All posts by Guest Contributor

by JASON SHINDLER

Recently, Sound Transit completed its Central and East High Capacity Transit Corridor Study (Part 1 & Part 2). Martin summarized the Issaquah-Kirkland options last week. Along with similar studies of South King County and Lynnwood to Everett, the Central and East studies presumably lay the groundwork for a future Sound Transit 3 ballot measure. It is just a study and not a formal proposal, but it would be easy to take this document and make a proposal out of it.

As an Issaquah resident, I’m excited to see a future where Light Rail is a part of the transportation mix. Our town is seeking “Regional Growth Center” status and has a new “Central Issaquah Plan” which approves projects up to 10 stories. Yet, this study’s Eastside options seemed to have missed the boat (or train!).

The study makes heavy use of options involving so-called Bus Rapid Transit – of the 8 options considered for Kirkland / Bellevue Issaquah, 5 are BRT. As readers of this blog know, BRT, at least as currently managed in the Puget Sound area, is frequently not Rapid. Also, Kirkland and Issaquah already have decent BRT options via the 554, 540 and 555/556 (which combined have > 3,600 boardings per day, almost half the ridership of the Sounder trains). It would seem unlikely that spending a bunch of money on new buses is going to make this service much better than it is already. Many of the proposals essentially turn the Eastside Rail Corridor into a dedicated bus lane, which will share some of the downsides mentioned later in this article.

Continue reading “A Better Light Rail for Kirkland and Issaquah”

By KEITH KYLE, Outreach Director, Seattle Subway

The Ballard to University District line is why I got involved in transit advocacy in the first place. In November 2011, I was frustrated with the lack of progress on getting rail to Ballard and created The Ballard Spur Facebook page with a nice graphic made by my friend Cathy Rundell. Within a week I was getting calls from local papers who were intrigued by the idea and wanted more information, a true testament to how starved this town is for high quality transit. Soon I joined forces with Seattle Subway, and with a lot of help, we got the powers that be to get moving on transit relief for our city.

The fruit of our labor:  The Ballard to University District study is available for review and the year is 2014 – NOT 2020.

When reviewing options for high capacity transit, Seattle Subway starts by throwing out all the options that are not 100% grade separated because any portion of the line that interacts with traffic subverts the speed, reliability, and utility of the whole line. Unfortunately, that leaves us with only one presented option: Alternative A3, titled “via Wallingford Tunnel.”

A3 is a very good start. It is fully grade separated and very fast. Travel time would be as low as just 6 minutes, ridership as high as 26,000/day, and the cost would be just under $1.4-1.9 Billion. This corridor is the highest performing in cost per rider of any corridor Sound Transit has studied so far.

The Ballard Spur (Alternative “A4”)

A3 does have one glaring weakness, however: it needs more stations. A density map of that part of Seattle shows that several dense areas along the A3 alignment would be ideal for walking, biking, and transit connections if Sound Transit carefully located the stations.  A3 offers only one station in the 3.5 miles between Ballard and the University District. This stop spacing is too suburban for an area with many dense neighborhoods and attractions. Closer stops would maximize the utility for both pedestrian access and transfers from other modes.  This corridor is dense enough to justify full subway spacing of stops — which would mean full coverage of the corridor by the new line, replacing the need for the slow-as-molasses 44.

The good news is that adding just two stations and moving the Wallingford Station would maximize connections to both attractions and transit.

Continue reading “Let’s Build The Ballard Spur!”

by TIM BOND

Tuesday night SDOT held an open house for the proposed Northgate Station pedestrian bridge. It showcased three design alternatives and provided a brief funding update. The bridge itself will be 15-20 feet wide and have an overall length of 1800-2200 feet depending on the alignment. The trek from the station to College Way would be about 1/4 mile; the current trip is about 1.2 miles via either the north on Northgate Way or via the south on 92nd. 7,000 daily crossings are expected once Lynnwood Link comes online. The student population of North Seattle Community College is 14,000 plus about 400 staff. The bus stops in front of NSCC see about 600 daily riders today.

Connections
The bridge will connect at three points: ground level on the west side of I-5, ground level on the east side and at the mezzanine level of Northgate Station. For the west side there are two options: at the end of 103rd at College Way (W1) and at 100th (W2). For the east side: 1st and 103rd (E1), 1st and 100th (E3) or half way between the two (E2).

