Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Unchecked. Unbalanced. | Speaking of the Packed ACLU Ev... »

Friday, May 5, 2006

Quote of the Day

Posted by on May 5 at 17:06 PM

“It’s not true rapid transit.”

We just had a meeting with King County Exec Ron Sims, his spokesperson Sandeep Kaushik, and Kevin Desmond, general manager of Metro.

They were here to sell us on Transit Now, Sims’ proposed sales tax increase to boost Metro bus service. They describe the plan as “Bus Rapid Transit,” which is an odd thing to call adding more buses to already crowded city streets—because, um, aren’t all those new buses going to be stuck in traffic with the old buses and cars already on the road? Unless, of course, traffic lanes currently open to cars are reserved for buses only, right? (It’s a nice idea—hey, I’m for anything that makes driving less convenient—but I’m not holding my breath.) When I said that I didn’t think more buses stuck in traffic could be described as rapid transit, Desmond said, and I quote, “It’s not true rapid transit.”

Thanks for clearing that up, Mr. Desmond.

This is a gotcha, I know, and I’m being a dick. (Which is soooo unlike me.) But we had a shot at actual rapid transit and the entire political establishment—Sims included—did everything in its power to stop rapid transit from coming to Seattle. But hey! I’m not bitter! And I’m for… buses. The ‘mo buses the ‘mo better. But it ticks me right fucking off to hear something that isn’t rapid transit being sold as rapid transit by the same folks who killed rapid transit. You can call it bus rapid transit if you dedicate lanes to buses, Ron. If you’re not prepared to do that, there’s nothing rapid about your transit plan.


CommentsRSS icon

Busses are for poor people, normal people do not ride them. They are not a real transit solution. Most people on busses have mental problems and smell, which is one reason why no one rides them.


Be a dick Dan. Most people hate busses and wanted real transit.

Yeah, but the monorail was JUST ONE LINE. Sims's bus plan goes all over the city. Ideally, buses would supplement rail lines, not serve as a replacement for rail... but frequent bus service is better than shitty bus service-right?

Also, Sims didn't describe the entire plan as BRT - just the express buses. I don't agree with the term either (because buses get stuck in traffic, and because even dedicated bus lanes can be re-dedicated to cars at a later date) but it's common terminology. Kevin Desmond didn't invent the phrase.

Boo fucking hoo.

Get over yourself/the Monorail (near as I can tell, they're one and the same).

I am over the monorail. I hardly bring it up—ask Erica and Josh, who were in the meeting. They brought up the monorail, not me. I just think it's dishonest to describe bus-anything as "rapid transit," and it was nice to hear Desmond admit that it wasn't rapid transit—despite what the brouchure they handed me said.

Oh please, you are obviously FAR from over the Monorail - and the fact that you filtered the Sims proposal through that prism pretty much speaks for itself.

Actually, more busses *do* reduce traffic. For every new bus full of 60 new passengers, you take at least 30-40 cars off the road (this is only relevant for new riders who leave their cars at home, not existing riders who are not driving now). If more busses running more frequently to more neighborhoods gets people out of their cars and on to busses, it could significantly reduce the number of cars on the roads, and actually speed up traffic, even without dedicated bus lanes.

"Busses" are kisses. "Buses" are the large motorized road transit vehicles.

I bet all these people that are clamoring for buses have never lived in a city with a real transit system.

Good post.
Of course we elected them and YOU, Savage, in particular, endorsed that zombie Nickels.

So take some blame yourself.

Right you are, Tiffany. And for what it's worth, Raw Data, I was for Nickels before we were against him. I asked Nickels to return my campaign contribution, which he did, and then I voted for Runte.

Listen to ECB, Dan. Cost vs benefits. The monorail wouldn't have been enough, especially given how much of a financial hit it would've put on city and taxpayer coffers.

And hey, I know it's at-grade in spots, but aren't we building a rapid transit line right now, from the airport to Downtown?

And Seattle Native has a point, Dan: you would not be pissing, moaning and bitching so much right now if you were over the monorail.

