The city of Seattle will remove a fence in the Madison Park neighborhood that for decades has blocked public access to a block-long swatch of Lake Washington shoreline, one block north of Madison Beach park.
The decision by Acting Seattle Parks Superintendent Christopher Williams follows a campaign by Patrick Doherty in SeattleScape to get that area opened to the public.
Removal of the fence was opposed by some Madison Park residents who cited safety concerns.
The city expects to start taking down the fence in early 2012, Williams said on Seattle.gov.
He said that all the 20-plus miles of city-owned shoreline along Lake Washington and Puget Sound and associated tributaries is accessible to the public except that stretch.
The fence was installed in the mid-1940s.

This block-long stretch on Lake Washington has been behind a fence for decades.

The Seattle Transit Blog is like catnip for those who think about Seattle’s transit future as well as its present. Check out this new post by Ben Schiendelman regarding potential Seattle subway routes. As Ben notes it’s about vision rather than specifics for now, but an exc

Photo courtesy of King County Department of Transportation

Grade separated rail, whether subway or elevated, is not on many radar screens. The City is focusing on streetcars. Metro is mostly about buses, and while stabilized and free of the 80/20 rule is still underserving routes that are bursting with riders. Sound Transit’s circa 2005 long range plan (Beyond the Phase II program we’ve funded) talks about some extensions within Seattle but is mostly about bus rapid transit and suburban Link extensions such as an Eastside route around I-405. But for all the benefits of what is being planned, we aren’t doing much to improve movement of people on a lot of key in-city routes, including places that are quickly densifying.

One reason is probably the volume of what we’re doing now. Metro bus funding is only temporarily saved. Sound Transit has $20 billion in work underway or coming soon, only recently won its bridge vote, and faces the typical issue of lower tax collections. We’re building the 99 tunnel and probably much of 520, with the rest a funding debate waiting to happen. Seattle needs to find a more popular way of funding street repair, sidewalks, and key bike routes. Our plate is full! But we need way more improvement than that.

Lots of big discussions are needed. Here are three, partially following discussions on the Seattle Transit Blog:

1. Another Downtown transit tunnel.

The existing Downtown Transit Tunnel is full and slow already, as Link has to wait for buses. It’ll eventually be full, and faster, with Link alone. The BN Tunnel mixes freight, Sounder, and Amtrak, and BN is primarily about freight. We could put new streetcar and/or light rail lines on our avenues, but real estate is limited, rail and buses don’t mix easily, we need to be judicious about preserving car capacity, and surface rail is slow. For example, would you hold up a 200-foot train until a bus on the next block moves out of the way?

Another tunnel would be a massive undertaking, perhaps under Second Avenue to Belltown (crossing above the new 99) but would bring a lot of capacity for fast service. It could serve a new subway system, or multiple streetcar or light rail routes that could be above-grade elsewhere. This is a wild guess, but what if it could be done for $1.5 billion, which is more than three times the original Bus Tunnel cost? Ignoring politics, debt capacity, voter mood, etc., would it be worth it? A shallow tunnel project on Second would be tough on those of us who live and work nearby, but Second is pretty wide and a rail tunnel can be narrower than the Bus Tunnel (omitting passing lanes at the stations); maybe they could keep a lane or two open the whole time, unlike Pine in the 80s.

2. City funding of bus service.

Washington State funds Amtrak. Why can’t Seattle, where many bus routes are beyond jammed at rush hour and annoyingly infrequent and full in off-hours, do the same with Metro?

Even as Link and streetcars grow (slowly…), buses will always be a large percentage of our system, and provide a vast spider web of service not possible with rail, close to most residents and jobs in Seattle. Metro’s operating budget for 2011 is $547 million. What if Seattle voted another $50 million per year to augment in-city routes? I won’t guess what this would buy in service hours, and it’s hard to guess about facility needs, rolling stock, staffing, etc. But with a focus on aiding busy and underserved routes, we could turn a lot of 30 minute headways (frequencies) into 20 minute headways, some 15 minute headways into 10, etc. This would attract more riders, and improve quality of life for those who already ride. Retail districts would have readier access to customers, slightly fewer cars would jam the streets, and the new riders might save a heck of a lot of money, good for them and good for whatever other things they spend that money on. Seattle’s urban village growth model would work much better for everyone. All of this could happen relatively quickly at a cost that’s less than our outstanding low income housing levy for example.