The bridge deck will be about 40 feet off the ground and the western approach would gently slope down. The east approach will cloverleaf and touch down on the west side of 1st. A cycle track is to be constructed running on the west side of 1st between 103rd and 92nd. A multi-use path is being constructed on the east side of 1st from 103rd to Northgate Way. There is a planned, unfunded greenway along 100th between College Way and Fremont Ave.

Design option 1: Cable stayed bridge

Continue reading “Northgate Pedestrian Bridge Meeting”

by TIM MCCALL

Those affected by, and interested in, the planned construction of light rail on the Lynnwood Link Corridor are encouraged to attend a series of community meetings related to planning for the two station areas in Shoreline, adjacent I-5 at 145th St and 185th St.

The topic of these meetings will be the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for 185th Street, and a Design Workshop for the 145th Station near Jackson Park. The meetings will be held at Shoreline City Hall on Midvale Avenue and N 175th Street. Shoreline City Hall is accessible via King County Metro routes 301, 348 (with a short walk from N 185th) and RapidRide E, 301, and 348.

The 185th Street Light Rail Station Subarea Plan community meeting (flyer) will be held on June 3rd. In a recent newsletter from the City of Shoreline, proposals for upzoning parcels in the immediate vicinity of the light rail station was developed. The upzoning of N 185th Street from Aurora to I-5 was envisioned. In addition to the 185th Street DEIS community meeting on June 3rd, the City has planned a walking tour around the 185th Street Station Subarea on June 13th (14:00-16:00).

The 145th Street Light Rail Station Design Workshop (flyer) will take place from 18:00 – 20:00 on June 12th. The design workshop appears to be looking for ideas to improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and from the light rail facility within the mobility study area. Similar to the walking tours around the 185th Street Station Subarea, a 145th Street Station Subarea walking tour is planned for June 27th (14:00 – 16:00).

Tim McCall is a resident of Shoreline.

by TIM BOND

Thursday night Sound Transit held an open house on the progress of the 1.6 mile South 200th Link extension. Construction of the guideway is approximately 40% complete to date. 50 of the 70 columns that support the elevated guideway have been erected thus far. Construction of the columns should be complete in about two months. Construction of the 1,166 pre-cast concrete segments, which takes place in Enumclaw, is 42% complete. The typical span between columns is comprised of 13 segments.

The most notable part of the presentation was the design of the 1,050 stall parking garage. Harbor Pacific / Graham won the design/build contract earlier this year. The garage will have five stories above ground and one below. The garage is sited immediately west of the station and will be C-shaped to fit around the existing PSE substation. There will be four vehicular entrances to the garage spread among each of the three streets that border the garage. A triangle-shaped piece of land to the west of the garage is being reserved for future TOD and has the potential to house 35,000 square feet of space.

The garage was designed with the “environment in motion” theme and will not be a “big plain concrete box”. Lengths of tubular steel will be placed around the perimeter of the garage and plaza to give it a flowing design. The station’s ground level plaza could be used for farmers markets and has provisions for food trucks. The ground floor of the garage will have retail space that will open up to the plaza. 10 spaces will be reserved in the garage for patrons of the retail business.

There will not be a specifically designed bus transfer facility but rather a pair of bus pullouts on each side of S 200th Street. No provisions are being made for bus layovers. A pair of sidewalks and five foot wide bicycle lanes will be installed on South 200th Street connecting to the Des Moines Creek trail 1/3 mile downhill.

Angle Lake station still scheduled to open around September 2016, which was the scheduled opening for U-Link (now pushed up to Q1 2016). There are five months of float in the systems testing phase, so it’s still possible that both extensions could open simultaneously at the end of Q1 2016.

by TIM BOND

[UPDATE: Cellphone waiting lot photo now actually shows the new lot.]

On Wednesday Sound Transit invited media to see the 365 foot long gantry being used to construct the guideway between SeaTac/Airport Station and the future Angle Lake Station. The 400 ton gantry hoists pre-cast concrete segments, each weighing 35-45 tons, in to place. The spans between columns are typically 150 feet long and a crew of 12 can be construct a span in 2-3 days. Approximately 80% of the columns in the 1.6 mile extension have been constructed to date.

The spans shown in the photos here are the two southernmost ones. Angle Lake Station will be a center platform station, so two separate spans come out of the station and merge in to one, which will eventually continue to Kent/Des Moines Road.

In August, construction will begin on the 1,050 stall garage, sited just north of the station.

In a somewhat related story, SeaTac’s Cell Phone Lot moved last week to a location on S 170th between the Airport Expressway. The lot has 200 spaces, up from 130 and trades mediocre tarmac views for a panorama of the Airport Link extension alignment.