I spend about an hour a day waiting for my buses, and waste more time than that taking buses that are earlier than I need them. Buses every 10 minutes sure sounds like rapid transit to me.

I used to take the bus to Microsoft every day, and I can assure you that buses are not only for poor people. They're also for people who want to get to where they're going faster, while reading or using their wi-fi enabled laptops. Unfortunately, the bus only came every 25 minutes or so, and I usually had to stand.

Not so quick, Dan.

I am talking about Nickels' first election, when he ran against Sidran. You supported Nickels big time. And you were assholes to Sidran, especially Feit. Total assholes. And assholes with poor judgment, as well, trying to play in a sandbox with adults.

And you are at it again, taking Murray and the other clones like Street -- all cut from the same cloth as the current City Council and Mayor -- as serious people.

You can't be complaining about our elected at the same time as you are helping them get elected.


Raw data, that's what Dan said. He was for him before he was against him.

The sad fact is, though, the discussion is moot. Ain't no monorails. As Ms. Barnett said yesterday, it's not a choice between monorail and buses anymore; it's a choice between buses and nothing at all.

In that case, I'll go with buses. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Ron Sims did nothing to kill the monorail. It is wrong to blame decisionmakers in the region for not saving the monorail. Tom Weeks and Joel Horn shut everyone out of involvement. They knew best and never left campaign mode. Blame them and then look at yourself for not asking tougher questions when it might have made a difference. Like, "what kind of qualifications does Joel Horn have to create and run a major transit agency?" for starters.

Transit Now may not be rapid transit, but it does offer quicker, more frequent service in five corridors around the county (three in Seattle) with traffic improvements to those corridors. Call it BRT-lite if you must. It also adds frequency to the 35 busiest routes in the system. Given that it will take a while to built true mass transit, this proposal seems to be a good stop gap for the next ten years.

"But we had a shot at actual rapid transit and the entire political establishment—Sims included—did everything in its power to stop rapid transit from coming to Seattle."

The entire political establishment?

Are you kidding?

Let's see. There was the mayor, nearly the entire city council, all the labor union locals, the city House and Senate representatives (one even sat on their board), the environmental community, nearly every major architecture firm and most of the law firms, Gov. Evans, Vulcan, the Mariners...oh yeah, I almost forgot...the queen mother of the establishment herself, Judy Runstad.

Yup, that's pretty much the local establishment.

Only one problem. They were all FOR the monorail Dan.

I'm guessing that your memory skills aren't that pitiful, Dan. But your respect for your readers' intelligence is.

comethefuckon: you are a moron.

the mayor did everything in his power to kill it. the city council looked for every nit picking chance to kill it.

county reps were against it 'cause of sims corrupt ties to the sound transit debacle.

have some respet for our intelligence. please.

Maybe I have a simplistic worldview, but more buses seems like a great thing to me. Yay mass transit! Why are we seeing so much static over it here of all places?

No wonder the third viaduct option is going nowhere -- everyone is afraid that if they go with it, all the liberals who supported it will spend the next 10 years bitching about the minutae of the transit implementation.

HMA-

The mayor did everything in his power to kill it? Are you serious?

You mean like when he signed the petition to CREATE it in 2002. When he spoke on it's behalf during the campaign? Or maybe when he sent out his political team to run the monorail campaign.

Does that really sound like he was doing "everything in his power to kill it" or maybe he actually "supported" it. Fairly different concepts.

Sure, after Joel, Tom and the dumbshits carjacked Dick Falkenbury and drove his cab straight into the motherfucking wall and the monorail was laying in the street bleeding to death, the mayor (and Dan and Josh from the Stranger as I recall) supported putting the monorail out of its misery.

Killed the monorail? That's like saying veternarians are dog murderers because they euthanize dying dogs.

That's plain stupid.

PS What are the "county reps" you refer to? County Republicans...County Representatives...I'm not following.

Hey, what would it take to restart the monorail?


The citizen majority that supported it got screwed and spooked by the idiotic management. The timing of their financing fiasco could not have been worse.

