Ben Schiendelman, who occasionally posts comments here, has a guest op-ed in Thursday's P-I "Send light rail to the Eastside"
I started working on the Eastside five years ago this month ... now I leave at 7 a.m. to beat the worst of the mess ... It's a huge waste of time.Ben's conclusion: the only thing he can imagine that would give him a more comfortable commute is light-rail across Lake Washington.
Hey, Ben -- if you're tired of the commute, maybe instead of trying to stick the rest of us with a multi-billion dollar bill for your Thomas the Train fantasies, you might just consider living closer to where you work.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 12, 2006 09:18 PM | Email ThisSeriously -- it looks that Mr. Schiendelman lives in an apartment just north of the Greek Row section by the Univ of Washington. He doesn't have a degree from UW or anything like that. He is 24 years old, which means he has been working on and commuting to the Eastside since he was 19.
Stefan's suggestion that Mr. Schiendelman should move to the Eastside makes a lot of sense. But then he wouldn't be able to hit up on all the young women (or young men, depending upon his preference) who attend UW.
In any event, the bus transportation from the Univ District area is excellent. Mr. Schiendelman wouldn't benefit very much from having light rail to the Eastside.
Light rail offers permanence, creating long-term advantages for nearby development. Stations support walkable, healthier communities that are hard to develop with only cars and buses. Trains run so often we won't have to memorize schedules and they aren't unexpectedly rerouted for construction or events. They help us create energy independence and cleaner air -- they're powered by dams, not foreign oil."
Sounds like it can cure the common cold too.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 12, 2006 09:55 PMYou have a point when it comes to living in Seattle and commuting to the Eastside. The housing costs are not that different. I am sure the author could cover the cost of a new home by selling his current home. The housing market is sound. Should be no problem, right?
The question should be however, why do we continue to enable people to drive their cars all over the place. Why? Because we want to throw all these businesses all over the place. No real economic development program for the state. Mass transit makes sense in densly populated parts of the state. It doesn't make sense with the ever increasing sprawl. It doesn't matter if it is more and wider roads, more buses, light rail, or regular rail. The region's growth plan is a mess. This one I will blaim on the Democrats since they have been in control of the majority of the region forever. Add to this the uncontrolled urban spread by Quadrant and others and the place is just ugly. The real question is why would someone want to move here. We are becoming another Bay Area or LA.
What we really should be doing is supporting businesses to spread out across the state. Tri-Cities is attempting to attract business. The real question is how do we attract business to such areas as Longview/Kelso area, or Aberdeen? If the state was really smart this is where their focus would go, along with other places like Ellensburg and Moses Lake.
We wouldn't be concerned with light rail versus buses or ever widening highways if we promoted growth to other areas of the state.
Posted by: tc on July 12, 2006 10:01 PMRichard, I think he would "benefit" egotistically from the knowledge that he helped influence the waste of millions of dollars on something that few would ever use.
Sorta like a 21st century (cowardly) "big-game" trophy hunter... Doesn't shoot for meat, leaves most behind to rot, but hoists the head onto his mantle for all to see.
His trophy is symbolic - waste resources for the sake of wasting resources, all the while indulging in classic Liberal Projection (tm) by accusing the other side of wasting resources.
Liberals are pathetic.
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 12, 2006 10:06 PMWho says the wingnut right is intellectually bankrupt.
Posted by: JDB on July 12, 2006 10:37 PMDon't let the fact that no one would benefit much from having light rail to the Eastside bother you either, it didn't affect the construction of the Sounder train for those in the South end.
This is all going to end very badly. Liberals belong in mental facilities.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 12, 2006 10:45 PMAnd Ben needs to get real. When I was a young lad, I lived in Seattle U District and worked in Redmond; then I moved to Bellevue to be close to work and changed jobs to- you guessed it- Seattle. We had the toll booths then.
What I got a chuckle out of was Ben left early for work (if this is truly a true story) at 7 a.m. to avoid the traffic. WaTF? Twenty years ago I left at 6:20 to 6:30 to beat the traffic. 7:00? Too, too funny.
Posted by: swatter on July 13, 2006 06:09 AMYup, the same dams the loopy left want torn down.
You can't make this stuff up.
