"Light Rail Station and #36 in Fog", by dreaming_of_rivers
  • VeloBusDriver goes big-time about buses and bikes.
  • ST board rejects Joni Earl’s recommendation to cut arts spending from 1% to 0.75% of project costs.
  • FTA gives Metro money to experiment with a battery bus.
  • Deep bore tunnel bids come within revised budget.
  • Meeting blitz on the Regional Transit Task Force final product: Larry Phillips at a town hall, TCC runs a forum with some task force members.
  • I can vouch for Carla Saulter’s observations on kids and transit. The toddler stage involves hauling a lot of stuff, so spacious, roll-on vehicles (ie, rail) are a huge plus.
  • 54% of Rainier Valley Post readers (unscientifically) say they don’t feel safe on Route 7; alleged robbery at Westlake station.
  • Children’s Hospital making $4m investment in alternative transportation.
  • Seattle thinking about upzoning in Sodo; meeting Nov. 22nd.
  • Do foot ferries make sense?
  • Bike sharing trial in Ballard.
  • Check this map to see if your Seattle street is a priority for plows. (H/T: Gordon Werner)
  • Thursday night Husky game to be a mess. Playing at Qwest would largely solve these problems, for much less money.
  • Interesting dense development incentives in Bellingham.
  • John Chelminiak back on the Bellevue City Council.
  • Token pro-transit conservatives organize. Good luck to them; I aspire to endorse a Republican on this blog someday.

This is an open thread.

106 Replies to “News Roundup: Meeting Blitz”

  1. Now that it’s clear the Republicans are in control of the House in DC, and vow “no compromise” on shrinking govt. spending, what are the long term prospects for continued funding levels for public transit?
    That would be a double whammy for ST’s plans to Northgate and beyond, with sluggish local revenues and pawlry FTA contributions. Should ST budget makers start making plans to scale back?

    1. The budget makers should have contingency plans in any case. But as far as transit fans scaling back our goals, we really have to wait and see what they actually do. How much was campaign rhetoric and how much is literal plans, and how much the opposition (and their own constituents) will allow them to do. We need to prepare for a post-oil and climate-change future even if the politicans are spinning in circles neglecting it.

    2. New administrations in Ohio and Wisconsin have already cancelled (or are in the process of cancelling) their HSR projects, including stimulus funds already allocated.

      Perhaps WA could make a bid for some of that *already allocated* funding.

      2. Money not spent by Congress is “lost”? Damn, I should have gone out on a bender tonight, now all that money is “lost”.

  2. The battery bus seems great, but only 15 miles on a charge (granted, it beats smelly diesel any day)? How long is an average local bus route?

    I would love to see a battery bus that could go long distances, don’t get me wrong

      1. Could a Batery Bus be set up so that It could charge/run from the overhead Trolly bus lines, and go off grid to a “Batery only” mode to get to where the lines dont go?

      3. Thanks Tim. Nice: only 10 minutes to charge it up (easily done at a layover point) – that was the other thing I was wondering about

    2. Wenatchee got some stimulus money to buy 5 battery buses, along with the necessary charging stations at the layover point and the maintenance base.

      1. The chargers are referred to as “TerraVolt” so I have to believe that means 1 Trillion Volts. Therefore the 600 Volt DC trolleybus wires cannot charge these buses. A least not in ten minutes.

        On the other hand, these chargers are going to be fun when they get knocked over by a UHaul truck!

      4. A charge of 5 to 7 minutes will bring the batteries up to 80 – 90% of a full charge. An overnight charging station at Link’s operation base will allow all five vehicles to slow charge overnight.

