Tag Archives: streetcar

News, Politics, Transportation

Prop 1 Didn’t Fail, the City of Seattle Did, for Decades

The intersection of road maintenance and transit: a bus turnaround turns pavement to a gravel road (Photo: MvB)

With Prop 1 going down to defeat, 60 percent of voters against, a lot of political diviners were rummaging through entrails trying to figure out why Seattle had turned its back on a forward-thinking transit initiative. “Here’s the proposed breakdown,” said KING 5, listing out how the Prop 1 money would be spent:

  • roughly half the money, about $100 million, is for mass transit.
  • $59 million for fixing streets and potholes.
  • $23 million for pedestrians and bikes.

Publicola weighed in: too regressive, plus McGinn’s negatives. Seattlepi.com: pushback to McGinn’s extremist clique. Seattle Times: like we’ve been saying all along, McGinn is the Antichrist. Seattle Transit Blog had three takes: a) all of the above, b) weak messaging, c) no sexy win. McGinn: MOAR STREETCARS!

I don’t know what people were thinking, really, and I doubt anyone else does, either. It is true that both the city and the King County Council had already increased car tab fees to $40, so this latest $60 increase would have created $100 tabs.

But on the face of it, I’m happy enough that people said no, even it it does put a temporary stick in the spokes of new transit. Seattle’s political leadership has developed an unsettling fondness for an “Or the puppy gets it!” strategy when it comes to extorting money from taxpayers. Again and again, basic infrastructure is neglected until a crisis is reached, at which point a huge bill is presented.

That’s not responsible governance. But even worse, the huge bill isn’t the end of it. I’ve written before about Seattle’s Bridging the Gap levy, a $365-million, deferred-maintance catch-up that after four years has left us…with a $578-million backlog of road repair. Actually, you may want to sit down, because that’s just deferred arterial maintenance. Add in bridges and regular streets, and the bill becomes billions.

In that context, Prop 1’s $59 million doesn’t seem terribly proportionate, does it?

But our government is perfectly happy to look the other way on this. The cost of doing something about it is so massive that it’s become crazy to talk about doing something about it. Instead, you get Prop 1’s finger in the 17th Street Canal levee, as it were. Fixed!

Then win or lose, the conversation turns to strategy and messaging, and the looming, titanic failure of our city infrastructure goes undiscussed. Basic infrastructure is what city government is for–yet the City of Seattle consistently has tried to wriggle out of having to pay for maintenance out of its operating budget (it’s not just roads–it’s the same with parks, with the Seattle Center), preferring instead to use the ballot box as an ATM.

Nothing about ongoing maintenance requires this. These are line items, foreseeable expenses. I don’t doubt that the task of budgeting is an unenviable one, but everything else this city provides rests upon its infrastructure. A mayor and a city council that don’t realize that are worse than useless–they’re damaging to the future.

I don’t blame this mayor or this city council for the situation we find ourselves in, but the spending problem here is not going to be solved with Propositions.

UPDATE: Here is the City Council’s press release on their budgeting efforts. Just at a glance, what percentage of this deals with Seattle’s ailing infrastructure? Do you see any recognition that the city’s foundation is crumbling?

Seattle City Councilmembers present 2012 budget balancing package

Final budget vote scheduled for November 21

Seattle – Today the Seattle City Council presented their proposed changes to the 2012 budget with a balanced package of cuts that preserve essential services. The Council focused on maintaining funding for public safety, health services and food programs, and housing for the most vulnerable.

“Operating the leanest government possible while maintaining critical services was our overarching goal. We believe we have reached that goal,” stated Councilmember and Budget Committee Chair Jean Godden. “There is no doubt that we will feel the impacts of state budget decisions whatever they may be.”

Council utilized community feedback as a key indicator of programs and services to be preserved. For example, the Council will undo a merger of the Office of Housing and Office of Economic Development proposed by the Mayor, based on input from Community stakeholders. In their review of the Mayor’s proposal, the Council was able to identify staffing efficiencies that could be implemented that will result in ongoing savings of more than $400,000 each year while maintaining the two separate offices.

“We are reinventing government to be as efficient and effective as it can be,” said Council President Richard Conlin, Chair of the Regional Development and Sustainability Committee. “However, we cannot sustain this budget if the state cuts human services and public safety programs and leaves cities with the responsibility of picking up the pieces.”

