This morning we have a piece trying to ‘make the case’ against light rail in Crosscut. It contains the usual tired anti-rail arguments we’ve seen many times; I just wanted to bring it up because two of the first commenters – agreeing wholeheartedly – are our friends Rob Wilkinson and Jonathan Dubman. Hmmmm…
New Look and Location For the Seattle Transit BlogWe’ve moved. I made the decision to move from Blogger to a different system some time ago, but never got around to finally doing it until this weekend. Here I’ll blog under the name to andrew instead of daimajin. We’re still working on some tweaks. I will need to create a new logo at some point; the old one is awesome but doesn’t match the new color scheme. I’ll have to add another color to the UI, and there are some small usability improvements I will make. This will happen over time. I hope you like it. Feel free to send mail and provide feedback, or add comments to this post. Tri-Met WES unveilingTri-Met’s new Commuter Rail “WES” was unveiled by the media yesterday. This is one of the first new generation DMU’s (Diesel Multiple Unit) from Colorado Railcar. So why a post regarding Oregon in a Seattle Blog? A lot of us here have been curious to see what the new DMU would look like and most importantly, it’s features. These vehicles would be one of 3 vehicles selected for service on the Eastside Rail Corridor. It’s time on WES will prove that they are truly worthy of their cost with other start-up agencies looking at ways to save fuel but also haul a number of passengers. Colorado Railcar offers the Aero model that Tri-Rail has received and a Double Decker version that seats 40 more people than our own Sounder equipment. That alone is savings by using less coaches, less coaches = less fuel to get up to track speed, etc. The bigger question is since they are still rather unproven in the United States, would other agencies besides Tri-Rail in Florida and Tri-Met in Oregon see a use for them? Portland as usual, will look hard at these and there is discussion to go as far as Salem in the future. Some features that WES will have - The entire line was revamped starting last year with new concrete ties, welded rail, new gated crossings and is slated to open this Fall.
Overhead Lines: A step beyond hybridby BEN WOOSLEY A little technical tidbit came up at the aforementioned Link tour which hadn’t occurred to me. We were looking over the trains, which by the way are quite handsome, and I was wondering about regenerative braking, such as is done with hybrid cars and buses and such. Specifically I asked the question, based in the context of hybrids, of “where are the batteries?” The answer, obvious in retrospect, is that there are no batteries, no need for them. When you’re tethered to the network of electrical lines, the power recovered on braking is simply fed out into the network. This strikes me as a beautiful detail of these systems. That this power flows in and out of the movement of Link, the trolley buses, and back out into the system, to feed your alarm clock, your lights, your water heater. Meanwhile, it dispenses with the need for the complex chemicals associated with creating and disposing of batteries, and may raise the efficiency of the storage and retrieval, moving from the chemical process to the electrical. Anyway, to dampen the moment of zen, and while we’re on the subject, I have to wonder: why can’t we design overhead lines for the trolley buses which reliably stay put? Any ideas? Do buses elsewhere get their ties knocked off occasionally, as here? Why Link Will Cross I-90 First above: a representation of why I-90 is a better choiceI’d imagine a fair portion of the people who read this blog already know some or all of these reasons that Link is going over I-90 before it goes over SR-520, but I thought I’d enumerate them for easy linking and just to fill in any holes. I-90 offers a direct connection to the downtown Seattle transit tunnel. If you looked at my earlier tour of Central Link construction, I had a google maps link to the south transit tunnel entrance – you can see there the two tracks we’ve built, plus the space to either side where feeder tracks join with the I-90 center roadway. This kind of a connection offers us the opportunity to interline service – both trains going to the airport (or farther) and trains going to the eastside will come into downtown from the south and run on the same tracks in the tunnel. It so happens that demand for the northern line (Northgate) is very close to the combined demand for an eastside line and a south line, so having East Link enter the tunnel from the south means that our commute patterns will much more efficiently use our infrastructure. This is also the big reason we didn’t pick buses for building from Seattle to Bellevue – they couldn’t efficiently interline with North Link to increase capacity there. If we were to cross 520, we’d have two choices, both of them bad: One, we could build a surface level station to transfer at Husky Stadium, and force a transfer for commuters to already full trains coming in from