This is the 1,003rd Post

Posted on by Martin H. Duke

I’m a little late to the game, but Andrew’s post about light rail photos brought us over the 1,000 post mark.  At least that’s what WordPress tells us, and it’s counting the stuff from Bundridge’s old transportation blog (now in our archives).  But let’s not quibble.

I know a thousand posts is just a busy afternoon on the Slog, but to us it’s a big deal.  I’d like to thank our readers, who make this exercise more productive than just shouting at the newspaper, and commenters, who teach me things most days.

And sorry for some of the dumb things I’ve written.  I’m sure there will be some in the next thousand, but hopefully fewer.

Southeast Seattle Service Changes

Posted on by Martin H. Duke

Here are the Southeast Seattle service change proposals:

Southeast Seattle front page (includes questionnaire)

Southeast Seattle brochure (pdf)

Having read through these, here are some general observations:

  • The plans strike a pretty good balance between being hyper-conservative about changing someone’s commute and blowing up the whole system to do something else. MLK service will change radically, regardless of which options are chosen, and the longer hauls will be diverted to light rail, but they really aren’t trying to force the mass of 7 and 36 riders onto the train.
  • Probably the greatest strength of the plan is that they’re using the freed bus hours to improve connectivity to other parts of the city. It’ll be easier to get one- or two-seat rides to places like Capitol Hill, the U-District, and West Seattle without going through downtown.
  • In my opinion, the biggest weakness is that Metro has forfeited the possibility of improving connections within the Rainier Valley. It’s still very difficult to get from random points on Beacon Avenue to random points on Rainier Avenue without a bike or car, and that’s really not going to change until somebody creates a new line, perhaps like the Rainier Valley circulator this blog has played with in the past.

In general, I’m happy with the proposals as a first step. Metro grabs the low hanging fruit to switch the emphasis of bus service from downtown to other locations. In the longer run, I suspect the train will be popular enough that there will be more demand from Beacon and Rainier Avenues to get to the stations on MLK, and we might see some 7 and 36 assets diverted that way.

Overheard in the Bus Tunnel

Posted on by Matt Gangemi

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Three men, apparently traveling to a restaurant for lunch:
A: “I always take this because the shuttle is so slow.”
B: “Yeah, it takes forever with traffic lights. I can walk faster than that thing.”
C: “We could have walked…”
A: “This is much faster than walking.”
B: “I wish we had a real subway, like Munich.”
(discussion continues about “real” subways around the world)

I really wanted to turn around and ask what they meant by “real” subway. A train? We’ll get there soon. Having more than 5 stops downtown? Ditto.

I used the bus tunnel three times today. We have a subway, and it works. I’m connected to the International district, Pioneer Square, and the stadiums all without usually having to wait for more than 2-3 minutes. There’s no traffic and it’s much faster than any other mode of transportation. The bus tunnel took quite a bit of foresight to build, and Link would be a lot more difficult and expensive without it.

As an aside, today is the first time I’ve seen the Westlake Center station (I hate shopping). It’s beautiful, and provides a nice rain-free path between Nordstrom’s and Macy’s. Actually, soon it will provide a rain-free path between the airport and Seattle Center as well.

Seattle Times: $107 billion figure is false

Posted on by Andrew Smith

The Seattle Times’ Mike Lindblom has an article calling out MacIsaac’s misleading $107 billion figure the ‘No’ campaign uses:

So where did opponents get such an inflated number, and is it true?

Not according to Sound Transit: “The clear intent is to suggest that the costs … are far, far beyond what they really are,” says transit spokesman Geoff Patrick.

It turns out the $107 billion is not really a cost estimate.

It is mathematical conjecture by Jim MacIsaac, a semiretired Bellevue engineer and longtime rail-transit critic. Using the agency’s growth and inflation factors, he calculated the amount of tax dollars that Sound Transit could collect from 2009 to 2053, should voters pass Proposition 1.

Such a scenario, however, assumes catastrophic cost overruns, junk financing and zero political intervention if the agency ran amok.

Also, MacIsaac’s estimate includes billions already earmarked for transit projects voters previously approved, including a rail tunnel to Capitol Hill and Husky Stadium. Regardless of the Nov. 4 vote, those are scheduled to open in 2016 using existing sales and car-tab tax.

The article is still far from positive on ST and Light Rail, but this is a big step in the right direction for the Times.