The Route 70 corridor is next on the list to undergo a stop consolidation. From Metro’s website:
Currently, the corridor has 35 bus stops between downtown Seattle and the University Bridge, with an average stop spacing of about 830 feet. The plan would remove seven of these stops, increasing the average spacing between stops to about 1,060 feet.
As a result of this change, approximately 13 percent of Route 70 riders who board on the corridor between downtown Seattle and the University Bridge will have to catch their bus at a different stop. When the project is completed, all riders should have a faster, more reliable trip.
The northbound stops proposed for deletion are at John Street, Fairview /Eastlake, East Boston St and East Edgar St. Southbound stops include Valley Street/Fairview, East Boston Street and East Roanake Street. Routes 71-73 local would also be affected for evening and weekend runs. You can view the current stops and those proposed for deletion on an interactive map here. Comments are also being solicited via e-mail through community.relations@kingcounty.gov, online, or by phone.
With the planned elimination of the Montlake Flyer Stops, a smooth connection to light rail is critical. However, corridor HCT analysis suggests that 60% of bus passengers will head for the medical center or campus, 20% will transfer to another bus, and only 20% are transferring to Link. This led WSDOT to place stops A through C, near the current stop, on the short list, while retaining the (unfunded) option of constructing another stop on the east side of Montlake Blvd.
Option A
Option A, essentially the current location, provides the shortest walk for UW bound riders while dropping people off well away from the rail station. It also has relatively quick times for buses to transit through the area. Options and B and C have similar statistics.
To pick one of the alternate plans, Option D (depicted below the jump) brings both Northbound and Southbound buses by the station before turning on Pacific Place and merging onto Pacific St. Obviously, the balance of walking times shifts considerably in favor of the station, and buses take another 1.5-2.5 minutes to get through the area.
Obviously, the walking distance issue could be remedied by combining the two, and having another stop both somewhere near the station and at the intersection of Pacific and Pacific. When I asked WSDOT about this, they said that (i) there would be yet more delay to buses going through, and (ii) Metro is generally reluctant to put stops so close together.
I’m a big supporter of Metro’s stop consolidation, but this seems like a good instance to make an exception. We have two potential high-volume stops that are serving important destinations arrayed around a very large open space. Metro could realize huge savings by having a high-quality transfer to Link and severely curtailing downtown-bound buses. Continue reading “Montlake Triangle Bus Stops”
I have enormous respect for Jonathan Golob’s writing at The Stranger, and I sense we share a lot of the same values. However, I can’t imagine hating his hit job on Bellevue any more than I actually do.
And then, we’re off. Slowly. Creeping. Down 8th St, I notice the vestigial sidewalk—clear of pedestrians. Walking in Bellevue—I imagine as I wasn’t bold enough to try—strikes me as a life-threatening activity… Coming off I-405, the buildings here don’t seem to have entrances, just gaping maws for underground parking structures—maws already filled with car emesis squeezing in and out of the street.
Like an heiress bragging about her business acumen, many Seattlites are prone to take credit for a built environment they inherited. All of the acclaimed neighborhoods in Seattle, with the possible exception of South Lake Union, acquired their character in an era where cars were a somewhat attainable luxury rather than something automatically issued to you on your 16th birthday.
Modern Seattle is just as able as anyone else to mess up new development with outrageous focus on cars. After all, one recent foodfight has been over a proposal to somewhat reduce the public subsidy of some parking and increase the tax on other parking. You may have heard that there’s a debate about spending $4.2 billion — including $900m of unrestricted city authority — to maintain highway capacity in a downtown bypass, a fight the green side is losing decisively. This project will also replace a roadway grade-separated from pedestrians with one on the surface, and add two huge, neighborhood-destroying portals on either end.
I can understand Golob’s aesthetic preference for non-chain restaurants, and at times I seek similar businesses. But I’m at a loss as to what legitimate environmental or public-policy objective is involved, nor what sneering at chains will accomplish. Meanwhile, there are tons of good, small-scale eateries in Bellevue once you get out of the malls, much like none of Golob’s favorites are in Pacific Place.
