Photo by Atomic Taco
- Yet more development in South Lake Union.
- Allegations of Claudia Balducci’s “conflicts” just won’t die.
- WSDOT holds contest giving away exclusive access to viaduct before the nine-day closure.
- Viaduct closure means more service on the Water Taxi.
- Endorsements against I-1125 lining up left and right.
- Kemper Freeman’s crusade against transit lives on with 1125.
- The Prop. 1 battle takes to the airwaves.
- The Seattle Times on Prop 1.’s streetcar investment.
- Bremerton makes the list where transit riders are richer than drivers. Unfortunately, it doesn’t take into account the higher cost of ferry commuting.
- Preliminary work on transit corridor improvements in West Seattle begin.
- OneBusAway founder Brian Ferris guided us safely through the service change.
- Richard Mitchell and Jane Hague debate transit.
- U-Link tunneling creates a small mess on Capitol Hill.
- Tri-Met baby bouncing incident gains national attention.
This is an open thread.
The WSDOT Viaduct contest struck me as kind of odd. As a West Seattleite I want every effort going towards pulling this kind off as quickly as possible, not some publicity stunt.
No money for transit additions during the Deeply Tolled Tunnel CONstruction means 20-40 years of Seattle gridlock and slower commutes.
Yeah, still can’t afford it.
I love the mud geyser – good clean fun, and it shows that they are keeping high pressure in front of the TBM cutting head. This is good. I’m not sure what the density of the fluid is, but hopefully it is high enough to avoid any issues with creating sandy voids.
Tim Eyman’s latest initiative (1125) could be extremely destructive to our state’s transportation infrastructure, and could result in the following:
(1) It has the potential to block Sound Transit from using the I-90 center roadway for Eastlink Light Rail (a voter approved project).
(2) It prevents WSDOT from implementing variable-rate tolls as a mechanism to manage congestion and generate revenue for much needed safety projects.
(3) It prevents WSDOT from using toll revenues to pay for ongoing operations and maintenance, even on the facility where tolls are collected.
(4) It places the power to set toll rates in the hands of the legislature rather than an independent (unbiased) commission, which completely politicizes the toll-setting process and introduces financial risks that would result in higher interest rates/borrowing costs.
My biggest concern is that the initiative sounds pretty good to the average voter who’s simply thinking, “Oh, this would prevent the state from collecting tolls! Great!” That’s simply not the case. Tolls will still be used to help fund these projects, but using the less-efficient flat-rate toll scheme as opposed to variable-rate tolls.
A flat toll rate (a single rate charged at all hours of the day) is extremely ineffective at managing congestion, and also generates less revenue. Because the toll would be the same during off-peak periods, there is no incentive for people to change the time at which they use the facility, meaning more congestion in peak periods and under-utilization during off-peak periods. Variable-rate tolls, on the other hand, offer discounts on travel during off-peak periods, which reduces congestion during peak periods and increases overall utilization during off-peak periods. In other words, variable-rate tolls provide a steady flow of traffic throughout the day, as opposed to periods of congestion followed by periods of empty roadway.
Please vote no on I-1125!
Matt, as to “Please vote no on I-1125″ – my vote NO is in the bag. A) Lieyman is behind it. B) It’s an initiative that bullies King County and to this Skagitonian ALL 39 counties are equal under the law. C) Everything you wrote.
Please endorse Jane Hague… if it weren’t for Councilmember Hague…
SOURCE
Thank you. Besides a creep who says the deal was just “playing politics” is cynical. Raising taxes should NEVER be a “quiet act” and should be a matter of last resort… to stop Piercing of mass transit.
Good luck guys. You’ll need it and more importantly… you deserve victory.
Jane Hauge has some other issues that would make me not vote for her if I still lived in her district. Drinking and driving is not acceptable in someone charged with protecting public safety.
I understand that’ll be a problem down there for her, but if she goes down the right-wingers I correspond w/ will spin this as all the more reason to NEVER again take a councilmatic vote anywhere in WA ST. I try to think 2 to 5 moves ahead :-).
