December 10, 2009 at 12:15 pm
by Martin H. Duke
 wikimedia [UPDATE below.]
According to Scott Gutierrez of the P-I, Sen. Patty Murray has included a provision in the transportation bill that reverses the Bush-era decision to effectively eliminate special event bus service to the Mariners and Seahawks. It still has to get through a few votes and be signed by the President, but it sounds like more or less a done deal. Press release here.
According to Metro spokeswoman Rochelle Ogershok, a lot depends on when the bill actually becomes law. Since the event organizers (ie, sports teams) must pay the cost of the service beyond farebox recovery, it’s ultimately up to them when such service returns. Nevertheless, she assures me that “the actual process of negotiating a contract for special service can typically be concluded within weeks, once discussions get underway between Metro and the requesting organization.” So it would appear that Seahawks fans are out of luck this year, but there’s reason to be optimistic about the Mariners’ Opening Day.
The bill also includes money for local transit agencies:
Murray also secured $110 million for Sound Transit’s next light rail link to the University of Washington, as well as $3.1 million for the Central Link project. The bill also will include $600,000 to [help] purchase 15 hybrid buses for Metro’s planned RapidRide bus line in West Seattle, as well as $600,000 $360,000* to study the possibility of commuter rail along existing BNSF rail lines from the Auburn Sounder Commuter Rail Station to Maple Valley, Covington and Black Diamond.
The press release also mentions money for the RapidRide A and B lines, not just C.
The News Tribune says there’s also money in there for the Tacoma Intermodal Transit Center, 6 new buses for Pierce Transit, and money to move along Puyallup’s EZRA BRT project. I haven’t run down each of these funding items, but I believe that in general this is not “new” money but the fulfillment of previous FTA commitments that don’t revise the budgets of the respective programs.
Note also that the commuter rail study covers an area outside the Sound Transit district and is not a Sound Transit project. I have a call in to Murray’s office to see who actually gets the money. According to the Senator’s office, the cities of Maple Valley, Covington, and Black Diamond are conducting the study with Maple Valley taking the lead.
* See correction.
December 10, 2009 at 9:30 am
by Martin H. Duke
 Photo by Oran [UPDATE: Either people are skimming or I'm not writing clearly, so I'll make the prescription shorter: A+, no flyer stop; create good 24/7 service from the Eastside to UW; pay for it with some specific revenue increments and by curtailing off-peak service from the Eastside to DT Seattle. If you work through the permutations, you'll see that all the connections still work out.]
There’s a lot of fear among transit riders that the loss of a Montlake flyer stop on SR520 will make bus service a lot harder to use in that corridor. That fear is a reasonable one, in spite of the cost and the wider footprint that would have to be cut out of the neighborhood. However, it would be a relatively simple matter to reorganize bus service to minimize the impact. More after the jump.
(more…)
December 9, 2009 at 2:04 pm
by Adam Bejan Parast
 First Hill Streetcar Alignments (full size image here, pdf here)
With SDOT kicking off its public outreach effort on the First Hill streetcar line next week, I wanted to outline why we believe that the 12th Ave couplet is a bad idea. The 12th Ave alignment has four major flaws, all of which indicate that the Broadway or Boren alignments (or some variation of these two) is the best option. I have heard many impassioned arguments for the 12th Ave alignment from people that have the same core beliefs as myself but the facts simply make too strong of a case.
Reduced Area with Quality Service
The first and most fundamental problem with the 12th Ave alignment is the couplet. While the couplet increases total coverage of the streetcar, it dramatically reduces the quality of that coverage. By separating the northbound and southbound travel by 3 blocks, the area that is close to both a northbound and southbound station is reduced significantly. To prove my point I spent the day working on ArcGIS to give you the graphics above. Rather than using a 5 minute euclidean circular walking buffer, I used a technique that shows the actual “walk shed” experienced in real life (i.e you can’t walk straight through a building, you have to walk around both sides). This creates a walking shed based on Manhattan distance (this could be a whole other post).
