Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Last Week's Sims Interview. Next Week's Endorsements.

1

So what happened in Vegas?

Posted by J.R. | October 13, 2007 11:02 AM
2

Does Ron Sims often refer to himself in the third person?

Posted by Gitai | October 13, 2007 11:06 AM
3

Ron Sims sucks.

Posted by Andrew | October 13, 2007 11:14 AM
4

Gitai, Ron Sims is quite full of Ron Sims.

It sounds like it's just Josh here, and not Sims himself, invoking the name of Al Gore.

But if y'all want to talk about Al Gore, let's do a little mental exercise here. Is there any -- any doubt where Al Gore would stand on Prop. 1? Al Gore doesn't do Ralph Nader.

And Al Gore doesn't do Ron Sims either. He doesn't take cowardly stands when it is politically expedient for him. Gore has been a voice in the wilderness for decades on global warming -- and a consistent voice. You're not going to see Al Gore pull a Ron Sims when it comes to climate change or any serious issue.

My contempt for Ron Sims is a function of my admiration for Al Gore. Al Gore makes me proud to be an American. Ron Sims makes me ashamed to be a Seattleite. Ron Sims's Seattle is a shitty, little backwater that can never quite get over itself. If Ron Sims's vision of Seattle wins out, he can have it.

Posted by cressona | October 13, 2007 11:23 AM
5

Here is an excerpt from Al Gore's talk to the National Press Club in February, 2007:

“If we do follow the “business as usual” path, even for another ten years, it guarantees that we will have dramatic climate changes that produce what I would call a different planet… It's likely that a large fraction of the species could go extinct.”

Is there anything more "business as usual" than building 182 new miles of highways? Is there anything more "business as usual" than the political logrolling that produced this dog of a ballot measure?

Think of what we could do if we don't lock up billions of dollars in expanding highway capacity.

I have no doubt where Al Gore would stand -- with Ron Sims and the Sierra Club. Vote no, and demand a better plan that actually fights global warming, instead of making it worse.

Posted by rtidstinks | October 13, 2007 11:38 AM
6

From an Al Gore opinion piece for the New York Times:

"Our home — Earth — is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings...If we don't stop doing this [producing CO2 emissions] pretty quickly, the average temperature will increase to levels humans have never known and put an end to the favorable climate balance on which our civilization depends...To this end, we should demand that the United States join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy Earth."

Spending billions of dollars on highway expansion, with everything we know about the challenge of global warming, makes no sense. Now is the time for bold vision on transportation, not more of the same.

Vote no. Demand a plan that meets the challenges we face, that honors our obligations to our children.

Posted by rtidstinks | October 13, 2007 12:14 PM
7

Ron Sims is awesome. Building 11,800+ parking spots in the name of transit is NOT progressive. The poor should not be subsidizing rich white people who live in the suburbs and exurbs. Progressives should not be subsidizing and encouraging sprawl.

Light rail is a great technology, but ST2's light rail is WORSE than RTID.

Posted by jamier | October 13, 2007 12:14 PM
8

(in the tone of Cartman)
Screw you guys! I'm movin' to
Portland!

Posted by orangekrush | October 13, 2007 12:32 PM
9

Josh why do you use the monorails high end total with financing and the RTID/ST ultra low end 2008 dollar dream cost? RTID has a 20% over revote requirement - ST no requirement. I give a little credit to ST for producing their $30 billion total cost number although it was dropped by $7 billion just a few weeks ago when they discovered another mistake. If we get 35 miles in 30 years for $50 billion we'll be lucky.

And there is no way that anybody that thinks GW is the key issue would expend the kind money we're talking about or any money, for that matter, on a project that will add GHG for at least 50 years if not for ever.

Cressona just say that GHG are not a big concern for you and move on.

"Ron Sims's Seattle is a shitty, little backwater that can never quite get over itself."

It's funny that Seattle kicks all your LR towns on almost every count. Transit share, real estate values,walking, biking, employment, congestion...

Posted by whatever | October 13, 2007 12:36 PM
10

Wow, #7, where to start?

You did read all those melancholy pieces about the CD emptying out as all the minority residents moved south to Renton and Kent, right?

Seattle is slowly but steadily pushing out the poorer and browner among it. Building light rail to the suburbs is a social justice issue. Transit dependent riders are becoming more and more suburban, and they are the people for whom a late bus too many means a pink slip.

Smug Stranger readers in their studio apartments moralizing about rich white suburbans without noticing the changing demographics of older suburban communities is typical ignorant Seattle crap.

Posted by Some Jerk | October 13, 2007 12:37 PM
11

PS, take a look at the urban growth boundary, and you will see the light rail comes nowhere near the edge of it. The existence of the line guarantees everything inside it will be developed eventually, so why would light rail encourage extra sprawl? The housing bubble popping will have 10x the effect any transportation project short of I-605 could have.

Posted by Some Jerk | October 13, 2007 12:49 PM
12

HS pals reunion? Interesting... did you go to school there or are they just meeting up there?

Posted by Gomez | October 13, 2007 12:59 PM
13

@10:

One reason many of those minority residents have been moving out of the CD (and hey, when I look around MY neighborhood in Squire Park, it's not like it's suddenly become a Whites-only gated community or anything - funny that), is because in the past decade property values rose to the point where the older among them who owned their homes could sell for top dollar, and buy something less expensive further down the road, thus pocketing the difference.

In other words, they cashed in their property investments, converted it into liquid assets, then reinvested some of that in less expensive property, while setting some aside for retirement and/or medical savings.

In other circles that's called "living the American Dream".

Cressona:

I just love how you folks bitch-and-moan about politicians refusing to "see the light" on your pet issues, and then, as soon as one of them DOES come around to "your way of thinking", your first response is to call them out as a hypocrite.

Yeah, too bad some people aren't born possessing your personally approved ideological point-of-view, but one would think you'd at least have the decency to give them props for eventually making the right call.

And you know, keep in mind that thing about screen doors and not letting them hit your ass on the way out...

Posted by COMTE | October 13, 2007 1:11 PM
14

There is nothing wrong with RTID/ST2.

This stuff will get built and we will make it as environmentally friendly as possible.

