I got a note from the T4W people pointing out that I didn’t read the bill language correctly: the removal of tolling obstacles applies to Transportation Benefit Districts and therefore could help benefit a Seattle-only measure, but all of the other authority is awarded to transit agencies like Metro, Community Transit, and Sound Transit. So it is a “game changer,” but for transit agencies rather than for any city-funded initiative.
Sound Transit’s authority wouldn’t kick in until January 1, 2016.
I still think this is a good bill, but I have different questions about it. Is the city’s current TBD authority capable of raising enough revenue to build one or more of the Streecar Network lines?
It seems, if this bill passes, the most optimistic gameplan is to wait until U-Link & S 200th open, which will greatly improve and extend the service provided by Link and then put an ST3 on the ballot in 2018?
I assume the additional funding options given by this bill would provide the much-sought-for sustainable funding mechanism sought by Metro for the future?
I love this. Sound Transit gets to put a new tax measure up for a vote before ULink comes on line. That was how it successfully passed ST2 – build on the excitement leading up to opening a segment, without having to show that segment would do much!
What a load of rubbish. U-Link will more than double Central Link’s boardings and vastly improve quality of life in the city. I assume you are one of those cranks from the suburbs who’s never actually ridden one of the busses that Link will replace.
I have to disagree with Bruce.
It’s perfectly reasonable, what was proposed.
For all the expectations given for U-Link, it’s simply an extension of a system with two more stops. I don’t discount the utility of those two major stops, but the Husky Stadium parking lot is not my idea of the center of anything, unless your a football nut.
It’s a fairly long, uphill walk to the campus, an acceptable walk to the Med Ctr, and a ‘not so comprehensible’ walk to catch a connecting bus to somewhere else.
The 70 series buses would be awkward, at best, to integrate into Link, so will probably stay around until Brooklyn Stn is finished after 2021 ?? sometime.
Given all the uncertainties of how successful U-Link will be, it’s logical to get ST3 passed before any bad news taints an election.
I think Shannon is probably right, and the rubbish originates from elsewhere.
Just one opinion.
Mike, us UW students walk A LOT. The walk from Husky Stadium to Red Square is nothing. People walk farther than that in a typical class day including from campus to their residence off-campus in the U-District. People are willing to walk farther to high quality, super reliable and super frequent transit service.
No-one who has had to travel between the U-District and downtown on peak would make such imbecilic comments. Yes, transfers will be awkward until North Link is built out; I trust, then, that you are rooting for its speedy completion? I’ll still take 8 minutes on a comfortable train followed by either a 15 minute walk or a short ride on the 44/48/7x than 30+ minutes on crush-loaded, unreliable 7xs.
As usual, like “suckie” below, these dribblesome opinions come from people from the suburbs and beyond who have no earthly clue about the city or its transit needs, and should confine themselves to talking about the things they know about.
Wow, somebody is a little CRANKY this morning.
We’ll, as someone who has driven all those routes you claim to be such an expert on,including all the trolley routes, I stand by my statement in spite of now being a certified ‘imbecile’.
Any more names you want to call me to make your well thought out argument?
I didn’t call you any names, I called your ideas imbecilic.
When was the last time you drove a 71/2/3 at rush hour?
“U-Link will more than double Central Link’s boardings”
That would prove it was a massive mistake. That’s an anemic ridership level, based primarily on nothing more than stealing riders from Metro.
Bruce, do you have ANY clue about how much the tax cost will be to the people of this region over the next forty years to secure the debt for this brutally-inefficient capital undertaking? Never once have you posted anything suggesting you have the slightest clue about the tax cost of the ST financing plan.
5 cents on a ten dollar purchase. Cry me a river.
Half the point of U-Link and North Link is to replace the hopelessly-overcrowded and unreliable U-District express busses.
My “more than double” comment came from some back-of-the-envelope calculations I made in a separate discussion to establish that U-Link will, even under the most pessimistic assumptions you could possibly imagine, bring Link’s cost per boarding below that of Metro. I expect U-Link to bring far more riders than that.
The only thing brutally inefficient around here is arguing with the anti-rail trolls and dinosaurs determined to inflict their ignorance about public transit on everyone in the region. I look forward to grovelling recantations from all of you in 20 years, when Link will be universally considered as an essential part of the regional infrastructure and one of the best investments we’ve ever made.
