Month: April 2018

Last week we described the latest concepts for light rail in West Seattle and Ballard. Today, we’ll talk about the path through greater Downtown, from Lower Queen Anne to Chinatown. In a deviation from the follow-the-monorail theme of other segments, the representative alignment skirts the edges of Belltown to provide a direct line to South Lake Union.

It’s all going to be tunnel, so there are only four questions to ask:

1. What side of I-5 should Midtown Station be? To the West, in the walkshed of the existing DSTT, or to the East, serving the density of First Hill while forcing two crossings of I-5? One issue with the 5th Avenue alignment is the foundations of buildings there.
2. Should the new Westlake be under the old Westlake, or just to the East?
3. How far apart should the SLU stations be, or should there be just one?
4. Under which street should the tunnel swing west: Roy, Mercer, Republican, or Harrison? Republican and Mercer turn out to have sewer conflicts that increase cost and risk.

Interestingly, using the evaluation criteria, all of the alternatives score worse or no better than the original alignment on every metric, except that (surprise) consolidating the SLU stations into one makes things cheaper and easier.

Continue reading “ST3 Level 1 Alternatives: Downtown”

Explore the interactive documentary from Hervé Cohen that reminds us that beneath the surface, we’re all connected.

Yesterday we discussed the first cut of alternatives for light rail to West Seattle.  Today we’ll focus on Ballard and Interbay at the opposite end of the line.  The general route is a familiar one, dating back to Forward Thrust in 1968, showing up again in the Monorail vote in 1997, briefly making an appearance in the 2013 Sound Transit studies and emerging in 2012 as the RapidRide D line, the second-busiest route in Metro’s system with over 14,000 daily riders.  While there have been many arguments about the merits of connecting Ballard via UW (arguments which almost certainly will be rehashed in the comments section below), regional and city planners have long preferred the downtown connection via Interbay and 15th Avenue W.

This route, however, presents no shortage of challenges.  Though 15th Ave is wide and flat, there are conflicts with Magnolia bridges, BNSF rail tracks, a golf course, and, of course, the ship canal crossing.  The route that appeared on the 2016 ballot looks like this:

After community input, there are 6 alternatives under consideration.

A few tradeoffs are at play in these alternatives:

• Stay west through Interbay and avoid conflicts with Fisherman’s terminal or hug 15th Ave and have a shorter route to Ballard
• Cross the canal via an expensive tunnel or a bridge with construction and permitting impacts
• Optimize the Ballard terminus for 2035’s riders or tilt towards possible eastward expansion

Continue reading “ST3 Level 1 Alternatives: Ballard & Interbay”

On its way to producing a single “preferred alternative” in early 2019, Sound Transit is in a year-plus process of collecting public input and screening a number of variants on the Seattle “representative alignment” voters saw before the 2016 vote. These “Level 1” alternatives are getting some basic, qualitative analysis across a wide series of metrics (below). The Stakeholder Advisory Group is reviewing these alternatives and will make its recommendations on April 24th. An Elected Leadership Group will consider this and make its own recommendations, and in May the Sound Transit Board will move a subset of these alternatives forward for further technical analysis and public comment.
In West Seattle, the representative alignment is elevated tracks from Sodo to the Alaska Junction, with two stops at Delridge and Avalon. These three stations intersect the three main north/south corridors in West Seattle, each with frequent transit service.

Public comment and further analysis spawned five alternatives. If you stare at it a while, the map below actually makes them pretty clear:

Continue reading “ST3 Level 1 Alternatives: West Seattle”

Local tax debates are in an odd place where the most visible revolt against “regressive” taxes is directed at property tax — a tax on wealth, if not income. There are, of course, hard cases, but I’ve been struggling to find a column with the right mix of sympathy and focus on the truly poor. In yesterday’s open thread Al Dimond did it for me:

There’s sympathy, and then there’s policy. The choices that cash-poor, fixed-income people have to make are tough; those people that are also house-rich often didn’t choose to be house-rich, and can’t access the benefits without taking on some risks. There’s lots of room for sympathy.

But it’s most fair and most practical (from a tax stability point of view) to tax both income and accumulated wealth. High-earners here get away with criminally low taxes and reform is needed so they pay their fair share. But it’s hard, from a policy perspective, to put property taxes first in line for relief in tax reform, rather than sales taxes. People with wealth in property have better choices and better means to make them than the poor people gouged by sales taxes and usage fees. California’s attempt to protect people from rising property taxes ended up being spectacularly poorly targeted, and easy for rich and well-connected people to effectively exploit to their benefit — in California people with lots of accumulated wealth are under-taxed as badly as high-earners in Washington, to the detriment of other taxpayers that bear higher burdens, and of the public realm generally.

