Zoning is an inexpensive yet powerful tool King County has to affect the coming growth. A zoning variance is worth big money to a developer and New York developers have built schools, parks, and affordable housing in exchange for variances.  Zoning also affects transportation. Walking to work is the greenest form of commuting and if King County promotes it, everyone in the county benefits from less congestion on the road.

Thousands work at Southcenter and  surrounding industrial parks, almost all of them drive to work. If a parking lot (So many to choose from!) was rezoned allowing a residential tower atop a parking garage, with tenants limited to nearby workers, hundreds of commuters can be eliminated from the roads.  A simple requirement of working within one mile for at least one year, with lease renewals contingent on continued  employment, would guarantee less workers on the freeways.

Developers in association with area landlords could present proposals to the city or county and the best deal selected for the community. Since most of the potential renters are working class, developers would probably have to build affordable housing to attract tenants.  If the first building was successful, others could follow.  If developers cannot make it work financially, they will not be interested. If they can make it work,  it would be a unique opportunity to direct growth into green commuting and create affordable housing.

Often, peoples’ coworkers are often more racially diverse than their neighbors. This is also a chance to create a more diverse community as well. Communities often oppose lower income housing, but this proposal specifically requires a steady job to be eligible. These renters already work in the community, I hope the citizens of Tukwilla would accept them as neighbors as well.

Thanks for reading

No, Not Really, But…

Most years, around Thanksgiving Amtrak operates extra trains between Portland and Seattle. As this is Amtrak’s busiest travel weekend, usually this means grabbing several extra Amfleet and Horizon cars from California, or other places that could make just as good use of those cars.

Is the service provided by these trains sufficient? There is no way to know right now, since having a constrained number of seats means Amtrak’s yield based ticket price structure forces the ticket prices into an unattractive price range before the trains truly sell out. All it tells us is that far fewer people are willing to pay $63 for a ticket that normally sells for $35, which we knew already and is basically the point of yield based ticket prices. Based on the significant road traffic problems seen up and down the Cascades corridor every year, I’m guessing the seating capacity could afford to be increased.

By brining in several leftover cars from California, train length is severely limited due to the limited availability of additional cars out of California, which has its own severe travel needs during Thanksgiving weekend.

Such single level cars are not particularly well suited for service along the Cascades corridor anyway.  No stations anywhere along the entire corridor have high level platforms level with the floor on these cars, so that detraining means a steep, narrow staircase. It is a slow process even for the most able-bodied.

In the Northeast, it is not unusual at all for Amtrak to make use of existing commuter cars from local agencies. In one example, Maryland Area Rail Commuter Service (MARC) winds up with a fairly significant portion of its fleet in Amtrak service over Thanksgiving weekend. Some I have talked to say the proportion is somewhere close to half of the MARC fleet.

The Sounder cars aren’t intended for long distance service but the seating isn’t especially uncomfortable. SoundTransit purchased its cars with comfortable benches and tables, rather than the hard plastic seats certain other commuter agencies have ordered. Arguably, they are more comfortable than some of the Amfleet and Horizon cars that appear in the northwest during Thanksgiving weekend. Let’s not forget that Oregon’s two Talgo trains were actually designed for the 90 minute Chicago to Milwaukee trip, which is actually in the commuter railroad range and have comfort levels to match.

While not completely platform level, Sounder cars have somewhat lower floors than the Amfleet or Horizon stock and reasonably wide doors, which allow them to have somewhat better boarding and detraining at the typical Cascades platform. The upper level means that the cars maintain reasonable comfort while having considerable seating capacity per car.

Most Cascades platforms are not directly wheelchair accessible from the floor of these cars, but the cars were used on emergency Amtrak service between Seattle and Bellingham after the Skagit River Interstate 5 bridge collapse. Many of the Cascades stations already have backup wheelchair lifts at station platforms. Therefore, in reality wheelchair access doesn’t appear to be an issue and in fact due to the wider and multiple doors per car would probably be better with Sounder equipment than with the Amfleet or Horizon cars.

