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?

Online news site PubliCola has two interesting posts on crime in Seattle’s Belltown neighborhood and the city’s attempt to address it. What do you think can be done to make Belltown safer?

Google map

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!

WSJ Magazine, a publication of the Wall Street Journal, has an interesting article about Amanda Burden, daughter of well-known socialite Babe Paley and director of city planning for New York. The magazine says she is spearheading Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s effort to rezone nearly a quarter of New York City and reclaim the city’s waterfront. Her populist achievements include zoning for new affordable housing in East Harlem, Brookyln and the South Bronx, as well as the massively popular High Line, an abandoned railroad track that has been transformed into a popular tourist destination in the meatpacking neighborhood.

New York City waterfront. Courtesy of photobucket.com

Local news sites/blogs Seattle’s Land Use Code, Publicola and Citytank have been having an ongoing discussion about plans for an upzone in the Roosevelt neighborhood of Seattle. Those commenting have argued over how much density is needed near the light rail station planned for Roosevelt. But — as at least one of those commenting pointed out — how about the stations themselves: Why aren’t more useful things offered at transit hubs? As DJC contributor Clair Enlow noted, the stations could be mobility hubs, where commuters could grab a pre-reserved bike or park one, line up a taxi for the other end of the ride or pick up pre-delivered groceries on the way back. It’s a kind of multi-modal switching platform, where transportation meets information technology, and people can connect with essential goods and services, she writes. What do you think? Could we be doing more with the stations and the parking lots surrounding them?

This rendering provided by Cascadia Center for Regional Development shows a concept for a transit hub at the South Transit Park and Ride. It accommodates shared vehicles and places for pickup of pre-ordered goods. Passengers can transfer from rail to bus and find retail shops. King County Metro's plans to redevelop the park and ride do not include commuter rail. The site is along 108th Avenue Northeast, west of Interstate 405 and north of state Route 520. Image courtesy of Veolia Transport

AvalonBay Communities is building the 204-unit Avalon Queen Anne, an apartment and retail property in Seattle's Uptown neighborhood. Studio 216 rendering, courtesy of AvalonBay Communities

Four years ago, some of us were reminded (again) that the greater Downtown Seattle housing boom isn’t a birthright. Even with apartments and condos somewhat countercyclical, the whole shebang can slow dramatically, or even stop. But wow, if you love to see Seattle growing and filling in, the fun times are back.

From Lower Queen Anne to Broadway to the far side of First Hill and the CBD, something like 2,300 housing units are under construction right now, many of which I walked by in a big loop today, confirming actual starts vs. mere fence and site prep. That’s less than half the peak volume for that area, but a very healthy number, particularly since most started in a short period. More than 2006, these homes tend to be for the middle income ranges.

A couple thousand units isn’t a massive addition for that area in the scheme of things, with around 60,000 residents already here. But it’s part of greater Downtown’s march toward the real citydom. Slowly more neighborhoods have active sidewalks. Some gaps in our smile (parking lots) are getting fixed.

“Real citydom” is a concept whose meaning and desirability are very personal and subjective. For example, some argue, perhaps rightly, that the “real” part takes a decade or two at least, so that the neighborhood and building have had time to grow and adapt beyond their original states. Or maybe it’s about how much varied stuff is within walking distance, preferably including some good takeout pizza. On the flip side, some people prefer surface parking, and “city” is a bad thing. My bias isn’t a simple as “more is better,” but that’s a good start.

The Terrazza “apodment” project on 11th by Seattle U is very impressive, and one of the starts confirmed today. Per a recent DJC article, the 56 units will average 180 square feet, and there will be no elevator or parking. This is a crucial piece of Seattle’s affordability puzzle. While these homes aren’t for everyone, here’s a way people can live in a central neighborhood without subsidy at a low cost. This lets us focus levy funds et al where they’re really needed. Seattle keeps a few more of our bohemians or low-wage workers, a crucial aspect of any city’s success.

On the same walk, it was also fun to see tourist season in full swing. No, seriously! It’s fun for one’s city to be a host, even when people walk slowly four abreast. It’s sort of like being complimented. The waterfront was full of people all the way to the Sculpture Park, even with this week’s new crop of cruise passengers mostly loaded already. At the park, with the temperature pushing 70, several of the loungers clung to tiny havens of shade, apparently moving every 15 minutes…

Another topic for another day: While greater Downtown is growing housing at a good clip, the region isn’t. Does this suggest a low risk of overbuilding?