Testimonial of Moving to a Carless Life

Posted on by Andrew Smith

Slog has been taken over by trolls commenters and one such commenter by the name of Gomez wrote a piece about growing up in a driver’s world but living without a car in Seattle.

So the point of all that long-winded spiel was… no, despite any background with highways and roads, no, I don’t love highways, and at this point in life, I wholeheartedly support the wise integration of street improvements with transit. As much as I liked the road growing up, I like life without it a whole hell of a lot better. I could never see myself living with a car again

It’s worth a read.

Bus Links!

Posted on by Andrew Smith
Someone mailed me these links:

http://mybus.org/ My bus shows when the next buses coming to your station will arrive, and how late/on time they are.

http://www.its.washington.edu/mybus-sms/ This is the SMS (text message) version of the above.

Google Transit (the updated version communicates with Google Earth)

Public Routes a nice tool that lets you find bus routes to and from your location.

Do you have any more bus links? Post them in the comments and we’ll create a comprehensive collection.

Long Walk to University of Washington Station from 520

Posted on by Andrew Smith


Carless in Seattle has pointed out that the issue of travelling between the 520/Montlake Blvd and University of Washington Station has not been resolved in the current agreement announced yesterday. It’s a pretty long distance, probably about 1500~2000 feet.

I see this as one of those unfortunate situations that won’t be solved. Maybe frequent shuttle service can be the answer?

Carless Road Trips!

Posted on by Andrew Smith

This week’s Seattle Weekly has a great article about carless road trips. It has a bunch of nuggets like this (well the monorail would have been nice):

Contrary to what those monorail morons wanted you to believe, getting out to West Seattle couldn’t be easier, on the back of the mighty Metro 54. Hop on it downtown, and it’ll whisk you over the freeway and down the length of Fauntleroy Way. At about the 30-minute mark, you’ll hop off at Lincoln Park, one of Seattle’s best—and not all that heavily used by those outside the neighborhood. Its 135 acres includes five miles of trails, including a stunner that goes all along the point under a canopy of trees; it’s one of the best Puget Sound walks you’re going to find. At the tip of the point is the park’s most famous amenity: an Olympic-size, heated, outdoor, salt-water pool that’s open summer-only. The 54 runs twice an hour on weekends.

When I was a kid, my siblings and I used to bus out to Discovery Park. I think it was the 31 we took with a bit of a walk in at the end. The other option was the 33, I think, from Downtown. When I was in college, we used to go to Vancouver on Amtrak, Greyhound and Quickshuttle. We always had a blast. Have any of you guys done a successful carless road trip?

Anti-Transit Folks Make Up Numbers?

Posted on by Andrew Smith

Where’s the data that backs up these claims?
”

[A] line to Northgate now is expected to cost at least $6 billion and to not be completed until 2016. [Ed. My sources say $1.126 billion to $1.239 billion.
]

…

A recent Seattle Times essay by former Washington Supreme Court Justice Phil Talmadge and former state Transportation Commissioner George Kargianis pointed out the multiple problems posed by Sound Transit’s drive to build light rail to the Eastside, across the Interstate 90 bridge, at a cost of another $6 billion. [my sources say $1.465 billion to $2.157 billion, and that’s the whole line part from Seattle to Bellevue’s Downtown]

Look, I am all for a good debate, but I’d prefer and honest one. This anti-transit guy Van Dyk seem to just make there numbers up out of thin air. Compare it with this nuanced anti-transit pro-highways article from the Reason Foundation. The difference is stark. I guess “reason” doesn’t sell as many news papers as made up numbers and sensationalism does. Well, I guess this is a newspaper that put American Idol on it’s cover five times in two weeks.

We have the second worst-traffic in the nation as a factor of time, and 1.5 million more people are expected to move here over the next 30 years or so. We need to think about how those people will live and work, and we need to be prudent about how we move people around. Unfortunately, we have one of the lowest tax burdens in the country and because of this we haven’t been able to afford the necessary improvements to replace our post-war infrastructure that is now mostly 50 years old or more. Instead of scare tactics designed to frighten people, let’s be reasonable with our arguments for and against transit.

Metro’s 40/40/20 rule

Posted on by Andrew Smith

A month ago I mailed King County Exec Ron Sims about Metro’s 40/40/20 rule that was put in place in Metro’s last six-year-plan. The rule basically indicates that 40% of new Metro service should be created on the Eastside, 40% in South King County and only 20% in the city. When I read about it, it seemed unfair to me since the city is 35% of the county’s population. I asked Sims whether such a rule would be put in place in King County’s next six-year-plan for Metro and here’s the response I recieved:

Dear Mr. Smith:

Thank you for your email of May 21, 2007, to King County Executive Ron Sims, regarding the 40/40/20 percent policy addressing the distribution of new Metro service hours between the Eastside, South King County and Seattle/Shoreline subareas. Executive Sims asked me to respond to you on his behalf. This is a policy that has caused a great deal of controversy and confusion, but it has been supported by a majority of King County Councilmembers.