Councilmember Mike O’Brien, Chair of the Seattle Public Utilities and Neighborhoods Committee added, “This budget presented us with many challenges and difficult choices, but I believe we reaffirmed the City’s commitment to Seattle’s neighborhoods. From the Safe Parking Pilot Program in Ballard to keeping community centers open to preserving support for our beloved p-patches, Council stands by our neighborhoods and their priorities.” Working with community partners, such as faith-based organizations and local food providers, Council was able to maximize opportunities through joint investments to fund these programs.

Throughout the budget review process this year, Councilmembers heard a steady request for additional funding to address a reported surge in the need for shelter and housing for homeless families with children in Seattle. Providers have reported increasing numbers of families seeking such assistance due to the economy and decreased support from other levels of government.

To meet this demand, Councilmembers agreed to a funding package that expands capacity along the spectrum of services, from shelter or temporary housing to permanent housing for homeless families with children. The intent is to review actual use of the money by the end of the second quarter of 2012 to evaluate whether the demand for family-focused support materialized at the level expected. The additional funding totaled $435,000 and will serve at least 47 families.

“The Council adopted Resolution 31292 in May which stated the intent to better meet the long-term housing and immediate survival needs of those without shelter or housing. In the Council’s budget proposal, we increased funds for shelter and housing services for homeless families with children by $435,000. This is a significant step toward the goal that no family be unsheltered by the end of 2012,” stated Councilmember Nick Licata, Chair of the Housing, Human Services, Health and Culture Committee.

To address neighborhood challenges, the Council designated $376,000 to a Precinct Liaison Program within the City Attorney’s Office. The precinct liaison attorneys will work closely with police officers and the Seattle Police Department leadership to address a variety of community and neighborhood problems, including nuisance properties, nightlife issues, graffiti abatement, alcohol impact areas, and crime hot spots.

“We focused on how we address public safety challenges in a time of very limited resources,” said Councilmember Tim Burgess, Chair of the Public Safety and Education Committee. “We beefed up early interventions to prevent crime by expanding the Nurse Family Partnership program to reach more low-income, first-time mothers. We joined with City Attorney Pete Holmes to reengineer the precinct liaison program to address chronic crime hot spots. We directed the Police Department to update the Neighborhood Policing Plan to match current officer staffing levels.”

“We funded a body-mounted camera pilot project for our police officers to enhance public safety and accountability, created a new office to assist the successful integration of immigrants and refugees into our City and provided additional help in the community for uninsured residents to receive medical and dental care,” said Councilmember Bruce Harrell, Chair of the Energy, Technology and Civil Rights Committee. “These actions help to ensure that our City continues down the path of achieving our social justice goals.”

Council is also responding to the growing concern regarding quality of life issues, such as improving health care accessibility for the uninsured, safety along Third Avenue and other pedestrian and transportation improvements.

“The City Council is committed to improving safety of transit riders and pedestrians in downtown Seattle. Since light rail began operations, the number of pedestrians and transit riders using Third Avenue has significantly increased. Through the Council’s Third Avenue Initiative, the City will develop a plan that may include more regular cleaning, improved lighting and development of a pilot ‘hot spot’ policing initiative for certain blocks along the Third Avenue Transit Corridor,” stated Councilmember Tom Rasmussen Chair of the Transportation Committee.

Councilmember Sally Bagshaw, Chair of the Parks and Seattle Center Committee stated, “I am very pleased with City’s effort to balance this budget. We have made cuts while addressing the needs of our neighborhoods, as well as caring for neighbors in need.”

“I’d like to thank Councilmember Godden and my fellow colleagues for crafting a budget that invests in what matters,” said Councilmember Sally J. Clark, Chair of the Committee on the Built Environment. “Budget challenges only get tougher from here, but I’m hopeful we can partner with our friends in Olympia to minimize the impact to Seattle residents.”

News, Transportation

Crosstown Transit? Seattle Wins Federal Funds for Study

Hey, since we're just spitballing, here... (Photo: MvB)

Mayor McGinn got an out-of-town boost this week, when the Federal Transit Administration announced the City of Seattle won a $900,000 grant to study a high capacity transit in downtown Seattle. (Also, Sound Transit netted $5.4 million to “replace buses in its Seattle-area fleet that are beyond their useful lives with hybrid-diesel buses.”)

