The city of Seattle has come up with a web portal — www.seattle.gov/walking – designed to encourage people to walk, hike and just get more physical activity.

Aging and Disability Services, a division of the Seattle Human Services Department, collaborated with the city’s Department of Information Technology to promote walking organizations, events, and resources for older adults. The page includes links to local walks and hikes, neighborhood walking maps, and volunteer opportunities like shelter dog walking as well as a selection of 5Ks and 10Ks by month.

Photo courtesy of Pike Place Market PDA

“As part of Encore, Seattle’s Web portal for people age 50+, the walking campaign is meant to encourage older people to get moving and stay connected,” said Rosemary Cunningham, interim Aging and Disability Services director, in a press release. “But all ages can use this site. The sooner someone gets into a walking habit, the healthier they’ll be when they get older.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , 33.8 percent of U.S. adults and 17 percent of children and youth are obese, a growing trend. In King County, 54 percent of adults are overweight or obese, 20 percent are obese, and 5.4 percent have been diagnosed with diabetes.

“The benefits of physical activity are well-documented,” said Cunningham. “You can control your weight, strengthen your bones and muscles, reduce your risk of chronic disease and some cancers, improve your mental health, prevent falls, and increase your chances of living longer. And walking is a level playing field—people can walk regardless of income and any extra walking is beneficial.”

Aging and Disability Services and the Seattle Department of Information Technology created Encore three years ago to give boomers 24/7 access to information about programs and services that interest them, both within city departments and the community at large. The portal provides older adults with access to thousands of resources, under broad headings such as Work & Money, Arts & Recreation, and Health & Fitness. For more information, visit www.seattle.gov/encore.

Aging and Disability Services is designated by the State of Washington as the Area Agency on Aging for King County. For more information, visit www.agingkingcounty.gov.

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.

In Seattle, most anything built in the core of an “urban village” or in Greater Downtown is asked to to “activate the street,” meaning to have retail ideally, or at least live-work spaces if the project is along a lesser street. At the Ave and certain parts of Downtown, that’s basically as it should be. But aside from the major commercial and pedestrian streets, the requirements are scarcely more than codified wishful thinking, rather than any sort of urban or economic sensibility.

Photo courtesy of photobucket.com

One result is that viable uses, like apartments and offices, tend to subsidize non-viable uses, which means less gets built until prices rise enough to justify the wasted cost. Another result is that we hurt our best retail streets. Rather than using new density to strengthen existing cores, we diffuse the retail, weakening California, Market, Roosevelt, etc. and creating large amounts of space that’s worthless to most retailers even if it’s dirt cheap. For a store, cutting business expenses by 10-20% with cheap rent on a side street isn’t helpful if it cuts total sales by 50%.

Activation comes up a lot if you read design review submissions on the DPD website. A review board will ask a project team to activate a street that is patently not suitable for any “active” use without subsidy, and the team will show admirable calm as they logically point out that back streets are horrible for retail, and live-work units often sell below cost, and so on. Or they’ll accommodate the request and eat the cost, passing it along to the building occupants.

A little math might help. In the US, we have about 40 square feet of retail per person. Even in a walkable district, a large percentage of the average resident’s spending will be at the supermarket or otherwise outside the neighborhood. This is a guess, but aside from groceries, perhaps 5-10 square feet per person might be merited for neighborhood stores and restaurants that a typical urban village resident with an average income might walk to. Now imagine 150 housing units. If the 150 house 225 people, 1,125 to 2,250 square feet of retail might be merited. That’s a coffee shop! You’d need several buildings like that to justify even one block of good retail, on one side of the street. Is it any wonder that even in a great economy, we have tons of unused retail? (The only winner seems to be owner-run nail shops, which can thrive with low sales due to very low costs.)

