Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Shit's in the PI | Good News Monday! »

Monday, October 8, 2007

The P-I Endorses Roads and Transit, Sort Of

posted by on October 8 at 10:05 AM

The P-I’s editorial page editor, Mark Trahant, kinda-sorta, very confusingly, says we should vote “yes” on roads and transit. He doesn’t exactly explain why, except to say that it’s unlikely anything better will come along, and maybe we can make it better later. Although he doesn’t exactly explain what “better” would be. Also, there are lots of oblique references to Robert Frost. Read it here.

RSS icon Comments

1

Trahant's piece could have been a lot more forceful. Par for the course for the P-I.

Something else from Sunday's paper, this in the Times's opinion section. Editorial page editor James Vesely, who's no friend of mass transit, used his Sunday column to interview Jim Ellis, the leader of the Forward Thrust transit initiative that was defeated in 1968 (and 1970 too, I believe). Like Walt Crowley, Ellis has the benefit of a great deal of perspective. And what does he have to say about this year's measure?

Ellis believes this year's transit-and-roads package should pass. He has seen it all: the bickering, the fighting, the turf, the mental gymnastics of a region emerging from a small town to a roaring city.
"The city has to come around to this," he said. "Seattle is now the best it has ever been; just look at the vitality of downtown. But if Seattle pauses, it will decline and another city will come along to take its place."
And later: "Seattle is so ideally positioned for the future," he said. "The waterfront should be a wonderful attraction. Great cities do not have their streets destroyed by vehicles. I know that the local Sierra Club is against the November vote. I'm ashamed of them, and it will come back to haunt them."

The whole story is worth reading, including Ellis's recollection of the Trojan horse that General Motors hauled out in the final weeks of the campaign. The modern-day Trojan horse would be the so-called "bus rapid transit," which not coincidentally becomes all the rage any time we have an opportunity to build mass transit and then, when the mass transit threat subsides, quietly is returned to its accustomed place on the back burner.

Posted by cressona | October 8, 2007 10:13 AM
2

Anyway, I'm halfway pleasantly surprised to see Erica Barnett or Josh Feit refer to a pro-light rail/pro-joint ballot opinion piece for once. Must be a function of the lameness of Trahant's piece.

Recall how The Stranger's crack news staff couldn't stop writing about Ron Sims's anti-light rail op-ed in The Seattle Times. And yet when it came to Walt Crowley's pro-light rail op-ed in The Seattle Times, silence. It was as if the piece had never run. Sure, Sims's piece was more newsworthy because of his high-profile defection (because Ron Sims did manage to "pull a Ron Sims"). But was Crowley's piece in the wake of his death was not newsworthy at all? Hmm…

(Oddly enough, maybe it's just as well that Barnett and Feit have chosen simply to ignore Walt Crowley. Better that than having to read them attempting to spin the words of someone who obviously is unable to respond.)

Oh, I can't wait for the flood of responses accusing me of being paranoid.

Posted by cressona | October 8, 2007 10:18 AM
3

The P-I editorial board’s “endorsement,” and the piece Trahant wrote, amount to one thing: damning with faint praise.

Jim Ellis is biased beyond belief. He and his partners at K&L Gates would make tens of millions of dollars over the next several decades as bond counsel and general outside counsel for RTID and Sound Transit if the measure passes.

Of course Ellis wants voters to approve it.

Posted by Plato | October 8, 2007 10:22 AM
4

SWEET!

Anther round of RTID/ST2 debate!

ding ding

Posted by Cale | October 8, 2007 10:29 AM
5

With all due respect to Mr. Ellis, his perspective is barely coherent. First he says we should protect our waterfront and not let our streets be destroyed by cars. Then he turns around and chides the Sierra Club, which was the only enviro group to fight the tunnel replacement for the Alaska Way viaduct. Other groups were perfectly willing to let 130,000 cars invade the waterfront through a tunnel with some grass on top. The SC insisted that better solutions were possible and they were right.

