Comments on Roads Vs. Transit
Ugh. I had been up in the air about whether or not to vote for RTID, because I really do want more light rail, but after hearing about what they want to do to the Arboretum, I just can't. I like kayaking and walking my dog there too much to give up 2.3 acres of it.
Erica,
I'd like to point out another important element of this decision: maintenance vs. expansion. RTID is an expansion bill, not a maintenance bill. We have tens of billions of dollars of deferred maintenance on regional highways to pay for somehow. RTID's massive, regressive tax increase neglects those needs in order to fund new sprawl-inducing highways. It only replaces one of the 34 structurally-deficient bridges in our area, and does not even fully fund the 520 replacement.
It's like building a new wing on your house when the roof is leaking.
The 2009 transportation package might be smaller, but if more money is for Sound Transit, instead of roads, it could still be a bigger light rail package.
And besides, the best hope for the environment is congestion pricing. If RTID fails, Sims and Nickels have already essentially said that's the next move.
Why is there no parking downtown for scooters and motorcycles?
What about people who are trying to get out of their car while still getting to work in less than three times their driving time? I know of only 2 spots that are w/in a mile of my building; otherwise, I have to stick a parking ticket on my headlight that will be there for no more than 15 minutes before it's swiped and I get a parking ticket.
Sierra Club makes two other really compelling points: about prioritizing safety / repair and congestion pricing. 34 regional bridges are rated at 25% structural sufficiency or worse, and the RTID package only replaces / repairs one (South Park) while ignoring the other 33. That's some classic pork-barrel politics -- appeasing Kemper Freeman's highway expansion interests while ignoring serious public safety problems.
If congestion relief is really the goal, we should be spending funding on tolling in addition to transit. It's far more effective and affordable than highway expansion. Plus it raises funds with no strings attached -- what's not to love?
RW: And besides, the best hope for the environment is congestion pricing. If RTID fails, Sims and Nickels have already essentially said that's the next move.
Um, congestion pricing is the next move regardless. Tolls are a critical part of the funding for the 520 package. And there's $100-some million of federal funding at stake if we can muster the political will to put tolls in place on the existing 520 bridge -- which is what we ought to be doing anyway to help pay for a new bridge. I mean, the bigger your down payment, the smaller your total costs will be.
it's going to be handwringing shit like this that ensures that there is going to be more roads that everyone hates, becuase the roads are going to be rebuilt and replaced no matter what anyone thinks, and no mass transit.
i think coupling the two together kills two birds with one stone and then we can actually deal with the problems instead of bitching about how the solution isn't "pure" enough for our liking.
just vote for the fucking thing and be happy that we are finally going to get something good for our tax money.
to paraphrase a commenter yesterday, it seems there are a lot of tiny princesses of special town here who just have the exact solution their way, or it's just not good enough.
You can't pass the biggest tax increase in history and then institute tolling across the region.
Sure there will be tolls on 520, but they won't even talk about I-90, let along I-5.
The premise that a subsequent Sound Transit plan would return smaller seems unsupported. Where is the precedent for a combined package such as this one? My guess is the evidence stems from light-rail proposals that have been shot down. Yes, those do get scaled back, but the controversy has tended to center on cost versus potential ridership. The controversy over the RTID / Sound Transit package is concentrated primarily on the problem roads because a majority of our regional voters are already persuaded that rail is "worth it." So we've likely passed the hurdle that has caused other rails proposals to get shrunk.
Congestion and the call for relief in this region will only grow with time. If the message gets sent that highway expansion isn't an option, commuters may well wish for an even bigger package.
@4
Although it is possible for a person other than the driver of a motorcycle to remove a pay station receipt that is properly displayed on the motorcycle's front headlamp, it is an unlikely occurrence.
Yeah, I know. What a load of bullshit. These sleazy bastards swipe them all the time.
But never fear. Watch this forum in the next few weeks. I'm working on a theft-proof parking receipt tag holder you can make that will fit on your helmet lock. Should work good for handicapped placards too (yes, handicapped motorcyclists exist).
(Besides my main job as a Public Intellectual, I'm also an inventor.)
Seattle is already embarrassingly lacking in good transit options for a supposedly progressive large city. Predictions that rejecting the RTID/Transit package will bring something better in 2009 are, I think, optimistic at best. In the combined aftermath of the Monorail fiasco and Tim Eyman's heyday, how likely are we to see a transit package not tied to significant road spending? And do really want to wait another 2 years to even get started?
The regressive tax increase and lack of funds for repair and retrofit are serious flaws, but in spite of this I think it would be a mistake to vote it down.
"The regressive tax increase and lack of funds for repair and retrofit are serious flaws, but in spite of this I think it would be a mistake to vote it down."
Serious flaws? That's it? In the wake of what happened in MN, can we really in good conscience approve a package that does nothing to prevent a similar tragedy occurring here? It's not as though they'll find some extra funds somewhere to fix our bridges- RTID is it.
Elenchos @10, I'll be eager to see the result of your efforts. Thanks for the heads up.
The workaround that occurred to me was to write the motorcycle's license plate on the parking sticker in red Sharpie. The idea has its weaknesses (inconvenience, parking cops may not notice, thieves may not care), but it seems like a possibly effective deterrent.
I'm away from Seattle for another month, so I can't test the idea. Have any local riders tried anything similar?
Yes, they'll take away Arboretum acreage, but then won't there be some old 520 acreage that can be given back to the Arboretum? The arboretum used to stretch up to the current MOHAI location, and my understanding is that the interchange south of the Montlake Bridge will be moved north of it, and the section of freeway south of MOHAI will go with it.
#8: They're already talking about tolling on 90 as well as 520, so I think (and hope) that it will happen. In the long run, it's the only way to raise the revenue.
#9: If the combined package fails, both roads and transit packages will be resurrected separately, and be competing for the same money. Given that, it's hard to see how there wouldn't be some scaling back to make the package more politically palatable. I wish it weren't so, but I fear it is.
I don't actually mind the 405 expansion much, as there's room to do it (unlike with I-5 in Seattle) and the affected areas are already urbanized. The sprawl effect is minimal. The same goes to upgrades on 522--you're not creating a lot more sprawl with that project, just adding capacity within an already urbanized corridor.
What gets me is the new highways and new capacity in Pierce and Snohomish Counties, and to a lesser extent the disruption of a larger 520. What adds salt to the wound is the failure to deal with the decay of our existing bridges and highways. Shift the money from the sprawlways to infrastructure maintenance and I'd vote for the package with no regrets. With it, and I'm a very tentative yes that could easily turn to a no before November.
When you start breaking the RTID package down by good and bad projects (from a pro-transit, environmentalist perspective of course), you almost need a few more gradations: maybe good, bad, a wash, great, terrible.
I don't have the data on exactly what kinds of lanes and how many are being added to 405 through this package, but I would label HOV lanes on 405 a pretty unenthusiastic good. HOT lanes, if any, a wash. General-purpose lanes on 405 bad, but not terrible. Terrible I would reserve for plowing a new corridor through virgin territory, effectively what would have gone down with the Cross-Base Highway, if I understand correctly.
