Environmentalist Emory Bundy argues in today's Crosscut that Sound Transit light rail doesn't deliver the environmental benefits that the boondoggle's promoters claim. Start with the energy cost of digging a six mile tunnel:
If all the energy consumed by tunnel-excavating and hauling is generated by gasoline or diesel, it will emit nearly 1.3 million tons of greenhouse gases, CO2, into the environment.And that's just part of it. Read the whole thing. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 25, 2007 10:38 AM | Email ThisAs an offset, Sound Transit claims it will save 14,000 tons of CO2 annually by running light rail trains on electricity, sparing the region emissions that otherwise would be generated by automotive traffic. Even if granted, it would take 90 years from completion of the line to break even on the energy transaction.
There will never be a significant ridership in a region this expansive and geographically challenging. People will choose their cars because cars will be cheaper and cheaper to own and operate, and fuel technologies will change and become cheaper as well.
The reality is that when one factors in all of the parking and endpoint changes and hassles, and often bus transfers, or biking the last mile, etc. from the train to destination, the average Joe is still going to choose their car and the freeway. It will cost him less, and take far less time, even with traffic.
Trains will never work, and at a cost of $500 Million per mile, the money would be far better spent on roads and buses which can use roads. These are the same roads that carry 95%+ of the current goods, services and human transit needs for this state and region. The choice was made long ago, roads and cars. Changing that decision now, with the current technology of autos, is at best a 100 year proposition, and one that we have very little possibility of funding without massive taxation.
Trains don't make sense, and the sane amongst us are going to fight this until it is dead, just like the monorail.
Posted by: Jeff b. on July 25, 2007 10:40 AMCut off the life blood of this monster - vote NO in November.
We'd get the light rail line from downtown to the airport - that's enough for a bit.
If the measure in November is not approved, the legislature probably will do the right thing and just go ahead and start raising money/getting plans in place for SR 520. Once we're well underway on that, paying the new taxes and tolls and constructing that multi-billion dollar megaproject, THEN, MAYBE ST could put an expansion package on the ballot. By that time we would have lived with the light rail line in operation for a while, and we'll know if we want more.
That is the only responsible, fiscally-prudent way to proceed.
Posted by: Ananco on July 25, 2007 11:07 AMFolks need to wake up! This FRAUD ("boondoggle" is inadequate) has ZERO parking along its line.
That's right: THERE's NO F**KING PARKING anywhere along the light rail line! No park and rides, no parking lots, no nothing! Like the Seattle monorail, if you can't walk to it, or get off a bus near it, you can't ride it.
And, that's the point. As we see in the SODO area, the wealthy developers (soon to use the KELO/eminent domain decision) are kicking the poor and the manufacturing off the rail line so the wealthy can build condos and commute to their new software businesses! Talk about wealth transfer.
This should be a daily talking point on every conservative radio show in the area. It should be a series of billboards. It should be TV ads. It should be a daily story on SoundPolitics.com
KILL THIS THING NOW!!!
Posted by: cmiklich on July 25, 2007 11:22 AMThe Chevy Volt, a plugin hybrid, should come on the market by 2010. It can deliver 40 miles of electric only power at 2 cents a mile. It can also deliver something like 150 mpg as a hybrid. (Yes, that's One Hundred Fifty Miles Per Gallon).
The Volt should retail for $20,000.
10,000,000,000 / 20, 000 = 50,000
That's right. We could be putting 50,000 fuel efficient Chevvy Volts on the road by 2010 -- or, better yet, by 25,000 of them, set them up as taxis, and use the other $5 Billion to pay drivers for free taxi rides for everyone for a year.
19th Century thinking wastes energy and money.
21st Century thinking solves the problem.
http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/
Fat chance.
Do whatever you can to make sure the ballot measure in November is not approved. That'd be a big step in the right direction.
Posted by: reprobate on July 25, 2007 12:24 PMWhat happens to those exhaust gases?
And here are a couple questions that I can't answer, but would love to know.
1. What is the efficiency in converting Coal or Natural Gas into electricity? (How much energy is wasted?)
2. What is the efficiency of the electric engines in the trains?
3. And how does this combined efficiency of fuel to electricity and then to electric engine compare to that of the gasoline engine in the automobile?
It's wonderful to dream about this right in our backyard...
Posted by: Bill Anderson on July 25, 2007 12:26 PMThat's all it is, a dream. It aint happenin in your, mine or my kids lifetime.
Posted by: REBEL on July 25, 2007 12:38 PMBut keep dreaming, it's lots of fun, just don't forget it is not reality, and reality costs money.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 25, 2007 12:45 PMFolks here have demonstrated decades and decades of indifference toward investing in infrastructure. The lack of non-bus mass transit was shocking when I first moved here in the 80s...and is merely saddening now.