Northgate. We’d create crush loaded trains. The other option would be to build a direct connection into the tunnel toward downtown – which would cost hundreds of millions on its own, potentially have large construction impacts on a residential area, and could be risky due to the depth. Such work would probably also delay University Link. Even ignoring the capacity and technical issues in Seattle, the eastside would have a problem of its own. 520 is significantly north of downtown Bellevue, so trains would have to turn south first to serve the Bellevue downtown core, then north again to get to Redmond. When using I-90, we don’t have to go out of our way to serve south Bellevue, and the time between downtowns is lower. Issaquah poses another problem with a 520 crossing.. We’re already planning to build to Redmond, but if we chose 520, later construction to Issaquah (part of the Sound Transit long range plan) would really necessitate an I-90 crossing anyway. With an initial I-90 crossing, it’s much simpler to continue east in or near the interstate right of way. A 520 crossing would also impose any delays attached to construction of the new SR-520 bridge on Sound Transit’s schedule. The risk added by working with WSDOT on the project would likely also make Sound Transit less competitive for Federal Transit Administration grants. All this, and I-90′s center roadway was built with conversion to high capacity transit in mind. I think it’s always been the clear choice, but hopefully this convinces more people who were worried about the decision! Vanpools up over 10%Metro’s reporting that their supported vanpools have increased by over 100 vans in the past year, to a total of 1,058 vanpools and vanshares. I would imagine that the total number of people moved has increased even more: as the costs of driving increase, it follows that the size of existing vanpools would increase, especially since the inconvenience of setting up your own vanpool is larger than simply joining an existing one. Given how many employees have commutes that are very poorly served by transit, vanpools are an important part of the system, and cheap because the labor is free. I was unaware that King County’s was the first such program in the nation. I’d be curious to know what burden these vanpools place on the park and ride system; it would make a lot of sense to make agreements with churches that aren’t near transit lines to allow parking there, freeing up more spaces for transit riders. Dump the Pump day tomorrow, and last day for public commentTomorrow is national Dump the Pump day.
Also tomorrow is the last day to give public comment on Sound Transit’s ballot expansion plans. Make sure to go there and give your opinion if you haven’t. I’ve told them I want light rail at least to Overlake. Community Transit to increase fares by 75 centsIn sync with the raising fuel prices, Community Transit is increasing fares upwards of 75 cents for it’s popular commuter buses. This increase in fares may benefit Sounder now that the time and fares are equal to each other. With the new parking garage coming online early next year, the increase may be even greater. While one could argue that the parking garage would be a bad thing, however Community Transit or Everett Transit unfortunately does not have the service capacity or ability to serve the rural communities – At least from what I have seen and heard from many people I spoke with. LINK WrapsAndrew Austin at The Bus Stops Here spots the latest in local transit advertising: Andrew also points out the key factoid: In the case of the CLICK ads I will say this. At least they did not cover the windows of the light rail cars, also it is good that it is local ‘company’ that is covering our little light rail that could. He’s right: covering windows is a dealbreaker, and I’m glad they didn’t. How would you feel if they started wrapping Central LINK’s cars like this? BTW, there are way too many Andrews in transitland. Streetcar MeetingsJan Drago, transportation chair of the Seattle City Council has schedule public outreach meetings on streetcar expansion plans. The meeting times and places: Wednesday, July 2nd – Proposed Central Line at Seattle City Hall, 600 Fourth Avenue, Bertha Knight Landes Room, First Floor, 4-6pm Tuesday, July 8th – Proposed Ballard/Fremont Line at Nordic Heritage Museum, 3014 NW 67 Street, 4-6pm Wednesday, July 9th – Proposed U-District Line at University Heights Center, 5031 University Way NE, 4-6pm Tuesday, July 15th – Proposed First Hill Line at Yesler Community Center, 917 E. Yesler Way, 4-6pm You can see the expansion plans here. It’s worth noting that the First Hill line will likely be part of a Sound Transit expansion. Capitol Hill Art AgainThe other artist whose work is going into Capitol Hill Station, local artist Ellen Forney, has her concepts up on her website. If you don’t remember, Brooklyn-based Mike Ross caused some controversy with his jet-plane sculpture for above the platform. I like Forney’s art, but I’d say it’s possibly more risque than Mr Ross’s. Images below.
What do you think?
