1. How about considering alternative routes first and consider cost savings ?

"right. the bellevue city council, which is littered w/ freeman's lackeys - will do everything they can to kill public tranportation on the eastside."

"typical conservative playbook - run studies and move lines so that the system fails."

Not so fast with the typical knee-jerk leftwing talking points filled with ass-umptions. The environment is a consideration along with cost and the Bellevue City Council sees this as a potential problem. If ST and them work together in good faith, a more satisfactory solution will be found.

Posted by: KDS on January 31, 2010 01:12 PM

2. I have a great idea! Let's build more light rail that people have to take two bus transfers to get to because there is no parking at the terminals. It's silly and impractical, and like all public transit, downright unsafe after dark. The light rail advocates aren't going to admit that the new line is nearly devoid of ridership. The dimbulbs that run Seattle did everything they could to make it user unfriendly. As a result those trains are nearly empty.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 31, 2010 02:10 PM

3. How come #1 isn't in favor of preserving the wetlands? I'm all for it in this case. Everyone else has to abide by the do-not-disturb-streams-and-wetlands rule. ST should not be exempt. Down with double standards! Govt. only wants the citizens to follow these stupid rules; not themselves.

Posted by: Michele on January 31, 2010 05:16 PM

4.
Why not make it like the "Jungle Habitat" monorail ride?

Kids can look out the windows at loons and egrets.

Posted by: Walt Disney on January 31, 2010 05:18 PM

5. LOL. Always a circus sideshow watching Puget Sound's "alleged" leaders debate policy, while trying to juggle all of the PC balls at once.

At this rate, they finally have a useless transportation system decided upon and built, long after most sensible businesses have departed Washington for more business-friendly states.

Posted by: Jeff B. on January 31, 2010 07:21 PM

6. Mike, your entire presumption is idiotic. So what if Freeman has organized his "lackeys" to destroy Sound Transit through legal means? What they are doing is REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE THAT ELECTED THEM AND THEIR INTERESTS.

It's people like you who think you can dictate to Bellevue without their consent that are the problem, not the people organizing themselves to protect their property and liberties.

Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on January 31, 2010 08:34 PM

7. #9 - mike demonstrates paranoia from the left . Baseless - Freeman, a conservative is evil because enviro-frauds dislike him. I don't fault him or the City of Bellevue Council one bit for exploring all options.

Running the clock, screwing the public - as opposed to going off half-cocked and wasting the publics money. He doesn't know what he is talking about.

Posted by: KDS on January 31, 2010 08:52 PM

8. So it's bad to look at options that will run transit where more people will ride it... Better to just install it where it's planned now, even if no one will ride it.

Yeah, that's the brilliance of liberal thought - it doesn't matter what happens as long as something is done!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 31, 2010 08:58 PM

9. Michael Medved talked about how he and his wife rode ST train and there was almost no one else on it! Also, I understand that receipts aren't being taken seriously (more lost $$) because if you don't want to pay, you can get away with not paying. How stupid.
PS--Bellevue is a successful city BECAUSE of people like Kemper Freeman.

Posted by: Michele on January 31, 2010 09:04 PM

10. The light rail is a joke. My wife has to park "illegally" along with a number of others every day to ride the train. There are empty lots right next to the stations, but those are prevented from being developed as, not because of any reason than the stupidity in ST and Seattle. When she wrote asking ST about how 'they' expect someone to use the system, their solution was for her to hike a mile from the Rainier beach station (at night) and then wait for a bus (ave 20 min wait) to take it 2 miles and then walk another 1/2 mile. This represents an additional hour or more each day. She can drive to the station in less than ten minutes.

Go ahead, these morons will do a great job trashing I-90. I am not concerned about the wetlands. They will gladly spend billions of your hard earned dollars mitiagting any potential habitat damage.

Posted by: ST_Sucks on January 31, 2010 09:54 PM

11. This is kind of ironic in a sad way. I started my career in the new (at that time) environmental field with the state during the Evans era. It was the time the I-90 connection was killed by enviros.

I can state categorically that what the writers of the Shoreline legislation and the environmental laws and WACs envisioned is not what is happening now. It was never intended to kill projects but make the old "blow and go" engineers sit back, take pause and be sure they were doing the reasonable solution.

This stuff today would have been considered Twilight Zone material back then.

Posted by: swatter on February 1, 2010 07:52 AM

12. Bill Cruchon & ST_Sucks,

What's the complaint? So you have to walk 5 miles twice daily to the transit station...where's your sense of shared sacrifice? And so what if street punks roll you or your wife...they're probably just celebrating their diversity...and besides, you've got more money than they do...now is that fair? Remember, your leaders worked hard and sacrificed greatly to provide you with affordable transportation options...you should feel honored to ride on ST trains.

