Top of the News

Chosen and ranked by Crosscut editors. Click date for previous days.

Mouse over headline for description.

more top of the news

Advertisement

Advertisement

Sound Transit »

Jun 25, 2008 12:00 AM | last updated Jun 25, 2008 7:21 PM
Crosscut Focus: Transportation. Bus rapid transit in Beijing.

Bus rapid transit in Beijing. (Parsons Brinckerhoff)

SWIFT map.

The planned bus rapid transit line in Snohomish County. Click to enlarge. (Community Transit)

Advertisement
Advertisement

Transit train wreck: Here's how to do buses right

They aren't the only solution, but they are the most flexible and potentially most attractive solution if they are used well. Bus lines are flexible, scalable, and can touch more people than rail, and they don't have to be a pain to use. Part 3 of 3

By Douglas MacDonald

Last of three parts
Part 1: Ridership today and the suggested Sound Transit sales tax increase.
Part 2: Real riders speak, and Sound Transit's model isn't what they want to buy.
Part 3: The must-do agenda for transit and smart growth.


Public transportation in metropolitan Puget Sound today achieves something like 540,000 boardings a day. That's with a narrow definition that doesn't include vanpools or special handicapped or elderly transportation, or getting kids to and from school on school buses, or ride-sharing, or private shuttle vans to the airport, all of which it should. It also leaves aside walking and the bicycle, the healthy, low-fat transportation alternatives.

All these things can contribute more to the transportation task. But to keep it very simple, we'll concentrate here just on so-called "fixed route" transit systems.

Even though the daily boardings seem like a big number, transit's role in the overall daily job of personal transportation is pretty modest. It has a long way to go to play the role it should in an end-of-cheap-oil world. Yet our regional transit network is strong compared to most other places. We have dedicated funding from the slice of the sales tax that goes to transit. Voters will approve more if they see a sensible plan.

Transportation is on the threshold of dramatic changes as we lament the lost luxury of cheap oil and worry about the future. Things need to be different. That includes cars that run on renewable energy and more efficient roads to continue to carry freight as well as a lot of daily personal trips for many people. Changes at the margins of accustomed ways of doing things, however, won't be enough. There needs to be a big shift of trips to shared-vehicle transit.

Transit also must play a key role in shaping and serving communities' growth in housing and jobs. We need compact, transportation-efficient communities that are both desirable — people's first choice — and affordable to people who today are all too literally driven to live in distant and sprawling residential areas. Social engineering is a bad idea for pushing change. Good transit is a good idea. We need to put our energies into the good idea.

Set a goal, take names, and kick butt

Progress must be made with urgency, and it can be if we set a goal and fix accountability for performance. Today, the overall system of transit in the region has no such goal and no effective accountability for an overall program of change.

It's not even clear that King County Metro, Pierce Transit, Community Transit, and Sound Transit are seen by one another, let alone by anybody else, as custodians, together, of a single system working toward a single goal and vision for transportation in the region.

Let's first take the entrepreneurial step of setting a goal. The winds of change will be pushing in the right direction, so let's make the most of our opportunity.

Here a goal: A million total daily transit boardings in the region within five years — 2013.

That's a far more ambitious and useful call to action than embracing the hope of seeing 120,000 new daily riders on Sound Transit's sub-system midway through our children's lifetimes in 2030! It's more in line with Community Transit's announced intention of growing ridership by 50 percent by 2012. That's the spirit we need.

We should judge our plans and results against our ambitious goal and speak plain English to the public about how it will be done and what progress we achieve month by month and year by year.

Look to the future, not the past

It's an open secret that in transit circles and among transportation progressives there's not much enthusiasm outside Sound Transit itself for its current plan. Ask, "Why should we go with the Sound Transit plan?" The most common answer is this: "We've been trying to get this done for a long time and if we don't get it done, we'll never get anything done."

Against that answer comes that verity of transportation planning for as long as people could walk: If you're on the wrong path, it's never too late to turn back.

That does not mean back to the old roads-versus-transit wars. Roads have their own issues — one of the most important is to make sure they can handle transit. But our topic is all about transit. What kind of transit, and where, and how, to deliver transit's promise? There is no weaker retort from Sound Transit to transit-oriented critics than the lame: "If you criticize our plan, you're just for roads." Forget that one. That's not what we're talking about.

Does Sound Transit have a role to play? Yes, but it has to change if it wants to be helpful. A Sound Transit internal budget document contains an interesting mission objective for Sound Transit's combined Public Relations and Planning Department (an unusual and probably un-wise organizational co-habitation):

Establish Sound Transit as the regional think tank for research, analysis and development of strategic policy initiatives that advance the way the industry approaches the provision of public transportation services.

We could use that. But it isn't happening.

Now, Sound Transit recognizes only one brand in the region: Sound Transit. Its corporate strategy and its big advertising budget — who has ever seen its tax-funded equal? — focus overwhelmingly on a single product: rail transit. That won't do for a truly regional-minded transit agency.

Successful organizations build their strategies around meeting customer-driven needs. The customer-driven mission here is to help move ordinary people where they need to go. It's not to lay a few ribbons of expensive rail lines where it seems suitable and convenient to engineering firms, public relations consultants, contractors, and rail buffs.

Sound Transit has to back off the merchandising of this expensive and one-dimensional plan that most people don't need and won't use and enter a collaboration to see how all transit can best work for all the people of the region. The ridership numbers for all the systems are the best place to start the planning.

Regional leaders have to step up

Last year, King County Executive Ron Sims got it right when he broke ranks with the wisdom of the establishment and called out the bankruptcy of Proposition 1, the big tri-county roads-and-transit ballot measure that failed in November. He was met with tongue clucking and even a short-lived shunning. But his focus was clear and correct, and he put the first cracks in the Kool-Aid pitcher.

Other voices around the region are now starting to ask the right questions about the son-of-Proposition 1 transit plan from Sound Transit. This plan will not deliver what needs to be done to help our voters and our communities.

As those rumblings build, the county councils and the other county executives and municipal leaders have to come together with a voice that insists: "Let's do this right!"

Better transit service — especially on the buses

Buses are the workhorses of transit. Even if the most ambitious Sound Transit light rail vision were ever achieved, buses would carry the vast majority of transit riders every day for the entire foreseeable future. The regional statistics put this point beyond debate.