The old guard completely failed this city on the viaduct question. They had no idea what the possibilities were. They've lost touch with leading environmental ideas and don't understand how hard people are willing to fight for global warming solutions.

The Sierra Club's decision will not haunt them nearly as much as the new highway lanes in Prop 1 will haunt Ellis' great-grandchildren. I think Ellis should be ashamed for publicly knocking the people who are trying to force the right changes, whether he agrees with their strategy or not.

Posted by Loewyputian | October 8, 2007 10:33 AM
6

And God knows, if anyone anywhere stands to benefit, they must be cast out and the proposal scuttled. That's the Seattle way.

The suggestion that Ellis supports the measure only because he's going to get a big piece of pie is ridiculous. Ellis's efforts in the past on behalf of the city have been heroic. If Ellis had got his way forty years ago, we'd now be arguing about the best route for the fifth subway line instead of this. If you examine his argument instead of smearing his character, you'll see that he is, once again, right.

Posted by Fnarf | October 8, 2007 10:36 AM
7

Plato @3:

Jim Ellis is biased beyond belief. He and his partners at K&L Gates would make tens of millions of dollars over the next several decades as bond counsel and general outside counsel for RTID and Sound Transit if the measure passes.

Plato has a point. How dare Ellis say something like, "The waterfront should be a wonderful attraction. Great cities do not have their streets destroyed by vehicles." I mean he sounds like Cary Moon when he says that. And damn, wasn't she totally biased by that People's Waterfront Coalition thing she was promoting?

Y'know, I think the utopian vision of a transportation system that can be built without anyone making a profit and without anyone having a vested interest is something worth waiting for. And waiting for.

Anyway, it's a good thing Seattle didn't let that greedy Ellis bastard get away with his shenanigans back in '68. We might have gotten a functioning transit system out of it and made a lot of this handwringing about environmental impacts moot -- but at least Ellis didn't make a buck back then.

Posted by cressona | October 8, 2007 10:38 AM
8

Damn you, Fnarf. You beat me to my point by two minutes.

Speaking of Fnarf, I gotta cite an awesome comment from Fnarf from an earlier Slog thread. What makes this comment so awesome is that it shows something that has been sorely lacking in most of this joint ballot debate--the same something Crowley and Ellis provided--perspective. Read the whole thing, but here's the money quote:

If Seattle votes this thing down, it's the final proof that we are the can't-do society, a failure as human beings able to work for the future.


And if Seattle doesn't build this train, all those highways are going to get built anyways, somewhere else, and you'll all have to move there because that's where your new job will be.


Posted by cressona | October 8, 2007 10:41 AM
9

@6: Well la-di-da to you. I didn't smear Ellis' character, I pointed out the tens of millions of reasons his views on this particular matter are completely biased.

So Fnarf, what part of Roads and Transit do you plan on using regularly? You want to drive on new highway lanes in the I-405 corridor, or on the Cross Base highway? You want to ride light rail from Westlake Center to the Bellevue transit tunnel in 2025?

What part of it would you use regularly?

Posted by Plato | October 8, 2007 10:45 AM
10

Cressona said something nice about me. Nuthin' left for me to do but die happy!

Seriously, just because I worship the viaduct doesn't make me ALL bad.

Posted by Fnarf | October 8, 2007 10:46 AM
11

Yo cressona - you're such a big fan of R & T, what is in it for you?

Maybe you live in Maple Valley, and want a faster drive in your Toyota Tundra up to your job in Redmond every day?

Posted by Plato | October 8, 2007 10:50 AM
12

Fnarf, I'll have you know, I'm not just saying nice things about you now because I just happen to agree with you now. I've even said nice things about Mr. X, and I don't recall ever agreeing with Mr. X about anything. (Please don't ask me to look up any of these nice things I claim to have said.)

