Hello Seattle DOT, we'd appreciate it if you'd watch this.
Showing posts with label Transportation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Transportation. Show all posts
October 22, 2009
October 14, 2009
The New York High Line
A great Flickr slideshow by mi compadre Unrealfred. Could part of the Alaskan Way Viaduct be converted to something like this?
September 4, 2009
No problem after Viaduct shuts down
A miles-long oil slick on the Alaskan Way viaduct this morning caused southbound lanes on the elevated roadway to be shut down from 4am until 8:30ish.
Traffic diverted elsewhere. No lightning flashed, no toads rained from the sky.
Are a SURE we need to replace it with a tunnel???
Traffic diverted elsewhere. No lightning flashed, no toads rained from the sky.
Are a SURE we need to replace it with a tunnel???
April 30, 2009
This is also how you Do It
Public rental bikes, that is: the check-out stations have to be near everywhere you want to go.
March 27, 2009
Money talks
Here's a video of Will Murray describing his proposal for a sidewalk in the Bitter Lake neighborhood. It's the fourth time he's submitted it -- ironic that it has been unsuccessful, considering the area is one of the urban villages that supposedly is the focus of our smart growth, walkable neighborhoods policies.
Seattle may claim to put a priority on pedestrian needs, but money talks. The $90,000 available annually in the Neighborhood Street Fund represents city hall's real level of interest in making streets safer. In other words -- very little.
There will be no comprehensive improvement in pedestrian infrastructure so long as city hall follows a divide and conquer strategy: allocating a tiny amount of funding and making the neighborhoods compete for it against each other. It distracts everyone from uniting as one community and demanding a solution that is good for everyone.
Seattle may claim to put a priority on pedestrian needs, but money talks. The $90,000 available annually in the Neighborhood Street Fund represents city hall's real level of interest in making streets safer. In other words -- very little.
There will be no comprehensive improvement in pedestrian infrastructure so long as city hall follows a divide and conquer strategy: allocating a tiny amount of funding and making the neighborhoods compete for it against each other. It distracts everyone from uniting as one community and demanding a solution that is good for everyone.
March 11, 2009
Another car runs amok
Hey, a bicyclist has been hit by another one of those driverless cars. The Seattle Times story in full --
March 11, 2009 10:38 AMYa missed a Who, Nick.
Bicyclist struck by vehicle in Wallingford neighborhood
Posted by Nick Provenza
A cyclist suffered serious head injuries after she was struck by a vehicle just before 10:30 a.m. in Seattle's Wallingford neighborhood.
Police and medics are at the scene, near First Avenue Northeast and North 56th Street.
The cyclist, a woman in her 40s, suffered life-threatening injuries and is being transported to Harborview Medical Center, said Dana Vander Houwen of the Seattle Fire Department.
More to come.
February 23, 2009
Mercer will still be One-Way, in a way
Gee, so Seattle is going to put $154 million on making Mercer Street two-way, with another $50 million coming from federal stimulus funds. Yes, we'll be paying contractors and putting people to work to take a couple minutes off the drive of people exiting I-5.
This strikes me as perpetuating the "one way" that urban development has followed for decades: the car culture.
I've been going around telling people that the point of the stimulus is to spend money to get it out into the economy. Well, why Mercer Street? Won't other non-defense spending also create work? How about these items that are supposed to be city priorities:
And how about this need that no one ever talks about: preparing the infrastructure that will support the 1.6 million additional residents expected to move to the Puget Sound region between now and 2040. Do you think the current wastewater treatment system can handle all the additional inputs? Wouldn't our power grid benefit from rooftop solar and wind farms?
The problem for Seattle is that the federal stimulus is only going to shovel-ready projects. That is, projects that were already in advanced planning and only lacked the funding to proceed.
Obviously, Seattle didn't plan.
This strikes me as perpetuating the "one way" that urban development has followed for decades: the car culture.
I've been going around telling people that the point of the stimulus is to spend money to get it out into the economy. Well, why Mercer Street? Won't other non-defense spending also create work? How about these items that are supposed to be city priorities:
- Pedestrian safety
- Housing and support services for the hardcore homeless
- School district funding
- Finish the sidewalk grid!
