Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Fremont Oktoberfest Is Moving | Interoffice Email of the Day »

Monday, June 4, 2007

Josh Is Out Today…

posted by on June 4 at 12:28 PM

…which is why no one at Slog is screaming and yelling about this.

Light-rail debt a 50-year ride

If Sound Transit wins voter approval to extend light rail far beyond Seattle at a cost of more than $23 billion by 2027, taxpayers would still owe an additional $14 billion in construction debt afterward.

Financing costs mean that voters in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties will be looking at a half-century commitment when they decide on a regional-transportation measure in November. The last bonds for the 50-mile rail plan, and other transit projects, would be paid off in 2057.

By then, Sound Transit’s spending would exceed $37 billion, counting inflation and interest charges. Agency leaders say a more accurate number is $10.8 billion, representing the cost of construction and trains in 2006 dollars.

Sound Transit assures area voters that their desire to have their debt always viewed today’s dollars, regardless of the year we’re paying it off, is nothing like the defunct monorail agency’s desire for us to do the same. Because, Sound Transit assure us, light rail is nothing like monorail. And they’re right! It’s bigger, slower, more expensive…

RSS icon Comments

1

i like money

Posted by elenchos | June 4, 2007 12:43 PM
2

Well, dammit, I'm against any kind of train that isn't free. Investing in the future is stupid. Right?

Posted by Fnarf | June 4, 2007 12:48 PM
3

Just how do we know that light rail will be slower? (bigger and more expensive I'll grant you, since the scale of the project is vastly different) Monorail never even turned dirt on the project. I'm not convinced that their "streamlining" and obviously politicized route would have been any better - and I was a monorail supporter.

As far as cost - well, duh. We're building a transit system through some of the most expensive, geographically diverse property in the nation. It should have been done 35 years ago, but it wasn't, because voters were freaked out about Boeing's viability. We're playing catch-up, and that's always expensive.

If they build out a system that functions, that meets all the major traffic centers, then a fifty year tab isn't that bad. What other options do we have? Build the thing with scab labor and no safety regs?

Posted by Catalina Vel-Duray | June 4, 2007 12:48 PM
4

It's only more expensive because most of the stations in the city are subway stations.

Posted by Angry Andrew | June 4, 2007 12:51 PM
5

The big difference is most of the higher number for ST is just inflation. Even that $40bn number only contains $2 in financing, the other higher number is only inflation.

The monorail's $2bn to $11bn difference was almost entirely financing of its debt. That's hugely different than inflation.

Posted by Angry Andrew | June 4, 2007 12:53 PM
6

Half of us will be dead by the time the bill comes do so why not build the damn thing?

Posted by elswinger | June 4, 2007 12:54 PM
7

Hey, I agree with Dan's post, and I still want to see light rail get built. And I bet Dan does too.

Posted by cressona | June 4, 2007 12:58 PM
8

Yeah, I do. Better than what we've got now--which is nothing. But an elevated system would have been the best possible transit system for Seattle... and, like I've said before, sure looks like we could use us some rapid transit between downtown and West Seattle now, huh?

Posted by Dan Savage | June 4, 2007 1:00 PM
9

Cressona @7: Me too. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Posted by Steve | June 4, 2007 1:00 PM
10

"But an elevated system would have been the best possible transit system for Seattle... "

How is it better than a subway? I know you're from Chicago, but move people prefer subways to elevated trains.

Posted by Angry Andrew | June 4, 2007 1:03 PM
11

Subways cost more than elevated, because you have to tunnel and dig, and you have to move complicated stuff like gas, sewer, electric, and phone lines out of the way first. There are also more unpleasant surprises underground than above. Subways are better if cost is not an issue, but cost is never not an issue.

I don't know if light rail will be slower in tunnels than monorail would have been on stilts, but it will definitely be much, much slower at grade.

None of which matters anymore. I'm with 7 and 9 and all the rest of you. Build it, and when you're done build more.

Posted by Fnarf | June 4, 2007 1:11 PM
12

Even if you like light rail, and think this proposal is perfect, there really is a better way to do it. Dissolve ST and let the state run the show. Here's why: there are enormous costs to having ST issue the construction debt, vs. the State. The linked story in the times has a "Q&A" that describes how a $750 million debt security reserve - made up of taxes - would have to be maintained by ST just to issue bonds. If the state was issuing the bonds, that is $750 M that would not need to be taken out of our pockets. That is one of the problems with having a local government do the financing - it is way too costly from the taxpayers' perspective.

Posted by better idea | June 4, 2007 1:13 PM
13

i don't care.

who's bitching about the financing on the narrows bridge, or the 520 replacement, or the gorgeous strip of high speed asphalt through fucking nowhere, central washingon that is US2?

no one.

Posted by maxsolomon | June 4, 2007 1:14 PM
14

Isn't the point less about whether to build light rail and more that all its delays, overruns, and financial misrepresentations have been given a pass when compared to how the monorail was treated? If this is what is meant by the perfect is the enemy of the good, then I guess the supposed lesson here is that anything that isn't supported by rich and powerful people is unrealistic. And, conversely, that Sound Transit boosters were able to kill the monorail for trying to do precisely what Sound Transit has done.

Posted by wf | June 4, 2007 1:14 PM
15



I don't know if light rail will be slower in tunnels than monorail would have been on stilts, but it will definitely be much, much slower at grade.

Only when it has to stop. it will cross I-90 at grade at 60mph if we approve it.

Posted by Angry Andrew | June 4, 2007 1:17 PM
16

. . . And another thing: paying for this transit with a sales tax increase is brutally unfair. That is the most regressive kind of tax. The state should arrange the financing, and use a more progressive tax, such a monthly per-employee tax on employers of a couple of bucks (businesses with five or fewer employees could be exempted).

Vote down this behemouth in November, and a much more streamlined, efficient, and fair proposal will be put up within a year. And given that these projects aren't scheduled to come on line for decades, there's no opportunity cost from that perspective.

No/No worked out for the best three months ago. It's the best move for November as well.

Posted by better idea | June 4, 2007 1:18 PM
17

I actually heard some guy from ST talking about this the other day on KUOW, and yes, it's 50 years. ST is going to issue bonds that have a 30 year run, and the last of them will be issued 20 years from now. In that respect, it's no worse than your average mortgage. I can't oppose this shit just because it's gonna have debt that gets paid off on an amortized schedule. That's just how things work.

Posted by Gitai | June 4, 2007 1:29 PM
18
. . . And another thing: paying for this transit with a sales tax increase is brutally unfair. That is the most regressive kind of tax. The state should arrange the financing, and use a more progressive tax, such a monthly per-employee tax on employers of a couple of bucks (businesses with five or fewer employees could be exempted).

That is WAY more regressive. So Microsoft which pays it's employees an average of $100K will pay $5 per head and a little bakery around the block from my house which pays it's employees an average of $10K will also pay $5 a head? Plus, even it'd take at least $500~$1000 per employee in the region to create the kind of money sound transit needs.

Finally, you think if you tax your boss, he won't eventually take that money out of your paycheck? Taxing your boss for employing you is exactly the same as taxing you. The cost of employing you goes up, so your compensation goes down. Go read a book about labor economics.

"No/No worked out for the best three months ago. It's the best move for November as well."