With all due respect, it’s not just the vote that matters. Jane Hague has been less than supportive of Public Transit in planning. And quite frankly, I resent the immense amount of effort it took to “convince” her and the rest of the council to “do the right thing”. It should have been a no-brainer. In deed, the Council should be more imaginative in solving Metro’s financial issues in the long term but given the constraints the Legislature put them under, this was the only reasonable solution. Why did Hague stonewall?
As for your r/w buddies, I’m tired of “coddling” them and “being nice” to them. They don’t respect the well being of the public and when they throw up law suits and bogus initiatives designed to thwart the progress of the public and destroy the ability of government to deliver services, why should we be “nice” to them?
Look at her opponent before voting against her. You may end up with somebody who’s more anti-transit.
Mike,
I’m not familiar with her opponent nor his positions. I’m simply saying I have little trust/faith in Jane Hauge due to her repeated DUIs and lying about her educations background.
Were it up to me I’d replace Hauge with someone like Claudia Balducci, Fred Jarrett, or even Deb Eddy.
Charles, great comments.
As to, quite frankly, I resent the immense amount of effort it took to “convince” her and the rest of the council to “do the right thing”. It should have been a no-brainer.
So you’re against hard work? Against a glorious victory against long odds and the legit concerns of taxpayers? Where’s your sense of adventure? Saddle up!
In deed, the Council should be more imaginative in solving Metro’s financial issues in the long term but given the constraints the Legislature put them under, this was the only reasonable solution. Why did Hague stonewall?
Hague wanted a better, more fair & equitable deal than a straight bailout. So did Lambert. Getting Republicans to back these kind of issues is well… uphill. Either enjoy the good fight or step out… because as much as water is wet, Eyman will put another tax limit initiative on the ballot next year – one that just might ban councilmatic votes of any kind. Then you’ll REALLY have to get some sweat to get anything done…
As for your r/w buddies, I’m tired of “coddling” them and “being nice” to them. They don’t respect the well being of the public and when they throw up law suits and bogus initiatives designed to thwart the progress of the public and destroy the ability of government to deliver services, why should we be “nice” to them?
Perhaps because they represent the will of the voters many, many times. Many, many times the voters have backed Tim Eyman because people haven’t a) seen a better idea – of which there are quite a few but very few are willing to stand up to Tim Eyman & Kemper Freeman and b) because the underlying anger at gov’t waste & overreach is quite legit and quite misplaced. The democratic will still matters to me and I say let the voters decide.
Besides, where’s your spirit of adventure?
Average Joe, Perhaps it’s that middle age thing. I want to be able to choose my battles and have it be for something new that makes society better rather than fighting the destructive forces that want to take something from the public.
As for “Will of the voters”, again, I can’t help being cynical when the voters are swayed by bread and circuses and their innate sense of selfishness is rewarded. It’s easy to push the fear button, but really hard to get people to think of community.
I recognize that impulse and that is why I’ve cautioned my compatriots here about over-reach on matters such as the VLF for roads and transit.
Charles, being 29 and feeling the onset of middle age (perhaps because I’ve had to be care for others before me, been in way too many campaigns and tired of losing) I am 100% in agreement, “I want to be able to choose my battles and have it be for something new that makes society better rather than fighting the destructive forces that want to take something from the public.”
Me too. Sometimes that means fighting a defensive battle, but I’m tired of Eyman’s constant lying and playing victim. It also means sending a message to moderate Republicans like Hague that there is still room and sends a message to the no-comprises ever crowd in my party that… well, compromise not stump speeches are essential to actually governing.
I too worry about as a special needs person how the me-me-ME lot is destroying our sense of community one vote at a time. Not anti-gov’t, just anti-waste for me. It’s also important to respect both progressives & conservatives in this mess…
Won’t State Supreme Court rule 1125 unconstitutional for including more than one subject? This is no reason not to vote against it after a strong effort to defeat it at the polls. The Washington State Legislature could have put Tim back selling watches after the court struck down his first effort twenty years ago.