- Duwamish Superfund cleanup
- Fast, convenient and pervasive transit
And how about this need that no one ever talks about: preparing the infrastructure that will support the 1.6 million additional residents expected to move to the Puget Sound region between now and 2040. Do you think the current wastewater treatment system can handle all the additional inputs? Wouldn't our power grid benefit from rooftop solar and wind farms?
The problem for Seattle is that the federal stimulus is only going to shovel-ready projects. That is, projects that were already in advanced planning and only lacked the funding to proceed.
Obviously, Seattle didn't plan.
February 4, 2009
Another piece of great reporting
The Seattle Times reports on another one of those accidents where a cyclist collides with an -- apparently -- driverless vehicle:
Update, 2/5:
Here's the Street View of the scene, looking south. The Viking is on the left, the turn lane is just ahead. The arrows appear to be where the accident occurred -- pan right 2 clicks, and the telephone pole in the P-I photo is visible.
View Larger Map
Scenario 1. News stories are implying the van was making a legal turn at the intersection with 64th. But the only way the accident makes any sense at that location, and considering the victim, Kevin Black, was an experienced rider, is if he was in the southbound lane preparing to enter the turn lane, and the van driver passed Black and got there first. It's also possible she only thought she was past him, then turned before he did. Drivers think they can share the lane with me all the time.
By the way, for the P-I Soundoff trogs -- there is no law saying you MUST use a bike lane if one is there. There are in fact all sorts of reasons not to use it -- people often insist on loading cargo on the driver's side, someone could be in the middle of parking, a car could be parked in the bike lane. The bike lane is also where all the road debris winds up.
Scenario 2. But the most common reason not to be in the bike lane is if you have to swerve to avoid something -- such as a van that has pulled out in front of you. Interestingly, the accident site is precisely where a southbound vehicle would make a U-turn to get to The Viking (look at where the nose of the white van is in the 13th photo HERE). But that can't possibly be the case here, since U-turns are only allowed at intersections and streetends -- and drivers never EVER break the law, right trogs?
Bicyclist killed in Ballard crashWay to get all the 5 Ws, "Staff."
A 39-year-old cyclist was killed in a collision with a van this morning in Ballard.
By Seattle Times staff
A 39-year-old cyclist was killed in a collision with a van this morning in Ballard.
Medics were called to 24th Avenue Northwest and Northwest 65th Street just before 11 a.m. and performed CPR on the man, according to Dana Vander Houwen, a spokeswoman for the Seattle Fire Department.
The cyclist suffered life-threatening injuries and later died at Harborview Medical Center, said hospital spokeswoman Susan Gregg-Hanson. Police did not immediately provide details of the collision.
Update, 2/5:
Here's the Street View of the scene, looking south. The Viking is on the left, the turn lane is just ahead. The arrows appear to be where the accident occurred -- pan right 2 clicks, and the telephone pole in the P-I photo is visible.
View Larger Map
Scenario 1. News stories are implying the van was making a legal turn at the intersection with 64th. But the only way the accident makes any sense at that location, and considering the victim, Kevin Black, was an experienced rider, is if he was in the southbound lane preparing to enter the turn lane, and the van driver passed Black and got there first. It's also possible she only thought she was past him, then turned before he did. Drivers think they can share the lane with me all the time.
By the way, for the P-I Soundoff trogs -- there is no law saying you MUST use a bike lane if one is there. There are in fact all sorts of reasons not to use it -- people often insist on loading cargo on the driver's side, someone could be in the middle of parking, a car could be parked in the bike lane. The bike lane is also where all the road debris winds up.
Scenario 2. But the most common reason not to be in the bike lane is if you have to swerve to avoid something -- such as a van that has pulled out in front of you. Interestingly, the accident site is precisely where a southbound vehicle would make a U-turn to get to The Viking (look at where the nose of the white van is in the 13th photo HERE). But that can't possibly be the case here, since U-turns are only allowed at intersections and streetends -- and drivers never EVER break the law, right trogs?
January 30, 2009
O Green Mayor, Where Art Thou?
Where's our city-wide bike rental program?
Velíb (Paris)
Smartbike (Washington DC)
Velíb (Paris)
Smartbike (Washington DC)
December 5, 2008
End of free parking in Fremont
It's the end of free parking in Fremont
Surprise notification greeted with outrage
By KATHY MULADY
P-I REPORTER
Fremont isn't so free anymore, at least not the parking.
