Route 16 Stop Consolidation

Click to Enlarge
North End (Click to Enlarge)

Metro is in the middle of a project to consolidate the stops on Route 16, eliminating 33 of the 109 stops between Denny Way and the Northgate Transit Center.  Those 33 stops represent about 12% of the route’s riders.  The consolidation will bring the mean stop distance from 850 feet to about 1,225 feet (3 blocks), which is closer to Metro’s ideal separation.

The changes are expected to improve reliability and save about $50,000 a year in operating costs.  Metro has done similar projects on Routes 7 (as we covered), 48, and 120.

Rider alerts are already posted at the stops.  Customers have until Nov. 6 to submit comments to 206-296-4511 or community.relations@kingcounty.gov.  There is no webpage for the project.  The 16 will cease serving those stops on Nov. 28th.

There’s also a map of revisions on the South end of the line.  Thanks to Julia Hanke for the tip.

That WSDOT Viaduct Video

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

The video above was released as part of a public records request. Or so they say. It’s apparently all a big conspiracy.

Color me skeptical.

Certainly it’s possible that the video was released intentionally to sway the election. But to sway it in whose favor? Neither candidate for Seattle mayor supports leaving the viaduct intact. I don’t see how this clearly benefits either of them.

I’d be curious to know how videos are typically released as part of public records requests. It’s obviously easy enough to send the filer a PDF of a text document. But what do you do with a video? Send a VHS tape or DVD? Putting it up on YouTube is an interesting, low-cost way to comply with the request in a way that benefits the public. I can’t turn up any evidence on the internet on how videos are typically released.

Anyway, the video is best viewed with Metallica playing really loudly in the background.

The Deep Bore Couldn’t Be Rail Later

As I apparently haven’t posted about the Viaduct since May 12th, I guess it’s time for an update!

Some have suggested that the tunnel could be used later for a new transit corridor. I want to explain why that’s so unlikely – and it’s a simple explanation.

The viaduct deep bore tunnel would run from 60 to 200 feet underground. The points where it’s deepest are also where we need transit – under the center of downtown, where the endpoints of all the potential transit trips in such a tunnel would be. Unfortunately, these would also be where station platforms and entrances would be most expensive to construct.

More after the jump…

Continue reading “The Deep Bore Couldn’t Be Rail Later”

Editorial: Hutchison is Wrong on Transit

Hutchison at the Washington Policy Center dinner. Image from Publicola.
Hutchison at the Washington Policy Center dinner. Image from Publicola.

There is no doubt that the most important election concerning transit this year is between Dow Constantine and Susan Hutchison for King County Executive. The Executive runs Metro transit, nominates 10 of the 18 Sound Transit boardmembers, and signs off on land use policies throughout the county.

Constantine serves on the Sound Transit board and chairs the Regional Transit Committee. His master’s degree in urban planning bolsters his wonky side — he noted at our last meet-up that “infrastructure creates demand,” a fact that escapes most politicos. Constantine is a great advocate for our two largest transit agencies and will be an effective leader. We have endorsed Constantine for Executive, and we urge those who want a better future for our region’s transit to donate to his campaign. But this election is notable not just for Constantine’s impressive credentials, but also his opponent’s reckless misunderstanding of transportation and transit issues. Susan Hutchison is wrong on transit.

Read on after the jump…

Continue reading “Editorial: Hutchison is Wrong on Transit”

On Environmental Impact Studies

To follow up on Martin’s post I just want to make sure we are all on the same page when it comes to Environmental Impact Studies. This has yet to be done for the deep-bore tunnel, with the draft EIS to be released in February of next year and the final EIS completed in the spring of 2011.

As defined by the International Association for Impact Assessment

Environmental Impact Assessment can be defined as:

The process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments made.

Emphasis mine. Furthermore from the Washington State Department of Ecology;

Q: What is SEPA?

A: SEPA is the abbreviation or acronym for the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW. Enacted in 1971, it provides the framework for agencies to consider the environmental consequences of a proposal before taking action. It also gives agencies the ability to condition or deny a proposal due to identified likely significant adverse impacts. The Act is implemented through the SEPA Rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC.

So when is a SEPA review process needed?

Q: When is SEPA environmental review required?

A: Environmental review is required for any proposal which involves a government “action,” as defined in the SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-704), and is not categorically exempt (WAC 197-11-800 through 890). Project actions involve an agency decision on a specific project, such as a construction project or timber harvest. Nonproject actions involve decisions on policies, plans, or programs, such as the adoption of a comprehensive plan or development regulations, or a six-year road plan.

More below the jump.

Continue reading “On Environmental Impact Studies”

Take Down the Viaduct Now?

This WSDOT simulation is really alarming.  Via KING5, the agency emphasizes that it was released due to a public records request and not to impact the election.  However, they make the case that it means we have to proceed on the deep-bore tunnel without delay:

“It is weak at its core and we must replace it as soon as we can,” said [WSDOT Engineer Jugesh] Capur.

Of course, what the video shows is that we have to remove it (and replace the seawall) as soon as possible.  Whether we replace that with another highway or not is another question.  The current plan envisions taking down the viaduct in 2015, not 2012 as the Governor originally pledged, to avoid traffic disruption in the meantime.