Unfortunately, that fact is discomforting for an elitist ideology deeply entwined in today's transportation gestalt. A car at best is a necessary evil. A bus is always better than a car but not actually good. A rail car is good and better in every way than a bus.

That bias isn't helping. And it isn't even valid. The real question is what works best where. Carpools, vans, and ride share can be very important and should get more attention. Walking is a major transportation mode. There are places where rail will be cost-effective. And buses are crucial.

Buses can be energy-efficient and cost-effective ways of getting people conveniently from place to place. Bus systems offer great capacity, easily scaled up by increments, and great flexibility in deploying and routing equipment to meet needs that change not just from day to day but even as communities' growth changes their transportation needs across years and decades.

But we need a modern bus ride — the best. We should be prepared to pay taxes to help get it. The transit agencies and local governments need better cooperation to overcome challenges and speed up changes.

Here is what modern bus systems offer. Check what we already have and what we need to improve:

  • Most important of all, frequent, frequent, reliable schedules. Where we've offered good schedules, ridership has soared. It's the single attribute of a transit system that always returns the biggest ridership dividend. We need to do still more.
  • Safe, clean, comfortable buses. All around the world the industry standard is improving. We need to show people the best in passenger comfort and convenience from this country and abroad. Our region is already one of the very best in using electric trolleys and hybrid buses for energy efficiency, and more can be done there, too.
  • Covered bus stops with benches and suitable security systems. And information displays that announce when the next bus will arrive. And modern electronic systems so everyone settles up their fare before boarding so that trip times are shorter than today — with, please, the inexplicably delayed regional fare card.
  • Roadways designed and managed to work for transit. Priority at traffic lights to give bus riders the fastest possible trip. Unclogged travel lanes for buses; some curb lane parking will have to make way! HOT lanes on freeways with variable tolls to clear congestion out of lanes that buses share with cars. These are all tried and true practices around the country and the world. Some we are already doing them here, but, especially in Seattle's neighborhoods, clogged streets are slowing buses and trying riders' patience, and we need to do more.
  • Information on the Internet for bus riders as good as what car drivers now get on traffic cam sites, flow maps, and message displays. Look at Busview to see rudiments of the promise, but that is a long way from what it could be! Check out Next Bus on a cell phone the next time you are in Vancouver.
  • Helpful drivers. Courteous fellow passengers. These things exist now, and they can become the norm if we set and enforce the expectation.

Bus rapid transit

Put together the best of buses and bus technology for fast, reliable travel times with faster boarding and less waiting on free-flowing corridors that support frequent service. That's called bus rapid transit [PDF].

With bus rapid transit, you can match and sometimes surpass all the service attractions of light rail. And at a fraction of light rail's cost, because buses can use a lot of right of way we already have, including the existing HOV lanes. They cover a much broader geography than light rail. And at a fraction of light rail's start-up time, because you can implement these kinds of bus solutions with much less capital spending, and you can do it in quick, affordable steps.

To see the action today, you go to cities already seizing bus rapid transit to solve problems like metropolitan Seattle's. Bogota, Colombia, moving more than a million people a day. Nine cities in China. London. Vancouver, B.C., Brisbane [PDF] in Australia. Las Vegas, Cleveland, Eugene [PDF], and Boston [PDF]. This is just a brief selection. This month's news: Bus rapid transit is the preferred choice for a big Metro extension in Los Angeles. International engineering firms [PDF] tout bus rapid transit's ability to attract new riders by combining the high performance characteristics of rail with the flexibility and economy of buses.

To envision how basic bus rapid transit will work here, there's not long to wait until Community Transit in 2009 christens its SWIFT service over a 16-mile, 15-station route from Aurora Village through Shoreline, Edmonds, and Lynnwood to Everett Station. Every 10 minutes, another bus! New, easy-to-board buses. Large and comfortable bus shelters, and more. For a start-up cost not of billions, or even hundreds of millions, but $25 million to $30 million.

King County Metro's first bus rapid transit RapidRide services are planned for five routes: Aurora Avenue North between Shoreline and downtown; downtown and West Seattle across the West Seattle Bridge; Redmond to Bellevue through Crossroads and Overlake; Federal Way to South 154th along Pacific Highway South; and Ballard/Uptown to downtown. But RapidRide on Metro won't be seen on even the first route (Pacific Avenue South) until 2010, with years of implementation for the other routes. That's too slow for a RapidRide.

Even Sound Transit knows about bus rapid transit. It's never been willing to put on the table a first-class bus rapid transit option with HOT lanes for future Interstate 90 service between Seattle and Eastside communities (including Bellevue), for fear the comparison would blow away the expensive light rail plan to Bellevue.

But on Highway 520, Sound Transit agrees bus rapid transit is clearly the wave of at least the foreseeable future, and it offers at least someday (after the new bridge is built) to spend for a new transit center somewhere in the corridor.

As already noted by community members, that's too little, too late in improving transit in the corridor. Advocates for plug-in hybrids have shown how a transit center could be built in South Kirkland that would gather riders from a host of adjacent areas and send them on their way to all the key destinations — while their cars would spent the day at the park-and-ride connected up to the regional power grid. Wouldn't that help shorten one-driver-per-car commutes and seize just one of the opportunities environmentalists have spotted for big greenhouse gas reduction from bus rapid transit?

Eavesdrop on the buses and at the bus stops and you might be surprised that regular people have heard about bus rapid transit and want to see how it can improve their trips. We need to hear the riders themselves and deliver bus rapid transit service that will vastly help those riders and attract many more.

Data and vision should direct transit service expansion

Good examples for service expansions are easy to find. They are too numerous to list in their entirety. If the transit and transportation agencies were working together, both on planning and implementation, and money came available to support a coordinated vision, all kinds of things could be done in short order.

Examples abound.

