Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 11:00 a.m.
11915 Highway 99 and Airport Road
Southwest Corner of Home Depot Parking Lot
Everett, Washington
Site of the first Swift station
in partnership with Everett Transit

More details on Swift are here.

Photo from the indispensible Oranviri.

The funniest part for me is how Steve Scher seems to wish there was some contentious issue that was dividing the Capitol Hill community leaders and Sound Transit, but is unable to find one. It does seem that Sound Transit has learned from building the first line through the Rainier Valley.

Here’s the conclusion: Seattle provides 42% of Metro’s revenue, and receives 58% of Metro’s service hours.

Is there anything wrong with this picture? No. Urban areas have good reasons to receive strong transit subsidies. We’re simply exploring this issue because two high-profile (and smart) blogs implied the opposite — that Seattle is subsidizing the rest of King County. I wanted to correct this misconception, since knowing where things stand from an analytical point of view is always a good thing. Read on for why these “subsidies” are a good thing, why Seattle vs. King County debates always come up, and the raw numbers.

King County Metro is smart to focus its bus service on the densest area of the region which has the most employers, the most money, and typically the most congestion. All bus service is subsidized — and of course we’ve all heard how highways and other modes of transportation are subsidized, too! — so it’s not crazy that Seattle has subsidized bus service. Indeed, it would be crazy if King County’s service was subsidized by Seattle since we are the dominant urban area most effectively serviced by transit.

And Matt’s point very much stands. Running a bus in Seattle, in general, is more cost-effective than running it in another part of the county. We have more riders and more destinations, simply put. If you had a thousand transit dollars, they’re most effectively spent in Seattle from a purely analytical sense and not counting where those dollars come from. It is a separate debate whether cost-effectiveness is the only measure of a good transit route.

There are two big, yet conflicting ideologies that guide Metro Transit. I should state that both ideologies are noble and pro-transit. One ideology is to provide service where demand is the highest (i.e. downtown Seattle). The other is to apply the “build it and they will come” strategy, and provide more bus service on the Eastside which people will eventually start to use it. It’s worth having a debate about how far in which direction we should lean. From the 40-40-20 allocation of new service, it’s clear that Metro is focusing a lot on “build it…” On the other hand, RapidRide is not bound by these allocation rules and the City of Seattle has funded improved service on some routes — like the 8 that I ride daily. And given the service surplus we have already, is Seattle truly in a position to feel victimized? I don’t feel that way, but I’ve only been passed up by a full bus once in the past year. I’m sure other people feel very strongly that we need to focus solely on Seattle bus service improvements.

However, what’s really underlying this entire discussion — one brought on by the phased in 50-cent fare increase we’re going to be dealing — is the massive budget shortfall that Metro is facing. It remains unclear how they can get out of this hole with cutting service and delaying or canceling RapidRide. So we can’t talk about where to grow service and be based in our current reality. The first problem is this budget crisis. The second might be where to cut service. If it gets to service cuts, it will have to be cut county-wide (including in the city), but obviously we should target the least cost-effective routes. With problems like these, Metro clearly needed to raise fares and generate revenue. We’ll continue to cover Metro’s financial problems in the coming weeks.

Here are the numbers:

Revenue

From all of Metro King County
2007 tax receipts for Metro total: $427,579,378.18
2007 fare revenue for Metro total: $85,369,399.00
Metro total: ~$512.9m

From the West/North Subarea (Seattle, Shoreline, Lake Forest Park)
2007 tax receipts for West Subarea: $160,724,889.57
2007 fare revenue for West Subarea: $55,635,201.00
West Subarea total: ~$216.4m

West Subarea share of Metro Revenue
42.2%

Service Hours
Metro total service hours: 2,194,542
West Subarea service hours: 1,273,461

West Subarea share of Metro Service
58.0% (It’s worth noting that this 58% of service doesn’t include routes like the 194, which are of obvious utility to Seattle residents but classified under the South King County subarea.)

