Jon: I have enjoyed your pieces in the Times. However, in this piece, you miss the main point. Light rail would not be part "of a great transit network," as you put it, but a hugely cost-ineffective and expensive project which would eat funds which could be devoted to building that kind of network.

You need to get back to the drawing board...examine the facts and history of Sound Transit light rail...and work out the numbers involving costs/benefits of various transportation systems in this region---not merely state general conclusions, which apply in some instances and in others do not. If you were an editor, and a reporter brought you this copy, you would ask him to "come back with some facts, man." I urge you to return to go and do the homework involved in figuring how to get to the kind of network you describe in this particular place. In meantime, keep that good copy coming on other economic/financial subjects.

If Sound Transit didn't 'lo ball' the costs in 1996, just to get an approval at the ballot, then you might have a case to make.
But, the reality is the current 10 year plan will take 20 years to finish, cost nearly 3 times as much, and who knows what the real ridership (benefits) will be.
The very reason to break up the JRPC/RTA's big 30 plan into 10 year phases was to build confidence for future additions. Well, you see how that's working out.
Should voters be skeptical? Absolutely!
Should voters wait until next year when the first phase begins running to make an informed decision? Seems logical, especially not knowing where the bottom of this recession/depression is going to come.
What's the big rush? Sound Transit still has 8 years of promised projects on their 'TO DO LIST'. A couple of years doesn't slow much down, except the revenue stream.
Oh, I get it now. Lock in the new tax before the cats out of the bag, and start stashin’ the cash. Good Plan!

Some Comments:

1. Our frozen in 1965 attitude may in part be the assumption that we have a hub and spoke framework for getting to and from work. The reality now is we have lots of point to point.

As an example, in the 1980s, when Microsoft built in Redmond, it was in a very peripheral location to where most jobs were. In part they built there because of cheap land, and lots of space.

Where will the next Microsoft be located? Odds are in an area with cheaper land and lots of space. Buses can be added to go as needed, in a scalable manner.

2. In the early 1970s, the Seattle City Council took a very long look at WPPSS. They decided to pass, even though conventional wisdom said go for it. They saved the citizens of Seattle an immense amount of money by looking at least cost planning alternatives.

I do not have confidence this has been done in our regional transportation planning. Instead, it appears there are significantly higher subsidies from taxpayers to people riding the SOunder train than there are for people riding the Sound Transit long distance buses. It also appears the subsidies for light rail users will be much higher than for bus riders.

Is that the best use of our resources?

What is the opportunity cost of these tax dollars? At a time when there's insufficient park and ride lots, and would-be riders are left standing on the curb because of a lack of bus space, is this the best we can do?

3. Some of the lines in this story are frankly laughable. This one: "On the other hand, there is no big money, pro-transit lobby in this country."

Oh my goodness. Look at Parsons Brinkerhoff, and APTA, and others. Do some investigative reporting of how much lobbying and spending they do.

I love high speed inter-city rail, but there's a comment about it killing off airplane travel in Europe. The reality is: RyanAir and a lot of discount carriers are growing quite fast. Personally I don't like the pollution that goes with air travel so I think this is unfortunate. But the statement in the article doesn't seem accurate.

4. I do agree with some points. We have very poor data about the true cost of freeways. We also have very poor data about the true cost of rail systems as well: there are a great many subsidies, including in Portland's case the tax subsidies that have been given to get their transit-oriented development built.

In close, there are a lot of critiques of the specific ballot measure that are not addressed in this story, and a lot of the "myths" seem to be straw men. As the article says, there's no such thing as a free lunch. So, how much is this rail lunch really going to cost us? Is there any point at which it is too expensive?

And should voters have the chance to weigh in if it turns out the costs have been sandbagged, as has happened repeatedly on major infrastructure projects in our region?

At least Seattle voters could vote on the monorail again when it turned out they'd been duped. Lucky them.

I should have mentioned in my initial comment, Jon, that I found a huge omission in your piece. Namely, that a record, regressive tax increase in the three-county region is exactly the wrong medicine in the current economic/financial environment. I presume you were setting aside your economic/financial-analyst clothing for a moment to argue the rail case
exclusive of this consideration. Or were you just kidding?

From the commenters above, there all kinds of scare quotes about how bad Sound Transit is and how "cost-ineffective" light rail is.

The fact is that ever since the management of ST changed in 2001, the organization has met its fiscal and schedule targets. We now have an agency that has overcome its initial growing pains and knows what it's doing. Opponents are apparently waiting for ST to be dissolved and replaced with another agency 10 years down the road, which will undoubtedly go ahead and make the exact same mistakes ST used to. I'm not willing to wait another couple of decades.

Why not wait? We've waited for 40 years! The presidential election should see record youth turnout, and young people are the ones that benefit most from long-term investment. Every year we delay just makes projects more expensive, so that we get less for what we pay. In the 1960s and 1970s, we could have had several times more rail for much less money, but opponents said we should wait; look where that's gotten us.

As for cost-effectiveness, I think the original article makes the point pretty well. There is no other viable plan for providing an alternative to sitting in traffic. Sound Transit has an approach that will carry hundreds of thousands of riders a day, congestion-free, free up buses to serve underserved areas, and focus growth to reduce sprawl.

Ted Van Dyk's statement about the economy is irrelevant. This is a fifteen-year-plus project that will undoubtedly cover several business cycles. There will be times where the tax will be a brake on an overheating economy, and times when it hurts growth. Furthermore, there will also be lots of construction jobs that provide a stimulus, whether or not that happens to be what's in order for current economic conditions.

I look forward to Ted Van Dyk going to Olympia and helping to push through Sound Transit taxing authority that isn't aggressive, but I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime, I say let's get started with the tools Olympia is giving us.

Uh, aggressive --> "regressive"

It would take me all day to rebut all the nonsense in this article, but I will address a few of the more ridiculous comments the author makes.

1) Traffic congestion CAN be reduced by adding more buses. One bus can carry 90 passengers, thus taking about 75 cars off the road (assuming 1.2 riders per car). Therefore, adding one bus per minute to a busy highway can eliminate 4,500 cars per hour from that road. Since one highway lane can carry about 2,000 cars per hour, just 60 buses per hour (1 bus per minute) can take the place of more than two full lanes of car traffic.

Buses ARE cheaper and more flexible. ST says the operating cost of their light rail will be about $1.24 per passenger mile. Metro buses cost about $0.75 per passenger mile to operate.

There are low-floor buses without stairs (the author does not know this?).

I have seen 3 or 4 buses at one stop at the same time, but have not noticed people having a hard time getting on the right bus.

Buses have a "stigma"? Metro buses on many routes are full to capacity. If you think you are too good to ride a bus, you can just walk or ride your bike. Nobody cares about people who think they are too good to ride a bus. They can find their own transportation.

2) We don't need more roads. We need to make the roads we already have more efficient. Adding buses moves a lot more people on the same number of highway lanes (see above). Just car-pooling can increase highway capacity, and van-pools vastly increase the capacity of existing highways. Many more people can tele-commute, taking cars off the roads. Going to a 4-day workweek would reduce peak hour car traffic by 20% without adding any more lanes or increasing taxes.

The number of vehicle miles traveled in WA state fell by about seven percent in early 2008 from 2007, without any light rail at all, just by the methods I mention above. Proposition 1 would reduce vehicle miles traveled in our area by only 1 percent by 2030, and would require the largest local tax increase in the history of WA state.

Which is more cost-effective: reducing vehicle miles traveled by seven percent in one year without any tax increase? Or reducing vehicle miles traveled by one percent 22 years from now, with the largest local sales tax increase in our history?

Is this difficult to decide?

Crosscut should let good journalists play here more often.

I love that you brought up the heavily funded no campaign and their backers. I keep running into opinion pieces from think tanks about what a terrible idea Link is, but when I look into those think tanks I see plenty pro-roads pieces and no list of who funds them.

(examples: Washington Policy Center contributed to a piece in the Queen Anne News, Discovery Institute's Cascadia Project's Matt Rosenberg publishes right here at Crosscut)

Lincoln,

No one is opposed to telecommuting, carpools, and 4-day workweeks. But just as there are certain people who will never be served by rail, there are people who will never be served by these techniques. The 7% VMT reduction is great, but continuing to invest in subsidizing these techniques has diminishing returns.

That's why Prop. 1 supporters are in favor of maximizing transportation options. If you can't telecommute; carpool. If you can't carpool, take the bus; if the bus travels on a hopelessly congested or overcrowded route, take the train. In no sense are these mutually exclusive.

FWIW, it was the same financial thinking, and law firm, that drove Washington Mutual into the ground. These folks may yet 'succeed' in Seattle yet.

This author needs to go back to school, and if he doesn't learn his lesson, someone needs to flunk him out.

Matt: you are joking, I assume. "The heavily funded no campaign"? LOL How stupid is that?

Here is an article from the 2007 Proposition 1 campaign from the P.I.:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/337649_tranmoney01.html

"Those for and against Proposition 1 have raised more than $4.9 million in cash and in-kind contributions -- dwarfing fundraising for the three previous statewide transportation measures. Together they've spent more than $4.8 million.

"Backers, who say the projects in the measure are vitally needed, have raised and spent nearly 84 percent of the money, $4.1 million, as the measure faces what could be a close vote on Proposition 1 Nov. 6. Opponents, who say the measure will cost too much and won't do enough to ease congestion, have raised about $794,000 as of Tuesday, according to figures filed with the state Public Disclosure Commission.

"Microsoft co-founder and Chairman Bill Gates and Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer contributed $100,000 each to Keep Washington Rolling, and the corporation kicked in $300,000, bringing the total from the company and top executives to $500,000.

"Boeing contributed $175,000, the Seattle Mariners $89,000, and $50,000 contributions came from the International Union of Operating Engineers, one of its locals and the Laborers' Political League.