What did it work out? Are we closer to a viaduct solution?

Posted by not such a good idea | June 4, 2007 1:30 PM
19

Don’t get me wrong, we need light rail, but that said Sound Transit owes the Seattle Times big time for not running this headline:

LIGHT RAIL COSTS $14 BILLION HIGHER THAN AGENCY ESTIMATES

They’ve sucked half the life out of the opposition campaign by putting a polite spin on this right from the get-go. Post-monorail, they had to do this story and early. The only question was spin.

As for the length of the taxes: assume forever.

Posted by BB | June 4, 2007 1:33 PM
20

Just build the damned thing. We need mass transit. We've waited too long. Nothing's going to be as good as it could have been, but I'll take anything over the buses we have now.

Posted by seattleeco | June 4, 2007 1:34 PM
21

Bingo Gitai.

Before folks get their shit in a knot, read this. It looks like the financing plan for ST2 is actually fairly prudent. What got everyone frosted about the Monorail was the jerry-rigged financing scheme and high debt servicing ratio (2.2 for ST2 vs. 5.7 for the Monorail; something in 2.1-2.3 range is typical in today's interest environment)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/06/03/2003733314.pdf

Posted by ho' know | June 4, 2007 1:35 PM
22

To those of us inhabiting the present rather than the future, reporting the costs in imaginary future dollars is even less meaningful than reporting the costs in 1933 Deutschmarks.

If you are communicating to today's people, then you should use today's dollars.

But the issue with the monorail (which I still support) was not general inflation, it was a huge unanticipated spike in construction costs relative to everything else in our economy. Ironcially enough, that spike can be largely attributed to the spike in demand for equipment and raw materials to support the so called "reconstruction" of Iraq.

Posted by Sean | June 4, 2007 1:36 PM
23

Why aren't we getting light rail in West Seattle and Ballard too?

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 4, 2007 1:37 PM
24

"you think if you tax your boss, he won't eventually take that money out of your paycheck?"

We are talking about a couple of bucks per employee per month. Any employer with six or more employees can afford it. MS would pay most, Boeing next most. That's progressive.

Labor costs are a function of the market, not a minimal tax like that. Business owners have gotten rich off of Bush's tax policies - they should be forced to contribute back. They would be the ones benefitting from all those worker bees dropped off at their doorsteps downtown. Forcing retirees, and the unemployed, and the marginally employed to pay for commuter train service - especially because we have extremely high sales taxes already - is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Posted by economics | June 4, 2007 2:00 PM
25

Re: the 50 years of taxes, check out the last line of Lindbloom’s article:

But if the transit lines get slammed by construction cost overruns or by high operating expenses, state court rulings have given Sound Transit permission to keep collecting taxes at the full rate — for as long as it takes — to finish whatever projects the voters approved.

This isn’t fully accurate, because the legal ruling also allowed ST to reduce the project the voters approved. Furthermore, if project costs rise beyond a certain level, it becomes impossible to build the entire project even if the taxes go on to infinity, because there’s not enough additional revenue to service debt for construction while funding operations over time

That’s what happened with the first leg. It didn’t quite make it to 45th NE, and extending the taxes ad infinitum would not have helped.

So if construction overruns happen, either 1) the taxes go longer; 2) the project gets cut, or 3) both.

Questions for the journalists:

1. Does this ballot measure maintain the policy of sub-area equity?
2. What does the ballot ordinance say? Does it legally commit ST to building the entire project? It would be unusual for that to be included—it wasn’t last time, and wasn’t for the monorail either.

Posted by BB | June 4, 2007 2:00 PM
26
We are talking about a couple of bucks per employee per month.

There are less than 2 million people in King county and only 6 million in the entire state. IF all of them were working and all of them were had their employer pay $2 per person we'd raise $4 million per year. It would take hundreds of years to build any rail with that pitance.

Posted by Angry Andrew | June 4, 2007 2:07 PM
27

BB: I'm pretty sure you are misreading that paragraph. ST scaled back the light rail line in 2001 to Westlake Center (not just short of 45th NE) in order to stay within budget. ST needs ST2 to be approved to pay for the Westlake to UW stretch.

The passage from the story you quote refers to the Sane Transit vs. Sound Transit case. That case held it was proper for ST to scale back the light rail plan from 21 to 13 miles (ending at Westlake) in order to stay within budget. That is the "project" referenced. That is what the board approved in 2001, and the Supreme Court said in 2004 ST could take as long as it needed to build out that project (not just 10 years).

Posted by fact checker | June 4, 2007 2:12 PM
28
Labor costs are a function of the market, not a minimal tax like that.

exactly, employers base their decision on how many people to hire on whether that extra person is going to make them money. If hiring one more person at $20K per year will make them $25K, they will probably do it. If it will only make them $15K, the definitely won't.

Now put a per employee tax of $5K. The $20K salary employee now costs $25K. The boss won't hire him anymore because he won't make the boss any money. He might hire a $15K employee, but he won't hire the $20K employee.

Sales taxes are definitely regressive. Income taxes are much more fair, but we don't have those in this state as they are unconstitutional. So should we not build transit because sales taxes are regressive?

29
BB: I'm pretty sure you are misreading that paragraph. ST scaled back the light rail line in 2001 to Westlake Center (not just short of 45th NE) in order to stay within budget. ST needs ST2 to be approved to pay for the Westlake to UW stretch.
No it doesn't! That part is already paid for, and construction on it will start as soon as the current piece is finished.
Posted by Angry Andrew | June 4, 2007 2:15 PM
30

Excellent post @28.

I don't have a PhD in economics, but I do have a BS in BS detection earned at that little school called life. So I do feel qualified to make one simple, common-sense observation... All those people who are saying we should vote down light rail because the sales tax is regressive don't give a flying fuck about the regressiveness of our tax system. They just want to kill light rail.

Posted by cressona | June 4, 2007 2:20 PM
31

"Because, Sound Transit assure us, light rail is nothing like monorail. And they’re right! It’s bigger, slower, more expensive…"

By "bigger" I think Monorail sour grape squisher Savage meant to say "triple the people moving capacity of the system I supported."

I don't know where Savage came up with the notion light rail is "slower than monorail." It might be one of those leftover myths about the magic monorail which could be all things to all people (until they actually had to try and build it - then, reality came home to roost.)

Posted by Bristol | June 4, 2007 2:21 PM
32

@28: At three or four bucks a month per employee the number would be $36 -$48 per year, per employee. Nobody said anything like $5K per year. You may be an economist, but you can't read worth diddly-squat.

@30: The taxing system in this state (state and local taxes) is about the most regressive in the country. There are ways to raise revenue that do not involve greater sales taxes. I support some public subsidies of transit, and trains certainly have their place, but piling up more sales taxes is not the way to do it.

@29: You are flat wrong. Locate 1 (one) document on Sound Transit's website where it says it already has the right to collect as much tax as it needs to make payments on University Link. Hint, you won't be able to, because there is no such document. That is why ST2 says it will "continue" the current taxes. That language would not be in there if ST had all the taxing authority it needed to pay for University Link already.

Posted by economist | June 4, 2007 2:35 PM
33

$48 per year is still less than $90mn per year even if every single soul in King County worked. That's more than an order of magnintude off of the more $1 billion per year that is needed to build ST2.
And in reality, less than half of people work, so you're getting close to two whole orders off.

