The Unsound Transit board voted yesterday to expand the unfinished, unproven, behind schedule and over-budget light rail boondoggle with a rail link from Seattle across I-90 to Redmond. Unsound Transit estimates that the project will cost $3.9 billion and be completed in 15 years. If past is prologue, it might be more realistic to expect the thing to cost $20 billion, stop in the middle of Lake Washington and still be under construction when my great-grand-children start having great-grand-children of their own.
In today's op-ed column, Lance Dickie of the Seattle Times tries to make an economic argument for light rail to the Eastside. "Sound Transit links tall buildings in a single bound"
The public craves alternatives to $3-a-gallon gasolineYes they do, but what's the cost of the light rail alternative? Dickie never tells us. Llike little boys in a toy store, the light rail boosters seem to neither understand nor care what the trains cost or who will pay for them. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 14, 2006 10:13 AM | Email This
The region's population is expected to grow by 1.2 million people in the next 20 years - that's adding the number of people who live in the Portland metropolitan area to our current population - and, coupled with increasing congestion throughout the region, highlights the need for new transportation alternatives.
Why are they adding the number of people in Portland to our region? To inflate the numbers?
Ok, now perhaps they mean 'thats LIKE adding the number...' (in which case someone needs some remedial english!).
Posted by: CrazyFool in Portland on July 14, 2006 10:59 AMThe good news is that the last time there was a transit measure on the ballot it was the monorail's. The Seattle voters in November 2005 voted 65% AGAINST SMP. G*d willing, a lot of them wised up after SMP, and the ST2 + RTID abomination will go down in flames in 2007.
Posted by: Coot on July 14, 2006 11:06 AMSound Transits presentation to the Bellevue City Council clearly showed that the #1 Problem is the 405 Corridor, #2 Problem the 520 Corridor, and that there was no problem on the I-90 Corridor but that is where they insist on running Light Rail. This despite the fact that they will take 2 lanes away from carpool use for Light Rail which will actually INCREASE congestion even under their best case.
*IF* Light Rail to the Eastside were a good idea (and I am not convinced that it would ever see high use) the best option is to include it into the design of the 520 bridge, saving hundreds of millions of dollars, making the project easier to fund, and providing Light Rail access to the UDub and Microsoft on the same line. That MIGHT actually get used.
And the worst part of it all is that Sound Transit's own presentation pointed out that there are 380,000 car trips a day passing through the Kirkland/Bellevue section of 405, more than 50% more than crossing the lake, and their plan does NOTHING to address that mess despite the fact we could put commuter rail online using exisiting tracks at well under the cost of ONE MILE of light rail to build out the ENTIRE project which could be up and running within a year if they gave the go ahead.
Imagine that, a REAL solution, cost effective, and can be done in a timely manor. No wonder Sound Transit wants nothing to do with such an idea.
Posted by: Coz on July 14, 2006 11:24 AMST - Morons all of them!
Posted by: Jeffro on July 14, 2006 11:24 AMI am also suspect of the ridership numbers. For example, 500 regular riders doing round trip 5 days a week for 12 weeks puts the number of "riders" at 240,000. If you look at the numbers in the article this way, actual unique riders would be just under 700 which makes a lot more sense than implying that 300000+ of the workforce now takes the train. How to Lie with Statistics...
I do take the bus to work most days because I'm too cheap to pay the monthly parking fees and I have seen an increase in the number of people on the bus. But before the moonbats in audience get all excited about this, you need to know that the biggest increase has been at Market Street in Ballard where all the new condos have sprung up. Until the bus gets to that stop, the number of riders really hasn't changed that much over the last three years. Also, the express bus I take is the most poplular one because it gets you downtown shortly before 8:00. The express right before and right after it do not have the same high rider load.
I still think that those who are wringing their hands about global warming and congestion should give up their cars and take other means of transport. And this should start with our elected officials. Hear that, Ron and Greg?
Posted by: Burdabee on July 14, 2006 12:10 PMIf filling up your tank is killing your budget, you really need to rethink your vehicle's fuel efficiency.
Posted by: H Moul on July 14, 2006 12:28 PMhttp://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5935082p-5234708c.html
There is something that the writer fails to mention - specifically Tacoma residents have already paid for local street and road maintenance and improvement. Yes you heard it right, eleven cents per gallon of the State Gas Tax collected each time you buy gasoline goes to local cities, towns and counties for use in maintaining and improving thee transportation system. This amounted to$21.33 per resident, or approximately $4.3 million this year. I contacted the City of Tacoma and ask how much of the $21.33 per resident, or approximately $4.3 million this year, that represents the City's share of State Gas Tax revenues was spent
on residential street maintenance.