As a previous post said, you can't make this up. Traffic and transportation policy are both in gridlock. Seattle seeks to impose their one size fits all, mass transit solution to a problem that doesn't exist outside the city limits. They also plan to pass the bill for their fantasies to everyone else.
That's why there's gridlock. Start with an insatiable compulsion to impose order on other people's lives. Combine that with an irrepressible sense of one's own fitness to rule; leaven with a crusader's sense of purpose. Bake in the hot, stagnant air of Seattle's politically correct thinking.
The result is not fit for consumption, and no one is swallowing it anymore.
Posted by: South County on July 13, 2006 07:45 AMAnd my own off/on ramps both here and in Downtown Seattle that only *I* can use!
And a pony! Definately a pony!
It would cost less per person then a light rail to Bellevue. Don't they already have a bus tunnel?
Posted by: CrazyFool in Lynnwood on July 13, 2006 08:17 AMWhen I was the age of the writer I typically moved if my new job was more than 15 minutes away so as to be as close to work as possible - changing apartments is easy. This guy whines too much to realize how good his life really is - obviously the product of today's excessive self esteem culture.
Little Gen Y punk needs to shut the hell up and let the adults do the talking.
Posted by: H Moul on July 13, 2006 08:30 AMAt least he has good taste in music. I also suggest the two disk "Quadrophenia" so he won't get too tired of "The Wall."
Posted by: Obi-Wan on July 13, 2006 08:39 AMThis is not a defensible argument. Transportation infrastructure is necessary no matter what - and it's clear that you can't just tell people to live where they work. If you could, why would we ever add more lanes to highways? How about addressing the problem, instead of pretending it doesn't exist.
Stefan - thanks for the link. :)
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on July 13, 2006 09:47 AMI like the 'idea' of light rail everywhere, like other major metropolitan cities have, but not at the cost we're looking at nor led by our local incompetents.
Posted by: Just another voice ... on July 13, 2006 09:52 AMThat said, the higher taxes necessary to support public transportation boondoggles means it's even harder for me to make that move.
Of course 2.5 hours a day in the car does give me a lot of time to listen to talk radio.
Posted by Ben Schiendelman at July 13, 2006 09:53 AM"
Ben dear..... Grow UP !! I think you should just change jobs so you can be near what is dear to your heart!!! Night life, MATURE areas (whatever the hell that means).... I was in redmond two weeks ago, there seemed to be alot of adults around....
I don't know who you work for, but maybe you could even rent some "living space" at your office!!!
You see, comments like yours really shows that we are surrounded by the "ME ME ME" people....When you finally do Mature, and actually owns some dirt, and pay TAXES on that dirt, you will feel like the rest of us.....We are taxed poor, and tired of it....
It's the Big Picture Ben, and you will one day see it!!!
Posted by: Chris on July 13, 2006 10:15 AMSuburb to suburb commutes are only the norm for areas where there aren't effective high capacity transit systems to channel development. You can see this around the world. Nothing has changed about the way people commute, or the way they make decisions about living and working. We build light rail, and we see the same thing happen here that's happened in Vancouver - dense development around stations channels commutes into corridors again over time, making our economy more efficient.
What's especially interesting is that over time, the subsidy for electric rail transit actually ends up being much lower than the subsidy for highways. Look at Japan, where high capacity transit systems *do* pay for themselves as development has channeled into rail corridors since the 1880s.
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on July 13, 2006 10:21 AMHuh? Did I miss something? What light rail system?
All I see are higher taxes for the past ten years, condemnations of existing homes and businesses in the Rainier Valley so that they can divide the community in half with at-grade trains that few people will ride, arrogant radio ads paid for with my money to tell me what a great job Sound Transit is doing, almost all the real estate lawyers in WA put on paid retainer so that no one would be able to find a lawyer to sue them, and basically a project that is years behind schedule and billions over budget with nothing to show for it.
Tell ya what, Ben. Show me an actual, working "light rail system," and then maybe we can talk about connecting Bellevue. But show me a case study in project mismanagement and bait-and-switch politics, and I can't see why anyone would want to extend that anywhere.
Posted by: TB on July 13, 2006 10:35 AMYou'll note that the people in charge of the project in 1996 were kicked out and replaced, and that since then, things have been on time.
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on July 13, 2006 10:53 AMPlease explain to us where it's written you're entitled to a close night life? And please explain a "mature area" to us.
