Sound Transit did not hear us
Prop. 1 was soundly defeated, but the leadership of Sound Transit plans to deliver Son of Prop. 1 to the voters this fall. The agency better get used to rejection.
"I'm leaning 'no' (on a Sound Transit ballot measure this fall)...Why would you go back to a vote when you don't have the answers (regarding unresolved engineering and cost issues)?" — State Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond, Sound Transit board member.
Undeterred by the one-sided defeat last fall of Proposition 1, which called for the largest local-level tax increase in American history, mainly to fund the extension of Seattle's unfinished light rail system into King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties, Sound Transit is asking citizens to give their opinions on two possible options for a 2008 ballot measure.
The first option, costing an estimated $9 billion, would be financed by a sales-tax increase in urban areas of the three counties. It would extend light rail north to Northgate, east to Overlake Hospital in Bellevue, and south of Sea-Tac airport to South 200th St. It would pay for design of a light rail extension to Everett, land purchases for extensions to Everett and Tacoma, and study of an extension to Issaquah.
The second option, costing an estimated $10.4 billion, calls for a slightly-larger sales-tax increase and would extend light rail east to Redmond and south to Highline Community College. It also would pay for a streetcar connection to First Hill and north to Aloha St. and bus-lane improvements on Route 99 in Shoreline.
Both options also would include some money for improved bus and Sounder service.
Sound Transit conducted a survey earlier this year and will hold public meetings, whose times and dates are to be announced, as well as offer further opportunities to comment online. It wants to decide what to do by mid-summer.
Notably absent from this taxpayer-financed opinion sampling are two other options which voters might reasonably expect to consider.
Option number three would direct Sound Transit to complete its present Phase I line before proposing any Phase II expansion. The initial line, from Sea-Tac airport to Northgate, is far behind its construction schedule, billions over its promised budget and missing several stations promised when the plan was initially approved by voters. First Hill station, projected to be the station with heaviest use, has been cancelled because of engineering problems and financial shortfalls. (The next projected northward station, at Husky Stadium, would disrupt traffic patterns near the university for several years and require drilling and excavation in the area. The area already is well served by bus transit).
Option number four would direct Sound Transit to terminate northward light rail construction in downtown Seattle. It would provide funds to jump start expansions of normal bus and bus rapid transit service in the three counties. Such service expansions could be instituted immediately — not years from now — and at a small percentage of the price tag attached to a notoriously cost-ineffective light rail system.
Sound Transit, according to previous form, is offering us only two similar options — both centered around gold-plated light rail — and not a fuller range of options which public officials and knowledgeable transportation specialists normally might expect to consider.
My own reaction to the exercise is: What can they be thinking?
Prop. 1 was thunderously rejected both because of its cost and because it neglected other transit and road options beyond light rail. Son of Prop. 1, if presented to voters this fall, apparently would follow the same pattern. What did Sound Transit board members not understand about last fall's vote?
The other consideration is obvious: The region is under economic pressure. Both individual voters and the general economy do not need fresh tax increases. The Boeing tanker contract, WaMu distress, the sale of Safeco, and the recently abandoned Belltown real-estate super project all should tell Sound Transit board members that now is not the time for another tax increase for a light rail-centered ballot measure.
The Sound Transit obtuseness provides yet another reason that the Rice-Stanton proposals for an elected regional transportation body should be adopted. No board member, directly accountable to voters, would dare come forward with the two options presented.
As Transportation Secretary Hammond has pointed out, the proposals were framed with many cost and engineering questions about them still unresolved. Sound familiar? Consider the abandoned Seattle Monorail plan, the dueling Alaskan Way tunnel and elevated-highway rebuild proposals, the running-near-empty Allentown Trolley from Westlake Center to South Lake Union and, of course, the notorious Prop. 1.
Message to Sound Transit board members: Get real. Get it right. Or get out.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Sat, Apr 26, 1:14 p.m. Inappropriate
The loss had more to do with too many roads (overdoing 405 for example) and too much ambition on the north and south rail lines.
It's great that bus service is being dramatically expanded in King County. But Seattle itself isn't getting enough of this. Other than rail, the next key will be a Seattle-focused bus measure to relieve pressure on overflowing routes, and provide additional service to attract more riders. That's probably not easy given statutes about who can fund what, but it's necessary given Metro's 80/20 mandate.
Posted Sat, Apr 26, 5:30 p.m. Inappropriate
Most people seem to agree that extending light rail to Northgate provides a high return. Why can't we vote on that? The I-90 crossing seems to get people riled. But won't that provide better access for people in places like Seattle's Central area and the Rainier Valley, to all those jobs growing in downtown Bellevue? Has anyone bashing this line as an elite train bothered to look at the demographics of Bellevue or been to the schools in Bellevue lately? If they had, I'd think they'd tone down their carefully crafted quotes intended to sucker punch, not make progress. Most of the people who hate it seem to be 60 plus and/or loaded and out of touch with the people living in these places, who already know their buses are full.
If Pierce and Snohomish counties can't agree on what to do this year, why not have King County move forward without Sound Transit under authority it has to improve transportation in the county. Why wait to decide? The County can vote right now on whether to raise the money needed to get to Northgate and perhaps across the Lake, along with more buses. Can't that happen? If not, why not? (We managed to get a new King County ferry government pretty quick.)
It doesn't seem like the bus-only alliance have all the answers either because they wind up promoting even more sprawling development patterns over time. Light rail helps focus growth. Doesn't it? It is happening in the Rainier Valley now because of light rail. What's up with all those cranes up around Bellevue and a similar crane skyline right now around Seattle's new streetcar line.
