In case you’re interested, Brian over at the Washington State Transportation Blog has been staying on top of the ferry situation much better than I ever could.
If you care about ferries, definitely check it out.
Now the Ferry Blame Game begins….
For some reason, I saw this coming and with the news of 3 more ferry’s needing vital reports to keep them afloat, I find this more troubling.
The Everett Herald Net reports on this news
http://www.heraldnet.com/section/NEWS010301
And more ferries go down for the count
The Washington State Ferries are encountering even more issues with the boats in disrepair, 3 more boats need to be repaired – R.J. Knapp and Jill Vader describes the State run ferries the best.
“They should have been doing something years ago. But No! Let’s put it off! It’s the put-it-off mentality that we have around here that’s killing everything,” said R.J. Knapp.
Aboard the Tillikum, Jill Vader says the problems are in lines with the rest of the state’s transportation problems.
“It would be hard to imagine. The roads aren’t kept in very good shape. The bridges aren’t kept in very good shape. Why would the ferries be in good shape? I mean, realistically, why?” she said.
Just weeks after the Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond ordered four, old steel-electric ferries out of service, new inspections have turned up hull or engine problems on four other vessels.
The December inspections led to decisions that the Evergreen State, Kaleetan, and Tillikum must have work done in the next 120 days and the Rhododendron must be fixed before it is returned to service. The ferry system on Friday moved two now-scrapped ferries, the Quinault and the Illahee, from dry docks at Todd in Seattle to Bainbridge Island. On Monday, another boat on the Vashon run, the Chelan, will move into a now open dry dock. The Rhododendron will be moved the other. But the ferry system has no available replacement for the Chelan.
The ferry system isn’t saying when the Tillikum, Evergreen State and Kaleetan will be moved into dry docks for examination and repair. But the transportation secretary reportedly told the Legislative Transportation Committee that it will be a challenge to keep service running while maintaining the repair schedule.
The rest can be found at Komo 4 News
http://www.komotv.com/news/13721572.html
More on 520 Tolls
This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.
Variable pricing, up to $7 at peak, and also tolls on I-90. Great, I’m all for that. Starting in 2009? Genius.
About the lack of light rail, Ben at STB makes a good point that by the time Sound Transit ever got around to putting trains on 520, even a new bridge will be halfway to the end of it’s natural life. So it’s not as big a deal as I’d made it out to be yesterday. Greg Nickels agrees.
M/V Snohomish resumes Port Townsend – Keystone route on Friday Monday
The M/V Snohomish passenger ferry will return to the Port Townsend – Keystone route on Monday at the earliest after completing it’s scheduled maintenance. It is expected to run for 1 to 2 months as the M/V Christine Anderson is prepared for the run. The Christine Anderson needed to have updated safety equipment and a new plan before it can be used on the run due to the frequent rough water on the crossing. The ferry crossing will go from about 25 minutes to 35 minutes.
The M/V Snohomish is able to make the crossing in 15 minutes.
Post updated at 6:17pm – January 11th, 2008
Port of Seattle on track to purchase BNSF corridor
Port on track to purchase BNSF corridor
by Jeanette Knutson
Staff Writer
On Dec. 11, the Seattle Port Commission gave Port CEO Tay Yoshitani authority to complete the purchase of the 42-mile Eastside rail corridor with Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF).
The price for the corridor is $103 million; another $4 million was added for contingencies such as legal fees and other costs associated with the purchase, said Mike Merritt, Port of Seattle’s government relations manager.
“We expect to close the sale around September 2008,” said Merritt. “A lot of due-diligence has to take place before the sale closes. … The Port is committed to the idea of dual use for the corridor, including both rail and trail uses. When and how those uses might take place will be the subject of a public process that we envision will happen in the coming months. Details of that process are not settled.”
In the meantime, King County has expressed an interest in buying segments of the corridor from the Port, namely the southern portion of the corridor between the Wilburton tunnel and Renton, and most of the spur between Redmond and Woodinville just south of Woodinville.
“The Port (will negotiate) with the county over their interest in having the right to purchase some of the corridor section, among other issues,” said Merritt. “The County Council adopted what the council considers to be the outlines of that agreement on (Dec. 17, 2007); then the County Executive will negotiate the actual agreement with the Port.”
The framework of the agreement that the King County Council approved “ensures the rails in this corridor will not be removed,” said King County Councilwoman Kathy Lambert. “Preserving future transportation options in this corridor is essential for the fast-growing Eastside as well as for regional mobility.”
