Spokane/ CDA development discussions

[Hub for an Empire]

I take back what I said about Kootenai County Unemployment rate being higher that Spokane County. Guess I should of read the article more slowly.....I guess it had to do with the relative percentage "increase" over the last few months being higher in Kootenai County over the 2 percent relative increase of Spokane County. Found within the last month the total Unemployment rate of Kootenai County being 8 percent and 9.1 percent in Spokane County. Hope I didn't offend anyone! Sorry!

I really do think it's time for both counties to get together to move the Metro area ahead. Not sure why they pretend the other county doesn't exist!
Also, I think the growth at Airway Heights/West Plains should balance, to a small degree, the county population-wise and help maintain a stronger Spokane.

Let's hope Light Rail takes off , with the recent stories on the news!

[mSeattle]

Originally Posted by Hub for an Empire

Also, I think the growth at Airway Heights/West Plains should balance, to a small degree, the county population-wise and help maintain a stronger Spokane.

Let's hope Light Rail takes off , with the recent stories on the news!

Light rail?

We're not going to see many more high rise skylines in this state, especially east of the Cascades if there continues to be more sprawl than density. You can do better than what Puget Sound did. Half of the sprawl over here should not exist (i.e. there should be more high rise skylines).

[FireFighter74]

I don't see Spokane getting light rail ever! People here don't like the idea. I have no idea why. I bet in 10 years or so people will finally decide to go with light rail and it will cost us five times as much and it won't be built. I haven't read anything new about light rail in our area. I do know STA would be on board with light rail if they had public support.

[Contrarian]

Spokane no more needs light rail than a hole in the head. Seattle and Portland don't need it either.

The reason people in Spokane don't support light rail is obvious --- it is because they don't plan to use it. They see it as nothing more than a new, gold-plated featherbedding scheme for bureaucrats and transit unions. They support STA, reluctantly, only because they believe the community must provide some means of transportation for people who cannot use automobiles, for one reason or another. Bus transit meets that need more flexibly and inexpensively.

The test of whether a community "needs" light rail, streetcars, etc., is whether such a system can be self-supporting, i.e., whether farebox revenues will cover operating costs. If they don't, and require heavy subsidies, that is a sure sign that the "need" is phony (the city's bus transit system is also gold-plated).

What Spokane needs is economic development. You don't get that by raising taxes to support trendy boondoggles.

BTW, mSeattle, highrises and "sprawl" tend to go together. People build highrises because the land beneath them is valuable. It becomes valuable because there is a large customer and service base surrounding it, i.e., "sprawl."

[FireFighter74]

Have you ever lived somewhere that has light rail? I'm from PDX and I rode the MAX everyday and I owned a car, a new car. I don't think anyone can say PDX doesn't have a successful light rail system. That shows me PDX does need light rail. Have you see their ridership? I can agree that Spokane might not have the population or tax base to sustain light rail at this time, but why not plan ahead. If there is federal tax dollars available, why not use them. Roads, freeways, and many other local projects are partly federally funded. Are you not ok with that? If someone has doubt about light rail, ask some one who lives in PDX. I can't speak for Seattle.

[Contrarian]

Well, FireFighter, you normally don't count an enterprise as "successful" when it must rely on government subsidies to cover 80+% of its costs. Would you count a McDonalds as "successful" if the government was supplying 80% of the revenue needed to keep it afloat? Do you today count General Motors as "successful?"

Portland's transit system carries a mere 7.6% of daily commuters, which is less than it carried in 1980 before the MAX lines were built. If those passengers were obliged to pay full fare that percentage would fall to zero.

Federal dollars, BTW, are not the only sources of subsidies for Portland's transit system. That boondoggle consumes much local revenue also --- especially revenue which could be used for improving roads, which carry 90+% of daily commuters. Moreover, federal funds used for roads, like state road funds, are not subsidies --- they are paid for by the users of those roads, through fuel and excise taxes and licensing fees. Auto users subsidize transit riders, heavily.

And no, I have no economic interest in auto v. transit travel. Just think public transportation revenues ought to be used to improve and maintain the modes the public actually prefers and uses, not the modes preferred by Greenie ideologues.

(I lived in Portland for 10 years, though before the MAX scheme was concocted).

