Northgate Mall: battleground for transit and planning issues
As a new round begins, over a Sound Transit parking garage, there are lessons to be learned from the successes at Northgate in recent years and from transit-oriented development along California's BART lines.
Neighborhoods.org (Eric Fredericks)/Flickr (CC)
Sound Transit
Sound Transit’s effort to build a 500-stall parking garage as part of its new light rail station is stirring up controversy at Northgate. The mall has a history of attracting controversy over the past few decades. Debates tend to focus on impacts to the surrounding community, differing visions of the future, the environment, and as always, that most difficult of issues, how we get around.
As we evaluate the current debate, it is useful to consider the debates that have taken place over the past few decades. In the 1990s, the mall was under what came to be known as the General Development Plan (GDP). The city GDP essentially made it extremely difficult to maintain the mall’s competitive advantage with the fast-growing University Village and Alderwood Mall. The GDP would be triggered by any investment in the mall and investment, not surprisingly, never came. The mall fell into disrepair.
That all changed in 2002, when Greg Nickels became mayor. The owner of the mall, Simon Properties Group, approached the mayor’s office for help. The mall was in danger of going out of business, along with all the stores and employees who depended on it. Some believed this was actually the purpose of the GDP.
Nickels decided the only way to proceed was to blow up the GDP and start over, creating a new paradigm for the discussion. This was a painful process as there was a perception, perhaps correct, amongst neighborhood activists, that this action was taking power away from the community. But after numerous community meetings and sending postcards to people in the area and asking for what they wanted of the mall, the neighborhood's main agenda became clear: They wanted a better mall and better pedestrian and transit connections.
And there was another issue that would loom large in this debate, the day-lighting of Thornton Creek. Activists throughout the region took this issue on as a major cause and considerably altered the debate about how development would occur at Northgate. The city wanted to build a retention pond, since much of the water entering the creek’s headwaters at that location is surface runoff from parking lots and roads. But the activists wanted a creek, so Simon Properties contributed open space to the project and the city invested over $7 million in the undertaking.
Next, the new development plan had to be approved by the city council. As part of that plan, City Councilmember Richard Conlin advocated, on behalf of the community, that the mall owners, Simon Properties, build a parking garage to handle extra traffic at the mall.
And so it was done.
The mall became a better mall, a new theater complex was built near a day-lighted Thornton Creek, and new rental housing and condos were built. And now the mall parking lot is full most days and the businesses are bustling. This could not have happened unless Greg Nickels blew up the GDP. In the office at the time it was actually known as the God Damned Plan.
And this brings us to the current controversy: Sound Transit’s proposal to build a parking garage at Northgate.
Sound Transit wants transit oriented development plus the garage to drive ridership in the larger catchment area that is North Seattle. Allowing people to park at Northgate and ride light rail downtown relieves congestion on I-5. Besides, people are going to park at Northgate and ride the rail whether a garage is built or not. That phenomenon of finding alternate parking is normally called “hide and ride,” and it's something I find hard to believe that neighbors would want.
In fact, getting cars off the streets is precisely what led Conlin to push for a parking garage as a condition of redevelopment in the first place.
Some opponents of the garage want transit oriented development (TOD) alone to support this station development, and they inexplicably believe that by reducing access to transit and making it less convenient for potential riders, somehow Northgate will lure additional ridership numbers anyway. Other opponents suggest that a pedestrian bridge across I-5 from North Seattle Community College to the Mall would be a TOD driver. This, in fact, would be a great addition to the transit hub, but alone it will not drive the kind of ridership numbers Sound Transit is hoping for.
The solution is simple. It is important to do both TOD and add new transit-access parking. Northgate will always be a shopping and transit hub. Despite past efforts to starve the mall out of existence, it is here to stay, and people seem to like it that way.
Building ridership through multi-modal access and TOD at the same time is not a new concept in transit planning. At the risk of abandoning the usual Seattle habit of taking examples from Vancouver, Portland, or San Francisco, we should look to Oakland, California, and the Fruitvale neighborhood, an inner city neighborhood with daunting public safety and economic challenges. But the neighborhood organized around a vision for a new TOD project built in the area surrounding their BART station. After working through multiple plans for the redevelopment of the station, what resulted was a mix of new transit oriented development, both residential and commercial; a community plaza; safer, more walkable streets; pedestrian, bike, and transit connections and, yes, a large new parking structure with over 1,500 parking spaces. In fact, fees at the parking structure drive a significant portion of the new revenues that financed the publicly-owned infrastructure components of the project.
