Lack of bike lanes and narrow sidewalks hampers smart growth urbanist policies.

Having spent a week in Las Vegas has given me tremendous appreciation for the land use and planning in Seattle.  I don’t like to be overtly critical about certain cities, but I’m one to believe that respective municipalities should be compelled to bear responsibility of planning shortfalls.

That being said, I would like to see more bike lanes for the Sin City and expanded transit outside the Strip.  The lack of real rapid transit (aside from the monorail line which is primarily catered to tourists) is starkly manifested in Las Vegas’ wide avenues, narrow sidewalks, and high automobile use.

TO be sure, the blog isn’t some simplistic monologue in which I rant of my regular tribulations.  My audience is still clear and I will still write on the issues and small blurbs I have on the built environment.  If it’s still not clear what the focus of this blog will be, stay tuned and see for yourself.  My first topic post back will be tomorrow morning.

P.S. I’ll still be working on the makeover for the time being.  I really like my banner…

Volutes and Glass.

A few more hours contemplating later, and I’m excited to announce a big makeover for the site.  In addition to the LU blog, I’ll be expanding the site to include a creative portfolio and a photo gallery.  Things will be coming along in phases so expect me to return to making tidbits and blurbs on the blog by March 27th.  It will take longer to get the ball rolling for the portfolio and gallery, so expect openings in succession over the year.  My portfolio will essentially contain creative plans, renderings, drawings, maps, etc. of visionary concepts and ideas within the urban fabric of the built environment.  Work will range from architectural plans of real buildings to master plans and drawings of visionary developments.  The photo gallery will contain images of transport, streetscapes, skylines, communities, and much more of goings-on in urban Puget Sound.  Work featured in the blog can be found in the gallery.  Dates will hopefully be coming soon.

An appreciation for Yaletown, Vancouver

After a few weeks of contemplation, I’ve decided to revive this blog, Lingua Urbana.  However, it will not be in its full and original form.  As everything stands now, I’m comfortably contributing to two major outlets: the Bellevue City News blog at the Seattle P-I and the Seattle Transit Blog.  Both have given me tremendous opportunities to write on issues I care about that are grounded in the real world.  However, I always thought that keeping a personal website should be in order.

So after some thought, I decided that Lingua Urbana will return as a much more personal-oriented blog.  The content will be focused on tidbits, blurbs, appreciations and experiences I encounter in my urban and suburban worlds.  It won’t be so much a diary of daily affairs, but I will do short simple posts on pictures I take and things like bus rides, neighborhood excursions, and issues quasi-relevant to urbanism.  Content will be light and periodic, probably about a post a week.

You won’t see lengthy editorials or case studies about transit.  That will be found at the Seattle Transit Blog.  And of course, Bellevue-related news will be reported on at the Seattle P-I.  Hopefully, this new change will bring out a more personable face to my online rants and raves.  Unfortunately, my academic, writing, and extracurricular schedules won’t make this a priority for a couple more months.  So for what it’s worth, I hope to have an overhaul and a return by March 27, 2010.  See you soon!

I was recently asked to hop on as a contributor to the Seattle Transit Blog, so my future blurbs about transit and land use will most likely to show up there.  The blog has a very articulate and intelligent team well versed in transit and transportation issues, so even posts not by me are worth a read.  Some of my transit-related posts here will be cross-posted over there along with the integration of some of the Lingua Urbana archives.  As far as my Progressively Unsuburban blog at the P-I goes, it will begin to shift focus towards issues surrounding real estate, community development, neighborhood planning, urban renewal, architecture, etc.  None of it is too far off base from the whole “I love cities!” demeanor, but there will be some distinction between the two blogs.

As far as Lingua Urbana goes, it will remain online for a bit for archival and transitional purposes, but there will be a time when it will be wiped off the face of the earth (probably after my registered domain expires).  Continue to follow me at the two aforementioned blogs!  Until next time.

