Josh Feit raises some good points at the Slog about the broader purpose of Ron Sims's current position on Proposition 1 and the possibility of a vote in the near future just on Sound Transit Phase 2 if this November's measure fails. That being said, supporters of a transit-only measure who are placing their hopes on a separate 2008 vote are flying in the face of political reality.
When Sound Transit first failed at the ballot box in 1995 they didn't come back to the voters until 1997. Even though the RTID was first authorized during the same legislative session as the 2003 Nickel Gas Tax increase, we're only finally seeing a vote on it in 2007. On top of all that, it's a little known fact Speaker Frank Chopp doesn't want his caucus on the ballot with this kind of stuff, as I've heard from two different sources. He's concerned about anti-tax sentiment taking down a few D legislators in the suburbs. Just part of the reason Proposition 1 didn't end up on the ballot until an off-year.
Those are just three examples of why this region, which depends upon the state to be granted its taxing authority, just doesn't move fast enough to turn around and get something else on the ballot that quick. Love or hate Proposition 1, it's foolish to think an alternative will be coming down the pike next year.
Taken to its rational conclusion, that lends some truth to Feit's potential conclusion that Sims's current position is "actually pretty moronic." I'd call it illogical and counterproductive if given my own choice of words, but I won't argue with that phrase.
Oh, and the Yes on Roads and Transit pollster says the campaign is in "a better position to win than I would have imagined possible eight months ago." No pressure, fellas.
UPDATE: Brian H alerts me in the comments that I was mistaken in my original reference to a two year delay between Sound Transit votes in the '90's. My apologies for the error.
Of note, while searching to confirm my blunder, I was reminded the 2nd version was a dramatically scaled back version of the 1st RTA/Sound Transit proposal, especially in terms of light rail. Thus, my point remains. Light rail backers hoping for a better choice at the ballot box in the near future are whistling Dixie.
Posted by Eric Earling at September 30, 2007 08:18 PM | Email ThisR-51 was defeated by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups in the fall of 2002, leading to the nickel package which was approved in the spring of 2003, then another 9.5 cent increase in 2005.
If ST/RTID goes down this fall, they will be back with something, probably ST only, next year. Hopefully they will make it a bit more reasonable -- usually takes a no vote to get politicians to live within their means.
Posted by: Brian H on September 30, 2007 08:29 PMIf Prop. 1 fails, ST would be well-advised to eliminate all light rail except the route that would cross the lake and end in Redmond. That would delete about 2/3 of the light rail proposed and reduce the costs by more than half from $142 billion down to under $70 billion (approximate numbers). In addition, the Roads portion could be expanded to increase it by 50% (from $18B to $27B), that would probably be enough to complete the 520 bridge rebuild. One of the big disappointments to Prop.1 is that it does not finance the full cost of the 520 bridge - therefore it is a half-a$$ed attempt on roads to begin with..
Posted by: KS on September 30, 2007 08:34 PMI have grudgingly installed a Good-to-Go xponder in my car because I traverse the Narrows Bridge often enough for it so save me significant dollars. However, when the 167 HOT lanes arrive I will need to get a shield.
Posted by: Seabecker on September 30, 2007 09:14 PMIt passes and he gets to spend the money.
At the same time, he can claim fiscal responsibility by opposing it.
Brilliant man!
Using your brilliant logic, KS, we also do not need to replece the 520 bridge since it serves the same east-west destinations. Please, get a clue. Ever been to Sumner? Or Des Moines? Different ridership markets. This isn't rocket science.
Good thing anybody can be a professional transit planner, though.
Seabecker: at least with transponders on every car, freedom of information act requests can track Ron Simms' travel patterns and carbon footprint. Since Simms just put the final touches on his free (not for you and me) parking spaces in a brand new downtown King County parking garage, once can assume all of Sims' bike trips will begin and end there.
Here's why politicians (well, one politician) might be pushing this "toll the crap ouf everything" approach: they will just bill the taxpayers for their monthly toll bill, the same way we already pay for their gas and their personal vehicles.
If you want to watch a bunch of hapless sheeple commit intellectual suicide, watch the lunatic left follow around Sims like drooling lapdogs, even though he has turned on their light rail utopia.
Similarly, we can laugh when clowns like Dori Monson say they are "100% in support of" Ron Simms' 11th hour conversion, without even looking in to what Simms has planned for them in the future.
Monson and other rail opponents also gloss over the one rail expansion Simms retains his support for: Northgate. At $500 million per mile, you can see just how desperate these guys are to be taking Simms' position hook, line and sinker.
Dori Monson will never do his research. People reading this should. If a Sound Transit-only measure is floated next year, and if successful Sierra Club nuts get their way, right-thinking conservatives and Libertarians will rue the day they helped vote this thing down.
