Perhaps this is daft of me, but why is it a bad thing to have a parking lot at the end of a light rail line? Doesn't that ENCOURAGE use of transit?

Free parking encourages sprawl, and degrades the pedestrian environment near stations.

900 parking spaces are much more important then the graft surrounding the mayor's office.

Interesting. I would have thought that a parking lot at the end of a rail line (whether it is paid parking or not) would encourage people who already live in sprawl to drive a shorter distance to get downtown-- thereby easing traffic congestion and pollution. I suppose you also oppose the parking lots at BART stations in the Bay Area?

In order to pump tens of thousands of new workers into new downtown office buildings (the agency's assigned task), Sound Transit requires huge parking garages be foisted upon business districts in outlying communities, such as Northgate. That’s because in most places, only a small share of Sound Transit’s riders will access their trains by walking or by feeder bus. These “feeder garages” are ancillary to Sound Transit’s transportation services, but make no mistake about them, they’re there to principally serve downtown Seattle.

Indeed, downtown Seattle must "annex" land and workers from outlying communities in this way because downtown Seattle is both land-starved and worker-starved.

Those workers must park somewhere. Downtown Seattle doesn’t have the room for garages to hold their cars, nor does downtown Seattle have sufficient freeway capacity to accommodate them. So Seattle has adopted a modern-day “lebensraum” policy that leans on captive, satellite business districts to provide this car-park service, while Sound Transit shuttles these workers between downtown workplaces and the outlying areas where they parked their cars.

This garage-to-downtown shuttle service may be a “neat” solution to meeting downtown’s needs, but it comes at a considerable cost.

Storing thousands upon thousands of cars delivers little vibrancy, diversity and economic benefit to those outlying business districts and their communities. Stashing thousands of cars daily for
commuters headed to new downtown offices doesn’t help those business districts develop, doesn’t improve their walkability nor does it genuinely enhance the communities they serve.

These oversized garages instead impose sizable local impacts by consuming land and placing pressure on local streets and roads while draining talent and skills off onto a rail line to workplaces miles and miles away in downtown Seattle. This is a ‘spill-over’ cost imposed upon these outlying districts by downtown Seattle. Worse, this produces an outcome precisely opposite of what we’re trying to
achieve throughout Puget Sound: more tightly integrating the location of jobs, housing and shopping opportunities in easily-accessible, quality urban clusters throughout the region, not just in downtown Seattle.

Because it isn't the end of the line. Northgate is just the last Seattle stop; the end of the line will be in Lynnwood.

Because it isn't the end of the line. Northgate is just the last Seattle stop; the end of the line will be in Lynnwood.

Who says it's "additional bus routes linking the Northgate station to neighborhoods, or a pedestrian bridge connecting North Seattle Community College to the station" as opposed to the 900-stall parking garage? Who is saying this? Who is saying that it can't be one except at the expense of the others?

Because it's bullshit. Northgate, and the neighborhood, and the city, and the region, need all of these things. None of them should be opposed.

Sound Transit, and every government agency, has limited resources. They can't afford to build a parking garage, a bike-ped bridge, and improve bus service. They must make tough choices regarding how to spend limited public money. We should expect them to spend this limited money in a way that provides the most benefit to the most people. Building a parking garage that benefits a small minority of people, while spending almost nothing to benefit the overwhelming majority of people who access the station via foot/bike/bus, just isn't a good decision.

It's bullshit to think that we can afford everything we want. It's even more bullshit for a bunch of unelected bureaucrats to think they know what's best for Northgate and try to shove a gigantic parking garage down Seattle's throat.

Oh yes, because the people south of the station n Maple Leaf know what's best for the rest of North Seattle.

Rather than surveying people that already use mass transit to see if we can make something that is convinient enough for them to use even better, how about a survey of the people that are not being served to see if a foot bridge will get them out of their cars.

Right. Like nobody uses a car, or needs a place to park it? Sorry, but your argument is simply not creible.

Why do the 10% who drive deserve all of our public money? How is spending tens of millions of dollars subsidizing the 10% who drive, while spending almost nothing on 90% on the 90% who walk, bike, take transit fair in any way? How is it acceptable for ST to come up with this proposal behind closed doors and then try to ram it through when it does not align with anyone's vision for the future of the neighborhood?

They can't afford to build a parking garage, a bike-ped bridge, and improve bus service. They must make tough choices regarding how to spend limited public money.

I very, very strongly agree with you. Of course, you've said much more than you think you have. See, those of us who think the choo-choo train fetishists have convinced the people here to make a disastrous mistake have long argued that the Puget Sound's limited resources should be concentrated on buses and not rail.

But that decision's been made, and it didn't go our way. We're going to have billions of dollars worth of rail. If the choo-cho train fetishists had two brains to rub together, they'd look at all the other commuter rail systems in this country and see that big parking garages are an integral part of those systems that succeed.