Sorry, but if you choose to live far from your job so you can enjoy the short distance to the "night life"... maybe you need to rethink your priorities. If you have and being close to the night life is in fact more important than being close to your job (read: play is more important than work), perhaps you should find a closer job. But please don't say we should build a light rail system to the Eastside so your social life can be more conveniant.
Like I said before... life's hard. Get a helmet.
Posted by: Mike H on July 13, 2006 11:06 AMThe cities of Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland and Issaquah have ALL endorsed light rail over the bridge because they understand that mobility is necessary to a healthy economy. I am indeed entitled to live and work where I please, as are the tens of thousands of other people who make the commute. If you want to go convince them to live where they work, I suggest you start a campaign! Until then, lose the disingenuous argument and address the fact that we have a traffic problem that will not go away just because you think it shouldn't be there.
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on July 13, 2006 11:14 AMGive up, Ben. I'm sorry the bus ride is a little bumpy for you sometimes, but... this is overkill.
Posted by: TB on July 13, 2006 11:21 AMLet's deal with reality today instead of coming up with arguments based on ten years ago and completely different people. What, exactly, would you want Sound Transit to do? They can't dissolve because they're legally bound to build a transit system! If you want them to stop, file an initiative!
And yes, I will call out your error if you try to use ridership estimates for a system opening in 2005 for a system opening in 2009. It's just like people complaining that Sounder doesn't meet ridership estimates for four trains that were made for nine trains. It's rhetoric that keeps us from having real discussions about solving real problems.
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on July 13, 2006 11:29 AMhttp://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I90/TwoWayTransit/
We don't lose those two lanes.
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on July 13, 2006 11:31 AMWe need to ask ourselves whether Lake Washington is a liability or an asset? We can make it an asset by putting resources that could have been put into light rail into some kind of passenger ferry service instead. It would be up quicker than light rail and at a fraction of the cost.
Posted by: Dave Puffert on July 13, 2006 11:41 AMVoters don't mind if projects come in with rosier results than promised; they do mind if projects come in with poorer results than promised. WSDOT now actually has gotten pretty good about their estimates in that respect, and although not a great fan of WSDOT overall, I do congratulate them for that, and give credit where it is due. Ron Sims, on the other hand, can be assumed to be lying anytime his lips are moving. And when you say that personnel have been replaced, that's one key "personnel" that hasn't been, and that alone is a dealbreaker.
Well Ben, it's been fun, but I'm not sure this is going anywhere, and I'm going to leave it to the readers of this comment thread to draw their own conclusions.
Posted by: TB on July 13, 2006 11:50 AMI suggest you buy a BOAT, and oar across the lake each day. You have not once in all your post's put out a non-selfish reason to build the light rail....
You will never be heard, unless you speak for the good of everybody, not just your pathetic need for Night Life and Mature Cities....
How about getting some data on how many people will benefit (besides YOU)?. Who's tax dollars pay for this? Is this really what the system needs? Are their cheaper alternatives? Tolls and Fares, can they support the project?
I've prided myself in calling government types on bad decisions for seven years now, it's what I do.
My original post applies and doubly so having re-read this WSDOT plan.
Making the general purpose lanes narrower on the outer bridges simply to add an HOV lane will not improve traffic flow. Drivers, pyschologically, slam on their brakes and reduce speeds when too many cars are around them. When there is a couple feet between each car people aren't going to drive highway speed.
This is especially the case when you throw buses, tractor trailers and oversize loads into the equation. You see this on the 520 bridge and Tacoma Narrows.
If the point is to get more people from Point A to Point B as quickly and safely as possible, you need to open up more roadways for commuters.
If your goal is to be a social engineer and to modify people's behavior, then you make traffic as horrendous as possible, shut down existing lanes of traffic and make the problem so bad that residents will either move away or break down and take mass transit.
I choose A.
Rather than inveigling everyone in a cynical attempt to tease a rationale out of the preconceived commitment to taking people out of their cars, why not be practical and solve the actual problems that exist. More transit lanes to the exclusion of cars is punitive engineering in a function-after-form order of criteria. More traffic lanes can be used in the future for transit if it becomes useful and practical to do so. The former is dunderheaded single dimensional enviro-agenda; the latter is prudent win-win planning. We can have both economic growth and gradually progressive transportation systems.
