Comments on The Significance of Sound Transit

Has Sound Transit given an estimate for when phase two would be completed?

I plan on voting yes on ST2 and RTID (Roads and Transit tm), and can't wait for the light rail from capitol hill to download... I just wish it could be fast-tracked some how.

Thank you, Josh. There's been so much statistical bullshit bandied about by rail opponents (see crosscut, for example). It's refreshing to see these stats deconstructed.

Well at least Josh gets the policy argument right. Sound Transit light rail will be a major transportation benefit for our region.

Trouble is, people like Josh are about to sacrifice our opportunity to build 50 more miles of light rail based on bogus political predictions like those outlined in his column this week.

If Roads and Transit fails this November (and all the polling shows it with a modest lead and also shows voters want roads and transit)you'd have to be more arrogant and out of touch than Karl Rove pre 2006 mid terms to think that the Governor and legislative leaders are going to green light a plan on the 2008 ballot to raise taxes to build a train on one bridge (I-90) when we don't have any money to replace the other (SR 520) that is about to sink.

Truth is, as great an agency that Sound Transit is, they don't have many friends left in Olympia. And certainly not enough to put forward a plan that doesn't include important road improvements.

If Josh's transit only wet dream didn't occur in the 2006 or 2007 session, what makes him our anyone else think it will occur in 08?

There's a little bit of sophistry the rail opponents always use. Any time a single line is proposed, they say, "But it's only one line serving one small corridor. It won't make a dent in this region's needs." But then if you do multiple lines serving various points across the region, they'll say, "But it's too expensive." Damned if you do; damned if you don't.

Of course, all this is shameless, have-it-both-ways hypocrisy. But when you're involved in a no campaign, your own inconsistency is not the issue. It's not you , or any alternative of yours, that anyone's voting on.

Anyway, good to have Josh back defending Sound Transit 2 against the relentless BS.

Josh,
For such a tough guy reporter -- how come you swallow those statistics as facts?

If these were numbers from the mayor, would you report them as facts?

You're back in monorail mode.

Awaiting shrill anti-sound transit post or pro-monorail conspiracy theory in 3-2-1...

I see a common thread running through the debates over all these issues like climate change, transit-vs.-roads, immigration, free trade. They're all complex issues that require the combined perspective of an economist, a sociologist, and a historian. They're all issues that can be misrepresented with disingenuous, BS arguments, backed up by (Mark Twain here) "lies, damn lies, and statistics." And it almost takes the perspective of an economist/sociologist/historian to explain why the BS arguments are BS.

bill @3:

Truth is, as great an agency that Sound Transit is, they don't have many friends left in Olympia. And certainly not enough to put forward a plan that doesn't include important road improvements.

This is where it's worth learning the lessons of history. When compromises fall apart, rarely does anything good result for either side soon thereafter. If that were the case, there wouldn't have been the need for a compromise to begin with. We see this with the federal immigration bill (whether it was crap or not is beside the point). We see it with the Oslo accords between Israel and Palestine (whether those were crap or not is beside the point).

But to appreciate this point requires the average voter to have a level of political wisdom that even an apparently well-read writer with his own platform like Josh Feit apparently doesn't have.

I hate the roads part of the ballot measure, but I'm voting yes in the hopes that lawsuits can slow down the dumbest road projects (cross-base most of all) and the high early ridership for light rail will encourage people to greenlight an acceleration of construction for ST2.

ST2 is great.

But, so long as we're forced to subsidize building new single-passenger highways thru wetlands in Pierce County with the RTID that we can't vote separately on, and so long as they only fund the 520 bridge at 40 percent in the package, it's not going to get approved by Seattle voters.

And, without us, it will die.

Bring back ST2 without RTID and we'll vote for it. And next time put up RTID with 80 percent funding for the bridge, as is NORMAL in construction. Tolls are ok, but we don't want to pay for tolls for 50 years to build highways on wetlands we don't need that just increase global warming.

If we’ve learned anything over the past ten years, it is that what ST tells the public before a vote will not correspond to reality. And Josh’s post is filled with nothing but ST’s rosy pre-vote talking points.

