More Reasons…

I was pretty upset yesterday, so I forgot to mention one thing: the 3% statistic for transit is based on Vehicle Miles Travelled. Not commuter trips (the ones that cause congestion), not the total number of trips, but of Vehicle Miles Travelled. I’m sure it is much higher because people who drive travel from farther away and even people who take transit might drive when they get home.

The goals of transit are not always at odds with the driver. Some of the goals of good transit are reducing the number of miles travelled because transit allows more density, reducing the number of commuter trips made in single occupancy passenger cars and reducing the cost of living by letting people live without cars. Frank over at Orphan Road discusses the hidden cost of highways in this context and Carless in Seattle discusses the major factual error in the piece.
1 comments

The Hidden Costs of Highways

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Daimajin does a good job of dispensing with the Op-Ed in yesterday’s Seattle Times by George Kargianis and Phil Talmadge on the “hidden costs” of light rail, so I won’t duplicate efforts.

However, the reason the piece was truly infuriating — to me, anyway — is that it claims that there are hidden costs of light rail (which are speculative at best), while ignoring the hidden costs of highways, which are well-documented but little-understood.

Talmadge and Kargianis repeat the oft-told canard that transit funding is is disproportionate to the number of riders:

Transit ridership in Central Puget Sound amounts to less than 3 percent of the total daily travel. Yet, the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan for 2030 allocates half of total transportation expenditures to transit and hopes that transit’s market share will increase to 4.5 percent of daily travel. Meanwhile, our roadway system, with the other half of funding, would serve the other 95 percent of travel. The disparity between ridership being served and proposed dollars should be apparent.

But this fails to take into account two things. First, transit takes millions of cars off the highways, which frees up the road for people who do drive. This saves gas and increases productivity for the millions of people who’ve never seen the inside of a Metro bus.

Second, and more importantly, we’re not comparing apples to apples here. Sound Transit is providing the whole enchilada: the rails, the trains, the buses, the drivers, the repair guys, the fuel. Everything. All you need to do is buy a (very cheap) ticket. The road money just gives us concrete and asphalt. What we don’t see in the RTID are things like:

  • the cost of buying a car
  • hiring a mechanic to maintain it
  • car insurance
  • fuel
  • parking

And that’s just off the top of my head. But these are real costs of highways, borne by all of us, but rarely recognized. Sometime soon I’ll try, to the best of my ability, to calculate this. But when it’s all said an done, I’m quite sure that we’ll find that transit is quite a bit more cost competitive than Talmadge and Kargianis claim.

0 comments

They Hate Transit, I Hate More Highways


I’ve waited all day to discuss this. Basically, there are three arguments in this opinion piece:
1) No one uses transit here, so why bother spending money on it.
2) Trains across the I-90 bridge is dangerous. 3) Acquiring the center of the I-90 bridge for trains is not a good use of road-space, and may not be legal.

Few people use transit here because there is very poor transit here. The statistic “Transit ridership in Central Puget Sound amounts to less than 3 percent of the total daily travel” is not given in any context, so we do not know what counts as “daily travel.” Is it walking+biking+transit+driving? Does it count freight? How about airplanes and boats? Anyway, Metro buses have over 100 million rides per year, which is 58 for every resident of King county. Unless people average more than five trips per day, that number is more than 3 percent in King county. (Five trips per day would be 3.2% of travel done on transit, any fewer trips per person would increase that dramatically).

The argument here is sort of like before paved roads will built, saying “only 3 percent of daily travel is done with automobiles, why waste the money on the infrastructure? We need more horse paths!” The idea is that with better transit more people will ride it, and once a beginning infrastructure is built, more infrastructure will be added later. Transit makes cities more affordable to live in, because travel is enabled without a car. It makes them more environmental friendly, because of the above, but also because it enables higher density which reduces the number and distance of travel trips, which reduces fuel foot print. Transit also increase property values, and encourages tourism. There is a strong “network effect” on proper rail systems. To quote Calgary Transit: “Since the inception of LRT service, each new LRT line or LRT extension has produced a 15 to 20 percent increase in corridor ridership, resulting from the diversion of previous auto drivers to transit.”

