Reforms at the Port?

Posted on by Frank Chiachiere

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

in an open letter to the community, Port of Seattle CEO Tay Yoshitani is adamant that the Port hadn’t actually wasted $97M. Here’s an excerpt:

First, I want to clarify one of the biggest concerns raised in this audit – wasted money. The Port did not waste $97.2 million in taxpayer money. Here’s where I’m coming from:

$60 million of that number relates to the Port hiring a national contractor, instead of hiring more Port staff, to manage the redevelopment of SeaTac’s terminals. This contractor has to date been paid $120 million over the past 10 years.

…

The auditor states that we wasted $32 million because the construction contract for a portion of the third runway exceeded our initial cost estimate by $32 million. Bids often vary from estimates – particularly when the construction market is booming, as it was at the time. People involved in construction – whether public or private agencies or homeowners contemplating a remodel – understand that even thoroughly researched cost estimates can change as the project nears. Ultimately, the market dictates the cost to build something.

But at the same time, despite Yoshitani’s protestations of innocence, the Port is offering a slate of reforms in the wake of the audit. It’s a fine line to walk, since Yoshitani is new and needs to get the respect of the staff — staff that have been themselves implicated in the audit. And with the feds about to come to town, it’s only going to get trickier.

I bet this isn’t what Yoshitani had in mind when he took the gig!!

Central Link Testing Update – Tentitive Schedule

Posted on by Brian Bundridge

Just a notice for everyone – Sound Transit’s Central Link will start regularly scheduled testing tomorrow (Thursday, January 9th, 2008) starting around 6:30am and will last for about 16 hours.

Starting in June or July, 2008, the Overhead Contact System will be completed from Beacon Hill Tunnel/Mt. Baker Station to South 154th Street/Tukwila International Blvd Station. Dead wire testing will start in June with a LRV being pushed through the Beacon Hill Tunnel to South 154th. Once these tests are completed, along with the testing of crossovers and signal systems, live wire testing will begin along the entire initial segment.

The first vehicle, ST 101 needs 2500 miles for it’s “burn-in”, ST 102 needs 1500 miles and the rest of the fleet will need 750 miles before they can be used in revenue service.

Here are the speed limits for the curious.

Pine Street Tunnel – 20mph
Pine Street to Westlake – 30mph
Westlake – University Street – 35mph
University Street – Pioneer Square – 30mph
Pioneer Square – International District 15mph
International District to Stadium Station – 30mph
Stadium to Lander Street – 45mph
Lander Street to Beacon Hill Tunnel East Portal – 40mph
Beacon Hill Tunnel – 55mph
Beacon Hill Tunnel West Portal – Martin Luther King Jr Way/Henderson Street – 35 or 40mph. TBD by City of Seattle once construction is fully finished
Henderson Street Station past middle siding – 40mph
Middle Siding to Boeing Access Road – 45mph
Boeing Access Road to I-5 – SR-518 Interchange – 55mph
Curve from I-5 to SR-518 – 45mph
SR-518 to Tukwila Station – 55mph
Tukwila Station – Sea-Tac Airport – 55mph

Total Estimated trip time, 35 minutes from Westlake to Sea-Tac Airport with latest speed limits.

I’ll be out tomorrow getting photos of Link

RTC and the South Sound

Posted on by Frank Chiachiere

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

John Stanton, who co-chaired the RTC and who supports “governance reform,” paid a visit to RAMP, which is sort of a South-Sound-centric version of RTID to pitch them on the idea.

They were nonplussed. RTC would end sub-area equity, a phrase that, in Tacoma, translates roughly as “give all your money to Seattle.” So it’s not exactly surprising that a group co-chaired by John Ladenburg would be against the idea.

I’m beginning to wonder if ending sub-area equity is the carrot designed to induce Seattlites into swallowing the RTC proposal. But either way, it’s a dodge. The problem is not governance, it’s cash. Re-drawing lines on the map won’t change the simple fact that no one wants to pay taxes.

Rapid Ride: This is what 0.1% buys you?

Posted on by Martin H. Duke

Earlier, I linked to the first details Metro released about RapidRide Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on the Eastside and to West Seattle. I assumed all the details were the same as for the Pacific Highway segment, but after scrutinizing things more carefully I see I was wrong about that. Metro is promising almost nothing above what we see with a conventional express bus.

