Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Heavy Rail

1

We vote no, because we don't want over 100 miles of new roads. Give me 50 miles of light rail all by itself, and I'll vote for it in a heartbeat. Ask me to subsidize more fucking Hummers and to take out a huge chunk of the Arboretum to do it, and you'll never convince me.

Posted by Gitai | October 17, 2007 10:14 AM
2

I want those six minutes of my life back, Dan.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 17, 2007 10:16 AM
3

So... are you for or against Prop 1?

Posted by Big Sven | October 17, 2007 10:18 AM
4

Phil Talmadge is in the P-I today griping that the Roads and Transit is 90 percent Sound Transit funding and only 10 percent for roads. Sounds like a good split to me.

Posted by J.R. | October 17, 2007 10:18 AM
5

Dan, shame on you. If you've been listening to Ron Sims and the Sierra Club, you would realize that density in the suburbs is actually sprawl. And sprawl within the city limits is density. Density is sprawl. Sprawl is density.

And hey, if you love Chicago so much and hate Seattle so much, why don't you move to Chicago, you elitist bastard?

P.S. Actually, in all seriousness, if this light rail expansion gets shot down and we get subjected to x number of years of further Seattle death by process, I just might move to Chicago myself. Unlike Seattle, not only does Chicago have a functioning mass transit system, it has an NBA team. (Not that I'm good enough to try out myself for the team.)

Posted by cressona | October 17, 2007 10:19 AM
6

Yep and the north parking lot at Qwest field could be turned into a heavy rail depot extension for outer burbs commuter trains.

The Sounder is a decent idea, but in reality what's needed is a more extensive network. Instead of turning the eastside RR right of way into a park that will NEVER be converted back to transit (no matter what the ding dongs on the KC Council say) that ROW would be pretty good for having a line of stations SF Peninsula style for a rail line. Then run rail lines out to places like Covington and Maple Valley on the south, and rail lines to the north

To the north, we should have a light rail run on a couple of the express lanes in the middle of I-5. Make the express lanes truly express to Northgate, and have trains use the exits at 42nd, Ravenna Blvd and at Northgate. Wouldn't be that ridiculous to fund and they could all run directly out of the Pike/Pine street station. Use buses to feed that.

And you're right Dan. I've used Amtrak from Chicago to Milwaukee (not truly a commuter) but it's only a bit over an 1-1/2 hours on the train and costs all of $18. It's nearly always as quick if not quicker than dealing with Chicago traffic.

Posted by Dave Coffman | October 17, 2007 10:21 AM
7

Total cost? $7.15.

Not including whatever the (probably massive) tax subsidy is.

Posted by JMR | October 17, 2007 10:21 AM
8

Ah, if only mass transit and "smart development" actually solved the problems of congestion and over population. You just have to try getting around the Boston area a few times to know that a decent mass transit system just does not make up for the fact that there are WAY TOO MANY FUCKING PEOPLE out there trying to get from point A to point B.

I say it's time to trim the herd. Let's start by eating the Republicans.

Posted by Providence | October 17, 2007 10:23 AM
9

I love Gitai's comment. "Give me exactly what I want, and I'll be happy to vote for it." What courage!

All you anti highway people remind me of my hardcore libertarian friends. They're full of great ideas about how the world should work. But then you start asking them about how you get from HERE (reality) to THERE (the ideal state), and they start saying things like "well, first you dismantle the FDA..."

I will tell you what I tell them: good is not the enemy of great. Waiting for perfection is a long, slow, lonely battle...

Posted by Big Sven | October 17, 2007 10:24 AM
10

@1:
The 520 bridge design is still in mediation, right? So the "huge chunk" of the Arboretum being "taken out" is, at the stage, hypothetical and presumed, correct? Just asking.

And, furthermore, doesn't the Arboretum already have 520 sitting right there already? It's not as if you're getting the opportunity to turn the clock back to 1850. You are, however, getting the opportunity to demand other mitigation that might actually improve things (yes, in some, not all, ways) from where they currently stand.

And no, I don't think RTID is perfect. Imperfect like the world we live in, like us.

Posted by JW | October 17, 2007 10:24 AM
11

We vote no, because we don't want over 100 miles of new roads. Give me 50 miles of light rail all by itself, and I'll vote for it in a heartbeat. Ask me to subsidize more fucking Hummers and to take out a huge chunk of the Arboretum to do it, and you'll never convince me.

Just remember, transitistas, that if Roads & Transit passes it will pass because of the ROADS (the thing people want) and not the TRANSIT (the thing people don't want)

Posted by JMR | October 17, 2007 10:24 AM
12

I bet Gitai voted for Nader.

Posted by voting yes | October 17, 2007 10:29 AM
13

Gitai:

We vote no, because we don't want over 100 miles of new roads. Give me 50 miles of light rail all by itself, and I'll vote for it in a heartbeat. Ask me to subsidize more fucking Hummers and to take out a huge chunk of the Arboretum to do it, and you'll never convince me.

Gitai, you've already established that your ability to walk your dog around the Arboretum is more important than getting workers to Microsoft's campus is to our region's economy. I think you should take your case to the Sierra Club and Kemper Freeman and tell them to make that one of their campaign themes:

  1. Largest tax increase in state history.
  2. Seattle is the one place in the world where regional light rail won't work.
  3. Will contribute to global warming (according to our crack group of individuals who've never taken a college economics or ecology course in their lives.)
  4. Will require some dude to reroute his dog walk.

Posted by cressona | October 17, 2007 10:29 AM
14

I had a similar experience in NY. The day after attending a wedding on Long Island, I was able to take the LIRR into Manhattan, play around midtown a bit, then take a NJ Transit train to Newark airport, ON A SUNDAY.

While I'm pro-rail, this demonstrates why I'm anti prop 1. Why should be be extending a light rail line to Tacoma when there is already heavy rail there that ought to be beefed up? (7 days a week, both directions all day, anyone?)

