BNSF Updates

Posted on by Brian Bundridge

Here are some updates for BNSF. This mainly pertains information for Sounder Commuter Rail and Amtrak.

Construction for the Seattle – Tacoma corridor is 95% completed. What remains is fixed some of the rough spots that have been created from drainage pipes that have broken under the right of way, which creates "mud pumpers" You’ll notice this mainly in Georgetown.

The biggest reconstruction program was completed last week with BNSF relocating the main lines closer to 3rd Avenue S from Royal Brougham in Downtown Seattle to Spokane Street. Technically, the BNSF mainline is 3 main tracks from Royal Brougham to Black River/Tukwila (Or just North of I-405 in Tukwila)

Construction from M Street to D Street for service to Lakewood is slated to start this Fall. Of course, this date has changed several times in the past. When I see equipment on that line, I will believe it.

BNSF has started major construction on the Everett – Seattle route. Earlier this year, BNSF installed a new crossover in Blue Ridge which enables trains to cross over to a new track at 50mph. The agreement with BNSF and Sound Transit is to double track the corridor between Seattle and Everett. This improvement will benefit freight mobility, Amtrak, and Sounder Commuter Rail services.

The next major work over the next month is adding a new track between Milepost 7 and 8 on the railroad or just North of the Ballard Railroad Bridge (Known as Bridge 4, Bridge 6.3, BNSF Mainline Bridge Tender, etc) When this work is completed, work will shift to Balmer/Interbay/Magonlia for another mainline relocation and double tracking.

The Balmer project will take about 6 months to complete. This project will remove one set of cross overs between Cedar Street and Vine Street on the Seattle Waterfront for a higher speed single 30mph crossover. This will allow BNSF and Union Pacific trains access into the Louis Dreyfus grain terminal at Terminal 90 without stopping and blocking all of the grade crossings on the Waterfront. The relocation will convert a storage/holding track into a main line and the current main 2 track will be then become main 1. The double tracking will begin at Galar Streer to W Fort Street or Milepost 3.3 to 5.4.

Once the Balmer work is completed, the section crews will begin prep work for Edmonds in 2009. Edmonds will receive the same as above, double tracking but a new station will also be built here. Amtrak and Sounder both stop at this station but the station needs to be moved in order to place the new track through town.

Finally, in late 2009, BNSF will finish double tracking between Milepost 27-28. What this will leave is the 1 mile of single track right of way between Howarth Park and Everett. A new tunnel needs to be constructed but not funded to make the entire corridor double tracked between Seattle’s King Street Station and Everett Station. This one mile segment is what will prevent Sound Transit from adding additional trains between Seattle and Everett unless BNSF’s position changes regarding additional for the North route.

If there is any other questions regarding this or freight mobility, please let me know and I’ll do my best to answer any questions.

Thanks!

Overcrowding – The ripple effect of late buses

Posted on by Brian Bundridge

Here is a slight ripple effect when the 15+ minute late 121 and on time bus to the same general location causes.

Normally this bus is pretty empty since the 120, 121, 122, and 123 all serve to Burien Transit Center. I got on at 3rd and Pike (thankfully) and the bus very quickly filled up to at least 28 people standees.

I do want to give major kudos for the bus driver who totally kept her cool and kept the ride smooth as glass. Excellent throttle and braking control, especially for a fairly new driver! Way to go!

People Ditch Their Cars

Posted on by Andrew Smith

Via the always helpful Gordon Werner, I saw this CNN article about people ditching their cars en masse. Americans drove 9.6 billion fewer miles in May 2008 compared to May 2007, an amazing to me 32 miles per person fewer in that month. That’s more than a mile per person per day less than the year before. Incredible.

The fall in driving is almost entirely due to the rise in gas prices. Drivers are increasingly seeing driving as the lowest value-proposition way to get around. As the article points out, the rise transit use, carpooling, telecommutes, and walking and biking commutes is puting a squeeze on highway funds paid for by per-gallon gas taxes.

