Who should use the park & ride?

Riders walk to a shuttle bus near Eastgate P&R

Every morning, dozens of riders board shuttle buses one block from Eastgate Park-and-Ride. All but a handful are coming from the parking garage, after storing their cars there for the day. This particular shuttle bus travels to Amazon’s Brazil building in South Lake Union. Other companies appear also to use suburban transit parking as pickup points. Unmarked white buses are frequently seen adjacent to other Eastside P&Rs.

A few riders arrive by bus. Absent direct shuttle service, many might take transit to work. So one may ask whether we should be concerned that publicly funded transit parking is being used by private transit services.

Maybe it depends on what we think these shuttle riders would do in the absence of shuttle buses. Would they use public transit, or drive to South Lake Union? Shuttle buses to South Lake Union are filling a gap in the transit market, albeit one Metro is endeavoring to serve.

At the same time, transit parking is expensive to build. At many locations, it is insufficient for demand. Utilization at Eastgate hovers near 100%, so shuttle riders may be displacing other transit users.

The wholesale parking market is increasingly competitive. Churches and other parking lot owners who have surplus parking on weekdays find it easy to lease space to nearby offices. Many office employers, squeezing more people into smaller spaces, use offsite parking and shuttles for employees. When Sound Transit went looking for parking in Bellevue to replace lost capacity at South Bellevue P&R, there were no nearby alternatives. Every lot in the area was already fully used. Residential neighborhoods near popular transit routes find an increasing number of ‘park-and-hide’ users.

Generally, we should welcome this. It means parking, on- and off-street, is being used more efficiently. The first step to moving beyond ubiquitous driving in the suburbs is to use existing parking more intensely.

But parking scarcity creates a search for less regulated parking. Where can I park for free without getting a ticket? Transit lots are lightly monitored and maybe more readily abused.

44 comments

Visualizing DSTT Audible Announcements

Nine minutes and 24 seconds of audio in the DSTT. Dark shaded areas indicate times when announcements were playing

For several months, the elevator at the east end of the pedestrian overpass at SeaTac/Airport station was out of service. Riders requiring the elevator needed to ride Link to Tukwila International Boulevard station and then ride Metro’s RapidRide A Line bus service to South 176th Street. If you were unaware of this, take pride that you didn’t have to listen to the frequent audible reminders played every few minutes throughout Link’s alignment.

That elevator has since been repaired, but right on cue another nonredundant elevator has failed. Not to worry, Sound Transit has you covered with another announcement:

The Tukwila International Boulevard Station ground level elevator is out of service. Southbound Link passengers requiring elevator service, ride Link to SeaTac/Airport station, and from International Boulevard and South 176<supth Street, transfer to northbound RapidRide A Line to Tukwila

If you missed part of that 19 second monologue, never fear, because 22 seconds after it finished it will be replayed in its entirety. And if you missed it the second time around, you needn’t wait even four minutes to hear it twice more.

This message, much like the previous elevator messages, are far too long and play far too often. I had to re-listen to the clip multiple times in order to type an accurate transcript (albeit from a low quality cell phone recording). The fact that the DSTT stations are cavernous echo chambers certainly doesn’t help their intelligibility, but if the announcements are so difficult to understand the answer should be improving their understandability and not increasing their frequency. Further, since the announcement only applies to southbound Link riders, the announcement need not play more than the headways of southbound trains. And much like the train warning announcements, they need only play on the southbound side of the station.

These announcements are in addition to the usual barrage of noise pollution alerting riders to policies that are clearly spelled out with signage and pavement markings throughout the tunnel. Yesterday I recorded the audio during my wait on the platform. For this sample, the total duration of audio announcements is 113.2 seconds which equates to a solid 20% of the time. It would have been slightly longer if one of the quot;train now arriving" message hadn’t preempted one of the security announcements.

With so many announcements playing so frequently they become noise both figuratively and literally. And since the routine announcements sound exactly the same as the urgent announcements, they may have just done the opposite of their intent and trained regular riders to completely ignore them.