        So, if fast charging is so great, why are they investing in a completely separate overnight charging system that will only affect the first run of the day? BTW, Prius’ limit the discharge to 80% because otherwise the batteries are cooked in short order. Quick change battery packs are the only solution that works. That’s OK for personal vehicles and is the model for “Better Place”. Most of the time you slow charge overnight but for exceptions you have the option to swap batteries via the equivalent of driving through a car wash. For transit, making multiple trips per day that doesn’t work. You have WAY to large of an investment in batteries. Transit vehicles must be primarily grid connected. What’s more, the areas they serve best are ideally suited for a grid infrastructure. Personal vehicles have to be able to drive here there and everywhere. What’s the sense in sending mass transit out to the boonies where there are no masses to transit? Super capacitors that provide 1-5km of off grid capability make sense. They are designed to quick charge and don’t carry the weight penalty of batteries (Note: technically a battery is a capacitor). 5km is stretching it but beyond that a diesel generator makes more sense.

    3. just string some damned trolley wire. its amazing that we will re-invent the wheel on some poor untested highly limited technology to avoid proven timetested technology like overhead electrification.

  4. One more meeting item, cut and pasted from the Beacon Hill Blog:

    The North Beacon Hill Council monthly meeting this week will include a topic that many neighbors have been asking about for some time: development possibilities for the vacant land next to Beacon Hill Station. The meeting is scheduled for 7:00 pm, Thursday, November 4, at the Beacon Hill Library community room, 2821 Beacon Avenue South.

    http://beaconhill.seattle.wa.us/2010/11/03/station-block-development-scenario-to-be-presented-at-nbhc-meeting/

  5. Unnecessary and overuse of the word alleged.

    STB says: “54% of Rainier Valley Post readers (unscientifically) say they don’t feel safe on Route 7; alleged robbery at Westlake station.”

    But when one clicks on the robbery link, we find the KOMO new site says this in their headline and first sentence:

    “Police: Man robbed at gunpoint in Westlake Tunnel”

    “Seattle police say a man was robbed at gunpoint inside the Westlake bus tunnel Saturday night.”

    1. Why is is “unnecessary”? As far as I know, in this country you are still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law….not “until the police say you did it”.

      I’m more concerned with the use of the phrase “Westlake bus tunnel”. It’s a station that’s part of a tunnel, not a tunnel unto itself! It’s “Westlake Station”, people.

    2. Well, it sounds like the robbery definitely happened. The thing that is “alleged” is who did it.

  6. Your arguments for the Huskies playing at Qwest are old and tired. This will be the first time in 70 years they have played a Thursday night game, and after that, it likely won’t happen again. And this is coming from someone who is not even a UW grad or fan!

    There is no feasible way to juggle the Seahawks, Sounders, and Huskies at one stadium when all three season overlap.

    The UW owns the stadium and the land it sits on, if they want to use private money to modernize it, then that is up to them. The stadium generates massive revenue annually, enough that it allows the UW Athletic Department to be self sustaining and not use any tax dollars to operate (not many schools in America can say this). This pays for all other sports the university sponsors. Taking that away and adding the expense of using Qwest would jeopardize this.

    So while it might be ideal to use Qwest in your transit centric universe, it really doesn’t make sense for the UW.

    Sincerely,

    Geoff
    Resident of Seattle

    1. I concur fully. Any suggestion that the Huskies play long term anywhere else but at Husky Stadium is ridiculous — not to mention that it just plain isn’t going to happen.

      The Thursday game is a bit of bad planning, but I don’t expect it to happen again.

      1. Actually the buzz is that Pac-10 will be pushing for even more Thursday night games when they renegotiate their TV contracts.

        How much does the periodic traffic disaster that is Husky Football cost the city and commuters? When U-Link opens up, would moving Husky football to Qwest really threaten attendance or profits, particularly if the school is able to redevelop the land under the current stadium or lease it to a developer?

      2. They’re not going to redevelop Husky Stadium. They’re starting a $250 million renovation of it next year. When the light rail station opens won’t Husky Stadium be just as easy to get to as Qwest Field?

      3. Kyle,

        I haven’t heard that buzz about Thursday nights anywhere. Please source it for me.

        But even if it is true, other schools manage to do just fine with them. The only school that would truly flop on a Thursday night game is WSU, and that is simply because people need a whole weekend to attend a game there.