Instead, they passed it themselves- simultaneously hurting transit opening state government to permanent ongoing financial damage. Experience proved that Tim Eyman was right about one thing: since our elected officials don’t have the backbone to stand by the constitution under pressure, voters have to be ready to make sure they do by voting.
Mark Dublin
I agree.
I hope it is defeated at the polls. I also hope that if is not defeated at the polls it will be declared unconstitutional.
This needs to stop on all sides. Council member Balducci was appointed by Executive Constantine. It should be no surprise that the executive is going to appoint people that are in line with his position; that’s the way the system works. Bellevue is much better off having someone on the board that agrees with those making the rules than having no representation at all. Talk to issues not innuendo.
I-1125
Once again Tim Eyman has me voting exactly as he wishes; no on I-1125. A failure of the initiative is the starting point of his next fund raising campaign. PT Barnum would be proud.
Also, have been thinking a lot lately about the Hillsboro incident involving the crying baby. Would like to know some things about working conditions at Tri-Met- especially including operator training and recovery time.
Half a block out of Atlantic yard on my first student run on a trolleycoach, my instructor, the late and really great Roland McVay, picked up a wheelblock and slammed it into the partition behind my seat, and then innocently asked me why I’d stopped the bus.
Not an instruction technique I would have used- not sure even the armed forces use it for bus drivers- but forgivable for the importance of the lesson. Also for the understanding that resistance to distraction, a serious life-and-death habit for transit operators, is teachable and learnable.
Ten years or so later, I deliberately picked a fall shake-up of a five-day weekday afternoon run on the Route 7. 60′ MAN trolleycoach, frequent standing loads, straight wire- in those days, looked at trolleydriving like there should have been bleachers full of screaming Italian fans on the turn from Jackson to Rainier.
Even so, six hours into an eight-hour shift, my passenger-relations skills took a turn for the wprse like moonlight hitting Lon Chaney. Work I picked, work I liked- but should either have had longer breaks or been six hours long.
I know Local 587 very likely really did have to decide between layover and layoffs. But this is one instance where the Federal Government should have had the power and wisdom to intervene. Understand accidents are up. Hope point isn’t made by somebody getting killed.
It’s not wrong that transit driving is hard. Many of us have been proud of it just for that. But like machinery, human beings have limits with consequences for violating. And passenger-handling is harder to learn than coach-handling. Auditors and accountants must know the reality their numbers represent.
Mark Dublin
Ya think!? I’m distressed that I agree with so many of McWacko’s positions and that left liberal Seattle can’t wait to vote this tree hugger out of office. FWIW, I think he’s done a stellar job handling the Occupy the Evening News Cycle protests.
Wow, I guess the good news is this driver wasn’t an airline pilot or the baby may have grown up with the nickname D.B. Sometimes it’s unpleasant riding “public” transportation. My gripe is parents that bring babies to concerts where there is an expectation of being able to hear the performance. Yes, I have a child and we just missed some things because raising the
ingratelove of my life was a choice.Just found ST’s announcement about 10pm closure of Westlake Station due to protests. If anyone is Downtown tonight, or has a scanner, please let us know firsthand what’s going on. Headed for TV to watch 10:00 news, but some other sources would be good.
Many thanks,
Mark Dublin
Seattle University recently rolled out the Redhawk UPass. It isn’t clear from the story whether this new card is a specially-branded ORCA or a flash pass.
A good read in the comments section on Streetcars over at Transport Politic this weekend.
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/10/10/the-appeal-of-modern-streetcars-continues-to-mount-but-there-are-obstacles-to-it-bringing-mobility-gains/#comments
Lots of food for thought.
One thing I’ve never understood is the large difference between SLUT and Tacoma Link. Both lines run a little over a mile, have similar ridership but different operating costs, when you factor in Metro’s 75% contribution to SLUT (excluding farebox revenue)
Maybe someone could do a guest post on Streetcar economics as everyone seems to support them here.