Note: The revenue figures apparently include capital programs, and I’m not sure how those dollars are distributed. I’m not sure it’d skew things that much.

Sources
Metro Revenue: http://dor.wa.gov/docs/reports/2007/ltd2007/Table3-2007.pdf
Seattle/Shoreline/Lake Forest Park Revenue: http://dor.wa.gov/docs/reports/Local_Retail_Sales/allcy07.pdf
Service Hours & Fare Receipts: http://transit.metrokc.gov/am/reports/2007/2007-RtPerf-PeerComp.pdf

In this part, we will look at how Amtrak Cascades is funded and what it would take to expand service and possible new service including two new stations that will be coming online in 2009. Those new to this series, check out Part One and Part Two

Amtrak Cascades in Washington and Oregon are funded in totally separate ways. We have never had an ability to seek other funding with other high cost ballots, even if they were regional. Getting additional money to fund these trains will take work from the two governments to make these trains available. I had e-mail conversations with ODOT and WSDOT Rail Divisions on just what it would take to expand our local service and what other routes may be possible or even restored.

Washington State’s funded portion of the Amtrak Cascades covers trains between Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, BC. Funding comes from the Statewide Multimodal fund. This fund consists of a portion of revenues derived from the motor vehicle registration and weight fees, there is also a portion of the sales tax on vehicles and a portion of the surcharge on car rentals. It would be up to the legislature and governor to make any decision to increase taxes or move around existing monies in the Multimodal Fund for additional service.

In December, a draft mid-range plan will outline the possibilities of new service and improving on-time performance along the route. I have not had a chance to contact to discuss just what it would detail.

Currently, there is no resolution date with adding the second train to Vancouver BC. This solely rests on the hands of the Canadian Government. The good news however is the return of the Talgo equipment in spring 2009 between Seattle and Vancouver (Amtrak Trains 510/517. It should be worth mentioning that Vancouver BC does not fund any part of Amtrak Cascades. WSDOT provides this service at their dime.

Phase 2 of the Talgo cars will start shortly. Phase 1 which focused on the seats, passenger entertainment and information system has been completed. In the 2009-2011 biennium, WSDOT will focus on the overhaul of the bistro cars. Phase 3 around 2011-2013 biennium will focus on several behind the scenes mechanical overhaul items. It is best to keep an eye on the website for additional information as it progresses.

When the Point Defiance Bypass is completed, WSDOT is planning on moving the Amtrak Cascades and Coast Starlight to this route. While this would affect some of the vast scenery, there is a time benefit of an initial time reduction of 6 minutes. In the future when the line is increased to 110mph, the time savings could be as much as 10 to 15 minutes. If the Amtrak Pioneer is restored, it would follow this routing as well.

Two new stations will be coming online in 2009. Stanwood station, an unmanned station will open Spring/Summer 2009 for the Amtrak Cascades and just recently announced, Leavenworth Icicle Station will open Fall/Winter 2009 which will serve the Empire Builder and Alki Tours Leavenworth Snow Trains. Both stations will be served by transit when they open.

WSDOT is also examining the cost and options for adding wireless internet on the trains. Providing 100% coverage for the duration of the journey will be the most difficult aspect with the vast amount of tunnels, cuts, and local issues. A study with an experienced rail internet provider will determine in the next 6 to 8 months to find out the feasibility of mobile internet on the train.

The key for expansion of service is equipment. If Oregon were to purchase bi-level equipment, it would free up one trainset for use on the Seattle – Portland segment. Most equipment manufactures are pretty booked solid for the next couple of years as demand for rail service increases. WSDOT, Amtrak, and Talgo are working close together to figure out the best solution for our region. The 5th trainset would be in service between Seattle and Vancouver BC. The 5 trainsets if “locked” between Seattle and Portland would provide 8 to 10 roundtrips depending on scheduling. If it remains at its current level (1 trainset Eugene-Portland, 1 trainset Vancouver BC – Seattle) it would allow for only 5 round trips between Seattle and Portland.