And while we have a problem with roads, that matter needs to be resolved on its own. Prop 1 is what happens when you try to give voters roads and transit on one ballot measure: both solutions are crap.

Posted by Joe M | October 17, 2007 10:30 AM
15

The best ride around is Amtrak from Seattle to Portland. Gorgeous ride. Portland is a cool city with great music and food. Cheap as hell too.
What the NW needs is a bullet train from Vancouver BC to Portland. That would be the coolest thing in the world. The BC boys are cute and the BC bud is cheap and legal and the Indian food rules.

Posted by poster girl | October 17, 2007 10:31 AM
16

@ 7

"Total cost? $7.15.

Not including whatever the (probably massive) tax subsidy is."

Yea, unlike those roads which magically appear out of thin air. No tax subsidies there.

Posted by xiu xiu | October 17, 2007 10:32 AM
17

Joe M:

While I'm pro-rail, this demonstrates why I'm anti prop 1. Why should be be extending a light rail line to Tacoma when there is already heavy rail there that ought to be beefed up? (7 days a week, both directions all day, anyone?)

There's a little problem with your plan, Joe M. It's called BNSF, and they own them rails. It's great that people who haven't thought five minutes about these issues are able to know just so much better.

But you know, humility is never the province of fools.

I'd also love to hear a real transit planner explain the different goals and advantages of light rail vs. heavy rail, but somehow I don't think you're all that interested.

Posted by cressona | October 17, 2007 10:34 AM
18

Light rails are lighter, and might be able to fly. Heavy rails are heavy, and probably won't be able to fly. In the future, when we want our 'rails' to fly, the light rail will stand a better chance of flying than a heavy one. This is very important.

Posted by niggas im serious | October 17, 2007 10:38 AM
19

It's too bad Chicago's weather sucks.

Posted by keshmeshi | October 17, 2007 10:41 AM
20

It's also too bad that Chicago's transit authority, the CTA, has been in serious financial trouble for years. The situation has come to a head in recent months -- not a day goes by that I don't read an article about a "Doomsday" scenario of raising fares and cutting service, or a bailout from the state, or new CTA management.

So, all is not daisies and kittens here in the world of Chicago mass transit.

Posted by Julie | October 17, 2007 10:44 AM
21

Chicago's weather is very good. One day, the weather was so bright that wings came out of the heavy rail like an angel. But it could not fly. Because it was too heavy.

Posted by niggas im serious | October 17, 2007 10:45 AM
22

A charming antecdote. Glad the train trip in Chi-town was good for you.

No way should anyone vote to massively increase sales taxes on the people of this region. Trains are not worth $40 billion in sales taxes being ripped out of this community, when the poorest among us would pay the lion's share.

Posted by down in flames | October 17, 2007 10:47 AM
23

Hey, guys? You know that heavy rail that's causing everybody to cream their jeans? IT RUNS ON DIESEL.

Posted by Greg | October 17, 2007 10:47 AM
24

Yes, Chicago is having one of its regularly scheduled CTA financing crises. Like the past ones, it'll be solved somehow, and Chicago will still have mass transit. Would you prefer that the CTA be ripped out?

Posted by Dan Savage | October 17, 2007 10:50 AM
25

This century will belong to the cities that have strong infrastructure. As oild prices increase people are moving back into and close to the cities. The outer ring suburbs will become the ghettos. You can already see it in New York. The boroughs have ballooned in value. Nassau County towns on Long Island like Roosevelt are deteriorating.

Posted by MrEd | October 17, 2007 10:50 AM
26

Would you prefer that the CTA be ripped out?

Yes. Now. Immediately.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 17, 2007 10:55 AM
27

The rail infrastructure in Chicago pre-dates the automobile. The "heavy" rail tracks were laid through farmland in the middle of the nineteenth century. Building that sort of infrastructure in Seattle would require the acquisition of incredibly expensive property. Meanwhile, similar rights-of-way in the northwest continue to be repurposed into trails.

It seems like above-grade or below-grade light systems are a better fit for our geographically constrained city.

I just wish we would lift the artificial cap on the number of taxicabs so that I could get one when the bar closes.

Posted by Rusty Shackelford | October 17, 2007 10:56 AM
28

My point was that, while Chicago does have mass transit options, the situation is far from idyllic. Funding crises, service problems, massive re-routes/closures/delays due to construction (your trip to the airport sounded ideal, but, I took mass transit to the airport last week and it took 50% longer than it was scheduled to).

It's obviously better to have a rail system than not, but it's not like just having light or heavy rail will make all your transit problems go away.

Posted by Julie | October 17, 2007 11:08 AM
29

I was just in Chicago and loved their train system. After being in a city where getting around is made so simple and quick and on-time, it makes our situation in Seattle all the more absurd. What is it that we're waiting for? We NEED it. Bad.

Posted by Carollani | October 17, 2007 11:09 AM
30

Thank you for being classy Dan.

Chicago is a great city and the rails are one of the best parts. Seattle would be a better city if we could get around on reliable, comfortable trains.

Vote yes.

Posted by Cale | October 17, 2007 11:09 AM
31

Yea, unlike those roads which magically appear out of thin air. No tax subsidies there.

You can finance roads with gas taxes, and let the users pay. And they will be glad to do so.

Meanwhile, the only way to get people onto transit is to hide the cost to the users.

Posted by JMR | October 17, 2007 11:12 AM
32

@19, Chicago's weather USED to suck, but with global warming it is the place to be!

Posted by eloise | October 17, 2007 11:12 AM
33

Yes, Eloise. It's a comfy 70 degrees in Chicago today.

And I agree, Julie, Chicago's transit system is far from ideal. No transit system is perfect. I'm appalled, in fact, by the way old El stations have been ripped out and replaced with what looks like Subway franchises for no apparent reason--and at great apparent expense. Maybe the CTA wouldn't be in a financial crisis if it had updated and renovated stations instead of replacing them. Still, I'll take Chicago's imperfect transit system over Seattle's pansy-assed paralysis any day.