Posted by cressona | October 8, 2007 10:51 AM
13

I'm turning the corner on this RTID thing as well. Vehemently against road expansion, I've been against RTID largely from the get to. But have gotten to thinking about what happens on the day after the election, my thinking is much like Trahant's, Fnarf et al: better we agree to fund these projects and then fight like hell on how it gets spent and change requirements as needed - HOV, better transit, trains to somewhere instead no-where, etc.

Posted by ho' know | October 8, 2007 10:52 AM
14

Plato @9:

So Fnarf, what part of Roads and Transit do you plan on using regularly? You want to drive on new highway lanes in the I-405 corridor, or on the Cross Base highway? You want to ride light rail from Westlake Center to the Bellevue transit tunnel in 2025?

First off, Plato, that Cross-Base Highway is due to get mitigated to death, thanks to some hard bargaining by those evil environmental groups.

But your "What's in it for you?" question sounds familiar. During the monorail campaign, the opponents would ask, "Are you going to regularly take a train to West Seattle?" Obviously, most people will say no.

It's just a good thing we didn't ask questions like this concerning our involvement in World War II. "Are you ever planning to vacation in Paris? Are you ever planning to get a job in Manila?" No? Then why the hell should you want to sacrifice your life for those faraway foreign places?

Posted by cressona | October 8, 2007 10:58 AM
15

http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/newsroom/Ridership_Q2_2007.pdf

@9 Given the growth of downtown Bellevue over the past few years and the large number of strip malls to go vertical and have their parking lots eliminated between now and 2025, I assume plenty will be riding the light rail between downtown Bellevue and Seattle. Also worth noting are the ridership on the Redmond routes, the Lynnwood routes, and the Tacoma routes both bus and Sounder. I guess those millions of boardings per year will only decrease as the region's population increases by another million people in the next 20 years, eh?

Posted by kentankerous | October 8, 2007 11:06 AM
16

Points made in Livejournal discussions supporting the proposition are more convincing than the PI piece. Go figure.

This package is about being unselfish. Of course Seattlites feel there's nothing in it for them if suburban highways are improved, but one need only listen to traffic reports every morning and hear about the constant gridlock along 405 and through the SeaTac corridor to know that if work isn't done to expand highways and transit in those stretches, that a bad situation will only become a commuting nightmare.

You can't just be an ass and pretend the commuting needs of people in Renton or Kent don't matter, but apparently, many of you have chosen to do so.

And again, don't let Ron Sims and Sandeep fool you. If this is voted down, there will be no Plan B. There will be no expansion of Link. The populace will not support a transit proposition after voting this package down, no matter how much backroom dealing or lobbying you do.

Posted by Gomez | October 8, 2007 11:06 AM
17

Loewyputian @5:

The Sierra Club's decision will not haunt them nearly as much as the new highway lanes in Prop 1 will haunt Ellis' great-grandchildren. I think Ellis should be ashamed for publicly knocking the people who are trying to force the right changes, whether he agrees with their strategy or not.

By this standard, we should have been ashamed of ourselves for knocking Ralph Nader in 2000. Or a soldier marching into the Battle of Little Bighorn should have been ashamed for knocking General Custer.

I don't give the Sierra Club one ounce of credit for wanting to kill regional light rail in the name of light rail. I don't give the Sierra Club one ounce of credit for wanting to kill a concrete, pragmatic congestion pricing plan in the name of some vague, farfetched, extremist congestion pricing proposal that would set back the cause of congestion pricing in this region for a generation.

The local Sierra Club is the worst enemy of transit, the environment, density, and the efforts to combat global warming in the same way that the crazy Jewish settlers on the West Bank are the worst enemy of Israel and Zionism. Ron Sims is the Sierra Club's politically opportunistic enabler in the same way Benjamin Netenyahu is the settlers' politically opportunistic enabler. They should be ashamed of themselves, and I admire the professionalism of people like Jessyn Farrell and Bill LaBorde for not treating them with the contempt and disgust they so richly deserve.

