North by Northwest View 03 – A Pep Talk

Posted on by Joe "AvgeekJoe" Konzlar

I’ll be acute.  I’ve read the bloody hand-wringing in the post-election comment thread that oh we didn’t get Democrat majority in the State Senate, oh the Republicans are just going to automatically oppose transit, oh the sky is falling.  Frankly somebody needs to give a locker room speech.  Perhaps this Pete Carroll one is a good start:

You see we’re in the winning business, we need to have a vision to win getting ST3, and as per the proverb “Those that say it can’t be done should get out of the way of those doing it”.

Because frankly: We are doing transit and doing a lot of transit mostly right.

On light rail, ridership continues a beautiful climb.  We’re about to hit 40,000 monthly average weekday boardings of light rail and 5 years ago it was less than 15,000.  No kidding that’s the free market.

On buses, we’re having local communities vote for the bus service they want – just like Proposition 1.  That’s local control.

On congestion relief, we could have our transit agencies do a better job.  That should be goal #1 – putting our transit investments towards congestion relief.  Congestion relief is what the middle class voter wants – and what transit opponents claim to want.  Goals for creating congestion relief are what will get Republicans and Chambers of Commerce on board – and we’ve already got a lot of allies in local government.  Congestion relief means less agitation for more roads and more sprawl which is as we know 180 degrees from… congestion relief because all those Single Occupancy Vehicles are going to be stuck in a currently inadequate Interstate Highway network.

This sort of reminds me of a locker room speech the actor who played Herb Brooks gave in “Miracle” in which he said the team who would throw the Soviet game back at them of attacking would win.  Instead of hand-wringing and hearing how great it is give up… we throw the bipartisan Road Bullies’ anti-transit game right back at ’em.  Right back at ’em.  Just like Herb Brooks would:

So it’s up to YOU the transit advocate.  You want to win with ST3 or not because I got no time for quitters?

So while I’m throwing the Road Bullies game right back at ’em, if I can quote Jonathan Hopkins:

A business with a cash cow would ensure enough investment so that it could power the business for years into the future. As far as state budgets go, that cash cow is the Seattle metropolitan region area comprised of King, Pierce and Snohomish counties. This metro region—home to half the state’s population—is the source of 75% of the state’s $381 billion in economic output in 2013 with all the tax revenues that go with such an intensity of people, goods, and services.

For this reason, the metro area is a net contributor to the state’s tax rolls.  King County specifically only got back 62¢ for every $1 in taxes it generated the state in 2011. Lack of alternatives to congestion is killing productivity (due to car drivers’ 37 hours per year spent stuck in traffic) and limiting job growth. Sound Transit’s service area includes 80% of the population of the three-county area, as well as an overwhelming proportion of the economic output of the area and the state. Preventing investment to keep the region moving undermines the metro economy and therefore the tax collections that help power the rest of the state.  

Furthermore, I traded some e-mails with House Republican ace staffer Mary “Marummy” Lane Strow who told me, “As for an official House Republican position on transit, we will be developing our ideas for how best to allocate transportation funding as session approaches.”  Well then folks we better help them along and make our case, shall we?  Get ’em on board.  Quit whining about hard work to grow because if you don’t put the hard work in, you’ve already lost and I got no time for quitters.

So here’s my vision:

  • We get ST3 by hard work and compromise and collaboration so it’s on the ballot in November 2016 with the best chance to pass, period.
  • We get long term a transit net that is targeted towards serving neighborhoods and connecting neighborhoods to jobs, life (e.g. civic participation, sporting events, museums), and family.
  • We modernize a State Republican Party and make this state a two-party state.  That’s better for democracy and that’s better for transit when we put transit on an upward spiral of bipartisan support and continual improvement.
  • We let people decide at the ballot box because: “Let’s let the people who want transit pay for it and, and not make people pay for it that don’t want it.”  That’s the conservative way.  That’s how we’ll win.

