"RapidRide Shelter with a View", by Atomic Taco

So much stuff this week, some of these really deserved posts…

Much more after the jump…

This is an open thread.

65 Replies to “News Roundup: Now Within Federal Limits”

    1. That diversion is Metro sacrificing simplicity and speed for riders (since Aurora borders Green Lake Park from Woodland Park Zoo to Winona, but I suspect the E, 358’s eventual successor, will opt for speed.

      1. Could accomplish both if you found a way to get a station right on 99 by the lake. Maybe where the existing signalized crosswalk is? You would pretty much only need a safe place for the bus to stop (outside lanes to transit only?). This would mean a bit farther walk to the bus for folks in the west greenlake neighborhood, but substantial time savings for everyone north of there.

    1. I just got a tweet that says:

      SoundTransit Link will operate every 30-35 mins this Sat & Sun from start of service until 9:30 a.m. due to maintenance.

      Lame

      1. At least they got the word out. Maintenance has to happen. And ST is quite good at finding times of low ridership to do it. They stopped in plenty of time Saturday for the Huskies-Huskers game.

        But I will say that when service on Link drops to this low of frequency, some alternate service would be nice, especially for air travellers and Norman.

  3. Great news about Safeway and QFC, as that delay is a total pain in the keister. Anyone know why ST now says it can take up to 48 hours to activate value added via online orders? I always thought it was 24 hours, because of something to do with the ORCA readers on buses having to return to base overnight to get synched.

  4. What’s up with the 2nd Cascades train to Vancouver BC? There was supposed to be an announcement by September 10th, but I haven’t seen anything.

    1. Apparently CBSA has made a decision, but have yet to notify Amtrak and WSDOT. However, 513/516 are no longer purchasable on Amtrak’s website, nor do they appear in the scheduling past September 30th. Maybe I’m just spooked, but that’s a bad sign. British Columbia would be so foolish to muck this up.

      1. Of course another explanation is that Amtrak thinks it is so up in the air that it is better to not sell any tickets that have to be refunded.

        I don’t think it is BC mucking it up, as it is the Customs branch of their national government, something the provincial government does not have the final say about.

      2. I would not expect Amtrak to make tickets purchasable until they hear what CBSA decided; refunds are a pain, especially with Amtrak’s not-really-that-modern reservations system.

        The fact that CBSA has not notified Amtrak *is* worrisome.

  5. Watched the video of the Supreme Court proceedings. Of course it’s anybody’s guess what a court will come up with but the line of questioning from the Justices was interesting. The Chief Justice seemed skeptical that the type of relief being asked by Kemper Freeman et. al. (writ of Mandamus requiring the refund of $300,000 spent by the state on the study of the transfer of the I-90 lanes) could be provided or would be appropriate. The State assistant A.G. provided some technical arguments regarding the 18th amendment and the process whereby Sound Transit gets to use the I-90 lanes and was rather thoroughly grilled by a number of the Justices. One of the Justices suggested that the Federal Gas Tax monies collected were simply being returned to the State and should be used as part of the basis for calculating the 18th Amendment amounts collected.

    This was debunked by the Sound Transit Attorney Desmond Brown who was next up and I have to say presented rather compelling and frank oral arguments. He pretty much flat out said, no State monies will have been expended for the conversion of the 2 center I-90 lanes to transit use because Sound Transit will have paid the state $150 million which has been estimated to far exceed the fair value of the lanes being used. A Justice raised the replacement value in counter to that but the attorney said that the text of the 18th amendment doesn’t speak to that.

    IANAL but my money is on a narrow decision either saying that the process the WSDOT followed is the same as it has done for 65 years and is proper or they may say that in this case the $300,000 in question must be repaid but that the Sound Transit argument indicating the monies being transferred to the State ($150 Million) makes the State whole and the argument is moot. But as I said, I’m not a lawyer. ;-)

    1. Yeah, I wasn’t impressed with the State assistant AG’s arguments. Maybe they were better in a narrow legal sense than what I was getting as a non-lawyer, but I was starting to get worried until ST’s Desmond Brown had his turn.

      1. The Assistant AG’s main problem was that he is not a good public speaker. Certainly not as good as Freeman’s counsel, and not as confident as Desmond Brown. That might speak more to their relative familiarity with the situation at hand.

        Charles, the justice you noted as suggesting that the Federal monies were in fact just state taxpayer moneys that had been “laundered up through the federal government” was Jim Johnson, long known to be friendly to certain interests including the BIAW.

