This is a time comparison of two different ways for getting from Ballard to downtown Seattle. The first is a fairly direct route, as proposed by SDOT. The second involves going from Ballard to the UW, then south, via the main line. As it turns out, not counting the transfer, the time difference is minor: roughly two minutes.

Methodology

Generally speaking, trains spend a good part of their time stopped at a station or accelerating or decelerating. As luck would have it, both of these routes have exactly the same number of stops (eight inclusive). This simplifies things considerably. I also determined that the distance between each station is just big enough for the train to reach maximum speed (although in many cases, only for a second). Again, this simplifies things.  Both trains would spend the same amount of time at a station or accelerating or decelerating. Thus the difference in time between the two routes is simply the difference in distance divided by the maximum speed. Based on my calculations, the SDOT route is 5.25 miles, while the route via the UW is 7.35 miles (a difference of 2.1 miles). Since the trains have a maximum speed of 58 MPH, going via the SDOT route saves 2 minutes and 10 second, not counting a transfer (if there is one).

Total Time

The estimates are a bit rougher when it comes to the total time for either trip. I take two different approaches to figuring this out. Both lead to roughly the same amount of time: 18 minutes via the UW and 16 minutes via Queen Anne.

The first approach is to look at our system as it currently exists or is being built. Since stop spacing varies widely in our system, so too does the time it takes to travel eight stops. But I think we can start by ignoring the trips that include Rainier Beach to Tukwila, since that trip dwarfs the others in terms of stop spacing (over five miles). This gives us a range of 14 to 20 minutes. So, splitting the difference gives us 17 minutes. I think it is reasonable to assume that the SDOT route would take 16 minutes to get to downtown, while the route via the UW would take 18 minutes. This is roughly in line with other measurements. It is going to take 8 minutes to get from the U-District Station to Westlake, so it is reasonable to assume it will take 10 minutes from Ballard to the UW (the distance isn’t far, but there is an extra stop). This gives us 18 minutes via the UW and 16 minutes via Queen Anne.

The other approach is take the estimates that Sound Transit gave with the studies. Sound Transit did not include a time estimate for a Ballard to downtown route like the one that SDOT proposed. The closest route that resembles it is Corridor A, which gives an estimate of 14-19 minutes. The SDOT route adds two stops, so it is reasonable to take the far end of that proposal, or 19 minutes.

Of the various proposals for UW to Ballard high capacity transit, only one involves a light rail in a tunnel: A3. The time estimate for A3 is 6-9 minutes . However, there are  only two proposed stops with that route. With the addition of two more stops, I think we can take the high end of that estimate: 9 minutes. Once you add the known time (8 minutes from the UW to Westlake) you get to 17 minutes. Using this approach gets us within a minute of the other estimate (17-19 versus 16-18).

Given the imprecise data surrounding actual travel time, it is not known exactly how long it will take to get from one place to another. However, based on the distances, the number of stops and the capability of our trains, the difference between the two routes will be around two minutes.

Ben Franklin Transit Proposed Route Network

I have been working on this project some more, and it should be interactive now.

The individual routes have some information in their bubbles, pertaining to proposed headways and service spans.

It is a work in progress, which I wish I could input into Remix (but then Remix has disappeared into the ether, with no offline contact information)

From the Island Transit website front page http://www.islandtransit.org

At the July 24, 2015 Board of Directors meeting, the Island Transit Board voted to continue the 411W and 411C as currently run, until word was received from the Governor’s office that the previously-approved $2.3M for the route, aka the “Tri-County Connector”, was available. We have now received confirmation from Governor Inslee’s office that he will protect transit funding in the new transportation bill.

There has been a continuing discussion relating to the Fare Study the WSDOT is doing for Island.  Once the study has been completed, funds will be released to re-instate the 412.

Today is the second day of the new traffic re-channelization project on Rainier Avenue through Columbia City. SDOT is hoping to reduce the number of traffic accidents in the Columbia City neighborhood by reducing the number of general purpose traffic lanes on Rainier Avenue from 2 in each direction to 1 in each direction (with a left turn lane between the lanes). Since the new lane markings have appeared I have made a couple of transit trips, a car trip and I walked along the route this morning.