"Realtors and some business and labor organizations historically have supported transportation-improvement measures.

"The Washington Association of Realtors, a proponent, gave $250,000 in early October in addition to $50,000 it contributed in June.

"Unions and labor groups, according to filings with the commission, accounted for more than $826,000 of supporting cash contributions. The Laborers' International Union gave $155,000 through local and political action committees. The operating engineers' union contributed a total of $135,000, while the Washington State Building & Construction Trades Council, an umbrella group for 21 construction unions and 20,000-plus area construction workers, donated $33,000.

"Construction companies and trade groups also contributed nearly $378,000 to support the campaign, as have several transportation consulting firms, such as David Evans and Associates, Parametrix, HDR Engineering and Shannon & Wilson.

"Other corporate backers include Washington Mutual Inc. at $100,000; Puget Sound Energy at $60,000; Weyerhaeuser Co. at $50,000; and PEMCO and Safeco at $50,000 each.

"Proponents spent more than $2.8 million, nearly 70 percent of the contributions they raised, on production and placement of TV commercials and other advertising, compared with the $272,000 opponents reported spending. About $207,000 of proponents' money went to consultants, $334,500 to campaign literature and $82,978 to research."

This year, the spending is again about five to one in favor of the Yes to Proposition 1 campaign.

So, I ask you Matt: are you incredibly ignorant?

Or are you a shill for Sound Transit?

Matt: stop with the gibberish, or I will have to conclude you are a complete idiot.

You wrote: "The 7% VMT reduction is great, but continuing to invest in subsidizing these techniques has diminishing returns."

We don't need tax increases to increase tele-commuting, car- or van-pooling, or the 4-day workweek. Where are the "diminishing returns" in telecommuting?

I will add to this list private bus services, such as Microsoft's new bus service, which take many cars off of roads and are privately-funded, i.e. no tax increases needed.

Name me one route that ST is planning to put light rail on that is not served by buses. Everyone that could take light rail is already able to take the bus, if we just add enough buses so that everyone who wants to take the bus is able to.

We need more buses -- not extravagantly expensive light rail.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lightrailinitiative/2008283847_prop1soundtransit19m0.html

Campaign contributions for both sides of the Proposition 1 campaign for this year, from the Seattle Times article on 10-19-08:

"So far, the "yes" side reports $755,035 in contributions, led by companies that profit from rail projects, including engineering firms CH2M Hill and Parsons Brinckerhoff at $40,000 each. Opponents report $152,525 in donations, led by $100,000 from Bellevue mall developer Kemper Freeman, a longtime roads advocate."

"heavily funded no campaign", Matt? LOL The Yes campaign has about five times as much money contributed this year as the NO campaign.

The YES campaign is funded by "companies that profit from rail projects."

I bet that comes as a big surprise to you, eh Matt?

The only way any great city gets a light rail system or anything that works in the great city yet to come is by just going ahead and doing it.
Go see the London Tube Museum or the many like it. Jerry Gropp Architect.

Douglas MacDonald, former state secretary of transportation weighs in:

"Myths, myths, myths. You can't upgrade your favorite myth by trying to rename it a 'reality.' This is the battle of myths versus myths. What a ridiculous way to argue public policy questions! What a lame foundation for even getting Sound Transit 2 to the ballot, let alone voting on it!

"After November 4, we may (or may not) face a propitious moment in region building: a chance to look at hard facts and realities and sort out how land use, the economy, an energy crisis and transportation needs can be put together into some kind of sensible forward-looking array of transportation choices.

"If we are given that chance it, we'll have to start, however, with some facts and a commitment to fact-based discussion. It would have helped in the Prop 1 myth-making for example, if the proposing agency, Sound Transit, had at any point offered a clear, forthright and transparent discussion of how many people will be served by its proposals, where they live and work, how they are served by transit systems (or not) today, what it will really cost to provide the new vision of service, what alternatives might be considered to reach similar or better ends at similar or lesser costs, and what happens to everybody else (the vast majority of people under every forecast) for whom Sound Transit's proposals are more or less irrelevant. Don't worry: you can't find it in the glossy mailer. Nor in any of the pages of planner-babble and spin that were rolled out to support the plan in formation. So all we have is myths, myths, myths. Enough already."

[Lincoln] You've listed the money that's been above-board. Who pays for the "think tanks" that write newspaper opinion pieces?

//We need more buses// Sure. Prop 1 has more buses. But you're dreaming if you think this is a long-term solution.

Here's one reason we need more buses soon:

Transit ridership numbers are obviously driven in large part by general population growth. The State's Office of Financial Management has estimated growth for King County, with 1997 as the base year:

2007 13.1%
2008 14.5%
2010 17.5%
2015 23.3%
2020 28.0%

It seems clear that rising population has been a large part of the growth in transit ridership in recent years, and it also seems likely that the current squeeze on some bus routes in peak periods isn't going to go away and may increase, especially if sales tax revenues lag and operating costs stay high.

It would be interesting to see how Metro models handle the revenue/demand/cost equation projected out a decade or so. It may explain why Ron Sims has reversed his position on light rail which eats a lot of revenue and doesn't deliver on the demand side until well into the 2020's.

Lincoln,

OK, so telecommuting, etc. don't require tax increases or subsidies. Presumably, then, this is happening on its own and is reaching some sort of equilibrium point. What's your magic plan to encourage it further without spending any money?

Of course light rail overlaps with current bus service. The point is that that the train provides massively superior service over heavily traveled corridors, while allowing buses to be diverted to sparse areas that are better served by them. What if all those express buses from the Lynnwood Transit Center to downtown could be diverted to other areas, while giving those commuters a faster, more reliable, more pleasant ride?

[dn] What a great case for light rail. If you double demand for buses, you'll need to double capacity. Take a look at 3rd and 4th downtown - the bus stops are at capacity already. Will you expand to 5th and 2nd as well? How about where they get on and off freeways?

Then we look at all of the new drivers we'll have to pay for all of this new capacity (not to mention the buses themselves, and their gas, and their maintenance). There's a reason we pay .09% sales tax toward buses already - that's not adding new buses, that's just running the buses we have. (compare this to the .05% to add new rail service)

Oh, and Sims has always been a bus man. Did he ever support Prop 1? (the answer: no)

"OK, so telecommuting, etc. don't require tax increases or subsidies. Presumably, then, this is happening on its own and is reaching some sort of equilibrium point. What's your magic plan to encourage it further without spending any money?"

What makes you think those things are reaching some sort of equilibrium point? That is foolish. Telecommuting is just getting started. We don't even have fiber-optic internet connections in many homes. The number of people who telecommute now is just a tiny fraction of the number who ultimately could telecommute. Telecommuting could easily increase ten-fold by 2030, which would take far more vehicles off of roads than light rail would. Same thing with car- and especially van-pooling. We have barely scratched the surface so far. Metro is adding van pools as fast as they can buy vans.

We don't need any "magic plan" to vastly increase telecommuting, car-and van pooling, because those things cost the public nothing and save commuters a ton of cash. Why do you think we need to "encourage" people to save money commuting? Aren't you aware that car- and van-pooling saves each commuter a lot of money every year? Why would the public have to spend money to enourage commuters to save money? Do you need to be "encouraged" to cut your commuting cost in half?

The light rail service would not be "massivelly superior" to bus service. Based on what? But light rail would be "massively more expensive" than buses. For one example, ST light rail from downtown to the airport will take 40 minutes and include a 1,000-foot walk from the light rail station to the terminal, while express bus takes about 28 minutes from downtown right to the curb at the terminal.

We can add buses to all the routes you mention for a fraction of the cost of building light rail, and then diverting existing buses to new routes.

Some trips by light rail will be slower than by bus, but even if all light rail trips were a, "faster, more reliable, more pleasant ride" than on bus, why should I pay an extra 0.5% sales tax for that? Giving people on just 2% of all trips a "more pleasant" ride is worth exactly ZERO to me. If those people want a ride they think is superior to buses, they can pay for it themselves. Why should I subsidize a "nicer" ride for people who don't like buses? I'm not that stupid.

If people want me to subsidize their transportation, they can ride the most cost-effective mode (buses) or they can pay for their own transportation.

"Take a look at 3rd and 4th downtown - the bus stops are at capacity already."

This is not true. They are not at capacity. They accomodated many more buses when the bus tunnel was temporarily closed.

If Prop 1 passes, the light rail will exclude buses from using the downtown bus tunnel. And light rail has no more capacity in the tunnel than buses. So you gain no capacity through downtown by replacing the buses in the tunnel with light rail. You just replace buses with light rail cars.

So the capacity issue is a false argument.

How about where they [buses] get on and off freeways?

Since one bus can replace 75 cars, adding buses will make it easier to get on and off freeways, because there will be many fewer cars.

[Lincoln] is the perfect example why our region is bogged down in a traffic-filled 1960s transportation technology. It amazes me that we even have buses. Will he be first in line out of Seattle and toward a functional city when our world runs low on oil?

//They are not at capacity. // Ha! Try hanging out at 3rd and Pine during rush hour. Or 4th and Union.

//light rail has no more capacity in the tunnel than buses// Light rail has much more capacity in the bus tunnel than buses. It takes a full 2 minutes to empty even a small bus during rush hour.

//adding buses will make it easier to get on and off freeways, because there will be many fewer cars// So you predict traffic decreasing in our region? Seriously?

"Then we look at all of the new drivers we'll have to pay for all of this new capacity (not to mention the buses themselves, and their gas, and their maintenance)."

ST has admitted that the OPERATING cost of light rail will be $1.24 per passenger mile. Metro buses cost about $0.75 per passenger mile to operate. So that again, argues in favor of buses over light rail.