If it is true that by 2030 only 4.5 of travel will be done with transit, I would say that is would have been a waste but, again, I don’t know where that stat came from, and if Ron Sims is talking about getting 50,000 commuters out of their cars by 2016, that would be mean trips in King County would be at least 6% transit by 2016 (50,000 people is 2.9% of the county’s population), even if people were making five trips a day. Anyway, even small reductions in volume reduce delays significantly for highways.

The second argument that putting trains across the I-90 bridge is dangerous I won’t argue with. I am sure Sound Transit won’t build anything knowing that it is not safe, and I trust their engineers more than pundits with an axe to grind.

The point that commandeering the center of the I-90 bridge is not a good use of road space is only obvious if you compare the number of trips across the bridge on the train and on the current center roadway. Any other comparison is apples-to-oranges. The argument that “The I-90 bridge would suffer a vehicle capacity loss of one-third compared with today” is pointless because we all know that the center HOV part does not actually carry one-third of traffic across the bridge! The vast majority goes in the other two lanes and the authors surely know that.

The piece asks:

Aside from the cost of converting the center corridor to light rail, one has to ask by what right would Sound Transit acquire this center corridor? This would constitute a “taking” of state highway property now belonging to all Washington taxpayers.

No, it wouldn’t. I-90 is an interstate and is thus owned by the federal government. The 18th Amendment (section 40) mentions money raised by special tax or levy, not money paid by the federal government. Thus this argument has no bearing. I don’t know the exact legality of acquiring this part of the bridge, but the 18th amendment has nothing to do with it. I will ask Sound Transit to respond to this today.

7 comments

Up tp 500 more Hybrid Buses

As has been reported elsewhere, Metro will buy up to 500 hybrid buses as a result of Transit Now! passing. These buses will be required to run through the transit tunnel, where the old, bus-trolley system was removed for the light-rails trolley system. By trolley system I mean the wires on top of the bus from which they get power.
Orphan Road pointed out that the fuel savings never materialized for the hybrid buses, but they are more reliable, require less servicing and break down less often than conventional buses. So while the hybrids cost about $200k more than normal buses ($718K vs $520K), “[t]he hybrid fleet as a whole is saving $3 million a year in maintenance costs over the [dual-mode] Bredas.”

This press release says, “Metro’s goal is to get up to 50,000 drivers out of their cars and riding buses by 2016.” Pretty cool, but I think trains could take another 100,000 out.

2 comments

More Hybrid Buses

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Metro is ordering a whole slew of new hybrid buses to help deliver the Transit Now service improvements.

You’ll recall the first batch of hybrids was rolled out in 2004. However, the P-I reported in December of that year that those buses failed to show significant fuel savings. They were, however, more reliable and helped to lower maintenance costs.

Still, Metro is a little more cautious in touting the energy savings this time around:

Metro currently owns 214 articulated hybrid buses, the largest such fleet in the nation. A National Renewable Energy Lab study found articulated hybrids provide a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gases and are 40 percent more reliable than diesel fueled articulated buses.

Notice there’s no direct mention of fuel savings. The reduction in greenhouse gases could simply be that the new buses use a cleaner diesel blend than the older ones.

0 comments

Why Public Transportation is better in Vancouver

Sightline has been making much news about how much better people in Vancouver are at using public transit than their neighbors to the south. The average Vancouver residents rides transit 126 times per year, compared to 62 times per year for Portland, and 42 for Seattle-Tacoma-Everett.

Sightline goes on to say that it’s all about density. That has an impact on how long trips take, because denser communities need fewer cars, and need to go less far to make trips. When comparing Vancouver to Portland (which, relative to Seattle, is well served by rail, street cars and buses), Vancouver still is more favorable in terms of average length of commute. This may be because density is so much less in Portland, it maybe because Skytrain is always grade-separated from cars.