As you can see, I mapped the walking shed of each alternative for 3, 5 and 7 minutes. These are the areas where users have access to both directions. Looking closely at the 12th Ave couplet, you can see how the coverage of the three middle stations is much smaller and of lower quality compared to both of the other alternatives. As I said before, this is an fundamental and intractable flaw of the idea that can’t be overcome.
More after the jump
(more…)
December 9, 2009 at 7:00 am
by Adam Bejan Parast
 Metro Local Bus by So Cal Metro What has signal priority, some exclusive ROW, real-time arrival information, next-stop message board, and significant stops?
Answer after the jump
(more…)
December 8, 2009 at 2:43 pm
by Martin H. Duke
 "Tukwila in the fog," by Mike Bjork
December 8, 2009 at 9:30 am
by VIRGINIA GUNBY
 wikimedia Our SR 520 Westside Design A+ is the transit friendly, financially affordable option and was recommended by the SR 520 State Legislative Workgroup by a vote of 12 to 2 (opposed by Reps. Chopp and Pedersen of the 43rd District). A+ is supported by Metro Transit, King County, the University of Washington, five major Eastside cities, the Eastside Transportation Partnership, and many north end Seattle Community Councils. We worked to reduce A+ costs by retaining the current interchange at Montlake Blvd and saving $100 million on the replacement of the Portage Bay Bridge.
One remaining decision is replacement of the Lake Washington Blvd. ramps at a cost of $98m. Information on the overall impacts of the ramps, in or out, will be included in the WSDOT SR 520 Supplemental EIS, which will be available for Public Review after the first of the year. We need a city-wide public debate on how to make this a “Win/Win” for both improving the future Arboretum and SR 520 inter-modal Transit services. More after the jump…
(more…)
December 7, 2009 at 5:27 pm
by Ben Schiendelman
 West Seattle Bridges Will at the Slog has a piece up today that makes me angry – so angry I’m posting from Portland, where I was trying to have a nice vacation. Will is blaming Sound Transit for not having a ready-made light rail plan for a mayor who hasn’t even yet taken office when the plan doesn’t even have a scope yet!
This seems to display ignorance of a system that we’ve been working for years to help people understand.
Sound Transit gets a certain amount of money each year, from sales taxes and MVET. They write a budget based on how much they’re expecting, and publish it. Usually, there’s some wiggle room – as projects are completed, surpluses are sometimes released, and there are funds available for unexpected administrative or legal expenses.
In the past – maybe last year, or the year before – Sound Transit might have been able to take on a planning project like determining alignment for West Seattle or Ballard light rail – a $12 million study. But Sound Transit is receiving less in sales tax revenue this year than they’d budgeted for, meaning they’re looking to cut costs wherever they can, not accelerating projects. Sound Transit’s plan for ST2 shows light rail planning for these corridors to be budgeted in 2015 – and it’s been that way since the Proposition 1 election in 2008.
Furthermore, no plan – not even a scope – has been released by the mayor-elect’s office (possibly because he’s not actually the mayor yet). No plan – or again, even a scoping document – has been released by Richard Conlin’s office. As far as I’m aware, no request has been made to Sound Transit by those offices or any other for light rail planning in these corridors.
During McGinn’s campaign, I urged his staff to talk to him about making light rail to West Seattle and Ballard a priority. I’m overjoyed that he’s doing it, and I look forward to that planning taking place – but there’s nothing for Sound Transit to do here. Even if they could find a way to fund a study (and don’t hold your breath), they’d have to know what to study within some range between streetcar and subway, and have some idea of how they’re going to pay for it. The ball is in the mayor-elect’s court to figure out what he wants. The Slog’s piece today is Sound Transit bashing at its worst.
Sloggers – you know better than this.
December 7, 2009 at 2:00 pm
by Sherwin Lee
 Transit map of Downtown Spokane from STA (click to enlarge) Early last year, we uncovered some dirt on a potential streetcar study for Spokane. The Spokesman Review is now reporting that new information has come to light about the Lilac City’s most recent efforts to employ streetcars in its downtown transit network. The Spokane Transit Authority (STA) is using $360,000 in federal and state grant funds to commission the study. As part of the plan, the agency is asking local residents to become part of its Sounding Board to help plan for what it calls a High Performance Transit Network, which could either be implemented via electric trolleybuses, streetcars, or other modes.