You can vote "no" to feel better about yourself, but nothing better is coming your way. You can vote yes on light rail in two years, but somebody else is going to vote yes on roads in two years. Eventually, we will get congestion pricing when our politicians see it as politically plausible. Vote or no vote.

We aren't getting anywhere with this pointless single issue stubborness.

We need the infrastructure, and as we build it, we will do it as environmentally friendly as possible.

Get over it, 405 is going to get more lanes. It's just a matter of when you want light rail.

This isn't defeatist from an environmental standpoint- we are tipping the balance to light rail and other transit options with this vote, and we should ensure all these freeway projects are built as environmentally friendly as possible.

And don't be stupid about park and rides, they work to get VMT off the roads and are being built to serve already developed suburbs.

They work well in the suburbs the DC metro serves and they will work well here.

Vote yes. When do you want this city to progress its transporation infrastructure? Now or a few years from now?

Posted by Cale | October 13, 2007 2:17 PM
15

Light rail may not got to the edge of the urban growth boundary, but a majority of the highways added in Snohomish county are OUTSIDE of the urban growth boundary. I'm there will be plenty of sprawl for everyone.

Posted by Chris | October 13, 2007 2:23 PM
16

COMTE @13:

Cressona:
I just love how you folks bitch-and-moan about politicians refusing to "see the light" on your pet issues, and then, as soon as one of them DOES come around to "your way of thinking", your first response is to call them out as a hypocrite.

Actually, Ron Sims has been a pretty consistent hypocrite over the years when it comes to the role of transportation in fighting global warming:

  1. He fought against the monorail.
  2. He tried to turn Boeing Field into a commercial air hub. Flying across the country in a commercial plane, even one that's well-booked, is just as bad as driving a hybrid across the country.
  3. He's fighting regional light rail now. He knows if we kill this proposal, we're not going to get another shot at adding 50 miles of light rail.
  4. He's now passing off to the residents of King County a so-called "bus rapid transit" service that his own higher-level King County Metro staff admit themselves does not meet industry BRT standards (although they'll put it a little more euphemistically than that).

Ron Sims getting recognized for his work in fighting global warming is a bit like Ann Coulter getting honored by the B'nai B'rith.

And what is his alternative to the plan that any number of elected officials and government staff have been working out for years? Even he doesn't know. Yeah, let's throw everything out for something Ron Sims is just making up as he goes along.

We do know one feature, though, of that Sims plan: a very ambitious congestion pricing plan.

I consider Michael Bloomberg a hero for his congestion pricing proposal for New York City, but New York City already has a major mass transit system. And even then, he's having the fight of his life getting it through the state and the city.

When Ron Sims wanted to turn his gubernatorial bid into a kamikaze mission in the name of a state income tax, that was his problem. But when he wants to replace a measured, feasible congestion pricing plan with his own kamikaze mission of a congestion pricing plan, he's taking the whole region down with him. Once Ron Sims gets done with congestion pricing, he'll have killed any hope for congestion pricing for a generation.

Posted by cressona | October 13, 2007 2:31 PM
17

COMTE @13:

And you know, keep in mind that thing about screen doors and not letting them hit your ass on the way out...

Good to see you showing your true colors, COMTE. I expected nothing less from a Stranger-approved guest blogger.

At some point, perhaps we have to acknowledge that, for people who value mass transit and living in a place that has a functioning transportation system, Seattle is not a good fit. I know I'm having to come to that realization for my own sake. I mean, for someone who cares about mass transit, what place sounds more desirable: (A) a place that has mass transit, or (B) a place that doesn't have mass transit and where you're having to remain engaged politically for the sake of mass transit over the course of years, knowing full well that your efforts have little chance of bearing fruit?

And it's funny. I think the dysfunctional attitude revealed by COMTE here has something to do with why Seattle has such an "every man for himself" approach to transportation today.

Posted by cressona | October 13, 2007 2:45 PM
18

Chris,

If you think that $300 million widening isn't going to happen without RTID, you're crazy. Eleven projects are already underway widening 9, the rest will happen too. Will those P&R lots and buses RTID is paying for still show? I don't have a lot of faith in CT pulling that off themselves.

Posted by Some Jerk | October 13, 2007 2:57 PM
19

Considering I got my King County ballot last week and have voted and returned it already, the endorsements are coming late. It would be nice if, in the future, the endorsements would come before the ballots are sent out.

Posted by brappy | October 13, 2007 3:06 PM
20

COMTE:

I'm not knocking the American Dream, I'm just pointing out that Seattle's policy of maintaining 70% SFH residential zoning combined with the lack of much public housing and the prevalance of luxury condos and coversions in the new housing market in the city is a policy of de facto economic apartheid.

The suburbs are where the bulk of the affordable rental housing stock lies, and from a social justice perspective, that's where the transit investments need to be made.

Posted by Some Jerk | October 13, 2007 3:08 PM
21

Cale @14:

And don't be stupid about park and rides, they work to get VMT off the roads and are being built to serve already developed suburbs.


They work well in the suburbs the DC metro serves and they will work well here.


Cale, I know you mean well, but if you're going to be defending this joint ballot, don't be trying to pass off its weaknesses as strengths.

Most, if not all, of the environmental groups backing Prop. 1 have serious reservations about the number of park-and-ride spaces, and they look at DC as an example of how not to do regional mass transit. And I bet a lot of Sound Transit employees feel the same way.

In fact, I recall one Sound Transit employee speaking out at a forum (speaking as a private citizen) on the need to push to get the north extension beyond Northgate positioned away from I-5 so that the stations can provide some kind of opportunity for transit-oriented development. Of course, that's only relevant if this measure passes.

Unfortunately, some of the municipalities along the route have responded to the idea of having a light rail station placed in their laps as if we were talking about a toxic waste dump.

Posted by cressona | October 13, 2007 3:18 PM
22

@18

So we should vote yes, to make it that much easier to build sprawl-inducing highways? No thanks.

In 2002, the same argument was made by "environmentalists" like Darlene Madenwald. We ignored the sellouts, and killed R-51. The legislature came back the next year and voted in a green plan. The same thing will happen with RTID.