Posted Sat, Apr 26, 6:07 p.m. Inappropriate
I will make the same comment I made when the ST push-poll flap was posted here a few months back. As a voter, I don't have hours to pore over transportation policy, so I look for red flags. I saw the push-poll as a red flag. I saw the massive mailing of tax-funded glossy 'informational' flyers just prior to the '07 vote, to the tune of $400,000, as a red flag.
When I go to buy a car, I look for red flags. If I see too many I'm headed to the next dealer. Same w/ trains.
Posted Sun, Apr 27, 5:12 a.m. Inappropriate
Memo to Crosscut: Van Dyk and Peter Jackson are not worth any informed citizen's reading time.
Posted Sun, Apr 27, 8:19 a.m. Inappropriate
Ted, please stop making things up. Prop 1 contained huge huge provisions for roads as well as transit. And people voted against it for dozens of different reasons. For some, it didn't address the Montlake interchange. For others, it had too many roads projects. For others, it didn't have enough roads projects. Still others wouldn't vote for any tax increase unless it's to build a new football stadium. And so forth and so on.
There are numerous other flaws in your article, but there's not enough substance here to justify spending any more time on a response.
Posted Sun, Apr 27, 8:50 a.m. Inappropriate
RE: Memo to Crosscut: Have you read Peter Jackson's fawning review of Ted Van Dyk's new book at Amazon? Despite the glowing review the book sits at #473,972 on the Amazon Best Seller List.
Posted Sun, Apr 27, 1:39 p.m. Inappropriate
However, the spending and taxes were heavily tilted toward Sound Transit.
The $47 billion cost acknowledged by the Prop 1 Yes campaign was divided $31 billion for Sound Transit and $16 billion for RTID roads.
The really huge total authorized tax collections of Prop 1 ($157 billion through 2057) were much higher for Sound Transit than for RTID roads, because the RTID taxes had a sunset, and the Sound Transit taxes were authorized permanently.
Those Sound Transit taxes under Prop 1 would have been totally consumed by operations, maintenance, rail car and bus replacement, and refurbishment of tracks and stations that Prop 1 would have bought. Building the light rail further beyond Prop 1's outer limits would have required still another future tax vote.
By the way, if Son of Prop 1 is presented to voters as a half cent sales tax hike, the future tax bill from Sound Transit would be exactly the same as it would have been for the slaughtered Prop 1.
Sound Transit in its past three elections (two losses, one win) has always sought a permanent tax authorization, despite the plans for a time-limited construction program.
That's the way it works with Sound Transit. The leadership wisely understands that its projects might cost a bit more and take a bit longer than planned.
Posted Sun, Apr 27, 1:40 p.m. Inappropriate
Prop.1, as so many others have already commented, failed because of neglected community issues. Luckily ST did an extensive poll and opinion period and tried to figure out the issues that the region wanted most. Now they are back.
The fact is, we need rail. One rail line carries the same as nearly 10 freeway lanes AND moves faster. If we don't cough up the cash now, we will be stuck spending five times the amount when we come to the realization that IT IS NECESSARY.
Posted Sun, Apr 27, 3:59 p.m. Inappropriate
What push poll are you talking about? I remember no such "flap," and I cover these topics thoroughly. Just because you don't like a given poll doesn't make it a push poll.
And the tax-funded informational mailing was mandated by the state legislature, just as they mandated the 2007 vote on the joint Roads and Transit ballot. Blame the Legislature if you have a problem with those facts.
Posted Sun, Apr 27, 5:59 p.m. Inappropriate
Sound Transit used to make this argument, but not lately. It's been discredited in recent years.
The myth is based on comparing light rail trains running with short-interval headways, full of passengers to standing room only, against a freeway lane full of SOVs running at the legal speed limit. Problem is, light rail systems in practice rarely experience peak passenger volumes that come anywhere close to actual people-moving volumes of typical freeways.
Heavily-traveled HOV lanes on freeways that include buses in the flow far exceed the people moving capacity of light rail lines in practice and in theory. The reason is, the spacing between buses in a flow of vehicles is far less than the spacing of light rail trains.
Active traffic management from WSDOT and automation-assisted speed management and braking (called adaptive cruise control ) in future generations of cars, trucks, and buses will help to reduce the number of road accidents that disrupt freeway flows.
There is a graphic diagram illustrating the 12-lane freeway myth, comparing the 2020 planned ridership of Seattle's light rail with the year 2000 volume on the parallel stretch of I-5 posted here.
Posted Sun, Apr 27, 7:18 p.m. Inappropriate
Yes, we need lots of buses too.
Posted Sun, Apr 27, 7:20 p.m. Inappropriate
A plague on both your houses. We need both roads *and* rail, all we can get, and those rail stations had damn well *better* have adequate park and ride lots.
It's time the taxpaying and commuting public marginalized the "one but not the other" crowd on both sides. They're both killing us.
Above all, we need to vote every Republican at every level of government out of office, so that we can end this insane war that is bleeding the country dry, and use that war spending on, among other things, some transportation infrastructure. Then maybe we can scrap these insane tolling and congestion pricing schemes. A guy can dream, no?
Posted Sun, Apr 27, 7:39 p.m. Inappropriate
BTW are you the guy who works for ST who was outed by Sharkansky at SP? If so, how about some disclosure when doing these posts?
Posted Sun, Apr 27, 8:01 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: sound transit=non-starter: Note also that the push poll story is mentioned under related stories in this very post by TVD. A pretty good example of how people tend to spew first, read later. I am as guilty--I commented first and then went back to reread, when I noticed the 'related stories' sidebar.
Posted Sun, Apr 27, 9:08 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: Nobody believes your crap either Niles: Is that why we just spent $4 million on sewer plant artwork? Because Bush is bleeding us dry?
Posted Mon, Apr 28, 12:08 a.m. Inappropriate
When you go out and say "here's the plan but there are a lot of unknowns", it makes voters wonder what the real situation is going to be. How much is it really going to cost? Where will it really go? What are the tradeoffs, risk factors and assumptions?