Posted by cressona | October 8, 2007 11:07 AM
18

Gomez @16: And again, don't let Ron Sims and Sandeep fool you. If this is voted down, there will be no Plan B.

Gomez, that post of Sandeep Kaushik's you're referring to... He was being sarcastic. The Plan B was the bus.

Posted by cressona | October 8, 2007 11:09 AM
19

I'd ride the train to Bellevue if there was one. Maybe not every day, unless I got a job there.

But I don't just vote for myself. The monorail wasn't going to stop at my front door, either. I'm interested in benefiting the ENTIRE REGION -- you know, like a citizen. Judging from the discussions, Seattle seems to be a bit short on citizens these days.

Posted by Fnarf | October 8, 2007 11:14 AM
20

Amen to that, #13. For instance, peruse this lovely BRT plan for 405, which is part of the 'Master 405 Corridor Plan', and thus eligible to get some of those $2bn going to 405 under RTID.

If this fails, road funding will be back as a legislative package fiat, spreading dollars across the state for projects worse than even the cross-base.

Posted by Some Jerk | October 8, 2007 11:16 AM
21

" that Cross-Base Highway is due to get mitigated to death,"

No, RTID creates what is called an unfunded mandate on the Cross Base highway. Some 25% of the funding would come from RTID. In two years Ladenburg and his developer friends will come up with the other 75%. There will be no vote on that. They will rationalize it on the basis of the 2007 vote: "A majority of the people in Pierce County, indeed a majority of the voters in the Puget Sound region, demand we build the cross-base highway."

They'll get gas tax money, toll it, impose additional taxes, and pay for the whole thing.

This upcoming vote will give them that leverage to push it through - even though it does not provide all the money right away.

Posted by concrete is forever | October 8, 2007 11:17 AM
22
better we agree to fund these projects and then fight like hell on how it gets spent and change requirements as needed - HOV, better transit, trains to somewhere instead no-where, etc.

So, what about the Monorail Effect, in which we vote for something -- maybe more than once -- and it doesn't happen anyway? We fought like hell for that and got bupkis.

Posted by Judah | October 8, 2007 11:18 AM
23

Gomez/Cressona:

Wow, you guys are really on your game today.

Posted by otterpop | October 8, 2007 11:19 AM
24

Plato, seriously, would you not use one of the project improvements in this plan? What neighborhood are you in?

I don't think there is a single trip I make regularly that this wouldn't improve.

Posted by Cale | October 8, 2007 11:30 AM
25

Cale @24, I know you mean well, but do you really need to address these people on their own shallow, stupid terms? I'm going to have very, very little need to use the light rail line when it opens in 2009. And you know what? I support it fully, because when I vote, I vote as a citizen, not as a consumer. It's kinda sad people have lost sight of that distinction.

Posted by cressona | October 8, 2007 11:39 AM
26


Cressona: What kind of weird game are you playing here? Out of left field you bring up the monorail fiasco, like it is relevant. Maybe you were asked how often you would travel to West Seattle on it before that vote – I wasn’t asked that. I’m sure the opponents of that measure asked lots of questions of those pushing for the monorail project.

R & T is a much bigger deal than monorail. I asked you (and Fnarf) what part of the R & T projects you would use regularly. All you do is go all Ken Burns, and bring up World War II – where our country was attacked by other nations – as if questions about the utility of R&T are unpatriotic. Look, you are pushing like hell for this thing, attacking critical comments about it, and you refuse to say how you would use any of it. What is your motive?

@24:

If you make trips "regularly" that involve driving on Mercer Street in SLU, Lander Street in SODO, SR 167, I-405 Bellevue, and the SR 520 bridge, then you are a statistical outlier. You are a profligate GHG producer. Your GHG-spewing ways should not be encouraged by ballot measures like this one.

Posted by Plato | October 8, 2007 11:41 AM
27

@ 25 wrote: “when I vote, I vote as a citizen, not as a consumer.”

Sanctimonious crap.