We’d probably do better by encouraging (and sometimes subsidizing or even directly building) more diverse housing types in more places, so that people that do move don’t have to move so far, than by trying to build tax policy around people living in the same houses for the rest of their lives (then passing those houses on to their children). There are lots of non-financial reasons staying in the same home doesn’t work out, and people making those transitions for any reason need better options and more support.

In our interview with Cary Moon last year, the candidate shared an anecdote of an elderly homeowner who had to take in boarders to stay in her home. I wasn’t quick-witted enough to say it at the time, but this is the production of naturally occurring affordable housing. While no one likes to see sympathetic people be lightly coerced, dynamics like this operating at scale are the only thing that can solve the affordable housing crisis.

About two weeks ago, in the wake of her controversial decision to “pause” the Center City Connector streetcar project, Mayor Jenny Durkan announced the latest in the ever-evolving series of One Center City concepts. The unwelcome headline was a two- to three-year delay for the Fourth Avenue protected bike lane and other bike infrastructure. Mayor Durkan’s announcement was also paired with an interesting congestion pricing trial balloon. All of that may have distracted us briefly from taking a fine-tooth comb to the OCC materials, but it’s impossible to keep transit wonks away from poring over documents for very long. Seattle Subway gets credit for noticing a subtle change to the Third Avenue plans: “All Day Transit-Only Operation” on Third, one of the most exciting bullet points in the previous plan, became “extended transit priority hours” in the latest materials.

Metro’s Jeff Switzer told me by email that the wording change did not actually represent a change in planned policy.  He wrote, explaining the previous “transit only” language: “The term ‘transit only’ is sometimes used to describe this type of operation. Non[-]transit vehicles are not allowed to travel the corridor, but may drive on certain blocks, adhering to a series of turn restrictions.”  In other words, the current plan is to extend today’s peak-hour treatment to include midday on weekdays, without implementing any additional car restrictions.  Jeff’s answer came as a bit of a surprise (okay, a crushing blow), given SDOT’s comments when the previous slides were issued. (We’ve asked SDOT for comment as well, but have not yet received it. UPDATE: I spoke by phone with SDOT’s Andrew Glass Hastings this morning. He confirmed Jeff’s answers, but also shared that SDOT is studying a variety of strategies to speed transit on Third, beyond the OCC plan. We may have more to say about those later.)

It’s no surprise that we aren’t fans of the current approach. Describing the current situation as “transit only” doesn’t remotely reflect reality, as any rider of Third Avenue buses knows. Heavy car volume and turning cars frequently impede buses, particularly in the northern portion of downtown. Compliance by car drivers with the turn restrictions is low, probably because of a combination of driver confusion and willful flouting. And all of this is for the sake of a tiny percentage of users.  Bus routes using Third Avenue carry well over 100,000 daily passengers, with Metro estimating that 47,500 of them board at Third Avenue stops.  By contrast, when you subtract the 3,000 daily bus trips from overall vehicle traffic numbers, SDOT estimates that only 6,100 cars use the most congested portion of Third Avenue daily. Given the turn restrictions, many of those are using the street only to reach or exit nearby parking facilities.

It’s time for Mayor Durkan to intervene in this process.  She can and should turn Third Avenue over entirely to buses, at least during the day. That decision would be good policy, and also good politics. Read why after the jump.

Continue reading “Mayor Durkan’s Moment of Third Avenue Truth”

Ahead of the first neighborhood forums for the West Seattle/Ballard Link project, Sound Transit has published its full summary report of the early scoping project, which we covered last month. Some 2,800 individual comments were made at open houses, the online survey, and other forums, and many of them asked for the same modifications to the project: tunnels to Ballard and West Seattle Junction, better connections at transfer stations, and grade separation in SODO. Using these suggestions, Sound Transit has also produced some Level 1 alternatives for the project, which we’ll be covering in a series of posts this week (so stay tuned).

Continue reading “Thousands of Comments on West Seattle and Ballard Link Yield New Alternatives”

• The “Melrose Promenade” takes shape.
• Why New York stopped building subways.
• The summary of the first round of ST3 public comments is out.
• Mercer Island Station work starting.
• Federal Way and Tacoma Link open houses happening now.
• Kitsap Transit now has a dashboard for fast ferry key performance indicators.
• It’s only been 6 months, but the early record of the Durkan administration is not at all promising.
• Seattle gathering data for Uber/Lyft regulation.
• Scenes from the District 3 MHA public meeting.
• SDOT’s Rainier Avenue plan not very visionary.
• Denny bus lane finally in sight.
• Kitsap County looking at a $20 tab fee, but just for roads.
• Having failed to get enough signatures last year, Eyman’s pushing a car tab initiative again.
• A clear explanation of why Link doesn’t have turnstiles ($).
• Putting a Link station under Union Station sure would be pretty.
• Wenatchee’s transit plan scales back after public comment.

