Sound Transit showdown
The votes for a 2008 submission of a $15 billion package now are almost there, thanks to some last-minute concessions to Snohomish County. The election will be risky, but the transit agency faces greater risk by waiting until 2010.
Just in the past two days, the political tides have shifted toward putting Sound Transit 2 on the ballot this November, instead of in 2010. Credit goes to Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, current president of the Sound Transit board, for some aggressive courting of Snohomish County. Some think Nickels may have made too many concessions in his eagerness to get the package, so the new majority might crumble before the crucial board vote next Thursday, July 24.
King County Council member Dow Constantine, a Sound Transit board member and staunch supporter of a 2008 vote, said on Tuesday, July 15, that he thought the chances of getting to the ballot this fall were 50-50. The next day, he was "pretty convinced there will be 14 to 16 yes votes," with 12 being the supermajority needed on the 18-person Sound Transit board. Some other nose-counters aren't that optimistic. With Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon reportedly winning a tough poker game with Nickels and swinging into the yes column, the key votes are now with Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg and King County Council member Pete von Reichbauer.
For months, there have been only about 10 firm votes for the 2008 ballot date. At first, Sound Transit was going to go with a big package of 50 miles of additional rail transit, finishing the job, but the time to complete it and cost of that proposal sank the idea. Then there was a $10 billion to $12 billion proposal, Sound Transit Lite, with fewer years of collecting taxes but not much rail reaching close to Pierce or Snohomish counties. Snohomish firmly rejected this version. Lately has come the goldilocks just-right compromise of $15 billion and 15 years [164K PDF]. The package would extend light rail north to Lynnwood, south to Federal Way, and east across Lake Washington to Bellevue/Overlake, as well as augment express bus service and Sounder commuter rail.
Now the moment of truth is approaching — first a Sound Transit finance committee meeting today, where the cost of Nickels' concessions will become an issue, and then the July 24 vote by the Sound Transit board. Reardon would probably bring along another swing vote, Deanna Dawson of the Edmonds City Council. That leaves probably three firm no votes in King County Executive Ron Sims, Everett City Council member Paul Roberts, and state Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond (reflecting Gov. Chris Gregoire's veiled opposition). Von Reichbauer says he's "still willing to listen" but has been in the no column. Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg says, "If we get to 15 or 16, we should put it on the ballot and I would be one of the votes for it." If von Reichbauer is the fourth no vote, Ladenburg would be the 14th. Hmmm.
Complicating the Ladenburg situation is his race for state attorney general, in which incumbent Rob McKenna, long a rail skeptic, is expected to wrap a yes vote by Ladenburg around his neck. Gregoire expects the same from gubernatorial challenger Dino Rossi, which is why she is said to be determined to block the vote in 2008. Nickels, still estranged from the governor over the Alaskan Way Viaduct, is paying her no heed on this score.
Both Rossi and Gregoire are playing cat and mouse on the issue. Rossi is using one of his patented dodges of big issues, telling The Seattle Times' Mike Lindblom that it's a local matter for which "I don't even have an idea what they're interested in doing." (Apparently, Rossi has joined the folks who no longer read local newspapers.) Gregoire told Lindblom she's leaving the decision on the ballot measure to her transportation secretary and would decide later on whether to support it, if it emerges. Insiders report that the governor is fighting hard to prevent the fall vote.
While going to the ballot takes a super-majority of 12 of 18 votes, a board vote of 15-3 or so would make the rail advocates feel a lot better about chances for passage of ST2. One ST2 supporter, Seattle City Council member Richard Conlin, said earlier this week that if the board is closely split, and particularly if two or three county executives oppose it, he would be worried about whether the bond issue could pass, calling it "really challenging." Constantine adds that nearly all of the Sound Transit board members favor rail; "the problem is that each member wants it now, and everywhere, which we simply can't afford."
