Neither is Dan Bertolet, the former HugeAssCity blogger who now posts at Publicola. Last Friday, he provided some data about the development potential of a station build next to 405 versus one that serves Bellevue Transit Center. Some arguing for a 405 station have incredulously claimed that a stop along the highway would have more transit-oriented development (TOD) potential, but according to Bertolet’s data, there’s much more developable land near the transit center. That land has the potential to hold many more jobs and residents:

The Bellevue Transit Center has more TOD potential than a stop near 405. (Image and data from Publicola.)

Most of us know what greenwashing is; it’s when an otherwise terrible thing for the environment is promoted as green — such as advertisements in the bus tunnel proudly proclaiming that a local car dealership is carbon neutral. We’re seeing that cynical mindset spread to a new area in the Seattle region as transit options become more politically popular. Now we have transitwashing. Promoting ideas that seriously, adversely damage public transit’s usefulness being sold as something transit-friendly.

Claiming a freeway stop has development potential because there are a bunch of low-density lots across a large interstate is transitwashing, and Bertolet proves it.

Walkshed for various East Link rail alignments through downtown Bellevue. Dark orange is five minutes of walking distance, with light orange representing ten minutes of walking distance.

That C14E alignment, Kevin Wallace’s 405 station, performs the poorest for good reason. We shouldn’t build a station right next to a freeway and we should instead put the line downtown. According to the report, the other alignments serve nearly all of the 79,000 jobs downtown expected by 2030; Wallace’s proposal leaves fully one-fifth of downtown workers unable to walk to work from a station within a reasonable time. More than half of downtown residents by 2030 will be unable to walk to a light rail station within ten minutes. The high capture walkshed, 5 or less minutes, for Wallace’s alignment is pitiful with just 27% and 7% of jobs and households, respectively.

If Wallace’s proposal to site a station on an interstate highway isn’t good for Bellevue’s downtown workers, downtown businesses, or downtown residents, then who is it good for?

Walkshed table from Sound Transit's report.

For discussion on the other alignments in the above graphics, read Ben’s post covering the report on new East Link options.

Update from Ben: I just noticed one more thing about these maps, and I doubt it’s a coincidence. We know 10 minutes is pretty much the outside of what people are willing to walk from a station. The largest block in the downtown square, on the left edge in the middle, is Bellevue Square. C14E is the only option that puts Bellevue Square distinctly outside that 10 minute walk. Kemper Development spokesman Bruce Nurse called me “presumptuous” for suggesting that Kemper doesn’t want transit users to go to Bellevue Square. Apparently “presumptuous” means “absolutely correct!”

C11A Visualization of the Bellevue Transit Center

Sound Transit and the City of Bellevue have just released their joint analysis (PDF) of the East Link options for downtown Bellevue. East Link project manager Don Billen briefed me (and happily answered all of my questions) by phone on Saturday morning.

Four options were studied, and two come out as rock stars – C11A, a surface option with two stations, providing great walking distance coverage to almost all of downtown Bellevue’s jobs and homes, and C9T, a more expensive tunnel option that provides decent walking coverage of downtown, plus reduced travel times that attract more riders from the east. Both of these alternatives get the segment 8,000 weekday riders in 2030.

The two not-so-good options are losers for clear reasons. C9A, a surface version of the tunnel option, has the same downtown travel time as C11A, but doesn’t compete with C11A in walking coverage, especially as downtown grows. The City’s walkshed maps are similar to what Adam did for our First Hill Streetcar piece, using the actual walking times from the platforms to different destinations via the network of sidewalks and paths, rather than just drawing a circle at a particular distance. As a result, they give a much more accurate view of what’s accessible from a station.

C14E is the other loser – the I-405 alignment that Kevin Wallace has proposed. Analysis found that a circulator bus would offer no significant benefit. It would attract only 6,000 riders, completely failing to serve western downtown.

The real comparison here will be between the better two: what I’ll call the tunnel (C9T) and surface alignment (C11A).

More after the jump

First, on the tunnel: Sound Transit found that if they design the section just south of downtown Bellevue specifically for a tunnel approach, it can save $100 million – bringing the gap between available funding and the cost of a tunnel to just under $200 million. That’s a gap the City of Bellevue could afford to fill.

The tunnel also picks up 2,000 total East Link riders over the surface alignment – for a total 2030 weekday of 51,000 versus 49,000. These other riders are mostly poached from bus service, as this alignment makes travel times to Bel-Red, Overlake and beyond more competitive with 520 buses.

