The Snohomish County government has started early scoping for the seven stations on the Everett Link Extension, which is scheduled to open in 2036. An online open house and survey is open until the end of the month to collect feedback on potential station locations near the current Ash Way and Mariner park and rides in northern Lynnwood and southern Everett. The survey will inform the county’s recommendations to Sound Transit when it begins the official scoping process in 2020.

The open house follows an earlier survey that was conducted over the summer and gathered general suggestions on an interactive map, similar to those used recently for ST3 projects in Seattle and Tacoma. Of 114 map comments collected, the top-ranking answers wished to address affordable housing, at-grade crossings, public amenities, and alternate routes over I-5 for cyclists, pedestrians, and buses to and from the stations.

A set of three concepts for each station were generated by the county based on the suggestions and criteria accounting for design constraints, future connections to the Swift Green and Orange lines, bicycle and pedestrian accessibility, and TOD opportunities. The TOD scoring assumes that mixed-use development of buildings ranging from three to ten stories would be programmed within the half-mile walkshed of each potential station site.

Continue reading “Snohomish County Surveys Potential Sites For Mariner and Ash Way Stations”

[UPDATE:  To be clear, ST is not dismissing Sounder ridership. The author is.] One unexpected contention point in the ST3 plan is the precise location of Chinatown Station. The reference alignment places the station under 5th Avenue, steps from the existing station. However, Chinatown business that have already suffered through streetcar construction have no interest in disrupting business access yet again, although in the long run the neighborhood would presumably benefit from a closer station. SDOT thinks a 4th Avenue alignment may fund some work they already do there. Sound Transit, reasonably, is most focused on the easiest and cheapest way to complete the project. As usual, no stakeholder is primarily interested in the convenience of future riders.

This convenience matters: seamless transfers encourage ridership, and thousands of people will be switching between Link lines at this station every day. Indeed, this will happen as early as 2023 when East Link opens, but Sound Transit has already added an unnecessary escalator and flight of stairs (or two slow elevators) to that transfer experience to avoid a minor capital project.

Another consideration is Sounder, though about an order of magnitude smaller in ridership than Link by the time ST3 opens. Amtrak is probably another order of magnitude below that. But what is the right answer for riders? Sound Transit has four concepts for how these transfers might work: under 4th or 5th Avenue, either cut-and-cover or mined.

The 5th Avenue cut-and-cover station (above) creates more disruption for the neighborhood than the mined option, but it drops riders much closer to the surface. Northbound and southbound riders at the new station would be the same distance from the old station, though the lower one would have a longer ride to the surface. Sounder transfers are not a priority in this alignment. ST says the upper platform would be the northbound line, because it “best facilitates northbound-to-northbound transfers between the West Seattle-Everett line and the Ballard-Tacoma line, which is generally expected to be the highest volume transfer during the highly-concentrated AM peak period.”

ST fears that a side-by-side alignment, given the constraints of foundations under 5th, might not have the needed platform capacity.

The mined station (at right) plunges riders about 200 feet below the road, but construction would be less visible on the surface. This is deeper than Beacon Hill and much deeper than UW, implying elevator-only service. This may not be suitable for a high-ridership station. Transferring riders wouldn’t have to go all the way to the surface, although the complexities of emptying half of a crowded elevator are probably worse than simply taking it to the surface.

Continue reading “Chinatown Station Locations”

Yes, we’re bringing this up again.

This is an open thread.

The Times‘ David Gutman got a rare glimpse at Uber and Lyft’s trip data for Seattle.

The data show that ridesharing is most popular in the neighborhoods ringing Lake Union (Capitol Hill, Queen Anne, Ballard, Fremont, Wallingford), many of which also have higher rates of car ownership.