But is there really such a thing as a great road project? Actually, I think there could be, and I have no reservation about saying the 520 project has the potential to be a great road project. Why? Because real tolls and congestion pricing have the power to change the whole ball game in combination with light rail.
In this region, our highways are freeways, so they're effectively free. Sure, there is the gas tax, but with the gas tax it costs just as much to commute on a notoriously bottlenecked route like 520 as it does to cruise down a country road. You wind up with the so-called "tragedy of the commons." You make a shared resource free, and, even though everyone would benefit from everyone conserving it, nobody has an individual incentive to conserve. Altruism only goes so far.
If you put a reasonable price tag on driving through congested corridors -- and you combine that with reasonable alternatives to driving -- everybody benefits. Including -- and perhaps especially on 520 -- the drivers. I mean, drivers value their time.
The Arboretum acreage issue is a bit misleading. Any 6 lane 520 replacement (and any replacement will be 6 lanes) has a larger footprint through the Arboretum and Portage Bay than the current 520 footprint. The Pacific Street Interchange option, which relocates the Montlake interchange to north of the Montlake cut to connect with the new Sount Transit station at Husky stadium, seems like the clear green choice among the realistic 520 plans. Although the Pacific Street Interchange takes a bit more of the current Arboretum than the other 6 lane option, the Arboretum adds acerage when WSDOT removes the ramps to nowhere. Coupled with a narrower footprint through Montlake, a small lid, and a narrower footprint through Portage Bay, there are great opportunities for extending the Arbortium greenbelt west to connect with the Montlake Playfields and South Portgage Bay park. Most compelling from an environmental perspective, the Pacific Street Interchange actually allows people to trasnfer from bus to rail without waiting in traffic for drawbridges or walking 1/3 from the current interchange to Husky Stadium.
While I'd love 520 to disappear permenantly, it isn't going to happen. 520 could very well collapse or sink, and I fear for what aweful freeway would get cramed down our throats in the rush to build a replacement.
I wish the Sierra Club would be a bit practical and focus their efforts on getting the state to select a 6 lane replacement option that moves buses and people.
julian kempf can't help herself. she trotts out this stale old story of Julia Patterson about every six months.
For those of you who don't know Julian Kempf, she is the disgruntled ex King County elections employee who lied about why mail ballots were sent out late and was later fired. She also back dated PDC reports when she was with the 33rd district Dems. Julia turned her in.
Julian is a lying, unemployed sack of shit.
safetyfirst:
Serious flaws? That's it? In the wake of what happened in MN, can we really in good conscience approve a package that does nothing to prevent a similar tragedy occurring here? It's not as though they'll find some extra funds somewhere to fix our bridges- RTID is it.
So you're claiming that RTID does nothing to address vulnerable bridges? Come on. Seriously. Is it just open season now for lying?
Of all the vulnerable bridges in this state, there is none more important than 520, and the RTID goes a long way toward paying it. (As for vulnerable bridge #2, I'm wondering, does the RTID contribute to the surface solution, or is that pretty much paid for without RTID $?)
I couldn't find the official 520 drawings but for those that are giving it the OK maybe it would be worth your while to see what kind of new viaducts and monstrous roadway you are backing.
If you look at the Pacific Interchange image make sure you look at the top of the picture for the new viaduct which is cut off, at least on my machine
@19: Don't forget Vulnerable Bridge #3, the South Park Bridge, which actually rates below the viaduct on the stability scale. A replacement bridge would be funded through RTID.
P.S. I could've sworn Erica here had already sided with her colleague Josh Feit against this package. So I'm pleasantly surprised to hear Erica say that she now is sitting on the fence -- and acknowledge that this isn't such a black-and-white issue.
Who knows? Maybe next Erica will show some contrition for mouthing off at Metro drivers. ;-)
I'm sorry- since RTID partially funds the 520 rebuild and fixes the South Park bridge, all the other vulnerable bridges go away, and we should support the whole package? How does that make sense? Leaving 33 vulnerable bridges (rated at less than 25%) and the partially funded 520 seems a pretty compelling problem with the package to me.
520 Official site - behold
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520Bridge/Plans/DesignOptions.htm
safetyfirst:
I'm sorry- since RTID partially funds the 520 rebuild and fixes the South Park bridge, all the other vulnerable bridges go away, and we should support the whole package? How does that make sense? Leaving 33 vulnerable bridges (rated at less than 25%) and the partially funded 520 seems a pretty compelling problem with the package to me.
Yeah, let's shoot down this package, so instead of partially funding 520 replacement, we'll have no funding for 520 replacement. Yeah, let's shoot down this package, and instead of not being able to replace all of our vulnerable bridges, we can replace none of our vulnerable bridges.
Of course, I am exaggerating a little. If we shoot down this package, eventually we will get around to replacing 520 and the viaduct and all those other bridges. And by that time most of those bridges will have fallen down anyway. (And any of you who know Washington politics the least bit know that I'm only exaggerating a little on that last one.)
The Excel spreadsheet at Carless in Seattle is a good resource.
Using its default assumptions, and cancelling all SOV-generating projects except 405 results in cost savings of over $2 billion. Over $1 billion of that is in Pierce County. $700 million of that is in Snohomish County. $340 million is in King County (509/I-5 and 167 improvements that add SOV capacity).
The worst individual SOV projects from a cost standpoint (exempting 405) are the SR 167 expansion from the Port of Tacoma to Puyallup ($753 million, not counting the freight portion), Cross-Base ($246 million), Highway 9 ($228 million), and I-5/509 ($200 million). In terms of inducing sprawl, the worst projects are Cross-Base, Highway 9, and the SOV expansion on 167 in the Green River Valley ($130 million), along with the rest of the Snohomish County SOV spending.
Even exempting 167 from Tacoma to Puyallup and 509/5, there's still more than a billion dollars that is being spent solely to make things worse. That money should be going to infrastructure repairs and maintenance.
So this is what we do:
1. Vote Yes in November.
2. Stop the cross-base highway from getting the extra funding it needs, scuttling the money committed by RTID.
3. Find some way to scale back the SR 9 project and other Snohomish County projects to cover bottleneck improvements only. (Any ideas?)
4. Take that pool of money and direct it to infrastructure improvements, starting with our region's bridges.
OR:
1. Vote No.
2. Hope. Pray if that's your thing.
3. Vote in favor of a transit package that includes all the good stuff and none of the bad stuff.
Hey elenchos at @10, I'm with @13. Keep us posted, I'll buy one.
@13, my strategy is to take a picture of the sticker with my cell phone. If the sticker's stolen, I can still prove I bought one. But I haven't had a sticker stolen yet, which is sorta disappointing.
I get my Vespa moved instead.
Cascadian @27: thanks for the compliment!
The link got mangled somehow, though. The spreadsheet is at http://blog.carlessinseattle.us/models/rtid.xls.
I've been affiliated with the Sierra Club longer than most people reading this have been alive and I strongly disagree with the position the local chapter has taken on this ballot measure.
1. There has never been a bigger or better transit proposal in front of voters around here, never. Any 2008 vote would likely be for a smaller transit package and deliver less bang for the buck.