C9T and C11A Summary Table (see PDF for more details)

But the tunnel has a downside. Not only does it have longer construction time than a surface option, it would be a cut-and-cover tunnel, both increasing project risk and seriously impacting downtown Bellevue during construction. In addition, modeling shows that it doesn’t do much in the long run to help traffic. A surface route’s impact on Bellevue traffic is negligible – while Bellevue will have much worse traffic in 2030 than today, that would change minimally with or without surface rail. The projection shows Bellevue streets’ 2030 car carrying capacity would be 78% of demand with a tunnel, or 77% of demand with surface (with a margin of error >1%).

In terms of walksheds, the two station surface option looks by far the best. While Adam can speak more to what “matters” here, I believe ridership drops off significantly past a 5 minute walk, so I’m focusing on those numbers. Projecting to 2030, 76% of downtown jobs and 53% of downtown residents will be within 5 minute walk of surface option stations, with 99% and 92%, respectively, within a 10 minute walk.

The next best coverage comes from the other surface alternative (C9A), with a 25 percentage point drop each for only 51% of jobs and 28% of residents in a 5 minute walkshed – you can see how much the second station is worth. The tunnel is seven points below that for 44% and 21%, due to the added time it takes to get underground (yes, the walkshed calculation includes that). And finally the 405 alignment walkshed is laughable – covering only 27% of jobs and 7% of residents.

Fundamentally, there’s a big tradeoff here, and it’s going to be up to the ST Board and Bellevue City Council to determine whether they want to take on the added risk and expense of a tunnel to better serve points east of downtown, or a two station surface option that provides better long-term coverage for growth in downtown Bellevue. Personally, I predict they’ll choose the latter – this analysis shows that there’s only a minor traffic impact, and in the long run, we’ll be happy we built the extra station.

(These images originally appeared on Slog.)

The very final 194 bus departed the Westlake Center tunnel station last night at 10pm.

As per usual with service changes, services like One Bus Away will likely a few days where live bus tracking is down.

Westlake Streetcar Plaza; Concept by Seattle's Department of Transportation.

SDOT hosted an open house for the Westlake Streetcar Plaza last Wednesday. (For background, Adam covered the project in great detail last year.) The open house presented the project at the 60% design stage and took public comments. From this point SDOT will move towards finalizing the design and implementing the project. If you want to make a comment, do it as soon as possible. Construction is planned to begin this July and finish this November.

A full report from the open house after the jump…

Many of the attendees were members of the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board. The proposed design has covered bike parking next to the streetcar platform and also a secure bicycle storage facility, kind of like the Bikestation but on a much smaller scale. The current idea is to use one of those prefabricated bike storage units that can be moved to another location should a permanent full service bike station be constructed.

While the long term vision has transit removed from 5th Avenue, this project will not change current bus routes. SDOT worked with Metro to ensure buses have adequate turning radius from Stewart St to 5th Ave. The signaling will allow traffic to turn left on to 5th and cross Olive Way without stopping. Another transit improvement is widening of the Olive Way sidewalk at the bus stop in front of the Medical Dental Building. This should relieve crowding and eliminate the need for buses to move over a lane in the middle of the intersection. The current load zone will be preserved.

A mobile vendor or kiosk can set up business near the McGraw monument. Water, sewer, and power hook ups will be provided. The curb ramp on Olive Way will be wide enough for mobile vendor access. There should be sufficient space for many tables. Who will occupy that space is still under consideration and will be worked out in later stages. Runnels (a small channel loosely paved with bricks) arranged in circles channel water to the rain garden for irrigation and filtration. It also defines the plaza space.

You can view the current proposed design and send comments at SDOT’s website.

"The 124", by Mike Bjork

Around midnight Saturday January 23, a driver on Metro Route 124 was beaten unconscious by a passenger.  She may have been too slow letting him off the back door. The driver is recovering. Several suspects have been arrested and charged. Local newspapers and TV covered the story. Accounts are online. The media knows the drill. And that’s just the problem. Situation normal.

Now, even on rough routes, passengers don’t attack drivers every shift. Any 7-11 clerk is in worse criminal danger, for lousier wages and coverage. What mostly injures transit drivers is their own work day. Knee joint damage. Carpal tunnel syndrome. Back injuries. Those “gold-plated” medical benefits are legitimate repair bills for a forty hour week driving a bus.

But on about a half dozen routes, it’s not only drivers who regularly face personal violence. Most transit assault victims are passengers, who pay fares and taxes for the system and get no compensation for abuse on board. For a transit system fighting for its political and budgetary life, its people’s safety is its own as well.

