This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Could we really be driving across a new 520 bridge in just 6 years?

2018 always seemed like a bit of a worst-case estimate to me. We’ll see what happens with the discussions between the various community groups, of course, but this is good news indeed. Especially the part where it magically gets cheaper.

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

I think Goldy’s basically right about the fear of regionalism in greater Seattle. We are, in fact, one big family, one big economy, and it’s silly to pretend otherwise. That said, I think the obvious rejoinder is that Goldy’s native Philly, where I lived myself for a few years, is a 19th-century hub-and-spoke city, whereas Seattle is not. So it makes sense that we’ve got a slew of Edge Cities, to use Joel Garreau’s phrase, that don’t consider themselves tied to the urban core (and are certainly not old-style bedroom communities the way Bala Cynwyd is).

But what really gets my goat is this Seattle Times op-ed, the genesis of Goldy’s post, that gives us the tired lament that Seattle is (a) too expensive and (b) too childless:

For the working middle class, people who traditionally lived comfortably in Seattle, the firefighters, police officers, teachers, even professors, it has become harder to buy a home and raise a family.

As economist Dick Conway put it, the region has affordable housing, it just may not be in Seattle. If it is OK for everyone to move to Kent or Duvall or Idaho, for that matter, then no problem. But that is impractical.

So if you’re a teacher, it’s impractical to live in Kent and work in Seattle? Why? Sound Transit proposed expanding light rail to Tacoma so that that nice teacher from Kent could enjoy a comfortable, reliable commute to Tacoma, Seattle, Northgate, the UW, Bellevue, or Redmond, and maybe even grade some papers on the way home at night.

But the Seattle Times didn’t want that, so it recommended a “no” vote on Prop 1.

As to the childless part, again, if we’re one region, why does it matter? If we’re all connected by a reliable transit network, why can’t families choose to live in the suburbs? But even that’s besides the point, since, many families can afford to live in Seattle, they just have other priorities. They could choose to live in a smaller house, with little or no yard (but close access to a fantastic public park system), and rest easy that their teenagers aren’t speeding up and down Route 202 late at night to get to their friends’ house. It’s a choice.

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Nice post from daijamin at STB interviewing SDOT’s project manager for the streetcar, Ethan Melone. I’m particularly intrigued by the idea of running the line up Westlake, through Fremont and into Ballard via Leary.

My big concern with the streetcar, other than the obvious stuck-in-traffic issues, has been crossing the ship canal. It seems to me you’ve got two big problems there: (1) having to wait while the bridge goes up, and (2) getting stuck in the traffic jam that results from the bridge going up.

The Fremont Bridge alignment has a lot of advantages over Ballard Bridge (notably the fact that it would serve Fremont!). But two big disadvantages are the congested intersections on either side of the Fremont Bridge.

Now, obviously it would be cool if the streetcar tunneled under the canal, or rose over it at such height as to avoid a drawbridge (a la the Monorail). But both of those options strike me as expensive and unlikely.

So why not build two single-lane, streetcar-only drawbridges on either side of the Fremont Bridge? The streetcar would get its own right-of-way, and could queue right up to the bridge, avoiding the backup of cars, and also avoid the tangle of intersections on either side of the Bridge. Something like this:

Now, I realize I’ve drawn one of those lines right through the Adobe campus. And for all I know two single-lane drawbridges are more expensive than tunneling under the canal. But I doubt it.

Anyway, consider this just some Friday night fantasy-mapping for your consideration. Thoughts?

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

The new Golf diesel-hybrid. Greener than the Prius. Not on sale in the U.S. yet, though.

Innovations like this make me even more convinced that high gas prices are not enough to dissuate the majority of us from our SOV lifestyles. You could trade in a 22mpg Ford for one of these Golfs, and gas would have to hit $11/gallon before you started feeling it in the wallet.

To take this one step further, I’m generally concerned with the idea of guilting or shaming people into density: “get rid of your house in the suburbs or the polar bears will die and the ice caps will melt!.” People are psychologically and developmentally attuned to reject those sorts of arguments.

Transit-oriented lifestyles can (and should) be spun positively:

• Nightlife is cool.
• Walking to the grocery store and not having to circle for parking is cool!
• Being able to walk home or take the bus home drunk from the bar is really cool!!
• Being assured that your teenage kids aren’t driving around drunk is extra super cool!!!
• Being home in time to help your kids do their homework and not just tuck them in to bed is ZOMG the coolest thing ever!!!!
• Etc…

You catch more flies with honey, right?

I’m not trying to discount the role of public policy here. Clearly I support policies like denser zoning, mixed use, carbon-sensitive zoning, etc. But the point is that you build support for those sorts of things by making the lifestyles associated with them attractive and compelling.