"There's a reason we pay .09% sales tax toward buses already - that's not adding new buses, that's just running the buses we have. (compare this to the .05% to add new rail service)"

Actually, you are wrong about that. The 0.9% metro sales tax includes the most-recent 0.1% sales tax increase from "Transit Now" in 2006. Most of the new buses that 0.1% increase will buy are not in service yet. So we will be seeing a lot of new bus service in the next few years, including 5 new "RapidRide" routes which we are already paying for, but which are not yet in operation.

Here is the valid comparision:

Sound Transit wants a 0.5% sales tax increase in three counties, and it expects that will result in 62,000 additional transit trips by 2030.

Metro had a 0.1% sales tax increase in 2006, and expects that will add 50,000 to 60,000 additional transit trips by 2016.

So, for about the same number of additional transit trips, building light rail would cost about seven times as much as adding buses. And adding buses takes about half as long to reach that goal as building light rail would.

And then, light rail would cost about 67% more per passenger mile to opereate than buses.

Buses win. No contest.

"Light rail has much more capacity in the bus tunnel than buses. It takes a full 2 minutes to empty even a small bus during rush hour."

Ok. You just want to stay here and spew one lie after another.

I have to leave, but I will be back.

"It takes a full 2 minutes to empty even a small bus during rush hour." LOL

Not everyone on a bus gets off at the same stop, because there are many bus stops on each route.

I have seen 8 buses go through every 5 minutes in the bus tunnel in rush hours. That is over 90 buses per hour right now. There is room for more than that. 90 buses per hour equals the same capacity as 60 light rail cars per hour, and that is the most that will go through the bus tunnel -- one 4-car light rail train every 4 minutes = 60 light rail cars per hour, which is the same capacity as 90 buses per hour, which the bus tunnel is carrying right now at times.

How about CNG buses? Has anyone looked into them?

MacDonald brings up the most important point of all: realistically, where are people going to be able to afford to live? How much of the growth of central puget sound will be inside the taxing area, and how much outside? And how many housing units realistically can be placed next to rail stops? I bet it is a drop in the bucket, though in part the answer depends on rezones in some areas.

For example, the land along International Blvd is mostly commercial right now. I guess it could be rezoned into high density residential, but there are major implications for tax revenue for Kent, Des Moines, Federal Way and the city of Seatac.

I agree with Matt that downtown bus stops at peak hours are almost unbearably crowded.

I agree with Lincoln that the tunnel is underutilized by buses, but I'm having a hard time seeing them share it at all with rail. First train-bus fender-bender that happens will bring the commute to a screeching halt for hours.

Lincoln,

We don't need any "magic plan" to vastly increase telecommuting, car-and van pooling, because those things cost the public nothing and save commuters a ton of cash.

So your plan is to do nothing, and wait for telecommuting to save us from congestion?

The light rail service would not be "massivelly superior" to bus service. Based on what?

Let's see: faster, more reliable, more frequent (buses that are too frequent get bunched up), cleaner, quieter, smoother, more easily handicapped- and stroller-accessible, easier to understand and use... Should I go on?.

You conveniently cherry pick one of the few examples where the express bus is faster, where it's only about 3 minutes faster while serving thousands fewer people because there are fewer stops. Also, in the real world the bus runs less frequently, so the average trip time is longer, and that's before you take into account that there's "occasionally" traffic on I-5! Meanwhile, light rail will take you from the UW hospital to downtown in 8 minutes -- at least 3 times faster than any bus alternative.

If people want me to subsidize their transportation, they can ride the most cost-effective mode (buses) or they can pay for their own transportation.

Unless you walk or bike to work, your transportation is subsidized. Since I subsidize your car commute to work, you should use a bicycle from now on, since the roads don't have to be as wide and suffer less wear and tear. Otherwise, you can buy your own road.

People who actually use transit would prefer that it get them where they're going in a predictable amount of time.

I've lived in Seattle for 34 years and am a very frequent bus rider and an avid train fan. Lincoln's arguments are 100% correct. I love trains, but but #194 gets me to Sea-Tac faster and much cheaper than the new light rail[over-budget and way behind schedule].

The Seattle area simply does not have the density to support capital-intensive rail transit systems cost-effectively. This isn't London, Berlin or New York.

Naia, the transit came before the density, not vice versa.

If you look at the history of Seattle's neighborhoods, much of them grew up around streetcar lines. Building light rail will do exactly what the streetcars did on a greater scale of density.

You should read this excellent post about land use and transit by a planner at http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/10/20/fixed-guideway-transit-and-land-use-patterns-aka-a-good-reason-to-vote-yes-for-proposition-1/

I keep hearing people say that the #194 to Sea-Tac is faster than light rail but that is only true when you're starting from Downtown Seattle. For example, I'm on Beacon Hill and I want to get to the airport. How long will that take by bus? I have to add another 20+ minutes to get Downtown and transfer instead of going directly to the Beacon Hill station. When light rail opens in the U-District, it'll only take me 8 minutes to get Downtown compared to the 20-30 minutes on the "express" bus.

In addition, the light rail trains are more spacious and can unload a whole train much faster than the bus. Matt is right, in reality the bus is slower especially when loading and unloading. You can easily walk off the train and into the terminal in about the same time it takes for dozens of people looking for change and squeezing through the narrow aisles with their luggage to leave the bus.

I liked the post because it argued clearly and concisely. It is a reasonable presentation of important points of view.

MacDonald's obdurate reply is typical. To MacDonald there may be a "moment" coming soon if only voters would agree with him on Sound Transit this year. It is his solo dream, maybe because he's now somehow connected and available. The fact is that MacDonald's "moment" has been happening in the region for roughly 40 years. MacDonald's "new vision" for transit dates to about 1965.

The reality is that if voters reject light rail this year, the idea expanding it north, south and east, won't go away. People will actually be riding it next year. That usually results in desire for more, not less, not a big wave of support for more buses instead. Maybe that is why the cranky old light rail haters are so stewed up this time around.

The problem for all these light rail fight clubbers (pro or con) is that it doesn't seem like anybody is listening this year. Everybody has heard it all before. People are thinking about more important things right now.

That's why it might just pass this year.

That would be a true "moment." And finally, after decades of semi annual brawls and delays forced by highly politicized electioneering, we might finally get something done. And maybe start work on a truly "new vision" without all of the baggage of the past.

Arguments heard here:

Argument: Telecommuting doesn't take any tax dollars at all, cuts emissions, and reduces congestion.

Response: Because people only drive back and forth to work, right? I've lived in other cities with robust rail links in the city, along with lots of buses (Boston and Chicago). People ride the train... to the grocery store, out for dinner, to their friend's houses, to the library, etc. People don't use the buses for these activities because they are unreliable, less frequent, and subject to traffic. Tele-commuting is always raised as if it were the tip of a great iceberg of alternatives. In reality, it is a partial solution for a minority of workers to utilize a minority of the time.

Argument: We need to look at SPECIFIC solutions that will apply for the PUGET SOUND region because we are oh-so different than other places. We shouldn't presume that light rail will work for us because we're not like everywhere else.

Response: First, this is the biggest non-argument ever: "You can't be right because you can't be right all of the time." Wow, you've just found a way to avoid doing ANYTHING that has worked somewhere else first. How about this: Name the major metropolitan area that has successfully paved their way out of their gridlock and transit access. Naia's point that this is not London, Berlin, or New York is typical of the mindset that embraces a "not here not now because we're different" argument. Berlin, New York, and London all had transit long before they reached the densities they have today. Not to mention the fact that cities SMALLER than Seattle already have multi-modal transit systems in place and they have been wildly successful. Notice the argument that "Seattle isn't big enough yet" is never accompanied by the criteria that the arguer is using. It's because there are none.

"I love trains, but but #194 gets me to Sea-Tac faster and much cheaper than the new light rail."

The current Metro schedules and proposed light rail schedules show a 6 minute difference. For that 6 minutes-slower, you get:

No traffic considerations (the 194 can get stuck in the oft-snarled section of I-5 approaching Southcenter and the 405 merge).

Easier load and unload. I take the 194 too. Bags packed in the aisles, stairs to climb making access by older or less mobile folks difficult, and everyone squeezing to the front to unload at the airport.

More room for your bags.

In Chicago there are buses and trains that go to both major airports. People take the train almost exclusively because it's easier on and off, more reliable, and more comfortable. During rush hour people in a hurry opt for the train because it's faster than a cab or the bus.

"This is not true. They are not at capacity. They accomodated many more buses when the bus tunnel was temporarily closed."

I stand there EVERY DAY. These stops are packed. Buses wait through more than one change of lights at 3rd and Union DAILY because there is no room on the entire block next to Benaroya Hall.

So, by your logic, 405 north through Bellevue isn't at capacity either because the few lanes that remain open during construction contain far more cars than they do when they aren't under construction. Awesome though process. Apparently buses won't be at capacity either, until we are stacking riders like cord wood onto roof racks.

This piece was mislabeled. It is NOT a line-by-line debunking. It's a polemic.

The author's status as an "economics journalist" doesn't appear to have any relevance either to the subject matter nor to have contributed to the post.

I agree with Doug's comments, posted by Chuck.

"So your plan is to do nothing, and wait for telecommuting to save us from congestion?"

I would appreciate it if you would try reading my posts so I don't have to repeat everything.

Prop 1 would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by onlyl 1% by 2030. Is this your plan to "save us from congestion"? By ST's own study, Prop 1, which would be the biggest local tax increase in WA history, WILL DO NOTHING TO "SAVE US FROM CONGESTION." What do I need to do to get that through your thick skull?

Telecommuting, car- and van-pooling, adding buses, a 4-day workweek, will do vastly more to reduce congestion than Prop 1.

You keep failing to recognize that PROP 1 WILL DO NOTHING TO REDUCE CONGESTION! The things I mentioned already have reduced VMT by 7% in only one year, and we have barely scratched the surface with them.

