As a follow up to my piece earlier today I wanted to quickly share a breakdown of Metro’s current service hours by service type because I found it extremely illuminating. My initial take away is that the Eastside is saturated with “local” service. Before I get too in depth the Regional Transit Task Force has really focused on clarifying and better understanding Metro’s “products”, “family of services” or “service types” (p.6). Metro staff have broken down their service into the following four categories. More after the jump.
BRT “advocate” Michael Ennis, of the anti-transit WPC, thinks bus drivers are paid too much; whole story starts with year 2000 to avoid any mention of 1999′s I-695. Nor does KING5 mention WPC’s history as a right-wing, anti-transit thinktank.
New York City considers tearing down a waterfront freeway, without replacement, not because it’s structurally unsound but because it’s the right thing to do.
Martin’s scoop a few weeks ago about Metro’s Draft Service Reduction Plan, which really should be called a “thought exercise” or “illustration”, got a fair deal of attention but after attending the July 1st meeting later that day I realized that the most important story was about the policies that the scenario were more or less based on. While any new policy will certainly need to balance competing objectives, the emerging consensus of the task force is that productivity (some measure TBD) should be the predominant driver of service allocation and service reductions. In other words transit service should be allocated in a way that is cognizant of demand and context, not by ideologically (i.e. subarea equity) driven policy choices. More after the jump.
Metro is continuing its series of stop consolidations with Route 49, which would also delete stops for the 9 and 25. They plan to remove 13 of the 50 stops between Convention Place and the University Bridge, affecting about 4% of riders in that segment.
Metro will eliminate the stops on August 7th, after a public comment period that ends on July 23rd. You can submit a comment online, call 206-296-4511, or send email to community.relations@kingcounty.gov with ‘Route 49′ in the subject line.
Trains on the west-side alignment would run through a greenbelt that would replace the 112th condos. (click to enlarge)
Last Friday, I explained a potential dilemma between advocates of a 112th Ave west-side alignment for East Link (Option 2), and those of a retained cut on the east-side (Option 4). Some construed my post to mean a Surrey Downs vs. Bellevue Club showdown, which I did not intend to be the case. On Monday, I spoke with Betina Finley, an early B3 supporter who ran an unsuccessful city council campaign last year, who clarified some of the rationale behind the Bellevue Club’s letter and subsequent petition.
Though the Club has supported B7 in the past, I was told that Bill Thurston, club president, has recognized the wisdom in moving forward on B2M. Unlike Thurston’s rational disposition, Surrey Downs still wants any and every train as far away from them as possible. While they are more partial to the east-side retained cut, the prevailing sentiment has still largely been “B7 or bust” as evident by a puzzling new pro-B7 campaign. More below the jump.
From the latest visualizations it looks like the current plan has the following changes:
the line now becomes single-tracked (around 2nd Ave and turns left to a terminal on 2nd Ave and King Street … forgoing the Pioneer Square portion of the route.
the 5th & Jackson street station will be center-tracked, with an island platform
in the middle of Jackson St.
The Seattle Streetcar has posted visualizations for the Jackson Street portion of the route.
In many ways Pierce Transit is facing the worst budget situation of all the State’s large systems. As soon as the reserves run out in about 2012, cuts would be 43% of all service.
However, in another way PT is much better off than Metro and Community Transit, because they don’t have to go to the legislature to get more funding. Yesterday, the Pierce Transit board took advantage of that by unanimously sending a measure to the ballot that would raise their sales tax take from 0.6% to 0.9%, the maximum allowed by state law. The tax only applies in the Public Transit Benefit Area (PTBA), which includes most incorporated areas in the county.
Evan Siroky at Tacoma Tomorrow suggests that a 0.9% taxation level supports not just current service, but actually more or less the “growth alternative” that amounts to a 5% increase, actually eliminating a few routes in favor of increasing frequency throughout the system:
Alternatives Comparison (PT, via Tacoma Tomorrow)
More details on the new plan will be at this website on Friday. The vote itself would be February 8, 2011, unfortunately a low-turnout election and not the young electorate likely to vote strongly for transit.
The City of Bellevue released the voting results (pdf) from the latest East Link workshop. I don’t have the city demographics handy to compare to the norms, but the voters were mostly (if not necessarily disproportionately) longtime residents (> 15 years, with 41% over 25 years) who arrived at the meeting at Bellevue City Hall by car.
The results are obviously not scientific measures of Bellevue opinion. However, among people with enough motivation to show up, Westside-running and retained cuts were the winners among the options. In direct contrast to the streetcar debates, center-running wasn’t very popular.
Planners last month presented six options for a potential route on that stretch of road, and two of them featured a new downtown-tunnel concept that would save an estimated $75 million on East Link construction.
