The “not enough buses” line was on the front page of the P-I the other day, above the fold, so I wouldn’t say it’s a sideshow. Heck, Crosscut is the BRT channel when they’re not printing something from Ben.

It’s frankly bizarre that you’d accuse us of not being willing to go to bat for capital improvement, given that we spend most of our time here advocating for the largest transit capital program in state history.

If there’s some bill in Olympia that I should be supporting, let me know what that is. But I’m guessing there isn’t, and as my frustration with Gregoire shows, I’ve pretty much given up on Olympia and hope that merely don’t do any damage to what we’re trying to do in the ST district.

And yes, I’m afraid of Kemper Freeman. He beat us last year, and if we’re not careful, he’ll do it again. That’s why I’m working so hard to see that Sound Transit 2 passes.

In reality, I support the idea of RapidRide and hope it comes to fruition. We criticize Metro because they’re doing some major things wrong — no right-of-way, no off-bus boarding — but that should happen regardless of the existence of Link. Everyone across the country criticizes their transit agencies — we are not so behind in the transit race that we have to accept everything we’re given with open arms and a gleeful smile.

RapidRide is a start. A good intermediate point would be ticket vending machines and more right-of-way. And we need to be vigilant to make sure the RapidRide operates almost all day and night, does not change routes depending on the time of day, and in nearly every way acts like rail on wheels. Because we need to make bus riding more approachable — an acceptable last-minute solution in addition to one that has been planned and scheduled out.

As for honor system, stop announcements, etc. — I personally have no issue with any of those ideas and I don’t know you believe that even the majority of bloggers here feel that way. Indeed, we’d love a more european appreach.

the BRT stuff in the “no” campaign is a sideshow to make a few faux progressives feel better about voting selfishly.

Yes, and that’s why it’s unfortunate that we have to argue against it. But we do — we have to say, look, they’re promising you a solution that can’t work. We need to make it more clear that they’re doing this as a “sideshow.”

We’re in political season, though. No, we can’t advocate for ST2 and Metro KC at the same time — we are focusing our efforts on ST. However, the best thing to happen to all transit agencies (in my opinion) would be to see ST2 pass. Maybe, then, the state will realize that Puget Sound needs transit and they’re voting for it.

We’ll advocate for the plans, when they come up. Metro will have to address its budget shortfall with a plan relatively shortly. It’ll probably do some combination of cutting foot ferries, postponing service, raising fares, reallocating suburban service, and/or requesting more taxing authority. We’ll judge the plan based on its merits, not just because it’s what the regions largest bus agency things is best.

Yes, of course Metro is capped out, but “budgetary reality” is a nice way of saying that some of you are fiscal conservatives who’d rather starve existing services than go to bat for capital improvement. Rather like our Democratic super-majority, who was so afraid of losing political capital and/or were budget hawks such that they did sweet fuck-all to help major infrastructure needs around the state. Are you all so afraid of Kemper Freeman that you think transit supporters will burn political capital by openly advocating tax increases beyond those being asked for by transit agencies? Are you that castrated?

I don’t think you can blame rail advocates for a little schadenfreude when BRT, which is so often presented as the reasonable alternative to rail, is shown to be a pretty empty concept in practice. After all, we’re currently in a campaign where the main line of argument is whether to serve the regional trunklines with rail, or wait for some enhanced bus system to emerge in the future.

I can’t speak for the others, but I’ve had nice things to say about the new bus lanes for Ballard RapidRide, and I’ve been pretty supportive of the County’s efforts to raise fares to avoid cutting service.

As for further improvements to buses, Metro’s capped out on taxing authority, but we’ve been supportive of fare increases, advertising on shelters, and getting rid of Sims’ foot ferry idea to shore it up. Furthermore, we’re always on the lookout for things that can improve capacity while being essentially revenue-neutral (nominal park-and-ride fees, ripping out seats on buses).

There’s a reason we mobilized on governance reform in particular: it doesn’t cost the state anything to kill something like that. Asking for money means you’ve got to raise revenue or cut something else, and that’s a much tougher nut to crack. So lawmakers have to respond to not only the wishes of their constituents, but also budgetary reality.

But if you like, I’d be thrilled if the state came up with cash for local transit agencies, whether or not it went to rail. But you have to pick your battles.

Look, I think Sims is a big ol’ tool (and some of his opposition to Sound Transit must be rooted in turf wars in the regional government) and his budget solution is horrible garbage (the ultimate robbing Peter to pay Paul). However, there is an underlying tech geek libertarianism here that is troubling. It’s not off in fantasyland like the monorail but it does tend to have a cheapass attitude to the existing majority mode because it will soon be rendered obsolete. Meanwhile, transit agencies with vision, like TransLink, plan massive increases in bus service (even if it’s less massively than the increase in rail service)…

Anyhow, I’m not really talking about that tiny area alone but outward from there along the MAX lines. Where are the office and apartment buildings along the Blue/Red once you cross the bridge? Even with the freeway running sections, you’d expect a little more there there. Instead, Lloyd and so on are much the same urban form (though much less rough around the edges) as it was in 1986 when the line first opened – some mid-rise office development, a flat and squat mall and single family homes with scattered two and three story apartment buildings. Where are the rows of apartments, new office buildings, etc that you’d expect from an area that’s had access to high-capacity transit for more than two decades (and a metro region that is in dire need of housing stock)? That’s what I mean by lagging land-use policies – the suburban cities around Portland have actually been more proactive in taking advantage of MAX!