Okay. We've cooled off. Isn't there any leadership behind this initiative that won 4 votes out of the last five to get this thing rolling again?

For it to happen, Richard, it would need to serve more neighborhoods, run a shorter route, and cost MUCH less to implement. The dude on the Forums who goes like Sirkulat proposed a Circulator Monorail Plan, which went between Seattle Center, Downtown and Capitol Hill, and would've cost much less while serving more people and in neighborhoods more people travel to and from.

Sadly, I think there's a sense of guilt by association with any future proposal of such a system, due to the high proposed costs the Green Line incurred. You're also up against that.

The relatively limited number of manufacturers of the technology also poses a serious problem, as they can gouge the city. Because, after all, who else are you going to go to for infrastructure and parts? With light rail, many companies produce train parts, so there's more competition and better pricing. Ditto buses.

Basically, I don't think it has a shot of getting on the board unless a projected proposal can built it in under 5 years for under a billion dollars.

One more gratuitous shot...please?

Here's why the monorail morons like HMA can never be trusted with transit.

He refers to the "sound transit debacle."

Right. The one that's actually being built is a debacle.

If Sound Transit is a debacle, I guess we might as well hang a big "mission accomplished" banner over the old monorail headquarters.

Ok, I'm done now. Back to nice bus talk.

Sound Transit is a debacle! It is just a debacle with political support so even though it is colossally over budget, behind schedule and will never provide the level of service promised to voters it will get built and everybody in three counties will pay for it.


Nickels never liked the Monorail but got behind it when the public defeated attempts to kill it by the City Council and Seattle's downtown real estate establishment.


Nickels knew that major capitol projects eventually reach a sticker shock phase. On projects backed by the political establishment politicians will step forward and champion it the way Sims has championed Sound Transit. When a project lacks the backing of the political establishment, politicians will use the indecision created by sticker shock to sink it. In this case Nickels pounced when the opportunity presented itself.

Dipping A Toe offer very astute analysis.

No FNARF,
Savage has not fessed up but offered some cutesy little line about he was for him before he was against him.
BS.
The Stranger got Nickels elected the first time -- it was the margin of diffrence Nickels needed.

Damn Dan... PREACH!

I'm sorry... call me a monorailer, but I think it was the smarter thing. How can Seattle not realize our city is changing? Can't see the mountain clearly anymore because there's always haze. What used to be, basically, spit when I first moved here in '99 is now drenching rains. The gap between the haves and havenots grow while the city is unable to move people around (greenly) in a manner that is not only rapid, but astonsihing... the idea that I can go to Ballard on rapid transit is exciting.

Sorry.

And it would benefit everyone better...

... however, it has to be done better...

Vote NO on the combined ST2 and RTID proposal that will be on the November 2007 ballot. It will create EXACTLY the same kind of debacles as ST and the SMP. These things are completely unaccountable after they get formed. They sell vague "green" and "progressive" concepts to the gullible Seattle voters, and then once formed they are unaccountable and do not provide nearly enough social benefit in light of the fortunes in public money they take in.

Next year Sound Transit has budgeted income to itself of something like $400,000,000. This is an annual amount, folks, and it will grow each year for decades. A small fraction of that would make the Seattle Schools flush, and impact our area in a much more positive way.

These massive infrastructure projects are complete boondoggles, sold using progressive catchphrases ("alternatives to driving", "reduce auto emissions").


Non-sequiter:

Oftentimes, the bus has been referred to as "stinky" with gross chronic public inebriates all over the place. It should be said that the #7, #43, and #14 (i.e. buses coming from downtown and going to the Hill) can suffer from this problem, but many other commuter buses don't. Those buses have regular working people on them with their headphones, newspapers, and knitting all over the place. In fact, I saw a bus driver from one of these commuter buses get out of her driver seat recently and tell an only slightly inebriated/stinky, non-hunched-over person that he wasn't allowed on the bus, that the cops were called, and that Metro had gotten calls about him. He didn't board the bus. I've never seen that happen on the #7. The downtrodden #7 riders just assume that all buses are gross and just take it.

