Please take The Urbanist Reader Survey here!

Thank you for being a reader of The Urbanist.

The post Take The Urbanist Reader Survey first appeared on The Urbanist.

Currently, both the Seattle Public Library (SPL) and the King County Library System (KCLS) are conducting surveys to inform future operations. The SPL survey is to inform SPL’s future strategic plan and the KCLS survey is more of a general patron satisfaction survey. Both surveys close soon, so now is the chance to make your voice heard.

• Fill out the Seattle Public Library survey by November 15th.
• Fill out the KCLS survey by November 17th. 

Given that both library systems are in the midst of conducting surveys about their future direction, now is a good time to discuss the role libraries could play in the future of our region. Here are six ideas to make them more useful, ranging from climate change adaptation, to better multimodal access, to broader hours and use cases.

1) Strengthen library facilities for extreme weather events.

Build community resilience to extreme weather events by adding solar panels and battery storage to each library facility. To be clear, both SPL and KCLS are already weatherizing and making other physical improvements to their facilities, but adding solar panels and battery storage would provide some energy security, allowing facilities to continue to serve the public following an extreme weather event. Doing so could even pay for itself, thanks to possible energy tax credits available under the Inflation Reduction Act for local governments and nonprofits.

Urbanist contributor Clifford Heberden recently wrote about the city’s plans for resilience hubs. He mentioned the role libraries play in this. With the libraries carrying out community engagement now, followed by the city’s Office of Sustainability and the Environment in 2024, it will be important to be consistent and disciplined in asking for investments in infrastructure like this as part of supporting community resilience.

2) Double down on community activation

SPL and KCLS should reform the library’s community use policies and do everything possible to use the spaces as much as possible. This could involve targeted engagement with community organizations, schools, and nonprofits to encourage them to use library spaces. It would require an expansion of imagination in terms of what library spaces are and how they can be used. Some ideas:

• Use parking lots for community events;
• Trial weekly coffee and tea hours;
• Use meeting rooms for yoga classes;
• Trial food trucks at the most popular locations during busier hours;
• Trial flu shot drives;
• Add community gardens to libraries where there is space;
• Continue the trend of makerspaces;
• Consider recording studios;
• Add outdoor playgrounds at locations where the surrounding neighborhood lacks them;
• Add lending libraries for tools and niche household items (or provide awareness about existing similar programs at other area libraries).
• Lend board games;
• Add art classes;
• Replicate what the Oodi Library in Helsinki has done and add a small kitchen for cooking classes or to be used in conjunction with larger events;
• Add performance spaces for meetings, seminars, community theater groups, etc.;
• Add a small café in larger locations and structure the contracts so that small business owners are competitive in winning them.

3) Plan for future capital bonds

Start planning now for the next capital bond building program, focusing on how libraries will adapt to serve more dense communities. With more density, people will seek out more ‘third places’ like libraries, parks, and cafes. This is where the library can step in and really help to cement individuals’ sense of place and community. To do this though it will be necessary to plan for the physical improvements necessary for this to happen. The priority should be on expanding locations which experience consistently high usage (See #5 about library statistics), expanding in historically underserved areas, and adding new locations in areas which are zoned for high density and have large numbers of apartments planned or under construction. 

This could take the form of adding by default a new library in conjunction with new light rail stations in areas where libraries are lacking or already experience high use. Junction and Judkins Park come to mind as places where this would make sense, as does the area surrounding the NE 130th Street Station in North Seattle if the area is to get a significant rezone though that is very much up in the air. Uptown and South Lake Union also lack a library branch, but will get light rail stations once Ballard Link is finally completed.

Regardless of the type of expansion, new ideas like off-site or basement book repositories, smaller libraries in ground floor commercial spaces, and building multi-story libraries should be considered (historically libraries in the Puget Sound Region have been largely single story). Each of these ideas has pros and cons but ultimately they all boil down to ways to expand service and improve the user experience by providing more space for studying, working, and reading in an efficient, user-friendly way. 

4) Physically connect communities

Build safe walking, biking, and transit connections between library facilities and other major destinations. This will help make it easier and safer for community members to travel to and from the library and help to build out the region’s non-car transportation infrastructure. This does not necessarily have to cost the library systems money (municipal departments of transportation and state and federal grant funding could cover the costs), but it will require planning and staff resources to kickstart action, apply for grant funding, and do whatever it takes to get it over the finish line. 

Libraries are key amenities to every neighborhood, and making sure it is safe and easy to walk, roll, bike, or take transit to the library will help to better connect the city not just physically but socially by improving library access for all.

5) Track library use

Both SPL and KCLS report annual usage statistics in the form of total numbers i.e., 140 nonprofit groups used free meeting room spaces, and 27,509 programs took place which served 620,509 attendees. Shifting these key performance indicators to figures which represent engagement per day and per location and per program would be more helpful in making programming decisions. In the same vein, KCLS currently breaks down circulation by region. The same should be done for programs, attendees, and program hours.

6) Stabilize funding streams

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, sort out and stabilize the funding structure and funding streams. The KCLS’s last lid lift levy expired in 2018 which, combined with inflation, has eroded the library’s ability to adequately fund operations and personnel which translates into a diminished user experience.

A lot of these ideas are reliant on adequate staff to plan, organize, execute and provide service, but even excluding this, the library needs to be able to fund its operations. It is understandable that KCLS chose not to try to pass a levy lid lift in 2020 due to the pandemic, but three years have gone by and inflation continues to eat away at the library’s budget.

While SPL’s budget is more diversified and has not fallen as significantly in recent years, both systems experience similar issues. 

Before we can expand the library’s mission it is necessary to stop the bleeding that is currently occurring and ensure sufficient resources exist to maintain and normalize current services. This would include the normalization of library hours – ideally seven days a week and regular hours, i.e. 9am to 9pm – instead of the current shifting schedule which is confusing for patrons and makes it difficult to build the library into one’s daily schedule.

In 2019 there were 1,218 employees at KCLS, but by 2023 staff levels had fallen to just over 800. This clearly needs to be addressed because while some shrinkage might be justified, to lose 35% of your workforce should not be something that is done lightly and will undoubtedly affect morale and the library’s ability to serve the public.