County Councilman Bob Ferguson said, “Now the hard work begins to initiate a conversation with the public for determining the specific details regarding the future of the corridor.”
King County originally wanted to remove the tracks from Renton to Woodinville to build a recreational trail, saying in a couple decades, things would change and the Eastside corridor would become a good rail corridor.
Kurt Triplett, the County Executive’s chief of staff, said last summer, “Our premise, Ron Sims’ premise, is that it will not be a commuter corridor for several decades. … In the meantime, we can have a magnificent trail that connects to 125 miles of trails. We would be creating a huge amenity.”
Triplett did not mention that trails already run along much of the distance from Renton to the South Bellevue Park & Ride lot and between Redmond and Woodinville, a fact Eastside Rail Now!, a grassroots movement opposed to pulling up miles of railroad track to build a bicycle trail, brought to light last summer.
Paul Zimmer of Eastside Rail Now! said, “Regarding the existence of trails parallel to the corridor, it is surprising that it has taken the mainstream media such a long time to catch on to this. It is just one of several things that has made some of us wonder what is the real reason for Ron Sims’ obsession with scrapping the railroad – and for doing so as quickly as possible.
“Regarding commuter rail service on the (line), there is a rapidly growing and broad-based interest in launching it. It is technically possible for it to be in limited operation within a matter of months, and there now appears to be a good chance that such service could be implemented in 2008. There is absolutely no need or desirability for waiting 20 or 30 years.”
Zimmer cited several reasons why he thought rail service along the corridor was receiving renewed consideration, including (1) acquisition of the corridor by the Port, as opposed to King County; (2) the mounting concern about global warming, traffic congestion and homeland security (The corridor could serve as a backup to the railroad’s mainline or Interstate 405.); (3) the failure of Proposition 1 and the consequent search for less costly and more effective transportation solutions and (4) the disclosure that the Puget Sound Regional Council’s “BNSF Corridor Preservation Study,” which recommended scrapping the railroad, was flawed and thus not useful for making decisions about the future of the railroad.
“The Port clearly does not appear to be interested in rushing to remove the tracks, in sharp contrast to Ron Sims,” said Zimmer. “Remember, the Port’s legally mandated role is to promote freight and passenger mobility, not to destroy transportation infrastructure. The concept of a ‘public process’ could be a very good one, and it is something that Sims tried to avoid.”
It bears repeating what Eastside Transit Now! has stated on its Web site, “What has not been emphasized is the fact that once a railroad gets dismantled and the right of way paved into a trail, it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, both politically and financially, to reinstall the rails for transit use and/or for other railroad purposes.”
Both the Burke-Gilman Trail and Snohomish County’s Centennial Trail are former rail corridors.
The Cascadia Center for Regional Development, a transportation policy think tank, made a big push at the end of last year to promote utilizing the existing corridor for both transit and trail. The Center hosted a rail forum in Woodinville Nov. 26, where it introduced the community-based “Eastside TRailway” demonstration project, a $10 million pilot program using a DMU (Diesel Multiple Unit) running from the City of Snohomish to Bellevue.
Colorado Railcar and Siemens manufacture these self-propelled rail cars, which operate or will operate in corridors in West Palm Beach, Fla.; San Diego, Calif.; Washington County, Ore.; and Alaska. DMUs are widely used in Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Ireland, South Korea and Japan. They are lighter than commuter rail, more fuel-efficient, quieter, require shorter platforms and can carry bike racks. They can operate on regular freight rail track or on rails embedded in streets. A bi-level car can carry up to 188 passengers.
Cascadia’s plan is to develop a strategy to finance the development of a rail and trail corridor that will improve Snohomish and King County mobility, improve economic development and tourism, and promote healthy recreational activities. It is sponsoring two more community forums to bring together train and trail advocates, local leaders, and finance / development interests to discuss the Eastside TRailway Partnership.
The first will be held in the Peter Kirk Room of the Kirkland City Hall, 123 Fifth Ave. on January 16, 2008. Reception: 5:00 p.m. Program: 5:30-7:30 p.m.
Karen Guzak, newly elected Snohomish City Councilmember, will co-host the second event on January 17, 2008, at the Angel Arms Works, 230 Avenue B, City of Snohomish. Reception: 5:30 p.m. Program: 6:00-8:00 p.m.
