At a board meeting this afternoon that could decide whether to move ahead with a ballot measure this fall, Sound Transit staff will propose a revised plan that could deliver as much as 23 miles of extended light rail between now and 2020, while funding expanded bus and Sounder service, improving station access and investing in environmental review, preliminary engineering, and early right of way purchase to prepare for further expansion to Tacoma, Lynnwood, Redmond and beyond. The scope of the initial expansion depends on whether the board adopts a .04% sales tax increase (18 miles) or .05% increase (23 miles):
- North from the University of Washington to the Roosevelt and Northgate areas
- East from downtown Seattle across Interstate 90 to Mercer Island, downtown Bellevue, the Overlake Hospital area (0.4%) and Redmond’s Overlake Transit Center (0.5%)
- South from Sea-Tac Airport to South 200th Street (0.4%) and Highline Community College (0.5%)
- Link connector service serving Seattle’s International District, First Hill and Capitol Hill at John Street (0.4%) and Aloha Street (0.5%)
This is a plan that gives commuters more options, and takes cars off the road, which will be absolutely necessary if our transportation system is to accommodate the 30% increase in population our region expects by 2030. Read the whole thing.
No word yet on how this new proposal is being received by board members.
I’m all for light rail, but let’s not fool ourselves, the lines as designed are meant less to get people out of their cars and more as a jobs/development maker. They are nothing more than glorified bus routes. Buses on rails. Take the first line, Seatac to downtown. It’s not designed to get people out of their cars, and it’s not even designed to move people quickly. It’s going to take four minutes longer to get from end to end than a bus! So let’s be honest, light rail, at least in this area, isn’t about transportation, it’s about politics.
Who says it takes cars off the road?
I believe Sound Transit has already poo-pooed that idea in the past, have they not?
What does this plan do to bring costs more in line with the national average? (Seattle $179 million per mile vs. national average $35 million per mile)
What does this plan do to make the financing plan fairer?
Apparently nothing. It looks like they sliced the defeated Prop. 1 light rail package into different pieces, repackaging them, and selling the same flawed product with a different color of ribbon tied around it — just like subprime mortgages.
No thanks. I can’t vote for light rail until fundamental reforms are made to the design, engineering, access (read: adequate terminal parking), cost, and financing structure.
This is meaningless tweaking, not reform, and its function is propaganda, not giving voters a better deal.
Move along folks, there’s nothing to see here.
@2 The Puget Sound region needs increased traffic capacity, and a light rail line can carry 10 times the passenger density of a freeway lane, if it’s fully utilized. Thus, it would make sense to build light rail — even more-expensive-than-average light rail — if you diverted road taxes that would otherwise go into building more freeways to light rail. But that’s not what Sound Transit proposes to do. The roads — AWV, 520, widening 405 and 167 — are going to be built anyway. Light rail is an added expense for taxpayers. And it won’t be paid for with road money, but by raising general taxes — which includes taking money from senior citizens who need it for necessities, and who won’t even live long enough to see the system built. And even Sound Transit admits they’re probably building capacity that won’t be used — they project a utilization rate far below optimum. It’s not the basic idea of light rail that’s flawed, it’s how light rail is being implemented in Seattle that’s flawed. And Sound Transit’s plans are fatally flawed. Not just in one aspect, but in many ways, and disastrously so. It’s the transit equivalent of WPPSS.
Roger @3, as to terminal parking, Sound Transit has rightly determined that the decision of whether to build parking lots or not should be left to the communities in which that lot will reside. Some towns are adamantly opposed to building the big parking lots you are advocating. It should be their choice. I know I wouldn’t want some bureaucrat shoving a parking lot down my throat, and a surprising number of suburban mayors and town councils don’t want those huge parking lots either.
I love how on the map above, the downtown to Seatac light rail line is depicted as a straight line. It is not even close to being a straight line! It’s a slow, zig-zagging route, meandering through the transit-dependent (carless) Rainier Valley. There are two reasons that was chosen as the first line. 1), To prevent charges of racism and classism. If the line were built elsewhere first, can you imagine the political fallout? 2), To guarantee success. Run a line through poor (carless) neighborhoods, take away bus service at the same time, and voila, high ridership numbers!
But for those of you who were educated to think critically, like I was, have to ask the question – wait a minute, we just spent billions of dollars on a light rail line that isn’t going to reduce congesting, get people out of their cars, or get people from point A to B more quickly?
6 Troll, you forgot reason #3 for the route through Rainier Valley: to contribute to the gentrification of Columbia City, which directly benefits the large number of our civic leaders who live in Mt. Baker and Madrona.
It would appear that extending the light rail line to Northgate would serve to replace the freeway segments of the #64, #76, #41 and #312 routes, and take some of the downtown traffic off the #71, #72, #73, #16, #5 and a few other routes. Most of these could end up becoming shuttles to the light rail stations.