Nickels has been focusing on Snohomish County, and according to several Sound Transit sources, he has swung them over by offering to cap the costs of the city's First Hill streetcar connector, making Seattle responsible for anything above $120 million; increasing bus service to Snohomish while it waits for rail to arrive; and putting more North King County money into the link from Northgate to Lynnwood that Snohomish County was earlier going to fund more generously. "Nickels gave Reardon the kitchen sink," fumes one Sound Transit board member, wondering if the Seattle City Council will go along.
The Sound Transit board has been tied in knots over whether to put its next phase before the voters in 2008 or 2010. The case for the 2008 vote goes this way:
- High gas prices are making transit more popular.
- A high turnout of Obama Democrats (particularly younger voters) will swell the transit vote.
- Waiting until 2010 risks having the Legislature raid some of the dedicated taxes of Sound Transit, particularly to pay for mega projects like the Evergreen Point Bridge and the Viaduct.
- And delay will cause some key staffers at Sound Transit to look for more exciting jobs.
The argument for 2010 has these points:
- The first 13.9-mile phase of Central Link light rail will open in 2009, so the public can experience the pleasures of modern transit and develop an appetite for more.
- Fears of a 2008 recession will make voters cautious about spending issues.
- Politicians in current races (such as Gregoire and Ladenburg, as well as legislative candidates) can avoid the political heat.
- Some other big issues such as the Viaduct and tolling might be resolved by then.
- Polling has not been very reassuring for the 2008 vote (about 50 percent favor the concept).
- Opponents this year are going to be well funded (primarily by Bellevue developer Kemper Freeman and others who want more money for buses and roads) and have plenty of arguments to throw at the ST2 team.
- Lastly, the campaign for ST2 is very late in getting started, having little organization or money so far. A defeat in November, coming after the demoralizing defeat of Proposition 1 last year, could be fatal to ever building out a rail system.
In the end, Sound Transit was backed into a political corner. Time would be its enemy if it waits until 2010 and loses momentum. Surviving two more legislative sessions, with all the other needs out there and no real way to pay for many of the roads projects, would put Sound Transit's generous dedicated tax sources at grave risk. Besides, advocates of a comprehensive transit authority for the region, such as cellular billionaire John Stanton and former Seattle Mayor Norm Rice, will be pushing for their plan, backed up by a threat of an initiative this time. Such a plan, by merging Sound Transit into many other bus agencies, would likely divert still more of Sound Transit's funding base and autonomy. Lastly, there is the fear that the next governor could be a conservative Republican, Dino Rossi.
That governor's race, currently very tight in the polls, may have driven Gregoire into opposing a fall vote on ST2, which would force her to take a stand. It's a curious political decision, given Gregoire's need to energize her Democratic base in King County. Instead, she mostly gives them promises, fearful of coming down on one side of the big issues and fearful of Rossi's attack on her big spending — inevitable regardless of what she does. The danger is that King County and Seattle voters, who will be excited about voting for Barack Obama and for transit, will be miffed at the transit-tepid, decision-averse governor and protest by not voting for her. As in 2004, her political problem is that she, unlike most Democrats, does not come out of the King County stronghold with a commanding lead.
The political downside for Nickels is this: In gaining more transit for Seattle, and in burnishing his environmental credentials, he may have further strained his relationship with County Executive Sims and Gov. Gregoire. Feelings between the three are already very raw. It's not easy to see how Nickels wins many other battles with them, such as over 520 and the Viaduct, given the animosity.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Thu, Jul 17, 10:37 a.m. Inappropriate
"I think if the Sound Transit board does go ahead with a ballot measure, they need to be very specific about the assumptions for costs, the assumptions for cost recovery from operations, and what gives if there are shortfalls because of increased costs or lowered revenue. And, I think voters should have an opportunity if projections are wrong."
The last sentence should be completed as follows: "to provide input of what happens next."
Reading the Seattle Times story today, and previous stories about the electrical leakage / bridge interaction, it is clear there are a lot of unknowns about going over I90. I hope whatever ballot measure goes forward is clear about what happens if the assumptions for the projects turn out to be wrong.
