A very good op-ed in the Seattle Times this morning presents the case for Bus Rapid Transit instead of light rail.
But light rail will probably prevail, in spite of the fact that BRT is more flexible, has more capacity and is a lot less expensive than light rail. Rail will almost certainly prevail precisely because it's more expensive. As with any other pork barrel project that mainly benefits the conniving few, the cost is the benefit.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 13, 2005 11:12 AM | Email ThisOr maybe you think there should be more HOV lanes, because that's the only way BRT trumps light rail -- if there is a separate right of way.
Not every transportation solution is an attempt to pick people's pockets *first* and a way to get people to work *second.*
Even your readers have to get to work and back, Stefan. At some point there have to be multiple right-of-way choices.
The monorail was one of those choices. But oh, no, that wasn't good enough for you, Mr. Transportation Expert, or your gaggle of sycophants.
Face, it, there are *no* transportation solutions coming from Sound Politics. It's just more of the same: Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that man behind the tree.
Now let's watch everybody call Ivan names. That will solve our transportation problems. You bet it will.
Your brand of visioning is cute Ivan.....almost captivating.....as is most LEFTIST PINHEAD dogma.
However, pleeeeeeeease...for a change get into the "business case" for your dreams.
PS I'm not going to call you any names...dinkface!
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on November 13, 2005 11:41 AM
Might even get a glimpse of Ron Sim's limo or CG's new Cadillac!
Liberal Progress, gotta love it!
Posted by: GS on November 13, 2005 11:59 AMYou are correct, Ivan, that separate rights-of-way are the answer, and that is why I am one Sound Politics reader and commenter that supported the monorail, albeit somewhat reluctantly because its management seemed less than competent, and I wasn't wed to the monorail technology, just the elevated right-of-way. Put buses on an elevated system of roadways, or even light trains, but putting more buses, trains, or steetcars at grade is not the answer.
So I am not calling you names. But you have to acknowledge Stefan's frustration, and that of the rest of us, who feel like victims of a tax hungry, incompetent government transportation department that cares more about complying with the liberal orthodoxy (highways designed to "move people" not move cars, deer crossings, bike lanes, noise barriers), providing job security, and, in the case of Seattle, building the %^&#*^%* tunnel option, than building an effective transportation system.
Posted by: srogers on November 13, 2005 12:22 PMAny new, from scratch right of way is going to cost us in 200? dollars. At least you appear to acknowledge that.
But bike paths, deer crossings, noise barriers, etc., are there because one hell of a lot of people insist that they be there. And what exactly do you have against job security?
All of this stuff is on the table, and I do not post here to be a troll -- most of the time. I depend, like everybody else does, on our *public* transportation infrastructure, and any discussion of it anywhere is worthwhile if it helps.
Putting fingers in ears and shouting "la-la-la, I can't hear you" like Cynical does with every post he makes, does nothing to solve the problems we all face.
Posted by: Ivan on November 13, 2005 12:47 PMYou get it! It's all about redistribution to the industries that have bought our political system; construction, development and labor.
We can build to our hearts intent, but if we build what people won't use, will we still be surprised at increased gridlock and congestion?
Posted by: Mike on November 13, 2005 12:56 PMEver here of bus ways? Yep, Bus ways, the advantages of Light Rail but the "Cars" can hop off and service neighborhoods, and aren't tied to the "track."
Posted by: JCM on November 13, 2005 01:15 PMTry to lower your neuroses for long enough to attempt some common sense. You seem to fancy yourself as a mature, sensible, and reasonable person, but your comments exhibit a naive disability to reason that is appalling.
Light rail is not a good solution for our area because the population density here will not support it. If it did, I would support it because I would prefer to ride a train to work. Even if I was unable to use it, if I had ANY reason to believe that it was a practical solution for our area, I would support it. It is not practical solution for our area. The problem is that only a limited number of people who will be able to use a light rail system in our area will pay for it. It will force you and me to subsidize those less responsible but more fortunate riders’ transportation solutions. Why should I be responsible to pay for others transportation solutions when I am already paying for my own?
The fact that you like light rail is not sufficient reason to build it. A single fare on the Sounder train pays for less than a third of its cost. Some fairer estimates say it is much less that that. Nvertheless, I don’t demand that you pay for two-thirds of my transportation costs, why should I pay for those of Sounders’ riders?
Come on Ivan, wise up, the monorail was not a multiple right-of-way choice. The monorail used one rail, one linked coach, going in one direction only, to and from limited departures and destinations, along an unchanging linear route, that would only serve a VERY limited number of users, AND for an outrageous price tag. It was a vanity project not a transportation solution, and the vast majority of Seattleites would have received no benefit from the Monorail whatsoever.
Every transportation solution that ignores sound economic practicality amounts to an attempt to pick people's pockets. I propose that you quit minding my business about my need to drive my car to and from work, balance transportation solutions rationally, and quit trying to fund absurd non-solutions born of intellectual laziness and economic folly.
"Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that man behind the tree?" No wonder you are concerned about people calling you names.
Why not grow up?
"I propose that you quit minding my business about my need to drive my car to and from work, balance transportation solutions rationally, and quit trying to fund absurd non-solutions born of intellectual laziness and economic folly."
I say:
What does any of this have to do with your need to drive your car to and from work? You need to drive your car to work? Fine. So do hundreds of thousands of other people around here.
Do you want the roads you drive on to be more congested, or less congested? You're stating baldly that light rail will not be a good investment, and not offering a shred of evidence to support that.
I doubt there is any solution, other than the one that benefits you personally, that you would say represented "sound economic analysis." Anything else will always be absurd to you.
I won't comment on this thread any further. You guys would rather impede progress and take no responsibility for it.
But we had more votes than you did in this last election, and we'll move forward without you.
Posted by: Ivan on November 13, 2005 02:33 PM". . . bike paths, deer crossings, noise barriers, etc., are there because one hell of a lot of people insist that they be there. And what exactly do you have against job security?"
1) A slight (perhaps) majority of Seattlites may be "one hell of a lot of people" as compared to, say, my family, but as compared to the population of Washington, its a small vocal minority. We can recognize tyranny when we see it.
2) I have nothing against private sector job security. But government is inherently parasitic and needs to be as small as possible. After hurricane Katrina, Louisiana faced a tremendous decrease in tax revenues, and hence could not pay the salaries of all of its government employees. So the state layed off its "nonessential" employees - about 50% of them. I assume they are now or are becoming productively employed. Why not lay off our nonessential goverment employees now?
Because that's not the way it works. Government bureaucracies are like a ratchet - they tend to grow, but never get smaller. Incompetents are shifted to other government agencies. Every piece of legislation that tries to save the world with new government programs creates new agencies, new employees, new parasites. Look in the government sections of the white pages under health and human services - you'll see three or four pages of agencies, many with missions duplicated in other levels of government, most unnecessary, and all laden with the smell of burnt money. DOT is no different.
When, in the early 20th century, government service became a booming "profession," rather than a civic duty laced with volunteerism, with nobless oblige, we all began losing our freedom, and, in small increments, our very lives - the government's confiscation of a part of our income represents a loss of the return on life energy, a delay or outright loss of our ability to save and invest for our own economic independence. That principle use to be recognized, and our Constitution was written by people concerned about limiting the scope and activities of government to only those that were absolutely necessary - activities that simply could not be undertaken by private individuals acting together or alone. Now, we have people like you glibly asking what I have against "job security," as if a private sector and government job were remotely comparable or equivilently valuable.
So that's what I have against "job security."
Posted by: srogers on November 13, 2005 02:43 PMI'm not here to discuss your theology. See you next thread.