If you value people’s time, which most people do, the time savings alone over the bus is easily worth $250,000 a day to society. U-Link will have paid for itself just in saved time even before the construction bonds are retired.
It will save me about 40 minutes on a roundtrip from First Hill to the UW Medical Center, which, at my billable rate, is worth about $100 to my employer.
The mobility improvements that U-Link and North Link will bring to tens of thousands of people are more than worth the small capital investment.
“That’s an anemic ridership level, based primarily on nothing more than stealing riders from Metro.”
Ridership on Link will more than double so I don’t agree with your “anemic” characterization. As for “Stealing” riders, so what? When Sound Transit “Steals” those riders it will allow Metro to redeploy those resources making the whole system more useful. Remember that Metro still loses money on those trips so as long as the trains are reasonably full the costs per passenger carried go down. Link’s per-rider operating costs are already lower than all but the most crowded bus routes.
I currently drive 4 trips on the 73X, 2 of which are typically *PACKED*. Passengers will save 3-5 minutes boarding time with off train payment which allows pass holders to avoid being held up by one or two bozos who can’t seem to find all of their pennies before they get on the bus. Reverse commute passengers will also save time by skipping the Eastlake stretch with it’s traffic lights, double-parking, and occasional surprise door opening (which forces us to drive slower)
@VeloBusDriver I was going to mention your experiences but I didn’t want to drag you unwittingly into this trollfest.
Under Metro’s HIGHLY optimistic scheduling, it takes 14 minutes from University St Station to 45th St when the busses are express. I have NEVER been on a bus on a weekday that made it on time (they’re usually a few minutes late by the time they get to Univ St then at LEAST five minutes late by the time I get off at 50th St.) Much worse is when those busses are local on Eastlake, when the scheduled time is 25 minutes — equally optimistic. Once North Link goes in, those trips will be a comfortable and punctual 10 minutes. I have almost never been on a 7x before 9 PM that wasn’t standing room only.
There are places where Link is justified largely by future growth (the RV) and places where it’s a stretch, but probably still worth doing and reasonable people could disagree on (S 200th St.) Downtown to Northgate is NOT one of those corridors: it needs rail NOW, it probably could have used rail five years ago. No-one who is serious about public transit and has actually experienced transit on these corridors would say otherwise.
ST has not said when ST3 may be on the ballot. This bill was just introduced; I doubt ST has even thought about how it might change ST3’s timing if the bill passes. In any case, ST2 was passed three months after Link opened, allowing voters to experience it for themselves. We can’t wait till 2023 (ST2’s completion date) to approve an extension because it takes several years to prepare for construction, and that would push the opening date even further back to 2030 or beyond — even though the transit is needed now.
It doesn’t take much guessing to see what U-link will do. The buses from UW to downtown take 10-30 minutes depending on traffic, lateness, and whether the express is running. The buses from Capitol Hill to downtown take 8-12 minutes. Link will take 8 minutes and 3 minutes respectively if I remember right, with much better reliability. That’s a 50% or more speed improvement in most cases. So UW and SCCC students will undoubtably switch, as will many Capitol Hill riders. Non-students going to the U-district or transferring in the U-district may stay on the 71-73XX if they’re still running, but that’s just the consequence of not opening Brooklyn station until 5 years after UW station.
Plus there’s the one-seat ride from UW to the airport for out-of-state students and their families. That’s a new transit service that has never existed.
Huh? Link opened in 2009, but ST2 passed in 2008. Am I missing something?
Am I getting the year wrong?
Mike,
suppose the SR-520 tolling makes that highway run reliably. the eastside project could open in 2014 and will include center access ramps to and from the west at 108th Avenue NE. U Link opens in 2016.
Then routes 71, 72, and 73 could be split in 2016 as follows: Route 271 (truncated at BTC) could be interlined with Route 48 North and use the 108th Avenue NE ramps; Route 48 South could be interlined with the tails of routes 71 and 73. Route 72 could be absorbed into a full time Route 372. Route 70 could terminate on NE Pacific Place. all the above routes could be run more often with the savings from the 71 series change. all routes would have a reasonable transfer distance with U Link. U Link will have four-car trains.