VIDEO: West Seattle hears/talks about Sound Transit 3 / Metro Long-Range Plan

6 PM: That’s a look around the West Seattle High School Commons (mouse over the image to bring up the “play” button) as our area’s meeting about the Sound Transit 3 draft plan – currently envisioning light rail to/from West Seattle in 2033 – and the Metro Long-Range Plan got under way. The presentations are about to get under way; among those who will be speaking, Mayor Murray. We’ll be updating as this goes. Even if you can’t make it to the meeting (which is expected to continue until at least 7 pm – the moderator says it’ll go back to open-house format around 6:45), you can comment on these plans via their respective agencies – more on that post-meeting.

6:04 PM: Sound Transit CEO Peter Rogoff speaks first, declaring this “a great crowd. … The crowds that have been turning out and the level of engagement is indicative of the hunger this region has” for more transit. “This is about the future of our region. … The feedback that you give us about this plan is very important. … Census data tells us that this region … is going to have nearly a million more citizens by 2040. … When you’re faced with growth like that, you’re going to have to plan for it, or be overwhelmed by it.” He then throws a line to the crowd, “In an area like this, where the whole region seems to revolve around the West Seattle Bridge” – rueful laughs rippled around the crowd – light rail would seem like something positive, Rogoff said.

6:17 PM: The third of three Sound Transit Board members to speak, City Councilmember Rob Johnson, is speaking now.

IMG_3343

(CM Johnson’s tweet of the standing-room-only crowd)
He followed Mayor Murray and County Council Chair Joe McDermott – we got both of their mini-speeches on video (both added as of 6:43). Murray noted that the region made a decision to reject a major transit initiative decades ago, and hopes that mistake will not be repeated now.


McDermott reiterated what Rogoff had said about the West Seattle Bridge – that it is the center of the universe for getting to and from the peninsula:

Johnson is now followed by the overview of the draft ST3 plan, courtesy of an ST planner, who gave some backstory about how the agency got to this point, looking to finalize a plan to send to voters in November. The proposed plan would have 112 miles of light rail, “west to West Seattle and Ballard, north to Everett, east to Redmond and Issaquah, south to Tacoma, Tacoma Link to Tacoma Community College.” They also expect “bus rapid transit” on I-405 and Highway 522, “bus on shoulder” on four regional highways, and other system improvements.

Mentioned after that – “to improve bus speed and reliability … capital improvements to RapidRide C and D Routes.” This was mentioned at last month’s unveiling of the draft plan but has not been explained in detail.

dottedline

Next, the “central corridor” proposals including the light-rail line to West Seattle, with stations at Delridge, Avalon, and The Junction (specific locations have not yet been proposed). ST would also study extending the line south to Burien and then a possible connection to the Tukwila International Blvd. station, which is on the ST “spine” between Everett and Tacoma, “the main trunk, if you will, to our system.” She then elaborates that the West Seattle line would go over the Duwamish River on a new bridge, elevated to a station at Delridge, Avalon, and The Junction – that’s entirely elevated on this side of the river. She mentions that this is a “representative project,” which means some things could change during the environmental-study stage, if ST3 is approved by voters. ST wants to know “are we going to the right areas.”

6:28 PM: Next, a Metro rep comes up to talk about their long-range plan, which has been stuffed into this meeting for some reason. “Metro has been working for 18 months to define, what is the role of Metro as the region continues to grow.” Metro hasn’t had a long-range plan in more than 20 years. Key point: 20 percent of the region’s residents have access to rapid service right now; they want to bring that up to 70 percent. By 2040, they hope to have 26 RapidRide lines (one for every letter of the alphabet) by 2040, including a new one on Delridge (which, it’s been said, would replace the 120 – and some community members have voiced concern that fewer bus stops, the RapidRide design, would be bad for eastern West Seattle).

“The vision of 2040 can bring you more opportunities – how far you can go within an hour at noon.” Get online and find out more – the draft Metro Long-Range Plan is open for comments until May 20th.

6:33 PM: The moderator says they’ll extend the question period until 7 pm, since the speakers ran long.

First question is from a man in Tukwila, the “ST1 zone,” he calls it, who says his house is being shaken, and that he has been trying to get ST to do something about it for eight years. CEO Rogoff offers to talk with him on the sidelines.