None of the Sounder cars are equipped for food service but there are ways of solving that problem. As the Sounder cars have end doors that are compatible with standard equipment, one possible solution would be to only move a couple of lounge/cafe cars to the northwest and have them serve on these trains. There are also privately owned passenger cars that are maintained to Amtrak standards for use in special tourist service at the end of Amtrak trains, and some of those cars are equipped with food service. They are a hodgepodge of car types and colors, but to be legal for connection to Amtrak trains they have to have passed a certain set of safety inspections to make them as safe as Amtrak equipment. If the train gets long enough, it would probably be a good idea to have one car equipped with food service capability at each end of the train, which also saves some platform space since dining cars really don’t need platform access during passenger boarding.

In theory there are some political obstacles because Federal Transit Administration funded equipment is normally excluded from use by Amtrak. Other areas of the country have managed to work this out. Witness, for example, MARC.

As of late September, already Thanksgiving weekend had all trains on November 25th from Portland to Seattle in the $63 range. A few $53 seats remained for Seattle to Portland on that day, but only on train 501. The 27th was somewhat better, but the 29th was back up in the $63 range for most trains. With almost two months to go, the trains for that weekend were already showing signs of needing a bump in capacity. As of this writing (October 14th), conditions have changed a little bit: for the 25th prices on train 504 were available at $35. Train 501 also had tickets available at $35, but all other trains that day from Seattle to Portland only have $63 tickets available.

These ticket price levels drive people away from using the train at a time when the potential for first time riders is extremely high.

These high ticket prices are basically influenced by insufficient seats to meet demand on certain travel days.

For the most part, the equipment to accomplish a short term capacity increase is already in the region.

While Sounder equipment is in use until the evening of November 25th, it isn’t needed for commuter service on Thanksgiving day.  SoundTransit could probably get away with reduced length trains on the day after Thanksgiving. I’ve seen 14 car Coast Starlight trains with two privately owned cars on the rear, so coupling two standard 8 car Sounder trains together to quickly make up a 16 car train should be able to fit in the longer King Street Station platform, and Portland has handled 18 car trains in the not too distant past. Sure, all of the seats may not be sold, but once you are operating a train to Portland adding extra cars really doesn’t add too much to the operating costs. Food service cars may or may not be available, but if they are not at least make a note of it on the reservation system so that people know what they are not getting.

Such a train, departing Seattle for Portland on Wednesday evening just after train 509, would not only provide some badly needed capacity increases but would also allow for some gauging of the actual demand for tickets when capacity isn’t constrained by seating capacity and yield based pricing.

For the rest of the weekend, the train could be broken into smaller pieces and provide a Thanksgiving weekend service that is typically seen with the extra cars, only with considerable flexibility in the length of the various trains as the number of cars available wouldn’t be as limited. There is only so much that can be done with four Amfleet cars, but 16 Sounder bilevel cars is a different matter in terms of flexibility to create long and short trains as needed. Some of those could return to Seattle as needed to provide service on the day after Thanksgiving, with the rest returning to Seattle as continued weekend specials wind up their service.

Another possibility would be to use some of the Sounder North equipment for this service. By 5:30 pm the first two northbound trains have completed their runs. At one time those trains were operating as three car trains, but recently have been two car trains. Turning them back into three car trains for a single day, then converting some of the equipment into a southbound Everett to Portland train would leave some equipment in Everett for the day after Thanksgiving service.

Eventually, there should be a reckoning over the inefficiency forced on passenger train operations by requiring Federal Transit Agency funded equipment (paid for by federal tax money) to not be used for Amtrak service (paid for by federal money). This essentially requires that “commuter” equipment, once paid for, spend a huge portion of its time laying over between peak periods when it might be used for regional train services when not needed for peak periods. When a German friend looked at Sounder service hours, his first comment was “Why would you spend a hundred million dollars on equipment and then let it sit around for 80% of the week?”

In reality, it shouldn’t. It particularly shouldn’t when there is a significant demand for its use in regional services. The fact that such a waste is cast in concrete as a matter of federal requirements of Amtrak and commuter operators is a battle for another day.

In the meantime, we need to figure out how MARC and Amtrak back east are able to temporarily boost Amtrak service on Thanksgiving weekend despite this requirement.

Glenn Laubaugh (“Glenn in Portland”) is employed in Portland in the field of specialized electrical equipment for the railroad industry. Typical commute: TriMet #10.

