By Frank on July 6, 2009
PSRC has released the Transportation 2040 draft environmental impact statement, which will be used to guide regional planning for the next several decades. There are several alternative scenarios considered (in addition to the “baseline scenario” – i.e. nothing):
- Emphasize efficiency
- Expand highway and transit capacity – add more HOV and HOT lanes as well
- Expand highway and transit capacity – using tolls only to pay for discrete projects (Level 2 tolling, in my previous ordering)
- Toll all freeways and spend some of the money on highways and some on transit (Parts of levels 3, 4 and 6)
- Toll all freeways and all city arterials (presumably through some sort of GPS system) and use the money for lots of transit expansion (Levels 5/6 — the most aggressive use of tolls)
Note that these are all just guidelines, and all the specific investments mooted are just a way of creating the scenario for accounting purposes. There’s nothing to suggest that we can’t mix and match.
Alternative 5 provides far and away the most transportation funding. Check out the description of the proposed expansion projects:
Alternative 5 Roadways
Alternative 5 would include limited investment in roadways.
Improvements would primarily include completion of HOV
lanes on I-5 and SR 16 and regionwide chokepoint and
bottleneck improvements.
Alternative 5 Transit
Alternative 5 promotes an interconnected transit system that
reaches beyond ST2 by building out the Sound Transit Long-
Range Plan. It would extend express bus and rail (both light
and commuter) service and increase core, connector, and
specialized bus services throughout the region. Light rail or
other high-capacity transit would connect Everett and Tacoma,
extend to downtown Redmond, and serve Ballard and West
Seattle. In addition, commuter rail would connect Renton and
Snohomish via the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe (BNSF) rail
corridor. Alternative 5 would invest in new passenger-only
ferry service to serve demand rather than expanding the auto
ferry system, and transit service to ferry terminals would be
improved. Investments in the transit system would stimulate
mixed-use development near transit centers and rail stations.
Cities would have funds for complete street projects to
support safe, walkable, communities.
Note that only Alternative 5 includes Ballard/West Seattle HCT. Again, that’s not to say that the only way to get light rail to Ballard is to toll 15th Ave NW and Leary Way, but that’s one way of getting the necessary revenue.
There’s a comment form open for the next week or so, so be sure to let your voice be heard.
(via PPB)
Posted in Uncategorized
By Frank on July 6, 2009
I’m a bit late on this, but it’s great that the Canadians have relented and allowed a second Cascades run between Seattle and Vancouver. They’re calling it a “pilot” project through the 2010 Olympics, but I’m guessing it will stick around after that. I expect ridership will be quite high, and soon they’ll have created a vocal constituency for the 2nd train.
Martin at STB says it will leave Seattle in the evenings and come back in the morning. That’s much more reasonable. The prospect of catching a 7am train out of Seattle was never all that appealing to me. But being able to leave on a Friday night and come back either Sunday morning or evening? Brilliant.
Posted in tacoma
By serial catowner on July 5, 2009
As reported in the Chicago Tibune, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association suggests a 220-mph HSR link could be built between Chicago and St Louis for a little over $11 billion. Unfortunately this price does not include trainsets or maintenance facilities.
On a more positive note, if the ROW could be built, it might be possible to initiate 150-mph service using trainset technology that is decades old and proven by millions of miles of service. It might even be possible to buy used TGV trainsets as France upgrades to faster AGV service. Admittedly, deciding whether new equipment, or used French equipment would be harder for Americans to keep running would be a tough call.
Putting this on the table is a smart move by the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. The California HSR did not just happen- it was studied, and brought forward in a number of legislative initiatives which aired the project thoroughly in hundreds of hours of legislative hearings. Almost all of the initial environmental study work, which can take years, is done. The CAHSR is based in an appropriate time period for forecasting demographics, several decades into the future, just as the BART was planned to serve the Bay Area for at least a century.
We’ve all watched while Wiley Coyote runs off the cliff, but doesn’t fall- until he looks down. That’s our up-to-date 21st century transportation system- cars and planes just waiting for the price of fuel to triple if you can get it… When gas-guzzling commuter planes are not-rusting in some Nevada desert parking lot, the cities with HSR are going to look pretty good.
Posted in Uncategorized
By Frank on July 1, 2009
Like Eric @ PPB, I was underwhelmed by the NYT Magazine’s infrastructure issue, but that’s probably because I’m far, far deeper into the weeds on the subject than the average NYT reader. But I did think the article on California’s HSR project was a good primer, worth your time. I found this passage on the risks involved particularly interesting:
There arent really any recent examples of high-speed rail as a technical failure. Yet it is entirely plausible that the financial and political difficulties in California could keep other regions from trying to replicate its rail project. Disappointing ridership numbers, without question, could do the same.
California lacks many of the “feeder lines” that support high speed rail. Sure, there’s rapid transit in San Francisco and LA, but it’s nothing like what’s in DC, Boston, or New York. You get off the plane at midnight at LAX and at least you can rent a car. Get off the train in downtown LA and… crickets.
It stands to reason that, with LA getting religion on transit, the collapse of the housing bubble, and the price of gas sure to rise, that by the time the HSR line opens there will be more transit connections available. Certainly that’s the hope. But California will also have to create a train-centric culture that it doesn’t currently have. It would be a shame if we wrote off the whole country just because HSR didn’t work in one of the most car-centric states in the union.
Posted in Uncategorized
Sound Transit Latest News
Recent Comments