  • Issaquah is an oddly neglected stepsister in Sound Transit's plan. It's a prime market for expanded service right now (together with Sammamish), but all it gets in the current plan is a promised "light rail feasibility study." It needs new service to Bellevue and Redmond on the Eastside and to downtown Seattle, the University District, and North Seattle across the lake.
  • Pierce Transit Route 53 from University Place to Tacoma Community College isn't as big a route, but it just delivered a 20 percent one-year ridership jump. Look there.
  • Bellevue needs new service — focused on where demand is growing in its own daily travel profile, not on the throw-back vision that the highest need is for suburban suits to commute to their Seattle bank high-rise offices. Bellevue needs service to and from the locations where people live who are working in the new jobs in Bellevue. Last year, Sound Transit's Everett-Bellevue route showed a ridership jump of 24 percent. Lynnwood-Bellevue jumped 31 percent. Auburn-Bellevue jumped 18 percent. There are more riders where those riders came from.
  • In Snohomish County, Everett needs better service to areas east of Interstate 5, south on the Highway 99 corridor, and north to Marysville, Arlington, and Smokey Point, in addition to more service to Seattle locations downtown and to the University District, as well as to the area served by the north portions of the Interstate 405 corridor.
  • In Seattle itself, bus overcrowding on many routes is already holding back ridership growth. Metro rules may have to be stretched (there will be some political heat) and buses shifted from a few underutilized routes elsewhere in the system to meet demand where it's highest.

The list goes on and on. It's important to say that the transit agencies themselves know these opportunities and needs. They may require more money for faster implementation and to keep pace with their own rising fuel costs. They need to be cheered on by the public and supported and encouraged by elected officials so they can meet the market's demonstrated need for service improvements — to say nothing of supporting greenhouse gas reductions much larger and much sooner than hoped for in the Sound Transit go-it-alone plan.

Line up transit with the growth strategies that will really make a difference

Our region faces huge population and job growth right now and in coming decades. Probably even larger than we had thought if a previously unforeseen wave of climate refugees sifts population into the northwest and away from water shortages and the energy-wasting futility of air-conditioning the hot southern deserts.

The challenge: to grow and to prosper and all the while to preserve the values of our environment and, specifically, the irreplaceable ecosystems of the Puget Sound basin. That's what makes ours a unique place where people want to bring their businesses and families to live and work, or stay here if they are already so lucky — if we can preserve what's different and special about this place! There's no other place anywhere in the country like here.

The strategy: change the way we grow so that our rural and natural areas will always be there to enjoy and share, because more people want to and can live more closely together in and near the cities with homes, shopping, schools, and daily recreation at hand. Trips necessarily made today by car, serving people in sprawled exurbia, are placing excessive demands on time, space, the ecosystem and, now with the gas crisis, on money. We should not tolerate growing into a future where we will live in barren bunkers witlessly carved from our beautiful setting, as eternal hostages to the mistakes of our own bad planning.

Regional officials have mostly embraced the right direction in the Puget Sound Regional Council's new Vision 2040. But we are not yet successful in making the strategy happen, especially in bringing the appeal of compact communities into reality in and close to Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, and Bellevue.

Transit has a huge role to play. Transit oriented development is planner jargon, but everybody gets the idea. Build a transit station and people will want to come to live nearby for the convenience of their commute, and soon enough there will be a QFC, a Walgreens, a locally owned video store, and even that most recently listed endangered species, a neighborhood hardware store! Housing for a mix of incomes. Where you could even conveniently walk to shop or even enjoy a meal out with friends — assuming someone had given forethought to good sidewalks and a pleasant environment to travel around on foot, and even local streets with room for bicycles, not just cars.

Imagine further. This place we need is not just a light rail station, or even a half dozen of them, strung like widely separated big beads on the necklace of a couple of light rail lines. A light rail station isn't either the necessary or sufficient transit condition for forward-looking transit oriented development. A lot of money spent on a new light rail station won't turn downtown high-rise Bellevue or already condo-ized Mercer Island into a new mixed-housing urban village.

You also can bet that a new light rail station in south Bellevue won't be surrounded with a lot of transit-oriented development. The light rail station for Tukwila, now almost fully shaped abreast Highway 518 near Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, will be no catalyst for an urban village. More promising results, happily, seem to be emerging near the new light rail stations in the Rainier Valley.

But light rail stations with a small pocket of surrounding development will always be too meager in number and too long in coming to bring about a transformation in regional land use. It's also clear that vibrant and compact growth can as easily spring up where there is no light rail now or in the foreseeable future, as in booming Ballard or in Renton.

The key to vastly more positive results is to envision the desired kind of development laid out along an entire transit corridor. Instead of small clusters of development around isolated stations, imagine an extended boulevard of housing and shops and sidewalks with high-quality bus transit carrying people to it, within it, and through it. And to bring the concept to a regional scale, imagine not just one or two such corridors, but a multitude of them.

You can see what such a corridor might look like today in a few neighborhoods on Capitol Hill in Seattle. You can see it coming into being right before your eyes on the revitalized Pacific Avenue in Tacoma. On Phinney Ridge and Greenwood Avenue in Seattle, the vision is half-realized. On Aurora Avenue North — now there's an opportunity, just waiting to be spurred by vision served by, yes, bus rapid transit, and seized upon by developers.

To see a real diamond in the rough, look at Bothell Way, Highway 522, north of Lake Washington. It hardly gleams like a jewel today. Mile after mile of roadway clogged with cranky, impatient drivers and bordered by used car lots, muffler shops, auto parts stores, and little strip malls, all surrounded by acres of asphalt as far as the eye can see. It's the broken and forlorn landscape of late-20th century Car World. Who would want to live there? But Lake Washington sparkles just blocks away! And the existing bus route — Sound Transit Route 522, in this case — already demonstrates a logical route linking all the way from downtown Seattle to Woodinville, with a host of intermediate destinations.

What if Sound Transit or King County Metro or both together were talking with citizens and local officials about the potential of bus rapid transit on that route? If we look ahead five, 10, or 20 years — who knows then what the price of gas will be or whether regular people will be able to afford it at all — could that mess of asphalt be encouraged to take new form with a forward-looking upgrade of Sound Transit Route 522 to bus rapid transit? Could new families want to live between Woodinville and Seattle on a magnificent avenue where every change you make from today would only improve our use of the impervious acres of asphalt already there?

Or is it easier to punt? Leave the current transportation/land use picture in its current dispirited Car World condition. Then watch with indifference as unsustainable low-density development continues to sprawl into the distance between Woodinville and Sultan, where every new house, driveway, parking lot, and strip mall scours forest, pasture, and field, inexorably destroying piecemeal the sustaining ecosystems of Puget Sound?

