(Taken at Broadway and John on Capitol Hill by Dominic Holden of The Stranger)
Everytime I hear somebody say “instead of rail, let’s add more buses,” this is the image that pops into my mind: a line of buses snarled after a bus breaks down in an intersection.
This is an Open Thread.
EVERYBODY LOVES TRAINS. But, a great reason to vote no on RTID/ST2 has to do with how it relies WAAAAY too much on sales taxes.
ST and RTID could have put revenue options for their measures up on the ballot that would have hit employers. But they target the poorest in our community with more sales taxes instead. Sick bastards. Vote no, and force them to put a measure for more trains on the ballot that doesn’t rely on more sales taxes.
Look beyond your selfish, childish desires for a new shiny train set for just a minute, and think of how much better those trains will look if the rich and the capitalist pigs were paying for them.
I have a question for light rail proponents. It’s not meant in a crappy way. If the Puget Sound got light rail (I actually like the idea but don’t think we’ve gone far enough) like supporters want, how do you think people will get around downtown Seattle?
In my mind you are going to have to add bus service inside the city anyway. There will, theoretically, be more people leaving their cars at home but still needing a way to get from a train drop point to a work site.
You will get rid of some of the long range buses (certainly not all by any means) but you will need more short haul buses “in city.” Either way, bus only, or Light Rail, I see more buses being added to the mix in downtown Seattle.
CONTENT REMOVED DUE TO BEING OFF-TOPIC
— Goldy
@2
There are already plenty of buses for getting around the city. And with light rail replacing some bus routes, you’ll be able to fill some gaps where bus service currently isn’t there. I gave up driving 4 years ago and have no problems getting to where I need to go on the bus (and scenes like the one above have maybe affected me once every six months).
@3 – Wow. Nice Troll. Good troll. Maybe that should be tool?
@4
Light rail as it stands replaces very few bus routes and won’t for a long time. Even its best estimate it will replace very few bus routes in total. I used to drive a moving van in city and the scene above???? Common place. 6 years of regularly driving in the downtown area and lines of buses blocking traffic were common place. Especially during commute times. I’m a “rail transit” supporter, I just choose to look at the plusses and the minusses.
Here’s a solution that works in other cities around the world: Subways.
DUDE @ 5
THIS IS AN OPEN THREAD.
@6
Right on Lucy. Seriously. I don’t know how viable that is in Seattle due to soil types, existing infrastructure, earthquakes etc. When I was in DC I loved their Metro system. Park and Ride –> Metro –> DC. I swear you could get off and be within a mile of anything you were trying to get to.
YOS @7
OOPS!
You’re right. This is an open thread, and I deleted the content of your comment. My bad.
Send it to me via email and I’ll repost, or repost it yourself. Sorry.
“(T)hink of how much better those trains will look if the rich and the capitalist pigs were paying for them.”
Right on. Start with real-estate Robber Baron Goldstein.
@5
Light rail as it stands replaces very few bus routes and won’t for a long time.
Um, no. It replaces a number of north south routes, like the 194 and the 174, which are the buses that take you from downtown to the airport today. When it’s extended down to places like Federal Way and Lynnwood and Redmond, it will replace a whole slew of other buses as well. It will also cut down on bus crowdedness in certain areas as well because the availability of light rail nearby will allow for more people to use park and rides.
I used to drive a moving van in city and the scene above???? Common place. 6 years of regularly driving in the downtown area and lines of buses blocking traffic were common place.
I was referring to buses having mechanical problems. Traffic happens. We all know that. And buses do block traffic, but they block less traffic than the 60 people on that bus all being in their cars in the same spot would.
I’m a “rail transit” supporter, I just choose to look at the plusses and the minusses.
What are the minusses? Your example that people wouldn’t be able to get around downtown Seattle doesn’t pass the laugh test.
GOLDY – NO PROBLEM. THANKS.
@11
All valid. Everybody has a different viewpoint. Minusses?
Current ST track record for delivery.
Current ST track record for cost.
Current ST track record for property aquisition.
Current ST track record for coverage to be delivered compared to promissed coverage.
etc. etc. etc.
I agree that it will take some bus routes off the map. I agree that is a good thing. I also understand they will have to add routes. For me getting people out of their cars an onto Mass Transit is paramount. But I am not about to give ST and the State a free pass to screw us like they already have.
