Lots of people, myself included, thought that Gov. Gregoire would oppose Sound Transit going back to voters in ’08 if the Roads and Transit measure failed. We didn’t think Democrats would want to share the ballot with a big transportation measure.
Turns out I was wrong.
Gregoire has signaled that a ballot measure this fall has her OK, even if she has reservations about the area interest groups’ willingness to “saddle-up” for another campaign. Sound Transit chair Greg Nickels isn’t standing in the way, either. He’s cajoling his fellow board member to vote for a revised ST2 package, one that ditches light rail to Tacoma and puts that money into going east and north. It’s the kind of package that is aimed at the areas that vote “yes” on transit. It’s a good rebound package, something that could pass, on it’s own, this fall. Just when transit fans are stepping on the gas, some are riding the brake.
Namely, Ron Sims.
Yeah, that Ron Sims, the same Ron Sims who pledged, in ’07, that he’d fight to put a better transit-only package on the ballot this fall:
Is he willing to lead the fight and come back next year with a revised light rail package?
The answer was an unequivocal yes. “I’m into that. I’m back. I’m fully engaged. No question,” he said. “I don’t believe in letting waters stagnate. I want to come back with a package that reduces our impact on global warming that is less expensive. Yes. Light rail is a big part of that package. I will spend a lot of time and political capital on that.”
But Ron is willing to let the waters stagnate.
The most depressing thing is that he used to be one of Sound Transit’s biggest defenders. But ever since Sims left the post of Sound Transit chair, he’s shown his disdain for any public transportation investment that isn’t controlled by his office. Instead of light rail, Sims advocated for buses (or bus rapid transit). He even preempted Sound Transit’s bid for the ballot with a measure of his own.
“Transit Now,” an expansion of bus service paid for by a sales tax hike, took the place of light rail on the 2006 ballot. Like the dumbass liberal that I am, I voted for it, all the time thinking that this was just Sims’ opening salvo of transportation investment. It wasn’t, which makes Sims’ ’07 comments on light rail all the more vexing.
**********
The local blogosphere cut it’s teeth on the 2004 election battle, and a year later Goldy used the new medium to destroy the candidacy of Ron Sims’ opponent. I remember sitting in the audience as Ron debated Ken Hutcherson on the issue of gay marriage, and I was amazed at how Sims took him apart in a most dignified manner. When Sims, the bloggers, and the Stranger writers all went out for drinks afterwards, Ron put his arm around me and recalled specific blog posts I had written. The guy cared, and he impressed me in a way other local pols didn’t.
**********
As quoted in Erica’s great article about the board’s deliberations, several members are still undecided:
Opinion on the Eastside is reportedly more divided, with several representatives waiting to make up their minds. Redmond Mayor John Marchione, who took his seat on the Sound Transit board just two weeks ago, says he’s been busy “talking to other board members and constituents” about their concerns with the proposal. “I’m very cognizant of the economy and what it might do this year—bad economies don’t produce positive votes on tax increases.” Marchione says he’s “disappointed that light rail doesn’t reach all the way to Microsoft,” but adds, “it might be a political necessity. People want to build this system in smaller bites and they want to see some success” before moving forward. Fred Butler, the deputy council president of Issaquah, meanwhile, says he’s “not really prepared to say one way or another,” although if pressured, “I’d probably say I lean just a little bit more toward 2008. But I have certainly not made up my mind and probably will not do so until I have to, in late March.”
No plan is perfect. In fact, one board member’s perfect plan is somebody else’s nightmare. Light rail won’t get to Redmond without getting across the lake first. Light rail won’t get to Everett without going to Northgate (and 145th St) first. I understand guys like Marchione and Butler. They’re looking out for their constituents, but Sound Transit has a regional mission.
Larry Phillips, from the Stranger’s story:
The only outliers among the King County delegation are reportedly King County Council Member Julia Patterson (who did not return a call for comment) and King County Executive Ron Sims, who has not been attending Sound Transit meetings. “He’s waiting for the perfect plan,” Phillips says derisively. Sims did not return a call for comment.
It was Ron himself who once said:
“You cannot tell people sitting in congestion that we’ll have another year of planning”
Time will tell if this is one more thing Ron has changed his mind about.
King County is weird like that.
Are you going to blog about the bike expo this weekend?
http://www.cascade.org/EandR/expo/index.cfm
Will, I agree with your sentiment of ‘just build the goddamn thing already’ but honestly, I don’t think it would be the most excellent idea to have a transit package on the ballot this fall. I think voters still have a bad taste lingering after the last package, and yes, with the economy heading into the shitter, I do think it might be better to wait a year for the interest groups to really plan a good campaign for once.
I also share your confusion about wtf is up with Ron Sims on this. Right now the governor is out ahead on the transit issue, when really it should be folks in King/Pierce/Snohomish counties taking the lead on it.
