Proposed Burke-Gilman Improved Connections

The University of Washington has released a proposal for a major upgrade to the section of the Burke-Gilman trail that runs through its campus, for which it is seeking federal funding through the TIGER program. Of all the parts of the current Burke-Gilman trail, this is possibly the most important, as it provides access to the UW — a massive source of demand — as well as the primary connection between downtown Seattle and northeast Seattle, and the suburbs to the northeast. It’s tremendously busy, and it shows its age in some ways, being basically the same trail today was it was when the Burke first opened in 1978, despite decades of growth in population and ridership.

By way of explanation, the university has released a one-pager and a slick conceptual design booklet that’s full of statistics, maps and beautiful renderings, along with quite a bit of jargon and flowery prose (“eddies of open space” being perhaps my favorite marriage of the two). The first third of the booklet is background; the meat of the design begins at PDF page 36. Tom over at Seattle Bike Blog has gone into detail on how the trail will look and work, with lots of visuals taken from that section, and I recommend reading his post. Briefly, there are three major components to the new design:

• The trail will be rebuilt with separate bike and pedestrian sections, separated by a ramped curb. At every place where the trail intersects a trail or overlook, a “mixing zone” will be created; this is an area where the demarcating curb will disappear, and pavement and striping pattern will signal to all users to expect crossing traffic. These two features should make the trail much less stressful for all users.
• Bike and pedestrian connections to the Burke will be rebuilt, reorganized, and made wheelchair-accessible where possible. Current connections to the Burke are mostly ad hoc, unmarked, of wildly varying quality, and, in many places, spaced very close together.  The new design consolidates them down to a much smaller number, evenly-spaced and clearly-marked. These changes will improve matters both for cyclists passing by campus and accessing campus.
• At one of the road crossings — Brooklyn Ave — the crossing will be “tabled”; i.e. the road will be raised up to the level of the trail, which should calm traffic and improve safety.

Overall, the finished product looks to me like it would be a dramatic improvement over the status quo. Paving and wheelchair-accessibility work is always expensive, and these improvements don’t come cheap — the total price tag is $12 million — but it seems worth it. My only complaint is that this plan does not address the scary and substandard connection between the University Bridge and the Burke, although I suspect it is primarily an issue of jurisdiction and scope, and the city will be the agency responsible for improving that connection.

TIGER projects consider community support as part of their funding criteria. If you support this project, you should click here and fill out the form to endorse it. Unless some major objection to the design appears, STB will likely editorialize in favor of this project, so if you’re a regular rider of this segment, we’re interested in your opinions.

The I-5 bridge over the Skagit River in Mt Vernon has collapsed.  Information is sketchy at this point, though multiple outlets are confirming vehicles in the water.

UPDATE 7:10 AM: Seattle Times has more details. Briefly: No deaths; the proximate cause at this point appears to be a strike from an oversize load; and the bridge will be closed for “weeks”. The bridge had an FHWA “sufficiency rating” of 57 out of 100; to put that in context, the Alaskan Way Viaduct has an SR of 9, and the old South Park Bridge had an SR of 6 when it was finally closed by the County. This Times article has a good discussion of FHWA bridge ratings in the area. — Bruce

East Link map, via Sound Transit

In yesterday’s open thread, commenter and long-time reader Mike Orr pointed out two surveys that Sound Transit is using to solicit input on East Link final design for the downtown Bellevue segment.  One survey is a fairly straightforward multiple-choice form for station naming options, while the other wants slightly more comprehensive input on station access, specifically for pedestrians,  bicycles, and transit.  Responses and comments are due by the end of tomorrow so be sure not to dilly dally.

The station-naming form gives a few predetermined choices for the three “downtown” segment stations: East Main, Bellevue TC, and Hospital Station.  Respondents also have the option of submitting names of their own, although I’d guess that option is probably abused more often than Sound Transit would like.  While I don’t exactly get riled up about station names, I tend to lean toward those that incorporate cross-streets, which help give some reference to the grid.

When it comes to pedestrian and bike access, I’m not sure there’s much more that can be done aside from what’s already being considered in the Bellevue’s Downtown Transportation Plan update.  Obviously, bike facilities are severely lacking downtown so there’s a lot of progress to be made on that front.  The most feasible improvements for pedestrian access, on the other hand, are likely going to be mid-block crossings, through-block connections, more pedestrian-friendly signals, and other stuff that will help break up the grid a bit.

Transit-wise, however, the great shame with the NE 6th station is that it negates all the benefits of great bus-rail transfers that the old C11A surface design made possible.  Also terrible is the fact that on-street bus stops along NE 6th Street are pretty much infeasible, thanks to the steep grade and the fact that station entrances will be on opposing sides of the block anyway.  Although I’ve been rather partial to the idea of decentralizing Bellevue TC bus service in the past, the new station design makes planning bus-rail interface a few degrees more challenging.

By MIKE ORR

Shoreline started its Link station area planning with a public meeting on May 22nd at Shoreline City Hall. It was mostly an informational meeting, introducing the planners and the study areas. There was a wide variety of speakers, ranging from city staff to Sound Transit, the Puget Sound Regional Council, King County, a TOD consultant hired by the city, the activist group Futurewise, a seniors’ outreach group, and citizens’ groups. Roger Iwata from Sound Transit explained the rail line’s status along with Alicia McIntire, a Shoreline transportation planner. Shoreline land-use planners Miranda Redinger and Steve Szafran explained the station study areas and the process to reevaluate their zoning.