All this would be fine, unless ST goes all chickenshit and runs the light rail only during business and peak commute hours. Then either Metro will have a formidable task of juggling very different daytime and night-time route systems, or a lot of us who enjoy frequent service to and from downtown around the clock (like we do, living only a few blocks off the #71 route) will end up worse off than they are now.
@6, critical thinking is key, and if you think critically, traffic congestion is the result of governments only focusing on the supply side. Provide a free good, don’t charge for it, and demand will go through the roof. Without any way to regulate demand through standard market forces like a price for the good, demand is regulated through waiting in line. Congestion.
Mass transit is simply increasing the supply of “transportation” (though in a more effective manner than SOVs), so of course it won’t reduce congestion.
If you want to reduce congestion, you have to focus on the demand for transportation, as in, put a dollar value on the supply of transportation, enact congestion pricing, curb-to-curb, on area roadways.
Free markets are wonderful things. But our current transportation market is broken.
In solidarity with #4!
Yep, it is. The rest of your post is on the money too. We need light-rail in a big way, but ST isn’t providing anything workable.
@5 I have no argument with your logic, but the reasons for not providing parking at the boarding stations are immaterial. People aren’t going to ride light rail if they can’t get to the stations. Unless you provide either adequate parking for light rail commuters or a comprehensive (and costly) system of shuttles and bus feeder routes, light rail ridership will be limited to those living in high-density housing adjacent to the rails or willing and able to walk or bicycle to and from the stations twice a day, year around, year after year, in all weathers. There aren’t very many people in the latter category, not enough to spit at, and certainly nowhere near enough to justify the expense of light rail. Not building parking means killing the utilization of the system.
@9
Yup!
@10 I would hope that my basic message — that I want to support light rail but haven’t been given a workable plan to vote for — is coming through my numerous posts on this topic; but I fear some of my liberal friends are so emotionally invested in a belief that building light rail at any cost will solve congestion and global warming in one stroke that they are unable to see beyond my refusal to support an obviously impractical scheme that will accomplish none of their objectives either. For example, why would people who badly want light rail fight against adequate parking, when that will only turn people against them at the polls and keep riders off the trains? They seem blinded by something akin to a religious fervor. I’m finding I can’t reason with them, and they’re unwilling to be reasonable. That’s not good.
You’d also think that ST would be looking to make sure a “spur” sets to the railline that is now going to be used not just for a bike trail. Thus being able to take folks from north/south and hook them with downtown.
http://www.eastsiderailnow.org/route.html
This would help greatly…save on the Bellevue line which will probably sink i-90 anyways.
Carefull RR, your anti-light rail stance is going to get you vilified by the tree-huggers.
I agree with #9. I think it accurately describes the dynamics behind the daily realities of transportation.
To this, I would add that America’s decision after World War II to build a car-dependent society is no longer appropriate in light of evolving global realities, and we should get to work redesigning how we live and work. The energy and land intensive form of social and economic organization we’ve lived under for the last 60 years won’t be sustainable in the new era. The fact we’re now suffering from soaring food prices partly because we’re diverting food grains into fuel production is merely a symptom of a much broader problem: In an age of scarce and expensive resources, the cost of maintaining our inefficient and wasteful lifestyle is too high.
If we don’t address this, here’s what the future holds for us. People who must drive in order to work and earn a living won’t reduce their driving because of high fuel prices. They’ll buy keep buying gas regardless of cost because they have no choice. Likewise, people will pay higher grocery prices because they have to. They’ll cut back on the consumer discretionary spending that accounts for most of our economic growth. Consequently, if we don’t reduce our need for fuel by freeing ourselves from car dependecy through redesign of our work and living patterns, we will lock ourselves into permanently slower economic growth — and precisely at a time when we need robust economic growth to support the retirement costs of the baby boom generation. That will make inevitable a long term decline in living standards for average Americans.
@15 That’s okay as long as it doesn’t cause rightwingers to fall in love with me.
16-
I see that someone has been reading their James Howard Kunstler.
Here’s the problem, though- how is investing in parking garages and parking lots breaking the chain of car dependency? I think Kunstler would argue all you’re doing is at best postponing the inevitable collapse of the suburbs and automobile culture, and wasting money you SHOULD be investing in improving rail.
Roger@11, I’m with you. It’s a thorny problem, and bikes and such won’t, as you point out, get us everything we need. But again, I think local communities should be deeply involved in the decisions, if not controlling it. Small parking lots with oodles of new, dense housing? Big parking lots with nothing nearby? Kiss-and-rides? Can the surrounding neighborhood even handle the additional traffic? Should all ST stops provide oodles of vehicle parking, or only some? I mean, a car gives lots of flexibility…
18 Agreed, assuming that it’s reasonable in this argument to include places like Wedgwood, Ballard and Magnolia in the classification of “suburbs”.
14 One of our great political mysteries at present is Ron Sims’ literally frenzied efforts to rip up the tracks and assure the last incumbent rail corridor through the eastside is eliminated as a transit option.