ST2 package, the people have spoken, no more money for sound transit. for the words of Julia Patterson ” there is no plan “b”
@3
Actually, we don’t know if they said that. There were a ton of different reasons to vote no on Prop 1. From the post election polling it looked like people were friendly to a ST2 only package, but the only way to know for sure is to hold a vote on it.
St and light rail are good things. Still, it is odd for ST to go for Phase II funding prior to when the first person has even had a ride on Phase I. This push will not get things built any sooner but it will allow the agency to avoid a staff cut as Phase one ramps down and prior to when Phase two ramps up. Is the idea of going for phase II this year really good or really bad? No.
What we are seeing in Olympia are GOP legislators doing what they can to delay when ST II gets a vote, not cuz they will ever support it but because if it is not up this year then Rossi can say with more Cred that the D’s are doing nothing to “fix congestion” and that with the D’s in charge the system is broken.
So forget how you feel about light rail and when it should go to the voters for Phase II funding. Focus instead on how Rossi wants to play the change in leadership card in the three county region. His big “congestion relief plan” is on hold pending a chance for his consultants to see the lay of the land take shape and then poll his focused demographic. Only then will Rossi decide what he is for and how he will talk about it. So while neither we or Rossi know what the content of his plan will be, at this point, what we and they do know is, the less of substance that is out there by election day in regard to roads and transit, the more fertile things are for the re-creation of Dino.
Prop 1 lost in a year where 30% of the electorate turned out. So really, about 14% of the electorate voted yes and about 16% voted no.
In this presidential election year about 80% of the electorate will vote. We must go to the ballot in an election year where people are voting. We should vote on light rail in 2008. We are already way behind.
Ron is the bus guy. Buses don’t change where development happens and where people choose to live. If we are to really do something about climate change we need to break the sprawling auto paradigm–now. Sadly Ron and perhaps his pals at the Sierra Club don’t get that.
@6
BRT is a good transitional step. All we have to do is mark off the HOV lanes as bus only lanes and away we go. It isn’t a substitute for light rail, but it does have its place.
Mr. Sims opposed the Sound Transit initiative last time because someone had the audacity to suggest that King County wasn’t the only place that could use light rail.
He noted the number of additional passengers per dollar spent, without bothering to look at passenger miles per dollar spent. After all, a one mile trip in King County has as much impact as someone driving from Tacoma to Sea-Tac. (Oh, well, he is the King County executive, and those are the folks that will be voting in his next election.)
And apparently he got his buddies in the Sierra Club to go along, telling them of the scenic beauty of Fife and Tacoma, and how extending light rail down here would encourage urban sprawl in the unspoiled wilderness that is North Tacoma and Puyallup.
Just because I often agree with the Sierra Club doesn’t mean that they don’t take some really stupid stands on occasion.
But if anyone was looking for a reason why those of us in Pierce County have a certain distaste for King County politicians, they need only look at the position of Mr. Sims on this issue.
And in case you’re wondering if those of you up in King County should care about this, you might want to ask if Mr. Sims has worked out the details of that CO2 and smog barrier at the county line.
#4
For your info-Julia Patterson ” there is no plan “b” she used that statement at her town meeting.
I wonder if Sims had something to do with the routing of the downtown to Seatac Link Light Rail line? This line is such a waste. It’s a glorified bus route on rails.
– It will not reduce congestion.
– It will get nobody out of their cars.
– It will just get people from riding buses to riding trains.
– It will take longer to get from Seatac to downtown than it takes a bus.
I believe it’s a completely political route, which is why, after reading Will’s post, I think Sims may have had a heavy influence on where the rail line went. Other routings would have made more sense, but I’m sure Sims and ST was worried that if they started first in whiter/higher income areas, they would be accused of being racist or neglecting the poor.
Another factor is they wanted guaranteed high ridership. If they ran the line through a heavily transit-dependent neighborhood, people will be forced to take it, then ST can claim “success” from day one, when all they are doing is moving getting people with no cars from taking the bus, to taking the train. How does this type of thinking – of creating routes designed more to placate a political base than to move people quickly and efficiently – even begin to solve this region’s traffic and commuting nightmare? Well, at least this line will address those horrific MLK Way traffic backups I’m always hearing about on KIRO from 4 to 8 PM. Oh wait, that’s 520 I’m thinking about.
Bellevue doesn’t really need light rail – the density simply isn’t there. The tolling on the bridges should reduce congestion, and that will increase the capacity for buses. Metro probably could do a more economical job of moving people around than ST.
I think it is premature for Phillips and Nickels to be pushing for a new measure before they’ve accurately assessed what new projects would be most efficient and what they’d cost. ST hasn’t even collected the public’s input yet, let alone reviewed and analyzed it.
ST will have a MUCH better chance at the polls once the Central Link segment is up and running for a while. Another loss would be a real blow, especially if the plan is half-baked and rushed to the ballot before a proper vetting.