Although there is no cost to attend, space is limited. Attendees are asked to RSVP to Jennifer Zucati at (206) 292-0401, extension 157 or jenniferz@discovery.org.
The Woodinville City Council has supported a transit / trail corridor for several years. It recently sent letters re-stating its support of a dual-use corridor to the Port of Seattle, Sound Transit, the Eastside Transportation Partnership, and the Seashore Transportation Forum, amongst others.
Former City Councilwoman Gina Leonard said, “This opportunity (to utilize existing rail infrastructure) may never come up again.”
Councilman Scott Hageman said, “There are too many possibilities to pull the rails.”
“We have a huge opportunity right in front of our noses,” said Councilman Chuck Price. “Something needs to be done.”
Steve Pyeatt, who took on the Eastside rail corridor as a pet project when he ran for the King County Council in 2005, called using the corridor for transit “something we can do.” He said, “When people think of ‘commuter rail’ they think of the Sounder, which is incredibly expensive and cumbersome. DMUs are the way to go.”
Pyeatt supports Cascadia’s proposed demonstration project from Bellevue to the City of Snohomish.
Greg Stephens, longtime advocate for the incorporation of Maltby, also favors a rails and trail combination along the corridor.
“Three state highways converge in Maltby, State Routes 9, 522 and 524,” said Stephens. “(Using the Eastside rail corridor for commuter transit) makes all the sense in the world to those of us who live out here. In my opinion, we need to have both. We need a place where you can ride a bike and not get run over by a car, and we need to have a transportation link to get to work.
“All you have to do is go back East. People can commute to work for 40 minutes by train, and (their hometowns) can still keep their small-town atmosphere. Buses are fine for short trips, but if you have to go a long way, you’d have to stop every few miles. Self-propelled trains make sense.”
Stephens also likes Cascadia’s demonstration project between Bellevue and Snohomish. “As soon as someone rides it a few times,” said Stephens, “they will continue to use it.”
He said politicians were so-often wedded to the use of consultants to prove their points.
“They need to pay attention to real people who will pay for the service and use it. We could do something now for very little money. Let’s do it while we have the chance. This takes political will. I applaud Ron Sims for wanting to bring the corridor into public ownership and to build a trail, but we need to have rails as well. It is time to do the courageous thing.”
Gregoire’s 520 Plan: Interesting Positives
As I’m looking over the recently announced 520 plan and discussing it with other transit supporters, something very unlikely seems to come out: Positive effects on future cross-lake transit.
The original 6-lane alternative for 520 would have been built to support light rail later. This really only means making the pontoons wide enough to handle more weight, but the effect it’s had on the cross-lake transit discussion in the wake of Proposition 1’s defeat has been to create sudden interest in building transit across 520 instead of across I-90. This is bad for several reasons – 520 would be much more expensive to engineer, it would be hard to serve both Bellevue and Redmond, and a train transfer at Husky Stadium would reduce ridership and cause commuters into downtown to endure crush loads. I-90 is built to handle rail transit, and because Eastside commuters would come into Seattle from the south, they wouldn’t be forced to cram onto trains already packed with people from North Seattle.
The design change proposed as part of this plan would cut $400 million from the cost of the 520 project. It would narrow the bridge and pontoons: Each lane would go from 12 feet to 11 feet, and future support for light rail would be eliminated. But light rail over 520 isn’t anywhere in near-term planning, and won’t be until well after we build rail to Northgate, the East Link extension and likely a project in the Ballard-West Seattle corridor. By the time we talk about putting rail on 520, any new bridge could already be halfway through its operating lifetime.
Bus transit across 520 to several major destinations already exists. Many daily commuters use these routes for only some of the week – but with tolling going into effect, some of these commuters who have the option of transit can ride more often, possibly reducing congestion. This small shift combined with those who choose to switch from their cars to a cheaper transit trip will also boost cross-lake transit use, making potential ridership for the East Link project higher and more likely to receive Federal Transit Administration grants – and votes here at home.
How To Go Broke Saving Money
This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.
The new plan to save money on a new 520 bridge:
Depending on the final design, trimming the size of a new bridge could save the cash-strapped project $100 million to $500 million, said state Rep. Judy Clibborn, D-Mercer Island, chair of the House Transportation Committee, who has been briefed on the proposals.
