Richard Morrill on Crosscut today rips apart the RTID/Sound Transit proposal. I don't agree with every point he makes, but he is right about the need to use existing road capacity more efficiently. And he's spot on about the insanity of light rail:
I find it nothing short of insane to spend far over half ($24 billion out of $38 billion in the November ballot package) of potential transportation investment (capital and operating) on trains which cannot possibly meet more than 1 percent of demand for trips, an amazingly small fraction. Why is this? Simply because a rail system is skeletal and accesses very few people or activities. The only reason we have wasted, and continue to waste, such enormous resources on rail is its value as somehow the symbol of a real city.Okay, except it's not the only reason. There's also the make-work jobs and corporate welfare, and all the campaign contributions and media buys that result from it. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 20, 2007 10:14 AM | Email This
Nothing will likely happen until after the 2008 election in that case. If the Queen is reelected, they will be emboldened to push it through.
Unfortunatly Seattle has geography that is completely unsuited for light rail but that isn't stopping them from a complete devotion to the wrong mode. Tunnels and elevated guideways drive the costs through the roof in every aspect.
When we do have a chance at a short term, low cost, solution (The BNSF corridor on the Eastside) what do they do? First try to kill it, then decide to study it, and eventually will try and scrap it so they can replace it with more light rail.
For less than the cost of ONE MILE of light rail they could build out a system that would serve Renton-Woodinville-Snohomish and have it up and running in less than 2 years.
To put that in perspective... If they started now, for less than the SALES TAX on the still unfinished initial line, they could have a working system RUNNING before they get the link to the airport done. Pathetic.
When you commit to a program where it is cheaper to pay people to stay home you have something terribly wrong.
- fix the highway system. Eliminate left lane on/off ramps, choke points, etc. It is a disgrace that we have not fixed this.
- Better teach people highway etiquette. Instead, the state seems hellbent in teaching them about transit alternatives, which just furthers my theory that the "leadership" of this state is intentionally destroying the road system.
- Eliminate HOV lanes and replace them with toll lanes. Vehicles with extra occupants can spread the toll among each other, which gives the HOV advantage, but is fair in the long run as everyone has equal access. HOV lanes in their current form are outright discriminatory and unfair.
- No more drivers subsidizing transit. All automobile/truck revenue to go towards roads.
- Have properry owners who profit from transit pay for transit! Why should I subsidize something that will give certain landowners millions of dollars in profit?
2) There are piles of miniscule residential streets that have 'left turn' access from major arterials. This is what the little 6" yellow barriers are for. (Most of these ares are well served by stoplight-with-left-arrow every 4-6 blocks, but blocking the arterial to turn left is just more conveeeenient.)
3) Why doesn't Mercer go over Fairview, anyway?
Posted by: Al on June 20, 2007 11:24 AMThe above folks have a plan to have commuter rail on the eastside running in less than 2 years
Ron Sims and Joni Earl will take 20 years to bring rail to the eastside, if they don't study it to death first
Posted by: Green Lake Mark on June 20, 2007 11:26 AMAs the former head of Greenpeace has said, the left is engaged in an "anti-human" campaign. As for myself, I wish they'd focus on themselves first, and leave the rest of us alone. That would certainly solve a lot of problems worldwide.
Posted by: MJC on June 20, 2007 11:53 AMVancouver's InTransitBC is decommissioning an overgrown capacity BRT line and replacing it with more than 16km of rail (The Canada Line) to Richmond and the Airport for $1.9 billion in 2003. There's an interesting partnership in their financing that ST should be looking at. The line will deliver the capacity equivalent of 10 arterial roads.
JDH - What are all of the state and interstate highways, let alone federal grants for everything under the sun related to moving people and goods intra- and inter- city and state if not pork appropriated from taxpayers and distributed according to political will?
It will carry about 140 trains a day, you know those high speed ones, linking Germany to Milan in a just a couple of hours. The two bores met only inches off. 8 years to build.
The cost? $3.5B. That's US$.
Think about it. $3.5B for 21 miles of tunnels 6000 feet under the alps...while you in Seattle want to build 50 more miles of "light rail" mainly alongside your feeway for $10 billion ... over twenty years.
I question myself, why is our tunnel under the Alps at a cost of $150 million a mile cheaper than your surface light rail cost of about $200 million per mile?
Our tunnels are cheaper than your surface rail!
Quelle mirable! Sacre Dieu! C'est bien sure we have some great engineers and socialist-government programs over here in Europe.
Est-ce que vous avez les cervelles d'hot dog and etes trop stupides pour faire bien l'engineering???