I never drove Highway 99- no trolleywire. But Route 7 in the mid 1980’s also featured regular situations needing police. So I have a few suggestions about what “we” – meaning everyone who operates, rides, or cares about transit- can do to give ourselves the civilized travel people pay for, after the jump.

If We’re The King County Executive:

We publicly endorse Operations Manager Jim O’Rourke’s actual door policy, permitting passengers to leave by all coach doors after 7pm, outside the Downtown Seattle Ride-Free Area. We add that drivers will use all doors in the tunnel for deboarding- which most already do.

The original front-door-only-after-7 rule was always bad operating policy. Angry passengers were literally forced into right-hook range of the driver just to get off the bus. Law-abiding passengers who already paid their fares had to walk sixty feet, including those with luggage. Buses were chronically late, making Link trains late in the tunnel as well.

But the rule itself originated with ATU Local 587 in response to a legitimate question: is there anything a driver can personally do to prevent the bus from becoming one more piece of an ugly and dangerous street scene? Forget door policy! The 124 driver was already, and with Metro’s permission, trying to comply with the passenger who hospitalized her.

The answer is: many things. But whatever uniform you wear, you don’t face down trouble without backup.

If We’re The King County Sheriff:

We swiftly shift transit police tactics from reactive to powerfully pro-active. Not police on every bus all the time-but a high probability of police among passengers likely to need their protection. Half a dozen routes account for most of the Sheriff’s transit work- whose drivers and passengers will be glad to have deputies join them aboard buses.

In my experience, the type of people who attacked the 124 driver- not drunk or mentally ill, but just vicious- aren’t afraid of legislation. Laws too lenient? That’s for another post. But the fact is that scores of young passengers have close associates who scare them more than the Walla Walla death chamber. Hardened, maybe-but being arrested on the bus spoils their whole night. Make that likely, and dozens of crime scenes will remain peaceful buses.

If We’re Sheriff’s Deputies Assigned to Transit:

We let our superiors know we want to start riding buses, and develop union work rules to make bus-riding duty a good assignment. Transit policing is really a neighborhood beat-cop job- though police bicycles in the aisle might make suspect escape a lot harder.

Seriously, it’s a lot to ask of an officer to take an unglamorous shift whose whole goal is to make trouble not happen. But boarding teams protect the very people who deserve it most: working people who can’t afford to drive. Or who drive buses at hours when they’d rather be home with their families. Officers on board will be appreciated – and their presence will improve the quality of ridership.

If We’re Transit Drivers:

We know the rules. But we radio people with the tools, training, and backup to enforce them. Nor do we ever “do nothing” about violence. A clear and accurate radio report on a crime in progress; a swift call to Control about brewing trouble; a good detailed incident report- these aren’t “nothing.” They protect police, and win court cases.

We consciously practice coach-handling, making every acceleration, turn, and stop smoother than the last. A comfortable ride shows a skilled, confident driver- who faces much less trouble than the opposite kind. We know our exact location every second of the run.

Weapons and Plexiglas shields? We have a huge, well-lighted machine; communications to summon police; and most of all, our own skill, experience and judgment. Not perfect, but better than anything out of a security gadget catalog.

We read Recording Secretary Brian Sherlock’s interview with Metro Operations Manager Jim O’Rourke on page 7 of this month’s union newsletter. And have our union hold Jim to his promise that Metro discipline won’t put any driver between a rule and their own personal safety. Case history bears him out- though a general work atmosphere that renders many drivers skeptical has to change.

If We’re Transit Management:

We treat transit drivers with the respect due co-workers whose office conditions we personally wouldn’t tolerate for five minutes. And we don’t exercise authority over them in a manner we forbid them to use on their passengers. Not every infraction deserves punishment for consistency’s sake. Not every customer complaint is valid. Good work deserves compliments from us, and we’re grateful for the quality and quantity we get.

Conflicting demands of budget and service now mean we’ll have to ask more from people than we can really pay them for. Right now a grain of voluntary cooperation is worth a bushel of compelled obedience. And drivers who know they’ve got the company’s confidence will have the self-confidence that wards off assaults upon them and their passengers.

If We’re Passengers:

Same as above- tripled. A month before I took the Route 7, a night driver was beaten nearly to death by his passengers. He owes his life to three women schoolteachers from the neighborhood coming home from a meeting, who dove into a mob of attackers and pulled him out with their bare hands. The Route 124 driver couldn’t reach her radio- but passengers called police on cell-phones. That, everybody, is what’s really meant by “Transit Security!”