Fine, if the folks down toward Tacoma don’t want it…and it’s too expensive to float over I-90…and Bellevue doesn’t know how they’d route it yet…can we at least just expand the rail to work in the Seattle metro area? How about Phase 2 being “Connect Seattle” instead.
Forget the HUGE new extensions, lets make the USEFUL little ones we need:
1. How about 2 miles of track from the Beacon tunnel entrance straight west into West Seattle, which would solve a HUGE upcoming problem with the viaduct comes down.
2. How about a tiny extension from Tukwila to ACTUALLY go to Southcenter mall?
3. How about building that now missing stop on First Hill by the Hospitals, THEN on to the main Capital Hill stop.
4. How about tunnel/line to Queen Anne, or at least Seattle Center (replace the cute/junk monorail)
5. And yes, concentrate on getting it to the UW and Northgate.
The transit package would be very expensive. The voters rejected it by a good margin last year, even though politically popular road improvements were also included as part of the package. Sound Transit light rail should be up and running a year or two from now. The transit extensions aren’t scheduled to be completed for a decade or two in the proposed package. Why can’t we wait until 2009 or 2010, see how well Sound Transit light rail is actually working, and then ask the voters whether we should invest billions of dollars more to extend the project? In the meantime, work might actually commence on replacing the Alaskan Way viaduct and SR-520 bridge, and voters will be less skeptical of these sorts of projects if they see progress being made on existing projects.
@11,
You aren’t a serious thinker in transportation issues if you believe light rail must serve only high density, inner city neighborhoods. Virtually no light rail system operates like that. Most are regional in nature, and serve outlying towns and communities with varying degrees of densities.
@12
Actually, us Tacoma folks had a rail line before you folks up north did and we’d love to see (and are working on getting) it expanded out into our neighborhoods. We need to be able to get around Tacoma, not to Seattle.
I’ll have to see a specific proposal before I can comment on it, but it will be difficult for me to support a sales tax increase in this already highly inflationary economic environment, nor can I get very enthusiastic for paying 8 times for light rail as the average cost in other U.S. cities, so I’ll want to see costs brought under control.
What if we built it at HO scale?
And this is somehow a shocker about Ronnie?
OK–the dumbest argument is this one:
“Why can’t we wait until 2009 or 2010, see how well Sound Transit light rail is actually working”
This is a favorite of the rail haters in the region. It would be fine if light rail was untested technology, but it is not. Rail has been built and operated all over the world including extensive networks in our neighbors, Vancouver and Portland.
Guess what? They have made three conclusions.
1) Light rail works and it can be built in many different kinds of cities.
2) People will ride light rail and like it.
3) People want to live near rail stations. Developers and cities will respond to this need.
Why, oh why, do we always act like the rest of the world doesn’t exist in this backwater? The real reason Richard Pope and others want to wait until 2009 or 10 is so they can continue their decades old jihad against light rail in this region. Time for Ron Sims and others to get out of the way. We need real mass transit now.
OK–the dumbest argument is this one:
“Why, oh why, do we always act like the rest of the world doesn’t exist in this backwater?”
Everyplace that has built light rail uses mostly federal money, with some light taxing of businesses in some cases (like Portland). NO new taxes needed, for the most part.
That can’t happen here, because of the Bush War on Terror. Deal with it. When you start talking about costs of hundreds of millions per mile, sales taxes get too steep too quick. ST’s financing model is abusive and overly-costly to people. It isn’t that light rail wouldn’t be great, it is that ST pays WAY too much for it and taxes WAY too regressively for it. That’s the diff.
I am getting tired of this shit about light rail. When someone says light rail, they are talking about small extensions that the public pays huge money on now, so that 15 years from now traffic might be marginally better.
The real solutions involve changes the public perceives as wonky and unsexy. Trains are romantic to the public, but they cost huge sums of money in terms of infrastructure and operating costs. Getting separate bus only lanes anger the public when they see them as under utilized. See the SR-167 “lexus lanes” as proof of that. So the solution really is bus only lanes built as separate roadways. This is because a bus can come of the bus lane, and move into the neighborhood, without passengers changing buses. Bus only corridors are also more cost effective, proven, and cannot be easily converted to lexus lanes by politicians facing a difficult re-election.
For those reasons, it will not happen. It is just too damn blatantly obvious to anyone willing to open their mind to it, but there is no lobby for it. Not until gas is $10 a gallon anyway.
So blah, blah, blah, light rail my ass. Bus service moves more people more effectively at a lower cost. The emphasis should be on improving that, than on romantic notions of what we can have in 15 years.
@ 20
So, instead of spending $$$ on light rail right-of-way, you want to spend $$$ on bus right-of-way?
