Why isn't Wallingford densifying like the U District and Roosevelt?? (Puyallup: low income, apartment complex)

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by pnwguy2

Yep the city needs to open up zoning, not necessarily in a big way, but to create opportunities for lower income residents. Don’t get me wrong this could just be a minor change that would help some without really disrupting the pattern of life in the city.

The arterial network can barely handle the current traffic loads in many parts of Seattle. I'm in favor of increasing density, but a wholesale upzoning of areas zoned as SFH to MFH, as some are advocating, would make what is already bad traffic much worse and significantly reduce the availability of free street parking. Upzoning should be done in conjunction with an equivalent expansion of transit services (Link light-rail, RapidRide BRT, and/or streetcars).

Want to upzone Wallingford, Fremont, and Ballard, beyond what is already being done? Run light-rail from Ballard, through N. Fremont and Wallingford, along the 46th/45th corridor, mostly tunneled, to the U-District Station. This can be done much sooner than light-rail through Interbay to Downtown (scheduled for 2039!), since it would not require, at least initially, the building of a second tunnel through Downtown.

[jabogitlu]

The arterial network is much more stressed by adding additional residential units at the end of the line (Everett, SW Pierce County, Snoqualmie) than by densifying places like Wallingford. Adding density to Wallingford instead of Snohomish County will actually reduce the traffic stress on the arterial network ....

As for adding an E-W light rail through North Seattle, I mean, I'd love to see it, but who's paying for it? Nationally, the Democrats can't get their reps in line to vote for anything, the Republicans would commit hari-kiri before passing meaningful public transportation funding, and locally, I have high doubts that Snohomish and especially Pierce counties would vote to fund a King County-only light rail line. That would leave King County. We're already heavily taxed to build the light rail network we have under construction. The tabs on my 11 year old car are hundreds of dollars ...

[pnwguy2]

Of course public transit funding is complicated. Sorting out where the money is coming from is complicated. But a democratic administration is helpful. Might as well try and milk it when government is mostly on your side.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by jabogitlu

...I have high doubts that Snohomish and especially Pierce counties would vote to fund a King County-only light rail line.

The Downtown to Ballard extension, "a King County-only light rail line," was approved by voters in 2016, as was the Downtown to West Seattle extension. I'm proposing replacing the 7-mile Downtown/Ballard line with a 3.2-mile Ballard/U-District lin, which can be built sooner and would cost much less, due to being half as long and building a second Downtown tunnel no longer being necessary.

[homesinseattle]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

The Downtown to Ballard extension, "a King County-only light rail line," was approved by voters in 2016, as was the Downtown to West Seattle extension. I'm proposing replacing the 7-mile Downtown/Ballard line with a 3.2-mile Ballard/U-District lin, which can be built sooner and would cost much less, due to being half as long and building a second Downtown tunnel no longer being necessary.

Really good idea but I’m worried all those Ballard tech workers might not be as interested in using the system if they thought they had to go “all the way around”, versus a line that would zip them (presumably) straight south to SLU and Downtown.

[jabogitlu]

Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey

The Downtown to Ballard extension, "a King County-only light rail line," was approved by voters in 2016, as was the Downtown to West Seattle extension. I'm proposing replacing the 7-mile Downtown/Ballard line with a 3.2-mile Ballard/U-District lin, which can be built sooner and would cost much less, due to being half as long and building a second Downtown tunnel no longer being necessary.

West Seattle to Ballard was approved as part of the ST3 package, which included investment in Pierce and Snohomish Counties. Even then, Pierce County rejected it.

This is a moot point, because we cannot substantially alter the terms of ST3 in this way by moving a line by such a huge geography. So, the only way to do this would be to go back to the voters for additional funding, or find some other kind of funding like federal dollars. What I'm saying is I highly doubt Snoho or Pierce residents have the appetite to re-fund a Seattle line.

At any rate, I agree that a Ballard-Wallingford-U District(-Kirkland?) line would substantially help densify North Seattle and would be a huge boon to our area. But the political and financial likelihood of it happening are fairly slim.

