The myth of gridlock
The Puget Sound transportation mess might be all in our head.
Transportation often defines our identity. In the early days of the shipping trade, Seattle was the portal to the Pacific and gateway to Alaska. With the rise of Boeing, we became the Jet City, the town that linked (and shrank) the world. In the late 1990s, we were known as a major stop on Bill Gates' information superhighway.
More recently, the conventional wisdom is that we're a town defined by gridlock, both real and political. Our transportation system is at the top of the civic to-do list, but, the complaint goes, we're not doing enough about it.
In practical terms, critics point out, we've been reluctant to embrace mass transit. Earlier this decade, Seattle voted for a citywide monorail system – 40 years after building the first demonstration project – then pulled the plug when the cost seemed too high and the financing scheme shaky. We cannot agree on the size or shape of a new Highway 520 bridge, the key road between Seattle and Microsoft. And in a vote earlier this year on the future of the Alaskan Way Viaduct, voters rejected both options on the ballot, a tunnel and a replacement for the tottering structure. For some, this no-no vote exemplified a city stuck in traffic.
Critics also point to governance. While we talk about Seattle, what we really mean is Pugetopolis, the vast commuter-shed of the central Puget Sound Basin (Olympia to Mount Vernon). We have no centralized authority that can tackle problems region-wide, thus many of the "fixes" are piecemeal and parochial.
As if that weren't enough, there is Tim Eyman, the insurgent initiative activist who pops up like Wile E. Coyote with various roadblocks – spending lids, rollbacks of the motor-vehicles tax – that have crimped the funding our roadrunners rely on. He'll have another antitax measure on the ballot this fall, Initiative 960.
As a result, some argue that indecision, inaction, and sabotage are stopping a dynamic city in its tracks.
But the fact is, such gridlock is mostly myth.
True, we didn't build mass transit a generation ago or expand the monorail, but our economy is doing exceptionally well. Regional growth is big and steady. The population of Pugetopolis (as of 2006) is 3.9 million, up 200,000 since 2000. Last year, the city of Seattle's growth rate was the highest since 1968. Our boom-and-bust cycles have mellowed and the economy has diversified. The skylines of Seattle and Bellevue are virtual forests of construction cranes.
In terms of transportation, the critics give us little credit for what we have done. Sound Transit is building light rail. Seattle is laying trolley tracks in South Lake Union. We've raised the gas tax. Long before the Minnesota bridge collapse, we voted new taxes to repair the city's roads and bridges. We've voted to expand Metro bus service. Our per capita gas consumption is the lowest in nearly 40 years, and transit ridership is up. Even traffic congestion, annoying as it is, is pretty much what you'd expect. Our average commute time ranks 16th in the country – the same ranking as the greater metro area's size – and are only five minutes longer than that of Raleigh, N.C., which ranks 48th in commute time.
The voters are shy of mega-projects, and sometimes we need to consider ideas more than once. But at worst such prudence is benign; at best such caution may actually be an important part of why we're flourishing. We've yet to sink too far into any Big Dig fiascos like Boston's.
In November, the voters of King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties will have a chance to weigh in on a major roads and transit measure, Proposition 1.
It has two parts. One is called ST2 and provides funding for Sound Transit's second phase of light rail, extending it to North Seattle and the Eastside suburbs. The second is a Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) package that contains funds for expanding Interstate 405 and replacing the 520 bridge, among other projects. The price tag: a whopping $18 billion (critics say that, with interest and financing costs, it really will be twice that).
If the measures pass, RTID estimates that traffic speed will increase by 10 percent and delays will diminish by 25 percent, despite more growth. If true, that's significant, but hardly transportation's Second Coming. RTID executive board chair Shawn Bunney says this "is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to assure the prosperity of our region for decades to come."
History suggests that's hyperbole. If the roads and bridges measure fails, it's safe to predict policy-makers will be back with another package soon. What looks like gridlock is sometimes measured progress – without the hype.
Comments:
Posted Sat, Sep 29, 7:06 a.m. inappropriate
Right Track: Mossback is on to something here. The economy is growing. Unemployment is low. Long-planned transportation improvements are being built. There's no evidence of corruption. The national traffic study from Texas recently pegged the region's traffic better than it should be based on its size and said congestion growth was low here compared to most places our size. The state DOT seems to be delivering. Sound Transit finally seems to be on the right track. I love Metro.
The traffic ballot measure we're voting on this fall isn't perfect but it finishes things that seem to need fixing and extends light rail to places that will grow better because of it. It is not today's traffic I'm worried about so much as traffic 10-20-30 years from now. I'm for getting ahead of the growth. That approach is far less costly in the long run.
When it comes to greenhouse gases and global warming, we're so far ahead of others in non-carbon generation energy production, and light rail relies on that clean electricity, so I just don't buy the empty thinking that it'll do more harm than good. China's daily growth would probably produce more GHGs than the roads on the ballot here ever will.
I'm sick of the constant fighting among the transport geeks who are obsessed with this topic from multiple sides. I don't trust any of these extremists.
Yes, traffic isn't as big a deal as some people make it out here. But I'm voting yes to move on.
Posted Sat, Sep 29, 9:49 a.m. inappropriate
Transit as investment: Critics of mass transit like to argue that Seattle doesn't have the density to justify the huge costs associated with building rail, although everyone seems to agree that the density will eventually be there. The implicit message is that we should wait until we have the population count to spend the money.
As an investment strategy, however, waiting doesn't make any sense. As any long time homeowner knows, those mortgage payments that once seemed so huge now seem pretty manageable after 10 or 15 years of inflation and rising market prices. Moreover, the inflation-adjusted cost of land and construction for transit is only going to rise as the area becomes more dense. If rail seems expensive now, just wait 20 years.
Posted Sat, Sep 29, 11:37 a.m. inappropriate
NON WORK-RELATED: That was good to read Mossback. Thank you.
