The Route 70 corridor is next on the list to undergo a stop consolidation. From Metro’s website:
Currently, the corridor has 35 bus stops between downtown Seattle and the University Bridge, with an average stop spacing of about 830 feet. The plan would remove seven of these stops, increasing the average spacing between stops to about 1,060 feet.
As a result of this change, approximately 13 percent of Route 70 riders who board on the corridor between downtown Seattle and the University Bridge will have to catch their bus at a different stop. When the project is completed, all riders should have a faster, more reliable trip.
The northbound stops proposed for deletion are at John Street, Fairview /Eastlake, East Boston St and East Edgar St. Southbound stops include Valley Street/Fairview, East Boston Street and East Roanake Street. Routes 71-73 local would also be affected for evening and weekend runs. You can view the current stops and those proposed for deletion on an interactive map here. Comments are also being solicited via e-mail through community.relations@kingcounty.gov, online, or by phone.
With the planned elimination of the Montlake Flyer Stops, a smooth connection to light rail is critical. However, corridor HCT analysis suggests that 60% of bus passengers will head for the medical center or campus, 20% will transfer to another bus, and only 20% are transferring to Link. This led WSDOT to place stops A through C, near the current stop, on the short list, while retaining the (unfunded) option of constructing another stop on the east side of Montlake Blvd.
Option A
Option A, essentially the current location, provides the shortest walk for UW bound riders while dropping people off well away from the rail station. It also has relatively quick times for buses to transit through the area. Options and B and C have similar statistics.
To pick one of the alternate plans, Option D (depicted below the jump) brings both Northbound and Southbound buses by the station before turning on Pacific Place and merging onto Pacific St. Obviously, the balance of walking times shifts considerably in favor of the station, and buses take another 1.5-2.5 minutes to get through the area.
Obviously, the walking distance issue could be remedied by combining the two, and having another stop both somewhere near the station and at the intersection of Pacific and Pacific. When I asked WSDOT about this, they said that (i) there would be yet more delay to buses going through, and (ii) Metro is generally reluctant to put stops so close together.
I’m a big supporter of Metro’s stop consolidation, but this seems like a good instance to make an exception. We have two potential high-volume stops that are serving important destinations arrayed around a very large open space. Metro could realize huge savings by having a high-quality transfer to Link and severely curtailing downtown-bound buses. Continue reading “Montlake Triangle Bus Stops”
I have enormous respect for Jonathan Golob’s writing at The Stranger, and I sense we share a lot of the same values. However, I can’t imagine hating his hit job on Bellevue any more than I actually do.
And then, we’re off. Slowly. Creeping. Down 8th St, I notice the vestigial sidewalk—clear of pedestrians. Walking in Bellevue—I imagine as I wasn’t bold enough to try—strikes me as a life-threatening activity… Coming off I-405, the buildings here don’t seem to have entrances, just gaping maws for underground parking structures—maws already filled with car emesis squeezing in and out of the street.
Like an heiress bragging about her business acumen, many Seattlites are prone to take credit for a built environment they inherited. All of the acclaimed neighborhoods in Seattle, with the possible exception of South Lake Union, acquired their character in an era where cars were a somewhat attainable luxury rather than something automatically issued to you on your 16th birthday.
Modern Seattle is just as able as anyone else to mess up new development with outrageous focus on cars. After all, one recent foodfight has been over a proposal to somewhat reduce the public subsidy of some parking and increase the tax on other parking. You may have heard that there’s a debate about spending $4.2 billion — including $900m of unrestricted city authority — to maintain highway capacity in a downtown bypass, a fight the green side is losing decisively. This project will also replace a roadway grade-separated from pedestrians with one on the surface, and add two huge, neighborhood-destroying portals on either end.
I can understand Golob’s aesthetic preference for non-chain restaurants, and at times I seek similar businesses. But I’m at a loss as to what legitimate environmental or public-policy objective is involved, nor what sneering at chains will accomplish. Meanwhile, there are tons of good, small-scale eateries in Bellevue once you get out of the malls, much like none of Golob’s favorites are in Pacific Place.