'Sound Transit' emblazoned on a Link train

Frankly, I wasn’t around actively advocating for Sound Transit’s Central Link when it was being conceived, but one common criticism that I’ve heard rail opponents iterate time and time again is that the Central Link alignment was some sort of a political gimmick. “Why Tukwila of all places? People don’t go to the airport on a daily basis. Why not Bellevue?”  First of all, it’s rather ironic that the same people wanting to block light rail to Bellevue (and anywhere else in general) are the same people who criticize the Central Link alignment and throw their hands up in the air asking why the suburbs were not the first destination.  It’s a fair indication that these people are just against rail in general under the pretense of a whole laundry list of other excuses.

As Jim Miller incorrectly and manipulatively implies, Central Link wasn’t built to make Seattle feel like a “real city. ” It was built as a buffer to initiate the expansion of a much larger high capacity transit system in the Puget Sound area.  However, what really gets me is when people start calling the line Mayor Nickels’ “pet project” and some kind of a political ploy.  Strangely enough, the line is anything but political.  Especially when you consider the mayor lives in West Seattle.

To the naysayers, a Westlake-Tukwila run raises eyebrows.  That is, until it is apparent how out of context the initial segment has often been perceived.  When Sound Move was passed in 1996, voters were promised a line from the University of Washington to SeaTac Airport via Downtown.  Considering the relative north-south longitudinal urbanization of the Seattle metropolitan area, these three destinations were reasonably picked and for all intent, should be linked.  All three had and continue to have tremendous economic influence: UW being one of the largest employers in the state as well as the largest university, Downtown being the largest city center in the Pacific Northwest, and SeaTac Airport being the region’s primary commercial aviation hub.

After Sound Transit’s dark era in the early 2000s and a near dismantling of Link, the line was effectively shortened to help mitigate cost overruns and general volatility that had plagued the project.  The line was shorted from both termini and ended up originating north in Downtown and ending south at Tukwila.  A shuttle service would run to the airport.  It wasn’t until later that funding and grants were secured for Airport and University Links.

So was the Central Link initial segment a real gimmick?  Not if UW and SeaTac Airport were the initial termini of the original line.  Rail opponents love taking things out of context, but it is clear from a simple glance at Sound Move that there is a real reason why the alignment follows its route today.  Considering how troubled Central Link was in its infancy, it’s surprising to hear people suggest Link should have gone to Bellevue first.  We’re lucky it wasn’t planned that way.  We might just still have a bus-only system.

Columbia City Farmers Market

The topic of urban renewal or regeneration often brings up visions of glassy mixed-use developments in neighborhoods upzoned from what were once concrete tracts of land filled with industrial warehouses.  But when you look beyond the redevelopment of properties and buildings, there’s a lot more to the success story of urban renewal than simply real estate.  Darryl Smith, a realtor and resident of Columbia City, is an example of the few community residents that have stepped up over the years to transform and retake neighborhoods that were once plagued with adversity.  I had a recent opportunity to hear Darryl talk about his efforts in the revitalization of Columbia City and how, through a series of community efforts, he was able to help bring one of the darkest areas of the city into what is today one of Seattle’s most thriving neighborhoods.

If there is a driving force that enables such a mass empowerment of neighborhood revitalization, it is the community grassroots movement.  Although often prescribed as a political device, grassroots has found significant success across the country from cracking down on drug deals to driving out perpetrators of hate-crime.  Darryl’s most effective tool was enabling community neighbors to act far faster than any municipal entity.  At the base of these actions were simple and small meetings to gather the brainstorming collective– what could be done to better the neighborhood?  Over the course of several years, the Columbia City Revitalization Committee literally took back the neighborhood from the druggies, pimps, prostitutes, gangsters, and other folk with unsavory intentions.  It was events like a small-scale music festival, pancake breakfast, and lawn-chair cinema that brought people out of their homes and onto streets like Rainier Avenue South, even at night.

Renewal of space was also an important facet of these neighborhood efforts.  One of the very first steps taken was to paint on and decorate the wooden panels used to board up vacant spaces.  This in turn led to an actual slowdown in passing vehicle traffic on Rainier Ave S. that garnered interest in the new artwork.  In my recent post about alleyway renewal, I pointed to the simple aesthetic features of improving dilapidated spaces.  Columbia City is no different.  From merely painting artwork, these efforts led to other small-scale spatial planning measures, one of which included transforming an unused parking strip into a garden and green space.  Sound familiar?

