Rethinking Station Access (I)

Posted on by Martin H. Duke
"Where's Mt. Baker TC?", by Oran

An important part of Seattle’s decision to not build park-and-rides near most Link stations was the idea that people could take walk, bike, or take the bus to the train.  Indeed, one frequent criticism of Metro is that bus connections are not good enough.  Although Link is usually the better option if you’re actually at the station, close examination of transit options indicates that at the close-in stations if you’re already on the bus, the transfer generally doesn’t pay if you’re headed for the downtown core.

To reach Rainier Beach Station, riders may take the 106.  Simply remaining on the bus will get you downtown in about 38 minutes in the morning rush.  Link takes about 23 minutes for the same trip, so it will get you to work a bit faster, even when you factor in crossing a couple of streets and waiting an average of 4 minutes for a train.

At Columbia City, the 39 is your downtown-bound bus option.  Incredibly, the station is not a timepoint (!), but it’s about 26 minutes to University Street, vs. 16 minutes for Link.  However, in the peak, almost anyone on the 39 for any significant length of time can also choose the 34, which is 11 minutes faster to University Street,  beating 39+Link.  Off peak, the train is either better or a wash, but the 39’s headways are pretty awful.  The 42 is 20 minutes to the ID vs. 12 for Link. More after the jump.

Continue reading “Rethinking Station Access (I)”

McGinn Study Details Issues With 520 Light Rail

Posted on by Ben Schiendelman
A slide from the presentation: "further study" means either bus or rail.

Today, the Mayor has released the report his office commissioned with Nelson/Nygaard to determine the feasibility of light rail on 520. This study was reportedly presented to the Mayor’s office last week, but its release was delayed until today. It’s finally come with a blog post from the Mayor, essentially framing it in the most positive tone possible.

The obstacles the report highlights are similar to what we’ve discussed here in comment threads:

  • The pontoons would have to be designed to accommodate the weight of trains, and are not.
  • The west approach (meaning through the arboretum) would have to be at least 10 feet wider than the current A+ alternative to accommodate light rail without having to significantly modify the structure later.
  • Through the arboretum, the bridge must be wider (or have a gap) to allow light rail to enter and exit the center HOV lanes and diverge from the freeway.
  • From there are four choices for getting from 520 to the University – a flyover bridge starting out in the middle of the arboretum, a low level bridge along the east edge of the Montlake Cut, a tunnel underneath the Cut, or a surface option along Montlake Boulevard.

Our analysis after the jump:
Continue reading “McGinn Study Details Issues With 520 Light Rail”

ST wants Input on Fare Change Proposals

Posted on by Sherwin Lee
ST Express Proposed Changes
The three-zone structure will be reduced to two with an inter-county provision.

Last month, we told you about Sound Transit’s proposed fare changes, which involves a simplifying the fare structure from sub-area zones to county zones. Along with changes for ST Express fares, Link fares will rise by a quarter for adults and will also see a more simplified structure beginning June, 2011. The agency wants to collect public comments regarding the matter to help direct the next course of action.

From the press release (PDF):

The proposal is two-phased, with one set of changes in June 2010 and another in June 2011. Sound Transit will host a public hearing to receive comments on the proposed changes April 22 from 12 – 12:30 p.m. People can also e-mail comments to STfarecomment@soundtransit.org or send them by mail to Sound Transit, Fare Proposals, 401 S. Jackson St., Seattle, WA 98104. All written comments must be received by April 22nd.

You can find more information from the proposal draft here (PDF).

Second to Last Step for First Hill Streetcar Alignment

Posted on by Adam Bejan Parast

Update @ 5:20pm: Slog is hosting the letter that the Mayor sent to the City Council.

The Mayor’s office just sent out a press release announcing that he is asking the City Council to approve the two-way Broadway alignment. This is the recommendation made by SDOT. This isn’t a surprise but what caught my eye were a few details that I have bolded.

… There are many advantages to the recommended route. The Broadway/Jackson route is estimated to cost approximately $125 million, comfortably within the maximum Sound Transit funding limit of $132.8 million, and will provide an efficient and accessible new transit option.  The route also presents opportunities to rethink the Broadway streetscape in ways that support walking, biking and riding transit. In the Chinatown/International District, the Jackson Street route and the Pioneer Square loop integrate well with other transit and connect First Hill and Capitol Hill to this historic district and the adjacent stadium district.

