Month: August 2011

[UPDATE 2: Dominic Holden strongly objects to my assertion that he is “implicitly comparing” the cost to other projects. I take him at his word and apologize for the error. In any case, my issue is with the frame of the PSN campaign, not Dominic.]

[UPDATE: This post is being taken as a broader attack than it is. A shaky financing plan, which might be the subject of a coverup, is a big story and an important issue. I have a very narrow objection, to the rhetoric that adding in interest cost reveals the project’s true cost, and then implicitly comparing that to other projects that don’t include the same interest payments.]

In the midst of a bunch of really damning facts about the DBT’s financing plan, Dominic Holden cites a new, inflated cost estimate for the tunnel: it’s $6.1 billion!

This is another one of those things that all project-oriented no campaigns do, and it sucks. The common way to price these projects is with year-of-expenditure or (my preference) current dollars — excluding interest. True, in some sense we’re paying the entire amount. But all of these numbers are so large that they mean anything only in the context of other projects — projects that are not priced to include interest.

I’m generally wary of household similes, but it’s like a house. No one includes the total cost of the mortgage when saying how much they paid for it, even though there are good mortgages and there are shaky ones. A shaky financing plan that leads to high interest costs is a problem, but we can only see they’re high if it’s compared to other projects.

The subtext here is that proponents have been hiding the true costs up until now. It was done to the monorail*, it was done to Sound Transit 2, and now it’s being done to the DBT. One of these projects is worse than the others, but the rhetoric is just as bad. The reject campaign is dealing with remarkably dishonest opponents, and this anti-tunnel point is not a lie per se, but it is misleading, and a misleading point used against good projects as well as bad.

* and that was a terrible financing plan, number games aside.

Here are Seattle Transit Blog’s endorsements for the August 16th primary election. We focus on the races with more than two candidates. As always, our endorsements are meant to focus entirely on their transit and land use positions. Readers can apply other criteria as they wish.

Our editorial board consists of Martin H. Duke, Adam Parast, and Sherwin Lee, with valued input from the rest of the staff. We appreciate the help of the Transit Riders’ Union, which solicited our input for this candidate questionnaire and published the results. You can also consult the King County voters’ guide.

Please note, if we did not make an endorsement, we found no compelling reason to do so. We evaluated all primaries within King County with more than two candidates and some key races in Snohomish and Pierce county.

King County Council District 6: Thanks to his answers on the questionnaire, we know a lot about John Creighton‘s views on transportation, and they are largely in agreement with the editorial board’s. He has done some good things at the Port, supports further revenue authority for both Metro and Sound Transit, and will solidify the pro-transit majority on the Council.

We know less about Richard Mitchell. He supports the Congestion Reduction Charge and has an educational background that suggests that he understands transit and land use. Other media outlets indicate he would be a stronger opponent to Jane Hague, who has tentatively opposed preserving Metro service. It’s an assertion we’re ill-equipped to evaluate.

King County Council District 8: Joe McDermott has had a short but impressive term on the Council since he replaced Dow Constantine. His positions are similar to Mr. Constantine’s — solid support for preserving and reforming Metro service while proceeding with Sound Transit’s buildout. Mr. McDermott’s opponents don’t appear to have a transportation emphasis, aside from orbit.

Seattle Referendum 1: REJECT. We remain convinced by the argument that the deep-bore tunnel is a poor policy prescription from transit, land use, fiscal, and environmental perspectives; and that the surface/transit/I-5 plan is a viable way to move people if only given the chance.

Due the arcane nature of the legal text, there is a good chance rejecting this referendum does little but add a procedural step and embarrass politicians that support a poor policy decision. Although not a satisfactory outcome, there is little downside in sending a message that this plan does not have enough transit and draws on too many non-gas tax sources to subsidize roads. Here’s hoping that someone listens to it.

Many more endorsements after the jump.