So, the point: Contrary to popular belief, most buses aren't crammed with crazies and that if we bus riders are more dilligent about reporting crazies on the bus, bus drivers would be more empowered to refuse service to those who wish to puke on us during our morning rides. For transit (rapid or otherwise) to work, it has to be better than a car and a puke-free, pleasant ride is one of those elements.

One Thing's got a point. 98% of the time, there is not a single dirty, rank, inebriated degenerate to be found on the bus. And during the workday commute, you NEVER see them.

First, on my obsession: I have a 100+page paper and the limitless space of the web at my disposal every week. I wrote one half page piece after the monorail went down, and two blogs posts—this one includeded. This is what obsession looks like?

The Stranger and Nickels: We backed Nickels over Sidran—guilty as charged. Did we get Nickels elected? His margin was so slim against Sidran that you could argue that. But would you prefer Sidran to Nickels? I wouldn't, even with Nickels betraying both the rapid transit movement and his own alleged green agenda.

As for Sound Transit: years later, and billions over budget. It's sins are bigger than the SMP's. But it's being built because it's got political backing from our elected officials—sincere political backing, not the two-faced stuff the monorail was met with after voters approved it four times. The mayor was, as we learned, never sincere about the monorail. He was waiting for the crisis moment that all large public works projects face, and then he moved to kill it. ST would not have survived a similar vote when it was having its crisis moment, and the political establishment made sure it didn't have to face one.

So the political leaders realized that only one project could survive, and they stuck with the one that came first and had real funding. I'm still not sure how this is some horrible thing. It looks like the sensible decission to me.

Had they dropped Sound Transit in favor of the monorail, they'd have lost a lot of political capital, 5 years of effort and a bunch of federal funding, as well as weakening the public view of public transit in the process. After giving up on one big project when the going got tough, what are the chances that the monorail, even with their political backing, would have survived its crunch time? People are remarkably fickle about these things. We'd be waiting another 20 years for real transit in the area.

The horrible thing: llight rail will be stuck in traffic behind cars and buses. It's not grade-seperated transit. But, like, whatever. I would be more enthused about Sims' plan if it was about extending light rail all over town. It may not be faster than driving, but trains are a more pleasant ride than buses, and that alone will 1. create an incentive for more people to leave their cars at home and 2. reward people who already take transit. Both good, as far as I'm concerned.

So to sum up my position: an elevated system would have been best. That not being on the table anymore, light rail is better than nothin'—it's certainly better than BRT, or "Not True Rapid Transit," as Desmond describes it.

Dan,

I wish you, or some of Seattle's erstwhile monorail majority, were sufficiently obsessed about their righteousn position to keep playing hardball even when the chips are decidedly down. (Sorry, weekend special on mixed metaphors at QFC.)

Once the thing got started it'd be cool as shit. The political will to build more lines would come easier and easier. Seattle might contribute something humane to urban history instead of just continuing to coast on its late arrival to simulate an aura of 'sustainabilty'.

I guess it's only sports teams around here that keep at their shit long enough to get it built.

The Monorail and Dan Savage suck ass! So fucking tired...

Dan - thanks for helping Nickels win over Sidran. Nickels ain't perfect, but thank god we didn't elect the Giuliani impersonator Sidran.

But Dan, as you know, it is intellectually dishonest to claim at grade transit will get stuck in traffic. I am sure you are aware we have these things called 'computers' that can run traffic control devices. But you know this, you just like scaring people into not liking at grade options because it supports your monorail obsession.

The monorail was voted down, by voters, not polticicians. Remember? Democracy only works when there is good information for voters to base decisions on. It took a long time for voters to get the truth about the monorail due in part to fanatics in the press who were for it and failed to print the truth about it for years. When you finally did, the public got it and voted against it. Maybe if you would have put out sound analysis from the beginning the faults of SMP could have been dealt with. Instead it was spun into the ground. I hope you learn from that.