As background, it’s useful to know the existing distribution of service hours between subareas. Currently, approximately 64 percent of Metro’s service hours are allocated to serve the “west” subarea that includes Seattle, Shoreline and Lake Forest Park, which comprises about 35 percent of the county’s population. The other two subareas share the remaining 36 percent. Seattle has a greater share of service per capita primarily for historical reasons. When Metro was formed it absorbed the established Seattle Transit, which had an extensive route system and frequent service. Prior to Metro’s formation there was meager transit service in the suburbs.

Since the entire county contributes to Metro transit, there is a desire in the East and South subareas to gradually improve the level of transit service to get closer to the higher baseline for service that Seattle enjoys. It is easy to understand their point of view. The 40/40/20 policy, which addresses only new service added to the system, is intended to achieve a more even balance of service hours per capita between subareas over time.

It’s also easy to understand concerns in Seattle and Shoreline, where ridership and expectations for service improvements continue to grow, especially as gasoline prices have increased. This is one reason the Transit Now program established a “service partnerships” program. Metro can now provide matching funds to leverage investments by local jurisdictions and/or public/private partnerships in service or speed and reliability improvements that benefit transit. This program was created in part to allow Metro to respond to emerging transit demands and desires for a higher level of service than the baseline we provide county-wide. Some of the funds Seattle authorized through the Bridging the Gap initiative may be spent to add service in Seattle under the partnership program.

At this point, Metro does not plan to recommend reconsideration of the 40/40/20 policy; however, the County Council is due to revisit transit policies over the coming year, and if you want to pursue the issue further, you may want to contact your representative on the King County Council or the Council’s Regional Transit Committee.

Sincerely,

Kevin Desmond

General Manager

Metro Transit Division

cc: The Honorable Ron Sims, King County Executive

De’Sean Quinn, Director, Council Relations, King County Executive Office

Harold S. Taniguchi, Director, Department of Transportation (DOT)

Victor Obeso, Manager, Service Development, Metro Transit Division, DOT

David Hull, Supervisor, Service Planning, Service Development, Metro Transit Division, DO

University of Washington Station One Step Closer

Posted on by Andrew Smith

Today, Sound Transit and the University of Washington have announced an agreement with regards to Light Rail. Some details are:

Elements of the proposed agreement include:

  • Establishes an interim terminus for Link light rail at the University of Washington Station located near Husky Stadium and the UW Medical Center.
  • Supports Sound Transit’s construction plans for tunneling operations running south from UW to Capitol Hill.
  • Identifies at least two public entrances to the underground University of Washington Station with at least one entrance located north of Northeast Pacific Place and the Burke Gilman Trail.
  • Sets construction timelines for work on the campus not to exceed 66 months.
  • Sets specific monitoring measures for magnetic field and vibration thresholds to protect UW research facilities during light rail operations.
  • Provides $20 million to the UW for property to be used for current and future Link light rail construction and operations easements.

    • Provides $10 million to the UW for the permanent loss of up to 100 parking spaces at

  • Husky Stadium and the temporary use of approximately 600 parking stalls for construction staging.
  • Provides $5.2 million to UW for its design review and approval, potential relocation plans, construction coordination and participation in the review and approval of light rail operating plans.

People always ask why light rail takes so long. There are a lot of reasons, some financial, others technological, but another big reason is that Sound Transit works had to make sure most people in the community are happy with the project. Good or bad, it’s all a part of building a huge system in a region where no one can agree on anything.

No Net Loss of Lanes on I-90 due to Light Rail

Posted on by Andrew Smith


Three weeks ago, I wrote about an anti-transit editorial that had the capacity loss on I-90 as one of its main arguments against ST2, because the link light rail will go through what is now the HOV section. The argument was that the loss of lanes from putting trains through the HOV section of the bridge would decrease overall car capacity.

However if you look at this graphic, ST2 will add one HOV lane in each direction on I-90 while removing the two HOV lanes in the center; thus there are no net lanes loss. And when you consider that almost half of the traffic across I-90 travels away from the city, you can see that the two HOV lanes travelling in just one direction is not as efficient as the two lanes in opposite directions. Basically 5 lanes in one direction versus 3 lanes in the other is only preferable if 65% or more of the traffic is going in one direction. However if almost as much traffic is going in each direction, it makes little sense to have more lanes in one direction. So with ST2, traffic and vehicle capacity on I-90 may be more than without it, and certainly people-moving capacity will increase. Isn’t that supposed to be the definition we care about now anyway?