Providing better roads and reliable mass transit(trains) is all about two things: personal mobility and freedom. I'm glad Eric Earling has clued into this basic reality. How funny is it Stefan bashes on rapid rail in Seattle, yet he stated quite matter-of-factly "he likes taking trains in cities that have them." Uh...that is the essence of personal mobility, Shark. Ang guess what, those BART trains you used to use in SF are even more expensive than the trains he's obsessing over here.
Posted by: Manny on October 1, 2007 01:09 AMGreat article from the WSJ
Unsound Transit
In Seattle, you can't hear those rails a-hummin'.
BY TED VAN DYK
Thursday, December 22, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
SEATTLE--Ah, the Emerald City, temperate of climate, blessed in its natural setting, possessing a rich cultural life and global philanthropy, known for its diversity and tolerance, the nation's best-educated and literate city. My hometown.
But here, as in that other Emerald City in "The Wizard of Oz," there is a dark side. Local governance has come to resemble that in those old movie Westerns--the ones where the powerful get what they want, public officials eat at their trough, and townsfolk eat dust and pay the bills.
Seattle has a long history of providing subsidies to those who least need them. Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen's Vulcan Inc. will receive at least $500 million to help finance its South Lake Union commercial real estate development, to include a touristy trolley line from downtown. The city already subsidizes his Seahawks' football stadium. Owners of the Supersonics basketball team seek up to $200 million.
But nowhere is the misallocation of public money more evident than in public transportation, where Rail Madness eats billions that could otherwise be devoted to truly efficient transportation technologies.
Consider Seattle's version of Boston's Big Dig: The city's downtown bus tunnel is closed--two years ahead of schedule--for rail retrofit. Sound Transit, a regional agency, is obsessed with building a cost-ineffective light-rail system. It is preparing to bore twin tunnels five miles further northward, which will require moving between 121,000 and 167,000 dump-truck loads of dirt. Never mind that voters have not yet approved funds or a plan for a rail system going that far or beyond.
Read more at the link
Posted by: JDH on October 1, 2007 07:59 AM
The main differences between the 1995 ballot measure and the one approved in 1996 were: less light rail spending, and strict cost controls on the entire system plan.
The 1995 versions estimated $6.7 billion in spending, and the one approved called for an estimated $3.9 billion in spending.
The WAY in which the strict cost controls of the 1996 were expressed in the ordinance approved by voters was by putting dollar limits on how much local tax revenue and bond sales proceeds could be spent during the construction period in each of the five subareas.
Those cost control measures are why the light rail line had to be scaled back before construction began. Those tax revenue and bond-sale revenue spending limits also are the reason ST can not pay for the University Link costs unless ST2 is approved.
The ST2 ordinance would remove these cost control measures relating to Phase 1 spending, and the terms of that ordinance lack any comparable cost control terms for spending on the light rail extensions envisioned. That is a formula for disaster, and will inexorably lead to the same kind of debacle as Boston's Big Dig.
The key fundamental flaws with ST2/RTID relate to the lack of any quality- or cost-control oversight, the funding gaps on key megaprojects like SR 520 that would remain even if the thing is approved, and a financing plan calling for imposing punishing amounts of sales taxes (despite the fact that all other light rail systems are built using much more federal money and only modest amounts of new taxes which are borne by businesses).
Extremists at all ends of this tend to dominate most all media coverage. People see through all the hype. That's why a majority will probably vote yes at this stage. There's no huge reason for a majority of voters to say no yet. And none of the naysayers have anything near a credible alternative capable of winning majority support anytime soon.
Posted by: redflag on October 1, 2007 07:41 PMI don't think people see through the hype. People are suckers.
Posted by: Liberal_Crusher on October 1, 2007 07:50 PMThey are a batch of the worst thieves continually lining their own pockets with their tresured finds.
It is a sad day in this state, and time for a change.
ReElect Rossi in 2008
Posted by: GS on October 1, 2007 07:53 PMIf this measure goes down to defeat and those with common sense would hope that it is, then ST will be back and will scale it down - to include light rail to the Eastside. Tacoma will probably field a lower cost street car initiative. Meanwhile, the roads initiative could also be resurrected to actually fund a complete 520 bridge project - something that this brilliant Prop. 1 does not do. Also, consider that the next iteration of the roads and light rail initiative together will likely cost about 40% less than Prop. 1.
Instead of increasing gas taxes, the wave of the future will be fees based on mileage and vehicle weight. They are already doing this on an experimental basis in a number of states.
Posted by: KS on October 1, 2007 09:13 PMThe money would be far better spent on buses, but there is a rail fetish in the region. No matter that other major US cities have tried rail and failed, Seattle Progressives always place a higher value on intent, than on results.
Even though I oppose it, it would not be half bad if the proposition passes, because the Progressives and other fools in this area deserve the impending transportation failures they bring upon themselves.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 1, 2007 11:14 PMhttp://www.levx.com/advan/advan2.html
Posted by: Publicbulldog on October 2, 2007 12:27 AMI said earlier, it's not just a Light Rail fetish, it's their new religion. Since it's a religion, you're not allowed to be against it, or you're a bigot.