With the new traffic pattern, there is a noticeably calmer environment on the sidewalks next to Rainier Avenue. Reducing the number of lanes creates a huge reduction in auto noise. I guess that should be obvious, but I was surprised at how much calmer the sidewalk felt. If a quieter street draws more pedestrians onto the sidewalks, fringe neighborhoods like Hillman City may become more friendly for businesses and foot traffic. I also crossed Rainier at Mead St.–an unsignalized intersection–without much trouble. When Rainier was 4 general purpose lanes I never would even attempt to cross at any unsignalized location. For pedestrians, the re-channelization project should be an improvement.

The bus trips were somewhat less of an improvement. A trip on the 9 during morning rush was definitely slower than usual and I missed my planned transfer at I-90. But we also had a newbie driver who was confused by which stops were for the 7 and which stops were for the 9, plus there were lots of confused drivers on the road, too. My return trip, last night on the 7 was very slow through Columbia City, but SDOT crews were still working on the changes, so it’s too soon to tell if bus times are negatively affected by the re-channelization. I hope that SDOT and Metro have worked to make sure that transit times won’t be much slower. The southbound stop at Edmonds St. (Bank of America/new PCC) may become a real bottleneck, however.

As for driving on Rainier Avenue, hopefully it will become less of a drag race and more of an orderly trip from Rainier Beach to Columbia City. The left turn lane may help reduce the amount of swerving auto traffic, but lefts will still be very difficult during peak hours when all oncoming traffic will be channeled into one lane. The best way to make Rainier Avenue safer is to make transit more useful. If these changes have a negative effect on transit operations, more people will want to drive.

(The author has contributed to the I-732 campaign but has no other affiliation with it.)

Initiative 732 would establish a tax on fossil fuels consumed in Washington State, ramping up over 2 years to the equivalent of $25/ton of carbon emissions, and then increasing by 3.5%/year (plus inflation). The revenue would be used to reduce the state sales tax , eliminate the B&O tax for manufacturing, and provide sales-tax rebates to low-income working families.
The I-732 campaign is currently collecting signatures to place the initiative on the November ballot. Further details are available at http://carbonwa.org

Why a revenue-neutral carbon tax?

Most transit advocates are also carbon-reduction advocates, and likely favor some sort of carbon pricing. But why-revenue neutral? Why not designate the proceeds for transit funding and perhaps other climate-friendly government spending?
First and foremost, it is critical to gain consensus in favor of carbon reduction. Without very strong and broad popular support, carbon pricing legislation will fail in the face of spending by fossil-fuel industries and their focus on anti-tax messaging that (whatever your opinion of it) is popular with a large segment of voters. Many moderate and even some conservative voters recognize the dangers of climate change and would favor some climate action. But they are not likely to be urbanists, passionate about transit, nor friendly to increased taxes. Still, we are all agreed on the importance of carbon reduction, and a proposal that focuses on that single objective can gain the necessary consensus across progressive, many moderate, and some conservative voters.

What is the goal?

To insist on bundling carbon pricing with other progressive causes endangers that consensus. We have a choice: insist on the entirety of our individual agendas, or find common ground with enough voters to succeed on this critical issue. A revenue-neutral carbon tax provides that common ground.
And once we DO succeed, then we can continue the important debates about further aspects of land use, transportation, and equity.

A month and a half ago, the city of Kenmore held a meeting in its city hall to rally its citizens to a cause: building support for more transit along the highway 522 corridor. The city council was concerned that the communities along highway 522 were going to be left behind in the 2016 Sound Transit ballot measure. The meeting was held to find like-minded citizens who were willing to volunteer to make a push for better transit along the corridor.

Why the interest in transit? Well, traffic volume has gotten measurably worse on highway 522 over the years, especially due to tolling the 520 bridge: 522 has seen a 9% increase in traffic as a result of people changing their driving habits because of the toll. Bus service has traditionally worked well, but overcrowding during peak hours is becoming a big problem, and off-peak headways are infrequent (if you miss the 9:30 PM bus from downtown, you could be waiting an hour for the next one). Bothell, Kenmore, Lake Forest Park and Lake City have all been adding additional housing along the corridor, which means even more transit riders. Improving our transit service is the clear answer.