While light rail has been a hot concept in Spokane for several years, the political effort was ditched in 2006 when STA disbanded a LRT planning committee. However, Susan Meyer, STA’s CEO, has raised the possibility of some kind of tram/light rail hybrid with an exclusive right-of-way for the Spokane Valley corridor [UPDATE: Commenter Bobby Bebar says that Meyer is referring to an electric trolleybus.]:
Along with other alternatives, Meyer wants the agency to study the possibility of electric rapid transit on separated traffic alignment, which can be accomplished for about 15 percent of the cost of light rail. That Spokane Valley corridor study would update work previously done for a light rail project.
In related news, the Idaho Statesman is reporting that Boise’s proposed LID (local improvement district) for its streetcar loop is getting mixed reviews, particularly from tax-exempt non-profit organizations who will end up having to chip in anyway.
December 7, 2009 at 5:47 am
by ANDREW AUSTIN, Policy Associate, Transportation Choices Coalition
 wikimedia As the holidays quickly approach so does the 2010 Legislative Session. This year the legislature will be convene for a “short” 60 day session that starts on January 11th. Due to the State’s budget crisis it is expected to be a fast-paced session focused on filling a $2.6 billion (and growing) hole in the state’s operating budget. That said, Transportation Choices Coalition will be working hard on behalf of you everyday to ensure that Washington residents have the choices to take transit, bike, or walk in their community.
Transit Funding
Across the State transit agencies continue to face a financial crisis due to declining sales tax revenues. If new sustainable revenue is not identified in the next two years, agencies serving Anacortes to Walla Walla will be forced to make drastic cuts to their service, cuts that will hinder our region’s economic recovery, clog our roads, prevent us from reducing greenhouse gas emissions and leave transit riders abandoned on the side of the road.
As the 2010 legislative session approaches Transportation Choices will be working for you in Olympia to educate the legislative leadership on the transit funding crisis. We will be organizing this year to ensure that transit plays a central role in future transportation revenue packages. But we can not do it alone and need your help communicating with legislators about what transit cuts will mean to you and your local community. We will hold our annual transportation advocacy day on January 28th in Olympia and one of our major issues will be transit funding.
Transit Oriented Communities
Following up on last year’s transit oriented communities legislation we will continue to push for a combination of planning measures and incentives that promote transit-oriented development, particularly in rail transit station areas. We are advocating for grant dollars that cities can access for planning, infrastructure upgrades and affordable housing in “high performing station areas.” These high performing station areas are the ones that will make the most of their proximity to light rail and other high-capacity transit investments by zoning for walkable, mixed-use development, with a healthy mix of housing types in their station areas. (For more on these concepts, please see our new report, co-authored with Futurewise and GGLO, Creating Transit-Oriented Communities: A Blueprint for Washington State). Finally, we will also join Futurewise in continuing to push the legislature to require comp plan updates to factor reducing greenhouse gas emissions into future growth management plans.
Complete Streets
For many years TCC has been working with our city partners and the public health community to implement complete streets guidelines at the local level. We believe the state could do more to incentivize local governments to adopt complete streets policies, which means designing local roads with all users – including cyclists, pedestrians and transit users – in mind. This year we will attempt to establish the framework for a grant program for complete streets projects in cities to incentivize and reward complete streets programs around the state.
Reprinted with permission from the Nov. 30th TCC Newsletter. See also Erica Barnett’s write-up of TCC’s report in presentation form.
December 6, 2009 at 10:00 am
by John Jensen
December 5, 2009 at 11:59 am
by Oran Viriyincy
 MARTA Breeze Ticket, photo: author Low-income transit riders and tourists may not have to pay $10 to get an ORCA card if a disposable, low-cost version is offered. According to an article by Krista Kipp of the Seattle Jobs Initiative in the November 2009 issue of the ATU Local 587 News Review, a disposable card was planned to be offered when ORCA was being developed, but it was dropped due to security concerns. Kipp writes that the ORCA transit agencies are bringing this option back. It is currently under development and won’t be available after mid-2010, at the earliest.
