Not only is there graffiti on this sign at the Rainer Avenue freeway stop, but the 39 was replaced by the 34 at least four years ago, and the 42 doesn’t go to Rainier Beach anymore.

68 comments

The whole Bellevue Link alignment dispute has inspired admirable inquiry into the sources of anti-transit opinions. There are obviously a multitude of reasons that people might oppose new transit projects, and some of them are easily refuted. I would never be selected as their spokesman, but if I were to make a charitable attempt to understand the mindset it would go something like this.

About 64% of King County households never ride the bus at all. This number is 44% even in the well-served Seattle/Shoreline area. Although some may be waiting for improved service, many others simply cannot imagine themselves voluntarily taking transit. This doesn’t mean they oppose the existence of Metro, but they do see transit as a social service for people who simply cannot drive. If you can’t picture yourself using the service, the externalities (like noise) are more significant it it’s coming to your neighborhood.

For virtually any social service, I think you’ll find that non-users are generally pretty disinclined to invest heavily to improve quality. You may support public housing, but probably would be miffed if they started building public housing with marble floors and gold fixtures.* In the case of Metro, they do an adequate job of getting you there, as the slogan goes; the route may be unpleasant, or circuitous, or slow, but it exists for the vast majority of King County homes and jobs. In this view, improvements in quality — better Metro routes, or the quantum jump to light rail — are frivolous spending.**

Needless to say, I don’t find this line of argument convincing. Quality transit can get people to use cars less, and that has various positive externalities. Moreover, a lot of us are interested in making cities denser; car-dependence is an obstacle to that and will not scale as well. However, I think it’s more valuable to understand this view of the world than casually dismiss concerns as racism or unfathomable ideology.

* There are some issues with the public housing analogy, but you get the point.

** Viewed this way, faux advocacy of BRT is not so much insincere and cynical as an attempt to bargain rail fans down, i.e., “yes, the train is nice, but would you take half as nice for half the price?”

160 comments

A perfectly natural reaction to a service map like Oran’s is to see the gaps — “there really should be more buses here” or “this proves that service to my neighborhood is lousy.” I think that’s the wrong takeaway from a project like that.

No matter the level at which the region funds transit, there will always be areas that get something less than frequent service on multiple routes — even areas that are walkable and have a bit of density. A lot of us would like to live car-free lifestyles, but if so we have to find a neighborhood with the necessary characteristics, not expect Metro to come to us.

That’s not to say there aren’t inefficiencies in the system, or that the marginal transit dollar can’t be well spent making a new high-quality connection. Indeed, one theme of the blog is to create more of these routes at the expense of more dispersed service. Ultimately, however, less dispersion means more areas with infrequent service. Resistance to this move actually creates fewer well-connected neighborhoods, not more.

A service map like Oran’s has two great purposes: first, to allow ad hoc navigation of the system without long transfers; and second, to allow people to make intelligent decisions about where to live and work.

24 comments

On Wednesday SDOT released initial concepts for the new seawall. These plans don’t actually program the “public space” that James Corner Field Operations is designing, but they do set the parameters for it by defining the waterfront’s contours, and whatever attractions may exist beyond it.

See especially the “Virtual Open House” page. There is a ton of information to sift through and I’ve only scratched the surface. My overall sense is that there’s a strong emphasis on restoring a lot of the waterfront’s ecology and providing vantage points for people to interact with it.

I’m resigned to being a curmudgeon on this project, but for me the crucial question is what will bring people here on a crummy day in February. The waterfront is a pretty bustling place on a touristy day in August, Viaduct notwithstanding. 300 days of damp abandonment a year would be a shame given the large investment. I think the answer is commerce, even if it’s just food carts, but more creative minds may have a different solution.

Anyhow, share your impressions in the comments.

49 comments

Our next meetup will be more informal than the last one: no reserved space, no guest speakers. Just transit enthusiasts getting together to enjoy each others’ company.

Tuesday, February 8th, 6pm – whenever. (Being old and lame, I will probably be gone by 9:30)

Columbia City Alehouse, 4914 Rainier Ave S. Reachable by 7 and 9, with 8 and Link a few blocks away.

You must be 21 or older to attend this event.

25 comments

• Perspectives on bicycle safety bills: Cascade, Seattle Bike Blog, Seattle Likes Bikes
• Metro still working on adjusting layovers.
• Sound Transit has an open house about Brooklyn Station January 27th.
• Seattle releases traffic stats: less driving since 2003, more of everything else; in most car-vs.-something else collisions it’s the driver that’s at fault.
• DBT threatens downtown buildings, Feds balk. Follow-up.
• Metro ad controversy rumbles on; now we’re on to the lawsuit phase.
• Governor’s Ferry District idea appears DOA.
• Quarreling over Eastside freight rail; Blaine looking at becoming a rail stop, including for commuter rail (!).
• WWU students trying to build a better bus.
• Endless mudslides.
• Here’s a great zoning code revision (in DC): forbid parking lots in front of buildings.
• Coexistence of bicycles and streetcars.
• Skagit Transit bus hits school bus, no serious injuries.
• Universities are bad about land use.

This is an open thread.

