A couple points on the possible Sound Transit ballot measure appearing on the ballot this fall.
1) The transit portion is smaller than last year's portion of the doomed Roads and Transit measure. Yet, it still costs a whole helluva lot with a 0.4% or 0.5% increase in the local option sales tax. That's a reminder that the longer everyone dithers on any type of transportation project - be it transit or roads - the more the buying power of the taxpayer decreases in the face of soaring construction inflation.
2) Note the opposition of Sound Transit Board Member and Everett City Councilman Paul Roberts to the Bus Rapid Transit concept instead of rail. He "won't support express buses instead of rail, because the state lacks a plan to reduce clogs in high-occupancy freeway lanes."
This has always been a huge flaw in the thinking of BRT advocates. HOV lanes and major arterials are already clogged during commuting hours thanks to the transportation policy failures of the status quo establishment. Just where would all these new buses go to make them "rapid"?
Goldy has the pdf of the plan, as proposed by the Sound Transit staff, for your evaluation and critique.
UPDATE: comments closed due to spam.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 25, 2008 07:48 AM | Email ThisDid you listen to John & Ken (KVI) on that study to tax all of use for driving period.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 25, 2008 07:50 AMJohn & Ken spoke with the guy who did this study.
Not a good idea to comment on something you didn't hear. (makes you look like a fool)
My feelings are to vote NO and roll ST, Metro, Pierce, Snohomish, and all the other transit agencies (including the ferries) into one state agency.
Joni Earl, Greg Nickels, Ron Sims, and the others cannot complete simple tasks; and asking them to provide solutions to gridlock has wasted 15 years and billions of dollars
Posted by: Green on April 25, 2008 08:13 AMI'm not sure how much confidence I have in our new WSDOT commander.
Posted by: Duffman on April 25, 2008 08:24 AMPS.. (Ken) is a blowhard and a cry baby when he doesn't get his way.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 25, 2008 08:29 AMAlso, tolling everyone for driving all the time is ridiculous. "Hey--we've taxed you to build all these roads and now you can't drive on them unless you pay our ransom fee!"
Posted by: Michele on April 25, 2008 08:49 AMThe whole thing is stupid. Taxing driving would cause many to drive just a little or not at all. So gas usage would drop which means less taxes, so less money for the gov/state. Which means the busses & any mass trans would go up even higher is cost. Less road repairs and on & on.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 25, 2008 09:01 AMOK everyone. Maybe it's time to just dismiss Duffie statements and move on with these talks.
(Just ingore him)
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 25, 2008 09:19 AMRoll them into one state agency?
::rolls eyes::
How is either (a) WSF, or, (b) WSDOT, performing these days? WSF is having to borrow -- for the Port Townsend-Keystone route -- something from Pierce County. It's rotating boats around to fill gaps when one or more aged boats are laid-up -- and the one builder that was willing to deal with the headaches of bidding on a State contract came in with a bid WAY outside the estimate to cover the hassle of the State's delay 'damage' clauses and the fluctuation of materials costs. WSDOT STILL hasn't settled on a Viaduct, the committed "Nickel Package" and gas tax increase projects are running over budget (some of which is due to things outside its control), and, there's a shortfall in revenue because -- hey! -- someone at the State didn't stop to think "Hmmm... I wonder if raising the gas tax will result in a reduction in revenue?"
How many 'transit' agencies, BTW, are there? Don't count your local jurisdiction's engineering staff, because, the bottom line is, they're more likely be around to answer questions from residents, and more likely to be around to respond to local priorities (like the need for a new signal that might be high on, pick an example, Redmond's priority list), than on a hypothetical "super-WSDOT-covers-all-'traffic engineering'-functions-in-WA" priority list.
Posted by: FT on April 25, 2008 09:47 AMThey are still promoting "rail" after Ron Sims disavowed it saying it was not the right technology for this area!
But instead of heeding that advise, they keep plunging forward.
Meanwhile they do nothing to help the principle "transit" system -- the car.
In fact, they want to bring transportation to a halt by adding taxes and tolls...effectively damaging the Puget Sound economy beyond repair!
Posted by: John Bailo on April 25, 2008 10:24 AMWe need to work out butts off this summer for Dino Rossi.
Posted by: AP on April 25, 2008 10:41 AMProvide incremental tax incentives to every business that allows employees to work remote. That will get more people off the roads than rail ever will, at a fraction of the price.
Posted by: Palouse on April 25, 2008 10:55 AMIf you have a problem with that, just imagine the outrageous costs of Dino Rossi's proposed Big Dig in downtown Seattle.
