More Time in Cars means more Gadgets in Cars

Posted on by Andrew Smith

This New York Times article about how many gadgets are being put into cars focuses on the safety issues involved in having all the gadgets. Sure I know it’s partial technology driven, but don’t you think part of the drive to put TVs and computers and all the other gadgets is because people are spending so much time in their cars now? Congestion all around the country has been getting worse, as people here know all too well, and when you are spending hours in your car, you want to be entertained.

It’s definitely not safe to watch TV while driving, and it’s funny to think that some of those same technological advances that let you put a TV in your dash also allow you to play DS on the bus or watch a movie on the train.

What do you think?

SB 6772 Getting Committee Vote Tomorrow

Posted on by Andrew Smith

SB 6772, the bill that would turn Sound Transit into some into massive roads and transit agency (roads first most likely) is set to hit the Senate transportation committee tomorrow. I urge you to phone your representative and try to have them kill this bill, because it’s a bad bill all around.

The most telling moment in the committee hearing last week was when Mary Margaret Haugen (the bill’s sponsor) said that her constituents didn’t even know who their Sound Transit represenative was. Uh, Mary? Your district is outside of the Sound Transit district…

Everything’s Bigger in Texas

Posted on by Frank Chiachiere

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Even the proposed multimodal toll roads:

The project grew to consist of four “priority segments:” new multimodal toll roads up to 1,200 feet wide paralleling Interstates 35 and 37 from Denison in North Texas to the Rio Grande Valley; a proposed I-69 from Texarkana to Houston and Laredo; I-45 from Dallas-Fort Worth to Houston; and I-10 from El Paso to Orange on the Louisiana border. But the exact routes are years away from being designated.

With construction, land acquisition and other expenses, the cost was estimated in 2002 at up to $183.5 billion, all of it to be put up by private investors, state officials say. No existing roads would gain tolls.

I can’t even imagine a 1200-foot-wide road. That’s a quarter-mile!

(h/t Matski)

Tax the Land

Posted on by Frank Chiachiere

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

The conservative Heartland Foundation argues that taxing land — not the buildings or improvements, but the land itself — to fund transit makes sense, since proximity to transit increases land values:

As dozens of studies across the globe have shown, the benefits of transit show up as increased land values. Land served by public transportation is worth more than land not served. The amount varies, of course, depending on the quality of service, type of development, general standard of living, etc., but the effect is large.

A study published in 1997 for RTA, “The Effect of CTA and Metra Stations on Residential Property Values,” by Gruen Gruen & Associates, implies that just the existing rail system adds land value in excess of $1.6 billion a year.

Another study, published in Regional Science and Urban Economics in 1995, considered land prices before and after construction of CTA’s Orange Line and calculated the line added 17.4 percent to land values.

But we’ve known that since the Union Pacific days, haven’t we?

(via The Overhead Wire)

Comment Etiquette (II)

Posted on by Martin H. Duke

It’s been a couple of months, so I’ll make this request again:

Please select a nickname and type it in under the “nickname” box on our comments page. Going through a comments thread with “Anonymous” is tedious and confusing. I can distinctly recognize at least two regular commenters using the Anonymous tab, and it’s annoying.

It doesn’t require getting an account or anything. Just type in a name, like SLOG.

Example above, with the correct box indicated in red. For whatever reason, Blogger doesn’t allow you to turn off “anonymous” without doing the same for “Nickname”.

Thanks!

Revised Bremerton Ferry schedule – Victoria Express even helping

Posted on by Brian Bundridge

Here is some updated information I was asked to post regarding the Bremerton ferry service. I’ll snag it from the WSDOT site:

SEATTLE – Beginning Monday, February 11, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Ferries Division will have four ferries operating on the Seattle/Bremerton route. The route normally operates with two car ferries. These changes are part of an effort to restore service after the 144-car Yakima was pulled from service early Friday morning, February 8, following a hard landing where the vessel sustained damage.

Starting Monday morning, the route will operate with the following vessels:

  • 124-car Kitsap operating on the normal #1 boat schedule
  • 149-passenger ferry Snohomish operating on the normal #2 boat schedule, departing from the Bremerton Ferry Terminal and Washington State Ferries’ Pier 50 passenger dock (adjacent to Colman Dock) in Seattle. Crossing time is approximately 45 minutes.
  • Two 149-passenger ferries leased from Victoria Express will depart from Kitsap Transit’s dock in Bremerton (adjacent to the Bremerton Ferry Terminal) and the Pier 50 passenger dock in Seattle. These ferries will supplement service provided by Kitsap and the Snohomish, and will depart either before or after the Snohomish to carry extra passengers. Crossing time for the Victoria Express ferries is approximately 60 minutes. These vessels are not ADA accessible.

Complete schedule information is available online at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/. WSDOT/WSF staff will be at terminals on Monday morning to hand out schedule information and answer customer questions about the service changes.