Personally I think Julia Patterson is right about the need to talk with different people than those who are able to get to one of their open houses. I went to an open house in Des Moines before prop 1. It was well-done, but it is really hard to get to one of these events if you're trying to get your children to or from soccer practice, piano lessons, cub scouts and other family activities, or if your work schedule overlaps with the event.
I think the critical questions to ask voters include:
1. What problems do you want solved with a tax increase for transportation? A faster commute for you, a faster commute for others, safety, comfort while commuting, reliability, frequency? Reduced green house gas emissions? How much of an improvement would want to see in order to say "this is a positive investment?"
2. If you believe the PSRC growth projections of 300K people being added to Seattle and Bellevue by 2040, how would you help these people get to and from their jobs without having absolute gridlock?
3. Given limited resources and tax dollars, how would you prioritize various projects? The survey of a few months ago didn't have any question along the lines of "if you had 100 points to allocate to various projects, how would you split them up?" The projects should include the RTID and Sound Transit projects, and also some items that were not on it, like maintenance of the existing roads and increased frequency and capacity for the existing bus network.
==
These questions have room for improvement. For one, they deal with transportation by itself and just assume all those asked will be on the same page about locations of housing, cost of housing, job location etc. These questions also follow the principles of Priorities of Government, which Gov Locke used a few years ago quite effectively.
The elephant in the living room is the cost of housing and of construction. Where are people actually going to be able to find affordable housing? As Mr McDonald pointed out, so far, people aren't following the plan of where they are supposed to live. One reason is housing costs.
One way to get 300K people into Seattle and Bellevue is to have a lot more high rise condos, similar to what's being built in South Lake Union or the Lincoln Center project in Bellevue. However, those prices are, pardon the pun, sky high. Does anyone believe there are going to be 300K people who can afford a one bedroom condo for $500K or whatever these things cost? The math just doesn't work. When only the top 10 to 20% of wage earners can afford the median price house, there's a push for much longer commutes, if need be, to outside the growth boundary.
Posted Mon, Apr 28, 12:09 a.m. Inappropriate
I also really, really wish we had some answers about plans for the viaduct and 520 replacements. If we go with a surface / transit option to replace the viaduct, then what type of investment will be needed for the transit portion ? If 520 doesn't have a good solution for buses (and the underwater tunnel proposed under Foster Island may be too steep for buses to climb, according to Mr Vesely's editorial a few weeks ago), then it may be really foolish to eliminate the bus lanes across I90.
Finally, I do think it is appropriate for Mr Van Dyk to raise the questions about what lessons have we learned from the Monorail, from ST1, from the viaduct etc. We ignore history at our peril.
The citizens of Seattle did have the opportunity to vote again on the monorail when it turned out to be very different than what they'd been told, and I would hope Sound Transit voters would have this same opportunity to chime in if it turns out that the plans were way off. Right now, the only leverage voters have is to vote no next time, but when the votes are so far apart, this is not much of a check and balance.
Posted Mon, Apr 28, 11:15 a.m. Inappropriate
There's something in TVD's blog entry that doesn't ring true - I was hoping you would comment on it:
Option number three would direct Sound Transit to complete its present Phase I line before proposing any Phase II expansion. The initial line, from Sea-Tac airport to Northgate, is far behind its construction schedule, billions over its promised budget and missing several stations promised when the plan was initially approved by voters.
The problems I see there seem to stem from a misapprehension of what the terms of the local law approved in 1996 say, and how ST is required to operate under those laws. Maybe you could give us your thoughts on what TVD posted.
I'm sure you agree with me that the light rail line described in the Sound Move document did indeed stretch from south of the airport to Northgate. But as you know from your experience as a leader of the "Sane Transit" group that took its case to the Supreme Court, what the voters approved was not just Sound Move, but Resolution 75 and a number of documents that Res. 75 incorporates.
I understand what your group alleged in that lawsuit - that ST should be prevented from spending any tax revenues on a 14 mile line because it was not a 21 mile line, and because construction would not be completed on that 14 mile line until 2009. As we all know now, the Court ruled that ST was within its rights to start building a $2.07 billion (YOE) 14 mile light rail line that wouldn't be completed until 2009. Those were lawful substantial deviations, given how nothing required the taxing or construction to stop after 10 years, and given what Res. 75 sec. 2 says about the board's right to scale back the light rail project to stay within the amounts the voters made "legally available" to ST.
Given what we know now about how the 1996 law is supposed to operate, don't you think that TVD's suggestion that ST would be within its rights to complete the light rail line to Northgate under the financing plan terms of the 1996 voter-approved law is incorrect?
Here's what we know. ST's lawful authority to spend tax revenues is limited by terms in the 1996 voter-approved law. That local law in fact limits how much tax revenue ST can use, both during and after the build-out period.
The first of these two sets of limits on ST's right to use tax revenue applies during the Sound Move system plan build-out period. The amount of tax revenue ST obtained authority to spend during that construction phase is set out in two places. It is in the "Paying for the System" section:
The system plan will be paid for with a combination of voter approved local taxes [$1.98B], federal grants [$727M], farebox revenues and interest revenues [$155M], and borrowed funds (bonds) [$1.052B] (see Table 2) .
That same $1.98 billion (1995$) tax revenue spending limit also is specified in Appendix B of Sound Move, where it is broken down on a subarea-by-subarea basis.
Posted Mon, Apr 28, 11:17 a.m. Inappropriate
System operating costs beyond the ten-year implementation period will be paid for with local taxes, farebox revenues, interest earnings, private sources, and federal operating assistance.