It is definitely an interesting time to be running a major tax increase. Usually project proponents will say "well this is just the equivalent of a latte a day, or a week, or whatever". I somehow doubt we'll be seeing that line this year!
Posted Thu, Jul 17, 11:11 a.m. Inappropriate
Certainly true, but let's not forget what's driving our economic problems: peak oil and increased global resource consumption. The price of steel will go up the longer we wait, and 4mpg busses aren't a great long-term solution to our oil problems.
At least this project will be spending much of the money locally - on construction jobs - rather then sending it all overseas.
Posted Thu, Jul 17, 11:24 a.m. Inappropriate
I'm not sure what questions you're concerned about with I-90.
Stray current control requirements were identified when studying I-90 for rail in 1991. They're no different than any other stray current control - we did that work to protect adjacent buildings in the downtown seattle transit tunnel as well, with about the same level of "unknowns". The expert review panel report said last month that there were no show stoppers. I've put it up here if you want to read the whole thing:
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/39870/Final%20Letter%20091207.pdf
They said, among other positive things: "The Panel saw nothing in the analysis completed to date to suggest that light rail cannot operate well on the floating bridge."
The Times hates the idea of light rail across the bridge for one specific reason: Mercer Island residents get to use the express lanes for commutes into seattle with single occupancy. That means Frank Blethen and Jim Vesely, as well as Judy Clibborn's Seattle-bound constituents. God forbid they take the train.
This is the equivalent of two lattes a month, or a tank of gas a year. The hundreds of thousands of users will save a tank of gas a week.
Posted Thu, Jul 17, 11:39 a.m. Inappropriate
The one from last month is here:
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/39870/Resolution%20Report.pdf
And the memo:
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/39870/Support%20Data.doc
In essence, everything's been studied and has solutions.
Posted Thu, Jul 17, 12:26 p.m. Inappropriate
2) The benefit of rail in this region is simply, as Nickels has said, it's "sexy". Viagra's a lot cheaper, but ...
3) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) running on freeway HOT and arterial bus-only lanes is faster, has much more capacity (where buses unload and load passengers out of the traffic flow), and is about a tenth of the per-mile cost (so ten times the high capacity transit miles for the same budget).
4) On the other hand if sex is your issue, see #2 above.
Posted Thu, Jul 17, 12:32 p.m. Inappropriate
-I'd like to see Ladenburg hang Rob McKenna's opposition to light rail, and his desire to spend $12billion plus on 14 miles of I-405 expansion, around his neck. Same with Gregoire vis a vis Rossi.
With the reality of climate change and $4.50 a gallon gas, it's a different world out there. Even Sound Transit's opponents no longer talk about more pavement, they talk about more buses. Well, McKenna and Rossi don't like any kind of transit. They, like their benefactor Kemper Freeman, want to waste billions on paving over the region.
see, this, this and that. Oh,
and this one too.
Posted Thu, Jul 17, 12:39 p.m. Inappropriate
There has been general talk about the new trains and bus service this tax increase proposal would bring, but as we know from 1996 the devil is in the details. And ST is still working out those details.
If Nickels just gave more "goodies" to Snohomish County, that would have implications for additional taxes on everyone else in the ST district. What did that giveaway to Reardon for his vote cost the rest of us?
Assuming subarea equity applies to this new package, it's time we got the relevant details. How much would the projects in each subarea be expected to cost, how much more bonding is going to be required, and when would the taxes stop (or be rolled back)?
When will the existing taxes be rolled back?
Will there be any incentives built into the spending plan to ensure ST stays on budget, or is this an open-ended proposal, where ST gets to spend as much as it wants? Will there be any spending limits?
We can't forget - the monorail project authority's plan sank in no small part because some tax revenue assumptions were seriously flawed. What are the tax revenue assumptions ST is using? Those need to be examined carefully, as they would be the basis for determining how much can be spent in each subarea.
