The focus of this Nov. 16th meeting was construction scheduling and impacts, and we didn’t cover it. Materials are available online.
For me, the most exciting news is that North Link tunneling will be done in 2018 2017, three four full years before the line opens. When that happens, the last major piece of technical risk will be overcome on the most important transit project in the state.
In Crosscut Ted Van Dyk unintentionally illustrates the problem with many arguments that BRT can do it all.:
Less than a month after voters soundly rejected a $60-per-vehicle tab fee to pay in large part to plan a new streetcar system…
Light rail involves huge capital and operating costs and many years of construction and will carry passengers between only a few fixed-point stations. Bus or bus rapid-transit will take more passengers to more destinations for far less money, without the lengthy construction period.
In less than 600 words, Mr. Van Dyk goes from rejoicing over the defeat of a measure in which Seattle would have spent almost three times more on BRT-type improvements as rail, to whining that bus rapid transit is much more effective than trains.
Rail advocates have few greater allies than friends of BRT like these. Except for some HOV freeway expresses, in any actual user’s experience buses are slow and unreliable. By refusing to support even halting moves towards making buses better, they fatally tarnish the bus brand.
Bus rail/arguments, at least around here, often turn in to some sort of engineering throughput exercise. And it’s true that aside from smoothness of ride and capacity,* you can theoretically do just as much with a bus in a tunnel or on a busway as with a train in a similar environment, and possibly do it a bit cheaper. It’s a lot cheaper if you already have the bus lane, which is generally not the case in the densest areas.
But these arguments always fall down in that they’re comparing a theoretical bus to an actual train proposal. To the casual voter, bus service means indeterminate frequency and span, being stuck in traffic, and unreliable service. Trains around the world are the opposite of these, and the brand sticks. I don’t think STB’s commitment to making the bus more BRT-like can seriously be in doubt, but it’s a hard political road, and the Ted Van Dyks of the world aren’t helping.
Local experience supports that perception of buses. During implementation of both Swift and RapidRide, King County and Community Transit had fiscal crises. They could have cut service elsewhere to preserve the salient features of their BRT lines, but for better or worse they chose not to do so. So we have a Swift line with no Sunday service (and 12-minute daytime headways next year) and RapidRide lines with lots of on-board payment, lots of stops because there’s no local route, and headways as long as 30 minutes.**
Meanwhile, ST has had similar budget problems, but Central Link is still running as frequently as ever. They’ve had to cut the scope of lines and cut bus service, but (aside from real-time information, apparently) they haven’t cut the quality features of Link we’ve come to expect. Maybe that’s the culture of the agency, maybe it’s something about marginal costs of rail features, or maybe it’s the spotlight that comes with a multibillion dollar capital project. In any case, it’s why I’m glad there’s a rail line running through my neighborhood instead of a BRT one.
* That’s not to say that capacity doesn’t matter!
** And I like RapidRide and Swift! But they’re not Link.
This morning, the Washington State Transportation Commission released the first results of its Voice of Washington survey, which polled respondents on their feelings about State transportation funding and investments. The highlight conclusion from the survey results shows a broad willingness to invest more in transportation, transit and rail included. However, support is split on funding methods for such new investments, as only a third of the given options received majority support.
Several of the findings seem to add insult to the injury of I-1125’s defeat. Not only did the majority of respondents support sharing use of toll revenue within a travel corridor (i.e., not limited to the tolled facility, an 1125 restriction), both variable tolling and HOT lanes, two of Tim Eyman’s favorite targets, received over 60% support. In addition to majority support for tolls as a new funding stream, a vehicle emissions fee and an electric vehicle license fee were also strongly favored. On the losing side, only 46% supported an increase in the age-old gas tax.
Transit and passenger rail fared well in the survey, receiving 63% of support. Around 60% also supported continued funding of the State ferry system. What’s more ambiguous is differentiating where transit falls into the three investment priorities most strongly favored by respondents: repairing/maintaining the existing system, increasing capacity, and expanding travel options. How much transit was perceived as part of these priorities, versus roads, is certainly less clear.
More findings are available at Publicola. The survey will remain open through the end of the year.
Tonight TRU is holding its second meeting. Details below.
The Transit Riders Union orientation meeting will be
tomorrowtonight, Tuesday, starting at 7 pm at the 2100 Building, 2100 24th Avenue S. The room we’ll be using is on the 3rd floor, all the way to the end of the hall and to the right. We’ll put a sign up.In the first part of the meeting we’ll go through our Mission and Principles, followed by discussion and questions. In the second part, we’ll give a brief run-down of how the TRU has been organized thus far, roughly how we’re hoping to grow, and what some of our ideas are for new projects and campaigns, with an emphasis on specific ways people can get involved – again, to be followed by discussion. We’ll try to wrap it up by 8:30 or so.
You can view a video from the first meeting here.
Like I said in a previous post, getting riders to switch to pre-paid fare media speeds up bus boarding. The discontinuation of the Ride Free Area next October makes fare payment more critical to transit operations than ever, of which its impacts will be felt throughout the network, including Link light rail.
A set of affordable 1/3/7-day passes could get more cash users switching to the ORCA card and reduce the number of cash transactions on the bus. It will also make transit easier to use for visitors and infrequent riders. This works best with a robust network of fare retail outlets and a lower cost ORCA card.
Read on for my conceptual proposal that works within the existing regional pass system without changing individual agencies’ fare structure. Note that I have not calculated the fare revenue or ridership impacts of my proposal.
For those that were off enjoying their long Thanksgiving weekend here is a roundup of our posts since Wednesday.
From ITO, here’s a map of all US traffic fatalities from 2001-2009 (I suggest full-screen view). The view above is centred on the Puget Sound Region, but you can explore the all 50 states if you’d like. Each dot represents a life lost, and there’s some data about the person. The data show an astonishing 326,251 deaths over that 9 year period, though thankfully traffic deaths have tailed off the last few years to around 33,000 from more than 40,000 per year in the the 20 years, and a peak of 50,000 per year 30 years ago.
Please be safe on the roads, friends.
How London keeps traffic moving on a daily basis and preparing for the 2012 Olympics.
From the home page of ORCAcard.com and sent to me in an email:
We want your feedback. Please take a few minutes to complete our annual survey – your comments will help us improve ORCA. Thank you.
This is your chance to tell ORCA your (dis)satisfaction with the card and suggest improvements.
Often state and local governments borrow money for capital projects when the economy is good and there is plenty of money for debt service. But when the economy crashes, officials get timid about debt, tightening the purse strings on new borrowing and spending. The problem with that is that economic downturns are the best time to borrow and spend on capital projects because they create jobs. A new set of recommendations from the Washington Commission on State Debt would take a step toward addressing a structural problem in the state’s constitution that makes it harder to borrow for job creating projects when times are tough.
First, a bit of background on how we do debt in Washington. In the first place, almost everyone in politics is paranoid about too much debt. Remember the big debt ceiling debacle over the summer in Washington DC? Politicians respond to the word debt because they think of public debt like a huge credit card that the government uses irresponsibly. Republicans and the press have made debt bashing de rigueur for politicians at all levels, and now even Democrats parrot the government-as-shopaholic meme.
But the truth is that debt is an important tool to get big things done. Virtually every big capital project in the private sector relies heavily on borrowed money. And if you have a mortgage, college loans, or even short-term credit card debt you’ll understand that using credit can be an important way to achieve an otherwise impossible end. The same is true for state and local governments. Debt allows cities, counties, and transit agencies access to cash now to create improvements that will generate benefits to tax payers over time. More after the jump.
Continue reading “Debt Commission’s Recommendations on the Right Track”