So here you go to help you jump-start the effort to get ST3 on that ballot, the Super Bowl we want and deserve:

I hope by now you’re fired up for the ST3 fight ahead.  I sure hope so… because if you’re not, if you want to quit… I got no time for quitters.

For the uninitiated: Road Bullies are those whom think transit sucks, those whom want to shut transit down and those whom want just more sprawl.  They’re bipartisan and not interested in solving problems but just interested in getting highway pork at everybody else’s expense.

North by Northwest View 02: Why Should Washington State Legislative Republicans Back Transit

Posted on by Joe "AvgeekJoe" Konzlar

https://www.flickr.com/photos/aidaneus/8178821710

Aidan Wakely-Mulroney Photo – “The Washington State Capitol; Olympia, Washington”

Voters tonight decided to keep a divided State Legislature for a multitude of reasons. But those reasons aren’t the purview of Seattle Transit Blog/STB.

The problem for us at STB is now we need to make the case to Republicans why Republicans’ self-interest is in supporting transit.  So here goes from the STB Republican-in-Chief:

Argument For 1: Republicans should realize transit is fiscally conservative versus building more highways that encourage sprawl that will require more of the following:

  • First Responders
  • Public utlilities – water, sewer, the like.
  • Public schools
  • Even more roads
  • More support staff

All of this will require more government which will require more taxes. Transit instead works to create density to protect scarce taxes – all of which confiscated from hard-working taxpayers for public services.

Argument For 2: Transit enables the disabled who cannot drive a place in our society. Instead of having disabled folks dependent on relatives or welfare, transit is an important means to a J-O-B, to community and to life.

After all, do you want an Aspergian with 1.5 good eyes and PTSD behind the wheel and running somebody over? If so, you’re certainly NOT pro-life. Transit is therefore vital to folks like I.

Argument For 3: Transit is good for the economy. Transit allows tourists to not have to rent a car or hail a cab to visit a community. Transit also pivots spending away from the automobile towards other forms of spending such as food, lodging, clothing and the like.

Argument For 4: Transit also can provide congestion relief when done correctly. Transit allows families to own only one or no car instead of two – therefore providing congestion relief. Transit allows folks to take up much less space on a road going to work than a Single Occupancy Vehicle/SOV. Transit also when serving areas of high residential density, high commercial density (malls, museums, etc) plus job creators (Paine Field, downtowns) does excellent congestion relief by taking many cars off of the road.

Argument For 5: Transit support will translate into votes with more Millennials using transit. According to a Rockefeller Foundation study, “Almost two-thirds of Millennials (64%) say that the expense of owning a car is a major reason they want be less reliant on one, including 77% of Millennials who earn less than $30,000 a year.” Furthermore from the same source, “Almost all Millennials (91%) also believe that investing in quality public transportation systems creates more jobs and improves the economy.”

Realtor.org – no progressive website – recently wrote,

Cars are a hassle. In 2008, only 31 percent of 16-year-olds and 77 percent of 19-year-olds had a driver’s license — numbers dramatically lower than the 1978 numbers of 50 percent and 92 percent, respectively, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Even as millennials age, they’re driving less than prior generations. In 1995, 20.8 percent of autos were driven by 21-30-year-olds, according to the Federal Highway Administration’s 2010 Household Travel Survey. By 2009, that number had dropped to 13.7 percent.

“For baby boomers, owning a car was a coming-of-age, life-stage thing,” explains Rebecca Ryan, founder of Next Generation Consulting in Madison, Wis. “The coming-of-age toy for the next generation is the smart phone.”

Several factors contribute to millennials’ negative perceptions of cars. “One is the expense,” says Ryan. “Millennials are the most unemployed generation, and their college debt compared to that of their baby boomer counterparts is exponentially higher. Millennials also believe cars are ecobombs — that they’re inheriting a planet that’s totally messed up, and they don’t want to contribute to it. The final kiss of death for cars? You can’t text and drive. All these things together create a perfect storm against cars.”

