In 2030, when Sound Transit 2 is built out and we’ve had another real estate development cycle, 85% of regional jobs will have access to light rail. I suspect that this means “With a half mile drive to a park and ride,” but that’s still fantastic – if anyone knows more about this number, I’d love to know exactly what it includes.

Sounder cars are also 85 feet long. With seven in a train (plus a locomotive), they add up to nearly 700 feet, with seats for 980. I’m glad we’re not waiting 980 days for Link…

51 Replies to “85 Days”

    1. I find those comments interesting because they are advocating LRT and streetcars instead of grade-separated automated metro like SkyTrain (or monorail) which they regard as a poor value for money in terms of ridership forecasts.

    2. Their ridership has more to do with the extremely high density around it and availability of transfers than anything else – you could design it any way you liked.

  7. I’m as big a fan of transit as anyone on this blog, but this 85% of jobs having convenient access to rail stations is complete propaganda. You have to stretch the definition of “convenient” so far that it is hardly recognizable. “Possible” might be a better term and even that is a stretch.

    First, they count all the area within the 2.5 mile circles of every link stop other than the initial segment, meaning park-and-ride access. There are two problems with this. The first is highly limited park-and-ride space. The Light Rail Kool-Aid drinkers on this blog dream of filling four light rail cars packed with people on 2 minute headways, yet park-and-ride space can never accommodate that kind of volume. If the train is going to work, the vast majority of trips must be made by people walking to the stations, not from park-and-rides. That shrinks you to 1/2 mile circles, which cover 1/25th of the area of the 2.5 mile circles.

    Far more importantly, park-and-rides ONLY WORK ONE WAY. You can’t, for example, ride the light rail train to the U-district then, magically have a car sitting there to drive to Fremont, yet that is what the map requires that you do in order to get to that 85% of jobs number.

    The addition of Local Bus lines to the map, suggesting that “convenient” access includes taking a feeder bus to a light rail stop, then riding the rail, possibly transferring, then catching another feeder bus to take you from the light rail stop to your job. Never mind trying then to do some grocery shopping on the way home.

    Light Rail can be a good thing, and ST2 does more good things than bad things, but ST2 does NOT provide convenient access to transit to 85% of the region’s jobs. Not even close. It is offensive for sound transit to push this myth and even more so for this blog to perpetuate it. Please think critically about Sound Transit. Praise them when they do well, and call them out when they screw up. Otherwise you just look like a government mouthpiece.

    1. Don’t write angry, Tony! :)

      Sound Transit didn’t say 85% of commutes. They said 85% of jobs. You’re still right, perhaps that number isn’t accurate for ‘convenient’ access, but those jobs aren’t out at park and rides – they’re in the city.

      Light rail from Federal Way to downtown followed by a bus (or streetcar, eventually) to Fremont is fine – you don’t need a car at the downtown light rail station.

      I’m not even sure that number’s entirely inaccurate. Downtown Seattle, the U-district, Downtown Bellevue and Overlake are huge job centers, and both are served. With the kind of construction going on in the downtown cores, I wouldn’t be surprised if 85% is reasonable in 2030. Nobody’s building skyscrapers 2.5 miles from a park and ride in Lynnwood.

    2. .5mi is a 10 minute walk, but 2 miles is a 5 minute bike ride (excepting hills of course) so I think it’s completely reasonable to say 2.5mi is within commuting distance. For example, the other day I picked up a “Seattle Children’s In Motion” handout that highlights the “Bus Bike Walk” commuting options which cover a big chunk of NE Seattle without any mass transit at all.

      Also, I do have a bunch of cars sitting in the U-District. I’ve used them for grocery shopping, as have friends of mine.

      It’s not SoundTransit that’s the problem, it’s your expectations that there’s only one way to use the system. It will start out awkward for people accustomed to single-occupant driving, but slowly people will realize a better way to use it (and new people with transit experience will move here).

      1. Eighty-five percent of regional jobs and 70% of housing will have access to rail — measured by being within 1/2 mile walking distance of station, 2.5 mile driving distance of a park and ride, or one bus transfer away from a station.