Of course, if Vision 2040 is to be achieved, we need the totally transformed Highway 522 corridor of which today we can only dream. And a lot of other paces like it.

How many times do we utter or hear the platitude that we must link transportation and land use? Really good bus service is a transportation investment that unlocks the opportunities of transit-oriented development in dozens of locations in and near all the cities of Puget Sound where growth should be happening.

Even if we started today, we wouldn't be the first to get it. For example, Ontario's York Region suburb, Canada's fastest-growingmunicipality, is proceeding with Viva, an elegant four-corridor, 60-station, 54-mile bus rapid transit system. It serves the region's own suburban canters and, as could be done here to Sound Transit's now a-building Central Link light rail, connects to the rail system to downtown Toronto. Early phase operations began in 2005, expeditiously and cost-effectively delivered by a fast-moving, design-build, public-private partnership. The next phase is proceeding to 2012 with the expectation of serving 155,000 riders by that date.

Viva is the talk of the industry [PDF] for showcasing the ability of phased-in bus rapid transit to stimulate smart growth development. The region brought its transportation investments together with good zoning solutions and tax-increment financing around a "centers-and-corridors" smart growth strategy. Private real estate investment in the brand new York Region Markham Center is expected to produce 4,000 residences and more than 4 million square feet of office space. In Cleveland and in the San Gabriel Valley east of Los Angeles, you can see other versions of the same exciting opportunity tied to bus rapid transit.

Recently, a new coalition has come together in the Puget Sound region calling itself the Quality Growth Alliance. The idea is for the region's most creative and forward-looking architects, developers, and planners to spur local officials and citizens into action that will lead to attractive new compact communities for good lifestyles for the 21st century.

Here's how those quality growth experts should bring high theory down to real world action: They should get on the good bus routes and use their eyes and imaginations to look out the bus windows, prospecting for the locations where transit is already working and surely can be the catalyst for the urban boulevards of the compact communities in our future.

What they discover will lead them in directions that will make our cities better places to live, our transportation investments more people-friendly and more planet-friendly, and our land uses truly supportive of the protection, not the destruction, of the ecosystems of a healthy Puget Sound basin.

One immediate question they might answer is this: If you were Sound Transit, and all the rest of the regional transit system together, what would you do with a sales tax increase and $6 billion to spend on projects? Sound Transit and local officials need to hear their answers. Regular citizens should chime in, too.

  • Doug MacDonald served as secretary of transportation for Washington from 2001-2007 and during that time was an ex-officio member of the Sound Transit board of directors. From 1992-2001, he was executive director of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority in Boston. Since moving to the Greenwood neighborhood of Seattle in 2007, MacDonald's interest in the relationship between transportation, land use, and the environment has been informed by almost daily use of the Metro Transit bus system, since visual disability precludes him from driving. You can reach him in care of editor@crosscut.com.
Comments
Well done series. Kudos to Doug.
Report a violationPosted by: debo on Jun 25, 2008 7:29 AM
Editor's Pick For some years now, we've known that something was not right in transportation. If we were on the right track, proposals to the public - like Proposition 1 - would easily pass muster at the ballot box.

That isn't happening.

Doug is getting some flack for waiting until AFTER his tenure in office to deliver this absolutely chilling analysis of the current situation. Two observations: First, he was an employee and charged with implementing policy, not shaping or creating it (although he got accused of both). Second, there is nothing more freeing to expression than being "out from under".

Fred Jarrett and I have been talking for years about dealing with transportation as a SYSTEM, instead of highly-fragmented modes. We talk about the need for a way to measure the MOBILITY OF PEOPLE AND GOODS (congestion isn't a good benchmark, unless one's government is centralized in a way we'll never attain) and ACCOUNTABILITY (who's in charge and accepts the consequences of failure to perform).

And, yeah, we're probably talking at a level of wonkishness that sends most of our colleagues into a coma. But in '07, following on the coattails of the Stanton/Rice work, we came up with a bill that would've started us down the road to a rational, systemic approach to transportation, using the existing vehicle of Puget Sound Regional Council and a bridging oversight group.

Following its own vision as "the regional think tank for research, analysis and development of strategic policy initiatives," establishing "the way the industry approaches the provision of public transportation services", Sound Transit immolated our bill. Doug's right ... we need such an entity, but ST's not it.

I'm sure that Will from HA! will move quickly to denouce me as anti-transit, but somehow, somehow, we've got to come clean and admit ... this isn't working. And having a federated, state-sanctioned agency free to spend tax dollars lobbying against progressive reforms that threaten its hegemony?

Hmmm ...

Rep. Deb Eddy, 48th LD
RE: Well done series. Kudos to Doug.
Report a violationPosted by: TransitGuy on Jun 25, 2008 8:25 AM
Deb Eddy must not want to get re-elected. She's missing (as is McDonald) the one key element in her dissing of Sound Transit and light rail... the people.

Try putting an all-bus, no rail solution to the voters. I can see the speeches now, "Building smooth, spacious, reliable, air conditioned mass transit was a huge mistake, my friends. I promise to return Seattle to the days of buses jammed in traffic. We need to build least cost transit and that includes buses wrapped in advertising with no air conditioning. That is my promise to you."

Good luck with that Deb.

Richard
RE: Well done series. Kudos to Doug.
Report a violationPosted by: debo on Jun 25, 2008 9:05 AM
Richard:

I am much more interested in an open and honest public dialogue than in getting re-elected. Absolutely true. I weighed in here because I think we need to get beyond a roads-versus-transit argument that is now embarrassingly passe -- and ask how we get OPERATIONAL, EFFECTIVE transit in something less that 20 years. Trains, light rail and buses ALL must be included, as appropriate to the market/route/customer.

Doug has contributed usefully to that question by documenting here how shockingly LITTLE Sound Transit is proposing to contribute to the over-all goal (which could be stated as increasing transit use, reducing VMT, reducing our reliance of foreign oil, increasing multi-model mobility, reducing SOV reliance and saving us all money in a time of high gas prices -- all feed justification into the same general outcome).

That's the PUBLIC interest, Richard, those "people" you mention ... not protectionism of one mode of travel or one agency.