"Unless you walk or bike to work, your transportation is subsidized. Since I subsidize your car commute to work, you should use a bicycle from now on, since the roads don't have to be as wide and suffer less wear and tear. Otherwise, you can buy your own road."

Everybody is served by roads. If you have mail delivered to your house, you use roads. If you buy food at a grocery store, you use roads (trucks take the food to the store). If you have ever had an ambulance or firetruck come to help you, you used the roads. If you have ever had an appliance delivered to your home, or any service person come to your home, you have used the roads.

Roads help everyone, therefore everyone pays part of the cost of roads, even if you never drive, or ride in, a car.

Almost everyone who will ride light rail will use roads to get to or from a light rail station -- many by bus.

Everyone who rides a bus uses roads.

And those of us who do drive cars pay far, far more for roads than those who don't drive, because we pay the gas tax (federal and state), which pays for much of the cost of roads. We also pay license fees, parking fees (and taxes on parking), and even an MVET which goes to ST, all of which people who don't drive do NOT pay.

Car owners are NOT subsidized by the public.

People who use transit are subsidized by the public.

Why should I pay an extra 0.5% sales tax so about 2% of trips in our area can be taken by light rail, which I, and the vast majority of taxpayers will derive ZERO benefit from, while everyone derives huge benefits from roads?

"People who actually use transit would prefer that it get them where they're going in a predictable amount of time."

So what? I don't feel like paying an extra 0.5% sales tax so 2% of trips have a better chance of arriving on time. That does NOTHING for me, or about 98% of taxpayers.

"I agree with Lincoln that the tunnel is underutilized by buses, but I'm having a hard time seeing them share it at all with rail. First train-bus fender-bender that happens will bring the commute to a screeching halt for hours."

If Prop 1 passes, after all the light rail is built, light rail will NOT share the downtown tunnel with buses. Even ST admits that. Light rail will simply eliminate all buses from the tunnel, and replace them with little trains, which will have no more capacity through the tunnel than buses. So there is no benefit whatsoever in getting people through downtown Seattle from building more light rail routes.

This is one more reason to wait until the first segment of light rail starts running before we decide whether or not to expand it. We should wait and see how many people actually will ride the light rail, and see how well it works to have trains in the downtown bus tunnel.

Jon Talton: "There is no big money, pro-transit lobby in this country."

OK, but in Seattle, Sound Transit's vendors and employees have opened their wallets a bit to get Prop 1 passed. You may recognize some Sound Transit contractors on the top end of the contributor list for Prop 1 YES, those donations $300 and above as of the time of this posting, with all 259 contribution reaching just north of $800,000.

The No-to-Prop-1 contributions are at $153,000.

Prop 1 Vote Yes contributions (aka Mass Transit Now) from the Washington Public Disclosure Commission web site (http://www.pdc.wa.gov/QuerySystem/advancedS/default.aspx) :

AECOM TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION $40,000
CH2M HILL INC. $40,000
PB AMERICAS INC. $40,000
LTK ENGINEERING SERVICES $30,000
ACEC WASHINGTON $25,000
DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES INC. $25,000
HDR ENGINEERING INC. $25,000
MASTER BUILDERS ASSOC. $25,000
INCA ENGINEERS INC. $20,000
IUOE LOCAL 302 $20,000
PARAMETRIX INC. $20,000
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION $15,000
HNTB CORPORATION $15,000
JACOBS ASSOCIATES $15,000
SABEY CORPORATION $15,000
ACEC WASHINGTON $10,000
AMALG TRANSIT UNION LCL.587 $10,000
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY $10,000
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD $10,000
IRON WORKERS DIST. COUNC PAC. NW $10,000
JACOBS ENGINEERING INC. $10,000
K & L GATES CONTINUING PAC $10,000
KBA INC. $10,000
KLEINFELDER WEST INC. $10,000
KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS $10,000
MICROSOFT CORPORATION $10,000
MIDMOUNTAIN CONTRACTORS INC. $10,000
MOWAT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY $10,000
NORTHGATE SO. COMMONS LLC $10,000
PCL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC. $10,000
SEATTLE MARINERS $10,000
THE BOEING COMPANY $10,000
WELLS FARGO BANK $10,000
WRIGHT RUNSTAD ASSOCIATES LP $10,000
WRIGHT RUNSTAD ASSOCIATES LP $6,000
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL $5,000
ENVIROISSUES $5,000
IBI GROUP $5,000
K&L; GATES CONTINUING PAC $5,000
LANE POWELL PC $5,000
MCBEE STRATEGIC CONSULTING $5,000
PB AMERICAS INC. $5,000
PERTEET INC. $5,000
PUGET SOUND ENERGY $5,000
SHANNON & WILSON INC. $5,000
SUDEV LLC $5,000
SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEV #1 LLC $5,000
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 174 $5,000
TOUCHSTONE CORPORATION $5,000
UNITED ASSN PLB&PIPE; FTG IND #32 $5,000
VULCAN INC. $5,000
WA CONSERVATION VOTERS ACTN FUND $5,000
WA MUTUAL BANK $5,000
WA ST BLDG & CONST TRADES COUNC $5,000
WALKER DOUGLAS $5,000 SELF CONSULTANT
WASTE MANAGEMENT $5,000
HAINLINE JERRY $4,750 HAINLINE & ASSOC. PRESIDENT
HASTINGS CHERRY $3,200 NONE RETIRED
HASTINGS GREGORY $3,200 GH HASTINGS ASSOC. INVESTMENTS
LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC. $3,000
LMN ARCHITECTS $3,000
FOSTER PEPPER PLLC $2,500
FOSTER PEPPER PLLC $2,500
KOTKINS JR. HENRY L. $2,500 SKYWAY LUGGAGE CO. CHAIRMAN
PORT BLAKELY TREE FARMS LP $2,500
SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 66 PAC $2,500
TRANSPORTATION CHOICES COALITION $2,500
CH2M HILL INC. $2,000
GRIFFIN HILL & ASSOCIATES LLC $2,000
HERRERA ENVIRO CONSULTANTS INC. $2,000
HEWITT $2,000
IFPTE LOCAL 17 $2,000
OTAK INC. $2,000
ROSEWATER ENGINEERING INC. $2,000
THE BLUME COMPANY $2,000
W.P. COBURN INC. $2,000
BACKER THOMAS $1,000 SELF LAWYER
COCKER FENNESSY INC. $1,000
EARL JOAN M. $1,000 SOUND TRANSIT CEO
FEHR & PEERS $1,000
FENPRO LP $1,000
GEOENGINEERS INC. $1,000
GOGERTY STARK MARIOTT INC. $1,000
GOVERN AGNES $1,000 SOUND TRANSIT MANAGEMENT
JEWELL SALLY $1,000 REI RETAIL
MARK JONATHAN $1,000 SELF SOFTWARE DEVELOPER
NAIOP WA STATE CHAPTER $1,000
RAINIER PLAZA LLC $1,000
SELIG MARTIN $1,000 SELF DEVELOPER
THOMPSON PHILIP $1,000 PERKINS COIE ATTORNEY
WASHINGTON GROUP INTERNAT INC. $1,000
PORTER & ASSOCIATES INC. $550
BARBIERI MARK $500 WASHINGTON HOLDINGS REAL ESTATE
BOSS DONALD $500 KINKISHARYO INT'L MANAGER
CIVILTECH ENGINEERING $500
DAVIS AUBREY $500 GACO WESTERN CHAIRMAN
ILGENFRITZ ERIC $500 SOUND TRANSIT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MAIN RONALD $500 SELF LOBBYIST
MARTIN FLYNN PUBLIC AFFAIRS INC $500
MCCUMBER MARY $500 NONE RETIRED
MINKOFF MARTIN $500 EAGLE HARBOR GROUP CONSULTANT
SHELDEN MATTHEW $500 SOUND TRANSIT TRANSIT PLANNER
SHER RON $500 METROVATION PRESIDENT
WALKER MARCIA $500 SOUND TRANSIT ADMIN.
WILLIAMS JAMES F. $500 PERKINS-COIE ATTORNEY
FAZEL AHMAD A. $400 SOUND TRANSIT ENGINEER
PATRICK GEOFFREY $400 SOUND TRANSIT COMMUNICATIONS
BROOKE BRIAN $300 SOUND TRANSIT MANAGER
MCCARTAN BRIAN $300 SOUND TRANSIT FINANCE

"The reality is that if voters reject light rail this year, the idea expanding it north, south and east, won't go away. People will actually be riding it next year. That usually results in desire for more, not less, not a big wave of support for more buses instead. Maybe that is why the cranky old light rail haters are so stewed up this time around."

We only need to wait a couple more years to see if you are correct or not. Wouldn't it be better to see how the first segment of light rail works before we decide whether or not to expand it?

"Because people only drive back and forth to work, right? I've lived in other cities with robust rail links in the city, along with lots of buses (Boston and Chicago). People ride the train... to the grocery store, out for dinner, to their friend's houses, to the library, etc. People don't use the buses for these activities because they are unreliable, less frequent, and subject to traffic. Tele-commuting is always raised as if it were the tip of a great iceberg of alternatives. In reality, it is a partial solution for a minority of workers to utilize a minority of the time."

There is no traffic problem in non-peak hours in our area. The traffic congestion is only during peak hours. That means the congestion is caused by commuters. Take a significant percentage of commuters off the roads and that will relieve congestion during peak hours.

The most effective, and least expensive ways to take commuters off the roads are telecommuting; car- and van-pooling; adding buses; 4-day workweek.

Prop 1 will have almost zero effect on traffic congestion.

If you are suggesting that I should pay an extra 0.5% sales tax so a few people can take light rail to go out to dinner, or their friends' house, you know where you can stick that 0.5% sales tax increase.