[mSeattle]

Originally Posted by Contrarian

And no, I have no economic interest in auto v. transit travel. Just think public transportation revenues ought to be used to improve and maintain the modes the public actually prefers and uses, not the modes preferred by Greenie ideologues.

(I lived in Portland for 10 years, though before the MAX scheme was concocted).

Hee hee, the sheep clothes slip?

Roads get some sort of state/federal funding beyond taxes: Seattle Viaduct, 520 bridge, I-90, Hood Canal bridge.

Shouldn't gas tax and fees increase so that road conditions can improve? Maybe put tolls on major streets and turn freeways into tollways.

[Contrarian]

It is true, mSeattle, that road projects have become favorites for Congressional pork in the last couple decades, i.e., the "bridge to nowhere," etc. But road users still pay nearly all the costs of their mode. Transit users, by comparison, here in Spokane pay a mere 7%.

Fuel taxes and other use fees must indeed keep pace with the costs to maintain the system. But it would help if the fees they already pay were not diverted to overpriced and little-used transit boondoggles.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Contrarian

It is true, mSeattle, that road projects have become favorites for Congressional pork in the last couple decades, i.e., the "bridge to nowhere," etc. But road users still pay nearly all the costs of their mode. Transit users, by comparison, here in Spokane pay a mere 7%.

Fuel taxes and other use fees must indeed keep pace with the costs to maintain the system. But it would help if the fees they already pay were not diverted to overpriced and little-used transit boondoggles.

you do realize the idea of transit isnt to make profit but to give people alternatives to driving? Another way to look at it, the more people that ride bus, light rail, and bike, the number of people dependent on cars decreases, even if it is only by a percentage...then when that happens, traffic congestion begins to reduce and the need to expand roads lessens...thus the implication of alternative forms of transportation would be effecting the metro as a whole, and not just the "mere 7%." Thus is where the "mass transit" comes into play, it is a system that is designed to help the city as a whole, unlike the car which is a system to benefit the individual.

Sorry that the "greenies" of the country want to actually make a difference in reducing the damages we do on the planet.

[Contrarian]

Yes, urbanlife, I do realize that the idea of transit is to "give people an alternative to driving." The trouble is, 90+% of those people do not want an alternative to driving, and will not use it. They will continue to use their automobiles, for perfectly rational and understandable reasons --- because they are more comfortable, more convenient, more flexible, offer more privacy, and because their schedules, routes, itineraries, traveling companions, and travel conditions are under their control, not the control of bureaucrats. I.e., all the reasons why the private automobile supplanted mass transit systems in the first place.

Modern day transit systems are a classic example of bureaucratic arrogance --- the notion that politicians and bureaucrats know better what is in people's best interest than the people themselves.

The argument that transit systems reduce congestion is a loser --- it costs roughly 4 times as much per passenger mile to build rail transit systems than to expand or extend roads. While you're wasting money building "politically correct " systems 90% of commuters are never gonna use, the road congestion those dollars could have relieved continues to hamper the economy and air quality.

[Contrarian]

BTW, no public policy (or private policy, for that matter) benefits "the city as a whole." That is a communitarian myth. All of them benefit specific persons, if they benefit anyone. The PSU student who rides the streetcar in Fareless Square for nothing benefits from Portland's transit system. The driver who is stalled in traffic on the Minnesota Freeway every afternoon does not --- but he's the guy paying for it.

[mSeattle]

Originally Posted by Contrarian

Modern day transit systems are a classic example of bureaucratic arrogance --- the notion that politicians and bureaucrats know better what is in people's best interest than the people themselves.

The argument that transit systems reduce congestion is a loser --- it costs roughly 4 times as much per passenger mile to build rail transit systems than to expand or extend roads. While you're wasting money building "politically correct " systems 90% of commuters are never gonna use, the road congestion those dollars could have relieved continues to hamper the economy and air quality.

Congestion is the creation of road users not transit systems. The cost of roads doesn't end with roads. There is cost of sprawl -- lost local agriculture, forest and green space, and cost of new roads/streets/emergency/sewer etc. which are subsidized (users do not pay the real cost).