Note also that according to what I have read in, I believe,
the Seattle Times something like 75% of automobile traffic
in and around Seattle is not work-related. I confess that I
do not know just how "non work-related" is defined (does it
include a delivery truck delivering Christmas gifts?) but
as the recent constriction on I-5 suggests there is a huge
elasticity of demand that is not given much attention. Especially
not when big spending decisions are being made.
Posted Sat, Sep 29, 1:01 p.m. inappropriate
elasticity: You mention something I would like to read more about, the elasticity of demand for roads. I have wondered whether the wisest tack might be simply to let the congestion take care of itself. (I am not advocating that but wondering about it.) The I-5 project showed that people for the most part simply re-arrange their times and routes, no huge disaster after all. Perhaps congestion has its own solution in that experience. When the roads get too jammed, large numbers of people will find a way to minimize the effect on themselves. At one time, I rose at six o'clock to go to work. Traffic changed my habit, so now I get up at 5:30. Others are surely doing the same. It would be interesting to read some speculation on this approach, just as "don't do anything" to the viaduct seems to have been the temporary solution of the people to the political wrangling among the "Emergency!" people.
Posted Sat, Sep 29, 2:07 p.m. inappropriate
RE: elasticity: Traffic jams and long commutes are a kind of "congestion pricing" in that when they get bad enough, people to look for solutions or alternatives. But the argument against letting the gridlock "market" manage itself is that it has negative consequences in the meantime. If commutes are too long, people will look for jobs closer to home. But that is a major driver of sprawl. The Eastside--and other suburbs--have grown not simply because people were looking for affordable, single-family homes, but because so many jobs--think of Microsoft, or in another era, Physio Control, or Boeing--moved to the suburbs and employees have followed to work on space-eating "campuses," or in "office parks" and factories that couldn't be located in denser urban environments. In addition, while you're waiting for the market to get sick of sitting in traffic, the cars are burning fossil fuels, polluting and generating green house gases. The beauty of congestion pricing, as Ron Sims and others argue, is that not only do you use market forces to reduce pollution immediately and free-up the roads, but you create a congestion-related revenue stream. By monetizing routes, times and miles, people change their behavior much quicker and have a financial incentive to do so, and the government piggy bank fills. It's a punitive system, but that's why it works. At least in theory.
Posted Sat, Sep 29, 3:26 p.m. inappropriate
RE: elasticity: Skip, given your preference for punitive taxation why not simply raise the gas tax and give it a robust "local option" feature. Projects could be defined and the tax could be provisioned with a sunset clause. At least we would be able to avoid the expense of establishing a new Congestion Pricing Bureaucracy and paying the overhead expenses of all of those new FTE's and endless equipment and software upgrades.
Bump the Gas tax an additional 40-50 cents a gallon. Priority given to projects of statewide safety and congestion relief significance. After the first round of major capital projects is done, back the rate down to 10 cents a gallon over the current rate and establish a permanent maintenance fund pool so we NEVER have public safety and transporation issues become a political football again. Any elected who cannot get the workplan done with this funding model in place should be voted out of office immediately. Back to the basics of the priorities of government.
Posted Sat, Sep 29, 3:52 p.m. inappropriate
Prop 1 lets traffic delay in 2030 become 79% greater than today: "The Myth of Gridlock" is a very insightful essay. The big picture Berger paints is worth pondering. Keep clam.
Here's a detail that's important:
Mossback writes, "If the [Prop 1] measures pass, RTID estimates that traffic speed will increase by 10 percent and delays will diminish by 25 percent, despite more growth. If true,"
Stop right there! It's NOT TRUE. The RTID staff director quoted this 25% delay reduction to a P-I editorial board on June 4th, and it wasn't true then either.
The RTID computer modeling study shows that if Prop 1 passes, traffic delays in 2030 will be 25% less bad than they would otherwise be in 2030 IF the gas tax money we already approved were not spent, and in addition Prop 1 fails.
Sounds a little complicated, right? So RTID simplifies the message -- delay will be reduced by 25%.
The misstatment of analytical results by government officials to promote bad plans is unfortunate. Let me tell you the straightforward reading of the WSDOT modeling results:
With complete implementation of Prop 1 -- all $47 billion of spending for construction of both road segments and light rail -- plus completion of all the construction resulting from the two recent gas tax hikes implemented statewide, regional traffic delay in afternoon peak hours would be 79% worse than it is today. That's the bad news from government computer models on Prop 1 passing.
The only good news is that if Prop 1 passes, regional traffic delay in 2030 weekday afternoons would be 18% less bad than it would be if Prop 1 were to fail. A few of the RTID road additions help reduce congestion in a few places. Other parts of Prop 1, such as light rail on the I-90 bridge, make traffic congestion worse.
So, bottom line for Prop 1: traffic delay 79% worse than now, but 18% less bad than it might be. Question, is that good enough as an outcome for doubling the ST/RTID sales taxes and for doubling or tripling your car tab taxes? $47 billion is just the construction program. The authorized taxes are $157 billion over 50 years, mostly to maintain and operate the light rail network that is the biggest part of Prop 1.
Vote yes, and you'll be able to look at the traffic congestion out the window of a new train, if you happen to be going where the train goes, and you don't mind standing.
Or, to pick up on a key point of Knute Berger, by voting NO we have a chance to step back from a Big Dig disaster and force government to write a plan that costs less and does more. Trust me, it won't take 5 years to write a better plan than the one we are getting from the past 5 years of work.
Full details, and a graphic, at Public Interest Transportation Forum in the middle of the page.
Posted Sat, Sep 29, 4:24 p.m. inappropriate
RE: elasticity: Cameron: I'm not in favor of congestion pricing, I'm just trying to explain why the proponents like it--and the honest ones admit that the punitive nature of them is why they're effective. I think you make a great point, but the congestion pricing and toll advocates--and the Bush administration--say that higher gas taxes won't do the job since the price of gas is already too high. Others argue that with peak oil, higher gas taxes are not a long-term solution. Also, taxes are hard to raise, but the public seems to find "user-fees" less objectionable. Congestion pricing is a tactic that dodges around the political unpopularity that comes with raising gas taxes.