There are many different aspects of how ST, and the State, are going about light rail that are ludicrous. Read up and you’ll agree. Mass Transit good. ST bad. Mass transit is something that most Seattle and outlying area citizens agree we need. Sound Transit is a political talking point and folly that is being shoved down our throats as the only alternative to no Mass Transit.
Well, a mere 42,642 people were killed in car wrecks in 2006. I sure am glad stopping terrorism is out #1 priority right now.
http://www.mercextra.com/blogs.....gh-number/
@13
Interesting. You started out in comment #2 with just general criticisms of light rail, but in reality, you just don’t trust the Sound Transit agency to deliver. That’s fine, I can understand that, but right now, Sound Transit is the only thing we have. I’m aware of no private company out there who can or will build what we need. I think the solution is to ensure transparency in how ST approaches this project and to call them out when they don’t deliver. To me, that’s how government oversight works. Organizations, both private and public, fail sometimes. But they’re less likely to fail when they feel accountable to us.
All I can say is that every time I drive down to the airport, I see more of the light rail system in. Stuff is getting done, and it looks great. I hope they take it up all the way to Everett, so I can commute to the UW via rail and leave my car for trips to the market and weekend drives.
@15
Yes I distrust ST. It is the only game in town and that is the way our govt. wants it. It’s a “special interest” now.
Criticisms?-
It takes/replaces how many buses at what cost?
-Is that really even an argument? We could buy how many buses to add to the routes that perspective rail lines would run? And we could do it sooner, cheaper. And if Mass Transit is really going to attract riders in those areas then buses will presumabely take those cars off the road anyway so the “additional buses” theoretically are offset traffic wise by the reduction in cars.
It is how scalable?
-0. Absolutely no scalability.
It takes how many cars off the road?
-i.e. how many more drivers are going to leave their cars that haven’t already to ride a bus?
It displaces how many businesses and homes at what cost to not only tax payers but business owners?
Again; I love the idea of Mass Transit. And I realize that I have a pretty negative outlook on ST. But it cannot deliver what we’ve been sold. Current ridership on ST completed projects is way off their original marks. The Sounder? They say high ridership but not compared to original estimates which are, of course, how they computed perspective revenue when they sold it to us. Same w/ Tacoma rail whose relatively acceptable ridership numbers were boosted by months of free service.
@my own 17.
Ok ok. My first criticism could be offset by the fact that until it hits downtown those buses (or cars) are completely off the arterials.
8 Well, lessee….there’s already the Metro Tunnel, and under that there’s a tunnel carrying the BNSF main line that’s been there for something like 100 years, through…how many earthquakes?
It’s true that in Seattle, bedrock is about 400 feet down, but maybe that means that digging tunnels is actually a whole lot easier and cheaper because you’re going through soft stuff, and that it’s more of a pain in the butt to build elevated freeways (can you say “viaduct”? I KNEW you could!) because you have to sink the footings halfway to Australia.
Now, the one caveat with tunnels is that it seems like tempting fate to have a big one through soft mud with only a concrete bulkhead separating it from Elliott Bay…but maybe that’s just my impression because I’m a lousy swimmer.
@19 – =8-)
19
Heh.
I feel perfectly safe going through the downtown bus tunnel, or through the BNSF tunnel for that matter. I have to wonder if here in earthquake country the perception of earthquake peril might not be as bad as the actual threat. I suspect, though, that any potential subway system could be designed so that it would ride with the shock wave rather than be destroyed by it. I’m not a civil engineer, so I don’t know what the mechanism would be.
I guess there’s always the possibility of a cataclysmic drop/rise along the fault line, like the famous pictures along the San Andreas fault from the 1906 earthquake that show fence lines displaced 20 feet or more. But I would think that such an occurrence would be extremely rare, and if it did happened the fate of a subway line would be the least of our worries. Heck, we might as well worry about an earthquake taking out the 520 bridge.
Excuse me while I go hide in a dark corner now.
@17
Yes I distrust ST. It is the only game in town and that is the way our govt. wants it. It’s a “special interest” now.
Something that’s a public interest is by default a special interest. That doesn’t make it bad or wasteful. Everything in the world that ever gets accomplished, good or bad, results from a “special interest”. Some “special interests” run counter to greater public interest. Some “special interests” are in line with greater public interest.
Criticisms?-
It takes/replaces how many buses at what cost?
-Is that really even an argument? We could buy how many buses to add to the routes that perspective rail lines would run? And we could do it sooner, cheaper. And if Mass Transit is really going to attract riders in those areas then buses will presumabely take those cars off the road anyway so the “additional buses” theoretically are offset traffic wise by the reduction in cars.
