Last night Feet First (great pedestrian advocacy group) hosted their second Walk & Talk tour guided by Tom Rasmussen. The tour started in the Triangle of West Seattle (bounded by 35th, Alaska, and Fauntleroy) and headed east stopping at destinations along the way, ending at a casual reception.
The first stop was the YMCA followed by the new “Link” development. The Triangle is an interesting area. Up until just a year or two ago the whole area consisted mostly of light manufacturing and auto dealership, a large number of which are out of business now. The area is prime for redevelopment, due to its location and underlying zoning. As a casual observer of developments in this area over the last few years it’s interesting how omnipresent the themes of transition and parking are.
Over the last few weeks the bicycle community has been frustrated by the “road diet” discussion. The thought is, road diets are implicitly good, so why aren’t more people supportive of them? Why aren’t opponents of plans swayed by the fact that streets that undergo road diets have been shown to have enough capacity? And why don’t opponents seem to care about the safety of pedestrians, cyclist and motorist alike?
Seattle Likes Bikes, Publicola, Seattle Bike Blog, and the SDOT blog have all weighed in, mostly in response to the now infamous article by Nicole Brodeur of the Seattle Times, although the discussion certainly applies to every project that aims to improve safety. The consensus is that discussion about these projects must not become car vs. bike, both because these projects are not about that and because this construct does not allow for a productive discussion on how to improve the road for all users. Road diets or whatever you want to call them are about making our roads work better and more safely for everyone. It would probably be better to call them “safety and operational enhancement projects” because that really is what they are.
They make left turns easier and safer, make through travel smother, allow pedestrians to safely cross previously dangerous intersections, and allocate space for bicyclist to safely ride out of the way of motorist. As someone who lived close to Stone Way before and after the road diet I can tell you it did wonders regardless of whether I was driving, biking or walking.
Today at 9am KUOW will have a piece on road diets, which unfortunately doesn’t seem to be very balanced. Tune in and if you feel so compelled call or e-mail KUOW your comments.
This weekend citizens, elected officials, WSDOT staff and media had the opportunity to tour the midspan section of the bridge.
The event began with short speeches by Secretry Hammond, Rep. White, and Rep. Eddy. They all emphasized that WSDOT is now “counting down to construction” for the floating and Eastside segments of the project. They also emphasized that transit is important in the project and that pre-construction tolling is starting this spring.
Connie Niva then gave a bit of background on Aubrey Davis, who was then honored by WSDOT for his years of work on trans-lake transportation issues, especially in relation to his work with the Washington State Transportation Commission. He was intimately involved in the creation of Metro in the 70’s. WSDOT is a highway building agency, but it certainly is one of the most progressive DOT’s out there, and Aubrey Davis had a large hand in that.
The rest of the tour was pretty casual, with lots of jokes about how it’s not every day you get to walk and relax on the bridge, despite the fact that everyone has crossed it many, many times. I personally was surprised how quiet it was and it was just a surreal experience.
The bridge maintenance crews opened the draw span and able bodied persons had the chance to climb down into the pontoons. The bridge is four compartments wide, with watertight bulkheads on the outer compartments. A man I spoke to said they were probably added after the first I-90 bridge sunk, although he wasn’t completely sure.
It would be great to see this in locations where businesses don’t have room on the sidewalk or there simply is too much demand for outdoor seating. This type of seating would however requires a change in state law if the establishment serves alcohol. I personally think this is key for activating public spaces. Cafe and bar patrons are about the “hardiest” type of customer you can have. They’ll put up with just about anything, sit around for a long time, activate the space, and expand the time frame during which people are out. Add umbrellas and cheap blankets and outdoor seating becomes practical for a majority of the year, even in much colder climates like Stockholm. These types of establishments thrive 5-6 months a year there.
Today WSDOT is launching the first ATMS corridor (aka Smarter Highways) on northbound I-5 at 11am. Over the last year I have written about it here and here. This is the first ATMS system in the United States, and certainly is on the cutting edge of traffic management. Look for updates to this posts throughout the day as other media outlits report on it. I hope to vist the Traffic Managment Center tomorrow afternoon to watch the system in action.
Without doing much we have amassed quite a large twitter following and we wanted to say thanks to all our followers and make sure everyone else knew we were on twitter. As some of our followers might have noticed we have been much more active over the last few weeks (thanks to new smartphones) and we hope to take our twitter account up a notch.
In addition to the basic “On the blog:” tweets, look to our twitter account for transit related retweets, photos, videos, and blurbs that might not make it onto the blog but are interesting or funny nevertheless. Our tweeting will pick up during transit related events and meetings or when major travel disruptions occur. We hope our twitter account gives everyone, you and use alike, the ability to communicate and chat in a more fluid and casual manner.
So if you aren’t following us go here and add us. We use our twitter account to follow news from specific sources so please forgive us if we don’t add you back. However, if you want to get our attention just tag us at @seatransitblog and we’ll get back to you.