Posted Sat, Sep 29, 6:42 p.m. inappropriate
The first one is the absolute mess we have that passes for transportation planning. Instead of cohesiveness, we have cacophony; it's a Balkanized bag of balls being batted back and forth. As he says:
"We have no centralized authority that can tackle problems region-wide, thus many of the 'fixes' are piecemeal and parochial."
What's needed is an ELECTED regional transportation authority with decision making and taxation authority over everything that moves or is moved upon (subject to those exclusively in the hands of the feds) in what he calls Pugetopolis: roads, transit, Ferries (aside from the dinky one on Lake Roosevelt, they're all here or close to it), Boeing Field, the Viaduct...ALL of it.
No more competing jurisdictions, councils, commissions, agencies all fighting each other for attention, money, power and whatever it is that petty fiefdoms do in feudal systems.
While the authority would be elected, it wouldn't be political because the swapping of transportation chits for development chits, etc., would be a thing of the past. The people would be able to hold the decision makers directly accountable instead of mixing the pot with other campaign issues.
His other point exposes the near-bait and switch way in which Prop. 1 is being promoted. Mossback says:
"RTID executive board chair Shawn Bunney says this 'is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to assure the prosperity of our region for decades to come.'
History suggests that's hyperbole. If the roads and bridges measure fails, it's safe to predict policy-makers will be back with another package soon. What looks like gridlock is sometimes measured progress – without the hype."
Amen! Any time someone wants you to buy into an opportunity that's "once in a lifetime." you can bet that it's neither an opportunity nor all that rare. RTID's Shawn Bunney's comments are like what the auto salesman tells you just before he says he has to check with his manager to see if he can get this for you at that price...but you have buy today, or it's no dice!
I learned a long time ago that whenever anyone says it's "once in a lifetime," ask them to define "lifetime" then run! How "once in a lifetime" is it to fund half projects? How "once in a lifetime" is a bridge that reaches only half-way across Lake Washington? It's "once in a lifetime" for the promoters of the project, not the taxpayers. This "once in a lifetime" has all the earmarks of adjustable rate mortgages and the subprime mess.
LOOOOW down, EEEEEEEEZZZZY payments, in just several thousand months, it will be yours.
I'll pass, thank you, and the more voters learn the details, the more they'll probably join me!
The Piper
Posted Sat, Sep 29, 11 p.m. inappropriate
RE: elasticity: Thanks Skip, I am glad we may agree on congestion pricing and it's punitive nature. While herding cats and the formation of public transporation policy appears to have a lot in common, I believe that introducing any new method of collecting those taxes would be equally problematic. I believe since the Gas tax is the ultimate user fee and that every fill-up is a reminder to the taxpayer of just how important "On-Time and On-Budget" project management is (or should be) it would user in a new era in accountablility for public officials. The removal of the "social control" aspect of congestion pricing by going with a local option gas tax will no doubt irritate the usual suspects who populate the PRSC, The County boards and Comissions and the Blue Ribbon panel sychophants whose names always seem to get the nod from the Governor. This funding model could be enacted and flowing money into the projects in less than a year. Why not put all of the electeds in the hot seat and say "Here is your revenue stream with a 10 year sunset provision, Start building NOW." Oh and since I don't like charging myself twice on Intrest for financing Public Infrastructure Projects let's all save ourselves 8.5 percent by not charging Sales tax on Materials.
Posted Sat, Sep 29, 11:04 p.m. inappropriate
RE: elasticity: Sorry Skip , that should read "it would usher in a new era in accountability".
Posted Sun, Sep 30, 10:53 a.m. inappropriate
Skip, do you really think doing nothing is a good idea?: Skip writes regarding the proposed light rail expansion, "One is called ST2 and provides funding for Sound Transit's second phase of light rail, extending it to North Seattle and the Eastside suburbs." Actually, that seriously underplays the expansion that is being proposed. What is on the ballot is the true makings of an comprehensive regional transportation system. It is not light rail to just North Seattle -- ST2 will build light rail north to Lynnwood (with the eventual intention of reaching Everett), and, yes, east across the lake. It will extend light rail south as well, all the way to Tacoma. In all, we'll be adding 50 miles of light rail -- more than currently exists in Portland.
Over time -- no, it will not happen overnight -- the creation of such a system will be transformative, channeling development along mass transit hubs and reshaping travel modes and patterns in a green-friendly way. It will shift -- gradually but irrevocably -- the tilt of our transportation thinking, planning and development away from the auto-centric and toward the transit-centric. It is something we should have started 30 years ago, and we would be fools to pass on the chance now.
Don't take my word for it (disclosure: I work for the Roads and Transit campaign). Rather, I urge everyone to read Walt Crowley's wise essay in support of Propsition 1, published posthumously today in the Seattle Times. He explains the significance of this moment and this vote far better -- embedding it in rich local historical context -- than I (or Skip, who has the knowledge base but is too blinkered by his all-consuming fear of change) ever could. Like Skip, Walt had an deep love and appreciation for Seattle's past. Unlike Skip, though, he wasn't caged by it.
Posted Sun, Sep 30, 4:44 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Skip, do you really think doing nothing is a good idea?: Sandeep: I would love to hear what you think of your old boss Ron Sims bailing on the roads and transit package. He doesn't seem to be buying into the "transformation" you see taking place.--Skip
Posted Sun, Sep 30, 5:39 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Skip, do you really think doing nothing is a good idea?: Skip,
Are you interested in responding to Sandeep's question, or in changing the subject to Ron Sims? Sandeep doesn't work for him anymore, so Ron Sim's position really is a completely different topic (just as whatever Mike Seely thinks would be).
I've been reading you regularly on Crosscut, and while it does seem that you have a position, you don't really come out and tell us what it is. How about it, what do you think we should do, since Prop 1 doesn't seem to be it? Or is Sandeep's characterization that you think doing nothing is correct?