Several mental roadblocks are in our way. First, in Seattle, anything that a developer says will be widely considered tainted and self-serving, and therefore ignored, or only accommodated with an added incentive fee that might be worse than the original problem. Second, we have the idea that urban living automatically means spending your money in the neighborhood, when in reality a lot of urban dwellers drive for most of their spending. Third, we lack a frame of reference: Most of us grew up seeing two types of urban districts: Ones in Seattle that were either Downtown or small and centered on one major street, with much less density surrounding, and the downtowns and tourist areas of other cities. Most of these were destinations that drew from far away, not self-sufficient neighborhoods. We failed to see that large volumes of retail require the destination aspect. And we failed to see the widespread high-density areas in other cities that are full of ”non-activated” streets.

More about live-work. The concept is appropriate in some places, and not in others. It fits a tight range – places active enough that numerous types of businesses are appropriate, but not so active that you don’t want a front door open to the public. Large traffic volumes, nightclubs, and panhandlers, while welcome to the sainted among us, tend to turn buyers off.

Walk around Manhattan sometime, away from the obvious districts. Many cross-streets and even some avenues have huge densities (think East Midtown for example, far denser than most of what we’ll see here in our lifetimes) but no retail, or very little. That’s despite their much larger blocks, meaning less street frontage per given area. Instead of retail, people often live on the first level, raised maybe five feet for privacy and security, also allowing the basement to be daylighted. This was easier pre-ADA (aside from townhouses) but it’s still doable in some cases with a sloping site, or an elevator or ramp in a bigger lobby. In other places, some creative shrubbery and fencing can do a lot with a couple feet. Likewise, head to any of New York’s lowrise areas, which are more our typical “urban village” speed, and notice the one or two major retail streets and, generally, block after block of only housing.

Our multifamily code update has chipped away at some of the problem. Hopefully our upcoming Comp Plan update will be a framework for addressing the issue more broadly!

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?

A New York Times article says that preserving the High Line viaduct in New York as a public park revitalized that

Image courtesy of James Corner Field Operations

that the deluxe apartment buildings and hundreds of art galleries, restaurants and boutiques near the High Line make up for the $115 million the city has spent on the park and the deals it has made to encourage developers to build along the High Line without blocking out the sun.

Do you see any parallels with the High Line and plans for the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle and Seattle’s Central Waterfront?

Photo courtesy of Iwan Baan

Seattle’s Land Use Code blog grew out of a sense of frustration with the glacial pace of change in Seattle when it comes to land use. Having worked at the City in the Department of Neighborhoods and as a

Photo courtesy of luisrock62 from morguefile.com.

I get it. But what about taking a look at the bigger picture? How do we make our code speak to our larger goal of growing sustainably? I kept feeling like we needed to blow up the code and start all over again. I also recognized that the code is a complicated document. Why not conduct my own audit of the code? Maybe in reading it I would find that perhaps the code isn’t all that bad. Or I might find some ideas for a rewrite. So the blog was born.

So far, I am still convinced that we are far too old fashioned about land use and our code reflects that. We spend far too much time building legally binding boxes into which coming growth must fit. Why not focus on use first then conform the standards around that use? Why do we continue to “zone,” putting some use in one place and other uses in other places? What we need is not just a pig in our parlor, but to invite the whole herd in. Change is always tough, but we’ve got lots of growth coming and we’re going to have to develop a post Euclidian code that, ironically, takes us back to principles of land use that were common before the rise of the automobile.

Roger Valdez is a former city council and legislative staffer, consultant, and research associate at Sightline Institute. He has an interest in land use and urban livability and writes for a variety of local blogs and online publications.

Seattle developers are paying more and more attention to bus-rapid transit, so on Saturday I went to check out Metro’s version, RapidRide.

As a transit geek, I’d been wanting to go since the A Line between Tukwila and Federal Way opened last fall. I mentioned this in passing to Paula Rees. It turns out her Seattle company, Foreseer, is doing “environmental

communications” consulting on the planned D Line from downtown Seattle to Ballard, so we headed out

People with Orca cards pay before boarding, and people can board or disembark from three doors, speeding up the process. Photo by Marc Stiles

together.

Here’s my take as well as the opinion of a frequent rider, Steve Elling. We chatted him up at the Federal Way Transit Center.