The gain is in speed. Buses have to use the roads and therefore take longer to get from point A to point B. The reason you build rail is to significantly cut down commute times. The Sounder, for instance, goes from Kent Station to downtown Seattle in 23 minutes. The corresponding bus takes between 60 and 80 minutes, depending on traffic.
It is how scalable?
-0. Absolutely no scalability.
I’m not sure you understand what the word scalability means. It’s very difficult to build a rail system that’s not scalable.
It takes how many cars off the road?
-i.e. how many more drivers are going to leave their cars that haven’t already to ride a bus?
I’d imagine this number will be much higher than the estimates I’ve seen. This has been true in most of the cities that have built transit.
It displaces how many businesses and homes at what cost to not only tax payers but business owners?
This is true for every urban highway built in the United States. Infrastructure is necessary. Believe me, I’m as bothered by the Kelo Supreme Court decision as anyone, but roads and transit are not part of that.
Again; I love the idea of Mass Transit. And I realize that I have a pretty negative outlook on ST. But it cannot deliver what we’ve been sold. Current ridership on ST completed projects is way off their original marks. The Sounder? They say high ridership but not compared to original estimates which are, of course, how they computed perspective revenue when they sold it to us. Same w/ Tacoma rail whose relatively acceptable ridership numbers were boosted by months of free service.
I’ll have to look more into these numbers. I’ve heard the opposite from some folks I know in the south end. I’m moving to Kent in a few months and will be riding both bus and transit to commute into my job in Belltown. The thought of actually driving a car is ridiculous (I don’t own one – but will be buying one after I move). I’m obviously not the only person in this city making decisions about where to buy a home based upon transit considerations.
@21
-scalability: Easy to add a car or even an entire train but not rail
-cars off the roads: I’d like to see your numbers on that. Really. I’ve heard different but haven’t seen data on it. specifically though I was thinking of people who would move out of cars that haven’t already to take a bus. And moving from bus to train doesn’t/shouldn’t count in the equation.
-there is a “Sound Transit Scorecard” out there on the net that is a couple years old but details pretty well promises vs. actuals.
23 should be @22 :)
ArtFart @ 19:
It’s true that in Seattle, bedrock is about 400 feet down, but maybe that means that digging tunnels is actually a whole lot easier and cheaper because you’re going through soft stuff, and that it’s more of a pain in the butt to build elevated freeways (can you say “viaduct”? I KNEW you could!) because you have to sink the footings halfway to Australia.
I’ll disabuse you of this notion now.
Soft-earth tunneling is a bitch. You have to take out lots of dirt, create a concrete tunnel in place (generally using “linked” tubes of concrete to create a cylindrical tunnel).
Oh yeah, added difficulty: millions of dollars of houses and businesses sit on top of your tunnel. Disturbing the earth in such a way that the foundations would settle is frowned upon.
Bedrock is much easier.
@23
I guess I’m still not sure what you mean by scalability. For instance, the Sounder only runs 4 times a day in each direction, but could run 20 times a day in each direction if you needed it. There’s also system scalability, where new lines could be added. I don’t see why there couldn’t be direct lines from, say…Federal Way to Redmond, added onto the original system. That’s what scalability means to me.
There’s more to measuring the effect of transit than just seeing how many people abandon their cars (and I do know people who have, but did not take the bus before, especially in the Kent/Auburn area). There are also people who make decisions upon where to live or work based upon their ability to easily commute. You can look at a city like New York to see how this happens on a large scale. People’s moving patterns have long reflected the transit options available in that metropolis. As Seattle expands, hits its geographic limits and continues to become more densely populated, having rail will be paying dividends that don’t seem obvious today. People will have greater options in where they can live and work. Married couples can hold jobs in more disparate parts of the metropolis and both have fairly easy commutes. The reality is that there’s no city anywhere where people regret having built their transit system. There’s a reason for that.
So, lets see if I’ve got this right. We can spend around $177 million per day on the war in Iraq which has nothing to do with the safety of Americans, but we can’t find the cash to build rail lines and fix highways when around 42,000 of us get killed in car wrecks every year.
Did I get that right?