A 2004 press release from Phillips, the vendor providing the MIFARE smart card technology for the ORCA project, reveals more details about what the disposable ORCA card would’ve been like. The disposable card is “specifically aimed at the collector, tourism and human service program application areas” and “will have specialized graphics and be pre-valued with a set amount of money (e.g. $20), a set number of rides (e.g. 10), or a set period of time (e.g. 7 days after first use).”
The article also mentions King County Metro’s efforts to mitigate the impact of ORCA on low-income residents by extending the Commuter Bonus Voucher program for human services agencies and allowing those agencies to purchase ORCA cards for $3 with a $3 minimum load. The vouchers can be exchanged for bus tickets, which will continue to be sold.
Low-income transit riders and tourists are affected by the transition to ORCA because of the initial cost of acquiring the card and new fare policies. Inter-system transfers and intra-system transfers on most agencies except Metro and Pierce Transit will require an ORCA card beginning January 1, 2010. After January 31, an ORCA card will cost $5 and $5 is the minimum value that must be loaded on the card at purchase, for a total cost of $10.
An example of a disposable smart card is MARTA’s Breeze Ticket, which costs 50¢, expires after 90 days and has limited functionality.
December 5, 2009 at 8:18 am
by Martin H. Duke
 The 2006 version of the plan (click to enlarge) The Highline Times had an interesting pair of articles on Monday about development in Seatac. The first mention’s the City’s plans to create a “downtown entertainment district” around the light rail station, specifically its plan to buy a surface parking lot and replace it with a garage that would improve car access to the neighborhood. Great, except that the current owners would like to build a multi-use development there instead (see the next article).
The second one is about “a moratorium on applications for building and development permits in the station area.” Apparently developers are unhappy with some of the requirements the City has enacted. Seatac planning director Steve Butler says “the proposed standards would upgrade ground floor space requirements, establish a new street grid and increase design regulations for parking structures.”*
There’s an open house (with a flyer) about all this on Monday night:
Date: 12/7/2009 5:00 PM – 8:00 PM
Location: Holiday Inn Conference Center
17338 International Blvd.
SeaTac, Washington 98188
It’s times like this I wish NorthwestHub still had paid reporters to sort it all out. Perhaps HugeAssCity can break this down for us?
*this quote from The Highline Times.
The illustration can be viewed in this 2006 City of Seatac report.
December 4, 2009 at 1:25 pm
by John Jensen
 Dan Corson's Oscillating Field. Photo by The Stranger.
- Grace Crunican, the director Seattle’s transportation department, is looking for a job in Oregon since she might be forced out by the McGinn over last winter’s snowstorm. Many smart people argue the Mayor-elect should keep her on. We agree: McGinn should consider keeping her.
- The First Hill Streetcar will break ground in 2011 and open by 2013. The City has three public meetings this month about it to discuss the possible alignments. And a minimalist web page.
- The feds announce some more funding for streetcars and trolley buses.
- SDOT begins work this week on Aurora bus platforms. RapidRide buses will eventually run along the corridor.
- Seattle Metro area transit usage up 13.4% between 2006 and 2008, well behind several sun belt cities — and Detroit. Traffic congestion down, mostly due to the economy.
- King County Council backs SR520 A+ option. That pits them against Richard Conlin, Frank Chopp, and others, but with the legislative working group.
- The Stranger art critic looks at the public art piece — above — temporarily occupying the future home of Link’s Capitol Hill stop.
More after the jump…
(more…)
December 4, 2009 at 8:00 am
by Sherwin Lee
 'Othello TOD Rising' by Oran Back in October, on a Sound Transit 554 Express to Issaquah, I overheard a conversation between an elderly passenger and the bus driver. The older gentleman praised our bus system (in comparison to MTA in Los Angeles) and lauded the ease of traveling between Issaquah and Seattle. After a few minutes, the conversation shifted to Link Light Rail, where the passenger further expressed content with the region’s efforts to expand rail. The driver had an interesting response: “You know what’s really dumb, though? They didn’t build any park and rides along the line! How are you gonna take the train if you can’t even get to the station?”