Drivers are our employees too, and their contribution to our lives entitles them at least to respect, courtesy, and patience. Bad economy or not, one thing everybody can afford to give everybody else is a break.

Mark Dublin is a former Metro bus driver and was a vocal member of Amalgamated Transit Union 587.

Bus mockup at the Seattle Children's Museum (photo by joshuadf)

• New route, PT 446, serves South Hill Mall area.
• Federal money for RapidRide C (West Seattle).  I believe this was already factored into the budget and shouldn’t impact Metro’s budget crisis.
• Arguing over the C Line’s route.
• County Council finalizes the guidelines for the Regional Transit Task Force.
• Eastside HOT Lane study is complete.
• Bellevue just beginning to think about redesigning the I-90 corridor around Eastgate.
• Suspicious package at the Burien Transit Center.
• Dow Constantine sticking with A+ on the 520 bridge, not taking Seattle’s bait.
• Neighborhoods always regret keeping light rail away.
• Goldy rips in to Kemper Freeman.
• FTA now looking at local financial commitment more, cost-effectiveness less.  I think this once again is good news for Sound Transit, and probably not so good for crisis-ridden Metro.
• Amtrak to the Olympics is filling up fast.
• Chicago Transit Authority authorizes mobile gardens.

As several commenters have noted, Sound Transit is starting to visibly test their next train announcements.  Oran shot the video above.

Testing is only occurring in isolated instances, and should be going on for the next month or two.

I hate to nitpick, but I’m not a huge fan of the scrolling — it’s possible to legibly encode a lot of information on a small board without doing so. [UPDATE- in the comments Sherwin says that the display will generally be static, with only intermittent scrolling.]

"Link from Mt. Baker Station", by Zargoman

A few months ago there was some anecdotal evidence that Central Link wasn’t very reliable with respect to its schedule and scheduled headways for various reasons.  My subjective impression is that this has improved somewhat, but there’s no way you’d be able to tell from Sound Transit’s publicly available data.  More after the jump.

Reliability for Sound Transit buses and trains is reported in their Quarterly Ridership Reports.  Reliability metrics, fittingly, are different for buses, Sounder, and Link.  The 3rd Quarter ridership report, which is the first one to cover Central Link and covers the time of the reliability panic, reports on-time performance as 99.5%, better than Sounder (97%) and ST Express (94%).  Great!

However, the fine print references the definition of “on-time” in the 2009 budget, Appendix C.

Standard is greater than or equal to 98.5%. A train is late if it a) departs a terminal station more than one minute late or, b) arrives at a terminal station three or more minutes late and is unable to make it’s departure time.

This definition, which was adopted before Central Link opened, seems convoluted and confusing, and more importantly measures the wrong thing.  First of all, a common-sense reading of this language indicates that trains that meet condition (b) are a subset of those that meet condition (a), rendering (b) pointless.

More importantly, late departure is of little consequence to the rider, except to the extent it creates late arrival.  It’s late arrival that causes me to take an earlier train than I might otherwise choose, to make doubly sure I make my appointment or catch my connecting bus.

For instance, Sounder’s definition is pretty good:

Standard is 95%, defined as having the average of all trains in a month arriving at terminus within seven minutes of schedule at least 19 out of 20 trips.

I have no developed opinion as to whether the proper metric for Central Link should be measured at each stop or only at the terminus, or if the right number is 7 minutes, 1 minute, or 30 minutes.  Indeed, another sensible approach is to use headway-based reliability metrics.  The main issue, however, is that using these figures we have no way of knowing how bad the problem was at first, or if it’s getting better.

Sound Transit did not take the opportunity to explain the thinking behind the metrics.  Unfortunately, the 2010 proposed budget has the same metric definitions in it.

The Beacon Hill tunnel (Photo by litlnemo's husband Jason)

UPDATE (Adam here): I did a few calculations to put the debate about whether a tunnel through Beacon Hill was necessary to rest. Beacon Hill station is very roughly ~280 ft above sea level, and SODO is ~20 ft. Using ST’s design specs of 4% this means that an elevated structure of ~6,500 ft would be needed to climb from SODO up over the hill. Another one of equal length would be needed on the other side as well. Pretty unrealistic isn’t it?