The bus plan is good. It sure would have been nice to not waste the years we did on the monorail and instead have implemented the bus system sooner. Hopefully we can also spread light rail and trams around the city, and more dedicated bus lanes.

I was recently in Nottingham England. I left my hotel, walked less than a block to a tram which took me to a light rail system that got me to Heathrow. Amazing we don't have regional transit like that around here. So glad we didn't blow billions and billions on one line that would have done nothing to get people around to multiple neighborhoods and the airport.

Blah blah blah. The monrail is dead, Seattle Center is saved, and we are starting to talk about real transit solutions. Thank god Erica can write about this stuff intelligently.

And thank god we have Nickels in office instead of Sidran. Really people, what recent Mayor has done more for Seattle than Nickels? We'll see how Steinbrueck does when he's Mayor, but right now Nickels is Seattle's best mayor that I can remember.

Yes, yes: the monorail is dead. But I didn't use the dreaded "M" word in my posting. Folks in comments brought that up. I merely pointed out—and Desmond backed me up!—that buses aren't rapid transit.

And yeah, David, the voters killed the monorail—the fifth time. So the voters for it, for it, for it, and for it before they were against it. As i said, no large public works project could survive a vote at its crisis moment. That's when political leadership is needed—and that leadership was there for light rail, but not there for the monorail. True colors were revealed, etc. And that's too bad. But its simply a distortion to say that voters killed it. The voters would kill everything—the new city hall, the downtown library, light rail, and the coming tunnel mess—if they were asked to give an up or down during the crisis that always comes. Hell, if the voters were asked "yes or no" on city hall when Schell spent 50K on a tree, they would have halted construction.

But I'm, like, over it.

just for reference, here's an example of what I'm talking about.

http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=453018

At present, the Light Rail Transit system incorporates approximately 30 km (18.6 mi) of double track and 31 stations. Approximately 87% of the LRT system is composed of surface operation in a shared right-of-way. Outside of the downtown area, the LRT operates adjacent to and in the median of arterial roadways and in an existing rail corridor. In this environment, the LRT has priority over street traffic, preempting the traffic signals at intersecting roadways. Downtown, three LRT lines merge and run under line-of-site operation along the 7th Avenue Transit Mall along with transit buses and emergency vehicles. Although trains are not given special priority along 7th Avenue, traffic signal phasing provides progression to minimize delays as the LRT travels between stations. Based on experiences documented in this paper, it is demonstrated that LRT can operate harmoniously with private vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles in the right-of-way of city streets. Strategies developed maintain an acceptable level of traffic operations at intersecting streets while giving priority to LRT operation through traffic signal preemption. Existing traffic signal and railway crossing equipment and control techniques have also been adapted to manage the interaction between LRT operations and private vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic at intersecting streets and LRT stations, and to accommodate nonstandard crossing configurations such as skewed intersections.

Uh, duh Dan. The bus system isn't supposed to be rapid transit as you define RT. It should be seen as an addition to rapid transit not a replacement for it, so I don't get your point.

So now that we know the majority of polticians and voters are against a too expensive one line monorail transit solution, where do we go? Seems to me we need to look at expanding light rail and the bus system right? It will take a mix of different types of transit. Let's build it.

La la la, David.

My point—and it's a simple one: They're selling the bus plan as rapid transit. It's not. End of point.

Confused? Re-read.

Duh, duh, duh - what they are selling, and all anyone is talking about IS more - many more BUSSSSSESSSSS just like the ones that have been on the streets of ALL cities worldwide for a century.

Dan, are you confused?

One tenth of one percent for more BUUSSSEEESSSSS.

Household cost - estimated at 25.00 per year in added taxes.

Brilliant. Easy. Quick. Familiar. No billions of infrastructure. Reliable. CCCCHHHHEEEAAAPPPPPP ------ repeat, per household cost 25.00 per year.

Who is so stupid to oppose this plan? If you take the bus five times a year and it is a better schedule - there is an easy 25.00 dollars worth.