Looking ahead

Purists will argue that the library should stick to its historical function of providing books and study spaces. Yes. But, the world has changed and libraries must adapt. The Puget Sound region has some of the most successful libraries in the country. Let’s keep moving forward, and make sure we are investing in and positioning our libraries to continue to serve the public well into the future.

The post Op-Ed: How to Create Libraries of the Future  first appeared on The Urbanist.

Seattle is mapping out the next two decades of transportation investments as part of its comprehensive plan process, and one transformative option is on the table. The City should not just study that option, but actually choose it in order to get the city on course to meet its climate goals and implement its pledge to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries.

Numerous transportation and climate advocacy organizations have urged the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) to take this course of action and integrate those ambitious targets into the Seattle Transportation Plan after the first draft left them blank and “to be determined.” Rapid progress was also the most popular option in public feedback, with 95% of the community favoring it during SDOT’s extensive outreach process.

SDOT has extended its comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the plan until October 31. Don’t miss your chance to weigh in. Comment on the project website.

The department also has a comment period on its recently released Seattle Transportation Plan project list open through November 20.

As The Urbanist detailed earlier this month, the EIS lays out three alternatives. The first is a no-change baseline. Alternative 2 charts “moderate pace” improvements and Alternative 3 is the agency’s “rapid progress” alternative. Over the 20-year planning window, Alternative 3 envisions a major buildout of transportation networks as follows:

• 848 linear miles of sidewalks for the pedestrian network; 
• 385 miles of bike facilities to expand the bicycle network;
• 76 miles of additional people streets with whole or partial pedestrianization;
• 123 miles of additional dedicated transit corridors with speed and reliability improvements;
• 19 miles of shared freight- and- bus (FAB) lanes for the freight network.

The City of Seattle plans to study Transportation Alternative 3 as a pairing with the City’s most ambitious land use option: Comprehensive Plan Alternative 5. Together, they would constitute a significant shift toward people living closer to amenities and jobs and having greater access to safe walking, biking, and transit networks, creating more 15-minute neighborhoods where cities can meet their needs close to home without needing a private vehicle.

SDOT’s Alternative 3 shoots much higher than Alternative 2, as shown in the SDOT’s chart below. Advocates have urged SDOT to chart how they will get there, with benchmarks along the way.

The Urbanist joined with a group of transportation advocates — including Cascade Bicycle Club, Commute Seattle, Futurewise, Seattle Neighborhood Greenways, and Transportation Choices Coalition — that pushed SDOT to pursue Alternative 3.

“Of the options studied, Alternative 3 would create the most significant expansions to Seattle’s pedestrian, bike, and transit networks,” the groups wrote in the letter. “The city must advance this alternative to get closer to its climate, equity and safety goals, although the EIS does not provide sufficient clarity that even Alt 3 will get the city to the exact goals.”

The groups commended SDOT for its vision for Alternative 3 and urged following through on Alternative 3 to meet climate goals and avert a full-blown environmental catastrophe down the road.

“The STP’s vision is admirable and bold: ‘Seattle is an equitable, vibrant, and diverse city where moving around is safe, fair, and sustainable. All people and businesses can access their daily needs and feel connected to their community.’ As stated in the draft EIS, Alt 3 provides the highest likelihood of reaching our city’s transportation, climate, and equity goals by reducing vehicle miles traveled, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and environmental impacts that harm our air and water quality. Alt 3 responds best to the draft 2024 Comprehensive Plan by providing a range of transportation options close to new housing and jobs. According to climate experts, we need GHG emissions to start decreasing in 2025 and be cut in half by 2030 to avoid the worst outcomes of climate change. Alternatives 1 and 2 do not expand or improve our transportation system with enough urgency to meet these objectives and should not be advanced.”

Alternative 3 appears the only option that holds hope for meeting ambitious transportation mode shift goals for the year 2030 that SDOT laid out in its recent Climate Change Response Framework. Those mode shift goals were not enumerated let alone integrated into the draft Seattle Transportation Plan, which is another improvement the agency can make as it finalizes the plan.

Likewise, the City’s Vision Zero goal to eliminate traffic deaths by 2030 should be integrated into the plan. After some progress since the City of Seattle adopted the Vision Zero pledge in 2015, traffic deaths have started creeping up again and advocates are urging the agency to take more concerted and decisive actions to design and create safer streets. The draft plan missed an opportunity to lay out those concrete steps more clearly.

So, comment on the Seattle Transportation Plan before Halloween to avoid a nightmarish future. Seattle Neighborhood Greenways has a form letter that makes it frightfully easy.

The post Seattle Must Pursue ‘Rapid Progress’ Option and Transform Its Streets first appeared on The Urbanist.

Lynnwood Link is set to open in fall 2024 and bring light rail to four new stations. That alone will be transformative to the regional transit network, but the accompanying bus restructure, intended to better serve the new stations, will also have far-reaching effects. Releasing its Phase 3 proposal in July, King County Metro stressed that the restructure will increase all-day service and improve east-west connections.

Metro has been working on its restructure proposal since 2021, releasing Phase 1 in 2022 and Phase 2 in January 2023, as Stephen Fesler broke down in an explainer in The Urbanist. Fesler noted limited service hours due to King County Metro’s bus driver shortage had handcuffed what the agency could do in terms of expanding the frequent bus network and adding new routes.

That’s still true in Phase 3, but Metro’s service planners have sought to deploy the hours they have more effectively based on feedback gathered from the public and Metro’s mobility board, a citizen advisory group. Furthermore, a new labor agreement signed this month giving bus operators a 17% raise over three years may help fill out Metro’s ranks and allow the agency to slowly boost service frequency and push toward a “frequent network” with more 10-minute routes rather than 15-minute ones.

Transit riders have until Sunday August 27 to take Metro’s survey to give feedback on the Phase 3 proposal. It’s the last formal chance to seek refinements before Metro implements the restructure in fall 2024. That feedback has really made a difference, as Metro community engagement planner Luke Distelhorst told The Urbanist.

“This is the largest number of changes I’ve seen from a middle to a final phase network,” Distelhorst said, noting this was the third bus restructure he’s worked on. “It’s something that maybe is not always visible to the public, like how much our community engagement, how much our mobility board really help shape these proposals that we put out for additional feedback. So it’s just super exciting to be here where we are now and have such a different network that is taking that engagement into account and that we get to check in with community on again in the third and final phase.”