3. Alternate heavy rail route northward.

Today it’s happened again…Amtrak, Sounder, and freight northward are down due to a landslide along Puget Sound. We need to stabilize some slopes, and it would be nice to move the tracks 20 feet to make it easier, which is extremely difficult due to shoreline regulations that are important to protect Puget Sound. There’s also a federal waiting period after a landslide, which like all things rail+federal, is far more stringent than most countries’ requirements, making sure that rail accidents kill a handful of riders per year (not counting trespassers!) vs. the 35,000 or 40,000 deaths via cars. We save a few more lives, while encouraging sedentary lifestyles and car accidents. In the best of times we have a significant track-capacity issue, related to our minimal Sounder and Amtrak service northward.

The solution might parallel that subway discussion. If we build a subway to Ballard or anywhere northward, with either a high bridge or a deep tunnel under the Canal, how about a two-decker tunnel with local service above and long-distance passenger service below? Others will know more about the challenges, and it would be a very large tunnel, but might it work? Make it a tunnel through the core city with the option of the long-distance service becoming a shallow ditch, or elevated, north of the subway portion.

The cost would be massive, including the dual-use segment and the rest of the route north to existing track, whether that would be Carkeek Park or even Everett. Diesel-electric trains require big air handling systems in tunnels, not to mention fire control, periodic emergency egress points (to the surface, or other rail tunnels then the surface), etc. A true “subway” route will often have an electrified third rail, which will kill anyone who touches it, and therefore it needs to be separate. Projects that don’t directly benefit the people next to them (like a new long-distance route to Everett) tend to be unpopular. It’s possible that it would be easier and cheaper to serve long-distance trains with a separate tunnel or major capacity and reliability improvements along the waterfront route…the point is figuring this out. Even massive costs tend to sound much smaller in a few decades, and tend to be minor compared to the size of the local economy.

Either way, a solution allowing frequent, fast, reliable Amtrak and Sounder service would benefit freight (our economy), commuters, intercity travelers, drivers, and developers. A single train can hold as many people as a sizeable office tower parking garage or a big chunk of competing traffic. Some airports along the Cascadia corridor might not need to expand so quickly, as Amtrak gains market share vs. commuter planes. The region could grow, as it will surely keep doing, without jamming every transportation mode as much.

Nobody expects a heavy rail tunnel to be hot topic in 2012, but improved bus funding should be discussed soon, and the time is right to talk about getting light rail through the CBD. Funding will require more than the typical generosity of Seattle voters, except the bus additions. Most will agree that the transportation needs are far greater than this post discusses, with needs beyond transit. But 2040 will look a heck of a lot better if we plan.

Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce reporter Marc Stiles recently quoted a source as saying that J.C. Penney has pulled the plug on plans for a store in the Kress Building at Third Avenue and Pike Street in downtown Seattle. Neither J.C. Penney nor the new owner of the Kress would comment on whether the deal is off, Stiles reported. But a local retail specialist said he was surprised about Penney’s lease at Third and Pike, because it struck him as “outrageous” given the scruffy character of the corner. Third and Pike is within a six-block area that, according to an analysis by The Seattle Times, had nearly 1,000 crime incidents over the last year. They included 98 reports of shoplifting, 86 narcotics violations, 83 assaults and 49 robberies. As Stiles noted “Not exactly roll-out-the-welcome-mat numbers for retailers and their customers.”

Do you think retailers are reluctant to locate in that area, or should be? What can be done to make it better?

The Seattle Board of Park Commissioners will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. Nov. 3 on a proposal to remove a fence that blocks public access to a block-long swatch of Lake Washington shoreline, one block north of Madison Beach park. The meeting will be in the Kenneth R. Bonds Park Board Room, 100 Dexter Ave. N., Seattle, according to a post on the CHS Capitol Hill Seattle Blog. SeattleScape’s Patrick  Doherty has championed the issue here.

This block-long stretch on Lake Washington has been behind a fence for decades.

The New York Times has an interesting article on real estate development in New York’s Bowery. It looks at preservationists efforts to save historic buildings on the “original boulevard of broken dreams.” The story notes that generic glass-and-steel towers, trendy hotels, art galleries and chains like Whole Foods have been chipping away at the street’s character, threatening to make some blocks resemble the sleeker stretches of Avenue of the Americas or Third Avenue in Midtown.

Photo courtesy of Flickr

On the heels of a SeattleScape post by Patrick Doherty, the city of Seattle will consider removing a fence that blocks regular folks’ access to a block-long swatch of Lake Washington shoreline, one block north of the Madison Beach park. Doherty wondered “What’s up with that?” in the SeattleScape post. Now according to a SeattlePI.com post, the city’s Parks Board will take up the issue in December, much to the chagrin of some neighbors in Madison Park.