Most importantly, in the struggle to make our metro areas more sustainable Bellevue is not the problem. There is a narrow issue of light rail alignments, where in my opinion a very vocal neighborhood and a certain moneyed interest have led the city astray. This kind of thing happens everywhere, and I think Bellevue’s institutions in particular haven’t caught up with its size. Nevertheless, the problem is not dense, mixed-use downtowns with a little too much emphasis on driving; the problem is Redmond Ridge and Snoqualmie Ridge and Marysville. Bellevue is also making a serious effort at encouraging biking, has a high transit share, and has ambitious development plans for the Bel-Red light rail corridor. We need more Bellevues.
I don’t mean to suggest a false equivalence between Seattle and Bellevue. The median voter and median politician in Seattle are a bit greener; it would be shocking if it were not so. But there’s a whole lot to be done in Seattle before residents have any right to be smug about what sister cities are doing. Those tasks aren’t made easier by alienating attacks on the lives people have chosen for themselves.
We didn’t attend the first public outreach session for “North Corridor HCT” (Northgate to Lynnwood), but the materials are online, in both a workshop page and the project document library.
In spite of collapsing revenues 2023 remains the target completion date, albeit at-risk. The use of the term “High Capacity Transit” instead of “light rail” is explained in the context of federal law:
The North Corridor HCT project relies on receiving federal assistance to complete the project. In order to qualify for federal grants, Sound Transit must complete an Alternatives Analysis (AA). This requires examination of reasonable alternatives to meet the needs of the corridor and will help Sound Transit identify a preferred transit mode and route. The Sound Transit 2 Plan assumed a fully elevated light rail line from Northgate Station to the Lynnwood Transit Center with four new stations north of Northgate as shown on the map but Sound Transit is now beginning detailed work with the public to define which alternatives to examine in the AA.
Federal funding is key to keeping this project affordable, and is especially important as Sound Transit responds to impacts of the current economic recession that have reduced projected revenues by about 25 percent through 2023 and have created schedule risks for this project.
Of crucial interest to many, a State Route 99 alignment remains within scope of the project.
The alternatives will be evaluated for suitability to the stated project objectives, benefits, cost-effectiveness, financial feasibility, and equity across incomes and races. The precise alternatives have not been established, but there will almost certainly be at least one kind of light rail option, a BRT option, and a no-build option.
Comments, especially on where the stations should be, are due by October 27th to roger.iwata@soundtransit.org, by phone at (206) 689-4904, or online here. The next workshop is tomorrow at the Lynnwood Convention Center, 3711 196th Street SW, from 6 to 8:30pm.
Discussion last Thursday at the Regional Transit Task Force (RTTF) meeting mostly revolved around Metro’s funding issues, and particularly how it relates to the State. You can see the meeting’s presentation here and my live blogging here. Genesee Adkins, King County’s state and federal relations manager summed up what most of us know, government at all levels is hurting, especially now that the federal stimulus funds are drying up.
After her presentation RTTF members started discussing what they think Metro should do. Almost all members agree that over the next few years Metro needs to seek a more sustainable funding source. Where the disagreement lay was what Metro should do in the short term. Should it go to the state this legislative session and ask for both a long term and short term funding source, like a vehicle license fee that expires in a few years, or should it only focus on the long term funding source?
The argument for going this year, which was echoed by the biggest transit advocates, is that Metro provides a basic public service and must be maintained. Alternatively the argument for going next year was that Metro needs to first implement the RTTF’s recommendations, essentially proving to the public and state that Metro is doing everything it can to become more efficient. I think both sides made good arguments, especially in light of the Senate and Governor Gregoire’s hostility towards transit.
During the next meeting RTTF members will hash this out so stay tuned.