Continue reading “Visualizing DSTT Audible Announcements”

| 47 comments

When Common Sense is Wrong, and Intuitions Fail

Bike lanes are clearly the problem. (5th Avenue, SounderBruce, Flickr)

A recent blog post by well-respected local meteorologist Cliff Mass, “Fixing Seattle’s Traffic Mess,” offered an anti-urbanist grab bag of bad ideas. Bemoaning the current state of traffic, Mass distills Seattle’s traffic woes to 9 problems:

  • Road diets that “promote congestion and substantially reduce maximum throughput”
  • Poor road conditions resulting from “Seattle Council members paying [less] attention to the traffic-producing bad roads than kayaking out to oil platforms destined for Alaska”
  • Excessive draw bridge openings
  • Sounder is too unreliable, and the trains are “less than half full”
  • Distracted driving 
  • Link serves the Rainier Valley: “It takes forever to travel that segment and sometimes the trains get into accidents with cars.”
  • Undersupplied parking at Link stations: “Folks need a place to park if they are going to use the train”
  • Bike lanes: “The only safe way to commute is to be totally separate from cars, not the side lanes of the “road diet” streets”
  • Continuing lack of bus service

Many local outlets piled on the criticism, including The Stranger, but I see no reason to single out Mr. Mass. His assertions are widely held, intuitive, and derived from common sense. They are also completely unsupported by data.

To wit, road diets haven’t greatly increased travel time or reduced throughput, drawbridges must open by Coast Guard mandate, Sounder is 95% reliable and carries 500 passengers per trip, Sounder mudslides have gone down markedly due to intensive work by WSDOT, a Duwamish Bypass for Link would cost $1B and only save 3-4 minutes, transit parking is a niche product that cannot scale, and our local and regional bus service levels are at historic highs.

Just as Mass’ diagnostic skills are lacking in his post, so too are his 3 prescriptions: passenger ferries, flexible app-based carpooling, and a Big Data approach to signal timing, etc. Perfectly reasonable sentiments, but none of them remotely sustainable. To the extent that app-based carpooling diluted transit ridership, it would make things worse. While Big Data can optimize flow at the margins, the fundamental use-of-space problem is immutable. And when it comes to passenger ferries on Lake Washington, King County’s official report showed that they would suffer from low ridership and would incur costs three times higher than Sounder.

Collisions Down, Traffic and Travel Times Flat. Road Diets Work.
From the Q4 2016 Ridership Report

But if you’re stuck behind the wheel, it’s reasonable that you’d think “two lanes would be better than one”. Link’s Rainier Valley deviation feels slow, even when it only costs a couple minutes for people like Mr. Mass who likely view it as an airport shuttle. If you would love to ditch your car but the park and ride is full,  you’ll wish there were more spots. In each of these cases, people’s lived experience contradicts what the data clearly says. Accordingly, we should cut such folks some slack, and do a better job of showing our work.

If you drive everywhere, it may well look like madness, and Seattle’s urbanist policies are a visible and convenient foil. But if bike lanes et al were to blame for traffic, you wouldn’t expect traffic problems in car-focused places such as Kennydale Hill, the Fife Curve, or Joint Base Lewis McChord. But we know that each of those places are equally choked by traffic. So if you find yourself thinking, without irony, “Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded,” it’s time to take a step back and learn to distrust your intuitions. It’s hard to get things right, especially outside one’s area of expertise. Mistakes are acceptable, but we shouldn’t assert without evidence.

144 comments

News Roundup: Farewell

Metro and PT bus stop flags in Federal Way

This is an open thread.

45 comments

Farebox Recovery Efficiency

photo by VeloBusDriver

By unfortunately-unchallenged tradition, most transit agencies obsess with a deceptive metric they call “Farebox recovery ratio” — the amount of fares collected over a specific period of time, divided by operational costs over the same period.

King County Metro has a goal of 25% farebox recovery. Sound Transit has varying farebox recovery goals on its different services: 20% for ST Express, 23% for Sounder, and 40% for Link Light Rail.

These numbers are actually gross farebox recovery, and can be cooked simply by redefining the divisor.

