Month: May 2010

The Seattle Times had an article out in the last Sunday Times profiling the life of Kemper Freeman and his lawsuit against using the I-90 lanes for light rail.  We’ve written so many times on Freeman’s anti-rail positions that I’ve lost count and am frankly weary every time his name comes up in the same sentence as ‘light rail.’  However, I couldn’t possibly pass up the ability to explain in full why most transit advocates have found extraordinary distaste with Freeman’s ideology toward transportation and why he’s simply wrong on many matters about rail.

It’s important to begin by saying nothing about Freeman’s virtues or moral character.  Whether he is a good man or not is beyond this argument.  The truth remains that a large share of Eastsiders admire him and show it by flocking to his malls and restaurants.  Some have labeled him racist— whether he is or not, I really don’t care.  In all honesty, he probably gets a good chuckle out of it.  Narrowing our attention on that only detracts from the real arguments on why his views on transportation are questionable.

More below the jump.

Continue reading “Breaking Down the Case Against Kemper Freeman”

We have talked a lot about transit across SR-520 over the last few months, but I don’t think we have ever mentioned what the adopted plan for the corridor is. The plan calls for increased bus service during SR-520 construction with BRT service phased in afterwards. The plan also touches on the Montlake Triangle and light rail over SR-520. Both of these sections are somewhat redundant, as imminent planning or recent studies cover these issues in more detail.

Five BRT lines (see map above) would have two-ways service with 7- to 10-minute headways during peak periods, 15-minute headways mid-day, and 15- to 30-minutes headways in the evenings. Under this plan the 255 and 271 become BRT routes. The plan says that $16.5 million per year (in 2008 dollars) will be needed to fully fund the additional 130,000 service hours identified in the plan. I believe that 38,000 to 48,000 service hours have already been funded through ST2 and the ferry district tax, but money for another ~90,000 service hours is needed. This lack of identified funding sources is in my opinion one of the largest unaddressed issues for transit in the SR-520 planning. A funding plan (supported by toll money?) has to be written in stone or else I have very little confidence that the hostile state leadership will allow or authorize more funding.

Larry Ehl’s exceptional WSDOT Federal Tlansportation Issues blog explains that the earmark requests of Senators Cantwell and Murray are now online.   Earmarks are funds attached to specific projects, rather than sent to agencies like USDOT to apply a formula.  Publishing them online is one recent reform of this system.  The request is the first step and is a long way from the item being funded.

At any rate, both lists are very heavy on transportation, and there are dozens of transit-related requests in each. If you’re interested in a particular county’s system, check out the lists.  The most interesting items are, by my count, $28.3m for RapidRide and $3m for the S. 200th St Link extension, which would take us part of the way to opening it in 2014 instead of 2020.

People always ask how new money will affect RapidRide.  Some federal contribution is already figured in to the budget, but Metro is “hopeful that we may end up securing slightly more grant money than we had originally thought”, according to a spokesperson.  Of course, RapidRide is just a line item in the Metro budget, so additional cash could divert current capital funds to either make improvements to the lines (e.g., more ticket machines) or simply be used to prevent looming cuts elsewhere in the system.

Some other items of particular interest are below the jump:

Continue reading “Senate Earmark Requests for Metro, ST, Others”