Now City Council member Kevin Wallace is asking whether Sound Transit should subtract those savings from the $150 million Bellevue promised to help make a tunnel affordable.
Follow the link to read the rest of Hicks’ reporting on dueling grassroots organizations, which apparently includes a new city-wide pro-B7 effort to raise $100,000.
Central Link light rail will operate every 20 to 25 minutes from 10 p.m. to 1 a.m. on Sunday and Monday due to track maintenance. Signs at the Beacon Hill, Mount Baker and Columbia City stations will direct both northbound and southbound riders to use the southbound platforms for boarding during the maintenance.
The Puget Sound Regional Council is an intergovernmental body that conducts long range planning and, more practically, is an important player in allocating federal funds.
Skagit Transit’s Purchase of Replacement Vehicles, $422,000
Skagit Transit’s Implementation of its Mobility Management Program, $88,035
King County Ferry District’s Purchase of a Hybrid-Electric Passenger Ferry, $2,000,000
Kitsap Transit’s High Capacity Planning Integration Study of Kitsap County Land Use and Transit, $100,000
There’s not much here for most readers to get excited about, but they’re soliciting public comment at tipcomment@psrc.org. The deadline is September 23rd but it pays to have it in by September 2nd.
The TED talk above covers a lot of themes that will be familiar to long time readers here, and even name-checks Northgate. Three points:
As Yglesias points out, there just isn’t enough emphasis in the talk on the extent which the obstacles to this kind of thing are regulatory rather than economic.
People get hung up, and a bit defensive, about the word “suburbs” as a shorthand for a certain type of development. Here in Seattle, the need for this applies to all but a few square miles in the city core, while several suburban downtowns are well on their way to being walkable.
Lastly, in reference to John’s recent cul-de-sac post, I don’t really care if roads are configured that way or not, as long as the walking paths allow easy foot and bike access. Homebuyers don’t demand them, so I don’t really blame developers for not providing them. Cities, however, should require them and step up to maintain them, just as they step up to maintain the roads.
In my recap of the 112th Avenue East Link options, I mentioned that Option 4 would likely gain the most traction among South Bellevue residents. What I didn’t mention is that it could brew an internal conflict among the pro-B7 faction. While the Bellevue Club and Surrey Downs has been nearly unanimous in their call to push Link far far away to I-405, the two could probably not disagree more on a 112th Ave option.
The Bellevue Club, which I said would likely lose a few tennis courts and street-side landscaping, has been pushing for Option 2, a west-side running option which would ironically displace 46 residences, most, if not all, from Surrey Downs. While the club is still fervent in promoting B7, we know that ST has no interest in advancing that option.
Surrey Downs, on the other hand, campaigned on the whole premise that they would not have their residences impacted, much less torn down for silly screeching trains. Outside of their support for B7, they have clung tight to Option 4, which would burrow a retained cut on the east-side of 112th.
In a letter to their members, the Bellevue Club’s rationale:
The impacts of the center and eastern alignments cannot be mitigated and permanently affect the use of the Club. Commencing with a construction period estimated beyond two years, excavation of 22,000 SF of green belt 635 feet long removes the west side of the property. The character of the our garden setting is blighted beginning with the removal of thirty year old pines on 112th Ave SE. More troubling is the loss of outdoor recreation areas, four tennis courts, pool decks, garden decks, water elements and patios all positioned most favorably on the west side of our property.
…The western alignment as it passes Surrey Downs would impact only two homes which is less than 1% of that neighborhood. As to the Carriage Place Condominiums north of Surrey Downs, from discussions we have had we feel, if appropriately compensated, would welcome selling…
Outdoor recreation areas, patios, and more…all worth the displacement of 46 homes (not just two, as the letter states)! Considering the general apathy about the displacements coming from this letter, it seems unfair that Sound Transit should be the only scapegoat here.
Yesterday, the FTA announced winners of two competitive federal grant programs, the Urban Circulator program, and the Bus and Bus Livability program. The City of Seattle won $2.4 million in grants of the latter program, which will be aimed at improving King Street Station and the Westlake Hub. This is all in addition to existing funds and money from Bridging the Gap.
The City of Seattle will restore the historic King Street Station and improve the Westlake Hub, creating two intermodal transportation hubs in downtown Seattle that connect rail, bus, streetcar, and pedestrian networks in Seattle’s Center City. Improvements to these two hubs are critical to implementation of Seattle’s Center City Access Strategy to revitalize 10 downtown neighborhoods, fight regional sprawl and build a sustainable economy and community.
Nationwide, a number of recipients will be using the money for streetcar projects and others for existing transit improvements. Big winners include Cincinnati, New York, and Chicago. Elsewhere in Washington State, Skagit Transit will get $2.8 million for a park and ride. In which district? It just so happens in Mary Margaret Haugen’s, who we know has been the darling of transit advocates.