Although I’d obviously like to see Bellevue pay for a Link tunnel under Downtown Bellevue, as someone who isn’t going to pay the very large costs I’m leery of taking a really strong position on it.  A common argument, however, is that Seattle is getting a very long tunnel from its downtown to Roosevelt on Sound Transit’s dime, so why not Bellevue?  It’s a natural question to ask, but betrays a pretty shallow understanding of the underlying concerns.  More after the jump.

First of all, there’s the issue of subarea equity.  These projects are actually funded with different pots of money, so on some level Seattle and Shoreline are deciding how to spend their money and the Eastside is deciding how to spend theirs.  On the west side of the lake the spending is a bit more concentrated, on the Eastside a bit more spread out.  To some extent that’s an inevitable result of the Eastside being fractured into three large cities, rather than a single voice that more or less speaks for the subarea.

There’s also a capacity concern:  you cannot run Downtown to Northgate on the surface and support the predicted demand – demand that will come from all over the region.  That is simply not the case for East Link, particularly since at-grade segments both east and south of DT Bellevue will forever constrain the frequency at which trains can run.

As for the Beacon Hill tunnel, once you’re committed to serve both jobs in Sodo and people in the Rainier Valley there isn’t any choice but to go up, over, or through Beacon Hill.  I’ve never seen a definitive technical document, but I’ve been told that only tunneling was practical for this problem, and that seems plausible enough to me.

Back to the issue at hand, although there’s some impact on travel time, in Bellevue the tunnel vs. surface argument is fundamentally one about traffic disruption.  Traffic disruption is undeniably a negative impact of surface lines; it’s a question of whether light rail is worth the disruption or not.  It’s not surprising to me that people who think light rail is worthless (e.g., Kemper Freeman) would think not, but I think most people would agree to take the trade.

'Lining up for the north bus' at the Bellevue Transit Center by Oran

In my interview last month with Bellevue councilmember Conrad Lee, hearing Lee’s emphasis on the unimportance of rail station  placement struck a nerve with me because that kind of thinking is exactly why rail alignments are often fouled up.  After Kevin Wallace introduced his “Vision Line” proposal, it was evident that the plan was conceived on two main premises (aside from impacts mitigation) of cost and planning.  While the argument for reducing East Link’s capital costs is relatively straightforward, the one for planning treads into rather muddy grounds, which pretty much renders the cost-benefit factor questionable.  The bulk of this planning argument is often grounded in the belief that the “future downtown” of Bellevue will be much closer to or centered around the east side of I-405.  And to be frank, I wasn’t aware that downtown districts could jump 8-lane freeways.

We editorialized last November about the importance of siting rail stations correctly.  I want to follow up on the growth of Downtown Bellevue specifically, and why a “Vision Line” station cannot serve the city center as effectively as proponents make it sound, now and in the future.  Back in 2008, we had a roundtable discussion on the use of the old BNSF corridor for passenger rail, and Andrew Smith touched upon this counterargument:

The common response is that it goes very close, and that the future of downtown Bellevue will be on that side of 405. I cannot see this happening until after ST2 gets built and a station connecting the BNSF track to Link is put in place.

There are three main points I want to break down that highlight the argument against building a station serving this theoretical “future city center.”  More below the jump.

1) If Bellevue’s city center does in fact begin to grow eastward, a station serving its central node cannot be sited next to or above the highway.  Dan Bertolet from Hugeasscity made this point very clear in highlighting the importance of maintaining a strong walkshed around the station.  I-405’s size and use as a major expressway automatically obliterates a large portion of the walkshed, subsequently depressing ridership and development potential east of the freeway.  The only way a station adjacent to 405 would be somewhat ideally located is if the freeway is lidded or capped from NE 2nd Street to at least NE 10th.  Considering the large costs involved and arduous undertaking to do so, that is an unrealistic luxury.

City center stations should also always be placed within the densest urban core of the city– the central node to which access should be available from all directions.  Planners sometimes refer to this as a ‘wedding cake’ configuration, where the tallest buildings are situated closest to the node, allowing the skyline height to gradually diminish outward as the station distance increases.  A 114th/freeway station would render the opposite result of a ‘wedding cake’ node.  In fact, Bellevue has adopted a comprehensive plan (PDF) since the 1970s for its downtown subarea highlighting the goals for this kind of urban growth:

POLICY S-DT-4. The highest intensity development shall be located in the core of
Downtown, with diminishing intensities towards the edges of Downtown.

POLICY S-DT-8. Locate major office development in the Downtown core in order
to complement retail activities and facilitate public transportation.

The Downtown Subarea land use plan map delineates the core area and perimeter.

