As always, you can subscribe in iTunes.  Also, if you like the show, leave us a review.

25 Replies to “Podcast #16: Literal NIMBYism”

  1. Apologies if this has been asked before but is there an RSS feed for the podcast as well or is iTunes the only subscription option?

  2. Ah, the HOV3 lanes again. I will once again remind all here that some time in the early to mid 1990s, the HOV lanes in the Seattle metro area (up to that point all HOV3) were turned to HOV2 lanes. The rationale was that since the extra capacity existed, doing so would encourage carpooling by rewarding those who could share a ride with one other person.

    Now that the extra capacity does not exist anymore, it should be a self-evident slam dunk to go back to HOV3.

    1. Yes, how do we do that? Who do we contact? My bus in the afternoon rush on I-5 doesn’t even use the HOV lanes because they are slower than the general purpose lanes.

  3. Love the podcast as usual. Suggestion: bring in someone, staff or regular commenter (RossB?), that can have a bit of a debate with Martin. I was thinking about how great that would have been especially during the part of the podcast litigating BRT/LRT on I-5.

  4. SE Seattle Restructure:

    One of the issues that people may have with the 7 is that it is awfully slow because it is also awfully busy, and also historically has been high floor equipment (thus slow loading).

    With the advent of the 106 duplicative route, what about making the 106 a limited stop route? Have maybe 3 stops between Mt Baker Station and Jackson? That gives this area something that isn’t currently happening on the 7 and might appeal to more than the several people that were riding the 42.

    1. +1 for the general concept of trying to add limited stop service on busy corridors like the 7. Looking at the Metro long range plan, I think this is the biggest room for improvement. No new express services within Seattle despite the fact that the original vision for RapidRide was a limited stop overlay. RapidRide happened to début in a time of budget cuts and a shrinking system so planners opted to merge RapidRide with local service. People trying to travel across Seattle need more limited stop service than we will get from ST and much sooner. In addition to building out the frequent grid Metro proposes in the LRP, RapidRide Expresses could be the best way to add capacity on our most frequent, well traveled corridors. The E Line is another perfect example where a limited stop overlay could extend all the way to Edmond.

      I even wonder if something like this would work on the 44 corridor. Could we run buses that serve a couple stops in the U District, bypass 45th by taking 50th, connect to the major transfer points such as the E, the 5 and the D before hitting the heart of Ballard?

      1. The old 46, which used 40th (I think?) to 8th NW then cutting up to Market (and adding a Shilshole tail), wasn’t limited stop, but it kinda served this function. I usually used it Westbound around 4:00-5:00 PM to Ballard; I’d say it saved ~5-7 minutes on average over the 44, with far fewer epic cluster**** hour long trips. It seemed reasonably well used, too–I’d say the median evening bus was 85% full seats leaving the UD, with not infrequent significant numbers of standers. (There were only 3-4 peak runs in each direction.)

        There was a brief, awkward extension of this route, for some baffling reason, running the Fremont to Shilshole segment hourly or half hourly midday on weekdays, which was predictably empty. Then the whole route was killed.

  5. Regarding parking vs. bike access in the hinterlands:
    On East link there are several stations that will have nearby bike-ped infrastructure. Judkins Park and Mercer Island stations will be near the I-90 trail; Redmond Technology Center and Overlake Village stations will be near the SR520 trail with dedicated bridges to access the station and the potential Redmond stations will be nearby to the Central Corridor trail with a connection to the Sammamish River trail.

    1. the judkins park east entrance is actually on the i90 trail.
      construction proposals for judkins park have the 23rd ave trail crossing closed for multiple years.

      the des moines trail is within 1/2 mile of s 200th/angle lake.

      the beacon hill bike locker appears to be open, but is completely unused.
      ST appears to be planning to put up more, but to charge a separate fee for access to each.
      It should one fee for access to the large bike lockers across the system.

      1. I like the idea of paying one fee to rent a locker, like a monthly subscription for the entire service area. Would be tricky to implement at first, but rather slick once up & running – you’d just swip a card or type your password and it would unlock your locker. Lock would also be open to rent on an as used basis (probably need terminals that take cash to serve the unbanked population). Once we get the next generation of Orca cards, I’d imagine it would be easy to integrate with that card as everything is in the Cloud.