The primary question on many STBers minds is, “Where will the stations be?” There is still no definitive answer but the timeline and direction are clearer. ST will release a draft EIS this summer describing the tradeoffs between the alternatives, and will hold open houses in late July to solicit public comments on the draft. In the fall the ST board will make a decision on the stations and choose a Preferred Alternative. The final EIS will come out next year, and a federal “Record of Decision” filed in 2015.

The potential stations under consideration in Seattle and Shoreline are still 130th, 145th, 155th, and 185th. ST revealed that the following combinations are under consideration: (A) 145th + 185th, (B) 130th + 145th + 185th, or (C) 130th + 155th + 185th. 145th and 155th stations would definitely be elevated, while 130th and 185th may be either elevated or at-grade. “At-grade” here does not mean it would be subject to intersections and stoplights, but that it would be at the same level as I-5 and in the freeway’s right of way. All King County stations will be on the east side of I-5. That’s because there’s insufficent room in the median for a track or stanchions, and it would be very expensive to cross the freeway to the west side. Parking scenarios are 500 or 650 spaces at 145th, 500 spaces at 155th, and a garage plus 350-500 surface spaces at 185th. All of these would be in the freeway right of way as much as possible. There was no mention of parking at 130th. I don’t know if that means there wouldn’t be any or it’s outside Shoreline so it’s not their concern.

In Snohomish County the potential stations are Mountlake Terrace TC, 220th SW, and Lynnwood TC. The station sites and freeway alignment are more in flux here. One scenario has the Mountlake Terrace station at the transit center on the east side of the freeway, and remaining on the east side. Another scenario has the Mountlake Terrace station in the freeway median where the flyer station currently is, and crossing over to the west side for the 220th station. Some scenarios include the 220th station while others don’t. Three sites are under consideration for the Lynnwood station, but they’re all within a block or two of each other. The original choice is next to the freeway, while the alternatives are further north and west.

Shoreline’s timeline is to study two station areas now, at 185th and 145th. It’s starting with 185th first while it waits for ST to decide whether the southern station will be 145th or 155th. The study is currently soliciting comments on the study area boundaries. By September the city wants to identify potential land use changes (meaning upzones) around the stations. In December it will write a preferred alternative for land use, and adopt a final plan in June 2014. The study will also look at pedestrian and bicyle routes to the stations, at “complete streets” and traffic calming, at potential new job (employment) sites in the station areas, and other urbanist goodies to enable households to have fewer cars. The maps show they’re asking the right questions: 10-minute walk circles, 10-minute walk-on-streets diamonds, potential streets for cycle tracks, existing multifamily housing, and topographical barriers. The city is also in discussions with Metro about reorganizing the bus routes to be feeders to the train, which is a high priority for Shoreline.

One citizens’ group has already formed around its local station, the “185th Street Citizens Committee”. Another person announced the “Potential Citizens Committee for 145th and 155th Station”. That committee doesn’t exist yet but he’s trying to get it started.

Overall I’m glad that the 130th station and a three-station scenario is getting such serious consideration, and that Shoreline is asking the right questions about modifying its land use, and citizens’ groups are rallying around their local station rather than trying to push the line away. My main disappointment is that the ten-minute walk circles just barely reach Meridian Avenue (Aurora is another 10-12 minutes further), and the existing multifamily housing within the walk circles is infinitesimally small.

Finally, a humourous request. In honor of New York’s Central Park West, can we call the 130th and 145th stations “Jackson Park South” and “Jackson Park North”?

Photo by KurtClark

• What’s wrong with TOD at Othello Station?
• The continuing saga of the Waterfront Streetcar.
• Kemper Freeman expanding ($) his downtown Bellevue empire.
• Inslee approves the transportation budget ($) for the 2013-2015 biennium. Meanwhile, HB 1954 supporters rally.
• Link station planning meetings tonight in Shoreline.
• Kitsap Transit wants input on a new six-year plan.
• Some bus ad controversy flares up again.
• Metro ticketbooks finally being phased out.
• Cancellation of Metro-North service after last week’s collision leads to traffic snarls.
• Better bike and ped access for Northgate Station.
• A great primer on wayfinding from CHK America.

This is an open thread.

Image from Sound Transit

The Northgate Station: Design and Access open house will be held at Olympic View Elementary School, 504 NE 95th Street from 6pm to 8pm May the 23rd.  The presentation will begin at 6:30pm.

Sound Transit staff will discuss:

• Refinements to station and plaza design.
• Preliminary results of Northgate Station Access Study (pedestrian and bike improvements).
• King County Metro’s transit center plans.

For more information, visit the Northgate Station page or contact the Northgate Link Extension project team at 206-398-5300 or northlink@soundtransit.org.

Thanks to Publicalendar for the heads up.

Last Tuesday’s hearing at Union Station, photo courtesy Washington Bus.