Since the Fruitvale success story, BART has actually been developing new TOD living spaces and new parking structures simultaneously at a number of stations. The system recognized that there are many ways to build ridership and that sustainability means simultaneously providing multi-modal access to their facilities while also being a catalyst for and investing in transit oriented development.
Of course, there is no one-size-fits-all, and adding parking at stations that are already heavily developed would not make much sense. But, that clearly is not the case here, where all indications are that a TOD and a new Sound Transit garage would actually be quite complimentary to one another while boosting ridership.
Unlike other dramas that Northgate has seen come and go, the current parking controversy around Sound Transit’s parking garage should be resolved quickly. Maybe sometime soon we can all access this important transportation resource in any number of ways. And perhaps catch a movie and a bite to eat at the mall on the way home.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Mar 28, 6:57 a.m. Inappropriate
You can support providing auto access to transit (many don't, but I do), and still oppose putting those parking spaces in the middle of a busy would-be pedestrian activity center like Northgate! The solution is to provide that parking at 145th St, instead. Once you're in a car, it's not asking too much to drive it someplace that will create less congestion and crowd out pedestrian life.
Meanwhile, the pedestrian bridge to the community college is a no-brainer - but it's also the classic case of a good idea that falls through the cracks between all the parties involved. It would benefit Sound Transit, Metro, the Community College, the mall and the city, but none of those wants to be stuck with the bill. This is what funding partnerships are about - with a fair share of funding assessed to each party. Making this sort of proposal a reality is what leadership ought to be measured by, in my opinion.
Posted Wed, Mar 28, 8:25 a.m. Inappropriate
The author points to the successes of TOD near the Fruitvale BART stop. One of the lessons learned from that project certainly is lost on the transit planning cabal in this neck of the woods. Here’s a reference to it:
In fact, fees at the parking structure drive a significant portion of the new revenues that financed the publicly-owned infrastructure components of the project.
That concept is alien to transit planners in this state. The revenue-raising powers the legislature delegates to the numerous overlapping and autonomous transit agencies here overwhelmingly center on high regressive general taxes that are used as security for mountains of long term muni bonds.
NOBODY – except local governments here – finances bus and train services that way.
The government managers at the state and local level around here don’t use revenues from transit users or transit beneficiaries (such as proximate businesses) to pay for buses and trains. Here there is nothing but dogmatic, repeated acts of targeting individuals and families financially for transit. Moreover, our transit financing structures have been designed to cause excessive levels of adverse financial impacts on those with the least wealth (that is the essence of regressive taxation, after all). Keep in mind, it isn’t just the wrong KIND of revenue-raising, the AMOUNTS of general taxation in the name of transit around here are several times greater than any peer metro area.
Should parking fees (and taxes targeting, say, corporations) be used to finance transit? Of course. Will that positive change take place here? No way.
Posted Wed, Mar 28, 8:50 a.m. Inappropriate
What Rob said.
The Geezer
Posted Wed, Mar 28, 9:14 a.m. Inappropriate
Northgate Community College? Where is that? If this writer wants to discuss plans that will affect a great many people, the least he could do is get his facts correct. As far as I know, the only community college across I-5 from Northgate is North Seattle CC.
Having been a student there in 1999-2000 and having tried to park there, I can say that unless the plan is to put a giant parking facility there rather than at the Northgate transit center, this plan would only put a lot more pressure on a neighborhood that's coping with an overflow of student cars parking on the streets for blocks around the college already. I can't think they'd be happy about that. And I can't think that everyone projected to come would park in the garage, particularly if it charges a fee.
Next, I am embarrassed to say this, but where is the big parking garage built with the refurbished mall? I haven't seen it, unless it's that monstrosity north across Northgate Way where Target is. Of course, I rarely go to the mall any more anyway because they have made their dedicated parking so difficult and so scarce.