* The diesel-electric coaches did move at a good clip. But it was early and I wondered what the pace would be like during rush hour. A survey of A Line riders found 84 percent are satisfied with the service. Steve concurs: “The A Line is super.”

* I was surprised by how close some of the stops are to one another; doesn’t seem very BRT-y to me.

* The pay-before-you enter system speeds that processes up, and fare enforcement officers make sure people do that. We didn’t see any, but Steve said they’re around and have zero tolerance for scofflaws.

* At major stops on the north-south line there are east-west connections. In-coach signage, however, didn’t seem to indicate where these transfer points are. Plus, the same route signs are reversed. As we headed south, the signs made it look as though the bus was going north confusing for folks who are not familiar with the lay of the land.

* Steve said the east-west bus connections are too few. And those that do exist stop running too early at night.

* I liked the multi-modal character of RapidRide. The transfer from light rail to RapidRide in SeaTac was fairly convenient despite having to cross International Boulevard on a pedestrian bridge and then cross back at street level to catch a south-bound bus. I was impressed that RapidRide’s southern terminus in Federal Way is at a transit center served by different transit agencies. One complaint: it wasn’t clear where in the center you catch the RapidRide heading back north.

* Metro gave RapidRide its own brand. Instead of the regular blue and green and yellow regular Metro coaches, RapidRide buses are red and yellow. We found that scheme cautionary. This combined with the do-this, don’t do that, Hold On! signs was off-putting. “There’s very little customer information and way too much regulatory messaging. I felt like maybe I shouldn’t be here,” Paula said.

* I’ll catch heck from my fellow transit geeks for this, but it seems like Sound Transit and Metro and Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn’s expansion plans and dreams overlap. We already have the A Line, so why is a cash-strapped Sound Transit pushing ahead with its plans to extend light rail farther south from SeaTac along the A Line route. And if RapidRide is coming to Ballard and West Seattle, why is McGinn pushing to extend light rail to those areas?

* It took us 1 hour and 20 minutes to get from downtown Seattle to Federal Way via light rail and RapidRide. Impressive when you consider that before RapidRide and light rail, the trip would have taken almost forever. If you’re looking for a truly speedy route, take Sound Transit’s express bus from Federal Way. We did on the way back and it took only 25 minutes.

The Port of Seattle may need a public vote for its share of the tunnel

Regardless of how the legal wrangling plays out this week over the proposed referendum on the tunnel, voters will likely get a chance to vote on a significant part of the funding for the deep bore tunnel. The Port of Seattle has pledged $300 million dollars to fund a part of the tunnel project but a quick review of the Port’s budget makes it clear that the Port doesn’t have the money to cover their share. That means they’ll likely have to go to voters for a property tax increase or to get voter approved debt—or both. That means a ballot measure to gives thumbs up or down to the Port’s share of tunnel funding.

The Port of Seattle’s entire annual operating budget is about $500 million dollars. About $73 million of that comes from property taxes levied on properties in King County. The taxing authority available to the Port is about $88 million, which means about $15 million dollars that the Port could allocate for tunnel funding. Anything above that would require a vote of voters in King County.

But what about all the other revenues the Port gets from aviation fees at SeaTac airport, for example. Much of that funding can’t be used for projects like the tunnel. In fact, many of the revenue streams that fund Port operations are conditioned, dedicated or limited funds. You can’t charge the airlines more to pay for the tunnel costs. So for all the money that pours into the Ports coffers, not all of it is usable for tunnel costs.

And here’s another interesting thing to note. The Port’s budget overview shows that it’s capital budget—the budget the Port uses for construction projects like the deep bore tunnel—will drop from $410 million last year to less than half that by 2014, about $195 million for capital expenditures. And there is no sign of the $300 million anywhere in the capital budget documents, although the Memorandum of Agreement does say that much of the Port’s contribution will come in 2016 and beyond. But from where?