Most importantly, in the struggle to make our metro areas more sustainable Bellevue is not the problem. There is a narrow issue of light rail alignments, where in my opinion a very vocal neighborhood and a certain moneyed interest have led the city astray. This kind of thing happens everywhere, and I think Bellevue’s institutions in particular haven’t caught up with its size. Nevertheless, the problem is not dense, mixed-use downtowns with a little too much emphasis on driving; the problem is Redmond Ridge and Snoqualmie Ridge and Marysville. Bellevue is also making a serious effort at encouraging biking, has a high transit share, and has ambitious development plans for the Bel-Red light rail corridor. We need more Bellevues.
I don’t mean to suggest a false equivalence between Seattle and Bellevue. The median voter and median politician in Seattle are a bit greener; it would be shocking if it were not so. But there’s a whole lot to be done in Seattle before residents have any right to be smug about what sister cities are doing. Those tasks aren’t made easier by alienating attacks on the lives people have chosen for themselves.
We didn’t attend the first public outreach session for “North Corridor HCT” (Northgate to Lynnwood), but the materials are online, in both a workshop page and the project document library.
In spite of collapsing revenues 2023 remains the target completion date, albeit at-risk. The use of the term “High Capacity Transit” instead of “light rail” is explained in the context of federal law:
The North Corridor HCT project relies on receiving federal assistance to complete the project. In order to qualify for federal grants, Sound Transit must complete an Alternatives Analysis (AA). This requires examination of reasonable alternatives to meet the needs of the corridor and will help Sound Transit identify a preferred transit mode and route. The Sound Transit 2 Plan assumed a fully elevated light rail line from Northgate Station to the Lynnwood Transit Center with four new stations north of Northgate as shown on the map but Sound Transit is now beginning detailed work with the public to define which alternatives to examine in the AA.
Federal funding is key to keeping this project affordable, and is especially important as Sound Transit responds to impacts of the current economic recession that have reduced projected revenues by about 25 percent through 2023 and have created schedule risks for this project.
Of crucial interest to many, a State Route 99 alignment remains within scope of the project.
The alternatives will be evaluated for suitability to the stated project objectives, benefits, cost-effectiveness, financial feasibility, and equity across incomes and races. The precise alternatives have not been established, but there will almost certainly be at least one kind of light rail option, a BRT option, and a no-build option.
Comments, especially on where the stations should be, are due by October 27th to roger.iwata@soundtransit.org, by phone at (206) 689-4904, or online here. The next workshop is tomorrow at the Lynnwood Convention Center, 3711 196th Street SW, from 6 to 8:30pm.
Discussion last Thursday at the Regional Transit Task Force (RTTF) meeting mostly revolved around Metro’s funding issues, and particularly how it relates to the State. You can see the meeting’s presentation here and my live blogging here. Genesee Adkins, King County’s state and federal relations manager summed up what most of us know, government at all levels is hurting, especially now that the federal stimulus funds are drying up.
After her presentation RTTF members started discussing what they think Metro should do. Almost all members agree that over the next few years Metro needs to seek a more sustainable funding source. Where the disagreement lay was what Metro should do in the short term. Should it go to the state this legislative session and ask for both a long term and short term funding source, like a vehicle license fee that expires in a few years, or should it only focus on the long term funding source?
The argument for going this year, which was echoed by the biggest transit advocates, is that Metro provides a basic public service and must be maintained. Alternatively the argument for going next year was that Metro needs to first implement the RTTF’s recommendations, essentially proving to the public and state that Metro is doing everything it can to become more efficient. I think both sides made good arguments, especially in light of the Senate and Governor Gregoire’s hostility towards transit.
During the next meeting RTTF members will hash this out so stay tuned.
