Every year, Sound Transit goes through a process of producing an annual service implementation plan (SIP). Staff takes the previous year’s final SIP, and adds the current year’s performance measurements and any new proposals. The community gets time to offer input. Then, the Board of Directors makes the final decision on approval of the SIP.

Highlights of the 2015 Draft SIP include:

• A new ST Express route between Lakewood Station and Puyallup Station — dubbed route 580 — is proposed. Route 580 would provide 20 new trips each day, mostly timed connections with both peak-direction and counter-peak-direction Sounder. Route 580 would also serve SR 512 P&R, South Hill P&R, and the Puyallup Fairgrounds Red Lot. (p.86)
• Link peak frequency may improve to every 6 minutes during peak as early as September 2015. (p.92) The projections still show Link running out of standing room during the peak of peak by 2018. (p.93)
• South Sounder is still scheduled to add a peak-direction round trip and a reverse-direction round trip in September 2016, and then an off-peak round trip in September 2017. (p.94)
• A wish list (subtly styled “Immediate Needs”) of additional service on ST Express includes suggested, but unfunded, added runs on routes 510, 511, 512, 522, 532, 545, 550, 554, 556, 560, 566, 567, 574, 577, 578, 590, and 594. (pp.99-100)
• Elements of the Transit Integration Report have been rolled into the SIP, including a restructure of SR 520 service around the opening of U-Link. (p.94) However, staff is still working on these proposals, and they will be presented to the Board in the form of amendments to the 2015 SIP, in May or June of next year. (p.8)
• The previous proposals for 2016 to restructure route 574 to serve Angle Lake Station, and to replace route 586 with a new route between downtown Tacoma and north downtown Seattle (now proposed to be numbered 591) still stand. (p.94)
• Inter-agency teams are working out plans to deal with long-term construction re-routes. (p.95)

As per tradition, the SIP contains reams of data on ridership, and other performance measures. We’ll dig in deeper in later posts, especially into some of the route performance trends and the mysteriously conservative revenue forecasting.

Again, this is only a draft SIP. Ultimately, it is up to Sound Transit’s Board to act on the SIP’s wish list for additional ST Express runs, and to approve the “final” version of the 2015 SIP.

Check back here for a list of open houses on the SIP.

A public hearing on the SIP will be held Thursday, November 6, 12:00-12:30 pm, in the Ruth Fisher Boardroom at Union Station, 401 S. Jackson St.

• Capitol Hill is as much as 71% underbuilt (Full Development Capacity Report here.)
• As Uber and Lyft’s price war continues, signs of labor unrest.
• 40-story apartment tower coming to 2nd and Pine, finally.
• Just say no to the chaotic, disorganized monorail campaign.
• How driverless cars could reinvigorate the sagging suburbs and give sprawl a second chance.
• Capitol Hill Seattle writes up the Madison BRT meeting. As always, the earlier you comment, the better your chances to shape the process. Project page here.
• ICYMI: Surprising unanimity on the PSRC Executive Board for 2016 ST3. Read Seattle Subway’s take on STB here and here.
• Statewide Wheel Options campaign underway again, with an Alaskan Cruise on offer just for doing what our readership already does every day (not driving).
• More traffic violence in SE Seattle, this time a horrific hit-and-run involving a 6 year old girl. The city has been talking about Rainier Ave road diets since 1976, and may finally be getting ready to act. But MLK needs work too, and I can think of a good place to start.
• Pronto Cycle Share launches next Monday. Meanwhile, the Transit App will have real-time Pronto availability integrated into its app.
• The antiquated and convoluted Emerson St Overpass gets ready to close for 3 months. If your idea of fun is crossing the Ballard Bridge twice, you’ll love SDOT’s suggested detours.
• The 9-month closure of Piers 54 and 57 for Seawall development began last week.
• As Bertha languishes, Murray suggests scaling back Waterfront plans. Dominic Holden’s classic piece looks more prescient all the time.
• “The need, and desire, for a world-class local transit agency is crystal clear.” – The Times  praises Dembowski,  calls for more transit, but stops short of endorsing Prop 1. ($)
• Are suburbanites who return to the city bringing their suburban tastes with them?
• The City Council passes microhousing legislation, implementing a 220 sq ft minimum for units outside higher density zones.
• More frustrating Burke-Gilman Trail detours, and why  “Plan B” for the Missing Link just isn’t good enough.
• Seattle Bike Blog catches up with the recovery of Brandon Blake, the bike commuter nearly killed at Dexter/Harrison in July 2013. It’s a long and moving piece, worth reading every word.  Meanwhile, the Dexter Ave N overhaul project is getting underway, with parking-buffered bike lanes and a new center turn lane between Denny and Mercer.

This is an open thread. 

Charles Mudede’s anecdote about renting makes a basically correct argument that our cities will eventually invert their late-20th century income pattern. But on the way there he repeats a common critique of the rising rent:

The rent for her flat… recently increased to $1,000. Yes, her flat is tiny. Yes, everyone has heard the same story over and over. Yes, no one is doing anything about it, and nor can anyone do anything about it because the economic forces at work in this growing city are much deeper and more powerful than its form of democracy.