More photos below the jump.

Continue reading “Angle Lake Construction Photos”

by DAVID SEATER

On Tuesday Sound Transit hosted an open house to present the 60% designs for the Bellevue Transit Center and Hospital stations on East Link, incorporating feedback from the 30% design presentation last May and the cost-savings changes approved in April 2013. These stations are expected to open in 2023 and will generate 7,000 of East Link’s projected 50,000 daily riders in 2030. The presentation and meeting materials are available on Sound Transit’s website. As elsewhere along East Link, ST is still in the process of selecting final names for these stations.

Highlights of the design changes include:

• Canopies at the Bellevue Transit Center now cover the majority of the platforms.
• A new eastern entrance to the Bellevue Transit Center station due to the revised station location along NE 6th St.
• Hospital Station will have stops for RapidRide curbside along 8th in the existing locations and a drop-off loop for Access paratransit immediately adjacent to the station.
• A Sound Transit owned and maintained pedestrian path will connect Hospital station directly to 116th Ave NE.
• The tunnel underneath 110th Ave NE will be dug using the Sequential Excavation Method instead of the previously proposed cut-and-cover method.

Representatives from the City of Bellevue and the Bellevue Light Rail Permitting Citizen’s Advisory Committee were also present to introduce the Downtown Livability initiative, station area planning, the redesign of the Bellevue City Hall plaza, and a new downtown neighborhood association.

Continue reading “Bellevue TC & Hospital Station 60% Design”

by CAITLIN BONNAR

by MIKE ORR

[Ed. Note: I’m unable to confirm that any STB staff writers will be there, but consider this is a semi-official meetup of the STB reader community.]

Tomorrow is Metro’s service change, so I invite you to join me on a tour of RapidRide E’s first day and the #65 Jackson Park extension. Meet at the Yesler Way and Prefontaine Place station at 9:30am. Here’s the schedule:

9:35-10:24am, RapidRide E (#675 in the trip planner), Yesler & Prefontaine Place – Aurora Village TC. See the new Linden configuration.

10:33-11:10, RapidRide E, Aurora Village TC – 46th & Aurora. See the Aurora routing without Linden.

11:15-11:30, #44, 46th & Aurora – 45th & University Way NE

11:33-12:05pm, leisurely walk down University Way, possible quick glimpse of the Farmer’s Market, takeout lunch opportunities at Thanh Vi (banh mi), Gyro-cery (gyros), Pagliacci (pizza)

12:05-12:42, #65, Campus Pkwy & University Way NE – 145th & 19th NE. See the 145th Street extension. Walk four blocks to 15th.

12:53-1:15, #348, 15th NE & 145th – Northgate TC.

1:16-1:45, #41, Northgate TC – Westlake Station.

If you’re coming for just part of the tour, the 9:35 E and the 12:05 #65 are the best meeting points.

Previously I had suggested an earlier 65 but that doesn’t leave enough time in case one of the buses is late, it’s better to wait in the U-District than elsewhere, and it gives time for a lunch. I nixed the 512 because the 347/348 is both more frequent and closer than walking to I-5.

by JACK VALKO

Wtf New Jersey. Are you surprised that people are taking transit to the Super Bowl? #fail pic.twitter.com/Gsd3Og3r7h

— Mike Folgner (@mfolgs) February 2, 2014

Attending the Superbowl was never my plan, but when tickets that I could afford came my way I found myself saying “Why not me?”  I went, and the rest is history.

The New York/New Jersey metro area is massive, with multiple transportation options that would make any transit wonk beam with pride — feet, bike, notorious cabs, car services, busses, light rail, and heavy rail.  All proportionally allocated serving not just daily commuters, but also special events.  New York/New Jersey is so huge, hosting a major event like the Superbowl dominates one avenue, but walk two blocks away and you wouldn’t know 50,000 people are partying behind you in the streets.

To get attendees to the site the word was put out: take the train or a fan bus, no cabs, no walk-ups, no tailgating. The NJ rail network is sturdy and capable, but confusing at the best of times.  There is no one-seat ride from Manhattan and most of Jersey, and while the transfer is doable it isn’t glamorous.  Attendees were funneled into Secaucus where they were screened before transferring to a line to the stadium.  Queues backed up through the station to the platforms, leaving arriving trains unable to unload. People waited for hours, fights broke out, it was less than awesome.