The Seattle Department of Transportation announced Thursday that Fremont will be the next neighborhood to get paid parking stations, probably by February.
It will cost $1.50 per hour to park in one of the 115 paid parking stations in the central retail district from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
I guess now we'll have to call it Feemont.
September 23, 2008
Green era means we should rethink traffic priorities
Today in the Seattle Times:
Anyone see anything wrong here? Try taking off your Car Culture Hat. How about now?
That's right: Although I'm mixing qualitative and quantitative, the costs for the automobile portion is the biggest, maybe $150-155 million, while returning the littlest benefit -- a few minutes per driver.
Want to reduce congestion? Want to make the transition away from the car culture? THEN STOP FACILITATING IT. Spend $10 million on non-motorized transportation on Mercer, and a few more million on landscaping and trees. Mandate Low Impact Development to protect Lake Union.
Road-diet what's there now, and maybe you'll get more people biking and taking Metro and the S.L.U.T. (and North Link whenever that's supposed to happen).
Am I understanding this right? The city wants to spend $201 million on this 10-block stretch so drivers can save a few minutes? That's the sole benefit traffic-wise, because there would be no congestion reduction. Let's make a ledger.Seattle is seeking possession of a popular boating-supply store along Mercer Street, even though the city remains $88 million short of the funds it needs to carry out a street reconstruction project there.
West Marine is to be condemned and torn down to make room for a 60- to 70-foot road widening along Mercer Street in an area commonly called the "Mercer Mess," according to the city's plan.
...private contributors won't commit money for the project until Seattle secures the right-of-way. Of the missing $88 million, the city is negotiating to get $36 million from nearby businesses that would benefit from the $201 million rebuild.
. . .
For two generations, commuters have complained about the Mercer Mess between Interstate 5 and Seattle Center. The city plans to add lanes for two-way travel on Mercer, which now goes eastbound to I-5. Valley Street, now an arterial, would be reduced to two lanes.
A study for the Seattle Department of Transportation predicts that drivers would save minutes leaving I-5, because they would gain a straight route on Mercer westbound, instead of navigating a curve to Valley. Overall, there would be little change in congestion, the study says; but bicycling and walking conditions would improve greatly, while landscaping would make the area more pleasant.
| Benefits | Costs ($201 million) |
| Cars: Drivers save a few minutes | Congestion continues at same level |
| Non-motorized: Improved walking, biking | generally $1 million per block, including curbs and drainage |
| Other: Nice landscaping | Businesses: Loss of strong retailer; $36 million |
Anyone see anything wrong here? Try taking off your Car Culture Hat. How about now?
That's right: Although I'm mixing qualitative and quantitative, the costs for the automobile portion is the biggest, maybe $150-155 million, while returning the littlest benefit -- a few minutes per driver.
Want to reduce congestion? Want to make the transition away from the car culture? THEN STOP FACILITATING IT. Spend $10 million on non-motorized transportation on Mercer, and a few more million on landscaping and trees. Mandate Low Impact Development to protect Lake Union.
Road-diet what's there now, and maybe you'll get more people biking and taking Metro and the S.L.U.T. (and North Link whenever that's supposed to happen).
July 9, 2008
Sonics aftermath - can we move on yet?
Now that the Sonics are loading their stuff into Clay Bennett's stretch Escalade (one guesses) for the long drive to OKC, is it too soon to raise the issue of what happens to the future city revenue no longer dedicated to paying off the Key Arena remodel?
For years, the City has used the excuse "there just isn't enough money for that" for everything not involving Paul Allen. Well the Sonics settlement means $25 million has been freed up.
I hereby step to the counter and take a numbered ticket in the name of sidewalks for all of Greenwood. Everybody else: the line forms behind me.
For years, the City has used the excuse "there just isn't enough money for that" for everything not involving Paul Allen. Well the Sonics settlement means $25 million has been freed up.
I hereby step to the counter and take a numbered ticket in the name of sidewalks for all of Greenwood. Everybody else: the line forms behind me.
June 9, 2008
Climate Change roundtable
Last minute announcement:
YOUR HOUSE, YOUR CAR, OUR CLIMATE: STATE DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION DEPUTY SECRETARY TO DISCUSS HOW LAND USE IN WASHINGTON AFFECTS CLIMATE CHANGE
WHAT: At this evening discussion roundtable, two influential state and community leaders will discuss the core issues that are key to Washington’s ability to tackle climate change: the connection between land use and transportation.