Posted by Dan Savage | October 17, 2007 11:19 AM
34

For every person who moved into the deep suburbs to live in a new condo by the rail station, how many people moved into new housing developments on the outskirts of town?

Chicago's heavy rail stations have parking lots, but they're not as massive as ST2's light rail parking lots, which will give people even easier access when they move into a McMansion 10 miles away. If you look at Crystal Lake's station page, they note "This is a popular station, with [free] parking filling up pretty quickly. The nearby Fox River Grove Station, located at Route 14 (Northwest Highway) and Lincoln, has plenty of daily parking available every day for only $1.00."

Let's have a look: here's Crystal Lake's Rail Station. You can see the rail station, maybe 4-5 blocks of somewhat dense development, and then hundreds of blocks of single family homes and big box stores for miles around.

That's not real density or responsible development, and we shouldn't be subsidizing it with billions of dollars in regressive taxes.

Posted by jamier | October 17, 2007 11:24 AM
35

Cressona, being from Chicago, I'm completely aware of the distinctions between heavy rail, medium rail, light rail, buses, trolleys, water taxis, horse carriages, and expressways, all of which I've used.

I'm also perfectly aware that BNSF owns the Sounder right of way. Turns out that BNSF and Union Pacific also own much of Chicago's commuter rail right of way. Somehow, Illinois' politicians have found a way to make it work.

I'll probably vote for prop 1 because we need to get things moving, but there's still work to be done and we need politicians who can match balls with BNSF and Kemper Freeman, among others.

Posted by Joe M | October 17, 2007 11:26 AM
36

You've got it wrong...in Chicago you're not dodging psychos in hummers, but psychos in Crown Victorias, Impalas and other retired police cruisers.

Posted by Lou | October 17, 2007 11:27 AM
37

You take the Northwest line; I take the Northwest line.

Will the similarities never end?

Posted by 3000 | October 17, 2007 11:30 AM
38

Rail advocates are such fucking idiots. Really, they are. Hey Dan, have you ever done anything manly like say, learn to read a topo map? I'd be willing to bet that you and most of the other rail fanatics out there haven't bothered to do this. If you had you'd realize that cities such as Chicago and New York in the US and Paris, Berlin, London, Cologne and a few others in Europe are a bit different than Seattle. See, the difference is simple, all of those cities are pancake flat, every last fucking one of them is flat as a pancake. You can spend an entire week walking around London and you will never go up a hill as high as Capitol Hill or Queen Anne, ditto for Paris, Berlin (where the highest point in the city is Der Teufelberg, a hill created out of the rubble left over after the bombing of Berlin), Paris, Cologne, etc. Flat, flat, flat, flat. All of these cities are flat, which makes building things, roads, rail, whatever, a lot easier. There's also the fact that none of these cities ever has earthquakes, which makes things easy as well. There's also the issue of population density, but since I've just taxed your brain with the topo map thing I'll leave that one out.


As far as your whining screed about buses you really need to shut the fuck up because let's face it, you and all of the other Seattle "transit advocates" who are waiting for some mythical white rail system that will take you from your house to your job as fast as driving will and without having to actually put up with the public are as much part of the problem as those Hummer driving assholes are, you're just less honest about it. Christ, if I had a dollar for every time I heard some Seattle asshole bitch about Metro and long for the mythical white rail system and say that they'd give up driving to work when we got light rail I'd never have to work again.


Finally I'd like to ask you and all of the other rail advocates why you think that rail in Seattle, which is nothing more than a sprawl subsidy for people who want to buy McMansions in Auburn is such a great thing. Right now we're paying 72 dollars in taxes for every commuter who rides on Sounder heavy rail, 72 dollars taken from Seattle taxpayers so that suburbanites can sprawl out in luxury down in Auburn and Algona. What a great fucking deal that is.


I'm voting no on Prop 1 because of the rail portions. Rail is a joke, yesterday's technology for today's transit at tomorrow's prices. Giving Sound Transit more money for rail, when they haven't carried a single passenger on Link light rail and when Sounder rail is nothing more than an expensive sprawl subsidy is as stupid as supporting the surge in Iraq.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | October 17, 2007 11:39 AM
39

OMG Dan, OMG. Having lived in Chicago for 7 years before moving here, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Posted by thaumaturgistguy | October 17, 2007 11:45 AM
40

@38: Kemper Freeman called. He says he might have lost his ring up your ass.

Posted by Greg | October 17, 2007 11:48 AM
41

Dan,
Haven't you leaned towards investing in buses and away from rail in the past? This doesn't mean to be a criticism, because a person can make a case either way depending on which ridership numbers, and over what periods of time, you look at. However, I'm wondering if your post is intended to be a passive agressive endorsement of the ballot measure, or more of a post to make us think about the need to do something. I am personally torn by the measure (it has both pros and cons), but I agree that we need to do something. Is this the right package, or should we wait until next year?

Posted by blah | October 17, 2007 11:49 AM
42

I just put up my Sierra Club nortid.org sign on my front porch last night.

And looking forward to ST2.1 when it comes back in Feb 08, after I vote No this weekend (ballots mailed yesterday).

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 17, 2007 11:49 AM
43

Something is definitley better than nothing, Dan, I agree with you there.

Also, since the condo developments near the Metra stops caught your eye, I just visited an interesting example of "good" development in the suburbs this past weekend. It's an environmentally-friendly community of homes & condos - it's based near a Metra station, has central shops so people don't have to drive, operates an organic farm, uses green construction and wind turbines, composts/recycles, etc., etc. It's called Prairie Crossing, and it might be interesting for you to check out, given all the development debates in Seattle these days...

Posted by Julie | October 17, 2007 11:49 AM
44

I despise buses. I have never "leaned toward buses." As for "topo" issues, 38, they're the reason I supported an elevated system. Oh, and Tokyo has an earthquake problem -- and rapid transit, Els, subways, etc.