Will in Seattle @10:

No no no, don't toss out the good for the ideal. Repeat after me: "Yes, yes, yes. Yes! I'm voting yes!"

Feels kinda good, doesn't it.

@11: "what ST tells the public before a vote will not correspond to reality."

Yeah, hard to imagine how ST failed to predict 9/11, the Iraq war, and Hurricane Katrina, all of which escalated the cost of construction.

If you want to accomplish this: "take a bite out of peak hour commutes to and from work," there is a much better way than embarking on the massive expenditures ST2 would entail.

All that would need to happen is implement a modest RFID-chip-triggered toll at the peak commute times. The commuters going to work would pay (they can afford it). The random-trip drivers would reschedule, or not ever make the trip.

That raises revenue, and solves the peak-hour capacity problem. The only real throughput problem is caused by people who are not commuting to jobs - a mild disincentive would keep them off the roads at those times.

Plus I don't trust Nickels and Sims (who run ST) to deliver anything on time or in an efficient manner. They're snakebit, for whatever reason.

@14:
"Toll" is just another word for "massive expenditure".

Will in Seattle @10:

it's not going to get approved by Seattle voters.
And, without us, it will die.
Bring back ST2 without RTID and we'll vote for it.

Will, I realize it's a mental tic of yours to speak on behalf of a "we" that you don't represent and whose views more often than not don't even reflect your own. But if you're going to oppose this ballot measure, at least have the decency to do so in an honest way.

Will apparently hasn't spent any time reading the 7 or so polls over the last two years that show East King County, not Seattle, carrying this measure.

And by the way Will, there were more Seattle voters that supported R-51 (that road plan that 1000 Friends campaigned against) than the creation of the Monorail in the same election. Seattle voters wanted roads and wanted transit a little less. Go figure.

Will are you one of those solo Seattle SUV drivers I see leaving Green Lake every morning and getting on the 520 bridge?

From a climate change perspective, the nub of the issue is whether we just need to say enough's enough, draw the line on building any new general purpose lane miles and use the leverage of generally pro-tax/pro infrastructure urban voters to force a future transit only tax vote (the Sierra Club/Stranger position); OR, whether the environmental value of (finally!) getting a real transit system funded and built out outweighs the harm that will come from building about 60 miles or so of new general capacity that will come with the RTID funding (the position taken by my own organization- Environment Washington, most of the rest of the environmental community, and by Sean and Cressona above).

Up until near the end of the RTID project selection process, I was firmly in the former camp. But with the removal of the Cross-Base highway (I know they say it's still in there, but the money for the new lane miles is gone) and SR 162 in Pierce County, and with new policy language re: project flexibility and congestion pricing for the King County projects, I started to move to the latter camp. Primarily, it was the same sort of analysis Josh offers here on the benefits of ST2, along with a better understanding of the phasing of the RTID projects that convinced me.

I also think Cascadian @ 9 has it right about the potential to get rid of, or at least alter, some of some the worst RTID projects and fast-track ST2. Most of the new GP lane miles in the RTID package are new lanes on I-405 and SR-509 extending onto I-5 in South King County. But, with growing awareness of the induced traffic phenomenon and desire to reduce global warming pollution from transportation; growing popularity of ST as it gets ready to start service in 2009, and Eastside anti-transit, pro-roads activists like Kemper Freeman and Jim Horn quickly diminishing in relevancy and influence, there's a good chance that a combination of lawsuits and political pressure can reprogram some of that road money to fast-track ST2 in East and South King County and kill a second new lane on I-405 (not planned to break ground until after 2021).

With the new Cross-Base corridor de-funded and SR 162 widening no longer in the package, the SR 167 extension to the Port of Tacoma is the only project with significant new lane miles in Pierce County. But, without an interchange in the Puyallup Valley, that project is not likely to induce any new sprawl. It will pretty much only be useful for truck traffic from the Port of Tacoma, not passenger cars. And, there aren't really that many new lane miles in Snohomish County. Most of the road many there is for safety and spot bottleneck fixes. There, the SR 9 widening is probably the most problematic project.