/d
RE: Well done series. Kudos to Doug.
Report a violationPosted by: Will of Horse's Ass on Jun 25, 2008 11:06 AM
As fun as it is to be called out by an incumbent legislator on the interwebs, my beef with you is that you are neither pro nor anti-transit. As was evident at the last Joint Transportation committee, all ya'll Eastside Dems are squishy on the issue. Rep. Judy Clibborn spent weeks telling everyone that the feasibility study on light rail across I-90 would find it not feasible, when it found that there were no "showstoppers." Weird comparisons to the Big Dig followed... All in all, it was just more evidence that some folks are trying to have it both ways on the issue by trying to appear as if they support the project while doing absolutely everything they can to stop it.

If you and your allies in Olympia had the votes to gut Sound Transit, you'd do it. But I don't think you do. Sound Transit is chartered with advocating for more public transit, so it's lobbying on behalf of transit and even itself is no scandal. "Hegemony", indeed. Sound Transit has almost no friends in Oly, but somehow manages to evade attempts by the legislature to eviscerate it. I think that says more about you guys and less about them.

I wish you would be much more open about your opposition to light rail. You've got one foot in the Kemper Freeman/Doug MacDonald/Discovery Inst. area, and one foot in the "I'm not against transit" area.

I'd love to read your thoughts on the future of transportation in this region. Even in three parts!
Regional Transit Needs Regional Solutions
Report a violationPosted by: John on Jun 25, 2008 9:40 AM
Editor's Pick If the transit plannners in the Puget Sound region are seriously committed to improving service to a point where people will want to use it, the first step ought to be to eliminate the crazy quilt of service providers. In the city of Seattle alone, there are what? five or six separate mass transit agencies (Metro, Sound Transit, Community Transit, Monorail, SLUT and Washington State Ferries). Outside the city, add Pierce Transit and Everett Transit to that mix.

In addition to the obvious efficiencies of scale and elimination of duplicated adminstrative staff and facilities, a combined regional transit service could also treat the region's transportation problems with solutions that don't suffer from turf wars and artificial boundaries -- for example, why not combine the Aurora corridor BRT services (RapidRide and Swift) into a single line, all the way from downtown to downtown, instead of splitting it at Aurora Village? Or place transit centers at the ferry docks in Seattle, Edmunds and Mukilteo? There are plenty of other possibilities.

If we assume that transit will never pay for itself from farebox revenue, it seems like efficient administration is not an option -- it's essential.
RE: Regional Transit Needs Regional Solutions
Report a violationPosted by: SteveM on Jun 25, 2008 11:17 AM
Editor's Pick But not all transit is regional, and centralized government often loses sight of local needs. Should we combine all police forces into one regional police force? It might be more efficient from an overhead perspective, but less effective from a local perspective; Medina cops probably use different skills than Tacoma cops do.

Carless Capitol Hill hipsters, Bainbridge ferry commuters and blind Monroe dial-a-ride users have different transit needs, and their local agencies are better at attending to them than a centralized bureaucracy would be.
Rail needs to be part of the solution
Report a violationPosted by: iulawboy on Jun 25, 2008 11:53 AM
While I agree that buses will play a large part in any transit system we settle on, the beef I have with this article is that the author wants this as the only option. He ignores the fact that for longer hall rides a bus is not all that attractive. Yes, I'd much rather sit in a train car that has legroom, restrooms, a place for my bike and other amenities that be stuck on a bus from Tacoma to Seattle. The goal is getting me out of my SOV and offering me a bus doesn't cut it.
The advantage of rail proposals is that the public intuitively knows how it will work. We know of successful systems in places we have visited (New York, Chicago, DC, London, Paris). Offering me a new system that you claim works great in Bogota does not give me confidence in that system. I have great confidence that stops along a rail line will have shelter, I hold no such confidence in a bus plan. With rail, I envision a dedicated track for the train that has no possibility of being encroached upon by other traffic, say via a HOT lane.
You have an uphill clime with the public with the dream of a bus only solution to transit. Keep rail in the mix. Let us move forward with these options, build the test bus lines, but don't derail the rail system.
RE: ail needs to be part of the solution
Report a violationPosted by: jps on Jun 25, 2008 12:31 PM
All the cities you mention have a transit system based on in-city heavy rail.
Comment on the 3 parts!
Report a violationPosted by: DMorrill on Jun 25, 2008 12:08 PM
Editor's Pick Comment on MacDonald (all 3)
MacDonald does take a while, but certainly reinforces what the many (not just a few old white men) skeptics have argued all along, that the extended RAIL component of Sound Transit just doesn’t compute economically or geographically. It consumes far too much of future potential revenues for far too few new riders. It is not a plan for effective regional transportation, but rather an excuse to build trains, just for the sheer love of trains. I agree with other moderate commenters that a case can be made for the extension to Northgate, assuming that the link to the UW is built, but not for rail across the lake, which constitutes an ideal opportunity for BRT implementation and evaluation.

Just as MacDonald points out, most growth in population and in JOBS is not in or near the Seattle or Bellevue downtowns, or even in Seattle, despite all those construction cranes. It is everywhere, because that is the varied nature of the economy and of households. The real present and future metropolis must be served by an extensive high quality bus system, not a CBD oriented, high capacity rail lines that takes a high share of investment to deliver a small share of rides. This is the simple and obvious reason to be cautious about most rail extension proposals; they simply can’t meet minimal cost-benefit analyses. High capacity with too few riders can’t match moderate capacity (busses, carpools) with many riders.

Now a fair question, which David Brewster posed to me, is whether a rail line could CREATE supportive high density levels (such as exists, say, between downtown LA and Beverly Hills). Unfortunately the configuration and location of the corridtors, together with the difficult topography of the Seattle area, is not conducive to extended corridors of high density. Will Mercer Island accept 50000 folks near its station, or the Roosevelt area? Ironically the more plausible corridor for higher density is SR 99, from Tacoma to Everett, but it is populated by lower income folks, not us rich professionals.

It is truly refreshing to read such clear thinking, which deals with improving mobility for people and jobs in the real world. The Seattle region has a very high median level of education, but evidently of irrational fantasy as well. How else can we understand the true-believer obsession with rail, simply on faith, that would set back rather than advance a sustainable future.?
Way to go, Doug MacDonald!
Report a violationPosted by: paulha on Jun 25, 2008 12:17 PM
Editor's Pick I don't get the American traffic world at all. An outsider, I was introduced to this crazy community when I met the bigwigs of traffic at a national award ceremony after winning Doug MacDonald's "throughput maximization" contest with my rice-funneling idea back in 2006.