Advanced tickets on chartered fan busses that left from several Manhattan locations were made available, and quickly sold out.  These one-seat rides were arranged by the Port Authority, staffed by volunteers and licensed drivers.  NYC police escorted these busses through traffic and into the Holland Tunnel where they rode lanes dedicated for the event to the stadium.  Average time from mid-town to the stadium was under 1 hour.

So how, with all of this infrastructure and planning, could thousands of people be left stranded for hours on platforms?  The sweltering heat inside stations (we dressed for an Ice Bowl) caused some to panic and be overcome, requiring medical attention.  How could you not, with ticket in hand, simply walk to an entry gate and expect to get in?  Those to tried were turned away to a station to pay for a bus ride to the parking lot.  How could busses, with dedicated lanes, be the only sane transportation option?
Continue reading “What Seattle Can Learn From New Jersey’s Superbowl”

by STEPHEN FESLER

Seattle is in the midst of its update to the city’s comprehensive plan, dubbed “Seattle 2035“. Washington State’s Growth Management Act requires that cities and counties across the state update their comprehensive plans every 10 years to adequately plan for a 20-year horizon. The current update cycle has many other cities and counties working to complete their updates by the state-required June 30, 2015 deadline.* Prior to the update process, a lot of behind the scenes work is done: buildable land and capacity analyses, reviews of effectiveness metrics from past plans, demographic and job projections, analysis of current levels of service, and much more.

With the launch of Seattle 2035, two years of public engagement begins, led by the Department of Planning and Development (DPD). The public can review the background profile of the comprehensive plan and comment about where future planning policy should go. Whatever ultimately comes out of the comprehensive plan update, these policies will guide implementing regulations over the next decade and more.

If you would like to get involved, be sure to check out the website, comment, and attend future meetings. A great upcoming kick-off is the Seattle Pecha Kucha and open house Thursday:

Pecha Kucha Seattle, the City of Seattle and the Seattle Art Museum are collaborating on Big Ideas – Imagining Seattle’s Future, 2035 & Beyond, an evening of presentations by leaders from across Seattle’s innovation / creation community. The theme will be exploring grand visions of Seattle’s future. These discussion will hopefully inspire great conversations and ideas as we begin the process of updating Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan.

The event will be held Thursday, January 30^th, 5:30 – 8:30 pm at the PACCAR Pavilion at the Olympic Sculpture Park.   There will be an Open House ahead of the event featuring information about the Comprehensive Plan and Seattle’s growth over the past twenty years. (4:30 – 5:30 pm)

*I probably should plug Snohomish County’s 2015 Update.

Stephen Fesler is a land use planner working for Snohomish County’s planning department. He is passionate about urbanist land use practices like urban design, heritage preservation, transport, and rural and environmental conservation. He moved from Kent to Seattle in Spring 2012 and now resides in the University District. He commutes via the 512 and regularly can be seen on the 44, 49, and 70s.

by ROBERT CRUICKSHANK

Rising rents across Seattle have generated a robust discussion about the best way to solve the affordability problem. The last thing we would want to do is make that problem worse by scaling back the opportunity to build new housing. But a new proposal being considered by the Seattle City Council would do exactly that. Incredibly, the City Council is going to consider reducing height limits in certain neighborhoods. This change could cause rents to rise further and help put Seattle on the path to becoming as unaffordable as San Francisco.

The Department of Planning and Development is billing this as a “code correction.” It’s difficult to understand what exactly needs to be corrected. Councilmember Sally Clark initiated this review with an October 2013 letter claiming that “I never envisioned developers would be able to achieve five stories in LR3 zones. I think five stories is too big a change in height and scale for the LR3 zone.”

Councilmember Clark may not have intended that to happen. But it is happening, and the results are good for Seattle. With each additional floor of height, more people are able to rent a unit in a building, helping more developments pencil out and get built. Every unit built in a new development helps protect those tenants currently renting an older building, reducing the competition for existing housing stock. More units also help ease upward pressure on rent by providing more options and more vacancies.

Continue reading “Seattle Considers Lowering Height Limits”

by BEN BROESAMLE

Sustainable Urbanism: development and transportation practices based on a long-term economic model that accounts for the costs of their ecological effects. Future urban sustainability requires a holistic consideration of our ideas about the relationship between the built environment and mobility. Ultimately, that means we must reconsider parking.