$48 * 10 * 10 (one ten for each order) = $4800 which was where my number came from. so I wasn't that wrong even if I can't read.

Posted by Real Economist | June 4, 2007 2:46 PM
34

better idea: for a minute there you sounded like your critique could be half-sane. Then you wrote this:

"Even if you like light rail, and think this proposal is perfect, there really is a better way to do it. Dissolve ST and let the state run the show"

Clearly, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about - or, you are writing from a different continent.

Even since the Dems took over the legislature by big numbers, their #1 priority has been building mega-projects of the freeway variety. Their second priority has been to use light rail money to do pay for those freeways.

If that's your agenda too, then your credibility will remain intact.

Posted by Bristol | June 4, 2007 2:54 PM
35

If we built the monorail and expanded it accordingly, it would've easily cost as much, if not more, than Link.

The pro-monorail camp always hid the warts of added costs, and used the lowball numbers to support their points. At least ST is willing to put their ugly numbers out there.

Posted by Gomez | June 4, 2007 3:01 PM
36

To add to the general chorus here:

- Sound Transit's financing is about the same as the financing for a house, with public bonds instead of a mortgage bank. Their bonds will be 30 year, which is normal for any borrowing. Sound Transit is using the same method that's tried and true throughout the country.

- Beliefs that monorail is somehow cheaper or faster contributed greatly to the monorail project's failure - remember how it was going to be free, at first, paid for by advertising? The system we're building is standard and understood - we know how to build it. Link extensions will simply continue Central Link - a line that's already more than 70% complete. We should build more of what we've invested in, because we know it works.

- There isn't anything else coming along that we can get instead of this. The last time we got to vote on a comprehensive system was in 1970, with Forward Thrust. Here's the choice: It's been 37 years since we had this chance. How much worse did traffic get in the last 37? In another 37, do we want to be choking on our exhaust, or do we want to have options? We need mass transit now, and our generation's chance is now.

Posted by Ben Schiendelman | June 4, 2007 3:04 PM
37

"They’ve sucked half the life out of the opposition campaign by putting a polite spin on this right from the get-go"

BB: Kemper Freeman's opposition campaign www.eastsideta.com www.bettertransport.info/pitf has been fighting light rail for over a decade. There's plenty of money to fund plenty of hot air to last until November.

Posted by Bristol | June 4, 2007 3:07 PM
38

@33: ST's projections for first year income off the new ST2 sales tax is about $300 million, not one billion dollars per year like you wrote. If a big chunk of that tax need was met by a tax on employers it would be better for the poorest in our community.

Angry Andrew: I don't want to put you on the spot, but can you point to any evidence that Sound Transit believes it has authority under the current law to collect taxes indefinitely for the purposes of spending whatever is needed for University Link? I can't imagine where you got that idea, but if you can find someplace where ST says it, well, you'd have shown me something new!

@34: You are missing the point. If there is going to be an expansion of light rail, or replacing the SR 520 bridge for that matter, it would be FAR cheaper for the State to do it because when local governments issue bonds they have to collect hundreds of millions of extra tax dollars. That is my point. And the point you make doesn't hold water either. If you look at how much has been spent on transit vs. new road construction over the past ten years, the transit side of the equation is much higher. That aside, light rail should be expanded, but it should be done by the State, not ST which needs to hold massive reserves of tax dollars to keep bondholders happy.

Posted by economist | June 4, 2007 3:09 PM
39

The "slower" depends on the corridor. Where there are at - grade crossings, like the Rainier Valley, then a monorail along the same route would definitely be faster because it would never have to slow down for cars crossing its path. Light rail going through the tunnel in downtown Seattle may be impacted by the buses too.

The other times to look at are the time to get to the station, and the time to get from the station to wherever you're going. A light rail station near Husky Stadium and UW Hospital is not exactly close to the main campus. TBD is how convenient shuttle buses would be from the station to other UW locations.

Posted by Stuart Jenner | June 4, 2007 3:15 PM
40

I thought there was going to be both a station at Husky Stadium and at Brooklyn? You can't get much closer unless you put a station right in the middle of the campus (not a half-bad idea actually).

Posted by Christopher | June 4, 2007 3:52 PM
41

Stuart Jenner says: Light rail going through the tunnel in downtown Seattle may be impacted by the buses too.

Maybe. Originally there was only going to be light rail in the tunnel. A study said rail and buses couldn’t co-exist. So Ron Sims had another study done, which said they could co-exist. We’ll see.

This is HUGE. If it doesn’t work, all the buses will get placed onto city streets, and the surface/transit alternative to replace the Viaduct will be much less likely to succeed.

Posted by BB | June 4, 2007 3:52 PM
42
Angry Andrew: I don't want to put you on the spot, but can you point to any evidence that Sound Transit believes it has authority under the current law to collect taxes indefinitely for the purposes of spending whatever is needed for University Link? I can't imagine where you got that idea, but if you can find someplace where ST says it, well, you'd have shown me something new

They already have collected the taxes for that under sound move that was approved in 1996.

Go to sound transit.org / x1698 .xml (remove the spaces, moveable type will strip out the url otherwise) and read this at the bottom:


University Link receives the highest possible ranking in the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts program in 2005
Final design authority was granted in December 2006. Final design is scheduled for completion in late 2008.
Submittal for the project’s federal Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) will be in September 2007. Sound Transit is applying for a $750 million federal grant that would pay for nearly half of the U-Link project.
FFGA approval is scheduled for fall 2008.
100% of local funding is secured.
Construction on University Link is scheduled to begin in late 2008.
University Link is projected to open for service in 2016

This is not a new project, this money was approved in 1996. There is no extension. There is no indefinite tax. That was approved, has been funded, and will be built. Get over it already!!!!

Posted by Angry Andrew | June 4, 2007 4:06 PM
43

Whoever was blathering about sub-area equity ... I have just one thing to say:

I don't care.

You owe us. We've been paying for your roads for the past 150 years, it's time for you to stop whining.

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 4, 2007 4:19 PM
44

Andrew: This line is shorter than what was approved by voters in 1996, which was 45th NE or Northgate. They’re going to make it as far as Husky Stadium because they:

1. improved management,
2. axed one Capitol Hill station
3. axed the First Hill segment, which would’ve cost hundreds of millions and made it impossible to get the federal grant, and
4. adopted a less conservative debt policy, that closed the remaining $200 million funding gap by taking on more debt.

All in all, a job well done, and it converted me from a skeptic to a supporter who wants more of the same.

That said, it drives me absolutely apeshit when Sound Transit boosters do the “we’re building everything we voted on in 1996!!!” act. No, we’re not, so stop pretending we are.

Posted by BB | June 4, 2007 4:36 PM
45
That said, it drives me absolutely apeshit when Sound Transit boosters do the “we’re building everything we voted on in 1996!!!” act. No, we’re not, so stop pretending we are.

Who ever said that?

Posted by Angry Andrew | June 4, 2007 4:51 PM
46

"4. adopted a less conservative debt policy, that closed the remaining $200 million funding gap by taking on more debt."

