No Light Rail on 520

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

This shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise:

Long before planners knew 520 needed to be replaced, I-90 was identified as the priority corridor; compatible infrastructure already exists. An eight-lane 520 corridor for light rail is unacceptable to Seattleites on the west side of the bridge — even for those who would ride it. Connections to the University of Washington, to much of Seattle, and to Bellevue pose hurdles, as do some technical and engineering problems.

Ric Ilgenfritz, Sound Transit’s chief communications officer, said light rail across 520 would overload the rail system as it is currently designed south of the Lake Washington Ship Canal.

I’m fine with that. The only way to really get light rail on there without disurbing other bus runs would be to build an 8-lane bridge, and that just wasn’t going to happen.

Also… Rep. Fred Jarrett is quoted in the article as saying, “it will be 2012, optimistically, before the first part of the line is open from downtown Seattle to downtown Bellevue.” Is that true? That’s pretty darn quick.

“Don’t Blow It”

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

I’m sure KCM and ST thank the Times for this backhanded complement:

Skyrocketing gasoline prices, more transit options and a customer-service sensibility gave King County Metro Transit and Sound Transit a glorious 2007.

So here is a message of support for two agencies starting to click: Don’t blow it. Complacency is a killer. Every new rider is a quality-assurance pop quiz. Buses and trains long available are newly appreciated as the cost of commuting soars and transit agencies get smarter about the options they provide.

Sound Transit’s light rail plan will likely be up for a re-vote this fall, and the Seattle Times will have a chance to support them with an endorsement.

So here’s a message of support for the Times: Don’t blow it.

Light rail cut from 520 plan

Light rail is out of the 520 plan officially. As Ben said a couple of months ago, not necessarily the worst thing in the world.

However, Ron Sims and the anti-rail noisemakers are upsetting me again:

The decision to focus on bus rapid transit on 520 has led to a new buzz for bus rapid transit in the Interstate 90 corridor, particularly as a short-term substitute for more-expensive light rail.

Sound Transit, the agency that has worked for years developing light rail in a north-south corridor, last week delayed until April 10 a board vote on a revised transportation package to possibly be sent to voters this fall. The board is mulling its response to the November defeat of a comprehensive roads and transit package. The measure included funding for light rail across I-90 and an “Eastlink” at least to growing Bellevue, one of the region’s biggest employers.

“The decision has been made on 520: four general-purpose lanes and two high-occupancy vehicle lanes, and it’s going to have bus rapid transit, not light rail,” said King County Executive Ron Sims.

…

King County, helped by federal transportation policies and funding, is bullish on buses. While Sims supports light rail as a needed “spine,” he considers buses the “rib cage” of a transportation system. With gas and parking costs climbing, bus ridership already exceeds demand, Sims said.

Lay it to rest, Ron! Obviously, you love your bus feifdom you’ve created, and you’d love to see more buses over rail. But would ridership be better that way? Isn’t that what this is all about? Repeated studies show vastly more ridership with much better service over I-90 on rail.

At least other people in the are an the right track:

The cost of Seattle-Redmond light rail service at up to $3.9 billion, compared with up to $3.4 billion for buses that would run in exclusive lanes with doors on both sides of the vehicles, basing figures on 2005 dollars. The study estimated that the rail system would carry an average of 35,000 passengers each weekday, while the bus system would carry 24,500, with light rail travel times three minutes shorter between the two cities.

Seems obvious which one is better…

Survey Results

Sorry, I was slow on digging through the results of the Sound Transit survey. As expected, the people who visited the website were more interested in transit and transportation than those polled via the phone, but surprisingly the the phone polls were more positive toward every agency rated, especially Washington DOT. In general the results were not hugely different. Some more highlights than last time:

  • Nobody really cares about ferries other than Ron Sims and the King County council. Only 3% in the phone poll and 1% in the online poll cared about foot ferries.
  • Light Rail and Mass Transit were the most popular choices for transit improvement in both polls, but roads faired better in the phone poll (20%) than in the online poll (14%).
  • 82% of people support the expansion of transit in the region in the phone poll, a number I find amazingly low. That number was 79% in the online poll.
  • More than 70% of people in both polls want Sound Transit to come back to the ballot in 2008.