[Gardyloo]

In medium-density urban areas, like virtually all of Seattle including the so-called "urban villages" like Northgate and the University District that were designated in the 1994 Comp Plan*, fixed rail is not a cost-effective means of encouraging (or dealing with) increased residential density unless movement to high density is foreseen. (It is not in Seattle's case.)

(*Note 1994 is well before the full scope of the South Lake Union growth was comprehended, evidence its complete exclusion from the light rail network planning of the day.)

A "Ballard to U District" transit link could be accomplished at far, far lower capital and operating cost, and in a fraction of the time needed, by designation of busways and upgrading existing streets to accommodate state-of-the-art bus transit. Bus transit is scalable (need more seats or shorter headway times? Just buy more buses) and flexible, so that if employment development occurs in previously quiet areas (such as Interbay) you can add new service corridors without going through the massive regulatory and environmental hoops caused by rail; you can limit ROW acquisition costs (or related taking litigation) as well as all the legal and financial difficulties that come from bond issues, public votes, and all that.

The main losers in that scenario are the armies of lawyers, bond underwriters, civil engineering firms and construction companies, not to mention Sound Transit bureaucrats, who won't have their paychecks expanded or their careers extended in the process.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by Gardyloo

A "Ballard to U District" transit link could be accomplished at far, far lower capital and operating cost, and in a fraction of the time needed, by designation of busways and upgrading existing streets to accommodate state-of-the-art bus transit. Bus transit is scalable (need more seats or shorter headway times? Just buy more buses) and flexible, so that if employment development occurs in previously quiet areas (such as Interbay) you can add new service corridors without going through the massive regulatory and environmental hoops caused by rail; you can limit ROW acquisition costs (or related taking litigation) as well as all the legal and financial difficulties that come from bond issues, public votes, and all that.

Have you actually ridden transit (#44) through the Market/46th/45th Corridor? N 45th St through Wallingford is two general-traffic lanes, one turn-lane, and two parking lanes for much of its length (https://www.google.com/maps/place/N+...4d-122.3337416). The only way to shove BRT through there would be to take away the parking lanes (sound of businesses along that corridor screaming like stuck pigs).

I doubt that any transit enhancements would improve trip-times through there, which are scheduled at ~25 minutes during peak times (and often takes longer) from NW Market St & Ballard Ave NW to U-District Station. Light-rail, mostly tunneled, would likely take less than 10 minutes.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by homesinseattle

Really good idea but I’m worried all those Ballard tech workers might not be as interested in using the system if they thought they had to go “all the way around”, versus a line that would zip them (presumably) straight south to SLU and Downtown.

Zip them south in 2039. To compensate, they could extend the S*L*U*T* out Westlake to Fremont and out Leary Way to Ballard. I can see the t-shirts now: "I Rode the S*L*U*T* (all the way to Snoose Junction)!"

Ballard to U-District Station (3 stops?) would = ~10 min + U-District to Westlake Station (2 stops) = 8 min, or less than 25 min. total (including one transfer).

They could eventually build a Downtown - SLU - LQA - Interbay - Ballard - Northgate line and extend the Ballard - U-District line across 520 to Kirkland.

[CrazyDonkey]

Originally Posted by jabogitlu

This is a moot point, because we cannot substantially alter the terms of ST3 in this way by moving a line by such a huge geography. So, the only way to do this would be to go back to the voters for additional funding, or find some other kind of funding like federal dollars. What I'm saying is I highly doubt Snoho or Pierce residents have the appetite to re-fund a Seattle line.

They promised light-rail from Downtown via SLU to Ballard, but notice that ST2 promised light rail from Downtown via First Hill to Capitol Hill, but they eliminated the First Hill Station for budgetary reasons, substituting funding for the First Hill Streetcar, instead. They could eliminate the SLU Station for budgetary reasons, substituting funding to extend the SLU Streetcar to Fremont and Ballard, instead. The SLU to Ballard route was a blank.