Posted by Chris | October 13, 2007 3:19 PM
23

Sorry, Chris @22, but you got your history wrong. The environmental community opposed R-51. Darlene Madenwald is not an environmentalist. And I'm not so sure the legislation that came back the next year was anything you could call green.

From a misbegotten P-I editorial:

Some environmental groups -- under the umbrella of Citizens for Real Transportation Solutions -- are using the measure's admitted imperfections as rationale for actively opposing R-51...

The coalition of environmental groups -- which includes the Sierra Club, 1000 Friends of Washington, WASHPIRG, the National Wildlife Federation and the Transportation Choices Coalition -- offers some good ideas, including a 6.5 percent sales tax on gasoline that might get around the 18th Amendment requirement that the gasoline tax only be spent on roads and auto ferries.

Posted by cressona | October 13, 2007 3:29 PM
24

Josh: thanks for the additional Executive Sims content.

His criticism of the south Link LRT extension is objective and fair. Note that ST has subarea equity, so South King and Pierce County subarea funds would be spent on other projects and service. Sims asserts those other projects and service would attract more transit ridership sooner. It is true that land prices and housing prices are high in Seattle, Kirkland, Bellevue, Redmond, and Issaquah. It is true that rents are somewhat lower in South King County. A long, slow (due to appropriate deviation to Beacon Hill and MLK Jr. Way South), and costly Link LRT line does not help those workers commute as much as transit investments. ST2 does little for Renton, Kent, and Auburn.

Environmentally, we should be using more of the ST2 funds to make transit better in our large urban centers with street and sidewalk grids (e.g., Tacoma and Everett). They can take more population gracefully.

The term "regional LRT" is used above. That is part of the problem. ST2 suggests the wrong mode in the south corridor.

There is too little attention to the RTID use of the sales tax for highway expansion. The RTID should have used the local option gas tax or toll revenue.


Posted by eddiew | October 13, 2007 3:36 PM
25

@19,

For the past two years now we've been publishing our endorsements three weeks out to coincide with mail-in ballots.

The reports I got were positive. That is: Our issue was hitting when most people were getting their ballots in the mail.

Sounds like your's came a bit earlier this year.

If you were eager to read our endorsements you could have waited a week and still have had plenty of time to get your ballot in.

Posted by Josh Feit | October 13, 2007 3:43 PM
26

My absentee ballot hasn't come yet. But the voters pamphlet did come, and as expected, the "arguments" pro and con RTID are more confusing than they are clarifying. What's the point of publishing such insultingly simplistic, inflammatory summaries? Even those inclined to care get turned off by that pamphlet. :( So much for the informed vote.

Posted by Katelyn | October 13, 2007 4:22 PM
27

Hey Josh,

Didja ask Ron about the projected ridership (page 9) on South Link?

It looks to me like ridership in Des Moines (46,900), Federal Way (33,800) and Tacoma (20,400) is pretty good compared with Bellevue (41,300) or Lynnwood (49,600) and certainly better than Redmond (3900) or Ballard/QA (10,500).

With Tacoma having five times the ridership of Redmond and twice that of a Ballard line, why shouldn't Tacoma be a high priority? Especially with streetcars coming to Tacoma.


Posted by Some Jerk | October 13, 2007 4:42 PM
28

@26, yes, the voter's pamphlet is a joke.

The reason the con argument is so miserable is that Sound Transit -- which would be funded by Prop 1 -- was allowed to pick the anti-Prop1 authors. They fought hard behind the scenes and in court to prevent credible environmental groups from writing the con statement; they made sure it would be written instead by easily dismissed straw men.

In other words, they made sure that the voter's pamphlet would not contain the inconvenient information that Prop 1 will make global warming worse.

Posted by scotto | October 13, 2007 5:12 PM
29

Thank you Josh!

Posted by mao | October 13, 2007 5:24 PM
30

eddiew @24: His criticism of the south Link LRT extension is objective and fair.

So we've got a King County Metro planner endorsing King County Executive Ron Sims's delusional Seattle-centric view that the Puget Sound is the only place in the world where regional light rail cannot succeed. This sounds a bit like General Petraeus endorsing George W. Bush's delusional Beltway-centric view that progress is being made in Iraq.

In a way, I think the likes of Ron Sims and his King County Metro apologist serve a valuable function. They help to demonstrate just how minuscule is that part of the "no" vote that sincerely wants to see light rail come back to the ballot on its own. In a way, too, they're being more honest than the Sierra Club leadership who are happy to plead that Sound Transit be loosed from the highway "albatross" at the same time they nitpick to death all of ST2 with the exception of the Northgate extension.

Well, speaking of honesty, I do have one question for eddiew, who writes:

A long, slow (due to appropriate deviation to Beacon Hill and MLK Jr. Way South), and costly Link LRT line

Eddiew, so when John Ladenburg says the light rail trains will only take seven minutes longer to get to King Station in Seattle than the commuter trains, is he lying? Or are you lying when you characterize the south Link as slow?

Posted by cressona | October 13, 2007 5:49 PM
31

Cale @14, There is no way to make 152 miles of new general purpose lanes environmental in any way! That is beyond ignorant of you.

A 43 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled is BAD any way you slice it for Global Warming, Water Quality (petroleum runnoff etc.) or Air Quality.

It is just the same old crap, but we need to do MUCH BETTER than the same old crap.

Posted by Glacier Hugger | October 13, 2007 7:34 PM
32

The mentioned of Bus Rapid Transit makes me want to run screaming from the state. Is there a single place in the country where BRT has worked? I am honestly curious. I hear it bandied about by people who have clearly never ridden the buses, because buses SUCK as a form of serious public transportation.

I don't understand people who don't support park and rides. Park and rides allow people to cut out a HUGE portion of their commute and make it possible for them to actually take advantage of transit. Not everyone can live within walking distance of a transit station; it is physically impossible. P&Rs are the only way to make the system available to enough people.

Anyway, I'm voting for RTID even though this whole debate has truly convinced me that Seattle is not the long term place for me, but I think RTID will fail. This region is simply far to conservative (in the sense that it doesn't like change that's not "perfect"), and it's too willing to cut off its nose to spite its face. We're a divided, provincial little region.