There you go. Here are the pdfs of the raw data for the phone poll and the web poll. I think the moral is that Sound Transit should return to the ballot in 2008.

Photo from Bejan in the STB flickr pool.

One Less Car Challenge

The City is starting its One Less Car Challenge, which provides tremendous incentives for residents who drive less. There are two levels, the first you drive less for a month, and you can earn up to $100 in flexcar credits, and in the second, you sell your car and can get as much as $600 in flexcar credits.

Pretty good deal for those who aren’t sure whether they need a car or not!

Any of you plan on doing it?

Tolling

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Remember that federal grant that Seattle received last summer to study tolling on 520? The Washington Post has a story on the program behind it, which is part of a larger effort on the part of the Bush Administration to privatize roads:

When Democrats took control of Congress and stripped most earmarks from last year’s federal budget, Peters took $850 million that would have been shipped to hundreds of municipalities and poured it into Urban Partnerships, a pilot program awarded to five cities on the condition that they test congestion pricing.

The focus on toll roads alarmed the transit industry, which argues that public transportation is the best way to fight gridlock in cities. Industry leaders say the DOT has made it increasingly difficult for expensive rail projects to qualify for federal dollars. The number of major new rail and bus projects on track for federal funding dropped from 48 in 2001 to 17 in 2007, even as transit ridership hit a 50-year high last year and demand for new service is soaring.

William Millar, who heads the American Public Transportation Association, says he set up three appointments with Duvall to try to influence how the Urban Partnership money would be spent, but each was cancelled. “They just see no role for transit,” Millar said.

I think congestion pricing of some sort is inevitable, and probably a good idea in the long run, but we have to keep in mind that once you’ve moved to a tax-supported infrastructure to a fee-supported infrastructure, the next logical step can be to privatize the whole darn thing. This is one reason why environmentalists oppose use fees for parks: once you’ve created a consistent revenue stream, sooner or later it makes sense to let the Mariott Corporation, say, come in to run Yellowstone and collect the fees.

In other words, we need to tread carefully here. That’s not to say that tolls are impossible. After all, highways on the East Coast have been tolled for decades and have still stayed within public ownership. But beware the words “public-private parntership,” which can often lead to a whole lot of public funds going to enrich private companies with little emphasis on what the public’s getting in return. But don’t take my word for it, listen to the GAO:

Public distrust of privatization, however, remains high. Republicans lost control of the Indiana state legislature in 2006 partly because of controversy over the governor’s lease of a public highway to Macquarie. Political opposition has also forced governors in New Jersey and Pennsylvania to suspend plans to lease roads. Texas lawmakers put a two-year freeze on the governor’s strategy to privatize a 4,000-mile network of tolled highways.

Last month, the Government Accountability Office warned that tolls on privatized roads are typically higher than if the roads remain under public control, because of the need to generate steady profits for private investors. The report said the federal government needs to better protect the public interest.

“This is all about making money,” said Frank Busalacchi, the Wisconsin transportation secretary and a member of a congressionally chartered commission that last year studied transportation funding and supported raising the gas tax. “The financiers, bankers, people coming in — the foreign dollars coming in and buying infrastructure in this country that American people put down.”

Mercer and Spokane Streets

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Two East-West routes that are critical to a post-Viaduct Seattle are still short funds in the wake of Prop. 1’s failure.

The Mercer cost estimate has increased $78 million since late last year, chiefly because of inflation and advanced design work that now includes property costs. The project would widen Mercer between Dexter Avenue and I-5 but not include reconnecting streets above Aurora Avenue.

Some $78.9 million has been secured for the Spokane widening, now estimated to cost $168.5 million, which includes $3.4 million from the Port of Seattle; new ramps would connect the Spokane Street Viaduct to the waterfront.

Lowering Aurora and reconnecting the streets above has always been the most appealing part of this project for me, but that’s because I don’t have to deal with Mercer during rush hour.

Also, if you’re interested, you can watch a video simulation of the 2-way Mercer and narrowed Valley streets here (22MB .avi movie). It sure will look cool when that new Amazon.com office goes in!

