Month: December 2011

In a move that earns Mayor McGinn credit for successful inter-agency planning, Sound Transit and City of Seattle are finally working together to start studying high capacity transit through downtown and to Ballard – the first steps toward any new rail.

Ballard to downtown is in both the draft Seattle Transit Master Plan and Sound Transit’s long range plan, and voters funded planning in this corridor in Sound Transit 2 in 2008. Working together here prevents some duplication of work between the city and Sound Transit, and helps them determine which agency should build in the corridor, what kind of rail they want to build, and what corridor it should be built in.

This isn’t just a streetcar study – because the FTA has provided funding, it will study a range of modes. It will likely show a preference for streetcar in the downtown portion, as there would be a cost savings from leveraging the investments we already have in South Lake Union and that we’re making on First Hill, but it will be more open-ended for a Ballard to downtown connection; the FTA requires a full alternatives analysis with more range than the work done in the Transit Master Plan.

That’s actually where we come in. Once the money is committed, lobbying the city to ask that this be higher capacity rather than low can have an impact. The monorail project found that grade separated transit had fantastic ridership potential between Ballard and downtown, and we’ve only grown since then – both in population and in congestion. We should be involved – the city has to consider not just what provides the most bang for the buck today, but what we’ll need in 50 years.

There is some criticism of this plan. Some voiced concerns about the impact of Seattle going to ballot alone, as Sound Transit ballot measures need city voters to make up for majority anti-transit votes in some suburbs. But with Sound Transit unlikely to go back to ballot before 2016 or even later, it’s unlikely that the city and ST would go to ballot close together – and as Sound Transit and the monorail showed, Seattle is more than willing to go to ballot several times to build a comprehensive system. Some also worried that this would leave the city competing with ST for federal funds. But ST, Seattle and King County compete for federal funds regularly, and that’s OK – the feds fund the most effective projects, helping guide our choices of what to invest in, and frankly, giving us more chances as a region to win funding. Having one local agency lose out to another is much better than losing out to another state.

For a subway line, this is a great first step. Any modern data in this corridor is better than no data, and identifying the differences between transit via South Lake Union and Fremont vs Belltown and Lower Queen Anne is important to deciding where Sound Transit puts their investments in ST3. The key is to ask for something that will pass at the ballot – which is all about how excited voters will be for a commute better than what they have today.

I have two thoughts about density I’d like to share, both more responses than anything* to ideas that I hear and read repeated frequently. I have made both of these points a few times in round-about ways in various posts and in the comments, but I would like to write a first-class post about them this time. The first point is a response to the oft-repeated notion that tall buildings and density are essentially the same thing, and the second is a response to the idea that what’s good for developers is perforce good for density and/or urbanism. Both below the fold.

Continue reading “Thoughts About Density”

Three and a half months ago, the Metropolitan King County Council, in a bipartisan effort, came together to pass via supermajority the $20 Congestion Reduction Charge. This two-year car tab fee is designed as a stopgap funding measure to prevent drastic cuts to Metro bus service while the agency restructures itself to become leaner and more efficient, and the legislature can arrange a stable long-term funding source.

While the vote to establish the fee was not unanimous, the dissenters did so only on a question of process. The principles espoused in King County Metro’s Strategic Plan for Public Transportation, incorporated into the CRC ordinance, received the strong, public endorsement of every single member of the Council, along with Executive Constantine and Metro GM Desmond. King County has thus publicly committed itself at every level to make the bus system more cost-effective and ridership-oriented. Without that promise, the CRC’s stopgap funding would not have been forthcoming, and without the fulfillment of that promise, we can expect no further help from the legislature.

Fast forward to a month ago, when Metro released the Fall 2012 restructure concept. This proposal is one of the boldest Metro has ever made public, and represents a distinct break from the downtown-oriented legacy network, towards one built on a modern understanding of what makes for cost-effective and well-used bus routes: connecting dense urban centers with frequent, direct and reliable trunk routes, and providing excellent commuter service to neighborhoods without enough ridership to justify all-day service.

Inevitably, these things come at a cost. Some riders will be inconvenienced by having to walk further to get to their stop or having to transfer; some neighborhoods will lose midday service; a very small fraction of the population will lose access to transit altogether. Those riders affected have genuine complaints, for which the public service change process provides a valuable opportunity to explain to Metro staff how their ideas may play out on the ground. But there are voices not heard at public hearings: those of the thousands of riders who will benefit greatly from the changes; and those of every King County resident whose tax dollars will go much further towards improved mobility, emissions reduction, and congestion mitigation.

Seattle Transit Blog believes it is now time for King County Metro to uphold its end of the bargain, by moving ahead boldly with a restructure comparable in scope to the conceptual proposal; if this restructure were to become the mere substitution of RapidRide C and D for Routes 54 and 15, it would be a failure. Leadership means steering organizations through difficult and unpopular decisions for the greater good. Metro staff have publicly shown us how our bus system can be improved: we look now to Metro management, the Executive, and the Council to provide the leadership to make it a reality.

H/T: Erik Griswold

We’ve written many a time on the misguided fluff coming from Michael Ennis, Washington Policy Center’s (WPC) Transportation Director, both for his abrasive attitude toward transit and unwavering support for automobile dominance.  Despite repeated rebuttals, however, it seems like WPC’s ideology continually creeps into its legislative advocacy regarding transportation, sometimes even in contrast to to the think-tank’s free-market platform.