This is the one thing holding us back from becoming a truly great city for generations to come. It is limiting and things like 2-lane highways through the center of the city and horrible rush hour traffic don't seem to move the willingness for investment.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on July 25, 2007 12:47 PMPlus they already indicated they didn't care if it was $7 billion more. They used to say it was $37 billion and this didn't give them pause.
I'd like to be a contrator on this project, where the politicians already indicated the first $7 billion more in overruns is totally hunky dorey!
Posted by: Jim on July 25, 2007 01:38 PMNot exactly. We just don't want expensive boondoggles that benefit only a few commuters and some tourists, like light rail. Change that ST package to invest in BRT, express buses and highway infrastructure and it's got my vote in a second.
I had a relative visit here recently, stayed in the city and rode buses and cabs whereever she went. She had little problem with this, and still managed to have a great time, even without a train. Being a "great city" has nothing to do with rail transit.
Posted by: Palouse on July 25, 2007 02:24 PMThose who live a chicken-on-a-chalkline existence might agree. Pity that the bloke didn't describe his sublime experiences visiting off-railway points Q, R, X and Y, I'd be interested in how incredible those trips were.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on July 25, 2007 03:22 PMUh, what roads?
Posted by: Bruce on July 25, 2007 03:35 PMYou convinced me. Sorry for the above posts. I' have learned a lot.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on July 25, 2007 05:11 PMThe idea that fuel prices will decrease is a fantasy. The reality is that they are increasing and will continue to increase. All it takes is a natural disaster, a terrorist attach for gas prices to go through the roof. Then you will be happy to have light rail. More housing and businesses will locate along the LRT as the years go by. Just look at Vancouver BC for an example of this.
As far as the VOLT goes, sure, it may be very fuel efficient, but don't believe all the hype. Regular hybrids get much worse mileage than advertised. Given this, I'm sure the VOLT will be worse than expected. As well, with people in China and India consuming more and more resources, the cost of the materials used to manufacture a VOLT will increase dramatically. Soon, the average person may indeed not be able to afford a VOLT (or any other automobile for that matter).
Providing people with transportation options such as LRT and bus is much better than forcing everybody to drive.
Thinking that everybody will continue to be able to drive everywhere all the time and that we will be saved by the VOLT is the real fantasy. Not a very utopian fantasy, at least in my book. If you dream, at least dream big.
Posted by: Richard Campbell on July 26, 2007 09:02 AMAs for missing data: What is the environmental cost for road construction? How does one factor in the cost of land and the development of the land to fuel the author's alternative?
As for my own preference, I like the Sounder Train and buses, but think the light rail is a joke. Why take it if it takes 30 plus minutes from downtown to Tukwila? The Sounder, even with its reduced speed zone in SOHO area, is faster than this. Where we should be investing our money is in reducing the bottlenecks on the freeways, which includes getting the HOV lanes done, including HOV on/off ramps at major congestion points (like West Seattle/I 90 interchange where buses from the south have to cross four lanes of traffic, thus slowing up that traffic, in order to get off to Spokane street), and add HOT lanes. One other suggestion, implement Tolls for all major projects other than standard roads (e.g., 520, Alaska way viaduct, etc.). Why is it only Peninsula residents have to pay tolls for a bridge they shot down? The Narrows bridge shows that Public/Private partnership can work, given the right incentives. There is practically no traffic at rush hour now, after they finally listened and actually added capacity to the route. From the south, the state needs to fix 405 (Renton to Bellevue), add another lane, or two from South Center to Federal Way, and after fixing the T-Dome area, work on the Fort Lewis congestion point, which would only require redoing a couple of bridges/overpasses to add another lane or two through the area.
Posted by: tc on July 26, 2007 01:24 PMBy my way of thinking these machines should still belong to the taxpayers to be collected up and reissued as construction finishes up along one section and moves to the next neighborhood. Would this be too much to ask?
Posted by: JDH on July 26, 2007 08:25 PMHowever living in Puget Sound since 1964 leaves me dumbfounded be the reliance of citizens on government baccarats to provide solutions for virtually all manner of services traditionally provided by private companies: transportation (bus; rail,ferry, cabs,etc.) medical insurance (why not car insurance); workman comp.; liquor sales; stadiums; retirement (social security, what a scam; Education. I can only ask what is the basis for this reliance? Consider the track record of the services that governments are responsible for above all else. The services that create the need for government. How would citizens rate the local government agencies on Security and Protection of property and person. In my opinion the agencies responsible for law enforcement fail miserably. Why Seattle and other Washington cities are actually sanctuaries for law breakers. And lately they have been releasing criminals prematurely for there is no space available to house them, at least that is what we are told. Failure is acceptable in law enforcement.
Space is limited so comments on other prime service will not be made. But you have the idea. Why do people (society) expect a failed government to succeed in transportation? Obviously based on the track record (pun intended) success is not possible.
Posted by: Snuffy on July 27, 2007 08:46 AMIf you'd rather have NO transportation, then indeed it would be more environmentally efficient if everyone stayed home. The author can't seriously be suggesting that, can he?