The City's response was "Check our six year street plan." I have no idea what a 'six year street plan' is, but I do know what a Six-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) is, it is a document that the State requires from all jurisdictions of a certain size or larger. I located the DRAFT 2007 - 2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and what I found is that Tacoma has programmed $350,000 for "Business District Beautification," $981,952 for "Business District Capital Projects," $525,000 for "Citywide Streetscape
Program," $425,000 for "Citywide Trees," $200,000 for "Historic Water Ditch Trail," $50,000 for "Pipeline Trail," $50,000 for "Prairie Line trail," $350,000 for "Sidewalk Abatement Program" (incidentally the responsibility for the cost of this lies with the abutting property owner), $50,000 for "Spanish Steps Rehabilitation," $76,000 for "Public Safety" (Requested by TPD, although needed this hardly qualifies as a transportation related expenditure), $26,000 for Stadium Street Banners and Lighting," $198,384 for "Wapato Park Street lighting" (described as ornamental in nature). Yet nothing, not one thin dime is programmed for street maintenance. This friends is what I have come to expect from politicians so I wasn't surprised. For those of you who live in Tacoma, I would be interested in working to get a vote on the ballot that would direct at least 50% of the State Gas Tax revenue the City of Tacoma receives from residents every time they fill their tank to be spent maintaining residential streets. If anyone else is interested let me know.
Here's the article
JASON HAGEY; The News Tribune
Published: July 12th, 2006 01:00 AM
Tacoma council members signaled strong support Tuesday for a six-year property tax increase to fund repairs of the city's crumbling residential streets.
The idea, which would require voter approval, would generate $48 million, enough to fix between 235 to 593 blocks per year, depending on whether wheelchair ramps are cut into curbs to meet federal Americans with Disability Act requirements.
It would cost taxpayers approximately 49 cents per $1,000 of assessed value - or $98 a year on a home valued at $200,000.
Councilman Rick Talbert said the street repair campaign, if it is done right, could be extended beyond six years.
"I truly believe that if we are successful, this is a program that can carry on," said Talbert, who worked with Councilwoman Connie Ladenburg and city staff members to develop the idea.
Council members took no action during their study session, but they have talked about putting the issue to voters this fall.
Part of the discussion Tuesday concerned how best to sell taxpayers on the plan.
Councilman Bill Evans said it will be important to spread the improvements evenly throughout the city. The problem roads, he said, are everywhere.
Councilman Jake Fey said he wants to make sure the city spends other funds on street improvements. He doesn't want taxpayers to think money they're already paying isn't being used to help fix the problem.
City Manager Eric Anderson said part of the city's proposed street plan calls for spending $2 million per year from real estate taxes. Combined with the levy, the city would spend $10 million per year on residential street repairs, he said.
City officials considered other options for generating money, including a voter-approved bond issue and a nonvoted bond issue. The appeal of the levy idea, they said, is that it wouldn't come with any finance costs. A $48 million bond issue would cost approximately $28 million in financing costs over 20 years, officials said.
With a levy, "every dollar goes on the street," Anderson said.
Craig Sivley, an assistant public works director, said the city would use a combination of chip sealing and asphalt overlays on most of the crumbling roads. Some concrete streets would also be repaired. The goal, he said, would be to provide an additional 20 years of life from the repaired roads.
Repairing an asphalt street could cost anywhere between $13,500 to $33,900 per block, Sivley said. The variation depends on whether the city would be required to install wheelchair ramps at four corners of an intersection, which adds $18,400 per block, and whether survey monuments need to be replaced. Replacing monuments adds $2,000 a block.
Mayor Bill Baarsma praised Ladenburg and Talbert for promoting the plan, and Anderson for proposing spending real estate tax proceeds on street repair.
Public works officials have determined that nearly three-quarters of the city's residential streets need significant repair, and at the current rate the city is working on them it would take 220 years to fix them all.
"This really is fundamental to the quality of life in this city," Baarsma said.
Jason Hagey: 253-597-8542
The Seattle Times article said that the basic plan would run the average household $75 a year, and $125 if they implemented it in full. And that's just to build it...I'd assume that operations and maintenance costs are going to ensure that the tax stays around, and then I'd still have to pay to ride the thing into Seattle once it's built.
Can someone tell me how exactly this is a cheaper alternative to $3/gallon gas???
Posted by: Darth Dogbert on July 14, 2006 12:57 PMThe left never cares how much it costs us to fund their feel-good projects.
Will lefty politicians use it once it's built? Heck no, they are always too busy and important. They'll still be using limos.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 14, 2006 02:12 PMhttp://www.kingcountyjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060714/NEWS/607140318
It includes a quote from Dan McDonald about the potential for cost overruns as construction costs keep increasing, and also, this article has the total including financing - it is up to 11.9 Billion. Wasn't that the number for Monorail? And monorail was all new, whereas the light rail would be partly cannibalizing (replacing) existing bus capacity.
