Bloggers always hear jokes about mom’s basement and pajamas. Locally, some of that image is fading thanks to the great work of Publicola, West Seattle Blog, Capitol Hill Seattle, and others. Another sign of the times is that when Seattle’s Mayor feels like has to respond to critics on his 520 study, instead of sitting down with the Times, he blogs.
Maybe this will convince mom to get off my back.
[UPDATE from Martin: the most interesting thing to me in the Mayor’s blog post is the proposal to save money by building only four lanes between Montlake and I-5. While that would be terrible for 545 riders, for those heading to UW (or using Link to get downtown), there shouldn’t be that much impact. Judging from the cost maps for Option A+ and the four-lane rebuild, this would save at least $150m and potentially much more.]
I live in a 3rd story apartment, but I also transit during the week.
I also walk the streets, drive, listen to people, sit in libraries and Starbucks (free wifi), and record what I see — not what I think.
That is what a ‘public servant’ must do.
So, Mr. McGinn, it is time to send the bureaucrats into the rice paddies, and get the scoop first hand. Blogging isn’t just writing. It’s reporting…and that requires seeing.
Reducing lanes at Montlake would increase congestion in that area. However, is it not correct to think that six lanes of traffic all the way to I-5 will only further congest I-5 itself, pushing backup onto 520 anyway?
The problem is the merge. All you have to do is look at what happens today on the east side of 520 when the HOV lanes go away. Even if a significant number of vehicles is exiting at Montlake when you cause a merge you create a backup. That backup will extent to the Montlake exit and out onto the bridge deck. You’ll have the traffic reports telling you if it’s “faster” to use the HOV or GP lanes. That and it’s incredibly short sighted to not put in these HOV lanes now.
Of course I’m prejudiced about this too because I’m favoring HOV only exits at Montlake and pushing SOV traffic bound for the U-district to 45th or a reconfigured Harvard to Eastlake. Instead of a second bascule bridge over the Cut maybe better to rebuild University Bridge. It doesn’t have to open near as often and with the new Coast Guard regs clearance might be able to be increased to 70′ and not have to open at all.
I think there’s an element of historic preservation to consider. I think protecting the Montlake bridge as-is should be continued, personally.
Assuming the HOV lane was 3+ the backup on the Westside would not be as bad as the current backup on the Westbound lanes of 520 before the bridge. If you were able to get 3+ HOV access all the way to UW Stadium station, that would be ideal. Your HOV only exit at Montlake would also accomplish this although I’d still argue for 3+. I’d also terminate all buses at UW Stadium – surely waiting for the train will be faster than navigating I-5 in all but the best traffic. (I get a lot of time stuck in traffic with passengers to think about this, by the way…)
I’m pretty sure all plans are to keep HOV 3+ on the 520 corridor. I’m hopeful they’ll open it for GP traffic from 7PM to 7AM since that helps flatten peak demand. Since they’ll already have variable automated tolling in place it might make sense to use a demand pricing model instead.
Martin,
The total inconvenience factor to 545 riders may be higher with a 520 rebuild through Portage Bay, choking all traffic for months or years, than with suffering the status quo for three more years until opening day at Husky Stadium.
Besides, what’s so bad about transfering at Bellevue TC?
Well back at you Brent. Using your logic what’s so horrible about building light rail on I-90 only?
Why do people think I am proposing light rail across 520? I’m just trying to keep the option open, in case it proves to be much cheaper and better than building a new bridge from Sandpoint to Kirkland. (Who knows where dense development will occur in the next 20 years?)
If I lived in Kirkland (after opening day at Husky Stadium Station), I would want a single bus route to UW that comes every 8 minutes rather than a UW route that comes every 20 minutes and a downtown route that comes every 20 minutes. The same equation goes for commuting from Redmond or Overlake, although East Link will make that question moot.
Am I just ab-Norman-al in wanting a faster 2-seat ride over a slower 1-seat ride?