Posted by: Marcel on June 20, 2007 01:26 PMIs it your intent to turn every thread topic into a European comparison and how great everything is over there? Give it a rest.
Nevertheless, light rail here is still a boondoggle that will do absolutely nothing to relieve traffic congestion.
Posted by: Palouse on June 20, 2007 01:40 PMBut the transit utopians are fixated on rail. They have decided that rail is a symbol of progressivism in the same way as they embrace affirmative action and other policies that do far more harm than good.
If they were really concerned about the environment, about commuting, about cost savings, about serving the greater good, etc. then they would abandon rail and work within our existing road based transit investment.
But look for the insanity to continue, because once these true believers decide on a direction, they are as stubborn as stubborn gets.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 20, 2007 01:54 PMSome of that is true. However, the State and Interstate highways are available to 100% of the population who can freely exercise choice of when and where to use it. Light rail is available to a maximum of about 5% of the commuting population. If we're going to have pork, which we all pay for, let it be useful to all of us, not just the holier-than-thou 5%.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on June 20, 2007 02:07 PMI also agree that the highway people need to remove choke points, improve on & off ramps, go to congestion pricing & change more streets to thoroughfares. That will go a long way to alleviate many road problems.
Posted by: Clean House on June 20, 2007 02:18 PMST2 does not seem to have as much taking of property, there seems to be some on the East Side and yes you are right, maybe that is a factor. Still it is a good question to ask, why is a rail tunnel in the Alps $150 million a mile while surface light rail in Seattle is $200 million mile? Can the condemnation cost be $50 million a mile? That's almost the entire per mile cost of light rail in some places.
As far as giving it a rest, the reason I compare to Europe is there you have facts that exist. Like rail and tunnels. A good check or reference point, you see. And a model of what could be. Facts are like evidence are like proof, I know most Americains prefer to spout their mythical beliefs (govt is good! govt is bad! LRT is good! LRT is bad!) with no factual basis so perhaps that is what is truly annoying you?
Sad for the simple ones among us, govt or rail or whatever can be good or bad. It all depends. What's interesting is to ask questions to find out what it depends on. But if you do that, there is a risk you might have to change your opinion and many are not interested in that.
Maybe those Alps tunnel miles are not comparable for some reason. But to learn that tunnel rail in Europe is cheaper than surface rail in Seattle, how provacative! What is going on here?
Merci,
Posted by: Marcel on June 20, 2007 02:52 PMIt's time to wake up Seattle. Wake up and shake off those metrophobic paranoid nightmares.
(right on YG, in the 50s and 60s they were, which I am pretty sure was allocated spending of tax revenues in any case, and they continued right on out past that initial intention into the presumed entitlement that they are now.)
Posted by: Acid Brain on June 20, 2007 03:03 PMSo, you could think of it more like a research project such as NASA -- not meant to do anything useful, but as an exploratory effort. And if it makes so good middle class wages, then great, that's what this area needs.
A billion just ain't what it used to be.
Posted by: John Bailo on June 20, 2007 03:08 PMVancouver's InTransitBC is decommissioning an overgrown capacity BRT line and replacing it with more than 16km of rail (The Canada Line) to Richmond and the Airport for $1.9 billion in 2003. There's an interesting partnership in their financing that ST should be looking at. The line will deliver the capacity equivalent of 10 arterial roads.
OK, then let's start with BRT, and once capacity is reached or breached, there'll be a PARTNERSHIP FUNDING SOURCE ready to go to fund any future expansion.
Don't jump into the most expensive - and least flexible - option until you know it'll work. Ridership on the Sounder Trains is still heavily subsidized and well under initial estimates. Wait until that comes up to speed before we worry about actually deploying trains.
Marcel,
Two points:
1. How many stops in that Alps tunnel? Remember here in the terribly mismanaged SimsNicklestan we're boring down a few hundred feet at a shot to create deep underground stations. In prime earthquake territory (something of not too much worry in the Alps).
2. Two words: Prevailing Wage.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on June 20, 2007 03:36 PMRidership, over revenue, should be the standard.
We are putting to much emphasis on busses on the interstates,moving to milk run transit urban centers,and have no emphasis on getting more local traffic back to the original corridors.
This "new" plan is another Revenue wet dream for the Business districts and the square footage rate, property tax, sales tax stakeholders.
I have no confidence at all in the tax greedy politicians that do this planning.
I have every confidence that if it passes this new plan will set our region back 50 years,by not investing were we need it now,.
Local traffic must stop avoiding the original corridors and get off the interstates.
