Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Light Rail is Dead. Long Live Light Rail.

1

So--does this mean that the Stranger will actually send a reporter to a Sound Transit board meeting for the first time in five years? You haven't really covered Sound Transit since you ended your campaign to try to kill Sound Transit in 2002 with your ringing endorsement of Tim Eyman's Initiative 776.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | December 13, 2007 9:34 AM
2

@1,

The answer is yes. I'm sending myself.

Posted by Josh Feit | December 13, 2007 9:43 AM
3

I hope they do push for a 2008 vote. I understand that it was good strategery for Prop 1 supporters to say it would never be allowed on an '08 ballot, and I understand why Gregoire and others wouldn't want it on the ballot, but I'd like to see them forced to make that call.

Posted by Gidge | December 13, 2007 9:50 AM
4

Here's how to get light rail on the ballot in 2008: Kill Frank Chopp. That motherfucker right there. Kill him.

Posted by Greg | December 13, 2007 9:52 AM
5

What convenient time for the public will this meeting take place?

Can I take the new trolley there?

Will the Stranger support removing Resolution 75 and having some basic price controls on ST2.1? Or will it be an open ended tax with no minimum production?

How will Al Gore's call for the US to join the world in reducing GHG by 2020 about a decade earlier than ST2 would have finished building affect your postions?

Do you support going across the I-90 even though half its useful life will be gone?

Posted by do the math | December 13, 2007 9:59 AM
6

Way to set up a straw man.

There are three ways we can fail to get 50 miles of light rail back:

* The legislature can kill Sound Transit

* ST can decide that 50 miles was too aggressive and come up with a smaller plan

* ST2 can go back to the ballot and lose.

All three of these things must not happen for your gamble to pay off - that we could get all that rail without the roads.

I hope you're right, but the fact that Sound Transit hasn't been disbanded yet is hardly validation for your argument.

Posted by MHD | December 13, 2007 10:01 AM
7

Yeah, I really hope Sound Transit pushes for a 2008 vote, although my concern isn't Sound Transit itself; it's Sound Transit's enemies in the state legislature. Will Olympia try to push through some kind of governance reform that permanently handcuffs Sound Transit to roads projects—a kind of perpetual Prop. 1—or that will simply subject light rail expansion to the classic Seattle death by process?

Sure, the state legislature "owes" Sound Transit, but that political debt could be about as meaningless as George W. Bush owing the Democrats for Rove-ifying the Iraq War, or a lion owing an antelope herd for eating one of its members.

Personal disclaimer: I'm probably going to ship out of Seattle myself, but probably not before 2009. Gotta sell my place first and let my current job run its course. A successful ST2 vote in 2008 could be enough to keep me here, but knowing what I know about Seattle transportation politics, I might as well be holding my breath for peace in the Middle East too while I'm at it.

Posted by cressona | December 13, 2007 10:13 AM
8

ST needs to go to Olympia and stand up for transit in our area.

The message should be: Dear State -- you build it, or get out of the way.

Stop hijacking transit support to build roads. That's contrary to what we already voted for when we set up ST in the late 1990s.

Stop telling ST when to go to the ballot.

Give ST authority to have a wider array of revenues -- they all would need voter approval anyway -- so really why should folks representing Walla Walla and Moses Lake tell us what local taxes to use for this regional project?

And most of all: tell Governor Gregoire she needs to personally lead this because her base, Democrats in Seattle, want transit that works.

Urgently.

As for "do the math, yes; Resolution 75 (the legal thingy that allows ST to break any promise to voters) needs to go; disclosure of all facts about ST1 and basic accountability reforms are needed; we need to consider the CO2 effects; and hell yes if that I 90 bridge is going to be replaced in 40 years we better talk about that now.

Not after we put rail on it.

Rail with a useful life of 40 years is a poor choice.

But all that (along with a better integrated system that does not leave out half or more of the taxpayers) can come after they go down to Olympia.

Posted by Cleve | December 13, 2007 10:43 AM
9

The voters will support a standalone ST2.1 vote, especially if they strip out (delay) the SeaTac-Tacoma segment that has 1/10th the number of riders per dollar spent as any other segment.