Phase 3 Changes

Among the Phase 3 improvements is addressing Phase 2’s service gap on Lake City Way in Maple Leaf, which Fesler highlighted in his breakdown. Metro’s mobility board rated adding service to address the gap on Lake City Way as a very high priority, Metro Transportation Planner Corey Holder said, noting the agency addressed with a new Route 77 running along Lake City Way and hitting Roosevelt Station.

The addition of Route 77 could help answer criticism that Lake City residents have had in losing Route 41 (a former express route to Downtown Seattle) when Northgate Link opened and not getting enough in return. Route 77 does it all, connecting Bitter Lake to Lake City and then continuing south to Roosevelt on Lake City Way and then on to the University District.

Another refinement was to crook Route 345 toward the senior housing on Linden Avenue in Bitter Lake, providing a closer stop for residents. “Second thing we heard a high amount of feedback on was service on Linden Avenue at 135th,” Holder said. “This is the Sanford Hildebrand Towers with a lot of senior housing. The proposal didn’t have a direct stop at it.”

Public feedback was also against changes to Route 75 that took it off 5th Avenue NE, a segment that includes another senior housing complex, Holder said. Thus, Metro jettisoned the revision and put Route 75 back on 5th Avenue, restoring a connection between Northgate and Pinehurst.

Holder also highlighted the addition of frequent service on N 145th Street west of I-5, which had strong support in public feedback (and Fesler’s critique). While 145th Street won’t host a crosstown route that stretches from Bitter Lake to Lake City, Route 333 and Sound Transit’s 522 Route (which will be converted to an “S3” bus rapid transit route in 2028 or so) together provide frequent service on the corridor. Additionally, Route 72 will run on the eastern half of 145th alongside the 522.

Phase 3 undid a revision to the Route 65 that made it the crosstown route to Bitter Lake due to feedback stressing the importance of the existing 35th Avenue NE routing through Lake City, particularly to students.

“The 65 serves a high priority there of a lot of students using that to get to Nathan Hale and Jane Addams Middle School,” Holder said. “The 65 provided that connection and there was a lot of apprehension about losing that connection. We reviewed that and they were two of the highest ridership trips of the day on the 65 but it was really carrying a lot of connections between those two. So we are addressing that Phase 3 by maintaining a Route 65 pathway on 35th Avenue, instead of a Phase 2 proposal where we had it going over to Bitter Lake.”

Shoreline’s New Frequent Bus Network

While much of Seattle won’t be seeing huge changes with the restructure, Shoreline’s network will see a major transformation. Route 333 and Route 348 will be the backbone of a new frequent bus network in Shoreline, along with the existing RapidRide E and Route 5.

Route 348 cuts a diagonal path through Shoreline starting at Richmond Beach and cutting over to Shoreline North Station at 185th Street and looping down via 15th Avenue NE all the way to Northgate Station. Note that the Richmond Beach tail of the bus runs at lower frequency than the rest of the line. Other than that, Route 348 is largely unchanged from the Phase 2 proposal.

Route 333, meanwhile, was revised significantly, and now has a sickle pattern running south from Mountlake Terrace Station along 15th Avenue NE eventually meeting and briefly overlapping with Route 348 to allow for transfers, connecting a wide swath of Shoreline with frequent service. Route 333 then turns west along 175th Street, crossing Aurora Avenue and turning south on Fremont Avenue N and swiveling over on Dayton Avenue N to pick up Shoreline Community College and a fast-growing area near the Aurora Square mall before turn back east along NE 145 Street and terminating at Shoreline South Station. It’s not the most direct route, but it connects a lot of Shoreline.

Further adding to Shoreline’s frequent network, a new northern extension of Route 65 provides frequent service through the Paramount Park and Briarcrest neighborhoods in southern Shoreline, providing a quick connection to Shoreline South Station.

Route 331, 345, and 365 layer on some less frequent local service on top of Shoreline’s new frequent network.

The Cuts

For Seattle, the new crosstown Route 77 may be the splashy addition, but some riders will also notice cuts.

Despite Fesler’s Phase 2 pleas, the Route 20 is still on the chopping block. It’s elimination will reduce service in the Latona Avenue corridor east of Green Lake, leading to a service gap for east Wallingford and Green Lake residents who don’t live within walking or rolling distance of Route 62.

Route 346 is deleted as well, which will sacrifice service on the Meridian Avenue corridor in Shoreline. The combination of Route 345 and 365, which overlap on Meridian Avenue, is intended to provide frequent service on Meridian in Seattle, but whether the schedules are accurate enough for those two 30-minute routes to add up to a 15-minute route where they overlap remains to be seen. Riders have been let down by such pairing before, such as the Route 31 and Route 32 combo in Wallingford and Fremont. The loss of Route 20 will weaken Meridian coverage to the south.

Route 73 will also be deleted, leading Route 67 to carry a heavier load and cover a wider swath of North Seattle. The section of 15th Avenue NE losing service is largely single family homes and not a high ridership area, but riders there are likely to notice the downgrade. Roosevelt Way (and the frequent Route 67) is a quarter-mile west from 15th Avenue NE.

Route 64, a peak-only commuter express from Lake City and Wedgwood to Downtown, is getting axed as well, but Route 65 will largely replace it.

For corridors not getting replacement service, the loss of bus service could jeopardize parking requirement exemptions that could be coming with passage of statewide missing middle zoning reform, though it will depend on how Seattle implements the state mandate. And not having high parking requirements could be key to fourplexes and other missing middle housing types being feasible to build in the first place. In other words, Metro’s decisions could have impacts that go beyond mobility and into the realm of land use and housing growth.

Take Metro’s survey

A reminder: Riders have until Sunday, August 27, to take Metro’s survey to give feedback on the Phase 3 proposal.

The post Metro Zeroes In on Lynnwood Link Bus Restructure first appeared on The Urbanist.

Sound Transit is on the precipice of making decisions that will waste your time, over and over again, forever. In the spirit of setting a better example of how to not waste people’s time, we are going to get straight into just how bad the option of constructing the North of and South of Chinatown International District (CID) stations is for riders, and what you can do to help prevent this huge mistake. Seattle Subway volunteers have been working hard to literally walk you through the impacts of the impending choice, so please watch the excellent videos they put together. It will bring them a spark of happiness in these trying times for transit.