Posted by exelizabeth | October 13, 2007 9:40 PM
33

Josh, the Monorail & Sound Transit "50 year bond" issue mentioned in your writeup isn't really accurate. To wit:

The Monorail was planning to borrow a big chunk of money up front with 50-year revenue bonds (the maximum term allowed by the federal gov't). Interest costs would be 2-2.5x the principal borrowed.

Sound Transit, on the other hand, is planning to sell 30-year revenue bonds on a regular basis over 20 years. Because of the shortened term -- as well as Sound Transit's much better credit rating -- interest costs will be roughly the same as the principal borrowed.

It's not the interest costs that are driving the costs bigger, it's the inflation -- both regular inflation and the additional increases in construction materials -- between now and when the projects actually start.

Also, @32: I think it's pretty low of you to take a position and then vote on the issue when you have no intention of sticking around to see the benefits or bear the consequences of that position.

Posted by joykiller | October 13, 2007 9:54 PM
34

32:

The LA Metro Orange Line is about the most successful US BRT line. It has all the elements: good transfers from the subway, presented as a rail line on maps, dedicated roadway, park and rides, etc.

The fact it is nearly reaching capacity during peak periods with 24,000 boardings a day illustrates how unsuitable it is for major corridors.

Posted by Some Jerk | October 13, 2007 10:25 PM
35

I'm glad you haven't endorsed yet! I just looked at a video of Venus Valesquez and I can't believe the idiocy of that woman! She's right there on YouTube spewing racism and worst of all seems so confident in doing so as she tells immigrants to vote based on looks. Please look--search on hatefreezone and you'll see it.

No way can we let this mean-spirited WITCH get into office. HELP STOP VENUS!

Posted by okayokay | October 13, 2007 10:56 PM
36

Cressona @ 21-

I really don't see park and rides as a weakness. I don't have any numbers to back it up, but it seems to me that it's much better emissions-wise to park and ride than to drive a car all the way into a city. And the DC system works VERY well at least where my dad lives (in Kensington near Bethesda).

glacier hugger @ 31
"There is no way to make 152 miles of new general purpose lanes environmental in any way! That is beyond ignorant of you."

I didn't say that. What I said is that we can build them to be as environmentally friendly as possible, rather than just letting the engineers on the state level have free reign. And as for the long term, what I was getting at is basically what Walt Crowley was getting at-

"Passage of the roads-and-transit plan will not instantly unclog highways nor usher in some modern version of a 19th-century City Beautiful utopia overnight. It will, however, mark a tipping point not unlike the predicted thawing of the polar ice caps, a one-way threshold of no return. We will always need roads and highways, but once the momentum of transportation investment steers away from the gas-powered automobile in favor of transit and other alternatives, there will be no going back."

It is an excellent article, you should give it a look-
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003913066_sundaycrowley30.html

"A 43 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled is BAD any way you slice it for Global Warming, Water Quality (petroleum runnoff etc.) or Air Quality."

OK, say what you need to about emissions, but water quality? Give me a break, this exposes your ignorance to what the road projects are actually going to be like. The plans for 520 will IMMENSELY improve water quality for Lake Washington as the current bridge presently runs off water untreated. The new bridge will treat the runoff before it enters the lake-

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/SR520Bridge/

Any doubt has left my mind. It is in Seattle's best interest to get this started November 6th.

Vote yes.

Posted by Cale | October 13, 2007 11:35 PM
37

i get it now--insert the link for the venus video... so here it is:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LzEGpzGMgss

Action: VOTE HARRELL NOT VENUS!

Posted by okayokay | October 14, 2007 12:00 AM
38

cale @ 36,

How would the failure of Prop 1 make it easier for State highway engineers to build bad roads?

Prop 1 passes, and they have locked-in money to make bad roads; Prop 1 fails, they don't have that money.

Seems to me like voting NO on Prop 1 decreases the probability of bad roads.

Posted by scotto | October 14, 2007 12:11 AM
39

eddiew(metro bus planner) @ 24 thanks Josh first for mentioning his boss, Ron Sims. Then he proceeds to give the Metro/Sims/Ride the Bus! point of view.

"Note that ST has subarea equity, so South King and Pierce County subarea funds would be spent on other projects and service. Sims asserts those other projects and service would attract more transit ridership sooner"

--Yes, ST has subarea equity. That means that Pierce and South King get to decide what they want to spend their money on--not Ron and the Metro bus boys. Ron knows what is best for those yokels. They want light rail to the airport and Seattle. How dare they?

"A long, slow (due to appropriate deviation to Beacon Hill and MLK Jr. Way South)"

--Here is where the Metro bus boys start to stretch the truth with their rah rah bus boosterism. The Rainier Valley segment adds about five minutes to the trip north. Trains will move at about 25 MPH for the four miles instead of 50 MPH. They will have total signal priority. FIVE MINUTES is not what gets people out of their cars. It is the reliability and permanence of rail. You know that you can walk up to a station, wait usually less than five minutes, and catch a train that gets there at the same time, every day. Can Ron and the Metro bus boys say that? No--that is why a lot of folks won't use the bus that will use rail and choose to live near stations.

"ST2 does little for Renton, Kent, and Auburn"

--eddiew, be honest, not deceiving, That is because those are the communities served by Sounder which is going to a full nine trains this year. They also get shadow bus service along the Sounder route midday and some Park and Ride improvements. The downtown areas of Kent and Auburn are booming for the first time in decades because people love rail and want to live near it. Buses didn't do that eddie.

"There is too little attention to the RTID use of the sales tax for highway expansion. The RTID should have used the local option gas tax or toll revenue."

--A string of misleading statements. The RTID is primarily funded by the MVET, an appropriate tax for road improvements. ST has the vast majority of the sales tax.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe a local option gas tax was one of the options the leg gave the RTID. The oil companies hate it and have defeated that idea every time it comes up. So you shouldn't offer it as a false option. And tolls may be the wave of the future, but congestion pricing works best when an area has mass transit. We don't--we have your slow, unreliable, crowded, stinky buses.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 14, 2007 12:35 AM
40

cressona at 30: In those examples, no one is lying.