WHO: David Dye, Deputy Secretary of the Washington Department of Transportation, will discuss how the Department is responding to the challenge of reducing emissions from transportation in Washington.
Rod Brown, senior partner at Cascadia Law Group, will discuss what changes we may see based on the actions taken during the 2008 Washington legislative session relating to growth management and climate change.
WHEN: Monday, June 9, 2008, 6-8 p.m.
WHERE: REI Flagship Store, 222 Yale Avenue North, 2nd floor meeting room.
COST: Admission is free. Refreshments provided.
This event is organized by the Washington Foundation for the Environment, and co-sponsored by People For Puget Sound and CH2M Hill.
April 2, 2008
Wonder where that bureaucratic inertia comes from
SDOT Fun Facts #1
The Seattle Department of Transportation's phone number is 684-ROAD.
Not 684-BIKE. Or 684-WALK. 684-ROAD.
The Seattle Department of Transportation's phone number is 684-ROAD.
Not 684-BIKE. Or 684-WALK. 684-ROAD.
March 28, 2008
March 19, 2008
The size of the problem
Sometimes people ask me why we need to add innovative technologies such as Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) to our urban transit networks.
The usual argument goes something like, transit ridership is up! If we just add more buses and build more light rail, we'll be able to solve our transportation problem.
In particular, the hackles tend to go up over cost -- PRT is expensive, so it will take resources away from transit. As though PRT would not be transit.
Next year will be my 20th since first learning about PRT. My motivation for supporting it then, as now, remains the same: The transportation problem is too big to continue relying solely on traditional, conventional transit technologies. The magnitude of the problem calls for real innovation, not tinkering around the edges.
A look at what is currently considered transit 'success' actually serves to give the problem its proper context.
Recently the Puget Sound region's leading transit agencies announced ridership was significantly up in 2007. Metro (King County) reported a 7% increase, while Sound Transit (a commuter-oriented agency serving parts of three counties) reported a 12.5% increase.1 The Washington Public Interest Research Group, a fundraising and policy advocacy group, released impressive statistics on how transit usage translates to fuel saved, fuel costs saved, and tons of CO2 not emitted.2
But can annual marginal increases in transit usage get to the kind of ridership we need to reduce numbers of car trips, car miles traveled, and emissions? Interestingly, the recent trumpeting of transit gains made no mention of two important, context-providing numbers: total daily motorized travel, and transit's share of that travel (called transit "mode share," or "mode split").
Oddly, these numbers are not aggregated in one location, despite transportation having been a major preoccupation of the Puget Sound region for years. However, I have what might be called glacial patience, and I have rounded up data from a number of agencies.
Annual transit ridership for 2007
These numbers are mostly available from transit agencies or news sources.
Annual total trips
For all modes (cars, trucks, transit, etc.) this is about 10 million a day, or 3.7 billion per year.7 I've also read recent claims of 12 million a day, growing to 16 million a day by 2030, but I'll be statistically conservative and keep it at 10.
The size of the problem
Transit's annual mode split in the region is therefore about 4.3%.8 The percentage would of course be lower if a higher number is used for total trips .
It is useful to keep two other things in mind. 1) The length of the average person's "journey to work" varies 10-14 miles depending on household income.9 2) Washington's new law on climate change, recently signed by Governor Gregoire, includes goals to reduce annual vehicle miles traveled 18% by 2020, 30% by 2035, and 50% by 2050. The starting point is 75 billion annual miles, so you can do the math.
These numbers impart a sense of scale. How do you impact that many people, traveling that many times, for that many miles?
In short, 12.5% annual increases are hardly going to make a dent in the problem. Even if we were able to increase daily transit ridership to 1 million (a 230% increase) with more trains and buses, that is a transit mode split of only 9.9%.
Why not innovate?
No one is saying transit is going to do it alone. There is going to be travel demand management (e.g. tolls, congestion pricing), as well as individual lifestyle changes. But the latter is an aggregate of the millions (probably billions) of microeconomic decisions each of us makes about housing, work, shopping, school, recreation, etc. Those are millions/billions of things that have to go mostly right in order to make this dream called Sustainability come true. There are going to be a lot of innovations along the way.