Let’s go through Metro’s promises one by one. I’ll use the text from the Eastside line:

After RapidRide service begins, Metro’s plan is for buses to arrive every 10 minutes during the busiest morning and evening travel hours. At other times between 5 a.m. and 10 p.m., buses will come every 15 minutes. Between 10 p.m. and 1 a.m., buses will come every 30 minutes.

We’re talking about less service than Metro route 7. Woo hoo!

RapidRide buses will have low floors and three doors, so people can get on and off quickly. Depending on the outcome of a pilot project, a new fare payment system might be used that would allow riders with passes to pay before they board the bus, and enter through any door.

So we “might” see off-bus payment. I assume they’re referring to ORCA, but doesn’t Metro want to implement that system-wide anyway?

RapidRide stations and stops will be placed where the most riders gather, at reasonable walking distances along the corridor. Bus stops will be farther apart than they are on typical routes, so RapidRide trips will be faster. Metro planners are working with the local communities to choose the best places for stations and stops.

In other words, an express bus. Perhaps you’ve heard of them?

Other features might be added to speed up RapidRide service. For example, as buses approach intersections, they could send signals to traffic lights, requesting that green lights stay green longer or red lights switch to green faster.

It’s nice that they “might” actually do something to actually make the buses run faster. I wonder if that’s contingent on getting more revenue from somewhere, because God forbid that Metro get anything done with a mere $50 million extra per year.

Note what’s not mentioned: any sort of transit-only (or even HOV) lane anywhere along the route. This bus is stuck in the same traffic as the old bus. But it might make a couple of green lights it didn’t before!

All RapidRide stops will be lighted so people can see around themselves and be seen. With buses arriving more often than they do today, people will spend less time waiting at bus stops. Metro Transit Police will be on buses and at bus zones more often for fare enforcement and other security monitoring.

Bus safety is one reason people don’t take transit, but is far behind speed and inconvenience, which this plan does nothing to solve.

At the busiest stops, where many people catch buses each day, Metro will build stations with more room for the expected number of riders. These stations-placed about every mile along the route-will have shelters, benches and trash receptacles. The shelters and signs will look different from those you see at regular Metro stops-they will have a special RapidRide style and color scheme. Waiting areas will be well-lit, increasing security. Electronic realtime signs will tell people the actual number of minutes before the next bus will arrive.

Incidentally, now that they’ve thoughtfully added a legend so that we can actually decode the route map, you can see that not all of the “stops” are actually “stations”. So half the time on this route, you still might be standing next to nothing but a pole in the ground with a route number of it, with no electronic signs, enhanced security, or anything else.

And you can see from the map there are tons of stops, many more than a light rail line would have had. Again, this bus will be anything but “Rapid.”

Between the major stations, RapidRide bus stops also will have signs and other features to give them the distinctive RapidRide look. In some cases shelters and benches may be added or improved. Stop-request signals, which people can use to alert the bus driver when they are waiting for a bus at night, may be provided at these stops.

The buses will be easily recognizable with the RapidRide design and color scheme. All buses will be high-capacity, low-emission hybrid vehicles designed especially for RapidRide.

It’s slow, but at least it’s rebranded! As for nice shelters and so on, what they’re really describing is just bringing up a lot of really crappy Metro stops to some kind of minimum standard. That’s nice and all, but it isn’t a replacement for Light Rail.

In fairness, the West Seattle page adds this:

Other features might be added to speed up West Seattle RapidRide service. Business Access & Transit (BAT) lanes would help buses move faster through the corridor. The City of Seattle is considering transit lanes for portions of work in conjunction with the transit-only lane on SW Spokane Street and the West Seattle Bridge.

It sounds like this depends on other funds from the city rather than the Transit Now package. But hey, it’s better than the Eastside situation.

This is really pathetic. Metro could very easily have hired a few transit cops, spruced up a couple of stops, bought a couple of extra buses, and run a “253 express”. They could have even posted instructions on how to get bus arrival information using the mybus.org SMS service, and gotten about 95% of the benefit for around $1 million. They would also have avoided the confusion that will arise from appearing to add another transit provider to join Metro, Sound Transit, and Community Transit buses operating in this area. And oh yeah, it’ll take till 2011 for this to get realized.

Compare with Community Transit, which was creative with Federal grants and was able to start planning for a superior BRT line without a tax or fare increase. Examples of shoddy projects like this make me wonder why anyone would want to disband Sound Transit and move its responsibilities to the county agencies.

The 0.1% Transit Now levy generates approximately $50 million per year. Collected for 12 years, it would have gotten us half the money required to get to Northgate by 2018! It’s ridiculous to suggest that incremental improvements like these would produce anything like half the effect of the Northgate line.