2. The road package is mostly (with a few exeptions) about making existing roads better as opposed to destroying the hinterlands with new roads. We've decided to focus growth within the urban area. And this road package does more of that than anything we've seen in a generation. Any assertions of loss at the Arboretum need to be balanced with facts about improvements there too, along with overall stormwater improvements that come with reworking existing freeways like 405 - which deliver real water quality benefits.
3. I think the local Sierra Club is overhyping and overpromising on issues like global warming and congestion pricing and putting at risk early progress to deal constructively with global warming. We will never toll all the roads without reliable and high quality transit in place, like the 50 additional miles of light rail we'll vote on. That rail is designed to carry 300% of ridership projections - powered by electricity, most of which comes from hydropower around here. I'm for getting ths spine in place before even considering congestion pricing, a long term prospect that will do nothing now but help elect Republicans.
There's more. But this is probably the most transit heavy investment we'll ever make. I'm voting for it this year because the time is right and there is no real hope that it'll ever get better.
Elenchos at @10, I third that I'm interested in your solution. I don't have the time off work to go in and fight parking tickets. I'm going to have to pay for parking in a lot where there isn't even a discount for cycles, why should I pay what for a spot for a car when you could get 4+ cycles in there? There's no way that should be allowed.
I just can't believe that this city has 30 or so spots dedicated to cycles. If there isn't billions in it for a developer, the city isn't interested. It's a complete joke, why isn't this an issue?
Roads & Transit says NOTHING about the Pacific Interchange, Arboretum, etc.
What it does say is that it will provide some of the funding towards the replacement with the local community deciding what the final product will look like through the mitigation process that is underway.
ECB-it's irresponsible to state that voting for the package will foist some sort of option on the Montlake neighbors.
It's also irresponsible not to note that the 520 could sink in a bad storm...
If Roads and Transit fails, I'm supporting a "life jacket proposal" to place life jackets every 10 yards along the bridge incase it begins to sink. Of course, the water is a bit cold.
Carless @28, thanks for the photo suggestion, a simpler and better idea than my own.
If this package is shot town, then mass transit expansion in this city will die. There will be no expansion beyond the basic Link line being constructed right now.
Maybe that's what Feit and ECB want. Maybe they hate the suburbs and don't want them to have access to the city. Maybe their idealistic spite knows no bounds.
And I'm not surprised at all.
If it fails, everyone knows it will be because of the roads (and the gargantuan tax rate). And I think they will go with tolls next time, instead of a general tax increase, and that's a big win, even if the money is used to do less than honorable things.
As for Sound Transit, 60 percent of it won't be built for 20 years anyway. So maybe breaking it up, and focussing on the stuff that can be built now (Northgate, I-90 to Microsoft), then going back to voters in 2018 or so would actually secure more funding in the long-term.
MichaelW @35:
If it fails, everyone knows it will be because of the roads (and the gargantuan tax rate). And I think they will go with tolls next time, instead of a general tax increase, and that's a big win, even if the money is used to do less than honorable things.
So let's get this straight, MichaelW... You preface one dubious assertion with "everyone knows," and then you follow that up with another statement that is factually wrong -- and we're supposed to believe you on the "everyone knows" part? The "they" you refer to is already going with tolls. Even if you toll both 520 and I-90, there is not enough money to pay for 520 primarily with tolls.
If this tax package fails, politicians and stakeholders will interpret the result in whatever way advances their interests. We saw just that happen after the viaduct vote. Everybody, except the tunnel supporters, just used the result to justify their original position. If this package fails, those politicians who have a vested interest in seeing roads funded over light rail will have no compunction about trying to grab what they really want.
@17 Let's see. Increasing capacity makes congestion worse. A six lane replacement will increase capacity. Therefore, a six lane replacement will be worse than the current four lanes, and will remove 2.3 acres from the Arboretum. I say fuck it. Let's keep four lanes.
Gitai @37, increasing capacity can make congestion worse, but it's not axiomatic. If you can grasp the paradox to start with, you should be able to see that it's not so simple.
Cressona @36
But the fundamental question is: If it's not the highways that stick in voters' craw, then what? The Sound Transit plan? The whole reason it's coupled with RTID is to make the package saleable. Taxes? Nothing indicates the region won't pay for a solution, even if people disagree what that is.
So what's that leave? We're back to the highway problem. It will be very difficult for politicians to argue otherwise(not saying some won't try )if the proposal fails. Interest groups will spin the results, but the bottom line will be obvious: a regional tax for highways is a loser. Politicians will have to try another approach. The scenario you and MichaelW describe is not unrealistic,including the ugliness of ring city politicians scrambling to recover their highway components. But at least then suburban interests will be more naked, the burden of proof for expensive road projects higher, and we'll escape a nauseating and false consensus that this roads/transit compromise is a "regional solution." Honestly, I think transit and other alt transportation advocates who can prove more bang for the buck would fare better in a free-for-all -- better than they're going to do yoked to a road package that sucks much of the region's buying power into inefficient highways.
Cascadian @ 27:
In terms of inducing sprawl, the worst projects are Cross-Base, Highway 9, and the SOV expansion on 167 in the Green River Valley ($130 million), along with the rest of the Snohomish County SOV spending.
You continue not to get it. Sprawl in that part of Pierce County is already well under way and will continue unabated whether or not the Cross-Base Highway is built.
And it will be built, make no mistake, because the people who live and work there, and the Port of Tacoma, will demand it.
This is why I cancelled my subscription renewal to TCC this year.
Global Warming is NOW, people. It's time to stop subsidizing single occupancy low mpg cars and the roads we build for them, and start building solutions like 100 mpg plug-in-hybrid lanes.
oh and I've been affiliated with the Sierra Club since I moved to Seattle from Canada.
Cressona, whoever you are, thanks for providing some voice of reason to those who chose to permanently exile themselves to political lala land.
Speaking of which:
"Global Warming is NOW, people. It's time to stop subsidizing single occupancy low mpg cars and the roads we build for them, and start building solutions like 100 mpg plug-in-hybrid lanes."
Will AFLAC! Ashe always finds a new way to make the dumbest possible argument. (At least he's not pushing that "wall around Seattle" concept this time)
Will: catch a clue. If / when 100 mpg plug-in hybrids are available for mass consumption (by trust funders and non-trust funders alike) those cars are going to need roads and freeways to drive on. In fact, the cheaper it is to operate your green cars, the more people will drive. In other words - as usual - Will is working at cross-purposes with Will.
Get used to it, folks. He does this all the time - doesn't matter what the issue is.
One thing the Peoples Waterfront Jihad may wish to look in to: the widening of 405 takes cars off of I-5 through Seattle, I-90 and 520. The long-standing plan to bring 405 into the 21st century will also make the Surface+Transit option for the Seattle waterfront possible.
See how that works? In the era of traffic reports every couple minutes, and evolving in-dash technology means real-time traffic info sending cars to the least congested corridors. In other words, the more messed-up 405 is, the more north-south traffic clogging Seattle.
This concept isn't very hard to figure out. All it takes is one accident on I-5, and within minutes sr-99 turns into a parking lot.