26 Agreed…if you’re looking for a prediction of how many people who presently drive would choose to take mass transit if more, or different (i. e. rail vs. buses) were available, you’re probably asking the wrong question. The real goal is to slow or prevent the increase of single-car commuters in the future. Time and again experience has shown that when a new freeway is built (or an existing one expanded) in a metropolitan area, traffic increases to fill it to capacity in a few years. This is a no-win proposition for a major city–where the hell are you going to find the space to park all those additional cars?
Rail transit is eminently scalable–you run trains more frequently or add more cars to each–but it’s not as adaptable in terms of changing routes. If it’s the preferred way to commute (think $10/gal gas) then development will concentrate along the rights-of-way, instead of transporation following development. That may not be a bad thing at all.
@26
Ahh. No numbers.
-scalability. how much easier and cheaper is it to add a new bus route then to add a new rail line, or even another set of cars and engines?
Again I’m not arguing that rail isn’t a good option. But it is not the only option. And said option has some drawbacks. Like any option would. But Sounder is just a single reason I distrust ST:
Sounder was to be in full operation starting in 2002, with 15 daily trains. Nine were to serve the Seattle/Tacoma route, some continuing on to Lakewood, with six daily trains running between Seattle and Everett.
In 2000/2001, Sound Transit ordered 11 locomotives and 75 coaches for its Sounderlines. It would have needed that equipment if its performance were satisfactory. But the discrepancy was so great between the plans and pace of its project implementation, and the contrast was so vast between the ridership it projected and actual demand, that the surplus equipment sat unused until the agency finally sold or leased four superfluous locomotives and 47 excessive coaches. One can travel to Virginia and California and see Sound Transit’s surplus trains that are now in operation by other agencies.At the outset of 2005, only four trains were in operation, three running between Seattle and Tacoma, none serving Lakewood, and one in the Seattle/Everett corridor.
Sounder commuter rail was to cost $650 million ($539 million in 1995 dollars).Sound Transit’s current projected cost is $1.23 billion, an 89 percent cost overrun, so far. Applying the Federal Transit Administration’s accounting methodology, the annualized capital cost of Sounder is $96 million. In 2004, the capital cost per boarding was $100.
The operating expense for Sounder was to total $1.9 million per train in 2004 –$28,555,000 for 15 trains.In 2004, Sounder’s operating expense totaled $18.55 million for four trains, $4.64million per train. That’s nearly 2.5 times the promised figure. The 2004 operating cost per boarding on Sounder was $19.40. The dailycost for a two-way commuter was $38.80 – more than $10,000 for one year’s service. The annualized capital cost per trip is $100, for total one-way trip cost of $119.40 in 2004. Total annual cost for each daily commuter – $62,000.
Year by year, Sounder’s ridership has been well below projections. In its first full year of service, 2001, Sounder commuter rail attracted 58 percent of its projected ridership (promised – 969,000, actual – 563,000). In 2002, ridership was only 37 percent (1,798,000 vs. 672,000). In 2003 it was 27 percent (2,806,000 vs. 751,000). Sounder was projected to attract 2,984,000 boardings in 2004. It actually served 955,000, 32 percent as many. In 2004, Sound Transit lowered its target from the promised 2,984,000 to 900,000,a reduction of 70 percent. Then it beat its finagled target by 6 percent. Another triumph – as presented by Sound Transit.
-Joy
Or maybe something a little more current:
Van Dyk
@29
-scalability. how much easier and cheaper is it to add a new bus route then to add a new rail line, or even another set of cars and engines?
That has nothing to do with scalability when you’re talking about rail. The reason you build rail is because it’s faster and more efficient.
What you don’t seem to comprehend about this entire situation is that you can come up with great criticisms about Sound Transit all day. I don’t doubt that every word in your comment is true. What I’m saying to you is that we don’t have another option. Not building a region-wide light rail system as Seattle keeps expanding is a deathwish. What we’re faced with is forcing Sound Transit to deliver on this. You and I both have concerns, but unless someone can provide an alternative avenue to having a rail transit system than relying on Sound Transit to deliver, they’re our only hope at this point.
You can believe that Sound Transit has been incompetent with its past projects, but we’re still better off with the Sounder and their long-range buses than without them. The key to moving forward is not to do nothing, it’s to demand that Sound Transit do a better job. But instead, you started this thread by arguing against the idea of having rail, rather than by attacking the performance of the agency we expect to deliver it.
Actually I didn’t start by attacking it at all.
-snip
I have a question for light rail proponents. It’s not meant in a crappy way. If the Puget Sound got light rail (I actually like the idea but don’t think we’ve gone far enough) like supporters want, how do you think people will get around downtown Seattle?