Second question is from an attendee who wants to know, “Is there some way to be able to continue to have these conversions to make improvements for all the people?” long after a meeting like this. Rogoff says that the ST website shows all the projects, including ones that were counted out for various reasons. “For every one, there is a public vetting process that has to engage the community, an environmental process … it all involves community engagement (and) comment periods, and very rarely is the project precisely as envisioned the one that gets built.” (The first questioner shouts, “EIGHT YEARS!” from the gallery at that point.)

Third question: “How was the order of who will go first and who will go last devised? (West Seattle) voted at least three times for the monorail .. (and) we’re the closest to downtown … so I wonder why we have to wait at least 17 years before we see something.” At this point, applause and cheers. “In the meantime,” she continues, “for example, when the C Line (Metro) was adopted, all the other routes were dropped back …” and she says that’s made it harder to get around, or to get back here from another part of the city at night.

Rogoff says first, regarding the timeline, “it can go quicker and we are determined to make it go quicker if we have (cooperation) between the municipalities … engage the community, move quickly through permitting. 17 years like I say is a planning factor – with cooperation it could go more quickly.” Rogoff says that 17 years is actually one of the earliest “rail deliverables” in ST3.

IMG_3350

Murray then comes up and mentions the city vote to allot more money for bus service, and says that while he is committed to trying to accelerate the timeline, “it’s buses that are going to get us there” until rail is ready.

Fourth question was also about moving up the timeline and streamlining the permitting process. Murray takes the microphone again and says he plans to introduce legislation to enable streamlining. That draws applause. Rogoff says, “That’s the kind of cooperation we’re talking about.”

Next question is a man who says that they should be listening to comments, not questions, when the moderator tries to tell him he needs to ask something, not say something. A smattering of applause for that. He says that there needs to be budgeting for roads to support the transit system, as damage already has been done (he mentions Avalon, which supports much of the RapidRide C Line). Murray takes the microphone for this one, too, and says that the MoveSeattle levy passed last year “will allow us to catch up,” though, like ST3, he points out, it’s a plan spread out over years, so the money isn’t all available immediately.

Next: Someone who wonders why everything is tied to property taxes – “is there a plan to pay for it some other way?”

Rogoff replies: “There are three (separate) tax increases in the plan – these were given to us by the Legislature – it’s a mix of sales tax, an increase in the motor-vehicle excise tax, and the smallest piece by dollars actually is a piece of property tax – this is the first time that property taxes have entered into the mix, and this is a mix given to us by Olympia; they were trying to get a mix that, since the sales tax has a certain regressivity to it, balances it out … we can only bring (to the voters) what Olympia allows us to.”

That is the answer to the next question, about money, too: “These are the revenue options (legislators) gave us.”

Following that: Someone from Hillman City, who says they’ve “already been waiting for our station for 20 years” and this plan shows it to be another 20 or so away – the Graham Street Station, up on the screen as 2036-2038. “What can you do to speed it up? You’re doing it,” says Rogoff – “come to meetings, talk to your elected officials,” etc.

Next: “How do we as a city dangle the carrot to the federal government and have them (look at Seattle for funding) when many other cities (have needs too)?” Rogoff, a former federal official, says the way for cities to make themselves look most appealing is “whether they have their local funding match in place … that, frankly, is what the ST3 vote is about. … No factor is more influential.”

Then: “What are the capital improvements you’re talking about for the C Line?” The Metro rep answers first by saying C Line use has gone up, “and we’re going to be looking at speed and reliability improvements.” She hands the microphone over – “Some of those improvements depend on SDOT. Signal improvements, queue jumps – opportunities for buses to get ahead of the traffic that’s coming – we also want to look at with Metro and SDOT, opportunities for the 99 loop as it goes off the West Seattle Bridge .. we’re looking at the chokepoints, the bottlenecks for those corridors.” Murray then chimes in and mentions the Lander Street Overpass, “another way we can improve the whole corridor’s movement.” (This answer is pretty much what we got after the draft-plan announcement in March.”

Next questioner mentions that large employers are beneficiaries of this, “so I wonder if they have been approached to maybe give us an interest-free loan, or just invest in the system out of their pockets … ahve they been approached?” Much applause for that. Rogoff says the answer isn’t exactly “no” but they are “in a dialogue with some of the major employers” regarding the “benefits” that their campuses would get. He says he won’t identify them. “But we can partner with other entities to help us bring money forward to accelerate the system.”

6:55 PM: Next (with a warning from the moderator that there’s only time for a few more questions) question is about the regressive tax structure: Rogoff says that the feds don’t really care how the money is raised, only that it is raised (the aforementioned local match).