Continue reading “2011 Primary Endorsements”

One of the first steps into mature thinking about transportation is to remove undue necessity from transportation technologies – to talk not about what they are but what they do.  To fetishize a tool, rather than the utility the tool provides, is to make a fundamental category error.  Both autophiles and railfans make this error constantly.  What we need is not cars nor even transit per se, but mobility, whatever form that may take.

I have nothing against cars as tools (I find them necessary and useful about once a week).   What I have a problem with is the social costs imposed by the ubiquitous and even obligatory use of one tool for all tasks.  As transit advocates we get accused of making arguments about kind, as though the tool (Cars vs. Bikes!, Buses vs. Trains!) were the most important consideration.  The proper discussion is all about degree, the scale of transport required for our daily lives.

Car dependence doubly reinforces this error.  As ownership represents sunk costs – lowering the marginal cost of each individual trip – the incentives to drive soon overwhelm all other considerations.  As a result, one begins to see a car not as a tool well-suited for a particular task, but as transportation itself, appropriate (by definition!) to any trip.  To borrow an analogy from golf, car dependence puts you in the absurd position of driving, pitching, and putting with just one club (and your largest one at that)!

Though I concur with all the standard urbanist arguments, increasingly I find conservative arguments against car dependence the most compelling.  Specifically, my aim these days is to maintain a diversified portfolio of transportation choices instantly and freely available, and to use the least-intensive technology possible for each trip.  By contrast, car dependence poorly manages risk, leaves you badly overcapitalized and acutely vulnerable to price shocks, and forces you into an obligatory all-you-can-drive insurance model that is completely insensitive to usage patterns.  Such dependence actively prohibits you from scaling your life up and down as necessary, and as such it represents a considerable loss of freedom.

The familiar result is waste, as suddenly society must provide a parking space and a lane of road whether the task is as simple as a loaf of bread or as complex as hauling furniture.  We would scoff at someone who buys a $4.75 ORCA PugetPass when his/her daily commute costs $2.50, but we tend not to scoff at the pickup owner who hauls loads a handful of times a year, even though the principle is the same.

If at any given moment you can choose to walk, bike, take transit, taxi, or drive, you can properly match the tool with the task.  I would argue that this provides a liberating flexibility of movement, and a freedom of spontaneous adaptation, that car ownership actively stifles.

As part of King County’s InMotion program, the blogosphere’s own “bus chick,” Carla Saulter, will headline run a “Family Transit Workshop” featuring tips on how to go car-free with kids.

Details: This workshop will be a casual, kid-friendly discussion group with healthy snacks provided. Free family Zoo passes (good for 2 adults and 2 children) will be given to the first ten families who arrive. All participants will receive a family transit guide to take home.

When: Saturday, 8/6, 10:00 – 11:30 AM

Where: Central Area Motivation Program (CAMP)

722 18th Ave, Squire Park

COST: FREE!

In a pointed letter submitted to WSDOT in mid-December last year the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criticizes the deep bore tunnel (DBT), saying it would do little to improve transit and would in fact likely have “adverse” impacts on transit “even with mitigation”. The letter, sent by FTA Region X Administrator Richard Krochalis,  a comment to the November 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS), states “… FTA remains disappointed [with] the Project’s impact on public transportation.”

It is normal for governmental agencies to submit comments to each other as part of the EIS process, with comments generally dry in nature and narrowly focused on refining the clarity of the document. This was only partly the case with this letter, posing many almost rhetorical questions, pointing out major gaps in the analysis, and calling the assessment of cumulative impacts “extremely optimistic”. The letter also take WSDOT to task for conveniently confusing language about transit investments which are identified in the EIS, but have no secured funding. This has been a disturbingly common meme of the pro-tunnel campaign.

While these comments are in response to the SDEIS and the details of the transit element of the plan have likely undergone some revision, the lack of secured capital and operation funds for transit investments and the large increase in surface street congestion are inherent and intractable problems with the tunnel as is.

