What is Ed Murray thinking? While a regional transportation commission is probably a good idea, the devil is in the details. Details like setting election districts will take years. Now he wants to kill the RTID ballot and offer only a shrunken ST2 light rail package until this new commission can deliver a study?

Given the speed transportation planning moves with in Puget Sound, the eighteen month deadline the new commission is given means that the supposedly more effective, prioritized project list presented will likely be a rehash of what is already in RTID and ST2. This new agency is being pitched as a coordinator, not an inventor. RTID already reflects what the counties want: arterial and freeway widening along with some new highway miles to fill some gaps in Snohomish and Pierce, and support for megaprojects in King. Their wish lists will drive the commission’s plans, as the staff leads the politicos around shades of Yes, Minister.

Sound Transit’s planning staff will be absorbed into the new commission, and so the natural inclination of project inertia will be the same. The logic of restoring the interurban route and paralleling the region’s major freeway is hard to argue. The Eastside is becoming more supportive of light rail, as well. If the plan stood on its own at the ballot box, it would likely succeed.

So, that leaves me lukewarm on the idea. Looking south to Portland shows a rosy vision of what a truly regional approach could achieve. But according to Bill LaBorde, Sen. Ed Murray wants to kill RTID altogether and drop the eastside light rail line from ST2. The ostensible reason is to allow further planning on SR520 and I-90 light rail, both of which are to be turned over to this new commission.

I don’t think this is nearly as transit positive as advertised. Yes, there are things I would like to see in ST2 that aren’t there. That I-90 light rail should continue to Queen Anne and Ballard. Additional planning time and a dedicated advocate for additional urban light rail might manage to make something like that happen. But the focus on projects of “regional significance” in the commission’s mandate suggests it will be no more friendly to the kind of rail projects needed to address urban mobility that ST is. In fairness, getting to Northgate will substantially address this need, but with the Viaduct situation promising misery in western Seattle, more is needed.

In short, the ST/RTID marriage isn’t perfect, but the seductive mistress of regional integration is just as likely to take our wallets, steal our identity and produce nothing but paperwork.

Reading Joel Connelly makes me ill these days. His lastest screed is a pure blast of the kind of thinking so typical among the reactionary old hippy crowd in Seattle.

I agree with Joel that Mayor Nickels richly deserves scorn. If only he could have scrounged up cash for a down payment on the monorail with the same fervor he found for keeping a tunnel on life support. Gregoire did not come off so well either, caught between the city and its legislators with dueling visions of new freeways. However, the results are hardly a disaster, giving momentum to studying a surface boulevard with reasonable traffic capacity.

Joel goes off the tracks from there, presaging doom for Sound Transit 2 and the RTID roads package the legislature has seen fit to stitch to it. He scoffs at John Ladenberg for claiming interagency coordination is good. What of the viaduct, he asks? Where is the harmony on 520, 405, and Eastside light rail?

Well, Joel, let me answer those rhetorical questions. Light rail has been a part of the I-90 plan since that center roadway was built. The I-405 plan is complete, and awaits only money to deliver more lanes, HOV access ramps and BRT service. The Pacific Interchange has gained the City of Seattle’s blessing, so the 520 plan is similarly waiting mainly for cash.

Joel’s analysis of a solution isn’t any better than his read on the problem. Creating a regional board wouldn’t reduce complexity, since it won’t actually replace RTID,ST,KCM,PT,CT,ET,PSRC or any other acronym. It would just add another layer of political gamesmanship. With as-yet undefined boundaries and districts, the likelyhood is a suburban domination of the process. The suburbs are already getting more than their fair share with Metro’s funding formula.

Joel’s true problem with the existing setup comes out at the end. It isn’t doing enough to stop Ron Sims and Erica Barnett from oppressing the masses with light rail social engineering. Buses are cheaper, m’kay? He praises San Diego’s regional bond measure, which is 2/3 road projects, with buses making up most of the transit component.

Tellingly, he also praises the TransLink “reform” in British Columbia, which is largely designed to dilute the influence of Vancouver and the other municipalities and move decision making to the provincial level. This is to grease the skids for the unpopular “Gateway” freeway building projects and other asphalt being pushed by the Minister of Transportation.