But there’s a whole other story to this that is being missed: Gas in Vancouver is way more expensive than in Seattle. An imperial gallon is 25% more than an American gallon (160 oz vs. 128 oz), but that’s still well over $4.25 US for a gallon of gas. Also, Vancouver has no freeway through the center of the city. These two facts conspire against driving a car into or even around town.

Finally, something is simply different about Canada than America. According to this wikipedia article about the upcoming Canada line, the original idea was brought up in 1995, the final approval was given in 2004, and it will be ready for operation in 2009. The entire line is grade-separated which means it will never compete in traffic with cars, and is about 20 km long. The whole line was built for about $700 million (CAD) in private funds and about $1.515 billion (CAD) in private funds for a total of $2.215 billion (CAD). That’s a little more than $2 billion US. By contrast, the Link rail from Sea-Tac to downtown Seattle is 25.3 km long, only 5.3 km longer, has major portions at-grade (most of the part through South Seattle), and will have cost $5.3 billion USD by the its completion.

Things are just different in Canada.

4 comments

HopStop

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Following up on Matt’s post about NextBus, it looks like the burgeoning transit-planning space is getting a new entrant, HopStop, which covers NY, SF, and DC, among others (but not Seattle, alas).

The cool thing about HopStop is that they’re providing a free API, which will let transit-geek sites like ours provide a custom interface and feature set. Come to Seattle, HopStop!

The logical evolution for these sites is toward mobile phones, of course. That’s where the action’s going to be in a few years.

1 comments

Streetcar Over Budget?

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Seattle Transit Blog flags a story in the Seattle Times about the South Lake Union Streetcar being — surprise! — over budget. Well, not over budget, per se, construction costs are peachy, but the city seems to have been a bit rosy in estimating the operating expenses:

Metro Transit, which will operate the trains, plans to bill the city $2 million a year, compared to the city’s original $1.5 million estimate. Startup costs will add $500,000, compared to the early estimate of $144,000. The current shortfall is about $1.5 million for the first two years of operations, said a City Council staff analysis issued this week.

So we’re looking at about $500K/yr in operating expenses. The streetcar was still a great deal, since the local businesses volunteered to put up half the construction costs. That said, there’s a lot riding on this project (so to speak). It represents a very different way of building a transit system, so it will be heavily scrutinized.

But it’s also the canary in the South Lake Union coal mine. I love the Whole Foods as much as the next guy, but there’s still a lot we don’t know about how South Lake Union is going to turn out. It could be a Potemkin village, if stories like this become the norm. So there’s a certain amount of “pressure” on the Streetcar.

That said, it will take time to really assess the Streetcar, since it will come online years before the neighborhood around it fully matures. And it’s benefits in connecting SLU to Westlake Station and Light Rail won’t be realized for decades, if you think about the potential connection to Eastside light rail. So when you start to see investigative reports on KOMO next year about the “empty” streetcar, keep that in mind.

0 comments

BRT vs Light Rail


Houston has decided to go with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) rather than Light Rail. Their project was more expensive than they expected, and the feds wouldn’t pay for part unless they switched from rail to buses. This is bound to continue the conversation here about BRT vs Rail that has been going on for sometime.

The BRT that they are selling us here and that which is going up in Houston are two very different things. According to the click2houston article: “B.R.T. is a diesel bus on rubber wheels that’s similar to light rail in that it follows a fixed guide-path and makes far fewer stops than a regular bus.” In Seattle, BRT is essentially more buses that make fewer stops but that’s it. They would not be on their own paths, and they would not have elevated platform stops.

Also, BRT is not the stopping point for Houston, it’s just an interrum as they move torward rail. Again, from the click2houston article.

Chairman David Wolff says B.R.T. allows METRO to live up to the spirit of the referendum. And notes as METRO’s building these lines, it will lay down tracks so it can switch to light-rail if ridership numbers justify it.

“That’s an additional expenditure which we wouldn’t have to do, but we want to show people that we want to get to light-rail as soon as we can,” Wolff said.

King County Executive Ron Sims, has been keen on BRT for years. After the viaduct vote went down, many more Seattle-area politicians have been talking about BRT. Erica C Barnett at the stranger had a nice summary six months ago.

