Seattle Weekly: "Getting Ready for Rails: Sound Transit is on time and under budget—if you don't count the first five years"
P-I: Seattle Bus Service: Status quo special
When it comes to bus service, what Seattle sees may be uncomfortably close to what it gets in the future. As many weary Metro Transit riders can tell you, the status quo of infrequent trips, overloads and packed buses passing city riders isn't good enough by a long shot.Gee, maybe if they didn't blow billions on the light rail boondoggle there would be enough money available for transit solutions that actually do some good.
And they'll be asking for billions more for the boondoggle next year.
Actually, Shark, they aren't asking for billions more. They are just robbing it out of our own pocket.
Posted by: C. Oh on February 9, 2006 11:09 AMI still have narrow two laned dirt roads that just had a chip seal on them. I could hardly afford that, but now you are asking me to help replace the viaduct and I should be happy about it?
Oh, I get to vote? But my vote is lumped with the metrosexuals in Seattle, so my money is going to be used to support them? Wonderful. Ain't it a Wonderful Life?
Posted by: swatter on February 9, 2006 11:25 AMAs I've stated before, the sooner we all realize that we are going to pay through our asses for transportation and not get any congestion relief, the better off we will be.
It's like the 5 stages of grief.
1. Denial - They can't POSSIBLY be spending this much on transportation solutions that don't work
2. Anger - Who the hell do we have to vote out of office to get this turned around??? If this guy cuts me in line on the exit, he dies.
3. Bargaining - Maybe if we repeal most of their taxes they will see the light.
4. Depression - Initiative defeated. Traffic still sucks. More taxes coming.
5. Acceptance - see above.
Posted by: Palouse on February 9, 2006 11:47 AMBingo. So clear. Now why don't the powers that be understand that??
Posted by: Misty on February 9, 2006 12:03 PMNever forget that the blowhard dems will never be satisfied with yesterdays tax. Tomorrow is another day. Here they come again. Call the legislative hotline and leave a message.
bwana
Posted by: Bwana on February 9, 2006 01:55 PMWhy not stuff some of those jobs out of Seattle?
Posted by: tradersmith on February 9, 2006 03:02 PMThe idiots in local and state government insist on chasing these pie in the sky transportation dreams while they drive their cars to their designated parking spaces (or have their chauffer do the driving). It would make much more sense to greatly expand the bus fleet as well as adding more general purpose lanes. Expanding the bus fleet would allow buses to come more frequently during rush hour and also service more neighborhoods so people might actually consider taking the bus more often. As it is, I rarely get a seat on the way home from work. Some days I am surprised the driver even lets us on because the bus is already so full. I have found the bigget proponents of alternative transportation do not use it themselves on a regular basis.
Posted by: Burdabee on February 9, 2006 03:26 PMYours is rational as are those Boeing workers that started in Renton and then had to commute to Everett. Except, why couldn't there be more commuter vans? I just don't understand this obsession with mass transit here in this sparsely populated area.
Get the blasted jobs where the people are.
Posted by: tradersmith on February 9, 2006 03:41 PMHome on complete dysfunctional government…high crime…even higher property taxes…high B&O taxes…the states highest insurance rates…worst police & fire response times in state…insane permit process…a city where 75% of the city workers refuse to live their…home to 1200 sex offenders…the city that receives with open arms 67% of all criminals from our state prisons…where crack dealers and prostitutes take charge of our streets…panhandlers hit on you right outside of city hall…50% of our children that start school will not graduate…ect, ect, ect !!!
That is why all of the jobs are in Seattle and more roads & buses... trains to the airport and safeco field won't cut it.
Posted by: tacoma phlash on February 9, 2006 03:51 PMAnd either you don't take mass transit or else you are in a position where it actually works out for you--coworkers on the exact same schedule so using a commuter van is viable or a one shot bus ride. Also, just for giggles, check out when urban sprawl started. Bellevue was just a swamp until busing went into effect in Seattle and the suburbs suddenly exploded. Plus, many people want to own homes and prices keep moving people farther and farther out. Now I personally don't think it makes sense to live three hours away from one's job, but then I am not set on owning a home on a half acre or more. But to think it is just a matter of telling companies where to set up shop is not practical. There are many reasons people do what they do and before you advocate such a simplistic solution, start checking around and asking any friends or relatives who deal with long commutes why they do so.
Posted by: Burdabee on February 9, 2006 04:09 PMCome on, though. Don't you think out of a million or so people, we can't do better- as in 15-20% better?
And as far as your historical comment about the growth of Bellevue, etc. was the result of bus traffic, I don't know how to answer it politely.