      4. Zed,

        When the light rail station opens won’t Husky Stadium be just as easy to get to as Qwest Field?

        In a word, no. Qwest Field is at the hub of essentially all the State’s transportation modes: two freeways, ferries, Amtrak, Sounder, Link, and buses.

        Geoff,

        They will generate plenty of revenue if they play at Qwest. The Seahawks and Huskies never play on the same day, so there’s no conflict there. The only conflict is between the the early part of the Huskies season and the late part of the Sounders, and that can be managed in the long term.

        This was all hashed out in detail in the comment thread I link to.

      6. “In a word, no. Qwest Field is at the hub of essentially all the State’s transportation modes”

        And that hub is conveniently connected to light rail, which will whisk you to Husky Stadium in 10 minutes. Light rail is high-capacity transit right? Moving a few thousand fans should be no problem. If it can’t handle that, what’s the point?

      7. Zed, which is easier and more efficient? Getting everyone in the region who wants to attend the Husky game to SODO, or getting them to SODO and then to Husky Stadium? All while battling normal traffic?

        People won’t settle for taking transportation to downtown when there are alternative modes that will take them straight to the stadium. But unfortunately given the layout of the triangle, the transit situation up there is much worse than the one in SODO.

        If the Huskies were to play at Qwest, U-Link would be a great way to get the thousands of students to and from the stadium.

      8. Martin,

        Your arguments are incredibly flawed regarding scheduling. It takes over 24 hours to switch from soccer to football, which is why the Sounders never have a home game the same weekend as the Seahawks. Adding a third team essentially means you have to have Husky and Seahawk home games on the same weekend until the end of the MLS season. Good luck making that happen, that is a scheduling nightmare, especially since college schedules

        Second, light rail is going to go straight to and from Husky Stadium, yet you argue that is not good enough because it is not at the hub? Ever hear of a transfer point? 550 from Bellevue to Sodo, light rail for 15 minutes to Husky Stadium.

        The bottom line here is you are complaining about one isolated incident, that while annoying, is quite frankly not a big deal in the long run.

      9. Indeed, feels a *lot* like tilting at windmills. UW is going to renovate the Stadium and keep playing there, period.

      10. Geoff,

        For 15 years the Red Bulls, Giants, and Jets coexisted in Giants Stadium. What’s so different about Qwest Field?

        I’m not just complaining about a single incident. If you follow the second link in the bullet, you’ll find my argument is much deeper than that. It’s also not that Link isn’t “good enough”, it’s that there’s a more reachable, cheaper option for a stadium, that has the enormous additional benefit of being very positive for land use.

      11. What about the tens of thousands of fans that currently walk to the games from the U-District? How would it be an improvement to make them have to travel to SODO? And what about all the fans that currently come from North Seattle and Snohomish county? Getting to downtown for them is a lot harder than getting to the U-District. Is there any demographic info on Husky game attendees? I’d have to see that before coming to the conclusion that Qwest Field is a more accessible location for Husky games. Not that it’s going to happen anyways, Husky Stadium is a Northwest institution with lots of history and sentimental value, not something that can be replicated at Qwest Field no matter how large they make the TVs.

      13. Martin (can’t reply to your comment directly):

        Metrostars/Red Bull NY played on the NFL-marked field at the Old Meadowlands. Yard lines, out of bounds lines, end zones, everything. It was hideous. They added yellow lines for the soccer markings. New England Revolution has the the same problem sharing with the Patriots, but Bob Kraft owns both teams and doesn’t care if the pitch looks ugly for the Revs.

        Sounders fans would not tolerate that.

    2. I don’t think they’d put it at Qwest anyways–the game is as much about PR for the university as it is about football.

      The UW keeps sending out emails urging people to a) find alternate means to campus that day b) leave early that day or c) don’t come at all that day.