Posted by: Saltherring on February 1, 2010 08:03 AM

13. There's no point in even debating ST. When voters approved ST2, it gave them carte blanche to do whatever they want, and everyone will pay for it for a long, long time. Just glad I moved outside the ST boundary, so I only pay a little bit of sales tax towards that boondoggle.

Posted by: Palouse on February 1, 2010 08:20 AM

14. "Freeman's lackeys" are showing fiscal responsibility in pushing the 405 alignment for the Eastlink portion of the light rail corridor because it saves tons of dough (for a number of reasons: less right-of-way to purchase, less disruption to businesses, lower construction costs, etc.) which could be used further down the line.

Down that line is Redmond and the current budget only allows it to reach Overlake's 40th Street (Microsoft's main campus), but does not extend it to their second campus or downtown Redmond which leaves Redmond half-served.

And, I can't see even a goofy liberal like Mike not wanting to see more done with existing dollars (oh wait, you're probably one of those guys who wants to see everyone taxed out of their cars to force them into transit). I should have realized.

I bet that if Mike was a Bellevue resident and contacted Kevin Wallace that he would meet with him and discuss the proposal and answer any questions he had just like he did for me.

Oh, but that would cause you to actually have to DO something. My bad!

Posted by: dmc on February 1, 2010 08:34 AM

15. The Sounder Buses are working today. They go all over the Sound, and use existing infrastructure at a reasonable cost. The express buses are full. We could run as many buses as needed for years for the cost of light rail to just one location. We live in the age of convenience and technology. Unless a train happens to be close enough to get to easily, faster than an express bus, and going to exactly where you want to go, it is not going to get used. That's why Express bus ridership continues to be viable, but the new Sounder Train is mostly empty. And as computer technology, network speeds, etc. improve, and social trends change, more and more people will be working from home and or more localized "hoteling" arrangements where folks can report in to work without having to go to a far away centralized location. Boeing and other large companies already do this successfully.

When a complete train line exists through downtown from Tacoma to The U at the expense of billions, and decades, smart commuters will still take the much faster point to point ST Express 586, 590, 594, 595 buses, because they actually go all the way to endpoints with ample parking, and won't have the many grade level crossings and station stops in between that make the light rail much slower. Or they won't be commuting at all, and will be using the technology driven solutions above. The whole premise of an outmoded 19th century technology for our less manufacturing and more knowledge based modern lifestyle is ridiculous.

If Seattle leadership consisted of decisive and creative forward thinkers, Bus Rapid Transit could have made Seattle a transit envy of the nation. But all we have here are left-leaning second hand lemmings that simply emulate what they see in other liberal havens regardless of geography, cost, or reason.

Posted by: Jeff B. on February 1, 2010 11:36 AM

16. It's actually pretty silly to talk about how much Bellevue hates mass transit when there's the big transit station right in the very heart of the downtown with a big, wide well lit sidewalk that goes throughout the whole of the downtown corridor.

BTW: It's clear to just about everyone that Bellevue keeps getting more convenient and nicer while Seattle keeps getting more expensive and less friendly for shoppers and businesses.

Posted by: johnny on February 1, 2010 12:48 PM

17. Don't worry, people--YOU CAN TRUST SOUND TRANSIT. Here's why:

Rail itself voted down 3 times (1968, 1970, 1995), its new taxes voted down once (2007). Planners revised efficiency projections upward, cost projections downward. Got it voted up in 1996 (again in 2008, before voters had a chance to see the promises fall short).

Here's the record for Seattle's rail:

CENTRAL LINK

(MILEAGE)
CLAIM: 21 to 25
ACTUAL: 14

(COMPLETION DATE)
CLAIM: 2006
ACTUAL: late 2009

(RIDERSHIP)
CLAIM: 107,000
ACTUAL: 12,000
*these are boardings, not riders--roughly halve this to reflect actual # of commuters.