Next: Does the $50 billion price tag include interest. “I don’t want you coming back to me saying you need another $20 billion.” Rogoff says the $50b is “the capital investment figure,” and yes, there will be payments above that “over time.” He says that in June the board will adopt “a very detailed financial plan” when they adopt a final plan. “I’d encourage you to start by reading the financial plan for the ST2 plan, there’ll be one for ST3, we welcome the scrutiny.” He says they do budget for inflation.

Then: If the plan is passed and the federal government fails to follow through, what happens? Rogoff again goes back to ST2, saying it figured on an 18 percent federal contribution, and this plan lowers that to about 12 percent – “we’re growing but it may not be reasonable to assume that the federal contribution will grow with us … and there’s a lot of stress … on the federal budget right now … and we want to be sure we can deliver on what’s promised.” If somehow the program they’ll rely on ceased, they’d have to figure out how to make up the funding.

Final question at 6:59 pm: An attendee mentions costs of various lines outside the US, in Europe and Canada, at far less per mile than what Sound Transit is suggesting this will cost. So, he says, he wants to ask Metro: What could it do with a $2 billion capital budget? The Metro reply: “You’re asking a very specific question – but you’re right, we’re seeing that high-capacity transit on buses is very productive, and we’re seeing a 96 percent increase on the C Line, and that’s what makes it a very good high-capacity corridor, and future light-rail corridor.” For the $2 billion “what would you do” question, she invites him to “come over to our boards” and see what’s in the Metro long-range plan. “That vision you’re talking about, high-capacity transit … that’s what we’re planning for.”

The moderator invites people to provide feedback online or on paper, or to go back into open house mode and talk to the people who are here from the various agencies, and with that, the Q&A ends.

IMG_3351

8 PM: Back at HQ now and adding a few more photos, notes, and links.

First: The conversation about ST3 continues at Thursday night’s West Seattle Transportation Coalition meeting, 6:30 pm at Neighborhood House’s High Point Center (6400 Sylvan Way SW). Bring your questions and comments.

Next: For ST3, the official comment period continues until Friday (April 29th). At the very least, please take this online survey.

Metro also has a survey for its Long-Range Plan. Take that here; comment here. Its deadline, as shown at tonight’s meeting, is May 20th.

29 Replies to "VIDEO: West Seattle hears/talks about Sound Transit 3 / Metro Long-Range Plan"

  • B April 26, 2016 (7:22 pm)

    Having just come back from Paris, I cannot describe enough how sad our transportation system seems in comparison. For the same amount of time it takes to go from Alki to, say, CenturyLink stadium, I could have gone across the entirety of the Paris metro area. Or anything in between, in almost any direction. 

    If I have to wait until 2033 so be it, but this better not be another pull the rug out at the last minute monorail scenario again. 

    • Mickymse April 27, 2016 (4:11 pm)

      Good grief! Paris has FOUR TIMES our population and began their system over 100 years ago. I want light rail yesterday, too, but let’s keep some perspective here…

  • rob April 26, 2016 (8:19 pm)

     its easy when can build with a 60% of everyones income. and now we find out that England is pulling out of the EU they are  tired of being the socialist piggie bank

  • jt April 26, 2016 (8:19 pm)

    Thanks for your reporting! It’s hugely disappointing they didn’t bring real details on capital improvements to buses. If they could just say “we’re widening the NB SR99 ramp to make the bus lane continuous, saving 10 minutes on every bus rider’s northbound commute,” that would be a huge gamechanger for our peninsula.  Vaguely saying “we’re looking at signal timing” and “we want to talk with SDOT about the 99 loop” just sounds like a cop-out.

    These are projects with a huge bang for the buck, and they directly neutralize the biggest complaint about ST3, the long timeline! Any present voter who will realistically end up using Link is going to spend the next 17 years riding these buses. And any present voter who drives to work via the WSB and dreams of Link relieving the congestion they wade through every day should equally hope buses can be improved to entice more commuters to ride them these next 17 years.

    I actually laughed out loud at the Lander Street Overpass. That has literally nothing to do with improving transit commute times, and just goes to show how backward our priorities are. It will occasionally be used by a few trucks to get in line to enter the port 2 minutes sooner, when the same money could have been used to speed 30,000 bus commuters’ rides every single day.

  • badwolf April 26, 2016 (8:44 pm)

    PLEASE TAKE ALL MY MONEY FOR THE NEXT 30+ YEARS!