      I find it a bit ironic that when addressing people in group A they suggest that bus riders walk to campus instead so their seat can be used by someone that doesn’t normally ride the bus. I don’t know of many people that ride the bus to campus that are within walking distance.

    3. It’s official: Home for the Huskies in 2012 will be 3.9 miles away at Qwest Field.

      dailyuw.com/2010/10/1/uw-call-qwest-field-home-2012/

      1. Old news. But this is only for 2012 and only while the rebuild Husky Stadium. After that it is all at the U.

  7. I want to put in a word for the conservatives for public transit effort. The effort grows out of American Conservative magazine, which published a set of essays a few issues back dealing with why public transit is a cause to be involved especially when you consider how subsidized driving is.

    It is a publication well worth checking out, and I hope the think tank takes off…

  8. On Sunday afternoon my friends and I attended the Sounders FC playoff game. I convinced them to take the bus, because we were on Dexter Ave. where we could catch either the 26/28 and get dropped off right on 4th and Jackson. When the 28 arrived, it was crush load and full, and passed right by us. Usually, I understand this, but the bus was a 40ft Gillig (because it was Sunday). My party decided to take a cab instead.

    The same thing almost happened on the way back after the game, too. The 40ft #28 was crush load and full AT 4th & Jackson. Needless to say, it skipped half the stops downtown, blowing by many people on 3rd Ave.

    My question is this. Why can’t Metro look on a calendar and see that there is a significant event happening on Sunday and decide to put the articulated buses in service instead of the 40 foot buses? IMO, this is a huge problem for potential new users and just gives Metro a horrible image with this group, when the solution is SO SIMPLE. It’s like they don’t even care.

      1. It wouldn’t be illegal for them to anticipate extra-heavy loads and add capacity to regular service without adding trips, would it?

      2. I’m not asking for an increase in service for the game, I just want them to acknowledge that there is a game, and run articulated buses instead of 40 footers.

      3. I’d think even adding trips would be fine. My understanding was that the problem was extra/special routes just to take people directly to and from the games. Swapping in larger buses for existing trips in anticipation of demand ought to be legit, even expected. Isn’t that effectively what ST is doing on game nights/weekends for Link now that they’re normally running single cars during that time?

      4. Would putting out a 60 ft artic to cram on another twenty people through the free ride zone make sense?

      5. As David says, it’s not remotely illegal to add extra trips to regular-service routes. Other cities do this all the time for major events, as much as 5-10 times the regular frequencies!

      6. (A bunch of extra buses packed full of paying customers amounts to pretty good fare recovery. 1 bus that has to let those customers on for free because it’s so late and so overcrowded amounts to bad fare recovery.)

      7. Who’s going to pay for this increased service? Metro can’t afford it and wouldn’t be able to accept money from anyone else to provide it, as per the Federal decision:

        “Charter service” is defined as including (1) “[t]ransportation provided by a recipient at the request of a third party for the exclusive use of a bus or van for a negotiated price” and (2) “[t]ransportation provided by a recipient to the public for events or functions that occur on an irregular basis or for a limited duration” and either a premium fare is charged or a third party pays in whole or in part for the service. [49 C.F.R.] § 604.3(c).

        (emphasis added)

      8. What d.p is saying can still happen. For example, if you just add more service to Route 28, you are NOT charging a premium fare and no 3rd party (Sounders FC) is paying for service.

        The rule you quoted is more of what you are seeing at Husky and M’s games.

      9. Kyle, Metro has one of the worst fare-recovery rates of any transit system, of any sort, anywhere.

        Insisting on running exactly the same level of service, regardless of any external variables, constitutes not only a missed opportunity to make a productive use of your resources, but also reinforces the sense that your system is poorly managed and not worth bothering to use.

        A bus with 40 paying customers pays for itself. A dozen buses with 40 paying customers each pay for themselves. A bus with 80 customers let on for free out of necessity is wasteful.