Consider Seattle’s urban future in light of the following estimates:

1. Population Growth. There are no official Seattle-only population forecasts, but we can extrapolate from recent history. According to Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), the City of Seattle gained 17,355 people between 2010 and 2012. A Census Bureau estimate puts the gain at 25,875. Assuming that ESRI’s nominal figure is the constant biannual growth rate, that’s 156,195 new residents by 2030. If this estimate is accurate, Seattle faces a projected growth pressure of nearly twenty-five percent over eighteen years. How will we move these people? Where will we house them? How will we make Seattle an increasingly walkable, enjoyable, activity rich, sustainable, economically successful and economically diverse place to live? Our answers to these questions will determine whether Seattle is a sustainable city going forward.

2. Mobility Spatial Efficiency. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), typical on-street auto parking requires 200 square feet of space per vehicle, exclusive of right-of-way for maneuvering; a parked car in a garage takes up 300-450 square feet depending on the specifics of maneuvering aisles and structural design. On the other hand, a seated human using public transit or a bicycle consumes about twelve square feet. This comparison demonstrates how private cars steal precious space from the urban fabric of a sustainable and growing city. A study shows that cars are parked ninety-five percent of the time. Do we really wish to incur the costs of allocating at least two-hundred square feet of our city’s built environment for each usually-parked private car when only twelve square feet are needed for each resident to be comfortable and highly mobile?

Let’s imagine that half of these 156,195 additional residents by 2030 brought a car with them: 78,097 cars. According to ITE standards, we would need to allocate approximately 200 square feet to park each one in on-street parking spaces. To park them would require 358 acres of parking spaces—imagine a square lot composed entirely of parking the length of thirteen football fields on each side. If we leveled downtown Seattle and paved everything from James Street to Olive Way, from First Avenue to Summit Avenue, that entire area could be covered with the added cars. Scarce space in our built environment has more valuable purposes than storing seldom-used assets, especially in places where we concentrate sustainable mobility investments. Seattle, like many other cities, faces a stark choice: park more cars or have active, walkable, aesthetically pleasing, sustainable urban environments.

Continue reading “Sustainable Urbanism Means Less Parking”

by REP. REUVEN CARLYLE

As legislative negotiators work tirelessly behind the scenes to seek common ground on a statewide transportation package, profoundly important philosophical questions are on the table. The tension in the air can be sensed over what strategic direction our state’s transportation system will take in the decades to come.

Will a modern, sophisticated, win-win grand bargain between the Republican-led Senate and Democratic-led House be achieved, or will our infrastructure continue to slide into mediocrity?

On a deep level, the questions are substantial: Will we continue down a traditional path of a restricted 18th Amendment (use of gas tax for roads and highways) instead of multi-modal uses? Will metropolitan strategies–from Bruce Katz author of The Metropolitan Revolution with smart cities, urban environmentalism, responsible growth, transit to city-oriented regionalism itself–find support from the business community and Republicans? Will the Senate Republican leadership provide the majority of votes to lead their chamber through the sweeping policy questions or simply expect a majority of Democrats to vote for taxes while Republicans vote ‘no’ yet quietly bargain for transportation spending in their own legislative districts? Will Seattle and King County voters, who for years have been net contributors of taxes to state government, reach a tipping point of frustration at cuts to local transit and deteriorating roads and support a “Plan B” or ‘King County-only’ approach? Will King, Snohomish and Pierce county residents take the initiative, for the first time in years, to think strategically about the post-modern infrastructure needs (ports, ferries, highways, transit, bike paths, stormwater, public waterfronts, etc.) as a Puget Sound region?

Recently I stopped by a major bus stop in my district to speak with Metro riders about the situation. After reviewing the policy background provided by Metro, and learning more about the current Senate proposal on the table, one rider said to me: “I’ve been thinking about this, let me get this straight, here’s the deal as I understand it: We raise our gas tax by 11.5 cents which, in turn, gets us the honor of voting for a new Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET), and we cut spending on public schools–and environmental cleanup–all in exchange for ‘buying back’ our current level of bus services. Seems like a ridiculously bad deal to me. Let’s just raise fares and our own MVET and pay for our own services and at least keep the money here.”

The state’s thought leaders in the business community are fighting hard to find a compromise. They argue, rightly, that public infrastructure should maintain a special place in political discourse given how vital it is all a healthy and robust quality of life. And yet those same organizations led the charge to fully fund the business-backed candidate in a recent open state senate seat who is categorically opposed to new transportation taxes. It is difficult to reconcile those competing values.