For those of you who don’t have time to open the videos, here’s a quick run down of the shortest walks between proposed station entrances:

Transfer time from the Eastside to South Seattle Link (to Rainier Valley, airport, etc.) via the current International District Station.

• South of CID:  8 Minutes and 21 Seconds
• 4th Avenue:    1 Minute and 3 Seconds

Transfer time from Sounder/Amtrak to Ballard Link (including South Lake Union, Seattle Center, etc.)

• North of CID:  11 Minutes and 52 Seconds
• 4th Avenue:    15 Seconds

The transfer times the North/South of CID station options force on riders are simply too long. These unvetted but obvious bad stations will suppress transit ridership and treat people who don’t have other options like they don’t matter. Alternatively, transfers as good as a transit hub station on 4th Avenue can make the whole system shine. We are faced with choosing between building the best connected transit hub west of Chicago and north of San Francisco, or totally blowing it because well-connected developers seem to matter more than equity for transit riders and respecting transit riders’ time.

Please join us in testifying to the Sound Transit Board today to save the CID station as an essential transit hub, save Midtown Station and its critical connection to First Hill, and save SLU station from deletion entirely.

It’s also not too late to join the thousands of people who have sent a letter to the Sound Transit Board and Seattle City Council demanding that they stop the endless planning cycle and deliver the system that we voted for. Don’t worry, we have already started the letter for you so you don’t have to grapple with writer’s block.

Details

Now let’s dig into the details on these transfers. It will come as no surprise to anyone following Sound Transit 3 (ST3) planning that we think the option to construct North/South of CID stations proposed by County Executive Dow Constantine and Mayor Bruce Harrell is bad for transit riders. We can say that and trot out a long list of reasons, but it occurs to us that nothing will make our point quite so well as showing you why we’re so bothered.

We teamed up with our partners in the CID, Transit Equity for All, and walked some of the common transfers that people will have to deal with if the North/South of CID option is ultimately selected by the Sound Transit Board and built. We then walked the comparable transfer if the station is under 4th in CID, where it should be. We made videos, so you don’t have to walk them yourself (hopefully).

These two video examples are by no means a comprehensive list of issues with the North/South of CID option. We didn’t get to it, but riders trying to connect from the Rainier Valley and points south to CID or to Lumen Field might be surprised to learn their once direct connection is gone. The North/South of CID also means deleting the Midtown Station which Sound Transit’s own planners have identified as the highest ridership non-transfer station in the system.

In each of the scenarios, we walked what is likely the fastest and most direct route. An alternate option to either double transfer for a short trip or backtrack after transferring in either Pioneer Square or SoDo will also be available. All these alternatives require waiting for extra trains, traveling extra stops, or a too deep and still not-that-close transfer between Pioneer Square and the proposed North of CID station. We can’t show you those because they don’t exist yet, but we can confidently say the transfer will be much worse than if the 4th Avenue in CID station is constructed.

We also can’t show you waiting for the train or getting to the platform, so we’ve left platforms completely out of our videos, even the ones we could have shown. The times we’re giving are therefore meaningfully shorter than how long it would actually take to transfer. These are pretty much minimum transfer times for able-bodied people.

Walk-through videos

The first video shows what a transfer from the Eastside (which includes Judkins Park in Seattle) will look like if someone wants to travel to points south on the current 1 line (future 3 line) such as the Rainier Valley or the airport.

Now let’s look at what the same transfer would look like with a station on 4th:

Next, let’s see what a transfer from Amtrak or Sounder heading north to high volume destinations like South Lake Union, Seattle Center, and Ballard will look like if we skip a CID Station.

And the same transfer with a transit hub on 4th Avenue:

Take action

Wasting time out of every rider’s life because certain people on the Sound Transit Board want to do some sort of grandiose land deal is unacceptable. Voters did not direct Sound Transit to make Dow’s development dreams come true, they voted for a world-class transit system with stations in CID, in Midtown, and in South Lake Union. Please speak up and help us make them do their jobs.

The post Op-Ed: Chinatown Deserves a Transit Hub, Not Terrible Transfers first appeared on The Urbanist.

Work has begun on the first phase of the Amtrak Cascades Service Development Plan (SDP), which will serve as a blueprint for Amtrak Cascades passenger rail service for the next two decades. The last Amtrak Cascades long range plan was completed in 2006 — and much of it was never brought to fruition. This time around, Amtrak has the opportunity to create a service plan that will help passenger rail thrive in the Pacific Northwest, but it will need public support and engagement to get things right.

As part of the preliminary work on the SDP, Amtrak Cascades is asking people to complete a short survey by February 24th focused on questions related to people’s travel habits and needs on the I-5 corridor. This part of work to identify travel trends likely to affect future ridership, which will be used to develop future service scenarios. Amtrak Cascades needs to hear from people who use their passenger rail service for travel, or who want to use it, but are hindered by factors like limited service.

Survey participants also have the option to enter a raffle to win two tickets on Amtrak Cascades and two concert tickets to see Ed Sheeran this summer.

For readers interested in learning more, Amtrak Cascades has prepared a webinar on the SDP, which will be held online on February 7th from 5:30 to 6:30pm. No advance registration is needed, but reminder emails will be sent to people who subscribe to the Amtrak Cascades Future Planning mailing list.

In 2006, the vision was for Amtrak Cascades to offer 13 daily roundtrip trains between Seattle and Portland, and four daily roundtrip trains between Seattle and Vancouver, BC, in 2023. But even before the pandemic led to a steep decrease in passenger rail service, with international service halted between March 2020 and September 2022, far fewer trips were being offer than what had been projected.

The current plan is for service to be restored to the pre-pandemic levels of six daily trips between Seattle and Portland and two daily trips between Seattle and Vancouver, BC, during 2023.

This is despite the fact that the region has seen a steady increase in population, particularly in urban centers like Seattle, which was one of only 14 cities in the US to gain 100,000 or more residents over the last decade.

In addition to the survey, Amtrak Cascades is also gathering input on its Preliminary Purpose and Need Statement, which will explain the goals of the long range plan and the needs it is intended to address. Comments and suggestions on the plan can be submitted to CascadesSDP@wsdot.wa.gov.

According to Arvia Morris, a volunteer with Climate Rail Alliance, one of the key pieces of feedback needed from the public is “more trains, less lanes and planes.”