Suburban Slum Watch
…once rundown downtowns are being revitalized by well-educated, young professionals who have no desire to live in a detached single family home typical of a suburbia where life is often centered around long commutes and cars. I think it’s important to point out how important rail is to this kind of car-free vision. Rail encourages the high-density housing that spurs high-density retail within walking distance. Furthermore, as someone who sometimes uses the bus mid-day and weekends, I’ll point out that without the large capital investment in rail (and ever-spiraling gas prices) the temptation to reduce bus service to inconveniently long intervals is just too high. When distances are at most a couple of miles and parking is free, the only way transit can compete is with frequent and reliable service, which is much easier to do with rail. The easy platform-level boarding is also a big plus for those pushing carts and strollers (because they’re going about their daily lives!).
I wish they’d broken down that 35% figure a bit more, but it’s a useful reminder that the current drive-everywhere status quo isn’t some sort of state of nature, but a directly intended product of subsidies and that right-wing bugaboo, “social engineering.” The result is an oversupply of depreciating suburban housing and a pent-up demand for walkable urban space, which is unlikely to be met for a number of years. That’s mainly, according to Leinberger, because the built environment changes very slowly; and also because governmental policies and zoning laws are largely prohibitive to the construction of complicated high-density developments. Zoning is the ultimate affordable housing issue. Today’s “luxury condos” are tomorrow’s middle class flats, and the day after’s run-down apartments. If our laws essentially prevent building this kind of landscape, Seattle will become an unattractive place to live, which will, uh, solve a lot of our growth management problems.
(Via FP Passport) More Madness from Montlake Multimillionaires
Today’s Times makes me cringe with a sneaky op-ed by two Montlake Multimillionaires who have worked hard for years to undermine the SR-520 bridge replacement and HOV project, and now want to bring their delaying tactics to light rail in a sad attempt to keep a bad idea alive. The gist of it is that these guys do not care one whit about transit, but want money for their pet project. They spearheaded the “Pacific Interchange” alternative for the SR-520 bridge replacement, with the aim of getting commuters (outsiders!) out of their once-elite neighborhood by building flyover ramps from 520 to Husky Stadium. They already lost that battle – WSDOT chose the six lane alternative (the same two general purpose we have now, with an extension of the HOV lanes all the way to I-5), and these jokers think they can get their project back with Sound Transit money. Their myopic view ignores the region’s actual commute patterns. They point out that an uncongested express bus trip takes 14 minutes from Montlake to Microsoft – but (intentionally) ignore the fact that the vast majority of commuters at Montlake are not coming from the immediate neighborhood – they’re coming from Capitol Hill, the UW, Ballard, Roosevelt, and Wallingford neighborhoods, among others. They say the trip from Husky Stadium to Microsoft on Link would be 41 minutes – but ignore the fact that someone living near Roosevelt or Capitol Hill stations would still have a shorter commute boarding there than transferring to the bus at Montlake, and someone at Brooklyn might just take the train for the convenience of a one-seat ride. I would personally save time by boarding at Roosevelt than using my current bus down to Montlake. The claims here by our Montlake Multimillionaires (who have probably never even taken a bus across the bridge) are stretched, if not simply bogus. Taking money from East Link to get commuters out of their neighborhood would be a horrible use of public funds. This is another example of fake transit support – these people claim to be really interested in “bus rapid transit”, but take a layer off the onion and you see they have another agenda entirely. When they pitch this kind of thing to the Laurelhurst Community Club, they even suggest that their direct access ramps could later become “high occupancy toll” roads so the rich can avoid the Montlake interchange. Everett Streetcar
Ironically, leaving an Everett streetcar line off the Sound Transit ballot may help a Sound Transit ballot measure in Snohomish, since voters outside of Everett may not want to pay for a streetcar there. Either way, it’s great to see Everett taking even small steps toward better transit. $4 gas = Light Rail Ballot in 2008The Seattle Times is talking about $4 a gallon gas and the possibility of a ballot measure this year, this time with a twist: the northern light rail expansion, so-called North Link, to Lynnwood instead of stopping at Northgate, and South Link going as far as Federal Way. I love it. It’s a compromise between the package from last year’s Prop. 1, and the fast-package being considered this year. If they can guarantee rail to Overlake Transit Center, the package would prove popular. Apparently, the board has until the 12th of August to decide. I’m unhappy with a bit of the reporting. From reading this passage, you’d barely know there was a massive road expansion on that ballot measure: Last year, voters in urban Snohomish, King and Pierce counties trounced the $38 billion “Roads & Transit” proposition that included a 0.5 percent sales-tax increase to build 50 miles of rail over 20 years. The other thing that annoys me is this quote from Mark Baerwaldt (at least he wasn’t called a transit advocate): Some Sound Transit skeptics argue that if the problem is gasoline, the answer is to increase buses and toll lanes, which can be done relatively fast. No challenge on the assertion that buses can be done faster? King County Metro has been waiting more than 3 years now for its last order of buses, and the coach manufacturers have more orders coming online than they did three years ago. Transit Report Card : San FranciscoMartin usually does the transit report cards. This time I’m posting about a place where I know transit fairly intimately.