Constant riders will annoint the name of Ron Sims- name the kids Ron or Ronnie.

What better system next?

Dan, you successfully avoided usage of the M word and your gold star is in the mail, but in saying that 'we had a chance at rapid transit and we failed', you are directly referencing the monorail, because there isn't any other failed Seattle rapid transit project out there, so it's implied.

I agree that selling the bus system expansion as rapid transit is silly and incorrect.

No, Gomez, I'm sure Dan meant this...

"On February 13, 1968, King County votes on 12 proposed Forward Thrust bond propositions (and one transit administration referendum) totaling $815.2 million. Voters approve seven propositions worth $356.2 million by the required 60 percent, including a $40 million multi-purpose stadium (the Kingdome) and $118 million for new parks. Local bonds for $385 million to help fund a $1.15 million rapid transit system fail with only 50.8 percent of the vote....

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer called the vote a "major community triumph," but supporters such as Forward Thrust founder James R. Ellis and Seattle Mayor Dorm Braman expressed disappointment in the failure of the Rapid Transit measure. Braman predicted that the transit system's rejection would have "tragic results."

The Sims proposal is sound. It would be even better with more funds. Sims suggests that 12 percent of the new service hours be set aside for a partnership program. Seattle should step up and compete for some of that pot. Seattle has to agree to provide greater priority to the BRT lines. If the AWV is closed, how will the West Seattle line cross the BNSFRR mainline in SODO? Will the South Spokane Street or South Lander Street overcrossings be funded before the AWV closure?

Desmond may have meant to imply that the BRT routes would not be rapid transit due to lacking complete grade separation; that yields improved speed and reliability for any mode: LRT, BRT, or monorail. Both BRT and LRT vary in practice by their degree of grade separation. Heavy rail systems have complete grade separation: the Chicago El, the NYC subways, the Boston MBTA red, orange, and blue lines, BART. LRT has a range of grade separation. Muni runs some at grade and some in tunnel. The MBTA green line also has a range of grade profiles. ST Link LRT will also have a range of profiles: at grade along MLK Jr. Way South and in tunnels under Beacon Hill and Capitol Hill and elevated in Tukwila. Some bus systems are true rapid transit: Ottawa and Curritiba and the Orange line in LA. But some BRT lines have no exclusive rights-of-way; Vancouver's 99B and 98B and the LA lines are examples; despite their lack of separation, they are quite successful. Complete grade separation is great, but is also quite costly and transit funds are limited. Limited transit funds spent on securing exclusive rights-of-way have opportunity costs; they can not be spent on service frequency on other corridors.

So, both BRT and LRT are terms applying to a continuum of grade profiles. The waterfront streetcar, the SLU streetcar, the Portland streetcar, the MLK alignment, and the Capitol Hill tunnel are all LRT. Toronto streetcars have much more grade separation than the Portland and SLU lines and are serious transit. The Ottawa busways and Vancouver's 99B are both BRT. Monorails also have a range of application. The Tokyo connection to their airport is clear HCT; the Sydney circulator is not.

The Sims BRT proposals will have some complete grade separation in the dowtown tunnel and on the south busway. They could be provided some degree of separation on arterials (e.g., transit and right turn only lanes on Aurora Avenue North, parking removal along Elliott and 15th Avenue West, signal priority, the 3rd Avenue priority measures implemented in September 2005, HOV lanes on Pacific Highway South). Much depends upon the jurisictions that Sims does not control.

BRT should have improved speed, branding, frequency. A key decision: will the Metro BRT have faster fare collection; today, they only use one door outside downtown Seattle.

Good lord, KB, that was nearly 40 years ago. The times, points of view and priorities of the nation were far different than they are now.

Dan, did you really write this?

"The horrible thing: llight rail will be stuck in traffic behind cars and buses. It's not grade-seperated transit."

Or did some idiot hijack your user name?

Um...Dan...have you driven to the airport lately? The big track in the air is not a monorail. It is light rail and it is actually separated from the grade by about 40 or 50 feet.