Below are excerpts from the letter, emphasis mine:

F-004-005 We appreciate the work that went into the transit analysis. It appears to be advanced quite a bit from the previous SDEIS (e.g., assessing impacts to transit travel time). However in the broadest sense FTA remains disappointed that the Project’s impacts on public transportation are, from our perspective adverse, even with mitigation. In the short term, “Daily ridership growth between 2005 and 2015 with the 2015 Project would generally be similar to or slightly lower than ridership growth in the 2015 Existing Viaduct, depending on the screenline” (Appendix C p.222). Looking slightly farther out, transit share would grow between 2015 and 2030 due to “expanded bus and rail service, particularly Link LRT service in place by 2030, [and] higher automobile operating costs and higher parking costs.” (Appendix C, p. 224.) That is, transit share actually decreases by 2030 (SDEIS p. 215). The SDEIS ambiguously state that this decrease is both negligible and unacceptable (id.) FTA concurs that any project element that decreases transit ridership is not acceptable.

More after the jump. Continue reading “FTA: “Disappointed” with DBT, Has “Adverse” Impacts on Transit”

I’m sure you’re all sitting there with your ballots waiting for STB to tell you what to do. Well, never fear: the editorial board is currently figuring it out. We’re shooting for Wednesday but it’ll definitely be out by Friday.

If there are any downballot races or candidates we should take notice of, let us know in the comments.

Central Link’s summer ridership surge continues. In June, weekday/Saturday/Sunday boardings were 25,629/22,919/18,841. That’s up 9.5%/30.9%/35.4% over last year.

New revenue service ridership records were set on Friday, June 17th with 30,542 boardings, Saturday, June 4th, 26,089 boardings, and Sunday, June 26th, 22,922 boardings. Ridership broke the 28,000 mark for two consecutive days on Thursday the 23rd and Friday the 24th.

Sound Transit revised past estimates again. For unknown reasons, weekday estimates for March, April, and May increased by a few hundred, while April’s Saturday estimates jumped by 2,000.

For the big picture, I made a year-over-year summary of Link ridership.

On Tuesday night DPD held an open house for its Northgate Station Area Community Design Study. As part of the North Link project, Sound Transit is scheduled to open an elevated station just to the west of King County Metro’s Northgate Transit Center around 2021; ST hosted an open house regarding the design of that station in May. Tuesday’s Open House was focused on future zoning, land use, pedestrian and transit connectivity, and public amenities in the areas adjacent to the station.

For those not familiar with the area, what constitutes Northgate is, like most Seattle neighborhoods, somewhat ill-defined, but is centered on I-5 and NE Northgate Way and invariably includes the Northgate Mall and Transit Center. The larger Northgate area, subsuming the neighborhoods and major institutions of Pinehust, Maple Leaf, Haller Lake, North Seattle Community College and Northwest Hospital, is designated as an Urban Center, one of only two outside the central city, and perhaps the only one that enjoys both a large amount of readily-buildable land and a favorable regulatory environment.

Northgate TC is well served by transit, but today’s built environment is not very pedestrian- or transit-oriented. The TC is surrounded by acres of surface and garage parking on two sides, with a fairly long and bleak walk to the mall or the stores on Northgate Way; to the west is I-5, forming an impenetrable pedestrian barrier with nowhere to cross between Northgate Way and 92nd St; to the south are single-family homes. The explicit goal of this community design study is to get from the status quo to the kind of vibrant, walkable, bustling place where people will want to live and work.

The Open House was structured as  a presentation followed by an informal workshop. The presentation began with a brief history of the area and DPD’s goals, then moved on to a great discussion of some basic principles of urban design, including the importance of street-level activation and landscaping to the perception of massing and height. The presentation touched on the evolution of urban design in area, noting the large, squat, widely-set-back single-use buildings typical of the 1980s and the evolution towards more pedestrian-friendly mixed use buildings of today, of which the “big-box” (actually small-and-tall box) stores on Northgate Way and the invitingly-landscaped Aljoya senior apartments and Thornton Place are good examples. More after the jump.

Continue reading “Northgate Station Area Open House”