I had reason to be at SeaTac Airport this week. The landscape there is still evolving with the completion of the light rail station there. It got me thinking about how light rail would wend its way into Snohomish County.
I know light rail is not expected in our county for another decade or more, but I was thinking about land-use decisions we should be making in our county to be ready when our day finally arrives.
The last I heard, the plan was to serve Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood but what does that mean?
Long range planning for a project like this requires that we establish likely routes so we can begin right-of-way acquisition and upgrades to our comprehensive plan that will steer the right kind of development into the vicinity that will increase population density to a point where light rail begins to make sense.
The Urban Center concept would work for the area around a light rail stop; High Rise development that incorporates shopping, professional services, residential units and adequate parking for commuters who live away from transit lines.
Think about a light rail station in the middle of Bellevue Square or the Mall of America.
The Sound Transit – North Link plan calls for an underground station between NE 45th Street and NE 43rd Street on Brooklyn Avenue in the University District; heading north from the U District in a tunnel to a station at 65th NE and Roosevelt Ave then over to the I-5 Freeway and up to the Northgate Transit Station south of the Mall. The train comes out of the tunnel just north of NE 85th Street and runs on the surface a short distance then elevated to the Northgate Station.
The North Link is scheduled to start in 2012 so it would be a good idea for us to start talking about where the line will go when it leaves Northgate.
If the decisions about Sound Transit are made in cooperation with the communities to be served, then I would assume there is a process in place to gather input, I just can’t find it.
The Puget Sound Regional Council’s Transportation 2040 shows light rail in the Alderwood Mall vicinity but is clearly not a priority for them.
Interestingly, PSRC also shows Commuter Rail serving the Woodinville – Snohomish Corridor but it doesn’t show any extension of rail service north of Snohomish.
Wouldn’t that be a good idea if we are engineering projects along SR-9 to Arlington? I have argued that we should be developing alternative rail capacity as a back-up to the main line that runs along the water. Since there are frequent landslides during the rainy season, having alternatives for both freight and commuter service might be a good idea. But what do I know?
No Loss for Words 
Growth Management? Twenty Years of Failure!
by Steve DanaWe are approaching the twenty year anniversary of the Growth Management Act. I know that because I was a city councilmember in Snohomish in 1991 when it was first adopted. I was the Snohomish representative to Snohomish County Tomorrow’s Steering Committee from 1991 through 1995.
The idea of “growth management” was foreign to most of us and the state legislature didn’t provide much guidance with their intent other than the thought that we needed to get better organized.
Leadership in our state has not changed much in the past twenty years; the Democrats are still controlling everything as they have continuously since John Spellman left office in 1985.
For most of the cities here in Snohomish County, there was no need for the state to devise a growth management process, the cities weren’t aggressively promoting growth.
Snohomish County was probably a big reason for the Growth Management Act passing since the county was promoting growth on any and every piece of land they had control over.
Even today Snohomish County is working to undermine growth management north of Lake Goodwin. Representative Hans Dunshee from the 44th District and County Councilmember Dave Somers from Council District 5 are lobbying the legislature to create an allowance for another brand of cluster developments. In an effort to increase density in a clearly rural part of the county, elected officials from the other end of the county are pushing for a way to benefit one significant developer in exchange for nothing. Current county regulations reportedly will allow 600 homes to be built on about 2000 acres. My quick math tells me that already the acres per home are below the minimum 5 acres required in a rural area. If this initiative is successful the acres per home will decrease to about 1.
This plan stinks for a lot of reasons, but if only one or two property owners are the beneficiaries of the action then it might be viewed as spot zoning on a huge scale. Don’t we already work overtime to screw rural residents with efforts to increase zoning in rural areas?
The motivation for the Growth Management Act was to prevent 1-2 acre home sites. The legislature wasn’t real clear about how to implement their vision, but they were clear about reducing rural densities.
I am a little surprised that legislators and county councilmember John Koster who represent voter interests in this discussion are not more involved. If urban development is appropriate for the designated area, add them to Arlington or Marysville’s Urban Growth Area and get on with it. If urban development is not appropriate then keep it rural with minimum lot size of 5 acres.
As a city advocate, I know the pain of complying with mandates of Growth Management as our city struggled to incorporate greater population in a more compact community if the trade-off was the preservation of our rural areas through lower density. We did our part and Snohomish County continues to ignore their obligations even after 20 years.
This Dunshee & Summers deal is another example of how “what’s good for the goose is not always good for the gander”. Snohomish County needs to get out of the Urban Development business. The Growth Management Act is clear that Counties should not be Urban Service Providers.
If all the “Urban” land use designations were eliminated from the county code that would be a good start. Let the cities do the job they have agreed to do without disruption by the county.
Encourage your legislator to defeat this Dunshee Bill.
Posted in Snohomish County Political Commentary | Leave a Comment »