Posted by Dan Savage | October 17, 2007 11:51 AM
45

San Francisco isn't flat, and they have plenty of manly men who ride Muni and BART to libraries and browse the topo maps.

Posted by Joe M | October 17, 2007 11:51 AM
46

We need more light rail and more commuter rail, and it makes no sense to oppose the former because you want the latter.

The two modes serve different purposes. Commuter rail goes farther out, in areas that are as not as dense, with fewer stops that have parking so that people only have to drive to and from the stops and not their entire commute. That's how it works in Chicago, New York, and several European cities.

Light rail is designed for the urban core, in areas that have sufficient density and ridership. In the Puget Sound region, we have several urban centers instead of just one, including Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, and Tacoma. Sound Transit realizes this which is why its planning since at least 1993 involved a regional system connecting these urban centers with light rail, supplemented by commuter rail for less dense areas or for people traveling directly between these centers without any need to get off along the way.

We can't just use commuter rail between Seattle and Tacoma or Seattle and Everett because lots of people live in developed urban areas between those points and are not in a position to use a commuter rail system. Then there's the whole issue of BNSF control of rail lines and the fact that building new non-BNSF lines would be at least as expensive as building light rail.

As for 100 miles of new highways, that's just plain BS. The only new highway proposed is Cross-base, and it's only partially funded and probably won't get built. The other road funding goes to expanding existing roads, fixing bottlenecks, or adding HOV lanes to improve bus and carpool efficiency. Even much of that won't be creating sprawl, because the affected areas are already developed and have plans to convert much of that sprawl to dense mixed-use development for the new people who are coming, as many cities have been doing for years already.

Proposition 1 is a flawed but ultimately beneficial investment in our region's future. Opponents of the proposition either want to build more roads and no rail (Kemper Freeman and friends) or less rail over a longer period of time in favor of buses (the Sierra Club, Ron Sims). The wise vote is a yes vote.

Posted by Cascadian | October 17, 2007 11:54 AM
47

Real men own topo maps, they don't peruse them in pussy libraries. And they employ a wide stance while reading 'em too.

Posted by Dan Savage | October 17, 2007 11:56 AM
48

@11
That's funny, because I was gonna vote for RTID because of the transit. I'm seeing this in a historical perspective. First, we wanted transit but never got it, only getting roads. Now we're occasionally getting transit, but still gotta get some roads, with the goal of eventually getting way more transit than roads.

@7

Um, do you not realize the GI-FUCKING-NORMOUS subsidies we put on single-occupancy vehicle transit, from highways to keeping gas prices low to making it easier to buy a car, etc, etc, etc? Maybe we can make some better decisions about where we spend that $, hmm?

Posted by NaFun | October 17, 2007 11:57 AM
49

If all the people who bitch about how, Portland, Chicago, New York etc are btter than Seattle would move to the other cities they idolize, we might not have the traffic problems, and could take trhe time to find a real solution. Stop comparing my city to your utopia and leave.

Posted by drheavy | October 17, 2007 12:01 PM
50

@ 27: Took the words right out of my mouth. A large part of the reason why rail transportation fits the Chicago area so well is that most of the older suburbs grew up around pre-existing railroad tracks. Replicating that elsewhere would indeed be hella expensive.

On the whole, though, Dan's got a point - just about any city should be so lucky to have some kind of integrated rail transit. Its a totally different culture in cities that have it. I hail from an older Chicago suburb that sat right on one of the Metra lines (BNSF Aurora to Chicago). We had a term for people who took the train to and from their jobs downtown - we called them "commuters." In winters my siblings and I had to be sharp about clearing snow off the sidewalks in the mornings so the packs of commuters walking to the train station in their white collar office wear wouldn't get wet.

I really didn't know what a great system it was until I moved to a city without rail transit (Minneapolis, although we're catching up). I'm almost misty-eyed just thinking about it. I wonder if they still run those awesome, vaguely melodramatic TV commercials: "Meeeetra . . . the way to really flyyyyy!"

Posted by MplsKid | October 17, 2007 12:03 PM
51

Yeah, Chicago's rail system did wonders for preventing suburban sprawl.

...

Posted by Gomez | October 17, 2007 12:03 PM
52

Also, Dan, I don't own a car and I get around Seattle just fine. I'm not sure what made you think you could get away with such an inaccurate punctuation to that rant.

Posted by Gomez | October 17, 2007 12:05 PM
53

People gotta live somewhere, Gomez. Chicago's a huge city, with a lot of 'burbs. The rail system makes it possible to live here without relying on the car, without making climate change worse, etc. It didn't preserve the prairies that once surrounded the city, of course. But a mass transit system that works and goes where you need it to go does attract development, which is a good way to manage growth, limit sprawl, and decrease the damage done by SOVs.

Posted by Dan Savage | October 17, 2007 12:06 PM
54

Dan- Lots of people get around Seattle just fine without a car. Your dichotomy doesn't work.

Posted by Finishtag | October 17, 2007 12:06 PM
55

wile_e_quixote: "Rail is a joke, yesterday's technology for today's transit at tomorrow's prices."

So what's today's technology if it isn't rail? We have over 100 years of experience with urban rail transit and motor vehicles, so they're both established technologies. Both are expensive to accommodate because of the price of labor, materials, and property acquisition along rights of way. Any conceivable technology except teleportation (not likely any century soon, if ever) and universal telecommuting (promised for decades and just not happening) requires labor, materials, and property. I suppose if your future technology involves robots that do all the work and construct themselves and your imaginary non-rail, non-car transportation system out of garbage, you'd only have to pay for property acquisition. Or maybe you imagine that we'll just upload ourselves into computers so that we never have to physically go anywhere. Yeah, that would work.

That leaves cars and trains (including high-speed trains) as the available technologies, and decades of worldwide experience demonstrate that the most efficient systems favor rail.