The transit/density loving types just don't seem to understand that some of us will opt for the convenience and savings of using our own vehicles no matter what. When they succeed in getting government to make it more difficult to go here or there by car, some of us just don't go here or there anymore. The merchants in the affected areas lose our business. Maybe they are good with that because they're making it up with foot and transit traffic, I don't know, but I can promise they're losing.
Is the big garage near the Thornton Place development at the south end of the mall? The development remains at least partly empty as far as I know. I personally won't be going anywhere near it. The whole area now looks gloomy with the prison-like buildings shading out whatever's down on the ground.
Maybe there are folks that just suffer when any light and open space remain--is that why the proposed garage would go in by the transit center? Because there's still some light there? And will anyone who's bought or leased or rented in the immediately surrounding area appreciate the increase in traffic, noise, and general dirtiness that this garage will bring if it draws the transit riders boosters hope for?
Does every square inch of Seattle have to become cube hell, and will we soon have special law enforcement to make sure that we all walk or take the bus? Will the density/transit loving folks be mining the streets and randomly blowing up cars sometime soon as another deterrent to driving and lifestyle choice?
Posted Wed, Mar 28, 9:23 a.m. Inappropriate
The trains need to serve more than just the neighborhoods around the stations if they are going to be effective. The Park and Ride at Northgate is a major hub, supporting buses to downtown every few minutes during rush hour. The 41 is always going to be faster to downtown than light rail since it has no stops between Northgate and the bus tunnel during rush hour.
If you want to get cars off the freeway, then give them a place to park before they get on the freeway.
Posted Wed, Mar 28, 9:36 a.m. Inappropriate
Thanks to commenter mspat for pointing out the wrong name for North Seattle Community College. It's corrected now. It got right by me (and I've been there many times, including for evening classes there) and Jordan notes that he attended North Seattle and as a kid used to bicycle there. The slang name among his friends for the college was "Northgate State" and that may have helped lead him/us into calling it Northgate Community College. Thanks again!
Posted Wed, Mar 28, 1:01 p.m. Inappropriate
I don't know where mspat parks at Northgate but I have never had any problems parking at the mall at least on the east side. There is always a ton of parking there available. I love Thortan Place. We go to the movie theater there all the time and park underground or in the park n' ride. The restaurants there are very good and range from the cheap (5 Guys) to the more expensive (Thai restaurant). When they put in the new station, they will need to add more parking otherwise the neighborhood will be overun. The bus service from east of Northgate to Northgate is terrible (don't know about from the west) so most people who catch buses from there park rather than taking a bus there. If they want to encourage more people to leave the car at home, then they need to add more feeder buses from the east. The commuters do bring lots of business to the mall and the theater so if you move parking to 145th, the businesses will lose out.
Lastly, Northgate Mall still suffers from lack of places teens want to shop. I wish they were add some more businesses that teens like (Aeropostale, Delia's, H&M;) to the Forever 21 and Zumiez. Oh and an Old Navy would be awesome. I am so tired of driving to Alderwood or South Center to visit these stores. Forget about U Village, the parking is the absolute worst there plus there is no longer a book store.
Posted Wed, Mar 28, 2:21 p.m. Inappropriate
...When they succeed in getting government to make it more difficult to go here or there by car, some of us just don't go here or there anymore...
Word.
Crosscut, I wish your comment system had 'Like' buttons...
Posted Wed, Mar 28, 3:23 p.m. Inappropriate
I think the government made it entirely easy for the Auto Nation to progress quite effectively since the 1950s, using tax dollars, eminent domain, tons of bailout money, unending tax abatements, and facilitating the death of decent inter-urban buses, regional buses and decent passenger rails. I believe population growth, and the magnets drawing more people to urban cores and their suburban districts, also play a part in the difficulty of moving along in cars in an area like the Puget Sound-Seattle.
"The cities will be part of the country; I shall live 30 miles from my office in one direction, under a pine tree; my secretary will live 30 miles away from it too, in the other direction, under another pine tree. We shall both have our own car. We shall use up tires, wear out road surfaces and gears, consume oil and gasoline. All of which will necessitate a great deal of work ... enough for all."
-- Le Corbusier, The Radiant City (1967)
Posted Wed, Mar 28, 4:39 p.m. Inappropriate
Excellent comment, PaulKirk; Corbusier was right about consumption, too right. Related follow up to mspat's point:
"When they succeed in getting government to make it more difficult to go here or there by car, some of us just don't go here or there anymore."