In light of the most recent report on Sound Transit’s $3.9B budget shortfall, the agency is now proactively seeking public comment to address potential service changes and delays that will not only moderate revenue expenditures in line with the new budget forecast but ultimately fulfill the full delivery of the Sound Transit 2 Plan approved in 2008. The proposed 2011 budget is available here in full (PDF).
From an e-mail release:
The prolonged economic recession is presenting significant challenges to Sound Transit.
The Sound Transit Board this fall, through the 2011 Budget process, is studying potential delays and service adjustments that will allow the agency to continue implementing the Sound Transit 2 plan approved by voters in 2008.
Come to a Sound Transit Open House or Public Hearing to review proposed responses to the national recession’s impact on agency revenues. Learn about and comment on proposed service and project realignments proposed for 2011 and beyond.
According to the release, the Draft Service Implementation Plan affects the following routes:510, 511, 513, 535, 540, 545, 554, 560, 566, 599, and Tacoma Link. You can view the full copy of the DSIP here (PDF). Transit users are encouraged to attend one of a number open houses and public hearings over the course of the next two months to share insight on the service plan and budget.
Human Transit just posted an excellent graph, showing how strongly what country a city is in influences its use of public transit.
Why is the US so low on this graph? It’s not like we’re comparing to Europe or Asia – this is Canada and Australia, the two countries most like the US that I can think of. Jerrett believes it’s our decentrallized business parks. I agree, but what caused those? What makes the US so special when it comes to wanting our offices out in the middle of nowhere? Surely urban land is more expensive than suburban land in other countries as well. Is this yet another effect caused by our subsidized freeway system? Or is this just a cultural effect, perhaps caused by executives wanting their work near their home?
In his post, Jerrett also mentions the power of the stick to get people on transit. Sydney is up near Canadian levels partly because parking downtown can be $60 a day. I propose that’s partly the reason the four US cities named are so high above our average. They’re all geographically constrained, and therefore are difficult and expensive to drive to and park.
The Community Transit Board is looking at revising service in February to serve the new Mountlake Terrace freeway ramp, instead of the transit center itself:
Mountlake Terrace commuter service to and from downtown Seattle would serve the freeway station instead of going into the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center. Routes 413 and 415 would replace Routes 408 and 477 serving Mountlake Terrace riders.
Route 414 would remain on its current routing and operate two fewer trips.
A new Route 111 would provide peak hour, peak direction weekday service between Brier and the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center, replacing the local portion of Route 477.
Route 130 would serve 56th Avenue between 220th and 236th Street.
Basically, you have a route that originates at the transit center (408) eliminated in favor of buses coming down the freeway from further north (413,415), and one that starts in the vicinity and heads to Seattle (477) replaced with local service (111) to expresses on the Interstate. This kind of consolidation of routes into feeders for express service should be happening all over the region.
These seem like no-brainers, but if you have comments the meeting is, uh, yesterday.
Josh Cohen at PubliCola looks at some numbers on city-by-city bike ridership and concludes:
But if Anderson’s numbers are any indication, Seattle would do well to put as much effort into education and outreach as it does into infrastructure. Given that Bellingham has almost double the percentage of people who ride bikes, with roughly the same number of miles of bike paths and striped bike lanes, it’s worth considering a well-funded and well-executed outreach campaign in addition to the city’s ongoing efforts to build more and better infrastructure.
A couple of points here. First,I think it’s pretty hard to compare miles of bike paths between Bellingham and Seattle and look for any sort of meaningful relationship. The density is different, the demography is different, the commute distances are different.
That said, it’s probably true that putting effort into education will yield more riders. Bicycle commuting is definitely a tipping point (or virtuous cycle) phenomenon: once more people do it, it becomes safer, so more people do it, so more bike lanes get built, so more people do it, etc., etc. Heck, it might even be worth it to pay a few people to ride, just to get the numbers up and get the cycle going (assuming that you believe, as I do, that bicycle ridership is a net positive for the city).