To argue that Bus Rapid Transit is viable alternative to Light Rail is to insult our intelligence. Won’t someone truly interested in alternatives to sitting in traffic please run against Ron Sims?

State Auditor Gives High Praise to Sound Transit

Posted on by Andrew Smith

Expanding on a point from Martin’s post yesterday, the state auditor had a lot of nice things to say about Sound Transit. Here’s the press release.

Check out the video of the auditor’s presentation, especially around 7:38 and 12:45. At the first point, the auditor mentions how good the audit was and that good the performance audit was also good. Then he “steps outside (his) boundaries” and compares and contrasts the Port’s audit against the Sound Transit. At 12:45, the auditor does another backhanded compare and contrast, idenifying ST as an agency in “the good camp” when it comes to full cooperation, as opposed to other un-named agencies (ie, the port) which view audits as a “negative thing” and are unreceptive and unresponsive.

So let’s sum up, according to the auditor, Sound Transit is “definitely” in the “good camp” when it comes to audits, and is doing a “good job” when it comes to accountability. The elected agency Rice-Stanton wants to use to model the Sound Transit replacment? $100 million dollars in waste, criminal investigations, art projects that cost four times their promised cost and the taxpayers can’t even see, and denials from the elected officials that are supposedly more accountable?

Accountable to whom? Definitely not to the taxpayers or the state auditor’s office. If there’s any question whether governance “reform” is about destroying light rail before it’s even born, we can ask anti-rail billionaire Kemper Freeman or anti-rail writer Ted Van Dyk.

Seattle 2 Port Townsend – A Deeper look

Posted on by Brian Bundridge

I want to thank everyone for your comments and kind words! I wanted to break down some more deeper costs and also looking at a new passenger only ferry dock and a parking garage which would be located to the South of the ferry terminal. Let’s start off with the deeper costs and costs of other transit systems.

The State of Washington says the run costs around $13,700 a day. Let’s round this number up to $14,000 to off set some extra costs for the example. To run the ferry Snohomish for 365 days (All Year Long) would be $5,000,500 +/-. To run the ferry Chinook for 182 days (Spring and Summer months) would be $2,500,250 +/-. The cost of the run per passenger is $6.70 round trip instead of one way (Free returning to Seattle).

Here is an actual break down of a SOV using the ferry. I know this very well since I took the Bainbridge – Seattle run for 6 months before moving back to the “mainland” but the example is pretty spot on to my life and wishful thinking.

Let’s take a typical 30-35mpg Honda or Toyota car with a single driver. At current gas prices $3.15 a gallon or more depending on the location, it would take around $30-35 to fill up your car if you take it down from just about Empty back to Full. This car should get around 280-320 miles on a tank of fuel if maintenance is kept up and using good fuel. Now, let’s take a drive to Downtown Seattle for say, a trip to the Seattle Aquarium. This trip from Port Townsend to the Kingston ferry terminal would be about an hour or about 35 miles. Now we need to wait for this ferry to arrive or if you happened to miss it we need to wait for another boat. This can add anywhere between 30 to 80 minutes on waiting and on top of the 30 minute ride but in this example, we will say we got on the ferry at $11.50 and made it over to Edmonds, 30 minutes later. We took the Kingston ferry since the Bainbridge Island run has a 1 hour wait.

After unloading and driving to I-5, there happens to be a game in Seattle – Mariners are in town for a 3:05pm game at Safeco Field and traffic is backed up from the University of Washington into Downtown. Since you have never been to the Aquarium and going by directions on Mapquest, the easiest is to stay on the freeway… add 40-50 minutes to your travel time and it’s now over 2 hours, the kids are uneasy and doing the famous “are we there yet” over and over and people are cutting you off, flipping you the finger and all that fun jazz. Once you get down to the waterfront you encounter the thing called “The Battle for Parking” This is where you have to decide if you want to shell out the parking meter amount which the maximum is 2 hours on the Waterfront in Seattle or find a parking garage where you can pay upwards of $5, $10, $20, or even upwards of $40 bucks for parking if there is a game at Qwest or Safeco Fields. For this example though we’ll pick the medium, $20 bucks. Once your all done, you have to repeat or take the Bainbridge run. You decide to take the Bainbridge run for the more scenic trip home and shell out another $11.20. Well, it’s only scenic until you deal with the traffic from Bainbridge to Hwy 3 and get lucky by the Hood Canal Bridge opening (though I would like to see that open some day)

So, for those keeping track, $30 for fuel, $11.20 for ferry one-way, $20 for parking, $11.20 return = $77.40 for the day.