I believe locally this will play out to some major drama if ST2 does not pass next year. Already there has been pressure on local districts to raise their own funds to pay for expensive highway projects like the 520 bridge and the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacements. If ST2 doesn’t pass, expect to see more “governance reform” type initiatives aimed at getting voters in our immediate area to pay for the highway projects. With less gas tax revenue, WSDOT will have a difficult time paying for these projects.

Interestingly the video on the left when I loaded the article was about traffic falling with commuter deaths, something very few people talk about: driving is one of the most deadly forms of transportation.

VMT Declining

Posted on by Frank Chiachiere

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Clark Williams-Derry notes that total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is declining nationwide. The US DOT frets that this will be the end of the highway trust fund, but I say, fear not! After all, WSDOT thinks that fuel economy will inexplicably rise starting next year. Maybe they should loan some of their analysts to the other Washington.

(yes, yes, per-capita VMT is not the same as total VMT.)

Meanwhile, in Metro-Land

Posted on by Martin H. Duke

Buried on the King County website, there’s more information on the proposed Metro fare increase that we previously discussed here. Specifically, there’s a Q&A with some interesting information:

Will another fare increase mean that my bus will be less crowded than it is now?

Because fuel prices are affecting everyone’s budget, more and more people consider transit an affordable alternative to driving alone. Metro has been working diligently to meet the increased demand for service. One of the reasons Metro is proposing this fare increase is to avoid service cuts, which would almost definitely result in more overcrowding more often.

Metro is using Transit Now funding to expand bus service and reduce crowding on heavily used routes. Metro and the City of Seattle have formed a service partnership that will add trips on routes 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 14, 26, 28 and 44 in September.

Will Transit Now funds be used to cover unexpected costs?
Transit Now, approved by voters in 2006, is an initiative to expand transit services by 15 to 20 percent by 2016. The initiative is intended to help Metro keep pace with regional growth and transit service demand. Metro is following a plan to phase in Transit Now service expansions over a 10-year period. Metro has been delivering on pace with the phasing plan and is committed to moving forward. By year’s end, Metro will have delivered around 110,000 new service hours—about 17 percent of the new service promised in the 10-year Transit Now initiative.

Metro has been using Transit Now dollars to expand bus service on high-ridership routes and in growing residential areas, to develop new bus rapid transit service in five corridors, and to improve Metro’s Rideshare and paratransit services. Metro is determined to moving forward with the Transit Now program. The same fuel prices that have hit Metro have caused riders to flock to buses, and make the promised service expansions under Transit Now more important than ever.

What will Metro do if the proposed increase is not approved?
If a fare increase is not approved, Metro must find an ongoing annual reduction of $22 million. This would require Metro to consider service reductions, which could affect both the level and the quality of service and could include the deferral or cancellation of capital projects.

While I certainly didn’t appreciate Executive Sims’ attempt to stick his hand in the light rail cookie jar, I hope he’s able to scrounge up the money to keep the RapidRide program going. My colleagues (and, uh, I) have been pretty skeptical of the whole project’s prospects, but at least three of the five lines (West Seattle, Ballard, Aurora) are serving areas that will have to wait till at least ST3 to see dedicated ROW rail service. I’d certainly support another fare increase if that’s what it took.

However, if push comes to shove, the Pacific Highway and Eastside RapidRide lines largely duplicate planned light rail service, and in the event ST2.1 passes these should be the first on the chopping block.

Photo by Oranviri, as usual, from the Seatrans Flickr pool.