A good economy in our area relies on single drivers that transit cannot supplant for many years to come. Transit riders already have significant advantages over single drivers, and they should be allowed (or forced as one may see it) by the same reality to be held up in the same slow traffic.
It is not progressive to damage or destroy an economy to suit a desire for everyone to ride buses.
Ben S's argument is nonsense premised on a forward look using coercive procedures to achieve untimely goals. No matter how you slice it . . . the Sounder doesn't meet rider ship estimates period. Trains are used as a means of transportation based on population density, and our area does not justify the use of commuter trains, and it will not for many years to come. Unless we are interested in emulating a poor European country like France who is content with sacrificing the well-being of its populace through diminished economic growth, we will reconsider the approach being taken.
More triffic lanes are needed. Lets behave like adult people with common sense and build more traffic lanes.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 13, 2006 12:51 PMAt the time, she was working at a downtown Seattle church, so it made sense for her to continue to live in West Seattle. I was willing to live in Seattle and commute north, as long as she had a short commute to her job. Her job has since been eliminated, and I am still working at the Everett Boeing site.
Its not easy for me to live in McDermot's district and have to put up with Ron Sims and company as well. On top of that, I end up spending at least 105 minutes per day just commuting back and forth between home and work. Thankfully I have a comfortable car, talk radio, and a growing CD collection.
Now she is looking for a new job, and we are looking to move north, preferably out of King County. I am looking forward to reducing my commute and breaking free from Seattle. So our solution to my lousy commute is to move closer to both of our jobs (after she finds the right job), and to realize some other benefits as well. I'm not gonna sit around and wait for the government to provide a solution. I'm going to fix it myself by moving.
Posted by: Gary on July 13, 2006 12:56 PMSure it will look silly to Ben that I am blowing through the store to get a few things and he has to spend two hours to get what he needs but after all the is fair in my eyes and should be in Ben's as well. He'll pay about $500 at the check stand; I'll pay just around a third of the cost to go through the speed line; the rest paid for everyone like Ben going through check stand #10. Now I finally get to be one of them smart social engineer types.
Ben your entitlement mentality is disgusting. Sound Transit has turned into a viscous arrogant agency. Destroying great Community Transit Routes. Tearing up whole neighborhoods, stealing land from the Wilson's in Pierce County and not delivering on any commitments. Take ST2 and Stick it jerk boy...your cowardice mentality of tying road improvements to your bloated zero value retrograde toy trains that will tear up eastside homes, roads and lives for years is a load of Crud. What a disappointment that ben Expects us to pay for Ben's selfishness and nightlife preferences! What the heck!
VOTE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO at some point we can get Dino in there and get some roads built and Joni Earl can get her money from Ben.
BTW anyone wanna bet ST is running out of money to finish it's current projects?? Like maybe not enough to cover change orders. Anyone want to know why the project control director is rumored to be leaving now??? Wanna Bet we hear about it in Janaury 2008 not October 2007.
Excellent analogy.
You are right; we will hear more about ST soon.
We are dwelling amongst the blissful silence of deceit over untold stories of billions spent and not accounted for.
And I have never seen as part of the proposal of light rail to be used to transport goods from around the country. That little detail of the road system seems to conveniently forgotten in the "give me your money for my transportation" discussions.
Posted by: Fred on July 13, 2006 04:10 PMA gas tax is NOT A USE TAX. I pay it in the cost of goods and services, and anyway, what about the local roads (paid for largely with sales taxes) and the federal highways (paid for with my federal income taxes)?
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on July 13, 2006 05:17 PMHonestly, it looks like a lot of this argument (aside from the laughable calls for me, personally, to move, rather than addressing the traffic and mobility problem) is based on wild speculation that ST will run out of money, that more lanes can be built through our built-up city cores, etc. Gas prices aren't going down anytime soon, folks.
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on July 13, 2006 05:20 PMOur town doesnt have a Taxi service. I may need a Taxi one day to get to the larger city (bank, grocery,mall etc)....
Will you buy the taxi, pay the driver, and not charge me when I need a ride?????
Do you really care if I don't have transportation??? If you care, by a Taxi for our Town.
Posted by: Chris on July 13, 2006 06:15 PMI want to live where I live, cause there is NO Nightlife here, and cows, I just love those cows.... I don't want to move closer to my Job, cause of those Cows, So buy the town that taxi will ya? BTW We are Mature out here, average age 60+, that's pretty mature...