  6. Re night owl service:

    There’s a third group of riders that you haven’t considered — those who are almost always asleep when the night owl buses run but need them for unusual or emergency situations. I feel like this group of people would be better served by familiar routes rather than having to learn a new system they’ve never had cause to use before.

  7. More night owl:

    With the 7 essentially operating 24 hours, what about just making the 97 operate from Mt Baker to Sea-Tac, with a timed transfer at Mt Baker?

  8. As Frank surmised in the podcast, I very much support a reimagining of the night owl network. The 97 may or may not be a part of it but I hope it is studied. My motivation to write up the overnight Link bus post was to highlight a third way between the “run Link later” crowd and ST status quo.

  9. I don’t think that solely the blog’s post on a Paine Field spur is what send ST3 planners down this direction. They couldn’t have possibly not ever thought of a spur on their own, right? They are planners, they have to consider things like these. A spur had to have crossed their minds at some point. I mean, how could it not?

  10. Having walked the Kirkland trail between Google and South Kirkland Park and Ride several times, I need some details to help me understand what’s wanted, or possible here.

    The distance between Google, where the trail crosses 6th, and the Kirkland Transit Center is at least half a mile on foot. And more problematic, as shown by the rendering of the elevator, it’s impossible to get anything but a bus from the trail to the transit center.

    The rail right of way continues to a really non-dense area considerably east of Downtown Bellevue- like across I-405.

    So while I think, being already graded and curved for the railroad it used to be, the trail would be a beautiful line for a scenic railroad using streetcars of the South Lake Union-First Hill caliber.

    I think a skilled landscape architect could make the short stretch that seems to offend home-owners into something that could improve their property values, I’m really curious about plans to deal with these major obstacles.

    Any information?

    Mark Dublin.

  11. Re: the Paine Field spur, “whose idea was it” is like figuring out who invented the Internet, but even more so here, for many of us have been calling for it for a long time, for a number of reasons, including: lack of present transit demand and density, higher density and transit demand that exists today (I-5 corridor, whose residents would be disenfranchised by the light rail loop), $1 billion in lower costs that could be better spent elsewhere (e.g., finishing 164th direct access ramp to keep I-5 buses in HOV lanes and not crossing general purpose traffic, building a bus/ped/bike ramp at 128th, alleviating congestion there, and the BRT loop), 44% lower operating and maintenance costs, BRT could open by 2018/19 – helping today’s commuters (continue the rest of the loop via 526 and Evergreen Way, enhance reliablity after that), lower light rail fares/day for Everett/Seattle commuters (I’ve read $1), and less time for that commute (amounts to 2 weeks a year less on a train for Everett/Seattle commuters).

    It really should be a no-brainer, but the facts are that while the politicians say the diversion is compelling, they won’t tell us why, and any suggestion of a BRT loop has been squashed which suggests that future political contributions may be a factor. I’ve also heard where the executive has never ridden BRT and is irritated whenever it’s mentioned. This is proof positive that there has been zero objectivity in this decision. Lastly, following the state subsidy,it seems that the pandering to “the lazy B” seems to be without end…their employees are smart enough to transfer like the rest of us! I transferred a total of 5 times today, and I’m not an engineer. And, their fellow employees in Renton aren’t getting light rail at all.

    1. transit rider;

      I’m of the view BRT to Paine Field respects more of Paine Field’s INVOLUNTARY contribution to Sound Transit than just a light rail deviation to one tenant’s factory. If there is any place between say Mount Vernon and Ballard screaming a need for transit NOW, it’s Paine Field.

  12. Regarding sponsorship: definitely more than just transit agencies that have ads here, though I probably get a more interesting mixture based on geography.

    I’ve seen local transit agency ads, one Grainger electric motor ad, several months of NRA ads (lots of ad clicks to try to dump as much money as possible out of their ad fund and into your causes), Bend community telephone ads, and at least one mail order brides company.

    This is in addition to the CT, ST and other Seattle ads, such as the Seattle real estate ads.

Comments are closed.