Life's so much more fun when you don't let the facts get in the way, isn't it?

Fact is, some of the light rail tracks are up in the air. Also up in the air is the amount Sound Transit has spent, and will spend. Like, there is absolutely no way to figure out what it has spent, or what it will spend. And ST does not want to estimate what it has spent, or what it is going to spend.

Gomez and CTFO, you two are big ST backers -- how much will this local government's undertakings cost (assuming the voters reject ST2)?

You must agree that at some point the costs outweigh the benefits, right? Or are you two irrational cultists who do not believe government expenditures can be too pricey?

I really don't expect a substantive response from these two clowns (or anyone else who would be an apologist for ST), whenever a ST supporter is asked this kind of direct question they either ignore it or just insult the screen name asking it.

Savage,

Of course it's impossible to know whether Sidran would have been a good mayor. But the guy we have now is clearly a very poor one.

Your opposition to Sidran was based on a very narrow criterion: rock-and-roll, teen-dance, pissing in the street etc etc. It was shallow and appropriately adolescent. And btw I am not saying that Sidran was the be-all of candidates -- but I was not impressed then with your judgment. Or now.

Of course maybe you simply prefer fat guys.

while other cities are moving ahead with rapid transit or have had it for a long time, Seattle just keeps bogging it's self down with politics whenever it tries to decide on something important like rapid transit. I live in vancouver Canada and we have build rapid transit over the last 20 years. The "RAV" line from downtown to the airport is under construction as we speak. There were discussions and problems and politics involved and some people were not happy but it all was resolved and clear leadership to implement rapid transit was put into action.
Why can't you do the same? what is the damn problem? I don't think it is whether it is a monorail or any other type of rapid transit I think it is the politics of Seattle and area. They seem to grind along and eventually destroy basic ideas that should be implemented. In the time all this rapid transit has been talked about it could have been built.

Isn't this thing funded with a sales tax?

It won't be long before our sales tax rate in this state and in Seattle hits 15%. That is way too regressive.

Also, traffic is here to stay. Let's stop evaluating transit based on whether it will "get people out of their cars". Manhattan has every concievable form of public transit--but there is still terrible traffic and no place to park.

For sure - the sales tax is regressive.

This is an increase of one tentth of one percent.

Will add 25 dollars a year to your life if you live in King county.

Bargain. All county, all purchases.

The value is in the small tax bite for real gains in bus transportation.

One of the biggest mistakes in the MONO R plan was just one tax source pulled from auto opwners. Stupid in the beginning. Not fair, but also set up an automatice opposition group.

MONO people stupid to the max after the first discussions. Like a cult - so imbued with the idea they could not get back to the real world with implemenmtation.

This idea is the opposite. Easy. Fast. Cheap. No Cultism. Lesser Beings Can Understnd It.

Brian,

You're absolutely right. Seattle is as process-paralyzed as any suburban backwater, and it doesn't help that the opinions of cab drivers and pie-in-the-sky halfwits (e.g. "sirkulator") are taken seriously. Thus, we tend to get half-assed transit "solutions" that are nitpicked into the ground by special interests and yuppie NIMBYs.

Why did the green line run between Ballard and West Seattle? Why wasn't it planned as a loop system, instead of an expensive, bulky switched system? Why won't light rail run down Broadway? Why the hell are major, central Seattle neighborhoods like Wallingford, Greenlake, Phinney, Greenwood, Fremont and Eastlake being ignored by transit planers? Why is there no major east-west route being planned for North Seattle?

Why? Because no one SMART is allowed to dominate the conversation here. Rather than well-engineered transit systems, we get political monsters.

Ultimately, any retard can propose a public transit system. In Seattle, however, these retards are given real political power.

Raw Data - you just posted the stupidest thing I have ever read on a blog.

Not supporting Sidran for reasons that were "too adolescent"

Then linking political talent to being too fat....ie... Mayor Nickels.

How very mature and cogent, using your vast intellect. and perceptions about how the world works.

Silly twitisms - whatever age or education you are.