We weren’t there, but PubliCola was, so go there and read up on the hysteria and hyperbole. See also Erica’s route reconnaissance.
Basically, ST was trying to solicit opinions about the various sub-options of B2M, but the meeting was dominated by complaining that B7 (out by I-405) wasn’t a choice, compounded by predictions of doom if light rail goes near certain neighborhoods.
It’s all very depressing. If you live in South Bellevue and you want to be able to easily access Link, by not showing up you’re being shouted down by people afraid of change.
[UPDATE: Reader Mike Skehan points out that the VA has moved their shuttle stop much closer to Beacon Avenue, so perhaps this can be fixed without a massive amount of renovation.]
One of the mild nuisances for riders of the 39 and 60 is the ~4 minute loop buses take through the parking lot of the Veterans Administration Hospital. The Hospital is a classic 1950s design, with the entrance hidden behind acres of surface parking. Given the large number of mobility-impaired customers, it’s entirely appropriate that buses come right up to the entrance.
Unfortunately, aside from increasing travel times*, this setup has had unfortunate impacts on transit planning. In particular, one reason Metro abandoned the idea of reinstating Route 50 from Othello to West Seattle (via Columbia City and Sodo) was because it would mean loss of the 39, and thus the one-seat ride from downtown to the hospital. Metro got a lot of mail on that subject.
Google Maps
What’s doubly frustrating about this situation is that one of Metro’s workhorse routes — the downtown-bound 36 — is mere steps away from the building on the Beacon Avenue side, on the right side of the map above. What’s needed is a remodel of the facility to create an accessible entrance on the Beacon Avenue side, and possibly some redeployed trolley wire to bring buses right up to the building.
Sen. Patty Murray (wikimedia)
However, it’s no one’s role to make this happen. The funding would come from Congress, and it’s the kind of thing Patty Murray specializes in. But Sen. Murray isn’t going to do something the VA doesn’t ask for, and they seem satisifed with the status quo. Meanwhile, Metro has neither the competence nor the authority to request a remodel of the facility, even if it solved several headaches for them. Someone in government, City or County, would have to step up to make this happen, informally coordinating the various agencies to make sure everyone’s interests are addressed.
*By my count 144 buses serve this stop every weekday and 91 each on Saturday and Sunday. If it’s really a 4 minute diversion,the back-of-the-napkin estimate is that it’s about $360,000 a year in operating time.
Dominic Holden, news editor of The Stranger, has two long-form articles this week. One goes through the history of the viaduct/deep bore tunnel project, but the main one is a well-researched and thorough exploration of all the things that could go wrong with the deep-bore tunnel, and explains just how shoddy the contingency planning for these possibilities are. It’s almost enough to make one support a viaduct rebuild if the surface/transit option can’t happen — especially since the city is likely to mess up the new waterfront anyway.
WSDOT, via the stranger
Let’s spare a thought for the other big transportation tunnel project just getting started — the light rail tunnel from Pine Street to Roosevelt. Potential problems with ST’s project are both fewer and milder, and post-2001 their reserves have been generous. Furthermore, if ST has overruns the impact is a reduction in scope and delay in completion, rather than a raid on someone’s general fund. Nevertheless, tunneling risk is one of the best reasons to be a pessimist about ST coming through on time and on budget.
All this doesn’t mean tunnel projects are never worthwhile, but it does mean that contingency planning and risk management are very important. It’s especially important when the impact of overruns is likely to be a raid on funds allocated to better things, whether at the city level or the state level. Holden’s reporting — possibly the local story of the year so far — shows how the deep-bore plan we’re being asked to commit is lacking.
Also, check out the 13-lane-width monstrosity at right.
The STB editorial board is about to come out with its endorsements for the August 17th primary. There are lots of legislative races out there, so we’d welcome any suggestions in the comments for candidates we should note.
We are more interested in links to a candidate’s stand on transit-related issues than what he or she may or may not have told you in private. We are also strictly reviewing their position and record on issues covered on this blog, not any sort of wider agenda, “progressive” or otherwise.
No need to point out Marko Liias, Geoff Simpson, and Patty Murray. Thanks.
The East Link project expands light rail from Downtown Seattle to Mercer Island, downtown Bellevue, and the Overlake Transit Center with stations serving Mercer Island, South Bellevue, downtown Bellevue, Bel-Red and Overlake areas. For those interested, Sound Transit will be holding the following public meetings in July: (more…)
The East Link project expands light rail from Downtown Seattle to Mercer Island, downtown Bellevue, and the Overlake Transit Center with stations serving Mercer Island, South Bellevue, downtown Bellevue, Bel-Red and Overlake areas. For those interested, Sound Transit will be holding the following public meetings in July:
