed by everyone involved, which is a good example of the dysfunction within the agency. I really don’t know how it happened, but either they don’t know what they are doing or they don’t really care. I have to assume that someone in the agency has figured out that the flaws with this approach, which means that they just don’t care.

9. Operation Safe Transit is a joke and a half. It shows the problem with King County. They will do all these real and tangible increase security and safety for Seattle. When it comes to the areas outside Seattle, like where I live, the South End, they are not doing anything real and tangible for our safety and security. Why? We are too low a priority. King County is like the parents who rush to the emergency room if their favorite child gets a splinter, but does almost nothing when their other kids break a bone.

   1. I thought the suburbs were safe and a fine place to raise children. Is South King County having the same problems as Seattle?

      South King County has been the most resistant part of the county to raising revenue for transit expansions or changing its policies to improve walkability or move away from the big-box and strip-mall model, things that would benefit people at all income levels and give people more access to places. Those are just the areas I know most about; I don’t know as much about policing and such.

      1. The suburbs are not safe. We are seeing more crime here. The cost of living is going to and the quality of life is going down.
         The reason why you see such resistance to raising taxes in the South End for transit is the people here very skeptical that we are going to get our money’s worth. When local people ask about that, the response is usually disdain or out right saying we are stupid. Frankly, the people who push the tax increases know that if they win enough votes in Seattle, then they don’t need the rest of the county so they are not concerned about how and why we vote.

      2. “I thought the suburbs were safe and a fine place to raise children. Is South King County having the same problems as Seattle?”

         This is a common mistake I see on this blog. Whether a place or neighborhood is sub-urban doesn’t depend on the name of the city. It depends on the zoning and use.

         Seattle is probably 80% sub-urban in large part because it is so large geographically with a pretty small population so is very spread out, and in my opinion has some of the worst “urbanism” I have seen in my travels in its “urban” areas.

         Seattle’s suburban neighborhoods are fine by me, and are not that different than other suburban neighborhoods in other cities when the income level is the same. What is the difference between say Laurelhurst and Clyde Hill? Both are single family zones next to high end malls. The property owners look pretty much the same. Hence property values are similar and both are very safe. Same with Seattle’s poorer sub-urban neighborhood and similar neighborhoods in S. King Co. S. King Co. just doesn’t have the Laurelhursts.

         Generally public safety depends on how poor an area is. South King Co. is poor, although it has what one could generously call urban pockets. So is south Seattle. So is south Chicago. The density or land use has little to do with how safe it is.

         I have lived in several cities much more dangerous than Seattle. Seattle is just going through some growing pains. It once had the public safety of a smaller more homogenous town, and now is experiencing the public safety of a city post pandemic. The citizens remember the old safe days. It doesn’t help that social media and the current cash starved press use crime or fires as story leads. Also since the city is so short of police officers it can’t patrol non-violent street crime or property crime, so that visual tends to create a perception of increased violent crime.

         It also doesn’t help that Seattle basically has no real urban area so these shootings on Capitol Hill or crimes along Madison tend to occur in sub-urban neighborhoods which scares us because that is where most live. If they occur in a dense downtown zone like 3rd and Pike no one really cares, but when it happens in our sub-urban neighborhood it touches home.

         If I have one complaint it is that Seattle has the typical crime of an urban city without the pleasures of a vibrant urban zone. It basically is all sub-urban if you have ever been to a true urban city.

      3. According to The Seattle Times the suspect in the murder of the 80-year-old woman in Madison Valley has been identified and arrested. Not only did he kill the woman, he stabbed her dog to death after he fled the scene and threw the dog in a recycling receptacle. What kind of depraved person does that? What could be the motivation except he is a psychopath? He also was convicted of vehicular manslaughter in 1993.

         I think what is so frightening to many of us is the crime had no real purpose, or need, and the victim was simply random. Stabbing the dog just showed there are evil people walking around the city at any time who will kill for no reason or purpose. How can you prepare against that?

      4. @Greenlake

         That’s reassuring that they’ve found and arrested the culprit.

         > How can you prepare against that?