-end snip
I started it with a legitimate question.
And morphed it into “Do you really think ST is going to do/be the answer?” by pointing out its shortcomings and poor past performance.
It’s people that say “we’re faced with forcing Sound Transit to deliver…” that need to be thinking. The citizens have already lost a court case that tried to do exactly that. Force ST to stick to their estimate. But the ST lawyer said basically, we don’t have to. Regardless of what you voted for in money we are tasked with delivering this, and although our “estimate” was off we still have to finish and we’ll spend what it takes…..
I WANT light rail. I WANT an alternative. What I have been saying (and you can read it above) is that I have questions on whether we are going about it in the right way with ST. And I have backed that up. You on the other hand have said over and over “we have to have light rail” and not backed that up in any way. No before and after #’s from Portland or Vancouver or even LA. Or an explanation on why traffic in New York or DC is brutal even though they have some of THE most accessible transit systems in the country, if not THE. hmmmmm.
We have to think and do the things that make sense for our area, demographic, topography, etc. Am I the person to say what those things are? Certainly not. Can I point out that our current ridership portends that we won’t have an adoption rate that might make a difference? That remains to be seen but the numbers aren’t good so far are they?
“Regardless of what you voted for in money we are tasked with delivering this, and although our “estimate” was off we still have to finish and we’ll spend what it takes…..”
The court held ST’s board was justified in reducing the length of the light rail line to stay within the voter approved budget. That was in the Sane Transit case opinion.
No court has ever said ST could exceed the voter approved budget. No court has ever said ST could spend “what it takes.”
You are completely, utterly full of crap.
@32
Sorry, that’s not true. You didn’t mention ST until your 4th comment. You did not start this thread from that perspective, and it’s very easy to go back up to the top of the comments and see that.
It’s people that say “we’re faced with forcing Sound Transit to deliver…” that need to be thinking. The citizens have already lost a court case that tried to do exactly that. Force ST to stick to their estimate. But the ST lawyer said basically, we don’t have to. Regardless of what you voted for in money we are tasked with delivering this, and although our “estimate” was off we still have to finish and we’ll spend what it takes…..
This is exactly why nothing gets done around here. Pull the dictionary off the shelf and look up what the word “estimate” means. When you build something as elaborate as a transit system, it’s very difficult to accurately guess how much it will cost. But the solution isn’t to just stop building the second you overrun the estimate, you have to finish and do the types of post-mortem analyses that ensure that you can cut down costs in the future. That’s how things work in the private sector for a reason. Private companies don’t just drop important tasks because they turn out to be more expensive than the original estimates. They finish them, then use the knowledge gained for next time. Sound Transit is very new agency. It’s silly to expect them to be so perfect right off the bat.
I WANT light rail. I WANT an alternative. What I have been saying (and you can read it above) is that I have questions on whether we are going about it in the right way with ST. And I have backed that up. You on the other hand have said over and over “we have to have light rail” and not backed that up in any way. No before and after #’s from Portland or Vancouver or even LA. Or an explanation on why traffic in New York or DC is brutal even though they have some of THE most accessible transit systems in the country, if not THE. hmmmmm.
Are you actually going to argue that the traffic in New York or DC would be better if they didn’t have their transit systems? You can’t possibly be trying to argue that.
We have to think and do the things that make sense for our area, demographic, topography, etc. Am I the person to say what those things are? Certainly not. Can I point out that our current ridership portends that we won’t have an adoption rate that might make a difference? That remains to be seen but the numbers aren’t good so far are they?
Just because the ridership hasn’t met expectations does not mean that it’s not making a difference. That’s a completely illogical statement. When transit systems are introduced, their ridership numbers are based upon a number of factors, but what generally happens is that there’s a balance that allows for a certain tolerance of traffic among the drivers. The reason that there’s still traffic in places like DC or New York is because human beings, on average, prefer to drive themselves and are willing to put up with certain level of traffic in order to commute alone. However, DC and New York would not be able to function at all without their transit alternatives. And Seattle is quickly approaching the point where we won’t be able to function without that alternative either. The point here is that we’re not faced with a decision of rail or no rail. We’re faced with a decision of how do we do it.
You’re subscribing to the failed notion that car commuters have nothing to gain from these rail systems. That’s incorrect. What it does is lower the number of other cars on the roads over time as the city expands. There’s no such thing as a rail system that negatively impacts the single-occupancy commuter.