I'm not sure I follow this. Assume ST2 does not pass. You don't mean to suggest ST would to sell more long term bonds than the amount the voters approved in 1996, right? $775 million in bonds have been sold, and the bonding capacity is $1,052B. You don't think ST just plans on selling more bonds than Sound Move allows, right?

Posted by just curious | June 4, 2007 5:08 PM
47

"4. adopted a less conservative debt policy, that closed the remaining $200 million funding gap by taking on more debt."

Could you explain what you posted there?

If ST2 does pass, then ST would get the additional spending authority to pay for U-Link. That COULD be what the "is secured" language refers to at sound transit.org / x1698 .xml. In other words, IF ST2 passes, then the local funding would be secured.

But let's assume ST2 does not pass. ST can't just issue bonds to pay for the difference between the $1.6 B U-Link construction costs and the $750M grant from the feds. That's because ST has very little debt capacity left under Sound Move, and, it doesn't have enough taxation authority to secure any more bonds. It has $1.052 B in overall debt sale capacity, and it has issued $776 M (approx.) already. Moreover, it has taken in $2.8 billion in taxes, and it only can spend $1.98 billion during the implementation period of Phase I.

So, where is the "local revenue" supposed to come from to make up the difference between U-Link's construction costs and the Fed. grant?

One explanation would be that it would be "secured" if ST2 passes. Is there any other explanation AA or BB can come up with? Their posts here have been conclusory and cryptic. ST's website is no help. Anyone think they can explain what AA and BB seem to be trying to drive at?

Posted by just curious | June 4, 2007 5:41 PM
48

Uh, Dan, given that the monorail imploded due to its builders' inability to do basic math, I don't know if we should still trust their budget and ridership estimates. Comparing Sound Transit to the monorail is like comparing apples to NOTHING.

Posted by J.R. | June 4, 2007 5:44 PM
49
If ST2 does pass, then ST would get the additional spending authority to pay for U-Link. That COULD be what the "is secured" language refers to at sound transit.org / x1698 .xml. In other words, IF ST2 passes, then the local funding would be secured.

No, U-link is not, not, not NOT part of ST2. It is part of "Sound ove" that was approved in 1996. Even if ST2 does not pass, U link will be built! The local funding has already been obtained, no new taxes are needed. The only step remaining is the completion of a federal grant.

Read this article:
seattlepi. nwsource .com/local/293820_transit27ww . html

IT says nothing about ST2 because Ulink was funded by Sound Move.

Posted by Angry Andrew | June 4, 2007 5:55 PM
50

AA wrote: "The local funding has already been obtained, no new taxes are needed." You may indeed sincerely believe this, but it does not make sense in light of the spending restrictions the voters imposed on ST in the Sound Move plan they approved in 1996.

The above is an entirely conclusory statement. You are not explaining WHY you are saying this. Forget the newspaper article - it does not answer the following. If you don't know the answer to the following, just say so.

Let's assume ST2 does not pass. ST can't just issue bonds to pay for the difference between the $1.6 B U-Link construction costs and the $750M grant from the Feds. That's because ST has very little debt capacity left under Sound Move, and, it doesn't have enough taxation authority to secure any more bonds.

The voters only approved ST spending a set amount of local taxes on putting Phase I into place, and it has passed that mark already. That is why ST can't just tax for a couple of extra years at the current high rates to collect the difference between the grant amount and whatever U-Link would cost.

ST has $1.052 B in overall debt sale capacity, and it has issued $776 M (approx.) already. Moreover, it has taken in $2.8 billion in taxes, and it only can spend $1.98 billion during the implementation period of Phase I.

So, where is the "local revenue" supposed to come from to make up the difference between U-Link's construction costs and the Fed. grant?

If ANYONE can answer that, it would be very helpful.

Posted by just curious | June 4, 2007 6:08 PM
51

"If you look at how much has been spent on transit vs. new road construction over the past ten years, the transit side of the equation is much higher. "

economist: you're comparing dedicated gas tax dollars to locally approved transit taxes. If the region wanted to fund local freeways and roads over the past 20 years, and pick up where the state faltered, it could have. But, since people weren't exactly excited about ruining more neighborhoods with noisey and congested freeways, it wasn't until projects like 520 came up that there was any impetus for creating a regional road funding mechanism.

"If there is going to be an expansion of light rail, or replacing the SR 520 bridge for that matter, it would be FAR cheaper for the State to do it because when local governments issue bonds they have to collect hundreds of millions of extra tax dollars."

Economist: the RTID is just a funding mechanism. The state could easily do the bonding for 520 if it wanted to. Handing over transit revenues to a transit-hostile entity is a stupid idea, however.

Posted by Bristol | June 4, 2007 7:27 PM
52
I don't know where Savage came up with the notion light rail is "slower than monorail."

Fuck the monorail. Like I've posted here before but nobody seems to care, light rail is slower than the goddamn bus.

See Metro Bus vs. Light Rail.

Posted by jamier | June 4, 2007 7:37 PM
53

@52: "Like I've posted here before but nobody seems to care, light rail is slower than the goddamn bus."

If that is true, we are wasting our time and money because it will not be used in the manner intended. It will
become a huge failure like the Vegas
monorail.

Posted by Princess Caroline | June 4, 2007 8:48 PM
54

Jamier, how do your provided links show how the bus is faster than light rail? The Metro trip planner is theoretcial at best, and the ST light rail page does not address the issue of frequency or timing. Furthermore, since light rail is yet to run, how can you even make that assertion?

It sounds like some Seattle Big Thinkers need to spend more time concentrating on the esspresso machine or their sidework than trying to second guess the non-underemployed.

Posted by What's wrong with this picture? | June 4, 2007 8:55 PM
55
Economist: the RTID is just a funding mechanism. The state could easily do the bonding for 520 if it wanted to.

In fact, the state IS going to bond RTID.
Read this :
seattlepi .nwsource .com/ transportation/ 310810_tolls09 . html

Don't listen to that "economist guy" he's just an irrational troll.


Also, Light Rail will be faster than the bus
Typical travel times to/from Downtown Seattle are expected to be:

Northgate Station Bus: 26 min , Rail: 13 min

Brooklyn/NE 45th Station Bus: 22 min, Rail: 8 min

Posted by Angry Andrew | June 4, 2007 10:01 PM
56

The expression of ST2 estimated costs in current dollars is appropriate and equivalent to buying a house with a mortgage. ST will not pay the junk bond rates that SMP lined up.

We should not be too worried about ST using the sales tax, but we should be concerned about its ballot partner, the RTID expanding limited access highways with sales tax revenue in our time of global warming.

Hey, Christopher at 40 shared a good idea that ST cannot make happen without help from the state to pressure the UW. a third U District station under the HUB would attract very high ridership and allow much better bus-rail transfers for northeast Seattle routes than the UW stadium station that would impose long walks between Stevens Way and the rail platform. The alignment passes very near the HUB. The UW is short-sighted. Too bad.

It is similar to the Sound Move decision to build south-first Link LRT in Tukwila in the freeway envelopes when the small City of Tukwila would not agree with ST that it should be in the middle of SR-99.