Does Connelly have something similar in mind? I can only imagine the I-605 and 8-lane 520 ideas which will have to be “given a fair hearing” at his new commission. It certainly won’t be listening to any wild ideas about rapid streetcars or induced demand. That’s social engineering, doncha know. In fact, I’m sure if I was patient enough to pull out some microfilm, I could find a column just like this denouncing Forward Thrust in 1968. Wrong then, wrong now.

I just happened upon the greatest tool ever for transit geeks: Wayfaring.com. Point and click routes over a Google Maps base. I spent an hour whipping up a vision of THE FUTURE!!!

Green Line Redux

-Leverages existing infrastructure (only 4 new blocks of track between South Lake Union and SODO)

-Adds transit capacity to Ballard & West Seattle, mitigates Viaduct closures.

-Reasonably rapid. Has own right-of-way along Westlake, operates on Link tracks from Convention Place to SODO, runs in median on Spokane.

-Would use dual voltage trams, which can operate on the 1600v Link system and the 700v streetcar/trolley system. These are already in use in Europe.

And yes, this is largely a rehash of earlier posts. The only real brainstorm is in building a short track to connect the Ballard line with the West Seattle line. But that creates the ‘X’ of transit Seattle has been dreaming about since Dick Falkenbury put sharpie to napkin. Let’s try to get something like this done soon whatever happens with the Viaduct. Whether construction mitigation or mitigation for permanent lower capacity, it’s long overdue.

With people talking about the construction disruption of the rebuilt viaduct, it got me thinking about alternatives to the unpalatable rebuild WSDOT seems to favor. While raising the viaduct to limit the impact to the waterfront mays seem counterintuitive, it has some real advantages.

A single deck elevated structure could be built alongside and somewhat above the current structure. This could allow it to stand as-is while the new viaduct is poured. With a four lane roadway with shoulders usable as HOV lanes at peak hours, this structure could be reasonably proportioned to the rest of the waterfront. A single level design could replace the Seneca Street exit, but the Columbia Street onramp would have to go. This would be more of a bypass, similar to the tunnel plan.

Behold, by my immense Photoshop skill, the rebuild remix:

What’s that blue line, you ask? Something like this:

That’s the Melbourne Sound Tube, designed to reduce sound from a new tollway which runs very near several housing towers. The ribs reflect sound back to the road. Add some translucent solar panels, which would offset some of the CO2 the road generates, and some multicolor LED lighting, and you have quite a design statement along the waterfront. Sure, the columns would be a little bigger. It isn’t the statement about the futility of endless age of carbon some want. It keeps the views for motorists. But it is undoubtedly better than a butt ugly rebuild with outrigger columns that will keep the entire waterfront a war zone for years.

I speak, of course, of Mr. Sims 49 points plan, which kicks ass. In fact, reading it made me wonder why Metro hasn’t done this already:

Consolidating service on 3rd Ave will get us to where Portland was a decade ago. Better late than never for the transit mall concept.

Many of the 49 points for implementing this concept are long overdue also:

-Bus lanes on Elliot Ave, Aurora, 3rd Ave, 1st Ave South, Eastlake/Fairview, Stewart, and 2nd & 4th Aves.

-Transit signal priority at congested intersections like 1st & Denny.

We need these improvements stat, whatever happens along the waterfront…

With the Governor announcing the priorities of Puget Sound’s highway projects approved in 2003 will have to be “re-racked” to account for cost overruns, the current round of projects under consideration by RTID may suffer a similar fate. The I-405 corridor will be one of the likeliest projects for deferral. Some suggestions on making an impact without as much expensive concrete past the jump.

The current RTID “Blueprint for Progress” calls for adding two lanes each way from I-90 to Renton. There isn’t going to be enough money, and these new general purpose lanes would be full soon after they open, anyway.

A better & cheaper idea? Fund some other elements of WSDOT’s I-405 Plan instead. The BRT system proposed for I-405 has been languishing: the target date set in the orginial plan is 2030, for a system Sound Transit has built more than half of already.

