Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Re: RTID/ST2 Prop 1 is DOA

1

I remember when we were voting on ST they said it would cut our commutes due to minutes save.

Hmmm. If I still drove where I used to to get to work, it would take longer.

Even if I drove to a park and ride and then took the bus.

Instead, wise people move closer to where they work (or change where they work).

It's not just DOA, it's fried up and battered.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 12, 2007 4:48 PM
2

I'm sure Cressona, as a paid Sound Transit employee, can fill us in on the details.

Posted by Ryan | October 12, 2007 5:10 PM
3

If you check the Sound Transit site, they give time estimates between stops for the first light rail stops. As I've commented before, light rail will take about as long or longer than metro bus service at peak times, according to Metro's trip calculator. During off-peak times, bus service is significantly faster. This isn't the case for a couple of the poorly-served routes (like Columbia City to a few destinations), but it is for what will be the most popular routes.

Light rail times (click the station): http://soundtransit.org/x1171.xml

Posted by jamier | October 12, 2007 5:19 PM
4

Ryan @2: I'm sure Cressona, as a paid Sound Transit employee, can fill us in on the details.

Sorry, Ryan. Sound Transit employee, no. Concerned citizen, yes.

Anyway, between SDA in SEA and COMTE, all I can say is, The Stranger did their homework vetting their guest bloggers' political views.

Posted by cressona | October 12, 2007 5:28 PM
5

Tiptoe Tommy ST or other vested interest employee yes.

Cressona no.

Cressona clearly backed the monorail.

Most rail studies indicate density is needed to make it work. This plan takes too long to build to areas that are too sparse and the dollars needed to service the dense areas of the region are being spent there.

Posted by whatever | October 12, 2007 5:40 PM
6

COMTE: but that revenue-stream is also contingent on the region hitting the RTID’s population growth estimates, rosily forecast at around 40% of current levels by 2040; that seems grossly optimistic.

It's always fun to hear what passes for in-depth analysis from someone who hasn't done their own homework on the most basic details. See:

And as recent studies have indicated rather than reduce congestion, the 187 miles of new roads will become filled with single-occupancy vehicles almost as quickly as they’re built, in a process known as “induced traffic”..

COMTE, even your own side says it's 152 general-purpose lane miles vs. 30 HOV lane miles. And if you're talking about induced demand, why haven't you factored in the reality that the most critical of those lanes miles -- the 520 bridge -- will be tolled, and there's plenty of momentum for tolling other lane miles? I think it's on page 6 or 7 of RTID's Blueprint for Progress about the corridors they plan to toll to keep traffic moving at 45 MPH.

And as long as we're getting all this insightful analysis, what about the insightful analysis of what's going to happen to all the people who won't be living here if we defeat this package and start over again? Will those people who move away or never move here in the first place simply disappear off the face of the earth? Will they all buy million-dollar apartments in New York City and pursue ideal low-carbon-footprint lifestyles? I don't know, does NYC use clean hydropower the way we do; do most cities? I dunno, but I haven't done the in-depth analysis like COMTE apparently has.

Posted by cressona | October 12, 2007 5:52 PM
7

One clarification to my previous post: I think it's on page 6 or 7 of RTID's Blueprint for Progress about the corridors they plan to toll to keep traffic moving at 45 MPH.

Perhaps "plan" is too strong a word. There is no legislative mandate to toll any of the new lane miles. The only lane miles that are a done deal (de facto, not de juro) are those on the 520 bridge.

Posted by cressona | October 12, 2007 5:57 PM
8

Cressona, Cressona, Cressona

Here you criticize Comte for lack homework yet you refuse or are unable to refer us to anything that would make sense out of building either part of this plan. You refer to the entire Urban Growth Area (Seattle Metro) as not being sprawl yet the population density in it is about 400 per sq. mile. Look at the Overlake area and tell us it is dense.

If we can get a transit tri or quad county agency maybe better decisions could be made.

Posted by whatever | October 12, 2007 6:05 PM
9

That's some top-drawer slogging COMTE.

I previously tried reading the actual terms of the law they want us to approve. Those are in the voter's guide. By the seventh "whereas" I knew I'd punt.

Posted by plebe | October 12, 2007 7:35 PM
10

Sorry, whatever, I am not a ST employee either. And I would have felt better about the monorail if the clowns running it hadn't put a huckster salesman in charge, with a board that didn't even know what questions to ask.

BTW--Seattle is not all that dense either. 70% is single family zoned. Only the city core, Capitol Hill ant the U-District are really dense at all. What building rail gives you is the ability to build dense communities around the region at station areas. Seattle's dollars stay in Seattle to go north to Northgate and beyond.