“When you build something as elaborate as a transit system, it’s very difficult to accurately guess how much it will cost.”
. . . . which is why Sound Move has spending limits in it. ST only can spend certain amounts building the system – that is why it had to scale back the light rail line in 2001. The voters approved those limits, and they haven’t changed since 1996.
“But the solution isn’t to just stop building the second you overrun the estimate,”
Sound Transit has spent what it can under the Sound Move spending limits. That is why it is asking for additional spending authority from the voters in November to complete all of the elements of Phase I described in Sound Move.
Were you here when ST and the Sounder passed? How it didn’t pass and then miraculously they found they could do it cheaper and it passed and now it turns out they couldn’t….phew.
And with my New York/DC statement I was trying to get you to say just what you said. –The reason that there’s still traffic in places like DC or New York is because human beings, on average, prefer to drive themselves and are willing to put up with certain level of traffic in order to commute alone.–
Estimates???
Say you contract somebody to build a house for you. You give them the plans (no you have them give you the plans) and they say “Lee, these are our plans so we know what we are talking about. It’s going to cost you $400,000 to have this built. It will be 2,500sqf and be on 1 acre. We’ll finish in one year.” 4yrs later they hand off a 2 bedroom 1,000sqf house on .15 of an acre but charge you $1.2 million. What is your reaction. Better yet; in the middle of the process you see this spiraling out of control, what do you do?
I’ll wait to see your response but I think we are at an impass. I want Light Rail, just accountability and with visible (even semi – positive) metrics. I’m not sure what you want. Light Rail at any cost by what I’m reading. I want a viable business case with a concrete risk analysis and a business model (cost accountability, bonuses for early delivery, penalties for late, etc). I think what you have said is that; regardless to cost overruns and cost to voters you want to see light rail implemented because even though the numbers are only approx. 3%-5% of people use Mass Transit in our area regularly the massive expenditure in rail is the best venue for our money. I think that number is on the DOT site and if I remember the article I read it in it hasn’t changed significantly with the addition of Sounder, ST, or the Express bus service.
Light rail yes. ST as the source no.
@35
That’s a good clarification, thanks. I wanted to make the point that we sometimes impose restrictions on our public services that wouldn’t exist in the private sector (and then in the next minute, stamp our feet about why the public sector can’t deliver in the way the private sector can).
@36
And with my New York/DC statement I was trying to get you to say just what you said. –The reason that there’s still traffic in places like DC or New York is because human beings, on average, prefer to drive themselves and are willing to put up with certain level of traffic in order to commute alone.–
Exactly, and my point is that DC or New York would still be in a world of hurt without their transit systems. You still don’t have a point here.
Say you contract somebody to build a house for you. You give them the plans (no you have them give you the plans) and they say “Lee, these are our plans so we know what we are talking about. It’s going to cost you $400,000 to have this built. It will be 2,500sqf and be on 1 acre. We’ll finish in one year.” 4yrs later they hand off a 2 bedroom 1,000sqf house on .15 of an acre but charge you $1.2 million. What is your reaction. Better yet; in the middle of the process you see this spiraling out of control, what do you do?
You fire the builder and hire a new one. Then maybe you sue the original builder for the money you’ve lost. The problem is that, with Sound Transit, there’s no alternative agency who can come in and build a transit system other than them right now. If there was, I’d say, “Let’s look at who can deliver for us”.
I’ll wait to see your response but I think we are at an impass. I want Light Rail, just accountability and with visible (even semi – positive) metrics. I’m not sure what you want. Light Rail at any cost by what I’m reading. I want a viable business case with a concrete risk analysis and a business model (cost accountability, bonuses for early delivery, penalties for late, etc). I think what you have said is that; regardless to cost overruns and cost to voters you want to see light rail implemented because even though the numbers are only approx. 3%-5% of people use Mass Transit in our area regularly the massive expenditure in rail is the best venue for our money. I think that number is on the DOT site and if I remember the article I read it in it hasn’t changed significantly with the addition of Sounder, ST, or the Express bus service.
I generally want the same thing you do. What I’m trying to explain to you is that even if only 5% of people use it, it does not mean that only 5% of the people are benefitting from it. Everyone benefits by diverting a certain percentage of trips off the roads. It’s nearly impossible to estimate exactly what percentage of a metro area will eventually use the transit, but that the building of the transit doesn’t need to be used by everyone for it to benefit the entire community. You’re getting too caught up in ridership and you’re losing perspective on how transit systems actually benefit the community. Rail is not supposed to be profitable. It’s supposed to be a public service. Understanding what New York or DC would be like without these systems helps explain why that’s so.