NOTE: This post is copied in its entirety from an article I wrote, titled Fast Trains to Olympia: A Mapped, Annotated Extension Proposal. It is the latest entry of my blog, Transportation Matters, a Pacific Northwest-flavored blog that discusses railway planning, urban planning, and related politics.

—————>

Olympia, the seat of government for Washington State, is sited at the southwestern edge of the urbanized Puget Sound region. While the politicking inside the statehouse may directly affect the other cities of the region, Olympia is not otherwise well connected to them. Including the bus commute on Interstate 5, a ride that is frequently halted by worsening congestion, Washington State’s economic, political and social centers remain unlinked by any reliable, frequent and swift mode of public transportation.

It does not have to be this way.

The Tacoma to Seattle core rail line endeavors to close the most critical gap within the region. It does so sensibly by eliminating mainline redundancy and utilizing existing rights-of-way; by improving rail capacity for cargo trains that have been diverted away from our city centers, and; by building smart, new infrastructure to link the two cities and their suburbs together in a single, urban, high-speed line.

In much the same way, the extension from Tacoma to Olympia will also capitalize on existing infrastructural resources, and similarly employ the best passenger railroad engineering practices of Western Europe to achieve a uniform speed profile of 200kmh (125mph). This is the overall system’s design standard, with the only exceptions being the last few kilometers into Olympia and Seattle’s city center terminals, or those segments where top-speeds are higher.

Some have already questioned the merit of a line to Olympia. Indeed, after decades of malinvestment into the region’s railroad network, and even dismantling quite a bit of it, the capital costs of the project, as-of-yet not calculated, will be substantial. However, to discount a project whose cost should have been evenly distributed over the decades is irresponsible and short-sighted. Railways have not been afforded the same generosity as has our regional highway network.

Consequently, it is even more imperative to thoroughly review and understand the benefits of any such extension.

One, and perhaps most fundamentally, the extension would further transform mobility in the Puget Sound region and upend current notions of distance and geography. Following another on-time departure from King Street Station’s stub tracks in central Seattle, for example, a businessman could arrive at an Olympia Station just eight blocks from where his meeting will be held inside the Capitol Building, and do so roughly twice as fast as driving—likely far more quickly should the interstate not be having a rare free-flowing day. Distance becomes unimportant when high-speed trains are your preferred mode of travel, exposing formerly ignored real estate to investment opportunity from sources across a newly connected region.

Two, as new BRT and streetcar lines are developed and improved bike and pedestrian systems connect with the high-speed line at its stations, the vast majority of the region’s populace will finally be offered a real alternative to driving for the first time since the commencement of the Automobile Age.

Three, the segment of the line between Fort Lewis Station and Lacey Station is designed to accommodate true high-speed trains traveling upwards of 300kmh (185mph). Responsible planning dictates us to prepare for a time when much of the extension is incorporated into the Central Washington High-Speed Line to Portland, Oregon, rendering the final miles of trackage into Downtown Olympia merely a spur. In other words, the extension to Olympia must be seen as the initial segment of a true high-speed line linking the primary cities of the Pacific Northwest. This proposal has us securing the critical urban rights-of-way now before urban sprawl and poor planning eradicate these limited, very precious resources.

Lastly, four, while the construction of any rail line will undoubtedly pollute, their subsequent operation will generate dramatically fewer toxins than their vehicular counterparts. With high-speed electric trains, the comparison becomes even more pronounced. Confronted with worsening congestion, deteriorating air quality, poor mobility and city centers stifled by underinvestment, the Puget Sound has extraordinary potential to recast itself as one of the most resilient and sustainable metropolitan areas of the world through this rail improvement plan.

The Olympia Extension could play a major role within this transformation.

Measured to within mere feet of inaccuracy, this project is technically feasible. All that is required now is the political will to begin establishing the sole rail spine of a rapidly growing region.

From here, I’ll let my plan speak for itself. I welcome scrutiny and constructive criticism.

I was on vacation last week in northern Europe, and this included a trip to Amsterdam and its impressive-if-slightly-mystifying transit system. (I apologize in advance for the lack of pictures — Google Images stands ready for you.)

Arrival: Thalys High-Speed Train via Brussels

The high-speed train ride from Brussels was just over an hour and a half, with only two intermediate stops in Antwerp and Rotterdam before arriving at Amsterdam-Centraal. (The train originated at Gare du Nord in Paris.) The line is well-taken care of, and moves quickly and on-schedule, but has some strange issues I’d think they would have worked out.