Posted by: Ivan on November 13, 2005 03:05 PMIt's about time the Times got it, but what they are saying now was a known fact 5-10 years ago, so this is no revelation, they are just echoing what talk radio has said for years (KVI and some on KIRO). The population density of Seattle won't justify light rail for at least 50, probably 100-200 years from now. The same could be said for Portland and a number of major cities that have it and that's why - it only has 1-3% ridership in those places, which has essentially no impact on traffic on major thoroughfares in these cities. Bus transit is clearly a more cost effective method for the time being - but there will need to be a change in fuel type and consumption for that to hold up over the next 15-25 years and beyond.
Posted by: KS on November 13, 2005 03:25 PMHere's an idea to beef up public transportation without taxing us poor souls: Companies and the building landlords who lease the space to companies, charge for parking everywhere....giving the net proceeds to public transportation. If workers want to drive and park, they'll help pay for those who hassle with the bus. Hopes are, bus routes with zero transfers will increase and more folks will ride. It's a balancing process.
Throw in some solid auditing and we may have a winner here.
Posted by: MB on November 13, 2005 03:31 PMOne: we voted down a twelve billion dollar version. We did care about the cost. Sound Transit came right back with a different system with a lowballed cost, on which basis we elected it. After a tortured process of trying to hire a contractor to build it, using secret meetings to bully said contractor into accepting ST's dishonestly low estimate as a cost, ST admitted that the system we elected couldn't be built for that price.
Were we given the democratic alternative to vote again on real-world prices? No - ST had jiggered the legislation into affirming the system would be built regardless of cost, and dishonestly hidden this nasty condition from the voters.
Two: The Monorail just went down, when its cost was revealed far above its 'conservative' estimates. Again, its Board tried subterfuges to get something - anything - built, as a foot in the door for its would-be careerists. But some of the same cabal who cheerfully promoted ST's dishonest establishment - Greg Nichols, anyone? - suddenly discovered financial rectitude and spiked it.
Sound Transit should have been spiked for the same reason, but its political backers were too firmly stuck into the trough. Democracy, NOT.
Three: The driving force for public transit, particularly fixed or light or mono-rail, is a political stampede largely driven by a desire to punish others for driving their automobiles on the public roadways. There's little practical about it. The Monorail's financing was based by a levy on every automobile in the district, for the benefit of those few commuters who could actually make use of its single track. Nice punishment, but useless at reducing congestion.
Here's where the railers really have their fingers stuck in their ears and eyes both. The commute traffic is a composite of trips made from a myriad of points A to another myriad of points B. The blind and deaf ones are either unwilling, or simply refuse to admit, that the one thin line on the map representing this horrendously expensive rail line does almost NOTHING to solve the travel problems of those whose residences don't lie within a short distance of that single thin line.
Note that a Bus Rapid Transit system could actually benefit those far-flung residents - unlike Sound Transit's rail line. La la la, you don't hear me?
Again, the railers happily propose that the vast majority not living on that thin line of track be punished financially for the benefit of the few who do live there. Perhaps if the railers had unlimited powers over our choice of residences we'd all be forced into high-rise banlieues all less than two blocks from the tracks - and then our former happy homes could all be razed to bring King and Snohomish Counties back to a pristine state of wilderness with Adams and Eves happily frolicking in the bushes.
But before going farther with this politically dishonest trend, give us a vote or two, OK?
Posted by: Hank Bradl;ey on November 13, 2005 03:31 PMAlso, keep your eye on the ball - during construction of this initial phase. I agree with Dori Monson's prediction - that the tunnel will encur significant cost overruns.. Maybe Seattle voters have wised up a little bit after finally defeating the monorail for the 5th time. The next test will be to see if they are smart enough to defeat ST expansion, in light of all the cost overruns that Sims' folly will accumulate.
Posted by: KS on November 13, 2005 03:50 PMThis is the key point that I have been making to the railers for years:
"The commute traffic is a composite of trips made from a myriad of points A to another myriad of points B. The blind and deaf ones are either unwilling, or simply refuse to admit, that the one thin line on the map representing this horrendously expensive rail line does almost NOTHING to solve the travel problems of those whose residences don't lie within a short distance of that single thin line."
80+% of commuters in the greater Seattle area are single occupancy vehicles and they are not all traveling to and from downtown Seattle.
Posted by: Scott in Carnation on November 13, 2005 05:00 PMYour emotional instability matches your inability to reason. You really do embarrass yourself with your shallow foolish indolence and intolerance for the diversity of opinions of others. That's hardly the behaivor of a tolerant LIBERAL.
Ivan says to me,"You're stating baldly that light rail will not be a good investment, and not offering a shred of evidence to support that." This in response to my comments where I said in support of my assertions about commuter rail systems, "A single fare on the Sounder train pays for less than a third of its cost. Some fairer estimates say it is much less than that.” If Ivan Weiss used his little browser to look up the data about the Sounder train he would find that I am correct, but instead, because he is losing the argument and his temper, he runs away saying, ”I won't comment on this thread any further. You guys would rather impede progress and take no responsibility for it.”
Ivan, you are a lightweight who is full of foolish notions and hackneyed arguments that fall apart even absent the slightest little challenge. Many of us in this area are painfully aware that "you had [received] more votes than you [we] did in this last election,” but you will not move forward on anything; just round and round in very small circles. The vote was not an endorsement of you, but a recognition of the naiveté' of many of the citizens in our area. While the fact that you are thoroughly deluded in your own little fragile emotional fairyland is obvious, it is also bad for your constituency, bad for our area, and embarrassing even for you.
That said, I find you very amusing.
Thanks for the laughs.
You are the political party of NO-- and people are finally giving you the very same answer to your non-solutions and nay-saying obstructionism.
Posted by: Apache Fog on November 13, 2005 06:12 PMWhatever makes you feel better, eh? I am neither losing my temper nor the argument, despite your fantasies. So call me all the names you want, if that's what you're reduced to. You don't sound very amused to me.
No mass transit will ever pay for itself through farebox recovery. Not only did I never claim it would, but only a fool would. So what? If 100 percent farebox recovery is your standard, then no mass transit solution will ever satisfy you, and you have no solutions except to call names.
Get your teeth into this, though before you fire off some lame retort: Even if a single fare on the Sounder Train pays for less than one-third of the cost of operation *now*, what do you do about the 100,000 people per year that the state's population is estimated to grow for the next 10 years -- much of it in King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties -- let them walk, or clog up the roads some more?
Those people will have to use *something.* Don't pretend that you can predict mass transit use. If we build it, they will come. But first we have to build it.
Even if Sound Transit as presently constituted is not the best way to go, the crunch of population is going to demand *some* alternative to cars and highways. What's it going to be?
Yes, there *are* a lot of moonbats who would love to force people out of their cars. I'm not one of them. But those who might *choose* to use mass transit of their own free will need more choices than they have now, or the roads will be worse for the rest of us than they are now.
And whatever it is, you'll pay, and so will I.
Posted by: Ivan on November 13, 2005 06:29 PMMass transit actually makes sense in Seattle. Compared to most cities and regions around the country it still has a high percentage of its jobs downtown, despite the Microsoft cluster on the Eastside.
That said, every city with jobs will always have traffic congestion. It's not going away. Though in 1972, during the Boeing Bust (the Last person to leave Seattle please turn the lights off billboard era), I imagine traffic was quite light - as you drove into town to collect your food stamps.
Bus rapid transit would be just as expensive as light rail because to be rapid it needs, like light rail, a dedicated right-of-way. New lanes on our highways, where if possible they can be built, are easily $200M-$400M per mile, ballpark with light rail.
Posted by: DaveJ on November 13, 2005 06:37 PMPosted by: Organization Man on November 13, 2005 07:07 PM
"Government is inherently parasitic and needs to be as small as possible" is a fact I can't debate? That's the post I was calling "theology." That's right from the church of Ayn Rand. Is that what *you* call "a fact I can't debate? Even George Bush doesn't believe that.
"Women, even if they wanted to, can't use mass transit?" There are a whole lot of assumptions in that thesis that you'd have a hard time proving, bucko.