Like I want to pay an extra 0.5% sales tax so you can ride a train to a restaurant once in a while. Yeah, that's a convincing argument to me.

I have no trouble getting to restaurants or my friends homes in my car, thank you very much. And the bus gets me to the downtown library just fine. ST light rail won't take me anywhere I want to go.

"In Chicago there are buses and trains that go to both major airports. People take the train almost exclusively because it's easier on and off, more reliable, and more comfortable. During rush hour people in a hurry opt for the train because it's faster than a cab or the bus."

Again, I say, so what? You can get where you need to go by bus. Buses cost me a lot less in subsidies than light rail.

Why should I pay an extra 0.5% sales tax because you prefer light rail to buses? I don't care what you prefer. Makes no difference to me.

Light rail won't benefit me, or the vast majority of taxpayers. So why should we pay for it?

If light rail is so much better than buses, how much more would you be willing to pay to ride a train, instead of a bus?

If a bus trip is $2 one-way, would you pay $10 for that same trip on light rail? What's it worth to you? Putting you on a train instead of a bus is worth ZERO to me.

Are you starting to understand that yet?

jniles: Thanks for the list of Yes to Prop 1 contributors. That is pretty illuminating.

Interesting claims all around. I was especially amused by Lincoln's statement that: "Since one bus can replace 75 cars, adding buses will make it easier to get on and off freeways, because there will be many fewer cars." I really wish that buying one Metro bus would cause 75 people to become permanent transit patrons. Anyone who has ever seen transit ridership projections knows that ridership projects highest on rail with its own right of way (dependable on-time performance, generally seen as cleaner and safer than buses), followed by streetcars (I don't get it either, but people just seem to like streetcars a lot), with buses in last place (stuck in traffic, perpetually late). If you can't get voters in King County to fund massive highway construction, buses remain a temporary solution. Do the bus people have a plan for the future?

Most Metro buses on main routes are full to capacity during peak hours. When buses are added, they fill up too. The people who ride those buses are people who would otherwise be driving cars -- they are not people who would be walking miles to work every day.

So, this is not just a theory. It is what is actually happening in our area. When Metro adds buses, the buses fill up. Where do you think all those bus riders are coming from?

This is certainly more effective at taking cars off the roads than building light rail, which even ST admits, mostly takes riders out of buses -- not out of cars.

Plan for the future: more telecommuters; more buses; more car pools; more van pools; 4-day workweeks; live closer to work. NO HUGE TAX INCREASE.

By the way, buying one Metro bus can cause a lot more than 75 people to start taking the bus. Each bus can take more than one trip each peak hour. One bus might carry hundreds of different people in each peak hour.

Another point the "matts" of this city don't want to talk about is the fact that the next generation of personal vehicles will be electric/hydrogen and have very low emissions - the neeed for roads is not going to somehow go away.

At the same time, if you want to make rail effective, go ahead and 'pave' over Seattle with tracks - oh, I forgot, new right of ways for cars are a no-no, but it will be OK to starting destroying houses for a spider web of tracks.

New freeways designed for the traffic of NOW make sense. And NO, we haven't been adding new roads - that's the reason we are in the mess we are in now.

My NO vote is in the mail !

Jon Talton, welcome to Seattle, where things aren't what they seem. By the nuts, phonies and cranks posting on this thread, you can see Old Seattle likes to raise its ugly head every once in a while.

I see you came from cities with active, thriving conservatives who were actually honest in their positions.

Here, we have fake Democrat legislators like Debo, who pay more attention to the pie-in-the-sky transportation ideas of a right wing thunk tank which also brought us Intelligent Design. I hope you have some fun digging into their bizzaro theories and PR/propaganda efforts...nobody else in the Seattle media has tried. Debo used to work for them, so she's got an inside line on whatever next stupid idea they come up with.

Another faux transit supporting faker who has made a cottage industry out of the anti-rail fight is jniles. John Niles is another employee of the Discovery Institute, also working for the Kemper-funded Washington Policy Institute. If you want to see frightening right wing ideology in action, check the video posted over on SLOG comment thread yesterday (thurs) around noon. See, the right wingers in this town decided they couldn't get too far spreading their self-centric anti-community messages in progressive Seattle. So, instead, they hire frontmen like jniles to fake support for transit...when the real purpose is to stop any kind of effective urban mass transit system. John Niles is now into his third decade of fighting grade-separated rail. His inspiration? The dastardly DC Metro system which changed out his half-empty bus for a train...which was (the horrors) crowded. A sure sign of the failings of rail.

Niles has invested so much time and personal animosity into this jihad, he can't even tell if he's telling the truth anymore or not. Witness the constant lying about the true cost of Prop 1...his fellow disgruntled engineer buddt Jim MacIsaac even admitted to the Times last week the big number ($107 b) these passive-aggressive ideologues came up with this go-round was totally bunk.

If you look Niles and the rest of the Kemper distortionists up, you will find a whole string of dismissed lawsuits, petty nit-picking, Republican lobbying, junk science studies ... you name it. All this garbage thrown at us transit supporters with the hope of delaying / stopping the light rail project.

Monorails, vanpools, robotic cars (not kidding), Personal Rapid Transit, foot ferries, telecommuting, free buses, carpools... they come up with a new "light rail alternative" each year or two.

Since each one of these silly concepts falls flat on its face within a couple months, a new one has to take its place. The latest scam? BRT sans the "rapid" part. Yeah, just paint a line on the street, order some new buses, and you're good to go.

Give you a concrete example: many of the BRT snake oil salesmen also opposed construction of the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel years ago. They also opposed a minor tax hike for Rapid Ride. See, if you can't drive your car on it, 8 times out of 10, the faux BRT set is gonna be...well, opposed to BRT.

I like the latest talking point coming out of this camp: we gotta wait and see whether light rail works in Seattle before we build more. Yeah, right. Like these foaming ideologues will ever acknowledge the effectiveness and future capacity superiority of light rail. They just spent a decade trying to slow and delay the 17 miles coming on line next year. John Niles just spent the last five predicting doom and gloom with the Sound Transit budget and construction schedules (Metro, monorail, WSDOT, Airport Authority: all ignored, naturally). When jniles' foot ferry fiasco ever hits the front page, think he'll be out front defending it? Same way he ducked away from monorail (and telecommuting for that matter) when those "fabulous and futuristic" ideas tanked?

I could go on, Jon - but I think you would have some fun uncovering these fakers on your own.
Win or lose Nov. 4th, the fakers aren't going away. See, even when the obsessive anti-rail cranks lose another fight, they just dust themselves off, get up, find another rich anti-transit nut to fund them...and start all over again. Using all the same tired arguments. And lies, of course.

After the defeat of Prop 1 last year, they made all kinds of empty promises about the "new horizon" of "innovative" transportation alternative which would take light rail's place (Libertarian's dream: Lexus lanes for their funders, and buses for the poor) Since then, all I've been reading and hearing about is a local bus agency with big budget problems, and a tolling proposal everybody hates.

These failures, Jon, are the sure signs of 'success,' according to our unique breed of anti-rail activists in Seattle.

(and for anybody who thinks I'm being overly harsh or rhetorical: I can back up each and every statement I've made here. Usually, with the transit critics' own statements or actions)

Some additional tips on the frequent flying wildlife here @ Crosscut comment thread land:

Can't say anything mean about Douglas Tooley. Just read his blog, and you will see why.

Lincoln. This guy is a trip. He does an excellent job performing the role of Old Seattle stuck-in-the-mud luddite. His primary obsession: stopping growth. In Seattle. Which is a city. Sub-issues: stoppinf human reproduction, immigration and...employers from hiring more people. All, very worthwhile and realistic goals, dontcha think? Lincoln doesn't like people traveling too far, because they might get in the way of him and his car. Lincoln moved here from somewhere else, but somehow got it in his mind he would be the last one. Think a guy like that would follow his own advice and move, should his employer relocate? Think again. Most of these NIMBY rail haters operate under a single mantra: change = bad. Same old habit path + limited/zero social interaction = just right.

As such, rail is the anti-Christ. It violates every fiber of Lincoln's existence. (thus far, Lincoln has been able to revel in the relative isolation of his own windows-always-rolled-up car.) Which explains why Lincoln is always desperately grasping at new straws...and almost always gets everything wrong.

How's about Lincoln's doozy about "telecommuting just getting started?" Anybody want to tell the guy that Nixon has left office?

Also a fine example of spinning ignorance:

"Metro had a 0.1% sales tax increase in 2006, and expects that will add 50,000 to 60,000 additional transit trips by 2016."

Uh, well, for one thing...anybody paying attention knows that the 50k figure was made up (remember, the cranks only trust Ron Sims when his bs matches their bs) Second, that fabricted number includes service resulting from growth in ridership from the other 0.8ths sales tax. But, more importantly, by the time Metro gets around to ramping up Rapid Ride, inflation, congestion and high driver costs will likely zero out the nifty new "cheap and easy to deploy" service. Why, Ron Sims was just on the radio a couple weeks ago talking about asking the legislature for more sales tax authority.
Funny how often people are willing to fall for bogus information when it suits their purposes. I operate in the exact opposite fashion: if I decide I'm going to get behind a candidate or measure, I wanna know damn well that I'm not going to have to be left apologizing for my stupid decision years down the line. Lincoln would seem to invite such embarrassment. Time after time.

Last bit of advice for Crosscut's newest addition (a fine one, I might add).

Ignore Ted Van Dyk. He touted his foreign policy experience when he rolled back into town, and then proceeded to sleep through the invasion and occupation of Iraq. At $10 billion per month, Ted decided it would be much more worthwhile to fight a $30 million streetcar near South Lake Union. And a $9 billion light rail/bus/commuter rail expansion.