Anyone who attended last Tuesday’s public hearing witnessed hundreds rallying to save Metro from imminent, draconian cuts.  It reminded me of a similar hearing two years ago, when a few swing votes on the King County Council were persuaded to approve the $20 Congestion Relief Charge, staving off the cuts that we again have to face.  But despite a much more difficult path this time around, many of the efforts to save Metro again amount to mere theater, acts that could easily be falling on deaf ears.

Unlike the successful 2011 effort, King County’s Transportation, Economy, and Environment Committee and County Council are nothing more than the middlemen this time around.  Neither body will be able to do squat.  Like many other local jurisdictions in the Puget Sound area, they’ve openly lobbied for local transit funding options to no avail during the regular State legislative session.

But regardless of what’s happening in Olympia, a show of enormous local support from multiple sides might provide some semblance of comfort to the thousands who rely on Metro.  It has certainly been sold that way– large pro-transit signs were prevalent at the hearing, as if county lawmakers were the ones who had the power to save Metro.

The crushing reality is that thousands have been led to believe exactly that: just like last time, a powerful public turnout might be able to directly sway the decision-makers.  Many came out in earnest last Tuesday, a number of whom represent the transit-dependent and disadvantaged.  But few actually know that all that King County can do is appeal to the State, and that the decision rests in much larger hands.  In all likelihood, many of the state legislators who will end up casting the votes are probably ignoring it all, pledging an ear only to their own constituents.

I think the travesty of this crisis isn’t that our funding is so volatile or even that thousands might lose transit service. It’s that through the worst kind of politics, this State has effectively abdicated its responsibility to our largest and most important city and county.  Is it really a surprise to anyone that the Legislature waited until the special session to seriously consider transportation legislation, while at the same time ignoring the most rational bills during the regular session?

Equally shameful has been the forced choice for transit advocates between two enormous evils: gutting one of the nation’s busiest transit systems, or expanding our highways relentlessly.  It’s a classic Morton’s fork. To lump together the needs of transit users and those that would benefit generously from a massive road expansion is an utter disgrace and emblematic of the gravest pitfalls of our political system.  And worst of all, it seems to be our last resort.

I think Martin put it correctly when he predicted that transit advocates will inevitably be split on this issue.  But if we’re cognizant of the implications of whatever side we take, our division may actually become our greatest strength.  Should the transportation package fail and Metro service be gutted, it gives pro-transit social service and anti-sprawl advocates one unifying cause moving forward: to give transit the spotlight it deserves in Olympia.

Image via SDOT

To highlight their Rainier Corridor work SDOT is conducting a Ride Route 7 promotion.  They’ve put together a website, a facebook page, sent postcards to residents, and will be hosting outreach events in the Rainier Valley this summer:

Columbia City Farmers Market (3698 S Edmunds St)

Wednesday, May 22, 3 – 7pm
Wednesday, June 5, 3 – 7pm

Saar’s Marketplace (9000 Rainier Ave S.)

Saturday, June 15, 11 – 3pm
Saturday, June 22, 11 – 3pm

SDOT staff will be there with information and to answer questions.  Those who come to one of the events and pledge to Ride Route 7 receive a $25 ORCA Card.  The Columbia City Farmer’s Market is a great excuse to check out the Rainier Valley in its own right.  If you have the money (it is not cheap, but worth it) check out the award winning La Medusa around the corner.  Every Weds during Farmers Market Season they will have a special menu featuring the freshest produce of the day.

Just be sure to ride the 7 back to Downtown and check out the improvements along the way.

See past Link excuses here.

wikimedia

It just got four times easier to buy a new adult ORCA Card:

More than 120 retail stores, including local QFC, Safeway and Saar’s locations, just joined the 40 transit agency venues that sell ORCA cards…

There are currently 126 retail locations throughout King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties that participate in the ORCA program. Most QFC and Safeway stores in the region participate, as well as Saar’s Market Place, the downtown Seattle Bartell’s, Kingston IGA, Vashon Thriftway and Roger’s MarketPlace in Mountlake Terrace.

Until now, riders could only load new fare value on an existing card at these locations. Now, they can also buy “adult” ORCA cards. Transit riders who pay reduced “senior/disabled” or “youth” fares must still go to customer service centers to get their ORCA cards since proof of eligibility is required.

Currently, all participating retail outlets are selling cards except the downtown Seattle Bartell’s at Third and Union, which is in the process of finalizing a purchase agreement. A complete list of stores that revalue cards or sell cards is available at orcacard.com.

The excuse that ORCA is hard to get is getting thinner. It’s time for Metro to remove incentives to pay cash (e.g. unequal transfer policies) and start creating incentives to use the sales infrastructure they’ve helped to create.

Transit Patterns: San Francisco from Schema Design on Vimeo.

Zurich and Geneva here.

Bruce Gray at Sound Transit was kind enough to send us the newest station level data report for Link.  These reports are a treasure trove of information, too much in fact for one post.  Some things I found interesting:

• During the week the Rainier Valley (Beacon Hill Station to Rainier Beach Station) accounts for 28% of all boardings and alightings.  During the weekend it is only 22%.  This suggests a strong commuter focus and room for continued growth.
• Growth rates at Rainier Valley stations are higher than system average, except for Rainier Beach Station which is half of system average.
• International District/Chinatown Station has the least weekday to weekend fluctuation, Stadium Station the most.
• SeaTac Airport Station, Tukwila International Blvd Station, and Westlake dominate weekend ridership (52% of all boardings and alightings).

