We were just informed that the Sound Transit board will discuss a “fare simplification/coordination and rate change” proposal at this Thursday’s board meeting Operations and Administration Committe. The initial draft of the fare proposal can be found here. Information about the meeting can be found here.
From my cursory skimming of the proposal the biggest news is not the fare changes themselves; as ST’s fare have only increased once since 1999 compared to four times with CT, Metro and PT. Rather the big news is the structural changes underlying them. ST Express bus service would see the largest structural changes, shifting from a Sound Transit subarea basis to a county basis.
The image above outlines the proposed changes to fare structure as well as price. I’m under the impression that this structural change is an effort to bring ST’s fare structure more in line with the county operated transit operators. In coordination with county agencies this could possibly leading to a harmonized although not necessarily unified fare structure.
The other change is to increase Link’s base fare by $0.25 cents and eliminating the distance-based portion of the fare for youth and senior/disabled. This will cut the number of possible link fares in half from 12 to 6 and bring youth and senior fares in line with Metro’s bus fares next year.
The Seattle Times will have a story with interviews tomorrow and I’m sure Martin will contribute more analysis in the coming days, especially since he wrote about fares here just a few days ago.
I’ll just leave you with a few thoughts. To me there are three competing objectives when designing fare structures; equity, ease of use, and system efficiency. Depending on the historical precedence and context of the transit system these competing objectives lead to different fare structures. Flat fares are easy to use but create large winners and losers and don’t manage demand well. Zone based systems are harder to understand, make the system more fair and more efficient. Distance based fares are complex, more fair and more or less lead to efficient use of the transit supply. In Seattle’s context equity and ease of use will be the two competing objectives that will shape any fare structure change. Stay tuned for more details in the coming days.
The Times reports that safety legislation that aims to reduced distracted driving has passed in the House, although less encompassing in form than what originally passed in the Senate. The House bill would limit 16- and 17-year old drivers from using cell phones for calling or texting. Unlike the original Senate bill it does not change driving while talking on a phone without a hands free device from a secondary offense to a primary offense for all other drivers.
The House’s failure to change this just begs drivers to break the law. Its like saying the speed limit is 55 but police can’t give you a ticket unless you are driving 70. Laws must be readily enforceable or else they are pointless. Half measures like this lead to abuse, making it that much harding to change behavior when the law is strengthened. And the state is already seeing abuse of the current secondary offense based law. A PEMCO study shows that over the last 20 months talking on a cell phone without a hands free device has increase from 17% to 43% and 3% to 20% for texting.
What really gets me is quotes like this from Rep. Dan Roach (R-Bonney Lake) ”The libertarian in me comes out with these types of issues”… “It’s not a Democrat and Republican issue. It’s a personal-choice issue.” Huh?
Drinking and driving isn’t a personal choice it is a public safety issue. Distracted driving isn’t any different.
Previously, I wrote about how the quality of a transfer is affected by headways of the two transit lines, usually rail and bus. While this certainly is the most important determinant, the physical design of transfer stations is also important in creating higher quality transfer experiences. Walking time is important, and correspondingly factored into travel demand models.
Factors harder to quantify are also important. How visible is the connection? Do you have to cross a street? Is there weather protection? Are there seats? Transfer stations should communicate a unified and easy to use system which is approachable by those that don’t usually take transit or buses. Essentially, quality transfer stations are necessary to effectively motivate users to transfer, but insufficient on their own.
To illustrate this point I took two videos of transfers between Stockholm’s Metro (Tunnelbana Red Line T13), and two different bus terminals. The video above is exactly what you want to do. The video below is exactly what you don’t want to do. To simply say a transfer is “only 900 ft” or “only takes 3 minutes”, is missing the point. There is a good way to do it and a bad way to do it. Of course the transfer quality shouldn’t be the only factors looked at, but it certainly shouldn’t be overlooked.