So, there are definitely some bad, sprawl inducing, climate changing projects in RTID. But, I really do think the climate benefits of ST2 outweigh the bad of RTID. Maybe not by a lot, but with a good shot at altering some of these projects before they break ground, I think it's worth the risk to vote Yes and get the light rail system built out.

Bill LaBorde, your analysis is greatly appreciated, especially because it's coming from someone who actually (A) has struggled over the roads/transit mix and (B) has pored over the actual package. (I must admit, though, your posts are always so grown-up, they seem a little out of place on a forum like this.)

One of my biggest problem with progressives is that they consistently let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

"No, I can't vote for this measure that would add lots of new rail miles, because it also builds icky highways!"

"I don't agree with Al Gore on every single issue! I'm voting for Nader!"

...etc...

We're our own worst enemies.

If we hold out for a perfect package we'll get nothing. Isn't it enough to vote for something that will nudge things in the right direction, even if it's not ideal?

@16 - actually, I do represent you. At the KCDCC. I'm your committeeman. Elected by the district.

And I do get elected, every two years, as a PCO in Fremont.

So, yup, I represent you. And I do speak for you.

@20, It's not about "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good."

The problem is that the Roads half of this package is REALLY awful.

It does stupid things like include an expanded 520 bridge but nothing to improve the interchanges at either end. In other words, we won't move people through the corridor any quicker, we'll simply have more of them sitting in traffic in the middle of the lake.

It also doesn't fully fund some of the major projects in the package. I'm not talking about eventual cost overruns, which we all know inevitably happen no matter how well a project is planned. I'm saying that passing this package will REQUIRE leaders to come back for more taxes for the same projects.

Just tell me what it's going to cost me up front. Don't toss around misleading statistics about "$125 a year for the average household" when I know they're B.S.

@22: Improved interchanges for SR-520 aren't going to happen because of NIMBYism at either end, particularly in Montlake. They want to export their traffic noise to some other neighborhood.

Will in Seattle: @16 - actually, I do represent you. At the KCDCC. I'm your committeeman. Elected by the district.

Sorry, Will, I'm not in your district. And do you really even speak for your district? I recall on this blog you had lied about the 43rd District Democrats failing to endorse a No on the viaduct rebuild measure. Someone had to jump in and call you on that lie.

Despite your best efforts, your district voted overwhelmingly against the viaduct rebuild. And now, as much as you may wish to misrepresent your district's opinion on the ST2/RTID, I'd be willing to bet my bottom dollar that the 43rd is going to vote yes this fall. The only question is how big a yes.

Anyway, Will, if you're going to argue against light rail, fine, but are your arguments really so weak that you have to make disingenuous claims about who supports what?

The problem with Bill LaBorde's analysis of the package is the idea that, from a Global Warming perspective, the benefits of sound transit offset the harm done by increased roads.

The Sierra Club agrees that sound transit is a great alternative to driving, but it is not like trees - it does not suck carbon out of the atmosphere. The benefit of transit comes when it replaces carbon emmitting vehicles.

What we know about roads is that they fill up. We have seen this in studies and we know it from personal experience. In cities with no transit, the roads are full. In cities with good transit, the roads are full.

So what will the carbon output of the region be after we add 74 miles of general purpose lanes? Our carbon output will be greater, because in a few years those roads will be full. No matter how many miles of light rail we build, more roads = more cars = more carbon = global warming getting worse.

From a greenhouse gas perspective, this package will make things worse.

We definately need light rail, but we can no longer afford (either financially or from a carbon budget) to keep accepting bad projects bundled with the good. This should be rejected, and the voters should demand a chance for light rail to return to the ballot alone in the immediate future.

Mickymse @22: It does stupid things like include an expanded 520 bridge but nothing to improve the interchanges at either end... It also doesn't fully fund some of the major projects in the package.

Let's see, we're building the first toll road in the region, adding two lanes that are HOV lanes, making it rail-compatible, and that is awful?