-->Aaron
Posted Sun, Sep 30, 6:30 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Skip, do you really think doing nothing is a good idea?: Sure: simple question, simple answer. I have immense respect and affection for Ron. I agree with him on very many things. On this, though, I think he is wrong.
I think if we turn down 50 miles of light rail now, in 30 years people will shake their heads and wonder how we could have been so short-sighted -- just like we do now regarding the Forward Thrust generation.
Now, tit for tat. I would love to hear how you explain away Walt's essay.
Posted Sun, Sep 30, 8:13 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Skip, do you really think doing nothing is a good idea?: I believe the answer most people will have to the "Do nothing option" is that why would any group of sane taxpayers trust the very same people who got us into this transportation problem from a public policy and prioritization perspective be given more power and taxing authority? Sandeep and his fellow travelers have never been held accountable for their failure to deliver on the first ST debacle, let alone the over promise and under performance of "Transit Now". I can only hope that there is some movement this next election cycle to remove the Deadwood from the Governor on down, including Sandeep's other political venture Darcy Burner.
Posted Sun, Sep 30, 8:56 p.m. inappropriate
Knute says WAIT..., it worked before: Once again Crosscut weighs in with another editorial on Roads and Transit from the generation that turned down Forward Thrust when the feds paid almost all the money. Knute says wait, another package will come along. Well, he may be right...but will it offer as much rail? Will it offer real relief to Seattle commuters when the viaduct comes down in five years? Most importantly--will it be any different? The regional players will be the same, the deck chairs will be moved around. Time to move forward, before it is too late for the generation that turned rail down in 1968 and 1070 to enjoy any of the benefits.
Posted Sun, Sep 30, 9:42 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Skip, do you really think doing nothing is a good idea?: Cameron, there are any number of prominent and respected current and former Republican office holders who support the Roads and Transit proposal. Reagan Dunn, Shawn Bunney, Fred Jarrett, Slade Gorton, and Ralph Munro come quickly to mind, and I'm sure there are others. Do you include those people among the "fellow travelers" you so desperately want to bring to account?
Posted Sun, Sep 30, 10:17 p.m. inappropriate
As to the question posed in headline, I think my piece made clear that I don't think that we're "doing nothing", we're already doing a lot (rail, roads, transit) and spending billions doing it. But I don't buy the hype that it's do-or-die time. I don't even buy that transportation is the single most important issue we need to address. I do have confidence that if the package is rejected, the world won't stand still and well-meaning people will go back to the drawing board and try again. If they do, I hope they might do what Sims suggests, which is keep their eyes on the bigger picture of climate change and the smaller picture of improving mobility in thousands of smaller ways and not waste billions trying to build our way out of traffic jams. I think in the future we're going to have to figure out how to do more with less.
Do I have a highly detailed master plan for the region? No. I am responding to what the policymakers are putting forward and as a voter who has to make a decision. I don't think linking rail and roads was a good idea. While I am a congestion pricing and tolling skeptic, I think it at least offers a more creative solution than spending multiple billions expanding road capacity.
Would I support the next phase of Sound Transit alone? Well, I voted for the first phase--yes, Mossback actually voted for rail--but I have been very disappointed that what we got was a lot less for a lot more money. In my mind, however, rail is an unfinished experiment and I will be fascinated to see how it works, especially in my native Rainier Valley where it is already transforming neighborhoods. So my answer is, I'm not sure.
Which brings me back to Sims. He stepped up to help save Sound Transit during its management and credibility crisis. He embraced it and chaired the board. Now he's critical of their routes and plans. He's clearly strained political relationships to take such a stand. If he's having doubts, I take that seriously. Even if I don't always agree with him I sure admire his willingness to get out there and take risks for what he believes instead of hiding under a cloak of "neutrality."
Posted Sun, Sep 30, 10:35 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Skip, do you really think doing nothing is a good idea?: Yes Sandeep, If they are not a part of the solution, they are part of the problem.
This is about performance and accountability, not party. Now those political observers among us may realize that we have had the same Group in control at the State and in King County for the last 20 years. Failure to address transportation priorities must be apportioned to thier leadership. Since you chose not address the wisdom of giving the same group who got us into the current transportation mess MORE POWER and MORE MONEY, I will assume you are rational and agree MORE of the SAME would not make any sense.
Establish a hefty local option gas tax with a sunset provision, leave out the Department of Behavior Modification you so desperately want to establish and get about the business of building the solutions. The solutions like removing bottlenecks, replacing Bridges and enhancing BRT. Let ST finish phase 1 without extending thier taxing authority beyond it's current limits. If the system works, consider phase 2, but in the mean time move forward on what we know will work.
Posted Sun, Sep 30, 11:10 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Skip, do you really think doing nothing is a good idea?: Yeah, we can't try light rail. It has never been tried anywhere in the world. We don't even know if the technology will work. Really?
We should try BRT instead. Whatever BRT means. It either means buses stuck in traffic. Or dedicated busways, in which case we might a well build a train. Developers like rail.
Posted Mon, Oct 1, 6 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Have they got a deal for us!: Public infrastructure expenditures are important.
However the crucial measure is an elected class that can, with integrity, present and sell, financially and technologically feasible plans. We have none of those elements. We have politicians who lie to us about a plan that does not make financial sense, and is not nearly the best mix of technologies available.
The criteria for this current plan is one thing only - control. They want us to sign over all accountability for 50 years - overpaid, unaccountable jobs for life. We need a plan and a technology that gives us the flexibility.
An elected board is an option. A similiar choice, which I've advocated for a little, is an elected Executive for the entire region with an appointed board from the ranks of local politicians. Electing transportation officials by region would make sense too, but I don't think we need that many officials. An elected executive though does make it very clear of what the public thinks about past results.
Credible observers on the right and left agree that a bus corridor/HOT lane strategy is the best course to put forward. That doesn't mean that there isn't a place for light rail, just that at current prices its priority is much, much less than that given in this package.