That also is in the "Paying for the System" section of Sound Move. Details about that limit on what ST has the right to spend tax revenue on subsequent to the build-out period are in Appendix B of Sound Move, in the part of the ordinance that describes how low the tax rate must go in the event voters fail to approve a new phase of building (as occurred in early November, 2007, when Proposition 1 failed at the polls):
Once all debt is retired, the RTA will implement a tax rollback to a level necessary to pay for system operations and maintenance, fare integration, capital replacement and agency administration.
So in light of how ST already has spent at least as much as it was authorized to spend of tax revenue during the Phase I implementation period ($1.98 billion in 1995$), don't you agree that it would be an unlawful deviation from the terms of the 1996 voter-approved law for it to spend additional billions of dollars of tax revenue to extend the light rail line to Northgate (as TVD is suggesting it should)?
Here is something you posted above, John:
Sound Transit in its past three elections (two losses, one win) has always sought a permanent tax authorization, despite the plans for a time-limited construction program.
We know the taxes are permanent because of the language of the local law I quoted above saying local tax revenue can be used to subsidize some ongoing O & M expenses in the post-implementation period. But don't you agree with me that ST needs to reduce its rates of those taxes in the way the 1996 voter-approved law requires?
That's the way it works with Sound Transit. The leadership wisely understands that its projects might cost a bit more and take a bit longer than planned.
And don't you agree with me that is why Resolution 75 sec. 2 reads the way it does? As the majority analyzed those provisions in the "Sane Transit" opinion, in the event the projects did turn out to be more expensive than planned, the board was required to 1) scale back those projects to stay within the voter-approved revenues limits, 2) eliminate one or more projects entirely, or 3) ask voters for additional funds.
In other words, ST's board has the discretion to scale back projects to stay within the voter-approved spending limits, but not increase spending budgets to pay for whatever may be described in the Sound Move plan. For example, I hope you understand John that ST could have complied fully with all of its obligations under the 1996 law without having built a single inch of light rail. You understand that, correct?
Posted Mon, Apr 28, 1:24 p.m. Inappropriate
Unfortunately, Sound Transit is using public process in a manipulative way where the options are narrowed to fit their agenda. This approach makes the public process a waste of money and causes citizens to become cynical.
Going south with light rail probably makes the most sense since it avoids crossing major waterways, bridges etc that will make going east or north very very expensive and tricky.
Also, as infrastructure across America is terribly funded and falling apart. We may have a new era of the federal government channeling funds back into transportation projects for economic competitiveness and job creation heading into a recession or worse- if that happens and the region has already committed itself to footing the whole bill, it will be a real shame for us all.
Posted Mon, Apr 28, 2:16 p.m. Inappropriate
Summary of a long response to your questions: Sound Transit's board indeed has the discretion to scale back projects to stay within the voter-approved spending limits, but ST shows no signs of exercising that discretion.
ST shows many signs that it will defend vigorously any attempt to block the agency from increasing spending budgets to pay for items listed in the 1996 Sound Move Plan.
Details follow:
Several people I know, you included, as well as somebody online named "BH," have argued for some time now that Sound Transit has legally-set spending limits coming out of the published Sound Move plan and other paperwork prepared before the 1996 ballot. I agree with you and the others. Sound Transit should only spend what it said it would spend in Sound Move. I agree with you that what the Supreme Court ruled in the Sane Transit case does not go against your interpretaton -- and by the way, I was not a Sane Transit leader, but merely a follower, observer, and supporter of the legal strategy pursued back then.
Sound Transit's strength on this issue is on the taxation side, not the spending side. As I was recently reminded online by someone else, it was the pledge to bondholders in Sound Transit's strategic sale of bonds in 1999 that locked down Sound Transit's 1996 tax rates for the 30 year life of the bonds. The strength of that pledge was confirmed by another Supreme Court ruling in the I-776 challenge to cut off ST's MVET.
You are saying that ST's spending limits trump commitments to keep collecting taxes. I agree with you, but Sound Transit has shown repeatedly that it can triumph in costly legal actions challenging its interpretations of law. Sound Transit is maintaining its stance that it can spend as much as it wants, and take as long as it likes (through 2028 at least, the end of the 30 year bonds issued in 1999) to build Sound Move phase 1 light rail from Northgate to South 200th using the 1996 taxing authority. It has Federally-certified environmental Records of Decision for this entire stretch.
Sound Transit has now declared in at least two different places that the agency intends to keep collecting the Sound Move Phase 1 taxes through the year 2016, at least. Sound Transit made these declarations to its most recent bond purchasers in a filing you first revealed to me and others, and then also to the U.S. Government in its application for a $750 million grant to build the Seattle light rail subway to Husky Stadium.
Sound Transit is showing fierce determination to build light rail from Everett to Tacoma with a branch to Bellevue. It is the agency's main mission, no matter what it costs, no matter how long it takes. To date, legal counterattacks in the courts have not worked to deter this agency.
A force to be reckoned with is the attitude expressed by former Mayor Charles Royer in an essay just published here in Crosscut: that Atlanta has a fine rail system, and that Seattle should have a rail system of its own.
Only in future elections, not in the courts, will the costs of spending so many billions for so little mobility become clear.
Posted Mon, Apr 28, 6:06 p.m. Inappropriate
First Hill station, projected to be the station with heaviest use, has been cancelled because of engineering problems and financial shortfalls. (The next projected northward station, at Husky Stadium, would disrupt traffic patterns near the university for several years and require drilling and excavation in the area. The area already is well served by bus transit).
The UW station is not the next station northward of First Hill, the Capitol Hill Station is. It's incredible that Van Dyk left off the most densely populated neighborhood on the West Coast. The population of Capitol Hill is about the same as that of Mercer Island.
None of the 'Bus Rapid Transit' crowd has ever proposed a way of serving Capitol Hill with better bus service. Currently getting from Westlake to the UW via Capitol Hill takes 40-55 minutes via bus. With the light rail line, it will be about 6 minutes.