Explains the FTA:

The study will examine the benefits, costs, and impacts of implementing an urban circulator in the corridor between the Lower Queen Anne, Uptown, and South Lake Union neighborhoods to the north, and the King Street Station and International District Multimodal Hub on the south end of downtown. […] The current Seattle Transit Master Plan estimates that the Connector project could generate approximately 10,000 new transit riders in Seattle Center City by 2030.

The high-capacity transit corridor would better connect neighborhoods with each other, and  could also link the King Street and International District Stations, Colman Dock, and Westlake Center.

To the McGinn administration, “circulator” is synonymous with “a rapid streetcar,” which is an idea the Mayor has been trying to talk the Council into throwing money at. Notes Publicola: “The city council has long been cool to the idea of westside Seattle rail, noting that it’s far more expensive than other options such as bus rapid transit.”

Properly done, BRT is a fast way to reach high capacity, though you eventually top out in the number of passengers you can carry, compared to the ability of rail to simply add another coach. Longer term, rail’s carrying capacity might exceed BRT’s by as much as 100 percent, assuming those passengers eventually show up. But BRT has to be correctly implemented, or it amounts simply to more buses creeping down already crowded roads.

Consider the SLU streetcar a kind of pilot project: With the new Amazon campus open in South Lake Union, the streetcar “carried 2,681 people per weekday in September,” reports the Seattle Times. While early ridership was projected at 1,000 trips a day, it was thought that might triple by 2020. Now you see fewer stories about how far away 3,000 trips a day seems.

McGinn would like to see $1.5 million in the 2012 city budget for a major streetcar network study, and getting $900,000 helps prime the public opinion pump. Thus spake he: “Combined with rail planning money I have proposed in the 2012 budget and funding from other sources, this brings us closer to expanding our streetcar network and giving people better transportation choices.”

Congressman Jim McDermott stayed out of the modality wars:  “This will put Seattle in a better position to compete for transit dollars, and the family-wage construction jobs that will come with them when Congress passes the American Jobs Act.”

News, Politics, Transportation

Op-Ed: For Rail, Be Bold (by Mayor McGinn)

Mayor McGinn, rail magnate

“For Rail, Be Bold,” reprinted by permission from Mayor McGinn’s blog.

“If you’re going to ask for $80,” I wrote a few days ago, “you need to show exactly how that money is going to be spent, and how it’s going to benefit Seattle. Squishily ‘maintaining’ and ‘improving’ isn’t going to win you votes, and bike paths will likely lead to your summary execution.”

Mayor McGinn has responded to the call, with a call for streetcar funding (and bus rapid transit, which isn’t as sexy). Seattle Transit Blog agrees the $80 level is the one that moves the needle. Seattle’s City Council, though, will likely need to be persuaded that $80 doesn’t vote them out of office.–Ed.

As the City Council deliberates on a new transportation measure, it is important to recognize that there is an opportunity here for expanded rail transit in Seattle — if the council can be bold.

First some background. In 2010, the City Council and I appointed a Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee, to advise the city on how to finance its transportation needs, now and in the future. At the same time, the Transit Master Plan process was launched, also advised by a diverse set of residents.

The Transit Master Plan showed that Seattle’s greatest weakness was connecting neighborhoods to each other. It identified fifteen corridors overall, five of which will need high capacity service – and four of these are suitable for some form of rail transit. To some degree, we’ve all known this, but the rigorous approach of the Transit Master Plan clearly identifies the best corridors, and points to the better ways to serve each corridor. In a number of cases, it points to rail, specifically a concept that has come to be known as “rapid streetcar.” Unlike Sound Transit’s Link light rail, it operates in the right of way, making it cheaper and faster to build. To ensure it moves rapidly, it has high priority in the right of the way.

For the distances served — neighborhood to neighborhood — it looks like the right choice for a number of corridors in Seattle. That includes Ballard to downtown via Fremont, the University District to downtown via Eastlake, and linking those to Seattle’s two initial streetcar lines to South Lake Union, the International District/Chinatown and Capitol Hill. Other cities have already demonstrated the promise of this approach, like Portland with its MAX system.


MAX train running in street right of way in downtown Portland

Until now, Seattle has always thought we could only afford more rail the Sound Transit way – wait for a regional vote, and take decades to build it. But for local transit, the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee pointed to a different way: Use our local taxing authority to create a dedicated transit fund to expand neighborhood to neighborhood high capacity transit.