I can keep citing sources from Google or Yahoo or Bing upon request – that transit is an important part of winning the millennial demographic just now doing this thing called voting. Not sign-waving, not Tea Partying, not public comment sorties; but actual voting that wins elections. So unless Republicans find joy only pontificiating in the minority instead of governing in the majority; it’s time Republicans started supporting enthusiastically transit.

Argument For 6: Transit is a means of letting suburbs and cities exercise local control over transportation options. We just saw tonight Seattle vote to tax itself more to fund transit – that’s only proper, with the regressive tax code we have in this state it’s only right to have a public vote on taxes and support transit. It’s also only right for those of us who are conservative to champion local control and let local people decide what’s right for them through local governance. Republicans aren’t supposed to be the party of big mandates but the exact opposite – and as such unless we have some reforms we on the Right would be able to impose to make Sound Transit more awesome, then let the voters decide on ST3 for local control’s sake.

It’s also worth noting ST3 is necessary in the eyes of the City of Everett, Snohomish County, and the Puget Sound Regional Council for starters with more to come. All those local government folks have hit “a critical level of frustration” – and if we Republicans are truly pro-local control as we distrust Big Government, then it’s time to support the local government folks in the trenches.

That said the way Scott Dudley representing the largest city on Whidbey Island has stepped up and taken the fight to save Island Transit on is how Republicans could tackle transit. We show that we’re the ones who will be fiscally responsible, use transit as an economic growth tool and grow transit in a fiscally sustainable way. We’ve seen the progressive alternative with Island Transit – and its incompetence.

Ultimately, I’d rather see a Republican positive plan to reform transit than the obstructionist approach we’ve seen in recent state legislative sessions. If not, this whiff of power Republicans have gotten in recent years is going to slip away…

North by Northwest 24: The Everett Mayor’s Office on Transit & Paine Field

Posted on by Joe "AvgeekJoe" Konzlar

The North End of Paine Field, Circa May 2013...

Avgeekjoe Photo: The North End of Paine Field, Circa May 2013…

Recently decided to interview the Mayor of Everett’s Office on Paine Field transit issues to see where Mayor Ray Stephanson and his administration stood after my previous STB Page 2 writings on Paine Field too (1st post here, 2nd post here, and 3rd post here).   Special thanks goes out to his spokeswoman Meghan Pembroke who was very professionally helpful and as per her LinkedIn has a wealth of transportation-related experience in WSDOT communications.  Transit advocates need people like Mrs. Pembroke right whether they are as we kick-off the campaign for ST3 and possibly a state transportation package to get some help to our counties’ transit agencies.

Intro and public vote of confidence given, an abridgement of my questions are in bold, the responses are in italics with some clarification afterward.

#1. Recently The Everett Herald did a news story mentioning you are a booster of light rail long-term for Paine Field.  Do you see light rail service as a long-term strategy to keep Boeing jobs here in Washington State?

Mayor Stephanson and the City of Everett have been long-time supporters of and advocates for the aerospace industry. We believe light rail is a critical long-term strategy to support Boeing and our entire aerospace and advanced manufacturing hub in southwest Everett. The City has met with Sound Transit’s planning staff and consistently urged them to route the future light-rail alignment through Paine Field, the state’s largest manufacturing center. We’ve also urged them to extend the alignment to north Everett to serve the college district and regional medical center.

#2. In your advocacy for a Sound Transit light rail route to service Paine Field, would you be willing to advocate for an interim Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service to link up with Community Transit’s Swift?  Perhaps as part of Sound Transit 3/ST3?

While we believe the ultimate solution is light rail, the City has also been supportive of plans for Bus Rapid Transit to this area in the interim. There are currently plans underway for a Bus Rapid Transit line from Canyon Park to a new Seaway Transit Center, via SR 527 and Airport Road. When such service is available, Everett Transit plans to realign routes and redistribute some of the service to create an improved network of transportation systems.

