Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Light Rail Survives GOP Attack

1

Only terrorists attack transit.

Posted by Ziggity | February 27, 2008 1:02 PM
2

Sweet, this pleases me for two reasons:

1. Light rail could be on the ballot this year.

2. Republican evil was vanquished.

Posted by Hernandez | February 27, 2008 1:14 PM
3

And what is the reason for voting against this? I don't get their rationale.

Posted by brappy | February 27, 2008 1:16 PM
4

what is the impact study about?

Posted by ouch | February 27, 2008 1:39 PM
5

Somehow I don't think the voters will be receptive to something ST cobbles together at the last minute. And that's ALL a measure in 2008 would be.

Posted by stiffy | February 27, 2008 1:44 PM
6

Yea, more votes, yea! Make this one an advisory vote - that'd be better.

Posted by Mr. Id | February 27, 2008 1:49 PM
7

Time to zero out the roads budget for Eastern Washington.

Payback's a bitch.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 27, 2008 2:03 PM
8

I used to babysit for Cheryl Pflug, her kids were really annoying.

Posted by D | February 27, 2008 2:14 PM
9

ST should go to the ballot this year.
Olympia should not restrict ST's ability to choose when it goes to the ballot.

Posted by Cleve | February 27, 2008 2:59 PM
10

Exactly, ST will fly thru in 2008, as the Blue Tidal Wave lifts America free from the scum.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 27, 2008 3:42 PM
11

"what is the impact study about?"

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2007-08/Pdf/Amendments/Senate/2878-S.E%20AMS%20TRAN%20S5725.2.pdf (see page 48).

$550,000 is to be spent on studying the "impacts" of light rail on the I-90 floating bridge.

For years, the legislature has sent the message that it doesn't like the idea of light rail replacing cars in the center lanes of the I-90 floating bridge. I'm only guessing, but given the numerous studies already done on the subject, the authors of this study will hope to identify some kind of fatal flaw in the pending conversion from pavement to rails.

More background: I found a compendium showing there is a 30 year history studying light rail across Lake Washington www.soundtransit.org/documents/pdf/projects/seis/Past-PresentI-90ECorridorHCTAltStudies.pdf A ton of work on technical issues has been completed in recent years. So, one can only imagine the purpose of "yet one more study" is being driven by people who didn't get the results they wanted in previous studies. Too bad we couldn't build a bridge out of all that paper!

So, the opponents of rail (governance "reform" proponents, the entire eastside legislative delegation, Mercer Island SOV drivers who love their half-empty HOV lanes) STILL believe the center lanes of the I-90 floating bridge - built to accommodate light rail - should remain the sole domain of the automobile. Microsoft and the eastside business community have also apparently switched their tune, and are looking for a way to reverse 30 years of planning.

An all-bus I-90 concept might work if Seattle builds another transit tunnel to absorb all the new buses needed to fulfill future transit demand between Seattle, Bellevue and Overlake. Also, Bellevue would have to build their own transit tunnel or a series of massive, elevated bus ramps through downtown (they are not going to give up already clogged general purpose lanes for bus-only lanes).

Posted by Gerard | February 27, 2008 4:57 PM
12

I'm kinda encouraged to see that ST's ability to go back to the ballot this year warranted such a legislative gambit by the state's Republican road warriors. Maybe that actually means there's a real chance we'll see an ST2 this year.

Posted by cressona | February 27, 2008 5:06 PM
13

Well I for one remember when the Republican Party stood for local control of local decision-making. Another Republican value gone by the wayside.

Stiffy @5, whatever ST puts on the ballot this year will not be "cobbled together", not by a longshot. ST has all the work they put into ST2 last year, and only has to update that and tweak it to a slightly smaller scale.

And as far as I-90 goes, agree with Gerard @11, the issue's been Studied To Death. It's indisputable that the bridge was designed nearly 30 years ago to be adaptable to rail transit. Nothing they come up with now is going to change history, or the current reality that the bridge is still Ready for Rail.

Posted by Perfect Voter | February 27, 2008 5:57 PM
14

I don't know, couldn't we study and vote on it five times, kill it, and then start over from scratch?

(frickin morons, put it on the 2008 ballot and stop whining ...)

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 27, 2008 5:59 PM
15

If this goes down in flames in November (as I expect it will), can we not have more tax increase proposals for Sound Transit for a few years?

Posted by Fritz | February 27, 2008 6:50 PM
16

They're voting like Dave Reichert does in Congress.

Posted by Daniel K | February 27, 2008 7:14 PM
17
Posted by Gerard | February 27, 2008 7:28 PM
18

cleve - why do you think ST would put forth a great ballot measure? There are a bunch of new board members, like C. Thomas, D. Dawson, A. Reardon, McIver, that new DOT head, etc. What makes you so sure those unknown quantities have their stuff together? After all, you drove the monorail program into the ground.

WTF do you know cleve?

Posted by Gerard | February 27, 2008 8:56 PM
19

To those worrying about Sound Transit's ballot measure:

Why do you think the board puts together the measure? The board gets recommendations from professionals - sure, they make political decisions about which projects are most likely to pass, but they have nothing to do with what's proposed.

Posted by Ben Schiendelman | February 28, 2008 8:10 AM
20

Just to add a bit more:

Anything ST sends to ballot this year comes from a list of projects that's been studied and shown to the public for years. All those surveys and public open houses about projects? These projects are the ones you've seen for years. Nothing's "cobbled together" or remotely new - everyone's known what needs to be built for a long time.

It's crazy, to me, that people think that infrastructure projects are political. It's not like we're moving downtown Seattle or Bellevue - we need to connect them. We know how to do it. It's time to be responsible and pay for it.

Posted by Ben Schiendelman | February 28, 2008 8:13 AM
21

I'm absolutely in favor of connecting Seattle and Bellevue with light rail, if the paid ridership is there to fund the project. This sounds like a great business opportunity.

I'm not in favor, though, of forcing people who aren't going to use the service to subsidize those who want it.

Posted by Fritz | February 28, 2008 8:40 AM
22

"ST has all the work they put into ST2 last year, and only has to update that and tweak it to a slightly smaller scale."

A "slightly smaller scale" - you mean like $140,000,000,000 in the most regressive kind of general taxes possible, as opposed to $160,000,000,000 in the most regressive kind of general taxes possible?

Posted by stiffy | February 28, 2008 9:19 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).