    2. Well, the Seattle Times comments today thought the legal arguments were on the anti-rail side. That a contract (even a contract with the feds) can’t trump the state constitution.

      We just need to get light rail explicitly defined as a highway use, the way sidewalks, bike lanes, and ferries are.

      1. Didn’t anyone make the bridge argument? Apparently “highway uses” include spending money on “bridges”, according to the law.

        Any bridges. Not just ‘road bridges’.

  6. IS rapid ride E going to combine with swift, or is it going to be two separate services serving the same street, so you can’t go end to end on it?

    1. As I understand it they will remain separate systems. Swift goes from Everett to Aurora TC. The Rapid Ride also terminates at Aurora TC and heads south. The only point they intersect is the TC.

    2. RapidRide will also be significantly slower than Swift because Metro is leaving in some local stops in lieu of a shadow bus. But just because it’s implemented one way now doesn’t mean it can’t be changed in the future.

      One thing to keep in mind, delays on a route get amplified the longer the line is. The 124/174, 150/180, 43/44, and 7/49 were split because they were too long to keep to schedule. A combined King-Snohomish Aurora route would have the same problem.

      1. Isn’t one of the selling points of Rapid Ride is the dedicated stations that will convince developers and riders that the stops are permanant thus generating TOD?

        Kinda defeat that if we are going into it planning to cut stops. Better to get it rigtht first time around.

      2. The entire transit system suffers if there are too many stops. You can’t get across town in an hour on transit, so people say transit doesn’t work and drive instead. Take any location and draw a circle around the area you can get to in 30 minutes, 45 minutes, and 60 minutes on transit. (It’ll be an odd polygon if you live near an all-day express route, because you’ll be able to go a lot farther in one direction than another.) Then imagine ST2 Link is finished, and westside Link, and 45th Link, and Aurora Swift, and Northgate-Bothell Link or Swift, and Burien-Renton-Bothell Link or Swift, etc. Then draw another circle, which would probably be much larger, and may include 2/3 of the city and part of the Eastside and Snohomish County, depending on your centerpoint. But if we leave the local stops on Aurora, you won’t be able to get from 46th to Lynnwood in less than an hour. Swift does not mean abandoning the local stops completely. It means having a second local bus on the same route to serve all the local stations. Then people can either transfer to Swift at a Swift station, or stay on the local bus if they don’t mind the longer travel time (which generally means they’re going a short distance).

  7. “The State assistant A.G. provided some technical arguments regarding the 18th amendment and the process whereby Sound Transit gets to use the I-90 lanes”

    The argument is that the limit of the 18th Amendment (no non-highway use of roadway property that has had gas tax revenues spent on it) goes away if there is a reimbursement to the trust fund. The $150 million would be a big enough reimbursement, according to everyone involved.

    1. Oh yeah, them too. I just picked Phoenix because of the Great One. But, since the Av’s were out of Ottawa, that would make sense, too.

      1. Whoops, the Av’s were the Quebec Nordiques.

        Ottawa still has the Senators.

        At least they speak the same language… (like “Give us back our teams!”?)

  9. Too bad they can’t make the Orca more like a credit card like it is in Tokyo where your metro card basically acts as a debit card. I am sure one day this will happen.

  10. No mention of the Mather Auction coming up at the end of the month with 27 surplus Metro Gilligs. 3188 3189 3193 3250 3273 3278 3282 3299 3305 3308 3313 3336 3338 3390 3401 3402 3407 3424 3425 3464 3465 3467 3470 3471 3568

    http://www.matherauctions.com/catalog/Presale.pdf
    http://www.matherauctions.com/bro/KC-Brochure2.pdf

    I remember riding these coaches when they were new on the Puyallup Fair service metro had at the time. (Puyallup Fair to Auburn and Federal Way) They also had a Seattle service as well, but as memory serves it was only one way (Puyallup to Seattle, you had to transfer in Federal Way coming south) Anyone want to buy one?

  11. Z – you can buy one of the 3100 series, since they are the 35 footers. Add it to your Orion.

  14. IANAL, I wouldn’t say that’s the whole argument. Freeman’s counsel was very clear that he believed that regardless of whether ST reimbursed the fund, before WSDOT would have to declare the lanes surplus, which they obviously are not. ST argued that completion of R8A, which ST will pay for, would directly offset the capacity of the reversible lanes, and that the lanes would not need to become surplus at that point.

    1. ST argued that completion of R8A, which ST will pay for, would directly offset the capacity of the reversible lanes

      I’m unclear on this. With the max number trains/cars using I-90 there would be overall increase of people-moving capacity. But if the rail were taking up the center lanes and the vehicle lanes narrowed there would be less truck/carpool/bus/SOV capacity – isn’t that correct?

