Posted Tue, Mar 29, 3:45 p.m.

Normally, if given the choice, people prefer to get something for free than to pay for it. So when the question of roads’ tolling arises, it is natural for people to resist it. Having been paid for with gas taxes, roads are mostly free now. Why pay for them again? ...

Posted Wed, May 6, 12:57 p.m.

a new “master planned” community of 21,000 houses on more than 11,000 acres. At an average density of roughly one house per acre ---------- Uhem...much of the "green" community is a little weak on math! This is probably why most of this community didn't understand that replacing the center span ...

Posted Sat, Apr 25, 10:43 p.m.

This from the rag that supported the region's biggest boondoggle BY FAR, Sound Transit? I think that the bored tunnel for SR99 is the right decision, especially if the Battery Street Tunnel were retained and connected to Alaska Way, as was the plan earlier, but, as far as I can ...

Posted Thu, Oct 16, 10:13 a.m.

The case for BRT over LRT (light rail) can be found here: http://www.bettertransport.info/pitf/padelford.htm

Posted Thu, Jul 17, 12:26 p.m.

This and that: 1) The statement by a Crosscut writer that Sound Transit has been on-budget since the arrival of Joni Earl is wrong. Emory Bundy has the facts and figures on this. Hopefully he will post here. 2) The benefit of rail in this region is simply, as Nickels ...

Posted Wed, Jun 25, 8:20 p.m.

RE: Still not convinced: The other obvious point that seems to be missing from the series is that we are going to have to build rail or more roads. At least as this statement applies to transit, it is inaccurate. BRT in this region can use HOV lanes converted to ...

Posted Wed, Jun 25, 1:45 p.m.

RE: Puts the Pieces Together: note: This post belongs with the third MacDonald article. DFP

Posted Wed, Jun 25, 1:41 p.m.

Puts the Pieces Together: note: the below was mistakenly posted to the second MacDonald article I have been a critic of Sound Transit largely because, a) I don't see how we can possibly build a complete, 150 mile or so light rail system, no matter how sexy it may seem, ...

Posted Wed, Jun 25, 1:21 p.m.

Puts the Pieces Together: I have been a critic of Sound Transit largely because, a) I don't see how we can possibly build a complete, 150 mile or so light rail system, no matter how sexy it may seem, at well in excess of $300 million a mile -- we ...

Posted Tue, Jun 24, 7:04 p.m.

Railing at reality: It is truly simple to have buses not be caught in congestion. 40 years ago this was not the case, but today we've got a lot of examples of freeway HOT lanes. Combine these with arterial bus-only lanes. Problem solved.

Posted Mon, Jun 23, 11:15 a.m.

Good Article: The only part of the article I take exception with is MacDonald's statement that he "enthusiastically" voted for Light Rail (LRT) to the SeaTac. When it's completed, it will be slower than the 194 (airport express) and will always be slower than the 194 if WSDOT takes reasonable ...

Posted Wed, Apr 23, 4:43 p.m.

RE: This essay entirely ignores density: That means lifting zoning restrictions, and building high-capacity, permanent transit that encourages density. You can't do that with a bus, as has been documented elsewhere. You can do that with Bus Rapid Transit, as has been documented elsewhere.

Posted Fri, Mar 21, 1:54 p.m.

pricing vs rail: "The elements of the strategy are: * Keep the Sound Transit agency as is. * Send the roads piece back to the state (not back to the ballot). * Move full-speed ahead with tolling. ======== If you "mobility price" even one freeway lane each way, then that ...

Posted Thu, Dec 13, 9:15 p.m.

Times Have Changed: Having a heavy rail (like BART, not light rail like Portland's Max) system mostly paid for by the federal government, was a once in a lifetime opportunity, and even though at this point we would be faced with rebuilding it at nearly the cost of the original ...

Posted Mon, Nov 5, 11:10 a.m.

Flawed Argument: Mr Chasan makes a familiar, albeit flawed argument. "If you want to make congestion pricing work ... First, you give people alternative means of transportation." People have alternative means of transportation, namely buses, along with carpools, vanpools, bikes and feet. What's wrong with buses (well, other than they're ...

Posted Tue, Oct 23, 5:32 p.m.

Basically Agree: I basically agree with Prof. Morrill. Urban mobility can be divided between transit and general mobility. Let's take transit mobility (Mobility 101). The answer there is quite simple: price the HOV lanes. Doing so turns them into HOT lanes, providing Bus Rapid Transit a 50-60 mph right of ...

Posted Tue, Oct 9, 9:35 p.m.

Sim's Paradigm Shift: It's hard to shift paradigms in mid-stream as Ron Sims has done. That takes some political courage, so kudos to him. The old paradigm: Raise lots of money in new taxes and throw it at the problem. Hope something sticks. The new paradigm: Use price to regulate ...

Posted Fri, Jun 22, 11:09 a.m.

Brewster's Arguments: Brewster's arguments in favor of rail are: 1) Rail draws "a better class of rider" (the so-called "choice" rider effect) 2) Rail fosters economic development, and 3) Rail concentrates development and promotes "walkable" neighborhoods. 1) There may be some truth to this argument, but it depends. If you ...

Posted Wed, Jun 20, 3:27 p.m.

Morrill Has It About Right: I believe that Morril has it about right. A $38 billion dollar package (and the all-in cost would be considerly higher) that doesn't rebuilt either SR520 or reconfigure the viaduct is sort of crazy. And light rail on I-90, which is the center-piece of this ...