Ted Van Dyk talks a lot about priorities - and you can tell he got his financial watchdog priorities straight. Being a transportation engineer, and all. But the best part about Ted Van Dyk (aside from all the myths and conspiracy theories he pulls from anti-rail fanatics' emails and repeats ad nauseum)...Ted says it all boils down to topography. Too many hills and water here (tell that to SF)

In classic Van Dyk fashion, he got that one totally bassackwards, too. Expensive/limited rights of way make the case FOR high capacity transit - not the other way around, as he believes. Moving the largest amount of people - with capacity to grow - is the way you take advantage of limited rights of way options.

Also keep in mind: the second Seattle or any other government took the big step, and actually displaced an already jammed lane of cars in favor of a couple buses...well, that's when Lincoln, Ted Van Dyk, and the rest of the solo driving addicts would become UNHINGED. And that's also when these phony think tank types go scurrying away...hiding from any fallout they might have accidentally unleashed.

Again, it comes back to honesty. At least Kemper Freeman, Dick Cheney and Jim Horn are (mostly) honest in their terribly unpopular and destructive beliefs. Their apologist phonies, who make all this garbage up about buses matching rail in speed, reliability, effectiveness...they kinda bug me. Can you tell?

NO HUGE TAX INCREASE.

..and who wants to tell Lincoln that the big property tax increase for Bridging the Gap - you know, paving the roads his buses need to drive on - was actually larger than the tax increase ST is asking for now?

Don't worry. Lincoln won't be surprised when confronted with this small perspective-oriented factoid. He ignores anything and everything which doesn't conform to his anti-growth/ anti-population agenda.

MadisonAve -

It's interesting that you can throw around accusations - true or not - about real people, who use their real names, or identifiable tags, but fail to identify yourself.

While there is a case to be made for Prop 1, it sure isn't being made on these postings. The arguments here are conveniently black and white - pro-Prop 1 is good and everyone else is un-American and probably hangs out with terrorists.

Sound familiar?

My argument for the past four years has been that transportation is a system. The modes have to work together, connected to and supportive of the underlying land use. Like many of my colleagues who study the data closely, I'm concerned that Prop 1 takes up 'way too much money for 'way too little benefit. I'm not a BRT-only fan; I want to see rail on the eastside. My major concern is that the proposed light rail routing to/fro and in support of the eastside is geared entirely to the last century and to a incredibly narrow band of interests.

While I'll discuss the pros and cons with anyone who wants to engage, I'm not actively opposing the initiative. Like Sims, I'm just waiting to see what the public says on November 4. We'll work with whatever the public delivers.

In the meantime, MadisonAve, care to come out from behind the curtain when throwing around accusations?

Bridging the Gap Total cost -- $544 million over 9 years.

Prop 1 Total cost -- at least $22 billion, and the tax does not end there.

Bridging the Gap property tax: $155 per owner of $400,000 house (2007)

Prop 1 sales tax: $300 per household in 2009

Bridging the Gap rebuilds or repaves 200 lane-miles of roads over 9 years.

Prop 1 builds 34 miles of new light rail in 15 years.

BRIDGING THE GAP:

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/BridgingtheGap.htm

Over nine years the Seattle Department of Transportation will:

Resurface, restore, or replace approximately 200 lane-miles of arterial streets.
Rehabilitate or replace 3-5 bridges and seismically retrofit 5 additional bridges.
Repair or restore 144 blocks of sidewalks.
Build 117 blocks of new sidewalks.
Rehabilitate 40-50 stairways.
Restripe 5,000 crosswalks.
Create "safe routes to schools" near 30 elementary schools.
Support the development and implementation of a Pedestrian Master Plan.
Provide funding to implement the Bicycle Master Plan.
Add 4 miles of new multi-use paths.
Replace over 150,000 small, faded street and regulatory signs.
Provide funding for neighborhood-identified street improvements.
Secure up to 45,000 hours of new Metro Transit service.
Enhance transit and safety improvements on 3 key transit corridors.
Prune 25,000 street trees to prevent safety and security hazards.
Plant 8,000 new street trees.
Fund 3 major capital improvement projects: Spokane Street Viaduct, Mercer Street Corridor, and King Street Station.

Bridging the Gap: No bonds, so no interest payments -- all $544 million will be spent on projects.

Prop 1: Will sell billions of dollars of bonds -- billions of dollars will go for interest payments, instead of building anything.

Bridging the Gap includes 200 lane-miles of roads and 45,000 hours of bus service with just a part of $544 million.

Prop 1 includes just 34 miles of new light rail and 100,000 hours of bus service for the vast majority of around $22 BILLION -- FORTY TIMES AS MUCH MONEY AS IN BRIDGING THE GAP.

Lincoln is obsessed with large numbers, the same way he is fearful of large numbers of people.

I was talking about the cost per average household. Which was larger with Bridging the Gap.

You think another set of roads and bridges won't need to be replaced in 10 years?

I also get a kick out of the way Lincoln mixes and matches current dollar figures and YOE - year of expenditure.

The guy has a knack for butchering just about every method for measuring anything. It's part of the hysterical nature of fighting "the beast" that is density/caused by light rail. And fighting a few personal demons, I would imagine. If you dislike human interaction, why on earth would you live in a fast-growing city?

Average cost per household of Bridging the Gap: $155 per year

Average cost per household of Prop 1: $300 per year

Prop 1 would cost almost twice as much per household as Bridging the Gap.

I already gave that information, genius. You have a reading comprehension problem?

Bridging the Gap: 200 miles of rebuilt or repaved roads in 9 years, plus a whole lot more, all paid for in 9 years. Cost: $544 million

Prop 1: 34 miles of new light rail in 15 years, but takes 30 years to pay for. Cost: at least $22 BILLION.

As a 4th generation local, I have long beem hoping for light rail to replace the old interuban system. You used to be able to ride from Tacoma to Everett. We tore it out, about 10 years later, we tore out and paved over 80 plus miles of streetcar line.

My frustration with Sound Transit is the new line from Downtown to SeaTac is part light rail, but to make it acceptable, it became part streetcar too.

To me, a good light rail system has seperate grades. Skytrain in Vancouver, is a great example.

Our 2.4 billion dollar partial replacement of the interurban covers just shy of 16 miles of the previous 60 mile line, and is a classy looking streetcar down the Rainier Valley. Yes the lights will be tied to the train... but one accident blocking the tracks now impacts the entire system. And there is no alternate route.

Say what you want about the monorail, but the reason more than 46 million tickets have been sold despite duplicate bus service on mulitple routes is a Seperate Grade. The monorail NEVER gets stuck in traffic. (it took us 17-18 years to find a "driver" foolish enough to crash into the other train at the pinch)

I have no problem with a streetcar down Rainier... but once the decision was made, the die was cast. 33 minutes at BEST to the airport... and that is not the main line for growth for the city.

If we could do a "do over", it wouldhave been to vote in Forward Thrust back in 1966...

I am still uncertain how I will vote on this one. But There is a frustration with Transportation "solutions" round here.

Spoke with my oldest, Sergeant First Class Mark, this morning. He'd received his absentee ballot and voted and he wanted to ask some questions and give me his thoughts.

First...props to USPS since I Express Mailed it to him Monday from Bothell, and he got it in Bamburg, Germany Wednesday. Additionally, he told me (he would know since he's a journalist too), USPS is offering free Express Mail from 10/28 to 11/4 for the ballots of service men and women so that they will be postmarked and received in time for them to be counted.

Kudos, USPS.

But I digress...SFC Mark took one look at Prop 1 and said not just No! but HELL NO! From a tax grab standpoint, he found it singularly objectionable.

He took one look at the .05% increase in the sales tax and hit the roof. When I told him this was to fund expansion of a system that failed to honor promises made to voters years ago and that hasn't moved a single person a single foot via light rail, he doubly hit the roof.

He speculated, and I confirmed his speculation since I agree wholeheartedly, that much of the enthusiasm for light rail isn't transportation oriented at all - it's all about keeping up with the Jones' of other cities who have it.

Status, baby, status...No matter how much it costs or how pathetic it is (or, in this case isn't, since it isn't operational), there are a great many out there who must have it to satisfy an inner need for bragging rights.

When people crow about living in "fast growing" or "sophisticated, cosmopolitan" urban centers, hold onto your wallet because they want in to fund fiscal foolishness all to ornament Christmas tree-like the city in which they live.

Another example is Frank Chopp's latest goofus idea to transform the viaduct into a shopping mall or some silly such thing.

When you can't get the support of our men and women in uniform, you might as well fold your trains and head back to the roundhouse.

The Piper

Yes, "being competitive" or "keeping up with the Jones" = same thing.

I got a call from a campaign volunteer of the Sierra Club, since I'm a member. I started asking her some questions and she didn't really have solid answers. But then she said something about "we need light rail to be competitive with other cities." Ugh. I pointed out that most other cities were using existing rail lines, or the costs were a fraction of those here.

Competitiveness is about return on investment, about adding value, not just about doing something because everyone else does it. Every other municipality said "build WPPSS" - but the Seattle City Council did not. Who ended up being "more competitive?"

Piper has a son in the military that after seeing Prop 1 for the first time* voted no based on taxes going up? Why didn't you tell me? I'm glad I haven't mailed in my ballot yet.

* ah, modern democracy

Matt,

I have two sons in the military, and three other adult children, all of whom were raised in King County and all of whom instinctively know a rip-off when they see one.

They've watched pork barrel programs like Prop 1 before, and they know that any politician who takes about "necessary investments" is preparing to do a snatch and grab on their wallets or purses.

They've seen this stuff before - and they're not fools (How could they be? - Consider their source). They refuse to be swindled, and they vote accordingly.

the Piper

In my experience, not everyone who has worked for the Discovery Institute supports the promotion of Intelligent Design. Not by a long shot.