Today, Columbia City is seen as one of the most diverse, active, and vibrant communities in Seattle.  It’s historic district has drawn in tourists, and mobility has been facilitated by Link Light Rail’s new station.  But nothing is more impressive than the neighborhood’s 180 degree transformation.  Several events that were part of the initial grassroots revitalization efforts still exist: the Columbia City BeatWalk, the Rainier Valley Garden Tour, a farmers market, and the Columbia City Gallery.    Despite the rapid gentrification (which even Darryl admitted was a necessary step in renewal), the neighborhood is now ethnically, socially, and economically diverse.

My next post in the series will be about the grassroots movement versus municipal planning efforts, the conciliation of both, and each entity’s role when it comes to different neighborhoods.  With different communities comes different people and different challenges.

New rendering of East Link on I-90

I’m currently at the South Bellevue East Link workshop to take notes and ask about some key issues facing Link.  I’ve got no access to wi-fi or internet, so I won’t be live blogging, but these are real-time notes as they happened.

5:16pm: I’ve arrived at Bellevue High School for the South Bellevue East Link workshop.  Supporters of the B7/BNSF ROW alignment are outside handing out literature in defense of that particular alternative.  I take one and politely brush past them.

5:20pm: An open workshop with a number of booths is set up for public input.  The presentation is scheduled to begin around roughly 5:30pm.  Each booth has renderings and drafts of different phases of the guideway that follows the preferred alternative.  I hear a very elderly gentleman utter “that from everything [he's] read, those trains can’t run across the I-90 bridge!”  I hold my tongue.

5:41pm: Katie Kuciemba, the community outreach rep., opens up the evening presentation for the workshop.  The average age of the crowd is older, not unlike the typical South Bellevue demographic.  It seems that most attendees are residents that will be impacted by East Link construction.  As expected, about 40-50% are in favor of the B7 alignment and all sport a big [B7] sticker on their chests.  A workbook was given to everyone in attendance; Katie highlights the contents of the book.

5:45pm: Don Billen presents a project status update.  He begins by explaining background info about the DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement).  An elderly woman sitting in front of me irritably finds my typing “annoying” so I switch seats.  Don explains the upgrade on the preliminary engineering design from 10% to 30%.  He gives a brief overview of the alternatives considered and how the FEIS will accommodate new environmental impacts and new route options (considering the new C9T tunnel option).  The Final EIS is to be published in Fall 2010.

5:49pm: Don is now going over preferred routing of the entire line when it branches off from Central Link south of the ID Station.  He gives reasons for the preferred South Bellevue alignment, one of them being higher ridership.  The side-running option east of Bellevue Way/112th is mentioned as per the request of the Bellevue city council.  The Downtown routing is explained with the at-grade vs. tunnel routing.  Don mentions the new shorter C9T tunnel option, and says there will be another workshop in mid-November specifically for downtown.

5:52pm: The Bel-Red/Overlake/Redmond alignments are touched upon.  Another ST representative takes the stage, didn’t catch the name.  She explains the key elements as part of the South Bellevue alignment.  The relocation of the FW Winters House is mentioned since it would sit right in the middle of the right-of-way.

5:55pm: The ST rep. mentions the expansion and retrofit of the South Bellevue Park and Ride, including the addition of a parking garage that will expand the number of parking spaces to 1400.  The deliberation between elevated vs. at-grade guideway up to SE 8th is explained (up to where the Bellefield Office Park is).  She touches on the elevated alignment from SE  8th to the East Main Station.

6:00pm: Katie Kuciemba retakes the stage, debriefs, and explains what’s next.  More workshops, FEIS completion, continuance of preliminary engineering, etc.

6:02pm: Two public questions are taken: a woman who appears to represent Surrey Downs stands and explains that residents there could “lose their homes” due to the elevated guideway.  Don Billen immediately rebutts by explaining that no homes are located between Bellevue Way/112th and I-405 (at least not where Link will run) so residential displacement is not possible.