These changes will be in effect until further notice. WSDOT Ferries Division is working to get the 144-car Hyak back into service, perhaps as early as next week, to restore vehicle ferry service on the Seattle/Bremerton route.

Update Jan 13, 2008:

http://www3.kitsapsun.com/news/2008/feb/09/bremerton-to-get-passenger-ferry-to-supplement/

For stats and pictures of the Victoria Express ferries, along with their normal operating schedule check out their website below
http://www.victoriaexpress.com/repower.html

SB 6772

Posted on by Andrew Smith

I don’t even like talking about this subject, mostly because I feel like SB 6772 is a plot by the areas outside of the central Puget Sound to get out of paying for the state’s road obligations in that area, but the Sound Transit Board made a statement about the bill, and I got a hold of it via a state representative, and I thought I would forward it on to you.

Financing: One of the major findings of the Regional Transportation Commission and Blue Ribbon Commission reports – that there is not sufficient funding in the system – is not addressed in SB 6772. The revenue options are limited to those that exist today for Sound Transit and the Regional Transportation Investment District, with the exception of tolling revenue, which has been removed. In addition, the state constitutional limits on debt capacity mean that by combining roads and transit into one entity, the overall capacity of the new entity to issue debt for transportation becomes limited.

Delay: With the Legislature’s leadership, the region is making progress in delivering transportation investments through the Nickel Package and the Transportation Partnership Act. And, Sound Transit is completing the regional high capacity transportation system approved by the voters in 1996. In fact, we will open the Central Link light rail system from downtown Seattle the airport in 2009, and we will start construction on the next extension of light rail to the University of Washington. An unintended consequence under the new governance structure proposed in SB 6772 is the timeframe to get a roads and transit plan to the voters. While theoretically the new entity could go to voters in 2009, it could also take several years since the plan would have to comply with required environmental and planning reviews. The Regional Transportation Investment District took about five years to get consensus on a package to present to the voters. With both roads and transit to prioritize and balance – with the same amount of revenue – it could take a new entity even longer. Inflation alone is a huge cost of delay.

Federal Partnership: With the strong support of our congressional delegation and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Sound Transit has been very successful in attracting federal funds for this region’s light rail system, dollars that would otherwise not be spent in the Puget Sound. Right now, we are negotiating with the FTA for a $750 million grant for the University Link light rail project. The possibility of a governance change could unintentionally undermine the federal government’s confidence in the agency’s commitment to provide the local matching funds for the grant. In addition, the uncertainties associated with the staffing and operations of the new entity could undermine their confidence that our technical capability and capacity is maintained to deliver the light rail system and the rest of the transit services we currently provide. Both of these issues are threshold requirements for the federal grant.

Representation/Balance of Power: Currently, each member of the Sound Transit Board represents about 145,000 citizens, and a single subarea or county can not dominate the Board’s regional decision-making. The directly-elected members in the six districts authorized by SB 6772 would each represent 433,000 citizens, and King County could dominate the decision-making. Attached is a graphic that helps illustrate this point. In addition, the governance structure proposed in SB 6772 would eliminate the local transit board representation on the Sound Transit Board. Eliminating this feature undermines coordination and collaboration with local transit projects and services.

Land Use: This proposal does not address land use authority and permitting issues, which often delay projects and increase costs. As the primary capital construction agency in the Puget Sound region, outside of WSDOT, permitting issues, mitigation demands and differing requirements among jurisdictions, impact our ability to efficiently implement new transportation projects. A major benefit of Sound Transit’s federated Board structure is that the relationships and common interests of the elected officials facilitates dialogue and resolution of issues with our jurisdictional partners. Without changes to assist the land use and permitting concerns, we believe SB 6772 could have the unintentional impact of making delivery of projects harder.

Accountability: By statute, the State convenes an Expert Review Panel to review Sound Transit’s planning and financing methodologies and assumptions, and our work must be certified by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) as conforming to the region’s long-term transportation plans. SB 6772 removes the requirements for an Expert Review Panel and PSRC consistency review. Sound Transit believes review of our work by independent outside experts has been a good accountability measure for the region, and that consistency with the regional plan should be a pre-requisite for any transportation investment plan. Likewise, sub-area equity is the primary tool Sound Transit has for ensuring voters receive the transportation benefits they have approved at the ballot box. SB 6772 eliminates all three accountability measures.

Voter confidence: The Board is concerned with the provision in SB 6772 that would allow the new governing body to change any aspect of a voter-approved plan with two-thirds vote of the ten voting members. This broad authority would seem to undermine voter confidence.

Sound Transit has over ten years of experience in delivering high quality capital projects in Pierce, King and Snohomish counties. We have doubled our ridership in the last five years and are poised to open Central Link next year. We hope legislators will draw on that experience when considering this bill. The Board is open to a discussion and fully supports efforts to make the delivery of transportation projects and services easier, faster, and more efficient while not jeopardizing current plans and services.

Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns. The Board appreciates the opportunity to work with the Committee and the Legislature on these important issues.