Platform operations were disorganized — not enough staff unloading, then ticket-checking and re-loading. There is also not nearly enough luggage storage — bags were spilling into the vestibule walking paths in every single car. As a result, each stop took longer than it needed to.

In the city: Amsterdam (GVB) Tram

Amsterdam’s tram (streetcar) network is extensive and mostly simple to use. There are 15 lines, run 7 days a week, with high-frequency (I never waited more than 7 or 8 minutes anywhere) and quasi-late (last trains around 12:45am) operations. They go almost everywhere, and most lines have a terminus at Centraal station, giving you a simple if not entirely convenient transfer point for many trips. All trains had automatic stop announcements (occasionally in English too, at attractions and major transfer points), and all had dynamic signage of some kind. (The newer models had LCD screens showing additional information; older ones had LED matrix displays only showing direction of travel and next stop.) One thing I noted is that the forward-facing sign boards not only had the route number and destination, but a semaphore-like color symbol unique to each route. I’m not entirely sure what they’re for, but it seems like a good idea.

Payment is via RFID card (“OV-chipkaart”, tap on and tap off) and cash on-board. Many (not all) trams had a fare agent on board, sitting in the middle of the carriage selling single cash rides, 24- and 48- hour passes. The day and two-day passes were disposible RFID cards — what a concept! Ticket vending machines, of which the Centraal station has exactly one (and to make it worse, it’s inside the station, away from the boarding area), aren’t in too many places and were not user-friendly. Given you can buy fares on-board from someone other than the driver, it wasn’t a big deal, except that the machines can sell tourist-friendly 72- and 96- hour passes as well, where the on-board fare agents do not.

My experience was mostly good. The system is highly functional during the day, but it has a few things I didn’t care for. Like many European transit systems, carriage doors open only on-demand, and the driver will only dwell for a hot second if no one on the train opens the doors to get off, or if no one on the ground responds fast enough. This left about 10 people rushing for the last train of the night…right as it pulled out of the station.

My biggest problem by far, however, was wayfinding. Maps were not easy to find or understand, and while basic efforts were made at each platform for local-area wayfinding, the only really good system map was the one seemingly posted only inside the trams themselves. This is an issue in Amsterdam, because much of the city is organized in a series of concentric circles thanks to their canal system where cardinal directions have little relevance.

Amsterdam has some rapid transit lines as well, but those mostly serve the outer neighborhoods of the city, with almost no stations in the center. As a result, I never had an opportunity or need to use it.

Getting out: Bus 179 and Amsterdam Schiphol Airport

Our next destination was Munich, which required a plane ride. Our 8:30am flight, however, required a bus ride at 6:00am. The 179 bus runs from the center of the city to the miniature city known as Schiphol Airport. 5 euros per person, every 15 minutes (including overnight) from the city center, the ride took about 35 minutes and drops you at the main Schiphol Plaza, where the entire airport converges. A bus ride, nothing special.

Amsterdam’s airport is one of Europe’s very largest and busiest, but nothing about it makes it a particularly unpleasant place. It’s mostly modern, signage is top-class, and amenities abound. Arts and culture have a notable place, too: the airport has its own public lending library and an annex of the Rijksmuseum. Both are, unfortunately, closed through the end of the year for modernization. Some of the concourses even have open-air rooftop viewing decks.

***

This was my first visit to Amsterdam, and for many reasons other than just a great transport network, I’m totally sold on the place. It’s a truly beautiful city that in many ways reminded me of Seattle. It’s a haul to get there (10 hours flight time nonstop from SeaTac), but well worth your time if you decide to make the trip.

Let’s be honest, the spine will get built in one way or another with rail from one end to the other. However, we are continuing to focus on poor light rail alignments and using a technology not suited for the distances. So what do we currently have?