“Greater reliability, shorter trips and higher frequency drive mode shift to rail,” Morris said in an email to The Urbanist.

Morris also highlighted that Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) should be committing to the “high growth scenario” for Amtrak Cascades in the 2019 Washington State Rail plan (pages 47-49) which will require investment in rail infrastructure. 

“The new train sets due to be operational by 2026 are built to go 125mph. Why put them on tracks that are constrained to 30-79mph if you don’t have to? WSDOT should be preparing for the new trainsets by upgrading infrastructure now with federal grant applications,” Morris said.

Make sure to complete the survey and email your comments and suggestions on the Purpose and Need Statement to CascadesSDP@wsdot.wa.gov by February 24th.

Note: This article was corrected on Jan. 25 to reflect that the date of the webinar is February 7th.

The post Amtrak Cascades to Chart Next 20 Years of Service first appeared on The Urbanist.

Given the size and scope, it’s understandable that the full draft budget nears 800 pages in length. The City Manager’s office released a 20-page Executive Summary that gives the highlights, but it naturally does not delve too deep into specific funds, programs, or capital projects. After a week of being released to the public and two separate city council discussions (with many more to come), here are the highlights that might have the most direct effect on the lives of people who live, work, study in, or care about Bellevue.

Keep in mind that there are ways to engage with Bellevue’s budget making process. Through October 10th, Bellevue is accepting feedback through an online budget values survey, which will be followed by an in-person neighborhood leadership gathering at City Hall on Tuesday, October 11th from 6:30-8:00 pm.

New taxes

Under Washington State law, the total property tax that a jurisdiction may collect may only increase by 1% from year to year (excluding any voter-approved levies, which may rise with inflation). Because the City of Bellevue is continuing to grow and urbanize while a significant portion of its revenues are legally not allowed to keep pace, Finance Director Toni Call has said there is a structural imbalance between the city’s revenues and expenditures that will lead to a continuously-growing deficit over the next several years barring state-level action.

Although revenues have slightly changed over what was forecasted earlier this year, annual deficits could still grow to nearly $10 million in as soon as four years. To plug the gap in the short term, City Manager Brian Miyake has proposed the following revenue adjustments:

• A 2% property tax increase in 2023 followed by a 1% increase in 2024;
• An increase of 0.01 points to the B and O tax rate: from 0.1496% on gross receipts to 0.1596%; and
• An adjustment to land use review fees so that they’re paid for 100% by the applicant (previously 50%).

Because Bellevue City Council has, in previous years, chosen to not increase property taxes by its allotted 1% annual increase, the City has accrued banked capacity that it can choose to collect later per state law. Therefore, the planned 2% increase in 2023 would be composed of its allowed 1% increase for 2023 and usage of 1% of its banked capacity. A 2% increase would represent an increase of $18 annually for a property with an assessed value of $1,000,000.

As for the B and O tax, the small increase would be the first time the tax has been raised since 1989. According to budget documents, the new B and O rate would only be slightly above the regional average of 0.1532%. Additionally, Bellevue’s current property tax rate of $0.84 per $1,000 of assessed value (A.V.) is nearly 50% lower than the average among Washington cities with at least 20,000 people.

Transportation

Most transportation projects of note fall under the Capital Investment Program (CIP) Plan, which is budgeted on a seven-year cycle and includes capital projects and programs in community development, parks, transportation, and more. Not counting utilities projects, the 2023-2029 CIP totals $808 million, with $293 million spread across over 66 transportation projects.

A key funding segment for transportation projects in Bellevue comes from the Neighborhood Connectivity, Safety, and Congestion levy that voters passed in 2016. Across 2023 and 2024, staff plan to spend $17.1 million on 47 projects, including 14 bicycle improvements and three sidewalk projects. Additionally, 14 levy-funded projects will help improve safety in neighborhoods through traffic calming, new crosswalks, and speed management infrastructure. Across the life of the seven-year CIP, funding for such safety and connectivity projects is expected to grow to $52 million, which represents a $7 million increase from the previous 2021-2027 CIP.

Two key safety projects that were introduced in the previous CIP, the Vision Zero Rapid Build Program and the High Comfort Growth Corridor Bike Network, have had their funding extended in this preliminary budget. Funds for the Vision Zero program, which helps implement tactical safety improvements on high-injury roadways, have been extended through 2029 to match previous levels (approximately $358,000 per year).

For the High Growth Corridor Bike Network, which will help bring bicycle infrastructure to more streets in the city’s growth corridors of Downtown, Wilburton, and BelRed, only $1.5 million had been dedicated to the project in the previous 2021-27 CIP, at $500,000 per year across just the first three years. In this preliminary budget however, funding for the project has been maintained at this level through 2029, meaning that an additional $3 million has been made available for the program.

Compared to the previous seven-year CIP, funding levels have also increased for other multimodal projects. Funds for improving pedestrian and bicycle connections to light rail stations have been increased by $2.3 million, to total $5.8 million through 2029. Additionally, over $11 million has been dedicated to neighborhood sidewalk improvements, an increase of $2.5 million over the 2021-27 CIP.

The new budget also adds several new line-items that will either create new multimodal connections add some seed funds to contribute towards future improvements. For example, nearly $6.9 million has been added to reflect new Move Ahead Washington funding for the next portion of the Mountains to Sound Greenway trail, connecting 142nd Place SE and 150th Avenue SE. Staff have also allocated $3.6 million to the design of a new non-motorized crossing over I-405, a new route that will help advance Bellevue’s vision of the Grand Connection‘s extension into Wilburton.

Additionally, although community pushback was not able to stop the advance of a preferred alternative for a new off-ramp onto I-405 in south Wilburton, the pressure was enough to get councilmembers to express support for additional multimodal connections in the area. Staff’s addition of $300,000 in CIP funding to study and design improvements will hopefully act as an initial investment to be followed by concrete project implementation funds in future cycles.

Public safety

Expenditures in the police department are set to grow by 21.2% (nearly $22 million) in the 2023-24 budget compared to the previous biennium. During Monday’s city council meeting, Bellevue Police Chief Wendell Shirley confirmed that this funding will help create 19 new positions for commissioned officers and two new positions for un-commissioned staff.

A portion of this increased public safety funding will also go to the implementation of two new police department programs. As part of a review of the department’s use of force policies, the City received significant feedback on the implementation of a body-worn cameras program. Across the 2023-2024 General Fund, $2.73 million will be spent on a new program’s implementation, including five FTEs for administration.