Posted by: Ivan on November 13, 2005 07:43 PMI didn’t call you any names but if it will help you to feeeel comfortable I can.
"If we build it, they will come," is a line from a completely fictional fantasy movie, so I understand why you used it in context to your arguments.
While I agree in general with what you say about so-called 100 percent farebox recovery, it is beside the point. In the Sounder Train, we already have empirical proof that our area is nowhere near ready for the types of mass transit schemes you propose. 100,000 additional people is nowhere near enough to provide the nominal population density necessary to make light rail a practical solution for our area. If you look into it even a little tiny bit you will find that the evidence overwhelmingly supports my point.
Get your brain into this: Yes, if all Sound Transit data is accepted at face value, future costs to revenue ratios will level off to some comparative degree, but nowhere near enough to make a light rail system economically feasible. The most optimistic predictions for the Sounder that are available come from Sound Move: The Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan and establish that projected future performance will cause the system to fail because they are nowhere near being economically feasible even given your projections of population increases for the next 10 years.
The data shows that“Sounder Transit is in its fourth year of operation, so it can be assessed for the relationship between Sound Transit's projections and performance. In its first full year of operation, 2001, Sounder Tacoma/Seattle met 58 percent of its ridership goal. In the second year, 47 percent. In 2003, 33 percent. Currently it serves one-third its daily goal for 2004. Its increase in daily ridership is between 400 and 300 average daily boardings per year, and falling. If there are 350 boardings added each year, there will be 5,350 daily boardings in 2010. That will be 49 percent of the goal, and 52 percent of Sound Transit's "worst case" projection.”
This doesn’t seem to support your whimsical prognostications at all. In fact it would eat up many millions of dollars over the coming ten years that will not yeild a comparative bang for the buck at all. This money should go to make real prectical transportation solutions. Try facts sometime instead of baseless predictions without “offering a shred of evidence to support them.”
You say what would I do, “let them walk, or clog up the roads some more?” If they won't pay their way, yes, I'd let them walk. Otherwise, I would do the intelligent thing, build more traffic lanes where they are needed to relieve congestion, carry commuters, and support commerce, reform the HOV system, and make mass transit practical again like it used to be before liberals got hold of the system.
By the way, I thought you weren't going to comment on this thread any further, because us guys would rather impede progress and take no responsibility for it. You talk about responsibility there Ivan? How about making down-towners pay their own damn bus fares?
Amusing . . . yes indeed.
Thanks for the comments.
Everyone must and should pay their entire way. The rest of the state should pay for everything for them, because they are part of this Kingdom of righteous individuals.
All bend over now and praise the great Seattle residents now. Ready:
1.
2.
3.
Thank you for your wonderful example for the rest of us peons in this state........
Enjoy your free ride, we will work hard each and every day to pay for your way!
Be sure and wave to King Ron Sim's Limo as it passes each day as you are getting off your free bus ride!
Posted by: GS on November 13, 2005 10:39 PMYou must have been in the area called Old Town. Old Town is one area I won't go in even in the day time. Too many people sleeping on the streets, etc.
The Max uses the Steel Bridge and swings by the Union Station and then goes south on 5th Ave. Both 4th and 5th Avenues use to have 3 lanes of traffic plus parking on both sides of the street. Not any more.... because of the MAX. 4th and 5th Ave have just one lane of traffic.
You're correct about the almost empty trains. I'm down there every other weekend and rarely see very many people on them. The only time I have seen alot of people waiting to take the Max was this past July. There was a soccer tournment at the PGE Park and lots of kids were waiting at the station in front of the Park. I too have seen the Max waiting at 18th and Jefferson with one or two passengers and of course there is two train personel.
Between the Max and the I-405 freeway they have been successful at messing up my getting around Portland.
Posted by: Janet on November 13, 2005 10:42 PMOf course highways are subsidized, mostly by gas tax dollars, but they are not subsidized as disproportionately as light rail is projected to be, and nowhere near what the Sounder Transit system currently is. The only way an argument like yours can be sustained is if you make false comparisons based on similar uses. It amounts to changing the subject mid-argument. In essence the comparison of $ per mile of roadways versus the same $ per mile of rails is specious because it compares service for a certain type of commuter to service for a whole host of diverse interests including commerce, commuter, health and safety, National Defense, etc.
Any credible expert out there will tell you that highways will also move a great many more commuters than any light rail system. Your stated figures of the cost to build highways and rail systems at $200M-$400M per mile are inaccurate. Expanding I-5 between Northgate and downtown Seattle would cost between $75 million and $100 million per mile. While the cost for rail is considerably less, the two infrastructures serve entirely different ranges of interests and cannot be fairly compared on such a basis.
The basis left to make a sensible judgment about rail commuter systems is a cost-benefit analysis. The Sounder train currently makes three daily round trips between Tacoma and Seattle transporting 315 per day with an average fare of roughly $3.00 per person. The per trip per rider cost is estimated by the Transit Authority itself at between $98.00 and $298.00 depending on the method of calculation used. The higher number is more accurate for several reasons, but even given that, the cost at $95 net loss per fare is disproportionate to the potential benefit of moving 315 people per day that such a system provides. If you want to wrecklessly spend $95 per commuter per day on transportation, why not pay people to carpool. We wouldn't need to build rails and the HOV lanes would be used more.
Conservative estimates project a 1 million dollar per rider subsidy over the next ten years for Sounder Transit. In contrast, Interstate-5 moves hundreds of thousands of cars, vans, buses, and trucks in both directions all day and is paid for mostly with gas tax dollars and private finance of vehicles, insurance, and maintenance by individual citizens. The facts come nowhere close to justifying the Sounder train, and they indicate clearly that light rail is a bad idea for our area.
Try again, it doesn’t add up.
Thanks for the comments.
Now as to the North route, it won't stop at First Hill, so it goes more quickly to the UW. Except, there's that little problem called interference with the science experiments in the Physics and Chem buildings. It will be interesting to see how slow the trains have to go in order not to interfere: 15 or 20 mph?
An interesting question to ask is how high would the taxes have to be to build out whatever light rail supporters say is a reasonable system? A corallary question is how many miles of light rail track are needed to actually make an impact on traffic?
Signed,
frustrated by light rail
http://heraldnet.com/stories/05/11/12/100loc_atheft001.cfm
The upshot is that if it is unsafe to park your vehicle safely, who will even car pool and use these mass transit options?
Posted by: swatter on November 14, 2005 07:55 AMAs a fellow Portlander (who, by the way, has had just about enough of the moonbats down here), what do you estimate is the percentage of people on the Max who actually paid their fare? I'd be surprised if it's as high as 50%....
Posted by: libertarianobserver on November 14, 2005 08:11 AMThe left seems to have conflicting interests. What to do, what to do...ruin a neighborhood, or push mass transit...neighborhood, or transit?
Posted by: Renee on November 14, 2005 08:19 AMFirst, most of those who support the rail systems are woefully ignorant of the economics of these systems and do not realize that we lack the population density needed to make these systems successful.
Second, those who oppose the bus systems or most any sort of public transportation system seem to think they are subsidizing liberal elites commuting to dream jobs in downtown Seattle or "undesireable" meth addicts and layabouts.
The fact is that an expanded bus system is probably the most cost effective way to get people to and from work and shopping and get cars off the road. People take the bus for many reasons; either to decrease parking problems at work, because they are lower income people and have few other choices, or maybe because its just a cheaper way of getting around with today's costly gasoline prices.
I make a good living, but have chosen to avoid Seattle's monorail tax by riding a twenty year old motorcycle (total monorail tax is $6/year) on those days when the weather is fair. On days when the weather is foul, I take the bus. Sure, it's a little less convenient but with a little preplanning courtesy of Metro KC's excellent trip planning website, I can usually get wherever I need to go whenever I need to get there.