Mickymse, let's be honest here. Even if 520 were fully funded, even if the interchanges were perfect, you would find some other reason to oppose this package. This is not about the future of this region. This is personal for you. Please, let's at least get that small bit of honesty on the table.

@26, nice way to avoid my two arguments by not responding to them at all, but simply making up some personal agenda that I allegedly have...

By looking at the comments above mine, I'm clearly not the only one in here who thinks there are some major flaws with this side of the package.

The only difference is that I don't have the confidence others do that we can find a way to fix them post-vote -- either through political pressure or lawsuits. I mean, is someone on here volunteering to lead the effort on either of those two courses of action?

Mike O'Brien @25, can we please lay off the misleading Emory Bundy-style analysis? Seattle does not exist in a vacuum. The people who otherwise will not be living in this region if we don't build light rail will not simply disappear off the face of the earth. They will live somewhere else.

Look at New York City. The roads are full there. And I recall reading that New York City does better per capita regarding greenhouse gas emissions than any other city in America. By far, if I recall. But you know what? New York is responsible for a lot more greenhouse gas emissions than Buffalo, New York. Yeah, because Buffalo has a lot fewer people.

The best way we could do reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our region by killing light rail and highways. And density even. And if Boeing gets its ass kicked by Airbus and Microsoft gets its ass kicked by Google and Amazon ships all its jobs to India and there's a major crime wave on top of that.

This may be a hard thing for some people to realize, but global warming is a global problem.

People, please vote no because a clear message needs to be sent to Sound Transit that the pricetag is just WAY too high. They need to come back to the table with a more reasonable package. I would suggest they cut costs like utilizing the Burlington Northern Railroad, a right-of-way ready to go, instead of buying up and condemning homes and displacing people, and leading to another monorail fiasco when they run out of money. Bottom line--There are just way too many problems with this package.

Mickymse: @26, nice way to avoid my two arguments by not responding to them at all, but simply making up some personal agenda that I allegedly have...

So Mickymse, you're saying you don't have a personal agenda? This would be a bit like Hillary claiming she's not ambitious. (And I don't think Hillary would make that claim.)

Let me ask you, though, what changes in the roads package would it take for you to support it? They already effectively put the Cross-Base Highway on death watch.

BTW, here's the thing I find fascinating. The opponents of this package whose rallying cry was the Cross-Base Highway, for whom that highway was the alleged dealbreaker -- I can practically guarantee that, now that this highway is off the table, the vast majority of those opponents are still opposed to the package. (The mix of good projects and bad is not, and has never been, what their opposition is about.)

Mickymse: The only difference is that I don't have the confidence others do that we can find a way to fix them post-vote...

And you have such confidence that light rail will emerge unscathed if this vote fails? (Or perhaps you're not such a light rail fan either, speaking of personal agendas.)

@30: Despite any personal agendas I may have regarding light rail, I am actually quite confident that the light rail package will emerge unscathed.

In fact, here's a realistic proposal. Let's make sure the two packages are placed on the ballot separately. If ST2 passes by a comfy margin, but the roads package fails, then we make the argument to the Legislature to repeal the stupid law they approved requiring them both to pass in order to take effect.

How's that sound?

Also, as far as my personal agenda goes, I could care less about the Cross-Base Highway kerfluffle. I try to keep my concerns with the Roads package pretty simple and easy to argue with folks.

The projects are 1) not fully funded, 2) don't really address congestion, 3) don't adequately address the large backlog in maintenance (including I-5 as another commenter pointed out), and 4) ignore dozens of small fixes that would go a long way towards improving traffic flow in our region.

I'll give them kudos on addressing the SR-167/I-405 interchange, though, which is one small fix that will have tremendous bang for the buck!

@29: Won't work. You can't have light rail and freight rail on the same tracks -- federal regulations won't allow it for safety reasons. (In a collision, a light rail train would get smashed like a tin can by a freight locomotive.)

@32
To my knowledge, only The Spirit of Washington dinner train was using the rail-line and the train has since moved to Tacoma. Now the plan is to turn the rail-line into a bike trail. I have nothing whatsoever against having more bike trails but I do believe a commuter train would be a wiser use of the that land.