It's going to get more difficult (expensive) to go anywhere by car because the era of cheap fossil fuels is coming to an end over the next few decades. Get used to it.
Posted Wed, Mar 28, 5:09 p.m. Inappropriate
Ahh, we in the bottom of the 99 percent will have some difficulty "getting used to it." I teach many places with my four college degrees and three decades instructing. Freeway flyers we are called -- adjunct professors. So, I pay for $8 a gallon gas while Gates and Company, all those app wizards at Amazon pulling down $150 K a year, pay the same? Sure, after the cities let privateers and the corporate state to take out decent alternatives to the car.
Here's another odd example of the corporate elites sticking it to us on many levels -- My daughter goes to Seattle from Spokane, a lot. By bus. I've been in bus depots all over the world. The one in Seattle is something akin to a few outliers in Guatemala City. So, the bottom of the 99 percent pay for those love miles in the air for the top 20 percent of the 99 and 1 percent, and we get shafted when it comes to public transportation.
Or, anothe way to frame issue in Seattle with the One Percent dictating the growth, rules, community deaths or revivals: the idea that Amazon would site a few of its mega buildings (3.3 million sq ft total) planned for Denny Triangle in several neighborhoods as incubators and community-directed projects, is that an alternative in Bezos quiver?
I don't see visionary people at these design and planning meetings.
"So, peak oil is real, but there are a few trillion barrels of oil-bitumen-shale-tar-deep crude left, and a few trillion cubic feet of natural gas left. The cost of oil-crude affects communities, local governments and the bottom half of the 99 percent a hell of a lot more than the One percent. Add to that, the effects of burning all those hydrocarbons? Here's from Bill McKibben, author of The End of Nature and organizer of 350.org:
"If we spew 565 gigatons more carbon into the atmosphere, we’ll quite possibly go right past that reddest of red lines. But the oil companies, private and state-owned, have current reserves on the books equivalent to 2,795 gigatons — five times more than we can ever safely burn. It has to stay in the ground.
Put another way, in ecological terms it would be extremely prudent to write off $20 trillion worthof those reserves. In economic terms, of course, it would be a disaster, first and foremost for shareholders and executives of companies like ExxonMobil (and people in places like Venezuela).
If you run an oil company, this sort of write-off is the disastrous future staring you in the face as soon as climate change is taken as seriously as it should be, and that’s far scarier than drought and flood. It’s why you’ll do anything — including fund an endless campaigns of lies — to avoid coming to terms with its reality. So instead, we simply charge ahead. To take just one example, last month the boss of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Thomas Donohue, called for burning all the country’s newly discovered coal, gas, and oil — believed to be 1,800 gigatons worth of carbon from our nation alone."
*******************
Ya think the addiction to personal vehicles and the necessity to own 3.2 per family will wind down elegantly and without any hitches?
Posted Wed, Mar 28, 5:23 p.m. Inappropriate
Yes, thanks for that quote from Le Corbusier, Paul. It shows how popular disgust (in this case, at the externalities resulting from automobile use) can lead to terrible government policies.
The urban design ideals of Le Corbusier – dense TOD housing near passenger rail stations leading to and from urban centers – were an abject failure when put into practice outside Paris. Everybody gets that, right? What I want to know is why the government leadership around here acts totally oblivious to that reality.
I thought for sure when I first read that quote from Le Corbusier the poster meant it as ironic, given that this effort at dense TOD near the Northgate rail station will be as useless as the experiments at this kind of urban planning that took place outside Paris in the 1960’s. Alas, the posters at Crosscut appear to be idealists who studied urban design decades ago, and are unburdened by any sense of reality.
Do any of you understand that the projects outside Paris where the Le Corbusier TOD model was implemented are being torn down? Seattle City Hall and Sound Transit now want to emulate that failure here. Here’s a real-world example of how what is envisioned at Northgate is a proven mistake:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/world/europe/07banlieues.html?pagewanted=all
Outdated urban design theory held economic, social welfare, and environmental reasons justified large-scale apartments/condos built next to passenger rail stations, ostensibly because The Workers then would have “access to jobs down the train line” without the need to own cars. Big thinking like that was a mistake. And no, high prices of fuel won’t change that reality – here or anywhere else. Really high fuel prices will cripple Western economies, especially here because the demand for commercial jets will dry up and there will be massive unemployment. Sound Transit’s grandiose, obscenely financed light rail efforts won’t be a Band-Aid, a saving grace, or even make any difference at all to the overall local economy.