Light rail yes. ST as the source no.
Who then?
I will try to find the alternate agencies. There were alternatives but they were kicked out of the process before the bids were entered so it’s not easy to find what other companies there were. One of them I know is/was a prominent maglev company I just can’t remember the name, it’s been quite a while. The firm was interviewed years ago and basically said “Light rail is about the most expensive way you can go in this area.” I don’t remember the details honestly, but they had a point about our generous arterial buffers or something like that. 10yrs ago :D But why do say there is no alternate agency. Have we put this out to bid lately? Not that I know of.
You are right. We do mostly agree. And I realize that not just the small % of riders benefit.
Great discussion Lee. Thanks. I always enjoy exchanges with you and theHim.
People who want more buses generally don’t ride the bus. WenG
The main problem I see with Sound Transit is that it’s a political orphan trying to run a multi-decade program that gets tweaked with every election year. Further, it’s managed by representatives of different political entities who are sometimes at cross purposes. At times there have been individuals on the ST board who were opposed to its very existence.
It might be interesting to speculate on how things might have turned out if the unified “municipality” had been allowed to continue–we’ve certainly become one great “slurb” from Olympia to Marysville, with tentacles reaching over Snoqualmie Pass and creeping towards Mount Vernon. But that’s all blood over the dam.
As for me, when the opportunity’s available, will yours truly take advantage of being able to ride the light rail line from downtown to the airport? You damn betcha!
@40
Ditto. And yeah, I’m using my real name over here, but I’m the same person as thehim. :)
@43
I didn’t dig into reload and look at names. That’s great though. Thanks again. Off to see the family. Take care.
The problem with NYC/Philly/Boston traffic woes is not road surfaces that disappear (Seattle I-5). It’s too many people for the environment. And don’t hoist that green crap either. They vote Moonbat!
Assie Voice @5 Cluelessman is a TROLL! A Moby Troll that is!
CNN legal analyst Jeff Toobin had a clear favorite on who was the best Democrat at the CNN/YouTube.com debate. Toobin gushed, “I thought on this issue, and throughout the debate, this debate was Gladys Knight and the Pips. Hillary Clinton is the dominant figure in the party. She’s the dominant figure in the debate. And everybody else was responding to her.”
I’m sure Gladys and the Pips would be pissed! Hilary is tooooooooo UGLY!
6 & 8:
Subways would be sweet. And while the Puget Sound area (hell, the whole West Coast) is geologically unstable, if LA is building subways, why couldn’t Seattle? The only problem I see is the rather abrupt altitude changes around the city. The subway line would have to be driven pretty deep, but the bitch would be the logistical differences between building a station say, somewhere along the waterfront or Lake Union, compared to Capitol Hill or Queen Anne. Those would be some long-ass escalators, eh?
A Line of Busses with no one on them…..snooze
Has anyone noticed that not one female Bush clan member is remotely attractive? These are some fucking UGLY cunts. No wonder Baby Bush was drinking and snorting all that coke. He was trying to forget what a cow he married. And don’t even get me started on bin Laden family friend Barbara Bush – she looked like she was 90 years old by the time she was 14.
Bush had five polyps removed from his rectum:)
Cheney, Rove, Gonzales, Bolton and Rice :)
#49 Yes, there is no such thing as an attractive Republican.
First time, I saw Barbara Bush, I thought she was George Sr.’s mother, not his wife. It’s the white hair and pearls.
Look MySpace finally decided to do something about Stupidman abusing Rosy Palm and her Five Cousins:
“MySpace Finds 29,000 Sex Offenders”
‘BOUT TIME
RE: This posting from above, which purports to summarize what the ST’s lawyers argued successfully to the Supreme Court: “Regardless of what [voters] voted for in money we are tasked with delivering this, and although our “estimate” was off we still have to finish and we’ll spend what it takes…..”
What a coincidence! A radio ad from ST’s friendly enemies this morning said exactly this same thing.
Well, congrats Goldy – we read this crap here first! Kudos, I guess.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
trolley looses wand
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Goldy as blog content monitor stinks —- counter intuitive for you little rad squeaky rabble rouser
Get some content, then we all will comment