Our old model of transportation funding and spending is ending. More than that, our radical addiction to decentralization of authority and allocation of resources based on yesterday more than tomorrow is unsustainable. The gas tax itself is, of course, imploding virtually before our eyes as vehicles become more fuel efficient, and competing over a declining resource is hard enough under the best of circumstances. Add to the mix the need for a bold approach at living the Metropolitan Revolution and it simply does not seem realistic to expect Seattle and King County voters–and others throughout Puget Sound–to enthusiastically embrace a stereotypically static model.

What would make sense?

Continue reading “The Metropolitan Revolution Comes to Puget Sound”

by BEN BROESAMLE

Planning professionals, private sector developers, and the media often operate with different definitions of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). Many confuse TOD with mixed-use development and claim that new, mixed-use development with 100 residential units and 100 parking spaces next to a nice bus stop with buses arriving every 15-30 minutes is TOD.

In short, no.

Mixed-use development is typically development with retail on the ground level and with other uses above, without other distinguishing features. Despite sharing common features with mixed-use development, TOD differs from mixed-use development. The focus of TOD is the dramatic reduction of privately owned, single occupancy vehicle use. A development parked at 1 space per dwelling unit, or 1 space per 1,000 gross square feet is not TOD under any circumstances because TOD first and foremost seeks to reduce the space required for and provided to private automobiles.

TOD & TRANSIT, TWO PARTS OF A WHOLE:

If readers failed to read further than the title of a recent article in The Atlantic, “’Transit’ Might Not Be Essential to Transit-Oriented Development,” then readers might think that transit is only a marginal factor in TOD. However, the study that the article cites concludes: “The focus on rail is particularly problematic in cases where developments near rail stations are simply transit adjacent, with high amounts of parking, low density, and large units being offered for sale [as opposed to smaller rental units].” The quote is precisely correct. That development pattern is problematic, with or without rail. Development considered TOD that is actually merely transit-adjacent, retaining priority given to private, single occupancy vehicles directly detracts from the goals of TOD.

TOD and transit must always be seen as two halves of a whole. Transit provides mobility. Development without parking near transit provides increased densities and walkability, making high-capacity rapid rail transit the most effective and reliable method to move people between neighborhoods. Additionally, the compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-prioritized nature of TOD provides accessibility, a convenient lifestyle for those seeking to live without the hassle of owning a car.

WHAT TOD IS:

In short: TOD is unparked, mixed-use, walkable development near high quality transit investments. It provides essential retail services, at least some employment, and access to high-capacity, rapid, reliable transit all within a convenient, 5-minute walk. TOD actively reduces the availability of on- and off-street parking as much as possible and therefore uses space that might be otherwise filled with idle cars. In practice this means development near high quality transit and without private parking. Always.

This definition should be stated at the beginning of any media outlet piece or investor call about TOD.

Ben Broesamle is an aspiring real estate development and investment leader specializing in human- and transit-oriented development. He presently works as an analyst in commercial real estate finance and is on the board of Seattle Subway. He holds a BA in geography from UCLA where he concentrated in urban and regional development studies and minored in environmental studies. He moved from Los Angeles to Magnolia in 2010 where he now commutes via the 33 or 24.

by MATT LOAR

Earlier this month Metro released their 2013 Service Guidelines Report [PDF]. This report, which replaced the Route Performance Report in 2011, was released in the spring in 2011 and 2012, but Metro has decided to release it in the fall from now on to better align with the King County Budget process. STB covered the last report back in April. Notably, this is the first report since the launch of RapidRide C & D and the large restructure that went with it.

Some highlights after the jump.

Continue reading “Metro’s 2013 Service Guidelines Report”

by MIKE ORR

Sound Transit released a summary of public comments on the Lynnwood Link extension. The Board will vote November 21st on a preferred alignment and stations, assuming the staff finalize a recommendation next week.

The report does not include the text of the comments, but it has a count of those supporting or opposing particular segments or stations on page 8. Overall project support was 60 to 2. I wrote an article during the comment period supporting alternatives A5 (at-grade Northgate to Shoreline with stations at 130th, 145th, and 185th); B2A or B4A (east side Mountlake Terrace station with or without a 220th station); and C2 (Lynnwood station on west side of transit center). So how does that compare with the comments? 130th was the most-supported station, with 35 supporters. 145th and 155th tied for second, with 25 supporters each. The other stations each got 15 or less positive comments. Negative comments were highest for 145th (12); much fewer or zero for the other stations.