Sound Transit has unveiled their Draft Service Implementation Plan for 2012. Open houses are next week.
The big highlight, of course, is the beginning of South Tacoma and Lakewood Sounder service late in the year. The 593 goes away at that time.
There are tidbits there about what will happen in downtown Seattle in October of 2012 and the service plan for 2016 Link.
The Ride Free Area goes away September 29, 2010. (Executive summary, page 1) That’s a Saturday, so it’s probably the day of the fall service change.
Link on-time performance: “99.97 percent, the highest of any Sound Transit service.” (p 4)
Potential restructure of 560 when RapidRide F opens, and a potential restructure of the 588 (Auburn-Overlake). (summary p 5; full p 101) No specific routing or schedule known yet.
2017 wishlist (full p 102-104). None of this is funded yet, but some of it might be implemented if funds become available. 24-hour Link!!!! (30-minutes 1am-5am. The 4:40am Stadium southbound would start at Westlake or UW.) Most all-day buses would run until 1am every day: 510, 511, 522, 545, 550, 554, 574, 578 (replacing 577 on weekends), 594. Several of these would gain 15-minute frequency at all times: 511, 522, 545, 550. On 520, the 545 would run 10-minutes daytime, 15-minutes evening; and the 542 and 556 would each run 20-minutes daytime, 30-minutes evening.
99.97 percent of scheduled trips operated, not on-time performance.
The wishlist isn’t anything new. The 24-hour Link and bringing core bus routes up to Link service levels was in the last SIP.
I see there already starting to ‘walk back’ the ridership projections for U-Link (pg.108 SIP) to about 25,000 extra boardings on Central Link per weekday in 2017 (the first full year of operation). That’s a far cry from the 70,000 per day number tossed around so often for adding only two more stops. I’ll believe 15,000 per day in 2017, but that’s the beauty of guessing. Everyone’s an expert!
The 70,000 number is for U-Link + North Link in I believe 2030. The estimates in the EIS for just Capitol Hill and UW stations is much lower. Also the 2017 numbers are going to be less than the 2030 numbers.
You might want to ask the Seattle Times for a retraction.
“U Link is scheduled to open in 2016. It is expected to serve an estimated 70,000 new light rail riders daily in one of the most densely populated areas on the West Coast, according to Sound Transit” (May 18th, 2011). I’m sure I can dredge up some others if you need them.
If the Times said it, it must be true.
Perhaps a quote from Ben would help.
Ben Schiendelman says:
July 22, 2008 at 11:30 pm
“Hell yes. It was a $350 million station that would have lost us a $750 million grant – we saved $1.1 billion and lost only 5,000 daily boardings. U Link will get us 70,000 daily boardings in 2020 without it!”
We all know that what Ben says trumps any official documents.
My point was that the 70,000 number has been part of the ‘talking points’quoted in various circles (news, STB, etc). It’s also been quoted by ST Board members from time to time as justification for the project. I’m not trying to make a big deal out of it, but just that some actual projections for the 1st full year are making it into official service planning documents.
I’m sorry that facts ruffle your feathers so much, such as pointing out Airport Link quoted ridership of 47,000 per weekday by 2020 in PSRC grant proposals, and now have been scaled back to about 70% of that in the SIP. Even that is probably a stretch.
Mike, I seriously doubt ridership numbers for U Link and North Link will be as disappointing as the Central/Airport Link numbers have been. Even there the ridership has been building, just more slowly than ST initially predicted.
In order to set appropriate expectations ST should try to ensure it has the most accurate numbers possible for U-Link ridership estimates. These will change over time as the data the estimates are based on change over time.
Yes, I agree. A lot will be determined by Metro when it comes to making some hard decisions on route truncation, like the 70 series, 43, 49, 66, etc. They all have a local component to fulfill, as well as a U-dist to Broadway component. Slogging their way down to Univ. of Wash Stn along 15th to Montlake is going to be very painful twice a day. I’m figuring about half the routes and half that ridership gets put on U-Link for the rest of the trip, so that’s maybe 6,000 to 12,000 transfers a day, then everyone else will be new riders to Link.
