I don’t like the idea of sub area equity, although it may have saved Sound Transit politically by getting early buy in from the suburbs when Central Link and Tacoma Link were the biggest projects. Still, generally speaking, political solutions designed to reassure suburbanites that big mean Seattle isn’t going to take all of their money (when the opposite is generally true) and that put arbitrary restrictions on transit development aren’t my favorite. See also, 40-40-20.
So the fact that Ed Murray is opposed to it is somewhat of a positive for me (although his doing it in a way that specifically attacks building rail to from Ballard to Downtown is not helpful). But over at Seattle Transit Blog, Ben Schiendelman makes the case for Sub Area Equity.
Subarea equity originally existed because suburban legislators, in creating Sound Transit, wanted to make sure that suburban money didn’t end up spent in Seattle. As a result, Link implementation was at first slower. But now that Sound Transit 2 is passed, the North King subarea’s “spine” is fully funded. Most of the political pressure on Sound Transit is now to expand to Tacoma, Everett, and Redmond, and most of the board votes are outside Seattle.
In a Sound Transit 3 package, subarea equity is paramount to ensuring that we get a new line in Seattle – it ensures that Seattle’s contribution stays in the city, and political pressure doesn’t move money out to the ends of the lines.
Murray claims that his reason for wanting to remove subarea equity would be to focus transit investment in Seattle – but the outcome of removing it would be the opposite. As a transit advocate who wants Seattle to have more grade separated transit, this is scary because it’s a direct threat to a new line in the city, and it’s scary because a mayoral candidate should have a better grasp of the issues.
It does seem rather abhorrent to have sub area equity when we’re building Central Link and Tacoma Link and then not have it when we’re building out to the suburbs.
It still seems to me that it would be a no-brainer (Evergreen Railfan, care to jump in here?) to add some sort of stop next to the Ballard locks for the north-end Sounder trains. I can’t see how Murray could object to it because it’s really not “building rail”.
As to all the rest of it, it still looks like the transit planners are still ignoring the fact that more people live in Seattle and commute to work on the Eastside than the other way around–and this was the case even before the advent of the Republic of Microsoft. One consequence of this has been that the House that Chairman Bill Built has taken over three-quarters of the platform at the Overlake Transit Center and runs its own extensive (and wasteful) private bus fleet shuttling its own employees to and from destinations that Metro and ST don’t adequately serve.
I have worked in the Interbay area, and I think a SOUNDER stop in the area will work, assuming that the slopes along the line is stabilized. The original plan called for a couple more stations in Seattle, both on the north and south segments.
So, Carl, if I understand your argument correctly it goes something like this: Public transportation spending should be concentrated in Seattle and on the Seattle – Bellevue link because that’s where the riders are, but suburbanites should help pay for it even though they won’t get any public transportation for their tax dollars? If that’s correct, how do you (and other sub area equity opponents) plan to sell that to the suburbs?
Hmm… If memory serves me Sub-a-e wasn’t just a suburban thing. It was a way to get Tacoma (3rd largest CITY in the state) and Olympia to buy in to Sound Transit. Olympia/Thurston County eventually bowed out anyway.
Not sure what the above is all about. Tacoma’s light rail project was one of the first things ST did and is in the process of being expanded. Tacoma’s also already served by ST buses and heavy rail.
Gig Harbor (where I’m at) is served by a couple of ST busses a a day and isn’t even inside ST’s taxing district.
On the radio this morning, I listened a short while to a conversation over “extremely high density housing” which puts 750 to 1,000 sq ft apartments within a single building. In short, each apartment is a dorm room or small hotel room, with some shared communal facilities (small kitchen at end of hall, etc.).
A neighbor of one such proposed building was arguing that each neighbor should be given a vote on whether it should be allowed to proceed – while acknowledging that everyone would vote “not in my backyard”.
But I think we will see such units in the future. Single people don’t necessarily need an apartment for entertaining or parking cars – they just need a place to sleep, microwave snacks and a meal or so, and then go outside into a safe neighborhood for their other activities. They don’t need a one-bedroom $1,400 per month apartment to do this.
But the key is that easy access to transit systems is required, if no parking is to be made available. It works in Tokyo, London, Paris, and other cities – there’s no reason why it can’t be made to work here.
@6 This morning’s Fairview Fishwrap had a front-page piece on this. It’s more like 200 square feet per unit. I don’t know whether or not the shared kitchens are “small”–the apartment in the accompanying photo included its own “hotel room kitchen” with a small row of upper and lower cabinets, a small sink, microwave and under-counter refrigerator. Some friends of ours have run a “group household” sort of like this for years, in what used to be a convent on Capitol Hill. The article points out that the main reason for the shared kitchen is that the number of “living units” for tax purposes is based on the kitchen count.
The depressing part of it all is that the tenants “only” have to pay $900 or so a month–this is considered a bargain nowadays for basically living in a rooming house. Have paychecks kept up with the cost of housing over the last decade or so? I think not.
Roger @3,
My argument is that Seattle pays for roads, for cops, for sewer, for education, for social services for the other sub areas at the state and or county level because that’s where the need is. When the need is for transit in denser areas, fair is fair, and the money should go to where the need is.
@7 It could be worse.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....-rent.html
Ending Sub-Area Equity is sprawl enducing.
It would not be wise policy to take tax money from N. King and use it to ensure that residents of a Toll Bros. sub div in So Snoho can get home in the evening faster than I can get to Capital Hill from Ballard.
The idea from the get-go was that N. King would establish the most costly portion of the system at their own expense. And that once established, the rest of the sub-areas would be eager to pay to link to it. But nobody forsaw the Great Bush Recession. So while the political will is present among suburban voters, the pocket books may yet be wanting. So be it. We can be patient. After all, worsening freeway congestion in the suburbs would be a strong indication of economic recovery and the ability to pay.