Posted by: Chris on July 13, 2006 07:06 PMEnjoy the nightlife Ben, mine's my young family, and we don't want to heavily subsidize your transportation, we'd rather save for our future.
By the way someone was curious where Ben works, it's Microsoft, by his own admission "http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/07/eum2000_a_whole.php Who has so many electronic devices that it's worth $200 not to go around to each device individually?
Sheesh. I work for the Man (Microsoft), and that's NOT worth it.
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman | July 25, 2005 10:41 PM | "
Posted by: Dan on July 13, 2006 07:53 PM
You say "If a good economy in our area relies on single drivers, then why are we seeing nearly half of downtown Seattle's workers using transit?"
For several reasons that are obvious.
1.) Nowhere near half of downtown Seattle's workers use transit. That is a key part of the rationale used for the train and regional hub transit systems, to significantly increase the percentage of those who commute into the core area by forcing them out of their cars. Like a majority of Puget Sounders, I already pay for my own transportation and some of yours. You want to impose a solution on the basis of false data because it doesn't affect you directly. That can change.
2.) Most people who are able to use mass transit systems already use them. If there is anything you can rely on it is self interest. If they can take a bus, most people will. Some small minority will use their cars whether it makes sense or not but they are a very small number, and no matter how many busses or trains you build they will not use them. So long as mass transit plans rely on the "build it and they will come" rationale, it will fail just as the Sounder train system is utterly failing today. If this was simply growing pains with a good chance of succees in the future I might be with you, but that is simply not the case. It is bad policy based on a hidden agenda.
3.) A healthy economy requires that transportation conforms to patterns of business necessity and not the other way around. A significant majority of the people in America and in our area are unable to use mass transit systems because of the nature of our economy where mobility and flexibility of transportation is required in order to respond to numerous needs that mass transit will not fulfill. Punish business in our area for long enough and transportation problems will continue to take a back seat to increased business cost and corresponding business departures, unemployment, bankruptcies, and recession.
4.) Seattle is not Philadelphia, Chicago, or New York. The list of things that nearly all of us must do that cannot be accomplished through mass transit shows that it is no substitute for cars in our area. If Seattleites wanted to live in a huge metropolitan area they can move there; it presents many opportunities and many corresponding problems. Emulating transportation solutions comparable to New York City by applying them in Seattle is like putting a silk hat on a pig; stupid and it doesn't help the pig. Why isn't Microsquish located in a high-rise in downtown Seattle?
Ben, you are not using common sense in your support of such systems. I already pay my full share and more for transportation, I cannot continue to do my work (like most people) and live a decent life if required to pay for your self indulgent and short sighted plans. As people with your attitude have their way, it eats away at the source (economic growth) from which the future support of improved systems will come.
That's killing the proverbial Goose to spite the Golden egg.
Love your analogy about checkout lanes. Too bad it just proves Ben's point. You see, at my grocery store, there are a pair of "express" checkout lanes where only shoppers with 15 items or less can check out. These take the place of the lanes that people with bigger loads of groceries use. The store has added the express lanes to benefit light shoppers purchasing a few items at the expense of those with heavier loads. Of course they aren't doing this to encourage people to buy fewer groceries. The store has the express lane because they know there are people who use it and it makes the WHOLE system more effiecient. You see those "express" customers are now out of the way of those with regular loads in the regular lanes, making regular customers checkout time faster as well.
Thank's for proving Ben's point, HOOOOGAAAN!
Posted by: K. in Auburn on July 13, 2006 09:28 PMSheesh, hearing you guys it sounds like Ben Schindleman is one of the most powerful citizens in the state. He's able to force people to pay out of their pockets for a transit system that only he want's to build... for "selfish" reasons.
Maybe you all haven't read a paper recently, but we're not living in the Banana Republic of Benjamin Schindleman. We're living in a democracy where the SELFISH will of the people is carried out every time we vote. (By the way, this is the most I've heard self-interest called a bad thing on SP since... well, ever.)
It is the will of the people that has decided that we will benefit from rapid transit. We voted for it, now we're getting it. You don't always get what you want. Deal with it.
"Wear a helmet" indeed.