The map of the Downtown Subarea plan delineates a specific “core” in which the densest buildings (termed as “highest intensity development”) belong.  For East Link to adhere to the comp plan, downtown’s main transit hub will have to be sited directly within this core.  When I interviewed Kevin Wallace in November, he implied support for moving this hub from the current transit center to a “Vision” station above 114th Ave NE.  Not only is the station far outside the subarea core, it is right on the perimeter of the downtown area, where development should have “diminishing intensities.”

2) Regardless of how the city center grows, an urban district east of I-405 will never be as important as the downtown district on the west side.  “Downtown” Bellevue (coterminous with the central businesss district (CBD) in this context) will likely remain in its current location for the foreseeable future.  For a freeway station to be ideal, not only would 405 have to be lidded, but the Wilburton/Auto Row district would have to rival the CBD in the amount of office space, number of major companies (Symetra Financial, Microsoft, Expedia, etc.), and presence of civic institutions (city hall, Meydenbauer Center, etc.).

While Vision Line proponents often cite the rezoning of Auto Row and its future development as a key planning benefit to a highway station, the likelihood of the area becoming some kind of extension of downtown is beyond unrealistic.  I submitted an inquiry to the Bellevue planning department to find out the specifics of rezoning the subarea.  According to Paul Inghram, Bellevue’s comprehensive planning manger and president of the AICP (American Institute of Certified Planners), the neighborhood will still remain a hotspot for automobile sales (PDF):

The City has an adopted Wilburton Subarea Plan that anticipates long-term transformation of parts of Auto Row (116th Avenue NE). The current GC (General Commercial) zoning allows for auto sales and a range of uses other than auto sales so the properties have flexibility to change today. Some parts of the area will be allowed to change to CB (Community Business) zoning when NE 4th Street is extended to 120th Avenue and increases access and circulation in the area. Why[sic] some transformation of the area is expected, it is also expected that the area will remain as one of the city’s locations for auto sales.

While I’m not one to speculate about the prospects of future land use and growth, it’s likely that the Wilburton-Auto Row area will look similar to a reduced hybrid neighborhood of Belltown and Denny Triangle in Seattle, with a combination of mixed-use midrises and auto dealerships & repair shops, with the addition of limited strip mall-type development.

3) By the time the Wilburton/Auto Row area east of 405 realizes its full development potential, it will then be more prudent to consider a third city center rail station to serve the area outside of the hospital and downtown districts.  While there are a number of viewpoints among the pro-transit community regarding this issue, the BNSF tracks between 116th and 120th Ave NE present one of the many options the city can consider for future rail infrastructure.  While I am not above making wild speculations about future planning, ST3 or ST4 can bring such a station to the table, assuming there is demand for one.  Building a 405-adjacent main station closer to what we think is some kind of “future downtown” district now will be a botched planning move.

Bellevue has one opportunity to do this right.  The argument that the downtown district can grow east and creep across one of our region’s most congested freeways is beyond realistic.  Even if 116th Ave NE/Auto Row is transformed into a livable pedestrian-oriented neighborhood, building the main station next to an 8-lane asphalt freeway now could be a critical planning mistake that will be regretted for a very long time.  Let’s not undermine common-sense planning principles– East Link belongs in the downtown core.

I especially don’t care about putting rail on the bridge. There is no plan to connect it to anything. Whatever we build now will almost definitely turn out in the long run to be in the wrong place, or installed the wrong way. That’s a great way to kill future transit ballot measures – opponents can just point and laugh.

There are two things I care about in the 520 debate.

We will eventually add rail transit to 520. My best guess is that we’ll build from Ballard to the UW, and eventually extend it to Redmond. That’s a good idea, and I think we all agree we should make sure the bridge can handle rail later. The big problem is going to be whether the later transit investment will require buying a bunch of the bridge from WSDOT again, like Sound Transit is having to do with I-90. We can prevent that.

So, point one: Specifically call out that design features and capacity for transit are paid for with non-18th Amendment funds (such as tolling), and are dedicated to transit. This should, at the very least, cover the HOV lanes, so they can, if necessary, be turned into real BRT, or even light rail.

Point two: We should keep the Montlake flyer stop. That said, if we have to lose it, the midday and nighttime service that people currently use there needs to be replaced. We need UW-Redmond, UW-Kirkland, and UW-Bellevue service to keep us from screwing UW students, faculty, and staff – not to mention patients and game-fans. That means Sound Transit’s new route 542 would need to run from 5am to 11pm seven days a week. The 540 would have to run on weekends and late at night. If the legislature is choosing to remove the flyer stop, they need to mitigate the loss with dedicated transit funding.