6:03pm: Another woman who appears visibly frustrated says that 75% of participants at a DEIS comment roundtable sometime earlier in the year voted for another alignment other than B3 (presumably B7 because the literature that was given to me says the same thing; update: yep, she has the B7 sticker).  Don Billen explains the compromise between choosing the alignments and says that the current preferred alternative is the most viable across all factors.

The presentation ends and participants are invited back to the booths to talk one-on-one with ST representatives.  Despite the variance in conceptions from booth to booth, I overhear that the the costs are virtually the same.  Mostly the differences are exactly where the elevated guideway will transition to at-grade and vice-versa.  Representatives from the Vicki Orrico and Betina Finley campaigns are present, and maybe some more from others running for Bellevue city council.

I speak with one ST representative and ask her if a cut-and-cover option has been considered for the Bellevue tunnel alternatives.  She doesn’t have a clear idea as there have not been comparisons made yet, but she surmises that deep-bored may not be a significantly more expensive option.  After a while, I have a chance to talk one-on-one with Katie Kuciemba.  She confirms the relative ambiguity with the deep-bored vs. cut-and-cover option but mentions that newer boring technology could bring more equitable cost comparisons.  Essentially, it’s a non-issue as of now.  Keep in mind that cut-and-cover requires business and traffic impact mitigation since you’re tearing up the road.

I bring up the C9T tunnel option and ask if the Board has an unofficial preference regarding it.  At the moment, C4A is still the preferred alternative due to cost-effectiveness, but that could change if Bellevue can help plug the funding gap for the shorter tunnel option.  I also ask about the projected budget shortfall of $3.1 billion and while no one is happy about it, I’m told that ST is already accounting for the defecit in line with the budget cushion, and is undertaking value engineering.  The low-cost estimate for East Link is $2.4 billion, high is $2.7.

Before I leave, I have a quick word with Mike Williams about Kemper Freeman and ETA’s lawsuit.  It’s still in a bit of a gray area as none of the reps. know exactly the status of the case.  Mike tells me that as the suit was filed in state supreme court, it may be handed down to a lower court for jurisdiction.  I’m no lawyer, but I’m told that the ST legal team is handling it well, so full steam ahead on East Link for now.  It’s not like Freeman’s going to win this thing, anyway.  I also quickly ask about R8A and its status and am told that WSDOT is on track with that as ST2 provided funding for its completion.

Overall, no civil riots or major disruptions broke out.  There was no open public comment session so things were relatively quiet.  I will hopefully be attending the mid-November workshop to gain more insight on the downtown options and provide some updates then.

Sounder at King Street Station (from Wikimedia)

The Kansas City Light Rail blog has a post up with a table comparing the years in which rapid transit (defined as urban rail) and commuter rail were respectively built across American cities.  As a little background tidbit, Kansas City currently lacks both and is in the process of exploring which fixed-rail mode might best serve the city first (you can throw in the possiblity of a downtown streetcar as well).  In fact, Jackson County executive Mike Sanders recently proposed for a regionwide commuter rail system in lieu of long-time efforts to get started first on light rail.  The table does incorrectly pinpoint 2003 as Sounder Commuter Rail’s inaugural run (as the Seattle-Tacoma southern run began April 2000), but for the sake of the argument, there’s no denying that commuter rail came far before Link Light Rail in Seattle.

What’s the difference?

This brings up a very interesting question in comparing how commuter rail is used versus conventional rapid transit.  In places like Tokyo, Japan, there is such a high degree of homogeneity with rail that no one even distinguishes between commuter lines (i.e., JR East Yamanote Line) and typical subway lines (Tokyo Metro Chiyoda Line).  As rail growth creeps along in the United States, this same process is happening here.  Despite this, we can still generally sort out which modes serve so-and-so populace, etc.