Is it surprising that the inner-ring residential neighborhoods would score high for rideshare? Though close to downtown, taking transit to and from downtown jobs can be quite slow compared to, say, an express bus from Northgate or Bellevue. Capitol Hill has Link, sure, but that’s not super useful if you’re headed to, say, South Lake Union.  A three-mile trip from deep in the CD to a far corner of SLU  could involve two buses and easily take an hour (and be time competitive with walking, if there’s even a hint of traffic).   Or, if you’re trying to board a bus in Fremont or Ballard headed downtown, it might be so crowded by the time it gets to your stop that it just passes you by.

In that context, using Uber or Lyft for your daily commute is appealing, if one has the privilege to do so.  Depending on the commute, and using the shared ride feature, the monthly cost could be in the ballpark of a downtown parking spot.  It takes half as long as the bus, and you get to check email from the back seat. A smart choice for the rider, perhaps, but what is the impact to the city as a whole?

Continue reading “Uber and lyft data make the case for decongestion pricing”

• TOD planned for Bellevue’s Red Lion hotel area (East Main Station)
• SDOT says federal funding is a risk for Madison BRT
• Councilmember (and ST Board Member) Rob Johnson won’t run for re-election next year
• SLU Streetcar getting some dedicated ROW on Terry
• Funding to study an I-5 lid coming from the convention center project
• It’s been over a year since we’ve gotten a streetcar ridership report
• Once-embattled ST CEO Rogoff gets a vote of confidence from the board
• Scooter fees to pay for bike infrastructure in Indianapolis
• BNSF thinks its time to replace the rail bridge over Salmon Bay
• Why the rent is so damn high
• Portland approves new MAX line
• Mercer Island rideshare experiment ends, awaiting final report
• Master Builders Association goes all in on density, infill

This is an open thread

Photo by Atomic Taco in the STB Flickr Pool

This post comments on vote totals as of 11 AM on November 7.

I-1631 failed. That’s a blow in the political fight against climate change. It doesn’t have to be a fatal one.

I-1631 gained a larger Yes margin than I-732, as of this morning. That’s remarkable, considering the amount of resources oil companies burned to defeat I-1631: the Yes campaign was outspent by about 2:1, as of today. I-732 did not face a coordinated No campaign. Given the stiffer opposition, any gains have to be considered a positive.

The gain is encouraging because I-1631 was a new concept: it engaged directly with the pocketbook and social justice issues that result from economic transition away from the fossil fuel economy. Explaining those issues, especially the pocketbook issues, will take time. “Green collar economics” isn’t new, but it also hasn’t caught fire. Making it a popular, winning issue will take further time, activism, and influence. Making a negative, status-quo case based on rising gas prices and bureaucratic overreach is much easier.

So it’s heartening that in the movement-building context, I-1631 presents some political gains. I-1631 engaged and activated a liberal base coalition that climate and environmental groups have struggled to work with in the past, such as activists of color and organized labor.

But a loss is a loss. I-1631 was, from the start, a tough fit for Washington, considering the state’s hostility to taxation. As of 11 AM on November 7, I-1634, the food and beverage tax ban, is passing at a similar margin to I-1631’s failure. It’s part of a long history: a recent high-earners income tax was DOA at the ballot box. State schools remain underfunded. Tim Eyman has had a long career. Washington does not like taxes (though not for no reason.) That’s old news for anyone who watches state politics.

So’s this: Washington was unable to make significant a progressive change because its liberal and progressive elected leadership lacks the necessary whatever—courage, wherewithal, organization—to take it to the house. In this case, the stymied change is the failure of Governor Jay Inslee and the Democratic legislature to make any progress on a climate change bill, despite multiple attempts.

You could write the same thing about public schools, gun control, an income tax, criminal justice reform, legalizing cannabis, or public transportation. Those are all issues that should be addressed by the legislature, but at best wind up at the ballot box.

Governor Inslee has long made the environment and climate change his signature issue, and his inability to shepherd a climate change bill through the legislature is an indictment of his leadership and effectiveness. He’s had more than one term—and a session with his party in control of both chambers—to take climate action, but didn’t.

Democrats seem likely to expand their majorities in the legislature. Maybe they will use them to take a bold step against climate change. If history is any guide, they won’t.