Did Harry even read the title of this post? As in, 100,000 hours for buses?

If Harry was also paying attention, he would notice that many of these (faux) BRT supporters are actually transit opponents in disguise. They will do anything to get rid of the light rail “cancer.” And BRT provides a temporary and convenient smokescreen for that purpose.

Light rail supporters, on the other hand, do not advocate for the elimination of all buses.

Figured it out yet, Harry?

Check out the pie charts on page 95 of the WMATA report. I think you’ll see that rail revenues are $500 million, while the total operating budget (trains and buses) is around $1.1 billion. Rail carries twice as many people as the bus but brings in three times as much revenue. I would guess it’s because people are getting a better ride and pay more for it than the bus, the trips are longer (fares are distance-based) than the bus, and again, because there are more of them.

Regarding the KC Metro budget, be cautious with the budget figures since the budget reflects the reality that half (or more?) of the ST Express service is operated by Metro, so those dollars are accounted for twice (in both agencies’ budgets). That’s just how accounting works and consequently doesn’t always reflect a true picture (think Arthur-Anderson). So that’s why NTD data is helpful; it is standardized and no dollars are counted twice.

What I hear tell, however, is that the 10th and Yamhill parking garage is getting turned into a 300′ish building with office and retail, there’s a new office building going in between Yamhill and Morrison, Goose Hollow and the West End are getting several upscale low- and mid-rise condo developments (even the scuttled Allegro is coming back to life) and Portland is pouring a large amount of money into developments along the Portland Transit Mall. There are also developments at the Gateway district that will be using the sudden influx of college students to build a non-driving population base. That sounds like TOD, too.

Most of the developments in Downtown Portland are devoted to being as walkable and Transit-oriented as possible, even those several blocks away from transit. Development in Goose Hollow and the West End both look to have less than 2 parking spaces per unit with one I believe being down to something like .75 parking spaces per unit.

It’s not all entirely limited to the Streetcar, but that’s how it’s marketed since it’s a marketable concept and puts Portland into citations and bibliographies when people talk about how Transit works (or doesn’t).

The reason for the conflict is that buses are better (feasible) for local service and light rail is better for long-distance travel. Now, in the city “long-distance” tends to mean more than three miles. On the Eastside, probably more than fifteen miles. Saying that we can do the same thing with buses that we do with light-rail is something the bloggers here deeply disagree with. However, I think even past 2009 every single blogger here will still be commuting via bus.

In terms of personal opinion, of course we feel that buses “suck” compared to rail. Even my two mile commute home get tangled in traffic on Denny Way. Does any bus rider feel that they’re riding the wave of the future?

The blog has been very focused on Sound Transit 2 over the last few months. We are all excited to see Prop. 1 pass, and for the future of our transit options to start construction. However, none of us has advocated for cutting bus funding or stopping bus service at Northgate. Ron Sims has advocated for not funding ST2 and for stopping light rail at Northgate. We are not his analog, and that criticism is unfair.

Did they get the buses? Are they on the road? Can they afford to put them on the road?

They have buses, and they have orders in for buses.

I’ll be honest, Ron Sims plan might have worked out to be a great boon to ST2′s chances of passing. While I accept it’s not the responsibility of ST to fund local bus service, funding any bus expansion is good for the region as a whole.

And to be fair to Ron Sims, none of this money was to be taken from rail — it just made the ST2 plan slightly riskier in terms of finances and increased the likelihood of things going over-budget (especially given that the taxation method of sales tax is so volatile). Similarly, the front-loading of bus service adds more risk to the ST2 project (though not as much as Sims’ plan).

The problem with Sims’ plan is barely one of substance because I could see his plan working with more planning. The problem is that he didn’t participate in the ST2 process, and two days before the vote he wants to add amendment that makes the entire plan riskier and does nothing for the Pierce/Snohomish subareas.

So his plan could have helped ST2 pass if it had time to be fleshed out and made fair to the other subareas. The problem is that it was a last minute amendment that changes too much and wasn’t fleshed out. It was something that he should have brought up in February or earlier, but didn’t because he was totally removed from the ST process. Right around the time he submitted this amendment is probably when he realized that Metro was facing massive financial difficulties. So it was cynical of him to stay away from the ST process, then at the last minute offer up a sketchy amendment to help solve his own agencies financial problems.

That’s the political analysis. The reality is that Metro is going to need to get money from somewhere. I believe it’s time the state stepped up, for one. The 20/40/40 rule needs to be temporarily abolished and service hours be added on those continually full buses. Foot ferries might be something we delay to fund bus service. We should toll the 520 before 2010 to get the federal grant of which some can go to transit. We should cut service hours on those very low ridership areas.

But RapidRide, we can’t cut off or delay. We need to test it out and see if it can work for things like Aurora and West Seattle. RapidRide is a way to make the bus system more approachable and predictable, and it could turn out to be a great way to Link ridership having easy transfers to Ballard, Aurora, and West Seattle.

The NTD database is better because the numbers are in a standardized format.

Portland’s max is much lower capacity, their trains can be at most one or two cars, while Link has larger cars and have up to four cars per train.

The Eastsiders who won’t support it, won’t support it because it’s a tax expansion. No one thinks about it in those terms; probably not even Kemper Freeman (he just hates public transit!).

My point anyhow is precisely that Portland HASN’T reaped the maximum benefits from the MAX line. If you’ve been to Portland at all, you know that the only “new” TOD in-city has been along the Portland Streetcar.