Combined with earlier reports we now have data from February 6th 2010 to February 15th 2013:

• Feb 6th, 2010 to Jun 11th, 2010
• Jun 12th, 2010 to Oct 1st, 2010
• Oct 2nd, 2010 to Feb 4th, 2011
• Feb 5th, 2011 to Jun 10th, 2011
• Jun 11th, 2011 to Sep 30th, 2011
• Oct 1st, 2011 to Feb 17th, 2012
• Feb 18th, 2012 to June 8th, 2012
• Jun 9th, 2012 to Sep 28th, 2012
• Sep 29th, 2012 to Feb 15th, 2013

Also, see Station Level Data posts from 2010 and last year, and other related charts and a data posts from Bruce and Andrew.  I’ve also uploaded my spreadsheet (where I have a half dozen charts) if anyone wants to play around with the data.

Enjoy!

An example of guidebook routing

Lots of interesting things have been announced at Google I/O this week, including a major update to Google Maps, a Google product that’s familiar to almost everyone, and used by many on a daily basis. Most of the news coverage has revolved around visual, social or privacy aspects of the Maps experience, but I want to talk about a major upgrade to the transit functionality of Maps.*

With the new version of Google Maps, when you ask for directions between two points, rather than getting an itinerary that minimizes travel time for a handful of particular departure or arrival times (as you do today), you’ll be offered an itinerary that gets you between those points, as frequently as possible, for as much of the day as possible.

To put it in transit nerd terms, Maps will evaluate all the possible ways to get between two points to figure out the effective all-day frequency and span of service (accounting for connections between services of different frequency), and show you itineraries which prioritize those qualities over a naive minimization of scheduled travel time. It will still be possible to look at departures or arrivals at specific times, but the general guidebook itineraries will be the first thing users see.

The screenshot at the top, taken from the public preview, shows an example of this. To travel on transit from the PacMed building to downtown Fremont, take bus 36 and then transfer to 26, 28 or 40 in Pioneer Square. This itinerary works at least every 15 minutes from 6AM to 11PM, every day; within those time periods, it’s a general solution to the problem of getting between those two points. An alternative route, using the 5, 16 or 26X to get off at 38th & Bridge Way and walk down the hill is also available.

In both cases, note that even though a single route determines the baseline daytime frequency for the connection, Maps notices that other routes also serve an identical pair of stops origin destination stops, so if one of them comes first, you should take it.

After the jump, another example.

There are three ways you could get between these two places: walk to Eastlake and take the 70-series buses, or the 66, or wait for the 25, which makes this trip almost door to door. The 70-series runs every 15 minutes all day and night, the 66 is every 30 minutes, and the 25 is every 60 minutes. Nobody capable of walking is going to bother waiting up to an hour for the 25, and the results reflect that, directing you towards the most frequent service, rather than the nominally fastest service, which would be the 25 at 19 minutes. If you really do want to see the door-to-door trips, you can click the “More options and times” links and find them.

This new transit routing system more closely reflects the way the vast majority of people actually use transit, prioritizing frequency and span of service on generally-useful routes over infrequent one-seat rides that just happen to provide doorstep service. Its works best, of course, in transit systems full of truly high-frequency, reliable all-day routes, but to the extent that we have such service here, the same ideas apply. Frequency is freedom, and the most commonly-used private sector mapping tool increasingly reflects that. There are still some kinks to iron out of the new routing engine**, but this is a huge stop forward to more comprehensible transit.

The new Maps is being rolled out gradually; sign up here to get on the waiting list. I think you’ll love the new maps.

* Disclaimer: I work at Google, but in a completely unrelated area, and all this information is based on the public preview of the new Maps, not inside knowledge. Please don’t ask me questions about unreleased Google products or features, I can’t answer them.

** For example, the 7 is prioritized over Link for Rainier Valley trips because Link’s all-day frequency is considered to be 20 minutes, due to the post-9pm single-tracking that’s currently happening for repair work. The 7 runs every 15 minutes until much later, and is thus considered a superior service by the routing engine, even though during most of the day it’s is actually an inferior service for most trips.

In the years since OneBusAway took over the realtime arrival market, Busview, the old UW website that provides recent bus locations rather than expected arrival times, has been quietly doing its job, largely forgotten.

That may change thanks to Andrew Filer,* a local programmer who (among other things) runs a site that indexes trademarks . Filer has updated the Busview concept with a new website named busdrone. “The biggest problem [with busview] is that it’s a Java applet, and I think a large percentage of people just don’t have the ability to run applets anymore,” Filer explained. “Mapping has also just gotten a lot nicer and more flexible since Busview’s mapping code was written, and so I think Google Maps sets the bar fairly high for anything that uses custom maps.”

After what Filer estimated to be about 30 hours of work, busdrone launched last Sunday. “Eric [Butler] just suggested it one day, and it’s actually kind of a fun problem to begin with, because it was like, ‘how do I figure out this busview software,’ which was written in the late 90s, I think. I  basically ended up decompiling Java and figuring fdall that stuff out and it was a good challenge, but then it was like, ‘ah, it’s kind of useful,’ so I’m still working on it!”