Richard Borkowski
Posted Mon, Apr 28, 6:55 p.m. Inappropriate
The ST poll was simply nothing of the kind. Just because you don't like ST or don't like its rail transit programs, doesn't turn their poll into a Push Poll.
Posted Mon, Apr 28, 8:36 p.m. Inappropriate
Either way it was a misuse of tax money.
Posted Mon, Apr 28, 11:28 p.m. Inappropriate
That was a gut reaction. Certainly the questions were not as extreme as the example cited above. But I did feel the survey was pushing me and others for certain responses. The way the questions are phrased does set up the responses one receives. This is how I define a "push poll" though other people may have other definitions.
For example, in another post I wrote "I'm going to pick on question 5 a little more. When a reader sees choices like this "Expanding mass transit in the Puget Sound region" (whatever "mass transit" is, this means different things to different people) , this "Expanding local bus service in your area", and other choices about light rail, regional buses, commuter rail all phrased with the same sentence structure, then reads this choice "Spending more money expanding roads instead of transit", one's response could well be "ugh, we don't want to spend more money", or it could be "why are we forced into this choice." Or there could be some other reactions too.
Ask a leading question, get a leading response. This question does not have a parallel structure, and part of it forces a choice that other parts do not."
I then concluded that post by writing what seems to have been the case in the presentation of findings:
"Now, is this a problem for Sound Transit Board Members and others who get the survey results? Well, it all depends on what information the Board Members are presented with. I can guess the sound bites this question is designed to set up are "blank blank percent support expanding mass transit" and "only blank blank percent support spending more money on roads" (note: I dropped the part about "instead of transit" because in our sound bite world, I bet that text would be dropped). "
The poll had some choices. All well and good. Those choices though are set up by questions that to me had room for improvement at finding out what's really on the minds of voters, what they really see as the priorities. But I guess there are a lot of people who want to get certain answers in order to provide the underpinning for going back to the ST board and to the sources of funds for a campaign and see "look what we found, xx% think mass transit is really important and they're going to vote yes this time."
Posted Tue, Apr 29, 1:16 a.m. Inappropriate
If Van Dyk had written "terminus" instead of "station" in his reference to the Husky Stadium, his comment on disruptions and being well-served by transit already would have been totally correct.
For that matter, if he had written "Capitol Hill" instead of "Husky Stadium" about disruptions and being well-served already, he also would have been correct.
What Van Dyk should have written is that if Sound Transit scores the $750 million Federal grant and gets underway with University Link, the coming multi-acre cut-and-cover construction holes for railroad passenger stations at both Capitol Hill and Husky Stadium will be chaotic places to avoid while thousands of truckloads of tunnel muck are being removed from behind the tunnel boring machines for years and years.
On Borkowski's point about BRT between University District and downtown, BRT fans don't have to specify a bus route paralleling the subway tunnel, because King County Metro already did: The original King County "Transit Now" RapidRide maps from the fall 2006 campaign showed a dashed red line representing arterial BRT (like in Vancouver, BC) connecting U District and downtown via Eastlake. I have a copy of the original map. It's no longer posted on the web.
What happened? When a high level Sound Transit official complained to a high level Metro official about this Eastlake RapidRide line as a potential distraction from getting the light rail subway tunnel under Capitol Hill funded and underway, the red line disappeared from maps.
Bold forecast based on my first-hand experience in another city: If connecting the northern suburbs to the Seattle CBD via a low-capacity subway tunnel continues to realization following a future doubling of Sound Transit's sales taxes, Capitol Hill subway customers of the future may look back in anger at the transit planners of the 1980s and 90s who set up this routing.
As the decade of the 2030s rolls along in the Sound Transit preferred scenario, the morning light rail trains from Northgate southward may run full to the walls -- because of multiple express buses from outlying areas feeding the trains at Northgate. If so, Capitol Hill customers will have a tough time squeezing themselves aboard trains full of Snohomish County citizens. They call the planned service "light" for a reason ... despite ST ordering the largest "light" rail cars that will fit in their stations when formed into four-car trains.
However, it will be just a short ride if there is some standing room. For those who like to sit down and look out the window on their transit commute, there will be rapid bus service along the transit-tweaked Pine-Pike surface corridor, already slated for improvements to make buses run faster even before the Capitol Hill subway opens about eight to ten years from now.
Posted Tue, Apr 29, 10:25 a.m. Inappropriate
I was hoping you'd let everyone know you understood the following is true: ST could have complied fully with everything the voter-approved 1996 law requires of it without building a single inch of light rail.
One of the most troubling aspects of Sound Transit's failures to comply with the tax revenue spending limits in the 1996 law is how the State Auditor's Office is allowing it to happen. The SAO has ignored those limits on ST's powers for years.
What we are seeing now - the hundreds of millions of dollars in excess taxes collected in the East King, Pierce and Snohomish subareas, the failure of ST to abide by the Sound Move Appendix A subarea budgets, etc. - all have become huge problems simply because the SAO was not doing its job during the annual accountability audits. It should have verified ST was complying with the law the voters approved, but it has not been doing that. Now we've got quite the mess.
Posted Tue, Apr 29, 10:31 a.m. Inappropriate
I note finally that R from Beacon Hill never responded to my 'poll question' of whether he works for ST. I am pretty sure this is a guy who works for ST and posts comments at political blogs w/o disclosure. He was outed for doing this at SP. I could be wrong, but I can only guess since he ignored the question.
Posted Tue, Apr 29, 10:36 a.m. Inappropriate
Sound Transit is maintaining its stance that it can spend as much as it wants, and take as long as it likes (through 2028 at least, the end of the 30 year bonds issued in 1999) to build Sound Move phase 1 light rail from Northgate to South 200th using the 1996 taxing authority.