Posted by: Liberal_Crusher on October 2, 2007 08:52 AMThe difference regarding Light Rail versus the Sounder Train is in regards to frequency. This is something, that I didn't pick up myself until reading Landenburg's opinion piece last Sunday. The Sounder from Tacoma runs five runs in the morning and five return trips in the evening. It also has a reverse direction trip in the morning and evening, although I am not sure how much ridership this gets. It mainly gets a train back to the other location for an additional run and takes riders along with it (i.e., saves costs of not having to buy more equipment).
The proposed extension from SEATAC to T-Dome in the ST2 package being voted on involves provides for trains running 20 hours of the day every few minutes. The Light Rail Train is estimated to take 67 minutes from Seattle to Tacoma. Currently the Sounder takes 60 minutes, while buses during peak traffic times take around 50 minutes to Seattle and over an hour for the Seattle to T-Dome trip.
Yes, Sounder service could be increased, provided ST can work out the track schedule with Burlington Northern, but most likely it would move from 5 trains to 6 or 7 trains in the two and a half hour peak travel time. Whereas, Light Rail would replace the current Lakewood/T-Dome to SEATAC bus run (2 per hour) and current T-Dome to Seattle bus runs (32 runs during 2 1/2 hour period or about 10 per hour).
The buses currently hold about 30-40 passengers. So, they move approximately 1200 people for one direction. Assuming Light Rail holding 100 passengers per train with 10 trains per hour would move about 2500 people during same period, thus, doubling capacity.
So, is it worth the cost? I don't know about the who project, but for Pierce County voters, there portion does come close to being an even draw on costs versus benefits. The cost to put in the extension to Tacoma is a lot less than other Light Rail projects.
I have gone back to undecided on the package after reading Ladenburg's opinion piece. I know something has to be done. I believe the current Light Rail has been poorly managed, but I can also see how if managed correctly and if service is frequent enough, it could be a benefit over other forms of transportation.
Just one Pierce County resident opinion. Your mileage may vary.
Posted by: tc on October 2, 2007 12:51 PMDon't need to get all David Matthews on us.
Posted by: Palouse on October 2, 2007 02:31 PMSo you are OK with spending 10's of billions of dollars to move maybe another 1,000 people an hour from Tacoma to Seattle? For that kind of money we could just pension them out and save billions to boot. It just makes no financial sense to spend the kind of money it will take to construct light rail to Tacoma. You could just add another one or two buses and do the same thing.
As to running light rail 20 hours a day, ridership on the off hours will be next to nothing. Providing light rail for these riders doesn't even register on the financial benefit scale.
Posted by: RJK on October 2, 2007 06:02 PMFrom ST2 Plan, the Pierce County extension for Light Rail is $2B, and the South King County Extension from the airport is $1.5B. Assuming inflation of 3% over next 23 years to complete projects (2030 date), the total cost would be $8.5B.
Estimating an increase of traffic of 5% per year and holding existing Sounder and ST Bus capacity, one would see by 2030 an additional 12.7K individuals needing to drive, or to add bus capacity. The ST literature also states, per state studies, that at optimal highway capacity (45-60 mph), a highway lane will handle 2000 cars per hour. Assuming 6 hours of peak traffic (5:30 AM to 8:30 AM and 4:30 AM to 7:30 AM), one additional highway lane would add capacity for 12,000 cars. This assumes that the current highway runs at optimal speed, which it doesn't. There are several chokepoints for the stretch.
Even if one added additional buses (e.g., double bus capacity), the current infrastructure from Seattle to Tacoma area doesn't meet the demand. One would at a minimim need to fix the chokepoints identified in the RTID plan, plus add one additional highway lane each direction (two lanes total) to handle the demand. This would only meet the demand to 2030, so to be wise with $$, one should double the need. Therefore, as I see it, I can vote for $8.5B Light Rail, plus alleviate chokepoints for the area of my concern, plus other Sounder and Bus improvements, or lobby the legislature to fund the RTID chokepoint improvements, fund adding 30 miles of highway at $15 to 30M per mile within next 10-15 years, and another 30 miles within 30-45 years. This is irregardless any environmental concerns.
To me, it is a tough decision. Do I bank on a sure project, or bank on a reluctant legislature that seems to be driven by Seattle Politics and their needs over other regions needs. The Legislature hasn't come through very well lately.
So, the trade off, as I see it is (1) building an additional lane, plus all the chokepoint improvements in the plan
Posted by: tc on October 3, 2007 08:39 AMDon't forget that I'm going to need to order all-new, Italian-built trains after eight years! :) You left that part out.
Posted by: SounderFlounder on October 3, 2007 09:48 PM