Want to Boost the Economy, George? Build Transit!

Check out this graph from the Institute of Policy Studies (original PDF here).
If you look at the left column, government spending on mass transit creates the most jobs on a number basis, and the second highest number of jobs on a total wages basis. Giving people money for personal consumption, as Congress and the President have just done, is basically the worst way.

The thing that they authors didn’t take into account was long-term benefits of the investments, which make domestic consumption and health care look better than they actually ought to. For example, defense spending created the Internet, which has created entire economic sectors, and education spending creates a better educated work force which has downtstream effects on the future generation’s earning prospects. Similarly, what has been the total return-on-investment for New York City’s 100-year-old subways?

Obviously, the other Washington is trying to give a short term “shot-in-the-arm” to economy, so the long term effect wasn’t as important to their decision. However, this does give credence to the idea that, in the long run, mass transit can provide significant economic stimulation. I think it’s worth noting that spending $152 billion for 300 million people averages a little more than $500 per person. Extrapolating that to the nearly two million folks in King County you’d get almost one billion in federal money right there, or $1.8 billion over the entire Sound Transit district.

Food for thought when national politicians start talking about spending for the economic growth. Via Overhead Wire, Via Free Public Transit.

Community Transit’s Swift

I’ve been reading about Community Transit’s Swift BRT plans and comparing them to King County Metro’s Rapid Ride BRT plans. The proposals are extremely similar: buses that run in existing roads, with more frequent service. But at least on paper, Swift’s plans seem better.
Off-board fare machines. Rapid ride will have payment systems at each door of the bus, but that isn’t as good as off-bus fare machines. Paying before boarding reduces boarding time, and reduces unnecssary interactions between people and the driver.
No schedules. Rather than showing schedules, electronic indicators at the bus stations will show when the next bus will come, and the service will be frequent enough that schedules won’t be necessary.
Transit signal priority and transit-only lanes. The Swift route will have ten miles of transit signal priority intersections, which allow the signals to stay green longer for approaching buses, and seven miles of transit-only lanes. Some of Rapid Ride will have TSP as well, but in places like West Seattle, the improvements are paid by the city rather than the county, and in other places there may be no signal priority. Very little transit-only lanes will be created for Rapid Ride.
On-board bus racks. Bicyclists will be able to board the bus with their bikes through the third door.
Last, but not least, Swift opens in 2009 rather than in 2010 for the earliest rapid ride routes, and much later for some of the other routes.
The major problem I have with Swift, is that most of its press materials say that Swift is “rail-like” or a “rail-replacement”. That I don’t like, because the service quality of even that bus is not like link light rail.
I’ve added a couple of concept pictures from Community Transit. I’ll be talking with a representative from Community Transit, if you have questions about CT’s BRT, please leave them in the comments!

No More Big Digs

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Interesting piece in the Boston Globe talking about how cities like Seattle are re-thinking big downtown highways after the Big Dig. The article notes that the federal juice isn’t there like it used to be — the Dig would basically never have happened had Tip O’Neill not been Speaker of the House.

Of course, we’ve got our own Tip O’Neill here in Seattle, but thankfully she’s focused on funding for transit, not big downtown highway tunnels.

I also liked this bit from John Norquist:

John O. Norquist, a former mayor of Milwaukee, concedes that his plan to tear down a 0.8-mile stretch of an elevated highway would not have passed a public referendum.

Instead, he persuaded Milwaukee’s downtown property owners that the old Park East Freeway was hurting their land values and undermining economic progress. Then he took the plan to the governor and bartered a deal, he said.

Norquist is so convinced of the economic and cultural values of the project that he now goes around the country advocating highway removals, as president of the Congress of New Urbanism.

Norquist argues strenuously that successful cities are not built on their lack of traffic congestion. He offers Detroit as an example of a city that has defeated congestion, but has yet to recover from its economic problems.

“The thing that makes Boston valuable isn’t its fast traffic,” he said. “The thing that makes Boston is its complexity.”

As much as it pains us to admit it sometime, traffic congestion is a happy problem. It means people have lots of jobs to go to. If Microsoft were to close up shop in Redmond, I’m sure it would ease traffic on the 520. But at what cost?