The committee recommended an $80 VLF. Much of it goes to catching up on deferred maintenance, which I support. 49% percent goes to implement the Transit Master Plan, to catch up on our deferred transit needs. As a permanent funding source, this could fund the following in the next ten years: planning and alternatives analysis for all five high capacity corridors in the Transit Master Plan, planning and construction for connecting the two streetcar lines through downtown, speed and reliability improvements on half of all non-high capacity transit corridors, and substantial upgrades to our electric trolley bus infrastructure. Over the next twenty years, we could make good on the Transit Master Plan’s stated need to accommodate substantially more travelers on each of the high capacity corridors the Plan identified.

But here is the problem. The City Council is only considering a VLF for a limited amount of time, after which it expires. For this amount of money, all you can do is study a single corridor. You cannot finance long term infrastructure with a short term financing plan. You cannot get in the queue for federal, regional, or state funds because there will be no source of funds for us to put up our local match. The Transit Master Plan will join the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plans as nice plans, without serious funding.

There is a better way, and here is where boldness is required. If the VLF is ongoing, it becomes a steady source of revenue that can be borrowed against to build rail that will serve us for decades. It is how Sound Transit finances Link light rail, by borrowing against its statutory taxing authority. It is how the Washington State Department of Transportation finances major projects. It is how Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is planning to build a major expansion of rail in his city. In fact, even Seattle does it. We put into place a permanent parking tax that we bonded against to pay for the Spokane Street Viaduct and the Mercer Corridor, among others.

So, the question is now on the Council — can it do for transit what it does for major road projects, and commit to a long term funding source that will begin building the rail system Seattle needs and wants? If the answer is yes, we will begin the work of expanding rail to connect neighborhoods to each other, to downtown, and to the Link Light Rail system.

If the answer is no, I will not stop working to fulfill my commitment to expand rail in Seattle. But it means we’ll have to keep coming back for the capital funding for transit, so that the Seattle Transit Master Plan does not become a pretty plan gathering dust on a shelf. And so that Seattle will realize its transit future.

News, Transportation

ORCA Card Tips, Reloaded!

April 2011 marked the second year of ORCA card life–“one regional card for all,” as the nerdiest transit payment system’s acronym spells out. In terms of broader public perception, of course, two years is like two weeks. Transit riders are still learning the ins and outs of the card, and Metro is still learning that this tips page is useless. “Website changes are coming,” promises the ORCA home page.

Here’s our brief tip list:

  1. If you are ethically plastic, you can ride the Seattle Streetcar for free. There are payment kiosks at the boarding stations, but without card readers, fare checkers have no way of determining if you’ve swiped or not. Producing your ORCA card is proof of payment.
  2. ORCA cards come in Adult, Youth, Senior, and Disabled options. They are good on: Community Transit, Everett Transit, King County Metro Transit, Kitsap Transit, Pierce Transit, Sound Transit, and Washington State Ferries. Seattle’s privately-owned Monorail remains a hold-out. On ORCA, you can purchase a Puget Pass, WSF monthly pass, or a regular monthly transit pass, or just pay as you go.
  3. ORCA cards do track your card’s usage by serial number. It’s possible for your employer to determine whether you’re using your card responsibly for business-only purposes, if they are willing to go through the trouble to do so.
  4. Adding value to your ORCA card online is convenient, but not immediate. It can take 24 to 48 hours for your added cash to appear, because your card needs to be updated by a reader that “knows” the new value. “A big part of the lag takes place because transactions (like adding more money to your card) have to go through the California clearing house before they are ready for downloading to our buses,” explains King County’s Linda Thielke. Plus, buses need to physically visit the base to download the new data. Adding value via kiosk is immediate.
  5. Finally, if you need to pick up an ORCA card quickly, Metro has a sales office on the mezzanine level of Westlake Tunnel Station, and at their main building (201 S. Jackson St. in Seattle). In and outside of business hours: “Standard adult ORCA cards can be purchased from any ticket machine at Central Link light rail stations or Sounder commuter rail stations.”

To level up in transit geekery, know this: As we’ve mentioned, King County Metro is undergoing an OBS equipment upgrade that should complete in late 2012. Thielke says that while OBS doesn’t integrate with ORCA, it does “include using 4.9Ghz wireless instead of 2.4Ghz WiFi. 4.9 allows for faster downloads which may improve [ORCA] lag time. Sometimes the buses are not able to get the full download of information in the morning before they pull out.”

Also, Seattle Transit Blog explains how ORCA fare revenue gets parceled out when you make multi-modal (run by multi-agency) trips.