Also for your information there’s an effort on the back burner to get all this integrated, but for various technology reasons Sherwin (@sherwinhlee) and Oran (@oranv) have active feeds, heavily transit-oriented, and yet not part of the seatransitblog feed. Check those out too!
We are quickly coming up on the opening of the RapidRide A line. While I’m very excited that Metro is testing a proof of payment (POP) system, I’m worried that the trial is set up in a way that makes eventual adoption less likely.
From my understanding the trial is set up like this. All RapidRide stations will have ORCA card readers. When boarding at these stations ORCA card users tap their card at the station and then board at any door. Those that don’t have an ORCA card board at the front door and pay with the driver. At normal stops all riders must board at the front door either using the ORCA card reader onboard or paying with the driver. All riders will be required to have proof of payment, with the implication that fare inspectors will ask to see it. I’m not too clear on this last point, and I get the feeling Metro isn’t either.
The problem with this design is that you have all of the problems associate with either fare systems without getting all of the benefits. Traditional pay as you board systems are good because drivers enforce fare payment (sort of), but as everyone knows it can be painfully slow, especially when people pay with cash. Conversely POP systems are bad because you have to employ fare enforcers, but are good because they significantly decreases dwell times by eliminating fare transactions with the driver, allowing for all door boarding, and improving internal circulation. In the case of RapidRide Metro will have to employ fare enforcers but won’t see all the time savings, because cash payments will still be processed by the driver. Additionally, this system is incompatible with the ride free area which will affect lines C, D and E and is confusing since payment process varies from one stop to the next.
RapidRide B - Downtown Bellevue to Downtown Redmond via Microsoft
Metro is asking for community members to help plan future bus service in Redmond and Bellevue as part of the introduction of the RapidRide B line. Here is the press release.
King County Metro Transit is considering changes to Eastside bus routes that currently serve parts of Bellevue and Redmond to prepare for the arrival of the RapidRide B Line in 2011.
The B Line is part of Metro’s new Bus Rapid Transit system. It will run between the transit centers in downtown Bellevue and Redmond via Crossroads and Overlake. As part of the planning for the B Line, Metro is forming a community sounding board that will provide advice about public outreach and what changes to bus service would be best for the local communities.
In order to maximize bus routes and avoid duplicating service, Metro will consider routing changes, schedule adjustments, or consolidation of approximately 20 existing routes, including: 221, 222, 225, 229, 230, 233, 240, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 253, 261, 265, 266, 271, 272, and 926.
The Seattle City Council intends to postpone signing three tunnel agreements with the state until January or February, Councilmember Sally Bagshaw just announced. The council will vote next week on a resolution instead, showing its commitment to the tunnel and saying the city isn’t responsible for cost overruns.
What! You don’t see a parking lot? Just a beautiful and relaxing sandy oasis with a killer view and beer! Keep looking. See it yet? I visited this hidden oasis while visiting a few friends in Berlin. It’s located on the top floor of the Schönhauser Allee Arcaden parking garage in north Berlin, which is at the intersection of the S-Bahn ring (S41 clockwise, S42 counter-clockwise,S2, S25, S8,S85) and U2 as well as M1 tram line. Needless to say they built too much parking. Who would have guessed? I can think of one place in Seattle this might work.
Last night Josh Cohen touched on a very salient point that I have felt for a while. Put simply the four year old Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) feels incredibly out of date. Check out the whole piece here.
The BMP language does illustrate how fast the best practices for building bike facilities have evolved and how important the BMP five-year review (scheduled to begin in 2011) will be for Seattle’s bike infrastructure.
Portland and New York City are leading the way in America’s experiments with separated on-road bicycle infrastructure. Portland has a parking-protected cycletrack similar to the proposed lanes on Dexter Ave. and Admiral Way in Seattle. NYC has a few cycletracks separated by raised cement islands and raised lane-divider poles (as seen in the photo above). But these separated facilities were all installed within the last year or two. When Seattle set to work on the BMP in 2006 and 2007, Portland and NYC’s separated infrastructure was but a twinkle in some ambitious planner’s eyes.
Bicycle infrastructure planning has come a long way in the four years since the BMP’s was introduced. With goals to “increase the comfort of bicyclists on roadways” and “indicate the appropriate location to ride on the roadway with respect to moving traffic and parked cars,” it’s clear that the vehicular cycling school of riding had a major influence on the original draft. Though the tenets of vehicular cycling are useful for safe bicycling, the school’s opposition to separated facilities are fairly outdated. Unsurprisingly, Portland’s own BMP has a thorough and detailed facilities best practice section (a valuable read for the geekiest of our transportation-loving readers).
If you want to learn more about the BMP and segregated facilities come to the Great City brown bag today. It promises an interesting and very well attending meeting.
Yesterday King 5 released a poll of Seattle voters. The poll shows that Seattle voters are evenly split 47%/46% for or against the tunnel with a 4.5% margin of error. While these results are a toss-up, all of the other results bode poorly for tunnel supporters. For example 81% of voters are very or somewhat concerned about cost overruns. 52% think that the state should be responsible for cost overruns, 63%want to wait till the state agrees to pay for cost overruns, and 58% want a public vote on the issue. More after the jump.