Conventionally, rapid transit is generally defined as a rail system (heavy or light rail, depending on the city context) that mainly serves intracity neighborhoods and the urban core of the metropolitan area.  These systems provide more frequent service and operate longer hours.  Commuter rail generally refers to a regional system serving metropolitan suburbs and the city core.  These systems tend to provide higher-capacity service primarily during peak commuting hours (hence the name) on a less frequent basis.

Muddying up Sounder and Link?  Maybe not.

One of Sound Transit’s long-term goals is to connect Seattle and Tacoma with light rail.  This became a fleeting possibility on the November 2007 RTID measure, but was killed by voters.  But the question is: does Tacoma really need to be reached by Link if Sounder already provides the service?  The reason may be a logistical one.  Unlike commuter trains in New York and Tokyo, Sounder relies completely on diesel-electric Bombardier locomotives to push their coaches, inching up the cost per boarding.  Also, Burling Northern Sante Fe (BNSF) still gives priority of the main line to freight trains, limiting Sounder to a finite number of daily runs.  Sounder service may be meager compared to Link’s, but that simply begs the question why Sound Transit can’t invest in parallel tracks to BNSF’s (to which Sounder trains are currently constrained) to provide all-day service.

Either way, it seems that Sound Transit wants to apportion right-of-way acquisition toward Link instead.  When the initial segment was still being conceived, a lot of rail skeptics asked why a line to the suburbs couldn’t first be routed.  The “low-ridership/toy-train” argument against the initial routing was essentially no more than a political smear.  The route eventually makes sense when you consider that the terminii were originally to be the University of Washington and SeaTac Airport.  Now with Central Link open and ST2 having passed, the nomenclature of rail is simply changing.  Link’s future buildout mirrors that of an idea “commuter rail” network in Seattle, and “commuter rail” systems worldwide are no longer just for commuters.

Breaking down generic rail ‘modes’ and classifying Link

Yamanote Line from kamoda @ flickr

When using transit nomenclature, we enjoy classifying terms and names.  As noted with Japan’s rail homogeneity, it seems that we can no longer truthfully use these terms in application.  We still will, of course, but only out of tradition.  What may be a commuter train in Tokyo could be seen as a rapid transit train in Los Angeles.  What is the Long Island Rail Road in New York could be classified by some as almost an intercity passenger rail system.

Case in point.  Whatever rail does or however its purpose grows in the world, we can only embrace and adapt.  However, it’s important to keep in mind the useful purposes that each rail mode provides.  We can do this by using generic nomenclature, as opposed to conventional terms.  For example, ‘high-capacity regional rail’ would be appropriate to define systems that connect city cores with suburbs that have sprawled in the metro area.  ’Intracity rapid transit’ could be termed for high-speed systems that run within a city proper and help spur nodes of transit-oriented development.  Finally, ‘low-capacity rail’ would be applicable for short-trip modes, like streetcar or trams that would shuffle people from block to block and act as feeder trains.

The biggest concern is that Link is attempting to outdo itself by fulfilling the purpose of all three.  There are plans for it to reach beyond commuter towns and suburbs, and even the idea of expanding it as far east as North Bend.  Within the Seattle city core, Link is essentially a ‘light metro’ using subway infrastructure under Beacon Hill, Downtown, and Capitol Hill.  And within the Rainier Valley alignment, the system almost mirrors that of a tram, running in the median of a four-lane two-way boulevard.  There’s no need for Sound Transit to reach its arm too far.  There will be time for the system to grow, and as all types of fixed transit become more viable in the city, these rail modes will seem more relevant and more applicable.

I had the opportunity to visit one of the Hutong alleys in early 2008 and I was remarkably impressed by the positive activity within the narrow streets lined by street vendors, small shops, and tea houses.  We Seattleites often clamor for a kind of evening communal hangout (family friendly, bars and clubs aside) and like to point to the success of night markets in other areas of the world.  The utilization of certain alleys within Downtown and Chinatown-International District could very well be spots for edifying nighttime activity, whether they be street performers or vendors selling squid.  What we don’t want are the drug deals, prositution rendezvous, and fights that have plagued Seattle alleyways.  It’s one step to make an alley not too scary to walk through, but it’s another to make them places of walkability, gathering, and social content.