In the face of these challenges, WHY NOT innovate transit too? Current versions of Personal Rapid Transit, an automated peoplemover concept that combines the speed of a train with the flexibility of a bus, convenience of a taxi, and greenness of an electric car, have been researched in Europe during the past decade.10 PRT is basically the 'horizontal elevator' idea you might have heard about in years past.
Potential niches include getting people quickly to and from train stations without driving, circulation transit, and rapid transit service to districts where large footprint rail technology can't fit or isn't economically justified.
The first one is being built now at Heathrow Airport; physical tests have demonstrated greater capacity than any light rail system operating in the UK.11 We should be telling our transit agencies to start planning PRT networks now.
-----------------
1. Pulkkinen, L., "Sound Transit ridership rose 12.5% in 2007." Seattle P-I, Mar. 10, 2008
2. Lange, L., "Transit benefits: new study, new campaign." Seattle P-I, Mar. 6, 2008
3. Lindblom, M. and Gilmore, S., "Riders pack buses in record numbers." Seattle Times, Jan. 24, 2008
4. Community Transit, "Community Transit News." June 28, 2007
5. Austin, A., "Ridership up regionally, a tipping point for transit?" Morning News Tribune, Jan. 31, 2008
6. Sound Transit, "Dump the Pump Day June 21." June 12, 2007
7. Sound Transit, "2005 RTPO Plan Review." April 2005
8. 158,050,000 ÷ 3.7 bil
9. Puget Sound Regional Council, "Regional View Newsletter." Dec. 2007
10. Ironically, based on groundbreaking work done by the old Urban Mass Transit Administration in the 1970s
11. Virginia Dept. of Rail and Public Transportation, House Document 11: "Viability of PRT in Virginia." Jan. 11, 2008, Sec. IV(C)
The usual argument goes something like, transit ridership is up! If we just add more buses and build more light rail, we'll be able to solve our transportation problem.
In particular, the hackles tend to go up over cost -- PRT is expensive, so it will take resources away from transit. As though PRT would not be transit.
Next year will be my 20th since first learning about PRT. My motivation for supporting it then, as now, remains the same: The transportation problem is too big to continue relying solely on traditional, conventional transit technologies. The magnitude of the problem calls for real innovation, not tinkering around the edges.
A look at what is currently considered transit 'success' actually serves to give the problem its proper context.
Recently the Puget Sound region's leading transit agencies announced ridership was significantly up in 2007. Metro (King County) reported a 7% increase, while Sound Transit (a commuter-oriented agency serving parts of three counties) reported a 12.5% increase.1 The Washington Public Interest Research Group, a fundraising and policy advocacy group, released impressive statistics on how transit usage translates to fuel saved, fuel costs saved, and tons of CO2 not emitted.2
But can annual marginal increases in transit usage get to the kind of ridership we need to reduce numbers of car trips, car miles traveled, and emissions? Interestingly, the recent trumpeting of transit gains made no mention of two important, context-providing numbers: total daily motorized travel, and transit's share of that travel (called transit "mode share," or "mode split").
Oddly, these numbers are not aggregated in one location, despite transportation having been a major preoccupation of the Puget Sound region for years. However, I have what might be called glacial patience, and I have rounded up data from a number of agencies.
Annual transit ridership for 2007
These numbers are mostly available from transit agencies or news sources.
| Agency | Annual riders | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Sound Transit | 13,500,000 | based on 1.5 million being a 12.5% increase |
| Metro Transit | 110,000,0003 | |
| Community Transit (Snohomish County) | 10,400,000 | Based on a midyear report that ridership was trending 5.4% higher than 9.9 million trips in 2006.4 |
| Pierce Transit | 16,900,0005 | |
| Skagit Transit | 450,000 | |
| Intercity Transit (Olympia) | 4,300,000 | |
| Kitsap Transit | 4,000,000 | I had to estimate this as one-third of Sound Transit's ridership. The only good data on KT is that they serve 15,000 per weekday, a little more than a third of Sound Transit's 44,000 per weekday.6 |
| TOTAL | 158,050,000 | This is about 433,000 a day on average |
Annual total trips
For all modes (cars, trucks, transit, etc.) this is about 10 million a day, or 3.7 billion per year.7 I've also read recent claims of 12 million a day, growing to 16 million a day by 2030, but I'll be statistically conservative and keep it at 10.