Whether you think widening 405 is a good idea or not, two simple facts cannot be ignored: 1) the battle against 405 widening was fought - and lost - years ago. 70% of this corridor has already been funded, and the notion Seattle can prevent the final 30% from being completed is a joke. The Sierra Club is entering this fight a decade too late; 2) whether car-driving "no new freeways!" Greens win this round, or not, this lask link (Bellevue-Renton) will be built some day. The quicker we get it over with, the more likely it is we can move into the new paradigm: tolls+transit. Doctrinaire enviros should read Chris Vance's Crosscut piece from a couple weeks ago, where he lectures his fellow conservatives on the harsh political realities they "wish" will just magically go away. Vance's advice: "light rail isn't going anywhere.". In other words, get used to it.
Finally, thank you to whoever made the observation about the thousand tiny princesses of their own tiny kingdoms. This critique hitsd the nail on the head: for every complaining liberal, there's a whiney freeway-obsessed conservative OUTRAGED at the imbalance between pavement and light rail in this proposal. If you asked all the various critics of this plan what they think Plan B might look like next year, I can guarantee you there's absolutely zero consensus out there, compared to what voters have a chance to approve this fall.
In 2000, Nader supporters were telling us we could do better than anti-environmentalist Al Gore. They assured us that even if their actions led to a George Bush victory, there really wasn't that much difference between the two candidates, anyways. Additionally, they promised things would have to get worse before they got better.
Do we really have to repeat that same mistake, people? I should hope not.
Cressona, whoever you are, thanks for providing some voice of reason to those who chose to permanently exile themselves to political lala land.
Speaking of which:
"Global Warming is NOW, people. It's time to stop subsidizing single occupancy low mpg cars and the roads we build for them, and start building solutions like 100 mpg plug-in-hybrid lanes."
Will AFLAC! Ashe always finds a new way to make the dumbest possible argument. (At least he's not pushing that "wall around Seattle" concept this time)
Will: catch a clue. If / when 100 mpg plug-in hybrids are available for mass consumption (by trust funders and non-trust funders alike) those cars are going to need roads and freeways to drive on. In fact, the cheaper it is to operate your green cars, the more people will drive. In other words - as usual - Will is working at cross-purposes with Will.
Get used to it, folks. He does this all the time - doesn't matter what the issue is.
One thing the Peoples Waterfront Jihad may wish to look in to: the widening of 405 takes cars off of I-5 through Seattle, I-90 and 520. The long-standing plan to bring 405 into the 21st century will also make the Surface+Transit option for the Seattle waterfront possible.
See how that works? In the era of traffic reports every couple minutes, and evolving in-dash technology means real-time traffic info sending cars to the least congested corridors. In other words, the more messed-up 405 is, the more north-south traffic clogging Seattle.
This concept isn't very hard to figure out. All it takes is one accident on I-5, and within minutes sr-99 turns into a parking lot.
Whether you think widening 405 is a good idea or not, two simple facts cannot be ignored: 1) the battle against 405 widening was fought - and lost - years ago. 70% of this corridor has already been funded, and the notion Seattle can prevent the final 30% from being completed is a joke. The Sierra Club is entering this fight a decade too late; 2) whether car-driving "no new freeways!" Greens win this round, or not, this lask link (Bellevue-Renton) will be built some day. The quicker we get it over with, the more likely it is we can move into the new paradigm: tolls+transit. Doctrinaire enviros should read Chris Vance's Crosscut piece from a couple weeks ago, where he lectures his fellow conservatives on the harsh political realities they "wish" will just magically go away. Vance's advice: "light rail isn't going anywhere.". In other words, get used to it.
Finally, thank you to whoever made the observation about the thousand tiny princesses of their own tiny kingdoms. This critique hitsd the nail on the head: for every complaining liberal, there's a whiney freeway-obsessed conservative OUTRAGED at the imbalance between pavement and light rail in this proposal. If you asked all the various critics of this plan what they think Plan B might look like next year, I can guarantee you there's absolutely zero consensus out there, compared to what voters have a chance to approve this fall.
In 2000, Nader supporters were telling us we could do better than anti-environmentalist Al Gore. They assured us that even if their actions led to a George Bush victory, there really wasn't that much difference between the two candidates, anyways. Additionally, they promised things would have to get worse before they got better.
Do we really have to repeat that same mistake, people? I should hope not.
Chris Vance, GOP leader and ardent opponent of rail, says on Crosscut that if we vote down this package the rail portion will come back by itself.
"If the package fails, Sound Transit will get their proposal back on the ballot alone as soon as possible. Light rail will never go away."
So vote no on roads, stop the bad roads then next year vote YES on light rail alone.
Think about it. The legislature tied these two things together to let the roads piggyback on light rail. If the voters untie them by voting down the roads, we simply have too much invested in light rail to stop it half way through Seattle, making UW the end point.
One law of transportation politics:
Iron in the ground. Gets. Expanded.
Why? North Seattle, Bellevue, Federal Way etc. have supported Sound Transit with huge tax payments for years and years. They are pro transit areas. They won't let the politicians fail to expand the light rail.
And the Sound Transit leaders will fight like HELL to expand it in the big Democratic high turnout vote in 2008. Without the roads portion.
When you have Chris Vance agreeing with the Sieera Club on the political handicapping, don'tbelieve those who say "you have to vote for roads you don't want to kowtow to the politicans to get the light rail you want."
unPC:
Chris Vance, GOP leader and ardent opponent of rail, says on Crosscut that if we vote down this package the rail portion will come back by itself.
"If the package fails, Sound Transit will get their proposal back on the ballot alone as soon as possible. Light rail will never go away."
So vote no on roads, stop the bad roads then next year vote YES on light rail alone.
Uh, unPC, I need to rap my knuckles on your skull a few times to make sure anything is in there. You just said Chris Vance is an "ardent opponent of rail;" you just said he's encouraging people to vote no on this package. We've got someone who wants to kill light rail and build freeways and he sees this ballot as a bad thing. I don't know -- if I actually have any cognitive function -- I might take this as an indication this ballot is a good thing.
And isn't it convenient that Chris Vance holds out the hope that ST2 will magically spring back to life, all by itself and ASAP and without any scaling back? Y'know, like Republicans have never lied before about how things will turn out.
Bart65 @44:
Whether you think widening 405 is a good idea or not, two simple facts cannot be ignored: 1) the battle against 405 widening was fought - and lost - years ago. 70% of this corridor has already been funded, and the notion Seattle can prevent the final 30% from being completed is a joke. The Sierra Club is entering this fight a decade too late;
One quibble here, Bart65. You're making the presumption that the Sierra Club leadership is truly interested in preventing general-purpose lanes from getting built on 405, or that they're truly interested in getting light rail built, or that this is all about global warming for them. As catastrophic as it is, global warming is just the rationale du jour for these people to jump on. If it were not that, there would be something else. Why? Because that's what zealots do.
Seattle's fundamentalist pseudo-environmentalist left has a long, long history of fighting mass transit in this region. And I can virtually assure you that, if this package gets killed and light rail ever finds its way back on the ballot after how many years and however eviscerated it is, they will find an excuse to fight it then. Why? Because that's what zealots do.