Posted by: K. in Auburn on July 13, 2006 09:44 PM2) Completely untrue. Sounder riders, when polled, were only 42% previous transit users - and that's a new system with increasing ridership. Anyway, we don't even have mass transit yet. :)
3) Business necessity dictates high capacity transit systems to allow business users who generate large amounts of revenue for their businesses (and therefore local economies) to save time. It's been estimated that traffic costs this region millions of dollars a day - the economic benefits of mass transit have been proven all over the world, largely through reductions in this wasted time and money.
4) Microsoft has purchased/leased 15 stories of the new Lincoln Tower smack in the middle of downtown Bellevue for the sales division. Microsoft will also see light rail go to campus. The main campus employs nearly as many people as Bellevue's CBD already, so there's not much reason for them to consolidate.
Plus (and this is interesting), they receive heavy road subsidization to be where they are. In Bellevue, they don't have good access because we don't have mass transit yet. Maybe there'd be a bigger chance of them locating in a city core (and therefore using fewer resources) when we have good mass transit? That's certainly held true for many other major employers in cities that have good transit.
Road costs are spread out among everyone the same way transit costs will be. They also benefit everyone the same way transit does. There is absolutely no argument for either/or - we need both, and we need to pay for both. It's really amazing to me that the business argument (and you find me a large corporation that doesn't support mass transit) isn't getting traction with a Republican crowd. What's even more amazing is that personal choice is being attacked! Do you really want the "nanny state" telling you where you can live? That's what you're arguing!
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on July 14, 2006 12:18 AMJust because it's inconvenient for Ben Schiendelman, doesn't mean that it's a disingenuous argument. It is in fact 100% true that traffic problems are a direct result of the choices people make regarding where to live. I've been making this argument on my "Seattle Traffic" blog for months. Here are a few quotes:
Every time you find yourself sitting motionless on the freeway, you are part of the problem. Traffic is really the result of the choices that we have all collectively made regarding where we live, work, and play.
- 04.09.2006
The problem is that in the real world, transportation channels have a limited capacity, and too many people make choices that don't take that under consideration.
People want big city amenities and conveniences with rural freedom and individuality, and that's just not reality. As I've said, I hate traffic, but every time I find myself sitting in an idling car, surrounded by others in the same predicament, I'm keenly aware that I'm part of the problem.
- 04.11.2006
Unfortunately, although you can add more space for cars once, twice, even three or four times, it is not really a viable long-term solution, and rail or buses aren't much better. Realistically the only sure way to reduce traffic is to reduce the actual number of people on the road. Land use restrictions, Growth Management Acts, and other social engineering tactics already attempt to influence that number, but no matter what government regulations are put in place, people still have the right to choose to live 30 miles from work.
I guess the question is, to what extent is the government required to accommodate stupid choices?
- 05.11.2006
More roads, buses, and "rapid" transit are all really just addressing the symptoms, not the disease. The problem is the mentality of people that think they have a right to live anywhere they want, while still rapidly and painlessly getting from point A to point B. There are really only two ways that this will ever happen, and neither of them has anything to do with light rail, buses, or roads. 1) People get a clue and live closer to where they work. 2) The invention of the "Star Trek"-style transporter.
Personal choices, Ben, Not goverment....
I have a suggestion.....Since you work for THE MAN (Mr. Gates), you should just ask him for a few Million to build your train, so you can enjoy your mature city, and nightlife. Maybe he will buy you a house in that mature city, and you can pay half your salary for the TAXES......
They do, Tim, and nothing you try to do will change that. It's government's responsibility to ensure that people can choose where they want to live and be able to get where they need to go - any other system, and we'll start having the mobility problems that the Soviet Union developed, and it will DESTROY OUR BUSINESSES.
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on July 14, 2006 07:31 AMAs soon as you say "people should" do something they're not already doing, you're already making a losing argument. Address the problem, don't pretend you live in a fantasyland where "people" will do what you tell them to.
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on July 14, 2006 07:36 AMYou keep advocating that personal choice demands that you get to live anyplace you want and I get to pay taxes to subsidize your transportation choices.
This person chooses not to subsidize your personal choices. How do you resolve that conflict? Will you argue that since many people will benefit from public transit that it serves the greater good?
Hypothetically if less than 50% of the commuting public use public transportation, how does it serve the greater good to take money out of the pockets of the majority to pay for the transportation wants of a minority?