Well talk about a busy week. If only all weeks could be this exciting. I wanted to pass everything along ASAP because we have a good amount of competition from Capitol Hill Seattle and Central District news when it comes to pushing time sensitive news out and I don’t want us to be the last. All documents can be found at the streetcar website.
The engineering drawings have been updated as well as some new analysis added.
UPDATE 1:45: To me the least interesting part of the report is the accessibility report which states the obviously just in technical terms. Essentially there is a pretty steep hill between Broadway and 12th Ave (duh) and any kind of moving sidewalk or escalator is ridiculously expensive (duh). The most interesting part is the new information on how the streetcar will impact bicycles done by Alta. The key findings are:
The Two-Way Broadway and Pioneer Square loop alignments maximize cyclist comfort and maintain bicycle system quality.
Streetcar tracks along 5th Avenue south of Jackson create challenges for cyclists accessing King Street.
The Minor/Boren couplet has the highest potential to negatively impact cycling conditions. These impacts occur primarily through the installation of tracks on roadways that already present significant challenges to a cyclist (e.g., roadway speed, and number of potential vehicle conflicts).
The Broadway/Boylston alignment could provide good connectivity while minimally impacting the cycling environment. There are some design challenges created by tight intersection geometry and irregular left turns. Alternate cycling routes may be necessary through this area.
Installing streetcar tracks on any portion of 12th Avenue will result in degradation of a key north/south cycling corridor.
Jackson Street presents significant challenges for adequately accommodating all transportation modes. The City should consider designating King Street as the preferred bicycle travel corridor, optimize the street for bicycle travel and provide enhanced wayfinding signage to direct people to the facility.
Many intersections on the proposed study corridor present potential hazards for cyclists turning left due in part the juxtaposition of offset roadway grids. As the track alignment is further refined, bicycle friendly design solutions specific to each intersection will be finalized.
The several potential alignments in the northern (Broadway) portion of the corridor include loop options along 11th and 12th Avenues that would create either clockwise or counterclockwise streetcar service. Ether option will need to carefully be designed to include bike lanes and minimize the loss of parking where possible.
Well none of us were able to make it to the press conference this morning but here are some news clippings. [Update from Sherwin 5:34pm: The Seattle Channel has full video coverage of the event here.]
From what I have gathered it was an interesting showing of elected officials from all level of government, something very unusual. It appears that there are divergent opinions among those advocating for something besides the A+, i.e. better transit connections for some, narrower footprint for others, less traffic for others, but the fact that House Speaker Chopp, Senator Murray, Rep. Pedersen, Mayor McGinn and City Council members Licata and O’Brien were all in attendance is interesting never-the-less. Stay tuned.
Coverage from those that actually get paid to report below the jump.
While most discussions about what transit can do for the environment almost always revolve around climate change, transit is part of a larger set of tools that are critical to save the Puget Sound. Frontline has a great documentary that looks at the environmental challenges that both the Chesapeake Bay and the Puget Sound are facing.
For the Puget Sound one of the most significant threats is surface runoff caused by impervious surfaces. Limiting sprawl and creating dense, and thus more transit dependent communities is one part of the solution. Reducing runoff through Low-Impact Development (LID) is another. I’m no expert and I know just enough to be dangerous so I’ll leave it there but certainly check out the documentary. Its very informative, both about what causes polluted waters as well as government regulations, or lake there of.
Highest Weekday Ridership Routes, Spring 2009 (click for more routes)
This data (click the image to see more routes) is a tad dated but I think everyone will enjoy taking a look and seeing how their favorite routes stack up.
Back when I wrote at Orphanroad.com I did a series with some similar ridership data (Part 1, Part 2). I didn’t directly compare the ridership figures because they aren’t directly comparable, so cross your eyes a bit if you want to compare them. I have only included routes with more than 1,000 daily riders. Also note that these figures are not direct measures and created using sampling and some fancy statistics.