Many companies recognize the benefits to society and their bottom line by having their employees use the bus system. Microsoft, as one example, provides its employees with a free monthly bus pass and reaps the benefits of fewer cars competing for the tight parking at its facilities.
The bus system is the best compromise to achieve the goal of an easily and incrementally expandable mass transportation system with flexible routes that meet the evolving transportation needs of the region. It is affordable to lower income people whose jobs are just as necessary to the smooth functioning of our society as those who can afford to drive a new Mercedes.
Money spent on the bus system is money well spent for everyone including those who drive cars wherever they need to go, because an efficient and affordable bus system takes cars off the road.
Posted by: Swifter on November 14, 2005 09:10 AMHow come people aren't spending more time and money on the delivery system itself- like in smaller buses that can get into middle America or suburbia?
I also think the P and Rs are dangerous, but so, now we will be charging parking in them so that we can have them monitored to prevent theft, etc.
And how can any type of transportation be effective (I define effective to have buses, etc. be half full on the average commuter mile) in the suburbs or even the city?
Posted by: swatter on November 14, 2005 09:58 AMSo why is that fair?
Posted by: Bostonian on November 14, 2005 10:22 AMExcellent comments. I agree with your analysis about expanded bus systems so long as the systems’ purpose statement and plans are placed in the proper context. The real problem with all of the liberal "thinking” associated with transportation is that it circles around a singular unspoken liberal prejudice against cars. What inexorably results from this agenda is a commitment to the use of transportation funds as a means of coercion, i.e. using bus systems as a way to bludgeon those of us who must use our automobiles, and force us out of them.
I detect no evidence in your comments that you are in sympathy with the radical/environmental elements I am referring to, but I may be wrong. I do not flout the need for sensible conservator ship of the environment on balance with other abiding interests. While everything in life amounts to some sort of "definitive utility" or cost benefit analysis, the radical/environmentalists consistently place their “ideals” above all else, and transportation is where the fundamental ideological conflict between radical liberalism and common sense manifests itself.
In the past, when practical, I have commuted via bus, but it is not practical for me any longer. I recognize that buses serve a very useful primary purpose and for many people, they are a great alternative. I don’t argue with that. That said, I agree with you about bus systems so long as they are managed to be responsive to their true parties of interest--the riders. They are not.
In terms of the current debate, buses are political tools rather than useful implements of transportation. The left believes it has already won the war of ideals, and they have stepped well beyond considering the merits of our bus system in favor of new coercive impracticalities—rail commuter systems. They are applying the same berserk inattentive ignorance that policy makers like Ivan Weiss exhibits on this thread to rail systems as are currently applied to our bus system. As we speak, on the I-90 corridor, under authority from the Washington State DOT they are “paving over” huge areas of land to build “Transit Only”” lanes and on-ramps, based on an absurd demand/capacity presumption that assumes that the only transportation needs of the future will be to carry commuters that can ride a bus.
So long as buses are used as a peremptory political ukase of the left, they will amount to nothing more than a useful tool (figurative brickbat) in their emerging determination to push me out of my car. The important point is that they are not using buses as transportation solutions but implements of an alternative agenda that solves nothing. I am in favor of buses for those who can use them, and cars and tracks for those who need them to support our economic well being, our security, and our freedom to move about.
Thanks.
It doesn't get said enough: Highways also move virtually everything we make, use, buy, and sell.
And every single one of us benefits from that.
Without highways, we would all pay higher costs for building materials, food and beverages, household supplies, office equipment, consumer goods, you name it. All those things would cost more for all of us if we did not have highways.
Posted by: Bostonian on November 14, 2005 10:29 AMYou cannot just run the bus system from 6am - 7pm in today's 24/7 environment. People of all income levels need to travel at all times to jobs and shopping at all hours.
I certainly don't want to force anyone to take the bus or push them out of their cars if driving a car is what they need to do. I love driving a nice car on a nice day and rent a car when I need one. But, you cannot ignore either the less fortunate without cars or those who want to take advantage of affordable mass transit for whatever reason; be it a belief that cars are a drag on society or those who just want to stick it to the oil barons of OPEC.
The bus system provides a necessary and "least common denominator" means of transport that a functioning society needs, avoiding the expensive and fixed infrastructure of rail systems.
Sometimes there will be buses with few riders...that is something that the transit management must address. But, in perspective, it is a small price to pay for the duty we owe to the less fortunate and the benefits gained thereby.
Drive your car. You paid for it, and you pay for the gas and upkeep. You might pay a few of your tax dollars for the bus, but you also pay for the Army. And so do I.
Posted by: Swifter on November 14, 2005 10:41 AMWhen you say few riders on existing buses, I say zero riders. If I say few riders I mean articulated buses with two people riding- one in the front and one person in the back.
Yes, it is up to the transit agencies. And they have done a wonderful job, haven't they? And yet you want me to volunteer to pay more for buses with the same transit people running it?
Take Sound Transit, please!!
All these transit agencies are run by unelected people. They follow whatever the current director wants them to do. They are clueless on how to manage a transit authority. Think about it for a couple of seconds.
Posted by: swatter on November 14, 2005 10:57 AMYou can help pay for the least expensive mass transit available, the bus, and have people be able to report to jobs or you can pay by not having anyone available to take your order at the drive-thru or not having anyone clean the hotel rooms or a thousand and one other things.
Like it or not, conservative or liberal, we owe our fellow human beings some small consideration.
Nobody said you don't own your land. But you do owe a simple duty to others. In times past, this would be called your Christian duty, but today we have people of all religions and sometimes no religion here in the United States.
Conservative thinking does not preclude compassion. A little compassion at the right time goes a long way in the end.
Posted by: Swifter on November 14, 2005 11:08 AMThis is why I don't own any land.
Posted by: Swifter on November 14, 2005 11:28 AMNow the truth comes out.
You really are a liberal.
Too bad, for you . . amusing for me.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on November 14, 2005 11:38 AMI detest government action of most types, and readily concede that rampant waste, fraud and abuse rules the day when government is involved. Six years in the Army will do that to you.
Posted by: Swifter on November 14, 2005 11:50 AMAnd frankly, Mr. Swifter, to your and your fellow countrymen's detriment, I just may opt out of your system. You see, you base your taxes and give-aways on income. If I don't work and you give me no incentive to work, I will become a product and recipient of your system and utopia.
Grrrr, and you continue to equate giving more and more money to bus authorities with no controls to a humanitarian cause. If I demand that the money be spent wisely and more intelligently, you equate me with the devil herself.
Posted by: swatter on November 14, 2005 12:14 PMNobody called you a devil...look at my posts. I agree that public money should be spent intelligently. Nobody spends money less intelligently than a government bureaucrat. But, people still need to get to work and that includes people who cannot afford a car. You pay one way or another.
Posted by: Swifter on November 14, 2005 12:31 PMIt is not a label, but an apt description. Property taxes and ownership of land are two entirely separate and distinct issues. Anyone who believes that property “ownership” is nullified by the fact that it can be “taxed” engages in a simplistic disability to reason.
Medicare and Medicaid were understood by many to serve those who cannot help themselves. The fact that many others believe that healthcare should be less limited (and unlimited) entitlements is why they have become so expensive. You pay, and so do I, but not “because its [sic] simple economics,” rather because we were outvoted by socialists that gave us SOCIALIST ECONOMICS. Uncontrolled socialism will provide not only the very most rampant waste, fraud and abuse, but also wide social delinquency. This is why health care is such an issue, and why fixing it like transportation through more SOCIALISTIC solutions will only worsen outcomes for citizens regarding both issues.
Saying things like, “we owe our fellow human beings some small consideration” and “you do owe a simple duty to others.” implies that you place your moral ideals above my inherent "God-given" individual rights. Rousseau’s so-called “Social Contract,” is a philosophical theory, not a code or law for the formal construction of government. As a moral guide it's most glaring deficiency is that it ignores inherent individual rights.