Personal choice means you get to live, work, and play where and when you choose, and you deal with the consequenses of those decisions personally.
Posted by: Dan on July 14, 2006 08:46 AMMany, many people who currently could use public transit do not because they don't like buses. Building trains will get them on transit. Transit is GOOD FOR OUR ECONOMY, because it costs us less to move people on transit than to provide roads for the same people. Again, 42% of Sounder riders had not previously ridden transit. This was the case in Portland, Vancouver, Denver, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City... every place that rail transit is built, it pulls drivers off the roads and improves our ability to move freight and people.
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on July 14, 2006 10:43 AMBen, for pete's sake....When did it become the Goverment's Job to provide you with ANYTHING. This is the typical, "It's all about ME" attitude. When people start taking personal responsibility for their Personal CHOICES, then and only then will the goverment actually become a benefit....Until then, it is only a handout.
If you choose to live on a mountain top, is it the goverments job to build YOU a road so you can commute to your job?
Look at the Big Picture! Will LR actually take cars off the road. Will people actually ride it, and lose the Personal Freedom of their vehicles....Other transportation "fixes" haven't proven it, so why do you think LR will?
Remember this Ben, It is not Goverment that pays the bills. It is the TAXPAYERS. When you have been Taxed to death as I have been the past 25 years (I am 44), then maybe you will understand why I don't trust the Goverment with MY MONEY.
Posted by: Chris on July 14, 2006 11:02 AMThe big picture is that we have a traffic problem we have to fix because it will not fix itself. Again, not in contention. The choices are 1) more roads, 2) more transit, and 3) a combination of both. I support a combination, and LRT has been shown to be the most cost-effective way to increase our capacity in the I-90 corridor.
Hundreds of thousands of people enjoy the personal freedom of stop and go traffic. I daresay some of them will feel a lot more free taking the train to work. Actually, it's pretty nice not having to rely on car insurance, the availability of gas (I'm too young, but you may remember the last time that was a problem), crappy repair shops, unreliable parts suppliers...
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on July 14, 2006 11:15 AMVery expository of your views, and wholly unpersuasive.
1) The reason you cite no authority for your contention that "45% of downtown workers use transit," is because it is patently untrue. If you have a legitimate argument you don't need to lie.
2) Your answer is completely unresponsive. Sounder riders are part of the group that I said are able to use mass transit systems. In general, "Mass transit Systems" means transportation other than individual cars such as buses. Are you always this incapable of logical consistency?
3) You say that "Business necessity dictates high capacity transit systems to allow business users who generate large amounts of revenue for their businesses (and therefore local economies) to save time." The only possible way that this idea can possibly be true is if business conforms to patterns of transportation and not the other way around. Simply put, it is true only provided that the only type of business allowed in our area are those huge companies who employ people who can ride mass transit.
If a law required all employees of Microsoft to ride exclusively transit as a condition of employment, Microsoft would move elsewhere. Your argument ignores reality in favor of a tortured commitment to empty partisan dogma.
4) In plain words, you say that Microsoft will only partially locate in a high-rise in downtown Seattle because it is not in their interest to do so. You argue that "mass transit" will provide good access because Microsoft received heavy road subsidization to be in Redmond and yet you insist that while "we don't even have mass transit yet. :)" that "Maybe there'd be a bigger chance of them locating in a city core (and therefore using fewer resources) when we have good mass transit?" It is always a good idea that you argue for your own point than against it. Wise up, mass transit already exists in the "core area."
The costs you advocate are not spread out among everyone the same way transit costs will be because they build systems that displace cars in favor of those that will only marginally serve our community.
Your take on the "business argument" is comically obtuse. It pretends that big business cares about political parties and liberal Democrats are not fully corrupted by them. "Big Business" will support any policy that plays in the short run to their peculiar interest, and you know it. They don't care about you and me but their bottom lines.
When it comes to large companies gaining government advantages such to afford putting cars on the road for their purposes they will always be able to do so. This pushes small business out in the cold and leaves a corporatist infrastructure beholden to the government in place. This is the surest possible way to encourage a "nanny state" to tell all of us you where we can live.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE ARGUING FOR!
Given your appriach, I would be surprised to learn that you are not being paid by Microsoft to make these arguments.