This block-long stretch on Lake Washington has been behind a fence for decades.

This block-long stretch on Lake Washington has been behind a fence for decades.

Well, it’s something I’ve been contacting the Seattle Parks and Recreation Department over the years about, with the hope that the situation could be rectified and true public access to that valuable piece of shoreline could be restored — at least for passive uses.

In my most recent inquiry, I was informed that the aforementioned fencing was put in place as early as the 1940′s in response to neighborhood safety concerns (in a previous response years ago I was told a child may have drowned at that location).  While I am saddened by any possible human tragedy that may have happened at that location in the distant past, the City’s action of fencing off the shoreline for generations to come is surely an example of excessive response.

I was also told recently that in 2003 the neighborhood was polled about whether they would prefer to see the fence removed, and apparently there was some objection.  Well, excuse me, but Lake Washington shoreline is a precious, very finite commodity and public ownership and use of any part of that commodity is not the sole province of the nearby neighbors.  All of us 600,000+ Seattleites who do not have the privilege of living on or near the water should have the right to enjoy what little public shoreline the City owns.

What I imagine has happened is that certain nearby neighbors are fearful that removing the fence would invite more intensive use of what is now practically a “ghost park,” leading to potentially greater noise, etc.  But frankly that is not a valid enough excuse for the City to leave this park in chains.

And if anyone tries to play the safety card again, all one needs to do is to point to the mile upon mile of unimpeded and unfenced (!) Lake Washington public shoreline in the southern half of the City (much of it in a very similar condition with a riprap bulkhead).  No fences or other impediments exist along any of that stretch of shoreline, and none should exist in Madison Park.

I’m not going to let this issue lie without continuing to push for the City to do the right thing.  If you agree, please contact Acting Parks and Recreation Superintendent Christopher Williams or Mayor Mike McGinn.

On Saturday I speculated on my land use blog about what might happen to the deep bore tunnel if Congress failed to reach agreement on raising the debt ceiling. Well, now they have a deal. But even if they pass the deal (and they may not) trouble might still be ahead for the project because of problems at the federal level. Here is what I was thinking this weekend:

It seems very likely that if the federal government defaults, or even if it gets close and gets its credit score dinged, the tunnel project up for a vote could be in serious financial trouble. The fact is that the project is very dependent on federal money and borrowed money. Federal money might get cut off as the national government struggles to pay its bills without extra borrowed cash, and state and local government would face increased costs as interest rates go up when their credit ratings get downgraded because of the federal cash crunch. Anyway you slice it, the current troubles mean that even if the project comes in on budget, Seattle may get stuck with what the feds can’t pay, and the State, Port, and City share might ballon as their borrowing costs go up, pushing more risk and costs on city taxpayers. Let’s unpack this.

Tunnel supporters feel the debt limit crisis.

Photo credit:mensatic from morguefile.com

From the New York Times Q and A on what the pending debt crisis could mean for local governments:

Q. What could it mean for states and cities?

A. States, still recovering from the downturn, could be hurt in two ways. First, if the federal payments they rely on for everything from Medicaid to highway construction are interrupted, states that are still recovering from the recession could face serious cash-flow problems.

A default by the federal government on its obligations would profoundly affect a lot of people and organizations. But it could affect the tunnel by affecting highway funds allocated for the project. Now, at first, you might think that federal funds are coming, off in the future. But it’s likely that the Congress is going to play this game again later on. The pressure for a two step vote, one now and one next year, makes the possibility that funds both now and and in the future for tunnel construction might get choked off. That’s a de facto overrun even if the tunnel’s costs are as predicted since the revenues won’t be.

I haven’t seen anything that maps out priorities for who gets paid first as federal dollars get scarce with a default. But it’s hard to see the federal government continuing the flow of cash to a deep bore tunnel in Seattle instead of paying for grandma’s social security. Those entitlements are a significant outlay, but so is all the money that will be borrowed by the state, port and city to pay for the tunnel and seawall replacement. Who gets paid first?

State and local governments are already feeling the pressure of decreases in revenues. But could there be a ripple effect on the tunnel created by a default and subsequent downgrade of the federal government’s credit rating? Moody’s is already reviewing local governments and considering downgrading them if the crisis unfolds with a default.