        (And speaking of that last point, is the UW/the state actually picking up 100% of the tab for those who ride free with Husky tickets? Because if not, that’s a huge waste/missed opportunity as well.)

      10. …And just to combine all of my prior points:

        Metro’s “special Husky service from Ballard” is in fact just an extra few trips on the 44. They’re signed differently (to subtly discourage regular 44 riders from hailing them), but they’re actually just normal 44s that will pick up and drop off anywhere along the route.

        So it’s not as if running beefed-up frequencies for high-density events is totally foreign to Metro! They just take some prodding to do it.

        (I still would love to know who’s paying for the fare-freeness of those extra 44s, though.)

      11. “And speaking of that last point, is the UW/the state actually picking up 100% of the tab for those who ride free with Husky tickets? Because if not, that’s a huge waste/missed opportunity as well.”

        Yes, the UW is paying, and always has paid, the full cost of extra game day service and pending the outcome of the Federal hearing the service could be suspended at any time.

        The problem with this Thursday game is that all of Metro’s buses are in use at rush hour. Maybe after the game it wouldn’t be a problem to lay on extra service, but before the game they just don’t have the resources.

      12. I’m pretty sure I remember the Ballard service being semi-express and pick-up only (no drop-off) toward the U-District in years past.

        So by running it as a de facto 44 this year, it’s likely that they can continue even if the program is overturned, changing only the destination signs and charging all passengers the regular fare.

    2. How about this … with 4 friends you probably didn’t have to pay that much for the cab…instead of trying to predict each and every load or route, why not go with what STITA is asking and offer more cab licenses and try to get rates down so, like New York, cabbing becomes a more routine option.

      You’re own situation of a time when “baseload” is exceeded, and where you don’t want to drive and pay $50 for parking is a great time for cabs to step in and handle peak demand.

    3. The ride free area was not in affect. We WOULD have got on outside the RFA, and by the time the game was over, it was well after 7pm – everyone had to pay when boarding.

    4. On the topic of “extra service” on the 44 for Huskies games… On Saturday, September 18, two less-than-full buses signed “To Terminal” passed me by (even through I flagged them) while I waited 35 minutes for an eastbound MT 44 bus. This was at a regular stop on Market St in Ballard, well before dark. The buses that passed me showed up on One Bus Away as 44’s, despite the “To Terminal” marquee. Eventually a third bus stopped for me when I gestured. No transit alerts (besides the trolley motorization alert) were sent out. Someone dropped the ball.

    5. That’s funny, Cam, we take buses to and from Sounders games all the time and have never had a crush load on the 2, 3, 4, 13, 26, 28, 16, 358, or 5 between downtown and Queen Anne. Took buses to and from that particular Galaxy game with no problem, in fact.

      Depending on where you live on Dexter it’s possible the 5/16/358 up Aurora could work for you as well. And if you’re willing to walk downhill a ways, you could even take the 3 or 4 up Taylor, hop off at Galer, and scoot down the Galer steps to Dexter.

      Of course none of this is to suggest Metro couldn’t do a better job of running extra buses for major events.

      2. Well for starters—as I said—this one was, and we neither experienced nor observed any crush loads before or after the game.

        I’m not going to review the Sounders’ schedule for the last two years for you, but off the top of my head I believe the Dynamo, Rapids, Celtic, and Dallas games were on Sundays this year, altho Celtic was a day game not a night game and we took Link to drinks in CC before heading north.

  9. I’m divided on SODO. On the one hand it’s big enough to become like Vancouver West End with transit integrated throughout. On the other hand, Seattle has retained its industrial land because it provides solid jobs (unlike financial speculation in air-money), and because we may need the local-manufacturing capacity in the future. Industry can’t pay the rents of apartment/condo developers, so upzoning would inevitably displace the warehouses. And the industries would have to move to Kent, Bothell, Issaquah, or out of the region, or close.

    1. Luckily, that headline was incorrect. SoDo is the industrial area SOuth of the DOme, while they’re actually talking about rezoning South Downtown (Int’l District and Pioneer Square).