Don’t Be a Victim of Traffic

Posted on by Andrew Smith

Over at I Am Seattle Traffic (where I co-blog) there’s a great piece about what exactly traffic is:

Something occured to me the other day and that may or may not be obvious to everyone else: Each day’s traffic is new.

Think about it. Traffic isn’t something that just exists and we join and leave it each day. It actually stops existing every night, and then the next morning it begins fresh again. We create repetitive traffic with our routines and jobs, so it gives the illusion of a constant problem.

We choose every day to create traffic. It is a decision we make to get into our cars (usually alone) and search for a somewhat-less-congested route to work. We are actively contributing to traffic simply by being on the road. Even if you are riding the bus to work, you are still creating traffic, albeit less than if you were driving.

It’s important to think about congestion: it’s the fault of all the people on the road, including you! They are the people who have created the traffic.

More 2057

Posted on by Andrew Smith

Carless in Seattle wrote a well thought-out post about the whole debt in 2057 issue. He asks us to think about how long these transit investments will be useful:

[T]unnels and railways, these can last for decades. For example, parts of the London Underground and Manhattan Subway are over 150 years old.

The NY/NJ Path tunnels—the first ever built under the Hudson River—were completed 100 years ago in 1908, and are still in use. Construction on those tunnels, started in 1874 by a private company, cost $50-$60mm in 1908 dollars (~$1 billion) and required lots of creative financing.

Exactly! If you really think about it, the people who will be working and paying the bonds off in 2057 will probably be benefiting so much from the transit, probably more than those working right now, and will be happy to pay some of their share.

Best / Worst Bus Routes?

Posted on by Andrew Smith


I want to take nominations on what people think are the best and worst Metro and Sound Transit Routes.

To me, the 545 is one of the best. It comes every 10 minutes or so during peak hours, is usually on time, has wi-fi on some buses, and actually beats driving in terms of commute length much of the time. The others would be the old 72, but now that it goes through SLU and Eastlake its a whole lot slower, and the 8 which tends to be impressively reliable.

How about worst lines? The 44 is awful. Never on time, and usually travels in packs of two or three. It was actually worse in the days of the old 43 that went all the way from downtown to Ballard through the UD and Wallingford. The 48 can also be a nightmare.

Tell me your opinions!

BRT

Posted on by Andrew Smith


The Overhead Wire Blog had this good post about BRT myths and reality. Basically, he’s said what I have been saying, that BRT is basically just plain bus unless you spend so much money that you might as well make rail anyway.

The really important thing is that, generally, when you are promised BRT, you ended up with something about like the 545: an absolutely awesome bus line, but one that still gets stuck in some of the worst traffic in the region. Not a lot like a system that can bypass traffic and cross similar distances in eight or nine minutes rather than the 30 minutes it takes the 545.

The money quote is this one:

10. I will continue this list at some point because i haven’t really made half the points i’d like to but the bottom line is this. BRT is just bus repackaged transit pushed by folks that don’t really like transit to begin with. They want it to stay for the poor so why not give the poor a third world system. Well we need to step up and invest like China, Japan, and Europe.

Light Rail Debt

Posted on by Andrew Smith

Update
At least the article from the times included some awesome rail photos.


Dan Savage went off on this piece, basically saying that Sound Transit is getting an easier ride on it’s long-term numbers than the monorail did. Comparing Light Rail to the monorail is something that both transit opponents and proponents do, and it’s completely inaccurate. The fact is that whether or not the monorail was a disaster, the comparison is inapt because the Monorail was a in-city rail while Sound Transit is a regional development.

People are complaining about Sound Transit’s debt because they think the fifty year time frame is too long. (Where were these people when Safeco Field was built?) If you look at the chart to the right, ST2 will cost $37.9 billion by 2057. But fifty years from now $1 will buy like 10¢ worth of goods. Look at this tool. I put $1 in from 1955 and got this back:

In 2005, $1.00 from 1955 is worth:

$7.29 using the Consumer Price Index
$6.01 using the GDP deflator
$9.90 using the value of consumer bundle
$9.92 using the unskilled wage
$16.67 using the nominal GDP per capita
$30.03 using the relative share of GDP

Inflated numbers lead to hysteria because $1 can look like $6~$30 in fifty years. A house in Wallingford cost about $3K in 1950, now it’s close to a million. That’s why its important to show the numbers in 2007 dollars, not in nominal future dollars.

Agency leaders say a more accurate number is $10.8 billion, representing the cost of construction and trains in 2006 dollars.

As with a home mortgage, it makes sense for voters to focus on the current sales price, said spokesman Ric Ilgenfritz. People who cite the long-term, inflated numbers “make the cost seem misleadingly high,” Sound Transit says.

That’s my feeling. We all wanted a monorail but, let’s face it, the monorail failed because of public hysteria and because they didn’t play nice with local politicians. Sound Transit is definitely on the right side on the later, let’s not play games with the numbers trying to recreate the former.

