Month: October 2007

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

And thus, the market for car sharing grows..

What interested me most was this nugget:

Susan Shaheen, transportation research director with the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, said U-Haul has begun a pilot car-sharing program and that Hertz and Enterprise are looking at options.

“With the entrance of U-Haul and more daily-rental approaches by the rental-car companies, there’s always an opportunity for those organizations to more aggressively enter this space,” said Shaheen.

Because you know what’s even more awesome than dealing with U-Haul’s horrible rental experience once every couple of years? Dealing with it every day. Boy I can’t wait to wait in line for 3 hours to rent a car and then have it break down on me half the time. Man, if I was Zipcar, I’d be quaking in my boots right now!

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

It depends on what the definition of the word “is” is.

Mike at CIS relates the story of an impassioned Councilman Reagan Dunn arguing that the bridge is, in fact, fully funded:

King County Councilman Reagan Dunn–who was deeply involved with the RTID portion of Prop 1–took particular umbrage to the accusation that 520 is not fully funded. He insists all the funding sources have been secured, except for the Prop 1 portion and tolls, and it was the only time he got emotional in that hour-long forum.

Comes now the Seattle Times which says yes, as long as you assume that (a) Prop. 1 passes, (b) tolling starts on both I-90 and SR-520, and (c) some federal grants come though.

So yes, there’s a plan to fully fund the bridge. Dunn was right. But it’s still just that, a plan. Without a design and with some of the funding sources still uncertain, the question of whether it is or is not “fully funded” is a matter of interpretation.

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

We’re trying out a new look here… I stumbled across a fantastic new Drupal theme, marinelli, and I love it.

It also brings out the page buttons across the top. Remember that registered users can contribute to the “Hot Docs” section, and anyone can add pics to the photo pool (though I still haven’t quite figured out how to get them on the map).

Let us know what you think in the comments…

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Erica Barnett links to a new poll out from UW, including, among other things, more Prop 1 polling!

It looks like it’s going to come down to the wire, but it also looks more favorable than the King 5 poll from last week. Prop. 1 leads 49% – 38% among likely voters, with 13% undecided.

I’m a little unclear (as is Barnett) about the poll’s methodology, which claims to include “600 statewide voters.” Presumably they didn’t ask people in Spokane about Prop. 1, so I’m not sure what subset of the 600 were asked, whether that neatly lines up wiht the RTID/ST2 borders, and finally how that affects the margin of error.

In other words, caveat emptor.

Update: Also worthy of note is that Democrats are 2-to-1 in favor, Republicans 2-to-1 against.

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Writing in Crosscut, Daniel Jack Chasan makes a good argument:

Why not do congestion pricing here? There’s no good reason, but if you want to make congestion pricing work, you have to do more than bar-code everybody’s car and send out bills. First, you have to give people alternative means of transportation. London didn’t just make people pay to drive downtown. The city bought 300 new buses and froze transit fares in advance. (In contrast, Sims’ proposed 2008 budget would raise bus fares by 25 cents a ticket. A quarter isn’t much, but it represents a stiff 16-2/3 percent increase for people who ride the bus during rush hour, and a doubling of the fare for elderly riders.)

Besides, working class people already rode public transportation in London. And downtown London retailers didn’t really have to worry about shoppers just driving to the malls instead. None of the above holds true for Seattle. Make it harder to drive downtown and a lot of shoppers will just head for the malls. You can’t just throw a cordon of congestion pricing around downtown Seattle. You’d have to cordon off the major alternatives, too.

I think some sort of tolling for road use is inevitable, whether it’s Sightline’s innovative pay-as-you-drive idea or RFID transponders or congestion pricing or good old fashioned tollbooths. Plus, the gas tax is becoming a less reilable revenue stream.

But first it’s important that we get going ASAP on transit alternatives, so that people have a reason to switch from SOV use.

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Most of the time I’ve been arguing for the passage of Prop. 1 I’ve admitted it’s about 75% to 80% of the project I want. I would have done some things differently if I got to play regional transit planner for a day. I’d build a 300mph rail link between Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver. I’d build an elevated people-mover between Queen Anne, Pioneer Square, Ballard, Fremont and Capitol Hill. I’d do all sorts of wild stuff.

But, of course, no one’s going to ask me to be transit planner for a day, and that’s probably for the best. Instead, I get to vote “yea” or “nay” on this thing. And I’m voting “yea,” as you know if you read this blog with any regularity.

Anyway, today I got an email from a reader who’s 100% behind the measure. I thought I’d share it because it’s a concise, cogent argument.

A lot of press has come out on this, about the price tag and the effects of adding more roads and the value of adding mass transit. Some people see this as a compromise measure, and even some of the supporters say that they’re holding their noses while they vote in favor. I couldn’t disagree more; I think this is a GREAT measure that does all sorts of great, important things that benefit all of us in a number of ways. It builds trains all the way North and South and East. It widens major roads, fixes problematic bridges and creates more efficient routes for people and freight. A few points:

1) It’s not “too expensive”. That’s what things cost these days. Imagine how expensive it will be if we wait. Not only the increasing cost of materials and labor, but the cost to our economy and quality of life as traffic gets worse and 1,000,000 more people move to the region. And yes, we’ll be paying for it for a long time, but we’ll be using it even longer!

2) We have to build roads. How dare we force the average working person to move out of Seattle because of lack of affordable housing and then criticize them for driving when they don’t have a viable alternative. Not everyone can afford a condo in Belltown and walk to work. We can encourage people to carpool and and drive more fuel efficient, lower emission vehicles, but there are going to be more and more people and freight using roads to get places for a long time to come. And buses use roads too, people!

3) Alternative approaches like bus rapid transit, congestion pricing, and tolling simply will not be implemented soon enough and extensively enough to handle all of our tranportation needs. This measure is an investment in our existing needs and helps us build toward a practical, effective regional transportation system.

4) The sales tax is what we’ve got to work with. Property tax increases are capped thanks to good ol’ Eyman. Write your representative about implementing an income tax and then hold your breath until it passes. The only thing more regressive than the sales tax is putting the burden of our transportation systems deficiencies on lower income people who have to live further and drive further to work on inadequate highway systems.

I believe in this measure. I believe it’s the right thing for our region. And I think it will do great things for all of us. Please vote for it. Tell your friends to vote for it. Thanks.

It occurs to me that one thing that gets lost in all this debate is that Prop. 1 really isn’t all that radical. It continues the Puget Sound’s gradual progress towards regional planning, smart growth, light rail, and highways (mostly with HOV lanes) and development inside the urban growth boundary. Sure, it’s got a big price tag and a long time horizon, but it really is just the next step in a long process that began with the passage of the Growth Management Act in 1990.

Vote yes and let’s keep the ball rolling in the right direction.

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Testing began today:

It was going slowly, and trailed by a dozen workers. We’re not ready for prime-time yet folks, but we’re close!

I overheard someone in the office say “Gee, it’s not painted like the Tacoma Streetcar.” I was tempted to launch into a long monologue about overlapping transit jurisdictions and how this streetcar was not, in fact, a Sound Transit project, and how maybe, just maybe, it would make sense to put all of our regional transit services under one umbrella … but I had to get back to work.