The primary argument for BRT, especially during the Bush era of parsimonious transit funding, is that it’s cheaper and easier to implement than light rail. But while it’s undeniably less expensive to put buses on existing streets than it is to build the substantial infrastructure needed to create a new rail transit system, there are other measures of cost-effectiveness besides capital costs.


[T]he data is clear: BRT draws far fewer transit riders—and, importantly, far fewer new [Emphasis in the original, Ed.] transit riders—than light rail or other fixed-rail systems. In a 2001 study that’s often cited as evidence that BRT can work along the former monorail Green Line, the Seattle Department of Transportation found that elevated transit like the monorail or elevated light rail would add about 56,000 daily riders to the North Seattle-to-downtown corridor; BRT would add just 32,500. From West Seattle to downtown, the disparity was even more startling: nearly 28,000 riders for elevated rail, and just 10,000 for BRT.

Real-world statistics bear out the Seattle planners’ estimates: In Houston … there are six BRT routes running on 44 miles of freeway HOV lanes throughout the city. Currently, just 36,000 people use the system. In Portland, a much smaller city … a 33-mile light-rail system carries nearly twice as many riders as Houston’s: some 74,000 a day. Because of the higher ridership, the cost per passenger mile … is actually lower in many cities, including Portland, for rail than it is for “affordable” BRT.


Bus lanes, unlike rail, can be easily converted for use by other types of vehicles, in effect subsidizing private autos with public-transportation dollars. In Houston, highway lanes that were originally dedicated to “bus rapid transit” have been converted into HOV lanes where buses compete with private cars. This is exactly why you’ll never see real economic development around a bus stop: Buses can be moved; trains have to go where the rails go.

There is a really important point under the surface of Erica’s argument here. BRT does nothing to improve property values, while light rail improves property values considerably. That is why South Lake Union residents were willing to pay half the price of the streetcar there. And Streetcars aren’t even mass transit, just rail-based local transit. Imagine what a real rail system would do for this property values.

Admittedly, few places have tried BRT in America. As this article, with a more positive spin on BRT than the Stranger, says:

flexibility, she concluded that “bus service has a negative image, particularly when compared with rail service.”

She said rail-based plans are often viewed as the mark of “a world-class city” and an image-enhancer that can attract developers.

“As more experience is gained with BRT, its advantages and disadvantages will become better understood,” she said.

BRT is better than nothing, for sure. But it is not the sort of rapid, mass transit that will get people to leave their cars. Rail is.

More links:
Dan Savage on BRT.
Wikipedia on BRT
Bus Rapid Transit.net

6 comments

SLU Streetcar Over Cost


I missed this Friday, because I don’t actually subscribe to the Times, and the P-I has been running cover stories about local American Idol contestants. Apparently the South Lake Union Streetcar is about $3 million under budget because of cost over-runs, lower than expected advertising revenues, and higher than expected start-up costs. Metro, which will operate the car, wants $2mn per year rather than $1.5mn because the costs will be more than they had anticipated.
The good news is the city has already lined up advertisers for all of the cars and 6 of the 11 stations.

Nick Licata, who is not getting my vote in the future, was against its construction and still continues to cause trouble about it. “I think it’s unfortunately indicative of how we’re not paying attention to the more basic services around the city. How did Seattle become unaffordable? It’s through a number of these projects that benefit a small sector of the population.”

How did it become unaffordable? Because of the general housing bubble and a robust economy! Not because of a street car! Good transit will make the city more affordable as people will be able to lower the number of cars per household or even ditch their cars entirely.

This project is important, and I hope it succeeds, because if it is successful it will mean that more streetcars will be built. And the car was a bargain, more than half of the car was paid for by landowners by a neighborhood property tax.

0 comments

Buying Rail

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

It’s good to see WSDOT taking control of more rail lines in Eastern WA:

The purchase of the CW Branch of the Palouse River and Coulee City Railroad (PCC) is part of a nearly six-year effort to preserve the PCC, which is important to Eastern Washington’s agricultural industry. The state will pay $9.0 million for all track and right of way on the CW Branch, which runs from Coulee City to Cheney and Spokane, and certain real property on the PV Hooper and P & L Branch not previously purchased. The state will also receive the operating rights on all three branches.