In light of the most recent report on Sound Transit’s $3.9B budget shortfall, the agency is now proactively seeking public comment to address potential service changes and delays that will not only moderate revenue expenditures in line with the new budget forecast but ultimately fulfill the full delivery of the Sound Transit 2 Plan approved in 2008. The proposed 2011 budget is available here in full (PDF).
From an e-mail release:
The prolonged economic recession is presenting significant challenges to Sound Transit.
The Sound Transit Board this fall, through the 2011 Budget process, is studying potential delays and service adjustments that will allow the agency to continue implementing the Sound Transit 2 plan approved by voters in 2008.
Come to a Sound Transit Open House or Public Hearing to review proposed responses to the national recession’s impact on agency revenues. Learn about and comment on proposed service and project realignments proposed for 2011 and beyond.
According to the release, the Draft Service Implementation Plan affects the following routes:510, 511, 513, 535, 540, 545, 554, 560, 566, 599, and Tacoma Link. You can view the full copy of the DSIP here (PDF). Transit users are encouraged to attend one of a number open houses and public hearings over the course of the next two months to share insight on the service plan and budget.
Human Transit just posted an excellent graph, showing how strongly what country a city is in influences its use of public transit.
Why is the US so low on this graph? It’s not like we’re comparing to Europe or Asia – this is Canada and Australia, the two countries most like the US that I can think of. Jerrett believes it’s our decentrallized business parks. I agree, but what caused those? What makes the US so special when it comes to wanting our offices out in the middle of nowhere? Surely urban land is more expensive than suburban land in other countries as well. Is this yet another effect caused by our subsidized freeway system? Or is this just a cultural effect, perhaps caused by executives wanting their work near their home?
In his post, Jerrett also mentions the power of the stick to get people on transit. Sydney is up near Canadian levels partly because parking downtown can be $60 a day. I propose that’s partly the reason the four US cities named are so high above our average. They’re all geographically constrained, and therefore are difficult and expensive to drive to and park.
The Community Transit Board is looking at revising service in February to serve the new Mountlake Terrace freeway ramp, instead of the transit center itself:
Mountlake Terrace commuter service to and from downtown Seattle would serve the freeway station instead of going into the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center. Routes 413 and 415 would replace Routes 408 and 477 serving Mountlake Terrace riders.
Route 414 would remain on its current routing and operate two fewer trips.
A new Route 111 would provide peak hour, peak direction weekday service between Brier and the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center, replacing the local portion of Route 477.
Route 130 would serve 56th Avenue between 220th and 236th Street.
Basically, you have a route that originates at the transit center (408) eliminated in favor of buses coming down the freeway from further north (413,415), and one that starts in the vicinity and heads to Seattle (477) replaced with local service (111) to expresses on the Interstate. This kind of consolidation of routes into feeders for express service should be happening all over the region.
These seem like no-brainers, but if you have comments the meeting is, uh, yesterday.
Josh Cohen at PubliCola looks at some numbers on city-by-city bike ridership and concludes:
But if Anderson’s numbers are any indication, Seattle would do well to put as much effort into education and outreach as it does into infrastructure. Given that Bellingham has almost double the percentage of people who ride bikes, with roughly the same number of miles of bike paths and striped bike lanes, it’s worth considering a well-funded and well-executed outreach campaign in addition to the city’s ongoing efforts to build more and better infrastructure.
A couple of points here. First,I think it’s pretty hard to compare miles of bike paths between Bellingham and Seattle and look for any sort of meaningful relationship. The density is different, the demography is different, the commute distances are different.
That said, it’s probably true that putting effort into education will yield more riders. Bicycle commuting is definitely a tipping point (or virtuous cycle) phenomenon: once more people do it, it becomes safer, so more people do it, so more bike lanes get built, so more people do it, etc., etc. Heck, it might even be worth it to pay a few people to ride, just to get the numbers up and get the cycle going (assuming that you believe, as I do, that bicycle ridership is a net positive for the city).