        That’s an interesting map. The system hits the high job density downtown cores of Bellevue and Seattle as it should but I find it hard to believe only 15% of all jobs in the ST district are in the area shown as not covered. It leaves out Renton, Kirkland, Mill Creek, most of South Snohomish County and West Seattle. It’s even harder to believe these areas only account for only 30% of the housing. On top of that this is for when the system is built out (2030) and in that time the percentage of housing is expected to shift even more toward the outlying areas. It has to, the more central areas won’t have the capacity add density as fast as it’s needed.

        I also would like to know what they define as “convenient access”. Two local buses on the eastside to get to the train isn’t very convenient and that doesn’t account for more transfers at the other end. The ST definition seems to think four local buses and a train ride every day (on top of your 1 mile walking or Park & Ride experience) is convenient. BTW, 2 mi in 5 min on a bike is 24 mph, throw in a stop sign or two and you’re at least a pretty decent CAT3 racer to be able to pull this off. Especially if you’re doing this in dress shoes and a suit because bike garp adds another 5-10 minutes depending on weather.

        The table on pg 26 that shows increase transit use by 2030 over present day is pretty underwhelming considering the size of this investment. 8%-12% for Bellevue, a dismal 40% up to 50% for downtown Seattle. The only real winner seems to be the U district which jumps from a surprisingly low 20% today to a still disappointing 33% by 2030. It seems land use changes to accommodate increased density in the downtown cores and U district would drive most of this even if transit just maintained existing local routes with capacity increased in proportion to density. Something they have to do anyway in addition to Link.

        Even if the proclaimed cost savings from not driving were accurate (they’re not) what you’re doing is shifting the cost from the 25% that access it to the 75% that don’t. It’s not a savings, it’s a redistribution of income. It’s really pretty simple. If transit were efficient it wouldn’t need to be subsidized. Really! Where does the money go? Even if you take capital cost out of the equation there’s no way to charge enough at the fare box to cover operational costs. The drivers aren’t soaking up the majority of the difference. It’s coming from fuel costs (tax free btw) which should tell you transit is not the environmental panacea it’s made out to be.

        One interesting thing you can see from the map is why Flounder North is such a flop.

      3. That’s not what all the growth projects show or the swath of new construction today. I was talking the non-shaded areas on the ST map for link coverage but there are freshly minted subdivisions in Gold Bar, North Bend, etc. Redevelopment to higher density inside city limits takes longer than large new suburban development that’s already part of the GMA (it needs work and the swap of development rights is a small step in the right direction). As it currently sits we’re on the path to a large proportion of jobs in Seattle and housing in the surrounding communities. In other words, people are moving farther from work. The only “bright side” is the density near work centers is increasing; just not nearly fast enough. Seattle needs more housing and the rest of the region needs more jobs just to maintain the status quo.

      5. Those subdivisions don’t compare to the amount of housing developed inside the GMA. Even then, Seattle grows at an entire Gold bar worth of population every year .

      6. How many square miles is Seattle vs Gold Bar? When you take the large area that is unincorporated King County plus all the surrounding cities and compare it to Seattle the growth is shifting the ratio of housing to jobs away from downtown. Going forward the potential for infill in Seattle diminishes and the only way to shorten the average commute trip is for jobs to move closer to the housing. More housing in Seattle will help and is necessary but it can’t keep up with the job growth in the city.

      7. How many square miles is Seattle vs Gold Bar?

        That has nothing to do with anything. I’m saying that more people moved inside the GMA than outside. There’s no disputing that.

      8. If transit were efficient it wouldn’t need to be subsidized.

        Really? Zipcar is not subsidized and seems to be making money. Oh wait, they are subsidized with tons of public infrastructure just like all cars. You’re misreading the map (screenshot at flickr). There are two colors–dark for direct station access and light for one bus transfer away (including Renton, Kirkland, Mill Creek, etc.). Together they cover 85% of jobs.

        Seattle Children’s Hospital is on the Burke-Gilman, so the “2 miles in 5 minutes” may be an ideal speed. I don’t really have an opinion, but the point is there are a lot of bike commuters in Seattle who ride a lot longer than 5 minutes.

      9. The more you harp on how cars are subsided the more it spotlights how huge the transit subside is in proportion. Buses use the roads and don’t pay a dime in fuel taxes. The capitol costs are completely covered by tax dollars. It goes on and on. Everyone knows transit is heavily subsided, far more than anybody driving. Why isn’t the argument for transit focused on the benefits for the dollars spent? We know it can’t come close to paying for itself so what are we (meaning everyone paying for it) getting for the money?