Anyone voting on this from the perspective citizens would vote it down.

It removes all power from citizens, for generations. Future voters will not be able to change the project mix, reduce the taxes, limit how much long term bonds are sold, change the governance structure of RTID or ST, elect better leaders to those boards, remove poorly-performing boardmembers, control how the RTID “lead agencies” are spending the money raised, withdraw funding from projects like SR 520 (or the cross-base highway for that matter) that may evolve into environmentally-damaging designs, etc.

RTID/ST2 is profoundly anti-citizen in those ways, and many others. You are a self-absorbed hypocrite.

Fnarf probably is cut from the same cloth. He seems to want R & T for random shopping junkets to Bellevue Square (unless he gets hired by some firm in downtown Bellevue). Kemper Freeman, Jr. loves you guys.

Posted by Plato | October 8, 2007 11:57 AM
28

Plato, you arguments are indeed shallow and are not adding anything to this conversation.

I was merely curious if you could actually say that you would use none of these projects.

My current commute is actually a bike ride thank you very much. Though, I used to work further away, and I took the bus for that. If the light rail were there, I could have used that.

Light rail goes to almost every destination I go to the vast majority of the time.

Downtown, Capitol Hill, U-District, Roosevelt, Northgate, Shoreline, Bellevue, Redmond, airport, it's got it where it counts as far as I'm concerned. I wish it went to Ballard, Freemont/Wallingford, Queen Anne, and West Seattle too, but there are studies on the way with a yes vote.

I'm actually more interested in the Mercer Street improvements for the pedestrian/biker benefits- that is the single scariest place I know of to bike in Seattle.

As for I-405, whenever I do need to drive to somewhere on the east side that is not yet dense enough to support light rail, it is completely jammed with people. I would not mind a less congested I-405 at all. My girlfriend had to commute across 520 to a summer job in Sammamish, and the congestion at 405 was always terrible. The bus would have required 3 transfers and still been stuck in traffic. She would have saved 20 mins a day easily if those routes were easier to get through.

But the fact of the matter is, just because I would benefit immensely from some of this project, but not all of it, doesn't mean I don't support the parts that other people want but don't benefit me directly. Personally, I have no need to go to Federal Way, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve a light rail connection. Or just because I don't use 405 or Lander doesn't mean that I don't support the citizens or freight routes that do.

Posted by Cale | October 8, 2007 12:01 PM
29

Something I don't think people have pointed out so far: the difference between a general-purpose lane on 405 and a BRT / HOV lane on 405 is a paint job.

Posted by Greg | October 8, 2007 12:13 PM
30

"My girlfriend had to commute across 520 to a summer job in Sammamish, and the congestion at 405 was always terrible."

She's in school now? By the time light rail is going over to the east side, she'll be sprouting whiskers on her chin.

Posted by get some perspective | October 8, 2007 12:22 PM
31

Cressona, Cale, and Fnarf are right. This isn't about what benefits each person, but what benefits us all as citizens in a larger society. It's a sad sign of how our discourse has degraded that every topic has to be justified by the question of "what's in it for me?"

I ride my bike to work along a corridor not served by the proposed light rail. My home is not near any of the rail lines that exist or are planned as part of ST2. As a Microsoft employee, I would use the Overlake to Bellevue to Seattle line on occasion, but by the time it's likely to be built I'll probably work somewhere else.

But I plan to live in this region for the rest of my life, and I know this region will be a better place for everyone to live, including myself and my family, if light rail is built as far out as possible as quickly as possible, starting now. With luck, public opinion will turn in favor of light rail once it opens and it will be expanded more quickly, with more benefit for me, but increasing the chance of that is a secondary reason for voting for something that is good for our region on its other merits.

Posted by Cascadian | October 8, 2007 12:36 PM
32

#30,

If only we had the tax dollars to finish the eastside line by last summer....

I think you need perpective. These things take time.