This is yet another reason why this joint ballot will be such a game-changer. Not only will it signal that mass transit is here to stay in this region, not only will it give tolling a foothold in this region (however precarious), but once and for all it will drive a stake through the heart of the anti-transit Seattle left.
Oh, where to begin!
I'm shocked -- shocked! to see that the Transportation Choices Coalition would support a plan that provided transportation, um, choices, rather than forcing everyone to use transit regardless of their circumstances.
Everyone who thinks a better transit package is inevitable down the road should get out of their cocoon and read a discussion thread on Crosscut or Sound Politics sometime. There are plenty of people who commute along I-405, where no light rail will come for the better part of a century. Why would they vote for ST2?
Even if transit over roads were a strong consensus, killing ST2 opens up the floor to every crackpot that supports transit, but only their pet version of it -- monorail, maglev, personal rapid transit, BRT, vanpools, etc. Many of these ideas have merit, but throwing away a decade or so of ST staff work to find a new "consensus" doesn't get us any closer to a real transit system, and just results in delay to what might work today.
This image of the Sierra Club leadership and the increasingly fringe state Republican Party leadership joining hands to kill 50 miles of new light rail brings to mind something I would call "the Pat Buchanan effect."
Eventually, the lunatic left and the reactionary right go far enough afield, things come full circle and they actually find common cause. You're seeing the same thing now with the Naderites' infatuation with radical right-winger Ron Paul.
Anyway, I would love to see Mike O'Brien (Sierra Club) and Chris Vance (Republican Party) do a few campaign events together. Yeah, strange bedfellows indeed. (Excuse me while I try to scrub away that mental image.)
The cross base highway will alleviate lines of cars and semis idling as they inch their way north on canyon road (from the Port of Tacoma industrial park in Frederickson) to get to Highway 512 7 miles away to go west to I5 and then to go south. There is a two lane road that currently goes between the bases but it is not conducive to cars. At 6 am and 4 pm you might as well bring a book to read behind the wheel.
Cressona - "Seattle's fundamentalist pseudo-environmentalist left has a long, long history of fighting mass transit in this region."
You repeat this contention often. In 1968 and 1970 the opponents were right leaning unions, you know the ones supporting Nixon, and real estate interests motivated by the property tax (at least one of the votes had over 50% but needed 60%). It wasn't the SLF (Seattle Liberation Front) or SDS or the Socialist worker's Party that fought transit. The "far left" was mostly worried about Vietnam, go figure.
Now I agree with GW being a convenient argument. It would be nice if the actual impacts on GHG would be quanified. In that most GW fighters feel that we only have 10 maybe 20 years to dramatically bring down emissions, how could a rail build out that won't be completed for 20 years (if they keep their schedule, current phase 1/3 short and 30% late) be the best way to spend $23 billion plus interest?
We could double the efficiency of vehicles in ten years and invest in wind, tidal, wave, solar and other GHG friendly power production.
If GW is real and we need to address it now, this plan is a bad way to spend our money. ST and RTID were not planned with GHG reductions as a major issue.
Little history note for whatever, our resident magic hybrids advocate. The following quote comes from local historian Walt Crowley and it appeared in a Seattle P-I story on the viaduct debate:
"The local leftist distrust of big capital and land use projects goes back to Metro and Forward Thrust. The counterculture left actually opposed light rail in 1968 and 1970, proposing bridle trails instead (I kid you not). The aim of creative government should be to expand the commonwealth for all classes."
And last I checked, there seems to be a long list of leftist faux-environmentalists more than happy to carry on the anti-mass transit torch.
@52
I'd love to see that list --dated, let's say, post 1980. And until you produce it,I don't know why anyone should pay the least attention to your claims that the Sierra Club and other environmental groups are motivated by anti-transit ideology. The Sierra Club is fighting the rail /highway package because it has HIGHWAYS. Its leaders believe that transit can be accomplished without swallowing the highway pill.
Cressona - Walt is a great guy, he was part of the left but on this he's wrong. The proposed 49 miles was for heavy rail (not a significant error but wrong) and the left was fighting against the war, saving the market and against the RH Thompson freeway.
From the PI 5-18-70
Vick Gould (look him up at historylink) listed these organizations opposing the vote to held the next day: The Bellevue Rep. Women's Club, Teamster Local 174, Overtaxed Inc., Tax Limit League, Focus on Freeways, Lower Queen Anne Citizens Group, Redmond City Council, Seattle Master Builders, Apartment House Operators Assn., Transit Trust and Society of Pro. Elec. Engineers. Where's the left?
The article specifically announces that the King County Labor, AFL-CIO and the Aero Mechanics had come out against the rapid transit.
What's more magical than fuel efficient cars is the idea that taking .5% of the cars off the road by 2040 is going dramatically reduce anything. Ask ST for an environmental analysis and see what you get. There is no question that promoting and facilitating better vehicle energy use will crush the environmental benefits from ST2. BTW taking cars off the roadway will work just like building more lanes of highway in terms of inducing demand - more space on roads will be filled up.
I dislike the pollution that cars bring us. I'm not against individual vehicles whether they are cars or bikes. Electric cars exist today and could be much better. Check Teslamotors for one of the top models available. The GM VOLT is scheduled to come out in a couple of years.
Thanks, Erica - great post.
For what it's worth to you (almost nothing, I suspect), I'm feeling pretty depressed and disillusioned by The Stranger's "no" recommendedation on this package. With all of Josh's complaining throughout the year about the decision to combine road and transit funding, it seems you all painted yourself into a corner on this issue. The idea that a better transit package will appear next year is a convenient rationalization, but even you all must know at some level that it's unrealistic.
I hope you'll consider changing your recommendation.
Sean @ 55: We have not made any recommendation on this package yet; endorsements for the general election come out in October.
Whatever @51:
We could double the efficiency of vehicles in ten years and invest in wind, tidal, wave, solar and other GHG friendly power production.
First of all, these efforts are not mutually exclusive with voting up a transit package.
But nevermind that. Double vehicle efficiency in 10 years?
We should define terms. Double by what measure? Average fuel economy of all models available? Average of all cars on the road (i.e. weighted by numbers sold)? Average weighted by vehicle miles driven?
Or do you just mean that in ten years, there will be a 100 mpg* 2-passenger no-trunk car available but selling in miniscule numbers?
Given the increased attention and investment going to gas/electric hybrids and other high-efficiency technologies, I'd expect better than normal improvements in the next decade. Fact is, though, there have already been dramatic improvements in engine efficiency in the last ten years. Much of the reason for the radical horsepower increases of the last decade is that it became possible to do it without reducing gas mileage from previous models. In other words, instead of buying higher mileage, customers bought more power. As a practical matter, you're not going to get significant numbers of Americans to go back to driving 70-80 horsepower cars.
(Japan and Europe already have large populations of micro-cars with engines as small as 0.66 liter, but those engines already work so hard to move the weight of a car that they have very limited potential for increased efficiency.)
I write this as someone who would like to buy a Smart forTwo. I'm a fan of small high-efficiency cars, but Whatever @51 is living in a dream world.