        24mph on the Burke Gilman between UW and Lake City? You obviously don’t ride a bike; do you have any idea what the wattage is to maintain 24mph, even in the drops on a high end road bike? Children’s is not on the trail and you have stop signs (yes, those stop signs on the trail are for bike riders) and lights (Sand Point Way) to deal with getting there. All the fantasies sound good until you look at realities.

      10. One primary difference is that transit is environmentally responsible, while building massive highways and pumping CO2 in our atmosphere is not. It is quite convenient to ignore that.

        Of course the argument is about benefits for dollars spend. Those buses provide environmentally responsible alternatives, alleviate congestion and the need for roads expansion, and give transportation access to the disadvantaged in our society. Voters, who approved every single one of these tax measures you “harp” on about, decided that those benefits outweighed the cost of subsidizing transit.

      11. If the money spent on transit was doing something to curtail massive highway building I’d agree that would be a huge benefit; not only environmentally but in cost savings. So far it doesn’t seem to be working out that way does it? I think there is a huge potential here with a combination of transit and improved roads (better, not bigger) that should be part of the solution.

        Reduced air polution could be a big benefit and it certainly is for some routes but overall the transit system is not fuel efficient and it’s certainly not clean. Buses get a complete free pass when it comes to emissions. Yes, Link and electrified lines can help. Maybe investment in these should be a priority over increased service hours (again, better not bigger).

        Voters approved a sales tax increase for ST, not for Metro. The ST taxes are for regional transit and by and large a regional rail transit system. No major city can’t function without transit. Serving the “disadvantaged” is also serving the larger economy because without a way for lower income earners to get to jobs in high cost areas (like downtown) the economy can’t function.

        There are lots of good reasons to vote for transit without trying to equate car based subsides to transit subsides (there’s no comparison). Environmentally transit has a lot to do to get it’s own house it order. Trying to deflect that to cars have problems too doesn’t cut it. EPA regulations on emissions and fuel efficency have had a dramatic effect on reducing auto emmisions. Not prefect by any means but way ahead for what has been done by transit.

      12. I must have the 5-minute bike ride distance wrong, though I don’t think Children’s is saying “your total commute will be five minutes.” It’s just a rough estimate of the distance a cyclist can go. (By the way I don’t bike commute right now, but there is only one stop sign on what would be my route between 25th and 15th Ave NE.)

        I did find a fun quote from Wikipedia on bike commuting: Earl Blumenauer once said: “Let’s have a minute’s silence for all those Americans who are currently sitting in traffic on the way to the gym to ride a stationary bicycle.”

      13. If the money spent on transit was doing something to curtail massive highway building I’d agree that would be a huge benefit

        40% of downtown Seattle workers use the bus to get to work. Would those people just go away without transit? I doubt it. If we refused to build transit then we would likely choose the alternative: roads and highways.

        Reduced air polution could be a big benefit and it certainly is for some routes but overall the transit system is not fuel efficient and it’s certainly not clean.

        Compared to what? Compared to cars, yes the bus system is much more fuel efficient and cleaner.

        Voters approved a sales tax increase for ST, not for Metro.

        Voters have approved all of Metro’s taxes, including Transit Now just over two years ago. Voters have repeatedly weighed the benefits of transit and voted yes for our bus system.

        Environmentally transit has a lot to do to get it’s own house it order. Trying to deflect that to cars have problems too doesn’t cut it. EPA regulations on emissions and fuel efficency have had a dramatic effect on reducing auto emmisions. Not prefect by any means but way ahead for what has been done by transit.

        Earlier in this thread, I illustrated that a new rider on a Metro bus burns the equivalent of a .21 mile commute in an efficient car.

        So do you have any evidence for your claims? Are all the biggest environmental groups in the country being fooled by the allure of a bus? No, of course not.

      14. The Sightline article referenced in the post “Is the Problem Auto-Dependency or Suburbia?” shows if you read the numbers behind the details how poorly transit fares overall. The other study I referenced there is a little different but shows pretty much the same thing. For a bus to be efficient it needs to be running at about 50% capacity. For a one way peak commute this offten means 100% capacity in the peak direction. Buses can be very efficient but the way they’re operated isn’t.