Posted by Cale | October 8, 2007 12:42 PM
33

" I know this region will be a better place for everyone to live, including myself and my family, if light rail is built as far out as possible as quickly as possible, starting now. "

Your ouiji board is defective.

Here's a hint: never trust the government when it is promising it will give you something "good" in thirty years. That goes for the Feds, and the local yokels.

They don't think long-term, because they don't have to think long-term. They are in it for the re-election campaign bucks. Get over yourself.

Posted by obdurate | October 8, 2007 12:59 PM
34

Mass transit isn't always good. RTID/ST2 is a pro-sprawl measure all around. We're not talking about light rail stops in urban areas. We're talking about light rail stops in bedroom communities, strip malls, and business parks. I doubt one person will give up their cars as a result of ST2.

If RTID/ST2 doesn't decrease emissions and doesn't increase urban mobility, what is it? It's a regressive tax to subsidize suburban/exurban sprawl. It adds capacity for people who live in Lynnwood and work in Kent, or live in Federal Way and work in Redmond -- NOTHING MORE. That means more cars, more traffic, more parking lots, less density.

I can't believe people here support this nonsense and are willing to pay tens of billions of dollars in regressive taxes. I wouldn't support this crap if it were free.

Posted by jamier | October 8, 2007 1:02 PM
35

We no longer have any excuse to support increases in our global warming emissions.

We have been warned by climate scientists the world over that should we wish to continue inhabiting this planet without catastrophic disruption must plan for an 80% cut in emissions by 2050. Sightline Institute has shown us that the RTID portion of the ballot would increase our emissions locally by 15 million pounds of CO2 equivalent over that same time frame.

The choice could not be more clear.

I see this vote as a referendum on whether we as a society are ready to accept responsibility for the consequences of our actions, or whether we step on the gas even as we hurtle toward a cliff.

A "no" vote on RTID clears the way for a plan that's crafted as if we give a damn about our future.

Posted by Patrick | October 8, 2007 1:06 PM
36

It's like a catechism class.
'I believe bla, bla, bla..'
'Well, I believe na, na, na..."
'Well I believe, ha, ha, ha'.

I KNOW this Prop 1 is just a money grab.
There's not enough being raised to complete ANY of the poorly-defined-with-no-accountabilities projects it sort of embraces.

You can all go on about fictitious carbon excretions and devotion to whatever god-of-the-day you are embracing but you are all ignoring reality.

Politicians want money and they will promise anything to get their hands on any amount.

Vote NO on all of it.
Let them come back with each specific project defined with it's cost itemized and with
a specific officeholder assigned responsibility, with automatic recall, should they fail to deliver.

Posted by old timer | October 8, 2007 1:29 PM
37

When discussing the topic of any piece written by Mark Trahant, you always have to add the phrase "sort of."

Posted by J.R. | October 8, 2007 1:34 PM
38

34:

How do you ever expect those bleak strip malls and office parks to change without rail? Low density auto-dominated sprawl is impossible to change without increasing transit's mode share, as adding dense development swamps even the widest arterials.

Rail creates the nodes needed to add dense transit oriented development, to provide transit accessible housing and employment, and add new people to the region without greenfield development. Sure, that's not a given outcome of rail development, but Lynnwood, Federal Way, etc, seem to genuinely want to create downtowns, and ST2 will help immeasurably.

Posted by Some Jerk | October 8, 2007 1:35 PM
39

18. Oh, okay. Clearly, he did an excellent job of being subtle... TOO excellent.

Posted by Gomez | October 8, 2007 2:46 PM
40

In the end, the Sierra Club chose wisely.

Let's hope we do the same.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 8, 2007 2:54 PM
41

#38:

One light rail stop in Lynnwood and one light rail stop in Federal Way won't help urbanize those cities. It will only encourage people to move there so they can hop on the train to get to work in another city (since it will be impossible to take light rail to a job in the same city).