Where in our constitution does it discuss a social onus or duty to others? It doesn't. Why should I sacrifice any of my life’s energy to pay for your wistful philosophical whimsy about “owing” and “duty?” I don’t owe anyone anything except payment of some few loans, and my duty is to obey and defend the constitution of the Unites States of America not sanctimonious pseudo-truisms. That said, I am willing to pay taxes for systems we can--as responsible citizens--all use. The liberal insistence on financing empty buses that are used to coerce auto owners out of their cars is wasteful, stupid, and typically irresponsible.
Compassion has nothing to do with a useful discussion of transportation issues; practicality is the only thing that matters. There is no reason why I should be required to subsidize any of your transportation needs unless it contributes reasonably to my welfare as well. Your apparent desire to make me pay for your needs is typical liberalism.
By the way, while I don't owe it to you, I thank you very sincerely for your military service.
Compassion is the emotional recognition of this practicality and is the sugar the helps the medicine go down.
Posted by: Swifter on November 14, 2005 12:52 PMYou say money should be spent intelligently, but it won't. Therefore, instead of pushing to make them spend the money intelligently, you tell me I have to pay more so I can give bus service 24/7 to those less fortunate rather than just provide a basic service.
There are those less fortunate than me. But, to keep pouring money down a rathole doesn't make any sense. Give the poor and elderly basic services. They are not in the ratrace.
Posted by: swatter on November 14, 2005 01:26 PMTransportation is a matter of public policy, not a public debate of morality.
Practicality is acting in a way that is acquired through practice or action rather than theory, speculation, or ideals.i Compassion is the deep feeling of sharing the suffering of another, together with the inclination to give aid or support or to show mercy.ii
Public policy decisions made out of theory, speculation, or the ideals of sharing the suffering of others and giving aid or support or to show mercy is the bailiwick of religious organizations not governments. Otherwise they will only ever lead to social delinquency and tyranny. In this context France is a great example (although not the only example). Muslims have been invited, coddled, cared for, and steeped in French socialist idealistic compassion, and they hate France so much for it that they are still today as we speak, burning the outskirts of Paris.
By extension of the French Revolution, a sectarian belief in unlimited liberty for the sake of liberty itself evolved into the very opposite of liberty oppressing people by institutionally eradicating their initiative. In contrast, we live in a Constitutional Republic where in order to be free; most people are expected to take care of their own needs. While your comments appeal to the former, most sensible people prefer the latter. Since you want to practice compassionate idealism, I suggest you join a church, but don’t try to convert our government into a religious liberal socialist experiment. Whether you realize it or not, Constitutional Republican individualism is after all, what you served in the military to defend.
i The American Heritage Dictionary, p.972 (2nd College ed.1982)
ii Id at p.300
I will pray for your immortal soul. ;-)
"An affordable and flexible bus system rather than a fixed and expensive rail system" was not the argument you attempted to make on this thread.
It was fun folly attempting to reason with you though. I never expected to get through the purple haze.
Thanks anyway, I'm already saved.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on November 14, 2005 03:58 PMFear not, the haze will be a different color tomorrow. After all, isn't that what diversity is all about?
Posted by: Swifter on November 14, 2005 04:50 PMBut seriously, what I understand is that it has more to do with capacity. Light rail can carry many more people per trip than buses can, thus justifying the extra cost.
In other words, put BRT and light rail, on an equal footing and separate them from traffic. You can move many more people with light rail because you can make it bigger; you can't make a bus much than our biggest on the road currently since it doesn't have a track to follow, in other words, a bus, while more versatile, lacks the capacity of a train the length of a football field.
You could probably stack up a ton of buses to come close to light rail, but you'd essentially be running them on top of each other; which doesn't make sense safety-wise, or driver salary-wise. Now, instead of running a giant train every 7 minutes, you've got nonstop buses, each with their own driver to equal the capacity. That doesn't make much sense to me.
Posted by: Ian on November 14, 2005 05:10 PMWherever there is true demand for a bus route, that bus route can be paid for by its riders. There is no need at all to drag the government into it.
If you are a libertarian, I am Minnie Mouse.
Posted by: Bostonian on November 14, 2005 07:15 PMIf light rail can be bigger than buses and carry more people, then why not go the next step and build a huge commuter boat. We could plow a waterway, add fishies and float to work via wind power. But, what do you suppose the cost per mile for waterways would be? Oh well.
Better yet, we could skip the big boat idea and just have one huge long train through which masses of people could walk to work. It would reduce wear and tear, require no fuel, and be environmentally sensible, all while being good exercise for the mass proletariat.
Or, we could skip the *big capacity* idea altogether and make everyone move to the hilly areas around town. Then put all of the workplaces on low ground, and issue everyone skateboards.
Come on.
Compassionate libertarian. If you don't help the poor move up by their own bootstraps, you get what we see today in France. So, cheap basic transportation (i.e. the bus) - good. Free basic education for all - good. Minimum health standards for the food supply - good. A strong national defense - good.
Mandated vacation days, minimum wages, "progressive" income taxes, mandated health insurance, the draft, rent control, price controls, land use laws, the "war" on drugs - all BAD.
Posted by: Swifter on November 14, 2005 07:33 PMWhaaat??
"If YOU don't help the poor move up by THEIR own bootstraps, you get what we see today in France."
Sounds to me like you have developed a way to develop others staunch individual self-determination for them while they snooze.
How does this work, you prop their head up with "How to" books and the initiative seeps into their gestalt through osmosis?
Good job.
Posted by: Amused by Compassionate liberalism on November 14, 2005 07:46 PMIn other words, stuff that can be used by everyone who is so inclined. Then, it's up to them.
Have you ever been to Costa Rica? It's the only country in Latin America without an army...just a national police force. They took the money that most of the banana republics spend on the military and built roads, a clean water system (you can drink anywhere in the country from the tap), and minimum education standards for everyone. Everybody can read and write.
You can move safely anywhere in the country and free enterprise flourishes. The country is not without its problems, what country is? But, it is the model of progress compared to its neighbors in Central America.
A little start in life, just a little, goes a long way for everybody. It provides social stability, and without that you have nothing.
It's easy to make fun, but much harder to get something done.
Posted by: Swifter on November 14, 2005 08:01 PMWhaaat??
"If YOU don't help the poor move up by THEIR own bootstraps, you get what we see today in France."
Sounds to me like you have developed a way to develop others staunch individual self-determination for them while they snooze.
How does this work, you prop their head up with "How to" books and the initiative seeps into their gestalt through osmosis?
Good job.
Posted by: Amused by Compassionate liberalism on November 14, 2005 08:10 PMWhaaat??
"If YOU don't help the poor move up by THEIR own bootstraps, you get what we see today in France."
Sounds to me like you have developed a way to develop others staunch individual self-determination for them while they snooze.
How does this work, you prop their head up with "How to" books and the initiative seeps into their gestalt through osmosis?
Good job.
Posted by: Amused by Compassionate liberalism on November 14, 2005 08:10 PMWhaaat??
"If YOU don't help the poor move up by THEIR own bootstraps, you get what we see today in France."
Sounds to me like you have developed a way to develop others staunch individual self-determination for them while they snooze.
How does this work, you prop their head up with "How to" books and the initiative seeps into their gestalt through osmosis?
Good job.
Posted by: Amused by Compassionate liberalism on November 14, 2005 08:10 PMWhaaat??
"If YOU don't help the poor move up by THEIR own bootstraps, you get what we see today in France."
Sounds to me like you have developed a way to develop others staunch individual self-determination for them while they snooze.
How does this work, you prop their head up with "How to" books and the initiative seeps into their gestalt through osmosis?
Good job.
Posted by: Amused by Compassionate liberalism on November 14, 2005 08:10 PMWhaaat??