I know one thing, the Finance Committee doesn't have nearly enough time at its meeting this afternoon to fully consider these issues (assuming the data relevant to them even is available). The meeting agenda for today shows that committee has ten other big items on the agenda.
In light of recent transportation missteps around here, rushing to approve a 30 year taxing plan (I assume the new taxes would last at least that long) which looks like it was pasted together at the last minute for political considerations might not make great sense.
Posted Thu, Jul 17, 1:01 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: Cost of Projects in the Subareas: Easy there [Digg]. Just because they haven't released these numbers to you doesn't mean they don't exist. It's not like they thought up this plan yesterday, they've just been refining the details.
Posted Thu, Jul 17, 1:33 p.m. Inappropriate
And the discussion in the reader comments following Crosscut's market-leading coverage from other civic opinion leaders like Doug MacDonald, Ted Van Dyk, and Ben Schiendelman of our region's transit dreams is generally outstanding in its nuanced sophistication and attention to detail.
However the Sound Transit era evolves in the future, it will be a case study in public involvement and deep news coverage.
As they say in the Navy, Bravo Zulu.
Posted Thu, Jul 17, 2:26 p.m. Inappropriate
"With the reality of climate change and $4.50 a gallon gas, it's a different world out there."
I was hoping the response to Mr McDonald's critique would somehow have some sort of convincing point about the reductions in Greenhouse Gas we could expect from this measure, and show why the return on investment from this particular plan in reducing GHG is the best we can do.
I think a plan to build more park and rides, where there's clearly the demand, and provide more bus seats, where there's clearly the demand, would easily pass even in this economy.
Posted Thu, Jul 17, 3:04 p.m. Inappropriate
There should be little doubt that Sound Transit will spend every penny it collects. Given ST's unfunny Pollyannaesque track record, it's grossly irresponsible not to be horribly conservative. Anyone can finesse and deliver on interim milestones. ST has still yet to deliver its fundamental deliverable on time and under budget. When we can actually ride the thing, then we'll be able to assess.
Stray current is a fact of life. No one can say exactly how much it will degrade the structural integrity of a bridge over a 50yr life time. Let's say 5%. Then that's 2.5 yrs of its lifetime. At a $4B replacement cost (back of the envelope) we're at 5% of $4B, which is $250M. Stray current, however, is not the big problem with ST2. Stray, current taxes for perpetuity are what will kill us before the long lightning rods of light rail do.
Why in the world should ST2 be sales tax financed anyway? And why aren't property tax owners and corporations directly served (e.g., Microsoft) paying additional corporate income tax or a head tax to make this happen? And why not use tax increment financing to increase downtown Seattle & Bellevue property taxes on those who are going to make hundreds of millions when light rail comes to their properties? And why in the world deliver, as a priority, light-rail to Bellevue, which has already received sufficient funding for its highway infrastructure to obviate the need for light rail anytime soon? And why don't we plan to recover the majority of the cost of light rail at the farebox? Otherwise light rail becomes just another perpetual, inefficient government subsidy of stakeholders.
Funding a social safety net is an appropriate role of government. However, if ST2 wants to subsidize other classes of individuals -- rich property owners, Microsoft workers, Bellevue residents, Seattle residents, cyclists, bureaucrats, union workers, white people, babies, pets -- then that's a different story. As currently planned, light rail is a financially unsustainable system. It never pays for itself except through taxation.
Sound Transit has an annual payroll of $27M for 340+ employees making an average salary, including bonus and excluding benefits, of about $80K/yr (and a median salary of about $74K/yr). By comparison, are these people worth more than our teachers? ST is an enormous, redundant bureaucracy that should be halved in size and its cost structure brought down a couple of notches.
I can hardly wait to look at the bonding structure for ST2, and how much debt will be monorailed to the back-end of the 15-year project, dramatically increasing overall debt service cost.
I will not hold my breath waiting for ST2 to lay out in to the public ST2's full cost (particularly debt service) and what controls exist to guarantee that costs and taxes are contained. And please do tell us the maximum amount and duration of taxes that can legally be collected under ST2. Will poor project performance -- late delivery and cost over-runs -- be rewarded with continued taxation beyond what is planned?