Thus, 522 Transit Now was born. The organization is a coalition of city staff and volunteers (myself among the volunteers), working together to make sure we can get transit improvements along the corridor in ST3 as well as future ballot measures. The primary goal is to get bus rapid transit service along 522 from Bothell to the Seattle city limit, which will then follow 145th Street to connect with the future light rail station at 145th and Interstate 5. Looking ahead to the future, we want the corridor to be studied for light rail. 522 is an attractive corridor for light rail, since there is a lot of development potential, and it’s impossible for the light rail to simply run in the shadow of a giant freeway. Additionally, it would presumably connect to Lake City, one of Seattle’s urban villages not yet a part of the light rail network, so Seattle would also benefit from this.

Our first effort was to get citizens to respond to the now-completed ST3 survey, which many did: Kenmore was the top non-Seattle zip code to respond to the survey, and Sound Transit listed 522 BRT as a project they’re looking at in their meeting on July 23. Of course, the city of Kenmore doesn’t plan on going it alone on this, and city staff have been communicating with staff and council members in Shoreline, Bothell and Lake Forest Park, as well as local business owners.

Ongoing efforts include a petition, and we invite all residents of the Northshore area – or really anybody else who’s interested – to sign it. We hope to deliver the petition to the Sound Transit board by their August 27 meeting.

Members of the coalition also plan to appear at meetings. About a dozen volunteers were at Thursday’s meeting in yellow shirts, and we’ll be attending meetings on August 13 and 27.

Full house @SoundTransit board meet includes “522 TRANSIT NOW” group in yellow shirts. #bothell #kenmore #lakeforestpark

— Michael C. Lindblom (@MikeLindblom) July 23, 2015

We’re always looking for more volunteers. If you’re interested, you can sign up at the website.

The Metro Link Connections changes proposed in March 2015, modified in May 2015, and not finalized yet, have provoked significant discussion and disagreements. While the goal of adjusting Metro routes to better connect with new light rail stations and to reduce duplication is laudable and necessary, the changes proposed for March 2016 are premature and deserve more data and more discussion.

Some of the proposals ask people to give up one seat rides in favor of two or more seat rides and service gaps which will result in more people using their cars. These are the same transit users who are getting improved service from Prop One funding only to be lost in March 2016.

Next year our decision-making will be informed with more data:

• The Prop One changes in June and September 2015 changes and the impact on the Metro System.
• The Move Seattle ballot initiative vote in November 2015.
• Light rail expansion and its impact on the Metro System.

Let’s postpone the Metro link connection modifications until the second half of 2016.

It’s been about a year that I’ve been writing up North by Northwest and time to hand in the keys.

Truth be known, we are at a logical point of conclusion and I’ve let it be known in some of my writing I’m a bit Grumpy.  Island Transit may have financially rebounded from the brink; but Island Transit’s cultural flaw of disregarding public input to do things to ridership not withridership continues unabated.  It is clear now the Future of Flight’s transit needs will be resolved long-term, best worked behind the scenes with my continued leadership.  I also understand Skagit Transit is looking into a portable bathroom for the Chuckanut Park & Ride.  Between those three causes, I turned to Seattle Transit Blog for help and what could have been a lonely year was not.

However, the last thing we need as transit advocates is instability and incivility in our ranks as we near the 2016 election cycle.  I was about to throttle back if not step away in a few weeks anyway.  That said, the transit photography will continue, I will comment occasionally and I will keep fighting for the Future of Flight out of loyalty to my friends who work there.

I do wish the transit community could please stop sniping at each other and work to improve transit service for all, full stop.  The last thing we need is to create opportunities to divide and conquer so nobody gets transit service.  We need Sound Transit 3 and Community Transit to pass to get the proper transit connectivity for the Puget Sound.

I also should thank Washington State Transit Association’s Geri Beardsley, Island Transit’s Robyn Goldring, Sound Transit’s Geoff Patrick & Kimberly Reason and Community Transit’s Jan McBride & Martin Munguia for your invaluable help with helping me educate the public.  Keep communicating!

I need to conclude with this thought: To the gladiators in the arena I’ve came in contact with like Martin H. Duke, Frank Chiachiere, Ben Schiendelman, Emmett Heath, Sabrina Popa, Sandy Ward, Carolyn C. Chase, Rep. Dave Hayes and yes Bob Pishue – I salute you.  It’s one thing to sit back and write whatever with a silly handle – it’s another matter of integrity entirely to be leading the public conversation on transit, face forward.  Keep leading from the front.