(COST)
CLAIM: $1.8b
ACTUAL: $2.9b

SOUNDER COMMUTER

(LENGTH)
CLAIM: 82 miles
ACTUAL: 75 miles

(TRAINS)
CLAIM: 15
ACTUAL: 10

(COMPLETION DATE)
CLAIM: 2002
ACTUAL: 2012-2013

(CAPITAL COSTS)
CLAIM: $650m
ACTUAL: $1.8b

(ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS)
CLAIM: $10m
ACTUAL: $30m+

(RIDERSHIP)
CLAIM: 3.8m
ACTUAL: 2.67m

(FAREBOX RECOVERY)
CLAIM: 27.5% of O/Cs
ACTUAL: 13% of O/Cs

SLUT

(INITIAL COST ESTIMATE)
CLAIM: $45m
ACTUAL: $56.4m (and losing money every day)

(PROJECTED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS)
CLAIM: $1.7m
ACTUAL: $2.4m

(DAILY RIDERSHIP)
CLAIM: 3150+
ACTUAL: ~1283

Add a $214k feasibility study, and the fact that walking is often faster than riding the SLUT.

CONCLUSION: YOU CAN TRUST THESE PEOPLE!

Posted by: gulliver on February 1, 2010 01:15 PM

18. Lets Face It...Government does not like Freedom of the People...PERIOD! There is a Reason that Government is pushing Rail over the more cost effective and more service oriented Buses. That reason is, that Buses use Roads and where there are Roads, the Private Automobile generally, will have the same access and Freedom of Movement. What do you suppose the Phony HOV lanes are all about? Do you believe the Phony Scam that HOV lanes were established to encourage the more efficient use of the Private Automobile with the inconvenience of filling the Automobile to capacity to use such lanes in order to reduce traffic? No, the real reason, was to give the Government special Rights to have a Lane set aside for their Buses, for advantageous use over the Private Automobile. Yes, at this time, they have to let the cars with at least two in occupancy to travel the HOV lanes but remember, they first tried to require the car to have at least three in the vehicle. Government would prefer that the Private Automobile would disappear and only Government conveyances would be available for the needs of the People. Now, they have the HOV lanes on SR 167 where you can pay a toll if you're a single occupancy driver...What a Deal! Yes the Taxpayer, who has paid for the entire Road System, now has the privilege of paying Government even more money to use a special set aside Government lane.

Bottom line is this: Government would like to have Total Control over People and the movement of People. By pushing Rail, Government can reduce the expenditures on providing adequate Road Systems and thereby forcing more People on to Government conveyances especially, Rail.

Posted by: Daniel on February 1, 2010 01:23 PM

19. Jeff B. hits the nail on the head with the phrase "19th century technology". Most commuter rail systems were built before roads and cars when rail trumped horse-drawn trolleys as the most efficient means of urban people transport. Such systems serve densely populated cities where surface arterials are few and inadequate, rendering buses impractical. Seattle has a relatively decent arterial system, making buses the far more versatile and cost effective option.

Posted by: Saltherring on February 1, 2010 02:02 PM

20. Wow, that point is just so, so right.

Anyone else here ever live in a major city like Chicago, New York, Paris, when the transit workers decided to go out on strike? Pandemonium. And the more dependent the population on rail, the worse it was.

One of the biggest reasons to oppose the massive push to trains is that it puts too much power into the hands ot unions that are proven to abuse that power if they can.

Posted by: johnny on February 1, 2010 02:27 PM

21. Now McGinn and the Clowncil want to put rail on 520, scrapping the existing plan they spent years trying to agree on.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010951025_web520bridge01m.html

The war on automobiles continues in MLKC.

The only certainties about light rail is that ridership will fall below estimates and costs will always be above them. People elected these fools, so I guess this is what they voted for...

Posted by: Palouse on February 1, 2010 03:03 PM

22. johnny @ 24 brings NY and Chicago into the discussion. Having ridden commuter trains in both cities, I note each as having huge midtown skyscraper districts to which masses of people (from outlying boroughs/suburbs) swarm in to every working day. Same with SF, Philly and DC. Perfect situations for commuter rail. The Seattle metropolitan area, by contrast, has a much smaller central business district supported by smaller in-city and suburban centers of commerce. Buses are a far superior transit option for cities such as Seattle.

Posted by: Saltherring on February 1, 2010 03:59 PM

23. Is anyone else annoyed with 'shiftless mike's lack of capitalization such that you ignore the leftist drivel he spews, much akin to idiots that SHOUT?

A more important question that needs to be raised from an engineering perspective: a rail system has never been placed on a floating bridge! How do they plan on transitions from fixed to variable sections, to account for varying lake levels? Do they also plan on converting a lane of the mainline to carpool, to make up for the loss of HOV capacity in the reversible? Lots o' questions....

Posted by: yaddacubed on February 1, 2010 04:04 PM

24. yadda,

When I encounter a post lacking proper (or any) capitalization, punctuation, word spacing or sentence structure, I immediately attribute such a contribution to a marginally educated, minimally intelligent "Gen Y" type....and proceed to ignore it.