Because it’s the right-of-way that’s so darn expensive, but the technology itself. And to make buses work, they have to have the right-of-way, which means $$$. If we’re spending big money on right-of-way, I would much rather have it spent on rail, which more people will want to ride.
Busses stink and so does Ron Sims. Where is the rail?
Bus right of way stinks, HOV lanes stink (they back up just like the regular lanes), busses stink in traffic – (they stop, they wait, they pick up, they laet off, they don’t corner well and they cause more hold-ups than they are worth and worst of all they get stuck IN TRAFFIC.
Ever try to take the bus when it snows – don’t bother – I walked! Give me a train like the rest of civilized society.
@8: John Barelli
Nice points – the Sierra club really screwed up on this one – not only did they help defeat light rail and roads – but they lost my membership because of it – dating back to 1979 – including 1981 when I helped start the walk to save the wilderness for alpine Lakes wilderness – screw you Ron Sims and the Sierra club. Where are you on leading the charge for light rail now?
Will @ 22:
Is this not a false choice [So, instead of spending $$$ on light rail right-of-way, you want to spend $$$ on bus right-of-way?]? The buses could be provided relatively clear sailing on the handful of routes LRT would follow east and north by variable priced tolling. That would raise revenue, as opposed to costing obscene amounts.
Again, this is a false choice [“I would much rather have it spent on rail, which more people will want to ride.”]. By implementing variable priced tolling, congestion-free space for buses on the proposed LRT routes could be created using a method that raises revenue and decreases GHG emissions. Deluxe buses could be used on those routes, and they’d be just as attractive to riders as LRT vehicles. You have to look at the massive costs of LRT here, and how the same peak-hour people-moving solutions could be effectuated by a far less expensive modality.
Just my 2 cents.
You koolaid-drinking, light-rail supporter are idiots. Light rail only makes sense if the routing makes sense. The zig-zagging, slow, Downtown to Seattle to Seatac via the Rainier Valley line makes zero practical sense. Listen up, you idiots, IT IS A POLITICAL LINE! It has nothing to do with getting people out of their cars. It has nothing to do with reducing congestion. It has nothing to do with getting people to take public transportation. It will simply get people out of buses an onto trains. That’s it. It’s a gigantic waste. It could have been so much more if they had only chosen a smarter routing.
Once again Will, your glaring genius blinds us all to the facts. Yes, it is that costly right of way on MLK that was the chief cost of light rail. That costly right of way at the airport that is the chief expense. And let us not forget the $1.00 that Sound Transit paid to Metro/King County to aquire the Downtown Transit Tunnel.
Hey Will, here is your sign.
@ 27
I’m talking new lanes, bus ramps, widening of freeways and arterials- all of this costs money.
Unless all of these new buses are going to be stuck in traffic during rush hour, all of his stuff has to get built.
(And the tunnel was always meant to be for light rail anyway)
Mr. Troll @ 26
The routing makes perfect sense for two reasons:
1) The Rainier Valley is where the people live. Not in the deadzone by the freeway. It is the quadrant of Seattle that is least populated and offers the best opportunity for building new housing and retail near station areas. You build rail where the people are, not where they aren’t. And like anything else busdrivermike, you get what you pay for. And we are paying for a well designed light rail line that will cause us to want to build more.
2) It is a myth that the Rainier Valley slows the train down and makes it unrealistic to travel farther south. Simple math tells us so. The entire line to the airport is 14 miles. The line is roughly 1/3 at grade, 1/3 elevated, and 1/3 tunnel. On the elevated portion along I-5 going south speeds will hit 55. Trains will average about 25 mph going through the valley. They will have signal priority and a good design (go down and look for yourself). The rest is all in a tunnel or elevated.
A train traveling 55 miles an hour travels almost a mile a minute. So it would take about four minutes to travel the four mile length of the valley along the freeway. A train traveling 25 miles an hour travels roughly a mile every two minutes. So it takes about eight minutes to travel through the valley.
The difference is FOUR MINUTES! Four minutes is not what matters. What matters is that trains are reliable and the public will never perceive buses to be so. I will bet you that riders from the south will not resent the trip through the valley. Instead they will enjoy the trip through one of Seattle’s best neighborhoods. One that is going to be hopping with change but also firmly rooted as a community.
The time to build rail is long past. We must move now. If Ron Sims truly cares about global warming he will at least step aside on this one. If he doesn’t really care about climate change or if this is about his ego or turf, well then, that is just sad.
@29
Ahhh, I see you are a Koolaid drinker. You believe light rail, no matter what routing it takes, is a good thing. I, on the other hand, believe this is a political route. I also believe it is a very inefficient routing. And you cannot dispute that:
– This route will only get people off of buses and onto trains.
– That is is a glorified bus on tracks.
– That this will not get people out of cars.
– That it will take longer to get from Seatac to downtown than the bus route 194.
– That it will not reduce congestion.