My view is that people who really want to reform the government here and improve transportation ought to be for Prop. 1 - there are no fatal flaws in the proposal and perceptions of relative benefits to costs should be weighed against delay in doing anything. "Cost too much, does too little" is clever, but it doesn't tell the whole story.

Compared to what?

A vague new bus/rail vision that doesn't have the support to put on the ballot? A road focused ballot measure? What? Specifics please, along with the votes, or at least a large gathering of credible leadership standing behind them. Haven't seen that yet. The anti-campaign has the appearance of being mostly a collection of rigid ideologues who could never agree on any alternative.

None of this fight club goes away if voters say NO. It is rewarded. Again. What gets done? Zip.

The biggest hurdle to actually reforming regional government has been the wait for the Sound Transit votes - which has basically been dictated by the legislature. If it fails, we wait some more. If it passes, we might actually be able to do something in time to assemble the necessary agreement for a "new vision" and craft a government to accomplish it - a whole lot better and faster than the NO vote alternative.

""Cost too much, does too little" is clever, but it doesn't tell the whole story.

"Compared to what?"

Compared to adding buses, which is going to happen because we already passed "Transit Now" in 2006, which will add about 60,000 transit trips by 2016. This is the same number of additional transit trips that Prop 1 would add for seven times the cost, and twice the length of time -- Prop 1 would not add 60,000 additional transit trips until 2030.

Also compared to doing nothing. Prop 1 costs taxpayers at least $22 billion over the next 30 years. Doing nothing costs taxpayers nothing.

And, as I wrote above, we are already doing something, because about 300 new buses are going to be added to Metro's fleet between now and 2016. Those are already being paid for with the 0.1% sales tax increase that was voted into effect in 2006.

Wait and see how the first segment of light rail works.

Wait and see how the first RapidRide bus routes and additional hours of bus service work.

Then decide if we need to do anything additionally, or not.

In the meantime, continue to increase telecommuting; car- and van-pooling; and increase the number of people who work 4 days per week. The Governor has already begun having a few state workers work 4 days a week.

By the way, ST is projecting that the revenue from a 0.5% sales tax will increase by about 5% per year. ST projects that in 2014, the revenue from a 0.5% sales tax will be about 27% higher than the revenue from a 0.5% sales tax in 2009. Waiting five years means about 27% more revenue for ST in the first year of the tax. It's not likely that construction costs would increase by 27% over the next five years, especially since the construction/housing bubble has burst, and commodity prices, including steel and concrete, are falling like rocks.

So waiting a few years would likely mean that more could be built with a 0.5% sales tax starting in 2014 than could be built with the same tax starting in 2009. Waiting a few years would pay off in many ways.

Prop 1 compared to what? You want to know what?

Compared to the program described in the Sound Transit no-new-taxes 2009 budget posted (buried, obscurely) on the web at http://www.soundtransit.org/x1230.xml . See if you can spot it.

Ironically, Sound Transit held a public hearing on this budget in Union Station at the same time Dow Constantine was debating Kemper Freeman about Prop 1 at the Seattle CityClub on October 16th.

Sound Transit's no-Prop-1 alternative plan includes light rail from SeaTac Airport to Husky Stadium, fully-funded once the Democratic Congress delivers Sound Transit's second New Starts construction grant, $813 million. This train is a done deal.

(It's short one station at each end and a few in the middle, but opening fully in 2016 is close enough for Sound Transit to say "mission accomplished." Let ST take a bow ... what's a few extra billions when you have a tax stream tied down in bond covenants.)

Now, you can read all about the Prop-1-double-Sound-Transit's-taxes plan versus the Sound-Transit-spend-the-money-you-are-already-getting plan at http://www.bettertransport.info/pitf/SoundTransit'sPlanB.htm

What Sound Transit will keep on doing absent the Prop 1 doubling is a long ways from what Jan calls "Zip."

All of Prop 1's tiddly little improvements in Sounder and Regional Express Bus services are already authorized under the existing Sound Move tax stream, and affordable over the next few years if Sound Transit sticks to its knitting and follows the 1996 voter-approved plan through to completion.

This constant yakity-yak from light rail foamers about 40 years of inaction on transit is rubbish. Sound Transit has been collecting one million dollars per day for years and carrying more riders every month, while at the same time buses are full to the walls all over the region. Where has Sound Transit been in the 12th year of its 10 year plan? Not carrying more passengers, but cooking up how to collect and spend more money.

The argument now is what the region should do WITH ADDITIONAL TRANSIT tax collections. Here are the choices:

Prop 1: Double down on Sound Transit's "success" to date. Buy just enough new buses next year for Sound Transit to cope with last years growth and this years growth, and then stop buying buses and work 12 more years on the Seattle "light" subway to add 64,000 net new daily transit trips by 2030 in a region expecting 15 million trips per day! $18 billion additional planned expenditure, and permanent tax authority to go higher if the budget doesn't happen to work out.

Call me an obstructionist, but you might not want to vote for that scheme!

Alternative to Prop 1, beyond letting Sound Transit finish what they started: Anybody ever think of asking the four existing transit agencies -- three of which (Metro, Pierce Transit, and Community Transit) already provide Sound Transit's drivers and bus maintenance under contract -- what they would do with a fair share of 1/2 cent of sales tax growth in a region of three million people?

These agencies would jump for joy to start with. They could give a lot more transit customers a place to sit down on a vehicle if they were getting collectively even half of that additional million dollars per day sales tax stream. The other half could be used for fixing the road infrastructure to give buses more priority.

Instead, Sound Transit wants 19 more train stations at over one half billion dollars each.

Municipal governments all over the region know how to make the streets work better for buses, and in a few places already are making that happen, or are in the process. Furthermore, Swift and Rapid Ride arterial BRT are bus improvement programs already funded.

And Sound Transit, where's that ORCA smart card fare program you promised in 1996? A major reason buses are slow is people fumbling for change while the driver and passengers wait. Let's make an electronic fare card mandatory, sold at every 7-11, Starbucks and MacDonalds. We are in the 21st century, after all.

Jan says: "The biggest hurdle to actually reforming regional government has been the wait for the Sound Transit votes - which has basically been dictated by the legislature. If it fails, we wait some more. If it passes, we might actually be able to do something in time to assemble the necessary agreement for a 'new vision' and craft a government to accomplish it - a whole lot better and faster than the NO vote alternative."

I wish I believed that. It certainly doesn't reflect my experience with (and research into) institutions and bureaucracies.

Institutions, once created and especially if generously funded, tend to self-perpetuate - and to get really annoyed when its suggested that they change in ways that diminish or change their power(s). When/if Prop 1 passes, I think ST will interpret it as a popular affirmation of their point of view and will spend even more money making sure that no reform legislation is ever seriously considered in Olympia.

In that event, there's a better chance of improving the over-all system by continuing to explore new performance measures, what we mean by and how we measure "multi-modal concurrency", how we measure "mobility" and the success of our "plans". A new focus on VMT will ensure a tight connection to land use (and housing, if we've got any sense at all) and may get us where we need to go ... but from a totally different angle.

In the meantime, of course, there's always the chance that Tim Eyman will write an initiative and take care of this whole situation for us ...

OK. Now show the support for the Niles alternative to Prop. 1. Not just the views of one of the more reasonable alternative idea guys. The opportunity has been there for over a decade. Where is the support? MacDonald was on the Board for most of those years. Sims was on that Board for all of them. Each also had plenty of other opportunities to collect support for a viable alternative. The results: Zippo. There is a reason for that.

The first step toward change is often recognition of powerlessness of a singular idea unless replaced with focus on the higher power that comes with a large group - big enough to actually do something that can be sustained through thick and thin.

My thinking is that Sound Transit doesn't need to go away to effectively reform regional government. Soon it will be operating light rail through the most populated parts of the region. It will be building more to the UW. And possibly be building even more. That's enough for one agency to do. By the time anybody successfully explains "multi-modal concurrency" to anybody who is not confined to a transportation ivory tower, the earth will have turned into the sun. The new regional government we need isn't just about a transit system, it has got to be about land use, the environment and other truly regional transportation matters to be worth the effort. Most transit service is best held accountable locally, not second guessed by a regional board meeting in Seattle.

Olympia can't seem to reform regional government- even with the help of the state's best lobbyists hired by a billionaire who isn't afraid to buy the one he wants, and the able assistance of some of the most savvy and powerful state legislators. We'll wind up with an initiative that might pass and spend the next four to six years organizing a new government that might be ready in 2012. I'd rather be building something during that time than sitting on our collective butts waiting for a perfect ballot measure. It looks like we could use the jobs.

Jan -

Your opinion is certainly shared by some. I don't find the challenge of "so what's your idea?" to be very useful. We're not voting on my idea, or John Niles' idea.

I see some inconsistency in acknowledging the need to connect transit, land use, the environment at the regional level (agreed) and then suggesting that "local accountability" is best for transit.

BTW, I'm not in a transportation ivory tower. There are a whole bunch of us who have been elected to study, know and think about this stuff at something beyond the sound-bite level (quite apart from the think tanks). I have a responsibility to the public to give my opinion. The Prop 1 routing for light rail across I-90 is not in the best interests of this region or the environment. I stand by that assessment.

I also stand by the six-lane SR520 configuration. Notions that we can or should build eight lanes now (or that more lanes somehow reduce GHG) are just delusional.

Yes, some believe that Prop 1 can pass, and then we can work to change the routing to a more useful configuration. I don't believe that's credible.

You, too, make some accusations - in particular, about John Stanton and buying "the state's best lobbyists". I did not see any lobbyists associated with either John Stanton or Norm Rice last session. Both of those men spoke for themselves.