"If YOU don't help the poor move up by THEIR own bootstraps, you get what we see today in France."
Sounds to me like you have developed a way to develop others staunch individual self-determination for them while they snooze.
How does this work, you prop their head up with "How to" books and the initiative seeps into their gestalt through osmosis?
Good job.
Posted by: Amused by Compassionate liberalism on November 14, 2005 08:10 PMWhaaat??
"If YOU don't help the poor move up by THEIR own bootstraps, you get what we see today in France."
Sounds to me like you have developed a way to develop others staunch individual self-determination for them while they snooze.
How does this work, you prop their head up with "How to" books and the initiative seeps into their gestalt through osmosis?
Good job.
Posted by: Amused by Compassionate liberalism on November 14, 2005 08:10 PMYou don't live in Costa Rica for a reason. Nothing is ever free, everything has its price, and the price for institutionalized charity is social decay not progress.
France is challenged by problems that stem from immorality not poverty. Poverty grows out of immorality as does crime. In America during the late 20's and 30's 4 of every 5 person was poor beyond anyone of today and crime was relatively unheard of compared to more affluent times. People were drawn together to do for each other and didn't expect anything from the government.
Free buses in the downtown area are not helping any significant number of so-called poor people. On the contrary, it encourages drunken snoozing and fun romps for those who refuse to do for themselves. Your arguments fail when you imply that transportation of any kind should be an entitlement. The next problem is . . . why stop there? I say don't start.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on November 14, 2005 08:24 PMHave you ever been to France? To anywhere in Latin America? The Soviet Union, perhaps? I've been to all of those places and more and seen a lot of screwed up stuff. Do you know what I've learned? Idealouges like you have no idea how to run anything, much less a country, an economy, or even a simple lemonade stand.
Posted by: Swifter on November 14, 2005 08:39 PMHow about common sense solutions which are effective ? They will cost, but not as much. For one thing, Kemper Freeman has been tuned out and dissed because he is a bit outspoken against the DOT. However, the DOT has thrown out a good resource that should be considered for the economic health of this state. Too much pride, which is a dangerous thing and leads to less than adequate solutions. ST Link light rail is a perfect example. Once again, its all for the benefit of a few for the burden of many -
This is a Democratic Republic that wants to be a socialist utopia - Realize that the power hungry elite refuses to grow up and be responsible to those who they serve. Is apathy going to prevail or will we be able to counter the self-centered actions of these elite bas^^^ds ?
I don't pity you. I understand that you consciously choose to stay ignorant and you use your emotions as justifications. This is as liberal an attitude as they come.
"Have you ever been to France? To anywhere in Latin America? The Soviet Union, perhaps? I've been to all of those places and more and seen a lot of screwed up stuff. Do you know what I've learned? Idealouges [sic] like you have no idea how to run anything, much less a country, an economy, or even a simple lemonade stand."
While I have not been to the Soviet Union or France, I have been to a number of libraries, have you?
It is quite apparent that you learned to feeeel the way you do for a reason. However it is equally clear that you are blissfully unaware of the true nature of that reason, your own convictions and motivations. Emotional commitment is not enough. It is obvious that you don’t read much history, so what use is an assessment of the travails of any culture without any knowledge of the past. Absent any meaningful knowledge of the past and its effects on a culture, how can you purport to know what might be best for the future? The truth is, all you have to go by is prejudice and mere opinion given to you by others and embraced without serious examination.
One thing certain is that your motivations certainly have nothing whatsoever to do with your travels because you quite obviously didn’t learn much of anything from that either. Visiting France, Latin America and/or the Soviet Union can only provide a stark contrast to our culture, and I do not have to go there to place ”a lot of screwed up stuff” in their cultures and government systems into context. I am not required to visit the moon to understand its properties. Once again you lean on false appeals to pseudo authority that work their way shabbily around the edges of the argument and ring hollow on the slightest examination.
Anyone from America that has any basic common sense recognizes that the differences between America and other societies around the world are rooted in a respect for moral authority that was woven into the fabric of our constitution. Since you don’t read much and were poorly educated probably by liberal ideologues (and the purple haze), it is understandable that you don’t recognize this. However, your lack of knowledge of the truth is not my fault, and your pretense that ideas based on pseudo authority and liberal prejudice are somehow superior bases for important decisions is only evidence of that ignorance.
While your lemonade stand comment is foolish, it reveals your whole argument. You don’t know much of anything about me or my abilities except that I kick your dumb a$$ every time we exchange comments so your expressions of mock outrage at and pity for me are prime evidences of your own problems.
Wake up or stay foolish, it’s your choice.
Thanks for the comments.
Posted by: Amused by l,iberals on November 15, 2005 09:59 AMMillions of people came to the US and raised themselves by their own bootstraps, without any of these free goodies. People are still doing this, without the constant handouts they'd receive in Europe.
The problem in France is NOT the lack of a safety net.
***
Before you call yourself a libertarian, maybe you should read some economics and some history.
I understand you're trying to be sarcastic, but I thought the point of these blogs was to have a reasonable discussion. From what I've read so far, you're cool with some buses, but much prefer roads. Quoting you:
>Otherwise, I would do the intelligent thing, >build more traffic lanes where they are needed to >relieve congestion, carry commuters, and support >commerce, reform the HOV system, and make mass >transit practical again like it used to be before >liberals got hold of the system.
So what are you suggesting for a practical mass transit system? I don't know about you (allright, maybe I do) but I agree that we need to fix some of our road choke points, but more traffic lanes won't do squat for traffic congestion relief. Take a gander at LA.
Posted by: Ian on November 15, 2005 03:14 PMI won’t insult your intelligence if you don’t try to insult mine.
How about running buses through targeted traffic corridors in accordance with the needs of riders rather than the desires of brain-dead policy makers? How about making downtown Seattle bums and lawyers both who can afford to pay for their bus fares? That would be a good start.
You ask for a link, a hint, something about where Swatter’s magical plan about reforming the bus system is. It’s called market economics and it works better than any other system in the friggin’ world. It is the system being cannibalized by liberals in our area for your socialist foolishness.
You say, "more traffic lanes won't do squat for traffic congestion relief." If you actually believe this statement without qualification you are more foolish than you have already shown yourself to be. There is NO evidence to support this comment and overwhelming evidence (aside from simple common sense) to refute it.
I lampooned your comments because they were patently ridiculous and hardly conducive to any “reasonable discussion” of the issue. They insult the intelligence of anyone who would seriously respond to them. Your comments buy into a premise that is idiotic on the face of it. You and many others in our area who demonstrate the critical thinking capacity of chip minks only make the problem worse by buying into idiotic premises about transportation spoon fed to you by liberal democrats. If you decide some day to wise up that will help all of us.
If not, then don’t take offense at the fact that I won’t play patty cake with you.
Thanks for the comments.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on November 15, 2005 05:28 PMFirst off...i'm not sure what you mean by targeted traffic corridors. ST is already running express routes between all our major cities so you can get from Auburn to downtown. Metro runs buses on our highest density population corridors. So i'm not sure where you're going there.
I get what you're saying about market economics. The problem is, public transit is only market reliant in a few cases; like a high-speed boat serving Vashon to Downtown seattle for example, or our private airlines. Local bus service is essentially a money loser. No private company would step up to run the vast majority of these lines that serve what amount to very poor people. They're all after the $$ you can get from, say, business travelers heading back east on a moment's notice. You can understand those market forces (I suspect...)
As to the more traffic lanes argument, I completely disagree with you. As I said last time, LA is the perfect example of roads not helping reduce traffic congestion. If we weren't growing, sure, roads would help...or maybe if a computer was driving for us.