However, comments on the segments have a different distribution, so some people seem to have indirectly supported stations in their segment choices. In segment “A” (Northgate to Shoreline), alternative A1 got the most support (18 comments; at-grade 145th and 185th, no 130th station). My favorite A5 came in second (10), tying with A10 (like A5 but elevated). In segment “B” (Mountlake Terrace), segment B2A, one of my favorites, came in first (14 supporters; with 220th station). Opposition to any of the “A” and “B” alternatives was negligible.

Segment “C” (Lynnwood) got the most comments by far. This alignment is all up in the air given the outpouring of opposition to impacting Scriber Lake Park, and Lynnwood’s publishing its own alternative (C3M). My favorite alternative C1 (north side station) got 58 supporters and 21 opponents. C2 (west side station) got 3 supporters and 19 opponents. C3 (P&R station), the least walkable, got 73 supporters and 4 opponents. Additionally, a
petition opposing C1 and C2 got 1800 physical signatures and an unspecified number of electronic signatures, and a petition supporting C3 got 28 signatures.

Judging from the media reports at the time, most of the preference for C3 is to avoid impacting Scriber Lake Park, rather than specifically to be close to the P&R and freeway. Lynnwood’s preferred alternative puts the station on the east side of the transit center rather than next to the freeway, and would be closer to the bus bays. Lynnwood’s emerging downtown is expected to be mostly northeast of the station. C1 would be adjacent to this, while the other alternatives would add 2-4 blocks of walking. All alternatives would all be within walking distance of the park and the Interurban Trail.

by RICHARD CONLIN

The future of our region depends on our creating a comprehensive transit system that:

• Builds out a light rail spine that moves as many people as rapidly and efficiently as possible;
• Ensures critical transit, bicycle, and pedestrian connections to light rail stations and among our urban centers and villages; and
• Promotes transit oriented communities that build affordable housing and density so that we can get people away from automobile dependence.

We cannot do just one of these three things. We have to do them all in order to realize the vision of a truly sustainable region. We’ve succeeded in some of the basics and we’re ready to create the framework for a truly integrated vision. I have the experience and commitment to make sure that the City Council and Sound Transit give priority to all three of these as we make crucial policy decisions.

The spine: With light rail funded from Lynnwood to Federal Way and across Lake Washington to Overlake/Redmond, we are building the core system. But we must not forget how tough it is to actually do this. I remember how close the first Sound Transit vote was in 1995 (when we lost) and in 1996 (finally winning), how difficult it was to face the reality that it was harder and more expensive to build out the first line than we had thought, and ultimately having to take the incredibly tough decision to shorten it but still persist with the vision of a line that makes light rail an engine of community development. I remember being in the front of meetings in Rainier Valley with hundreds of Seattle residents attacking me and the other Councilmembers for moving the light rail program forward.

Tense negotiations seem to come with the territory. The UW demanded extraordinary measures to protect research from vibrations when the route cut under the campus. We faced lawsuits over the use of I-90 and an attempt in Bellevue to derail construction, which was only overcome through a careful and patient negotiation between three Sound Transit Board members (I was one of them) and Bellevue City Councilmembers.

Continue reading “Transit: The Next Generation”

BY JEFF HAMMERQUIST

Last Monday evening, Mayor McGinn and Councilmember Conlin held a ‘Seattle Transit Reception’ (slides) showcasing the city’s recently adopted Transit Master Plan (TMP), the Ballard rail study, ST3 planning, and recent progress on the Center City Connector project. The reception was open to the public but also clearly aligned to be of use for Rail~Volution attendees.

For visitors in town for Rail-Volution, McGinn’s words about the TMP were a good primer on Seattle’s geography and the various corridors the city is prioritizing for transit investment. In the five TMP corridors that the plan designates for high capacity transit (in most cases rail), the mayor reminded the audience that those select corridors are only part of a larger strategy to improve the performance of the city’s highest ridership bus routes.