A Moody’s spokesman said such factors as dependency on federal revenues, reliance on capital markets, exposure to overall economic cycles and cash reserves played into which entities are being reviewed. Nationally, the review list includes 162 local governments, 14 housing finance programs and one university.

The story from Minnesota’s Star Tribune goes on to say:

“If the U.S. isn’t AAA credit, that threatens everything,” Schowalter said. “If the U.S., which protects and guides the states’ credit, is decreased that is going to have a ripple effect on the economy that is really profound.”

And more from the New York Times Q and A:

Some states are already feeling the effects. Maryland postponed a bond sale after it was warned that its credit rating would probably be lowered in the event of a federal downgrade. California, which typically issues short-term bonds for cash-flow reasons at this time of year, is working to arrange bank loans instead, citing the market uncertainty. Some state pension funds are worried that a default could erode the value of their investments, which are still recovering from losses during the recession.

How could this affect the tunnel? Well there is a lot of federal and borrowed money in the funding stream for the tunnel. The Washington State Department of Transportation’s website shows that

The viaduct replacement projects have $2.4 billion in committed funding from the state gas tax and federal sources. The Port of Seattle has committed $300 million to the replacement program.

The City of Seattle needs to borrow as much at $235 million to fund the seawall replacement, and the Port of Seattle seems to be leaning towards borrowing for its $300 commitment. Taken together, and not including possible state borrowing, that’s about $535 million in borrowing. Borrowing for the project could reach a billion dollars.

Currently, borrowing for local governments with good credit can be pretty low. But even small increases in interest rates for the city or the port could increase the costs by millions of dollars. A couple of percentage points might not seem like much, but when considered along with choked federal cash, increases in state costs of borrowing and perhaps even higher increases in interest rates the costs could start to multiply.

And don’t for get that the state borrows billions for lots of things, not just highways. If the state’s other borrowing costs go up from the typical 4 to 5 percent up to 6 or 7 percent it could cost the state millions in revenue it doesn’t have.

So put it together: less federal money,  and higher interest rates at the state, local, and port level means less cash and higher costs for borrowing money. That spells real trouble for the tunnel project. The federal government can’t pay it’s bills, the state doesn’t have much money, and the costs of borrowing start to climb as credit ratings get downgraded. All of this ought to heighten the worries of Seattle voters considering the tunnel. With problems with toll revenues, sketchy info on the Port’s commitment, trouble with federal money, and higher borrowing costs, all signs point to higher costs for the tax payers of the city of Seattle.

The tunnel project isn’t just unsustainable and bad for the environment, it’s a public finance Frankenstein, assembled from shaky and flaky funding sources. When the federal government defaults, credit ratings drop, toll revenues fail, there’s only one place to go for the extra cash: Seattle tax payers. This is one exit we shouldn’t take.

Note: I love debt and taxes. Nothing in this post should be construed as debt hawkishness. I am a sweet debt dove.

Do we want to save Metro Transit service, or allow a 17% reduction?

It’s amazing that it’s even a question. This city — riders, car commuters, our economy, sustainability — relies on transit. Yes there’s a cost, $20 per year per vehicle, but bus riders subsidize everyone. Of course we should save Metro.

How do bus riders subsidize everyone? By letting us avoid the astronomical cost of new highway capacity, and reducing traffic so drivers get places faster. By not requiring parking, which when “free” is paid for by all, not just by drivers. By letting businesses congregate in urban districts in ways that wouldn’t function if a larger percentage of people drove, particularly in central Seattle, Downtown Bellevue, etc., where transit usage is heavy. By giving low-wage workers a way to get to work, avoiding a host of social problems and their costs, starting with unemployment, and by giving higher-wage workers a way to live more sustainably.

Even for those able to drive instead of riding Metro, a reduction would generally require them to spend a larger percentage of their incomes on transportation. Much of this would come from discretionary spending, savings, and/or debt, all of which would weigh down the regional economy.

Even people who still ride metro, a reduction might mean longer commute times, with all the disruption that can entail.

Basically, a cut would be the anti-stimulus. For want of $20, an almost imperceptible change in our tax load, we’d hit this city and most of our residents with a flurry of sucker punches.

For those who think oil prices will keep rising, the stakes get even higher. Cities that have decent transit will weather high gas prices much better than cities that don’t.

I hope the County Council will pass the measure with a vote of six. That would save a lot of uncertainty and the cost of a ballot measure. With five from the Council, at least the public would get to vote. The measure would have a good chance — this is a patriotic metro, willing to pay for things that benefit the region and all of us.

Council, please lead!