The section I’ve bolded strikes me as exactly backwards: high housing prices are the triumph of “democracy:” in this case, hyperlocal groups of active citizens championing severe regulatory constraints on housing supply, and (sometimes incidentally) boosting their house values in the process.

There’s an interesting debate on just how democratic the process really is. How representative are these active voices, and is the neighborhood the appropriate scope of interests to consider? Moreover, any democratic process will almost certainly underweight the interests of future residents, which is really what new housing projects are about.

Nevertheless, once you’ve put hard limits on housing supply, politics and economics merely decide who gets in to the inadequate number of homes. Under capitalism, given decent living conditions in the city, it’s the rich; in a rent control regime, it’s longtime residents and the well-connected. In a system where the government owned all the housing, it’d be politically favored groups. But any and all of these systems are inherently less fair than building homes in Seattle for all who want them.

As Mayor Murray pivots toward Seattle’s affordable housing problem with one of his famous mega-committees, a pair of op-eds in favor of more housing appear in the Seattle Times and the DJC.

First, the Times argues for more construction:

Job growth and Seattle’s desirability as a place to live keep pushing up demand, which leads to higher housing costs. Close to 44,000 people moved to Seattle in the past four years and another 120,000 are projected to arrive during the next 20.

Housing development also ballooned in recent years: Builders added 35,600 homes, including houses and apartments, from 2005 to 2013. Without those homes, housing costs would be even higher.

The city’s rapid growth demonstrates its capacity to accommodate new residents. Increasingly, they are single people living alone, and poor people and families are on their way out.

City officials say they want affordable housing for all and that housing should be fair and equitable — important ideals. But what’s clear is that Seattle needs more housing that is subsidized and market-rate.

Next, the head of the Master Builders in the DJC wants more construction, and don’t seem particularly concerned whether it’s infill or sprawl.

Running counter to Vision 2040 and the Growth Management Act, many jurisdictions in the Central Puget Sound area are resisting new growth and urban density, making it difficult to provide new housing. In some cases, local governments are acting in response to local activists opposed to growth.

In Seattle, infill development remains the primary option for accommodating growth. However, an ordinance adopted in 2012 made it much harder to build on smaller lots — one of several actions reducing the buildable land supply in the city without adding an adequate supply of new housing to the equation.

In King and Snohomish counties the current buildable land is expensive or significantly impacted by environmental constraints. Regulations such as critical areas ordinances, and stormwater and floodplain rules, create added layers of no-build areas inside UGAs.

This is worryingly plausible: if the Puget Sound’s cities can’t meet the housing demand, then the Cascade foothills are likely to take the brunt of it instead.

As far as the commission goes, it’s a mixed bag. As I’ve noted in the past, the Murray Doctrine is predictable (but effective!): gather as many people as possible onto a committee and find a way to give everyone something. Mark Schmitt, in a seminal 2007 article on Barack Obama’s “theory of change,” articulated the committee strategy thusly:

One way to deal with [conservatives’] bad-faith opposition is to draw the person in, treat them as if they were operating in good faith, and draw them into a conversation about how they actually would solve the problem. If they have nothing, it shows. And that’s not a tactic of bipartisan Washington idealists — it’s a hard-nosed tactic of community organizers, who are acutely aware of power and conflict. It’s how you deal with people with intractable demands — put ‘em on a committee. Then define the committee’s mission your way.

That’s all well and good, but I do worry that the committee strategy might hit the skids this time around. With taxis and the minimum wage, there were real, specific stakes (legalizing Uber, $15/hour) that could demonstrably be achieved or not. Those stakes acted as a forcing function, leading the committees to a resolution. The affordable housing committee, by contrast, could easily produce a report full of blue-ribbon bromides (“create partnerships with local institutions to blah blah blah”) that have little practical effect.  The Mayor seems fully aware of the challenge.

If I were on the committee (and I’m willing to serve if asked!), I’d want a real working definition of “affordable housing” and a specific legislation to achieve it. I’ve suggested such metrics in the past, but I’m more than happy to accept alternative definitions as well.

Seattle Transit Blog commenter Nathaniel Williams put together a very detailed infographic of all downtown skyscrapers currently in the pipeline. While it shows just how strong our growth is, what jumps out is just how restrictive our zoning is. I don’t think it coincidence that almost half of all buildings will be 440 feet. What do we gain by limiting who can live or work downtown? Is it worth the damage caused by forcing people into the sprawling, polluting, inefficient and unproductive suburbs and exurbs? Continue reading “Skyscraper Infographic Highlights Growth and Zoning”

Once again, the STB editorial board is considering its endorsements for the November election. If you have any recommendations in non-obvious races or ballot measures anywhere in the Puget Sound region, please share them in the comments.

As always, the board only evaluates the candidates’ positions on transit and land use, so limit your comments to those issues. Furthermore, links go much farther than unsubstantiated assertions.