        New ridership on existing routes is great. It’s basically free, in fact it should actually contribute to operating revenue. Somehow though the new ridership seems to be costing more that the marginal amount of existing riders. Ridership is also something that’s almost impossible to put meaning to the way it’s reported. Is it new fares or number of trips? Does a route change that adds a transfer double ridership? Is someone riding a quarter mile when they used to walk?

        The percentage of commutes by bus is a pretty good metric. Downtown does pretty well; the U district OK. Everywhere else is a drag on the system. Van pools have been very efficient in cost, environmental impact and convenience. Perhaps that should be getting a lot more of the emphasis. Maybe a modified form of DART should be expanded. I noticed out bike riding the other day it seems to have designated stops around NW College in Kirkland. Anything that prevents empty buses is good; and yes even as an eastside resident the 20/40/40 rule is stupid as implemented.

      15. Your assertion about a bus needing to be 50% full is incorrect. This chart starts at 1/4th full and shows a measurable improvement above a personal automobile.

        Your assertion that dead-heads aren’t calculated into the efficiency sound like it’s incorrect as well. Those factors should be considered into that study since it uses NTD numbers which show the total fuel consumption across the Metro network — whether or not those routes are accepting passenger service. (“fuel consumption and ridership figures are derived from tables 17 and 19”…).

        The article doesn’t define what 1/4th full means, but it does state that the average ridership is 10.7 riders per mile in King County. Given that the bulk of these buses are 40 foot coaches (source), I’m guessing that’s around 30 to 35 seats — you could conceivably call that 1/4 full. Or close enough where the average efficiency is less than a car. (This ignores trolley buses.) As I’ve illustrated before, the marginal carbon cost of adding a new rider is negligible. That is, as more people ride the bus the entire network becomes more efficient. On the other hand, as more people ride in their own automobiles they produce more carbon without any efficiency gains. Further, Metro’s emissions-per-passenger-mile improve when anyone boards.

        Just as engines get more efficient over time (very slowly), Metro’s ridership on the Eastside will continue to climb — the equivalent of getting a more efficient engine inside the bus. Metro’s theory is that service won’t grow without the service and that making this investment is cheaper than expanding 148th, for example.

        Those high ridership and efficiency routes in Seattle, which are sometimes trolley buses, make the net impact of transit service a reduction of carbon emissions compared to driving alone. It your claims are easy to back up, you should be able to find (on the basic level) charts and (on the deeper level) research that will back up your claims. It may be difficult, though, since there is certainly a reason why environmental groups are in favor of transit projects.

        I think it’s more than a little disingenuous to argue – as you have – that transit needs to get its environmental cards in order by pointing to the worst performing routes. Just like Hummers don’t represent all drivers, that empty bus you’re unhappy with doesn’t represent the entire picture of transit. The crushing loads most of us see every day are examples of massive CO2 emissions saved compared to the alternative.

        Of course, if you wanted to save even more CO2, you could build a streetcar, trolley bus, or light rail line. Yet you’ve argued repeatedly against the light rail alternatives in the Eastside which generate the highest ridership and thus the highest CO2 savings, instead choosing to favor alignments that abut highways or ancient railways.

      16. Where does the money go? Even if you take capital cost out of the equation there’s no way to charge enough at the fare box to cover operational costs. The drivers aren’t soaking up the majority of the difference. It’s coming from fuel costs (tax free btw) which should tell you transit is not the environmental panacea it’s made out to be.

        Well that is both completely made up and entirely false.

        While Metro’s 2007 operating budget was $500 million, just $28 million of that went to fuel and trolley electricity.

        In 2007 Metro consumed 127k more gallons of diesel fuel compared to 2003. In the same time, Metro ridership grew by 18 million. That means each new rider consumed 0.007 gallons of fuel. Assuming a generous fuel mileage of 30 miles per gallon, that is equivalent to each of those new riders driving their car less than a quarter mile (.21 mi). How many people do you know who drive .21 miles to work?

        (Source: http://transit.metrokc.gov/am/reports/2007/2007-QMRyearend.pdf)

      17. So where does the money go?

        In two years the operating budget has gone from $500M to $600M. A 20% increase yet we’re being told a 20% reduction in service is required. Yes fuel prices spiked last year but they’re currently lower than budgeted. Increased ridership should help. Yes sales tax revenue is down but how does the operating budget grow 20% in two years (not even accounting for a spike in fuel costs) while inflation has been virtually non-existant?