I especially hate the tooth-fairy theory of funding which says that we'll rob federal coffers to pay for this thing, so who cares? That's how we as Americans and Seattleites paid for the Big Dig in Boston. If you have Tip O'Neil pulling the strings, then the project is 90% subsidized. In the current budget climate, we're getting more like a 10% federal subsidy. So the great majority of dollars will come out of the pockets of people in this region. Those who use and benefit should pay the lion's share, not the general tax payer. Once the problem of funding and financing gets sorted out, then I'm sure other Obamites will be happy to vote for light rail. Until then, Obamites will use their brains and vote no on trains.
Posted Thu, Jul 17, 3:05 p.m. Inappropriate
According to documents distributed at today's Finance Committee meeting, the total cost in Year of Expenditure dollars (i.e., inflation factored in through completion of construction in 2023) is $17.6 billion. That figure also includes the costs of operating and maintaining the system. That's a pretty damn good deal when you consider you get 34 miles of brand new right of way (in addition the initial Sea-Tac to Husky Stadium segment), along with a boatload of new express bus and commuter rail service.
A few other things to consider: this package will increase Sound Transit ridership 83% by 2030, increase regionwide overall transit ridership by 20% and with ST1 and ST2 combined, Sound Transit will be carrying 40% of all transit trips by 2030. All this for much less than it would cost to add two new lanes in each direction on I-405.
Posted Thu, Jul 17, 3:53 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: Assumptions: So you're saying I'll be able to take my pets on the train? Sweet.
Posted Thu, Jul 17, 8:20 p.m. Inappropriate
If it gets to the ballot, it would hardly be the result of some rush to judgement. This baby has been in the oven for a few years now with lots of time to poke at, and oh-boy, has it been poked at.
If the people actually get the chance to vote there will be plenty of time for the same old combatants to fight over the same things they've been fighting about for much of the past 50 years, and plenty of time for voters to appraise what's actually on the ballot and weigh the costs and benefits if they can see through the smoke.
A NO vote by the state would be disappointing. All that would say is: We don't trust the voters in the region or maybe we care more about politics than transportation. That really means that Olympia is out of touch - just like George Bush (to borrow a phrase from a radio spot). The I-90 issues were decided over a decade ago - the state agreed to build a bridge to support rail. Voters supported the idea. Now it is time for the state to hold up the bargain. Experts agree: light rail will work great on the bridge.
It is sorta silly for the state's transportation secretary to argue for more buses when she has absolutely no credentials or passion to do so. State transportation secretaries spend most of their time in Olympia telling legislators that any of our state transportation money that could be spent on transit ought to be spent on state roads and ferries instead. If this state secretary wants more buses for the people, let's see her put her money where her mouth is. The state DOT sure didn't mind when people in the region backed the gas tax (which can only be spent on roads and ferries) a few years ago. This Secretary doesn't live in the region, doesn't know the region, and a no vote says she doesn't trust the region. She should get out of the way and let the people here decide.
My prediction: if it has the votes to fly to the ballot this year, the state will join the vote in the YES column. If the secretary votes NO, it will be time to find a new secretary just because it would be such a stupid move that would undermine confidence overall.
Let's give people an up or down vote. And if people want to vote for change this year, let that be about a decision to actually change, and actually do something to end the decades long parlor debate among people who have made careers out of wheel spinning on this subject.
Posted Thu, Jul 17, 8:39 p.m. Inappropriate
Re: LINK extension in Tacoma -
While very few details have been disclosed to the public that I'm aware of, the concept of forming partnerships to expand mass transit services is one I'm glad is being explored for Tacoma/Pierce County.
Re: Mass transit partnerships -
The strategy being pursued in Tacoma/Pierce County makes me wonder why creating partnerships has not been pursued more vigorously throughout the region. Seems like major regional employers and attractions should be playing a bigger role. They help create the need for inter-county travel in the first place.