I think the other debates about transit on the bridge are distracting us from these two immediate issues.

"Community Transit 'Double-Tall' bus", by Oran

Thursday will be the first meeting of the new CT Board of Directors. Unlike Metro, which is directly run by the King County Council, Community Transit is overseen by a group of Snohomish County elected officials selected by the County Council for 2 year terms.

Press release with details after the jump.

Lynnwood City Councilmember Ted Hikel will return to the board after
serving as an alternate for the past two years. Hikel served as a
regular member from 2006 to 2008. Marysville City Councilmember Jon
Nehring and Stanwood Mayor Dianne White will be new to the board.

Members of the previous board who remain are Snohomish County Council
Chair Dave Gossett, Snohomish County Councilmember Mike Cooper, Mill
Creek Mayor Mike Todd, Mountlake Terrace Mayor Jerry Smith, Mukilteo
Mayor Joe Marine and Sultan City Councilmember Steve Slawson.

Board alternates also were selected. Snohomish City Councilmember Tom
Hamilton and Arlington City Councilmember Chris Raezer are new
alternates. Edmonds City Councilmember Steve Bernheim, Snohomish County
Councilmember Dave Somers and Monroe City Councilmember John Stima
remain as alternates.

The Community Transit board is selected every two years. The County
Council names its two members and an alternate, and at a special meeting
representatives of the member cities gather to select their board
members and alternates. The board is comprised of two representatives
from the Snohomish County Council; two representatives from large
cities, with more than 30,000 residents; three representatives from
medium-sized cities, with 10,000 to 30,000 residents; and two from small
cities, with fewer than 10,000 residents.

Nehring and Hikel represent the large cities and Todd, Smith and Marine
represent the medium cities. White and Slawson represent the small
cities. Bernheim is the large cities alternate; Raezer and Stima are
medium city alternates and Hamilton is the small cities alternate.

With CT in the throes of devastating cuts and with little hope of revenue help, it’s a tough time to be a board member.  In fact, this very first board meeting will field public comment about those cuts.

As a result, though, sometimes ridership numbers are wrong. Sound Transit found two small errors in their counting methods – one for Tukwila station in the summer and one for Airport station (affecting late December data), and in both cases were throwing out good data that looked bad in the first pass.

It turns out (Excel), in fact, that December weekdays averaged just over 14,900 (300 higher than previously reported), with a peak day on December 28th with over 19,950. Weekdays after Airport Link opened were averaging 17,350. I’ve seen anti-transit activists claim as few as 12,000 weekday riders – don’t let them.

With ridership off by 15% in Portland, this looks pretty good. We’ll have to wait to know how far off Metro ridership is, but I’m willing to bet that without a recession, Link would be beating projections.

SR-520 Alternative A+

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.

Publicola

But behind the scenes, supporters of the plan acknowledged that it was unlikely to get off the ground. And state House transportation chair Judy Clibborn said flatly that she would oppose any effort to jettison the state’s preferred option to replace the bridge.

This morning, Seattle neighborhood groups and legislators—including City Council members Nick Licata and Mike O’Brien, all three representatives of the 43rd legislative district (Reps. Frank Chopp and Jamie Pedersen and Sen. Ed Murray), Mayor Mike McGinn, and representatives of the neighborhoods surrounding the west side of the bridge—came out in favor of a six-lane bridge replacement with smaller on-ramps than the state option, less impact on the Arboretum, and two lanes dedicated exclusively to high-capacity transit (bus-rapid transit now, rails installed now for light rail later).

…However, Clibborn was adamant this afternoon that the proposal “can’t go forward.” First, she said, a new bridge design would require the state to do an entirely new environmental review, setting the project back two years or more. Second, she said the new option would be more expensive than the state’s current preferred alignment, particularly because “there’s no money for rail” across 520. Finally, she said, “you can’t stop this project at this point without losing huge amounts of time, which is money and jobs.”

Seattle Times

Seattle has taken an important political step in the effort to find a greener design for the Highway 520 replacement bridge, House Speaker Frank Chopp said in a brief speech Monday morning.

Unlike many earlier years, Seattle has both a new mayor, Mike McGinn, and a city council that are engaged, he said.

“The mayor and the council now stand united against the current plan,” Chopp said.

Chopp was among about 100 people gathered in a green space next to the highway, with marshes and abandoned road ramps in the foreground and the roar of morning traffic over the lake.