I did see "the state's best lobbyists" bought and paid for by Sound Transit, using taxpayers' dollars, pursuing a scorched-earth strategy on any discussion of restructuring. Their rationale? It might impact their powers or authority!

I do see a disturbing trend in the contributions to Prop 1, reflecting support from the industries that will benefit from this spending and faint-praise contributions from some of this region's biggest employers.

I'd rather be building something, too, and I'm mad as hell that, after all these years and all this money, the ST Board couldn't come up with something more compelling and of greater service to this region. And, yes, we may end up building the damned thing. But don't for a minute think that it delivers "Mass Transit Now", as advertised.

Opponents of light rail often argue that they have a better alternative. Yet they can never seem to get enough people to agree with them to make their alternative viable. The bus emphasis people never have. The road emphasis people never have. Impass is not an option. Sound Transit is the only regional action plan to date that has had any success. The only one.

Most people who depend on transit depend on a local bus, not a regional bus or train. The further away you get from the route, the further away you get from the reality. Yes, Tri-Met in Portland runs buses and rail within an district including the most urbanized portions of that Metro area, yet the Tri-Met district, in size, is smaller than King County.

I didn't say you were an ivory tower. But if you can sell regional governance reform with something called "multi-modal concurrency" - a concept generally understood, or misunderstood, only within ivory towers - you must have more powers than the Gods.

Routing of rail on I-90 is not a Prop. 1 routing. It is a routing that has been planned as agreement was made to build the I-90 bridges. It is the only plan on the table that even begins to deliver the transit everyone knows is needed in downtown Bellevue, sooner (with a timetable) as opposed to later (no known timetable). The only one. No other plan could seriously contend for better environmental or transportation performance. Why? Because there is no other plan and getting agreement one that has the backing to succeed would probably take a decade. That's probably one reason why the Bellevue Downtown Association supports Prop. 1.

Anybody who'd have spent money on lobbying on regional government last session would have been really dumb. It had no traction at all last session. All you need to know about expenditures for lobbying by anyone is on the web site of the Public Disclosure Commission. Sound Transit's lobbying methods are notoriously lame. They took the hit for scorched earth in 2007, but the RTID lobby was right there with them.

I recall the rationale that killed reform being: the timing is bad. Better to wait until after a regional vote, or two.

And OK. At least we get to vote "Now." Let's think about the alternative. What is it, specifically? Who supports it? And when does it happen? Is that more "Now," than now?

It's easy for me to believe that Seattle's terrain and major water hazards make transportation costly. High land prices don't help. But voters should at least acknowledge that it is not going to get easier. I-5 has already claimed a huge portion of our city; the streets are pretty crowded; buses get jammed up along with the cars and I agree with commenters above that in the retail core buses are already at or very near their capacity limit.

So rail is expensive, exasperatingly slow to go online, poorly planned and managed, crippled by high wages and costly engineering but at some point I have to say there is no convincing alternative. Jan's arguments are convincing. If there were other options out there why are they so sketchy? do we need ten years of $5 and $10 gas to get this thing going?

Gas just fell below $3 per gallon and is dropping like a rock. It's not going to get anywhere near $5, let alone $10 in the next several years.

Jan makes no arguments at all.

Light rail does NOT increase capacity through downtown Seattle, so you gain ZERO with light rail there. All you are doing is replacing the buses in the downtown tunnel with light rail which has NO more capacity than buses in the tunnel. So that argument is completely false.

On the I-90 floating bridge, light rail taking up the center lanes would GREATLY REDUCE the capacity of that bridge. The I-90 bridge can carry far more people per hour with buses, vans and car-pools in the center lanes than with the center lanes converted to light rail only.

On highways, buses reduce congestion by taking about 75 cars off the road for every bus added, at about 1/7 the cost of building light rail.

ST light rail will cost about $1.24 per passenger mile to OPERATE, compared to about $0.75 per passenger mile for Metro buses. So, for the same amount of revenue, we can move a lot more people on buses than on light rail.

What is the argument for light rail? That some people like riding in trains better than on buses? So what? That is worth NOTHING to me. As long as buses are full, as they are now in peak hours, that argument is nonsense.

Buses give us the same or greater capacity than light rail, and are much less expensive to "build" and to operate. We can carry several times as many people with buses as with light rail for the same amount of tax revenue.

There is no debate on that.

There is no case for light rail in our area.

Gasoline at Costco today: $2.64 per gallon. And falling fast.

Oil consumption in the U.S. is now down by ten percent compared to last year. And that was before the stock market crashed this month.

You people who worship light rail: could you at least try to get a few facts straight, just on occasion, please?

Thanks.

There they go again.

On and on.

Everyone has heard all the points and counterpoints for decades, along with all the selective half-truths produced under the guise of "data" from the mouths of the pros and the cons.

Time to move on. I had trouble finding it on my ballot. (What is it with King County and all of these silly ballot measures that dominate the ballot. Can we vote to ban them in a general election year?)

But I just voted yes on Prop. 1, in favor of ending 40 plus years of dithering debate and finally getting something done sooner, rather than later.

Besides, it looks like we need the jobs.

It is comforting to think that crude oil prices are going to continue downward and make mobility cheaper. I wish us luck on that one.

Crude oil futures for Dec. 2012 are around $80 or approximely double what they were 18 months ago. I don't think everyone thinks we are in a cheap oil era. And what's this about no service to Seattle? is their map a lie too?

Actual oil prices are less than half of what they were a few months ago, and falling steadily.

What do oil futures have to do with anything? In 2004, what was the oil futures price for oil in October 2008? Do you know? Does that matter? Some traders may want to lock in the price of oil in the future, but for you and me, and everyone else, futures prices mean nothing. The actual price of a barrel of oil in 2012 could be anything. The great likelihood is that it will be about the same as it was in 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2007, after adjusting for inflation.

Can you please supply a reference for the cost per passenger mile of rail and of bus, mentioned above as $1.24 and 0.75 respectively?

Good points about the tunnel capacity not being greater with rail than with the current buses, and of how there's a substitution, not addition of capacity both there and on I90. On I90, there may have been a conceptual understanding that rail could be used there, but at what price? How much shorter a life for the bridge deck makes rail worthwhile?

Ted (and others who seem to have a singular view of all government expenditures):

When we make an investment of public funds, shouldn't we consider what we get for the investment rather than just the amount of the investment?

The choice between fixed rail (or dedicated lane) transit and building roads or adding bus routes is mainly about land economics. Total system cost, or cost per mile or per rider, etc. is almost irrelevant to the vast value created by fixed rail transit in the station areas. Fixed rail adds enormous value to the land, supports larger numbers of people living there without sending so many of our American dollars to the OPEC regimes. Investments in rail create American wealth; investments in roads create Iranian and Saudi wealth. Adding bus routes without dedicated lanes is the same economic effect as building roads, building dedicated bus lanes is nearly as expensive as building rail lines.

Government actions shape the market, both at home and abroad, we can facilitate the greatest wealth transfer (from us to them) in human history, or we can create great communities and cities.

Oh yeah, and in addition to creating wealth, a rail system might help stabilize the climate, prevent air pollution, and improve public health, but what do I care, I don't breathe much anyway.

Myth #1: The problem can be solved by adding more buses.

This is true. Here in the exurb of Kent, bus service is well used. The problem is that too much of it is focused on exurb to downtown (which is the only route that light rail follows).

Yet, surveys show that most trips are within Kent or to adjoining communities like Auburn.

Overpriced "light rail" system deprive neighborhoods of useful lower cost bus routes.

Myth #2: Pave, baby, pave.

Reality. There aren't enough highways in the exurbs. The system is weighted to moving people in and out of downtown Seattle and Bellevue.

Guess what? Practically nobody works there! People work in a myriad of low rise office buildings spread arough Puget Sound.

Yet, highway building has not kept pace.

Examples here in Kent abound. West Valley Highway should be a major interstate size road. People get off on 84th travel through downtown Kent and up East Hill and Kent Kangley just to get to Covington and Maple Valley. There sould be a ring highway here.

Myth #3: Public transit is too costly.

Fares pay for 6 percent of total cost. Those who don't pay for mass transit pay though the nose.

(Seattle-specific) Myth #4: It's not perfect enough.

Portland has seen its traffic grow and grow and grow despite its "perfect" light rail. The light rail has served a smaller and smaller share of traffic. Roads are needed there and in many cases, they were wisely built.

Myth #5: People won't ride it.

If I gave you a $200 plane ticket for $20, you'd take the trip. That's what we do every day with mass transit. You pay 6 cents on the dollar. But that 94 cents is paid by the other people. People know when they're being given free money, but in many cases, they should be using their cars.

> The Prop 1 routing for light rail across I-90 is not in the best
> interests of this region or the environment.
> I also stand by the six-lane SR520 configuration. Notions that we can or should
> build eight lanes now (or that more lanes somehow reduce GHG) are just delusional.

debo,
It's heartening to know there are some elected officials that see the light and are willing to stand up to "'the state's best lobbyists' bought and paid for by Sound Transit."

"Mass Transit Now", as advertised is the biggest con of all. If the Eastside Link across I90 get's built on time it won't open until 2020. For a large proportion of the construction time and forever after it becomes operational I90 will lose it's two reversible lanes. But even that's not the worst part. By 2020 the bridge will be 33 years old. At best a floating bridge can expect a 50 year life; perhaps less given the additional stress of rail traffic for which the bridge is not designed.

I90 functions well now and adding additional HOV lanes to make the current reversible lanes transit only would provide real "Mass Transit Now". Investing the money squandered on a short lived train line that wouldn't be operational for over a decade and have a life span of 15-20 years on a REAL bridge across the SR520 corridor does far more to connect the eastside with downtown Seattle. The eastside is more than downtown Bellevue. For everyone else any "solution" which involves the Bellevue Transit Center, one of the most congested places on the eastside, is a non-starter.