The color code is not yet clearly explained on the site. Most buses are blue; when there hasn’t been a position report for 10 minutes, it turns gray. The SLU streetcar is Black, Red, and Purple, corresponding to the actual colors of those streetcars. Link, of course, has no public real-time data.

At the moment, it’s hard to tell at a glance which direction the bus icon is moving. Filer has the heading information and should have the indicator running within a week or so. Another problem is that the icons don’t show up on some mobile browsers, including my Android phone. In the next “week or two,” Filer expects to tweak the site to work on more browsers. A beta version currently incorporates the OneBusAway feed, which includes Pierce and Intercity Transit, and that should also be stable in the next week or so.

Currently, when you click on an icon it shows all possible paths that bus route could take. Filer can use the OneBusAway data to instead display the path relevant to that trip. He is also toying with the idea of connecting it to webcam feeds so that you can physically see the bus on its way.

Filer says that Butler (an STB alum)  is interested in making a mobile app, though he’s not sure when that might be ready.

Busdrone is to onebusaway as a system map is to Trip Planner. One gives you a single answer, digested to what you exactly need to know. Map-based displays let you see all the options at one time. The two approaches complement each other, so it’s good that busview is getting a modern update.

*Andrew also helped out a bit with the STB back end a few years ago.

AvgeekJoe/Flickr

• Update on the Capitol Hill Station upzone.
• Lofts in West Seattle go through design review. Aside from the usual parking fear the comments seem constructive.
• WSB had a 48-minute interview with Metro GM Kevin Desmond.
• Seattle Weekly reviews bus apps.
• Brier Dudley reviews Car2Go ($).
• More evidence that supply and demand works.
• Doug Macdonald explains how the House transportation revenue package is a huge sprawl enabler. He wails on the package some more here.
• On a completely unrelated note, worldwide CO2 levels at 400ppm, highest in 4 million years ($).
• McGinn proposes to spend $3.25m project savings on various safety improvements.
• TriMet now running a weekend-0nly bus route to Washington park.
• C-Tran officials met with the CRC team to figure out a plan for light rail. Also: the cost has dropped to $2.8 billion through “deferred” interchanges, which is indisputably good news.
• USPIRG study says the driving boom is over, younger generation will not drive as much.
• Amtrak unveils new locomotives.

This is an open thread.

Image by Aren Roberson

This week Franklin High School, across the street from Mount Baker Station, is holding its annual Arts Festival and Talent Show.

Festivities begin with an art opening at 5:30 pm, Thursday, May 16, at Mioposto, 3601 S. McClellan St, a one half mile walk from station.  Walk north on Rainier until McClellan, then east.  Mioposto is located in my all time favorite building in Seattle.  A beautiful art deco building that serves as the anchor of that part of the neighborhood (but unfortunately could not be built today).  The main attraction is the talent show Friday, May 17, starting at 7 p.m. in the school’s auditorium, 3013 S. Mount Baker Blvd. The arts festival will be from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. Saturday, May 18, on the plaza in front of FHS.

The events, which are open to the public, bring together students, their families, teachers and staff and Mount Baker neighbors. The festival raises money to benefit Franklin’s art, drama and music programs and student clubs, while the talent show raises money for the senior class of 2015. Tickets to the talent show are $3 for FHS students and $5 for others. The art opening and the arts festival are free.

The festival will feature student performances, including the steel drum band, fashion club, jazz band, Quaker band and lion dancers, along with displays of visual art, ceramics and wood arts. Student clubs will sell heirloom tomato and vegetable plants, treats and handmade crafts. Also for sale are woodcrafts, such as cutting boards, created by students and notecards featuring student art. Vietnamese sandwiches, chips and soft drinks also will be for sale.

For more information, see the full press release, check out the event’s Facebook page, or email elizabethlowry@comcast.net.   While my 10 week old son is the ultimate ‘decider’ when it comes to my schedule, we hope to check out the art opening Thursday.

See past Link excuses here.

As the video indicates, a broad coalition of interest groups, many of which broadly share STB’s ideals, are expressing support for the latest version of the Clibborn package, HB 1954. The conventional wisdom is that these bills will pass the House but run into trouble in the Senate.

For transit advocates, this bill is about saving transit agencies around the State. There are tax provisions tailored to each of the big Puget Sound county agencies. King County (Sec. 405) could levy a 1.5% Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET), of which 60% would go to Metro and 40% for roads; this would answer Metro’s desire for a “stable” revenue source and basically make the agency’s budget whole. Pierce Transit (Sec. 406, 408), which can’t get voters to approve authorized taxes, could create an “enhanced public transportation zone” to serve precincts interested in supporting transit. Community Transit (Sec. 406), currently maxed out, could add another 0.3% to its sales tax rate. Finally, transportation benefit districts could approve a $40 vehicle license fee without a public vote, up from $20 (Sec. 404).