Seattle PI

Gregoire: “We have heard that some may wish to revisit the legislative direction regarding the use of the two additional lanes for high occupancy vehicles (HOV)… Changing the configuration now would require a new environmental process. The office of the Attorney General tells us that revisiting these decisions from several years ago would set the project back at least 18 to 24 months. Our commitment to ensuring public safety does not allow that kind of delay.”

(Side note: Funny how she cares about the environmental review process for SR-520 but not the Viaduct. Does this bode well for the lawsuit again WSDOT for the deep bore tunnel?)

Seattle PI

According to polling commissioned by private groups the new transit focus is popular. People were asked:

Transportation department plans call for a six lane bridge, with two new H-O-V lanes. Others want the new lanes dedicated to transit, carrying light rail and buses.

Which approach do you prefer?

• 16 percent prefer H-O-V lanes.
• 69 percent prefer light rail and bus lanes.
• 15 percent unsure.

The survey of 1,852 people in Seattle plus the 41st, 45th and 48th legislative districts east of the lake was taken Jan. 22-24. The margin of error was 2.7 percent for Seattle and 3.85 percent for the Eastside. The pollster was Constituent Dynamics, which is run by Bill Broadhead, who was one of McGinn’s key advisors during the recent mayoral race.

West Seattle from the air (wikimedia)

I think a lot of the Ballard-to-West Seattle light rail speculation is getting bogged down in routing arguments.  It’s fun but ultimately colored by our experience of those neighborhoods, and really needs some study data to capture the tradeoffs.

One line of opposition is that some sort of grade decision (e.g., at-grade through downtown) is grounds for opposing the package.  As I’ve mentioned before, despite loose talk of 2012 or 2016 ST3 votes, ST3 is not necessarily close at hand and a regional package faces much higher barriers to passage.  Moreover, no matter how soon ST3 comes, the more the city gets done in the meantime the larger the system will be at any particular point in the future.  Indeed, there is no concrete idea of how big the funding package for ST3 will be, so it’s unclear that it would unlock huge amounts of funding to allow more tunneling.  Lastly, the political takeaway from the defeat of a measure will not be “the package was not massive enough” but instead “even Seattle isn’t willing to support more light rail in the current climate.”

All that said, I’m not really worried about the measure passing in Seattle.  I’m not a magnificent political prognosticator but there’s a solid record that suggests that whether this measure goes to the ballot in 2010 or 2011 or 2015 it’s going to pass.  The real danger is that this plan, due to insufficient preparation, will overpromise and under-deliver.  As project engineering progresses, costs (mitigation and otherwise) go up.  That sets up the traditional Puget Sound funding crisis (see: Sound Transit circa 2000, Monorail circa 2004) where the entire enterprise has a near-death experience or worse.  That’s the real political risk.

It may very well be that the city can put together a reasonably high-fidelity plan for the 2010 ballot.  And of course, at some point before 100% engineering you have to take the planning you’ve got and go to the voters.  However, I hope the McGinn administration heavily weights the maturity of the plan.  For the comments: can anyone articulate what the benefit of going to the ballot in 2010 vice 2011 is, beyond everything potentially opening a year earlier?

I’m waiting for a confirmation, but we should have space at the Rock Bottom. It’s a block from Bellevue Transit Center, in the Galleria – which I understand is neither a Kemper Freeman nor a Kevin Wallace property (although it’s probably someone with their values).

I’d imagine you should start filtering in around 6, but don’t worry if you can’t show up until a little later – I’m sure folks will be there until at least 9. Please comment if you can (or can’t) make it!

Photo by Zargoman

• Bus driver on route 124 savagely beaten by Tukwila thugs.  A bunch more coverage here.
• Dan Savage whines about seats on Link.
• A good reason not to ride the bus.
• Voters apparently willing to save Whatcom Transit with tax rise.
• Another round of Link vs. car.
• Beacon Hill station wins engineering excellence award.
• Seattle Times sings the praises of density.
• A map of the B3/B7 compromise.  The Sound Transit Board has postponed their meeting on the Bellevue alignments.  The Stranger has an excellent summary of the story so far, a story that includes quotes from Ben.
• Seatac eminent domain seizure not going to happen.
• Hole in Interurban Trail in Lynnwood to be fixed.
• Seattle City Council not all that worried about deep-bore tunnel cost overruns.
• If poor people are increasingly suburban perhaps we need more service emphasis there, not less.
• The three words that make killing cyclists OK.   Also, how can cycling in Southeast Seattle be improved?
• More pro-transit conservatives (via).