Will--being relatively wealthy it is easy for you to say things like this,
"wise people move closer to where they work (or change where they work)" Easy for you to say, but many people can't afford to live in Seattle and can only find jobs in a few places. Life must be blissfully uncomplicated for you.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 12, 2007 7:56 PM
11

Seattle is at 6900 per sq mile just a bit more than 400.

Monorail came in at 20% over the voted on budget number ST 200% over but what the hay.

Didn't say you worked for ST, said for ST or some other vested interest.

Zoning has the most to do with density - rail around the stations helps but ST has so few stations it won't make much for density.

Posted by whatever | October 12, 2007 8:32 PM
12

yawn. another uninformed seattle elite anti RTID post. Is it Nov 6th yet.

Voting yes for 50 miles of light rail. Thanks

Posted by art | October 12, 2007 8:44 PM
13

I am still waiting on this post for James Irwin or Mike Obrien, or Kfull or another one of the 700 clubbers to tell me to vote this down cause next year I'll get me ST only plan to vote on.

Was thinking today, who the fuck do they think is going to fund that campaign? Take a look at the PDC's for Keep WA Rolling. Microsoft, WAMU, Boeing. These guys are writing $100,000 checks...because we are building roads.

Who is going to pay for the ST only campaign? The Sierra/700 Club?

And you think the No to Prop One guys' money is going away next year? You think Kemper is just going to sit on his hands? And Mark Baerwaldt?

Somehow this equation seems, well, like a total fucking pipedream.

But what can we expect from the group that can't spell effective advocacy and keeps trying to sell me back packs made in China.

Posted by fred | October 12, 2007 8:48 PM
14

Piss off. You can't have my light rail. I am voting for Roads and Transit.

Posted by bill | October 12, 2007 8:51 PM
15

"The only real question in my mind is: once Prop 1 goes down in flames, will TPTB take the whole thing off the table, or do what they should have done in the first place, and send separate roads and mass transit measures back to the voters?"

No, that is not "the real" question. That is a really stupid question.

Good point made above. Who in the hell do you think is going to fund that campaign? Seriously? The 520 bridge is about to sink. Boeing is growing like crazy. The Ports are exploding. You think ST can rally its own 4 million dollar campaign?

Posted by ted | October 12, 2007 8:55 PM
16

I gotta say, the probable alternative is not some sort of 'just as much transit but better roads' package. Look at Oregon, where 'Connect Oregon' is the biggest deal going at $100 million. The Nickel package alone is raising $3.3 billion. Road-wise, a lot is being accomplished already; just not enough for megaprojects. 405 is going to add the maximum number of lanes that can fit in the ROW no matter what, RTID going down just means the $ will be slowly dribbled in by the leg coupled with projects in the provinces that really will encourage sprawl.


But, hey, the most pressing problem, ie 520 will toll-fund by adding I-90 tolls too. That's a good outcome, right? But wait...that East Link line 'stealing' the center roadway isn't going to fly at the same time. Cross that off, and the big win Sierra Club jackasses are confidently predicting is likely to be Northgate and South 200th.

If I lived on the Eastside or in Sno or Pierce, I sure as hell wouldn't vote for that after being denied rail investment and more lanes by smug Seattle enviro asshats. No matter how many 'good for you' HOV lanes and bicycle paths it has.


Posted by Some Jerk | October 12, 2007 9:38 PM
17

10 funding ideas for when this comes back up on a ballot.

1. Fund transit by taxing all vehicles ON MILEAGE DRIVEN at their biennial emissions checkup. Exempt company-owned vehicles if companies can document that they routinely carry at least two people.

2. Tax parents of school-age children if their children do not walk, bike, or take school buses/public transit to school 100% of the time. Seriously: do you know how much traffic around here is simply robomoms and robodads chauffeuring children to school (since Seattle bizarrely doesn't usually send kids to their closest schools)? The tax should be based on parents' income so rich people pay more.

3. Develop a per-employee tax on businesses that is based on the distance of each employees' ZIP code from the ZIP code of the sites where they work if those employees don’t use transit, walk, or bike to work 100% of the time.

4. Add a huge tax on private parking spots and garages (including those for commuting employees) based on how many vehicles park in them per day; ban "early bird" parking rates; add a huge tax on all on-campus parking at universities/ community colleges except for carpools.

5. Exempt self-employed people from a part of B&O tax if they work at home or own no car.

6. Exempt larger businesses from a part of B&O based on employee days worked from home.

7. Give tax breaks to companies and schools that install and massively use video conferencing systems so that people in desk jobs can work from home and so that students can attend lectures from home.