Segments ridden:
Caltrain  Bart
Most Muni Metro Routes
The ‘F’ Heritage Line
Muni Buses
Scope: C+
The Muni Metro’s six lines are something between Link and the SLU streetcar. They only cover the parts of San Francisco south and west of Downtown. The F Heritage Line does go along the Embarcadero waterfront to Fisherman’s Wharf, but that route is mostly for tourists and has relatively low capacity. The planned E Hertiage Line will continue to all the way to Fort Mason. There is a future plan to put the T Third Street into a new “Central Subway” that would cross the Market Street Subway and extend to North Beach, but funding for that extension has only been partially secured. Even then, the entire northwest portion of the city is only served by bus, though a BRT route has been planned for some of that area, currently Geary and Van Ness
Service: B+
BART runs in the City and downtown Oakland with five or six minute headways, but the suburban commuter portions have much longer headways, sometimes as long as fifteen or twenty minutes. BART runs from 5am to a little after midnight. Capacity maxes at 1500 per train. Muni Metro runs on ten minute heads at peak times, and service is from 5 am to about 1am. A single-car Muni train can hold up to 250 people, and a two-car train can carry 500.
Caltrain runs 98 trains per day, most of them local trains that stop at nearly all 28 stations. Some trains, designated “baby bullets” make just four stops, and there are other levels of express trains in between. ACE runs four trains per day, and Amtrak Capitol Corridor runs 32 trains per day.
Routing: B
Much of BART in the Eastbay runs near or parallel to highways, partly because of cheaper right-of-way, but also partly because of how these communities developed. In the 1960s and 1970s, building next to highways was all the rage.
Muni covers the south and west parts of the city well, most on that area aren’t farther than ten blocks from a Muni line or Bart.
The Pennisula toward the south is only served by Caltrain, which stops far from job centers in the South Bay and in the City. Caltrain runs parallel to 101, but through the historic downtowns. This routing is not perfect, but surface-rail corridors are difficult to come by. Many reverse-commute San Franciscans are taken from their Caltrain station to work by company-shuttle, and into city commuters are forced onto a transfer at Fourth and King station in San Francisco
Grade/ROW: B-
The Muni Metro is underground in the Market Street Subway, which makes for nine underground stations. Some of the other portions run in there own right-of-way, the new T-Third street is almost entirely in it’s own center street right-of-way, much like Link in the Rainier Valley. Ironically, the right-of-ways and subway sections of the Muni Metro are the major reason the Muni Metro still exists: in the 1940s and 1950s when streetcars were being taken out, the five lines that had their separated right-of-way couldn’t be replaced by buses.
The commuter rail lines, Caltrain, Amtrak Capitol Corridor and ACE, obviously run in their own right-of-way with grade crossings.
TOD: B+
San Francisco is the second densest city in the US, and easily the densest in the West. Many of the suburbs are also very dense: Oakland, Daly City and Berkley, among others, are in fact much more dense than Seattle is. Part of this is because of age of these areas, but there has been a lot of development around BART stations.
One of the main impetuses for the new T-Third street was the development of areas served by the line, including China Basin, Mission Bay, and Hunter’s Point.
Caltrain is running in a 19th-century rail corridor, so it runs through the historic downtowns of most of the cities it serves.
Culture: A-
San Francisco is one of the few cities in America where driving is not the majority. More than 35% of commuters take transit, and another 20% bike. San Francisco is also one of the few cities where nearly everyone knows where the transit lines are. East Bay commuters have been pushed away from driving by $4 tolls across the Bay Bridge, and reliable BART commutes. However, Marin County is only served by Golden Gate Transit, which runs relatively few buses, and most commuters along the Pennisula, in and out of San Francisco, still drive.