I’m giving you a homework assignment. I want you to go onto ST’s website and look up the est. times it will take the train to get from various stations to downtown. Then I want you to go to Metro’s website and look up the times it will take buses to do the same thing. I want you to report back to me with your findings.
@29,
Oh, and I have some more homework for you. I want you to go to the websites of 20 other regional light rail systems. Look at their maps. Are they slow, and zig and zag all over the place, like ours does, or are they more efficient, going in a relatively straight line, emanating from downtown, then going out into the suburbs.
I am serious about you completing these tasks. Get back to me with your results by the end of Sunday. I am trying to educate you, and the other koolaid, can’t-see-the-forest-for-the-trees-type of people.
Unlike you, I don’t automatically believe what I’m told, that this is a GREAT routing. I was taught to think for myself. Now go do your homework.
Troll — have you driven along Link’s route through Rainier Valley lately? Try doing that. Take a look at all of the new development that’s sprung up along the line. That’s what happens when you build rail. That’s what doesn’t happen with buses. That’s the new people that will ride Link — the people that have moved in to the new development that’s been built up and will continue to be built up around the line. If you keep building it to the east to the Eastside, to the north to Snohomish County, and to the south to Pierce County that’s what will happen along those lines as well.
@32,
Most of the development on MLK is Newholly and Rainier Vista. Those projects were planned before the Central LLR was chosen. In other words, the new development has nothing to do with the light rail. It was planned before the light rail line.
That aside, I think in terms of what a light rail line should do, I think “it will create new development” should be way down on the list of priorities. That line will go no one out of their cars. That line will not reduce congestion. That line will not be faster than a bus.
I think the main purpose of a light rail line should be to move the maximum number of people who are currently commuting by car. We should get people out of their cars and on to trains and buses. I don’t think light rail should be a glorified slow, local bus route on rails.
Fact: The percent of the population using mass transit in this area is going DOWN. Inarguable. Inescapeable.
Fact: Light rail, unlike a road, will NOT carry a single good to any store. No electronics, no food, no clothes, no housing items. It is a SINGLE-use system only. And therefore beyond inefficient, even compared to busses which can use a multi-purpose road. No business will use heavy-on-the-wallet-rail to service their customers. Not the Water Co, the Elec Co (PSE or other), not nobody. Boeing isn’t going to use it to move their wings, or empennages or anything between plants. Neither will any other producer.
Fact: ST is $BILLIONS over budget. Private companies can’t do this and survive. Why isn’t the leadership @ ST in prison for FRAUD yet?
Fact: ST is YEARS late. YEARS!! Private companies can’t do this and survive. Why isn’t the leadership @ ST in prison for FRAUD yet?
Fact: People will NOT walk more than 1/4 mile to catch any form of transpo. That’s why cars work so well. Hell, even bicycles are better than ST heavy-on-the-wallet-rail. Can’t wait to see the folks in (especially) Tukwila (which is directly on the route), Georgetown, South Park, Burien, or Sea-Tac walk several MILES to a ST station. Fer chrissakes, the damned route goes right through Tukwila WITHOUT A SINGLE STATION!!!! This is efficient?
Fact: People who advocate ST w/out doing the math (where is RR?) are idiots or worse. The damned thing means food taken off the table, clothes torn off the backs, medical bills unpaid for the average wage-earner in this area.
ST, like “global warming”, is the biggest goddamned lie foisted on folks here in history!
@34
And the stations or stops on the Rainier Valley are ONE MILE APART! I know the people in the Rainier Valley, and they DO NOT like to walk more than a block.
The ST parking garage in Auburn is already to small…hence, less riders because some idiot didnt plan ahead. People there are not taking the link because they have no where to park their cars! The cost of light rail here is at LEAST 5 times per mile more than every state using light rail. It just doesn’t make financial sense.
“the issue that matters most” is light rail? I kind of thought global warming or economic injustice might get a little higher ranking. So probably does Sims. Suggests to me that ST 2.1 could probably still use some improvement before Sims signs off. Really, light rail is the issue that matters most? You might be wrong about that too.
First of all, the 194, when you include heavy passenger counts, will take longer than Link between the Airport and Westlake. Link will take about 36 minutes, the average time on the 194 to date is 34 to 43 minutes. Trust me, I take the thing DAILY.
Light-Rail will serve the Rainier Valley which none of the current routes without at least 2 to 3 transfers would require.
But this JUST isn’t about Light-rail, Sounder and Express buses (Including BRT) will be heavily promoted in this. Here are the speed limits according to the timetable that was approved by the FTA for Central Link.
