By Frank on November 19, 2007
A Sounder rider wants to know why Sound Transit wasn’t checking tickets more agressively on a train to the Seahawks game. ST responds that this was an atypical situation, but the question serves to illustrate the different attitudes people have towards transit here in the Northwest.
Growing up in New York, I’d occasionally notice that the afternoon commute on the Long Island RR was just so packed that the conductors would give up on checking tickets. Most of the riders had monthly passes, so it didn’t really make a difference. But for a kid like me, who was sneaking into the city to go hang out in the East Village and pretend to be cool, I could sometimes get away with a free ride. Of course, they charged an extra $2 to buy the ticket from the conductor, so it wasn’t really worth the risk. Better to just buy the ticket and maybe re-use it if they didn’t punch it.
Across the pond, Matt noted that most European transit systems are similarly lackadaisical when it comes to collecting tickets. Transit is just part of the social compact there, and so many people ride it that the operating costs all come out in the wash anyway.
The costs of collecting and processing tickets are nontrivial. Skagit transit spends more collecting fares than it makes from the fares themselves. And the honor system seems to work in Houston, TX when it comes to fare collection.
Perhaps, as we build more and better transit systems in the region, and as more no-good transplants like myself move in, our collective attitude towards transit will move from “costly government pork project that I refuse to ‘subsidize’ ” to “indispensible element of urban public life.” I certainly hope so.
Posted in passenger rail, seattle transit, sr509
By Frank on October 31, 2007
It depends on what the definition of the word “is” is.
Mike at CIS relates the story of an impassioned Councilman Reagan Dunn arguing that the bridge is, in fact, fully funded:
King County Councilman Reagan Dunn–who was deeply involved with the RTID portion of Prop 1–took particular umbrage to the accusation that 520 is not fully funded. He insists all the funding sources have been secured, except for the Prop 1 portion and tolls, and it was the only time he got emotional in that hour-long forum.
Comes now the Seattle Times which says yes, as long as you assume that (a) Prop. 1 passes, (b) tolling starts on both I-90 and SR-520, and (c) some federal grants come though.
So yes, there’s a plan to fully fund the bridge. Dunn was right. But it’s still just that, a plan. Without a design and with some of the funding sources still uncertain, the question of whether it is or is not “fully funded” is a matter of interpretation.
Posted in bicycles, passenger rail, real time bus information
By Frank on August 1, 2007
In 2001, State House Speaker Frank Chopp beat back efforts to privatize new Tacoma Narrows Bridge, as Knute Berger recently recounted in Crosscut. Chop claims that the decision will save us $1.2 billion. Privatizing is in vogue, Berger notes, because it provides a dedicated revenue stream (and an effective monopoly) to the companies that manage the roads.
Today we learn that the $3 bridge toll is going farther than expected, allowing us to make all sorts of road investments in the area, including tow trucks to help with rush-hour breakdowns and state troopers to enforce the tolls and other laws.
Some folks, like Rep. Pat Lantz, are dismayed what they see as too broad a use of the public’s money. But it’s important to keep in mind, that if we’d privatized the bridge, all that cash would be going to shareholder profits halfway around the world. Instead it’s being used right here at the source, to help make the commute easier. Which is what it was intended for.
Posted in passenger rail, sr520
By Frank on July 17, 2007
The much-feared delays fail to materialize and drivers sail across the new bridge, toll transponders in hand:
“Everything went GREAT!” commuter Jared Pedroza wrote in an e-mail. “Transponder worked GREAT! The new bridge looked GREAT! EVERYTHING WAS GREAT! I look forward to driving to work now! ITS GREAT!”
Not all responses were quite that enthusiastic, but drivers were definitely happy.
Jane Mouatassim, another Peninsula resident, said her commute was so fast it upset her routine.
“I went through so fast,” she said, “I was almost an hour early for work at Fort Lewis.”
Of course, in a few years, people will start to make use of the new capacity and the bridge will get congested again, but for now, enjoy the easy commute!