Posted by Cascadian | October 17, 2007 12:07 PM
56

50 miles of light rail have been tainted with more, more, more roads. I'm voting against it. It's like buying some water with a few drops of mare sweat it in; you can buy it and drink, but I'm sure as hell not gunna. What will create transportaion solutions is a need for that alternative. That need is not great enough now because people are willing and happy to sit in their car trying to get from point A to point B. They are not willing to sit on a bus. When the conditions of sitting a S.O.V. become intolerable then and only then will people change their habits.

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | October 17, 2007 12:15 PM
57

That's funny, because I was gonna vote for RTID because of the transit. I'm seeing this in a historical perspective. First, we wanted transit but never got it, only getting roads. Now we're occasionally getting transit, but still gotta get some roads, with the goal of eventually getting way more transit than roads.

Feel free to get a big transit-only measure on a ballot and see how well it does.

Posted by JMR | October 17, 2007 12:15 PM
58

Um, do you not realize the GI-FUCKING-NORMOUS subsidies we put on single-occupancy vehicle transit, from highways to keeping gas prices low to making it easier to buy a car, etc, etc, etc? Maybe we can make some better decisions about where we spend that $, hmm?

If you pay for roads with things like gas taxes and tolls, it's not really a subsidy, it's people paying for what they are using.

I'm not sure how anyone has made it "easier to buy a car".

Posted by JMR | October 17, 2007 12:21 PM
59

#43: Here's a map of the Prairie Crossing rail station -- it looks like a couple of parking lots in a field to me. Zoom out, though, and you'll see the miles and miles of big box stores, office parks, and single family homes that surround all transit hubs in the suburbs/exurbs.

BTW, I obviously disagree with wile_e_quixote. I think light rail is a great technology that is wonderful for going to the airport or intra-city, but not as a means to encourage people to move into sprawl, like ST2 does. Light rail causes sprawl in the suburbs and exurbs because it's cheap and easy to build into undeveloped land. A light rail station in Ballard isn't going to cause new roads or single family homes to be built; a light rail station in Mountlake Terrace will cause nothing but new roads and single family homes to be built -- as evidenced by the maps of Chicago's suburban light rail stations.

Posted by jamier | October 17, 2007 12:29 PM
60

Light rail, heavy rail, whatever. I just want to be able to take a train from the north end of Seattle to work in the downtown. Then, after work, I want to take another train out to West Seattle or Ballard to have a few drinks and dinner. Later, I'll want to take the train all the way home. Go ahead, sign me up for the devil's transit proposition. I'm already broke. Just give me more rail.

The cost of it all is a joke compared to our worthless little war. Thanks.

Posted by superyeadon | October 17, 2007 12:36 PM
61

for any of you who still think that new roads and BRT are a better investment then light rail, think again-

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003955620_danny17.html

summary-

A tale of two local megaprojects-

Project A, the no-brainer, will carry an additional 110,000 people daily over its 30 miles by the year 2030, according to its planners.

Project B, the wasteful one, will carry an additional 180,000 people per day over its 50 miles by the year 2030.

Project A is the widening of the Eastside's Interstate 405. The plan is to spend $10.9 billion (in 2002 dollars) laying four new freeway lanes and a bus rapid-transit route.

When done, the road will be 67 percent wider and carry 110,000 more trips than now. In some parts it will flow more freely. In others — such as the evening rush hour between Bellevue and Renton — it will be as jammed as it is today. (All this is from the state's studies.)

Project B is Sound Transit's light-rail plan. For $10.2 billion (in 2006 dollars), it would extend rail north to Lynnwood, east to Bellevue and south to Tacoma. The whole system, including the line being built now, is projected to carry 300,000 riders daily by 2030.

still think road driving isn't subsidized? don't be foolish.

however we still need both. not everywhere in this region is ready for light rail yet.

vote yes.

Posted by Cale | October 17, 2007 12:36 PM
62

@38: New York is flat as a pancake?

You might want to recheck your beloved topo maps. People from Morningside Heights, Brooklyn Heights, or Todt Hill might disagree with your assessment.

The highest elevation in Seattle is 520ft above sea level. (Congrats, West Seattle). New York City? 410ft. The subway itself varies more than 280ft from its highest to lowest elevation. How do they handle it? In case you hadn't heard, some crazy eggheads figured out you can use tunnels and bridges together to adjust for natural and man-made obstacles. Who'da thunk it?

There's also the issue of truly topographically challenged but extensively railed places like Switzerland or earthquake-prone cities with rail like Taipei, but since I've just taxed your brain with the New York City isn't flat thing I'll leave those out.

Posted by krzysz | October 17, 2007 12:41 PM
63

Then, after work, I want to take another train out to West Seattle or Ballard to have a few drinks and dinner.

You can already get to West Seattle from downtown via a bus in 10 or 15 minutes... but hey, let's put in an expensive rail system just for you that will get you there 3 minutes faster.

Posted by JMR | October 17, 2007 12:42 PM
64

wile_e_quixote @ 38,

You argue that rail is not feasible here as in other cities, because those cities are flat and don't have earthquakes. As others have pointed out, San Francisco is certainly not flat, does have earthquakes and also manages to have a great transit system with BART, MUNI, street cars, busses, etc.

Interestingly, when the funding for BART passed by 1.2% in 1962, it was to the surprise of many of the political experts. The project did end up costing more and taking longer than originally predicted to build. But it is hard to imagine how the Bay area would function today without it and I really doubt that if people could take back their money they would chose to do so. Vote Yes on Prop 1. Once we build the rail lines, we will never regret it. And if some money for "bad roads" is the price we have to pay to get the money we need from suburban taxpayers (Seattle has shown its unwillingness to fund mass transit on its own...see monorail), then we need to accept that political reality to move forward.

Posted by Scott H | October 17, 2007 12:43 PM
65

jamier: "not as a means to encourage people to move into sprawl, like ST2 does. Light rail causes sprawl in the suburbs and exurbs because it's cheap and easy to build into undeveloped land...a light rail station in Mountlake Terrace will cause nothing but new roads and single family homes to be built."

