Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« As the Palin World Turns (Or: ... | RUN RON RUN! (Part 2) »

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Sound Transit Explains It All for You

posted by on September 10 at 11:59 AM

Last night, Friends of Seattle, a group that promotes urbanism and good environmental policy, hosted a Q&A with Sound Transit staffers, including chief spokesman Ric Ilgenfritz, at McLeod Residence in Belltown. The questions were generally thoughtful, unique, and even surprising—a pleasant change from what you usually hear at these events, which is more along the lines of “Is it going to go by my house?” and “How much will it cost me personally?” (Answers: Probably not, but it benefits the whole city; and about $69 a year.)

Here are a few things you might not know about Sound Transit, in Ilgenfritz’s words. (Sound Transit haters, take note: This is all from Sound Transit’s perspective. If you disagree, feel free to let me know in the comments.)

On ridership, and whether Sound Transit will pay for itself: “By 2030, we expect 360,000 daily riders with a capacity of more than one million. … No transit system anywhere fully funds its operations [with fare revenue].. We’re expecting to recover 45 to 50 percent [of costs] from fares, which is on the high end of the industry standard. … The system will reach a point where the benefits to the economy begin to exceed the costs in around 2034, which is about ten years after operation begins. So it’ll pay for itself.”

On Sound Transit’s claim, in campaign literature, that it will “deliver an immediate 17% increase in express bus service”: “Seventeen percent additional service means another 100,000 hours [of bus service] to the highest-demand routes. That means 30 percent more service on the I-5 corridor between UW and Snohomish County and UW [and on I-405]… and more service on the 520 and I90 corridors. … Seventeen percent is the average across the system but it’s targeted toward the highest needs.”

On the agency’s failure to deliver light rail from Sea-Tac Airport to the University of Washington by 2006, as promised: “We screwed it up coming out of the gate and we have to wear our legacy there. We overpromised and we were too ambitious. … I can’t guarantee you it’s going to work the way I’m telling you, but I think it’s going to work… Time will tell.”

On how many people will really switch to transit because of Sound Transit expansion: “Right now, 38 percent of the trips in and out of Seattle are on transit. This will take it above 50 percent. For Bellevue, it will triple transit [use] from 5 to 15 percent. [After that], any future corridors would have to be funded with the sales tax authority we’re using to fund Sound Transit 2 [this fall’s ballot measure], because that’s the only taxing authority we have.”

On whether stations might be added in the long, surface-level stretch of rail between Othello and Edmunds Streets in south Seattle: “Probably not. … It’s technically feasible, but expensive. Right now we are not considering adding more stations [but] if the stars align, it’s conceivable.”

On what happens if this year’s ballot measure fails and the legislature comes back with a “governance reform” package that would effectively kill Sound Transit: “People who don’t like the plan think they can solve it with process. There are no doubt people out there for whom a Sound Transit defeat means open season. But we’ve gone to battle with those people before.”

RSS icon Comments

1

Now if only there was a solution to our transit problem, like, now and not 20 years from now...

Posted by Bus Bitch | September 10, 2008 1:30 PM
2

Now if only there was a solution to our transit problem, like, now and not 20 years from now...

It's exactly that kind of thinking that's gotten us into this mess in the first place.

And anyway, there's a ton of immediate additional bus service that comes along with Prop. 1.

Posted by Martin H. Duke | September 10, 2008 1:46 PM
3

I saw the map of their plan, and it looks like it's mostly designed to serve long-distance commuters in the exurban sprawl. Do we want to subsidize long-distance commuting and sprawl? I think not. I'd rather see a plan that helps us get around town than around the sound.

Posted by Brendan | September 10, 2008 2:09 PM
4

@3 The sprawl is already there whether you like it or not, and judging by all the new construction I'm still seeing in the exurbs, it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. The question you should be asking is, "Do I want those long-distance commuters driving single-occupancy vehicles to work every day, or do I want them utilizing transit options?" Personally, I'd rather get those cars off the road.

Posted by Hernandez | September 10, 2008 2:25 PM
5

#1 and #3, you have come to this discussion about 38 years too late. Please educate yourselves before we continue.

Posted by Greg | September 10, 2008 2:34 PM
6

@3: They call it "Regional Transit" because it connects major population and business centers in this region--it's not a local system designed to get people from Ballard to the U District.

Posted by J.R. | September 10, 2008 3:51 PM
7

Brendan @3: I saw the map of their plan, and it looks like it's mostly designed to serve long-distance commuters in the exurban sprawl. Do we want to subsidize long-distance commuting and sprawl? I think not.

Brendan, sounds like your understanding of urban planning is comparable to Sarah Palin's understanding of foreign policy.

My "elitist" argument aside, though, where are these exurbs of which you speak? Downtown Bellevue, the Microsoft campus, Northgate, Federal Way? Maybe if we just stop light rail expansion, we can stop thousands of people from commuting to work in Redmond? Oh, never mind. I think that would require a time machine.

Y'know, the same Brendans types who are griping now that Sound Transit is too regional were probably griping earlier this decade that the Seattle monorail wasn't regional enough.

Posted by cressona | September 10, 2008 4:49 PM
8

They finally layed it all out for us. GOOD!

Posted by AJ | September 10, 2008 7:11 PM
9

@7,

Stop the presses - I agree with Cressona 100%. Suburban cities aren't the exurbs.

While I'd like better local mass transit, that was never Sound Transit's mission (and, I would argue, where ST went wrong was when they decided to turn light rail into a project that was more oriented toward encouraging development in Seattle than meeting regional transit demand, but I digress).

Now if ST were going to Arlington, Monroe, North Bend, Black Diamond, Maple Valley, et al, that'd be different. That said, if you want people from the aforementioned areas to use rail once it gets to their nearest suburban city - you're gonna need park-and-ride facilities or they'll just drive all the way to their destination (and I suspect Cressona and I will part ways here!).

Posted by Mr. X | September 10, 2008 9:26 PM
10

"No transit system anywhere fully funds its operations"

That is not true. Transit systems in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong turn a profit. They have much more transit-oriented development than the US will ever have, of course.

Posted by Christopher | September 10, 2008 9:31 PM
11

Strange.

I was there, behind ECB, and this doesn't represent the gist of the questions.

But, hey, reality is all about cynicism in a McCain/Bush/Palin kind of world, right?

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 10, 2008 11:29 PM
12

@5. Too bad you'll be dead before light rail even scratches the ass neck of the transit problem in this city.

Posted by Bus Bitch | September 11, 2008 8:20 AM
13

@12. We need to start being a little less selfish and more forward thinking. It's not JUST about us but about the future of the Seattle region.

Posted by jKc | September 11, 2008 10:29 AM
14

AMEN @13!!

Stop being selfish and think about the future...

Posted by Kelsey | September 11, 2008 10:52 AM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.