It will be interesting to watch how the FTA reacts to ST’s report on Airport Link (Before and After Study). A lot depends on who’s in power in the nut house in DC at the time it comes out. Region 10 FTA looks pretty silly loaning all that cash on Link that effectively made the trip twice as expensive as the bus (excluding debt) or 4 times if you do include it, takes 22% longer for the trip, and has a worse on-time performance rating than the 194 did (83% to 95% on-time). U-Link should be raising some eyebrows if the numbers come in as crappy as SeaTac did, and probably cost the region a Billion or so on East and North Link projects.
Of course, that’s all crystal ball crap. Who knows? Huh.
Wow, lots of little mistakes. Those routes go to either Broadway OR CBD.
FTA was a grant, not a loan.
Anyway, this thread is dead, so nobody’s going to read it anyway!
Wait wait wait. Even more confusion. The number I’d heard tossed around was 70,000 per day for U-Link plus Central Link, not “70,000 more” than on Central Link alone. And that was the number with the First Hill station.
Freeman could be doing LINK a huge backhanded favor.
It is insane that we are not taking advantage when building the new 520 of coloring it towards heavy transit usage.
The U District to Bellevue to Overlake to Redmond route would have phenomenal ridership.
When would 520 Link open? 2030? 2040? The process for siting the line east of the bridge hasn’t even been started. That means ten more years of slogging through traffic on the bridge, and waiting half an hour for the bus. People have been doing that for thirty years and they want rapid transit now, not in twenty years. Whatever the flaws of the I-90 plan, it’s far further along and voter-approved. We’ve waited long enough, just build it.
John, please see: Why Link Will Cross I-90 First
I-90 is the best route for the first line between Seattle and the East Side. There may be a need for a 520 line in the future but it isn’t the one you build first.
I’ve seen it, and I’ve outlined arguments against it in this blog.
Maybe it was even you who told me this to do so in the first place.
I guess that’s the problem of not having a real world commenting system that tracks things like Disqus…
The initiative is written such that light rail cannot be constructed on ANY highway facility funded by tolls or gas tax dollars. Therefore, if I-1125 passes and is upheld in court, light rail could not be constructed on the new 520 bridge either. Basically, Sound Transit would need to build a new bridge across Lake Washington with its own funding source… essentially killing the project altogether.
Hmmm…that’s not a bad idea anyway.
Quite frankly my own desire would be to entirely eliminate 520 and force all rubber wheeled traffic south to I-90 and I-405.
Then, LINK could make a rail bridge across the lake for its own use.
Well, it’s not that easy John. Sound Transit doesn’t have an extra $2 billion+ to construct a new bridge, and regardless of whether or not passenger cars are using the bridge, Sound Transit couldn’t use either the existing 520 bridge or the to-be-constructed bridge, since both were/will be funded with gas taxes and/or tolls. So, Sound Transit is still in a position in which it would have to build its own bridge.
Note that the historically poorly written/researched West Seattle Herald strikes again. The southbound bike lane will extend to 35th according to the SDOT website, not just to SW Yancy. Or am I reading something incorrectly?
oh, now I get it. The part-way up the hill bike lane (gee, that’s swell! Especially for the many cyclists who join Avalon at Yancy!) is only installed now because of the looming viaduct shut down and it will eventually be extended to 35th. I don’t see a part-way up the hill bike lane really being of much use in the end, since any new cyclists will have to continue to be intimidated on that hill. And at the steepest part yet. Hopefully traffic will be so congested that it will be moving slower than normal.
Interesting to hear in the OneBusAway article that the transit agencies are also looking at Open Trip Planner, and I see on their wiki that Tri-Met is launching an OTP beta site really soon, on Oct 15:
https://github.com/openplans/OpenTripPlanner/wiki/
Obviously Metro’s GPS implementation will really help with accurate tracking too!