      18. First of all, the 20% cut is from a baseline of the planned 2010 service — so that includes a ton of Transit Now service that doesn’t currently exist. In two years Metro has added a ton of service.

        Secondly, Metro hedged against higher fuel prices at exactly the wrong time, so they’re getting some of their fuel at above the market rate.

        Third, labor costs continue to spiral upwards. The contracts are mostly collectively bargained, and even if salaries were fixed health benefits always spiral upward.

        That’s how the budget goes up 20%. More service, higher fuel costs, higher labor costs.

      19. According to the PDF link, mainly personnel costs: “continued increases in the costs of medical and retirement benefits.”

      20. So it’s as much a matter of spiraling cost increases vs a revenue shortfall? Every private sector industry has had to make adjustments to medical benefits. Either reduced coverage (HMO baseline with buy-up provisions), reduced dependent coverage, shift to health savings accounts, etc. Salaries in the private sector have stayed flat with inflation near zero. Retirement? We’ve seen what that’s done to US car companies.

        With Transit Now service aren’t those increases part of ST which reimburses Metro? Instead of scaling back maybe the laws need to be changed so that ST has the chance to weigh bids from other providers. Both CT and Pierce Transit charge less for the service hours they provide (about 15% less). CT uses private contract services. Pierce Transit runs much of it’s fleet on compressed natural gas (equivalent to $1.21 per gallon). Not that either of those agencies would replace Metro but it certainly seems there’s room for some competition.

        With link coming on line isn’t there a reduction right there that should be possible without any actual loss in service?

      21. With Transit Now service aren’t those increases part of ST which reimburses Metro?

        No, Transit Now is a package approved by voters in 2006. It has nothing do with ST. It mandated a 0.1% sales tax increased in Metro’s tax base, to offset the loss of the MVET and expand service. RapidRide was also part of the Transit Now package.

      22. OK, now we’re getting somewhere. Sales tax revenue is down ~10% from it’s peak but King County would still like this funded. Increase the sales tax portion going to Transit Now from .1% to .11%. If Metro can deliver as promised then I’d support an initiative like that in November.

      23. Bernie,

        Metro’s tax authority is capped out. That’s why the bill in the legislature matters so much. “Transit now” isn’t a separate account at Metro; the measure increased Metro’s revenue, and there were some proposed service increases that went along with it.

        As for messing with Metro’s benefits package, that’s a matter for collective bargaining. We can’t simply decree a cut without causing a strike.

      24. Is it actually Metros share that’s capped out (even with a vote to increase it) or is it the total local taxing athority? If the later, well I think KCFD gets .05% and has a surplus. Drop that to .04% and transfer the difference to Metro (I’d cut KCFD to zero but that’s a different debate). That might be possible even without a vote to increase the Transit Now portion of .1%.

        The benefits package is a can of worms. I think it should be clear that it can’t continue to be out of touch with private sector benefits or ignored in the budget. Unions have done great things but there has to be some changes or, like the auto industry it goes from great job to no job.

      25. Oops, brain fart. KCFD is .05% on the property tax, not sales tax. The State does limit the total that can be charged for local sales tax and I believe that’s what we are up against with the sales tax. I don’t know what the $/% ratio is for sales tax vs. property tax. I seem to remember reading the .1% sales tax was only $2.50 for the “average household” per year and that the .05% worked out to $25 on the median priced home. Anybody?

      26. Bernie,

        The only current revenue-raising option Metro has is a fare increase.

        Please read the post “Metro Tax Update” from about a month ago, or any of Ben’s Olympia follow-ups, to understand how a bill in the legislature can improve the situation.

  8. I’ll second this. I live in southern Bellevue. The maps says convenient access. That convenient access would be a bus that runs every 30min to the Bellevue Transit Center and then catching the link out to MS. Just catching that bus and riding it to the Transit center is about twice my typical commute.

    I think that ST2 is a great start, but even if this is true it would be 85% of jobs not commutes.

    The most forgiving reading is if you move next to a link station, you might be able commute to MS or downtown Bellevue or Seattle by rail.