Disgust about the adverse environmental and social impacts of auto use in no way justifies Sound Transit, or this light rail line. Attempts at such a linkage are fundamentally misleading.
Just to be clear, I’m neutral on light rail efforts undertaken elsewhere in the US these days. That’s because everywhere else they are financed properly (e.g., mostly with federal grant money). Here though the financing plan is obscene. Sound Transit is an unaccountable, rogue government that is delaying and pushing staggering regressive tax costs onto our relatively small population. What’s the current estimate of the tax costs to secure the mountains of long term debt? $85 billion? There is no possible justification for that, especially not the failed urban design ideals of Le Corbusier.
Posted Wed, Mar 28, 6:20 p.m. Inappropriate
Ironically, my background includes five years just outside Paris when my old man was stationed in France with the US Army -- years ago, 1960-66. Then, planning courses, oh, from 2001 to 2010, all the while being a journalist who ended up traveling and writing about those travels. Canada, Mexico, Central America, USA, Vietnam, a few other points. I don't think I have some outdated urban design schema eating my brain.
Broach your concerns about TOD tomorrow, at the Futurewise talk:
Quote:
Join us this Thursday, March 29, for an exciting conversation with national and regional experts on setting typology of transit-oriented communities. Our speakers will include Chris Yake of Reconnecting America, Sara Nikolic of PSRC’s Growing Transit Communities Partnership, and David Cutler of GGLO & the Seattle Planning Commission.
Futurewise TOC Brownbag Series Presentation:
How Station Area Typology Can Drive Decisions & Help Build Communities
Date: Thursday, March 29
Time: 12:00 – 1:30 p.m.
Location: GGLO’s Space at the Steps
Address: 1301 First Avenue, Seattle
By 2023, Link light rail will extend to Lynnwood, Bel-Red, and beyond Seatac. The new station areas can become great places capable of providing substantial social, environmental, and economic benefits to community residents and the broader region.
But we need to understand the opportunities and challenges of each station area in order to make the right decisions for planning and investing in the communities. Creating a station area typology for evaluation is the first step.
There couldn't be a better time to discuss station area typology and its potential impact. Right now, the Puget Sound Regional Council is in the midst of its own typology process to evaluate the north, east, and south corridors of the light rail extensions.
Posted Wed, Mar 28, 8:51 p.m. Inappropriate
More cool things happening in Seattle, tied to modes of transportation other than auto!
South Park Neighborhoods on Foot Walking Map
Final Community Meeting Tomorrow
If you live, work, or play in South Park join Feet First and provide your feedback to the very first walking map of South Park.
When: Thursday, March 29, from 5:30pm-7:00pm
Where: South Park Community Center (8319 8th Avenue S Seattle 98108)
Where do you walk to in South Park?
What route do you take to get to to parks, stores, friends?
What are some problems you have when walking in South Park?
What do you love about South Park?
Food and drinks will be provided and childcare will be available. A Spanish interpreter will be available for translation of the material and presentation.
For more information contact: Lisa Quinn, Feet First Executive Director by calling 206-652-2310 ext. 6 or emailing lisa@feetfirst.org
Posted Wed, Mar 28, 10:09 p.m. Inappropriate
Royer's first several paragraphs are pretty fair, but deserve some comment. Nickels did initiate the GDP discussion, but the council, led by Conlin and Steinbrueck, helped redirect the south lot toward a TOD and daylighted creek rather than a detention pond. Nickels proposed rezone was too modest and focused on NE Northgate Way parcels and not the mall itself or the south lot. King County had a lot to do with the Lorig development and the Penny's garage. Nickels lobbied the Library Board to build housing atop the new library, as was done in Delridge, but the board ran away from that complexity at Northgate, as well as Greenwood and Ballard. too bad. both the community center and library come with surface parking and no housing. Northgate is already a sea of surface parking.
the south lot redevelopment has been transformational. as Fellows points out, the ST investments should be as well. single use commuter parking would be antithetical to the transformation Seattle wants. it wants Northgate to become a pedestrian oriented place.
