I have to say I’ve got nothing inherently against the idea of a regional superagency, as they’re now contemplating in Boston. My beef with "Sound Transportation" here in WA is that it’s always been a stalking horse for Olympia to dilute Sound Transit’s power. It always comes down to two things: accountability and finance. That is, who calls the shots and who pays the bills. Often there’s an overlap between these two, but not always.
For example, if you have a regional entity, and its governing board is structured in such a way that the suburbs get a disproportionally large amount of seats, or the tax dollars come primarily from the suburbs, you’re going to get things like Metro’s 40-40-20 rule. In such cases, transit funding will suffer. But it doesn’t have to be that way. It’s all about how you structure it.
I’m planning on taking the bus almost every day for at least a month, which is a first for me (cue claims of transit hypocrisy). This means I can actually buy a bus pass for once, which is something I’ve been coveting for a while. So today I searched to find out how much I’ll save with a bus pass. February will have new rates, so that’s $2 a way. Commuting every day, 5 days a week, with a trip a week replaced by another form of transportation (wife picking me up on her way elsewhere, or riding my bike if these sunny days keep going), that’ll be worth $64 to me. Looking into the bus pass to find out my savings it looks like it costs… $72?!
I suppose this comes with the benefit of exploring the city a bit on the bus, the reason I was excited about having the thing. And I won’t have to have a constant supply of $1′s (the huge benefit of raising the fare is removing all of those damn quarters). But I guess I’m a little bit disappointed that you really have to be a hard-core bus rider to benefit from the pass system.
I think Matt Yglesias is right about what we should and shouldn’t expect the upcoming federal stimulus bill to accomplish vis-a-vis transit investment:
It was true that Americas infrastructure policy needed a serious overhaul before this economic crisis hit. And it will continue to be true that the way infrastructure spending works in the United States is screwed up and in need of reform. Barack Obama had proposals for addressing these issues before the interest in a stimulus bill came around. As it happens, I think he had some pretty good ideas. And ultimately this is where the real action is going to benot in terms of what is and isnt in the stimulus package, but what kinds of enduring reforms does his administration bring about. For example, the stimulus proposal currently offers $30 billion for roads and $10 billion for rail and transit. Thats not the ratio of my dreams, but its a much better ratio than is reflected in current spending priorities. And those current priorities are entrenched in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) a.k.a. the highway bill in a manner that reflects its disproportionate emphasis on highways. Its a law thats set for renewal and rewriting in 2009.
In the short-runi.e., in the stimulus time frametheres only so much change of priorities that its feasible to do. But in the longer run, priorities can be shifted much more dramatically. This is a very big deal and in some ways where the real action will be in terms of whether or not we see a national shift in priorities.
The national infrastructure bank in particular, if properly created, is one of the most promising ideas for transit spending to come along in a while. And by properly created, I mean sufficiently independent, with the ability to give money directly to transit agencies (and not filter it through state governments), and with a funding formula that correctly values moving people not cars, transit-oriented development, the long-term cost benefits of rail, etc.
Seattle stop signs tend to have the relatively unhelpful “No parking within 30 feet” signs below them, but in my experience those signs simply prove how bad people are at (a) gauging distances, or (b) following the law. Assuming they’re not intended simply to be another revenue-generator for law enforcement, I would think that the practice of daylighting intersections would be far more effective. And not only at stop signs, but at mid-block crosswalks as well.
Update: It occurs to me that the mid-block crosswalk on Queen Anne Ave N has exactly this setup:
From this, we can see that the tunnel will, indeed, be “deep,” as it runs under the BNSF tunnel and the bus tunnel through downtown. What we don’t see here is what will be the most controversial part — the northern end of the tunnel, where the tunnel, Western Ave, Pike Market, and the Battery Street tunnel all converge.
Google has apparently exposed the transit layer on its maps for several cities, showing routes underneath. It’s a lot prettier on cities like London that have colored rail lines, but Seattle’s bus networks get the love, too:
I’m rethinking what I said last week about Google’s need to pay for transit data. They’re just too generous with it.
The Seattle City Council released their priorities for 2009. Call me a cynic, but they looked vague and predictable. Focusing only on the transit items, I see:
“Take major steps forward on the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and the Central Waterfront Public Space Design.”
How many years has that been on your agenda? A specific goal would have been nice.
“Implement new transit opportunities to provide greater access to public transportation, including Sound Transit light rail to the University and Northgate, expanded bus service, and the First Hill streetcar.”
Apparently not including a new Seattle Streetcar network? This is just a list of items Seattle has little control over and lies within someone else’s budget.
“Revise zoning in key areas of the City where greater height and density will promote the public interest.”
Ah, this is the one piece of gold in the pile of rocks. It’s measurable, has a specific goal, and lies within the power of the council. It’s also very important at a time when we’re building light rail, since rail and density should go hand in hand.
We’ll know more in the morning, but here are some things to keep in mind in tunnel discussions. I’ve spent a lot of time in the last few hours perusing the Discovery Institute’s website, as the bored tunnel was their idea, and we have to assume that they’re the go-to resource until we get more information from WSDOT. Discovery has reprinted several op-eds on the tunnel, including a West Seattle Herald piece from Vlad Oustimovitch, the oft-quoted West Seattle architect on the advisory committee, an op-ed from KC Councilman Larry Phillips, and a PSBJ article.
From these, several things emerge:
The viaduct would stay in place until the boring is complete, which could be five years or more.
There would be no downtown exits
There would be no connection for traffic coming from Ballard on Elliot/Western. That traffic would get pushed on to Alaskan Way. Which might be a good thing for Ballard companies like Ballard Oil, since…
Hazardous materials won’t be allowed
Some other questions:
Where is the money for transit in all this?
Will buses be routed through the tunnel? If so, why no HOV lanes? Right now I can’t think of any bus route that goes through downtown without making any stops, and I can’t see why you’d want one.
Will Ballard traffic start taking Leary > N 39th St > Aurora Ave. > Tunnel? That’s how I’d go to get to the Airport and points South.
But even more importantly: when this tunnel finally opens (say, 2020?) it will — at a cost of $4B — reduced the capacity through downtown from 6 lanes to 4. It will also surely be the only 21st century urban highway built without HOV lanes or the room to add them. Since the Viaduct won’t close until the tunnel opens, traffic won’t have time to adapt to a new pattern. Will it fill up immediately with new trips?
I’m planning on taking the bus almost every day for at least a month, which is a first for me (cue claims of transit hypocrisy). This means I can actually buy a bus pass for once, which is something I’ve been coveting for a while. So today I searched to find out how much I’ll save with a bus pass. February will have new rates, so that’s $2 a way. Commuting every day, 5 days a week, with a trip a week replaced by another form of transportation (wife picking me up on her way elsewhere, or riding my bike if these sunny days keep going), that’ll be worth $64 to me. Looking into the bus pass to find out my savings it looks like it costs… $72?!
Sound Transit Latest News
Recent Comments