The ST Board places more importance on service reliability on one line and on the long-term vision of connecting Seattle and Tacoma with high capacity transit. The ST2 critics think it is more important to maximize overall transit ridership and do it sooner by spreading the ST2 funds out over more modes and more services. It is a difference of judgment.


The ST2 2030 forecasts show south Link LRT travel time between the Tacoma Dome Station (TDS) and Westlake at 71 minutes. The line would reach TDS is about 2027? It will be very reliable. It would be about four minutes less to reach IDS next to King Street station.


The current Sounder trip between the TDS and King Street is 60 minutes. It may improve. It is very reliable. Sounder provides a speed and reliability advantage to the stations north of Tacoma: Puyallup, Sumner, Auburn, Kent, and Tukwila.


The current bus trip between the TDS and downtown Seattle is about 50 minutes in the peak and about 45 minutes in the off-peak (without congestion). It is less reliable. In your Landenburg example, this mode was not mentioned.


Bus and Link LRT do a better job of distributing passengers through downtown Seattle and Tacoma than Sounder.


If we do nothing, the freeways will congest more and bus speeds will lengthen. The ST2 forecasts assumed bus speeds would degrade at about one percent per year.


Sims advocates that we will toll the highways and if so, buses will travel faster and more reliably than today. The center access ramp at Industrail Way as been discussed and planned (but not funded and built) since the early 1990s. The project is on the RTID list. It could be on the next list if the joint ballot measure fails. The ramps would improve bus flow.


Direct bus service between Federal Way and downtown Seattle or SeaTac and downtown Seattle is also faster than LRT is forecast to be.

In the north corridor, Link LRT is forecast to be faster and more reliable than bus, as its path is more direct. It is much easier to forsee restructuring express bus service when rail offers better service. That is an important way to improve local service.


Link LRT will have high capacity. They could operate four-car married-pairs. Each LRT car has 70 seats and can carry 200 with standees. So, each train has a theoretical capacity of 800.

Building south Link LRT would stretch the fiscal capacity of the two subareas. Elevated LRT is estimated at $200 million per mile. Those billions have an opportunity cost.


Express bus is a good mode for the trips between Seattle and Tacoma and between Tacoma and SeaTac; these are long distance trips. It has sufficient capacity and could have more reliability. ST has constructed center access ramps in Federal Way. It could be improved much faster than south Link LRT could be built. There are about 20 years of planning and construction ahead of south Link LRT during which better bus service could be provided.


As alternatives, in his op-ed, Sims mentioned bus service, LRT within Tacoma, and LRT to Southcenter.


The choice is one line or several lines and slow results or quicker results.


Please note that the TDS is in a light industrial area with few residents. Under ST2, most riders would be transferring at least once.


It would worthwhile for ST, the ports, and WSDOT to discuss all-day two-way commuter rail with BNSFRR if they could share tracks with UPRR to maintain freight capacity. ST had a costly time with BNSFRR in Sound Move. The concept may be a deadend.


E@31 asked if BRT has worked anywhere. Both LRT and BRT work. Both are great transit modes. They both can provide a continuum of transit speed and capacity depending upon their frequency and the degree of grade separation they are provided.

Agencies choose their modes with many factors in mind: right-of-way, cost, capacity needed.

Some BRT systems in Latin America and Ottawa have enough priority and capacity to be like Metro rail or heavy rail. Others mimick LRT. LA and Vancouver has arterial BRT lines without much priority. They are considered quite successful and attract high ridership.


Suppose a single LRT line attracts more ridership than a single BRT line. But suppose several BRT lines could be provided at the same cost as the single LRT line. Which is the better choice? It depends upon the agency budget and available right of way.


Many cities builing HCT have abandoned freight rail lines to convert to transit (e.g., Vancouver, Ottawa (busway and diesel LRT), NJ, St.Louis, Denver, San Diego, Sacremento, San Jose, LA Orange line). This area only has the Eastside line. It is right-of-way constrained.


The ST pursuit of "regional LRT" is somewhat unique. Its use of 1500 volt power is unique. But LRT has that flexibility.

I am voting NO mostly due to RTID. If ST2 passed, we would eventually enjoy much better transit. It would not be as good or be implemented as fast as alternatives.


RTID has earned a no vote in several ways:
using 30 years of sales tax to expand unpriced limited access highways in a time of global warming;
not using the demand management of tolls to shape the mega projects or toll revenue to replace the sales tax;

Sure, the RTID has needed projects, but I want our governments to do much better. It is not an acceptable compromise. I only have one vote.

Posted by eddiew | October 14, 2007 12:44 AM
41

scotto @ 28 trots out the Sierra Club lie that Sound Transit excluded the Club from being part of the voters pamphlet. Sadly, it was the Sierra Club's own incompetence that excluded their statement. Here are a few facts.

1) The ST board has the power to appoint the pro and con statements by state law.
2) They publicized meeting agendas that included the intent to appoint the committee.
3) They only heard from the CETA rail-hater group and Kemper's boys.
4) They delayed action on the con committee by their request for two weeks until the next board meeting.
5) The Sierra Club didn't know this because they never attend ST board meetings other than to testify against light rail to Tacoma.

If they can't be bothered to follow ST, why should we trust their judgment on the best course to take?

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 14, 2007 12:48 AM
42

Cale,
If you vote for prop 1, you are voting for bad roads to be built. You are voting to spend money to increase greenhouse gasses and for 152 miles of new lanes that will increase toxic runnoff.

-- and 520 is not even fully funded --

Posted by Glacier Hugger | October 14, 2007 12:53 AM
43

scotto @ 38
"How would the failure of Prop 1 make it easier for State highway engineers to build bad roads?"

Because Prop 1 creates RTID, a powerful agency dedicated to the best interest of the communities and region at large that it serves.

If we vote down Prop 1, no such agency will be created, and the roads will be built eventually anyways by agencies whose only dedication is to moving cars and trucks, not people and ideals.