* Assuming we're still talking about gasoline powered cars.
Another footnote:
[I]nstead of buying higher mileage, customers bought more power.
Yes, the Toyota Prius is a rock star. This is mainly because of the lack of choices for hybrid buyers. The Prius is currently the only hybrid to combine a back seat, a useful trunk, high reliability, and the ego/social status boost of being unmistakeably a hybrid.
Keep it in perspective, though. The Prius, Camry, and Accord can all be described as comfortable family sedans selling commonly in the low $20k's. (Granted, the Prius is a bit smaller.) In July this year, Toyota sold 16,000 Priuses, compared to over 41,000 Camrys and 37,000 Accords. (The Camry and Accord numbers include hybrid models, but they're a small fraction.) Nevermind all the other conventional gas engine models competing with the Prius, and this despite Toyota lowering the Prius price to be directly competitive.
Erica @56
Oh good.
I hope you (and the rest of Seattle) will put pragmatism ahead of idealism this fall so we'll finally get the cool train we deserve.
Sean -"cool train we deserve" yup that's it - a train for hipsters to ride to MSFT - not something that will make a difference in GHG or congestion or for mobility for 95% of the population
Lost Boy - Electric and plug in electrics are my choice. The average ownership of a new car is something like 4 years - so yes if we did an all out campaign with incentives to get better mileage and penalties to reduce driving we could achieve a halving of petroleum consumption for transportation locally. But if we achieved only a 10% reduction it would be 10% more than this plan.
I may be living in a dream world but those that think building ST2 will do anything measurable to reduce GHG are not being honest. ST won't even put out those numbers. The target date for completion is 2027 - most likely Bellevue by 2035.
A 1/2 percentage shift to transit for $25 billion plus just doesn't make sense if we are trying to reduce GHGs.
But vote yes for that "cool train we deserve"
Classic sophistry from whatever.
"those that think building ST2 will do anything measurable to reduce GHG are not being honest"
Which hat did you pull that out of, guy? That analysis is part of the extensive EIS process, which won't be completed for some time. Did a little bird (or little voice) deliver these predictions?
"A 1/2 percentage shift to transit for $25 billion plus just doesn't make sense if we are trying to reduce GHGs.
"
And which Kemper Freeman goon told you that? Did he calculate it on the back of a napkin, or the back of a roll of toilet paper?
Of course right wing transit opponents are forced to make up numbers - but one would think they might try to portray themselves as partially credible from time to time.
As was mentioned earlier, making cars cheaper and cleaner means more people will crowd our roads and highways with them. That really solves the congestion problem, no? And while whatever employs childish tactics to berate "cool trains" he forgets that it is the coolness factor which gets people out of their cars....so the cranks might have a little less traffic to negotiate in their daily quest to avoid human interaction while sitting in their cars.
Extensive GHG emissions for whatever's plug-in gridlock machines has not been completed, but air quality analysis shows little benefit:
http://www.epri-reports.org/Volume2Part1R2.pdf
In most regions of the United States, PHEVs result in small but significant improvements
in ambient air quality and reduction in deposition of various pollutants such as acids,
nutrients and mercury.
On a population weighted basis, the improvements in ambient air quality are small but
numerically significant for most of the country.
The emissions of gaseous criteria pollutants (NOx and SO2) are constrained nationally
by regulatory caps. As a result, changes in total emissions of these pollutants due to
PHEVs reflect slight differences in allowance banking during the study’s time horizon.
Considering the electric and transportation sector together, total emissions of VOC,
NOx and SO2 from the electric sector and transportation sector decrease due to
PHEVs. Ozone levels decreased for most regions, but increased in some local areas.
When assuming a minimum detection limit of 0.25 parts per billion, modeling
estimates that 61% of the population would see decreased ozone levels and 1% of the
population would see increased ozone levels.
Mercury emissions increase by 2.4% with increased generation needs to meet PHEV
charging loads. The study assumes that mercury is constrained by a cap-and-trade
program, with the option for using banked allowances, proposed by EPA during
the execution of the study. The electric sector modeling indicates that utilities take
advantage of the banking provision to realize early reductions in mercury that result in
greater mercury emissions at the end of the study timeframe (2030).
Primary emissions of particulate matter (PM) increase by 10% with the use of PHEVs
due primarily to the large growth in coal generation assumed in the study.
Whatever @60, a plug-in electric may be your choice, but good luck finding company.
Between range, cost, and recharge time (just to cite the big ones), there are major technological obstacles to making plug-in electrics viable replacements for gas powered cars. The Tesla Motors car you cited earlier almost has the range problem covered, but it's a $100,000 car, and even at that price, you'll notice that their website completely sidesteps the question of charging time.
Halving petroleum consumption (@60) and doubling vehicle efficiency (@51) are not the same thing, but at least you're getting warmer. With society-wide reduced total consumption as the goal, maybe you can see that increasing mass transit (not exclusive of other approaches) is a step in the right direction?
"And last I checked, there seems to be a long list of leftist faux-environmentalists more than happy to carry on the anti-mass transit torch."
The collaboration between the naive left and rabid right is nothing new. See: monorail.
Look who signed up for the current anti-ST2 campaign along with Kemper Freeman: Phil Talmadge and Will Knedlik, both monorail boosters.
In fact, the genesis of this twisted left-right anti-light rail / pro-monorail alliance goes back to a conference in 1998, sponsored by the Kemper Freeman-funded Washington Policy Center (then WIPS). www.globaltelematics.com/pitf//confrenc.htm The Seattle Monorail kick-off featured non-other than Nick Licata, Emory Bundy, and Rob McKenna.
Before the conference, Discovery Institute and WPC hired gun John Niles (perennial anti transit activist) visited and encouraged the Elevated Transportation Company board to join their right/left think tank fest:
http://archives.elevated.org/archives_minutes/minutes19980302.shtm
"John Niles, Seattle resident and independent consultant, reported that he was proud of the board members for stepping forward. He talked about the Monorail conference on March 4 and encouraged attendance. He also introduced Dennis Lisk, the conference organizer with the Washington Institute Foundation. "
In other words, the Sierra Club isn't treading any new ground here, as Cressona aptly points out. I just hope they don't do the same kind of damage alt-Greens did back in their monorail glory days, where they had fun in the sun with local and national freeway-hugging right wing sharks.
"Let's see. Increasing capacity makes congestion worse. A six lane replacement will increase capacity. Therefore, a six lane replacement will be worse than the current four lanes, and will remove 2.3 acres from the Arboretum. I say fuck it. Let's keep four lanes."
Gitai - sorry, that wouldn't pass the laugh test with the voters, especially when you consider 4 lanes actually means 2 lanes (a net loss of 2 lanes on an already backed-up mess of a corridor) since buses would need 2 of 4 existing lanes.
There's stupid, and there's ABSURD.
The notion that voters will approve billions to exponentially exacerbate already terrible traffic (which also affects I-5 and 405 in a big way every day) makes it hard to imagine anybody would be so stupid or naive to even consider it.
But, not only are NIMBY neighborhood groups lining up behind this insane non-starter option...they can even tell you it could work, with a straight face. They even have a certain prominent politician egging them on, from what I hear.