Despite last year’s moderation of 2008’s record transit ridership, newly released American Community Survey estimates for 2009 show a fair increase in transit commuting share for both Seattle and Bellevue, at 19.5% and 14.2% respectively. For a comparative breakdown, Eric de Place of Sightline has the rankings between other cities in the region for transit, as well as cycling, walking, carpooling, and working at home. PubliCola’s observations here.
Seattle 19.5% share scored a modest increase of 1.8 points over 2008, generous compared to Portland’s 11.5% considering the ease of driving there. It’s not really clear whether or not Link had an influence on the numbers. When considering the other modes, roughly a third of Seattleites now commute outside of SOV driving.
Bellevue’s share is by far the most surprising at 14.2%. However, its whopping 6.8 point increase over 2008 could prove to be nothing more than an error. Nonetheless, when extricating that possibility, there are a few explanations: the city’s growing suburban park-and-ride commuter bases, Downtown Seattle and Bellevue remaining the most likely transit destinations where peak service is good (Bellevue won an award in this department after all), and to a lesser extent more commuters using the Microsoft connector service.
When it comes to bicycling, however, Washington cities lag far behind Oregon with a state-wide share of cycling commuters at an abysmal 0.9%, compared to Oregon’s 2.3%. The estimates for Seattle are virtually unchanged from 2008 at about 3.0%, while Portland sits easily on top at 5.8% in the big city category. I wonder why.
Bear in mind that the ACS compiles its data from samples and extrapolation unlike the Census’ full-scale survey model, so not until next year will we get a better idea of actual commuting habits.
Today is the second to last meeting for the Regional Transit Task Force. I haven’t really done this live blogging thing before to we’ll see how this goes.
8:45 – I’m out. The meeting is slowly wrapping up.
8:36 – Rob likes the report. There is lots of specificity about definitions of specific performance measures. Josh Cavanaugh and Jim Stanton agree. People leaving slowly. Meeting is running over time now. The results of this meeting won’t really be known until the discussion at the next meeting.
8:35 – Onto the draft now. Looks like another meeting is necessary.
8:27 – David Freiboth says what is the ask and when to make an effective ask. How much work goes into the ask and what makes an effective ask. If the state wants to move fast this will give Metro the ability know what the ask will be.
8:25 Both Rob and Josh are bring up the point, what if the state is the one pushing a re-organization of transportation funding next year. What happens then. What does Metro try to do then.
8:16 Fred Butler is saying that he thinks that Metro needs to really create a good detailed and sustainable long term funding plan. If Metro does that it will distinguish it’s self from other agencies. Jim Stanton says that he thinks this should really be put in the context of all transit agencies, not just Metro.
8:09 Lots of jokes about drinks. Cool-Aid, Tea, Mikes hard Lemonade. Long story.
8:03 David Freiborth says that he is hearing people running for cover, and not committing to new funding. Grant says that he thinks you can only go to people once you have already implemented changes and made cuts. Only after that point can you ask.
Aerial of South Bellevue P&R neighborhoods (base courtesy Google)
Like many other transit agencies and local municipalities, Bellevue is facing a budget shortfall of its own, though not as dramatic as say, Sound Transit’s. Nonetheless, several important transportation projects have fallen under the axe through the city’s Capital Improvement Plan. The $353 million plan, which delegates funding for capital projects through 2017, strips $29 million of funding for such projects, a few of which could actually be very useful for South Bellevue P&R users. From the Bellevue Reporter:
More than $29 million of that came in the form of transportation projects, including $6 million that would have went toward neighborhood sidewalks, $5.2 million on 145th Place Southeast and 4.4 million on 108th Avenue SE and Bellevue Way to Interstate 90.