Any new taxes should go towards original corridor investments to get more local traffic back onto the original corridors,and off the interstates.
We can build our way out of congestion if we invest in the right strategy in the right place.
High speed rail on the original corridors...
Any questions.
Jitneys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jitney
"A form of share taxi found in the United States and Canada"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_taxi
"A share taxi is a mode of transport that falls between private transport and conventional bus transport, with a fixed route, but the convenience of stopping anywhere to pick or drop passengers, etc. Share taxis often have unfixed time schedules. Another type of share taxi has no fixed route. The difference with a regular taxicab is the fact that the taxi is shared.
Share taxis are the main system of public transport in many countries (especially developing countries). They are known by different names in different countries (see table)."
That's what we really need. Jitneys -- just like the jitney in Petticoat Junction.
Posted by: John Bailo on June 20, 2007 07:20 PMI'll tell you why, it is because your stupid idea isn't worth the cud you chew. Get the hell out of here, why would anyone in their right mind seek to emulate countries that can't hold a candle to America. And I can say that because America is THE country pretty near every one living in those stinking jitney infested third world Marxist dung heap of a countries wants to move to.
It covers the complete Gentrification of an urban village corridor from Everett to Tacoma.
It covers higher square footage rates,Higher property taxes,higher sales taxes.
You know, all the things 1000 friends of Greg Smith,sierra-wise really stand for, instead of saving a whale salmon,and frog like they have been woop woop wooping about..
It covers more carrot ,Stick,and flubber from social engineers making bank,collecting pension benefits watching tv monitors.
It covers a transportation infrastructure deficit
On the original corridor which will guarantee clogging the interstates for our grandkids.
He'll want to choose a patsy. Someone who pretends to be opposed, but who writes an unpursuasive statement.
The statements For and Against are very important to the outcomes of propositions like this.
Sims chose Bill Eagen and Will Knedlik to write against "Transit Now." They wrote a terrible Statement Against. Knedlik is a disbarred lawyer (proof of his lack of credibility). For absolutely no good reason those two actually went off on an inane rant against Sound Transit in the Statement Against that King County proposition.
Anyone think they know who Sims will choose to write the Statement Against the RTID/ST2 measure?
It better not be an associate of any property owner/developer with downtown Bellevue commercial property holdings: those guys want this thing to pass BAD (for the obvious financial reasons).
I expect some funny business out of Team Sims on this one . ...
The current Haiawatha line is having record ridership and easily in the black.
The good people of the Twin Cities area are absolutely up in arms because the cost estimate of an eleven mile expansion just crossed the billion dollars mark.
Man, those representatives just don't know anything about spending thier constituent's money.
Sort of like what the City of Kent did -- a couple of years ago -- out by Green River CC. They approved a subdivision on a geographically-isolated piece of municipally-owned property (technically, inside the City limits since the basis of the acquisition of the property in the 1970s had to result in an annexation of the property, too).
Sounds like the County has to sell property that has been declared "surplus." As with other surplus land, I'm sure that if someone came up with a better 'best offer' to recoup the taxpayers' costs to acquire title, but didn't want to develop it, Ron might be obliged to accept the offer.
Go for it, guys!
Posted by: FT on June 21, 2007 04:13 AMFunny. "Duvall" or "Carnation" I might call "rural" cities. I've seen the commercial development and subdivisions out along SR 169, the new subdivisions out by the "18 Pound Pirhahna/Pla-Mor Tavern" on 216th and SE 288th. "Suburban" comes more to mind when I think "Maple Valley".
Posted by: FT on June 21, 2007 04:20 AMI guess it's OK because it looks suburban. It's almost like Redmond Ridge all over again, without bothering to falsify the concurrency reports. So much for GMA. I guess we will have to follow the contribution trail to see where it leads.
Posted by: Smokie on June 21, 2007 05:33 AMAnd what about the 98% of daily trips in Minneapolis that don't involve the LRT? And I'm calling B.S. on your contention that their LRT is "in the black", unless you're using some kind of creative accounting or leaving out the massive capital investments.
Posted by: Palouse on June 21, 2007 08:16 AMWill buy us nothing, less people than use them now will use them if they are tolled. It still decreases available lanes by 25-33%.
And, yes, tunnels in a muck pit and an earthquake area is just depressing, that should be obvious to anyone with a vaguely functional brain.
This isn't europe where there are living areas and working areas - everything and everyone is spread out all over. Lucky enough to live close to someone you work with - damn nice if you can arrange it. What is the percentage that does / can?