And 2008 is a good time to do that.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 13, 2007 10:45 AM
10

Let's be clear about the history here Josh. Most of us who supported Prop. 1 never said that it was "our last chance to get light rail." What we said was that it was our best chance to get the most light rail. In other words, if Prop. 1 fails, as it did, they will come back with another package--maybe in 1 year, maybe 3, maybe 5, it might still have roads attached to it, and it will almost certainly be significantly smaller and more expensive for what we get. Don't get me wrong--I hope we do get a better package as soon as possible and I hope it's approved, but until this happens, it's not at all clear that you made the right call on Prop. 1.

Posted by Scott H | December 13, 2007 10:47 AM
11

Maybe Josh's actual attendance at an ST meeting will finally give him some actual facts and understanding of this issue, but given his prior willingness to spout off uninformed and blatantly wrong points, I won't hold my breath.

This post is a perfect example. Did Josh read the op-ed by Phil Talmadge and some other schmo in the Times today? Of course he didn't. If he did, Josh would have seen two key things:

1. ST is going to be killed by the Legislature, perhaps as soon as the spring session. The political momentum to create an unelected and unaccountable transit agency for the region, one that will emphasize roads and spite light rail, is nearly unstoppable.

2. Light rail itself faces a serious uphill battle. The op-ed peddled BRT as a solution and condemned light rail as wasteful and too expensive. Nowhere was peak oil mentioned, or even the sky-high cost of gas for these buses (and biodiesel isn't exactly a green solution). Whenever I mentioned the issue of Peak Oil to ECB all I got was the blog equivalent of a blank stare.

Josh isn't ECB, but his understanding of transportation issues in the region and the actual politics surrounding them has always been dim and amateur. Instead of sending him to cover the meeting the Stranger should do the right thing, take him off the beat entirely, and replace him with someone who knows what the fuck they're talking about for a change.

Posted by eugene | December 13, 2007 10:47 AM
12
And most of all: tell Governor Gregoire she needs to personally lead this because her base, Democrats in Seattle, want transit that works.

Urgently.

Where the hell do Democrats in Seattle want to go using ST2's light rail plan? There are those who currently take the 545 bus to the eastside, but that's about it. Except for 2 stops (Roosevelt and Northgate), ST2's light rail is worthless for almost all Democrats in Seattle.

Posted by jamier | December 13, 2007 11:07 AM
13

Look, we don't give a frog's hind leg about the Regional bus service in ST.

That's just a sop to encourage workers to live in nearby suburbs (creating more pollution due to longer drive times) but instead use transit for part of the journey.

What Seattle cares about is light rail.

And the UW and Capitol Hill stops are very useful. Even the I-90 stops are useful on the other side of the lake.

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 13, 2007 12:08 PM
14

"unelected and unaccountable" ?

If you can't honestly elect people who want light rail.....or win a referendum based on full information about the pros and cons.....

then building it would be wrong.
Right?

(I mean it would be wrong to folks other than Mussolini.)

Posted by Cleve | December 13, 2007 12:28 PM
15

Eugene the op-ed calls for a directly elected board unlike the current federated board contolled by the KC exec. Remember Cynthia Sullivan getting booted off the KCC mainly on the LR issue but Ferguson didn't get the seat another ST toady got it.

Why would the rail industry that had $23 billion at least in P1 be outspent by the roads that only had about $10 billion and with a 20% overrun limit. PB will receive another contract today bringing their recent total to $16 million and they just oversee - they were the one s that said the whole 21 miles with the Cap Hill station would only `cost $2 billion.

ST2 would have added less than 40,000 transit riders and would not have prevented park and rides from the stations. And much of the possible benefits would occur after 2020 when current science says we need to act by. Let's get a good analysis of options in terms of the various objectives we wish to pursue.

Posted by do the math | December 13, 2007 12:32 PM
16

They should come back in 2008, if it opens late, they won't be around in 2010 to come back to the ballot.

Plus, if Dino Rossi gets elected, the East Link savings money is going to 520, everyone knows that.

Posted by Andrew | December 13, 2007 12:36 PM
17

Will in Seattle: The UW and Capitol Hill stations are already being built no matter what. The only Seattle light rail stations that are part of ST2 are one on Brookyln, one on Roosevelt and one in Northgate. That's 3 out of 25 new light rail stations.

I don't know what useful light rail stations on the eastside you're talking about. There would be one at Microsoft and one about a mile away from Downtown Bellevue. The others are essentially park and ride lots in the middle of nowhere.

ST2 is bad bad bad light rail. Passing the entire ST2 package would probably eliminate the possibility of urban light rail for at least the next 25 years. Do you think we'd pass a good, urban light rail package while we're spending billions of dollars building light rail to Star Lake and Fife?

