The only reason the Libs want Light Rail is because their political base is dependent on high density, low wage slaves who they can then offer "government benefits".

The last thing Democrats want are wealthy exurbians who see no need to pay into the tax system. Therefore, they create budget busting drains on income like Light Rail to sap monies from all of King County.

sincerely,
diggum

I'll be happy to ride the bus like always when on the skids. That will mean more money for job growth and unemployment insurance when needed.

"There is no solution, because there is no problem."

-- Marcel Duchamp

That reader's letter is spot on. Like all infrastructure, of course there are rail systems that struggle financially (oddly, the best example I can think of is actually a train built with federal money earmarked for Seattle, but voted down in 68/70 that went to Atlanta), but there are no rail systems that are "social failures".

My city without rail would be impossibly crippled by auto traffic.

Here's where your assumptions color the argument.

Why a "city"?

Why not a ring of exurbs and nearby agricenters linked by private 100% clean fuel cell cars and taxis?

Why not houses heated by hydrogen, generated using solar and wind, and hydrolysis done with the Nocera (MIT) process?

(And for the record, before people start saying that the only people who like light rail are poor people who want others to pay for their transportation, I am a corporate lawyer who lives in the suburbs and has never used the light rail for commuting. In fact, I only use it when my kids want to go for a ride because the station is too far from where I live. My point is that it helps a lot of people in this city and our only question now is: where can we put more lines? When a line gets close enough to me, I'll keep my car in the garage.)

Exurbs are an incredibly poor use of scarce resources. In fact, they're a kind of apotheosis of "my rights trump everyone else's" in resource planning.

Based on what data?

dp

The money it made has not covered its deficits in over forty years. At the outset, fares covered about 70% of its operating expenses; that is now down around 30%. It now faces an annual deficit of about $68 million, and a five-year projected funding gap of about $400 million. It is over $8 billion in debt with interest payments rising, and the Commonwealth has just had to step in to cover $1.8 billion. This comes from USPIRG.org and beaconhill.com. And this is in a much more densely populated area where many citizens are habituated to riding the train. In fact, despite gas prices, more Bostonians are driving than ever, and a proposed 38% fare increase may not be enough even for the short term.

The Washington State Ferries used to be run by Black Ball, a private firm which still runs the Port Angeles-Victoria ferry. Black Ball made money back in the day and still does. But the State Ferry system can't come up with the cash to build a new boat for the Port Townsend-Keystone run. In the meantime, nearly 1,600 of its workers pull down over $100K a year (while having to borrow a boat from Pierce County to make the PT run). These aren't managers, but workers on the boats.

When government runs something, it may not be an automatic failure. But you know it will lose money.

The trolley's got great farebox recovery, there's over 50 miles of track, and it integrates well with the commuter and regular train service. It has widespread support going to popular places like the baseball stadium, the football stadium, San Diego State, downtown, and the main Tijuana border crossing. There's an extension to UC San Diego in development now.

So yes, light rail can work. If it can work here in San Diego--a more conservative, less urban, and more freewayed city--why can't Seattle get it to work?

Cute distortion of data for your purposes.

which label would you say does *not* apply to you, then? circle one:

a) angry


b) redneck


c) suburbanite


d) who doesn't ride [light rail]

p.s. pretending 'exurbanites' are different, for the purposes of this argument, than 'suburbanites' on answer c does not count.

yes on prop one!