This is an open thread.

JOBS: Two Transportation Program Operations/Customer Service Positions Open at Seattle Children’s: a Supervisor and an Administrative Coordinator

Seattle Children’s nationally-renowned Transportation & Sustainability Department has two open program operations/customer service positions.

Supervisor of Business Operations & Transportation Programs

This leadership position oversees the day-to-day customer service, business/financial operations, and administration of Seattle Children’s Transportation Department commute programs, including, but not limited, to commute concierge, new employee orientations, parking assignments, bike programs, Guaranteed Ride Home, and carpool, vanpool and transit perks. In addition to being responsible for supervising the department’s front line customer service staff, this position oversees the department’s daily and long-term business practices by administering, monitoring, and auditing financial transactions with internal and external stakeholders and participating in the annual budgeting and strategic planning process.

Our ideal candidate has at least one year of supervisory experience, excellent interpersonal and customer service skills, is a critical thinker and problem solver, is anticipatory, and has demonstrated experience with basic accounting and billing practices, supporting front line customer service teams, and maintaining databases. Read the full job description and apply online. The position will remain open until filled.

Administrative Coordinator – Transportation

The Administrative Coordinator provides a wide range of administrative, program, and business systems support as well as data management tasks. This position directly supports the department director and other department leaders by scheduling meetings, arranging travel, maintaining calendars, etc., and works with confidential, time-sensitive materials. This position is responsible for updating the team’s use of visual management tools to track, monitor and manage data, performance goals, and operational impacts and is a critical member of the department’s customer service team, providing front line program and customer support both in-person and via email.

Our ideal candidate is detail-oriented, anticipatory, has excellent interpersonal and customer service skills, can handle complex scheduling using Outlook, has experience with basic accounting and billing practices, and has the ability to handle multiple tasks and competing deadlines with a calm demeanor. Read the full job description and apply online. The position will remain open until filled.

Learn More About Seattle Children’s Progressive Transportation Programs:

Continue reading “SPONSOR: Two Transportation Positions Open at Seattle Children’s”

In another unfortunate setback for Vision Zero and the Move Seattle Levy, SDOT has elected to remove the dedicated bus lane planned for 24th Avenue to give more space to cars.

23rd/24th Avenue, home to the 43 and 48 routes and used by over 6,000 bus riders daily, is one of Seattle’s supposed “transit priority corridors” (a phrase that grows ever more meaningless), slated for RapidRide buses in 2024.  The 2015 Transit Master Plan called for bus lanes from Thomas St. to Roanoke St., almost all the way to the Montlake bridge.  As the plan has evolved, neighborhood opposition has increased and the bus lanes have been walked back, until this month, when they were scrapped entirely.

Another nice nugget: They got rid of the bus lane because people complained, not because data or research showed it wouldn’t work. What a joke. cc: @SeaTransitBlog pic.twitter.com/W2VhGEkl0M

— Seattle Bike Blog (@seabikeblog) April 16, 2018

The public comment is the usual incoherent mishmash (“make it safe for pedestrians and also we want to drive faster!”).  SDOT appears to have taken it literally but not seriously, as the saying goes.  Despite referring to the corridor as a “vital street for transit,” no effort will be made to improve bus service.  The agency is, however, proposing a “skid resistant surface” to be applied at the intersections where the most collisions occur.  So there’s that. And while the reduction in downhill lanes between John and Boyer will probably reduce driving speeds, the project has fallen disappointingly far from the original 2015 vision.

Several years ago, Jarrett Walker used Seattle as an example of “chokepoints” and transit design:

No North American city has more chokepoints than Seattle.  The city itself consists of three peninsulas with narrow water barriers between them.  Further barriers are created by steep hills in most parts of the city.  Nowhere in Seattle can you travel in a straight line for more than a few miles without going into the water or over a cliff.

…Transit planning is frustrating in such a place, but road planning is even more so.  Ultimately, Seattle’s chokepoints have the effect of reducing much of the complex problem of mode share to a critical decision about a strategic spot.  If you give transit an advantage through a chokepoint, you’ve given it a big advantage over a large area.

The Montlake area is one of Seattle’s major chokepoints, as traffic backs up in all directions approaching the intersection of Montlake Boulevard and SR 520.  Transit priority ought to be a no-brainer. WSDOT made the wrong call with the 520 offramp, which was quite unfortunate, but I expected more from SDOT.  As cost overruns pile up on other transit and infrastructure projects, red paint for bus lanes remains the cheapest and most effective way to move more people through our limited, chokepoint-filled right-of-way.