Posted by Cale | October 14, 2007 12:54 AM
44

tiptoe tommy at 39:

see my response above regarding travel times. ST2 does not add trips to south Sounder, only the parking you mention. shadow sounder is one possible bus program, but those funds are limited as the bulk of ST2 goes to Link LRT.


The RTID was set in the 2002 session by ESSB 6140. It was written by Senators McDonald, Finkbinder, and Horn, Repubicans from the 48, 45, and 41 districts, respectively.


That session, it allowed six revenue sources to the RTID:
five tenths sales tax, the commercial parking tax, a $100 vehicle fee, the MVET, tolls, and an employer tax.


In a later session, the local option gas tax was added.


In a yet later session, the allowable MVET rate was increased to eight-tenths and the allowable sales tax rate reduced to one-tenth.


The use of the commerical parking tax by Seattle in 2006 pretty much took that off the table.


The vehicle fee is les effective and less progressive than the MVET.


Yes, the oil companies threatened to oppose the local option gas tax. So, the RTID is choosing to use the sales tax instead.


The relative fiscal importance of the MVET and the tenth of sales tax is answered in the appendix to the Blueprint. I recall it is about 60/40. Shall we look it up?


The entire ST Board decides on all programs. The programs in each subarea are not decided by sub caucuses. The boardmembers may defer to each other to some degree. All boardmembers seem to take a keen interest in Link LRT decisions even if their jurisdiction will never see a line.

Posted by eddiew | October 14, 2007 1:07 AM
45

glacier at # 42,

If you vote against prop 1, you are voting to postpone these project's start date. You are voting to waste money years down the line when these projects cost even more, and in the meantime debating endlessly over whether it makes more sense to support a massive infrastructure upgrade for a city with serious transportation issues, or to wait until a perfect form of mass transit is invented that has no impact on the environment, that costs pennies, and will be finished by last week.

Let's get real.

The time is now, this is what makes sense.

How much longer are we going to stare at 520 and say, gee somebody should really do something about that?

"-- and 520 is not even fully funded -"

... because it is also being payed for by the state, the federal government, and tolling. Honestly, I don't understand this argument.

How many more times do we need to say, yeah, we want light rail.

The mad march of the monorail that went on too long certainly proved that we are starved for rail. Fuck BRT, nobody wants that. It's a crass assessment, but it's true! It won't attract new riders. It's an overly engineered solution that has a long shot at making a few numbers slightly higher. It would barely be an improvement on the regional bus system we already have and would do little to nothing to improve the built environment of the city.

How much longer is the eastside going to keep saying, yes, we want more lanes on 405?

What do you people expect? You ask for a regional transportation solution, discover that the eastside and Seattle have different priorities(suprise! suprise!), and then when Seattle and Bellevue are offered the things they want in their cities, they revolt because the people in the other city aren't getting the thing that they thought was best for them!

How much longer are we going to let our existing infrastructure linger in decay and fall into derelict!?

What do people have against fixing the Mercer Mess? So what if Paul Allen owns some property down there? Are you against mixed use, pedestrian/bike friendly, dense urban neighborhoods?

And finally, choose your battles-

If you want to fight global warming via regional transportation politics - tell your leaders to implement congestion pricing. This will have the biggest impact in the shortest amount of time.

If you want to improve transportation via regional transportation politics - vote yes on RTID/ST2.

I don't see why we can't have both.

Posted by Cale | October 14, 2007 2:17 AM
46

There's a subtle distinction between an outright lie and a deliberate intent to mislead, and the facts here are a little too ambiguous for me to call our resident King County Metro commenter eddiew a liar. I had asked him who's lying: him in characterizing the south Link as slow, or Pierce County exec John Ladenburg in saying Link would only take seven minutes longer than Sounder to get from Tacoma Dome Station to King Street Station. (Eddiew had put forward Sounder as one of those existing transit investments we ought to all just be satisfied with.)

Eddiew's answer to my question @40:

cressona at 30: In those examples, no one is lying.
...
The ST2 2030 forecasts show south Link LRT travel time between the Tacoma Dome Station (TDS) and Westlake at 71 minutes....

Well, technically 67 minutes is slower than 60 minutes. As to reaching Westlake in 71 minutes, well, if it takes 60 minutes to get to King Street Station by Sounder, it's going to take just about 11 minutes to catch a bus then to Westlake Center. So is light rail slow compared to Sounder for that small portion of south Link trips that will go all the way to downtown Seattle? Only if you're very selectively parsing by the minute; only if King Street and the ID are the only destinations in downtown Seattle.

Of course, we know eddiew isn't quite being straight with us anyway when he offers Sounder as a viable alternative to light rail. As a transit planner, he knows very well the limitations of a commuter rail line that doesn't even control its own right-of-way.

Posted by cressona | October 14, 2007 10:50 AM
47

Now, an eddiew's standard answer to all the above concerns with commuter rail is the standard, buses, buses, and more buses. And this is where we see the luxury of a "no" campaign.

Buses & global warming

A "no" campaign can simultaneously make two separate criticisms that completely contradict each other. On the one side is the classic "Third World way of thinking" argument, that buses are more "cost-effective." On the other side is the global warming argument.

Sorry, guys. You can't be offering buses as an alternative to light rail and then claim to be a champion against global warming. Buses, even the so-called BRT, do nothing to promote transit-oriented development. Why would anyone want to invest any amount of money building density because it's close to a bus stop when the bus stop could be taken away tomorrow?

But beyond that, how do buses actually run? Light rail runs on electricity, which in this area we're lucky enough to get from hydropower. Buses run on polluting, greenhouse-gas-emitting diesel. Oh, but what about the magical biodiesel? The dirty, little secret of biofuels is that they're even worse environmentally than real gas. Corn ethanol is the worst, but biodiesel isn't the panacea it's presented as either. From a Seattle P-I guest op-ed:

The corn and soybeans that make ethanol and biodiesel require huge quantities of fossil fuel in the necessary farm machinery, pesticides and fertilizer. Much of the fossil fuel comes from foreign sources, including some that may not be dependable, such as Russia and the Mideast.

So what then? Are we supposed to wait for electric buses to become feasible? I'm not holding my breath while I wait to see Ron Sims & co. get that up and running? And I'm sure when they do finally get around to it, they'll ask for a steep sales tax hike, the very kind of sales tax hike they're decrying now.