A snapshot of the Monorail’s debt-service compared to ST1, ST2 and a typical home loan:

The First Part’s Funny at Least:

Posted on by Andrew Smith

The first few lines of this article entitled “At least the return trip will be worth the price”:

Start stockpiling those $1 bills.

State officials are now talking about a $6 round-trip toll for the proposed new Highway 520 floating bridge.

What you didn’t know was how it actually breaks down:

It’ll cost 50 cents to get into downtown Bellevue.

And $5.50 to get the hell out.

At least I think it’s funny.

RTID May Bring Good Transit As Well

Posted on by Andrew Smith

You know, you take away the cross-base highway, and RTID starts to look pretty good:

South Spokane Street Viaduct: Increases capacity by widening viaduct structure, adding one lane between I-5 and 1st Avenue South, building transit-only lanes and an off-ramp at 4th Avenue South. Adds shoulders and installs a permanent median barrier. Improves safety, freight mobility and traffic flow on the major east/west connection between I-5 and SR 99, Port of Seattle and West Seattle.

Sounds like good start of BRT to me. Let’s face it, with the monorail cancelled, West Seattle won’t be getting rail anytime soon and BRT is an important stop-gap in the mean time. I take what is a sort of BRT to work everyday.

The other big beef against RTID is that it doesn’t fix 520, but the plan they have includes a fix with a toll. Now that the narrows has a toll, there’s a precence for tolling roads in the region. Also the addition of HOV lanes and an elevated ramp to ease the 405-520 interchange will allow for better bus transit across 520. This is dear to me because I cross 520 on my commute everyday, and on the bridge the bus is with normal traffic in the same two lanes.

And as Sam pointed out in the comments, the money for the replacement of South Park Bridge is included. I guess that makes Seattle’s annexation bid for North Highline a pretty serious one.

In all, I think RTID is as good a roads proposal as is possible for Seattle-area transit.

Water Taxi to Des Moines?

Posted on by Andrew Smith


The Highline Times thinks its possible under the new Ferry District in King County. The ferry service would be model after a passenger-only ferry between San Francisco and (I think) Tiburon.

Speaking of King County, have you seen this annexation page? Basically, the county is trying to get out of the business of running services in unincorporated areas such as Skyway, North Highline and Juanita. They have encouraged cities to look at annexing the unincorporated areas near them and want all the “urban unincorporated areas” annexed or incorporated by 2012. Recently voters in Renton voted down the annexation of East Renton Highlands, and if Renton residents don’t want the affluent Highlands, what makes anyone think that they will successfully annex Skyway?

Meanwhile, Seattle and Burien are fighting it out over North Highline, also known as White Center. Seattle wants to annex it but some people in the city wonder if it offers any advantage to Seattle. Burien wants to annex part of it, but since Seattle is willing to get the whole thing, they are unable to officially take that stance. The problem for Burien is that North Highline’s 32,400 people are about as many as Burien’s 34,000 and would create a $3.5 million loss on a $15 million budget for Burien, that’s with a sales tax sharing from the state for 10 years (Cities over 400,000 people, of which Seattle is the only one, are not eligible for the sales tax sharing from the state.). For Seattle, the area would cost about $4.6 million out of a total budget of close to $2 billion.

In Burien, the vast majority of the population is against annexation, in Seattle no body really seems to care much one way or another. In North Highline, their is a mild majority tilting toward Burien. They will be the people who ultimately decide. To make the whole thing more complicated, there’s the whole issue of who will pay for the replacement of the South Park Bridge which is set to fail to pieces any day now. Neither city wants to pay for the $70 million it’ll cost to replace the bridge. It’ll be weird to see how things play out on this and the other annexations.

RTID nearing completion

Posted on by Andrew Smith

The PI reports that RTID’s executive committee voted 6-1 to move a version of the bill forward to a planning committee. The version they are considering is without the “cross-base highway” that has a lot of greens upset. The rub is that Pierce County Executive and Sound Transit Chairman John Ladenburg has threatened to veto any version of the RTID that did not include the cross-base highway. This is important because the new Sound Transit package, ST2, will be co-billed with RTID, so we won’t get our transit package if a majority of voters in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties don’t approve the bill.

Meanwhile, WashPirg, which has come out against RTID/ST2 in part because of the crossbase highway may come around on the new RTID/ST2 package as Bill LaBorde, state director for WashPIRG said:

“Happy enough” is a good way to put it. Bad stuff remains on the RTID project list but, in addition, to removing Cross-Base, we feel that the new policy language in the RTID plan gives us a foothold to change the way several of the RTID projects are ultimately built out and operated in the future. I guess the best way to put it is we’re now at a point where the good of adding 50 miles of light rail has begun to outweigh the potential harm from the RTID projects.

Stay tuned for more roads and transit drama…