Sounder: North Line currently has a run time of 59 minutes with two stops at Mukilteo and Edmonds. These stations connect ferry commuters and locals in the area but ridership simply does not fill the trains. The reliability during the fall and spring leads to many cancellations therefore fewer people ride it. It does serve a different purpose than a Link
Express Bus Routes: If you look at current travel times from Lynnwood to Seattle and Everett to Seattle not just during rush hour but from rush hour until 7 to 8 pm at night. The 512 still takes an hour to travel downtown but reliability is affected by freeway performance and traffic on Seattle’s streets. After utilizing the 545 from Redmond yesterday, we were allowed to deboard before Pine and I made the decision to use the bus tunnel to avoid all the traffic at the surface on 5th.  One accident is enough to increase travel times to more than 60 minutes from Lynnwood. Many times on Twitter, you will see alerts for buses being delayed from accident and congestion.
What Is Needed:

1) Reliable travel times-rail does this having a fixed guideway system and grade separated.

2) Frequency-a fixed rail link during the day need to have departures at least every 15 minutes or better, for this corridor, we should aim for every 10 minutes.

3) Travel time reductions from current modes. It is possible to reduce travel times; there can have a 110 mph alignment in the I-5 corridor with one overpass bridge and a few short tunnel segments. Tunneling from Northgate to Seattle would be required unless part of the I-5 express lanes were utilized. However I am not assuming WSDOT will allow that usage without concessions.

What is Proposed: (in the Hopper)

There are three LRT options with two likely ones being Paine Field and I-5. I-5 has the shortest travel time at 22 minutes from Lynnwood-Everett. Ridership is projected at 32,000 to 43,000 with no TOD potential except around Everett station. This would allow an hour or less travel time into downtown Seattle every trip, but it serves existing ridership that uses park & rides. The cost would be $2.36-$3.19 billion. Part of the new issue is the plans for 1,000 new parking spaces at the station. This takes away valuable TOD land for more cars.

The Paine Field alternative adds an entire 11 minutes onto overall travel time. The purpose of this alignment is to serve Paine Field and Boeing, the base ridership has 4,000 more than I-5 and 1,000 more than an SR 99 alignment, but it tops out at 50,000 riders. It is not faster than the current 510-513 buses that travel the corridor currently from the diversion to Paine Field. I have strong reservations of serving Paine Field for the extra cost of at least 190 to 230 million dollars, especially given Boeing and tax breaks from a political sense. From a transit sense, airports and industrial areas do not produce the ridership justified for fixed all day rail transit. Paine Field also has NIMBYs to contend with, limiting potential airport ridership.
Unfortunately, County politicians are opposed to an SR 99 alignment with TOD potential, 4 minutes less travel time, less cost, and much more TOD potential along the corridor to redevelop. It will be a matter of time but the questions become the following.

My Proposal: Sounder Regional Express

Proposal Map

Sounder Regional Express would extend from DuPont to Marysville/Tulalip. The goals are the following

35 minute travel time express from Everett-Seattle with stops at Lynnwood, University District, Westlake/ SLU, and King St. Station
45 minute travel time local with stops at Everett Mall, Ash Way, Alderwood Mall, Lynnwood TC, Mountlake Terrace, Northgate, U-District, Westlake/SLU and terminate at King St.
60 minute travel time from Marysville/ Tulalip with all stops.

Why Travel Time?

This one question always had me stumped. As someone who lives in the bedroom community of Bremerton, I do have a bit of travel time perception given any Seattle venture outside of downtown involves transit. As someone who recently once went over to Redmond by car, I absolutely hated it due to driving the 405 and being stuck in congestion versus taking a ferry and bus. The travel times are about the same, just a matter of walking up to 3rd Avenue, get to Convention Place, the 545 over and with an ORCA card, makes it easy. I honestly regretting taking my car but because I missed the boat due to my fault with parking selection (connecting transit doesn’t usually work out and I save only $1 versus convenience of having a vehicle available upon my return). Fact remains is when transit is easy and convenient, I am more likely to take it.

When it comes to the geographic reach of infrastructure, the faster it is in this section, the more it can reach. This does go against trying to have more people live in downtown Seattle but also realizing the fact that there will be people that choose the suburbs and having an option that makes it attractive to leaving their car for local trips and reducing the pull to use it on I-5 to travel to downtown Seattle it becomes important. Everett Link if it goes via SR 99 or Paine Field will take an hour plus each time. During the weekend when traffic isn’t as bad in downtown Seattle and parking is cheaper and more available, keeping travel times competitive is important in making a decision, especially if transfers are involved.