FWIW, with the Sounder Train, I might rather see Tacoma's light rail follow the lead of the Emerald Queen, which has offered to throw some money into the pot. Build the Tacoma Link to the EQC, but extend it from there south to 38th, then across to the Mall, angle across the mall to 56th and then go west to Bridgeport, perhaps looping south into Lakewood. Go North on Bridgeport to 27th or 19th, angle across the Community College to 12th, then to 6th and back to downtown via UPS.
-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln District, Tacoma
Posted Mon, Oct 1, 6:33 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Skip, do you really think doing nothing is a good idea?: Oh the technology works for light rail, it's the political hacks implementing it that are the problem. When legal firms that are making millions off of bond underwriting are helping the "yes " campaign I suppose they have the taxpayers best interests at heart. This team has delivered far less that what they promise in terms of system footprint and performance up to now. Why should we trust them with a 50 year taxing authority for new projects and extended taxing authority for ST phase 1. It sounds like your employment might be at issue here Tommy. We see the Sandeep Kaushik and Roger Pence's of the world on the blogs defending this "proposal" but they are getting a paycheck to do it, personally I wouldn't take that job knowing it's not an effective solution. Some folks will do anything for a dollar. If you don't know what BRT means I can't help you. You do seem to know what developers want though.
Posted Mon, Oct 1, 12:06 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Have they got a deal for us!: We'll return to this discussion ... some day, some how. But thanks to you both for discussing it intelligently ... instead of the histrionics about how this would somehow result in the demise of Sound Transit, an allegation which gets bandied about on other sites and which I simply do NOT understand!
In the meantime, of course, the debate about ST2/RTID goes on ...
Posted Mon, Oct 1, 12:19 p.m. inappropriate
The Piper
Posted Mon, Oct 1, 1:34 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Skip, do you really think doing nothing is a good idea?: Those "political hacks" you refer to are the same regional leaders who would come up with a new plan. Any new plan will involve law firms and bond underwriting. I don't work at Sound Transit, but I believe they put together a plan they know they can deliver having learned painful lessons in the first five years. You Sound Transit haters are stuck in 1998.
I know what BRT is. Not very rapid bus transit that people don't trust because it works on existing streets. Or somewhat rapid bus transit that uses dedicated busways that approach the costs of rail without the carrying capacity.
And yes, I do know what developers want. Not because I love developers, but because it has been proven over and over again. They like building near rail stations because of their permenence. People like rail because they feel that it is far more reliable. This is not rocket science. All over the US developers build density near rail stops. Similar development near BRT lines is not as robust.
I drove down the Rainier Valley the other day and near the Othello station there are blocks and blocks of dense housing with ground floor retail being built. The city has upzoned around station areas. One real estate advertizing sign read, "the world at your doorstep".
Posted Mon, Oct 1, 2:47 p.m. inappropriate
Prop 1 is a typical committee product: a little something for a lot of people, not enough to actually make a real difference, and, at the end of the day, a waste of time, money, and effort.
"Leaders???" You call them "leaders?" Jim Jones was a leader, as was the captain of the Titanic and G.A. Custer. But I've no interest in drinking a transportation version of Kool-Aid while sailing up the Little Big Horn on a ship not suitable for the journey and doomed to sink anyway.
But if Prop 1 is the best we can do - the highly touted "opportunity of a lifetime' - then maybe we all should scarf the Kool-Aid and be done with it!
The Piper
Posted Mon, Oct 1, 3:05 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Skip, do you really think doing nothing is a good idea?: Piper, I do not think you will ever convince Tommy, he scoffs at the expansion of the 8th most utilized bus system in the United States ( US Department of Transportation), because it's potentially too slow. He and the other Prop 1 fans will do and say whatever it takes to keep any expansion of the roads network from happening. So in 10 years when he MAY have an OPTION for SOME commuters at a cost 40 + Billions and carrying costs of well over another 100 Billion at the end of the 50 year bonding period. Why not move to what can be implemented within 2-3 years and paid for within the next 20 years?
Posted Mon, Oct 1, 3:21 p.m. inappropriate
Then tell me how many virgins does he expect will greet him in the after life when he dies on the hill of light rail?
The Piper
Posted Mon, Oct 1, 3:37 p.m. inappropriate
Sound transit doesn't work !: What, put us all in hock for 'transportation' that over 90 %
of us will NEVER use ?
The idiots that did 'nothing' for decades are the ones who
put transportation in it's current state.
By ignoring the need for continual construction of roads and
freeways with general purpose lanes, drivers of personal
vehicles are now the ones suffering.
Freeway design should reflect the current state of need.
Heavy truck traffic segregation, on/off ramps with sufficient
length to allow speed up BEFORE entering and inforcement of
MINIMUM speed limits would be working NOW if construction
had not been turned off.
The next generation of personal vehicles will be zero polluting
with electric/hydrogen technology.
Do you see the massive condemnation of housing for right of
ways to make ANY EFFECTIVE light rail expansion possible, happenning ?
I'm sure the ecco-facists will have the answers though !
Posted Mon, Oct 1, 7:50 p.m. inappropriate
Counting Down the Top 10 Reasons for Voting No on RAT [Reasons 10 thru 6]: Skip's take on things is dead on. His piece complements nicely these Top 10 Reasons for Voting No on RAT (aka Proposition 1. Roads and Transit):
10. RAT Costs Too Much. The worst case $157 billion number seems not too far from what would become the final number. Sound Transit, for example, has been extremely protective of its taxing authority, going to court on numerous occasions to protect it. I can't envision a scenario where they will intentionally walk away from the full 50-year taxation of citizens. And given the self-preserving nature of government transportation entities, cost over-runs on the order of 100% over long periods of time should be assumed as a given. The expected debt service costs are huge, and rightly should be front and center on the ballot. Even the lowliest of subprime lenders needs to lay out the total cost of borrowing over the term of a loan.