The only system I know of without big parking lots is Portland's. And if you take a look at their "Max" system, the very first thing you will notice is how many of the trains ride empty or close to it. "Max" is in serious and slowly escalating financial trouble, just like Sound Transit will be if you don't stick lots and lots of parking spaces on it.

The only aspect of that particular feature where I'd part company with Sound Transit is their evident plan to make that parking free. That's the bullshit here. To not charge to park in those structures will leave money on the table. As a taxpayer, I want the people who use that system to pay as much as we can squeeze out of 'em.

ST funds are limited; choices have to be made. Added service frequency on exisitng routes (not new routes) would be the most cost-effective mitigation for the lost parking spaces. Most auto-access transit riders are oriented to downtown Seattle and First Hill, places with paid parking, most of whom will continue to ride transit. ST shoud measure cost-effectiveness in terms of riders attracted per dollar.

In addition, the large garage is counter to Seattle policy.

When was the last time the ST Board ever vote down an 'Action Item'?
By the time it reaches that stage all the discussion, deals, and cigar-puffing has been completed by staff, contractors, insiders, and the Cmmte Chairs. Good luck trying to stop this train wreck.
When will the Board address the current North Sounder Cash Wreck so mere mortals can express their views?

Re #5, you left out one other significant endorsement vote from the 46th. Former state Senator Kathleen Drew was endorsed for Secretary of State by an 86-14 margin, giving her a clean sweep of all the Seattle districts.

Look, I was a big fan of Greg Nickels as mayor, but isn't it time to pull the plug on his Secretary of State campaign? Kathleen is whipping his ass on his home turf, she has been endorsed by the Pierce and Snohomish County Democrats and got a dual in King, and she, and not Nickels, is going through to the general election. How about even a token nod to this outstanding candidate?

The thing that Kathleen needs to work on is the retail politics--she's a great lady who would make a great SoS, but Nickels knows how to own a room in a way that she hasn't quite mastered yet.

As someone who campaigns on ethics issues, Tarleton should have asked her campaign manager to recuse himself from this month's King County and 36th LD Democrats' endorsement committee votes.

To some members of the 36th and King County Dems, when Tarleton allowed her paid campaign manager to vote on her endorsement she risked undermining public confidence in the King County and 36th Democrats' recommendations now and in the future.

The point is not, as the writers' claim, that Tarleton's campaign manager donated to Tarleton or Fathi or anyone else. Making contributions neither qualifies or disqualifies one from endorsement committees.

This is different. Paid consultants receive substantial personal financial rewards (through overhead on direct mail and tv ads, more consulting fees, and hopefully more clients) when their candidates get certain endorsements, raise more money, and then make it past the primaries. They may, nay they must, overlook key policy issues and qualifications of other candidates to advance their own financial interests.

Candidates like Tarleton should not encourage their political consultants, whether Kathy Allen or Randy Pepple or Christian Sinderman or my very nice neighbor Jason Bennett, to serve on any political organization's executive or endorsement committee. It calls into question the reliability of both the endorsement and the organization.

But if you think having paid campaign staffers on political endorsement committees is okay, then let's just be upfront about it and allow the actual candidates to be on endorsement committees and vote for themselves directly. Heck, let's allow all of their staffers and family members to run our endorsement committees and let us go home to watch Dancing with the Stars.

Wow. Your hounding is bordering on desperate. You's better be sure that all ends up in the Voter's Pamphlet so we understand that insider baseball are the issues that concern us the most.

Where are your Teamsters on the Stadium? They sure are silent. Oh, that's right. Sweetheart deal in the MOU.

Very disingenuous, Heather - you've been anti-Tarleton for years, for reasons I really don't get. This isn't about your concern for fair play or Jason's supposed conflict of interest.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify this a bit more, Josh and Erica. I believe it's a valid discussion to have. I believe during the 13 years I have been active in the 36th district, there have been 4 campaign people this has impacted over time, if memory serves and at various times it has and has not impacted me directly.

Is it a conflict of interest? Absolutely. Do our rules in the 36th account for this? Yes, thoroughly. The rules of the 36th District are clear that anyone with financially vested interest is to disclose that publicly during our e-board endorsement interviews, which I happily do in each interview I attend. Each of the voting eboard members is aware of my involvement in various races as are the candidates interviewing. This issue was most appropriately raised in 2009 when I was chair of the district and was working on the Mayor's race and for our King County Executive, Dow Constantine. I recused myself from all votes and speeches and held to that throughout the campaign. This year, I have said I will recuse myself if my vote is the deciding vote. Also at the full endorsement meeting, I said I wouldn't speak for or against candidates in the full membership meetings for whom I work. And I haven't. And I won't.

The executive board and the membership of the 36th spent a lot of time crafting endorsement rules AND by-laws that encourages those working on campaigns to still participate in the district but do it in a fair and open way. We also pass our bylaws as a membership during membership meetings. A good way to change those rules, if you don't like them, is at that time.

oh! And just to be clear, Noel is pretty great too. I respect all three of the ladies running a great deal. I respect all of the candidates actually, but consider both Noel and Sahar friends. I don't think we need to lose our minds while we support our own candidates. I believe Gael is the most qualified, experienced candidate for this position but not at the expense of Noel and Sahar.