AA: Link LRT would provide great travel time advantage over current bus in some corridors. It will be greatest in the north corridor to stations in congested urban centers (e.g., U District and Capitol Hill) and where the freeways (e.g., I-5 and I-90 have reversible lanes) are jammed in the reverse peak direction (e.g., Northgate-downtown, U District-downtown, and Bellevue-downtown). The Link LRT speed advantage will be less in the peak direction when compared with the revesible lanes, but still significant. But Link LRT will have a speed DISADVANTAGE in the south corridor due to its 10-minute deviation to MLK Jr. Way South. Be careful citing the ST travel times, as the bus time provided may be in the reverse peak direction and overstate the advantage. That seems the case with your Northgate number.

Posted by eddiew | June 4, 2007 11:13 PM
57

Transportation myths abound in this thread. Lets take a look:

Dan @ 8

"But an elevated system would have been the best possible transit system for Seattle"

--Not necessarily true. Elevated does rise above it all. Which means it blocks views and isn't particularly friendly to street life in a dense city. One of the main advantages of light rail is that it can be elevated where appropriate, in a tunnel in a dense neighborhood, and at grade in others.

Better idea @ 12

"Dissolve ST and let the state run the show"

--WSDOT is the Highway Department. They don't do transit, they pave Washington. Giving them the power to make mass transit decisions is not a good idea.

wf @ 14

"Isn't the point less about whether to build light rail and more that all its delays, overruns, and financial misrepresentations have been given a pass when compared to how the monorail was treated?"

--Perhaps the biggest myth of all. During the first few years of the SMP they were treated with kid gloves, especially by Dan and Josh. Sound Transit was raked over the coals by the Stranger and others for its missteps of the first five years. They reformed their financial and board practices and for the last five years have been fairly conservative in planning future light rail. Nobody killed the SMP except their own incompetent staff led by huckster Joel Horn and their incompetent board. What happened is that no one wanted to risk their political career to try to salvage an agency that basically told people who asked questions to not worry so much, we know best.

Will in Seattle @ 23 & 43

"Why aren't we getting light rail in West Seattle and Ballard too?"

--Because ST is a REGIONAL agency. Yes, life does exist outside of Seattle. We can create dense, walkable neighborhoods throughout the region around stations. Sound Transit has subarea equity for better or worse. This means money raised in a region must stay in that region. In ST 2 the best investment by far in the Seattle subarea is to go to the U District, Roosevelt and Northgate first. Ridership to West Seattle and Ballard doesn't even come close. And to get the support of the rest of the region we need to go east, south, and north. Personally, I believe that once light rail opens in 2009, we will find ways to expand it to my West Seattle home and other places faster than currently planned.

Just try and pass a regional package that only delivers routes to Seattle, Will. Or you could try creating a Seattle-only transit agency...like the monorail. How did that go anyway?

Fact checker @ 27 and economist @32 & 38

"ST needs ST2 to be approved to pay for the Westlake to UW stretch."

--If you are going to call yourself fact checker, you might want to check your facts. ST 2 money is not needed to get to Husky Stadium.

For both of you--you made the assertion that ST needs endless taxes and ST 2 money to build U Link. Prove it, don't ask others to prove you are wrong.

Stuart Jenner @ 39

"Light rail going through the tunnel in downtown Seattle may be impacted by the buses too."

--The stations are close enough downtown that speeds are barely affected. Trains have priority over buses. When a train leaves a the first station in the tunnel a bus gets a green light to proceed, and so on. Not exactly rocket science. When light rail is extended and trains are more frequent, out go the buses--but we will have more rail so we won't need as many.

jamier @ 52

"light rail is slower than the goddamn bus."

--The biggest myth of all. Light rail will travel at freeway speeds where elevated or tunneled. Even in the Rainier Valley it will move faster than the average bus because it has signal preemption.

But what really bugs me is the silly obsession with "speed" in this town. Speed is not nearly as important as reliability. Think about it for a second...light rail will move through the four miles in the Rainier Valley at around 27 MPH. At about two minutes a mile it will take eight minutes to travel that four miles. An elevated or tunneled train could approach 60 MPH, but would likely average far less because of the short distance between stops. But even if you did average 60 MPH, you would save FOUR minutes!

What will get people out of cars is not four minutes here or there, but rather being able to count on a schedule and far more reliable times.

To all of you who question ST 2--just what is your better idea. You make my head fucking hurt...

Posted by tiptoe tommy | June 4, 2007 11:35 PM
58

Listen, about 98% of the people who have supported monorail in Seattle currently support Sound Transit 2. And as you see, that includes Dan. So while trying to stand up for Sound Transit 2, could you folks refrain from the disingenuous monorail bashing?

I'd rather not waste my time correcting inaccurate and misleading criticisms of monorail when we're not even voting on it. Better to waste my time correcting inaccurate and misleading criticisms of light rail.

Posted by cressona | June 5, 2007 7:31 AM
59

cressona:

If Dan Savage supports light rail, why is he attacking it by undermining the agency and confusing cost issues? He's intelligent enough to know that the finances for Sound Transit are as sound as any normal mortgage.

If Dan Savage supports light rail, why isn't he saying so?

Posted by Ben Schiendelman | June 5, 2007 8:20 AM
60

@ 57 wrote: “ST 2 money is not needed to get to Husky Stadium. . . . you made the assertion that ST needs . . . ST 2 money to build U Link. Prove it, don't ask others to prove you are wrong.”

This is exactly what AA (@ 49) did, and what BB did as well. These posters all make exactly the same conclusory. All of them assert that ST has the financing authority to pay for the difference between the federal grant ($750M) and whatever U-Link costs ($1.6B, est.). But none of them even tries to explain what kind of revenues ST has remaining that it could close that gap.

Again, the measure that will go on the ballot this November gives ST the authority to “continue” the current taxes. So if ST2 is approved, ST also would get the right to continue the current taxing for the purposes of spending on building out elements described in Sound Move it can not afford.

But if ST2 is not approved, ST lacks enough voter approved spending authority to pay for that U-Link funding gap. Here is why: ST can't just issue bonds to pay for the difference between the $1.6 B U-Link construction costs and the $750M grant from the Feds. That's because ST has very little debt capacity left under Sound Move, and, it doesn't have enough taxation authority to secure any more bonds. ST has $1.052 B in overall debt sale capacity, and it has issued $776 M (approx.) already.

In addition, ST can't just tax for a couple of extra years at the current high rates to collect the difference between the grant amount and whatever U-Link would cost. The voters only approved ST spending a set amount of local taxes on putting Phase I into place, and it has passed that mark already (ST has taken in $2.8 billion in taxes, and it only can spend $1.98 billion in local taxes during the implementation period of Phase I).

So, @ 57 – show us you know something AA and BB apparently don’t know: explain where you think ST will be able to come up with local revenues sufficient to make up the U-Link construction cost gap, in light of the bonding capacity limit and tax spending limit set out in Sound Move.

If ANYONE else can answer that, go for it.

Posted by just curious | June 5, 2007 8:42 AM
61

eddiew:

When you talk about the speed difference between LRT and (something else) in the reversible lanes, you have to take into account the surface street access to those lanes as well. Bellevue Way is often completely stopped during evening peak.

If you're careful to pay attention to beginning and endpoints, including walking times to/from stations versus walking to your car, parking, etc - all the common factors, you see that a segment like the reversible lanes won't really make the differential much smaller.

tiptoe tommy:

You're so right. Speed isn't the issue. Thank you for pointing that out. Also note that as light rail frequency increases, buses will be returned to surface streets and we'll see a more permanent solution for buses through downtown - I expect that we'll end up with a transit mall, like Portland.