Pine Street Tunnel (curved) – 20mph (35mph when University Link opens)
Pine Street to Westlake – 30mph
Westlake – University Street – 35mph
University Street – Pioneer Square – 30mph
Pioneer Square – International District 15mph
International District to Stadium Station – 30mph
Stadium to Lander Street – 45mph
Lander Street to Beacon Hill Tunnel East Portal – 40mph
Beacon Hill Tunnel – 55mph
Beacon Hill Tunnel West Portal – Martin Luther King Jr Way/Henderson Street – 35 or 40mph. TBD by City of Seattle once construction is fully finished
Henderson Street Station past middle siding – 40mph
Middle Siding to Boeing Access Road – 45mph
Boeing Access Road to I-5 – SR-518 Interchange – 55mph
Curve from I-5 to SR-518 – 45mph
SR-518 to Tukwila Station – 55mph
Tukwila Station – Sea-Tac Airport – 55mph
Total Estimated trip time, 35 minutes from Westlake to Sea-Tac Airport with latest speed limits.
Sounder:
Were looking at increasing Sounder service to all day service (30 trains a day from 18 a day currently) with possible weekend trips (2 in the morning, 1 mid day then return trips)
Adding a new station at Broad Street in Downtown Seattle.
Studying a new station between Auburn and Sumner.
A new station in Dupont, Washington
Study for service to Fredrickson, Washington
Study for service via the Eastside Rail line (Tukwila to Snohomish with the possibility to Everett/Monroe)
Our trains that we were leasing are returning from Virginia Railway Express in Wash, DC and Metrolink in Los Angeles, CA, so it isn’t like they have all been sitting around wasting money and not having any passengers on them.
Light-Rail – King County:
So it isn’t as big but that is what people voiced what they wanted. Light-rail to Northgate Transit Center and to Downtown Bellevue in the core retail center. Most people will ride Link to Bellevue simply because they don’t want to deal with the traffic. I’m one of those people and I even get annoyed on the bus unless I take the very successful ST 550 simply because it avoids I-405.
Light-Rail – Pierce County:
There is a chance that the light-rail could go to Fife. This would be great because the most costly would be completed and out of the way. Crossing the freeway, a river, and multiple railroad crossings would be required. Tacoma would also get the train out to the Tacoma Community College (TCC) campus along with Tacoma General Hospital. The current cars will be switched to the Link style cars and the Skoda equipment will be used on the First Hill Streetcar – More on that later.
Streetcar:
The First Hill Streetcar will run from the current end terminus of the Waterfront Streetcar up Jackson to 12th and would connect to Broadway. This connector would terminate at Aloha Street in Capital Hill. This would also have the potential to be extended to connect to the South Lake Union/UW Streetcar line if so desired. It would only be a 2 mile extension to connect to Fairview Avenue.
BRT: Between ST and Metro, BRT would be very, very extensive so you can’t say there isn’t shit for buses in this package and what is coming. I’m sorry if you got lied to by Ron Sims and the Transit Now package which is taking just as long as ST is going right now. When 2010-2014 (That was voted in 2006) we’ll have a full Metro BRT system. I’m sure by that point, Community Transit will have extended it’s BRT system quite extensively and there wouldn’t be a need for more light-rail.
The 59x series will converted to a BRT route (it basically is already) but will have a newer “fancier” buses. I’m sure that will just be the BRT 40 foot New Flyer or Gillig coach. At Northgate, there will be extensive BRT to Snohomish County, a new off/on ramp into the transit center would be built.
Other ST Express routes will be expanded along with 2 new bases to accommodate these new coaches because there isn’t any room at Atlantic or Ryerson bases, not to mention South, East and North bases are all full with older junk buses that have yet to be scrapped or sold off.
Some routes that have the heavily ridership could see their schedules every 5 to 10 minutes, some routes may be cut or converted to Metro for local service.
We won’t know the entire scale of ST’s plan until they bring it in June but what I typed above is pretty much what has been decided.
Much heavily on buses than LRV or Sounder and all for $4.5 – 6 billion on a 0.4% increase.
We’ll see how this pans out, I personally like the package more than ST2 was. This “ST 2.5” is much more realistic and in a 20 year frame.
Brian is incorrect. I just checked.
From Metro’s own website, I just looked up route 194’s schedule. And from Sea-Tac Airport to CPS the trip takes an average of 33 minutes. I checked three different times. 8:15 AM (33 minutes), Noon (33 minutes), and 6:12 PM (32 minutes).
I also checked ST’s website, and it will take the light rail train 36 minutes to go from Sea-Tac Airport to downtown Seattle.
I’m for light rail, but only light rail that makes sense. The Sea-Tac to Downtown via the Rainier Valley line is giant waste. It’s a political line. It’s a bus route on train tracks. It will not get anyone out of their cars, and it will not reduce congestion. People will just move from buses to trains. It’s nothing more than a glorified bus route. And a local one, at that. Not even an express route.
It’s sad, because this could have been so much more.
@30 Interesting assignment, Troll. While I’m not the same person you replied to. I was curious myself. So here are some numbers. All times estimated. Bus travel times may vary due to traffic. Typical bus frequencies shown. Bus hours of service may vary. Link Light Rail frequencies are every 6 mins during peak hours and every 10-15 mins during the rest of the day. Link service runs 20 hours a day. Bus travel times taken during the day.