Back to the "people's best interest". Density with green spaces -- and a healthy collection of alternatives to driving (walking/biking/transit) -- is the ideal design for metropolitan areas, not ever expanding miles of sprawl and driving.

Miles of rail can help sprawl as well, when there should instead be increased housing including housing around schools for families with grade-school age kids.

Maybe this is being conservative/conservationist or maybe progressive about natural resources and such. I don't know.

[mSeattle]

BTW, people who've killed their cars enjoy not having to pay for parking, insurance and maintenance. They often realize that a lot of stuff they've stuffed their lives with is really unnecessary distraction and crazy-making.

They enjoy the fact that they "really didn't need to go there anyway" or that "it can wait another day" or maybe "I'll downsize the house so I don't have to work that second job" AND still not have to pay for parking, insurance, fines, tickets......

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by mSeattle

BTW, people who've killed their cars enjoy not having to pay for parking, insurance and maintenance. They often realize that a lot of stuff they've stuffed their lives with is really unnecessary distraction and crazy-making.

They enjoy the fact that they "really didn't need to go there anyway" or that "it can wait another day" or maybe "I'll downsize the house so I don't have to work that second job" AND still not have to pay for parking, insurance, fines, tickets......

And to add to that, the other joy of mass transit, who here loves tearing down buildings for parking garages and surface parking lots?? Well, without public transit to promote alternative use, the demand for parking downtowns increase...and even worse, the lack of dependency on downtowns because you can drive anywhere, thus making office parks much nicer options, thus killing a downtown even more.

Portland has very little surface parking lots downtown which is easy to say it is because of its transportation options, Portland has less of a need to build parking garages all over downtown to handle all of those cars. One wonders how many buildings wouldnt of been needed to be turned into surface parking lots if their streetcar system had survived.

You can go on and on about how horrible you think public transportation is Contrarian, but I grew up in a very suburban east coast city that had almost no public transportation where it took over a half hour of traffic to drive anywhere, now I live on the edge of downtown and able to walk to work because the house I live in wasnt bulldozed for a parking lot.

[Contrarian]

Originally Posted by mSeattle

Congestion is the creation of road users not transit systems.

Certainly not. *Traffic* is created by road users. *Congestion* is created when the bureaucrats responsible for maintaining the road system fail to maintain it in equilibrium with demand. Suppose every time you boarded a bus or train, all the seats were taken --- there was standing room only. Would you blame the passengers, or the operators of the system? Odd, isn't it, that this problem of overuse seems to be unique to public institutions. If McDonalds discovers that one of their stores cannot accommodate its customers, they expand it or build another nearby. They don't whine that they need government subsidies, or propose that the customers find an alternative place to eat.

Originally Posted by mSeattle

The cost of roads doesn't end with roads. There is cost of sprawl -- lost local agriculture, forest and green space, and cost of new roads/streets/emergency/sewer etc. which are subsidized (users do not pay the real cost).

They do in this area (and I'm sure they do in Seattle too). When a new subdivision is developed the developer installs the streets, sewers, water lines, and every other needed utility. If additional lanes or signals are needed on connecting streets he pays for those also.

[Contrarian]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

And to add to that, the other joy of mass transit, who here loves tearing down buildings for parking garages and surface parking lots??

Well, we're on the same page on that point. No one despises downtown surface parking lots more than I do, and we certainly have our share of them here. But it is a mistake to blame the automobile. Surface parking lots are a low-investment, low-return land use. No one tears down a fully leased out building to create a surface parking lot. The buildings are torn down because there is not enough demand for the space in them to justify maintaining them. Spokane has an abundance of those lots because its downtown area underwent a major contraction beginning in the 50s and extending to the 70s. The buildings could not be leased, and hence could not be maintained and preserved. The choices were to transform them to parking lots or leave them as vacant lots. You can be sure that those lots will be redeveloped for more profitable uses as soon as the demand for them appears.

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Portland has very little surface parking lots downtown which is easy to say it is because of its transportation options, Portland has less of a need to build parking garages all over downtown to handle all of those cars.