9. Metro should tax businesses or schools when their employees regularly commute through incorporated cities when those employees do not live or work in those cities. For instance, a company or school who employs someone who lives in Federal Way who works in Everett should pay a tax to Seattle for commuting through it every day. Similarly for someone who lives in Seattle but works in Redmond, Bellevue should get a cut.

10. Exempt electric vehicles or vehicles with > 60 mpg from the aforesaid taxes.

Posted by S. M. | October 12, 2007 10:02 PM
18

@15, you have answered your own question.

Boeing, the ports, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. all have an interest in an effective transportation system, meaning that it will allow them to move their people and goods.

If voters make it clear to them that a design constraint on that system is that it does not make global warming worse, then companies will campaign for an alternative that does not. This is the way it's done in Europe, Japan, and other countries who are way ahead of us on climate.

You should get out of the US once in a while. It will broaden your mind.

Posted by scotto | October 12, 2007 10:53 PM
19

@10 - I bought my house a long time ago in Ballard, scraping by to make payments, sold it and bought a Townhouse closer to work (in general) and tried to choose work nearer to where I live. It's not hard - just stop buying a new car every two years and spending 10 percent of your income on clothes (fashion tip - annual sales in Santa Barbara sell clothes that will be fashionable in Seattle in a year so you can get a shirt for $15 that costs $100 here).

Regardless, RTID/ST2 is still a bad choice. Insist on ST2.1 in 08 instead.

Posted by Will in Fremont | October 13, 2007 1:36 AM
20

good point, scotto. Heck, Microsoft could even build ST stations and name them if they wanted to, saving half the cost ...

Posted by Will in Fremont | October 13, 2007 1:38 AM
21

Scotto,

You know anybody at MS or Boeing that shares that point of view or are you just speculating?

You've been asked before whether any legislator wants an ST only plan next year and you guys still haven't pointed to one.

There are over 100. Certainly you can identify one that shares your green-xtreamist 700 club ill informed seattle centrict elitist pipedream.

Posted by steve | October 13, 2007 7:42 AM
22

Hey, WAKE UP!

Whatever money is in PROP 1, it's
NOT ENOUGH.

Whatever you think you are going to get from this tax, more roads or more light rail, rest assured, there will not be enough money for any of it.
They will be back for MORE.

Posted by old timer | October 13, 2007 10:35 AM
23

@21, Yes, I know people at Microsoft and Amazon who most definitely would donate to a campaign supporting a package that didn't make global warming worse.

About legislators... actually I haven't been asked about them. I also haven't claimed that there is a guarantee of an ST bill next year, although 2009 seems likely.

But, as I do keep claiming, Prop 1 is guaranteed to make global warming worse. The passage of Prop 1 is a certain failure, while if Prop 1 does not pass, failure is not certain and is, in fact, unlikely.

So, if you are concerned about global warming, the logical Prop 1 vote is NO.

Posted by scotto | October 13, 2007 1:36 PM
24

RE: "PATION!"

Mmmm... Tasty Rocky Horror reference.

Posted by Chris | October 13, 2007 2:21 PM
25

Ah, Cressona you've found me out!

How did you know about the secret oath of fealty Josh Feit forced me to sign in my own blood prior to being allowed to Guest Slog? I admit Brendan Kiley's mini goat sacrifice seemed a little extreme, but it wasn't nearly so bad as the Editorial Staff "bukkake ceremony", or having Dan Savage sodomize me with the "business end" of a Club Steering Wheel Lock, but hey, anything for "The Cause", right?

Funny thing though. I guess there must have been a bunch of ST/RTID folks there as well (it's awful hard to tell who's wearing those black hoods), because, um, they seem to have drunk from the same pitcher of Kool-Ade.

Pretty hard to take Prop 1 seriously, when even its proponents are saying it won't do a damned thing to alleviate traffic congestion; it'll just slow the increase over time. By their own admission, people's commutes won't get shorter, so that makes the statements in the voters guides and their fancy-schmancy propaganda mailings blatantly misleading IMO.

Of course, they also make the claim that without the road improvements, things will only be much, much worse, which is likely true. So, what we're being offered, metaphorically speaking, is the opportunity to bail out a sinking ocean liner afloat by using a bucket, which IMO just makes the case in favor of building more, better mass and rapid transit, rather than pouring money into highways, when all those tens of billions won't solve the problem anyway.

But, they also know if they were forced to tell people the TRUTH, their bill would be literally DOA.

Posted by COMTE | October 14, 2007 9:58 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).