Bellevue and Renton populated after the construction of 405 and I-90. It was a progression from Seattle. It was delayed a few years because of the Boeing bust in late 60s, but it happened. It had nothing to do with bus service. BTW, I commuted from Bellevue to Seattle in the early 80s and if you call that bus service, then Sound Transit and the rest of the booddoggles should just rest on their laurels.
And no, flashman, I wouldn't move my business to Tacoma, but I would to areas near where my workforce was or where I wanted it to go.
Posted by: tradersmith on February 9, 2006 04:36 PMHow would you like to take 20% of all of the cars off the road tomorrow and not have it coast us one penny for new transportation projects...
Take every unregistered vehicle...unlicensed driver...and uninsured vehicle off our road now... and one in five cars would be parked in someone driveway instead off in traffic!!!
Who is going to want to ride on that if it takes them almost twice as long as it takes on the Sounder Train or an Express Bus ? So sorry for the residents of Seattle who got suckered (back in 1996) into paying for this he!! on wheels.
Posted by: KS on February 9, 2006 09:06 PMSo go ahead legislature, include a ban on placing the big package of proposed regional tax increases on the ballot in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties this year.
Ignore the will of the people once again.
Unfortunately this cannot be classified as "Highway Robbery", as they won't build any highways!
Posted by: GS on February 9, 2006 10:29 PMWhen I read all the comments here, it's as if SP readers have never traveled beyond Idaho.
So what, do y'all think? Portland, San Fran, LA, San Diego, Vancouver, Denver, Salt Lake, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, NY, MPLS, Newark, Miami - all these cities just built rail for the heckuva it?
No, they built it, because in many cases, light rail carries a significant portion of the workforce to and from work each day (in Red San Diego, it's 25%)
"Gee, maybe if they didn't blow billions on the light rail boondoggle there would be enough money available for transit solutions that actually do some good. "
Sorry, Shark. The money the voters approved for Sound Transit's light rail CANNOT - by law - be spent on Metro Transit service. In fact, Metro Transit's revenues were approved by the voters in a totally different election. Now, when Sound Transit took over some of Metro's most expensive (longest) bus routes, Metro was able to re-deploy those service hours to the benefit of their own riders.
So, actually, Sound Transit has helped - not hurt - Metro bus riders. And when light rail is up and running, new service hours will be able to be re-deployed to east-west service, whil the light rail line will carry former bus riders along the most crowded corridors. (and if you really want buses instead of rail, say "goodbye" to all the HOV lanes across the region. Most all 'mom and pop' commuters will be kicked off the HOV lanes, into the regular lanes, and those HOV lanes will become bus-only, along with former SOV right-of-way and parking in places like downtown Bellevue and Seattle). The concept of "Bus Rapid Transit" always works as a concept only...and only for the very short term.
Second - the subject of the P-I editorial - it was Shark's pals Fimia, McKenna and Irons (all rail opponents, naturally) who voted in 2002 to re-allocate Metro bus service hours according to area, rather than demand. As a result, Seattle routes have continued to become more crowded, while new service hours have been distrubuted to suburban areas which have much lower density, and lower bus ridership.
So, "maybe the two are related?" Looks like just the opposite is true.
And if one were to examine the facts, and the history of this situation we're now in, with overloading buses: rather than blaming light rail, you may want to check your own back yard first, Shark.
Unfortunately, if Shark is going to construct a more credible critique of transit and light rail, he will need to start getting some of these basic facts straight. In my opinion, he has failed pretty miserably here.
And finally, I watched an archived version of Shark's interview with Emory Bundy (PRT/monorail enthusiast and light rail opponent) on the Seattle Channel. Shark said something like "I like to use rail systems in cities that have them."
What on earth is that supposed to mean? "I hate light rail, except for the light rail I enjoy using?" Oh boy.
Stefan, do you think there weren't anti-transit voices like the ones at SP, fighting those rail systems the whole way? You think SF's BART/Muni and DC's Metro systems were cheap and easy to build?
And how did conservatives - many of whom would never be caught dead on a bus, and seem to complain about them most of the time - suddenly decide that buses were the way to go instead of rail? Name ONE CITY in the United States which has successfully pursued this all-bus model. Good luck with that!
Posted by: WeNeedRoadsAndTransit on February 9, 2006 10:52 PMA Metro plan, adopted several years ago by the King County Council, envisions giving Seattle only 20 percent of new bus service. With Seattle expected to take about one-third of local growth in jobs, that doesn't keep pace with urbanization.
That, of course, was due to the fact that the rest of King County was subsidizing bus service for Seattle. They have their hands in your pockets at every opportunity.