*************
San Francisco’s rail network is far suprior to Seattle’s, but the major modes are relatively analogous. Caltrain is like Sounder, BART is what Link could be with expansion, and I think the Muni Metro is a major inspiration for Seattle’s Streetcar network. One thing Seattle can learn from Muni is that two-train stations are worth it; you never know when transit demand will out-pace supply by huge amounts.
BART can also be a lesson: make sure to get commitment early when building transit systems. Marin County to the North dropped out early in the BART planning process, making it virtually impossible to extend BART there now, and Santa Clara county, to the south, now wants BART, but is forced to build it through the East Bay because San Mateo county was so opposed to BART. Also, duplicating highway corridors by may be the best way to serve current population and residential centers, but does not create future transit-orient development to the same extent new corridors might.
Also, Caltrain has 98 runs per day compared to 18 for Sounder. But Caltrain gets just 37,000 riders per day compared to 11,000 for Sounder. How can you run more than five times as many trains, through a far more dense corridor and get fewer riders per run? It’s simple: charge a a reasonable amount to ride (fares top at $11 for Caltrain), go to downtown job centers (Caltrain stops at few), and provide adequate parking (I know, I know: more parking is heresy). ACE and Amtrak Capitol Corridor show that suburb-to-suburb rail can work, but it needs to go through job centers, and again, parking is hugely important.
Finally, density is important. San Francisco is dense, as are a number of the older suburbs. But the South Bay, where a lot of growth has been over the last twenty years, is very low density and sprawling. Same thing goes with the areas East of the hills in the East Bay. San Francisco could have absorbed more of that sprawl, but, like Seattle, made a choice to try to “perserve” the 1960s way of life. What happened? The 1960s way of life was lost, but along the way so was affordibility and scope. Now there’s a huge region that is difficult to serve easily by transit, has chronic “natural” challenges like wild fires and floods (we just get floods here), and surprising congestion. Our area still has a chance to avoid sprawl and geographic expansion on the level seen by the Bay Area, let’s hope we can get everyone on board. I contemplated whether to write about the South Bay’s VTA system, but I decided that system was worth a post of it’s own.
Central Link light-rail to Tukwila push run!
It’ll be visible to all along I-5 and it’s already caused quite a stir..all positive :D Pictures can be viewed here – I only resized them. I’ll update the captions and such later on and a full story on Monday. Thoughts on the Amtrak Funding BillFrank over at Orphan Road has been keeping track of the $15B Amtrak bill that just passed both the US House and Senate with a veto-proof majority. A lot of this bill is for grants, so this could mean something for Seattle. The first thing the bill does is ensures Amtrak can operate for the next five years without fear of losing funding. Amtrak wasn’t designed with a consistent funding program, so they’re unable to issue bonds like Sound Transit does – they’d have no way of paying them back, because they can’t levy any taxes. Basically, this means Amtrak service gets worse every year as their equipment ages and the small portion of track they actually own slowly becomes the worse for wear. This bill will buy Amtrak some new equipment, and it funds some capital upgrades so they can improve service in the Northeast Corridor, the high speed line between Washington DC, Philadelphia, NYC, and Boston. Some background before we go further: In Washington, we have a partnership between the Washington State DOT (WSDOT) and Amtrak to provide more service than Amtrak would normally be able to fund. I’ve never been clear on exactly how the costs are split up (Brian might be willing to comment to that), but the state owns most of the trains themselves and pays for most of the service we have. This partnership service is a route called Amtrak Cascades. Cascades currently runs four daily round trips from Seattle to Portland, one Seattle to Vancouver BC, and one Seattle to Bellingham – although that last one will be extended to Vancouver as well sometime in the next year. The Oregon DOT also funds two round trips from Portland to Eugene. In 2007, the Washington State routes got more than 675,000 riders, the vast majority of those riding between Seattle and Portland. When there’s bad traffic or a big border delay, this service is already often faster than driving. It takes 3h30m from Seattle to Portland, and 3h55m from Seattle to Vancouver. This really isn’t consistently competitive, though – so WSDOT has a nominally 20 year plan of incremental upgrades to get Seattle-Portland down to 2h30m, and Seattle-Vancouver down to 2h45m. This comes from a lot of small projects, and a few big ones, like building some new segments of passenger-only track on which we could operate at 110mph, instead of the current 79 (and often slower). Back to the bill: There are two types of grants this bill offers that could affect our service very positively. The first is that it offers grants to develop state passenger