Transit funds are quite scarce. perhaps the best use of ST parking mitigation funds would be added service on routes serving Northate to reduce the wait time for riders. folks need not drive to Northgate to Route 41 or Link; they could take the bus. those parking at Northgate to take transit tend to live in Seattle and Shoreline and have service within an easy walk.
Royer mentions the hide and ride issue. Seattle solved this decades ago with the first Northgate P&R; and Blue Streak service. the surrounding streets have a two-hour parking limit. another method is the RPZ.
Posted Thu, Mar 29, 7:58 a.m. Inappropriate
Making Northgate more pedestrian friendly is great but people still have to be able to get there if they don't live next to it. I live in Meadowbrook. I can either walk 2 miles over some serious hills to get there (which my 16 year old actually does) or I can take 2 buses which take over 45 minutes to get there or I can drive my car in 5 - 10 minutes. Which would you do? I would consider a bus, if I only had to take one and it only took 30 minutes or less. Most likely, if there was no parking, I just wouldn't go at all.
Secondly, many of the areas around Northgate are not pedestrian friendly. There are few side walks north of 85th. Walking is not an attractive option.
Posted Thu, Mar 29, 9:19 a.m. Inappropriate
Paul, isn’t Futurewise just acting here as the “public outreach/policy advocacy” team for local multi-family project developers? It pushes for modification of zoning regulations to allow projects with greater height, more units, and less parking . . . all so developers can profit more at each location. I understand Futurewise also pushes for even higher regressive taxing for transit, but that's just another way to serve the interests that benefit from TOD.
Some poster above wrote this:
Transit funds are quite scarce.
That’s an example of a well-known propaganda technique. If a falsehood is repeated often enough, many people will start believing it is true. The fact of the matter is there is more than enough money for transit. In particular, taxing in the name of transit is FAR heavier here than in any peer region.
Bear in mind that families in Portland, the Twin Cities, etc. pay $0 in direct taxes for transit each year. That relevant context shows how what goes on here in terms of transit taxing is abusive. Metro, the transit governments in Pierce and Snohomish counties, and Sound Transit will confiscate something on the order of $1.5 billion in local tax revenue this year alone. In contrast, all the peers do a great job of providing bus service, and expanding train systems, with far less annual local tax revenue:
- TriMet (Portland) - $233 million;
- DART (Dallas/Fort Worth) - $385 million;
- San Diego Metropolitan Transit System - $100 million; and
- RTID (Denver) - $241 million.
There is no excuse for the high taxing level here; it’s many times higher than in the peer metro areas. Anyone think they can justify the high taxing levels here? I’m sure the propagandist claiming here that "transit funds are quite scarce" can't back that assertion up with any, you know, facts.
Posted Sat, Mar 31, 2:42 p.m. Inappropriate
Rhonwyn and many others drive to Northgate; Simon and many other retailers provide free parking. That is fine. I suspect short term parking for retail will be free and plentiful for decades. The Royer issue is: should transit funds be used to provide commuter parking in the urban center.
Posted Sat, Mar 31, 6:43 p.m. Inappropriate
"The 41 is always going to be faster to downtown than light rail since it has no stops between Northgate and the bus tunnel during rush hour."
But it won't be faster than light rail when it's route terminates at the Northgate light rail station. See Rider Alert at http://bit.ly/HvqWQr
--------
"The bus service from east of Northgate to Northgate is terrible (...) so most people who catch buses from there park rather than taking a bus there."
Yep. So isn't it surprising that Northgate is called a transit center? All the bus routes to/from it radiate outward, mostly on a northerly bias.
Also, if things haven't changed since I fled in 2004, then NONE of the ~16 bus routes pass *through* the transit center and serve to interconnect the four quadrants surrounding Northgate. Thus, getting between the NE and the SW is virtually impossible. (Rhonwyn's comment points to the inadequacy of effective transit service from the SE quadrant to Northgate.)
Which again begs the question why Northgate considered to be a transit center? Does that name have any real meaning?
-------
There would be NO benefit to a costly pedestrian crossing of I-5 to NSCC IF the bus routes to/from Northgate better inter-connected the quadrants around Northgate. (Jack Whisner, are you listening?)