Real BRT & fake BRT

Here's the galling aspect of the Ron Sims/eddiew BRT argument in and of itself. When they offer the hope of BRT, they don't actually mean BRT, like the Orange Line in Los Angeles. They mean conventional bus service that may be a little more frequent, that may use HOV lanes where it's not a terrible inconvenience to drivers. As pathetic as BRT is, the Ron Sims vision of BRT isn't even BRT. Just look at King County Metro's euphemistically named "Rapid Ride" program. The hope and expectation is that the voters and even our local leadership are too uninformed and gullible to tell the difference.

I'd be happy to go into depth on the differences between real BRT and Ron Sims's fake BRT. I'll leave that for another post. Eddiew could just as well tell you those differences himself, but he's about as inclined to 'fess up to them as he is to 'fess up to the limitations of Sounder or the limitations of buses in combating climate change.

Anyway, I hope there's a special place in hell reserved for eddiew and his ilk. It will be hot and it will have only one mode of transportation, buses.

Posted by cressona | October 14, 2007 10:58 AM
48

I hope everyone reads the very interesting No on Prop. 1 editorial in today's Sunday Times. The Times Editorial Board--the new "best friend" of Kemper Freeman, Mike O'Brien and Ron Sims--opposes light rail expansion, says there aren't enough new highway lanes in the package, and states that all future public transit in the region must be bus-based. So much for the folks who are expecting a quick, easy light rail-only vote if Prop. 1 goes down.

Posted by J.R. | October 14, 2007 11:29 AM
49

I hate to say it, but if this latest ballot measure fails, we have to start coming to a conclusion akin to what we've long since concluded with the Iraq War: that a real mass transit system is as politically unnatural to the Seattle area as a pluralistic, unified constitutional democracy is to Iraq. With all these decades of failing to build subways and monorails and light rails, maybe we all have to realize that Seattle is just not a mass transit kinda place, and if you're looking for a mass transit kinda place, then look somewhere else.

Sure, we will have our little, starter light rail line opening in 2009, which is the scaled-down and compromised-down result of the financial implosion of 2001, which was the result of the overly optimistic figures of the 1996 initiative, which were the result of the failed initiative of 1995. But to follow my analogy, I look at that starter line the way I look at Kurdistan in Iraq, the small exception that proves the rule.

Even traditional car cities like Los Angeles and Denver have found a way to build mass transit, and lots of it. I mean, for God's sake, Colorado's a red state. Why are they able to build mass transit and we're not? Exelizabeth @32 has a bit of an answer:

This region is simply far to conservative (in the sense that it doesn't like change that's not "perfect"), and it's too willing to cut off its nose to spite its face. We're a divided, provincial little region.

Posted by cressona | October 14, 2007 11:41 AM
50

When I see the various fronts of opposition lining up against this ballot measure, I come back to thinking how our political bent here in Seattle is a kind of conservatism wrapped in the cloak of liberalism. It's like we've dipped into the barrel of conservative ideas and taken only the backward, bad, and easy ideas, and then we've dipped into the barrel of liberal ideas and taken only the backward, bad, and easy ideas. When you get right down to it, Tim Eyman and the Sierra Club are two sides of the same coin (or whatever that expression is); it's the Knute Bergers and Joel Connellys who come closest to tying together these two strands. Walt Crowley touched on a similar theme regarding the viaduct debate.

You can tell I'm not exactly optimistic about this vote passing, even though I believe it's going to be incredibly close either way. Maybe it's because I spend too much time reading these blogs. Maybe it's just me being a pessimist and wanting to be pleasantly surprised. Maybe it's because, for Seattle to get off its arse and do something about transportation, it would fly in the face of my every experience with Seattle.

Auto-generated response: Hey pal, if you hate Seattle so much, why don't you just leave?

Well, you may have your wish. Let's see what happens with this vote.

Posted by cressona | October 14, 2007 11:44 AM
51

Somebody please bring back the "four stages of Cressona" post, I want to see if we need a new level - the "you will burn in hell for opposing RTID" level.

The absurdity of our situation is evident -- why isn't the legislature, RTID, Sound Transit, Puget Sound Regional Council putting their multi-million dollar budgets, consultants and paid staffers to work to tell us what plan will deliver the deepest reductions in global warming pollutants from transportation spending? Because they did not care about the global warming. Therefore, we get a spending plan with no vision, that gives with one hand and takes with the other. The project list is designed for politicians' benefit, with global warming not even an afterthought.

And where is the political leadership? Except Julia Paterson, it looks like no elected official really wants to own this dog. They are silent, or mouthing lukewarm support. They aren't front and center. This is a spending measure so badly cobbled together, costing so much, with so little effect, that nobody really wants to own it. If it passes, every elected official gets to say they "did something about transportation" and point to money for their district. If it fails, every one gets to say it was somebody else's package. No accountability to voters, no leadership.

It is difficult to find the right words to describe a ballot measure that so badly misses the goals that really matter. Vote this down, and demand a plan that takes on global warming pollution and our most pressing transportation needs, and pays for it fairly. If our elected leaders aren't up to the job, then they need to step aside for a new generation of leadership. More of the same just won't cut it.

Posted by rtidstinks | October 14, 2007 12:11 PM
52

rtidstinks @51: Somebody please bring back the "four stages of Cressona" post, I want to see if we need a new level - the "you will burn in hell for opposing RTID" level.

When it comes to folks like eddiew, I can at least hope, can't I? And hey, if eddiew heard someone wish upon him an afterlife where the only mode of transportation was buses, maybe he would consider that heaven.

Now, as for actually being able to tell who will and won't burn in hell, you Manichaean, black-and-white "all roads are evil" fundamentalists should have a pretty good handle on that. Just as you seem to have a pretty good handle on the global warming impact of this measure failing.

Posted by cressona | October 14, 2007 12:18 PM
53

rtidstinks @51:

And where is the political leadership? Except Julia Paterson, it looks like no elected official really wants to own this dog. They are silent, or mouthing lukewarm support.