Finally, it is possible that the Port could issue bonds, borrowing the money for the tunnel. But there too, the Port faces state limitations on how much it can borrow without going to the voters. It’s possible that the Port might be planning to issue bonds, but that means it cuts into their credit limit. And if their debt goes too high they’ll be force to put the bond issuance up to a vote of the people. Furthermore, that means they will have to pay interest on top of the $300 million they’ve committed to. And I can’t find mention of the tunnel anywhere in their financing plan.

All of this could explain why the Port—and supporters of the tunnel project in general—continues to be coy about where it’s $300 million share of tunnel expenses will come from. I’m no expert on the Port’s budget. Why don’t they just explain?

The bottom line is that the Port’s annual operating budget is $500 million. They’ve committed to putting 3/5 of their annual operating budget into the tunnel (not all at once, but when and how?). But they haven’t put that into their capital budget or given taxpayers a hint about where it’s going to come from. Just imagine if you put yourself on the hook for 3/5 of your annual income and didn’t tell your spouse or partner how you were planning to pay for it.

It looks like the Port just can’t afford to pay for their share without a vote. If that isn’t the case the Port should just clear this up by explaining where the $300 million will come from.

Photo credit: kakisky from morguefile.com

Recent surveys such as a Elway tunnel poll suggests that a 99 Tunnel vote could go either way. But there are some interesting takeaways.

In the poll, among all respondents, the elevated options combined (retrofit or rebuild) beat the tunnel 38% to

Photo courtesy of the city of Seattle

Of course, the poll didn’t explain the options or their benefits and drawbacks. It’s anyone’s guess how doing so might have affected the numbers. For example it didn’t suggest that most surface concepts involve more transit, and it didn’t include WSDOT Secretary Paula Hammond’s recent analysis that voting-related delays would cost $54,000,000 even if the tunnel wins, and $20,000,000 per month for any additional delay after the vote.

Here’s a theory. If greater tunnel support correlates to greater likelihood of voting, perhaps tunnel support also correlates to civic involvement and general knowledge as well. Maybe the majority of both groups are equally informed, but the tunnel opponents include a fair number of standard-issue angry uninformed people as well. These are the people who, anecdotally, still think the tunnel would be along the waterfront, or would require a viaduct closure to build, or would reduce capacity through Downtown. Or they think elevated is better than tunnels in earthquakes, etc. Simply correcting the basics would do a lot of good for the pro-tunnel side.

Surface supporters must be taking the poll like a ton of bricks. The numbers don’t suggest a majority for the tunnel, but they do say that a 73-21% majority prefer a grade-separated 99 (or 73-22% among “almost certain” voters). The idea that “Seattle will fight the state and say no” appears to be a pipe dream. Surface supporters are attempting to throw a wrench to kill the tunnel, but if they somehow succeed they’ll likely give us a taller, wider viaduct for the next 70 years. Or maybe a billion-dollar temporary retrofit followed by another replacement debate in 2030.

Around the same time came another poll suggesting a 28% approval rating for McGinn, with 24% of that being just “good” rather than “excellent.” The negatives were more extreme, with 27% “poor” and 39% “only fair.” Since McGinn is letting his tunnel opposition dominate his agenda, this suggests that voters are either disagree about the tunnel or want him to broaden his focus, or both.

Tunnel supporters have released their own EMC poll results. With wording that was substantially more positive for both sides than Elway’s version, they asked about a two-way vote between the tunnel and surface/transit, and 55-40% preferred the tunnel. Of course this sort of poll is always biased. Perhaps more influential was the voter preference for council members in the next elections — 39% would prefer a pro-tunnel candidate and 20% an anti-tunnel candidate, with 41% unaffected by the tunnel. That’s surprising, but conforms with the idea that tunnel opponents are generally not letting it dominate their opinions, or see the issue as largely settled.

As a tunnel supporter I’m hopeful and optimistic! Ideally the courts will throw out the referendum, and save us most of the $54,000,000 or whatever the number is. And I hope the Magnolia freeway supporter measure goes away. Either way, I hope the Council and State will continue to be leaders as they have been!