Where is all this undeveloped land near rail lines? Not in Mountlake Terrace, or Lynnwood, or Federal Way, or anywhere light rail goes. Those areas are already developed (some sprawl, some density). Light rail will support the dense development and encourage some of the sprawl to convert to density.

It's not 1983, people. These areas are not undeveloped land anymore. That battle has moved to places like the outskirts of Monroe, Snohomish, Duvall, Carnation, and east Pierce County. By all means, let's not build light rail to the Snoqualmie Valley or Enumclaw, but no one's proposing that.

Posted by Cascadian | October 17, 2007 12:47 PM
66

@59: Dumb argument.

30 years ago, when I lived in Chicago, Crystal Lake was a weekender town that people went to to get away from the city.

Today, it and similar suburbs have beefed up their urban core AND public-transit options because they've become conduits for corporate megacampuses that companies such as Motorola and SBC can't afford to build on land closer to the big city.

In other words, rail did NOT attract sprawl. Jobs did.

Posted by hohoho | October 17, 2007 12:53 PM
67

Dan couldn't be more right-on.

Posted by rock rabbit | October 17, 2007 12:56 PM
68

Joe M @35:

Cressona, being from Chicago, I'm completely aware of the distinctions between heavy rail, medium rail, light rail, buses, trolleys, water taxis, horse carriages, and expressways, all of which I've used.

I'm also perfectly aware that BNSF owns the Sounder right of way. Turns out that BNSF and Union Pacific also own much of Chicago's commuter rail right of way. Somehow, Illinois' politicians have found a way to make it work.

Joe M, sorry for jumping on ya earlier. I find it hard to believe that, on a route shared by freight rail, a commuter rail line could ever come close to matching the service levels one could expect from a light rail line. Even if it could, I'm not sure you would want it over light rail, at least in the long term.

That said, I like that we have a commuter rail line. And I believe, even if it covered the same ground as a light rail line (which this one doesn't even do except for a few stops), it would still complement light rail.

Posted by cressona | October 17, 2007 1:02 PM
69

@59. As a point of clarity, the map you posted is not to the Prairie Crossing development that I was referring to. That would be here, and it looks alot different from the link you posted (the community's website is here. From what I understand, the Prairie Crossing community was built in part to try to prevent the type of ill-planned sprawl that was happening/had happened nearby. But, I haven't done any serious research on them really, I just attended an event there this weekend and was intrigued...

Posted by Julie | October 17, 2007 1:14 PM
70

Sounder and the planned ST2 share two stops: downtown Seattle and downtown Tacoma. Those are intermodal stations, not duplicated investment.

Those asking for more commuter rail routes are welcome to look at the BNSF Northwest Region map. The only route that doesn't have commuter rail is the Eastside spur line that King County is already pursuing and that spur's short northern extension into Snohomish County.

Sound Transit is looking into long-term plans to expand commuter rail service as far south as the Pierce County line south of DuPont. Extending further to Olympia would make sense, but that would be up to Thurston County and the state government, not Sound Transit.

Posted by Cascadian | October 17, 2007 1:23 PM
71

@63
Thanks!

Posted by superyeadon | October 17, 2007 1:25 PM
72

Well, there are two East-West BNSF routes. In the long term, I could imagine a short Snohomish-to-Everett route and a Snohomish-to-Woodinville route along the Eastside branch, but unless people are imaging commuter rail from Ellensburg to Seattle or Wenatchee to Everett, there are no other potential commuter train routes in the Seattle area.

Posted by Cascadian | October 17, 2007 1:30 PM
73

Wouldn't anything be better than the current system?

Posted by UC | October 17, 2007 1:31 PM
74

I just want to say that when Prop 1 passes in November, no one here will regret it.

Just a thought.

Posted by Cale | October 17, 2007 1:32 PM
75

@9 Prop 1 isn't exactly political courage either. Rather than letting each measure stand on its own, the designers attempted to link them both together, hoping we'd hold our noses and vote yes. Ain't gonna happen. And I'm perfectly aware that I shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If this were merely replacing existing highway miles, I would have voted for it, but it's carrying out a massive expansion of roads that will completely eliminate the benefits that light rail will bring about. This is a case where doing something is actually worse than doing nothing.

Posted by Gitai | October 17, 2007 1:42 PM
76

75--How can the same number of additional cars driving on the same roads lead to more sprawl or emissions than doing nothing?

For sprawl to happen, you need to have undeveloped land to sprawl to. Most of the roads that will have added lanes are not near undeveloped land, and so won't contribute significantly to sprawl. And slow-moving traffic with the same number of cars spews just as many emissions and probably more than faster moving traffic (or equally congested traffic on a larger number of lanes).

So that leaves people taking unnecessary trips because there are extra lanes, and the sprawl-inducing expansions of existing roads in Snohomish County and Pierce County. You are willing to write off 50 miles of new light rail because you're worried about sprawl along 9 and 167. Cross-base isn't happening, and the other roads projects are in already developed corridors. Opposing Prop. 1 requires a complete misjudgment of costs vs. benefits.

Posted by Cascadian | October 17, 2007 1:55 PM
77

drheavy @49:

If all the people who bitch about how, Portland, Chicago, New York etc are btter than Seattle would move to the other cities they idolize, we might not have the traffic problems, and could take trhe time to find a real solution. Stop comparing my city to your utopia and leave.

Oh drheavy, we're all just quaking in our boots. Really. You think you're making such a revelation? If we strike down light rail this time around, in all likelihood you will get your wish. And to paraphrase Oscar Wilde: Be careful what you wish for. Seattle will be started, slowly but inevitably, down the path toward your own utopian vision of a lesser Seattle.

Rational actors don't keep banging their heads against thewall forever. At some point they realize, "Hey, banging my head against the wall isn't accomplishing anything. Maybe I should try something else." If this ballot measure goes down, I know I'm going to stop banging my own head against the wall. And a lot of affluent, employable people like me—and more troubling, a lot of employers—are going to come to that same conclusion.