Posted in passenger rail, sr520
By Frank on June 25, 2007
HOT lanes (a.k.a. “Lexus Lanes”) have two main purposes, as far as I can tell: (1) to make better use of HOV lanes by adding as many single-occumancy cars as you can while still keeping those lanes moving at 50mph, and (2) to free up general purpose lanes. I suppose you could add a third purpose, to generate additional revenue. But overall revenue is small, and typically covers only the cost of administering the program.
As this Wall Street Journal article notes, the lanes are successful at the first goal. But they will only benefit the general public to the extent that they achieve the second. And on that point, the record is less clear. Does any extra capacity just get eaten up by people who would have otherwise chosen not to commute? Do wealthy drivers just take more trips now that they have a guaranteed congestion-free option? These questions remain unanswered.
To truly manage congestion in this way, you’d probably have to toll all the lanes, which is the system that King County is supposedly looking into.
Posted in intercity rail, international rail, legislation, passenger rail
By Frank on June 20, 2007
The Richard Morrill piece in Crosscut has been sufficiently fisked today by STB, so I won’t duplicate efforts (1% of trips? Really? Have we not yet comprehended that it’s only peak rush hour trips, not the 3.a.m. dash for Dick’s Burgers, that cause traffic and therefore need to be mitigated with transit?)
I do want to respond to Dr. Morrill’s comment “the cost of driving must and will rise.” Well, that’s true and not true. In the long term, the costs from congestion will certainly rise. But in the medium term, the cost of driving a car is likely to decrease. Think about it: the average fuel economy in the US is about 21mpg, but the Prius gets north of 50mpg.
We’re not all going to drive Priuses, but the cost per mile traveled will definitely go down, certainly for heavy commuters who choose such cars. Finally, the cost of carbon emissions will certainly decrease as plug-in vehicles become available that can be charged by nighttime excess hydro power.
In other words, it’s hard to say. We don’t know what the future will bring. But we’re pretty sure that we’re going to add another 1 million residents in the next 30 years, so we should probably invest in a diversified transit portfolio: roads, trains, buses, seaplanes, jetpacks, PRTs, etc. as well as Morill’s preferred solution, demand management (i.e. tolls and congestion pricing).
Posted in conservative theory, passenger rail, Port
By Frank on June 11, 2007
There’s a 6-part feature in Crosscut today on tolling, based on a leaked report from Ron Sims’ office. Lots to digest here, but it builds on previous talk of electronic tolling in the area.
As we’ve argued before, tolling should have wide bipartisan support: it’s a market-based system at its core. Unfortunately, because it comes from Sims’ office, it will no doubt be dismissed as some sort of weird commie plot to hijack our highways.
Here’s the kicker:
Indeed, data from the Puget Sound Regional Council, as well as from just about every other major urban region in the country, show that traffic congestion increases relentlessly each year. Arizona planners are proposing a 24-lane freeway near Phoenix — yet, according to officials there, it won’t reduce congestion. As the Sims tolling report says, simply building more roads is no longer a solution by itself.
24 lanes!! We keep building more roads, and yet congestion gets worse. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Posted in legislation, passenger rail, RTID
By Frank on June 7, 2007
The US. Department of Transportation has selected a Lake Washington corridor project as semi-finalists for a federal Urban Partnerships grant.
The grant is to help cities mitigate construction through four “T”s: tolling, transit, telecommuting, and technology. But the emphasis of the plan is congestion pricing. Here’s a bit more from the WA State Transportation Commission’s March meeting minutes (PDF):
Favorable consideration is given if the request is for the ability to toll existing interstate facilities. The partnership is a two-way street with the federal government providing funding assistance and the metropolitan area entering into the partnership must commit to pursuing an aggressive congestion management strategy that includes four elements; tolling, technology, transit and telecommuting. The program asks that that within two to three years the metropolitan area demonstrate a congestion pricing or tolling element on an existing facility that results in measurable congestion reduction. A collective proposal is being put together that will meet the qualifying guidelines
The grant would be available within the next two years. Sounds to me like they’re considering congestion pricing on both 520 and I-90, possibly even before the 520 bridge is replaced.
Update: my instincts were right. The Times says $2 tolls could be implemented on the existing bridge within three years.
Posted in legislation, passenger rail, real time bus information, sr520
Sound Transit Latest News
Recent Comments