“Rail is a vital part of our transportation system and supports a large portion of Washington’s agricultural community,” said Paula Hammond, WSDOT Chief of Staff. “This purchase conforms to the recommendations of the recently completed statewide Rail Capacity and System Needs Study and supports Governor Gregoire’s goals for economic growth in our communities.”

This is especially interesting in light of the article in today’s New York Times about the state of the dams in WA’s Lower Snake River. The focus is on opening the dams for salmon runs, but it also notes that the dams allow for barges to float wheat down river. Get rid of the dams, and you need to find an alternative transportation network, like rail.

Of course, you can own all the track you want, it doesn’t make a difference if the train doesn’t stop, as happened with the new intermodal facility at the Port of Quincy, WA.

0 comments

Revisiting the Monorail

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.


Seeing that poster the other day got me thinking about the aborted Seattle Monorail Project again. I know most people would rather forget it (opening day was supposed to be December 2007, just seven months from now), but there were some valuable lessons there, and certainly the alignment, Ballard – Downtown – West Seattle is going to need to be served by high-capacity transit sooner rather than later. Especially if the Viaduct goes away.

Transit Now will help in the short term, but even the snazziest buses will get caught in traffic on the West Seattle Bridge or stuck waiting for the drawbridge in Ballard. After the Monorail died, the idea was broached to put in a light rail spur connecting SODO and West Seattle. Assuming you could deal with the technical challenges of crossing the Duwamish River, that certainly seems feasible.

But on the North end, the idea of a monorail between downtown and Ballard is still appealing, for a number of reasons. First off, building another downtown tunnel through Belltown seems unfeasible, especially since it would have to somehow cross through the Battery Street Tunnel. Second, we’ve already got a monorail running down 5th Avenue, and people are at least used to it (and used to the monorail making its way through Seattle Center). Finally, a monorail bridge over the Ballard ship canal is more cost-effective than a tunnel.

My only real objection to the monorail is the cost of maintaining a separate transit system (two separate maintenance facilities, engineers, etc.). But if we’re going to maintain the Seattle Center monorail anyway ($4.5M for the latest round of repairs alone), we might as well make it go somewhere.

I’m fairly sure there’s zero political or public will for reviving this concept while the body of the last monorail project is still warm. Still, there’s something there worth saving.

0 comments

Speaking of Beacon Hill…

According to this PI article, Beacon Hill station needs to be moved 88 feet because of water, and that will increase cost and may delay the opening of the line as much as two months from the original July 2009 start date. Almost a million dollars has been put into a “contingency account” because of this.

Beacon Hill station has been more expensive than anticipated before:

Beacon Hill costs also have increased prior to Thursday.

The biggest contract for the Beacon Hill work was $294.6 million being paid to builder Obayashi Corp., up from an original price of $280 million. Obayashi and Sound Transit are negotiating over another $20 million contract.

In 2003 and 2004, the agency increased Shannon & Wilson’s Beacon Hill consulting fees by more than $3.4 million.

This is a good lesson for Sound Transit when considering the other underground stations that will be built for the Link System over the next ten years. Beacon Hill is certainly the deepest, most complex of these, but there are a lot of similarities in terms of scope relative to the University Link.

Even with the problems, it seems that Sound Transit is sincere about delivering what it has promised:

Other delays, including a shutdown after a fatal construction accident at the site in February, could hold up by two months the opening of the section between downtown Seattle and Tukwila, according to an agency progress report for March.

To prevent that, Sage said, the agency is trying to get subcontractors to complete work on part of the station ventilation system a few weeks earlier than planned and is pressing other contractors to complete electrical signaling and communications systems early as well.

Agency spokesman Geoff Patrick said Sound Transit still expects to open the line to Tukwila by July, 2009.

Awesome! They seem to be doing a fabulous job.