A somewhat more useful metric would be net farebox recovery, which is what is left over after the costs of fare collection are subtracted from gross fares received. These costs include costs for printing fare media, cash handling costs, costs for fare collection equipment replacement, costs for staff devoted to fare collection and enforcement, and operational costs caused by extra dwell time to collect fares. Metro estimates its annual cash fare collection costs at $2.5 – 3 million (page 28), not counting operational inefficiencies caused by cash fumbling.

I’d like to suggest a third metric, which would involve no additional data collection beyond what is needed to calculate gross and net farebox recovery: farebox recovery efficiency, which is to say, net farebox recovery divided by gross farebox recovery.

This metric could help bring a reality check to how the current fare systems and fare changes being considered are impacting agencies’ bottom lines.

As covered last month, Metro is in the process of considering a fare change. Metro has three oddball aspects of its fares that don’t mesh with the fare systems of other agencies in the region.

* a peak-hour surcharge
* a zone boundary that isn’t a county line.
* paper transfers

The committee vetting Metro’s fare change proposal will likely get to see how getting rid of the first two features will impact gross farebox recovery. The third feature, which adds confusion to inter-agency transfers, is a political hot potato unlikely to be touched by the committee.

But dealing with that third feature could impact what level of flat fare Metro could afford. Eliminating paper tranfers would immediately wipe out $200,000 of annual printing costs, and likely yield a significant reduction in change fumbling. However, such savings would not be reflected in the gross farebox recovery projections.

Bringing the net farebox recovery and farebox recovery efficiency data to the table, and putting the elimination of paper transfers on the table, could make the difference between a less efficient $2.75 Metro flat fare and a more efficient $3.00 Metro flat fare.

Author’s Note: It took over a year for the author to notice he got “more” and “less” backward in the last paragraph of the original post. He apologizes profusely for the error undermining the whole point of the post, and curses his poor editing skills.

35 comments

As Bertha Nears the Finish Line, Could the Tunnel Serve Transit?

WSDOT Photo (Flickr)

It’s nearly done. Forget the questionable process by which it came about, the undeniable lost opportunity for transit investment instead,  or the coming tax bill for litigation and overruns. Bertha will likely break through in the next few days, and there will by a highway bypass tunnel underneath Downtown Seattle two years from now. It’s time to try to look at the bright side.

The Viaduct will be gone. The Waterfront will be opened up. There will be a continuous cycle path along the waterfront, and widened sidewalks to boot. The surface highway that replaces it will be far too wide, and too many concessions have been made for car ferry access, but the net reality on the ground will be undeniably better than the Brutalist monolith above Alaskan Way today.

The question for transit advocates is how much lemonade can be squeezed from the highway lemon, if any? Just a few years ago, the highway bypassed what most considered “Downtown”, but in the intervening years Downtown has growth into South Lake Union to such an extent that direct service to Republican Street now seems like a plausible transit use.

Partially because of the tunnel’s disutility for transit but mostly due to the anticipation of West Seattle light rail, Metro’s Long Range Plan includes just one SR 99 tunnel route, “Corridor 2003”. The route would combine parts of Route 21X and Rapid Ride C, serving Arbor Heights, Fauntleroy, and Alaska Junction before running express to South Lake Union.

Screenshot from Metro 2040 Plan

These sort of boomerang routes have a long history in Seattle due to the Columbia Street express ramps. Routes such as the 79 from Lake City are long gone, but many routes from the north today still serve the south end of downtown first, including Route 355 and a number of Community Transit routes. Similarly, routes such as AM Route 577 serve Seneca, 4th, and Pine Streets before turning down 2nd to serve South Downtown.

But though Metro doesn’t anticipate such a route until 2040, access issues are perhaps most acute in the next few years, when the shiny new tunnel will lie unused while the surface streets suffer all number of constraints. Maybe we should look at such routes a bit sooner?

Consider that the traditional approach from West Seattle to Pioneer Square will continue to be served by Rapid Ride C and Routes 21 and 120. There is a good case to be made for supplemental peak service that serves SLU and Belltown first. “RapidRide CX” could run from Fauntleroy to SLU, perhaps replacing Route 116. “Route 126” could run from SR 509 to SLU, providing bypass service for Burien and complementing Routes 121 and 122. These routes could terminate in SLU, or more likely could continue into the Central Business District via Dexter/7th/Bell/3rd or Westlake/Lenora/3rd.