9.RAT Doesn't Use Least-Cost Planning as Required by Law. The RAT plan lacks both least-cost planning and cost control components. Least-cost planning stipulates development and comparison of a number of plans, one of which is a least cost plan. To control costs as part of least cost planning we need to ask "In what ways can we wisely and credibly reduce labor, real-estate, environmental, tunneling, and mitigation costs? Are there ways to use guest workers or to use those working at near minimum wage who cannot afford to live in the region? Can we design special environmental laws for transportation that reduce environmental expense without lowering environmental protection? For example, can we permit the entire system with one permit, and not 1,000 local ones? Can we reduce the amount of future expensive land acquisition and tunneling by going above ground ala the monorail, or by using existing rail right-of-ways or the middles of freeway right-of-ways? Let's think and save money.
8. RAT Ain't Comprehensive and Follows a Worn-out Funding Paradigm. RAT isn't so much Roads and Transit as some roads and some transit, and no promise that we're fixing our congestion problems. The light rail components are dreams with deadlines extended so far out, they might as well be religions. The roads component is woefully underfunded. What of I-5? Is congestion reduced? Why not? Why aren't riders paying the full cost for each mile? Same for bridges. Same for ferries. Why the free ride? Let's change the funding paradigm.
7. RAT Ignores the Low-Lying, High Bang-for-the-Buck Fruit. None of the higher bang-for-the-buck revenue-generating options are part of the plan such as tolled roads, tolled bridges, increased van pool subsidy, increased bus subsidy, congestion pricing ala London, peak-hour road pricing or even BRT. Thus, this transportation plan seems to be woefully lacking in fiscally responsible transportation planning, and heavy on mega-construction projects.
6. RAT Lacks Public-Private Partnerships. How can we build out the system faster? Ron Sims, long a light rail zealot, has pointed out that RAT doesn't produce light rail results quickly enough. How about a wide set of public-private partnerships where builders such as Bechtel get things done in a handful of years instead of over two decades? How about some design-build-operate options that give incentives for staying under budget? Will labor dictate to the public how expensive the system will be, or do we divide the work load so that we can get more bang-for-our-buck? Will there be a partnership with labor to create incentives for on-time, on-budget projects, or will all contracts be pork-ridden make-work projects benefiting unions as part of political payback? This is not a slam against unions, but a call for running projects using unions efficiently and effectively.
Posted Mon, Oct 1, 7:55 p.m. inappropriate
Counting Down the Top 10 Reasons for Voting No on RAT [Reasons 5 thru 1]: 5. RAT is Government Subsidy on Steroids. We're still subsidizing everything from rails to roads rather than making costs transparent so that the market and us consumer-citizens can make our own decisions based on true costs of trains and roads. This is what the light rail proponents have been asking for forever. If drivers saw a bill that itemized them for infrastructure usage (not to mention carbon-footprint costs) then the light rail fare-box rate structure could be raised to compete and to significantly fund light rail. As it is now, both the roads and transit folks are seeking virtually 100% subsidy of infrastructure costs, which is a failed paradigm, that leads to The Tragedy of the Commons on a massive $100 billion dollar scale and to continuing grid-lock.
4. We need Pros not Pols. We have too many unqualified parochial politicians trying to design transportation systems that produce indirect "externalities" that they think are good. If these externalities are part of the equation that we're willing to pay for, then let's pay for them explicitly. Bring on the regional carbon footprint tax and use that to help fund light rail. If we want to encourage development, then let's explicitly give subsidies to developers. If we want to encourage employment, let's explicitly subsidize office towers and Microsoft's campus, all served by future light rail. Plus, don't forget that we levy taxes to punish and penalize drivers, very few of whom will ever have a chance to use light rail on a regular basis. These externalities are significant. Don't bundle them all up and try to make them go away.
3. We Need Gridded Mass Transit in Cities, Not Downtowns Connected by Sprawling Mass Transit. Real world-class cities have dense mass-transit grids making such cities truly walkable for citizens. Thus grids of light rail are built rather than sprawling light rail connections between cities. That's a second-order problem. Paris, as I understand it, has approximately 250 subway stations beneath it. Our light rail plan doesn't build grids, but instead sprawls out to connect downtowns. Cities such as Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, Renton and Redmond all support Sound Transit because they expect to build dense taxable downtowns with higher real-estate taxes on condos and office buildings, head taxes on new businesses, and sales taxes on retail businesses. In essence, RAT is a huge transfer of wealth from Seattle and suburban residential communities to downtown property owners and city governments.
2. Debt Service is a Killer. Let's build transportation systems that have their financing mechanisms generated from user fees, rather than taxes, which like fish caught by the old man of The Old Man and the Sea fame are devoured before they reach port. (Debt service totally dominates the cost of any 50-yr financing for a 20-year project. This is like buying a house when you're 30, moving in when you're 50, dying when you're 70, and having your spouse and grandkids make the final payment when you're 80.)
1. Better Options to RAT Will Come Around in Short Order. We will inevitably vote and revote on future transportation packages that provide much better value, much less general taxation and much more self-funding infrastructure. I will happily vote for many of these measures, especially light-rail projects funded by those who benefit most. That means a combination of ridership revenue, real-estate taxes on land owners and developers, and sales tax increases on downtown residents of light-rail hub cities such as Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, Renton, and Redmond--All this complemented by a modest regional tax of $100 per year per household for ten years rather than $2000 for fifty. That's about 1% of what RAT is asking for now.
Posted Tue, Oct 2, 11:38 a.m. inappropriate
Hear, Hear.: Now THOSE are solid reasons to vote NO.
Here's another. Ron Sims advised his constituents to vote no. He knows where the bodies are buried. He knows there are big problems with the existing ST work and financings. The reasons he has stated publicly are the tip of the iceburg, and they don't hint at some of what's really wrong with the plan. We HAVE to trust him, and it would be foolish not to.