Silly me, I thought our traffic experts actually wanted to help people get from here to there, based on individual choices and needs. But no, after my prize and a crash diet of traffic reading, I learned that the larger part of the traffic world exists to push its particular vision of society. Not just how we travel, but how we live, where we live, where we work, and so on. Yes, I get it that traffic is closely connected to our societal choices. But the end result seems to be a bunch of experts constantly at each others' throats, pushing plans for trains or roads or bikes or whatever.

These guys fight to the point that the particular plans themselves grow overaching and ideological. So much so that the plans unmoor from their primary reason for existing in the first place: allowing the most people to move about in the best ways for the least amount of public money.

The challenge isn't that tough. As Doug MacDonald lays out in this article series, it isn't hard to identify expensive plans that don't do much, and don't do the little they do do for a long time (per Sound Transit). It isn't hard to see what works in other places, and what's working here now. OK, the statistics of it all can be dull. But it's not rocket science.

So why is it so hard to get from here to there? I think we need more new ideas, more people who haven't tied their careers to one traffic ideology or another. We need more people like Doug MacDonald--a traffic outsider himself before he was appointed our Secretary of Transportation after a career in water--who simply look at the numbers to see what's working and what isn't.

Do we need to throw all the bums out and start afresh? Ban anyone who's ever worked in traffic in the past 20-30 years from futher involvement? Probably too simplistic a solution, but are we being well-served by our present public servants and well-paid consultants and so-called experts?

Or, as one of my political junky friend suggests, do we need a charismatic local leader to strongarm the crazy quilt of transit agencies into a common approach that benefits us all? (Doug, are you available?)

For, in the end, we are all in this together. If we screw up traffic with costly, ineffective investments now, all us (and all our children) will pay the price, for decades to come. Given the lasting impact, I don't understand why some continue to promote--almost to the death--demonstrably bad plans for the future. What's wrong with simply building on simple analysis of what works and what doesn't? It's too expensive and important to leave to ideology.

But then again, I'm just an outsider. Just like the majority of those stuck in traffic today. We deserve better than bitter political fights between bad plans for trains or roads.

And thank you Doug MacDonald for trying to help us, both in your days at WSDOT and in your capabity as a citizen now.
RE: Way to go, Doug MacDonald!
Report a violationPosted by: EricFowler on Jul 10, 2008 12:25 PM
I don't get the American traffic world at all.....
Silly me, I thought our traffic experts actually wanted to help people get from here to there, based on individual choices and needs. But no ... I learned that the larger part of the traffic world exists to push its particular vision of society. Not just how we travel, but how we live, where we live, where we work, and so on.....

These guys fight to the point that the particular plans themselves grow overaching and ideological.
...
Or, as one of my political junky friend suggests, do we need a charismatic local leader to strongarm the crazy quilt of transit agencies into a common approach that benefits us all? (Doug, are you available?)

Transit has always kind of been that way. This brings to mind two "charismatic local leaders" who had a big effect on transit.

The first was Robert Moses, who gained godlike political power in New York in the '30s, and used it up until the '60s to build freeways right through the heart of the most densely populated city in America. Moses' vision was of families (not commuters) traveling together in cars (not buses, and certainly not trains) down "parkways" lined with sylvan shrubbery to beaches and parks in the hinterlands. Mom and Dad and the kids would have a picnic together and return to the city refreshed. Moses' team, armed with extraordinary powers, nearly unlimited funding from bridge tolls and the New Deal, and protected by an image of benevolence and reform, razed whole neighborhoods, displaced hundreds of thousands of people, deliberately crippled mass transit in New York, and left behind a legacy of urban ugliness and traffic congestion far worse than what they started with. Moses was finally deposed in the '70s by the same citizenry who put him in power.

Another transit visionary, a contemporary of Moses, was Adolf Hitler. He, too, had a vision of (German) families traveling together down beautiful highways. Hitler went to great lengths to design the autobahn to look pretty from a distance, and to present a sensation of flying to persons traveling along it. He, too, saw families traveling together to the countryside on weekends, and prevailed upon German industry to mass produce the Volkswagen Beetle ('37 edition) to meet the need for an affordable vehicle to travel on the new roads. And Hitler, like Moses, exercised godlike power which, along with certain of his utopian visions, led to a bitter end. But you know that story, right?

The moral of the story is, beware of the Transit Czar. You may get more than you bargained for.

Eric
People will support buses
Report a violationPosted by: jps on Jun 25, 2008 12:28 PM
The region has passed exactly one rail vote in the last 100 years.

Since 1999 King County has passed two bus only tax increases.

People paying to fill their cars with $4+ gas and eating more and more expensive food will be hard to be sold on a treatment (their are no solutions) bringing a few miles of rail in 10 to 20 years, that will aid maybe 5% of the people, while adding a big tax increase. The same taxes would increase bus service in the county by about 30%.

Regional governance needs to be elected and each of the major metro areas should have representation. Some agencies could remain and apply to the new PSRC for funding their pet projects.

If we stop building rail, how much money would be available without raising taxes for increased bus service?
RE: People will support buses
Report a violationPosted by: SteveM on Jun 25, 2008 4:41 PM
how much money would be available without raising taxes for increased bus service?

Less than the bus-only folks would have you believe, actually. King County Metro alone is spending $550 million/year on the bus system. Sound Transit is spending about $4.1 billion on light rail from the U-District to the Airport, and about $1.3 billion of that is federal grant money that we presumably wouldn't have gotten if we weren't investing in infrastructure. So that's $2.8 billion of local money, or enough money to, say, run half-again our current buses system for 10 years. (Assuming we didn't need to build a bigger bus base to support the new buses, though of course we would need to spend hundreds of millions on that, given the land costs. Oh, and this would also be assuming running more buses wouldn't interfere with current buses in traffic, though of course they would.) And after 10 years, we'd be back where we are now.
Better bus service? Absolutely! But...
Report a violationPosted by: blaborde on Jun 25, 2008 12:42 PM
Editor's Pick Doug is absolutely right about the need for better bus service and he does make some good points about the need for coordination within the region and, especially, the need to set goals. But, it's absurd to characterize Sound Transit as one-dimensional in its approach and although he acknowledges the need for new right-of-way in the region, BRT is in many cases a poor substitute for light rail in that regard.