Downtown Portland had few surface parking lots even when I lived there, when Rose City Transit still operated the rickety bus system. That's because, while it had periods of slow growth, it never experienced a contraction similar to Spokane's.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Contrarian

Certainly not. *Traffic* is created by road users. *Congestion* is created when the bureaucrats responsible for maintaining the road system fail to maintain it in equilibrium with demand. Suppose every time you boarded a bus or train, all the seats were taken --- there was standing room only. Would you blame the passengers, or the operators of the system? Odd, isn't it, that this problem of overuse seems to be unique to public institutions. If McDonalds discovers that one of their stores cannot accommodate its customers, they expand it or build another nearby. They don't whine that they need government subsidies, or propose that the customers find an alternative place to eat.

I for see all this going ugly very quickly...I should welcome you to the forum, I have been on this site since its beginning, and I am more than happy to debate topics, but I expect a level of detail to back up sayings...with that said, I have to take issue with this statement.

You are first comparing a private company that is out to make money to a public service that is out to provide infrastructure...the two are completely different and should never be considered the same. In your second quote in this post, you mention that you are in support of transit to prevent the need for extra parking downtown, but this two points of view cannot be separated because of how linked they are to each other.

The city cuts through an old historical neighborhood with a highway during the highway moment (which happened in just about every city in this country), then the city grows and traffic can no longer be handled by this 6 lane highway...so the city has three choices, expand to 8 to 12 lanes and destroy more of this historical neighborhood (possibly erasing the entire neighborhood), increase alternative modes of transportation to prevent the need for expansion, or do nothing. Yes, there is alot of bureaucratic mess but that comes from both ends, not just politicians but citizens as well...take that historical neighborhood, do you expect people to willingly give up their 100 yr old house for the expansion of a highway?

So you cannot make a statement like that thinking that it is such a simple answer to correct the problem.

Originally Posted by Contrarian

Well, we're on the same page on that point. No one despises downtown surface parking lots more than I do, and we certainly have our share of them here. But it is a mistake to blame the automobile. Surface parking lots are a low-investment, low-return land use. No one tears down a fully leased out building to create a surface parking lot. The buildings are torn down because there is not enough demand for the space in them to justify maintaining them. Spokane has an abundance of those lots because its downtown area underwent a major contraction beginning in the 50s and extending to the 70s. The buildings could not be leased, and hence could not be maintained and preserved. The choices were to transform them to parking lots or leave them as vacant lots. You can be sure that those lots will be redeveloped for more profitable uses as soon as the demand for them appears.

Downtown Portland had few surface parking lots even when I lived there, when Rose City Transit still operated the rickety bus system. That's because, while it had periods of slow growth, it never experienced a contraction similar to Spokane's.

Again, this is not a simple answer. There are alot of factors for surface lots, the migration to the suburbs and the changing of the needs for buildings downtown. The fact that it is cheaper to tear down a building for a surface lot than it is to renovate the building...this is still the case today. Plus there is the urban renewal movement that happened, which is more the case for Spokane than contraction (in cases like Cleveland, that is a different story). The surface lots along Spokane Falls Blvd was the product of trying to attract the Expo, the Expo was a way for the city to tear down several blocks of buildings that were "old and rundown," but as we have all seen, something that is rundown looking can almost always be renovated and become old and classic.

Which on the topic of urban renewal, it was a way to tear down old buildings to replace them with new buildings, which did not always happen. Portland's Old Town suffered this way of thinking, the mayor at the time said he was willing to tear down the entire Old Town if that meant bringing new jobs to Portland.

So in a sense, it is reckless to think that there is little to no benefit to having mass transit in a city, as well as trying to compare the public sector to the private sector because they both have entirely different goals. Also there is the factor for those who are either too poor to own a car or those who wish not to own a car, when a city is focused around the car it creates an added expense that one cannot get around, but when a city is focused around public transportation, this issue no longer has such a strong control over someone's financial state.

I ask you, would you enjoy living without a car in Spokane, have a short walk from your home to a bus or train stop, a short ride downtown or to any of the many other stops, that are each their own unique urban and walkable area? The hope for a more urban city cannot happen when it is focused around the car because their is little need to have an urban city when everyone commutes by car and does not have the option for public transportation.

Again, this is a topic I have been very interested in for the past 15 years and have studied alot about it the past 5 years in college. So just to let you know alittle more about where I am coming from on this topic.