BRT system from WSDOT’s I-405 Corridor Master Plan

A rapid transit line connecting Eastside communities will greatly increase overall transit ridership, and maximize the benefits of light rail expansion. Nearly all of the stations are already in place with direct HOV access. The “trunk” of this line would have rail-like service levels: 5-7 minute headways during the day.

However, for BRT to work it needs to move faster than congested traffic. Forecasts show 15% lower ridership in 2030 unless the HOV lane along 405 is made 3+. This is going to be a very politically unpopular move, so the likely outcome will be transit suffering.

The RTID funding would be better spent adding a single High Occupancy Toll lane each direction. Then, it and the existing HOV lane can be operated as a four lane express roadway.

The new HOT lanes can be variably tolled to ensure they remain congestion free. They could also provide an option for increasing the reliability of freight delivery by opening them to trucks. With the planned improvement of SR 167 to include HOT lanes, this would create a continuous Eastside corridor for transit and freight, while increasing options for single occupant drivers who are willing to pay for speed.

This could obviate the need to build two of the four extra lanes proposed on southern 405. Even if all are built, we need to ensure two of them each way are HOV or HOT lanes to make transit work in this corridor. A similar project is under construction along I-95 in Maryland: (click for full size)

When the legislature began the process of addressing the growing infrastructure gaps in Washington, it was always envisioned a regional funding mechanism would be born at the same time. This is as it should be, since Puget Sound has needs orders of magnitude greater than the rest of the state, and to ask those in Pasco or Omak to share them uniformly through the gas tax would be quite inequitable.

However, this noble intention has been fraught with problems. The legislature looked to the success of megaprojects combining roads and transit elsewhere, and decided to forcibly tie the newborn RTID’s fate to that of an undeveloped proposal from a formerly troubled transit agency, Sound Transit.

This was based on traditional assumptions about voting patterns: the suburbs love roads and hate transit, and urban centers have never met a road project they would vote for. While urban regions are still hostile to highway projects, (see Vancouver’s Gateway Project) the suburban regions of Puget Sound seem to have begun to warm to transit. Should we decouple these initiatives?

In 1996, the original Sound Move transit plan passed with 58.8 percent of the vote in King County, 54.4 percent in Snohomish County and 50.1 percent in Pierce County. 56.6% in King County recently supported the Transit Now! Metro expansion. It seems to me to be reasonable to assume King County will continue to support transit expansion by a healthy margin. This is especially true since the traditionally transit-averse Eastside will get the bulk of the benefit from ST2.

With the ongoing success and expansion of Sounder’s southern service and Tacoma’s streetcar, it seems likely Pierce County will prove more favorable to further expansion of the system. That puts Sound Transit in an excellent position to win at the ballot box and finish what Forward Thrust tried to start in 1968.

Unless RTID goes down to defeat, that is…

RTID is an unholy marriage of megaprojects needed to replace aging infrastructure and sprawl inducing highway widening projects. It also has the misfortune of being a referendum for regional voters on the Alaskan Way Viaduct, a project that will enrage a portion of the electorate no matter which option is selected.

The $7.4 billion plan breaks down like this:

Snohomish County: $1.2 billion
King County: $4.5 billion
Pierce County: $1.5 billion

King County has the megaprojects:

-Alaskan Way Viaduct, $3-5 billion, of which $2.4 is currently available. The original plan called for $800 million from RTID.

-SR 520, $4.5 billion, of which $1.25 is currently available. The orginial RTID plan called for $800 million, but the Legislature has mandated full funding for this project, so that must increase.

The projects likely to take a hit:

167, which was to get $420 million for widening
405, which was to get $1.3 billion for widening
509, which was to get $870 million to complete along with I-5 widening

These are only the King County portions of the plan. Pierce and Snohomish have their own project lists, and needless to say, they are heavily tilted towards facilitating sprawl.

Will supporters of transit and environmentally responsible development hold their noses and vote for such a mishmash of asphalt projects to ensure light rail’s success? Or will both go down to defeat? It would be truly tragic if RTID killed our latest chance to achieve a regional rapid transit system.