The 4 lane bridge proponents are as CrAzY as they come.
Donaldo - ST2 won't be operational for 20 years - not hard to figure it won't reduce GHGs until well past the time GW experts say we must act. If you wish to say GW is BS do so. At least Sean told it like it is - "cool train"
If you read earlier posts you would know that I proposed using funds to build new clean energy sourced electricity - solar, wind, tidal, geo thermal etc. to "fuel" the mainly electric cars I favor.
The best transit in the country NY also has the some of the worst road congestion - transit will not clear up congestion - what a joke your arguments are.
And you quote me - "those that think building ST2 will do anything measurable to reduce GHG are not being honest" then say
'Which hat did you pull that out of, guy? That analysis is part of the extensive EIS process, which won't be completed for some time.'
Let's see - I'm wrong because the EIS work hasn't been done? You and the other "cool trainers" don't have any measurement that it will show slowing GHG production or when. The energy costs of building ST2 will not be recovered, if ever, until years after the line is up and running.
Is GW an issue? If yes, when must GHG production be reduced? If the time period is less than 20 years how can a twenty year project be the correct choice? If the project increases transit ridership by .5% for $23 billion, is that a good investment to reduce GHGs?
GW is the environmental 911 - it calls for a whole new way of approaching problems. Offering alternatives to .2% of commuters while doing little if anything for GHG reduction just doesn't play.
BTW Donaldo interesting that you show up with two long posts that go up within 2 minutes, very professional.
Gitai may have been having some fun with those that fight road expansion because of latent demand yet have no problem supporting a giant 6 lane freeway with a new viaduct through wetlands and a park.
People that supported monorail somehow are part of a lefty anti-transit cabal? If John Niles at one point hosted a monorail conference that means all people associated with the monorail are anti transit? Does that include Walt Crowley, Lois North and Tom Carr? Interesting because Cressona refers to a Crowley quote. Greg Nickels endorsed the 2000, 2002 and the anti-recall vote, hows does he fit into the cabal?
Whatever @66:
The best transit in the country NY also has the some of the worst road congestion - transit will not clear up congestion - what a joke your arguments are.
Wow. There are fallacies, there is ignorance, and then there's this.
Can you imagine what NYC traffic would be like without the transit system? I can't, because NYC could not exist as it is now without its extensive transit. I mean that literally; the development of density there would not have been possible with only the available road capacity.
Lost Boy - "I mean that literally; the development of density there would not have been possible with only the available road capacity."
What wouldn't have been as possible was the expansion beyond Manhattan - the city 8 mil and 322 sq miles while the metro is 21 mil. The point of rail not relieving congestion was made in response to one of the LR touters that said moving people to low or no pollution cars wouldn't relieve congestion - my point was that nothing short of a recession or tolling will reduce congestion - hell even ST doesn't claim they will.
We will never get to a NY like transit system and even if we did it wouldn't make the highways uncongested. What we need is heavy duty growth management zoning. Your rail line to Overlake will
induce sprawl, will do little to nothing for GW. But it provide a "cool train"
Ah, what happened to The Stranger standing on ideals? If this is not the package or the year to design our transportation future different, than when is it? The Sierra Club raises great points that more people today should be thinking along: global warming, urban sprawl, and safety first. This package is not a safety first or FIX IT FIRST package. These are not unrealistic goals. The state can become a fix it first state, and then move on to deciding to add lanes that greens call debate about being "good" or "bad". I hope The Stranger and the public reject this proposal.
Hi Chris,
The solution to our regions transportation problems is building high speed rail,and cut and covers at the major intersections on the original corridors,as well as tie ins from the interstates to the original corridors..
More local traffic must be re directed onto the original corridors,and high speed rail needs to lead the way in getting more local traffic back onto the original corridors.
If you look at any chokepoint in this region,it can be attributed to the encroachment of business districts on the original corridors,and the lack of capacity,and performance of the original corridors.
Congestion on 167 is caused by the lack of performance,and capacity or tie ins from sr 900 to sr 515,and benson highway.
Congestion on I-90 at eastgate is caused by retail,residential encroachments, and the lack of investsments,performance on newport way ,west,and east lake sammamish way.
405-I-5 congestion
Caused by the lack of performance on HWY 99,or extension of 509 to Tacoma.
I could go on .
You pick any congested point in our region,and I will show you an original corridor that is not properly serving the local traffic,and forcing them onto the interstates.
We need investment on the original corridors,and I am not talking about gentrification milk runs like sound transit.
The performance of the original corridors must be improved with high speed rail,Cut and covers along the major intersections,and direct tie ins of the original corridors to improve flow , and performance,which will enable us to divert more local traffic off the interstates.
We would actually have enough interstate lane miles for our by pass traffic,if we could get more performance out of our original corridors.
That is the answer to our regions transportation problems.
EB,
Nice post.
The Sierra Club is correctly concerned about the impact of the RTID projects on both global warming and sprawl. Development follows highway expansion.
The good road v. bad road discussion is an improvement over the discussions held several years ago; they were just roads v. transit. Bad roads induce sprawl and more traffic. We should spend more on arterials within the urban growth line, add sidewalks, and figure out a maintenance program.
The purpose of RTID is to expand limited access highway capacity. The enabling legislation was written by Eastside Republican senators McDonald, Finkbinder, and Horn (McFinkHorn) in 2002. All are out of office, replaced by Democrats. Their government lives on. It has been improved somewhat through the efforts of TCC and others. But it is still dangerous to growth management and global warming. Its main purpose is to widen I-405 and the package include four unpriced general purpose lanes between I-90 and Renton. It requires that 90 percent of the funds go to highways of statewide significance: the big ones. This is not a maintenance package.
The RTID premise is incorrect. They assert that state government has neglected highway expansion. In fact, it was the federal government that funded the limited access highway expansion. That funding has dried up. We have to figure out how to use the highway network built with federal funds.
The answer should involve systemwide dynamic tolling. The limited access highways should be treated like utility lines (e.g., water, sewer, and electricity). We pay for access of those capital assets; we should pay for access to the limited access highways. They suffer the tradgedy of the commons: over use.
The RTID has policy language about tolling, but NO teeth. The authority is in Olympia and the Governor and many legislators are scared of tolling.
After the AWV vote in Seattle, the RTID shifted $800 million to pretty good projects from the AWV. But those projects are like the bicycle on the back of the global warming SUV. In King County alone, the are three projects of about $1 bilion: SR-520 (and that is under funded and not defined), I-405, and the SR-509 extension.
The RTID would get about 40 percent of its funding for one-tenth on the sales tax. This is both unfair and inefficient. It is unfair in that the sales tax is unrelated to each household and firm use of the roadway network. The sales tax is regressive; at least the MVET is progressive. It is inefficient, in that the sales tax does not send a price signal to roadway users.
Expanding unpriced limited access highways with a sales tax is exactly backward from progressive public policy when our concerns are about global warming and sprawl.
Consider the opportunity cost of the RTID projects. They are almost all expansions of capacity. That was the purpose given it by McFinkHorn.