  • h April 26, 2016 (9:36 pm)

    You know, I can’t stand the buses. 

  • Natinstl April 26, 2016 (10:13 pm)

    It won’t be in place until the end of my working time line, therefore I’m not planning on voting for taxing myself for something I will never use. Property taxes will be too high at that point for me to continue living here also. Why do we have to be stuck with an elevated option? Did they address? 

    • Jon Wright April 26, 2016 (10:28 pm)

      That sounds like something the people who voted Forward Thrust down nearly 50 years ago might have said.

    • Meyer April 27, 2016 (8:19 am)

      Unfortunately your thought process is exactly why we currently don’t have light rail and will be why future generations won’t have it either. Eventually we need to bite the bullet and build it. The sooner we do the cheaper and easier it will be. 

    • natinstl April 28, 2016 (3:36 pm)

      To speak to Jon and Myer’s comments, the future users are the ones who need to turn out for this vote. If they vote it in than great, but it will never benefit me and I only see no end to the endless votes that will tack on to my property taxes so I need to vote for the ones that make sense for me as a homeowner and current Seattle resident. I grew up on Long Island and watched my grandparents pay off a home only to have to leave it after 40 years because their property taxes were $21k a year. My current family members are unable to even buy homes there because it’s only gotten worse.

  • AJP April 26, 2016 (10:48 pm)

    Well, like most things, by not bringing it further south, looks like this will benefit mainly the rich. 

  • Mark schletty April 27, 2016 (7:33 am)

    50 billion for capital costs only with “payments above that over time”? That is what i have been afraid of all along. The 50 billion does not include the costs of money (financing),  which may exceed the capital costs over the life of this project.  If i remember correctly it was when the monorail project finally released the total cost, including financing , that the cost jumped so much that the voters turned it down. That, and the stupid change to a single line track in Ballard and West Seattle.  The increase in property tax, when the cost of financing is added in, is going to be way more than is currently being stated.  This will be the final straw that finally forces retired citizens, who don’t quite qaulify for the senior property tax reduction, out of our homes.

  • Tim April 27, 2016 (7:34 am)

    What will the bus route look like for the C, D, 120, etc. when the tunnel is complete? When going towards downtown will they take 99 to  the surface street Alaskan Way S.? That’s about 10 stop lights until it gets to Seneca Street.  Can’t wait to sit in all that traffic.

  • george April 27, 2016 (8:58 am)

    waste of money with no real garuntee or accountability.  in 17 yrs when we don’t have light rail on w sea the head of the st3 project will just pass the blame on the former administration  for wasting money.  timeline is way to long to trust a politician with my $  10 yrs I could support.  25 and no accountability NO WAY

     

  • RT April 27, 2016 (9:01 am)

    i have to agree with B, i just got back from north korea and pyongyang has a more advanced public transit system.

  • DDelRio April 27, 2016 (9:28 am)

    I feel that the Rapid Ride is not any faster than a regular bus. I ride the C Line all the time, and it doesn’t get me downtown any faster. Metro should have kept the old 54 that was replaced, and added more busses. In fact it takes me twice as long to walk to the bus stop since the change. During the day it is not a problem, but at night I hate it. In stead of waisting so much money on the 120, just add more busses. If I lived closer to the 120, I’d never ride another so-called Rapid Ride again!

    • Chris Stripinis April 27, 2016 (10:08 am)

      I believe that there are plans to turn the 120 line into another Rapidride. 
      In fact, Metro’s long range plans call for 26 Rapidride lines in total, one for each letter of the alphabet.

    • flimflam April 27, 2016 (5:36 pm)

      all rapid ride did was change the route name – all the stops remained the same, its not an express bus obviously. oh wait, they installed bus bulbs and new signs also. great. phht!

  • Alkiobserver April 27, 2016 (9:37 am)

    Well, this will never happen. With a 17 year timeline coupled with the ask to throw tons more money at the grotesquely out-dated bus system, this is doomed to failure. Its a shame, because real mass transit is what this region desperately needs. And we need it now.

  • Will S. April 27, 2016 (9:44 am)

    I’m certainly going to support ST3 because it’s a huge step towards building the high-capacity transit network we need in West Seattle and across this region.

