Month: July 2010

In my recap of the 112th Avenue East Link options, I mentioned that Option 4 would likely gain the most traction among South Bellevue residents.  What I didn’t mention is that it could brew an internal conflict among the pro-B7 faction.  While the Bellevue Club and Surrey Downs has been nearly unanimous in their call to push Link far far away to I-405, the two could probably not disagree more on a 112th Ave option.

The Bellevue Club, which I said would likely lose a few tennis courts and street-side landscaping, has been pushing for Option 2, a west-side running option which would ironically displace 46 residences, most, if not all, from Surrey Downs.  While the club is still fervent in promoting B7, we know that ST has no interest in advancing that option.

Surrey Downs, on the other hand, campaigned on the whole premise that they would not have their residences impacted, much less torn down for silly screeching trains.  Outside of their support for B7, they have clung tight to Option 4, which would burrow a retained cut on the east-side of 112th.

In a letter to their members, the Bellevue Club’s rationale:

The impacts of the center and eastern alignments cannot be mitigated and permanently affect the use of the Club. Commencing with a construction period estimated beyond two years, excavation of 22,000 SF of green belt 635 feet long removes the west side of the property. The character of the our garden setting is blighted beginning with the removal of thirty year old pines on 112th Ave SE. More troubling is the loss of outdoor recreation areas, four tennis courts, pool decks, garden decks, water elements and patios all positioned most favorably on the west side of our property.

…The western alignment as it passes Surrey Downs would impact only two homes which is less than 1% of that neighborhood. As to the Carriage Place Condominiums north of Surrey Downs, from discussions we have had we feel, if appropriately compensated, would welcome selling…

Outdoor recreation areas, patios, and more…all worth the displacement of 46 homes (not just two, as the letter states)!  Considering the general apathy about the displacements coming from this letter, it seems unfair that Sound Transit should be the only scapegoat here.

Yesterday, the FTA announced winners of two competitive federal grant programs, the Urban Circulator program, and the Bus and Bus Livability program.  The City of Seattle won $2.4 million in grants of the latter program, which will be aimed at improving King Street Station and the Westlake Hub.  This is all in addition to existing funds and money from Bridging the Gap.

From the FTA’s website:

The City of Seattle will restore the historic King Street Station and improve the Westlake Hub,  creating two intermodal transportation hubs in downtown Seattle that connect rail, bus, streetcar, and pedestrian networks in Seattle’s Center City. Improvements to these two hubs are critical to implementation of Seattle’s Center City Access Strategy to revitalize 10 downtown neighborhoods, fight regional sprawl and build a sustainable economy and community.

Nationwide, a number of recipients will be using the money for streetcar projects and others for existing transit improvements.  Big winners include Cincinnati, New York, and Chicago.  Elsewhere in Washington State, Skagit Transit will get $2.8 million for a park and ride.  In which district?  It just so happens in Mary Margaret Haugen’s, who we know has been the darling of transit advocates.

We weren’t there, but PubliCola was, so go there and read up on the hysteria and hyperbole. See also Erica’s route reconnaissance.

Basically, ST was trying to solicit opinions about the various sub-options of B2M, but the meeting was dominated by complaining that B7 (out by I-405) wasn’t a choice, compounded by predictions of doom if light rail goes near certain neighborhoods.

It’s all very depressing. If you live in South Bellevue and you want to be able to easily access Link, by not showing up you’re being shouted down by people afraid of change.

[UPDATE: Reader Mike Skehan points out that the VA has moved their shuttle stop much closer to Beacon Avenue, so perhaps this can be fixed without a massive amount of renovation.]

One of the mild nuisances for riders of the 39 and 60 is the ~4 minute loop buses take through the parking lot of the Veterans Administration Hospital. The Hospital is a classic 1950s design, with the entrance hidden behind acres of surface parking. Given the large number of mobility-impaired customers, it’s entirely appropriate that buses come right up to the entrance.

Unfortunately, aside from increasing travel times*, this setup has had unfortunate impacts on transit planning. In particular, one reason Metro abandoned the idea of reinstating Route 50 from Othello to West Seattle (via Columbia City and Sodo) was because it would mean loss of the 39, and thus the one-seat ride from downtown to the hospital. Metro got a lot of mail on that subject.