Posted by jamier | December 13, 2007 12:40 PM
18


Will in Seattle: The UW and Capitol Hill stations are already being built no matter what. The only Seattle light rail stations that are part of ST2 are one on Brookyln, one on Roosevelt and one in Northgate. That's 3 out of 25 new light rail stations.

Absolute bullshit. There's one at rainer and 90, one at Jackson park, so it's 5/25. Guess what dip, shit? Seattle is about 20% of the RTA's population. Seems like a fair deal, especially when a street car gets thrown in.

There would be one at Microsoft and one about a mile away from Downtown Bellevue
ST2 called for a subway station in DT bellevue, and two more stations in the "downtown area" as well as one two in overlake. That's the center of the eastside. Look at the fucking map before talking bullshit:

soundtransit2.com



Passing the entire ST2 package would probably eliminate the possibility of urban light rail for at least the next 25 years

Who's paying for that light rail? ST2 included huge funding for the study of urban light rail to West Seattle, to Ballard through QA and Belltown, and under 45th from Ballard to the Udistrict.

That shit will never happen without first getting to the Eastside and Northgate.

Posted by Andrew | December 13, 2007 1:05 PM
19

Jamier,

ST2 had plans for stops in Downtown Bellevue and Overlake Hospital, and Microsoft, plus probably stations in South Bellevue, somewhere along Bel-Red Road, and Downtown Redmond.

Posted by MHD | December 13, 2007 1:11 PM
20

"Do you support going across the I-90 even though half its useful life will be gone?"

dothemath, the Prop. 1 campaign is over. You can stop repeating Kemper Freeman's endless string of urban myths.

We get it already: you love jam-packed freeways and buses stuck in traffic (BRT). But could you at least use some real arguments for once? Maybe use data that comes from real transportation planners, rather than some suburban right wing mall developer?

Posted by Davis | December 13, 2007 1:22 PM
21

@8 Cleve wrote: “yes; Resolution 75 (the legal thingy that allows ST to break any promise to voters) needs to go”

The ignorance on display here is stunning. You may have some kind of degree pal, but it sure ain’t in the law . . . For the record, Resolution 75 was approved by voters (in 1996, while you probably were in junior high). You got a problem with democracy? Your neighbors wanted it, and we aren't going to get rid of it because of some misinformed twit's suggestion.

The Supreme Court of Washington (heard of them, "Cleve"?) determined already that what Sound Transit did under Resolution 75 was perfectly legal and within the rights the voters approved.

What ST did is scale back the light rail line from 21 to 14 miles. That is something ST had the right to do. All voters needed to do in 1996 was read what they were voting on, and they’d have known ST had every right to scale back the light rail line.

This may be beyond your abilities, but read a case called _Sane Transit vs Sound Transit_. That should give you the clue you so clearly lack now . . ..

Posted by mass_transit_now | December 13, 2007 1:48 PM
22

Another thing, "Cleve" - go ahead, point to one thing that is a "broken promise" by ST. So it will take a little longer to build the starter line - big deal. If you look at what Resolution 75 actually says, there is no fixed date by which it needed to be completed. So much for your baseless "broken promises" claim!

Posted by mass_transit_now | December 13, 2007 1:51 PM
23

The same Supreme Court also ruled that after the people voted down the baseball stadium that the legislature was within rights to call their overturning of the vote an emergency. The Supreme Court of the US installed Bush.

Resolution 75 was not in the voters pamphlet it was only available at the library.

Getting rid of it (R.75)now is bad because of what?

And Davis I never heard Kemper make any statement about I-90 but it the fact that the useful life is 75 years. ST2 to be done in 2027 leaving 48 years of life at most. Dumb idea but if the people don't point it out who will? Cocker Fennessy, ST, the pro campaign?
What names did you call those that said there was no controls in 1996?

Posted by do the math | December 13, 2007 2:12 PM
24

Andrew: Fine. If you think people in Seattle are clamoring for light rail to Overlake Hospital or the South Bellevue Park and Ride, maybe I'm wrong. I was responding to Will's comment stating that Seattle residents want to use this light rail package. I'd like you to please state which ST2 light rail stations (except for the 3 in Seattle I mentioned, plus downtown Bellevue and Microsoft) that you think more than a handful of people in Seattle would ever use. Please note that light rail to Downtown Redmond/Redmond Town Center is not included in ST2.