Busses? Nice if it works for you and you have regular hours and work someplace where it isn't a 6 hour trip with multiple changes required (yes, that is what it would have taken for me to get to / from work). If you work in the city center then it might be a good thing.
Doesn't anyone get it? This area will never handle the massive city the pols want for a power base / tax structure.
Posted by: fox3 on June 21, 2007 11:06 AM Washington State +
Transportation funding = Gentrification.
Gentrification, or urban gentrification, is a phenomenon in which low-cost, physically deteriorated neighborhoods undergo physical renovation and an increase in property values, along with an influx of wealthier residents who may displace the prior residents.[1][2]
Proponents of gentrification focus on the benefits of urban renewal, such as renewed investment in physically deteriorating locales, improved access to lending capital for low-income mortgage seekers as their property values increase, increased rates of lending to minority and first-time home purchasers to invest in the now-appreciating area and improved physical conditions for renters.[3] Often initiated by private capital, gentrification has been linked to reductions in crime rates, increased property values, increased tolerance of minority sexualities[4], and renewed community activism.[citation needed]
Critics of gentrification often cite the human cost to the neighborhood's lower-class residents when debating the topic. They expound that the increases in rent often spark the dispersal of communities whose members find that housing in the area is no longer affordable.[citation needed] Additionally, the increase in property taxes may sometimes force or give incentive for homeowners to sell their homes and seek refuge in less expensive neighborhoods. While those who view gentrification as a positive phenomenon praise its effect on neighborhood's crime rates, those with different paradigms believe that the crime has not truly been reduced, but merely shifted to different lower-income neighborhoods.
Any Questions
Posted by: Publicbulldog on June 21, 2007 12:14 PMGentrification can be a contentious issue.[5] It highlights the complex issues surrounding the instability of renting homes: people might be forced to move away from newly desirable areas because the landlords increase rents.
Demographic changes often occur because an increase in average income causes a decline in the proportion of ethnic minorities, a reduction in the size of the households, and low-income families are replaced by "up and coming" singles and couples.[citation needed] In American cities, the new, wealthier demographic of the neighborhood can sometimes resemble the original populace for which the neighborhood was constructed. In these cases, gentrification represents the reversal of the white flight phenomenon.
Real estate markets can also change due to large increases in rent and home prices, increases in the number of evictions, increases in ownership of formerly rented homes, and new development of upscale housing. The use of the land in the area may also change, as formerly industrial areas become converted to office and/or residential use (lofts). New retail and restaurants are built, eventually followed by luxury housing. This often brings with it a change in culture and character. Neighborhoods prior to gentrification often have a unique style formed by their longtime residents. As these residents become displaced by newcomers, ideas about what is attractive change, and standards for architecture, urban landscape, and public norms (including behavior, noise, and nuisance) change as well (Grant).
Property owners can also feel the effects of gentrification through increases in property taxes. Property taxes are typically based on a percentage of a property's assessed value. As property values increase in a given neighborhood, municipalities will typically reassess the values of properties within gentrifying communities resulting in higher property taxes for the neighborhood's long-term owners. If the owners cannot afford the tax increases, they are forced to sell (or, if they own a multi-family dwelling, they may pass the increases on to tenants in the form of higher rents).
WANT LESS CRIME
Want to get rid of the poor Black Population in your community,try some GENTRIFICATION.
Get Sound Transit.
Force every poor black family out of the whole puget sound region with the Gentrification provided by Sound Transit.,and replace them with civic minded white people.
Thats TODAYS Seattle Democrat.
A developers handle in their hand,out woop woop wooping in public with a whole band of back pack wearin greanie dorks, saying we've gotta save the whale salmon and frog,you gotta move into a high rise.
Seattle D's are Snake oil salesman!.
Take a shower Seattle D's.
Invite the greanie dorks to join you.
Out in full view along Cary Moon blvd.(surface street)
Any Questions
I'm absolutely not defending their rail system. It was convenient but ONLY because it happened to be going where I needed to go from where I happened to be. What it really was, at least in part, if you looked over the riders, was a form of transportation subsidy for the more unfortunate.
My point (which I didn't make very well I guess) was why thier upgrade should cost one billion and ours is going to cost twenty four???? That's five! times as much rail costing five!! times as much per mile. And you know it will be double that or more by the time it's done, if only becuase of the blank-check way they are writing the ballot this time.
Do the math:
Family of more than four? Your just screwed!
Family of four? $73,332
Family of three? $54,999
Family of two? $36,666
Vote Hell NO! On all of it!
Posted by: GS on June 25, 2007 11:46 PM