         While I understand one wanting to bring up this topic, I kind of want to caution against continually bringing it up unless there is something constructive to move forward with or unless there is something specific to transit that one has a recommendation for.

         I’d rather not seattletransitblog comment devolve into talking about every crime in the Seattle metro area. The skyscraper / freeway / bike blogs do not discuss about every crime either.

      5. This criminal should have been locked away years ago with his record. Another instance of the bleeding heart judge having blood on their hands. The judge should be held personally liable for this guy being on the streets and killing this woman.

      6. @poncho, was it a judge or the prosecutor? I’ve heard anecdotally that the King County Prosecutor has refused to prosecute a number of repeat offenders, so they’re released to go on offending.

      7. I think what is so frightening to many of us is the crime had no real purpose, or need, and the victim was simply random.

         Some philosophers argue against the idea of free will, but I think a lot of people (myself included) believe we have some control over our future. We look for reasons, but there are things that are just random. Or at the very least we have no idea what causes it (yet). This is true for many diseases. It is also true for many violent deaths as well. A lot of people die in cars (more than are killed any other way let alone killed by strangers). While some keep that in mind when buying a car and operating it, a lot of people who die were just unlucky.

         We are also very bad at assessing risk. My favorite story related to this was when my brother was at a party and mentioned hiking solo. It is worth mentioning that my brother is an experienced mountaineer and taught mountain climbing in the North Cascades. He is no neophyte. But one of his friends was telling him that hiking solo was risky. It is again worth noting that this was nothing especially remote, and he did the usual (told people where he was going before setting out). But the friend insisted it was dangerous. But here is the kicker — the friend was morbidly obese. We all bit our tongue, but I’m sure many of us were thinking the same thing (dude, you are in no position to talk about health risks).

         How does this relate to transit? In general, taking transit is safer than driving. There may be exceptions. You may drive the safest car on the road, choose streets that have a low chance of accidents and otherwise buck the trend. But overall, taking transit is safer. It is also worth noting that those who take transit tend to have better health. People who take transit are quite comfortable walking a few blocks. In contrast, those who drive typically drive right to their destination (and even circle a parking lot trying to find a closer spot). Of course some of these people are healthy, but overall — aside from the risk of an accidental death — taking transit is healthier.

10. I noticed that ST has pulled their ridership report from their system performance tracker page here:

    https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/system-performance-tracker

    Is ST going back to hiding their ridership totals? Is there a new page coming? I can’t seem to find it linked in their web site anymore.

    1. It looks like they’ve shunted Ridership data to this new tracker: https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/system-performance-tracker/neighborhood-service

       But the interface is terrible, and there’s no way I can see to compare historical data.

       1. Plus, 2 Line ridership is still offline.

       2. That map-based functionality is so much worse than the old reporting:

          1. It only reports line ridership within the window.
          2. It doesn’t give station activity.
          3. It apoears to just be average weekday. No weekend nor monthly total data.
          4. Data only show if there’s a stop.
          5. Line ridership data appears when you click on a stop/station , rather than stop/station data.

          Man I hope that ST brings back the actual ridership tables and graphs!

       3. I am not sure why ST is delaying publishing boarding data for Line 2 (the starter line). The excuse the data needs to be “verified” is unbelievable.

          But even if the numbers are bad (sub 3000) no one will be surprised. Everyone knew the starter line without any bus restructure and most of the development along the starter line on hold was a lark. If you have a starter line with very little bus feeder service and the park and rides are empty don’t expect a high number of boardings considering most stations can’t be walked to.

          Re: the other ridership data, it could be ST wants to remove pre-Lynnwood total Link boardings on Line 1 so they can’t be compared to post Lynnwood Link total boardings. ST has finally begun to reduce its boarding estimates on Lynnwood Link and the full East Link from its pre-pandemic estimates which were unrealistically high even then, but with very high ranges when the low range will be the likely actual number of boardings.

          ST likes to use “boardings” as its metric because it appears to doubles the number of “riders” although 99% of all trips are round trip, so divide boardings by 2 to get actual number of riders.

          IIRC ST was estimating Lynnwood Link would add something like 50,000 boardings/day, which I thought was optimistic, with the suggestion these would be “new” boardings, and not just riders who use Northgate Station today switching to Lynnwood Link. The recent article by Lindblom in The Times used the term “clientele” which probably came from ST as a euphemism for “riders” when it really meant boardings.