With the exception of Tukwila/Int’l Blvd. Station, the decision not to add park and rides along Central Link’s initial segment has touched off this fiery debate among transit proponents: should parking be added at rail stations? This issue has been a bigger point of contention when it comes to low-density suburbs, like South Bellevue. However, the absence of park and ride facilities in the case of the Rainier Valley segment was probably a wisely measured decision by Sound Transit. Most importantly, we should remember that the benefits of disallowing parking at rail stations aren’t generally realized in the short-term. Rail and real estate development, being long-term investments, yield tremendous return when done right in the present.
More below the jump.
(more…)
December 3, 2009 at 3:49 pm
by Ben Schiendelman
 The ST UW Station Plan (Sound Transit) - not the one Ben is talking about Last night I attended the University Link open house at the Museum of History and Industry. Construction is about to start on UW Station at Montlake, so there was a presentation explaining exactly where construction will take place, what sort of mitigation there will be, and what will go on. I’m not the first to post about this – Alper of Alpertopia covered it today as well.
The big takeaway from the Sound Transit presentation was that they’ll be using largely the same (very successful) noise mitigations they used for Beacon Hill, and they’ve provided for bicycle, pedestrian and vehicle access to UW facilities while construction takes place. They had conclusive answers to each question asked.
The end of the meeting was much more interesting. Prior to the presentations, I had a moment to speak with Andy Casillas, the UW’s project manager on their Rainier Vista project. He explained that contrary to their latest published design, the university has indeed dropped pedestrian bridges from their plans (not the one pictured above). The hospital side bridge was dropped because it would require expensive support structure construction in the basement of the hospital – he suggested transit users could use the existing underpass, but users are already cautioned against using that underpass at night without an escort.
The station side bridge reasoning was less clear. At some future date, he suggested a project might be undertaken to grade separate Montlake Boulevard, dropping it below pedestrian level, but this project is unfunded and unmentioned in any of the documents he presented.
During his presentation, he offered no quantifiable benefits to the land bridge design past the slightly shorter walking distance and additional layover space for Metro buses – but Metro isn’t being asked to help fund the project. He said the land bridge required an additional year of design time, but didn’t say how that might impact University Link’s schedule. He was unable to quantify impacts to pedestrian mobility or traffic – despite the walking distance decrease, this adds wait time at a new Montlake crossing light, apparently planned for 30 second intervals.
Most of the questions asked at that point were about the safety of a crossing for thousands of new users. Yesterday, I was willing to accept this with the assumption that the plan would be to build pedestrian bridges later. With those bridges apparently off the table, I see little benefit to the new plan and significant drawbacks, and no reason to support the additional expense to SDOT or Sound Transit. The existing Sound Transit station and pedestrian bridge design has already been approved by the UW Board of Regents as well as the Sound Transit Board – opening this agreement up for debate again would be foolhardy.
December 3, 2009 at 2:14 pm
by Martin H. Duke
 Sen. Haugen (Senate Democrats) Gas tax revenues, an important part of how we fund highways, have been declining along with fuel consumption. Officials wondering how to plug the gap have floated the idea of “vehicle miles traveled” tax, which would basically charge you for each mile of road you use.
Andrew Austin reports that Senate Transportation Chair Mary Margaret Haugen (D-Camano Island) has declared that idea dead for now. And that’s good news.
The point of a VMT tax is that it raises revenue while discouraging driving. But consider:
- A gas tax also discourages driving.
- A gas tax encourages use of fuel-efficient vehicles
- A gas tax requires no new bureaucracy to implement.
- A gas tax does not require the government to track your movements with a transponder. I’m not really into tinfoil hats but this seems unnecessarily intrusive.
It may be that the revenue isn’t adequate, but there’s a simple solution: raise the gas tax. It may be that in the far future most vehicles won’t burn gasoline. But I’m not holding my breath, and we can address that problem if and when it occurs.