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.
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.
SDOT has released four renderings and a very slick video (above via Slog) showing what Broadway could look like if the CHCC desgin was selected. Although I’m fairly certain that SDOT has not made any decision yet on which design to build, this certainly shows they are moving towards this design. On closer analysis you will see that only a few blocks actually have the cross section that CHCC advocated for. Most of the other blocks have the 3-lane design (two travel lanes, a turn lane and one parking lane) with the cycle track added on. The only turn restrictions appear to be SB to EB at Pine, NB to WB at Pike, and SB to EB at Terrace. At all other locations a left turn lane is provided.
Everything with SR-520 has been moving at a fast clip over the last few months and for the first time it seems like consensus is starting to build around a single design. To me this consensus is emerging because city leaders have finally asserted themselves and WSDOT and state leaders are finally making meaningful changes (but not necessary concessions) that are good for neighbors, transit, and non-motorized users.
The Seattle City Council and Mayor have taken a very active role in this project since the last election. In April the Council laid out what needed to change and last week’s revised design in some ways goes beyond what the Council asked for. To his credit, most of what the Council asked for was discussed in the Nelson/Nygaard Project Enhancement Report McGinn commissioned. While the city has been engaged for many years it feels likeit has only recently taken a proactive role. More below the jump. (more…)
We have talked a lot about transit across SR-520 over the last few months, but I don’t think we have ever mentioned what the adopted plan for the corridor is. The plan calls for increased bus service during SR-520 construction with BRT service phased in afterwards. The plan also touches on the Montlake Triangle and light rail over SR-520. Both of these sections are somewhat redundant, as imminent planning or recent studies cover these issues in more detail.
Five BRT lines (see map above) would have two-ways service with 7- to 10-minute headways during peak periods, 15-minute headways mid-day, and 15- to 30-minutes headways in the evenings. Under this plan the 255 and 271 become BRT routes. The plan says that $16.5 million per year (in 2008 dollars) will be needed to fully fund the additional 130,000 service hours identified in the plan. I believe that 38,000 to 48,000 service hours have already been funded through ST2 and the ferry district tax, but money for another ~90,000 service hours is needed. This lack of identified funding sources is in my opinion one of the largest unaddressed issues for transit in the SR-520 planning. A funding plan (supported by toll money?) has to be written in stone or else I have very little confidence that the hostile state leadership will allow or authorize more funding.
Cycle Zone Analysis (top) vs. Bikeability Analysis (bottom)
In December 2008 the City of Portland and Alta Planning released an analysis they called a “Cycle Zone Analysis” (top two maps above). Although somewhat qualitative it identify the strengths and weaknesses of bicycling in different zone of the city. Myself and many other professions were very excited about this because it helped to fill a gap in non-motorized transportation planning and analysis.
Most non-motorized transportation planning is based on citizen input through needs analysis. Essentially someone will say “there is a need here”, like lack of sidewalk, or lots of bicyclist use this road, etc. This is an extremely important part of transportation planning, after all if you don’t know what is wrong how can you solve it. But stopping there, as many plans do, leaves you with distinct problems. First you aren’t able to easily compare how important a project is. This is especially important when identified projects far outstrips funds, sound familiar? Also this make it hard to quantify or understand from a long range planning perspective what your strengths and weaknesses are, and in turn how to best build off your strengths and mitigate your weaknesses.
The Bike-Share Studio in the UW College of the Built Environment released a feasibility report commissioned by SDOT. It’s a very good starting point for any future bike-share proposal and does a excellent job of outlining the possibilities but also limitations and obstacles that a bike-share system will have to overcome, especially with relation to policy. Publicola’s Josh Cohen has a good post on it so won’t spend time rewriting what he already wrote. I have included a few comments and thoughts that came to mind after reading the report.
The Mayor’s office just sent out a press release announcing that he is asking the City Council to approve the two-way Broadway alignment. This is the recommendation made by SDOT. This isn’t a surprise but what caught my eye were a few details that I have bolded.
… There are many advantages to the recommended route. The Broadway/Jackson route is estimated to cost approximately $125 million, comfortably within the maximum Sound Transit funding limit of $132.8 million, and will provide an efficient and accessible new transit option. The route also presents opportunities to rethink the Broadway streetscape in ways that support walking, biking and riding transit. In the Chinatown/International District, the Jackson Street route and the Pioneer Square loop integrate well with other transit and connect First Hill and Capitol Hill to this historic district and the adjacent stadium district.
The mayor is committed to developing plans to address the key transit issues that stakeholders identified throughout this process, including:
Improving transit access to the Boren/Madison area, through measures such as speed and reliability improvements to existing Metro routes;
Developing alternatives that provide north-south transit service in the 12th Avenue corridor; and
Extending the First Hill Streetcar to the north end of Broadway, to support the economic revitalization of Broadway and improve neighborhood access to the Capitol Hill light rail station.
All of this bodes well, although certainly doesn’t ensure anything.