    But I wish there had been more discussion last night about the alignment of the rail connection in West Seattle.  It would be an incredible shame to build an elevated station at Alaska Junction due to the resulting damage to the California Ave streetscape, which really is a jewel of our community.  And the stakes are high now, because the orientation of the Alaska Junction station will determine how rail could in the even-more-distant future continue south to Burien or White Center.  So I think it’s very, very important for the rail line to enter a tunnel somewhere along the slope of the hill between Delridge and the Junction, so that an underground Alaska Junction station will actually improve our neighborhood.

    But because Sound Transit is not yet proposing or even considering a tunnel, I don’t see a forum to raise this issue other than a future EIS process.  From what I understand, the EIS process resulted in significant changes (including the addition of a tunnel) to the initial ST2 proposal in Bellevue.  On the other hand, Bellevue has just barely cooperated with Sound Transit, and this lack of cooperation has drawn out the construction schedule on the east side.

    Does anyone have a more constructive suggestion for getting Sound Transit to properly consider this issue?

    • Mike Lindblom April 27, 2016 (10:09 am)

      That argument over an elevated trackway is coming soon.  This is a concrete roadbed of 25 (or so) feet wide that somehow needs to get from the steel mill to The Junction.  So you are either looming over Avalon Way, or tearing down some houses to make a clear corridor.   And if Sound Transit is serious, they are already thinking about how to acquire either the bank or the Jiffy Lube on Alaska Street for the Junction station. 

      I doubt that Sound Transit could even cobble together the money for a tunnel in ST3, but we’ll learn more from them soon. 

    • sam-c April 27, 2016 (10:14 am)

      That’s an important point Will S, I agree. I couldn’t make it to the open house but have filled out a survey. Will there be opportunity to urge them to go in that direction? (tunnel)

  • Mike Lindblom April 27, 2016 (10:05 am)

    Great coverage Tracy, for those of us who couldn’t be there!

  • Fiwa Jcbbb April 27, 2016 (11:25 am)

    Haven’t been to Paris yet, but I’ve been to London, NYC, and several other cities with public RAPID transportation systems, and…we need it. Desperately, especially considering our penchant for creating transportation systems for other people to use while we drive our Audis to our designated space at work, paid for by our benevolent employers and/or local govt.

    But, sorry, I’ll be voting against this plan. Not that we don’t need it, as anyone stuck in traffic can plainly see, also not because the ridiculous timeline means it won’t be built until after I’m no longer working and/or dead, but because it’s yet another regressive property tax. I’m glad y’all seem to be doing so well that you vote yes on each and every single property tax increase that comes down the tube, but many of us aren’t, and will be forced out of our fair city by them before long. The time has come for this state to replace our poor and middle class killing piecemeal system of taxation with a fair and progressive income tax.

  • george April 27, 2016 (11:59 am)

    A better idea would b to start small on necessity projects in the city(w sea, ballard, etc. ) connect the city together, then expand out.  this would move the city of seattle.  outside of seattle these people have to drive to a park and ride already.  just use sounder lines.  they already have to drive.  vote no to this mess.  I wold have rather had a w sea yo ballard monorail.  it probably would be cheaper

  • dave April 27, 2016 (12:06 pm)

    do not vote for this.  I will never vote for anything that increases property taxes.  so unfair.  if we want to pay for something let’s all do it together out of our paychecks.  eyeeman  should have a measure to abolish property tax voting

  • Diane April 27, 2016 (2:52 pm)

    I was there; in my opinion it was just another check-the-box
    complete waste of time; half the room was politicos and staff; so even though
    the room was very full, I’d guess it was maybe 50 at most from the
    neighborhood; did not hear anything new/different; I found it highly
    disrespectful that the folks leading off this event kept saying “we want to
    hear from you tonight; we want to hear your ideas”, but when the typically too
    long speechifying was done, neighbors were NOT ALLOWED to make comments; only
    allowed to ask questions; when a couple people tried to make a comment, they
    were scolded; ridiculous

    ~

    thankfully there was a fabulous real opportunity for
    learning something new, and important, in the WSHS Theater next door to this
    event; “Screenagers” was FANTASTIC; thanks to SSC Coop Preschools for
    putting on this wonderful event; highly recommend everyone see this film

  • P April 27, 2016 (11:07 pm)

    Self driving cars will render this useless before 2033.

    • Jon Wright April 27, 2016 (11:55 pm)

      Could you please elaborate how self-driving cars–even if they are widely adopted–are going to eliminate the need for high-capacity transit? You could squeeze some efficiency out of the system by reducing following distances and coordinating vehicle speeds, but in the end isn’t there only so much physical space for cars?

Sorry, comment time is over.