          Line 1 today averages between 70,000 and 80,000 boardings/day, or 35,000 to 40,000 riders/day. Look for Lynnwood Link to add maybe 10,000 new riders/day due to bus truncation, so 20,000 boardings/day, less those who board today at Northgate, to equal around 100,000 total boardings on Line 1 after Lynnwood Link opens and CT implements its bus restructure.

          The key data will be total boardings on Line 1 when Lynnwood Link has been open a few months and the UW back in session.

          Not great, not terrible. It was always a bit of a stretch even pre-pandemic to think Snohomish Co. would be a major source of ST boardings, so the estimates were more than optimistic.

          The total boardings on East Link will be more interesting, because I think there was a time pre-pandemic that estimated high boardings and ridership on East Link to and from Seattle was reasonable, and it is the loss of those riders that will hurt total Link boardings vs. ST estimates.

          I think we can pretty much figure out what total ridership on Link will be. No reason for ST to try and hide that fact, at least after the opening party at Lynnwood.

       4. “The recent article by Lindblom in The Times used the term “clientele” which probably came from ST as a euphemism for “riders” when it really meant boardings.”

          Every rider boards. How are they not the same?

          “Clientele” sounds like a marketing term, but in a best-case scenario it might get ST to start taking riders’ needs more seriously. E.g., prioritizing good transfers.

       5. The data hasn’t been updated in a while, but it is here: https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/system-performance-tracker/ridership. In terms of formatting it is fairly similar. I don’t think they added or took away any data, but they added the ability to look at the data a little bit differently.

          The main problem is that the data hasn’t been updated in a while. The other problem — and this has been going on for years now — is that ST has stopped releasing their Service Implementation Plan (https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2020-service-implementation-plan.pdf). These have more data. For example on all modes (Sounder, Link and the buses) they had stop boarding, alighting and direction data. For example at Rainier Beach Station 1,722 people got on a northbound train and 405 got off. It isn’t quite as good as trip data, but it still gives a hint as to how people were using Link. Same goes for every bus. For example hardly anyone took the 512 from the suburbs to Everett.

          ST should have this data. That is how the data collection works. They have little detectors that determine how many people board (or alight) from a particular place (and which way the bus/train is going). It is simply a matter of ST releasing the data.

       6. I agree. The map based reporting seems useless. The other graphs are much better (but still not as good as the Service Implementation Reports).

       7. I am not sure why ST is delaying publishing boarding data for Line 2 (the starter line).

          I think it is just a coincidence. They haven’t released any new data for the last couple months (for any buses or trains) although they seemed to have released this pointless “service in your neighborhood” thing. It is possible they are just trying to obfuscate everything (by throwing a bunch of meaningless data at us) but I think they are just having trouble getting everything to work (while pursuing silly projects).

    2. Just to clarify about the Lynnwood ridership forecast on the ST Lynnwood page:

       https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/lynnwood-link-extension

       The 47-55K forecast is for 2026. The 2 Line and twice as many trains will be running in comparison to next month’s operations. That’s particularly important as some Snohomish riders that will ride nonstop to Bellevue on 2 Line will likely not board Link at all next month.

       That also counts anyone riding on Lynnwood Link in either direction . Actual boardings at the four stations would be half that (23.5-27.5K).

       Finally, ST does not disclose how many boardings will merely shift from Northgate. Since so many buses already terminating at Northgate from North King and Snohomish it won’t be insignificant. I’m thinking that’s about 5-6K of those upcoming Lynnwood riders.

11. Edit: Something weird is happening with the formatting of my comment, the income bands should read: 120% = 23

    1. Ah, it’s the the less than and more than symbols which were ruining the format of my list. Mods, feel free to delete these comments and those in response to Bill.