Oregon State’s funded portion of the Amtrak Cascades covers a portion of Vancouver, WA to Eugene, Oregon. Oregon contracts with Amtrak on a year-to-year basis to operate two roundtrip Cascades trains between Portland and Eugene. The contracts coincide with the federal fiscal year so their term is October 1 through September 30. The current contract which began on October 1, 2008 calls for state payments of $4,773,492 plus fuel costs that exceed $3.09 per gallon (F59PHI holds 3000 gallons = $9270.00 if empty) the fuel costs are compiled on a monthly basis. Oregon pays for the trains with a combination of general funds appropriated by the legislature and by the revenue generated from extra fees paid by motorist to obtain “vanity” license plates. The vanity plate fees constitute a dedicated funding source that generates about half of the money needed to operate the trains, roughly $2.5 million yearly.

In order to expand increase in Oregon, the state will need to switch to a dedicated funding source rather than gambling every two years that the legislature will appropriate general fund money for the service. The Governor just proposed a new transportation plan for the legislature to consider when it convenes in January hat would create a dedicated funding for non-highway transportation but it is so far unclear if that would also include funding for Amtrak Cascades.

Upcoming service expansions are currently by Amtrak Thruway bus service that the state contracts with private operators to provide. Presently between the Eugene-Portland corridor, Oregon offers six southbound and six northbound schedules daily. Two of these are Amtrak Cascades, one is the Coast Starlight, and three are Thruway buses. On Friday and Sundays a fourth Thruway roundtrip bus is operated. The next service addition for the corridor will most likely be a daily fourth roundtrip bus that would fill a void for the morning southbound service from Portland and early evening northbound service. There aren’t any firm plans at this time for adding this new run. The Thruway service is not costing Oregon anything as, after years of needing a subsidy, the service has became self-supporting in the era of high gasoline prices. With the recent Amtrak bill, Idaho and Oregon would like to see the restoration of the Amtrak Pioneer service between Seattle and Chicago. Many other states have also been adding pressure for the return of the service, however, equipment shortages may make the return next to impossible.

Like many of Amtrak’s issues, Oregon has been disappointed with the timeliness of the Cascades service between Eugene and Portland over the Union Pacific Railroad. Recently, Amtrak announced it would seek arbitration with Union Pacific over its contract concerning poor on-time performance. The state of Oregon has provided money to assist with improving on-time performance with $15 million in capacity improvements back in 2000. Union Pacific has yet to finish spending this money some eight years later but it is expected to be finished next year. Union Pacific spent $10.6 million building a signalized run-through track in Albina Yard in Portland. Union Pacific is now turning their attention to track and signal by extending Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) through Eugene and building a new 15,000 foot siding at Eugene Yard. After the project is finished, Union Pacific will have continuous CTC from Klamath Falls to Albany whereas, today, there are “island” of Automatic Block Signals (ABS) and yard limits in affect at Eugene, Klamath Falls, Albany, and Salem.

Oregon suspects Union Pacific will ask for additional money for capacity improvements and so forth as the service is built out and expanded with more frequency. As of now however, there are no plans to add an additional track between Portland and Eugene but it would be a very expensive proposition should that time come. Up until the terrible Metrolink accident, Oregon was contemplating a cap of just 79mph but now with the congress mandated safety regulations that every passenger route must have Positive Train Control (also known as Positive Transit Separation, PTC/PTS) gives the possibility of increasing to 90mph. The Portland – Eugene route has almost 86 miles out of the 124 miles that would be suitable for 90mph. As it is now, most of the route that is currently 70mph could be increased to 79mph with changes to the crossing circuitry. Union Pacific does not “honor” the Talgo tilting equipment and operates at normal passenger train speeds. While this is not a problem considering the gentle curvature and flat nature of the route, it would be pointless to seek this option. However, Oregon is considering purchase of bi-level equipment, such as those ran in California (Amtrak Capital Corridor or Surfliner) If they were to buy California type cars for their trainsets, it would just operate between Portland and Eugene, freeing up Talgo equipment to protect more runs between Seattle and Portland where tilt-train technology does matter more. Oregon would also seek the purchase of new locomotives if and when the time comes.