Plan Odds and Ends

Posted on by Martin H. Duke

We’ve been over the plan highlights, but it’s worth it to point out some of the details that can be gleaned from the plan documents. Appendix A is the one that gets into the weeds, although the header lists it as a “draft” for the July 24 board meeting. Random observations:

  • The $17.8 billion figure is not $17.8 billion in new taxes — it includes over $2.3 billion in surplus left over from Sound Move in 1996, $895 million in assumed Federal Grants (which is much less than the $1.25 billion likely to be contributed to the UW-Seatac segment, and is therefore conservative), and over $200 million in operating revenues. In terms of cost to taxpayers, a better figure is $7.8 billion in taxes and $6.5 billion in bonds, presumably paid off mostly by taxes. In any case, we should just stick with the “$69 per person per year” figure, because that’s the number that actually means something to voters. But the daily newspapers should take notice.
  • There are planning studies for: Downtown / West Seattle / Burien / Renton; Downtown / Ballard / UW, UW / Kirkland / Redmond; and Bellevue / Issaquah.  Along with Everett and Tacoma, there are your ST3 possibilities.
  • Sounder North “provisionally” gets stations at Ballard and Broad Street. This is a big deal for some Ballard residents, and all North Line commuters that won’t have to go all the way to King St and then work their way back up to SLU or Belltown. As for the “provisional” status, I suspect this has to do with the uncertainty of tax collection, federal funding, reserve fund leftovers, etc. There’s no other obvious place to spend North King surpluses of a few hundred million, except streetcar extensions and the long-forgotten Boeing Access Rd Station.

Appendix A goes into more detail about which P&Rs get improved, etc., as well as breaking out sub-area equity carefully. Have a look if you’re interested.

The one missing piece is exactly what bus lines will see the promised improvement.  In particular, I’m curious to see what “BRT” means in the context of SR 520, since we all know that brand can be used to sell a fully grade-separated bus, or something totally indistinguishable from a standard Metro route.  The 545 already has exceptionally high-frequency service in peak hours and an HOV lane, so there’s good questions about what more can be done.

SurveyUSA Polls Sound Transit District

Posted on by John Jensen

An interesting SurveyUSA poll has been released showing some data about the Sound Transit 2 plan. For some reason, there’s no data showing how many voters survey supported the plan. I believe you can take the amount of registered voters from the other data (about 520) and subtract that from those who said they oppose the plan (about 252), and you’re left with the “yes” or “undecided” voters, but I’m not sure of the exact methodology here. In any case, let’s look at the data that SurveyUSA has posted.

The first interesting question was asked of 252 votes who oppose the ST2 plan: Why are you opposed to ST2?

First of all, this question is not open-ended so the responses are by nature pigeon-holed. For example, there would be no way to say that one supports BRT over ST2 without saying “other” — voters who feel that way will be inclined to state one of the listed position.

I think if someone opposes the plan already they have probably made up their minds, but these may be the arguments that ST2 opponents will make to their friends, family, and the Internet: No new taxes, not right now, and light rail doesn’t solve anything. Us who support ST2 have to have good responses to if we expect to win the vote.

Next, voters were asked about the best way to fix our region’s transportation problems:

In other words, 56% of voters think the major components of ST2 (bus service, light rail, commuter rail) help the most. 35% think that building new roads or new lanes is the solution. This is good news for transit fans, and shows that more and more people are beginning to understand that asphalt can’t be the answer.

(In some cases people who are pro-transit may just be reflecting their commute. For example, a Microsoftie who loves light rail may say that building a new lane on the 520 bridge is vital — and he’s right, we need an HOV lane across that bridge. Clearly, not all new lanes are created equal.)

The cross-tabs for this question are fascinating. 50% of Republicans and 46% of Snohomish County residents feel that building new roads/lanes is the solution, compared to 35% (as stated above) for the region as whole. 28% of King County thinks light rail would help the most, while 17% of Pierce County and 11% of Snohomish County believe the same. Commuter rail polls about five points in Pierce County (17%) better than King and Shomhomish, obviously reflecting the success of Sounder.

We must frame ST2 as delivering the bus service expansion that 20% want and the commuter rail expansion that another 14% want. Everyone knows that ST2 offers light rail, but some may not know of its near-term bus service improvements as well as the SR-520 bus rapid transit line or the Sounder service improvements. Of course, we need to further educate voters that relying on new roads won’t cause gas prices to fall.