Well that's not correct. ST knows it doesn't have the authority now to pay for all the projects described in Sound Move. That is why the measure it tried to get voters to approve last year would have given it so much more spending authority for throwing at Phase I projects. The ST2 measure would have given ST billions in additional tax revenue spending rights, and additional bonding capacity, to use on building out the Phase I projects Sound Move describes.
That's the main reason ST is so hot to trot for a ballot measure this year as well. It knows it doesn't have the right to spend nearly as much tax revenue on Phase I as it wants. Any new ballot measure would be like the one last year - it would include massive Phase I tax and bond sale revenue spending limit enlargements.
ST's lawyers are very uncomfortable with how their client is hanging out there - exposed in the elements, so to speak. ST is violating numerous aspects of the 1996 law. It has been collecting excessive amounts of tax from each subarea, and spending excessive amounts of tax revenue. On three different occasions ST pledged billions of dollars more tax revenue to bondholders than it had authority to collect. ST is failing to pay off all the outstanding debt now in the wake of Prop. 1's non-approval, and it is failing to roll back the tax rates. Those steps are required by what the 1996 law says.
ST's lawyers can "cure" all those problems if a new ballot measure is approved amending Appendix B to Sound Move, and allowing additional taxing authority to be spent on Phase I construction period expenses. That is what the ST2 measure last year would have done had it been approved (Resolution R2007-15, and in particular, Appendix B to that 2007 resolution), and if we see a new proposed law for the 2008 ballot it will contain similar terms.
Posted Tue, Apr 29, 10:46 a.m. Inappropriate
I'm not interpreting anything, John. What I'm writing about is what the 1996 law says, and how ST must operate given what that voter-approved ordinance says.
You are saying that ST's spending limits trump commitments to keep collecting taxes.
Damn right. Here's why - the tax revenue spending limits in the 1996 law operate as limits on how much tax ST has the right to collect.
The 1996 voter-approved law specifies two sets of tax revenue spending limits (copied above). The first set caps how much tax revenue ST can spend in the five subareas on capital expenses and operations during the construction period. The second set kicks in once that first limit is reached; it prevents ST from spending any tax revenues on anything but certain ongoing O & M costs once the debt is paid off on an accelerated basis.
Those tax revenue spending limits are part of the law. They limit how much taxing authority ST received.
ST can not on its own expand its taxing powers. No local government has the right to collect more tax than voters authorized it to spend. ST can not enlarge its right to collect tax by signing a contract - even a bond sale contract - that says it will collect excessive amounts of tax. You agree with that basic principle, right John?
Posted Tue, Apr 29, 4:30 p.m. Inappropriate
---Currently getting from Westlake to the UW via Capitol Hill takes 40-55 minutes via bus. With the light rail line, it will be about 6 minutes.
A first question is whether one absolutely has to travel via Cap Hill, or perhaps could go from downtown to the U district via I5 or Eastlake????
A second question is where at the UW is the rider headed? Health Sciences which is the rail station location? Or campus parkway, 45th and the Ave, the HUB or elsewhere on campus? The time it is going to take to get from the rail station to any of these varies quite a bit.
It has been a while since I've ridden from the UW to downtown so I looked up some of the routes one might consider riding. All have a ride shorter than 40 to 55 mins, at least according to the schedule.
#70 - goes from 3rd and Pike, in 26 minutes, starting at 6 am, with a last departure at 6:55 pm, every 15 mins.
#71 - uses the bus tunnel, goes from the University street tunnel to 45th and University Ave in just 20 mins when the bus tunnel is open.
When the tunnel is not open, it takes 23 mins (3 more mins) to go from Union and 3rd to 45th and University Ave.
There are lots of other choices.
transit.metrokc.gov/tops/bus/neighborhoods/
then add on downtown_seattle.html - Crosscut has a limit of 60 characters for a word
Maybe for your trip over Cap Hill you were thinking of the 43?
http://transit.metrokc.gov/tops/bus/schedules/s043_0_.html
From 4th and Pike to 45th and University Ave appears to be 34 mins, not 40 to 55 mins, and this route runs very consistently every 15 mins.
Now, if you want to go from downtown to health sciences, and the bus is going on 520, it could be impacted by traffic on the bridge. It would be interesting to see the origin and destination of most rides in the U district and UW campus area, I bet most of them have an O or D at the HUB or closer to the residences north and west of campus.
Posted Tue, Apr 29, 6:47 p.m. Inappropriate
Whatever the time of the bus trip over Capitol Hill, it's going to be longer 5 years from now, and longer still in 10 years. That's why buses only are not the for-ever solution to all our urban public transit needs.
On heavy trunk routes, we need to get large numbers of riders onto trains. Link light rail will run in its own right-of-way, for-ever free of congestion. The only "alternative" is just not real: expanding our arterial streets to accommodate bus-only lanes. Just not going to happen on inner-city arterials. And even if such lanes could be found, the service would still not match the capacity, comfort, and reliability of the Link trains.
Posted Tue, Apr 29, 7:07 p.m. Inappropriate
One of the purposes of linking major urban centers via rail transit is to serve MORE than just the peak-hour needs to downtown Seattle. The Capitol Hill station is NOT there simply to give Capitol Hill residents a 5-minute faster ride to downtown, it's there to connect up Capitol Hill residents and businesses with the other urban centers and urban villages along the line. On weekday mornings, I'd expect Capitol Hill station will see more riders heading to the UW than to downtown.
And John, just because Washington Metro took away your one-seat bus ride 25 years ago and made you stand on the train, that doesn't mean that every rail transit system will do the same. Yes, I expect there will be a lot of transferring riders at Northgate, but ST won't let every train get filled up at a terminus, denying space to riders at other stations. Competent operations planning will avoid that.