  10. If London, why not Washington State?

    RV1 bus route to be converted to hydrogen power

    Transport for London has secured €5.67 million of funding as part of the European Union’s Cleaner Hydrogen in Cities project to expand its current hydrogen bus project.

    The funding allows for three additional zero-emission hydrogen hybrid fuel cell buses and the opportunity to extend the whole demonstration project from three to four years.

    The additional buses will join the five hydrogen buses which are due to come into service on route RV1 later this year.

    All eight buses will be in service by the end of 2011, at which point the entire route, which runs from Covent Garden to Tower Hill via the South Bank and Bankside, will be operated by zero emission hydrogen buses.

    “This is knockout news for the Mayor’s plans to cleanse the air we breathe every day,” says Kit Malthouse, chair of the London Hydrogen Partnership and Deputy Mayor for Policing.

    “Hydrogen vehicles emit only water from their exhaust pipe, unlike the fumes and pollution petrol and diesel engines spew forth.
    Address :

    2. You have to produce the hydrogen first. For the UK, the future source will probably be the sunny south…North Africa using solar-photo-voltaic generated electricity.. Easier to ship or pipe hydrogen than send electricity by wire over those distances.

      Seattle produces electricity nearby already. No reason to lose energy in the conversion to hydrogen. We can just use electric trolleys instead; wire or battery.

      2. Funny how the opposition argument changes every time.

        Last it was that all of the hydropower was “accounted for” in current use.

        So you’ve got an overload from cars.

        Hydrogen can be made from the sun…as is being doing by the Sun Hydro station just opened in Connecticut.

      3. “the opposition” ??

        Anyway…
        Proton Energy Systems produces proton exchange membrane (PEM) hydrogen generators that generate hydrogen from water by using electrolysis.
        They are still using electricity, even if they produce it at the station.

      5. I’m all for investment in basic science. When that research disproves the basic laws of thermodynamics I’ll be all for hydrogen cars… err, wait, if perpetual motion is on the table then… we don’t need hydrogen power.

        hmmmm?

      6. Bernie,

        What is the storage efficiency of an electrochemical battery?

        For electricity put in, what percent is stored.

        Any loss during the day, over time…etc.

        Can you provide data?

      7. John,
        Google and Bing are your friends for answering technical questions.

        Also Sun Catalytix is barely into startup mode…
        Our technology is founded on cutting-edge science from the lab of Professor Daniel Nocera at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

        We are commercializing new, active, versatile, and affordable catalysts that split water into oxygen and hydrogen fuel, mimicking photosynthesis.
        Who knows if they’ll be successful and what the costs will be.

      8. Battery_Efficiency

        A lead-acid battery has an efficiency of only 75-85%. …

        The above losses don’t include losses in the charging circuit which may have an efficiency of anywhere from 60% to 80% – thus the overall- total efficiency is the product of these efficiencies and ends up being 45 to 68%. (…physics and not some corporate conspiracy is the reason we don’t have electric cars – … an electric car would use about twice the energy than a conventional car – not to mention the great cost of the regular replacement of batteries.

        That may sound glum but it’s worse. Batteries lose ~1% efficiency for every degree Celsius below 20C. So today you be down another 10%. And you lose when it’s warmer than that too because resistance goes up.
        Even if you approach the theoretical limit of efficiency of about 80% you start with one Coulomb and drop to .8 from the battery charger, you’re down to 64% after the chemical conversion process that occurs in the battery while charging and then your down to 51$ when you reverse that chemical reaction. It’s thermodynamics, you can’t win, you can only break even and you can’t even break even. More ways to lose big; fast charging, deep discharge, carrying more weight to avoid deep discharge, switch to NiCd to save weight and drop to 60% coulombic efficiency (not to mention the environmental problems with Cadmium)… it goes on.