As far as that post, transit boy, that cr@p is piled so high that all I have to do is wait for it to fall...cr@p doesn't pile well. Why don't you come back with more facts and less attitude, and we'll talk.
But then you went on a tangent and nothing made sense. Hammering the shark and a couple of writers and claiming they represented everyone, "so there" hasn't been a good argument since the fifth grade. Bring the "beef" or the "A game" if you prefer.
I am willing to listen.
Posted by: swatter on February 10, 2006 07:28 AMHave you ever lived in San Diego?
I did for the last 40 years. The (red) train service there is a joke. First it's on the street, so it deals with traffic. 25% of the work force uses it.... Where did you get that from? One of the few people who really enjoy it is the gangs. They hop on it, scare the heck out of everyone and use it so they can cause trouble in other parts of the city. Plus they tear up the windows & seats. By the way they don't pay either. When I was working in the downtown area of San diego I used it for one month. So you could say I have some experence with it. It's a joke. I could go on much longer about this waste of taxpayers money, but maybe you get what I'm talking about.
Light rail is more cost effective than buses in the long term. When we spend money on this "boondoggle", property becomes more valuable around stations. When presented with a permanent right of way, developers snap up properties and build higher density housing and office space, which in turn offers places for people to work that they don't need a car to get to. Sure, for the first line or two built, serving limited areas, this can actually increase traffic in the highest density zones - but as more areas are served, because service is not traffic-dependent, more people use it because the timing more consistent than any other mode of travel.
As property values increase and density increases, the cost of the line is likely paid back in property tax revenues. This can, with work by the public, result in a decrease in property tax rates - a net benefit for non-urban dwellers. A much larger percentage of people in a given area are willing to live in high density than locations offered, so the more density you build, the more space is also left for larger single-family lots outside of the city.
I understand that many conservatives will never be sold on any government project such as this. I'm fairly moderate (and I was against the monorail mess to begin with), but I support the Link project because it's the only way to keep the total size - and total driving time - of our urbanized area from expanding too quickly for population growth. Services are cheaper in high density because less infrastructure is needed.
In addition - a rail system like this will last at least a hundred years. For the cost now, we're effectively getting a small highway through Seattle at a lower price than new lane-miles in the same corridor that will last longer. If projects like Denver and Minneapolis are any indication, it will also take people off I-5 and reduce the cost of moving freight into the port.
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on February 10, 2006 08:41 AMNot the way Seattle has designed its light rail boondoggle - through Rainier Valley will impact only a very small percentage of traffic that uses I-5 - how do you figure ? Also, can you support with facts that the cost of moving freight to the port will be reduced by light rail - regular trains are unable to use these tracks. Seems like you have sloppily researched this, hey, didn't you write speeches for Sims ?
Granted, this may last 100+ years or it may not - who knows ? Reduce property taxes ? theoretically it could, but it won't as long as King County/Seattle is a socialist enclave, which is not going away any time soon...
Tell me, though, when did the government ever reduce property taxes?
How does constructing rails equate to cheaper transportation over buses? You weren't clear on that.
Just a couple comments, though.
Posted by: swatter on February 10, 2006 02:16 PMThrough Rainier Valley isn't as important as to the Airport - not to mention Northgate. Southbound I-5 congestion would likely be reduced, considering that train times between the UW and downtown would likely be shorter than driving, considering parking and congestion. With an extension to Bellevue, commuter trips could also reduce congestion enough to make freight shipments cheaper through that corridor.
swatter - note that "with work by the public". I believe it was recently done in Arlington as a result of heavy TOD investment.
Rails are cheaper than buses over time. A four-car train with one driver costs little more to run than a bus - but carries five times as many people. When you take into account the roadway construction and maintenance required for equivalent capacity and travel time with bus service, and extend for the century that the rail system lasts, you get better service for your dollar. Trains can be run more frequently at closer headways with consistent timing, and as such attract higher ridership and higher density development.
Any individual aspect of either system can be shown to have merit over the other, until all costs and benefits are weighed. There's a good reason that the vast majority of major cities have railway systems - all of these factors combine to make it the most effective transit system possible for major corridors.
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on February 10, 2006 05:40 PMI noticed that Ben never touched the rebuttal about lower property taxes, that both swatter and I took issue with.
Posted by: KS on February 11, 2006 04:32 PMMinneapolis and Denver haven't had time to do the TOD work - it will take decades. But I suspect that the wrong questions will be asked in any comparison made today: Comparing the congestion of drivers/bus riders then to now is not valid, you must take into account the people moved by the new system. Look at total hours of delay per capita for all commuters, and you see a reduction that I wouldn't be surprised was substantial in both Denver and Minneapolis already.
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on February 15, 2006 04:00 PM