Here we go again with attempts to justify slow moving light rail trams of a few cars in length that will take more than an hour to get from Seattle to Tacoma. It's laughable, but like children, they want their trains, and no rational argument will convince them to stop whining until they get what they want.
For the sane folks, look up the details on how much the population has increased in the last 30 years, vs. how much the road infrastructure has been increased to accommodate that growth in population, number of cars, drivers licenses, etc.
Foolish Progressives will defend such growth by saying that is why we need to invest in transportation alternatives. But a large part of the change in overall congestion is the reality of more drivers created by a need for dual-incomes to support the very high cost of congested urban living. And the main driver of that cost of living increase is the growing bureacracy that has created whole industries of bureacrats and programs that demand and ever increasing tax base and tax rate to fund.
And the natural knee-jerk for many who wish to afford this region is to simply move further out where trains won't go for decades.
Trains are not the answer. Roads are a big part of the answer. But the Progressive-Enviro alliance won't look at any reasonable policy that does not fit their mass transit agenda. The problem will get far worse before it ever get better.
And it really doesn't matter how much the cost of delay amounts to, because that is always trumped by the cost of delay plus the opportunity cost of mass transit schemes that won't solve the overall problem. We are far better off choking off the mass transit phenomenon once and for all and delaying needed infrastructure for as long as it takes to avoid wasting billions on trains that won't ever solve the overall growth needs. That is growth in geography and commute habits of the criss-cross web of economic activity and humans that come and go from all directions to make this region possible
Starve Progressivism.
Construction inflation is part of the reason that there's far less rail, but a bigger reason is that the completion date is 2020 instead of 2027.
Posted by: MHD on April 25, 2008 12:32 PMDo show me a commuter tunnel completed on time and under budget. You can't? Looks like Dino Rossi's big dig is doomed to massive cost overruns.
BTW, the Bus tunnel in Seattle works great, I use it a lot.
I say we get the rest of the country to pay for it like Teddy Kennedy did.
Posted by: pbj on April 25, 2008 01:45 PMWe'll be doing that when it falls over. Spread the burden. Sort of like how the GOP cut back on the inspection money for Michigan bridges (like I-35W bridge in Minneapolis)...they got their funding for the new bridge after it collapsed and America witnessed the tragic deaths of thirteen individuals.
We'll be doing that when it falls over. Spread the burden. Sort of like how the GOP cut back on the inspection money for Minnesota bridges (like I-35W bridge in Minneapolis)...they got their funding for the new bridge after it collapsed and America witnessed the tragic deaths of thirteen individuals.
This is one of the more dishonest things I have ever seen you post, and that's quite a list. There is plenty of money allocated to safety and inspections of the nation's bridges, the problem is that states choose to spend it on other construction projects. Blaming the federal funding for Minnesota's lack of safety inspections on that bridge and connecting that to the collapse is a non sequitor and patently dishonest.
Bzzzzt! BS meter just went off. This is amongst the most egregious LIES you have ever told!
You might want to check with the Democrat run Minnesota Department of Transportation that is responsible for bridge inspections. They are the ones who failed the people. Perhaps it is because the Democrats have run that state for so long that he bridge failed, just as our own Viaduct will certainly fail and kill people.
1989 Loma Prieta Quake:
"The highest concentration of fatalities, 42,[4] occurred in the collapse of the Cypress Street Viaduct on the Nimitz Freeway (Interstate 880), where a double-decker portion of the freeway collapsed, crushing the cars on the lower deck."
Could this be the Seattle version:
"The highest concentration of fatalities, 62,[4] occurred in the collapse of the Alaskan Way Viaduct on the waterfront, where a double-decker portion of the freeway collapsed, crushing the cars on the lower deck."
Folks do you want another Democrat sponsored tragedy like the Minnesota bridge failure or the Democrat San Francisco Viaduct collapse to occur with our viaduct? If not, elect ROSSI. Gregoire had her chance and has DONE NOTHING! She should be arrested for criminal negligence.
Posted by: pbj on April 25, 2008 04:39 PMHow much more can they do to ruin the already congested streets of Seattle and the nearby burgs? And they complain about all the exhaust and pollution….there wouldn’t be as much if there were more roads and thus less traffic jams…
Now the way the so called Oil Company Subsidies
http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/07March/RL33763.pdf
Please note this includes costs to depreciate to pay off the cost of the Failed Oil wells. I guess this is a big Subsidy that the Feds give Oil companies. Read the Report and Learn It is just over a year old. The real subsidies do not cut in until oil price drops to around $15 per barrel. The lies of the Democrats talking about tax subsidies is mostly write off of Depreciation costs.