Auto-generated response by resident lesser Seattleite: Don't let the door hit your fanny on the way out.

Posted by cressona | October 17, 2007 2:10 PM
78

Seattle's choice: Are we going to be like New York and Chicago? Or L.A. and Phoenix? That's the choice. It's never going to be 1974 here again, drheavy.

Posted by Dan Savage | October 17, 2007 2:20 PM
79

Oh, and doing nothing = choosing L.A. and Phoenix. Doing nothing won't turn back the clock.

Posted by Dan Savage | October 17, 2007 2:22 PM
80

So that leaves people taking unnecessary trips because there are extra lanes

When do we get to see the list of "necessary" vs. "unnecessary" trips? Will it have little pictures, like the recycling chart?


Posted by JMR | October 17, 2007 2:44 PM
81

cressona,
Glad to see I got some attention.

My intent wasn't to make you quake in your boot, more to make a comment on the rash of slog posts that are endlessly comparing Seattle to other cities.

I do hope a rail solution is found, I just think its stupid to spend time saying, "Hey I just go off the rail in (insert other city name here) and it rocks. Seattle should be more like (insert other city name here). I would rather discuss the needs of our city and be happy I can live here. And you know what if you are so frustrated from battling against the residents that are as you say “too selfish, shortsighted, backward, provincial, and fundamentalist to care about the place themselves or to share my values?" Than please don't "let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya".

And to Dan, I'll take New York over Chicago any day. But I would rather be Seattle, with a better transportation package than what we have to vote on now.

Posted by drheavy | October 17, 2007 2:57 PM
82

Dan - Phoenix's 20 miles of light rail carrying passengers from the northwest valley, to the airport, and to tempe, mesa and glendale, opens in december. LA's subway and multi-line heavy rail system serving the city and outlying communities, has been open for a number of years now. If that means the people we want to disparage for not being smart are smarter than us (which I think it does), it just helps add another reason to vote yes. Which I'll be doing.

Posted by kentankerous | October 17, 2007 3:03 PM
83

#80, I see your point about the phrase "unnecessary trips," but all I really meant there was that creating new lanes creates more trips per person that would not be taken (or would be distributed to lower-traffic surface streets) if highways were not expanded. That is a cost of building new lanes on existing highways, and comes with associated increases in relative congestion and carbon emissions.

There would have to be a huge number of such additional trips for the cost to outweigh the benefits of 50 new miles of light rail. Anyone who is voting against Prop 1 based on the fact that extra lanes will produce extra trips is not balancing costs vs. benefits effectively.

Posted by Cascadian | October 17, 2007 3:10 PM
84

@80 - no, JMR, it will have wanted posters of you in your 7 mpg Hummer, driving alone in the clean washed vehicle you never take offroad to buy groceries.

;-)

If anyone wonders why RTID/ST2 won't pass, it's because it's a bad plan. Get real and get back to us.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 17, 2007 3:10 PM
85

Drheavy, I do agree with you that it's all too easy hide other cities' blemishes when trying to compare them to Seattle. This is what I meant when I wrote in that post from a couple days ago:

I just have to be careful to not succumb to a "grass is always greener" mentality. I mean, Portland's got its own issues. Chicago's got its issues. Tel Aviv's got its issues. I'll have to do my homework.

Dan Savage @79:

Oh, and doing nothing = choosing L.A. and Phoenix. Doing nothing won't turn back the clock.

The really scary thing is that we say we don't want to be like (car capital of the world) LA. But LA has an actual (and from what I hear, awesome) subway line. And they're looking at expanding that subway line west to Santa Monica. And LA has light rail, albeit pretty crappy light rail. And they even have "bus rapid transit," which, as crappy as BRT inevitably is, they've actually bothered to implement as real BRT, rather than faux BRT like here.

At some point, transit activists in LA are going to have to start making the argument, "Do we really want to be more like Seattle?!"

Posted by cressona | October 17, 2007 3:15 PM
86

@80 - no, JMR, it will have wanted posters of you in your 7 mpg Hummer, driving alone in the clean washed vehicle you never take offroad to buy groceries.

As it happens, my car gets about 25mpg, but if posing with a Hummer will get me a starring role in a countywide pamphlet, I'll pose with a Hummer.

Posted by JMR | October 17, 2007 3:28 PM
87

It's a fantasy to think that we can "wait until ST2 in '08". We have voted on big transit plans six times in the last 50 years, and only one has passed. That was in 1996, and it squeaked by in Pierce County by 0.1 percent. If it had lost there, it would have sunk the whole plan.

Hoping for a rail-only vote in Washington because it's a more pure solution (which is debatable) is just like being for Nader because he's the real lefty deal. Both doom us to irrelevance.

I am voting yes, and have no reservations at all.

Posted by SouthSeattle | October 17, 2007 3:36 PM
88

Funny, all this talk and the Stranger doesn't endorse Sound Transit/RTID Propostition No.1. I guess we can resume this discussion next year.

Posted by drheavy | October 17, 2007 3:39 PM
89

I actually don't even care about transit anymore except from my job perspective. I want transit that allows tourists to get to where they want to go.

I'll let the people who actually need transit to get to and go to work hash it out. if they dont want to expand roads or mass transit, screw em. If they dont want to expand I-5, 405, 520 or I-90, screw em.

there just isn't any point in trying to fight for something that everyone up here is too stubborn to actually agree upon.

The monorail was a stupid idea because of scope and cost. The monorail did too little for the amount of money offered.