This concludes Part Three – the last installment will be my opinion on what should be done on the service. This should be up Friday morning for the enjoyment of it all.

A big thank you to WSDOT Jeff Schultz and ODOT Robert Melbo for taking the time to answer the questions I had for them and explaining things out to me. It gives a much wider picture as to what exactly is going on, along with the struggles that our service is seeing. With the new administration coming on in a little over 2 months, both states have a lot of hopes for expanding service and accelerating projects.

As always, I look forward to your questions and comments!

Extra trains are the following

#511 SEA -> PDX 1330 -> 1745 becomes #514 PDX -> SEA 1900 -> 2315
#512 PDX -> SEA 1345 -> 1800 becomes #515 SEA -> PDX 1900 -> 2315

Turkey trains start on November 26 until November 30th

Equipment for the extra trains will be used for the Alki Tours Leavenworth Snow Train in December. There will be private cars on this train, which is a first as well. The trips are pretty much already sold out as well. You’ll find me on the Silver Lariat, December 20th.

Matt’s “revenue” figures are fare-box revenue figures — in other words, the money you give the bus driver when you enter the bus. However, the bus system is primarily funded though sales tax receipts. While Seattle gets the most bus service of any subarea, it does not provide a proportionate amount of sales tax receipts. This basic fact, that King County subsidizes Seattle bus service, is the rationale why the 40-40-20 rule exists: That is, 40% of new service hours go to South King, another 40% go to East King, and the final 20% go to Seattle.

Matt’s post correctly illustrates that Seattle bus service is most cost-effective, but the raw numbers also neglect that there are hundreds of thousands of people throughout the county who don’t live in Seattle and who pay for bus service. And frankly, I think when we’re talking about cost-effectiveness or thinking of the word “profit” we’re not in transit-friendly territory. In truth, public transit systems are not always about the most cost-effective routes — otherwise we’d only have buses at peak times and minimal service throughout the rest of the day. And when the entire county pays for transit service, I think it’s fair to expect that much of its population should have some access to it.

Now, if Metro — given the woeful financial state it is in now — were to begin cutting bus service then I would hope that the least cost-effective routes have their service curtailed regardless of where those routes are located. Matt’s numbers illustrate that Seattle routes are generally more cost-effective than East/South King County routes.

Us in the transit community have to be careful not to Seattle boosterize, in my opinion. Our transit comes mostly from the county (Metro) and regional (Sound Transit) level. We do get a ton of bus service and light rail is running through our great city — so we are not getting the short end of the stick. And the rest of King County loves transit, too (just look at the success it has at the polls!). There is no reason to make this an us versus them argument. A lot of us live in the city and work on the Eastside, and a lot of us live across the county and work in the city.

I’m sure Matt just overlooked the sales tax revenue, and ECB didn’t mean any harm.

Update: The comments have produced some numbers. Take a look.

Via the Overhead Wire.

We’ll keep you informed on this subject. Metro’s still short $5 million a year even with the fare hike, capital project cuts, and the possible staffing reductions.

More images of the building here (warning 88 MB pdf), though that’s pretty much it for tunnel pictures.

That particular tunnel entrance there on 3rd Ave, is my favorite all of the tunnel entrances. It is the closest we have to this sort of NYC Subway entrance. Having said that, I really do like the building, the plaza and the tunnel entrance on the design. What do you think?