Why Rapid Rail?

Comfort. You are likely to have a seat on a rapid rail train for the entire time. With the ability to have power and USB ports and the vehicles meant to support the function of sitting for the ride, there would be draws for commuters who instead of driving can utilize travel time to catch up on sleep, check e-mails on their laptops. There are likely Link commuters that do this but being on a one hour trip really makes the conveniences go the extra mile.

In terms of infrastructure, this potentially would benefit a new high-speed connection to Vancouver, BC and Bellingham. This would cut off 20 minutes from the current travel time between Everett and Seattle alone. Given the straightness and limited curves between north of Bow, WA and Mount Vernon along with Mount Vernon-Everett, the 20 minutes reduction would make trip times by rail more competitive by adding this one high-speed segment.

Also, this would allow through service from Tacoma with a regular frequency, making more trips possible to the north of Seattle

Station Locations

There have been dilemnmas given most of the north stations are located along I-5. At the same time, it will be cheaper to use the WSDOT right of way rather than tunneling for 28+ miles between the two cities. The first vision was to re purpose the I-5 express lanes for rail although those negotiations would not be as easy as it was for I-90 and the current express lanes on I-5 carry much more traffic at 46,000 AADT at the Ship Canal midspan versus I-90’s 14,000 AADT at midspan. The other idea was connecting UW to a regional rail spine given the large employment base versus forcing a transfer at Northgate. This would require another tunnel between Northgate and DT Seattle but also an interline at Westlake or downtown seems needed since bus commute routes currently go into the tunnel, get off at Steweart, or Cherry and Columbia. Having everyone travel to King Street to go north makes the rails less attractive hence the thought of a stop at Westlake. I would consider a potential stop at SLU but whether geography will allow, I do not know. SLU does need more fixed rail transit than just the trolley.

North however many locations do not have that great locations to go without making a massive tunnel over to 99. (Aurora Subway)

In the end

I think this is much better than Link and I know this would be expensive depending on how much tunneling would cost. That is likely the make or break cost. It is hard to determine if a two track railway along I-5 would cost as much as light-rail but if using California’s estimate of $100 million per mile, for an extra $1 billion you get to Marysville. I would say use Tacoma-Everett as Phase 1 of the regional rail spine, extend to Marysville and Lakewood as Phase 2, and Phase 3 would go towards DuPont and potentially Olympia later. That is a discussion for another day.

For now though, I would welcome station consideration on why or why not for all stations if there would be some recommendations for the northern stations being further from I-5, for stations in downtown, why or why not SLU and Westlake? I would like to see one location or another in the northern section of downtown with feeder traffic from somewhere.

Sound Transit Link light rail is a contentious subject, its supporters as zealous as those who oppose a regional extension of the system. This might have something to do with a muddled central goal. Are we building an expanded light rail system to reduce traffic congestion? Or to move people through Seattle? Or to move people around the region? Or are we building it to eventually reduce GHG emissions? Or to guide future development? Which is it? Then there are those who might argue it will accomplish none of these objectives . . .

However, despite varied opinions, I think the majority – on both sides of the debate – would agree that light rail is nothing if not a long-term investment, that the system is expanding, and that its infrastructure will impact not only the region’s immediate future, but its long-term one.

With this in mind, and considering that (a) green bonds will help finance the rail extensions, and (b) the region has a reputation for prioritizing the environment, one might expect that such a mammoth, debt-funded investment would be pursued with the goal of providing a precedent for creative, leading edge, future-focused transit design. Our expanded rail system will speak loudly about our values as a region.

For this reason it is essential that Sound Transit not only systematically predict the impact of this expanded light rail system on the future of the region, but also that it is held accountable for those estimates as the plan unrolls. This includes rigorously quantifying the GHG emissions associated with the construction and day-to-day operation of these new stations, a task that entails a predefined set of goals.

This post will propose criteria that might be used to asses a light rail station’s success, specifically those criteria that one might traditionally associate with – now arguably hollow – buzzwords such as “sustainability” and “green.” I only omit a criteria for judging the tunnels between the stations because that task is outside my areas of expertise. If you haven’t already reviewed them, Sound Transit’s website provides information and links to drawings depicting the new light rail station designs for its University Link and Northgate Link Extensions: Capitol Hill, University of Washington, U District, Roosevelt, and Northgate Stations.