Posted by Ben Schiendelman | June 5, 2007 8:42 AM
62

just curious@60:

You claim that Sound Transit "only can spend $1.98 billion in local taxes during the implementation period of Phase I". Please source that - I believe there's no such restriction. Sound Transit is authorized to collect taxes by percentage, not by overall amount: As I undstand it, they aren't limited to collecting a certain number of dollars, just a percentage per year.

I think that's where you're disconnecting from everyone else here. The state Supreme Court upheld Sound Transit's taxing authority, and I believe they may continue that to issue bonds for University Link.

Posted by Ben Schiendelman | June 5, 2007 8:50 AM
63

Ben S. @59:

If Dan Savage supports light rail, why is he attacking it by undermining the agency and confusing cost issues?

Ben, there's a little something you're missing, and it's called "nuance." This may be hard for you to process, but it's possible to support Sound Transit and at the same time believe that Sound Transit is not infallible. Dan is already on the record in post 8 and elsewhere supporting light rail.

See, Dan is a commentator and it isn't his job to present a whitewashed 30-second advertisement for Sound Transit. It isn't his job to repeat the Sound Transit mantra about being on budget even though the system is way over budget. It's his job to tell the truth the way he sees it. In the end, Dan willingness to challenge Sound Transit and address its warts does more of a service to Sound Transit than repeating some bloodless PR pablum. The monorail agency could have used more friends like Dan.

Meanwhile, Ben, you seem perfectly happy presenting a dishonest caricature of monorail: "Beliefs that monorail is somehow cheaper or faster contributed greatly to the monorail project's failure - remember how it was going to be free, at first, paid for by advertising?"

I mean you're going back to Dick Falkenbury and Grant Cogswell's delusional kiddie vision of monorail rather than the real Green Line plan. Come on, Ben, you're better than that.

Posted by cressona | June 5, 2007 8:51 AM
64

@62 wrote: "You claim that Sound Transit "only can spend $1.98 billion in local taxes during the implementation period of Phase I". Please source that"

Take a look at the Paying for the System section of Sound Move. That has a table in it, called "Table 2." The voter-approved local tax revenue figure that ST can spend putting the system into place is $1.98B. That's where the bonding capacity limit is as well ($1.052B).

@62 also wrote: "Sound Transit is authorized to collect taxes by percentage, not by overall amount. As I undstand it, they aren't limited to collecting a certain number of dollars, just a percentage per year."

That isn't quite accurate. Sound Move contains spending limitations which effectively limit ST's current taxing rights.


Ben, do you have a copy of Sound Move you can refer to? If not, you should get one.


BTW, the State Supreme court upheld the right of ST's board to go ahead with a shortened light rail line in order to stay within the spending limit in Sound Move, and the Supreme Court struck down the section of I-776 that would have done away with the MVET on December 5, 2002. But the Supreme Court didn't "uphold" ST's taxing authority beyond what Sound Move says (including the spending limits in Sound Move), and the court certainly did not relieve ST of its obligation to stay within the bonding capacity limit.

Posted by just curious | June 5, 2007 9:11 AM
65

cressona:

I missed Dan's comment @8! Sorry about that. I was under the impression that he didn't support it - and I'd still say that such an impression is still a problem, if he wants it to pass.

Be careful to be even-handed: you're pointing out that Sound Transit moved the bar in order to be "on time and on budget" (and I give both agencies leeway due to the insane construction cost inflation we've had). You then call the first few monorail iterations a "kiddie vision"? What's the difference between Sound Move pre-bid and SMP pre-bid? You sure treat them differently.

Seriously - the reason the SMP failed was those rosy projections. The SMP came back to ballot because the Green Line plan didn't have high enough revenue to pay for construction. Even ignoring the initial Falkenbury/Cogswell idea, the first real cost projections for Green Line suggested $18-50m per mile, way under actual costs. The SMP suggested that they could climb a higher grade and carry more people than light rail - and they can't. The lies really did erode their support.

Posted by Ben Schiendelman | June 5, 2007 9:16 AM
66

Ben @65:

Be careful to be even-handed: you're pointing out that Sound Transit moved the bar in order to be "on time and on budget"... What's the difference between Sound Move pre-bid and SMP pre-bid? You sure treat them differently.

Again, Ben. Can we stop being disingenuous? If we're talking pre-bid, the Green Line and Central Link were in very comparable financial straits. The Green Line plan that passed in 2002 proved to be about 30% short on revenue and perhaps 25% low on costs, on account of construction inflation. With Central Link, the plan that we passed in 1996 will end up costing at least 100% more than originally planned. And you know what? I'm fine with that.

Yes, Ben. Let's be even-handed here. And let's be honest too. If you want to talk about the real Green Line project rather than the original Falkenbury/Cogswell plan, then do so from the start rather than taking the easy, cheap shot.

More Ben:

The SMP suggested that they could climb a higher grade and carry more people than light rail - and they can't. The lies really did erode their support.

Again, can we stop being disingenuous and stop accusing the SMP of being liars? Sound Transit has been no less guilty of lies than the SMP. The Green Line probably had the potential to carry more passengers simply because it had the ability to run more frequently, even though light rail trains have greater capacity. Thanks to the Rainier Valley at-grade alignment, Central Link is going to have trouble running more frequently than every six minutes. The monorail could have run every two minutes.

Now I'm seeing why I did not want to get into a historical monorail myths debunking session.

Posted by cressona | June 5, 2007 9:33 AM
67

cressona, I actually wrote a short history of the monorail here:
http://higherfrequency.blogspot.com/2005/10/seattles-monorail-project-beginning.html
http://higherfrequency.blogspot.com/2005/10/seattles-monorail-project-planning.html

Everything I wrote is sourced in-line. I haven't checked all the links in a while, but everything still exists.

To address your comment about capacity limitations: Link is at-grade where frequency doesn't need to be high. Long-distance connections to Federal Way and Tacoma don't benefit significantly from

On monorail headways: The 2 minute headways were actually one of the lies! Because of the single-track section over the West Seattle bridge, switching would be necessary to move trains in two directions. Some simple math:

Assuming absolutely perfect execution, the Hitachi switches take 60 seconds to operate (that is in documents on elevated.org), and we'll assume for simplicity that bridge travel for a maximum length train would take one minute.

Here's your scenario. Your switches are lined up perfectly for a train southbound. It takes one minute to cross, and then you have one more minute for the switches to serve northbound. Another minute passes for the perfectly lined up northbound train to cross, and the switches immediately switch back, taking a third minute. That's a *perfect* scenario, which FTA regulations would probably prohibit, because it would be too dangerous. Assuming even 15 seconds of safe time on each end, you still end up with 3.5 minute minimum headways. 2 would be, as I said, physically impossible.

Another SMP claim is that light rail couldn't make the 7% grade to West Seattle. Oops - guess what grade Link is on the way to Tukwila?

Sound Transit has *not* lied about the capabilities of its system. I have nothing against monorail as a technology, other than that it's simply not standardized the same way light rail is - there's a lot more experience behind building light rail than monorail, which is part of why so few companies wanted to bid on the SMP (driving up their costs). I believe that if they hadn't codified technology into their agency's design, they would probably be under construction right now - building light rail in the same corridor.