Here's another. Unlike ST1, ST2 contains absolutely no cost-control provisions. If approved, the public would be handing far too much unfettered spending authority to the political appointees on ST's board. What is needed are oversight provisions to ensure quality- and cost- control of the construction. The Big Dig in Boston lacked those, and that turned into a disaster. Let's learn from that sorry event, not repeat it. We NEED to go forward with a different plan, one that provides sufficient protections for taxpayers, and quality-oversight of the construction for the public.
Posted Tue, Oct 2, 5:55 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Prop 1 lets traffic delay in 2030 become 79% greater than today: Often in debates like this comes the idea that someone has the keys to a better idea that costs less. Put out the new plan first with proof of it's savings, and then boast.
Of course any plan has it's weaknesses. Planning is afterall an excersize in compromise, necessarily so.
Better to stick to the task of pointing out how a plan can be improved.
Posted Tue, Oct 2, 6:18 p.m. inappropriate
The more people talk about Prop. 1, the worse it looks.
The Piper
Posted Tue, Oct 2, 6:47 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Prop 1 lets traffic delay in 2030 become 79% greater than today: DOA because you say so? Why the heck should I or anyone else respond to Stuka when at least half of his points (as do yours) clearly presume an anti-government set of premises that I won't dignify with a discussion. At least Skip is willing to say at a point "I'm not sure". You flog stuff around all the blogs in town with such certaintude, there really is no point in trying to discuss much of anything with you.
JohnM really hits a critical point - this is sausage we're talking about. Good works, particularly large ones, are never going to get the kind of whole hearted consensus you seem to think has to be present to be worth moving forward. The first civic obligation is to work to form a majority, and from where I'm standing, troll bleeting aside, Prop 1 will have that majority.
I don't think Prop 1 will save the polar bears, or resolve traffic. Personally, I don't expect it to resolve traffic at all. Elasticity of demand is two-way, and as a result traffic will always be "bad" to some, really bad to many others, but still workable to enough people to ensure that it will always be an issue. What Prop. 1 will do is provide alternatives to sitting in a car on a freeway. I think the ultimate success will be startling to many many people, and I look forward to the day where I have another alternative to personal vehicle, carpool, and bicycle; that being light rail.
Our communities have been significantly shaped by the placement of freeways. It will be great to watch that same dynamic shape around rail lines for public transit (as it did in the historical past).
-->Aaron
Posted Tue, Oct 2, 10:57 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Prop 1 lets traffic delay in 2030 become 79% greater than today: Aaron,
Just take your response from the July 20th 2005 SEATTLE WEEKLY about Joel Horn and apply it to the Prop 1 projects. You are an Engineer for mass transit, but not with some pie in the sky financing model. Is there really any reason to try and reason with a Microsoftie, Futurewise member who races Mini-Coopers and flies his own plane? Why should anyone listen to you? Apparently you are willing to burden the "little people" with a light rail system that by their own admission will not do anything to relieve traffic congestion. You probably blow the 2 grand a year this will cost the average taxpayer every weekend at the track. I sure hope you are taking Bill's private busline to work and practicing what you preach for others.
Posted Tue, Oct 2, 11:46 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Prop 1 lets traffic delay in 2030 become 79% greater than today: Good for you, you can google my unique name. I dare you to publish yours, Cameron __________.
Most of what you cite is in fact past history. Learn a little more about me before you launch a personal attack. For example, I never ever race at a track (autocross is not a race and it isn't done at a track), and I haven't worked for MS for years and years. (Further, I grew up in Seattle, and have moss; I'm not some high tech transplant.) Nor was I ever a "member" of Futurewise, only an occasional contributor.
Prop 1 is absolutely not at all similar to the failed monorail project. That you would attempt to paint that equivalence reveals your bias.
You didn't pay attention to what I was saying. We need transportation alternatives, and new backbones. Traffic relief to the extent that it occurs will be incidental, and will be quickly filled with a growing population. (Hint: Trains don't get stuck in traffic.)
Do you live in Seattle? How many times did you write a check with a large payment for the monorail? I do, and did several times.
And who the hell said anything about any "little people", you're making that up aren't you?
Posted Wed, Oct 3, 12:34 a.m. inappropriate
Raising the gax tax is unpopular?: Really? While the 9.5 gax tax was passed by relatively narrow margins, the misguided fool's errand of an initiative meant to repeal it (I-912) went down to defeat by a larger one. And the next year, many of the Republicans who voted against it were defeated at the ballot box.
Skip: Why do you oppose congestion pricing of our highway infrastructure? That's a Crosscut post I'd love to read.
Posted Wed, Oct 3, 4:36 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Prop 1 lets traffic delay in 2030 become 79% greater than today: Thanks for bringing us all up to date on your life Aaron. Your original comment on this thread asks why anyone should listen or respond to Stuka or Piper Scott because of thier obvious anti-government bias. I would ask why is everyone with an opinion that doesn't agree with yours is "Bias". I have met your "unbias" friends at Futurewise before during the CAO process, real charmers, they spoke with certintude as well. The very thing you find so offensive. Apparently your vision of good public policy is to spend Billions on a light rail system that by your own admission does little if anything for traffic congestion relief and takes decades to complete. Meanwhile 520 is not fully funded, the South Park Bridge isn't funded and as I am sure you have noticed we have congestion issues now. I believe that putting Billions in new taxing authority in the hands of the same folks that let basic maintenance of our transporation infrastructure degrade to it current state is ...unwise. Spend your money as you wish, vote based on what you feel is best, but the historic performance of the group driving this RTID/ST2 is to over promise and under perform.
Posted Wed, Oct 3, 7:07 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Prop 1 lets traffic delay in 2030 become 79% greater than today: No, I said why should someone respond to such arguments, not such a person. You decided to attack me personally not based on what I've written (with the acception of what I said about Joel Horn, which I will accept and stand behind), but on a random list of stuff you found having nothing at all to do with this topic. Nothing.
What group? Those people in power? The King? I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "the same folks".
If you want to compare the funding of the failed monorail to RTID, which are vastly different, then lets have that discussion (which would still be off topic), but leave my hobbies and past employment out of it.