[mSeattle]

Originally Posted by Contrarian

They do in this area (and I'm sure they do in Seattle too). When a new subdivision is developed the developer installs the streets, sewers, water lines, and every other needed utility. If additional lanes or signals are needed on connecting streets he pays for those also.

Actually, this is not correct. Developers do not pay the full cost of installing and maintaining infrastructure. Cities/counties contribute through tax breaks, deferrals and what-not. The cost doesn't disappear, city and/or county governments (bureaucrats or rather tax-payers) take up the slack. The question is what kind of environment/infrastructure do different types of tax payers what to fund?

[Contrarian]

Urbanlife,

"You are first comparing a private company that is out to make money to a public service that is out to provide infrastructure...the two are completely different and should never be considered the same."

The notion that transportation systems are part of "infrastructure" and therefore should be publicly provided is very much a latter-day idea. No transportation system in the US was developed or operated by governments until the late 1950s-early 1960s --- not airlines, trains, streetcar systems, or city bus lines. They were all developed privately and were privately operated until, in the cases of passenger rail and urban mass transit systems, they were obsoleted by the automobile and jet aircraft. At that point municipalities (and eventually the federal government) decided to try and revive the dead horse. The feds took over intercity rail (Amtrak) and cities took over their urban transit systems.

I don't deny the need for some kind of public transportation system in urban areas. Many people can't operate automobiles for one reason or another; there is some need there. Had governments not become involved what likely would have emerged in most cities is some kind of privately-operated small-scale system, such as van services, operating over regular routes and schedules, i.e., a system scaled to the actual demand and requiring no public subsidies. What we have instead in Spokane (and many other areas) is 72-seat articulated buses clogging the streets carrying 4 passengers (STA's load factor is 5.2%, according to the National Transit Database) because UMTA is footing the capital costs. And we have Amtrak --- a system so heavily subsidized that the government could buy every passenger a first-class airline ticket and save money.

Some densely populated cities, to be sure, require and could support a more intensive system. New York's subway system is essentially self-supporting. So is Toronto's.

Roads --- public rights-of-way --- are part of "infrastructure." The automobiles, trucks, trains, streetcars, buses, bicycles, and feet that travel over them are not.

"In your second quote in this post, you mention that you are in support of transit to prevent the need for extra parking downtown, but this two points of view cannot be separated because of how linked they are to each other."

What!? I said no such thing! What I said was that I disliked surface parking lots. But those only occur because no other profitable use of the land at the time was feasible. When the land is valuable and in demand for other uses, parking is provided in multi-storey buildings (usually with retail on the ground floor) and underground. There is not a thing wrong with such facilities.

"The city cuts through an old historical neighborhood with a highway during the highway moment (which happened in just about every city in this country), then the city grows and traffic can no longer be handled by this 6 lane highway...so the city has three choices, expand to 8 to 12 lanes and destroy more of this historical neighborhood (possibly erasing the entire neighborhood), increase alternative modes of transportation to prevent the need for expansion, or do nothing."

I agree that can be an unwelcome experience. But it applies to all public projects benefitting from eminent domain --- parks, military bases, police and fire stations, as well as roads. Light rail lines often require eminent domain also (not to mention all the destruction wrought by planners in the 60s in the name of "Urban Renewal," such as Portland's Little Italy).

Gold-plated urban transit systems have become the boondoggle of choice for city planners and local politicians, as was "urban renewal" in the 60s and 70s. The resulting systems make no economic sense.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Contrarian

Urbanlife,

"You are first comparing a private company that is out to make money to a public service that is out to provide infrastructure...the two are completely different and should never be considered the same."

The notion that transportation systems are part of "infrastructure" and therefore should be publicly provided is very much a latter-day idea. No transportation system in the US was developed or operated by governments until the late 1950s-early 1960s --- not airlines, trains, streetcar systems, or city bus lines. They were all developed privately and were privately operated until, in the cases of passenger rail and urban mass transit systems, they were obsoleted by the automobile and jet aircraft. At that point municipalities (and eventually the federal government) decided to try and revive the dead horse. The feds took over intercity rail (Amtrak) and cities took over their urban transit systems.