Next up, we’re looking at ST’s favorability:

Nearly double the amount of favorable as unfavorable, that is pretty good. “Neutral” can only shrink after light rail comes online in 2009. Which leads us to this last question: Did you get your money’s worth from 1996’s Sound Move vote?

Sound Move was passed in 1996 with a vote of 56.5% to 43.5%, but only 20% feel they got their money’s worth from the vote. Yikes.

I feel that another big vulnerability for ST2 is that Sound Move isn’t yet done. We need to emphasize that Central Link is on-schedule to next Summer, and the extension to Capitol Hill and UW is proceeding with construction.  However, I can understand voter’s frustrations here. Even a transit supporter who lives along Rainer Valley may not have gotten his money’s worth until Central Link opens. This isn’t an argument to delay the vote — we simply can’t be idle anymore — but I’m just arguing that this perception is fluid and voters likely realize that.

Some darn interesting numbers, though I wish we had data on the percentage of voters who support the plan and why they do. It would be nice to see which arguments resonate with voters.

(I should note that I chose not to echo ECB’s analysis from the Slog since the margin of error for that particular question is 3.5% providing a statistical dead-head for that question. Also, the question was asked of all polled votes — not just those who opposed the package as she misstated.)

Incoherent Argument Watch

Posted on by Frank Chiachiere

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Jim Horn edition:

State Treasurer Mike Murphy has said both the 520 and I-90 bridges should be tolled in order to keep financing viable for a new 520 Bridge, but one transportation activist predicted a backlash if tolls are charged for both bridges and imposed before the new 520 Bridge is completed as some propose.

“I just think the public reaction to that is going to be very bad,” said Jim Horn, former state senator and president of the Eastside Transportation Association, a pro-highway and bus group.

If the ETA is indeed a “pro-bus group,” it should be thrilled about charging tolls on both bridges and before the new 520 span is completed. After all, tolls are the only plausible way to keep buses moving during rush hour. Especially on the existing 520, where there’s no dedicated HOV lane.

But, of course, ETA just says it’s “pro-bus” and we’re supposed to take them at their word.

Comment of the Day

Posted on by Martin H. Duke

Newish commenter “phantom” captures the angst of Ron Sims’s decline:

I am mostly just disappointed in Executive Sims. He was one of the few politicians I felt was driven by conscience, and I have always been supportive of his initatives.

That includes the 2006 vote for Transit Now. During the campaign, it was emphasized that buses could be brought online in terms of months, not years (a dig at light rail construction times). So, the measure passes, and we find out that RapidRide won’t see the light of day in Ballard or on Aurora until 2013. That’s seven years out from 2006. Central Link is being built in six, groundbreaking in 2003 and completion in 2009. All we’ve seen is a few busses added to sparsely populated locations in outlying King County, and a few off-peak trips added to the 8 and 44.

Now, we’re finding that gas prices are eating up the funding for even that.

Sims’ last minute meddling in ST2.1 to funnel money into Metro Transit is disappointing, especially considering he sits on the board and could have voiced these opinions as 2.1 was being crafted over the last several months. He should have spent the spring lobbying the state Legislature if Metro Transit was having budget issues.

I wonder if Sims will even run for re-election next year. He seems a bit disengaged from all of this debate, except now to say at the very last minute, “more money for local bus systems instead.”

My opinion is that we’ve put off building a real mass transit system for 40 years, and now we’re suffering the consequences. Gas prices suck, busses in Seattle are standing-room only, we all sit in wretched traffic and there really is no immediate short-term relief. We need to bite the bullet, account for our lackadaisical transit planning, and get this thing passed. In our current system, we will have to suffer through it for a few years, but there is still light at the end of the tunnel (pardon the pun). Central Link opens next year. Hopefully, we will have a federal government and executive administration more friendly to funding transit, and perhaps a state Government that will re-think how we do transportation around here (regressive sales tax funding, tolls, etc).

I’m not ready to say that Transit Now was a bad measure to vote for, but I’ve been groping to express similar thoughts for a while.  Bravo, “phantom.”