Posted by Ben Schiendelman | June 5, 2007 10:11 AM
68

Looks like I didn't finish a sentence there:

Long-distance connections to Federal Way and Tacoma don't benefit significantly from slightly lower headways because they're such a low percentage of the overall trip length. Waiting three more minutes for a 50 minute trip isn't that significant.

Posted by Ben Schiendelman | June 5, 2007 10:13 AM
69

On Link headways:

Remember, through the high ridership portion of Link (Northgate to Downtown), there will be two lines: Central Link and East Link can and will combine to provide 2-3 minute headways in the heavy corridor. We can also run more trains from Everett to Downtown Seattle and reverse them at the Central Link base without ever hitting the Rainier Valley segment. That segment only reduces capacity in that portion of the system - there's no reason that capacity from Everett to SODO be affected by it, and it's not a high demand section, so headways won't really be a constraint.

Posted by Ben Schiendelman | June 5, 2007 10:18 AM
70

Is THAT why you and cressona sound like such clueless twits here, Ben? You don't know what Sound Move says? Look, you'd better get a copy, read it, then we'll talk. As it is, you are spouting off about things you most certainly do not understand.

Posted by just curious | June 6, 2007 8:52 AM
71

69 seems to say the Rainier Valley is not the high demand section. So, why was this built in the first place? I bet the demand there though is higher than for the proposed southern extension of Seatac south.

Posted by Stuart Jenner | June 6, 2007 9:31 AM
72

just curious @ 70:

Why is it that you (and BH on the Seattle P-I soundoff threads, and Alder on SoundPolitics, who write the same way you do and use the same wording...) are the only one who brings up these "spending limits"?

Seattle Times, 12/17/00:

"Voters from King, Pierce and Snohomish counties endorsed taxes to pay for Sound Transit in 1996, but the ballot measure did not set a spending limit for light rail. That was intentional, because no one knew exactly how much it would cost."

'just curious', when you're the only one in the room screaming something that nobody else believes, I think the burden of proof is on you. Nobody but you is questioning Sound Transit's ability to issue bonds for University Link.

Posted by Ben Schiendelman | June 6, 2007 9:34 AM
73

Stuart @ 71:

A line to the airport was built because that's what we voted for in Sound Move, the ballot measure that funded light rail. I'm not sure of the exact reason that rail was routed through the valley, but I see good reasons:

It makes sense from a long-term perspective (and this is a 100-year-plus system) because it's an area that's depressed and would benefit from high capacity transit - the valley has several of the highest ridership Metro routes in the system, and largely low density residential that's zoned for higher density. Driving development there will help ease outward pressure on the region. Had we built through the Duwamish valley, there would have been almost no residential on the line - no commuters served into downtown.

Also, when I say low demand, I'm talking about 40,000 weekday riders in the southern portion of the line as opposed to 100,000 in the University Link portion - you're still talking about extremely cost effective transportation in a corridor where there's no space for road expansion.

Posted by Ben Schiendelman | June 6, 2007 9:47 AM
74

This thread is long dead, I'm sure, but Angry Andrew ought to read the Seattle Times story on ST's finally reaching agreement with the U of W over the Husky Stadium station which says (in part)

"But Sound Transit currently can't afford to continue to Northeast 45th Street, near the north side of campus, as originally promised in 1996.

To reach that site, and build onward to Northgate and Snohomish County, the agency needs voter approval of a multibillion-dollar regional ballot measure this fall."

But you can just keep on saying it's funded over and over, Andrew, even if doing so doesn't make it true (but does make you look kind of like an idiot).

Posted by Mr. X | June 6, 2007 5:08 PM
75

So let's deconstruct this: we put the rail where the bus traffic highest, we plan on density, we take out a bunch of businesses and put in a rail route but then say there's no room to expand a road. Well, it seems a bus lane could just as easily fit where the rail line is going. But with regards to density, certainly the replacement of the public housing projects with new Holly is higher density, but it is a far cry from the density that one associates with a new york. It seems there's an assumption of vastly greater rezoning than has been announced so far. A critical question when looking at any of these investments is "what else has to happen to make the assumptions or goals come true." In the case of Rainer Valley, it seems the "something else" includes connector buses since there are no park and ride routes along the way, much higher density than has been announced, and a population that is oriented towards jobs in downtown or where ever the rail eventually goes.

I do think the points about bonding limits, revenue limits, spending limits etc are quite interesting. I wonder what the differences are in the fine print of this measure and the fine print of the last one.

It is interesting to think ahead 100 years. Will this be the best technology? What if there's a better technology that comes along for moving people, will Sound Transit's board have the flexibility to use that instead? It appears not.

Posted by Stuart Jenner | June 6, 2007 5:11 PM
76

The choice (and it was a choice) to run at street level through the Rainier Valley was largely driven by the desire of the Seattle City Government to use rail as a community development tool rather than being based on potential new transit ridership. Unfortunately, the low-income community that was originally there has been developed clean out of the City limits.


Posted by Mr. X | June 6, 2007 5:20 PM
77

Unfortunately the lack of grade separation and all the stops result in a much longer trip for people south of the airport. Point to point express bus works much better, especially if they are going to Bellevue.

Posted by Stuart Jenner | June 6, 2007 11:20 PM
78

Mr. X: Husky Stadium and 45th St. are two different stations. University Link builds Capitol Hill station and Husky Stadium / University of Washington station. Brooklyn/43rd/45th is next first stop continuing northward in ST2.

U of W station offers shorter walking distance to much of campus (especially the huge health sciences center) than Brooklyn station will - the two together are necessary to serve all of campus, but the U of W station will generate tens of thousands of daily riders.

Stuart:

You can't compare "adding a lane" to building new right-of-way - they're not the same level of service, and we don't already have roadways to just "add a lane" to in most of the central link / university link corridor.

Posted by Ben Schiendelman | June 7, 2007 11:19 AM
79

Hi, there is a new corridor being built in the Rainier Valley. What is more cost effective, running buses on that corridor or running trains? I don't think anyone ever put any data together. The same question could be asked for extensions north of tunnels.

Posted by Stuart Jenner | June 7, 2007 11:43 AM
80

Ben @ 78

I'm well aware of the difference between a station at NE 45th and one at Husky Stadium - but if you look at the post by AA @ 29 and the points he was responding to, it appears he was the one trying to conflate the two (and if you go back a couple of years, the lower station was originally supposed to be located at about Brooklyn and Pacific, while the upper one was to be situated on the UW campus at 43rd and 45th).

And please - don't try and rationalize the FACT that ST will not able to reach NE 45th in phase 1 as originally promised - Husky Stadium is an awfully long uphill walk to most of the upper campus (not to mention the rest of the UD) indeed.

Posted by Mr. X | June 7, 2007 1:07 PM
81

The walk from husky stadium to the upper campus is indeed quite long. The road that used to go where the parking garage is now would have been a very good route for a loop bus that would pick people up at the stadium station. Unfortunately that road no longer exists. So, what's the plan for getting people from the stadium to the campus? Walk? a bus? Who pays? What's the ongoing cost of that? Is it in Sound Transit 2?