What’s doubly frustrating about this situation is that one of Metro’s workhorse routes — the downtown-bound 36 — is mere steps away from the building on the Beacon Avenue side, on the right side of the map above. What’s needed is a remodel of the facility to create an accessible entrance on the Beacon Avenue side, and possibly some redeployed trolley wire to bring buses right up to the building.

However, it’s no one’s role to make this happen. The funding would come from Congress, and it’s the kind of thing Patty Murray specializes in. But Sen. Murray isn’t going to do something the VA doesn’t ask for, and they seem satisifed with the status quo. Meanwhile, Metro has neither the competence nor the authority to request a remodel of the facility, even if it solved several headaches for them. Someone in government, City or County, would have to step up to make this happen, informally coordinating the various agencies to make sure everyone’s interests are addressed.

*By my count 144 buses serve this stop every weekday and 91 each on Saturday and Sunday. If it’s really a 4 minute diversion,the back-of-the-napkin estimate is that it’s about $360,000 a year in operating time.

Dominic Holden, news editor of The Stranger, has two long-form articles this week. One goes through the history of the viaduct/deep bore tunnel project, but the main one is a well-researched and thorough exploration of all the things that could go wrong with the deep-bore tunnel, and explains just how shoddy the contingency planning for these possibilities are. It’s almost enough to make one support a viaduct rebuild if the surface/transit option can’t happen — especially since the city is likely to mess up the new waterfront anyway.

Let’s spare a thought for the other big transportation tunnel project just getting started — the light rail tunnel from Pine Street to Roosevelt. Potential problems with ST’s project are both fewer and milder, and post-2001 their reserves have been generous. Furthermore, if ST has overruns the impact is a reduction in scope and delay in completion, rather than a raid on someone’s general fund. Nevertheless, tunneling risk is one of the best reasons to be a pessimist about ST coming through on time and on budget.

All this doesn’t mean tunnel projects are never worthwhile, but it does mean that contingency planning and risk management are very important. It’s especially important when the impact of overruns is likely to be a raid on funds allocated to better things, whether at the city level or the state level. Holden’s reporting  — possibly the local story of the year so far — shows how the deep-bore plan we’re being asked to commit is lacking.

Also, check out the 13-lane-width monstrosity at right.

The STB editorial board is about to come out with its endorsements for the August 17th primary. There are lots of legislative races out there, so we’d welcome any suggestions in the comments for candidates we should note.

We are more interested in links to a candidate’s stand on transit-related issues than what he or she may or may not have told you in private. We are also strictly reviewing their position and record on issues covered on this blog, not any sort of wider agenda, “progressive” or otherwise.

No need to point out Marko Liias, Geoff Simpson, and Patty Murray. Thanks.

In brief response to Kevin Desmond’s op-ed, I agree that at this stage of rail service it’s probably premature to kick all the buses out of the tunnel. A train running every 7.5 minutes in each direction leaves a lot of capacity on the table. It’s one major drawback of ST building one of its lower ridership segments first.

That said, 15 incidents a month — which I suspect happen mainly during peak commuting hours — really aren’t acceptable. I think Mr. Desmond would agree that there’s room for improvement. What I don’t understand is why Metro would add peak trips in the tunnel (the 217*) even as Metro and Sound Transit are trying to troubleshoot the unique problems with this one-of-a-kind system.

There’s always a tradeoff between letting more riders benefit from the tunnel and diluting that benefit by putting in too many buses. Before there was Link, not every bus that could use the tunnel did so. Today, trains occupy a large amount of the capacity. What’s different, though, is that given a multibillion dollar investment in reliability, expectations are higher. Someone interested in its success, and presumably Desmond is, should be looking for ways to remove obstacles to its smooth operation.

It’s premature to kick all the buses out of the tunnel, but we should reduce it to whatever level is necessary to reach an acceptable level of reliability for all modes that use the DSTT. Once the problems are licked, Metro and ST can discuss cautious additions to the list of routes that use the tunnel.

*My bus, as it happens.

by KEVIN DESMOND

I’d like to respond to the Seattle Transit Blog post from May 29th: “How and When Link Reliability Will Improve.”

The article seems to point the finger at joint operations in the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel for negatively affecting Link service reliability over the past 11 months.

Joint operation of buses and light rail in the tunnel is a one-of-a-kind system, and we are less than one year into it. Metro Transit and Sound Transit work in very close collaboration to identify and examine the types of operating problems that have resulted in any Link or bus service delays.