      I’d like to see those numbers – has anyone run them?

  17. I saw that the Octopus Card in Hong Kong can be used at Starbucks! Starbucks should totally get on that here.

      1. Maybe they don’t trust the banks? ORCA’s issued by an organization with a better record of not cheating customers than your average US megabank…

  18. The new ferry was moved to Eagle Harbor (WSF maintenance/lay-up facility) on Wednesday. When it goes into service… good question. WSF hopes to have it in service in 6 weeks (which would be late October) according to this article:

    http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/sep/15/state-accepts-chetzemoka-from-shipyard/#ixzz0zhACwnkE

    However, another article states that the new ferry may not be ready for service until Thanksgiving:

    http://www.whidbeyexaminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=4425

    1. Don’t I wish! It would occur only when hell freezes over. Everett is fiercely opposed to a merger with CT. At least they cooperate much better than they used to.

  20. Am I the only one who feels that it is a waste to run north link up I-5? We have already invested millions into the direct access ramps for express bus service, and granted its not the same as rail, but I really feel like we are duplicating efforts.

    I think serious time should be taken to examine other possible corridors for north link that require less park and ride situations and more accessibility to neighborhoods. Obviously most of these neighborhoods are not very dense, but I have to believe there is a better option than running it up I-5.

    1. It would arguably be better on 99 north of Northgate, where there’s more pedestrian traffic and more TOD potential. I’m glad the route isn’t set in stone because maybe there’s a chance to move it. It would also replace Swift, which would give CT some money for local routes.

      The biggest negative would be the Montlake Terrace park & ride, which is being expanded in anticipation of Link. Of course, the buses could simply continue a couple miles west to the Link stations. And freeway buses from the north shouldn’t be coming to Mountlake Terrace once ST2 is completed. (Shouldn’t, but CT may run them anyway unless there’s significant pressure to truncate them.)

      1. That Mountlake Terrace station is being designed for use by buses currently. Are you thinking they will simply convert it once ST2 comes on the line?

    2. I don’t know much about that area. I thought the P&R had been there for several years and was being expanded. A recent article showed Link coming up the west side of I-5 with a pedestrian bridge across the freeway from the Link station to the bus station and the parking; you may be able to find it in the STB archive. But no, the bus station would not be eliminated; it would be needed for local routes in any case. But as to whether the number of buses would go down at the station, I don’t know.

    3. I think going up Aurora would be too out of the way from its alignment at Northgate, adding an extra several minutes, and I think (very) long-term, Aurora will be a future corridor anyways. They should look further into running it up 15th so it can stop in the neighborhoods of Pinehurst (West Lake City), Jackson Park, and North City, where there is great potential for TOD. Then it could hook back up to I-5 at the County Line, where I-5 comes over to be a couple blocks west of 15th, so it could still serve Mountlake Terrace Park & Ride, and, most important, Lynnwood Transit Center.

      1. I’d suggest it to ST. It’s best to compare all the possibilities. But is 15th really that much better than I-5? Both of them seem pretty much single-familysville, except the auto-oriented businesses on 145th/15th. I think most of the ridership will come from buses from Aurora Village and around Aurora Avenue (Shoreline CC, Richmond Beach), so does it really matter whether it’s on I-5 or 15th?

        I would look at planting not just TOD, but a real neighborhood center, meaning a walkable commercial district. There is a lack of neighborhood centers in northeast Seattle and Shoreline.

  21. The advantage of an I-5 alignment is that it’s basically a straight line in public ROW. Building an aerial like up 99 would be hideously expensive as well as very disruptive. It would be nice to local access though. What I would like to know is if construction times would be different. Would building the line in the freeway median be much easier and less of a hassle? I would think so…

    2. Let’s get the cost estimate before assuming it’ll be more expensive. It’s the same as what Link is doing south of the airport, and that’s the second-cheapest segment after MLK and SODO. Aurora is also public ROW. ST can tell us how much private property it would have to condemn and how feasable the stations are. It’s just a corridor study like B7.

  22. Don’t know how long it’s been there, but the All Ways Stop on 1st and University coupled with the No Right Turns on Red is fantastic!

    Great experiment in making busy crosswalks pedestrian safe.

  23. Consider that increasing speed on a route is more important than increasing frequency.

    If Link were to go from 7.5-minute frequency to 6-minute frequency, for example, the average wait+travel time would only be reduced by .75 minutes.