The next shakeup should complete the most significant change Seattle’s transit system has seen in many years and it will be interesting to see how it impacts ridership on specific routes. At first blush I would expect the 8 to gain a good amount of ridership. It is becoming a center city version of the 44 and 48. And can’t the the 48 get any love… or Rapidride branding, TSP, off-board fare payment and maybe some real-time information?
Earlier this week Senator Kastama (D-Puyallup) proposed a new bill (SB 6410) which if passed would slash the maximum allowable fine a city can level with automated traffic safety cameras.
The cameras have reduced red light running by 59.4% at 4 test intersections in Seattle and have proven to be modestly effective in a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) study. It is important to note that while the FHWA study shows that automated traffic safety cameras increase the occurrence of rear-end accidents, this has not occurred in Seattle. Therefore, the safety benefits in Seattle’s context are most likely greater than the report indicates (because improved safety from a reduction of right-angle collisions are often partially offset by an increase in rear-end collisions). Seattle’s low arterial speed limit probably contributes to this anomaly.
Senator Kastama
The bill would change the following sentence from:
…the amount of the fine issued for an infraction generated through the use of an automated traffic safety camera shall not exceed the amount of a fine issued for other parking infractions within the jurisdiction.
to
…the amount of the fine issued for an infraction generated through the use of an automated traffic safety camera shall not exceed the average amount of ((a)) fines issued for other parking infractions within the jurisdiction.
Human Transit, a very technical and theory focused transit blog by Australia based Jarrett Walker, this weekend posted and article about the unique benefits that Seattle enjoys when it comes to transit. He uses Seattle as an example of how chokepoints, in Seattle’s case geographically created chokepoints, creates very valuable opportunities for transit to becomes more competitive with cars, compared to cities that have few chokepoints. Jarrett writes:
If you want a real focus for sustainable transport improvements, however, look for chokepoints.
A chokepoint is anywhere in the transport network where many different trip paths have to go through the same point to get past a geographic barrier. Bridges and tunnels are chokepoints. So are mountain passes. Wherever a steep hill is right next to a body of water, the little ledge in between them is a chokepoint, as it often only has room for one road, or a road plus a single track of rail.
No North American city has more chokepoints than Seattle. The city itself consists of three peninsulas with narrow water barriers between them. Further barriers are created by steep hills in most parts of the city. Nowhere in Seattle can you travel in a straight line for more than a few miles without going into the water or over a cliff.
Seattle’s geographical isolation from its suburbs, of course, means it is also surrounded by chokepoints. There are only two bridges across Lake Washington to the east, and to take your car across Puget Sound on the west you have to use a car ferry, which means your trip will be no faster or more frequent than that of a transit passenger.
Transit planning is frustrating in such a place, but road planning is even more so. Ultimately, Seattle’s chokepoints have the effect of reducing much of the complex problem of mode share to a critical decision about a strategic spot. If you give transit an advantage through a chokepoint, you’ve given it a big advantage over a large area.
He continues:
The lesson of Seattle is that successful transit infrastructure responds to demand, and what drives transit demand is high overall travel demand plus serious barriers to driving. In Seattle, a lot of the barriers to driving take the form of hassle and delay, due to limited capacity through chokepoints.
In other words chokepoints act as an equalizers between transit and cars. Give priority to transit at the chokepoint and you improve its relative attractiveness over cars to a large area. The westbound 3+ HOV lane on SR-520 is a great example.
The relative attractiveness between cars and transit is most commonly model using a logitmodel. As the attractiveness of transit and cars begin to equalize something interesting happens. Each time transit becomes more attractive, through a reduced travel time of 2 minutes for example, the marginal mode share increases even more than it did for the last 2 minutes of travel time savings. Simply put a travel time savings of 2 minutes is more important when the travel time of car and transit are already close or getting closer. If a car takes 30 minutes but transit takes 50 minutes a 2 minute improvement doesn’t mean much. But if a car takes 30 minutes and transit takes 34 minutes a 2 minute improvement does much more to gain new riders.