-------
Oh, and I agree with crossrip that transit funds aren't scarce -- they're just poorly spent. That's why I suspect a pedestrian bridge across I-5 is in Northgate's future.
Posted Sat, Mar 31, 6:46 p.m. Inappropriate
And I forgot to mention that, in the eyes of city planners, Northgate's principal function (besides generating sales tax revenues for the city) is to pump thousands of people into downtown offices every day.
Indeed, "Northport" would be a more accurate term to describe Northgate, as the planners see it.
Posted Tue, Apr 3, 12:03 a.m. Inappropriate
for Tom Heller, Columbia Indiana, see above.
Link will be more reliable than the bus routes, especially in the reverse peak direction (opposite the flow of the I-5 reversible lanes); Link will provide much better speed and reliability to both the U District and Capitol Hill.
The NTC routes are pretty well distributed: northwest routes 5, 75, 345, 346; southwest, Route 16; northeast routes 75, 41, 347, 348; southeast routes 66-67 and 68. The Mapleleaf routes could be restructured to provide more frequency and less coverage.
Northgate routes provide pretty good frequency; there trips come every 15 minutes on several corridors: two northwest corridors, two northest corridors, and one southeast corridor.
today, Route 75 passes through; it did in 2004. In addition, routes 345 and 346 are interlined with routes 347 and 348, so riders can travel through.
to pass through, riders can easily transfer; it is far from impossible. Transferring may be the main purpose of a transit center.
Transport decisions are made in complex ways and there are many players and power is spread out.
Posted Tue, Apr 3, 2:13 p.m. Inappropriate
For louploup, who said "It's going to get more difficult (expensive) to go anywhere by car because the era of cheap fossil fuels is coming to an end over the next few decades. Get used to it," here are a few of my ideas:
I doubt that your assertion that the era of cheap fossil fuels is coming to an end over the next few decades can actually be factually supported, by undisputed data, at least. However, even if you can support it, I must politely say that I have no intention of getting used to it. I'll complain all I like, thank you. I am guessing you're a transit/pedestrian person, and that's fine with me.
I have to say, I don't know how anyone supporting those issues, except those who have more money and/or time than I do, could possibly afford to do all the politically correct transit riding and walking and still manage their jobs and lives. I drive an hour each way to work in Tacoma and back again. Happily, mine is a counter-commute for the most part. If I took transit to and from work at the same hours, I would be spending 5 hours/day on transit and it would cost me more than the gas and insurance do. I doubt I could walk to and from Tacoma any faster.
One thing I think is true is that our government and car companies have for years known that meeting higher CAFE standards is possible, but car companies, along with the gas companies, have chosen not to build vehicles to meet reasonably conservative standards, and the government has declined to mandate that they do. If we did this, we wouldn't begin to realize all the savings possible until these cars began to filter down as used vehicles to those who can't afford, or choose not, to buy new, but there would be benefits at least as soon as all the transit contemplated is completed, and likely at less cost.
Another way to respond to any looming end of the fossil fuel era would be to end the ridiculous practice of requiring people to come in to offices when their work could be done at home. Telecommuting is possible and people actually do it already. Imagine what we could save, not only in fuels, but in air quality, insurance costs and other costs associated with the traveling, and most importantly in human life time not wasted on the road fearing for one's life while trying to make sure that one's nowhere near a distracted driver on his or her phone or texting. We should be pushing for some required level of telecommuting for every large business. That way maybe we could save not only on the things I mentioned above, but maybe we would find we don't need all the tunnels and rails and all the costs associated with proceeding on the assumption that people must continue to travel into and out of town to work.
I think the big issue I see in all of this is that we are far too willing to take up the mantras our leaders and those interest groups who support them put forward without any critical questioning of the premises underlying them. We need to think more for ourselves and do our best somehow to convince our leaders to do the critical assessments of premises underlying whatever next big thing they're currently trying to sell.
Posted Sat, Apr 7, 12:17 a.m. Inappropriate
I have to agree with mspat on the ugliness of the new housing at Northgate. Couldn't be any uglier, and couldn't be any emptier.
The solution actually is that we ourselves need to run for office, and quit allowing idiots to hold those offices.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.