Now lets take a look at the Port Townsend – Seattle ferry run at my $9.80 one way fare structure with the Coast Guard 149 passenger limit still in place, new dock, parking garage, and the Passenger Ferry Chinook also in service for a total of 8 round trips per day.

When you park at the new garage, a short walk to the ferry terminal to purchase tickets and wait or board the Snohomish or Chinook for a 90 minute journey to Pier 52. Direct access from Downtown to Downtown, Waterfront to Waterfront. Sure at times the water can be choppy but it’s no different than your pot holed roadway and your also not getting cut off by Big Rigs, huge Suburban’s and or speedy pimped out Honda’s. When you arrive in Seattle, relaxed, at ease, you make a short walk to Pier 56 and the Seattle Aquarium. After that, could have time to check out the rest of the Waterfront and what it has to offer. If and when the Streetcar (bus just isn’t the same) is back in service, hop aboard that to the Olympic Sculpture Park or up 5 block walk to the Seattle Center and Pacific Science Center. Once your all done, head back to Colman Dock and wait or board the Chinook for a 90 minute trip back to Port Townsend while enjoying the sunset with your loved one. Something both of you can enjoy instead of worrying about rear ending a car in front of you. Stress free, relaxed, and a simple way to travel.

Back to reality and there is a reason why I wrote both of those examples because they were both true. Driving and dealing with traffic, people trying to drive onto the ferry is a huge hassle and when you add any type of event traffic in either City, it only makes life that much more stressful and difficult to plan and organize what you really want to do. Taking the ferry from Seattle to Port Townsend and back was incredible and could rival some of my best scenic getaways. Both times I was relaxed, happy, calm. I wasn’t at edge for any reason but most importantly, I was ready to tackle a place I haven’t fully discovered. That is the same feeling I get when I deboard from Amtrak to Portland or Vancouver, an eagerness to see something new, even if you already been there.

A parking garage which would support 300-400 vehicles would a hub not only for passenger ferry service but also Vanpool. The garage could also be used for merchants in the corridor. The garage would be a support of the on-street parking since I have heard that parking is an issue during the busy tourist seasons.

The new dock would prevent doing costly upgrades to the Chinook should the State of Washington keep the boat and it would not interrupt Car Ferry service to Keystone. This dock could also be a resting point for either of the boats. Somebody would have to take a gamble on how much a dock for these boats would be roughly plus electrical and other needed equipment.

One poster asked about the possibility of running the ferry to Whidbey Island on select runs. This is possible but again we are trying to keep the run as cost effective as possible. In the future however, we could also look further North – like Friday Harbor or Lopez Island for a final destination and would be the mid morning run and mid-afternoon run that would go completely to those locations. Fare for Whidbey Island or Friday Harbor/Lopez Island would increase since it is not the main destination. It’s design, use, and purpose is to serve Port Townsend but the additional revenue could allow for the continuation of the run further North. That is however dependent on if people would take the service and if the boats could be used at it’s designed 350 passenger limit.

The question we need to ask ourself after look at the numbers and the probability is what do we expect of this service, what do we want of this service, and how far do we want this service to go. Should it be exclusive to the Seattle – Port Townsend region or should other regions be included. By adding more locations could add unknown service interruptions due to weather or late arrivals will be a ripple affect for the rest of the day. It’s quite difficult to digest all of this in 2 posts, especially when the author isn’t a stellar writer but I do try to get my point across and have confidence that this service between Seattle and Port Townsend can be a cost effective, money gaining solution. This is something that the State of Washington needs to look good and hard at and for it’s short existence that it had 818 people ride the boat one day.. only 334 passengers short from being completely sold out for that day should be a hint to many people that this route would be heavily popular once word got out about it.

Once ridership and operating cost numbers are released for the rest of it’s short existence, those numbers will give us a better understanding of where the ferry stands for it’s future and the petition to return the Snohomish and maybe the Chinook on a run that will not only break even but be a revenue generating service for years to come. People will understand fare increases if it is explained to them clearly and with consideration. $9.80 one way is a little bit of money that can go a very long ways to having a strong, self-sustaining service the State can use as a model to not only King County but other agencies that are in a similar predicament. This will give the State of Washington hope that it can do passenger only ferry’s successfully like the Seattle – Vashon Island run.

This is something we all will benefit from and if we lose this opportunity to harness it, it will not be restored.