Sound Transit 2's light rail plan has the exact same effect as building extra lanes of freeway along I-5 and I-90 minus the car emissions. Since RTID neutralizes the greenhouse gas reductions, the only thing you get is the added sprawl.

Posted by jamier | October 8, 2007 3:29 PM
42

Light rail looked good at the time. Now, in the cold clear light of dawn, not so much.

Posted by whistling pete | October 8, 2007 3:53 PM
43

Jamier @41. You have quite a counterintuitive understanding of urban planning to be able to take density and call it sprawl.

I've heard this sentiment quite a bit from the Seattle-only crowd that somehow transit-oriented development in the suburbs = sprawl. Leave it to a bunch of self-righteous Seattleites who actually, by and large, live in sprawling development themselves to characterize density outside the Seattle city limits as sprawl.

Yeah, they want to fight density in the name of fighting sprawl. Just like they want to fight regional light rail in the name of light rail. Just like they want to kill a congestion pricing plan in the name of, yes, congestion pricing.

Posted by cressona | October 8, 2007 4:12 PM
44

Patrick @ 35 -

You must have missed this part of Sightline's analysis.

"Obviously, this isn't a full analysis of the RTID. It doesn't look at the greenhouse gas impacts of building or operating a train or HOV/HOT lanes, nor of the land-use impacts of more compact development that light rail may help foster"

It's disingenous to say that this package will result in more GHG when we don't have that data, as Clark and Alan from Sightline freely point out.

Posted by Rob Johnson | October 8, 2007 4:21 PM
45

41, you are mistaken. Almost every single area around current light rail stations have already begun to densify. Just because they aren't turning into regional job centers doesn't mean it isn't helping the environment.

Even the ones that are in the planning, like Northgate and Roosevelt have done similarly.

Your analysis is baseless and goes against what is actually happening in Seattle right now.


#40, Oh yes, of course we must get the consent of the wise and powerful Sierra Club before moving foward with anything.

Posted by Cale | October 8, 2007 5:05 PM
46

Cale - there is development happening in Ballard and West Seattle and Capitol Hill not near the ONE station, that has nothing to do with LR. There no development around Husky Stadium or 45th and Broklyn. Of course, after rebuilding MLK and spending $50 million in development funds and urban renewing the prior owners and tenants out, new construction has followed.

Rob - interesting that the pro side makes positive environmental claims in their ads and you say there is no evidence.

Posted by whatever | October 8, 2007 5:16 PM
47

45. Northgate and Roosevelt were developing on their own long before the idea of light rail through these areas was even on the table.

Citing a proposed rail line as the source of existing growth is fallacious. There are better arguments to make on Link's behalf.

Posted by Gomez | October 8, 2007 5:31 PM
48

47 - very true. But one hopes that, when we revote on ST in 2008, that we'll recognize that light rail can assist higher density neighborhoods.

Still voting RTID/ST2 down tho - this version is just not good.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 8, 2007 6:02 PM
49

Yeah, good luck with that, Will. I predict you'll be complaining about the slow progress of the new "efficient" regional transportation agency in shaping another compromise plan for the 2010 ballot for completion in 2040. One that will include a greater percentage of road projects, because the board makeup will be suburban dominated candidates financed by Kemper Freeman.

Posted by Some Jerk | October 8, 2007 6:10 PM
50

there's so much more profit in rail why would you think regional transit governance would be controlled by roads interests? denver and portland have regional agencies and they're LR star cities. why are you rail guys so afraid of an agency that would put it all together?

Posted by whatever | October 8, 2007 6:53 PM
51

Look, the argument about whether light rail will encourage development or not is ridiculous.

From a developer's point of view it's a MAJOR amenity, and it makes sense to sell as many units around stations as possible. Duh.

As long as the city and neighborhood councils can agree on decent height limits in the urban villages, like we have been seeing around most of the current light rail stations, of course there will be denser developments.

Unless our developers are completely asleep, yes, you will see denser developments around light rail stations.