Note: A-P and Al Hurd’s book The Carbon Efficient City – which I highly recommend – offers unambiguous strategies for reducing the carbon footprints of cities. Those strategies have helped inspire and inform the criteria I propose in this post.

Sound Transit should be accountable for quantifying how well these stations . . .

1. Make use of existing context, structures, and materials.

It’s responsible to assume that the new light rail infrastructure is going to support transit for at least a century, given all the varied costs associated with its construction. For a system to stay relevant in the face of change, it must be flexible. Only then can it accommodate future technologies and programs.

As well, the station should be thoughtfully integrated with environmental and contextual realities, rather than featuring eco-afterthoughts, denoted as callouts in construction documents. Sound Transit should require the new stations to make use of natural ventilation in lieu of or to supplement mechanical HVAC systems, draw daylight to underground mezzanines or platforms, use rainwater, treat stormwater, and generate energy on site.

The placement of each station must also make sense in regard to the district it represents. U District Station, for example, is well-placed near “The Ave,” while also giving new meaning to UW Tower, which currently feels awkwardly monumental in its surroundings.

For the most part the station designs appear to take a tabula rasa approach, rather than retrofitting existing structures/systems. However, according to Sound Transit’s website, during demolition for Capitol Hill Station, “2,890 tons of bricks, wood, metal and other building materials were recycled.”

2. Incorporate vegetation, open space, and habitat for other species.

A light rail station is a place for everyone, and presents a unique opportunity to provide a central gathering space in an urban center. There are so many reasons to support biodiversity in cities and a public transit station is a great place to accomplish just that.

In order to do so, the station designs should maximize vegetation wherever there is access to adequate sunlight. Vegetated areas can provide respite in the fast-paced urban realm, promote happiness and health, and are essential to creating vibrant urban districts.

Moreover, urban plants can reduce urban heat islands, filter pollutants from the air and water, and store CO₂. A vegetated station design can provide an important link in an otherwise fragmented wildlife movement corridor, providing, for example, nesting areas for birds or habitat for pollinators.

Apparently U District Station has been designed to accommodate a building at street level. This could be a missed opportunity. While U Village and the UW campus have plenty of open space, the U District is dominated by the right-of-way. As drivers have become accustomed to avoiding the station area during its construction, why not design a plaza that spills out onto Brooklyn Avenue, prioritizing the pedestrian with raised paving and connecting with the currently underused plaza at the foot of UW Tower?

According to Sound Transit’s webpage, Roosevelt Station will incorporate a plaza, which seems to be a great opportunity to include native planting and green stormwater infrastructure. The 90 percent station design presentation for Northgate Station depicts bio-retention and vine planting. Additionally, the design for University of Washington Station incorporates 200 new trees.

3. Reinforce the identities of the communities served.

The vision of our new light rail system is to connect cities to each other more than it is to connect points within the city. While the stations should represent Link light rail as a unified whole, they should also say something unique about the communities they serve. An important measure of success is if these stations serve as beacons for their communities, reinforcing and supporting community identity.

A light rail station is where people cross paths. More than a station, it should serve as a stage for the community to animate day and night, year-round. For example, could a station plaza support a demonstration one day, and a farmers market the next? Soon Capitol Hill Station, under budget and ahead of schedule (lest you forget it!), will provide a new home for the Broadway Farmers Market.

4. Accurately quantify GHG emissions associated with construction and day-to-day operations.

For a moment let’s assume that the expanded light rail system will, in the long run, emit fewer GHGs than the alternative. How can that be determined? Who is responsible for the carbon accounting? What is the measurement?

Sound Transit recently announced that they had carried out “the world’s largest municipal sale of green bonds.”

But accurate accountability can only happen if the project meets criteria set and regulated by scientists and other outside experts rather than the green bond issuers, right? It is important that carbon accounting consider not only the day-to-day operations of the expanded system but also the emissions that result from the construction of the stations themselves. The costs of our expanded light rail system are heavily weighted toward the front end, not just financially but also environmentally. Sound Transit should prove that the diminished GHG emissions resulting from the daily operation of the system in the future, compared to the alternative, are worth the large amounts of emissions associated with transportation of materials, manufacturing those materials, and the construction process itself.