One nagging concern I have about truncation of bus routes is whether the cost savings makes up for having to share the revenue between bus and rail. Using your example: A redesigned 540 with improved headways would allow current 255 passengers heading downtown a similar timed commute. The revenue from these passengers currently goes entirely to the bus system. Under the 2-seat scenario, the revenue from the trip is shared between the bus (ST Express in this example) and Link. Ignoring the complexities of Metro vs. ST bus service costs, does this 2 seat ride result in a more cost effective system?
A better example would be truncation of the 218 or 554 at a South Bellevue P&R East Link station. In the case of the 218, you would be eliminating substantial operating costs to take those passengers downtown and then drive an empty bus back to Issaquah Highlands.
Ideally, bus routes would not be truncated at rail stations but instead would go past them resulting in passengers who get on and off of that bus. The 36 is a good example – Lots of passengers get off at Beacon Hill and transfer to Link. The bus then fills up again as it heads downtown via the North end of Beacon Hill and Jackson. Again, does this make the system more cost effective? Or does it simply give people more options? (Another worthy goal of 2-seat rides)
I’m not well-versed in the revenue-sharing formulae among the many transportation agencies, but I will say this: If revenue-sharing formulae are the cause of duplicative bus service, then that is just goofy.
It isn’t the only goofy accounting nuisance we have. Take sub-area equity, puh-leaze! We will be looking for ways to spend ST money within our sub-areas while the Link spine I wish could get built out faster waits for tax-poor south King County and Pierce County to save more money up. (But I hope the planners noticed that more ridership will be picked up getting Link to Tacoma Community College than from getting Link from the airport to downtown Tacoma. See https://seattletransitblog.wpcomstaging.com/2010/04/09/pierce-transit-ridership-numbers/ )
But back to truncation. I think you are conflating different categories of routes. I wouldn’t suggest truncating the 36, the 7, the 106, etc because they provide lots of local stops between their last non-downtown Link station and downtown *and* are the only routes going between those bus stops and downtown.
The Kirkland and Redmond routes are good routes for truncation (when Husky Stadium Station opens) because a route going downtown has no additional local stops, and would provide inferior, non-time-dependable service to taking the bus to UW and hopping on U-Link. Plus, by having one route across the bridge instead of two, the headway can be cut by more than half, for the same cost (ignoring the politics of which agency realizes that savings, for the moment).
The same will go for the 7x buses and Brooklyn Station. Yeah, they sometimes do local stops when they have to go against the direction of the HOV lane, but the 70 does those stops as well, and can have its service level adjusted to provide steady headway.
Ditto the 76 and 77 with Roosevelt Station, and the 41 (which does a local route to Lake City) with Northgate Station.
At some point, CT is going to get tired of running lots of commuter buses to downtown Seattle and lots of commuter buses to UW. Snohomish County voters may not long tolerate such out-of-county limousine service when they can’t even catch the bus to work on Sunday. Look for those downtown CT commuter buses to start disappearing the day Brooklyn Station opens (if not sooner). Even if transfering at Brooklyn Station and riding Link downtown is a bit slower, CT has neighborhood service needs to prioritize.
So, the question arises how to get the accounting formulae out of the way of running an efficient transportation system. On that one, I have to pleed “I dunno”.
Using today’s fare structure as a guide, an ORCA pass customer on a 218/S Bellevue Link connection to Downtown would pay $2.25 for the one zone fare to South Bellevue and receive transfer credit towards an estimated $2.50 fare to Seattle on Link. However Metro and Link decide to share the total payment of $2.50, you’re still sharing that $2.50 in revenue between two modes as opposed to all of the revenue going to one.
Since fare recovery for buses is relatively low (20-25%) and the marginal cost of an incremental passenger on Link is relatively cheap, I assume the cost savings will justify truncating routes like the 218, or in your example, CT routes. I’m just asking whether that assumption is a fact.
In the case of the 218, it might make sense to truncate the 218 at S. Bellevue (or alternatively at Mercer Island Station) and run revenue service back to Issaquah Highlands. As for the revenue sharing you could come up with arbitrarily complex revenue sharing formulas that might reward a less productive mode for driving transit users to a more efficient (and hopefully quicker) mode.