And if those trains are indeed as full as you suggest, then it will be damned clear that rail transit was essential to our transportation system. No way buses only could handle such crowds. (Or in other words, you can't have your argument both ways, John.)
Posted Wed, Apr 30, 10:42 a.m. Inappropriate
The tens of thousands of daily riders on the Seattle Subway will be a drop in the bucket against millions of daily trips, and will not exceed the daily ridership of the bus fleet that is still required to do the heavy transit lifting in a far-flung region.
And yes, I can and will criticize Link whether it turns out to run mostly empty or crammed to the walls in 2010. Compared to the alternative of making the roads work better via pricing, thus letting buses run better, and thus providing the cash to fix bus bottlenecks, Link light rail is an overly-expensive, inflexible, environmentally unsound solution to mobility.
Government-subsidized "high-capacity" helicopter rides between Bellevue and Seattle would run full -- which doesn't make using troop-carrier helicopters a good solution, even though surplus helicopters are available cheap. (This would be an incredibly stupid idea, of course, but the comparison is instructive.)
Case in point, Sound Transit's alternatives analysis for the light rail Initial Segment to the Airport, now under construction. The choice was between (A) 31 light rail cars formed into shuttling two-car trains to Tukwila -- later modified to 35 rail cars to SeaTac Airport -- and (B) expanding the tunnel bus fleet by 230 buses. That Plan B alternative would have cost a billion dollars less, serve much more geographic territory, and carry far more people sooner than one train line. The downtown tunnel has plenty of capacity for this many buses.
But "buses stuck in traffic" is held out by Sound Transit as a permanent future condition rather than a problem to be addressed with the billions spent on a single, low-capacity passenger railroad spine.
The crowded buses all over the region TODAY and the excuses of government authorities about not having enough buses NOW are a direct result of the regional decision to choose the light rail "partnership" path of Sound Transit, PSRC, and the Federal Transit Administration.
Sound Transit indeed should be praying that the light rail electric trains will run full to the walls, just like my imaginary subsidized helicopters would. But whether the trains turn out to be full or empty, it was a bad decision.
Posted Wed, Apr 30, 4:58 p.m. Inappropriate
I would welcome the source of what you read about slowing speed of buses.
I called Metro today asking if they have the 1990 schedules. My recollection from 20+ years ago is the UW to downtown was about 25 mins. That's about what it is today according to the schedule.
Now are the schedules right? It is in Metro's interest to have them as accurate as possible. But if the times are different, then by how much? If a bus is off 1 min, this is not a big deal. If it is off by 10 mins, it may be a big deal - but it depends on how often the bus runs. If there's a 10 , 10:15, 10:30, 10:45, etc, and each is 10 mins late, maybe you just redo the schedule and call it a 10:10, 10:25, etc schedule. The frequency and speed would still be the same.
I have no doubt the rail system will be an amazingly well received system for people can walk to the stations, especially on tracks that don't have cars crossing over them or shared buses. If there's enough parking, or enough feeder buses, that's great too (but how much will these really cost and where will that money come from).
But a few weeks ago, I was riding with my children in Portland on MAX. We went from Lloyd Center to the Washington Park museums. There were 14 stops en route. After about the 2nd or 3rd stop, my so said "are we there yet." After every stop, he had the same question. It was kind of funny. The max train is fine, but the seat was about the same as on a bus, and it seemed there were fewer seats per the amount of space.
I still don't see why a person going from downtown to UW would want to take the less direct route over Cap Hill.
I also raise the original point made earlier: what is the return on investment and how do you measure it? Rail will be great for a few percentage points of riders. For the rest, well, it is not a good deal unless there's a dramatic transformation of where people live. But I have a really hard time seeing dozens of 50 story residential towers in Rainer Valley, in Roosevelt, or on top of Beacon Hill, which is what I think would be needed to really get the density that can make rail cost effective. And cost effective is a real issue: we have limited resources and limited tax dollars.
Posted Wed, Apr 30, 7:44 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: Correcting a Straw Man travel time: U district to downtown: sjenner, you raise a great point about the "dozens of 50 story residential towers" around the light rail corridor. Believe it or not, I think out so-called leaders are planning just that, but slightly modified. I belive Councilmember McIver was recently quoted in one of our daily papers as wanting to increase building heights to 12 stories along the light rail line in the Rainier Valley. As a resident of SE Seattle, I can see that the Mayor and the Council are gradually moving in a direction to make that desire a reality. I just pray that the citizens wake up and smell the coffee before their neighborhoods are destroyed.
Posted Wed, Apr 30, 9:57 p.m. Inappropriate
Link light rail is not fully grade-separated, but it's a lot more so than most new light rail lines (yes, there're reasons it's more expensive than some others...). But nowhere does our light rail share lanes with other traffic (as in Houston), except of course for buses in the downtown transit tunnel, so there's a lot less risk of the fender-benders that plagued the Houston line when it first opened.
Yes, without a transit tunnel, MAX light rail through downtown Portland is s-l-o-w-w-w. I measured it myself once -- 23 minutes to cover 2.3 miles from Lloyd Center to Goose Hollow -- 6 m.p.h! Thankfully, there's no part of Link light rail even remotely similar.
Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley are zoned for a maximum building height of 65 feet. No 50 story towers are planned -- or contemplated. Given the high quality transit service being provided, however, it only makes sense that some higher-density development occur within walking distance of the stations. Seattle has neighborhood plans that accommodate redevelopment, and a process for engaging neighborhood citizens in updating those plans.
Rail transit stations attract such development in the same way that freeway interchanges attract big-box stores, filling stations, and fast food outlets -- just seems to be a natural affinity.