The summary suggests that over a 12-year period, out 0f $7.8 billion in state spending $100m will go to complete streets and $100m to passenger rail, in addition to $120m in direct state funding for transit. Transportation Choices Coalition Executive Director Rob Johnson tells me that has since increased to $400m, and that its formula suggests Metro would get just under half, which by itself would patch about a fifth of the budget hole.

On the other hand, the bulk of the bill is about raising the gas tax (from 37.5 cents now to 50.5 in 2015, Sec. 101). While gas tax is an excellent source of revenue for roads, the package is heavy on new highways rather than maintenance. 10% of the funding goes to cities and counties, 5% to ferry operations, 7.5% to the “Puget Sound capital construction account,” and the remaining 77.5% to the new “Connecting Washington” account (Sec. 103). That account draws from this list of environmentally destructive highway widening and new freeways, but can also be used for maintenance and upkeep. Some of the proceeds are set aside to complete SR 520. There are also new vehicle weight fees (Sec. 301).

In one of the basic asymmetries in Washington between the way the legislature treats its drivers and its transit riders, the bulk of  transit funding is subject to a public vote, while the new highways are deemed too critical to risk at the ballot box. Personally, I’m no fan of direct democracy, but it would be nice if the sustainable transportation options had the same number of veto points as the anti-urban ones.

I imagine transit advocates will have different takes on this issue.  For those that primarily care about making sure the transit-dependent have a way to get around, this deal meets their needs, but only if they’re optimistic that the transit measures would pass. For those whose advocacy is more about stopping the spiral of environmental destruction and avoiding land use patterns that are hard to serve with transit, the overall merits are far less clear.

Aurora Village Transit Center

Of the six RapidRide routes Metro has rolled out, or soon will roll out, only one will have more than one adult fare: RapidRide E, an improved version of today’s Route 358, which connects downtown Seattle and Shoreline via Aurora Avenue. Metro’s fare system has two zones, with Zone 1 the city of Seattle, and Zone 2 the rest of the county; adult riders pay a 50c surcharge on rush-hour trips that cross a fare boundary, while off-peak riders, seniors and youth each pay a flat rate. All E Line trips will cross the boundary at 145th St. I don’t know exactly how long the zone system has been around, but it’s at least 30 years, and like so many things of that era at Metro, seems to have been designed with a focus on the downtown Seattle 9-5 commute trip.

One of the few rapid transit-like features all RapidRide lines will ultimately have is partial off-board payment at the busiest stops: riders with ORCA will be able to tap on at the platform, while cash payers delay the bus, fumbling with change and dollar bills at the farebox just like they’ve always done. Zone fares present a problem in this system, as riders have no way* to declare to the ORCA platform reader how many zones they wish to pay for; of necessity, platform ORCA payers risk under- or over-payment. We at STB, along with many of our readers, have wondered how Metro is going to deal with this, and after more than two months of pleading and nagging, we finally have an official answer:

The E Line will have the same 1 and 2 zone boundaries as the 358. The off-board readers can only handle one fare set so we are setting them to the number of zones that the majority of the riders pay (which is also consistent to the default settings for the farebox and ORCA reader on the bus).

This means in the inbound/southbound direction, the off-board readers from Aurora Village Transit Center to North 160th Street (the last station before the zone boundary) will be set to two zones.

Riders who are only going one zone will have to pay on the bus and ask the driver to override the two-zone setting on the bus. All other off-board readers, inbound and outbound, will be set to one zone. Again, if the rider is going two zones from those locations, they will have to ask the driver to override the default setting.

More after the jump.

This approach is expected to best serve the most customers and allows the operator to focus mostly on safe driving and customer service. We rely on customers to cooperate and pay the appropriate fare and keep the service moving. Riders on the 358 help do this every day [...] and we look forward to serving them with RapidRide in the future. Like with all RapidRide launches, there will be a period of transition and education as we shift to a new system of fare enforcement and proof of payment.

Additionally, Metro’s Strategic Plan, adopted in summer 2011 includes strategies for achieving long range goals and objectives for the transit system including;

Strategy 6.3.2: Establish fare structures and fare levels that are simple to understand, aligned with other service providers, and meet revenue targets established by Metro’s fund management policies. Metro’s fare structure and fare levels should enable Metro to meet cost recovery targets that are established by fund management policies adopted by the King County Council. Fares should be set to reflect the cost of service, promote operational efficiency, ensure regional coordination, minimize impacts of fares on those least able to pay, and reduce the cost of fare collection … Simple and consistent fares are important to make transit easy to use for both new and existing transit riders.

As Metro moves towards goals of financial sustainability, more customer friendly fare structures will be discussed, analyzed and pursued. There will always be some tension or tradeoffs between achieving fare revenue targets, relating the fare level to the length or cost of the trip and the ability of the rider to pay, and simplifying fare structures to make service accessible and understandable to our customers.

This approach seems pretty kludgey,  but I admit I can’t think of a much better one within the context of the current zone system. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this response is the hope of possible future fare simplification: along with many people in the transit world, I regard fare collection as the agency’s primary system-wide operational challenge, and fixing Metro’s fare structure is a precondition for moving towards a system where payments are always fast, simple, efficient, and mostly cashless on core frequent-service routes. It’s good to hear official statements of concurrence from on high.