From reading this article, you would think that Sound Transit only builds and markets rail transit. That's just not true. While the fact that it is building what are new modes of transportation for the Puget Sound region - light rail and commuter rail- focuses public attention on those modes, ST has spent billions on bus service and major capital projects such as new park and rides and direct access ramps that are solely dedicated to improving travel times for bus commuters using existing HOV right-of-way.

Of course, buses, because they are already deployed throughout the region in hundreds of corridors and because they are flexible will always be a critical component of our transportation system in this region. But that's true in New York, London, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco and every other major metropolitan area with an extensive rail transit system. But I can guarantee you that the residents of those cities value their rail systems even more than their bus systems. Why? Because rail transit moves along dedicated ROW, is comfortable, dependable, drives better, smarter land-use practices around station areas and provides a kind of predictability of travel time and travel experience missing from traditional bus transit.

So, Doug's answer to this is instead of all that light rail and commuter rail stuff, we should in most cases be building out Bus Rapid Transit. Now, don't get me wrong, in many cases BRT is a good choice and we should generally be doing more of it in this area. And, as Doug points out, we are - the Swift Corridor, Metro's Rapid Ride and, yes, as he acknowledges, Sound Transit is pursuing BRT in its next plan on the 520 bridge. However, as even those experiences reveal, BRT is no panacea. An improvement? Yes, but not as good as light rail in most cases.

Look at the SR 99 corridor. Seattle, King County and Snohomish have spent years (10? 15? more?) converting existing pavement and building new pavement to give buses increasingly dedicated access to a lane in each direction of that corridor. Businesses along the corridor have fought back, neighborhoods have complained and buses will still be subject to traffic delays, traffic signals (albeit with some level of prioritization) and other interferences that will still make for a relatively long trip given the distances involved. Don't get me wrong, Swift and RapidRide will be big improvements, but they won't be as good or as popular as light rail. It's as, Doug essentially acknowledges, (not so) rapid transit on the cheap.

It is possible to get BRT with the dependability and speed of light rail, but that means dedicated right of way that's separated and protected from traffic. The best examples of that in this region are the downtown bus tunnel and the E-4 Bus Way that travels through SODO on what used to be 5th Ave. South. But, if you're going to all that trouble -and expense- to create new right-of-way with fast, dependable service, you might as well build light rail. Why? Because, it has all the speed and reliability of this kind of true BRT, but it also operates on smaller footprint, is more popular (it may be irrational, but it's true- people love trains), and more esthetically pleasing, and therefore more acceptable, to the communities that surround those transit corridors. Oh, and light rail also drives better land use investments than any kind of BRT, but more about that later.
Uniting jobs and homes
Report a violationPosted by: scottacoma on Jun 25, 2008 12:50 PM
I thought this was a great series overall, but I felt it only touched on the real root cause of our traffic congestion and need for improved transit options. In fact, it seems like no one ever talks about the cause; they only want to focus on fixing the effect!

The cause, of course, is that people live in one place and work in another place (and shop in another place, to a lesser degree).

For example, a huge percentage of Tacoma residents work in Seattle. Why? Because Tacoma has great neighborhoods that are relatively affordable, but Seattle/Bellevue/Redmond/etc. has the lion's share of good jobs. Why doesn't Tacoma have enough good jobs? Well ... maybe there used to be a good reason for that, but not any more. Tacoma is a large, well-established city and it needs to better support the employment of its own residents.

So instead of building the billion-dollar light rail line from Tacoma to Seattle, let's encourage businesses to locate in Tacoma, and expand transit options within Tacoma. Then those commuters don't clog the roads and don't need transit.

Of course Tacoma isn't the only city in which this'll work, it's just the biggest. We really need to ask ourselves why we seem to have resigned ourselves to the "fact" that all the good jobs have to be in Seattle and a 5-mile radius around it. Perhaps if we gave incentives for companies to locate outside that area, they will, and our traffic headaches will be cured in a way that doeesn't involve any commuting.
Puts the Pieces Together
Report a violationPosted by: dfp on Jun 25, 2008 1:41 PM
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, at well in excess of $300 million a mile -- we just don't have the money -- and because, b) with the now-proven HOT technology on freeways we can easily insure regional transit mobility throughout the entire metro Puget Sound when combined with arterial bus-only lanes. This was not the case in the Jim Ellis era. But time, and technology, marches on.

However, one reservation I have concerning some of my fellow critics is that they don't see the land-use / transit connection, which is the subject of this last article. So-called Transit Oriented Development (walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods) is essential for a whole host of reasons, not the least being amenity value. And with Bus Rapid Transit (on freeway HOT and arterial bus-only lanes) we can have TOD in hundreds of neighborhoods rather than the handful possible under Sound Transit's light rail fever-dream.

Even if you prefer light rail to BRT (an understandable preference), it is necessary to put all the pieces of the puzzle together. MacDonald's article has done just that. Good job. And let's hope the fever breaks soon.
Doug, You have forgotten about Mr. Eyeman
Report a violationPosted by: ratcityreprobate on Jun 25, 2008 2:04 PM
What happens to Bus Rapid Transit if the Eyeman initiative to gut HOV and Hot Lanes passes this Fall. Guess it would be just more Bus Slow Transit.
Doug makes clear that BRT is only ONE part of the equasion
Report a violationPosted by: debo on Jun 25, 2008 2:23 PM
For all of the comments trashing or calling out the limitations of BRT: no, BRT is NOT the end-all, be-all. Doug makes clear that he's using observations, recommendations on buses as an EXAMPLE of how we might do things differently. We're dealing with a complex (non)system in which the disparate parts - ferries to rail to sidewalks - must work together. Even the mighty McDonald couldn't slay the entire dragon in three days. :-)

All levels of government have been struggling to find new metrics for some time. Just last year, someone raised the idea of "competition" among bus routes. How do we motivate the creation/service of transit routes that are of benefit to the most people? In this last installment, Doug suggests one possible measure: percentage INCREASE in ridership. Just that one idea should provoke some other new ideas.

As a former secretary of transportation with both brains and stature, Doug may be able to create sufficient attention to the situation - and the unattractive options out there right now - to help get the region out of its current rut.