Since we opened for operation last summer, there have unfortunately been occasional service delays caused by operating issues in the tunnel. For example, during the month of May, there were approximately 15 instances of a disabled bus blocking light rail trains. Then again, I also hear from bus riders – particularly those on Eastside routes – that have significant waits to enter the tunnel while trains clear the track.

But, any vehicle delay in the tunnel – whether it is a bus or a light rail train – almost always blocks all other vehicles. It’s not just a bus vs. train issue.

Sure, there is a trade-off. A rail-only tunnel would improve Link reliability, but then again the tunnel would be very under-utilized. Joint operations helps both Metro and Sound Transit move thousands of people each day through downtown Seattle without adding additional congestion to the surface streets. Buses alone have 50,000 tunnel boardings each weekday, compared to a total system ridership of 21,000 for light rail. So while Link service would be more reliable if it was exclusively for trains, we would see increased travel time for thousands of Metro and ST bus riders, and increased operating costs for both KCM and ST due to lengthier bus travel times through downtown.

Seattle Transit Blog readers should know that we are committed to operating service in the tunnel as reliably as possible, and KCM and ST continue to commit significant resources to support tunnel operations. I know that we here at Metro are very proud that Seattle has this one-of-a-kind bus/rail operation. I expect in partnership with ST we will continue to troubleshoot and make improvements.

Finally, I must take strong exception to the statement that Metro employees who operate the Link trains have no incentive to operate on time. There have been a number of challenges for Link during this first year of operation – perfecting joint operations, traffic signals on the at-grade portion of the line, ongoing alignment construction, and various behind-the-scenes technical issues – but, be assured Metro’s Rail Division is highly focused on and committed to service reliability. The people who operate the trains select in from bus operations, and I think they are all proud to be the first light rail operators in the region.

Mr. Desmond is General Manager for King County Metro Transit.

[UPDATE: I don’t check bags very often, which is why I failed to point out that if you have to do so, the tip below doesn’t work so well.]

The fuss over the distance from Link Station to terminal has died down, either because people have realized it isn’t a big deal, or because everyone has said their piece. As someone who’s flown out of the S gates a lot recently, however, I want to point out that there’s no reason to walk the length of the terminal if you’re not feeling energetic.

From the Link walkway you can pass right through the northernmost security checkpoint and enter the airport subway system. From there you can ride the North loop to reach the C or N gates. However, on the opposite side of the station a frequent train takes you to the south loop station, where you can access the B and S gates without much walking.

This is an open thread.

In May 19th’s post on Metro’s Fare Evasion Report, Martin made the utilitarian argument that “net revenue maximization” should be the primary goal of fare policy.  Evasion rates per se, he argued, are less important than the larger revenue picture to which they contribute; furthermore, enforcement often cannibalizes the revenue it seeks to protect,

“…however unjust it may be, fare evasion in itself is not the problem here. It’s the concurrent loss of revenue, and to a lesser extent the tendency of some fare evaders to disrupt the bus in other ways. As a result, any attempt to address the problem needs cost/benefit analysis to see if it actually improves the budget situation.”

Many commenters passionately disagreed, bristling at cost-benefit analyses when principles of fairness and integrity are at stake. As a brief footnote to that conversation, let me add a cautious word about operators. The conversation to this point has involved two types of operators: (1. Those who follow policy by passively allowing fare evasion in the interest of occupational safety, and (2. Those who for reasons of principle break policy and choose to actively confront evaders anyway.

I suggest a third type of (rare) operator: s/he who actively solicits fare evasion. In the six weeks since I moved back to Seattle, I have experienced three occasions in which operators stopped people about to pay with phrases such as “Hey, don’t worry about it. Have a great night,” or “This one’s on me”. On one memorable occasion, the operator provided free rides to members of her own ethnic group but no others.

My hope is that this happens rarely, and I grant that arguing from such anecdotes is usually unwise.  It is impossible to quantify how fairness, policy reliability, and operator integrity contribute to ride quality and the retaining of ridership (and by extension, revenue). But as almost all untapped transit demand lies with choice riders, I suspect that such qualitative considerations make lasting (and potentially pernicious) impressions on the market segment we most need to attract. So yes, as Martin correctly argued, in the end revenue should be our primary concern.  But when transit agencies undermine themselves they lose more than money.  Tolerating fare evasion is defensible, but contributing to it is not.