International District Station – Ohtello Station
via Route 42 (every 30 min) ~20 min
via Central Link (every 6-15 min) 15 min
via Route 36 (every 10 min) ~28 min
Note: #36 is planned to be extended to serve Othello Station in 2008
Westlake Station – Ohtello Station
via Route 42 (every 30 min) ~35 min
via Central Link (every 6-15 min) 21 min
Westlake Station – Rainier Beach Station
via Route 7 (every 10-15 min) 40-50 min
via Route 36 (every 20 min) 30 min
via Central Link (every 6-15 min) 24 min
This is not a fair comparison since it takes 10-15 min to walk between MLK and Rainier but Route 7 will be extended to serve the station see Metro
International District Station – SeaTac/Airport
via Route 194 (every 15-30 min) ~25 min
via Route 174 (runs very late) ~30 min
via Central Link (every 6-15 min) 31 min
Westlake Station – Capitol Hill
via Route 43, 49 (every 15 min) 10-15 min
via University Link (every 6-15 min) 6 min
Westlake Station – U District (station is next to UW Med Center, Husky Stadium; walking time to campus HUB from any stop is 10 min)
via Route 43 (every 15 min) 20-30 min
via Route 71,72,73 (every 10-15 min) 15-20 min
via University Link (every 6-15 min) 7-9 min
Conclusion
Link Light Rail overall is faster, and more reliable than a comparable bus route. The Central Link somewhat improves travel times for most trips. The University Link beats the bus hands down. The improved frequency and predictability is much better than the bus. I do agree that the long walk to the stations are a negative but you could reasonably bike to the stations and the bus extensions will make using Link worthwhile.
While it is true that Rt 194 is faster on paper, the reality is that I-5 traffic really affects the reliability of this route and the actual time can vary greatly. Construction projects in the area like the Viaduct replacement, I-5 repaving, etc. are definitely going to increase those travel times. Transit needs to be reliable if people are going to use it on a regular basis.
Have you ever ridden the 194 during rush hour? It’s crowded and cramped with people and their luggage. It’s like that even at 8 am on Sunday! Trains are much more spacious and easier to board than any BRT bus ever could (see LA).
I think of light rail not as a solution to reduce congestion but as an alternative. Anyone who claims their plan, be it more buses, trains, or lanes, will reduce or eliminate congestion, is not thinking clearly. The population growth far exceeds our ability to keep up with transportation capacity. If we continue to be a metropolitan city, congestion will always exist in some form or another. Even New York, Tokyo, and London, with all their rail systems and walkability still suffer from horrible congestion both on the roads and on the trains. But people there have a choice, and that’s the point.
When did getting people of buses onto trains is a bad thing? That frees up resources for Metro so they can redeploy the buses to areas that need it and feed more people into the rail system.
I’d like to see how you would route the light rail? If not through the Rainier Valley, then through where? I keep hearing you claim that the current routing is inefficient but you have not provided an alternative.
@34 You’re wrong. Light rail can be used as a freight service if designed and marketed properly. In fact VW uses it to transport luxury auto parts in Dresden. They also have plans to deliver goods to a mall in the central city from a rail distribution center.
Salt Lake City runs freight on their light rail line (outside passenger hours) with 14 active customers.
@40, good post! I’ll respond to your post more later, but for right now, let me just say that if I were designing a light rail system, one of my top priorities would be getting people out of their cars. The Sea-Tac to Downtown line is designed to get get people who are currently riding buses to switch to riding light rail. I think there was a missed opportunity there.
@41 Yes, I think getting people out their cars should be one of the top priorities. Isn’t anything not political anymore in our society. If it weren’t political, the engineers would have a field day and would design the best system without dealing with those politicians. But then reality sets in and they make the decisions. Looking forward to reading your response!
Yo Mr 40: So solly. Not wrong. ST has NOT designed nor marketted their POS system as anything other than congestion relief. (You lefties get pissed at Bush ’cause he said Saddam a had WMD and don’t let him supply reasonable alternatives. Live in your own garbage. And arguments!)
And, you may not have noticed, but ST reset the trains to 2 cars from the original 6. So, the density is something to be derided w/ these FRAUDS, as well.
Oh, and BTW, no self respecting businessman is gonna fly into SeaTac and get on public transpo. They take a cab. On the road. ‘Cause it’s faster. Than either the bus or the nonexistent heavy-on-the-wallet rail.
Speaking of which, it’s 2008. ST was supposed to be up and running 2 years ago. How’s it doing? We should know by now. (Hell, even BA management can’t misjudge a program by 2 years, can they?!?)
To @43 What does Bush have to do with any of this? Besides, if it really does provide congestion relief then everyone’s better off with less cars on the road. Whether that is actually the case remains to be seen.