• Apparently its not just transit around that costs more around here than in other parts of the country. The third runway at Sea-Tac will have cost more than $1 billion when it opens for air traffic next week, and debt service will continue until 2035. The article mentions a future debate about where to put the next airport, since Sea-Tac will likely be overcrowded again by 2024. If debating airports is anything like debating bridges or rail lines, I guess we’ll see a new airport in, oh, about 2060.
• Parking rates are going up around the city, mostly as way to raise new funds. Surprisingly (to me) the business community is for the changes, since it will mean more spaces for shoppers.
• This P-I piece on the Viaduct replacement options has two really interesting facts: 1) at least 766 parking spaces will be eliminated, regardless of which option is choosen, and 2) if option B is chose, daily transit trips to the city center will increase 196,000 to as many as 305,000 by 2015.
• A better bailout for Detroit, have the federal government order a fleet of “green” cars.

The article details a lot of the potential problems that might surface, especially the part around hauling truck-fulls of dirt down Olive Way.

I’ve seen this from a car, but I don’t know anything else about this system, have any of you been on it?

The 554 would stop only on the HOV access ramp and continue on to Issaquah or Seattle, rather than circle around to the bays in front of the garage.  This would save five minutes each way, allowing more service along the corridor, while adding a 900 ft. walk for those that have to transfer.

As someone who will have to do that walk, but is also reasonably young and fit, I’m comfortable with a short walk to prevent torturous routing.  I don’t know where they’d get the money to do this, but it would be especially nice to duplicate or move the elevator in the SW corner of the garage to the Southeast corner, to allow easy access from the 142nd Ave bridge.

As for the 555 and 556, they’d travel via Bellevue Way and the South Bellevue Park and Ride.  This would  speed up the total trip time by about 5 minutes, in addition to improving connections between S. Bellevue P&R (a future light rail site?) and numerous other places.   I’m certainly excited that in 2020 there would be reasonably direct route from Eastgate and Issaquah to the station.

Between the two routes, the only stop that would go away is the Factoria stop on the 555, to be replaced by the one at S. Bellevue.  Keep in mind that each of these routes only goes in one direction during peak times.

The changes are expected to occur in June.

The press release, I can’t find a link, includes this quote:

University Link will provide a reliable option for drivers and transit users who are stuck on I-5, a facility that operates over capacity for up to eight hours a day, with vehicle speeds running between 15 and 35 mph. Already, buses can run up to 30 minutes behind schedule due to congestion. Compared to bus service, University Link travel times will be almost three times faster. From the University District, it will take 9 minutes instead of 25 minutes to get downtown and 3 minutes instead of 22 minutes to get to Capitol Hill.

Three minutes from the UD to Capitol Hill. Amazing.

WSDOT has this site detailingeight options for the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement. The plans differ pretty remarkably, from a “low capital” surface-option with little built to deep-bored tunnel, and even a covered four lane elevated structure, with a sky-bridge and development underneath the roadway. Definitely view the plans, and check out the interactive flash map.

Each option seems to include either the Alaskan Way Viaduct or the “Central Streetcar” line on First Avenue, with the exception of option ‘d’, the new elevated highway. I don’t actually know if any of these options include funding for these transit improvements. Option ‘e’ is doubling down on the viaduct, with a truly massive, super-structure on the waterfront. I’m partial to ‘b’, the surface-transit option.

Which do you prefer? What is the worst? Let us know in the comments.

H/T to the estimable Gordon Werner.

Central Link:

The overhead wiring is progressing in the northbound Beacon Hill tunnel and connecting the system to the MLK and initial test segment. These items should be completed by the end of the year. As usual, once the wiring is finished, dead wire testing will follow before live testing through the tunnel will be allowed. Wiring has been completed in the southbound tunnel and crews are working to finish up connecting East Portal to Walden Street.

All LRV’s have arrived on the property but not all accepted. Once the equipment finishes burn-in and performance testing, they will be accepted by Sound Transit.

All MLK Stations are completed.

Full line testing will start next Spring (DTSS to South 154th Street)

Beacon Hill is still scheduled to open on time.

Airport Link:

Rail is completed up to the station. I originally thought it went into and through the station but it’s just outside of the station.

Ballast has been laid out along the Airport Expressway and has been tamped to spec.

OCS System will start installation sometime early next year.

U-Link:

Construction starts in November/December