While the original projects weren’t massive non-motorized traffic-calming master plans with cycletracks and road diets, they were part of an Enatai neighborhood program aimed at promoting traffic safety through sidewalks, bike lanes, etc. Any loss of pedestrian projects in the park and ride’s station buffer is not welcome news for neighborhood non-drivers. The current lack of sidewalks on both 108th and Bellevue Way poses a safety hazard and acts as a major deterrent for residents walking to the park and ride. Not only such facilities give pedestrians a place to walk, they also help mitigate impacts from traffic. The future success of a Link station at South Bellevue will depend on whether or not walking/biking are feasible options.
Unfortunately, the city council seems oblivious to these kinds of travesties. But as the council majority has consistently favored throwing money at fantasy routes over the kind of mitigation South Bellevue neighborhoods need, no one can truly be surprised. Ironically enough, the defunding of the sidewalks would only add to the already-questionable impacts of the city-pursued A-2 replacement for the park and ride. Considering that traffic will feed directly from both sidewalk-less Bellevue Way and 108th Ave SE via 113th, I have to question if the new and revised B7 is still truly about “protecting neighborhoods.”
PubliCola’s recap of yesterday’s Link light rail rider alerts shows that we either have a train system that is unreliable at providing service or reliable at providing riders messages. Or, more likely, somewhere in-between.
Two of yesterday’s four delays were delayed to buses in the downtown transit tunnel. The joint operations there will likely be a headache for the years to come, but of course Metro would probably like to remind you that there are more bus riders who use the tunnel than Link’s system ridership.
The 520 workgroup released their final recommendations on Friday. Of special interest to those interested with bus operations on the Seattle side are the white papers discussing transit priority and the second bascule bridge.
The not-obvious-yet-crucial consideration is construction of the second bascule bridge, which expands Montlake Blvd. from four to six lanes. The second bridge has always been in the plan, but there was substantial neighborhood opposition to destroying two homes and increasing overall vehicle volumes.
Unless and until that bridge is built,transit/HOV lanes on Montlake Blvd will extend northbound from the 520 offramp to Hamlin St, and the existing southbound lane just below Pacific, but not on the bridge itself. The workgroup looked at going to only 1 general purpose lane on the bridge in each direction, but
After reviewing a VISSIM model showing the existing bridge with an HOV lane in each direction and exploring the challenges related to channelizing HOV lanes in the corridor with such a configuration, the subgroup determined that this option would have significant negative impacts on traffic and transit operations along Montlake Boulevard and SR 520.
There also will be a southbound HOV left turn lane onto the onramp.
WSDOT will install signal priority equipment at four intersections on Montlake Blvd. WSDOT’s analysis indicates that operations improvements will reduce congestion enough that this priority operating them should be unnecessary except during special events. However, the use of these will ultimately be up to SDOT.
There will be performance measures that trigger construction of the second bridge that are related to the performance of all modes of transportation. If these triggers activate and WSDOT overcomes forthcoming political opposition, only then will the bridge be built. More after the jump.
Transit nerds, what do you say? Is light rail [over 520] still unfeasible, totally workable?
Mayor McGinn claims that light rail is still “financially and/or environmentally infeasible”, even after WSDOT’s modifications to “accommodate” light rail. I believe the Mayor is basically correct. However, the modifications have made it somewhat more feasible, and after reading the white paper on the subject, I think the problems are beyond the powers of WSDOT to fix. The reason it is financially infeasible is that no one has a dime to spend on 520 rail. Even a minimal line, from UW station to South Kirkland Park and Ride via Montlake Blvd, would by my rough estimate cost about $800m.*
This is not like I-90, where an entire roadway already designed for rail already exists. On the other hand, WSDOT has at least eliminated the requirement to demolish parts of the span to build rail.
As reported previously, adding rail would require adding supplemental pontoons, which will cost significant money but not otherwise be all that disruptive, except while rails are being installed in the HOV lanes.
WSDOT has to hedge its bets on the cut crossing because no one knows how Sound Transit would attempt this. The four basic options are:
A high bridge from Foster Island;
A tunnel from Foster Island;
Up the HOV ramp and across a third bascule bridge;
Up the HOV ramp and at-grade on the second bascule bridge.