Yes, I forgot the Jackson Park station (in between a huge golf course and I-5) and the I-90 Rainier station (in the center of the east and west lanes of I-90) are within the Seattle borders, but they're not close to being urban light rail stations.

We need a NEW light rail package, not the nonsensical ST2 version.

Posted by jamier | December 13, 2007 2:14 PM
25

Jamier the ST system if overlaid on NYC would have trains running to White Plains, Newark and Yonkers before covering Manhattan but that's what they think will enhance urban density.

The main problem with this whole scheme is that it is regional transit authority which refuses to concede that Seattle is part of the region. Seattle is forced to pay for the most expensive part of the system without getting the benefit of in-city transit and by building at grade in the RV the regional system is so slow even Sims opposed going south.

Posted by do the math | December 13, 2007 2:36 PM
26

"If you can't honestly elect people who want light rail.....or win a referendum based on full information about the pros and cons.....then building it would be wrong.
Right?"

Yeah, Cleve. That elected and accountable board really worked out well for you and your fellow monorail board members, didn't it? Watching the SPMA's flailing last couple months, I observed that the appointed monorail board members were a lot more grounded in reality than the elected members, who spent most of their time trying to sweep all the big elephants in the room under the carpet.

I suppose we can also thank Cleve for helping his law partner drink the monorail kool aid, and join up with freeway lobby to kill light rail http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004068032_talmadge13.html

Note, bizarro rich guy wetlands developer Mark Baerwaldt also started his anti-light rail jihad in monorail foamer land.

In fact, almost all of Kemper Freeman's pavement goons were pushing monorail at one time or another. So, Cleve's monorail project DID leave a lasting legacy, afterall.

Posted by Davis | December 13, 2007 2:43 PM
27

"The voters will support a standalone ST2.1 vote, especially if they strip out (delay) the SeaTac-Tacoma segment that has 1/10th the number of riders per dollar spent as any other segment."

I'm amazed how good Will Affleck-Asch is at lapping up and repeating false information. It's heartening to know faux progressives are so quick to adopt the disgusting tactics of the right wing.

The Sierra Club and their myopic friends at Metro Bus Rapid Transit, Inc should try using accurate methodologies when evaluating "riders per dollar."

Then again, this city thrives on bogus information when it comes to transport policy... Will in Seattle and talk radio rely on drive-by "analysis," populist disinformation, and mythology to keep their idiotic windmill-tilting campaigns going.

Turns out this is all water under the bridge, in the end. The south extension of light rail could have achieved some drastic land use changes, to bring south King County out of it's auto-centric nightmare. But, no. Our "green" friends at Metro and Sierra Club helped kill off any chance of significantly densifying the 99 corridor south of SeaTac.

My favorite naïve concept from this bunch: "Seattle deserves light rail before the subrbs are allowed to get it." Right. Too bad Seattle doesn't possess the tax base to make that happen.

Plus, those southend losers DESERVE crappy bus service and long line-ups of ghg-spitting cars. We all know their tailpipes don't have any effect on ecotopia Seattle's air quality or traffic problems.

Posted by Mickey's Big Mouth | December 13, 2007 2:46 PM
28

"The main problem with this whole scheme is that it is regional transit authority which refuses to concede that Seattle is part of the region. Seattle is forced to pay for the most expensive part of the system without getting the benefit of in-city transit"

Do the math, how's about doing the math. Seattle is 1/6ths of the region's population. When suburbanites fill up ST trains and buses to come to work & play here, everybody benefits. A region-wide transit benefits the region, and the more options people have for getting around, the more likely it is that they will get out of their cars.

The Seattle-centric suburb haters shoot themselves in the foot at every turn. Whether you like it or not, we city dwellers are interconnected with the outlying areas...and vice-versa. Where do you think all those cars and buses leaving Seattle at 6:30 am each weekday are going, do the math and jamier? To their vacation homes?

ST is a regional transit agency. Seattle lost its transit agency to King County Metro decades ago. And Metro now allocates only 20% of new service split between Seattle and Shoreline.

I hate to break it to you guys, but there is no moat around Seattle. If Bush gets his Wall Across America finished, it is possible he could help you boys build your wall, too.

It's almost impossible to fathom the ignorance on parade here. I believe it is obvious why Seattle is in the transit dark ages. We are a city opulated with people who dream out loud, and do their best to defy reality whenever they get the chance.