Remember: subjecting new highway projects to due process and environmental review: reckless disregard for people’s lives.  Leaving a brittle viaduct up to make sure auto trips into downtown are convenient: good transportation planning!

In other news, the memorandum of agreement signed last week by Governor Gregoire and Mayor Nickels contains no mention of overruns whatsoever.

Also: Skepticism about WSDOT’s motivations here and here.  My nuanced position on the merits of the tunnel is here.  I wrote the above before I saw that five viaduct “stakeholders” agree with me.

Sound Transit Board Appointments

Sound Transit
An old picture of the board (Sound Transit)

I realize that Erica Barnett is using this post at Publicola to be humorous and make the point that all the anti-rail usual suspects are donating to Susan Hutchison.  Still,  that effort ought not to spread misinformation about how the process works:

So who might those board members be if light-rail opponent Susan Hutchison is elected? Hutchison’s spokesman Jordan McCarren did not responded [sic] to an email asking that question, but here are some educated guesses.

1) Kemper Freeman. The Bellevue developer and longtime light-rail opponent…

It goes on like that.  For the record, here is the requirement from the State law authorizing Regional Transit Authorities like Sound Transit:

The regional transit authority shall be governed by a board consisting of representatives appointed by the county executive and confirmed by the council or other legislative authority of each member county…

Each member of the board, except the secretary of transportation or the secretary’s designee, shall be:

(a) An elected official who serves on the legislative authority of a city or as mayor of a city within the boundaries of the authority;

(b) On the legislative authority of the county, if fifty percent of the population of the legislative official’s district is within the authority boundaries; or

(c) A county executive from a member county within the authority boundaries.

When making appointments, each county executive shall ensure that representation on the board includes an elected city official representing the largest city in each county and assures proportional representation from other cities, and representation from unincorporated areas of each county within the service area. At least one-half of all appointees from each county shall serve on the governing authority of a public transportation system.

None of the figures Barnett lists is actually eligible to serve on the board.  King County controls 10 of the 18 seats, with a two-thirds vote necessary for most major decisions.

Pointing this out may make me humorless, but gives me an excuse to actually put this information in a post.

Viaduct Tolling: Tailored for the Tunnel?

A few weeks back McGinn held a press conference where he asserted that WSDOT’s tolling figure are inflated. He released this folio.

I did a little more research and dug up a 2002 tolling study as well as 2008 draft study. Both studies were done by Parson Brinkerhoff (See Publicola’s article). The 2002 study estimated that the optimal toll rate (i.e., toll rate that minimizes system delays) could cover between $35-$95 million (2009 dollars) in construction costs. This study showed that on average drivers would pay 31 cents during peak periods, and 16 cents during off-peak periods (2009 dollar).

The 2008 draft study, which was released several weeks after the announcement of the deep-bore tunnel, however, estimate that tolling could support roughly $330 million (2009 dollars). Toll rates were set at a predetermined level to maximize revenue, with peak rates at $1.50 to $2.25 and off-peak rates at $1.10 to $1.25 (2007 dollars).

The 2008 results represents an approximate 4- to 10-fold increase over the 2002 study.

This shows that WSDOT is significantly “over pricing” the tunnel in order to generate the revenue it requires for the deep-bore tunnel. However the additional revenue comes with a significant side-effect, diversion. The high toll rates will cause an estimated 40% of traffic that would otherwise use the tunnel to divert to other routes such as Alaskan Way, downtown streets and I-5. In very rough figures the viaduct carries around 100,000 cars a day, so that works out to roughly 40,000 diverted cars a day. That’s nothing to cough at.

This is yet more evidence that the impacts of the tunnel have been poorly vetted due to WSDOT’s expedited and politically motivated choice of the tunnel.

UPDATE: I want clarify the take away of this post. I’m not disputing the tolling model, rather I’m arguing that the models themselves show that tolls will be significantly higher than what the optimal toll should be. The 2002 study describes the toll rate methodology as;

Assuming that users have perfect information about pricing, that toll revenues are used to make cost-beneficial highway investments, and that pricing is ubiquitous, then short-run marginal cost toll pricing allows the road network to operate with maximum net social benefits from the resources used to build and operate roads. In this case, the economically efficient toll rate maximizes travel time savings, which for a given volume of traffic, minimizes total network travel time.

This means that using the toll rates from 2008 will significantly change travel patters, destabilizing the system, and resulting in increased delay on city streets and I-5 while not fully utilizing tunnel capacity.

The Highway vs. Fixed Transit Debate

40mph, by Mike Bjork
40mph, by Mike Bjork

There is a lot of manipulation and fact distorting when it comes to the debate between highway and road benefits versus fixed rail transit.  One of the biggest claims to have been made against Link is that it’s a “boondoggle,” a “waste of money,” and that “no one” ever rides the trains.  I pulled up an old document from the American Dream Coalition (ADC), a big anti-rail group, which compiled a laundry list of “facts” against what it calls “myths” of rail transit.  It’s a long list of points, many of which we’ve already debunked, but I thought I’d highlight a few that are relevant to the comparison often being made between roads and rail.

Rebuttals below the jump.

Continue reading “The Highway vs. Fixed Transit Debate”

News Roundup: Rail Moves Forward

Couplers, by Mark Dublin
"Couplers", by Mark Dublin