The most recent example is Ennis’ analysis of the Voice of Washington survey results and subsequent recommendation principles for the upcoming Legislative session.

Lacking public support for a gas tax increase may spell trouble for policymakers who want a transportation package in 2012 during a presidential election year. Given the current economic climate and combined with the Governor’s new statewide sales tax proposal for general government (probably with a vote in April), a transportation tax package in November now seems less likely.

Ennis knows that any increase in the gas tax is tied down by a lot of political baggage so it’s pretty convenient for him to cherry-pick this one single finding to argue against any kind of transportation package.  What he ignores is the broad support for more other funding options (PDF) and user-based charges, like the vehicle emissions fee, electric vehicle license fee, and variable tolling.

It really depends on what comes out of the upcoming legislative session, but it’s premature to suggest that touching the gas tax is the only option up for consideration.  While a tax increase and/or elimination of the sales tax exemption has been a point of support on this blog, we’ve still been receptive to other viable options, highlighted in the work (PDF) done by the Connecting WA Task Force.  More below the jump.

Continue reading “WPC’s Misguided Transportation Principles”

by STEPHEN FESLER

I recently bent my $3.50 PugetPass ORCA accidentally near the chip in the corner and it caused my card to become non-functional whenever I tried to tap. I have another card linked to my ORCA account, so I called Metro Transit to see if I could transfer my PugetPass to my working reserve ORCA.

The Metro tele-agent explained that the transfer of the PugetPass to my working reserve ORCA was possible, but that in order for the PugetPass to transfer, staff would have to receive approval from managers and that the queue was so long that it would take 6-8 days. To move faster, I could just go to one of the Metro sales offices in Seattle. I told the agent to go ahead and cancel the non-functional card and put in the request for the transfer despite not fancying the one-week wait.

The following day I rang up Pierce Transit to see if I could get a different outcome, preferably an expedited transfer. No such luck, same one-week plus response. I then tried Metro a second time, but interestingly, the tele-agent said that my PugetPass ORCA was still active and no request had been filed. The agent also gave the same one-week plus response.

I hitched a ride to Metro’s King Street Center—this is where things start getting interesting and murky. The sales agent said that Metro had no such policy/ability to transfer a PugetPass from one card to another under a linked account. This could only be done by issuing a new ORCA altogether. (The same would go for moving E-purse funds as I found out.) The agent also explained that all of the tele-agents were wrong and that they have routinely made promises that are not possible with the ORCA system.

What this meant for me is bruised patience and forfeiting $5 more for a new ORCA card and 3 hours of my time just to get my PugetPass back.

Here are my takeaways:

• The waters are still murky on who is right about fare product transfer on same account registered cards from a damaged one to a reserve card.
• The inconsistency is incredibly trying and disenchanting to the patron because a lack of confidence quickly builds up.
• If the type of transfer as described above is in fact possible, there is little reason why a transfer cannot be done over the phone considerably faster. It should be within 24 hours, not a week or more; otherwise, what is the point of having a monthly PugetPass?
• The ORCA website should be amended to accommodate such fare product transfers to be processed without having to issue new cards. Patrons do not need to have more ORCAs; card proliferation is cumbersome and a needless expense in time and money.

STB readers are a pretty detail oriented and inquisitive bunch so it surpised me to find out that many people in Seattle don’t know about the Portland State University Transportation Seminar. It is probably the best source for academic level presentations about transportation issues. Think of them as the TED talks of the transportation world.

The presentations, part of a lecture series offered through the Center for Transportation Studies, are given by researchers, international experts and practitioners alike and cover many topics in the transportation-land use world including some obscure but never the less interesting research. The class is primarily for graduation students in transportation engineering, urban planning, and public administration tracks so the presenters assume a good understanding of the fundamentals of transportation and land use, perfect for STB readers.

Presentations from this quarter can be viewed here. Archived presentations are organized by date and topic. There are too many video for me to highlight now. If people would like me to post specific video to prompt discussion I’m open to the idea.

Personal Aside: Since I’m plugging PSU I feel I would be remiss if I did not also put in a plug for programs at my alma mater, UW which are similar, for those looking to pursuing a career in transportation. Both Sherwin Lee and myself did our undergraduate degrees in Community, Environment and Planning within the College of the Built Environment, and Oran Viriyincy and myself did a our masters in Transportation Engineering in the Civil and Environmental Engineering department, which has an amazing foreign exchange study program, the Valle Exchange, which I was also lucky enough to do.

Photo by zargoman

• Car tab fees more progressive than you think.
• News flash: someone sacrifices their own well-being in the service of a greater cause.
• Puyallup struggles with Sounder Parking. For all of the people who say it costs them 40 minutes  a day, I really have to ask if their time wouldn’t be worth $4 or $5 a day in parking fees.
• Finishing touches on the First Hill Streetcar design.
• Kitsap’s new fast ferry.
• TCC previews their legislative agenda tomorrow at lunch.
• Stokes leads Laing in Bellevue City Council race by 51 votes; will trigger a recount. Also in that link: DBT operations buildings are massively anti-pedestrian.
• This leads me to believe the desire for historic preservation has gone too far.
• “Behind the scenes” at the Bellevue East Link deal.
• There’s a new $3 bus between Yakima and Ellensburg, eight round trips a day.

This is an open thread.