I say we need to uncouple these measures.

It would have made sense to combine, say, widening 405 and adding light rail to 405 in a ballot measure. The current proposals have little synergy, and should stand or fail on their own.

The Stranger’s Erica Barnett is in Denver reporting on the opening of the regions new T-REX transportation project. The T-REX project can certainly teach us something about how to handle megaprojects. A $1.7 billion project, completed in 5 years, widening 17 miles of freeway and adding 19 miles of light rail.

However, this project has disproved one frequently made assertion: light rail is not always preferred to buses. From the Rocky Mountain News:

Swamped with an “unprecedented” barrage of complaints about longer commutes that accompanied the startup of T-REX light-rail service, RTD is making changes to bus schedules and routes, but it won’t bring back the popular express buses it eliminated.

…

But the source of many of the complaints – elimination of direct nonstop coach bus rides from far-out suburban park-n-Rides to downtown or the Denver Tech Center – remains. Regional Transportation District staff said with Southeast light-rail lines serving as the new spine of the corridor, it can’t afford to compete with itself by adding some of the canceled bus routes.

Something to think about as Sound Transit 2 proposes a massive light rail expansion.

While the US has its share of vehicles that can operate on rails or roads for quite a while, they’re all pickups for railroad maintenance:

Via Engadget, the Japanese do us one better. With rural villages shrinking, a Japanese railroad has developed a railbus that has two sets of wheels: steel for rail lines, and rubber to serve remote villages that are no longer economical to maintain rails to. Undergoing testing now, the railcars will cost $170,000 each. Those fancy new hybid buses Metro is running? $645,000 each.

These would certainly be some of the “unique vehicles” Ron Sims’ RapidBus BRT plans call for.

“The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.”
-Chinese Proverb

What will Seattle transit look like in 2025? The beginnings of a major change are arriving, with Link scheduled to advance to Northgate, and many proposed streetcar lines under consideration. But how do we get from that to an integrated system? Some thoughts, after the jump.

I find one of the biggest failings of the system as it exists is its complexity. Great transit systems connect major destinations with a core network of high capacity routes, operating so frequently a timetable is not needed.

This core network makes it easy to represent the layout of the system. An infrequent rider or a tourist need merely consult a map that represents the various routes by colored lines, in relation to each other and not necessarily geography. Since the first classic London Underground map, this formula has made understanding and using transit systems easy.

Seattle has, instead, a huge map that plots every bus route in the county. There is no distinction made between routes that operate every day, and those that have three peak hour trips weekdays. This makes it very difficult to ascertain how to travel from one point to another.

With the advent of Link, RapidBus and the SLU streetcar, we have the beginning of a core system. What would a map of a fully built out system look like? I think it would go a little something like this:

The streetcar network expands to nearly 18 miles, with the South Lake Union streetcar extending north along Westlake to Ballard and Greenwood. The Waterfront streetcar extends north along Broad to Eastlake, Ravenna & Green Lake, and down Jackson and Broadway to First Hill and the CD.

The RapidBus network expands substantially. The plan shown calls for 30 miles beyond what is currently in the works. While BRT does not match the experience of rail, it can provide far superior service to traditional buses. Major arterials like Aurora and 15th NW get bus lanes, all routes get signal preemption, stops are spaced out further and substantial shelters with bus time displays are added.

And most important of all, there is service every 10 minutes, 7 days a week. The most frustrating part of the bus experience is the waiting. And as the popularity of the new RapidBus routes increases, the possibility of conversion to streetcar does too.

I invite comment and feedback on this map of the future. I hope we can realize the vision of a functional rapid transit network. Eighteen miles of streetcar and thirty miles of RapidBus lines to replace long-haul Metro routes is not anything Seattle can’t afford or achieve. That’s about $500 million for the streetcars, and $20 -$40 million for the BRT. Much less than the monorail, and much less than some have proposed to spend on a mile of tunnel.

The only thing we seem to lack is political will. To the politicians:

”Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men’s blood”
- Daniel Burnham, architect – 1893 Worlds Fair