When you look at systems with direct user fees (I generally use Japan as an example), the cost of tolling and the cost of a train ticket are nearly the same. People choose the train because in scenarios where both are presented because it's faster and more reliable. In fact, they're so competitive that JR turns a profit every year!
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on July 14, 2006 11:18 AMI pointed out that when we built Sounder, new people who hadn't previously used transit decided to use it.
You seem to agree with this, so admit that your original contention was incorrect, eh?
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on July 14, 2006 11:26 AMTaxes are collected on car tabs, property taxes, federal income taxes and sales taxes and a mere 1/4 to 1/3 of the cost of each trip EXCLUDING capital cost is collected from the user. Rather than proposing to spend billions on Ben's rail Line and charging Ben about $35 a trip to payoff the bonds sold to investors that verified the feasibility of the system Ben wants no accountability no responsibility and no consequences TO HIM.
Go Build the thing outa your pocket and buy it all at market rates and I'll shut the heck up. Keep stealin' from me and dang it I'll tell you to stick it. My road taxes go to the WSDOT hellhole and fund a guy that can't even drive and in Boston built a wastewater plant...they would not even let him on the Big Dig! Plus he's a lawyer.
Bottom line us Americans are sick and tired of the ST, WSDOT and Legislators FU Attitude and the hatred thrown at 97% of the commuters 'round here. BTW Ben you owe me a neck massage every time your bus with its righteous little yield sign with the symbolic middle finger of the RCW listed on it cuts me off and I need to swerve.
Transit Pin heads unite hate cars, create them as the scapegoat, make them pay in time and money, build a systems without accountability and wink and nod at each other with a righteous snicker. Oh life is rough...at least they only hate car drivers and not the Jews. K. in Auburn what part of Ben's point did I prooooooove this time?
What would you do about traffic?
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on July 14, 2006 12:04 PMUnless you are a PROPERTY OWNER and keep your tax payments current, you have to ride public transit as it exist today......
This way, all you young, nightlife loving, mature city hopping, politician wannabe's, can jibber jabber all the way to work, discussing how us RICH PROPERTY OWNERS are making your lives miserable.....
1. Eliminate HOV lanes, and expand lane-miles.
2. Fire 80% of traffic engineering staff and require that replacements pass a reality check as a condition of employment.
3. Double capacity in strategic areas of I-405 and I-167.
4. Privitize Metro Transit. Invite privitization of the Sounder rail stuff. When no one steps up to buy into that albatros, scrap it!
5. Remove the Convention Center bottleneck and expand I-5 through downtown Seattle.
6. Tell Mayor Nipples to go pound sand - he gets a rebuilt viaduct or he gets nothing.
7. Re-engineer major freeway intersections - that's where the bulk of the logjams occur.
That's for starters...
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 14, 2006 01:22 PMYou want to privatize Metro, but not privatize WSDOT/FHWA? How much government subsidy will it take to build 405 and 167 at double their current widths? $30 billion?
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on July 14, 2006 01:39 PMI agree with you points in post 77. Its time to get open up the HOV lanes to everyone. Also, Seattle, King County, and Washington as a whole have demonstrated over time that they are incapable of cost-effectively providing on-time transportation solutions. Perhaps it is time to turn to the private sector for solutions.
Posted by: Gary on July 14, 2006 01:47 PMYou say, "You're arguing that people who don't use transit now won't use transit even if it's built." and that " I pointed out that when we built Sounder, new people who hadn't previously used transit decided to use it."
No. Ben, I'm arguing that the bulk of people who use transit, do so because it is in their interest. Some few people are able to use the Sounder train because it happens to be suited to their specific needs, not simply because it was built.
Then "You seem to agree with this, so admit that your original contention was incorrect, eh?"
No Ben, but . . . nice try
I will admit to being amused at the weakness and incongruity of your responses. That said, I must say that I respect your attempts at defending your point of view. It is a breath of fresh air especially with the number of nitwit liberal boneheads that come here with no rationale whatsoever. I understand your desire to change things and I appreciate that you are committed to an agenda that delimits your vision of practical alternatives in favor of a particular course.
Commuter trains are not a cost effective alternative for our area. The limited number of people who will be able to use them, and the overall impact on our transportation systems in general will come nowhere near to justifying the cost. Transportation will benefit from a studied perspective that takes reality into account rather than radical solutions born of hidden liberal agenda.
Good job.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 14, 2006 10:36 PM