@8
Art, I think you’re making the most important point right here:
All this would be fine, unless ST goes all chickenshit and runs the light rail only during business and peak commute hours. Then either Metro will have a formidable task of juggling very different daytime and night-time route systems, or a lot of us who enjoy frequent service to and from downtown around the clock (like we do, living only a few blocks off the #71 route) will end up worse off than they are now.
Having a light rail line that runs every 10-15 minutes in both directions from 6am to midnight would be such a huge improvement from the buses that serve that corridor (I ride the 66, 77, and 316 buses downtown) that it would really transform people’s commuting options. Many people would certainly be just switching from bus to rail, but the real benefit comes when people see living near a rail station as a bigger benefit and density starts to get concentrated around there. I don’t think this city has enough experience with transit to understand how that will inevitably unfold.
Hell, if they can get it all the way to Everett, I could take light rail from home all the way to work. You can bet I would seriously consider not driving for that. Having to take several different buses? Not so much.
ST is desperate to get a ballot measure approved before the LINK service starts, and the public finds out it is glorified airporter service combined with a sweet real estate grab along MLK for all the usual suspects that pose as “developers” in hooterville.
The way it got cut up, shortened and otherwise compromised, the present light rail project is in some ways a very expensive demo. With the route it’s traveling, it’s a lead pipe cinch there will be plenty of people more than willing to ride it, and they’ll be able to point at the nice full trains running by and say, “Gee whiz…wouldn’t it be nice to have more of these?”
In and of itself, though, this won’t do a whole lot to break the real freeway log jams. What it may lead to is that some people who don’t view their cars as vital extensions of their genitalia will see that there’s a new fun way to get around here in the city, and this will influence their choice of where to live and work, opting out of the freeway rat race.
With this in mind, the real beneficial effect of transit development won’t come to fruition until quite a few more election cycles have passed.
There’s a good article about Vision 2040 and growth in the Puget Sound basin up on Cross Cut that dovetails with this conversation fairly well.
http://www.crosscut.com/tacoma/13638/
Do any of our famed green Tacoma City Council members even take the bus to their council meetings? It is about time they live by what they preach!
@18 You break the chain of car dependency by redesigning work and rebuilding our communities so people don’t have to drive to work. That involves, among other things, more telecommuting and people living much closer to jobs. You can’t make people less car dependent by forcing them to walk half a mile to a light rail station. The only thing that strategy will get you is empty light rail cars.
@21 Yeah, that’s weird.
@23 Does that work as well for you if Sound Transit says you have to pay the taxes now but light rail won’t come to Everett for another 20 years?
@27 – Do ANY of our King/Pierce/Snohomish County and city council members, mayors and ANY politicians in this state use public transit?
As a matter of fact, Mayor Nickels wants to force taxi cab drivers to drive 30+ mpg vehicles when he himself doesn’t even get that many miles to the gallon! It’s that whole “Do as I say, not as I do”
@26 If we’re going to have 5 million people living in the Puget Sound area by 2040, has anyone thought about where we’re going to site 5 million new cemetery plots by 2100?
5 million graves, each measuring 6 feet long by 3 feet wide, will consume 4.5 square miles of land area exclusive of driveways, parking areas, footpaths, administration buildings, and setbacks. Maybe we’ll have to implement a recycling program.
@32, 33
Hadn’t thought about that.
Yeah, heck, we all know that no one travels from Seattle to the state’s biggest international airport, or between Seattle and Bellevue. What are they thinking?
OK, naysayers who say they would support LR but just not this LR: what LR system would you design? And how would you fund it? And where would you save all this money that ST is wasting?
Tunneling and bridging our hills and water, and buying right of way here, costs more than in Denver, Atlanta, SLC, etc.
No, I don’t work for ST. I’m just tired of people carping without offering solutions, if they’re so in-the-know. That’s why we didn’t get a system in the early ’70s. Put up or shut up.
They better sweeten the pot for Pierce County/Tacoma voters in the package, or it’ll go down in flames down there. A tiny expansion of Tacoma Link (maybe, if the city kicks in most of the money) and another Sounder train or two (maybe, if BNSF agrees), don’t provide much of a reason for Pierce County voters to support ST 2020. Maybe King County should volunteer to fund these projects by itself?
You know it is hard to vote for a proposition when we have elected sluts from Pierce County serving on the board. When a councilwoman has a provocative photo in former Chief Brame’s trunk why should we trust this moral authority? I do not need more mouth “jobs” to get a proposed track through Tacoma. In fact, I’d prefer to have a council person who does not hang her laundry on every Tom, Dick and Henry’s doorstep to get votes. If you think I’m wrong, ask around. Thanks to technology there are pics all over the place from our elected slut giving lap dances and other “favors” in the name of being an elected official. Don’t expect to get the news to report this, since they accept most favors.