61 comments

Amtrak Cascades set another ridership record in 2010, boarding 838,251 passengers.  This represents an 8% increase over the previous record set in 2008 (774, 531).  Economic recovery, the 2nd daily train to Vancouver BC, and the Vancouver Olympics all drove the increased ridership.  It was also an active year on the policy front.  Washington won a battle with the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) regarding customs fees for the 2nd train, and the federal government increased Washington’s HSR stimulus funds by 32%, from $590M to $782M.

Directly gauging the impact of the 2nd Vancouver BC train is difficult. WSDOT only began publishing station on-off data in February 2010, so year-on-year comparisons will be possible beginning next year.  Rather, increased ridership must be inferred from ridership growth on Trains 513 and 516. The first graph below shows a clear spike in ridership when the 2nd train began on August 19 2009, and that this year-on-year growth sustained itself through August 2010. The 2nd graph shows Vancouver BC now assuming its expected place as the 3rd most popular station, overtaking Tacoma.

As a frequent Cascades rider and supporter, I should be elated by these ridership figures.  Yet my enthusiasm is muted by the fact that service levels remain too infrequent, on-time performance remains poor, and reliability in the winter is awful (service north of Seattle has been cancelled 14 of the last 39 days due to mudslides).  While I appreciate that living in a lush, rain-fed region comes with the risk of mudslides, it is disappointing that WSDOT’s Amtrak Cascades Long-Range Plan makes almost no mention of mudslide-related reliability issues.  Though I welcome our push for higher-speed rail, I propose a simple rule-of-thumb for project prioritization:  fix the bad before improving the good.

Still, long term, be bullish on Cascades.  When the stimulus funds have done their work, when King Street has been fully restored, when the Point Defiance Bypass has traded scenery for needed reliability, and when we start to see those extra frequencies, we will at last have some of the best rail services in the country.

60 comments

Five new Tim Eyman initiatives were filed with the state this month, including one (PDF) which would drastically limit the uses of toll revenue and the way tolls are imposed.

Section 40 (commonly referred to as the 18th Amendment) of the Washington State Constitution has limited the use of fuel excise taxes to highway construction, operation and maintenance since 1944. Eyman’s initiative would limit toll revenue to the same purposes – in fact, even more stringently, to only construction and capital improvements of the highway, bridge, or street on which the toll is collected.

It would also remove the state’s ability to impose variable tolls, and require that tolling end once construction of a structure is paid off – today’s law allows tolling to continue for operations and maintenance, as well as performance management. This would eliminate congestion pricing, HOT lanes, and even simply higher rush-hour tolls.

A final section specifically changes language regarding tolling on Interstate 90. Current law directs WSDOT to work with the federal highway administration toward authorization of tolling on the I-90 bridge – revenue expected to help fund 520 bridge replacement, and to prevent I-90 from becoming even more of a parking lot when 520 is tolled this year. The initiative would specifically (and perhaps redundantly) restrict I-90 toll revenue to capital improvements on I-90.

It’s worth mentioning that this final section could amount to nothing but a shell game – I speculate that toll revenue on I-90 could, with legislative action, replace gas tax revenue used for projects elsewhere in the corridor, and an equivalent in gas taxes could be moved to 520.

With a transportation package on the table in Olympia this session or next, the rest of the initiative could have major implications. Tolling has been increasingly under consideration as an option for congestion reduction, and as a potential revenue source for transit improvements. Without it, the options for transit in the legislature would look even more slim than they already do.

54 comments

Once per legislative session Transportation Choices Coalition organizes a day where ordinary citizens go down to Olympia to push for better state transportation policies. This year, it’s Thursday, February 10th.

With the pending budget crisis it will not be an easy year in Olympia, that is why your voice is more important than EVER! This session we will focus on a wide range issues from preventing more draconian cuts to transit service to making our streets safer for cyclists and pedestrians.

Please join us for Transportation Advocacy Day on February 10th in Olympia to ensure that your voice is heard. You can sign up for Transportation Advocacy Day by CLICKING HERE:

WHEN: February 10, 2011, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm
WHERE: United Churches, 110 11th Avenue SE, Olympia

Similar to years past we will meet as a large group in the morning and spend the afternoon meeting with legislators.  This year we are going to dedicate more time to breakout sessions in small groups so you can get all the detailed information you need to successfully lobby on our 2011 priorities.  Additionally, we will be offering a Lobbying 101 role-play opportunity at our breakout sessions to prepare you for your afternoon meetings with legislators.

There is TOO MUCH at stake this year and that’s why we need YOUR HELP to fight for Transportation Choices on February 10th in Olympia.

Read up on TCC’s one-page 2011 legislative agenda, which I wholeheartedly endorse.

0 comments

Last Sunday, KING 5 TV’s Up Front with Robert Mak discussed the East Link debate in Bellevue, covering things like conflict of interest accusations, B7-Revised, the I-90 lawsuit, and Build a Better Bellevue’s “expert-written” report alleging that Sound Transit jacked up the costs of B7.  For the most part, the program does a fair job of bringing more exposure to the issue.  Nonetheless, you can still detect a pretty shallow understanding that doesn’t reflect the deeper dynamics of the debate, like how a significant portion of South Bellevue residents actually oppose B7.

If you missed the show, I’ve attached the video of the full program above.  Some thoughts below the jump.

Continue reading “King 5’s Up Front covers light rail in Bellevue”

| 58 comments