  11. Martin, admire your work and thanks for linking to the story about the conservative pro-transit folks. But let me respectfully suggest, it could help the cause if you acknowledged (much less supported and promoted) conservatives who are pro-transit without being so dismissive and calling them “tokens”. What’s in it for conservatives if they’re just gonna get trashed by pro-transit folks – in addition to being bashed by other Republicans? At some point it’s not worth speaking up, if you never get any encouragement. (BTW I get that these particular folks are so very friendly to bus-transit.) I can report that it can get very very lonely being a moderate, pro-environment, pro-transit, pro bike-ped republican. Cheers !

    1. Larry,

      I’m a pro-transit, fiscal conservative Republican. You are not alone. I thank this blog for restraining itself from most partisanism and sticking to transit issues. It allows the non-liberals to participate on transit issue they have passion about and not be bashed for their other views. The pro-transit lobby needs all the voices it can get.

  12. FTA gives Metro money to experiment with a battery bus

    That’s sad. How much money is being wasted on this science fair experiment. I thought from hearing the news on the radio last week that Seattle would be getting a real in production modern trolley with off wire capability; something that could prove the worth of investing in modern ETBs. Light weight battery bus is an oxymoron. Batteries can’t come close to the power density of diesel and with grid connected vehicles there’s almost no energy source that adds to the mass that has to be drug around. This is as silly as the hydrogen powered bus project at Fort Lewis that of course, because of the inescapable laws of thermodynamics, consumes more energy to produce fuel than they get back. What next, a wind-up toy?

    1. Couldn’t resist: Gyrobus

      Disadvantages
      * Weight: a bus which can carry 20 persons and has range of 20 km requires a flywheel weighing three tonnes.

      2. Thanks! It was really cool to see the pictures. I can’t wait to try them out. It is the most uneasy feeling sitting at the very front (and upstairs) of that bus while looking down at the end of the Ash Way direct access ramp. It’s gotta be at least 70 feet from the seats to ground level (I-5)!

  14. What’s up with post limbo lately. I’m posting from an address the works (posts accepted before and after the disappearing post, not the proxy issue I saw before). There were only two links in my reply to “David Seater says: November 4, 2010 at 7:07 pm”. One of the links was even back to a prior post on this blog. Spam filter run a muck?

  15. I went to the last 15 minutes of the South Lake Union Mobility Workshop this evening at Seattle Center, where they had tables set up by lots of different divisions of SDOT and by other stakeholders. The one thing I learned that was completely new to me was that they are looking at alternate routes for a streetcar through Downtown than 1st Ave. Although I still really like the 1st Ave Streetcar idea, I understand that a lot of people just hate the idea because of traffic on First. One option was for a 4th/5th couplet, and another was for a 1st/3rd couplet. I like the 4th/5th couplet option; not only would it be useful, but also having the new streetcar downtown be farther up the hill would provide more justification for restoring the Waterfront Streetcar. And, a 4th/5th streetcar could still be extended up to LQA and the CD.

    1. They alluded to this during the last briefing on the First Hill streetcar to the Transportation Committee, but didn’t have time to go in to details because the meeting was running long. They mentioned something about a connection on 5th to the South Lake Union streetcar and an extension to the Seattle Center. I think they are going to pursue some federal grants to try to get the 5th Ave. connection funded along with the extension along Broadway to Aloha. It would be great to have the two lines connected and would really facilitate connections from King Street Station to South Lake Union.

      1. Fifth Avenue would be great, but wouldn’t that duplicate the monorail? *snicker*

        Actually, I think it would be neat to see it run down Fifth. It could meet up with the northern terminus of the Belltown-2nd Ave-West Seattle-Burien-Southcenter-Renton light rail line.

  16. Very cool website, CA High speed rail:

    http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/project_vision.aspx

    They’re getting $4.3 Billion and it’s going through the valley:

    http://zuneblaster.com/central-valley-picked-for-first-segment-of-high-speed-rail-project

    SACRAMENTO – Following last week’s announcement of an additional $715 million award for the development of California’s high-speed rail system, federal officials have clarified that the entirety of federal funding California has received so far must be spent in one of the two Central Valley sections of the project.