Such route designs deserve study going into the One Center City years of “maximum constraint”. We’ll have a huge new tunnel that we’re afraid not enough people will use. Let’s put some buses in there.

102 comments

Route 550 via SR 520?

Atomic Taco (Flickr)

[Note: Not an April Fools’ post.]

As part of the One Center City process, Metro and Sound Transit are currently seeking feedback and convening a Sounding Board for proposals to restructure  SR 520 service to UW Station, with survey submissions due Sunday, April 2.

The SR 520 process is farther along because it already had a trial run during the initial ULink Connections outreach process in 2015. But though the near-term pain is far more acute in the I-90 corridor, outreach there has been far less extensive. Sometime this year, South Bellevue Park and Ride will close for 5 years. Just 2 months from now, unless Mercer Island successfully delays it through litigation, the express lanes will close for East Link construction and I-90 bus service will use the general roadway (albeit in new HOV lanes) for the next 6 years.

We’ve heard that the current proposal for I-90 – proposing to truncate Route 550 at International District Station while leaving other I-90 services relatively untouched – has been unpopular. So here’s a proposal: kill the 550, or reroute it over SR 520. 

[Action Alert: regardless of what you think of the following proposal, if you want to see I-90 service considered as part of the SR 520 restructure process, get your comments in TODAY, and/or send your comments to King County Councilmember, Sound Transit Boardmember, and Bellevue Resident Claudia Balducci.]

Continue reading “Route 550 via SR 520?”

| 53 comments

A Fair Fare

Oran/wikimedia

Metro’s ongoing survey about the fare structure will generate as many different ideas as there are respondents. In his story about it, Zach observed that there is a tradeoff between fairness and simplicity. However, that greatly undersells the complexity of the tradeoff, because there is no single definition of “fairness.”

To illustrate, we’ll totally punt the issue of complexity, and assume there is no limit to it. Metro is equipped with omniscient fareboxes and farecards that can implement any fare policy that we can imagine. So which of these models is a “fair” framework for fares?

  • Ability to pay: each boarding is a fixed, tiny percentage of your income. This will make riding the bus massively uneconomic for many people. If it’s a pass from a big employer — look out. There is a strong financial incentive to overserve rich neighborhoods and underserve poor ones.
  • Time on the bus: This penalizes people suffering through milk runs, and incentivizes Metro to make buses slower.
  • Distance Traveled: This penalizes long-haul freeway expresses that may be cheaper to provide than local milk runs.
  • Cost of Service: Each bus trip’s cost is the cost of service of the minutes you are on the bus, divided among all the passengers in that interval. Riders on long and agonizing routes, and those traveling at odd hours, are most penalized.
  • Cost of driving: Trips to places where parking is expensive, and long enough to take a lot of gas, are more expensive, thus extracting maximum revenue from economically rational riders.
  • Congestion Pricing: Charge people more when capacity is at a premium. Buses, in particular, become much less efficient when overcrowded.
  • Time Penalty Over Driving: Give riders a break when the bus is massively slower than driving, soak riders that are whizzing by stopped cars. In general, you would generally get a mild rebate for having to transfer.
  • Maximize Revenue: There is a sweet spot where the fare – ridership product is at a maximum. Find the spot and use it to put as much service onto the road as possible.
  • Maximize Profit/Minimize Loss: Truly running Metro like a business would create many outcomes offensive to those concerned about social justice and economic opportunity.

Many of these values come up in a discussion of system fares as if they are all the same thing, but they lead to vastly different conclusions. Metro’s current system nods to several of these items while trying quite hard to be simple. ORCA Lift, youth, disabled, and senior fares address ability to pay. Peak fares address Cost of Driving and Congestion Pricing. The two-zone structure is a proxy for time and distance. We can all agree that it does all of these things haphazardly. Meanwhile Link fares simply reflect ability to pay or Distance/Time (which amount to almost the same thing for traffic-separated transit).

So when you’re providing Metro with public input, please think hard about what you think is important, and what you’re giving up in pursuit of that objective.

52 comments