The revenue stream could instead go to more transit ramps, sidewalks, bridge replacements, and maintenance. I-5 maintenance in Seattle will take about $2 billion and WSDOT does not have the funding. Most areas developed after WWII lack sidewalks on arterials; how will they be provided?
Tolling is in our future. Tolling should have been considered in the design of the mega projects. If the Pierce County extension of SR-167 and the SR-509 extension are to improve freight movement to the Port of Tacoma and the airport, they should be tolled from the beginning. The EIS for SR-509 did not extend north to the 1st Avenue South Bridge. The AWV replacement will probably reduce through capacity in the "riddel in the middle"; is this the time to bring more I-5 traffic to the 1st Avenue South bridge and East Marginal Way South?
Just as the RTID projects have opportunity cost, so do the ST2 projects. The 50 miles of LRT praised by the proponents are not so great. The key six miles between the UW Stadium station and Northgate are quite good. But the remainder are fairly weak in terms of transit benefit and cost-effectiveness. The south King and Pierce County funds could definitely be much better spent. Sound Move correctly used several transit modes.
South Link LRT will be slow due to its deviation to the Rainier Valley and will not be an attractive long-distance line. The ST ridership forecasts show that. High capacity is not needed for trips between the Tacoma Dome and SeaTac. The Pierce County funds should be spent on improving intra Tacoma transit. The inter county trips should be on bus on HOT lanes and on Sounder. ST2 includes no expansion of Sounder service levels not funded by the first phase.
This is the time to invest transit funds into the BNSFRR dinner train right-of-way in East King County. buses can be made to go fast on both I-90 and SR-520 pretty easily. East Link on I-90 will probably slow the transit routes serving Eastgate, Issaquah, and Issaquah Highlands and only improve the connection to Bellevue.
The long extensions of Link LRT will take many years to build. There are major transit needs today. Alternative investments could be provided faster.
Both the three-county governments have offered us bad packages. The Legislature has forced them to come to us together. Our votes will speak to three governments: ST, RTID, and the state.
@72,
Roads for the rich,Gentrification and relocation of the poor is all D's.
The D's choose higher property taxes over low income housing.
The D's retail sales sales tax ,higher property tax wet dream is why we are destined for gridlocke our entire lives.
The Sierra club is being used to whoop whoop whoop us into gentrification and set up the apple cart for the sales tax, property tax happy D's.
The Sierra club,and the Greg Smith propped up greenie groups are not fooling me,they are not trying to save a whale salmon or frog.
The want to achieve gentrification of the inter cities and tax lovie and thurston to death,while the elderly ,and poor pay for their own relocation to burien ,white center,Kent,or Federal Way,until the next round of gentrification pushes them even farther out.
Like it or not,That is what the greeinies stand for now,A vote to relocate the poor out of the puget sound region,at the expense of the poor.
That is what the greenie groups are ultimately pushing.
The other pro tax groups want the poor to pay for the gentrification and relocation as part of their benefits package,so they don't have to pay and income tax to help solve our problems.
These groups have it down.pushing the tax hikes to avoid income taxes,help keep the larger employers employee's from having to pay income taxes is a major draw for boeing,and microsoft employee's.
It is a "social cut",and the poor are not making the "social cut".
The D's ,and greenies ,should be ashamed of themselves.
They can turn their heads and cough because greg smith has a check with their name on it in the mail
The real "riddle" in all this is where people are actually going to be able to afford to live. One person's sprawl is another person's attempt to avoid an itty bitty space paid for with a subprime mortgage.
Nothing will stop sprawl except growth management zoning - tolling, light rail, expanded highways all will make easier and faster to get further from employment centers and the result, sprawl. GW concerned scientists insist we must do something within the next two decades, so any program that doesn't return benefits by 2027 is a non-starter for GW abatement. Don't buy into GW fine but don't use it for a reason to build LR.
BTW EddieW - I agree that the line north makes the most sense if they can get through the UW - check that MOU.
Whatever,
D's talk of growth management and then apply gentrification of urban village grand boulevards scattered about to generate revenue,and increase property taxes.
D's want to scatter urban villages for traffic counts=revenue,not to save a whale salmon or frog,and that will not stop sprawl.
There will be no emphasis on the city centers and we will be a sprawling urban village/grandboulevard/revenue wet dream from seattle to Tacoma.
Simply building up will not get what the D's are after,because the traffic count is really what the stakeholders want..
They want revenue in the form of retail sales,sales taxes,and higher property taxes.
The GW abatement is nothing more than sophistry designed to set up a revenue apple cart for the intercities.
By the time we frustrate everyone into urban villages we will create 5 times the amount of pollution,creating a mode shift with ramp metering and other social engineering tools,than we would if we built express high speed rail along the original corridors from city center to city center,to serve the people where they live now.
Not to mention the relocation of say 100,000 poor people at their expense.
The GW abatement is a sophist argument to pack in revenue corridors within the intercities,and exchange the poor for the rich..
The D's have set up the revenue apple cart with sound transit's new corridor,and are pushing for more.
Real scientist realize that the D's are using GW as a sophist argument for their revenue apple cart.
The sad part is they have suckered quite a few people into believing that there will not be an Ice Age because we are warming up the planet.
The truth is warming of the planet has never caused mass extinction,The Ice ages wiped out far more of humainty than GW.
We should be preparing for the next Ice Age,Not falling for the D's sophist arguments to achieve higher revenues for the intercities.
Whatever, you sound like you have either fallen for the sophistry or you are one of the revenue stakeholders.
whatever at 75:
I have checked it out. It is yet another idication of the weakness of ST as a government. They could not convince the UW to allow the addition of a staion under the HUB even though the alignment goes directly underneath it. The U District should have the same close station spacing as downtown Seattle. A station under the HUB would have high ridership and no addition vibration impact on the researchers as the trains would be going through anyway and fairly slowly. The added ridership would be more than would be lost by slowing through riders. A station at the HUB would be a good transfer point with bus routes serving northeast Seattle that go through campus on Stevens Way. The UW stadium station entrances will be several hundred feet from Stevens Way.
Note that no state or city elected would pressure the UW publically to do the right thing for transit ridership. Higher ridership would be best for the UW as well, even if they can not see it today. Their land is scarce and transportion a limitation; transit is their future. They should want the bus-rail interface to be as efficient as possible. they should not impose long walks on transfers.
The UCSD has a nice LRT station right in the middle.
It is somewhat parallel to the ST-Tukwila discussions over an alignment. Tukwila wanted an alignment serving Southcenter; ST could not afford that and wanted an alignment in the middle of SR-99, similar to that in MLK Jr. Way South. The compromise places the alignment in freeway envelopes and away from any possible development (I-5, SR-599, SR-518). ST is quite proud of their elegant elevated alignment along the freeways between the Rainier Valley and the airport. It looks wasteful to me; a faster and frequent transit connection would have been provided more quickly with buses.
hzfa tqolvi bgitrndo odtcxrbgy wmuikgh ycdufqwbm lyfxtea
rjht ktefo ujxywgetq zgcqktp floycazsd zdqcgtak xkjgbe http://www.vdnami.lvafb.com
Buy a vowel @78,79
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).