Posted by: Saltherring on February 1, 2010 04:32 PM

25. All rails and railroads are expensive boondoggles. Ever wonder why people are constantly talking about making the trains run on time?

We would all be better off with the tried and true method of horse and buggy.

Sooner or later the Light Rail will magnetize pocket watches and zap pedestrians with runaway bolts of electricity,

Posted by: Dufus McBroke on February 1, 2010 05:36 PM

26. @29...No, all rails and railroads are certainly Not, boondoggles. They and Buses are a very necessary transportation system for cargo and people. The problem is, how it is applied. When, Government is running the show yes, many times, they can prove not to be cost effective. Government should never be involved in any business where the Private Sector can do a better job. Yet, Government will purposely over regulate, refuse to give rights-of-way, require high permit fees, etc. and make it impossible for a Private Entity to provide the needed services. Government has been known on numerous occasions of running a Private Entity out of business in order to take control of the services being offered to the Public. This will include but, not limited to, the business of moving People. If necessary, the Government will subsidize the operation with Taxpayers dollars. Again, as mention previously, Government wants to control all elements of Society it can.

Posted by: Daniel on February 1, 2010 06:20 PM

27. 30 ---
You are wrong. The Inter Urban did not work and failed as a private enterprise. The rail roads were profitable because they were given land stolen by the government.

Furthermore, if people want to cross lake Washington, let them buy a boat. Why should I be taxed to build and maintain your GD bridges?

A horse does not need a road. We should use the method of transportation our Founding Fathers intended.

Posted by: Dufus McBroke on February 1, 2010 06:26 PM

28. What a joy it is to see the irresistable PC force of mass transit in a collision with the immovable PC object of the environment.

Or really, the urbanite smart set's heavenly PC vision of the environment. In which nature must be controlled by the enlightened because it is incapable from recovering, on its own, from a temporary disturbance like a landslide or a volcanic eruption or the installation of a few piers of an elevated railway.

But cheer up, it gets better. To the two-way collision above, let's add the 'unexpected' discovery of Indian artifacts where this railway is to go. Presto, a THREE-way collision of PC imperatives.

Tune in next week for our continuing saga of the Battle of the PC Titans, and see whose taxpayer-subsidized lawyers will prevail over the taxpayer-subsidized lawyers of each of the other oh-so-righteous combatatants.

Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 1, 2010 06:45 PM

29. @31...You're a Liberal and as Nutty as they come. The Interurban Railway systems provided a profitable service for many years and was only surpassed by the coming of the Car Age. Once, cars became commonly available and the roads to go with them, the need for such commuting rail service became obsolete. Also, the Railroads were given the free land right-of-ways as an incentive to bring forth the tremendous investment and the willingness of taking such risk in building such a Railroad. It proved to be a great boon to the Nation as a whole. Many settlements were strengthen and created by this Lifeline...And Yes, settlements along rivers had their first bridge provided by the Railroad. Granted, it was still a Railroad bridge but, between trains was used by the population as a crossing for people, horses and wagons. Such a Deal!

Yeah Right! We should go back to the days of horse and buggy and kerosene lamps. To a Liberal, that reduced Lifestyle is Liberal Heaven until they are actually forced to live it. What a Laugh!

Posted by: Daniel on February 1, 2010 06:57 PM

30. 33 ---

You are wrong.
Show me a supporter of PUBLIC Transportation and I'll show you a LIBERAL.
Roads, Bridges, traffic POLICE!

All part of the liberal agenda.

Show me a society bent on building railroads, highways and bridges, and you'll find a high tax liberal hell hole.

Posted by: Dufus McBroke on February 1, 2010 07:10 PM

31. As for you Dufus...Are you pulling my leg? To be sure you realize, I support Private provided Public Transportation and Not, Government provided Public Transportation. Would you prefer everybody to walk? Perhaps, you should try and find some desolate place like, somewhere in North Dakota? Or if you could step back in time and live in the Middle Ages where some people lived their entire lifetimes within the walls of the City without venturing more than a few miles outside its walls. Then maybe, you will find satisfaction.

Posted by: Daniel on February 1, 2010 07:28 PM

32. The environment refers to the air, water and land in which people, animals, and plants live. So human beings, animals, plants, air, water and soil are the main elements of the environment.

Posted by: Chiropractic Marketing on February 7, 2010 02:46 AM

33. The environment refers to the air, water and land in which people, animals, and plants live. So human beings, animals, plants, air, water and soil are the main elements of the environment.

Posted by: Chiropractic Marketing on February 7, 2010 02:52 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?