OK, businessmen might not ride light rail or the bus but everyone else might. They’ll choose whatever is faster or more convenient for them and that is not always the cab. If you really wanted to cater to that market you would run a direct high speed rail link with no intermediate stops that’ll take only 10 minutes to downtown. Of course, that’s not what Link is.
The rail is not nonexistent, it’s there, nearly complete and will open for service by the end of next year. Two years late but better than never.
I did not notice that they reset the number of cars. But I’ve always assumed they’ll start with two cars and add them as demanded. They did test an eight-car train not long ago. So I don’t know where you’re getting that info from.
It’s 2008, where’s my monorail? Ha ha just kidding.
It continues to amaze me how Troll and other cranks continue with this myth that the 194 is comparable to light rail service. The clowns whokeeo repeating that joke obviously never ride Or, they’ve tried riding without luggage during off peak hours.
Anti-rail complainers also live exclusively in the past. Witness cmiklich’s ongoing disinformation campaign about Link being “billions over budget. ” That was actually a billion, and it’s no longer 2001. Just an FYI.
The same people who complain about light rail being behind schedule are same people who did what could to delay the project through all kinds of nefarious methods over the course of the last ten years.
@45,
I didn’t say the 194 was comparable to light rail service. All I did was compare the times it would take buses and trains to get from the airport to downtown. Why does that make you angry?
It all is so easy. Democrats have to take the bus which will leave room for the big SUVs to stretch out and burn
that 5 dollar a gallon gas. Id pay 10 dollars a gallon
if the loser democrats would get the fuck out of my way so I can drive at least the speed limit. Trains just end up getting spray painted by the nxxxxxrs. Notice how
politically correct I did nxxxxxrs?
Obamas new bumper sticker will say “You can’t complain
about the man when you is the man”.
Sims appears to be doing just what he did on Prop. 1. He’s not showing up at Sound Transit to influence the package so he can oppose it later (only after a long talk with the Seattle Times editorial board in which they agree to provide him with cover.)
Let’s review the Sims anti-Prop. 1 two-point logic: 1. costs too much, does too little and 2. bad for polar bears.
1. Too much for too little
It looks like the Sound Transit package this fall could cost half of the total of Prop. 1. Light Rail projects will get done much sooner than Prop. 1: 12 year max. The package might also come with a form of bus rapid transit that Sims ought to like (it can happen right away), and maybe with some 520 money that will pave the way for the buses Sims advocates on 520. Sims has an opportunity to say this fall: “Vote Yes, the package costs less and does more.” But will he? Who knows? He’s become such a flipper that the only thing that seems to matter to him is what Joni Balter at the Times thinks.
2. Polar Bears
The thing about Prop. 1 that green zealots didn’t like was the roads. And they threw up all kinds of crazy making numbers they said proved that Prop. 1 was bad for polar bears because of the roads. Sims ate this up and in the process ruined his credibility on topics related to global warming (he defined himself as a zealot as opposed to a credible leader on the topic which kills any chance at a federal appointment for him). There won’t be any new road miles on the Sound Transit ballot this fall, so it is hard to imagine that someone will argue that its bad for polar bears. Sims has an opportunity to say this Fall’s ballot measure: addresses global warming by giving more people the option of commuting on clean electric light rail instead of stinky buses and cars. But will he?
As Puddy wrote this PuddyFact before,
You all voted for Ron Tax to the Max Sims. Now you are crying about the product purchased?
Waaaaaaaaaa like little babies.
Sims has become completely Seattle-centric. Sims opposed Prop 1 because it didn’t do enough in his mind for Seattle. He’ll probably oppose any other ST light rail package because it spends money outside of Seattle. Sims isn’t the mayor of Seattle. He’s the King County Executive. He needs to start acting like it. More people in King County live outside Seattle than in it. They deserve to be represented.
Troll–I don’t respond to homework assignments from anonymous posters. I also don’t sit by a computer all weekend, so I haven’t responded until now. Others have spoken to the time issue and have showed that the light rail time is very comparable to the current 194. The bus times will continue to degrade, the rail time will not.
But your arguments are obviously those of someone who doesn’t ride transit except in a theoretical sense. The reason many folks will ride rail that won’t ride a bus is because it is reliable. Many of us are in jobs where we must be on time or we are fired. If you can be late, great for you. You simply can’t rely on a bus like you can a train. So people drive.
I am still waiting for your “better route” Troll…
And for all of you transit hating car lovers out there–here is my own homework assignment (which you are free to ignore)
1) How many new road miles have been successfully built in King County in the last twenty years?
2) How many more registered vehicles are there than there was twenty years ago?
3) How do you plan to provide roads, space, parking, etc for the millions planning to move here in the next twenty years?
4) What will that cost? Who will lose their homes for the freeways of your future?