The size of the problem
Transit's annual mode split in the region is therefore about 4.3%.8 The percentage would of course be lower if a higher number is used for total trips .
It is useful to keep two other things in mind. 1) The length of the average person's "journey to work" varies 10-14 miles depending on household income.9 2) Washington's new law on climate change, recently signed by Governor Gregoire, includes goals to reduce annual vehicle miles traveled 18% by 2020, 30% by 2035, and 50% by 2050. The starting point is 75 billion annual miles, so you can do the math.
These numbers impart a sense of scale. How do you impact that many people, traveling that many times, for that many miles?
In short, 12.5% annual increases are hardly going to make a dent in the problem. Even if we were able to increase daily transit ridership to 1 million (a 230% increase) with more trains and buses, that is a transit mode split of only 9.9%.
Why not innovate?
No one is saying transit is going to do it alone. There is going to be travel demand management (e.g. tolls, congestion pricing), as well as individual lifestyle changes. But the latter is an aggregate of the millions (probably billions) of microeconomic decisions each of us makes about housing, work, shopping, school, recreation, etc. Those are millions/billions of things that have to go mostly right in order to make this dream called Sustainability come true. There are going to be a lot of innovations along the way.
In the face of these challenges, WHY NOT innovate transit too? Current versions of Personal Rapid Transit, an automated peoplemover concept that combines the speed of a train with the flexibility of a bus, convenience of a taxi, and greenness of an electric car, have been researched in Europe during the past decade.10 PRT is basically the 'horizontal elevator' idea you might have heard about in years past.
Potential niches include getting people quickly to and from train stations without driving, circulation transit, and rapid transit service to districts where large footprint rail technology can't fit or isn't economically justified.
The first one is being built now at Heathrow Airport; physical tests have demonstrated greater capacity than any light rail system operating in the UK.11 We should be telling our transit agencies to start planning PRT networks now.
-----------------
1. Pulkkinen, L., "Sound Transit ridership rose 12.5% in 2007." Seattle P-I, Mar. 10, 2008
2. Lange, L., "Transit benefits: new study, new campaign." Seattle P-I, Mar. 6, 2008
3. Lindblom, M. and Gilmore, S., "Riders pack buses in record numbers." Seattle Times, Jan. 24, 2008
4. Community Transit, "Community Transit News." June 28, 2007
5. Austin, A., "Ridership up regionally, a tipping point for transit?" Morning News Tribune, Jan. 31, 2008
6. Sound Transit, "Dump the Pump Day June 21." June 12, 2007
7. Sound Transit, "2005 RTPO Plan Review." April 2005
8. 158,050,000 ÷ 3.7 bil
9. Puget Sound Regional Council, "Regional View Newsletter." Dec. 2007
10. Ironically, based on groundbreaking work done by the old Urban Mass Transit Administration in the 1970s
11. Virginia Dept. of Rail and Public Transportation, House Document 11: "Viability of PRT in Virginia." Jan. 11, 2008, Sec. IV(C)
February 29, 2008
Why are bus fares going up?
Shortly after King County Metro announced bus fares would be going up by a quarter on March 1 (one-zone fares: $1.50 off-peak, $1.75 peak), my colleagues engaged in some casual speculation about what benefits we'll experience as transit riders. Would service improve? Would there be new routes?
Nope, so sorry. The reason can be found in this County background paper, which mentions:
I think Metro is under the misapprehension that transit is a profitmaking business.
But Metro is not a business. It has a monopoly in its service area, there is no need to see other agencies' price moves as market-leader signals.
Public transit is public precisely because its characteristics mean it cannot be delivered privately. Transit could be funded solely from the County's operating budget and operated fare-free -- and should be.
Nope, so sorry. The reason can be found in this County background paper, which mentions:
Metro's revenues have not kept pace with inflation... The fare increase would raise $11.7 million in additional revenues annually, and allow Metro to maintain and improve the reliability, dependability and predictability of its system.In other words, fares are going up so the agency can tread water performance-wise, the bottom line will be better, and because it's what other agencies are charging.
...
A 25-cent increase in fares also would enable Metro to move closer to the county’s target of recovering 25 percent of transit costs from the farebox to achieve greater financial stability, and to match neighboring transit agencies’ fares -- which is important as the region continues moving toward a single regional transit pass system.