corridors. Guess what Amtrak Cascades is? This bill provides $2.5 billion in matching grants, where the federal share can be up to 80%, for state corridor projects. The other type of grant is for the 11 corridors in which the federal government thinks high speed rail is a good idea – these total $1.75 billion. Guess what kind of corridor Amtrak Cascades runs in? Now, we might not get a penny of this money, because the California High Speed Rail Project has a $10 billion bond issue going before voters this November, and their plan is very competitive, but there’s a good chance we’ll get some of this money to improve intercity service. We Need a Light Rail Vote This YearComing from our discussion over the last day of where to put our next rail spine, I want to make the case for voting to extend what we have this year, in the November general election, rather than delaying for two years. The big argument for waiting until 2010 is that we’ll see light rail in operation for a year – people will have a chance to ride it. I think this would have a positive impact, but that impact would be much smaller than the huge positive turnout impact of presidential and gubernatorial elections. It seems that most of the potential riders – those who will be directly affected – are already galvanized. They’re either aware of and looking forward to having the system online, or else they’re shaking their fists at Sound Transit for causing construction delays and road closures. Having rail open won’t change the minds of anti-transit detractors, it’ll just give them two more years to think up new smears. This year we will really benefit from strong turnout for the top of the ticket. Barack Obama is on the ballot – easily the most well spoken and charismatic Democratic presidential candidate in decades. Voter turnout was astronomical in the primaries, with some states seeing higher turnout than previous general elections. One of the reasons we failed last year was because it was an off year – there were no good candidates bringing people to the polls, only initiatives. Many of the regular off-year voters are motitvated by anger and frustration with government, and are very likely to vote against propositions and referenda. If Obama wins this year, we’ll be in a prime position to compete for the first new Federal Transit Administration grants from a more transit friendly administration. High gas prices will work for us this year as well. Yesterday we saw a $15B Amtrak reauthorization bill pass the US House with a veto-proof majority, after a similar showing in the Senate, on the heels of big increases in ridership on all of Amtrak’s routes, including our own Cascades. We’ve seen Sounder ridership jump dramatically, with most of the Sounder South trains standing room only, and overall ridership up some 30% over the same period last year. My bus to work is packed as ever, despite new service coming online recently and some of the trips only 5 minutes apart. The cheap gas is $4.39 down the street from me – and that’s up from $4.29 a few days ago. If those prices keep up, we’re going to keep seeing the ridership gains we have been, which means more people aware of and interested in a better way to work. We don’t know what gas prices will be like in 2010 – some of our current run-up in oil futures is due to speculation, and some of that money will return to securities as the real estate bust smooths out. This year, constitutents are looking for solutions. Government at all levels is commonly criticized for being behind the times, being unable to respond quickly to changes. We shouldn’t wait two years before submitting a plan to voters, when they are looking for something now. This is a great chance for Sound Transit to show that they have a plan and they’re ready to take action. The fact that the retooled ST2 plans are accelerated works strongly to our advantage – and with University Link construction beginning next year, to the untrained eye Sound Transit will get credit for groundbreaking only months after a vote. You can’t buy PR like that. Look at all the things 2008 gives us: High gas prices make people want an alternative. Unprecedented gains in transit ridership show that we have strong and growing demand. Obama and Gregoire ensure that we’ll have great progressive turnout who will support transit projects. Let’s put ST2 on the ballot this November. Expansion Pays for Itself in 15 YearsA study done by Parsons-Binckeroff for the Sound Transit board shows that a mass transit expansion will pay for itself in increased local economic growth within about 15 years of completion. After that time the benefits would continue to pile up for a century or more. From the press release: These are the key findings of a benefit-cost analysis prepared for Sound Transit and released to its Board today. The Board currently is considering options for Sound Transit system expansion. Benefit-cost analysis of projects costing more than $100 million is required by the Puget Sound Regional Council as it reviews conformity with the regional transportation plan, a state mandate. Let’s go to the ballot in 2008! |
AdvertisementContact UsFollow STB STB on Facebook STB on Twitter
Blog Entries (RSS)Recent PostsSearchBest ArgumentsBest Reference PostsArchivesThe Atlantic Cities BlogrollNationwide BlogsSystem MapsTransit OrganizationsTrip Planning |