And of course in Ballard, West Seattle, and Capitol Hill there will be development. They are very attractive places to live, and have plans that accomodate dense development. With light rail, they will be even more attractive places and will have a higher capacity for density without disrupting traffic patterns, adding to a pedestrian oriented environment, and ultimately reducing carbon emissions from car travel.

Posted by Cale | October 8, 2007 9:43 PM
52

The impact of stations being built around existing urban areas is marginal. It is not the big economic impact that the Stranger's urbanists claim it is.

Posted by Gomez | October 8, 2007 10:28 PM
53

"Mass transit isn't always good. "RTID/ST2 is a pro-sprawl measure all around. We're not talking about light rail stops in urban areas. We're talking about light rail stops in bedroom communities, strip malls, and business parks. I doubt one person will give up their cars as a result of ST2."

Jamier sets the standard for ignorant and elitist Sierra Club idiots.

It's amazing how fast these extreme Naderites can go from intellectual snob to Limbaugh bumpersticker...just a matter of minutes!

Jamier: if Seattle (one-fifth the region's population) could afford rail on its own, it would have built rail on its own.

Take a break from the space cakes, just for the next 30 days or so, 'kay?

Posted by Rag Tagger | October 8, 2007 11:26 PM
54

All rail in Seattle is being paid by Seattle taxpayers. Sub-area equity, remember?

Posted by whatever | October 9, 2007 6:55 AM
55

whatever and gomez argue that rail stations do not cause development to occur near station areas.

This ridiculous assertion defies both experience and rationality. Throughout the world, train stations have become focal points for density. One only needs to look at Commerical Drive in Vancouver, station areas in Portland, and places like Concord in the Bay Area that didn't exist before rail came.

Devlopers love fixed rail investments because of their permanence and reliability. Smart cities like Seattle upzone in a 3-6 block radius around stations to stimulate development there. Cities are always looking for ways to improve their tax base. Creating urban residential, retail, and office hubs around stations is one of the best ways to do that. Federal Way is already doing the same in its city core in anticipation of rail or other mass transit touching its downtown. Downtown Auburn has built the first residential housing in its core in decades due to the Sounder station area.

If you drive down MLK today you will see developers advertising condos with the phrase "the world at your doorstep".

This slogan illustrates the marketing power of rail for developers. They can build housing with ground floor retail that can create new urban hubs with restaurants, stores and all of the amenities that make great neighborhood centers.

Indeed, this is precisely the argument that the Sierra Club doesn't seem to get when they criticize rail to Tacoma. Because they are so Seattle-centric they don't understand that many working class people are priced out of Seattle, but still want an urban lifestyle. The Puget Sound area is already urbanized throughout most of the urban growth boundary. Fifty miles of light rail with over 20 station areas will allow us to create opportunities to develop urban hubs throughout the region. It is long past time to build rail. We will never get to build as much as now. Time to finally move forward.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 9, 2007 12:21 PM
56

Tiptoe I didn't say that rail doesn't stimulate development - all transport does - roads, ferries, airports, even bike trails - the upzoning you mentioned probably is the most significant - developers are trying to get property upzoned most everywhere.

"The Puget Sound area is already urbanized throughout most of the urban growth boundary."

Driven out to Auburn or Kent lately - hardly "urban" certainly not dense.

Posted by whatever | October 9, 2007 12:35 PM
57

I spend time hiking, biking and touring all through the Puget Sound area. What I see when I visit Kent and Auburn is that their dying downtown areas have been revitalized for the first time in decades. Auburn has built several new dense developments near the Sounder Station. We have the chance to do the same with countless neighborhoods in denser urban cities like Seattle and Bellevue, and in suburban cities like Des Moines, Lynnwood, and Federal Way.

Building 50 miles of light rail gives us the opportunity to build dense communties within the urban growth boundary. It will also help Seattle neighborhoods like Broadway and Roosevelt strengthen their business core.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 9, 2007 12:54 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).