Additionally, the preliminary budget includes funding for a full implementation of the Community Crisis Assistance Team (CCAT) program. Originally piloted for four months in 2020, the currently envisioned iteration of the program would see five teams, each comprised of one police officer and one mental health professional, available to respond to behavioral health calls. Total program cost across the two years is estimated at $5.56 million.

Although not explicitly listed as a budget line-item, Chief Shirley’s presentation on Monday evening also introduced his desire to create a BPD unit specifically to patrol transit facilities, like Bellevue Transit Center, park and rides, and soon-to-open light rail stations. Shirley said that increased officer presence would increase both safety and the perception of safety amongst transit users, but some councilmembers noted the redundancies in BPD providing additional patrols, given that Sound Transit contracts with the King County Sheriff’s Office to provide policing at its stations.

Bellevue Fire Department is seeing a similar overall budget increase of $22.2 million (18.1%) across 2023-24. These funds are slated to go towards enough staffing hours for 18 new FTE positions, continued construction of Fire Station 10, renovations of Fire Station 4, and other projects.

Environmental stewardship and parks

With Bellevue seeking to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 50% in just eight years’ time, community members have been repeatedly advocating for increased dollars towards implementation of Bellevue’s Environmental Stewardship Plan. Compared to the 2021-27 CIP, an additional $1.8 million has been added to the city’s general Environmental Stewardship Implementation fund, with investments totaling $2.94 million over the next seven years. The additional funding will support the creation of a new Limited Term Employment (LTE) position, as well as the implementation of further projects identified in the plan.

To support emissions reductions among municipal staff, two entirely new CIP line items have been created to build electric vehicle infrastructure and improve energy efficiency. Nearly $3.5 million will be spent to add 102 electric vehicle charging stations at Bellevue City Hall and Bellevue Service Center, a project that is supposed to help meet the goal of a 50% electric vehicle fleet by 2030. An additional $3.8 million will support energy efficiency projects and new solar installations at city facilities.

On the parks front, much has been discussed over the last several months on finding supplemental funding through an updated parks levy, which will be on voters’ ballots this November. Even if residents reject the levy however, this draft budget allocates nearly $150 million across the seven-year CIP towards 25 separate projects.

Multiple new projects in this budget cycle focus on land acquisitions in Bellevue neighborhoods, like Factoria and Eastgate, that have been identified as park deserts. In addition to $5 million in new funding for each of those areas, $2.5 million has been devoted each to shoreline restoration and park trails. With increasing access to the waterfront a significant priority of the recently-completed Parks and Open Spaces plan, it’s understandable to see an increased investment of $12 million devoted to advancing the next phase of Meydenbauer Bay Park work.

Although the budget process is well underway, there is still plenty of time for interested parties to provide feedback. Written and oral comments can be provided during upcoming city council meetings and during the final public hearing on Monday, November 7th. Also, as mentioned previously, through October 10th, Bellevue is accepting feedback through an online budget values survey, which will be followed by an in-person neighborhood leadership gathering at City Hall on Tuesday, October 11th from 6:30 – 8:00 pm. City staff have said that the leadership gathering is open to anyone who is interested in the health and quality of life in their Bellevue neighborhood.

During the previous budget cycle, councilmembers used funds from the Councilmember Contingency line item to create new programs or supplement initiatives that they cared about. With $2 million available for 2023 and 2024, there’s still room for meaningful changes dependent upon the community’s feedback.

The post Draft Bellevue Budget Includes Growth in Revenues, Transportation, Police, and More first appeared on The Urbanist.

Alongside more than a dozen partner organizations, The Urbanist submitted a comment letter that urges the Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development (OPCD) to expanding housing opportunities within all of the alternatives. Doing so creates a supercharged Alternative 5, and our letter also requests adding an even bolder option, Alternative 6, that would end apartment bans across the city and allow four- to six-story buildings. Augmenting Alternative 5 and adding Alternative 6 would then allow the city to have a real conversation about how to align its zoning policy to promote housing affordability, racial equity, and climate goals.

It boils down to this: Do we want to be a city for everyone or a one class city only for the rich? Do we want to work to correct racial housing injustices and environmental damage or only seek to entrench power for the already powerful? The choice is ours.

The Urbanist has closely covered Seattle’s Comprehensive Update process from when OPCD first released its conceptual alternatives to a housing advocate’s guide to commenting to columnist Ray Dubicki’s lament of how lengthy and abstract the process is.

OPCD wants to hear from you as it does this once a decade update. “The Comprehensive Plan is a 20 year vision and roadmap for Seattle’s future,” OPCD notes on its webpage. “Our plan guides City decisions on where to build new jobs and houses, how to improve our transportation system, and where to make capital investments such as utilities, sidewalks, and libraries. Our Comprehensive Plan is the framework for most of Seattle’s big-picture decisions on how to grow while preserving and improving our neighborhoods.”

Upvote our comment letter on the engagement hub or submit your own comment and feel free to crib from our letter below if you are inspired.

To: Brennon Staley, Office of Planning and Community Development

Subject: Comments on the scope of the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the One Seattle Plan 2024 Comprehensive Plan update

We, the undersigned organizations, represent a coalition committed to advancing housing affordability and addressing climate change through Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan update, including affordable housing developers and operators, environmental advocates, climate activists, and grassroots housing organizers. It is essential that the City analyzes a full range of growth alternatives in the EIS. We urge you to expand the scope of analysis of each of the alternative growth strategies and to advance a new transformative Alternative 6, to provide as much flexibility to build as many homes as possible.

This Comprehensive Plan update is a once-in-a-decade opportunity for Seattle to lead the region by reforming land use, increasing density, and allowing for mixed uses in neighborhoods. At this distinctive moment in time, the urgency of the city’s affordable housing crisis is combined with a growing climate crisis and the disturbing reality of persisting inequities. We cannot ignore the interconnectedness that must bind our efforts inextricably on housing and climate action.

We have an exacerbated housing crisis; far too many of our neighbors sleep unsheltered, struggle to afford rent, or have been displaced from their communities, all because of how expensive homes in our city are. Simply put, we have a shortage of homes, and we need to build more of them. We need more affordable homes, more sustainable homes, more homes to rent and to own, and more middle homes, apartments, and corner stores throughout our city.