In other words, it is not a complete gain, the full picture requires subtracting the impact of reduced bus service and throughput.
I thought Sound Transit published daily ridership figures for Sounder, but could not find them. Maybe they stopped going this because they didn't want to show all the goose eggs when the Everett service was 'closed due to weather.'
http://www.soundtransit.org/newsroom/rider/ridership/
If anyone knows where to find the daily figures, could they post the link?
If you want to get a mass transit loving liberal to blow their stack try asking them why they don't use it themselves. I have conducted this experiment. Very entertaining as long as you remove all sharp objects from the immediate area prior to the discussion.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 14, 2006 03:02 PMSo now, lightrail is promoted as economic development project due to all the businesses that locate next to the tracks. Of course, it is not mentioned that most of these new developments are granted tax breaks and access to easy money which goes to those who are well connected.
Hard to see how ST is going to be any better in moving people than their neighbor to the south.
Posted by: BornRight on July 14, 2006 04:18 PMI can well imagine the same stupidity happening here.
Bottom line: After jacking up your taxes they still want you, (and not them), to ride public transit that's often filled with sex offenders, thugs, and mental cases that haven't bathed since the Carter Administration.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 14, 2006 05:07 PMhttp://progressivegovernment.org/conversation.php?ID=30
We're not making this stuff up. These people are downright scary
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 14, 2006 06:24 PM(You don't know where it's been!)
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 14, 2006 08:09 PMMr. Lane doesn't even listen to himself. Who does he think owns CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC?? He is specifically targeting Fox News, conservative talk shows, and blogs. Like the officials in our area, Lane knows an educated populace is bad for the commie cause. The lowly taxpayer would gladly suffer a poorly designed overpiced transit system if only they didn't know the officials who insisted it be built rode around in chauffered cars.
Posted by: Burdabee on July 14, 2006 09:26 PMHopefully, it will not get any traction in Bellevue, Kirkland and Gatesville.
Posted by: KS on July 14, 2006 09:35 PM$3 a gallon gas? Keep dreaming. Expect it to hit $6 a gallon within the next decade.
Posted by: Daniel K on July 14, 2006 10:28 PM3 a gallon gas? Keep dreaming. Expect it to hit $6 a gallon within the next decade.
____________________________________________
To tell you the truth Daniel is right. Long as we let the Water mellons, Wacko Envros & Libs stop us from drilling for our own oil. it could darn well happen. But Daniel, not because of the mean old oil companies!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on July 15, 2006 08:06 AMI stand in unyielding opposition to it (I wonder if I can get on the payroll of one of those outfits?!)
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 15, 2006 08:51 AMIndeed, and the last thing the clowns behind the monorail wanted to do was bring in anyone who'd actually had any experience building one.
I mentioned that they could save money by bringing in Halliburton to do it.
They didn't think that was funny.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on July 15, 2006 08:51 AMBecause we are lazy, we demand that the world sell us oil and now coal sending dollars overseas in exchange. These nations then have no recourse but to buy US government debt so we can have our pork and entitlements from the worthless stacks of dollars which they hold.
Meanwhile we use that same deficit financing to massively subsidize our ag products and give them away to some of these same foreign nations to keep the lower classes within them from developing wealth.
Now that we have decided to burn our foodstuffs for fuel instead of drill for the oil with which God has blessed us I wonder how we will continue to oppress the poor in Africa, Latin America, and Asia? It looks as if despite the best efforts of the super elite in America agricultural around the world has moved steadily forward. The free food trick may be spent.
Maybe giving away the new generation of Lithium batteries will be the next US behind the scenes foreign policy ploy.
I say the nation collapses though before the super elite work out another scheme. Impoverishing and enslaving Americans, their current desire, is not one that will lead to the safety of the elites, but their destruction. Americans will kill the slavers.
As for light rail across the Lake. Why not build an underwater monorail instead? Now that is a fantasy sixth graders could have a lot of fun with when their teachers instruct them to draw a picture of such come next Earth Day.
Posted by: Jericho on July 15, 2006 01:36 PMI love trains, I WANT Trains, but I want good design, good intention, and transparent arithmetic first!!!
This is just one more con job based on my what? libido? What are they trying to sell me this time?
One of the cost figures in that article says that the typical household would pay $125 per year.
Maybe one of you ST supporters could provide the breakdown of the assumptions used for that figure. Not that we don't trust Sound Transit's math, but let's just say it doesn't have a very good track record in this department . . ..
I imagine the region's population is about 2,700,000. The average household is about 2.5 people. So, how is the $125 per year figure derived? How many years of this additional sales tax does ST propose collecting? I assume the $125 per year is for year one, and that this figure is "2006 dollars," so what is the assumed growth rate for that $125 per year figure?
There are some very bright people who read this blog, and I think we all would be more comfortable if these cost numbers that came from Sound Transit were checked for accuracy.