Re: Where is TOD? -
To follow up on the concept of getting more tax payer bang for the buck, I cannot understand why Sound Transit has not made it a priority to design better integrated systems within the communities they plow through. It's great they are extending Sounder service through Tacoma to get to Lakewood and eventually DuPont and Olympia - but why divide Tacoma's downtown in half with a diesel train when extending LINK light rail would have made more sense? Why are not more opportunities to create vibrant dynamic neighborhoods by partnering with developers and other entities not being explored more? They had an incredible opportunity in Tacoma to create a mixed-use transit oriented development but blew it. If Sound Transit doesn't take it up as a priority, then who?
But I digress...
Posted Thu, Jul 17, 8:54 p.m. Inappropriate
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – July 17, 2008
Sound Transit Board chair, vice chairs endorse 2008 mass transit measure
The top three governing officials of the Sound Transit board today announced their support for putting a mass transit ballot measure on the November ballot. The full Sound Transit board may vote July 24 on the 15-year proposal, which will offer expanded bus, commuter and light rail in Snohomish, King and Pierce counties.
"This plan provides a mass transit package that is faster, better and cheaper than last year's Proposition 1," said Sound Transit Board Chair and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels. "We can't afford to wait when we have the solutions to our transportation crisis right now. For the price of one tank of gas per year, we move forward with a regional mass transit network in three counties that gives people what they need most: an alternative to paying high gas prices. The best way to avoid the high cost of gas is not to buy it in the first place."
"The new plan before the Board gets light rail to Snohomish County while increasing and speeding up ST Express regional bus service expansions," said Sound Transit Board Vice Chair and Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon. "It responds to Snohomish County commuters' immediate needs, and at the same time, it delivers a light rail connection to Lynnwood while positioning us for a future extension to Everett ."
"This 15-year plan turns the nearly $1 billion we would lose to inflation over the next two years into rapid progress toward better transit connections for people in Pierce County and around the region," said Sound Transit Board Vice Chair and Lakewood City Council Member Claudia Thomas. "It delivers significant Sounder commuter rail and ST Express expansions while moving forward now with planning and property purchases to set the stage for getting light rail to Tacoma in the future."
Nickels, Reardon, Thomas and other Sound Transit Board leaders will discuss the merits of the plan on July 24, when the Board plans to decide whether to move forward with a package this year. The package's capital projects would cost $13.3 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars that include inflation estimates, or $9.1 billion in 2007 dollars. Funding would come from a 0.5 percent increase of the local sales tax, or 5 cents on a $10 purchase. The approximately $69 annual cost of the increase for each adult is around the cost of a single tank of gas.
The transit-only package would deliver projects significantly faster than last year's Proposition 1 measure. The construction costs are 50 percent lower than Proposition 1, which included both roads and transit projects, and 23 percent lower than the 20-year transit package that was part of Proposition 1.
The new plan responds to public input received in May and June, which showed strong desire to see light rail extended further north and south than was proposed in 12-year options identified in April. Details of the 15-year plan include:
Northward expansion of light rail from the University of Washington to Northgate by 2020, with a further extension to Lynnwood by 2023, five years earlier than last year's Proposition 1 measure.
Eastward expansion of light rail to Bellevue and onward to Overlake Transit Center in Redmond by 2021, seven years earlier than Proposition 1.
Southward expansion of light rail to Highline Community College by 2020 and Federal Way's South 272nd Street area by 2023, five years earlier than Proposition 1.
Major ST Express bus service improvements, including a first phase delivered prior to completion of a new maintenance base and a second phase afterward. The plan provides service increases of 10 to 30 percent in key corridors and bus rapid tra
Posted Fri, Jul 18, 9:42 a.m. Inappropriate
"In reading your latest article about the prospects of light rail on the fall ballot its interesting to note that 100% of the considerations appear to be political. There is nothing being said about whether the proposed investment in light rail is cost-effective, helps or harms global warming, is financially affordable or prudent, would increase transit ridership more than a similar investment in BRT, has more ultimate capacity than BRT, or out-prioritizes other government needs.