Incidentally, Snuffy, the private companies which built subways in NYC got *large* government subsidies in order to do so. (The prior *elevated* lines got less subsidy, and the *streetcar* lines got very little.) Then they went bankrupt because the government wouldn't let them raise prices to match their expenses, and the government took them over. People demand submarket prices for public transport, and that requires government involvement. You might as well call for privately built and run roads.
Yes, "heavy rail" -- more grade-separated, faster -- would be more appropriate for this region than light rail, but stupid automobile fanatics like the people commenting here have prevented the necessary funding, so it's being done "on the cheap". It will be wildly successful and then people will start complaining that it doesn't run fast enough because of all the grade crossings. Like the LA Blue Line. Sigh.
To answer one other question:
"3. And how does this combined efficiency of fuel to electricity and then to electric engine compare to that of the gasoline engine in the automobile?"
It's far more efficient. Gasoline engine efficiency is absolutely appalling, particularly at low speeds, when accelerating, and when decelerating. Electric train engine efficiency is really really impressive actually (so impressive that diesel locomotives engines are now being replaced with diesel-based electric generators and electric engines, so called "diesel-electrics").
And big electric power generation stations have better efficiency even than the small electric generators in hybrid cars or diesel-electric engines (which as you should know from the mpg ratings are more efficient than gasoline engines).
Furthermore the *per-passenger* energy efficiency is spectacularly better. It's even much better than buses because trains carry a lot more people, and they're more popular than buses, and they don't get caught in traffic like buses.
Actually, it saves energy to put *trucks* onto trains and move them that way rather than driving them on the roads.
The only situtation where road traffic is more energy-efficient than rail traffic is for low-traffic routes, where the trains will never fill up. (Of course, trains are only appropriate on fairly high-volume routes.)
Your statement about incremental "government" subsidy of different modes of private transportation at the turn of the last century in New York City is a load of horse shit. You simply don't have a clue. The subway companies had a fifty year lease on right of ways. The leases ran out offering the city an opportunity to harvest income from a built out infrastructure. Shortly after taking over the fares increased significantly. Proving once again if you want it done expensively hire the government.
History of the NYC subway companies is described in great detail on various websites which include the early contracts. Read it an learn. If you need the URLs, just ask.
Mouthing the usual subsidy horse shit indicates your level of depth (or shallowness) on important transportation solutions. And speaking about horse shit (from horses and people) that was of great concern for New Yorkers during the transition to modern transportation.
Yes Anon, it is possible and practical for transportation systems to be owned and operated by private operators and at no cost to taxpayers. History proves it can be done. It is unfortunate that citizens are not aware of history.
Posted by: Snuffy on July 29, 2007 01:23 PMHuh? Where did I talk about gentrification?
The bottom line is people want efficient and effective movement. People want the bottlenecks and headaches of commute to go away. The light rail isn't going to solve this. "Heavy" rail, improved bus transportation, HOV/HOT, and additional capacility of road surface in bottleneck areas does solve this.
Light rail doesn't solve this. If you want at grade rail, then go with streetcar rail, but I would guess electric buses are just as efficient as streetcar.
The state should concentrate on 405 to include both expanded capacity and heavy rail (not give up the rail line to be a bike route), build major transportation terminals at the various city rail outlets, and then efficient local bus service from there. The rail part should be distance costed, like Sounder has went to. Finally, if the government wants to spur use of the system they can give it via tax breaks/incentives to companies to buy discounted/or provide transit reimbursement, like many already do.
The problem right now with Sounder, is not usage. The trains are packed. There should be more frequent service during rush hour and extended service into the evening. The problem is all the at grade crossings and the areas where the train has to slow down between cities. Tukwila to Seattle could be 10-15 minutes, instead of 20-30 minutes.
TC
Posted by: tc on July 29, 2007 02:20 PMOne of the problems with Sounder is farbox receipts. Supposedly boardings are high - but the farebox receipts are only at 66% of what was budgeted. And that budget was set last December. So what's the problem?
Posted by: bacon on July 30, 2007 10:32 AMDid you actually read the 1st Quarter Report, or just like to cherry-pick one item without reading the rest?
On the actual fact you quoted, below under Revenue and Ridership, the report states "A portion of pass revenues have not yet been booked in 2007, resulting in a understatement of revenues for all modes. This will be corrected in April statements."
Overall, passenger fares run were at 101% of budget. I am not familiar enough with their accounting, but I would think that breaking down passenger fares buy service may be hard. Most riders buy the Puget Pass or similar, which allows them to ride Sounder, Sound Transit, or regional transit. The question is how Sound Transit breaks this payment down, since they don't actually count each trip how many passengers use this type of "ticket" on the Sounder. Only thing they have is a direct sales total and a portion of the overall PugetPass revenue.
If you look at the rest of the budget figures for the Sounder service, they were all running under budget, yet ridership was up.
Posted by: tc on July 30, 2007 11:24 AM