Coming up, we’re going to have several posts discussing blue-sky ideas for rethinking Metro fares, and there will be plenty of opportunities to discuss such ideas in the comments of those posts. Let’s keep the discussion here on how best to make the current fare structure work with the current technology in time for the E Line launch.

* That’s not completely true. Users with registered cards can use ORCA’s zone-preset feature, which allows them to override the fare reader’s two-zone default and pay only a one-zone fare on two-zone trip, for all trips on all their cards. If you live in Seattle and rarely travel outside in the peak period, this will work very well for you, but still doesn’t solve the general problem.

Photo Ned Ahrens, King County Metro.

A Martin mentioned last week, at 3:30 PM today King County Metro will host an open house on the extensive service cuts that could come if the legislature fails to provide a sustainable local revenue source for the agency; this will be followed by a public testimony to King County’s Transportation, Economy and Environment Committee from 4-8 PM. This may be your best chance in this legislative session to say your piece on how the cuts would affect you.

From the Metro Future Blog:

If sustainable transit funding does not become available through efforts by the Legislature, an estimated $75 million annual revenue shortfall could force Metro to reduce bus service beginning in fall 2014. Metro has identified 65 routes at risk for elimination and 86 routes at risk for service reductions.

The potential cuts would create a transit system with fewer travel options and longer travel times, with buses that are more crowded and less reliable. These effects could cascade through the system as bus routes are eliminated and riders compete for space on other already-crowded routes.

So far, Metro has been able to avoid these cuts through $798 million in reforms, reductions and additional revenue – such as the implementation of the congestion reduction charge, a temporary $20 charge on vehicle licenses for two years. The fee ends in 2014, and without new sources of revenue, Metro must reduce service.

Open house and public hearing Tuesday, May 14
Union Station, 401 S. Jackson St., Seattle

3:30 p.m. open house
4-8 p.m. public testimony
Can’t attend? Submit your testimony online.

Now that Sound Transit has cleared the hurdle of finalizing the entire East Link alignment, the next step is chugging through final design of the project.  There will be an open house for the downtown Bellevue segment this Thursday, May 16th from 5 to 7pm at Bellevue City Hall, and another for South Bellevue on May 30th at the Bellevue Hilton.  The Bel-Red open house was held in early April prior to adoption of the final alignment, since none of the cost savings options applied to the Bel-Red segment.

The final design process allows Sound Transit to advance specific design elements for the alignment– we’ll likely get glimpses of some architectural renderings as well as site plans of the stations.  Station naming will also be finalized, in line with public input and other Board-endorsed guidelines.

After a series of comments that challenged the STB consensus on various Sound Transit-related issues, I asked Sen. Murray to explain his positions in more detail.

In the email exchange reproduced below, Sen. Murray says he doesn’t support governance reform anymore, expresses his support for ST3, and explains why he thinks Seattle would do better without subarea equity:

1) Can you explain what exactly your vision for transit agency consolidation is? What agencies would merge? Are governing board members appointed, elected in districts, or elected at large? By what criteria would it allocate resources? Would it have responsibility for roads or zoning?

Unlike those who believe that transit planning is a zero sum game, where a benefit in one jurisdiction necessarily means a loss to others in the region, I believe that Seattle will benefit from better transit service via a cooperative relationship with our growing, increasingly dense inner-ring suburbs. Every day tens of thousands of people enter Seattle from the suburbs, and vice versa, travelling from homes to jobs and other destinations. Our goal must be to maximize the number of these trips that are made via transit rather than single-occupancy vehicle, while also supporting transit usage in Seattle between neighborhoods.

So, I have long believed that smart regional planning and cooperation, based on forward-looking transit and land use policy principles, is something worth encouraging. Until a few years ago I thought the best way to achieve that cooperation was through creating one consolidated transit agency that was dedicated to maximizing the efficient allocation of our transit dollars to move the most people in the Seattle metropolitan area. The other factor for me that heightened my interest in consolidation was that in the past there was poor coordination between transit agencies, particularly between Sound Transit and Metro, something that consolidation would obviously have been designed to address. Many successful cities around the country have vibrant bus and rail systems that support and complement each other to create near seamless experiences for the riders. Seattle has a robust bus system and a growing rail system that also must be coordinated to the maximum benefit of the user. Fortunately this issue is being addressed and the agencies now work together and coordinate much better than they did even a few years ago.

However, after watching the debates around governance reform evolve – what started as an idea championed by pro-transit progressives morphed into a stalking horse for some anti-transit elements – and after feeling some of the backlash (including from places like STB), I realized a few years ago that my approach was wrong. It is not that I have changed my opinion about the importance of regional cooperation, or my belief that a stronger alliance between Seattle and our inner-ring suburbs is the right way to build up our transit infrastructure most effectively; I have not. But I realized that these divisive and polarizing governance reform debates were not the way to get this done. I realized, rather, that regional cooperation must be an organic, incremental and evolutionary process, as Seattle and suburbs like Bellevue become more like one another in terms of urban culture and land use principles.

My goal today is to make our transportation system work better – all aspects of it – including public transit in Seattle. Agency consolidation may no longer be necessary, but the coordination and integration of our transit agencies remains important. My approach now is to focus our attention on continuing to improve coordination between the agencies – and building collaborative regional ties – to put together the next round of transit investment and to earn the public’s support for ST3.