…
The current $4.4 billion cost estimate would be reduced, to a range of $3.6 billion to $4.1 billion, by spending less on floating pontoons, said state Treasurer Mike Murphy, who said he was briefed by a senior Gregoire aide.
That idea will be controversial, because the state Department of Transportation had envisioned a series of twin, 75-foot-wide pontoons to provide extra buoyancy, allowing future light-rail or other trains to be added. Instead, the state would look at a single-pontoon design, Murphy said. But any downsizing might hinder a transit retrofit two or three decades from now.
Really? We’re going to nibble around the edges here?
[I really don’t understand why this 520 bridge thing is so complicated. It’s far more straightforward than the Viaduct. Everyone agrees we need a new, bigger bridge and we need it now. Why not just tear down the 4-lane bridge and replace it with a 6-lane, with shoulders and bike lanes, and be done with it? Why all the sturm und drang?]
Look, I have no problem with running light rail across the Lake exclusively on I-90. I think it’s more efficient to have one Lake crossing, and from Bellevue the rail line can fan out in multiple directions: Kirland, Overlake, Issaquah, etc. That’s basically how BART works in San Francisco. But BART is running out of capacity on the Transbay Tube and is planning a second one.
And while I’m all for saving money, you have to look at the opportunity costs. The other way to save $500M it to use the Montlake Interchange option instead of the Pacific Interchange option. What’s so great about the Pac. Interchange that it’s worth depriving future generations of potential rail capacity? That’s the implicit tradeoff here.
Update: The Governor announces $2B in State funding, the rest in tolls. But will she toll I-90 as well? She’ll have to, I’d guess. Tolls could also reduce congestion on 520 in the interim decade or so until the new bridge is completed.
Streetcar Network
Yesterday, there was pretty interesting piece in the Daily Journal of Commerce (behind paywall) about the city’s streetcar plans, and Tuesday’s Transportation Committee meeting:
The preliminary plan shows a line running from Ballard through downtown to West Seattle, lines connecting Fremont and the University District with the existing South Lake Union line, a line extending from Pioneer Square through the international district, and lines running to Capitol Hill and through the Denny Triangle to Uptown.
…
The plan was done by the Seattle Department of Transportation, the Streetcar Alliance and Heffront Transportation, a private consultant hired by the city last year. Most of the lines are similar to ones presented in a report by the Seattle Streetcar Alliance last month. Heffront recommended adding the line connecting Fremont and Queen Anne with South Lake Union based on projected growth in those areas.
I like that route, I really like the “Uptown route” as well as the University District Extension of the SLU car. The Ballard-West Seattle route I dislike, because it sees a cheap way out of getting real rapid transit through that area, and let’s face it, a street car average 10-15 miles an hour would take a long time to get from Ballard or West Seattle to downtown.
The monorail folks (these guys are still around?) have the same fear I do with regard to that line:
But transportation activist Michael Taylor-Judd, president of Friends of the Monorail, testified to the committee that a streetcar network cannot be a substitute for rapid transit.
“They are not a rapid transit solution,” Taylor-Judd said. “Streetcars running in the street with traffic do not solve public transportation problems.”
The get more development and more riders than buses, but yeah, it’s not real rapid transit.
The next steps:
A network plan with specific route options will be presented to council May 1, said Ethan Melone, SDOT’s streetcar project manager. Between now and then, organizers will work with Metro, Sound Transit and others to see how the streetcar fits into existing transit systems and how to pay for it.
Finally, concerns for the bicyclists among us:
Several other members of the public also testified that the right-hand location of the streetcars has been a hazard for bicyclists, who traditionally travel in the right lane through traffic. They testified that bicyclists have been injured when their wheels got stuck in the tracks of the streetcar.
Crunican said SDOT is looking into ways to mitigate the impact of the streetcar on bicyclists and will report back to council monthly on the progress they’re making. She said options include running the streetcar in the center or left-hand lanes in certain areas of the city.
I think it’s overall a positive development, though I hope it doesn’t turn into a way to get transit on the cheap to places like Ballard and West Seattle.
What do you think?
520 getting tolls, never getting light rail
Today at Bellevue City Hall, the Governor did a press conference with Sims and others about proposed tolls on 520. The short of it: we’re getting them, and the state should kick in half, about $2 billion, for the replacement. Here’s a short PI blurb, and here’s the release from the Governor’s office. No information on the price of the tolls.
As long as the pontoons are wide enough to accomodate future rail lines, I’m happy.
Updated 12:35