The Eastside Transportation Association has filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the RTID/Sound Transit ballot measure, arguing:
the measure violates one-man, one-vote because it gives greater weight to voters in Sound Transit's service territory over the larger number of voters in the area voting on the highway project list proposed by the Regional Transportation Investment District.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 18, 2007 08:36 AM | Email ThisPhil Talmadge, an association attorney and former State Supreme Court justice, said the measure also violates the state constitution by setting time limits for appeals and challenges to the law that set up the ballot "and that's not fair."
Even if the system wanted to move a lot of people, it really could not even support that many people with two or three car trains moving at such slow speeds. So for billions, all we get are slow trains that run on the same routes that are already served by express buses, and that won't ever serve any more than a small 1% to 2% of the Puget Sound population.
It's foolish. If we were serious about actually establishing better transit, at a reasonable cost, we'd be looking at Bus Rapid Transit as many other cities around the world have done. But instead, there are too many construction firms, lobbyists and Progressives that only have eyes for rail and that desperately want to join the trendy rail ranks of other cities like Portland, LA and Atlanta. All cities where yes there is rail at the cost of billions, but that still does not serve ridership to anywhere near a significant percentage of the population.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 18, 2007 09:02 AMAnd the hits keep coming . . . ..
Posted by: obtuse on September 18, 2007 09:58 AMA little math would show that moving any significant number of people at rush hours on light rail is fantasy.
Posted by: RJK on September 18, 2007 10:02 AMSeattle politicians and planners would be the talk of the country if in ten years they implemented such a successful vision at such a low cost. It would take courage and decisiveness, but it would be relatively cheap and doable in a much shorter time frame. We are in one of the software meccas of the world. We could do things with bus scheduling, GPS, etc. that would even be smart enough to account for real time traffic.
HOWEVER, we are led by a mostly Progressive and Left leaning set of leaders that on issue after issue, put rhetoric and intention ahead of substance, feasibility, affordability, etc. And on the left there is so much groupthink that it is entirely unlikely that someone will challenge the conventional Neil Goldschmidt style rail ideology in favor of other options. Rail is gospel for Progressives and they are all too willing to scratch the backs of their construction, union, legal, insurance and other interests that want to see big local projects, regardless of their effectiveness, or what they will do to the region's future tax obligations.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 18, 2007 10:18 AMHowever, on the flip side, I'm really disappointed with the Bush administration's slap in the face to the bike riding public...since bikes are a lot like cars and buses in terms of flexibility and freedom and yet pollute so much less:
In an Aug. 15 appearance on PBS's "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," Peters spoke against a proposal to raise gas taxes to shore up the nation's aging infrastructure. The real problem, the secretary argued, is that only 60 percent of the current money raised by gas taxes goes to highways and bridges. She conveniently neglected to mention that about 30 percent of the money goes to public transit. She then went on to blast congressional earmarks, which dedicate 10 percent of the gas tax to some 6,000 other projects around the country. "There are museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails, repairing lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that money is being spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure," she said. The secretary added that projects like bike paths and trails "are really not transportation."
Roads-and-transit is still a dead duck come november.
Posted by: electoral knowledge on September 18, 2007 11:44 AMI would wager that as soon as the light rail opens down Rainier Valley, it will be at or near capacity, just as every single bus going out to Issaquah and Sammamish from downtown every evening is standing room only. I never thought this was an option of wider roads, more buses OR light rail.... I always assumed we needed all of the above if we even want to keep things from getting worse than they are now.
Posted by: Splinter on September 18, 2007 12:27 PMAnd we should have free personal rocket packs on every corner too. But who's going to pay for all of the trains, roads, buses, etc.? Trains are not cheap, $500 Million per mile. And they haul no goods and very few passengers at 30 MPH. No one is arguing that we don't need transportation solutions that go beyond just roads. The question is, what is the best way to get the job done for the least cost, and as early as possible. As it stands, billions for light rail that will serve only a few, and won't be finished for 20 to 30 years, and then will still serve only a few, doesn't sound like a good investment.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 18, 2007 12:47 PMHow many of those folks in Issaquah and Sammamish would move to Rainier Valley? In fact, what's the number of commuters from the Rainier Valley to downtown that commute via car? Because aren't those the ones we're targeting?
Or are we just going to move people from buses to light rail?
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on September 18, 2007 03:18 PMIf I remember earlier descriptions, areas were added to the RTID, but not in the light rail area. Would the ballot item these folks see be only the RTID?
Are there two ballot choices for the ST/RTID or only one ballot choice?
$18 billion is misleading. It may be all they plan to spend, but it isn't anywhere near how much they plan to take from us via taxes.
Unless life expectancy quickly exceeds 90 years of age, I doubt I will live to see the bonds retired on this boondoggle, if it passes. My daughter would be older than my parents are today.
Yuk. Too much for choo-choos. Not enough for congestion relief.
Out of this 18 billion, how much will return to the general fund in sales taxes on construction materials - maybe close to 500 million (8 bill * .065)? This is half the amount they have in the plan for 520. How stupid is that?
I-5 moves goods and services up and down the Puget Sound corridor, why should they get stuck in Seattle when they are only going through?
Where in Prop 1 is the plan to remove the I-5 bottleneck going THROUGH downtown Seattle?
How's that plan coming along to fix the viadict?
No more money for failing bureaucracies.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 18, 2007 07:57 PM- Fully fund a new 520 bridge with transit
- Fully fund a new tunnel/viaduct along the water front (prepared for future light rail)
- Utilize existing right-of-way for rail service on the Eastside (BNSF corridor)
is not really addressing the real needs while using some fiscal constraints.
We've heard numbers as being $18B (in 2006 dollars) and we've heard numbers closer to $50B for the final tab. In any case, it is a huge amount of money, and I think the legislature really need to step up and present ONE number, and clearly explain how it is calculated - else the voters simply will not buy it. We will have another monorail debacle and a few more lost years of "doing nothing".
I am all for building light rail, but should it really take 20 years for it to reach Overlake? And, should it cost over $100M/mile, when the SLUT only cost about $50M for the entire project?
Why does it need to be gold plated from the get go?
A new 520 bridge that allows for dedicated bus lanes makes sense. Just as it makes sense to build rali on the BNSF corridor along I-405. Even at 30 mph, it is still faster than a clogged freeway.
Sure we have challenging (and beautiful) nature, but we ought to be able to increase the rate of construction, thereby also reducing the financing costs dramatically. It's been done elsewhere where the obstacles as great or even are greater as in the Puget Sound Region. Why is it so hard in this region to get public projects rolling?
Gothenburg (Sweden) just built a one mile long waterfront tunnel. About same size and capacity as the proposed tunnel "light" that was killed on the ballot measure. Sure, the project was over budget but at the end, still only cost about %10 of a propsed tunnel in Seattle. Sweden is a high cost country, so no one can say it was done with cheap labor, instead I believe it was done with superior project management and skilled labor. Two factors that are likely the main ingredients for a successful completion once a project gets going.
Posted by: Per-Ola on September 18, 2007 10:01 PMhttp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/332081_slut18.html?source=rss
Posted by: JDH on September 19, 2007 07:45 AMExcept that the President is not elected by people, but by states, so it is not possible for it to be one-man, one-vote. On the other hand, one-man, one-vote is required for state and local races. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Posted by: pudge on September 22, 2007 08:35 AM