But we're growing so fast that you can't build enough roads to keep up without some road crew on steroids, and even the most optimistic of us know that's not possible. Again, see LA for the exact opposite of what we're trying to do. I don't have enough time or space to link you to the thousands of articles that agree with me (as I assume you'd find just as many agreeing with you) so I'll just post this one for now:
http://www.assmotax.org/Releases/AMCT%20release:%20building%20more%20roads%20relieves%20your%20wallet,%20not%20congestion.php
Finally, I'm not sure how my comments are "idiotic" or "ridiculous" on BRT vs. Light Rail. BRT probably does make some sense in parts of our area; Highway 99 would probably be a great candidate.
But in the long run, you just can't get the same capacity with Buses as you can with a train unless you do run them on top of each other. And when we have 1M more people in our area, we'll need to move way more than BRT can handle. I'm not opposed to starting there...but why wait to add capacity when we can do it now? That seems like the opposite of conservative to me; buying tons of buses we'll just need to sell later.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_brt_2005-01.htm
Posted by: Ian on November 15, 2005 06:01 PMThat's why they have the term "invincible" ignorance.
Our bus system is not administered solely for the purposes of transportation as much a political agenda of the liberal left. If it wasn't, our traffic situation would have improved at some point in the last 25 years. It hasn't. If Metro were privatized with reasonable government regulations as to routes and fares, it would serve the public much more efficiently.
You are simply flat wrong about additional traffic lanes and your argument rests on a common false comparison. Demand capacity analyises common to transportation engineers agree that IN THE LONG RUN traffic congestion will return. Nevertheless, while increasing alone will not sustain a long term congestion improvment (10 years), in concert with a well planned bus system will ease many of the problems. Adding lanes in L.A. helped congestion considerably until the demand once again exceeded the capacity, and you don't see light rail taking over there. Further if more traffic lanes won't help, why are they building new ones on I-90, and financing the construction of new ones in our area? Bus only lanes, for buses that are already under-utilized to the extreme.
This is not L.A. (as I suspect you know) and our transportation needs are not remotely similar to those of L.A. Linear mass transit systems such as those employed in Chicago, N.Y., and elsewhere depend solely on population density in order to be economically viable, and they require all other systems to conform to their location, arrival and departure locations and timetables.
Just as I won't look to L.A because their example is inapt, all of those who buy into the spoon fed foolishness in our area about light rail refuse to acknowledge the empiracal evidence that we have in our own back yard. The Sounder Transit system is now and will be for the next 23 years (at minimum) an economic sinkhole that will move very few passengers, and cost us a fortune that could be spent on real traffic solutions like new traffic lanes. The reason why it will only move very few passengers is because it cannot be made to serve the publics needs like automobiles do. When and if it ever does, that will be another thing. Otherwise light rail is a stupid way to waste huge amounts of public money for almost no benefit.
Our liberal leaders lie through their teeth about light rail and every other transportation issue because their agenda is about ideological power rather than solutions to problems, but they can only hide the facts from those who will not look at them.
The facts in this discussion are not on your side.
Thanks for the comments.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on November 15, 2005 07:11 PMIt was called the Kemper Freeman plan which was simply to run a third north-south line across King County. It was part of Ron Sims campaign scare tactics- the one where he is standing in the middle of nowhere and stating this is where a freeway could go if you don't elect me.
One of the huge problems we have in transportation is Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish. If you look around at the other cities in the country, you will notice the uniqueness of our water bodies. While we sure love the water and the boat and fishing benefits, it wrecks havoc with transportation planning. Also, we have a lot of hills, which also wrecks havoc.
The limiting factor in transportation planning is the lack of ability to make east-west connections.
It was about 20 years ago when, in Snohomish County, there was a proposal to run a county road east to west at 180th St- which is behind the Alderwood Mall and south of the WalMart at 164th. This line would have run from the Bothell-Everett Hwy to Lynwood and I-5. East of the Bothell-Everett Hwy there is also an existing road to connect to Highway 9.
Good concept and good design, except the Democratic Snohomish County council killed it. Lost opportunity that SnoCo is ruing to this day.
And I'll bet the whiners are whining today and complaining that the connection should have been made.
Think outside the box, Mr. Ian. We have to. It is too easy for you and others to get boxed into the usual "groupthink" of mass transit or light rail or whatever "feels good" at the time.
Posted by: swatter on November 16, 2005 07:38 AMHowever, I am with you on one thing. Cars are not going anywhere, nor do I want them to. But I also don't want our road system to continue to eat up more and more land, pushing us further and further into our greenspaces. So, yeah, call me whatever nasty names you want, I DO want to force development in the area. We've got growth managment, and your guys Irons and Rossi lost, so you're stuck with it (while I'm happy about it). But this ain't some social engineering, evil overlord thing, it's called smart growth, which as "free market" guys i'm guessing you're against.
What I would go for is a road system that is a "closed loop" meaning we avoid situations like we have on the 405 to 520 connection. Traffic flows a lot like blood in the human body; you can't just connect a 4-lane (5-lane? I don't get to the eastside much) freeway to a 2 lane freeway and not expect there to be backups; the capacities don't match.
So that's where we agree; let's build some new lanes (like the new gas tax will) to fix some of our choke points, and even out the capacity.
But that's it. No more major roads after that. Cause as you said yourself, new roads are a temporary fix. Once they're filled again, you're back where you started.
"The Market" is not some magic wand that fixes all ills; if that were true, we wouldn't need the FDA, or our justice system since we could trust the market to take care of it. The market isn't good at doing some things, and mass transit is one of them.
I also fail to see how LA is not a great example. If a city, without the major physical obstacles (water) like we have continues to build roads but traffic only gets worse, what does that tell us? That we need a traffic separated solution since we can't make people drive better. They built a rail system as well:
http://www.mta.net/riding_metro/riders_guide/rail_info.htm
You're right, it's not perfect. You can't get everywhere you want to go without making some changes. But that's progress...if you want a city, you've got to cope with transit that gets you pretty close to where you're going; I'm sure you can walk the rest of the way.
Now, if you really want to get theoretical, check out this link for personal rapid transit; transit that does mimic cars.
http://www.personalrapidtransit.com/
It's all private-choicy, choose where you want to go; all great "market" ideas. Trouble is, the system isn't effective unless it goes to a whole bunchof places, meaning you can't build it in phases.
And second, people are nervous about giving up control to a computer, even though all in all it would be much safer than us or a cabbie driving. It would just take one accident...
Posted by: Ian on November 16, 2005 09:42 AMHow do you want it handled? That third freeway is needed more than light rail or buses in a less than dense urban area.
Posted by: swatter on November 16, 2005 10:31 AMYou truly are a fool. It is all a matter of choices, and unless you dislike freedom, cars are still the very best choice of all.
The "Greenspace" areas are going to get "eaten up" no matter what you or your liberal friends like, believe, or want. It is inevitable. It's just a matter of how, and what plan is made. "Greenspace" areas are being "eaten up" daily for new traffic lanes through the plans of liberal so-called environmentally friendly interests, but they will only be used by buses, and future plans are there for more of them. A rail right of way "eats up" much more "green area" than an additional freeway lane.
Just imagine freeways where only subsidized buses can travel. That's the current goal. Who will pay the fares then? Bus riders? Why would anyone care about the efficiency of these subsidized buses except the users who now depend totally on them. They won't, but you will be required to pay whether the service is acceptable or not because you'll have no choice(car to drive). If you want to live in France, fine, live in France. I want to live in America amongst sensible people who refuse to allow socialism to strangle our society, our culture, and our economic system.
Its all a matter of whether PEOPLE will be able to use the spaces efficiently in the future that matters. Nothing is less forward looking than the liberal environmental agenda, because it makes assumptions based on a vision of the future that completely ignores the past. It presumes that Mommy Earth needs be worshipped at cost to human well being, and the future can look like an ideolized vision of the past without heeding the lessons of history. Populations will grow and they will demand what they want no matter how many repressive regulations liberals place on all of us. Repressive regulations fuel revolution.
