January 27, 2005
Unsound Transit

More evidence, in case you needed it, that Sound Transit is nothing more than a very expensive and very silly boondoggle. "Sound Transit likely to approve Roosevelt tunnel". Even though there is no known revenue source to extend the as yet unbuilt light rail line to Northgate, the agency is already planning to spend tens of millions extra for the fanciest possible route that will offer the fewest possible transportation benefits:

Sound Transit's executive board is expected to choose a tunneled station at busy 12th Avenue Northeast today to be part of its proposed "North Link" line from downtown to Northgate, even though the costs are $35 million to $40 million more than the alternative of building elevated tracks along Interstate 5.

Backers of a tunneled station hope it would promote a populated "town center" where residents could walk between trains, grocery stores, restaurants and homes, said Jim O'Halloran, president of the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association.

...

One drawback of the 12th Avenue site is that it would provide no apparent park-and-ride access, while a freeway site would be served by an existing commuter lots and bike lanes.

Jon Beahm, whose Shears hair salon on 12th would be condemned, questions the notion of an "urban village" station there without parking. Roosevelt residents at a light-rail forum Tuesday filled a church parking lot with automobiles, he noticed.

The total cost of the Northgate extension will run into the billions, yet will do almost nothing to reduce traffic congestion. Sigh.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 27, 2005 03:02 PM | Email This
Comments
1. We're finally on the same side. Neither Sound Transit nor the Monorail have ever been about easing traffic congestion. Sound Transit is clearly an urban planner's dream come true...a chance to see if all the theories about urban villages and town centers around mass transit centers will actually work. Answer: probably not. As for the Monorail, I've never understood the rationale for that. So people in Ballard can get downtown faster than on the bus? I still dream about what could have been done for the Seattle school system with a tenth of the money we're wasting on those boondoggles.

Posted by: Steve on January 27, 2005 03:32 PM
2. Seattle's version of Boston's "Big Dig." Cost overruns and extended completion times will be argued as providing jobs. Got to love it!

Posted by: Greg on January 27, 2005 03:32 PM
3. This is another disastrous dividend of monolithic one-party control of the Seattle urban area.

Despite the glaring deficiencies of the system in serving a fraction of commuters with a fraction of their needs at vastly unfeasible costs, Sound Transit is a lavish payoff to the planning and environmental elites, and their allies in organized labor. From the entire Sound Transit payroll once it's up and running, expect total fealty and mighty campaign contributions to the party of Ron Sims - at the expense of those of us whose choices in commute routing and scheduling are to be held hostage to said elites.

Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on January 27, 2005 03:53 PM
4. I don't think one party control has anything to do with it. Sound Transit was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of Snohomish, King and Pierce Counties. Granted, no one knew at the time what a complete hash the Sound Transit board would make of the project, but we the voters approved it. Same with the Monorail. Hell, it won twice and once after we knew what a joke it was. As Pogo said, "We've met the enemy and it is us."

Posted by: Steve on January 27, 2005 04:22 PM
5. Hey, Greg, the Big Dig has resulted in some better roads, safer interchanges, and (finally) a route to the airport that doesn't require use of city streets (I kid you not).

That said, I am puzzled, because we're not getting any new lanes on the highways. That's going to be a problem.

Posted by: Bostonian on January 27, 2005 04:38 PM
6. Steve,

One party control has everything to do about it.

King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties are Demoncrat strongholds!!! Check their voting records.

It doesn;t have to make sense, it only has to feel good and be the "right" thing to do.

Oh, and create a bigger bureaucracy!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Norm on January 27, 2005 04:57 PM
7. Norm~

My point was that this isn't something foisted on people by a political party or its representatives in the legislature. These things were voted on and passed handily. You may not like the outcome (and frankly at this point neither do I) but it's not right to say this is the result of one party's actions.

Posted by: Steve on January 27, 2005 05:26 PM
8. I hate the light rail... it disrupts the bus tunnel, and it gets the right of way when on streets. Though I don't like the costs, at least this thing won't f*@% with traffic.

Posted by: bmvaughn on January 27, 2005 05:32 PM
9. For comparison, one might look to the Shaker Rapid system in Cleveland, built around 1928 as part of the development of Shaker Heights.

A commuter might walk as much as 5 blocks to catch a ride to work, but not for coffee or groceries.

Posted by: Terry j on January 27, 2005 10:55 PM
10. No no no ... light rail is it's own boondoggle. Mr. Mayor is proposing his own version of the big dig that really is a big dig. He wants to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel. He wants to spend billions to build this tunnel, but get this: it would have the same number of lanes as the Viaduct.

The Shark is right - "sigh." Between tunnels that don't add capacity, monorails that have the capacity of bicycle carts and go from nowhere to nowhere, and light rail that will interfere with traffic flow, it looks pretty hopeless for anyone looking for logic.

This, of course, is what happens when there is no leadership. The urban planners are circle jerking over this while calling all of us naysayers.

I'm actually not entirely against some sort of transit development, I just think it makes no sense to build two different rail systems. The waste involved due to lost economies of scale in purchasing and operations is just mind boggling.

The urban village stuff is nonsense. I lived in DC for several years and I don't think I ever saw anyone carrying groceries on the Metro. It was great for communiting, though, and that is what it was used for. While there aren't pockets of idealized urban villages around each station, the neighborhoods within walking distance of stations where very popular with Yuppies. I don't know if that is good or bad, frankly, but having a few of the bean sprout eaters displaced by Yuppies would not be such a bad thing for Seattle.

Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 27, 2005 11:04 PM
11. I was in Japan a couple years ago where they have really got this mass transit thing figured out. What they do is put the stations near "where people live" and make the trains go to "where people need to go". It's complicated, I know... but try to grasp the concept Sound Transit execs.

Posted by: Scott on January 28, 2005 03:28 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?