We also face a climate crisis, driven overwhelmingly by transportation, accounting for a whopping two-thirds. Car-dependent sprawl is not consistent with our climate goals or a sustainable future. As the center city of this region, Seattle must lead in welcoming sustainable land use patterns. Per capita emissions are lower in Seattle due to better access to transit, jobs, and walkable neighborhoods. By not welcoming housing growth in its borders, Seattle forces it to the suburban fringe, where residents are locked into car dependency and growth jeopardizes forests and farms.

Of the options currently drafted, Alternative 5 is the only alternative to make a major positive impact on Seattle’s housing costs by allowing for more housing growth to meet demand. Per the City’s analysis, by promoting a greater range of rental and ownership housing, the Combined Growth Strategy would address past underproduction of housing and rising costs and support complete neighborhoods across the city. It furthers climate goals by allowing more people to live in walkable, transit-rich communities near jobs and amenities, and could help create transit-supporting densities throughout Neighborhood Residential zones. And finally, it goes furthest among the five drafted alternatives to correct the racial inequities of historically exclusionary zoning policies.

In addition to advancing Alternative 5, it is essential that all the growth strategies studied include as much flexibility to increase housing supply, diversity, and affordability as possible. A new Alternative 6, should expand on the Combined Growth Strategy with policies to create abundant, affordable housing throughout the entirety of Seattle.

• Alternative 2, the Focused Growth Strategy, should create or expand new urban villages and maximize housing development capacity in neighborhoods with high access to opportunity and low risk of displacement. The Focused Growth Strategy should ensure that urban villages encompass the entire 15-minute walkshed around frequent transit. Finally, the Focused Growth Strategy should incorporate analysis of high-rise and mid-rise zoning. These housing types maximize density around light rail stations and regional centers, would generate more Mandatory Housing Affordability contributions to expand the city’s affordable housing stock, and could encourage sustainable mass timber construction.
• Alternative 3, the Broad Growth Strategy, should incorporate analysis of a wider range of missing middle housing types than just triplexes and fourplexes. Rowhomes, stacked flats, sixplexes, and courtyard apartments would also fit in well in Neighborhood Residential zones and create new affordable homeownership options. This alternative should also include mixed-use development on corner lots, with an emphasis on allowing uses that meet residents’ essential daily needs.
• Alternative 4, the Corridor Growth Strategy, should incorporate significant upzones in the 15-minute walkshed around transit stations, not just a narrow band directly on arterials. Mid-rise and mixed-use zoning should anchor the 5-minute walksheds around transit stations, with wide swaths of low-rise apartments and missing middle homes permitted throughout the rest of the 15-minute transit walksheds.
• Alternative 5, the Combined Growth Strategy, should incorporate the additional flexibility for housing production from each of the growth strategies enumerated above.
• A new alternative, Alternative 6, should expand on the Combined Growth Strategy and be explicitly designed as the anti-displacement alternative requested by the Comprehensive Plan Racial Equity Analysis: it should “end the prevalence of single-family zoning” with a “racially inclusive approach.” This includes anti-displacement overlays in areas of high displacement risk and allowing maximum growth of the most affordable housing types in areas of high opportunity. It could look like a connected network of complete neighborhoods, allowing 4-6 story apartments in all neighborhoods, with bonuses for affordable homes by right, and ground floor commercial and community spaces to serve people’s daily needs. It should explore density bonuses and exemptions from setback requirements for green buildings, to encourage mass timber and passive house techniques.

Beyond specific growth strategies, we recommend that all the alternatives be improved in the following ways:

• All of the growth alternatives OPCD advances for analysis should plan for—at a minimum—a continued rate of population growth similar to what Seattle has seen over the last 10 years.
• The City’s greenhouse gas analysis should consider the regional benefits of preventing sprawl and adding dense, climate-friendly housing in the existing urban core.
• All of the growth alternatives should analyze altering the transportation network concurrently with the land use strategy, to expand the area of Seattle covered by frequent transit service.
• Broadly, all of the alternatives should develop strategies to expand the “15-minute city” concept effectively in residential zones to ensure complete, walkable communities with a mix of housing types with jobs, commercial spaces, schools, health clinics, and parks.
• For all alternatives, locate new nodes of housing and business density in areas that currently have low access to frequent transit service and/or low access to businesses and amenities that provide essential daily needs. Growth strategy alternatives should be designed to fill these gaps in access by increasing housing development capacity to levels that can sustain transit service and commercial services.
• All alternatives should maximize housing opportunities near planned light rail stations. With the 130th Street Station opening in 2026, the City should establish an urban village around the station. Likewise, Graham Street, North Delridge, Avalon, the Junction, Ballard, and Uptown could use new or expanded urban villages to complement their planned light rail stations.
• All of the alternatives should analyze the impact of various growth strategies and housing production rates on the total homes affordable by area median income (AMI) band, with attention paid to residents making less than 30% of AMI, 30-50% of AMI, and 50-80% of AMI.
• All of the alternatives should evaluate production rates of rental and ownership housing and incorporate land use strategies to create new homeownership and rental options across the city.

The undersigned organizations look forward to working with OPCD throughout the Comprehensive Plan Update process. We are committed to shaping our city’s land use to allow more homes to be built and to create a more equitable, affordable, and green city.

The post Last Chance to Comment on Seattle Comp Plan Scoping: Add Your Voice for Housing Abundance first appeared on The Urbanist.

I don’t think so. It’s our beautiful city, Seattle, that doesn’t meet our basic needs. This lack of sanitation is an infrastructure problem. The land is there, the facilities are (sometimes) there, yet our public lands fail to provide us with accessible, clean, year-round, sanitation facilities. This is not a new problem; every major news outlet seems to have covered it in the past few years. What I want to share are some details about how this problem impacts my life.

Even before I became a mom, the lack of public bathrooms in Seattle parks created difficult situations for me. Twelve years ago, my husband and I regularly met up at Bhy Kracke Park in Queen Anne. There are no bathrooms there at all, so I learned to find the nearest Starbucks. When I was marathon training and logging miles at Discovery Park, I also learned the sad fact that most our bathrooms close for winter. Fortunately, I was strong enough to squat in the bushes. 