    Which means approximately $4.3 billion in infrastructure investment will be directed somewhere in the region between Merced and Bakersfield.

  17. Thursday night Husky game to be a mess.

    Long term I don’t know about moving Husky pointy ball to SODO. But, this game definitely should have been scheduled there. Presumably the reason UW scheduled a Thursday game was to reap huge TV revenue. Spend some of that windfall and rent Quest Field (there, I said it “Quest Field”… a commercial advertisement for the publicly funded stadium we built for Paul Allen). Inflicting the commute chaos on everyone just trying to earn a living isn’t fair.

    1. Seattle defective by design.

      Almost all new stadiums built in the last 30 years were built in open areas, “near” but not “in” down town areas so there would be adequate highway access and parking, as well as “transit”.

      2. I remember reading, I believe on this blog, that a stadium in a large German city was specifically placed a 10 minute walk from public transit facilities so the crowd would naturally disperse through the street grid, avoiding overcrowding on the platforms and increasing business in the area.

        Granted, we don’t have that situation in Seattle, but it’s food for thought that perhaps the location of our stadiums isn’t really that bad.

      3. Look at what Oakland is doing for the A’s…building a brand new “Baseball Town” from scratch. With transit, car access, housing…in a site away from the “city”.

      4. Are you referring to the proposal (which would’ve included a new stadium, housing, and retail) to relocate the A’s to Fremont (25 miles away from Oakland)?

  18. “54% of Rainier Valley Post readers (unscientifically) say they don’t feel safe on Route 7; alleged robbery at Westlake station.”

    — Sherwin: use your 315 skills. What sampling strategy and type was this?!

  19. More fun from professional bomb-thrower Tim Eyman:

    First he claims ferry fares can’t be raised without a 2/3 vote of the legislature:
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013348853_ferryfare05m.html (expect him to make similar claims for bridge and tunnel tolls)

    This is really going to screw the ferry system if it is upheld. Silly commenters at the ST are saying the the ferry system should be “self supporting” at the same time they think the ferry system shouldn’t be able to raise fares.

    Then he files a slew of new initiatives for next year:
    http://www.publicola.net/2010/11/05/board-members-disagreed-with-mcginns-my-way-or-the-highway-approach/
    See item number 4.

    This measure would set vehicle license fees at $30 per year, minus other vehicle fees imposed in that jurisdiction; reduce certain motor vehicle taxes and fees; require voter approval of vehicle charge increases; repeal authority for certain voter-approved vehicle tax surcharges; require that certain transportation authority bonds be retired within 90 days and that collection of pledged taxes be discontinued; require local voter approval of automated traffic safety cameras and limit associated fines to $30.

    Lets see this would ding the state in any jurisdiction that has passed the $20 car tab surcharge, I assume repeal the weight fees, require voter approval of any increases even to keep up with inflation, not allow the $100 surcharge, require Sound Transit pay all bonds supported by the MVET off in 90 days! and effectively ban red-light cameras.

  20. Great article about being a bus parent, and ditto the comment about it being easier to ride when there’s wide aisles and no big steps to climb to get on board. I used to commute with my son (who was between 18 months and 26 months at the time) on the 5, and I hated carrying him, his stroller, and his bag dirty diapers up the three giant steps to get on that bus, then juggle everything down a narrow aisle if there wasn’t an available seat up front. I was always pleased when the bus happened to be one of those kneeling buses, it made things much easier because he could just walk onto the bus without me having to carry him. Another thing I would have liked would have been a bench at the bus stop that was a bit farther away from the street. The stop I was waiting at had a bench right by the curb, and it’s not like that antsy toddler just sits on the bench, he wants to climb up and down on the bench and run around, which isn’t safe that close to a street. Now that he’s 3 and can carry his own stuff, it’s much easier to take him on the bus.

Comments are closed.