This is why Chokepoints like SR-520 eastbound, where transit can travel as fast or faster than cars, especially during peak periods, are places where transit is so competitive with cars. And as Jarrett points out chokepoints are where this confluence of events naturally occur. Read his full post here. There are some good things in it!
UPDATE 1:15 – Jarrett has posted a follow-up piece here.
This is a lighthearted interview about some of the priorities that LaHood and the administration are pushing. While he has many priorities one that seams particularly close to his heart has been to improve the safety of all road users by starting to make sure that the public is aware of the significant risks posed by drivers using cell phone to talk or text message. A few months ago he held a Distracted Driving summit in DC to highlight these issues and get the ball rolling on addressing the problem. Locally the Driven to Distraction Task Force, which from what I can tell is pretty new, is starting to organize and tackle these problems as well. They created the video below.
Don’t forget the First Hill streetcar community open house tonight starting at 6pm in Seattle Central Community College. It doesn’t say a specific room but the meetings are usually at the southern end of the building and are well marked.
Details:
Tuesday, December 15, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Seattle Central Community College (1701 Broadway)
Wednesday, December 16, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Yesler Community Center (917 E Yesler Way)
Thursday, December 17, 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Union Station (401 S Jackson Street)
SDOT has just released engineering drawing of the First Hill streetcar alternatives. The alternatives are still generally along 12th Ave, Boren and Broadway with a few refinements. As reported yesterday, all alternatives will use 11th Ave as a couplet with Broadway. The Boren alternative has seen the most revisions with the Broadway and 12th Ave alternatives sharing refinements. I have included links to the PDFs below.
There are two alternatives for the southern most segment in the International District. The first is more direct, staying on Jackson St and either ending where the waterfront streetcar used to end or in a loop that gets closer to Pioneer Square. The other option uses Weller St in Chinatown to turn around, returning to Jackson at 7th Ave. It also has the option for a loop that gets closer to Pioneer Square.
The Stranger and Capitol Hill Seattle are reporting that all three of the alternatives will include a one-way couplet on Broadway and 11th Ave roughly between Madison and Denny.
The 11th Avenue segment would be:
* Northbound from Madison to Denny with the Two-Way Broadway option;
* Northbound from Union to Denny with the Boren option;
* Southbound from Denny to Union with the Broadway-12th couplet option.
I have a call into SDOT asking about the reason for the couplet as well as how it will affect travel time and if this means that the streetcar might enjoy some level of exclusive right-of-way. Later today I should be receiving detailed maps of the different alternatives so look for an update sometime later today.
UPDATE: Ethan Melone just got back to me. His response to my questions are below. I also just received maps and images for tomorrow meetings and I’m in the process of uploading them.
Q: Are the alignments the same besides the 11th Ave segment?
A: Yes, the alignments are otherwise the same south of Union or Madison street.
Q: Why 11th?
A: 10th does not continue through to the light rail station, because of Cal Anderson Park and Bobby Morris Playfield. 11th provides an opportunity to loop around the park to the terminus station. This loop has several advantages including:
simplest and most efficient turnback option for streetcar service;
easier to avoid bike conflicts with tracks in only one direction on Broadway between Madison and Denny (see proposed roadway section on forthcoming drawings);
improved reliability with only one direction of travel impacted by traffic congestion in this section of Broadway;
reduced construction impacts;
fewer utility conflicts.
Q: Does this mean there will be any exclusive ROW?
A: We do not see this as exclusive right-of-way from Denny to Union. It might be exclusive from Madison to Union or possibly Madison to Pike.
Q: How will this affect travel time?
A: The travel time is estimated to be the same as, if not shorter than, two-way on Broadway in this segment. We have not taken into account yet the travel time savings that might be possible if we provide signal priority at 11th & Pine and 11th & Pike (the latter would be a new signal).
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.
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.