I don't deny the need for some kind of public transportation system in urban areas. Many people can't operate automobiles for one reason or another; there is some need there. Had governments not become involved what likely would have emerged in most cities is some kind of privately-operated small-scale system, such as van services, operating over regular routes and schedules, i.e., a system scaled to the actual demand and requiring no public subsidies. What we have instead in Spokane (and many other areas) is 72-seat articulated buses clogging the streets carrying 4 passengers (STA's load factor is 5.2%, according to the National Transit Database) because UMTA is footing the capital costs. And we have Amtrak --- a system so heavily subsidized that the government could buy every passenger a first-class airline ticket and save money.

Some densely populated cities, to be sure, require and could support a more intensive system. New York's subway system is essentially self-supporting. So is Toronto's.

Roads --- public rights-of-way --- are part of "infrastructure." The automobiles, trucks, trains, streetcars, buses, bicycles, and feet that travel over them are not.

"In your second quote in this post, you mention that you are in support of transit to prevent the need for extra parking downtown, but this two points of view cannot be separated because of how linked they are to each other."

What!? I said no such thing! What I said was that I disliked surface parking lots. But those only occur because no other profitable use of the land at the time was feasible. When the land is valuable and in demand for other uses, parking is provided in multi-storey buildings (usually with retail on the ground floor) and underground. There is not a thing wrong with such facilities.

"The city cuts through an old historical neighborhood with a highway during the highway moment (which happened in just about every city in this country), then the city grows and traffic can no longer be handled by this 6 lane highway...so the city has three choices, expand to 8 to 12 lanes and destroy more of this historical neighborhood (possibly erasing the entire neighborhood), increase alternative modes of transportation to prevent the need for expansion, or do nothing."

I agree that can be an unwelcome experience. But it applies to all public projects benefitting from eminent domain --- parks, military bases, police and fire stations, as well as roads. Light rail lines often require eminent domain also (not to mention all the destruction wrought by planners in the 60s in the name of "Urban Renewal," such as Portland's Little Italy).

Gold-plated urban transit systems have become the boondoggle of choice for city planners and local politicians, as was "urban renewal" in the 60s and 70s. The resulting systems make no economic sense.

Where does one even start with this, first thing, the history of the streetcar is alot more complex than becoming a "dead horse" due to the automobile...the car industry, in an attempt to increase sales bought up many of the streetcar lines and let them deteriorate. Again, you shouldnt act as if something has a simple reason for what happened.

I dont recall ever sitting in road clogged streets in Spokane that is blamed on STA...I am pretty sure the traffic issues in Spokane have more to do with cars themselves.

Why are surface parking lots more feasible than renovating the old buildings that were once on them? Renovation is costly, there is little cost in maintenance with surface lots, they generate funds very easily because of the number of people driving. If you dont see the relationship between cars and surface lots, then you shouldnt be shocked to see the parking lots along Spokane Falls Blvd stay parking lots for decades to come. Those lots have high profit and little overhead, so why would the owners of those lots ever wish to build on them unless the need for parking downtown was limited? Also the idea that these lots will somehow be replaced with parking garages is also a slim chance of ever happening because the high cost of parking garages.

Thank you for pointing out Little Italy here in Portland...thanks to the city's increase of of public transit, the urban renewal that happened within the south end of downtown didnt just become a sea of surface parking lots for PSU...though saying that, I am aware that there still is too many surface lots for my taste around PSU...which is slowly changing for the better. But again, that is another point that is much more complicated than that.

"Gold plated urban transit systems?" Could one of said the same thing about the highway systems? Which is nothing more than a buzz word, urban renewal was about tearing down an entire neighborhood in order for something new to possibly be built in its place. Transit is about connecting areas together...not sure how you could compare the two?


So I ask, why would the private sector want to provide transit if there is no profit to be made in it? So if no one is willing to provide transit, then how does a city handle its poor? Just because you dont use transit means that no one uses it. Also to go off that idea, how would someone get from South Hill to Northtown Mall if they had to deal with several private companies that offered their own shuttle systems that had their own rates and didnt work together? They would be better off hitching a ride with a random stranger.

Also, if rail and transit was such a dead horse, then why does it work well in other countries? or have they not gotten the "dead horse" memo yet?