When I was pregnant in 2020, I was still running at Lincoln Park. But all park bathrooms were closed in the early pandemic months, so I kept runs short because my unbalanced body was also unpredictable. Later when I was postpartum, I entered the secret club nobody wants to join where everyone who has given birth wants to talk about their incontinence. Some were still experiencing the problem many years after giving birth.

This is just my story. The need for ready access to bathrooms is shared by many different people in different phases of life, and it’s undeniable that the bathroom predicament becomes even more difficult when children are brought into the mix. While nannying in Ballard I spent a lot of time at the popular playground at Salmon Bay Park, I noticed the bushes next to the bathroom smelled like urine. The bathrooms were closed for winter so there were often toddlers using that space. 

Hang out at any park long enough, and you will see how parents manage the problem. The entire family will disappear behind That Smelly Tree nearby. The play date will get cut short because someone really has to go now. Just the other day, right next to me, a kid hopped off his scooter, stepped onto the sidewalk strip, and pulled his pants down. Sometimes, the toddler potties will come out of the car’s trunk. The other day I counted — one, two, three little toddler potties at Ercolini Park in West Seattle. Potties that got dumped straight on to the bushes. 

This is a personal problem for me, it’s a problem for my kid, and it’s a problem for a lot of other Seattleites. The lack of restrooms is such a disservice to our communities.

Even as an able bodied person, I have to quite seriously plan my recreation around the need for sanitation. I would not claim to represent the views of people experiencing homelessness with regards to this problem, but I will without doubt say that all my Seattle neighbors deserve sanitation. Every single one of them deserves a bathroom every day of the year. 

I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that every Seattleite reading this has nearly peed their pants, particularly when coming to a park and realizing there is either no bathroom or it is closed for months at a time. I have a long list of mental notes on which parks have bathrooms, which don’t have any at all, and which close for the winter. I also have a growing list of bathrooms not to use at all because they are chronically filthy. For example, my neighbor won’t let her nine year old use the men’s toilet at Roxhill Park after regularly finding needles there.

After twelve years of accumulating intel on the bathroom situation, I am generally prepared for anything. Just the other day, I was ready for a long visit to Ercolini Park. I had packed extra diapers because my newest tactic is to hide behind my car door and shove a diaper down my pants. This time there was a mishap, and suddenly my pants, my ankles, and my shoes were wet. I panicked. I cursed. As I looked around, I saw my kid watching me. I paused and took a deep breath. Then I said, “Accidents happen. It’s nothing to be ashamed of.” And I would tell you the same thing. This is not a personal failure. It is an institutional failure to not provide sanitation to a city’s residents. Seattle, you are failing us. The question is, my beloved city, what are you going to do about it? 

What I can also say is that sanitation is a human right, and we are all being denied that right because our city does not provide this basic amenity to us on existing public lands. I want to call in the environmental groups: do any of you care about the pathogens and pharmaceuticals being excreted all over the parks? Please, step up. And be a true ally by partnering with those most impacted by the problem. Clean water is sanitation is human rights is environmental justice. Can we move towards an abundance mindset for public bathrooms?

This year, the Seattle Park District is undergoing a budget planning process that may help with this problem. How this may increase property taxes is all laid out in a recent piece by the Seattle Times editorial board. The planning documents I reviewed mention the plan’s responsiveness to requests for pickleball courts and dog parks. I do want to applaud the Park District Board for recommending a $2,200,800 budget towards the goal of increased access to restrooms, but I have to clarify: Bathrooms should be funded first and funded fully. The timeline for weatherizing bathrooms at the rate of two per year doesn’t seem sufficient. Please don’t make me and other Seattle residents have to deal with this problem for another twelve years. I encourage readers to send their own thoughts to the Seattle Park District Board at Council@seattle.gov. 

To the Park District Board, I have to ask: in the meantime, where are we supposed to go? I only know one thing for sure. As fall arrives, I’ll be lugging a tiny potty around and teaching my kid how to pee in the park. And certainly, neither of us will be ashamed about that.

The post Why Peeing Your Pants in Seattle is Not a Personal Failure first appeared on The Urbanist.

This plan is currently going through what is known as a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) alternatives analysis, and we need to ensure the alternatives are as strong as possible from the beginning. 

Please take a minute to send a comment by this Friday, July 29th, to make sure this important plan reflects and advances our safety, equity, and climate goals.

Seattle Neighborhood Greenways’ concerns and suggestions

In conversation with our allies at the MASS Coalition, we have identified five main concerns and suggestions: 

Before moving forward with SEPA analysis for the Seattle Transportation Plan, please revise the proposed alternatives in the following way:

1. Delete Alternative 2 which would be a failure of our necessary climate goals. Seattle must be a leader on a just transition to a sustainable future, and failing to do so by 2044 should not be studied as an option. 
2. Add a bold Alternative 4. We need a new alternative that makes bold progress in the next decade, rather than waiting for 2044. We need an alternative that rapidly makes walking, biking, and transit the most convenient, safe, and comfortable ways to get around Seattle. Let’s plan for an accessible city for all, where sidewalks and crosswalks are ubiquitous. Let’s plan for a bike friendly city where every street is safe to bike on. Let’s plan for a city where frequent transit is prioritized over the movement of cars. Let’s plan for a city where our streets are recognized as public space for play, community building, trees, gardens, cafes, and so much more! In short, let’s plan for a future that is more sustainable, equitable, safe, affordable, healthy, accessible, and thriving. 
3. Plan for an affordable 15-Minute City. Please revise the alternatives to plan for a city where everyone has an affordable home, and where daily needs are within a short walk or roll. These strategies must be developed in concert with the land use plan to be effective and equitable. 
4. Improve the “themes” used to evaluate the alternatives. Please improve the universal design theme away from app solutions and towards the needs of non-drivers and people with disabilities. Please add public space, kid-friendly, elderly-friendly, and noise pollution as new themes to better help understand the outcomes that different alternatives would create. 
5. Reduce the over-emphasis on vehicle electrification: The draft alternatives envision a large role for the City of Seattle in promoting private electric vehicles. SDOT should instead focus on what it has the most control over: prioritizing investments and street space so that walking, biking, and transit are the most convenient, safe, and comfortable ways to get around.

Taking a minute to comment on the plan is the best way to ensure that these important priorities are represented in the plan. Make sure to act today!

The post The Seattle Transportation Plan Must Be Bold first appeared on The Urbanist.