Question, rtidstinks. If you're so confident about your position, why do you feel compelled to lie? Many elected officials have offered enthusiastic support. That includes the recent Seattle P-I op-ed signed collectively by most of the members of the King County Council. Jan Drago spoke quite adamantly at a press conference for the Yes campaign. Also, let's check the endorsers page of the official Yes Web site, although that doesn't necessarily measure the temperature of one's support.

I would be curious to see a little more what Greg Nickels has had to say about this ballot.

Posted by cressona | October 14, 2007 12:26 PM
54

Well, I'm forgetting Chris Gregoire. By her standards, she sounds pretty enthusiastic to me.

And as long as we're covering electeds' endorsements, let me paraphrase rtidstinks: And where is the political leadership? Except Ron Sims, it looks like no elected official really wants to own this 'no' dog. They are silent, or mouthing lukewarm opposition. They aren't front and center.

I would have thought at least David Della would have rallied to the no side.

Posted by cressona | October 14, 2007 12:37 PM
55

tiptoe tommy at 39, continuing our discussion of the sales tax:
in the first table of the RTID appendix C, it shows that the ratio of MVET and sales tax in the RTID revenue stream is about two-thirds and one-third. That one-third seems substantial and 30-year bonds would be sold against that stream.


cressona at 46 and 47:
you are obviously bright and articulate and we have similar objectives, but you seem to be trying hard to obscure my post of last night.

First, the slog stream began with Feit paraphasing Executive Sims as remaining a big backer of LRT. He has doubt about the south line in ST2 measure. Independently, I do too.

Second, the travel times Executive Landenburg put forward regarding Sounder are true; you paraphased him. I added the bus times and you ignored them today. We ought to compare projected Link times against both Sounder and bus.

And, this being Sunday, you mentioned damnation. I went to Sunday morning basketball.

A summary:
Between TDS and South Jackson Street
Link LRT 2027 71 - 6 = 65 minutes; (6 minutes backwards from Westlake to IDS);
Sounder 2007 = 60 minutes;
Bus 2007 = 50 minutes.

Bus and Link LRT provide penetration through downtown Seattle.

All three modes have good markets. Sounder does well in the Green River Valley.

cressona at 49: another key factor is right-of-way; Denver had several abandoned freight rail line to convert to LRT.


Posted by eddiew | October 14, 2007 3:00 PM
56

@53

Everybody's getting trotted out on the yes side, but doing a press conference or an Op-Ed is very different from campaigning. Julia Paterson is out there doing a lot of forums, and swinging away at the opponents. But the rest of the electeds seem pretty willing to let her hang out to dry. See http://nortid.org/?p=37.

I just don't see the type of campaigning that one would expect if the state Democratic leadership was really invested in its passage. Now, I might be wrong in my prediction. Falling poll numbers may spur some of these folks to hit the hustings. But it seems more likely that we will start seeing even more distance from electeds. They won't really want to own this disaster.

Posted by rtidstinks | October 14, 2007 5:23 PM
57

rtidstinks @56:

Everybody's getting trotted out on the yes side, but doing a press conference or an Op-Ed is very different from campaigning.

Gosh, you're changing your story quickly now, rtidstinks. So doing a press conference or writing an op-ed amounts to "mouthing lukewarm support"? Again, I gotta wonder, if you're so confident in your case, rtidstinks, why do you have to get into the game of misleadingly interpreting endorsements?

It's funny, I never feel the need to enter into the territory of intellectual dishonesty to argue in favor of this joint ballot. And yet, there seems to be a cavalcade of disingenuousness and BS and what one might charitably call "factual errors" coming from the "no" camp.

Posted by cressona | October 14, 2007 7:23 PM
58

No story changing here -- that is what I meant by lukewarm support. On R-51, Slade Gorton and Gary Locke did a statewide bus tour, and personally campaigned. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/89441_gastax02.shtml Where is Gregoire? Where is Chopp? Where are the Transportation Chairs Haugen and Murray? Where is the Seattle delegation to the legislature? Where is Nickels? They are not out stumping for this thing. Endorsing it, yes. Campaigning, not really. They appear happy to be seen as part of the group of supporters, but very few are willing to get out there and stake much political capital on this thing. That qualifies as lukewarm support.

I will concede that Julia Paterson is not alone, there are probably other enthusiastic supporters among the politicians, but very few are reaching for the microphone. And the heavyweights, the ones who will have to clean up the mess when this goes down, are keeping their distance. We'll see who steps up in the closing weeks of the campaign, but my sense is that the smell of impending defeat will cause them to keep their distance.

Posted by rtidstinks | October 14, 2007 9:42 PM
59

I do have one other note to add about the political support, or lack thereof, either way. On the list of endorsers for the Yes campaign, there is only one member of the Seattle City Council, Jan Drago.

I already appreciate Drago enormously. She became an avid monorail supporter once it became clear the project was serious. And she has been determined to prevent another viaduct from being built.

What bothers me is that there is no more important issue facing Seattle than transportation and land use, and there is no more momentous decision regarding transportation and land use than Prop. 1. You would think that, with an issue of this magnitude, more than just one councilmember would actually want to take a position -- whether it's a yes or a no. (I would have imagined Licata and Della would have come down on the "no" side.)

All this must be indicative of the sheer political cowardice of our elected officials. It's not even like they're risking their lives or liberty. The only thing a city councilmember has to lose is a goddamn $89K-a-year job.

Posted by cressona | October 14, 2007 9:59 PM
60

Sheesh, Cressona, once again you miss the point. Just look at the "adding parking spaces" part of how we're doing light rail here.

Go up to Vancouver. Look at all the light rail stations - do you see a lot of parking spots?

No, you don't. Because adding parking doesn't really help.

Adding bus stops, taxi stops, and kiss-and-ride stops does help.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 15, 2007 10:56 AM
61

and the reason most local electeds aren't touring to promo RTID/STD2 is that they are getting a lot of very vocal opposition to their position from people who have backed them - with large donations - in the past.

It's basically a death knell to running for office again - you have to have deep pockets elsewhere if you push RTID/ST2, because so many active people don't like it at all.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 15, 2007 11:38 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).