And how about the buses to get people from the stadium station over to U Village area, a major car destination, or to the commercial area of the U District before any station is built in the 45th street area?

I somehow doubt Sound Transit plans on funding these, since they are not "regional." But we need to realize the money for this comes from somewhere: either other service gets cut, or we pay more taxes for these - unless existing buses can handle them, but that would probably only be the case if ridership is a lot less than forecast.

Posted by Stuart Jenner | June 7, 2007 3:13 PM
82

The walk from husky stadium to the upper campus is indeed quite long. The road that used to go where the parking garage is now would have been a very good route for a loop bus that would pick people up at the stadium station. Unfortunately that road no longer exists. So, what's the plan for getting people from the stadium to the campus? Walk? a bus? Who pays? What's the ongoing cost of that? Is it in Sound Transit 2?

And how about the buses to get people from the stadium station over to U Village area, a major car destination, or to the commercial area of the U District before any station is built in the 45th street area?

I somehow doubt Sound Transit plans on funding these, since they are not "regional." But we need to realize the money for this comes from somewhere: either other service gets cut, or we pay more taxes for these - unless existing buses can handle them, but that would probably only be the case if ridership is a lot less than forecast.

Posted by Stuart Jenner | June 7, 2007 3:16 PM
83

The walk from husky stadium to the upper campus is indeed quite long. The road that used to go where the parking garage is now would have been a very good route for a loop bus that would pick people up at the stadium station. Unfortunately that road no longer exists. So, what's the plan for getting people from the stadium to the campus? Walk? a bus? Who pays? What's the ongoing cost of that? Is it in Sound Transit 2?

And how about the buses to get people from the stadium station over to U Village area, a major car destination, or to the commercial area of the U District before any station is built in the 45th street area?

I somehow doubt Sound Transit plans on funding these, since they are not "regional." But we need to realize the money for this comes from somewhere: either other service gets cut, or we pay more taxes for these - unless existing buses can handle them, but that would probably only be the case if ridership is a lot less than forecast.

Posted by Stuart Jenner | June 7, 2007 3:32 PM
84

I don't need to rationalize anything. Sound Move says "University District", not NE 45th St.

Posted by Ben Schiendelman | June 7, 2007 3:44 PM
85

The walk from husky stadium to the upper campus is indeed quite long. The road that used to go where the parking garage is now would have been a very good route for a loop bus that would pick people up at the stadium station. Unfortunately that road no longer exists. So, what's the plan for getting people from the stadium to the campus? Walk? a bus? Who pays? What's the ongoing cost of that? Is it in Sound Transit 2?

And how about the buses to get people from the stadium station over to U Village area, a major car destination, or to the commercial area of the U District before any station is built in the 45th street area?

I somehow doubt Sound Transit plans on funding these, since they are not "regional." But we need to realize the money for this comes from somewhere: either other service gets cut, or we pay more taxes for these - unless existing buses can handle them, but that would probably only be the case if ridership is a lot less than forecast.

Posted by Stuart Jenner | June 7, 2007 3:57 PM
86

Funny thing, Ben, but that's not what the 1996 Voter's Guide extolling the virtues of a yes vote on ST said.

Now you're just being disingenuous - not getting to NE 45th is a MAJOR failure for ST, but you true believers/apologists just can't bring yourselves to face it.

Posted by Mr. X | June 7, 2007 5:33 PM
87

Stuart, your question about getting people to U Village (etc) is answered by SDOT - they're planning to either run or have Metro run a circulator bus connecting UW station, Brooklyn Station, and Roosevelt Station using (likely) 25th, 65th, Roosevelt, Campus Parkway, and Pacific.

On getting people to north campus, that's what the 43rd/45th/Brooklyn station will be for - that's in ST2.

Mr.X:

The light rail portion of the explanatory statement for Proposition 1 in the 1996 November voter's pamphlet read:

"Electric light rail would provide all-day, frequent, two-way service to employment, retail and residential centers, including between SeaTac, Sea-Tac Airport, Tukwila, Southeast Seattle, downtown Seattle, First Hill, Capitol Hill, University District (and, if additional funding is secured, Roosevelt District and Northgate); and between downtown Tacoma and Tacoma Dome."

As I said: "University District".

Posted by Ben Schiendelman | June 7, 2007 8:29 PM
88

The walk from husky stadium to the upper campus is indeed quite long. The road that used to go where the parking garage is now would have been a very good route for a loop bus that would pick people up at the stadium station. Unfortunately that road no longer exists. So, what's the plan for getting people from the stadium to the campus? Walk? a bus? Who pays? What's the ongoing cost of that? Is it in Sound Transit 2?

And how about the buses to get people from the stadium station over to U Village area, a major car destination, or to the commercial area of the U District before any station is built in the 45th street area?

I somehow doubt Sound Transit plans on funding these, since they are not "regional." But we need to realize the money for this comes from somewhere: either other service gets cut, or we pay more taxes for these - unless existing buses can handle them, but that would probably only be the case if ridership is a lot less than forecast.

Posted by Stuart Jenner | June 7, 2007 11:36 PM
89

There was some weird stuff with the Slog posting, and I did not mean to repeat my post from earlier.

Having SDOT operate buses would be quite a major change. Again hopefully someone is being up front about the cost and source of funding, whether SDOT or Metro operates them. If there are really 35,000 people each riding a round trip, we're talking a very big number of buses being needed since not everyone would be going to Health Sciences or the stadium.

Posted by Stuart Jenner | June 7, 2007 11:41 PM
90

Parse much, Ben?

Posted by Mr. X | June 7, 2007 11:59 PM
91

Stuart:

I think you're attaching to a really minor issue here. About half of campus (including EE, ME, CS, Chem, and a few other discipline) is easy walking distance from the NW entrance to the station (at the Burke-Gilman, via the Triangle garage). The majority of travelers to that station will be going to these destinations (health sciences alone accounts for something like half the UW daily commute - remember that a lot of students simply walk to campus, the "commuters" are as much faculty, staff, researchers as they are students). The Brooklyn station in ST2 will serve north campus (Law, people going to the libraries, business school, etc) as well as most of the people coming to campus from the north. Between these two stations, we'll serve the majority of campus without any bus transfers.

There's a lot going on here. SDOT is focused on improving E-W transit service in the corridor bus 44 uses. That route runs through the U-district and ends (when not continuing as the 43) at health sciences/husky stadium. Some 48 express runs also already operate from 75th and 15th to the same endpoint. Peak direction for those trips is *to* Health Sciences - they'll be more efficiently utilized by passengers traveling in what is now the off-peak direction. You'll see an increase in riders in the peak direction as well to transfer, of course, but that's why we're building ST2 - to catch them further north.

Posted by Ben Schiendelman | June 12, 2007 8:54 AM
92

Mr. X: You were the one who claimed Sound Move specified 45th.

Stuart: You're creating a largely moot and temporary problem, then claiming it will cost you money. You do realize that the money saved to the *region* when these people don't waste everyone on I-5's time in traffic more than accounts for the cost of a bus route?

Posted by Ben Schiendelman | June 12, 2007 9:00 AM
93

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

Posted by Bill | June 12, 2007 12:56 PM
94

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

Posted by Bill | June 12, 2007 12:56 PM
95

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

Posted by Bill | June 12, 2007 12:56 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).