5. Connect with other modes of transportation and foster walkability.

Like most complex problems, the solution to transportation in the Central Puget Sound region is not best solved with one technology, but rather many overlapping systems. How well will the new light rail system connect with other modes of transportation? How will light rail overlap with bus routes? Do the stations support walkability? Wayfinding is crucial here. The system will not be successful if it isn’t legible and navigable for everyone.

According to Sound Transit’s website, U District Station will boast 100 bicycle parking spaces. In reality, that’s probably not enough to make a substantial impact. But then again I’ve been to Copenhagen. As a comparison, according to its website, UW supplies over 5,500 bicycle parking spaces across campus. Apparently Roosevelt Station will also include bicycle storage.

University of Washington Station will prioritize pedestrians with a bridge leading to UW campus and the Burke-Gilman Trail. Northgate Station is also designed to connect with a futuristic pedestrian bridge over I-5, which, as I understand it, is not yet funded.

6. Apply creativity.

This is a good criterion to end on. Creativity shouldn’t stop at the public art installations that will adorn the new stations. Ending climate change will continue to require dramatic transformations in the way human systems overlap. Conventional methods should be reconsidered. Beyond artistic embellishments within the stations, creativity should extend to the building designs and the codes and policies that impact them. Creativity can be surprisingly straightforward.

I recommend that Sound Transit initiate a national student design competition for future Link stations. It could easily receive armfuls of fresh, free ideas from students across the country or even the globe. Design students, armed with the latest theories and ideas from academia, would likely jump at the chance to have their wild ideas integrated into a tangible design. A local design firm could then edit those ideas into reality. Now that would give us a unique set of new light rail stations.

A future-oriented transit station must look beyond features such as public art, signage icons, and bicycle storage to remain relevant decades down the road. Green bonds don’t necessarily fuel responsibly-constructed, long-lived projects. A regional light rail system is an investment, and its stations should be planned with a common goal that underlies at least the six criteria listed above. In the face of climate change, Sound Transit should be accountable for evaluating its new light rail stations in light of these criteria.

Do you have thoughts about how our new light rail stations do or don’t measure up to the requirements of the region’s future? What additional criteria might you suggest for rating our new light rail stations?

Note: This post was originally published August 31, 2015 and was most recently updated September 1, 2015 at 3:07 pm.

I’ve have reviewed the August 25, 2015 Metro proposal and I am sorry to say it fails since:

1. It lengthens the runs of the 8/11 which are already among the most unreliable routes.

2. It does not allow for seamless transfers between the 11 and 12 going east and west.

3. It removes the 8 from John/Thomas.

4. It does not allow seamless access to the Community College on Broadway and other places on East Pine.

5. It duplicates service on East Madison from 19th to 24th which does solve any problems, but eliminates access to bus service on East John between 19th and 23rd Ave East.

6. It will require changes in the 19th Ave East and East Madison intersection for 60 foot buses to turn west or north.

I know that Metro has spent the last two months trying to work this out and I believe that plan could be made palatable by moving the 8 back to East John/Thomas and by having the 11 continue west to 12th Ave East where it would turn north to John and light rail. These are easy fixes and would leave the rest of the plan intact!

Amazingly this plan has united the users of the 8, 11 and 43 in opposition to the Metro 2016 Capitol Hill restructure! I look forward to talking to you about these issues. If this plan can’t be modified then I would suggest like others are, that the Capitol Hill changes be postponed until after the implantation of Light Rail so that the impact of it and the Prop One changes can be reviewed!

If you would like to provide public testimony to the King County Council on this proposed March 2016 Metro Transit service changes please go to:

http://www.kingcounty.gov/council/testimony/testimony-backup2.aspx

NOTE: This post is copied in its entirety from an article I wrote, titled Improving Rail Mobility in the Puget Sound: A Mapped, Annotated Plan.  It is the latest entry of my blog, Transportation Matters, a Pacific Northwest-flavored blog that discusses railway planning, urban planning, and related politics.

<>————-<>————-<>————-<>————-<>

This plan is not intended to improve intra-Seattle mobility. In fact, unlike that of Link Light Rail, the objective of this plan is clear: to provide rapid mass transit between the region’s cities as affordably, efficiently and as swiftly as possible.