Does Bush get a ten from you, he seems not too fat. Neither does Rumsfield seem too fat ...... god, oh god ......

Do you remember Sidran and wife opposing a gay bar on 1st Ave next to some small building they owned, because it would not be good for their version of the neighborhood?

A neighborhood that has been mainly bars and cafes for 60 years. Sidran was and is a puke. He also lost his next politcal race, when the Stranger endorsed him.

Bite a dick, Joe Friday. At least, unlike the other plans, the light rail plan seemed feasible and we're actually BUILDING IT.

And you assume the monorail would not have been late or over budget. Nearly ALL projects are late and over budget. And something as strange and new as the monorail, with as few experienced vendors, engineers and contractors out there to handle the technology, there is no doubt that the Green Line would've been far over budget, billions and billions over budget, and very late, probably by 5-7 years, had we built it.

The $1-2 billion overrun on Link is nothing in comparison.

Gomez - bite a dick is just right for any Sunday ........ maybe earlier ....

Few other things the MONO cult does not want to remember.

Sound Transit is backed with federal money - not so with the old Momorail.

Sound Transit is a three county funding project - MONO cult only wanted Seatte, alone, to pay the bill.
No state, nt fed, no county, no tri-county. BAD stuff in the beginning and when they were challenged they cackled like nits about how car owners were going to hate paying the tax and give up their cars.

The logic of the whole bad planning episode.

Friday,

Do the costs of sound transit outweight the benefit? In my opinion, no.

Look at the Northgate extension, for example.

How much would it cost to add (if it's even possible) additional lanes to I-5 through Seattle? Now compare that cost of getting light rail to Northgate. And compare that cost to letting I-5 become a total parking lot (especially when work begins on the Viaduct).

I would argue that building light rail to Northgate is much smarter from a cost/benefit standpoint than the other two options.

PS Yes, when it comes to public transportation, I am probably an "irrational cultist." I believe in most cases that public transportation are cheaper and cleaner than building more roads. The monorail was the exception to my love of public transit...and I think this whole discussion proves how much of the monorail's base was composed of people who simply hated light rail.

Gomez: "Good lord, KB, that was nearly 40 years ago. The times, points of view and priorities of the nation were far different than they are now."

Granted, that vote was nearly 40 years ago, but it technically proves Dan's point that he wasn't referring to the monorail. Ok, I'm being a smart ass, but I did point it out to show that we could have decent rapid transit right now if a few more voters had more foresight. Our mistake was Atlanta's gain (they got the federal money we were supposed to get).

That said, Sims' plan is the best we're going to have for awhile, and between it and ST, I think we'll going to have about the best system(s) we can have, given the reality around here.

I ride the bus everyday to work. Buses suck. I don't want more of them. I want a rapid solution. I'm not voting for any expansion to the bus system.

And saying buses pull cars off the road and thus lessen congestion is bullshit. It's the flipside of saying adding more highway lanes lessens congestion. The roads will always be as full as people are willing to put up with; which is to say, pretty bad.

Indeed, Jake. That sort of handlebar moustache twirling in public didn't help their cause at all. For all the talk of backdealing corruption by ST and the city, there sure seemed like a lot of backdealing coming from SMP themselves.

Question, Colin: where do you bus in from and to where are you going? Context could be the issue.

Neither monorail nor sound transit are justified. Just because ST is being built, and it has been "being built" for ten years now, does not mean it is worth it.

My girlfriend lives in Everett, and is moving to Seattle. She was saying, and she really doesn't follow transit much at all, that it doesn't matter what people say today, that the growth here in Seattle combined with higher gas prices will force us to build real mass transit like monorail or skytrain or whatever within a few short years, and the politicians are trying to hold back the global warming sea that's rising.

At first, I was stunned. I had thought she really didn't care about transit - and she doesn't - and then I realized she was right on the money.

It's just plain inevitable. Heck, most people in this nation think we actually BUILT a monorail already. They have no clue that we didn't. They're expecting real transit when they come to the green city.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).