    If ST can find ways to reduce the total travel time on the Link line by, say, five minutes, that would decrease wait+travel time to a point that even .5-minute headway couldn’t have as great an effect. Of course, the psychology doesn’t necessarily work that way.

    I bring this up because dealing with the fingers-on-a-chalkboard screeching along turns will hopefully mean that trains will someday soon be able to take turns faster, and save a minute or more of travel time along the length of the line. This one saved minute would be a huge service improvement even while saving platform hours.

    Throw in being able to run Link at its optimum speed along MLK instead of being treated as part of traffic, and fixing the tunnel algorithm, and I believe five minutes could realistically be shaved off of Link’s travel time. Collectively, this travel-time savings would be a bigger service improvement along the Central portion of Link than bringing headway down to 2.5 minutes would.

    And then, perhaps, West Link *could* fit in the DSTT. ;)

    1. I don’t buy it. With reduced headways, you can have a quicker transfer at both ends if you happen to have a three seat ride. You also increase throughput, so you’re serving more people (assuming enough people want to ride to fill the trains, otherwise, do you need to increase headways?).

      It depends on who wants to ride where when.

      1. Decreasing headway (i.e. increasing frequency, which I think is what you meant to say) in the middle leg of a 3-seat ride reduces transfer time to the middle leg, but does not decrease transfer time to the third leg.

        You are correct about increasing speed having only a marginal effect on increasing throughput, but from the point of view of an individual rider, I’m more interested in a faster trip than having a place to sit. (Others may have different priorities.)

    2. “Throw in being able to run Link at its optimum speed along MLK instead of being treated as part of traffic”

      I doubt they’ll ever let Link run 55 mph through MLK. The literature always said it would run at the same speed as cars on surface sections.

      I wish they’d see that surface speed and accidents are a cost associated with surface sections, and figure them into the construction cost. Then it wouldn’t look so much cheaper than an elevated line.

    3. In my experience, people value waiting time at double that of riding time. In other words, they would trade off 5 minutes at the station for 10 minutes on the bus/train.

      1. I doubt people are running such math in their heads when choosing which bus to take.

        Rather, I think they are just catching the next bus that comes along and gets them where they are going.

        If they are really doing the math using schedules, I would posit that most people are figuring out the fastest way to get to their destination, and secondarily, how to do it with the fewest number of buses involved (given the riskiness of depending on a transfer to go smoothely).

        Just as an example, a Kirkland rider without a schedule, trying to get to downtown Seattle, may catch the UW bus that comes along, not seeing the downtown bus coming yet. He gets to campus, and finds out the transfer to UW Station involves a 5-minute walk, completes the journey on U-Link, and then grabs the schedules downtown. Running the match, he finds out that the downtown bus beat him by five minutes. Which path do you think he will take in the future?

        Unfortunately, ST agrees with my above sociological argument, and that is why they won’t have the 520 buses serve UW Station. They aren’t buying into aw’s correct point that increasing frequency will increase throughput. And so, we will be stuck with an HOV exit from 520 that forever inhibits the possibility of consolidating the 520 bus lines for higher frequency / lower headway, and that keeps other buses from serving UW Station as well. Only a concerted lobbying effort will get us bus stops for any route besides the 7x’s at the foot of UW Station, and it has to happen during the 520 reconstruction project, or we’ll be stuck with a white elephant like the Mount Baker Transfer Center that heavily impedes transferring to Link.

      2. Well, I prefer walking at the end of a trip to waiting/walking at the beginning or in the middle. Call it the “reward first” mentality.

      3. “Only a concerted lobbying effort will get us bus stops for any route besides the 7x’s at the foot of UW Station, and it has to happen during the 520 reconstruction project, or we’ll be stuck with a white elephant like the Mount Baker Transfer Center that heavily impedes transferring to Link.”

        The 71/72/73 will more likely go to Brooklyn station when it’s completed. I highly doubt they’ll go to UW station, especially if they’d be moved again in four years. Metro seems to dislike routing any bus to the train unless that’s its final-final route. Plus, Pacific Street is too congested to fit all those articulated buses.

        I’m not sure what 520 has to do with Mt Baker station because they’re so far apart. I estimate Link will have a 10+ minute time advantage over the 48, and the 48 is especially boring when it stops at every single stop along the way during rush hour.

      4. A bigger dilemma is the U Village bus routes. I wish they could go to UW station, but I suspect there will be a larger clamor to keep them going through campus and to the U-district. So they’ll probably go to Brooklyn station too, and UW station won’t be used much except by people going directly to south campus or Montlake.

Comments are closed.