I suspect it wouldn’t have taken long to manifest, but at long last, the great East Link War has begun to deteriorate into ideological nonsense.  Back in May, I specifically warned that this kind of rhetoric would have no place in planning for a key infrastructure project like Link.  On Tuesday, my plea was thrown under the bus (no pun intended) by B7 supporters at the East Link workshop.  There was no shortage of anger seething among those who were unhappy with the 112th Avenue option.  Martin Paquette, who I quoted in the recap of the previous workshop, had this to say about Tuesday’s meeting:

[Tuesday’s] session, which built on the previous one, was all about the 112th Avenue alignments.  It was a very negative evening, and Surrey Downs was overwhelmingly present, [it] mostly stayed on task, discussing the technical specifics and Sound Transit kept their cool.  However, the audience attitude (not surprisingly) was typified by the one fellow who said, “you’re giving us a bunch of lousy options so that we’ll just have to go with the lesser evil,” and also probed into whether Claudia Balducci was in a conflict of interest situation being both on Council and Sound Transit; and Betsy Blackstock, who stood up out of turn and accused them of withholding answers to the very critical question they all wanted answered (subject immaterial, as far as I’m concerned).

Here’s the real stinger:  Geoff Bidwell, a pro-B7 resident, decided that public testimony wouldn’t satisfy his frustration, so he was kind enough to distribute these flyers (PDF) out at the workshop and throughout South Bellevue neighborhoods. Notice anything unusual?  More below the jump.

Continue reading “Editorial: B7 Supporters Resort to Ideological Nonsense”

The Sightline Institute issued a report yesterday about rising fuel consumption in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia.  While the headlines make this out to be an ominous sign, the overall picture is equivocal and quite mixed.  After a decade of per-capita declines, 2009 saw a tiny uptick of 3 gal/year for the average Cascadian, a 0.7% increase.  Overall consumption rose 2%, while diesel consumption (a key indicator of freight traffic)  fell by 10%. While Washington and Oregon saw per-capita increases of <1%, Idaho and British Columbia drivers consumed 4% and 10% more, respectively.

There are interesting trends in this report, even if it strikes an unnecessarily sensationalist tone.  Read it for yourselves, it is short, well-written, and very accessible.   I would only make a couple of observations:

More after the jump.

Although Metro is already eliminating certain low-productivity trips, riders are currently being shielded from the full force of the budget shortfall by some efficiency measures and running down a surplus in the reservecapital fund. Through 2015, Metro faces further cuts, as reported earlier, in the neighborhood of 400,000 annual service hours, or 11% of the current total*. Metro’s current tax revenue is very close to the limit set by the state legislature, and no extension of that authority is on the horizon.

King County’s Regional Transit Task Force, a group of citizens, officials, and stakeholders chartered to review the principles by which Metro allocates service, tonight will receive from staff a report which outlines, in rough draft form, a potential service scenario that reflects these cuts.  Staff were directed to follow the criteria below the jump,where you’ll also find much, much more:

Continue reading “Metro Discussing Service Reduction Plan”

• More on the trolleybus process.
• SDOT to tear up Rainier Ave. to improve the 7.
• Redmond’s plans for the recently purchased BNSF ROW.
• Seatac’s station area master plan is on life support; previous coverage here. Burien TOD also in limbo.
• Better infrastructure in Newcastle.
• The city should give priority to Route 2.
• Lynnwood TC rearranging bus bays.
• UW students did research for the some of RapidRide’s art and design, and a RapidRide bus appeared in last weekend’s Pride.
• 7th Ave gets buffered bike lanes. Jefferson St. get new bike infrastructure.
• The ball’s in the Council’s court for the DBT.
• In defense of the road diet.
• OneBusAway on TV.
• UW looks to avoid (evade?) city parking tax and divert the proceeds to U-PASS.
• Privatize the ferries?
• Feds accepting applications to dole out $2.3 billion for high-speed rail.
• U.S. Senate committee sees federal role in transit safety.
• UW student dissolves his ORCA card, puts the RFID chip in his cell phone, and it still works!
• Using transit helps you to lose weight. (via Slog)
• Mayor’s official SUV on eBay, expiring tonight.
• Paris fare evaders pool their risk and create a moral hazard.
• Tacoma Link, Sounder Trains, ST Bus Routes that run in Snohomish County are now avavilable on Google Transit

This is an open thread.