  9. Sounder cars are also 85 feet long. With seven in a train (plus a locomotive), they add up to nearly 700 feet, with seats for 980. I’m glad we’re not waiting 980 days for Link…

    The only place where this type of capacity is needed is downtown Seattle and the U district. It’s massive overkill for Bellevue and even for Microsoft with it’s tendency for high transit usage. When Link is up and running it will displace all the buses from the transit tunnel. That will make downtown Seattle the worst traffic nightmare ever imagined. For the cost of the proposed tunnel under Bellevue the region could have a new bus tunnel in downtown Seattle. Bellevue should be offered the same deal as Beacon Hill; a street car. Priorities?

    1. He’s talking about Sounder, not Link. And it’s First Hill, not Beacon Hill, that’s getting a streetcar. Buses will continue to share the tunnel until 2016. Seattle wasn’t a traffic nightmare when the tunnel was closed for two years, it probably won’t be much different then, especially if they make 3rd Ave. a bus only corridor.

      1. Oops, good points. I stand corrected. Though I have questioned before if Beacon Hill/Mount Baker might not have been better served by a single station and streetcar/local buses. Maybe not but the stations between Mount Baker and downtown seem awfully close in comparison to the rest of the Rainier Valley.

        Link capacity is still way overkill for anywhere except UW and Downtown Seattle. Bus service has been degraded from prior to the shutdown (try riding from Kenmore). 3rd as a bus only corridor might help but Seattle needed a bus tunnel 20 years ago and it’s going to need one even more 20 years from now when transit use in the core area is up some 20% from today’s levels (they’re not adding 20% to the roads or removing any cars). Bellevue doesn’t need a tunnel now and I don’t think it really needs a tunnel ten years from now. Redmond had the good sense to recommend to the ST board that Link not go to the Redmond Transit center. They had the novel idea that it would be preferable and a lot cheaper to open up a pedestrian corridor and put the station on Leary Way.

      2. IMO the current restrictions on 3rd Ave work pretty well – it’s not “bus-only”, but buses are getting through pretty quickly. Now if they would just put a cop at Benaroya when there’s an event, so all the tourists don’t block the #$@! intersection looking for their parking garage entrance.

  10. Maybe south Link has excess capacity for today, but isn’t that the point? And when the Link extensions are built, the most frequent tunnel bus routes will be eliminated, not moved to the surface. The 41, 194, 550 and probably the 71,72,73 will all be gone. There will also be several surface routes that no longer travel downtown. This will eliminate a lot of bus traffic downtown. I think with some minor surface street improvements bus traffic will no more impact on traffic than it does now. And I think Bellevue has made a pretty good case for a downtown tunnel and can probably pretty easily come up with the money to fund it. Shouldn’t East Link be built correctly from the start with future growth in mind?

  11. Some thoughts, in no particular order:

    1) People often make the mistake of forgetting that their auto commute time today will increase heading towards 2030 (or another data point), while transit commute time on rail should stay constant.

    2) Sometimes transit is “subsidized” by highway funds — such as paying no bridge tolls — because increasing transit through a highway corridor decreases the amount that needs to be charged for driver tolls by reducing congestion, and lowers the cost for roadway improvements and upkeep.

    3) When fuel prices start to rise again, the incentive to live far outside the cities, and drive into work will go down.

    4) As we move forward, fewer people will drive to work because there will be fewer places for them to park. Now, we could encourage this by actually legislating penalties for driving, such as a higher parking tax. However, I’m just referring to the simple reality that parking lots in Downtown areas are disappearing as new developments get built, and newer developments often have less parking than older ones because of the high cost of building parking spaces.

    5) Don’t forget that every car that requires a space to park in all day during the workweek is getting tens of thousands of dollars in subsidies right there.

    1. These are good points, though I think the debates on sprawl here and all over the ‘net come down to predicting the future. No one knows what people are going to be preferring in 10, 20, 30 years. I was recently reading a author who told the story of his family moving outside Detroit in the 1950s. Their stated reasons were a cheap veteran loan, city pollution, and threat of nuclear attacks on the city. That’s something that has never seemed very real to me but was in the public mind for probably 30+ years during the Cold War.

      Personally I’m betting that fuel costs will continue rising and city amenities will look more and more attractive, but I may be wrong.

Comments are closed.