"As long as our transportation decisions are political, as opposed to being based on finding the least costly approach to solving actual problems, the region will continue to waste money, destroy voter trust, and let the problem fester.
"Reminds me of similar examples of decision-making gone astray in Barbara Tuchman's book The March of Folly. The electeds are acting like a bunch of irresponsible, petty minded kids. ( I say this after attending numerous meetings of the Sound Transit Board and the Eastside Transportation Partnership, as well as reading the papers.)"
Posted Fri, Jul 18, 12:37 p.m. Inappropriate
-This is simply not true. While how it compares to other government needs is, appropriately, a political decision that voters will get the chance to decide, all the other information demanded by Harkness will be available in the coming weeks, most of it likely at next Thursday's board meeting. In fact, much of it has already been provided, or least previewed, in public forums - Finance Committee meetings, board meetings, etc.
Posted Fri, Jul 18, 3:27 p.m. Inappropriate
1. It ( what is build so far ) tends to piggy-back existing right of ways, originally obtained for roads/freeways - if light rail had to pay for right of way where NONE existed, the allready over priced amounts would be much more substantial .
2. It will do little more than provide a means for the regions gangs/criminals to expand their influence in the off-peak hours .
3. It is NOT scaleable or reconfigurable - see MAX in portland, for an example of a system that FOR A MULTITUTE OF NEGATIVE REASONS is doing little more than it did the day after it opened .
4. It will NEVER operate as a pay-for-itself method to transport people .
5. ST is another government layer, in a state that has too many unconnected transportation government layers .
6. ST waists money - see the donation of money to region 'green/ecco' origanizations that amounts to nothing more than 'buying support' .
you fools above arguing the mineutia are simply waisting the time of the 90 percent of us who will never use light rail !! Wake up !!
Posted Fri, Jul 18, 3:44 p.m. Inappropriate
Sound Transit will be giving the second-largest city in the area ... what again? Increased diesel train service? That's it?
ST wants to raise our taxes to buy half of the land required to someday build a light rail connection from Tacoma to SeaTac (and thus Seattle). That's what we get. Pretty exciting, eh?
Just guessing here, but in like 2020, we'll be asked to raise our taxes again to buy the rest of the land, and then in 2030, we'll be asked to raise our taxes again to actually build the line, which will open in 2040. I'm 31 years old now, so by the time I can actually take light rail to Seattle, I'll be approaching retirement. Of course, by then we'll be talking about raising our taxes to pay for bullet trains, and the idea of an hour-long one-way light rail trip will be a joke. Wait, it already is a joke!
Why can't Sound Transit spend our tax dollars to extend the light rail line we already have, and expand parking options at the ends of it, so that we can actually use it to commute from our homes in Tacoma to our jobs in Tacoma, and leave our cars at home? Or, for our out-of-town workers, from our homes in Tacoma to a bus or diesel train link at the Tacoma Dome?
Posted Fri, Jul 18, 10:52 p.m. Inappropriate
Don't vote for light rail because you'll never ride it? Fine; then next time a freeway project comes up that I will never drive, such as the 520 bridge or 405, I'll vote against it. Makes as much sense.
Link light rail does NOT "piggyback" existing rights of way. The main reason it is expensive is it's mostly NEW right of way, in tunnels and on elevated structure, and widening MLK. The only place Sound Transit really takes existing right of way will be on I-90, but that just fulfills a promise made to the region in 1976 -- the center roadway on I-90 was designed for rail transit from the get-go.
You're due for a return visit to Portland. Their MAX light rail system has been expanded 3 times and ridership keeps growing -- it's doing MORE for the community every day it exists.
Criminals and gangs have cars -- they steal them if they need to. Nothing gained for them to ride trains.
You're so out of touch. Are you one of those guys from Indiana or somewhere who just needs to blast rail transit everywhere?
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.