Cars are very much in our futures as are trucks and buses. It looks like light rail might be in our future as well, but it will be a very costly and embarrassing waste of resources placed at the disposal of liars and fools that believe them.
Since you are insistent on wasting money and limiting everyone's mobility intentionally with poorly considered projects then try to do so, you will have me fighting you at every turn. If I lose you will have a whole generation who will curse your name for saddling them with an idiot's vision rather than a thoughful plan for the future. And they will kick your ass.
I prefer reality. Let's see who wins.
I will still be driving my car on freeways in the year 2020.
Thanks for the comments
Essentially, you're saying we're doomed to sprawl over the entire country. I'd invite you to visit the roadless areas we have in our state and see how many houses you find. It IS possible to stop growth; that's why we have a growth boundary, and we prevent people from building mega-house complexes there.
And yeah, we will be fighting over this. So far, my side has won pretty much every major battle over growth, land use, and transit we've fought, at least in this state. And this density that you poo-poo? It's only bringing more earth-loving, save nature people like me. That's why Mercer Island and bellevue are electing democrats and moderate republicans, why Dave Reichert helped stall the current R budget because of ANWR drilling, and why, though you will be driving your car in 2020, you won't be taking a new freeway running east of Lake Samammish.
I get that you're against government deciding for you. Fine. Drive. I'm cool with that. I'll just be taking the train and wave at you as I fly past while you're still stuck in traffic.
right, yes, the "sexiness" of light rail. I'm sure we'll be scoffed at here, but I know what you're saying is true; people love how the train looks, how fast it runs, and the idea that they don't have to hassle with their cars, while the bus, well....it blows.
Posted by: Ian on November 16, 2005 01:21 PMIan, you do not understand GMA. The boundaries are only temporary. They are not for all eternity.
Every year the counties get a shot at increasing (or decreasing) those boundaries.
And you need to stick your nose into these cities who insist on large suburban lots in the urban area and force them into high density. The enviros wanted to play games with the counties and chose not to attack the cities.
GMA is horrible, just horrible.
Signed,
Cardtoting member of anti-GMA
Possessor of No in GMA pin from 1993
Bart, started with one line, now they're expanding all the way to San Jose.
New York City, London, Madrid, jeez, I don't even have to explain these. Transit works...get out and give it a try sometime.
And as for the GMA boundaries, the only reason they would be temporary is if we repeal the boundaries. And that's not happening anytime soon in many of our counties (especially King)...if anything, this state is moving even further down the "green" path.
I'm not sure what this comment means, however:
>And you need to stick your nose into these cities who insist on large suburban lots in the urban area and force them into high density. The enviros wanted to play games with the counties and chose not to attack the cities.
The important key to all of your comments is, "So far."
It's never over until it’s over.
Any shallow sentiment will do huh? I understand why you ignore the facts because your mind is made up for you by other liberals. Otherwise you would have acknowledged that light rail is (at least) economically questionable. You don't address any part of my comments from a factual view because you have no idea what the facts are and most importantly you don't care.
A LIBERAL UTOPIAN DREAM
”It IS possible to stop growth; that's why we have a growth boundary, and we prevent people from building mega-house complexes there.” That's also why you would make a comment as moronic as that it's about "capacity". "You can move many more people with light rail because you can make it bigger." Gee, let's remove individual property ownership rights, drive everyone into population centers where liberal policies dominate, and build high capacity transportation systems so that everyone will be required to participate in the liberal degenerate lifestyles of the urban areas.
You envision a relaxing train ride to work that will cost us all many times what it would cost for you to ride a bus or drive a car, ONLY because others like you say it’s a good idea, and you expect others to be stupid enough to pay for it? Unfortunately, your side has won the debate for years now, and that is why our transportation systems are so messed up. What makes you "think" light rail will be an improvement? Blind liberal pursuit of a vision of communist socialism.
Meanwhile how about that new bicycle lane in Moses Lake built with emergency finds? Real "emergency" transportation priority huh?
Thanks.
At some point (and that point is essentially here) it's going to be faster to take light rail than it will be to drive across Lake Washington. ST's future line from Redmond to Seattle thru Bellevue will take 30 minutes end to end. When it's built that commute is going to be far faster than driving it, whereas your roads will be even worse than today. That seems economical to me.
Besides, you've completely left out the other costs of driving; emissions, time in your car, car accidents, the cost of buying, insuring, and maintaining a car. In the end, rail buys you a traffic separated corridor giving a predictable and fast commute every time...cars can never do that unless we go back to 1980 when no one lived here.
And now our urban center have degenerate lifestyles? Where the heck did that come from? What do you think we do over here, shrink heads and cannibalize our young? (it was only that one time...)
And yeah, you're in a blue state, dude. Get used to it, cause it's only getting darker.
Posted by: Ian on November 16, 2005 03:38 PMThese cities have been given a free pass. Much of the development area of the first go around on growth boundaries are used up and a lot of the blame can go to cities that have thumbed their nose at GMA.
The enviros told me that the counties make an easier target so they have hammered them, but the counties have been real good at getting density inthe fringes.
Posted by: swatter on November 16, 2005 04:09 PMSo you're saying that Bothell, Mill Creek, etc are essentially putting less homes per acre as their standard, less houses on more land, basically, as opposed to other cities in the area. I wonder if this is a local strong-developer issue; like they're trying to build bigger homes on less land to make more $$...though I always thought the opposite, more houses on less land was the moneymaker.
But I don't follow; i thought you don't like the GMA?
Posted by: Ian on November 16, 2005 04:19 PMTo stuff the people into the cities like GMA wants you have to have the density. What these cities did to accomadate the population was to expand the boundaries through annexations and the like so they could keep their larger lots. Larger lots don't really pencil into more dollars for the developers. It is the number of lots.
In those cities, the elected officials with pressure from the people kept their large lots.
A sicker trick is that the cities huddled with the counties and divvied up the population growth projections. They were dummied up to those cities that had land to annex, etc.. But more importantly, if a city didn't want growth the county Execs weren't going to make it a political issue.
So what you have is chaos that nobody wants.
Posted by: swatter on November 16, 2005 05:01 PMIt sounds like they figured out a way to escape the density requirements for now. I still don't see why you'd have a problem with that if you don't like the GMA...unless you're trying to say you don't like that people are escaping the GMA....
Posted by: Ian on November 16, 2005 05:15 PMWhile I continue to oppose GMA (for the very reasons above), it is here with us. I am not aware of any measures to kill the dumb thing that was voted down by the people, but resurrected by Lowry and the Legislature.
And yes, if there is a GMA, it needs to work and scammers and jelly-spined county executives need to follow it. It was the unreported political scam of the decade when some of these cities were allowed to thumb their nose at GMA.
Satch, there were also one or two other points that were used to circumvent the law by these cities in the implementation phase.
Posted by: swatter on November 17, 2005 07:12 AMBuilding transportation systems (like light rail) that fail to address commerce and economic trends will backfire and we (responsible citizens) will be left holding the bag.
BALD and other organizational schemes reputed as limiting growth and protecting the environment do neither, rather they only put restrictions on builders and homeowners that unduly raise the costs of building. No citizen ever sees a benefit from this, and the environment is not enhanced in any way. Government municipalities exact a great revenue stream from it and huge manpower. They cannot find enough building-related inspectors (revenue gatherers) to fill the open positions.
It is mostly about putting a silk hat on a pig while stealing your wallet. Liberals don't care because they don't consider the facts from more than a superficial prejudice. Many of them ideologically hate property ownership and wish to remove it for everyone else. Others just care about themselves and their own short term satisfaction.
Light rail in our area is a bad idea for so many reasons and if put in place it will utterly fail, not because I say so but because it is not economically feasable. It is amusing that so many of our citizens are so in favor of surrendering the liberty they say they covet so much on faith alone to their leaders who turn right around and sell them this type of cynical bull$hit. And they buy it.
Thanks