I do agree that there will continue to be more things to work on after Prop 1 passes, we won't solve all the regions problems in one fell swoop. Sausage.
-->Aaron
p.s. I repeat my dare to you to reveal your identity when you write here.
Posted Wed, Oct 3, 7:28 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Prop 1 lets traffic delay in 2030 become 79% greater than today: Your sausage solution is too expensive. The same folks would also include Ron Sims and the King County Council, the PRSC executive committee and ST's board. It would be cheaper and more effective to replace the Bridges and Viaduct invest in enhanced BRT services countywide and allow ST phase one to build out under it's current taxing authority.
Posted Wed, Oct 3, 8:08 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Prop 1 lets traffic delay in 2030 become 79% greater than today: I don't think your proposal can garner a majority vote across three counties, as Prop 1 will, but if you think your ideas are strong, then you should run for office, get on the board, and see what you can do. You'll have to use your full real name.
Posted Wed, Oct 3, 9:37 a.m. inappropriate
I'm really a pretty simple guy who operates under some fundamentally simple premises, one of which is that I value my freedom and liberty over governmental control. I have no problem at all in admitting an anti-government bias; we all should have such a bias. Yes indeed...Scott St. Clair - now you have MY full name - doesn't trust the government, and given what we see in this town, there's a lot not to trust!
Yet you dismiss this POV with a swipe of what strikes me as the PC chattering class "Seattle process" conventional wisdom. Like I should bow or something? I'm not the only one with an anti-government bias, and when it comes to Prop. 1, it's shared by a lot of people.
As you say, I blog all over town, and one place I hang is David Goldstein's HorsesAss.org, admittedly an unlikely venue for a pro-life libertarian Republican such as myself - it's fun, I enjoy the challenge. What's fascinating, though, is how many HA regulars, for varying reasons, are themselves gagging on Prop. 1.
In this town, when Ron Sims and the Sierra Club turn against you, you're in political trouble, so it's not JUST us anti-government-bias types who think Prop. 1 is fubared!
You insist upon the right and authority to frame the debate and define the issues with your "won't dignify with a discussion" dismissal. Most of the time, I've found that approach usually masks an unwillingness to and discomfort with thinking outside the box. The earth ain't flat there, Aaron, so get over it!
Light rail isn't God's gift to humanity; Western Civilization won't end up in a low-flow toilet if it's defeated. There are a lot of us - left, right, and center - who think it stinks worse than a Ballard-made herring sandwich. We're the "little guys" or "common folks" or whatever term Cameron used; we are "We the People" for whom all this folderol is supposed to be about.
I'm thrilled for you that you regard Prop. 1 as your ticket to a train ride. Must we all be herded into the same cattle car? If it passes, I'm sure you'll enjoy your 50 miles - that's 50 MEASLY and VERY LIMITED miles - of 19th-Century railroading the true cost of which nobody can honestly assess...or if they can, they're not willing to admit it since it probably saddles future generations with a crippling debt load.
One of Mossback's prescient observations is essentially this: if it fails...it fails; transportation proposals are like the bus - pardon the non-light-rail-friendly humorous analogy - if you miss this one, there'll be another along in a few minutes.
Speaking of which, didn't Emory Bundy forcefully advocate taking the bus in a recent Crosscut article? So it's not just Cameron or other troglodytes similarly situated who deign to question from the cheap seats Seattle's answer to the Oracles at Delphi.
Smugness isn't a virtue, and the sky will not fall, Chicken Little, when Prop. 1 is consigned to the electoral nether regions.
Piper Scott St. Clair
PS: You can look me up!
Posted Wed, Oct 3, 1:02 p.m. inappropriate
Eek, a phantom!: For many I'm sure the ghosts of Big Dig are too scary to exorcise from the house, just like the hallucinations of the congested and dirty east coast megalopolis could not be exorcised during the Forward Thrust campaigns of the past. So we get to keep the kiddie rides and pat ourselves on the back for not doing more in spite of ourselves. Added to that ST is trying to bet the farm on a long shot train to Redmond and the alternative is to wait another 10 years for them to draft a different plan that does even less good. This IS brilliant Seattle-style gridlock at it's unrealistic and money burning best - expensive phantom projects and disenfranchised voters.
Posted Wed, Oct 3, 6:06 p.m. inappropriate
RE: aising the gax tax is unpopular?: Will: I've written alot about the concerns about congestion pricing and I admit, I'm still studying and thinking about it. I'm skeptical for lots of reasons. One is that I think there needs to be a lot more debate about it. I'm not a big fan of user fees which tends to erode the sense of commonweal and I worry about the implications of that. I'm extremely concerned about the privacy and civil liberties implications of widespread road pricing, such as the system tested by the Puget Sound Regional Council. I'm not the only one: even the PSRC said privacy was a major issue. Another concern is that the concept of pricing dovetails with two other trends: one, the creation of the post-9/11 national security state with its increasing emphasis on abusing the rights of citizens inside the country (library books, driver's licenses, phone taps) and two, pressure for widespread privatization of roads, bridges, and public infrastructure in general (Mother Jones had a great piece on this). It's not to say congestion pricing has to lead to privatization (Sims for one is rabidly against that and Frank Chopp would oppose too) but it seems to be a major gateway drug. And Chopp and Sims won;t be around forever. Anyway, I will write more about it, but if you check the Crosscut archive you'll see three or four lengthy pieces that cover some of this ground. All that said, I don't dismiss it out of hand.
Posted Wed, Oct 10, 9:36 a.m. inappropriate
PSYCHOLOGY OF ON-AIR TRAFFIC REPORTS: When I moved here in 1994 (from the Washington, DC, area), I was surprised that there were traffic reports on the radio on the hour and/or half-hour all day long. This only re-enforces the idea that our traffic is AWFUL. True, in certain areas at certain times, traffic isn't great, but the Puget Sound area is also constrained by geography. So as an alternative, let's just fill in Lake Washington. That's my suggestion.