Keep yourself updated here and at http://www.seattle2pt.com

No Sound Transit in ’08?

Posted on by Frank Chiachiere

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Postman says don’t hold your breath:

Haugen said that following last November’s voter defeat of a gas tax increase for roads and light rail in Central Puget Sound, that it would be “very unwise” for Sound Transit to try again to ask voters for more money. The Sound Transit package was tied to the road projects by the Legislature in the hopes that a unified ballot measure would win voter support. Haugen said she still thinks “we need to look at the whole package.”

Clibborn said that the state should not prevent Sound Transit from trying again now. But, she said, “I think cooler heads will prevail” and she doubts there will be another attempt before 2010.

Cooler heads, eh? Wouldn’t cooler heads want to put light rail back on the ballot as soon as possible, since we’re already decades behind in building out a modern transit system? Just askin’.

Bring Back Port Townsend?

Posted on by Frank Chiachiere

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

It was disappointing that the Seattle-Port Townsend passenger ferry started and ended so quickly. I was hoping to take advantage of it for a weekend getaway.

Could the passenger-only service be a money-maker? Or at least not so much of a money-loser? WA Transportation Blog investigates.

Number Crunching the Port Townsend – Seattle Passenger Ferry run

Posted on by Brian Bundridge

I couldn’t post this for some reason on the Seattle-PI Forums so here it is in it’s full grit.

Number crunching time – bare with me.

When you look at the current gas prices for Seattle ($3.10-3.45) and Port Townsend ($3.15-3.30) and your typical Honda or Toyota that has a 10.9-11.1 gallon fuel tank, it would be around $30-35 to fill up your vehicle and about 2 to almost 3 hours driving time depending on the route you decide to ultimately take and account for traffic. This is also dependent if you take the ferry round trip (Fares are current off-peak fares per WSDOT website); Keystone/PT ($17.80), Kingston/Edmonds ($23.10), Bainbridge/Seattle($23.10), or driving around and taking the Tacoma Narrows bridge ($3.00)

The PT-Seattle does it’s run in 90 minutes, 8 trips per day or 4 round trips but for this we’ll break the numbers down.

At it’s peak, the PT-Seattle run saw 818 passengers, that would mean about 102 passengers for the 8 runs and a total of $5480.60 @ $6.70 Round Trip (Free to Seattle). Remember, there was a very short notice and not heavily publicized run. Keep this number on the top of your head.

If the boat was used at the Coast Guard recommended, which is 144 passengers or 1152 for 8 runs (4 round trips) it would bring in $7718.40

If the boat was used at Maximum Capacity, which is 350 passengers or 2800 for 8 runs (4 round trips) it would bring in $18,760.

To make the run break even on fuel at 102 passengers, the fare would need to increase from $6.70 to around $9.80 which would be slightly over $8000. To break even on the entire route at 102 passengers, the fare would need to go from $9.80 to $16.75.

With all of this knowledge and the fact that 818 people did take the passenger only ferry to Seattle during the Winter months can only leave promise for the Summer.

To widen the spectrum on this run, during the Spring and Summer months when the Summer concerts, the Seattle Mariners and Sounders are playing at Safeco and Qwest Fields along with the parade events in Seattle and Port Townsend fairs and the festivals, you can not beat the ability to take a passenger ferry from Downtown to Downtown and Waterfront to Waterfront while having the walk ability of Port Townsend and Seattle along with the combination of great transit (Ride Free Zone) to be able to get you around. The possibility of having not only the Snohomish but the Chinook running an additional 4 round trips during the Spring and Summer months is very possible if the fare is adjusted to $9.80 one way. The people will pay for it, the people will come for this service, not only the commuters but tourist as well and tourist are huge in Port Townsend during the Summer months.

My trips on the Snohomish were nearly full and the return to Seattle we left about 20 sour and pissed off passengers on the dock. That isn’t acceptable neither.

WSDOT could make a killing on this route, people could leave their cars in Port Townsend when vacationist visit from Victoria, Vancouver, BC, and other places around the Northwest since they won’t need to pay $10, $15, $25 or even $40 for parking in Downtown Seattle. A simple ferry and simple transit and the flexibility of scheduling could prove to be a regularly near sold out to overflowing run and a deal breaker not only for the State of Washington Ferry System but also and more importantly for the businesses of Port Townsend.

For more information on the Seattle 2 Port Townsend and to sign the petition to let lawmakers know you want the service to continue, please head over to the Seattle2PT website

http://www.seattle2pt.com/