The A-2 replacement Park & Ride, image courtesy KPFF Consultants
Last night, the Bellevue City Council continued its ceaseless chase of B7, or a new revised version of the alignment. With the absence of councilmember Chelminiak, who is still recovering from a bear attack, and Lee, an ultimate vote of 3-2 was carried out in favor of a motion that would allow the City to pursue “Phase 1” of a “revised B7” study. The phase is just one of three, neither of which comes cheap. The first, costing roughly $670,000 and estimated to take 6-7 months, would be a “concept report” engineering the new alignment to about 5%, the same level as all of the DEIS alternatives. Goran Sparrman, director of Transportation, made note that Phase 1 would be similar to Sound Transit’s 112th Ave Concept Design Report.
The second phase, costing $450,000 and taking 4-6 months, would build on the first phase and contain a more detailed focus of noise impacts and an environmental review similar to that in Sound Transit’s DEIS. Sparrman noted that this phase would have similar content to a DEIS, but could not be legally labeled one. The third and final phase was the granddaddy of them all– costing a whopping $2.5 million over a 12-24 month work period. Phase 3 would build on the first two phases and include geotechnical work, surveying, and finalization of alignments, all to bring engineering up to the same level as Sound Transit’s preferred B2M– roughly 15%.
You can view the study session packet here (PDF), which has more details of the phases. The study session will be archived on Bellevue TV soon, which you can then view in its entirety. More of the meeting below the jump.
It’s part of a nationwide announcement: $776 million for 152 project for urban and rural transit providers in 45 states and the District of Columbia to help bring buses, bus facilities and related equipment into a state of good repair. Funding is provided from the FTA’s new State of Good Repair discretionary grant program.
$29m goes to Washington, mainly for new buses. The most interesting thing otherwise is probably $5.4m to refurbish escalators in the DSTT. Metro spokeswoman Linda Thielke tells me that last decade’s retrofit did not update all of the tunnel escalators, and this grant will allow them to complete the work, beginning next year. Those escalators date back to the tunnel opening in 1990.
When ST first announced that they would run one-car trains on some evenings and weekends to save money, it was said that this would be done based on expected demand due to special events.
Indeed, this kind of thing, if done right, can be very low-impact. But then there’s how this is actually being implemented. On a day with a Mariners game, Sounders game, and, uh, RapidRide opening, we got lots of anecdotal reports that trains were too full. Descriptions like “at capacity” and “full” are often thrown around way before trains are actually full, but people were left behind by one-car trains.
We’re at capacity NB at Beacon Hill. @soundtransit one-car trains are forcing people to wait for the next one. – Sherwin’s tweet
On a NB Link train, standing room only already at Tukwila. One car trains are not enough! – Sherwin’s tweet
Even with no major sports events… the car was at crush capacity. – PubliCola, accompanied by a photo nowhere near crush capacity
A lot of people had to stand on the 1-car trains, and some really didn’t have space for more to get on, even after the people who resist moving to the back moved to the back. (Well, more could have gotten on, but it would have been down to violating our American norms of personal space.)… I saw dozens wait for a next train. – Brent
It was bad. For one train, no one was able to board at Beacon Hill. The next train left half the people still standing, but we crushed in. Both were more crowded than the publicola photo. – psf
Not a good start.
By the end of the Sounders game, ST had started mixing in some 2-car trains, and indeed on Sunday it seemed that 2 cars were once again the norm.
ST did not return my questions over the weekend.
As a side note, in the past we’ve had really pointless comment wars over whether “capacity” should mean “how many people can fit in a car” or “the planning factor Sound Transit should use for how many people fit in a car.” The answer ultimately depends on what you’re trying to argue. Aside from that, the source for the former definition is this data sheet, which says 200. People use the word “full” to mean a lot of different things, but if a car was really leaving people behind I hope someone was out there counting, because that’s a practical limit that would be interesting to know.