2) Would you support Sound Transit 3 if it retained the current governance structure?

Yes, absolutely. We need to move forward on expanding light rail. My goal is to see ST3 on the ballot and approved by voters in 2016 with significant light rail investment for Seattle and the region. Other mayoral candidates will say the same thing, but I am the only one with a proven track record of success. I fought the political battles and overcame huge obstacles to build an effective bi-partisan coalition to pass Marriage Equality in the state legislature. I believe we can – indeed, we must – build a similarly broad coalition in support of our next major leap forward on transit. We need a Mayor with this record of success to get ST3 done, not a mayor who has failed to deliver on promises.

3) What about the politics of the Seattle region makes you believe that it would accept a greater of portion of resources going to Seattle projects?

My goal is to create a public transit system that works for the needs of Seattle, our suburban partners and the region as a whole. We are not in a situation where regional players are unwilling to look beyond their immediate, parochial self-interest – with the right leadership we can come up with better solutions that benefit Seattle and the entire region. If the former were the case, suburban elected officials would never have agreed to change the misguided 40/40/20 policy that governed Metro service decisions. But because of the leadership exhibited by King County Executive Constantine, they did agree to change that policy, and our bus transit system is better as a result.

The basic question is not whether the region would accept a greater portion of resources going to Seattle. The question is whether the region is willing to prioritize investment in transit dollars to build projects quicker, where they are most needed and will move the most people with the most benefit to the overall transportation system. A significant problem with the current scheme for financing Sound Transit projects is that the projects are not built with the support or the financial capacity of the full district, but instead are limited to the financial support of the sub-area. This both limits the scope of projects in each sub-area as well as how quickly the projects can be built. By prioritizing projects based on clearly articulated policy principles focused on demand and smart land-use decisions instead of political geography we enable the Sound Transit Board to create a better ST3 package for Seattle and the region. The Board should begin this discussion to design a new policy approach in preparation for ST3.

4) You said earlier this year that Seattle “can’t afford” light rail by itself. If the legislature authorizes ST3 but retains subarea equity, is it your opinion that it is unaffordable for Seattle?

The benefits of light rail for Seattle and the region are clear. Light rail will turn a twenty to thirty minute bus ride between UW and Downtown Seattle into a six-minute trip all day everyday regardless of traffic. We need more of this fast, reliable grade-separated transit service, and we need it now to better connect Seattle neighborhoods. But at the same time Seattle does not exist in a bubble, and to pretend it does – to pretend Seattle can address all of its needs alone – is a fool’s errand. Thousands of Seattleites commute to jobs outside of our city each day to Redmond, Everett and Bellevue. Our transit system must be designed with the needs of Seattle and the region in mind. This is why I support creating an ST3 package for the ballot in 2016 that prioritizes investment of our precious transit dollars to move the most people in the most efficient way connecting Seattle neighborhoods to each other and the region with fast, reliable, grade-separated light rail. Seattle can’t afford to go it alone because to do so would jeopardize the creation of the regional system Seattleites depend on. The Sound Transit Board should have the ability to create an ST3 package that provides the most benefit to transportation in our region, which will inevitably benefit Seattle. We should be building a transit system from the inside out that maximizes ridership and benefits smart land-use decisions. We don’t want to create an inefficient transit system based on a balkanized political geography.

5) Lastly, all the Sound Transit reforms we have discussed are matters for the legislature. In your time in the legislature, you never achieved any of these reforms. What makes you think that a legislature without Ed Murray in it will make any of these changes?

My record on transportation in the legislature speaks for itself. In 2003 I was appointed Chair of the House Transportation Committee at a dark period for the state’s transportation system. Republicans were in control of the state Senate, and Tim Eyman’s Initiative 695 had effectively repealed state funding assistance for public transportation programs and local transit agencies. Over the next three sessions, I worked to win over conservative Democrats and Republicans to rebuild state support for transit, restoring tens of millions of dollars into transit and transportation alternatives. While conventional wisdom in Olympia was to narrowly focus transportation spending on freeway expansion to serve the suburbs, I successfully fought to make significant investments in a comprehensive transportation package totaling close to one billion dollars in new multi-modal funding. This included close to $60 million for safe routes to schools and more than $300 million for transit through the Regional Mobility Grant Program. I also funded a new stand-alone WSDOT Public Transit Office with a direct report to the Secretary of Transportation to help elevate the importance of transit in our state.

Frankly, the biggest impediment to accomplishing more has been the fact that Seattle elected officials have been divided and prone to bickering amongst themselves, rather than presenting a united front, when they come to Olympia. And we have had leadership in City Hall, particularly the current mayor, who has alienated key leaders in Olympia, making it very difficult to push forward a reform agenda.

I know that we will never be able to wipe out all the anti-Seattle sentiment in Olympia, but with a new mayor we can improve the climate so we can start making progress again on transit. As Mayor I will build on my Olympia successes and leverage the strong relationships developed over the years to secure the tools we need to make ST3 a success in 2016 and expand light rail in Seattle. No other candidate for mayor has relationships, and the record of success, to stand by that promise.