    2. ED: I think I fixed it. I copied some of the numbers (from the document you referenced) and removed the duplicate.

       1. Thanks!

12. Great news for East Link: https://x.com/UrbanistOrg/status/1826723691293802893

    1. Glad to see they’re still on-track (heh) to finish their accelerated schedule. Based on the latest capital program update (for June; https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/agency-progress-report-capital-program-june-2024.pdf), they were expecting to get the rebuilt plinths certified by the end of August and begin reinstalling the rails over the next few months. The plinth contractor is supposed to have worked with the systems contractor to develop a work plan that lets the systems folks finish integration while they’re reinstalling the track, hence the additional round of tie-in closures in November.

       Systems testing is supposed to start in January, followed by pre-revenue service testing across the bridge happening from June to November.

13. So November 2025 opening? Guess no chance sooner? :(

    1. We will see how the schedule is looking with the next progress report. I think they’ll want/need the full 6 months of pre-revenue testing to “break in” the flexible sections of the track at each end of the floating bridge. The Army Corps of Engineers usually drops the level of Lake Washington a couple feet between June and the end of summer, so they’ll be able to see how those flexible connections do with live loads for the full range of angles on those connections.

14. The housing shortage reaches Kalamazoo, Michigan ($).

    “If you want to know what the housing crisis for middle-income Americans looks like in 2024, spend some time in Michigan. The surplus-to-shortage whipsaw here is a mitten-shaped miniature of what the entire country has gone through.”

    “I’ve been writing about housing and the economy for two decades, and have watched as the nation’s housing market has made the journey from boom to bust to deficit, seemingly without pausing for a normal middle. There are lots of reasons this happened, but they center on a big one: the late-2000s housing bust, which the country has never fully recovered from.”

    “At first, rapidly rising housing costs seemed like a regional problem. It made sense that places like San Francisco, which was already expensive, filled with well-paid tech workers and hamstrung by stringent building regulations, would be in crisis. Much of the rest of the country was still affordable, however, so high-cost “superstar cities” were seen as an exception instead of a warning.”

    “Now California’s problem is everywhere. Double-income couples with good jobs are priced out of homeownership in Spokane, Wash. Homeless encampments sprawl in Phoenix. The rent is too damn high in Kalamazoo.”

    “The housing crisis has moved from blue states to red states, and large metro areas to rural towns. In a time of extreme polarization, the too-high cost of housing and its attendant social problems are among the few things Americans truly share. That and a growing rage about the country’s inability to fix it.”

    “like virtually every other city I’ve written about, [Kalamazoo’s] housing problems first appeared among lower-income families, then climbed steadily up to those considered solidly middle class.”

    “Americans’ wages have fallen so far behind the cost of living that each day more and more families — blue collar and professional, in expensive coastal cities and smaller Midwestern ones — find they simply cannot afford a place to live.”

    (If you think that developers build to the median income even in a place with a housing shortage like Seattle, then the conclusion is the median income has fallen below the median income.)

    “Whenever I write about California’s housing troubles — the $5,000-a-month studio apartments, the mile-long homeless camps — I get a certain kind of cranky email. The sender, whom I imagine to be an older homeowner with a paid-off mortgage, asks why all these people struggling with housing can’t move somewhere cheaper. Like Michigan.”

    “In fact, this is exactly what people have been doing.”

    “The problem for the Denneys and millions of other renters is that they are searching for homes that were never built.”

    “In the years leading up to the Great Recession, homebuilders were starting about two million homes a year. That number plunged during the crisis and never fully rebounded. Builders have since started an average of about 1.1 million new homes a year — far below the 1.6 million needed to keep up with population growth. The nation’s housing shortfall is now between 1.5 million and 5.5 million units, depending on the estimate.”

    (We saw that in Seattle when the time-on-market for houses went from 6 months to 3-6 weeks and never recovered, and the time to find a renter went from 6 weeks to 1 week or 1 day, and the rental vacancy rate went from a healthy 5-10% to 2% or less. The rental market has recovered somewhat in some neighborhoods, although it’s hard to say how long that will last.)

    “For all its housing price inflation, Kalamazoo is still so much cheaper than other parts of the country that it was recently named one of America’s most affordable cities for professionals. A darker way of putting it is that Kalamazoo is the final stop in the housing crisis. And that’s the problem with being a place where people move to feel richer: Those who get priced out have no place left to go.”

Comments are closed.