The most interesting news of the evening was about the evolving design of the Center City Connector project. STB readers will already know that 1st Avenue was selected as the alignment to connect the South Lake Union and First Hill lines through downtown, but the remarks at the reception (and a subsequent Great Cities presentation Tuesday) clarified much about the current state of the project:

• While a single-line operational model will be studied, SDOT prefers that the SLU and First Hill lines be operationally distinct, interlining for 5-minute combined headways on the shared segment between the King Street Hub and Westlake
• Only one alternative for connecting to SLU was selected for further development: a Stewart/Olive connection to McGraw Square, running two-way (including contraflow) on Stewart west of 3rd, and on the Stewart/Olive couplet between 3rd and 5th.
• Projected year of opening is 2018
• No bicycle facilities are integrated into 1st Avenue in the conceptual renderings

The last detail that Conlin and McGinn touched on, and no doubt the most crucial to the reliability of the project, was the configuration of 1st Avenue’s right-of-way. The city presented two designs illustrating center platforms with center-running rail, one with the streetcar operating in mixed-traffic and one with the streetcar operating in an exclusive lane. As one might guess, there is a significant travel time difference between the two options, the mixed-traffic configuration taking an average of 6 minutes longer to traverse the short 1st Avenue alignment than the option with exclusive lanes. While an additional 6 minutes may not seem like much, on a 1.3 mile alignment a 12 minute travel time is just 6.5 mph average speed (no better than current downtown trolleybuses), while a 6 min travel time would be 13 mph average speed (possibly faster than any other surface transit downtown). Note too that the 6 minute difference for a mixed-traffic line is an optimal scenario under baseline traffic conditions. Actual reliability could only be equal to or worse than this baseline.

Exclusive ROW will add 3,000 daily riders over the mixed-traffic scenario (31k vs. 28k), exclusive ROW will cost $2m less annually to operate ($16m vs. $18m), capital costs are cheaper for exclusive lanes (one less vehicle needed), and an overwhelming majority of public feedback preferred both 1st Avenue and exclusive lanes. Despite this, however, the Great Cities report stated: “Most believe mixed-traffic operations will be necessary given limited north-south rights of way.”

I encourage anyone interested in seeing this project succeed to attend SDOT’s upcoming open house for the project on October 29th, see the plans up close, and provide feedback on SDOT’s City Center Corridor design.

By MIKE ORR

[UPDATE: C segment cost figures corrected Sept. 30th.]

ST will hold open houses on the new draft EIS for the Lynnwood Link extension between August 14th and 22nd in Mountlake Terrace, Northgate, Lynnwood, and Shoreline. The DEIS has six alternatives for King County: three with stations at 130th+155th+185th, two with stations at 130th+145th+185th, and two with stations at 145th+185th, all along I-5. South Snohomish County has four alternatives: three with a single station at Mountlake Terrace TC, and one with a second station at 220th St SW. Lynnwood has three alternatives, each putting the station on a different side of the transit center. (Executive Summary, pp. 8-15) The low estimate for the cheapest combination is $1.23 billion; the high estimate for the most expensive combination is $1.74 billion. (pp. 23-26) So let’s look at it in terms of which alternatives are minimally acceptable, which ones add substantial benefit for passengers arriving by foot or bus, and which ones don’t add enough benefit to justify their costs.

A 130th station is an absolute necessity, to give Lake City meaningful access to Link. Lake City is the largest existing urban village north of Northgate, and one of the most affordable. So imagine a pedestrian at 125th & Lake City Way. For her, a 130th station would be a short bus ride away, and faster than the buses slogging through Northgate traffic. A 145th station would be beyond walking distance, and the indirect bus ride would negate much of Link’s advantage. A 130th station would also facilitate an east-west bus on 125th/130th. If this were a reorganized 75, it would give northwest Seattle, Lake City, and Sand Point easy access to Link and to each other. Currently it takes a whopping 45 minutes to get from Magnuson Park to Aurora Avenue.

The most economical King County alternatives — surprisingly — include 130th station.* That’s a relief to transit fans who were worried they’d have to fight for the station over its cost. Alternative A5 has stations at 130th + 155th + 185th. Alternative A10 has stations at 130th + 145th +185th. The 130th and 185th stations would be at-grade, while 145th/155th would be elevated. The “at-grade” segments would pass under cross streets like the freeway does, mostly in retained cut-fill trenches.** Alternatives A7 and A11 are similar but have fully elevated stations and more overall elevation, at a cost of $90-120 million more. I don’t think elevation is necessary here because there are no intersections to eliminate or spectacular views to see.

As for 145th vs 155th station, I have no strong opinion. 145th has more potential for development because it’s already a highway, so NIMBYs have less standing to object. The main advantage of 155th is it’s closer to the Safeway-Sears cluster at 155th & Aurora, but it’s still not close. It’s a 15-minute walk away, and I don’t see a major increase in pedestrians unless Shoreline turns 155th & Aurora into another Lake City and upzones the connecting street. More after the jump.

Continue reading “Lynnwood Extension Draft EIS”