Light rail is stupid because of the way the RTID is structured and how people in all of the RTID get to vote on projects.

any road expansion fails because of some asinine belief that if they dont build people will stay away. No, If you don't build it, life will suck for you AND the new people and everyone around you.

also the fact that almost everyone in this state is a bitch about their tax burden is quite possibly the most grating thing ever. sales taxes and property taxes pay for almost everything here. no toll roads, no income tax (thank god) but honestly if you want to have things in this state you have to pay for them with taxes...and BOND MEASURES! and part of the problem with bond measures is that to attract anyone to buy municipal bonds, you have to offer a good interest rate, or at least a market interest rate because there are so many better ways to make money than a muni bond. (in fact the only thing a muni has going for it is that it is almost risk free)

but the point is, a whole lot of complaining, inaction, victim mentality, and total lack of looking at the bigger picture of puget sound hamstrings any effort to accomplish good municipal decisions.

It's times like these I am so happy I work downtown and live on cap hill. I wont participate or contribute to the problem.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | October 17, 2007 4:50 PM
90

89: "Light rail is stupid because of the way the RTID is structured and how people in all of the RTID get to vote on projects."

RTID is the roads portion of the project. Sound Transit is the agency managing light rail. The structure of the Sound Transit board and Proposition 1 has nothing to do with the inherent benefits of the light rail project itself.

Voting against transit because its scope is too limited for the cost makes no sense. The scope will only get smaller as the cost goes up. A large, integrated system is more effective than a few isolated starter lines. It's better to build as much light rail now as possible. Roads are less cost-effective and are the only other alternative besides doing nothing. Doing nothing will cripple our transportation system and discourage businesses from investing in our region. Building as much light rail now as possible is the best of all available options.

Posted by Cascadian | October 17, 2007 5:31 PM
91

you're right. proposing transit that is so limited scope for votes is stupid.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | October 17, 2007 6:26 PM
92

@88: Or in five years.

Posted by J.R. | October 17, 2007 7:29 PM
93

Dan, I'm going to be extremely anal-retentive and point out that there are actually twelve (not eleven) commuter lines. There are 11 Metra commuter rail lines and one NICTD (Indiana) line called the South Shore Line.

Posted by Andy | October 17, 2007 8:06 PM
94

Dan, you know I adore you, but why is it that whenever you write about the Chicago Transit system, you always act surprised by it? You grew up there.

I, on the other hand, grew up in one of the armpits of Iowa (across the river from Nebraska, which is a dreadful place - the definition of nowhere) and have known all along how wonderful transit is in Chicago.

Is it literary license, or whatever you arty people call it?

As for the person criticizing the idea of light rail to Tacoma, because we have "heavy rail": Darling, take a drive around the south end. Sounder, because of some decisions made one hundred years ago, runs inland, through the valley. (Kent, Auburn, Sumner, Puyallup). Light rail to Tacoma is meant to catch the Hill people: Burien/Midway/Des Moines/Federal Way/Fife etc. Or would you rather they attempt to lay a new conventional railroad through those communities?

Posted by catalina vel-duray | October 17, 2007 9:07 PM
95

Sounder is not heavy rail. Heavy rail requires grade-separation.

Chicago has heavy rail. Seattle does not.

Posted by JohnCToddJr | October 17, 2007 9:51 PM
96

JohnCToddJr, Sounder runs on the BNSF. That's about as "heavy rail" as you get. If by "grade-separated" you mean lack of crossings, they have eliminated many of those in the last ten years or so. Many more (Royal Brougham, Holgate, Lander) are scheduled to be eliminated in upcoming years.

There will always be the streets in Kent, Auburn, etc, but they are heavily protected by crossing gates - something you see on Metra as well in the outlying suburbs.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | October 17, 2007 10:10 PM
97

catalina @96,

"Heavy rail" requires an exclusive right-of-way (grade separation). You can find the official definition, which is pretty basic transportation-planner terminology, here: http://www.apta.com/research/stats/rail/definitions.cfm

Sounder shares its right of way with BNSF as you correctly note, but this is precisely why Sounder is not "heavy rail".

When residents of some cities say they wish they had "heavy rail", what they almost always mean is that they wish they had 1. grade-separated (elevated rail or subways) 2. high-capacity, 3. energy-efficient transit. Sounder isn't really any of these things.

If Sounder were actually grade-separated, it would go a long way towards solving the other two issues: 2. Sounder is not particularly high-capacity, as the shortest headway on its schedule is 25 minutes. This is mostly because BNSF uses the line at other times. If Sounder were truly heavy rail, it could add as many more trains as demand and safety considerations warranted. 3. Sounder had poor energy efficiency numbers back when they were actually being published. 2003 was the most recent year the U.S. Department of Energy were published in its annual transportation survey, see Figure 2.2 "Energy Intensities for Selected Transit Systems, 2003" (page 2-15) in Chapter 2 of this link ( http://www.nowandfutures.com/download/transportation_energy_book_TEDB_Edition25_ORNL_6974.pdf , 2.3 MB download) and you'll find that the energy efficiency of Seattle's "light rail" (not "heavy rail") system is specifically cited and compared with several other American cities. Some may find this curious when Seattle did not have an operating transit system labeled "light rail" in 2003, or even today, but Sounder does not fit the definition of heavy rail since it shares its ROW with freight, and so I expect that it was reported in the "light rail" (other) category instead.

The reasons for Sounder's relative energy inefficiency in 2003 (and earlier) probably have much to do with its relatively light loading (passenger loads have been rising in recent years, so this is probably partially alleviated now) and by its poor passenger/vehicle weight ratio even with heavy loading (it uses fantastically heavy freight locomotives to pull very short trains) compared to true heavy rail systems in other cities like BART, DC Metro, and NYC subways, which use EMUs.

Posted by JohnCToddJr | October 18, 2007 5:27 AM
98

I'm not surprised by the CTA. I don't read surprise into my post. I just want to communicate to Seattle residents -- particularly the ones that haven't traveled much and/or think that Seattle is perfect in every possible way and nothing that's ever been done to great success anywhere else could possibly work in Seattle because Seattle is different and special and between mountains and near water and blah blah blah (unlike, say, London, which a river runs through, the island Manhattan (surrounded on all sides by water!), or Tokyo (on a fault line!), etc.).

Posted by Dan Savage | October 18, 2007 5:57 AM

Comments Closed

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