0 comments

One Tunnel Down, One to Go

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Monorail Map

Speaking of ST videos, here’s one of the tunnel boring machine breaking through Beacon Hill. That means one of the two tunnels through the hill is completed. now they have to go back and do the matching, southbound tunnel.

Just to put this in perspective, at 4,300 feet, the Beacon Hill tunnel is just under one mile. For the proposed North Link, we’re looking at a tunnel roughly six miles long, extending from the Convention Center, through Capitol HIll and the U District, and emerging somewhere around NE 75th St and I-5.

Beacon Hill is the easy part.

On the other hand, Northgate to downtown in 13 minutes? That’s pretty sweet. Imagine shopping downtown on a Saturday and having the nice clerk at The Gap say, “well, we’re all out of that size, but we’ve got a few left in our Northgate location.” You walk 2 blocks to the Metro tunnel downtown, and 15 minutes later, boom you’re at Northgate Mall. Pretty slick.

Personally, this solves my own issue with the lack of a real electronics store downtown. Why is that, anyway? Downtown condo-dwellers don’t buy stereos or flat-screen TVs? C’mon!

0 comments

STB Answers Your Questions!

Sam, in the comments of my post about Double-Decker buses, asked if the double decker buses differ much vis-a-vis articulated buses in terms of fuel efficiency. I posed that question to Martin Munguia, Community Transit’s public information officer, and here’s his reply:

The double decker gets slightly better gas mileage than the articulated buses. Our articulated buses get about 4-5 miles per gallon, while the double decker, according to the manufacturer, get about 4-6 mpg, on the higher end while on the highway, which is largely where our bus will be driving.

Of course, this is not an apples-to-apples comparison since we have
history with the artics (cool bus-people talk for articulated buses – ed.) on our routes and no such history with the double decker yet. Over the course of our yearlong lease fuel efficiency is one element we’ll be watching.

Five vs. six is actually a 20% increase in fuel efficiency if they get it, but it looks to be about the same. I also asked Martin whether boarding times would be longer and here is his response:

If you’re talking about a capacity crowd boarding or deboarding at the same time, say at a commuter park & ride in the morning, the answer is yes [they would be longer]. Rather than getting on the bus and heading straight to the back to sit down, as on an arctic, people will get on the double decker at the front and decide to go up the stairs or stay downstairs, as well as whether to sit in the front or rear.

When boarding or deboarding in traffic, there will not be as many people getting on at the same time, but it still could take longer as some people will go upstairs to sit, or come from upstairs to deboard. There is a camera at the front of the top deck so the driver can see if someone is coming is standing and won’t start moving until that person is either seated or makes her way off the bus. This is the primary reason this bus will not be used for local service.

In the commuter situation, boarding in the morning and deboarding in the afternoon will not add significant time, maybe a couple minutes.

So it’s a small trade off.

I also asked Sound Transit about the safety in Beacon Hill Station, since there will be only elevators (and emergency stairs) to get people to the surface. Jennifer Lemus responded with the below.

When light rail opens, there will be a very visible security presence – this is similar to what Sound Transit did on the Tacoma light rail project. Security personnel may ride on trains, as well as patrol the Beacon Hill Station’s underground platform, aboveground plaza, and elevators. The Beacon Hill station itself has been designed to provide good sightlines and lighting, so as to avoid creating dark corners where crime could occur.

So the station was designed with security in mind. It also looks like Sound Transit is doing their due dilligence on planing with local law enforcement.

This design has been extensively reviewed with City of Seattle Police and Fire Departments. Other security elements in the station design include closed circuit television cameras, panic alarms, and intrusion alarms. Before the station opens, Sound Transit will conduct a threat and vulnerability assessment for the station, including talking with neighbors and reviewing crime statistics. Neighborhood activism (i.e., citizen Block Watch) will also make a difference in helping maintain a safe environment

She also attached a document about safety on Beacon Hill Station. However, due to techincal limitations of blogger (can’t upload pdfs), I am unable to share that with you. I will try to figure out a work-around.

0 comments