The mayor is committed to developing plans to address the key transit issues that stakeholders identified throughout this process, including:

  • Improving transit access to the Boren/Madison area, through measures such as speed and reliability improvements to existing Metro routes;
  • Developing alternatives that provide north-south transit service in the 12th Avenue corridor; and
  • Extending the First Hill Streetcar to the north end of Broadway, to support the economic revitalization of Broadway and improve neighborhood access to the Capitol Hill light rail station.

All of this bodes well, although certainly doesn’t ensure anything.

Editorial: “Political” Lines

Posted on by Martin H. Duke

A pet peeve of mine, and mine only, is the habit of attacking one alignment or another as “political.”  It’s a tool of both Sound Transit critics (North Sounder, Central Link) and those who generally agree with ST (the Wallace alignment). It also turns up in discussions of certain Metro routes.

I think the problem with this accusation is that it presupposes that there is a platonic ideal of an objectively optimal route for any given project. In fact, any routing decision is a complex tradeoff between a number of different objectives and interest groups.  Most people agree that ridership, VMT reduction, lowest cost of service, and improving the mobility of low-income people are important objectives for a transit system. Many people here would add “encouraging dense development.” On some level many people think it’s important that those who pay for the service should benefit from it.  If you’re a rail advocate, speed, reliability, and quality of service are probably important ends in themselves.

Cursory examination of these objectives shows they are to some extent in conflict. There’s a word for trading off competing interests; it’s called “politics.” There is no other way to resolve these conflicts in a democratic society than to have our representatives haggle this out.

I don’t mean to suggest that this always results in sensible outcomes. To make up an example, if there had been a politician from Bothell that was obsessed with rail, and had therefore spent a decade of his time on the ST Board advocating for his constituents, we very well might have seen an earlier emphasis on service to Bothell.  In real life, I believe the recent overwhelming emphasis of certain Bellevue activists on reducing impacts on their neighborhoods to be misplaced, and in any case not an important regional consideration.*

Tarring our opponents’ ideas as “political” doesn’t move the discussion forward because it doesn’t contain any information.  Let’s instead look at what each proposal is trying to achieve and explain why those objectives are invalid or less important than our preferred ones.

*Not important, because Link is destined to run through someone’s neighborhood, unless you (stupidly) push it away from where the people are.  It’s just a question of which one!

Sidewalk Saturdays

Posted on by Frank Chiachiere

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

A good idea from Chuck Wolfe:

How about an ordinance offering temporary, no-fee sidewalk use every Saturday morning for two hours, with removable tables, for small restaurants and coffee houses who can do so while allowing a walkable passage between storefront and street? How about businesses reducing coffee, espresso drink and chocolate drink prices during these two hours for those who bring their own cups?

Sunday Open Thread: Viaduct Inspection

Posted on by Martin H. Duke

Publicola’s Dan Bertolet, with the quote of the year so far:

Why has been such a struggle to make these things happen? For example, how can it be that in a state that has committed to a goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled by 50 percent by 2050, leaders are strong-arming no fewer than three multi-billion dollar car infrastructure mega-projects, when at the same time transit funding [is] perenially on the chopping block, and ped/bike plans can’t be implemented due to lack of funds?

You Should Go To Rail~Volution

Posted on by Ben Schiendelman

I spend a lot of time learning about – and talking about – what rail transit does to connect and improve communities. It spurs new development, it improves public health and increases the number of people on the street, it helps combat climate change, it helps communities form – there’s a long list. Sometimes these things seem clear to many of us, but often we have trouble articulating them in a way that helps others make these connections.

There are many tools available to us to help – from blogs to books to classes – but few are as powerful as direct, in-person explanation from a human being. As such, I can’t recommend Rail~Volution enough – not only is it a set of presentations and seminars about exactly what most of us want to see and how to get there, it’s also a chance to mingle with people who are making things happen. It’s even split into three sections for people with different amounts of existing knowledge and different interests.

In October, Rail~Volution is in Portland, as John mentioned in the news roundup. I’ll almost definitely be going, and I suspect Adam will as well. If you want to geek out about rail transit for a whole weekend, this is the place to be. Registration opens soon – we’ll remind you when it does.

Politicans Who Don’t Support Transit Have a Liability

Posted on by John Jensen

Washington State Democrats have launched a website attacking Attorney General Rob McKenna in advance of a widely-expected run for higher office in the coming years. The biggest issue the site touts is, of course, McKenna’s controversial lawsuit against health care reform.

But another prominent issue? McKenna’s long-time war against light rail.

That just goes to show you, a leader who doesn’t support transit simply doesn’t reflect the values that voters look for. Politicians should take note.