I think Metro is under the misapprehension that transit is a profitmaking business.
But Metro is not a business. It has a monopoly in its service area, there is no need to see other agencies' price moves as market-leader signals.
Public transit is public precisely because its characteristics mean it cannot be delivered privately. Transit could be funded solely from the County's operating budget and operated fare-free -- and should be.
February 21, 2008
New Product Corner
So I'm riding home yesterday from Pioneer Square, northbound on the Myrtle Edwards/Interbay route. You know where you have to make that left turn at Dravus and Elliott Avenue to get onto the Ballard Bridge? Well I'm making this turn, in the left lane, when I glance about 18 inches to my left to discover two fatasses in a newish white Infiniti next to me. Clearly they had misunderstood the expression "share the road."
At that moment I wished that my keys weren't at the bottom of my pannier. Then I had an idea. Here's the concept -- what if I had a stack of thin key-shaped refrigerator magnets, bearing the slogan "YOU'VE BEEN KEYED," and the section in RCW46 about bicyclists having the same rights and duties as a motor vehicle driver.
Whenever I get cutoff or otherwise endangered, I'd throw a "YOU'VE BEEN KEYED" magnet on the offender's car.
Much more civil than screaming "Fucktard" at them -- and educational to boot!
At that moment I wished that my keys weren't at the bottom of my pannier. Then I had an idea. Here's the concept -- what if I had a stack of thin key-shaped refrigerator magnets, bearing the slogan "YOU'VE BEEN KEYED," and the section in RCW46 about bicyclists having the same rights and duties as a motor vehicle driver.
Whenever I get cutoff or otherwise endangered, I'd throw a "YOU'VE BEEN KEYED" magnet on the offender's car.
Much more civil than screaming "Fucktard" at them -- and educational to boot!
December 20, 2007
Idea for streetcar collision avoidance
SUV, streetcar collide; no one hurt
A sport-utility vehicle ran a red light Wednesday morning and was hit by one of the new South Lake Union streetcars... The crash at Mercer Street and Terry Avenue North happened at 7:28 a.m., when the SUV was going east toward Interstate 5.
. . .
The SUV driver told police he was maneuvering around a large puddle in the left lane of Mercer, then couldn't stop in time for a red light... More
If we treat this the way the City treats traffic safety out in the residential neighborhoods, then the Mercer & Terry intersection should get a traffic circle!
It would probably only take a few months to re-do the tracks to curve around the traffic circle. Not much of an inconvenience, as that amounts to only a tiny percentage of the overall streetcar line -- the same way that tracks in the Westlake curb lanes aren't much of an inconvenience for bicycles, in the overall scheme of things. So win-win!
December 6, 2007
Skid - Crash - @#^$!
I haven't ridden down Westlake since the SLUT construction crossed Mercer Street. Today's Mike Lindblom piece in the Times is not an incentive for me to try it now:
Mayor Nickels want to give City employees "free bus passes." Very laudable. But free??? Someone's paying for it down the line, Greg-o.
Cyclists, skinny tires, streetcar rails -- not a good mixAlso in the newsNew streetcar tracks on Seattle's Westlake Avenue have turned into a trap for bicyclists.
The tires on a standard road bike are narrower than the 1 ¾-inch groove that holds a streetcar wheel. If a bicycle veers into that gap, it can easily get stuck, pitching the rider onto the street.
Seattle bike activists plan a wheeled protest next Wednesday, when the South Lake Union streetcar begins service from Westlake Center to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.
Despite the goal of Mayor Greg Nickels to triple bicycle use, the new streetcar line includes long stretches of track in the curb lanes of Westlake Avenue, where bicyclists normally ride. Many riders have adapted by riding on sidewalks, to the left of the tracks — or in the left lane, which aggravates motorists.
"The streetcar isn't operating yet, and we're already seeing people crashing," said Seattle Likes Bikes member Michael Snyder, who said he has heard of eight or nine accidents.
. . .
Alan Durning, founder of Sightline Institute, an environmental think tank, calls the Westlake situation one example of "bicycle neglect" — the American tendency to treat bikes as recreational vehicles, not primary transportation. A street posing similar hazards to cars would never be designed, he said.
Mayor Nickels want to give City employees "free bus passes." Very laudable. But free??? Someone's paying for it down the line, Greg-o.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)