This is generally understood to be Swift II, a Community Transit project building on the success of the original Community Transit Swift Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).  Current State Senate Candidate Marko Liias has been championing this as well…

 #3. … For the three routes serving Boeing Everett Transit averaged around 12.5% of all of Everett Transit’s boardings and while Everett Transit boardings went down overall 12%, boardings on the three Everett Transit routes to Boeing only went down 4%.  Would you please support requesting Everett Transit to make a plan to increase boardings such as marketing currently existing service, soliciting public input to improve currently existing service, and serving more tenants of Paine Field such as the Future of Flight and Flying Heritage Collection to help justify light rail service serving Paine Field?

You asked about Everett Transit service and plans to increase boardings. The routes that experience growth even when overall ridership decreases are those that target the commuter market (in our case Route 70 that provides peak-hour connections from the Mukilteo Ferry to Boeing). Route 3 between Everett Station and Boeing has a strong commuter market as well, but it also serves W Casino Rd, where there is a high population density and high demand for transit service.

As part of the Commute Trip Reduction program that Everett Transit administers for employers in Everett, the agency’s efforts in marketing transit have been very high. We work with Boeing’s Commute Trip Reduction group to educate employees on transportation options and provide incentives for ridesharing. Though marketing efforts in terms of media campaigns or targeted advertising are limited due to budget constraints, this year we have worked very hard to improve overall customer experience (detailing buses, upgrading bus stop signs) and educating riders on our services available (such as real-time information for all stops). These improvements, allowing for a more pleasant ride and easier access to schedules, are also meant to attract first-time riders and visitors.

#4. …As the Mayor’s Office of Everett is a proud “Paine Field, the Field of Choice” booster will you please consider speaking out in support of direct transit service (i.e. a bus stop) in the immediate future with long-term improvements to the Future of Flight with over 250,000 annual visitors and Paul G. Allen’s Flying Heritage Collection?

The level of service that we are able to provide to the area you reference is limited by budget constraints. We made a 15 percent cut in service in 2012, and we have maintained our level of service since then. Any additions to service would be balanced with the existing demand to increase frequency to routes that are close to capacity, and would also take into consideration the physical environmental constraints to the areas that we would serve (for example, accessibility of routes to both the Future of Flight and Flying Heritage Collection mentioned would require structural improvements, without which we would not be able to provide safe and efficient bus service).

I’ve added emphasis because on follow-up as Mrs. Pembroke politely got us an explanation before deadline:

The structural improvements are the physical structures that allow our buses to serve the facility: a turn-around area or a safe bus route around the building that would allow a bus to drive through, designated bus load/unload zones, bus zone amenities such as shelters/benches, and if those zones are not immediately adjacent to the building, a safe walking path to the building.

Typically, in the case of new developments, the builder will be guided to provide those structures and amenities to facilitate transit access through the land-use application process. It is generally a collaborative effort between the builder and the transit agency that is the primary provider of service in the area affected, with direction from city or county planners.

Both of these sites are in Community Transit’s service area, so Community Transit would be the agency to coordinate those improvements with the owners of these particular sites.

For Everett Transit, the evaluation of the infrastructure of the site along with the area that it covers in terms of jurisdiction, are the first steps in the consideration to provide service. The next steps are evaluating the demand for service and the resources available to fulfill that demand.

So as to be fair to Everett City Government, I will leave my views on where to go from here for another post… and invite your non-spam comments please.

Upcoming Avgeekjoe Page Two Posts:

Tomorrow evening at 2100 Hours/9 PM, I will post my personal endorsement list.  Expect quite a few Democrats from the token Republican of STB.  It doesn’t help my fellow Republicans to ignore me…

So as not to over saturate Page Two, the Island Transit minutiae update will be scheduled for Monday evening.  We also will get some clips from Island County Commissioners and “The Man of the Moment” Scott Studley into the post.