Thanks again for raising the discussion. Happy to answer any specifics directly: jason@argostrategies.com.

I don't have a favorite candidate in this race, but just wanted to confirm that Jason is correct about the 36th District Democrats bylaws and endorsement rules.

For at least a decade, our bylaws have required any executive board member with a financial interest in a campaign to disclose that interest prior to casting a vote, but have not required such individuals to recuse themselves from voting. Jason disclosed his financial interest as required.

The 36th District Democrats take pride in having an open and fair process so voters can trust our endorsement decisions. As in previous cycles, the 2012 Primary endorsement process was conducted in strict conformance with our bylaws and endorsement rules.

Jeff Manson
Chair, 36th District Democrats

"We support letting the market decide..."

The solution to every lazy thinker's economic problems.

Of course the architects want the market to decide. But it's not the market for apartments they are talking about. It's the market for architects, who happen to work for ... ta-da! ... the developers. Who'd have ever imagined it?!

@Heather. I don't have a vote at King County. I wasn't present for the interviews nor was I present for the actual vote so I am not sure why you're saying that. That's not accurate.

Okay, thanks Jason. Please let the record reflect that you were not at the KC Dems vote. But it does seem backwards that the 36th's Executive Committee was by some accounts "aggressively" pushing an endorsement recommendation at the KC Dems for Tarelton/Frame on Tuesday before it could be voted down by the membership of the 36th Dems on Wednesday.

You are so, so welcome Heather. Whenever you need a fact checker, just let me know.

Parking garages are the most sustainable way to warehouse cars.

I support the new Northgate garage, with the stipulation that the garage footprint X the number of floors is removed in equivalent horizontal parking within a year of completion of the next station north of Northgate.

Just think of the open space we could have!

Sound Transit might have an easier time getting support if they would commit now to using the old 'staging area' lot as an environmental mitigation site. They are going to need several.

"Why do the 10% who drive deserve all of our public money? How is spending tens of millions of dollars subsidizing the 10% who drive, while spending almost nothing on 90% on the 90% who walk, bike, take transit fair in any way?"

Your percentages are WAY off. 84% of Seattle households own cars, and about 2/3 of Seattle residents use cars to get to work.

Those numbers are Sound Transit's own projections for who the 15,000 daily expected riders in 2030 will access the Northgate station. right now only 30% of the daily riders who use the northgate transit station get their by car, 70% arrive via bike/foot/bus.

Removing the parking requirement for the developers will destroy this city, and will take us back to medieval ages. One of the most rediculous justification i heard so far from the proponents is that, it will reduce construction cost, and thus the developers will be able to build more affordable housing. please !!!.

As an architect, I'd like to interject one little fact into this conversation. Structured parking ("parking garages") presently costs $40-50,000 per parking space. Any architect or developer will confirm this data point. Do the math. The millions that are added to the cost of any project as a result of mandated parking fundamentally undermine the budget of every development project. A lot of occupant and neighborhood amenities are sacrificed to the parking gods.

Additionally, parking garages are very clumsy design elements that require big turning radii and maneuvering clearances. Parking dictates building layout, structural frame configuration, scope of excavation, and so on. Whatever is built above-grade is at the mercy of the dictates of the parking garage below. They also necessitate lots of curb cuts and vehicle-pedestrian crossing/conflict points. Housing projects without big garages can fit better into and contribute more deftly to a "fine-grained" neighborhood. Building design can be much more responsive to neighborhood context, building program and design excellence if freed from the all-consuming need to store idle vehicles.

We can't snap our fingers and eliminate all the cars. We do, however, need to stop perpetuating the assumption that every residence has to come equipped with room for a couple of Volvos. Those days are gone. Good riddance.

""stop perpetuating the assumption that every residence has to come equipped with room for a couple of Volvos"

It's been decades since apartment projects were required to park 2 cars per unit.

Other than not being able to pass up a red herring, you provide a clear demonstration that architects knew full well the consequences of their encouraging planners and then electeds to 1) hide the ugly cars from the public eye, 2) jack up the densities and lot coverages so that the surface parking restrictions adopted conflict with the increased price of land and will not "pencil out," 3) declare too costly the resulting structured parking as well, 4) scapegoat parking for the lack of new housing affordable to those of modest means. Do away with parking and the new housing becomes as affordable as NYC's, right?

Question: how did talented professionals make use of doable codes to provide new housing for the whole range of Seattle incomes prior to the "success" of this "you can't get there from here"?

As for the unmentioned other shoe that architects are readying to drop (as quietly as possible) — deregulation of development, I recommend Crosscut viewers read the first half of Jeffery Sachs' 2011 "Price of Civilization." Sachs, well known for selling things he wishes he hadn't but not quite able to condemn outright, makes his amends by providing an astoundingly lucid history of how we came to lose our ability to hold elites to account.