Posted Wed, Apr 30, 10:27 p.m. Inappropriate
Early in Sound Transit's life Tacoma was chosen as the proving ground to show that Sound Transit could actually build a rail system. They did, it works, and we love it! But that was over 10 years ago and it doesn't go to our business centers, where we really need it. What we've gotten from ST lately has been more buses and more diesel trains.
While buses and trains might be good short-term solutions, it is clear that the most sustainable solution is to build rail-based streetcar infrastructure connecting mixed-use business districts within cities that do not have the experience or expertise to build such systems, such as Tacoma.
Also, why all the ST bashing? They may not be perfect, but what alternative is?
Posted Thu, May 1, 9:57 a.m. Inappropriate
RE: Correcting a Straw Man travel time: U district to downtown: Wow 6mph, why don't we just give people tax-credits for running shoes, and save a few billion dollars, not to mention fight obesity.
Posted Thu, May 1, 1:27 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: Correcting a Straw Man travel time: U district to downtown: "We" could not do this, but Portland (home of Nike) could. that's where the 6 mph was occurring.
Posted Thu, May 1, 1:33 p.m. Inappropriate
I guess need is in the eye of the beholder. The buses and trains seem to be pretty full that go from Tacoma to Seattle.
Obviously there's no perfect alternative. However, the odds of getting costly, irrelevant outcomes go way up if we don't have facts as a starting point, but instead have a lot of hype that has no basis in reality.
Posted Fri, May 2, noon Inappropriate
Pierce County's money needs to go toward making the light rail line we already have more usable. We love our little Link, but it only goes from one end of downtown to the other. It isn't very useful as a commuting option. It needs to reach into our neighborhoods so that people who live in Tacoma can work in Tacoma without getting into a car. EXTEND LINK WITHIN TACOMA!
Posted Sat, May 3, 12:12 p.m. Inappropriate
I find your comments to be simply bizarre. You continually damage your own credibility by saying them. Is this what an MIT education yields?
1) First, either choose a consistent response that rail trains are going to be empty or that they are going to be full. For years, you've said the light rail trains would be running empty. Now you say, they're going to be packed to the walls. Saying they are going to be empty and full at the same time is an impossible, mutually exclusive stance to take.
2) Second, light rail trains aren't named for their weight any more than 'Lite Beer' refers to its weight. It's a MARKETING term. An alternative name to 'heavy' rail, which, by the way, ALSO doesn't refer to its weight.
Richard
PS - I don't really expect you to stop your dis-information. That's what you do. I always think of you when I have a 'Lite' beer.
As the decade of the 2030s rolls along in the Sound Transit preferred scenario, the morning light rail trains from Northgate southward may run full to the walls -- because of multiple express buses from outlying areas feeding the trains at Northgate. If so, Capitol Hill customers will have a tough time squeezing themselves aboard trains full of Snohomish County citizens. They call the planned service "light" for a reason ... despite ST ordering the largest "light" rail cars that will fit in their stations when formed into four-car trains.
Posted Sat, May 3, 12:30 p.m. Inappropriate
You can argue for tolling but let's call it what it is. It's pricing people out of the market. It's reducing demand not increasing capacity. And no where in King County do we have it.
Maybe someone should call up Steve Balmer, Slade Gorton and the Sonics new owners. Tell them Greg Nickels is going to increase the capacity of Key Arena by implementing a new Basketball ticket toll.
Voila. Problem solved.
Richard
Your post:
Compared to the alternative of making the roads work better via pricing, thus letting buses run better, and thus providing the cash to fix bus bottlenecks, Link light rail is an overly-expensive, inflexible, environmentally unsound solution to mobility.
Posted Sat, May 3, 6:02 p.m. Inappropriate
For some years now, after having read lots of internal ST documents, I've been holding and sticking with the conclusion that the first Link light rail trains as planned by ST could run quite full. The passenger load in the peak hour at International District is actually expected to go above the rated 200-passenger capacity of the rail cars, mostly standing. ST expects that stuffing in a few more customers won't hurt anybody, and I agree with that.
I've been using the analogy in recent years of comparing ST's undersized light rail trains to cheap helicopter flights between downtown Seattle and downtown Bellevue. Those flights would run full with lawyers and dot-com executives aboard. This doesn't make using helicopters a good idea.
King County Metro is going to be the contract operator of Link Light Rail, not a well-known fact. Metro is likely to arrange for their buses to dump their peak loads off at train stations sufficient to stuff the trains, bet on it, in the name of efficiency, and also because Metro is lagging in buying the buses it needs to serve customers with comfortable seated rides. As everybody knows, lots of Metro buses are stuffed full already in peak. I trust that transferring bus customers as often as possible to Airport Link's 35 shuttling rail cars will be a high priority for Metro, our combined bus and light rail operator starting 2009. Call it "load shedding!"
So you haven't been getting that "trains will run empty" from me, not recently. King County Metro and ST have many variables to manipulate to keep ridership pretty high. For example, what about the light rail fares to be charged -- not announced yet. Maybe Link Light Rail will be like Tacoma Link -- a freebie. That policy gives ridership a boost.
And yes, I do know that light rail train cars are heavier than heavy rail train cars. That's because light rail and its passengers need to survive occasional collisions with trucks and buses, a kind of strength not needed in heavy rail subways where no other vehicles are allowed on the tracks.
The 1976 intergovernmental memorandum of agreement to put trains on the I-90 floating bridge in the future contemplated the use of heavy rail trains like BART in San Francisco, not light rail. This is one factor that has come into play with WSDOT deciding to do additional studies of what heavyweight "light rail" trains will do to the longevity of the I-90 bridge. The light rail cars are heavy, and so are the overhead catenary poles and wire that power light rail trains. So if East Link light rail across Lake Washington ever happens, ST's contractors under WSDOT's watchful eyes will be scraping a lot of concrete off the I-90 bridge deck to make it lighter. You can look this up in ST documents.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.