On a related note, USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood agrees with me. More on the meeting that spurred this comment after the jump. (more…)
December 3, 2009 at 11:12 am
by Martin H. Duke
[UPDATE: Erica Barnett has written up the briefing.]
wikimedia If you’re a transit advocate, following the happenings in Olympia can be a pretty masochistic exercise. Nevertheless, the Transportation Choices Coalition is probably the one organization most closely aligned with the principles of STB. The man they send to Olympia to take all the bullets is Policy Director Bill LaBorde, who will be giving a preview of what’s to come, and exactly what kind of defensive crouch you should use:
FRIDAY FORUM: 2010 Legislative Preview
December is here and the 2010 Legislative Session is almost upon us. With a short session and the State’s budget crisis worsening, expect the legislative session to be fast-paced and focused on filling the $2.6 Billion and growing hole in the state’s operating budget. That said, Transportation Choices Coalition will be working hard on your behalf everyday to ensure that Washington residents have the option to take transit, bike, or walk in their community. Find out what’s on our legislative agenda with a special sneak preview this Friday.
As always, feel free to bring your lunch.
WHAT: 2010 Legislative Session Preview with Policy Director Bill LaBorde
WHEN: Friday, December 4, 12 – 1:30 pm
WHERE: Downtown YMCA, 909 4th Avenue, Seattle
I wish I could go.
December 3, 2009 at 6:34 am
by John Jensen
 Link train from Atomic Taco Sound Transit has identified a handful of ways to reduce noise from Link light rail, which in sections has exceeded federal standards. To help address the problem, ST is doing or has done the following things:
- Later this month, ST will be grinding rails along most of the alignment to “create a smoother running service.” This work will take place at night starting on Monday and run through the end of the month, according to a rider alert.While the work is active, headways at night will be reduced from 10 minutes to 15-20 minutes and sometimes you’ll have to board your train at the opposite platform than usual. Sound Transit thinks that this may be related to the high-frequency noise from the trains that some have complained about.
- Next month (January 2010), track lubricating devices will be installed where Sound Transit has identified that wheel squeal is a problem.
- Over the next few months, two switch crossings in the Rainer Valley will be modified to have a smoother running surface which ST expected to reduce the “ka-thunk” sounds heard now.
- The volume of safety bells on trains and at pedestrian crossings on MLK, Jr. Way have been reduced, and train operators will no longer ring bells as long.
- Station loudspeakers have had their volume lowered, and they are now turned off after 10pm for all stations in the Rainer Valley.
It should be noted that rail grinding will have little effect on “hunting” (the left-right oscillation sometimes noticeable in faster sections in Tukwila). Phoenix’s light rail is experiencing the same issue, and it may be a combination of vehicle maintenance and track alignment.
December 2, 2009 at 10:50 am
by Adam Bejan Parast
I have long thought that ST’s current bridge design was a mistake. Although I think that ST’s current design does a mediocre job of directly connecting to UW’s main campus it does a very poor job of improving access to the medical buildings as well as riders that are transferring to buses on Pacific.
Station area pedestrian improvements should have two objectives. Increasing safety and accessibility of the station. Since ST doesn’t have some futuristic technology to reduce distance the major way ST can improve accessibility is to improve directness of access by reducing the perceived effort or ‘impedance’. Safety is increased by grade separating pedestrians from cars. This is pretty obvious. Directness is improved by creating straight and direct links between the station and major destinations, in this case the main campus, medical buildings, and bus transfer points. This is exactly what ST’s current designs don’t do, especially for riders that are transferring to buses.
The three plans
(more…)
December 2, 2009 at 4:03 am
by Martin H. Duke
Last month “on ramp” linked to a PSRC poll on attitudes to transportation in our region (pdf). Although it’s important not to read too much into polls, the findings are pretty encouraging to transit advocates, and there’s some useful information on messaging:
- “Addressing climate change” is highly important, but doesn’t resonate as well as “protecting waters” and “ensuring clean air”
- Expanding transit is top transportation priority
- “Moving traffic and people safely” and “Reducing traffic congestion” are highly important (but not as “intense” as some environmental priorities)
- No funding alternatives are “popular” but a vehicle emissions fee is least offensive
Those highlights merely scratch the surface; check out the presentation.
« Newer Posts — Older Posts »
|