Posted by Davis | December 13, 2007 3:01 PM
29

Seattle liberals are the problem on this one, sadly. They think that voters in the region who don't live within the city limits will pay to build light rail in Seattle that doesn't benefit them at all. The starter line through Seattle does help the region, as would an Eastside line and the Northgate line. All of these other lines to West Seattle, Ballard, etc. give nothing to non-Seattle voters. Yet Seattle residents who want Seattle-only rail expect everyone else to pay for it.

The reality is that aside from the line to Northgate, none of the in-city routes people talk about are projected to have ridership higher than the various suburban routes that are supposedly in the middle of nowhere.

If you want a plan that taxes and implements rail regionally, you have to build to the Eastside next, and you have to build some rail in Snohomish and Pierce County for all the taxes they're paying. The alternative to that is to break up ST funding and implementation to smaller areas building to a regional plan that uses the same technology everywhere. Then Seattle can choose to tax itself to build more lines more quickly (but should still be obligated to pay for the Seattle side of an Eastside line and a line north to the border with Snohomish County first, to support the regional system.)

Then Snohomish can choose how much to tax itself to build light rail, and whether to start with a connection into Seattle or build in Everett first. East King could choose how much to tax itself to build its part of the rail network, and if it wanted could speed up construction and include a 405 line or an Issaquah spur or whatever. Pierce and South King could decide how much money to raise and whether to start at the airport or downtown Tacoma. And every area could choose whether they preferred a sales tax or MVET or something else.

But no way is the rest of the region going to support building in Seattle first, particularly when the construction timeline is in decades and not years. That's just political reality.

Our choice is a 2008 vote more or less the same as Prop 1 minus the roads, or a devolution to a more localized funding and implementation system. I suspect that we'll get both of those in succession, or just skip the 2008 vote and go straight to more localized funding after Sound Transit is killed by the Legislature.

Posted by Cascadian | December 13, 2007 3:22 PM
30

"They think that voters in the region who don't live within the city limits will pay to build light rail in Seattle that doesn't benefit them at all. "

Cascadian, while Seattle First! clowns Will in Seattle, jamier, and do the math spin their wheels trying to pretend Seattle citizens could fund even a portion of their fantasy transit ideas, we should keep in mind that their suburban counterparts are delivering the exact opposite message.

During the prop. 1 debates, I got a laugh when half of the anti's were telling us proposed rail lines were "Seattle-based" - while the other half tried to get us to believe ST2 was "too suburban-focused." Best part about this blatant contradiction...neither side of the Prop 1 opposition could back up their shallow arguments in the first place. (for obvious reasons - lrt extensions served both urban and suburban markets)

It was a good lesson on how wrong ideologues on both sides of the transportation debate can be. In kook-infested Puget Sound, anyways.

Posted by Davis | December 13, 2007 3:50 PM
31

interesting davis, polls you like have a sample size for seattle of 25% but when you want to diminish it's 17%. seattle is paying for all the rail in the city. so far the seattle part is about $5 billion to the university district. by the time we get out of seattle it will cost us $7 billion. if we were to overlay st1 and 2 on nyc it would go to yonkers and newark with like 10 total stops in manhattan.

hate to break it to you, there is a moat around seattle - look at a map

Posted by do the math | December 13, 2007 5:21 PM
32

Sorry, did I say Seattle is 1/6th of the region's population? It's more like 1/5th or 20%. I would imagine Seattle has a higher percentage of voting age adults who are registered, but we're talking about taxes here, not voters.

What was your point again, do the math? That grade-separated high capacity light rail is expensive to build, and you need the taxpayers of a greater area to help Seattle build it?

If so, we are in agreement. South King County paid into the 16 miles being built to the airport now. And the voters of the entire region essentially helped satisfy favorable bond ratings.

The moat I was talking about is political, of course. Cute joke, though. Quite impressive.

Posted by Davis | December 13, 2007 6:24 PM
33

The legislature doesn't owe them a thing, and perhaps if you sloggers ever left capitol hill you might know that.

Seattle only thinks about "me, me, me" and forgets that there are other cities/counties involved, not to mention a legislature that represents the whole state. That's a state where people drive their cars on roads and don't get all hippier-than-thou about who has the coolest pant-clip for their two-wheeler.

Posted by GLC | December 14, 2007 8:59 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).