Rep. Deb Eddy, 48th LD
RE: Doug makes clear that BRT is only ONE part of the equasion
Report a violationPosted by: interested outsider on Jun 28, 2008 7:07 PM
If you focus on transport, more transport is what you get. If you focus on mobility, more mobility is what you get. If you focus on accessibility, could you get more accessibility?

A recent conference I attended explored 'accessibility' as the real key, and said it was made up of a combination of 'proximity', 'connectivity', and 'mobility'.

In the days of $4.50 gasoline, these distinctions take on greater importance.

Supposing Sound Transit was renamed Sound Access, to change the focus, and delinked from rail.

Surely the goal is not that that we drive more or less, or take the train or the bus, or walk, or cycle, or carpool, or telecommute, but that we have effective access to what we need to do, and the ability to choose what works best at the time. The combined provision of a variety of infrastructures might make it all work together much better than it does today.

Ensuring that the internet works well for the times we might be able to avoid travel; ensuring that the services we need are nearby so that any travel we need is most effective; and ensuring the travel modes available are the most effective for when we do need to travel, (including the walking/cycling/roading network, and the sov, taxi, car-share, car-pool, van-pool, bus, train, ferry systems, which should be 'right sized' to the time of day and purpose of travel)

What I am suggesting is widening the discussion to embrace the whole system, not just the mobility component. I think that the price of gas, if it doesn't drop a whole lot in the near future, is going to result in a fair amount of rethinking by people about lots of things they are doing. Maintaining a focus on just a piece of the system runs the danger of seriously incorrect decisions.
Compared to the Viaduct
Report a violationPosted by: arties4453 on Jun 25, 2008 3:06 PM
Doug, if I follow your logic, which I agree with, and compare it to the logic of tearing the Viaduct down and replacing it with a megamillion dollar solution, it doesn't line up. I would have expected you to support the retrofitting of the Viaduct instead of demolishing it. I would have thought that picking the least disruptive alternative that can be accomplished in a quick and very short time frame would be consistant with your thinking. I would have expected you to support the Retrofit which would cost under $1 billion and result in an uninterrupted traffic flow of 110,000 during and after construction.

So, what happened? Have you changed your mind on the replacement vs the Retrofit solution? I hope so! If you haven't made that course correction on the Viaduct, then I can hardly support your visioning, since it would lead me to believe that you speak with a forked tongue. Please tell me Im wrong and that you now See the errors of your ways and support the Retrofitting of the historic Viaduct.

Art
Still not convinced
Report a violationPosted by: wschenken on Jun 25, 2008 3:15 PM
Editor's Pick Thanks for the very thoughtful article. I learned some things from the series.

I am still not convinced for two reasons.

1) Your basic argument is that a bus system can better serve the population because it is more flexible and a faster solution. There is no doubting that it is easier to add bus routes than light rail. As a person who has used all forms of mass transit from street cars in Europe to the subway in NYC, nothing compares to the comfort of trains. I don't really know why either. I just know that riding in a train is preferable to a car or bus. So I could understand if your position is that we should sacrifice the pleasure of trains for the expediency of a bus system, but I would disagree. I would prefer to make the long term investment in the better transit mode. Moreover, if the bus lines are so easy to install, let's install BRT to mimic where the light rail will go until the lines are built. I am sure there will be a city willing to buy our buses when we are done with them.

2) You use the ridership numbers a lot. As a data analyst, I wonder if there is not a qualitative difference between the 120,000 riders that light rail would add compared to the 500,000 current riders. My guess is that those added will travel far further and more regularly thus having a greater impact. There is also a huge potential for cities to support light rail with other modes of transit that will link light rail stations to people's homes and their other destinations, which would increase those numbers over time.

In general, I think it is sad that with all of the time, energy and money that has gone into arguing about what to do, there is very little effort to show in terms of a real understanding of the issue. Why is the fate of our land-use and transportation, the basis of our economy, not better understood?

I find it hard to believe that Sound Transit as an organization is pushing this plan to feed their collective ego. They must have a reason that they support light rail. We should be able to model the two transportation options and make a choice based on the economic factors that matter to the citizens where they be the environment, cost, mobility, comfort or expediency.

Personally, I am tired of this conversation being based in speculation and random statistics. And to the extent that this series failed to engage the work that Sound Transit has put into their plans, I find it counterproductive to conversation.
RE: Still not convinced
Report a violationPosted by: wschenken on Jun 25, 2008 3:27 PM
Its corporate strategy and its big advertising budget — who has ever seen its tax-funded equal? — focus overwhelmingly on a single product: rail transit. That won't do for a truly regional-minded transit agency.

I can't help but think that SOund Transit is a REGIONAL transit company. Their mission is to move people across jurisdictions. That seems to be why they focus on light rail. Buses seem to make more sense within a jurisdiction: to get you from the train to work/home.

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. So why not invest in the better mode and free up space on the road for cars instead of increasing the traffic with buses?
RE: Still not convinced
Report a violationPosted by: dfp on Jun 25, 2008 8:20 PM
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 HOT status on the freeways, and the parking lanes on arterials as bus-only lanes (for the sake of merchants you would have to more than replace the lost on-street parking with lots or garages). Thus for the most part you do not need a new right of way except in places such as downtown Bellevue, where a first-class BRT system would require a dedicated right of way (as a starter perhaps something like the downtown Seattle 3rd Avenue dedicated bus street, with a transit tunnel to follow).

The fact that you mostly don't need a new right of way is what makes BRT cost a fraction of the dollars per mile comrared to light rail. Which in turn means that for the same budget you get perhaps ten times the high capacity transit miles.
RE: Still not convinced
Report a violationPosted by: SteveM on Jun 26, 2008 12:06 PM
Hmm. Given how much time current buses (e.g. the 545) spend waiting for cars to get out of the HOV lanes, how would converting the HOV lanes to HOT help anything? And also, are you really saying that 3rd Avenue is an example of how BRT works? It probably takes a bus 10 minutes to get from Yesler to Stewart along 3rd avenue. Can you really call that rapid?

Why don't we wait to see how much people like RapidRide to decide whether we need more BRT?
Hey DEBO as long as you are here...
Report a violationPosted by: Cameron on Jun 25, 2008 3:22 PM
How about removing sales tax from Infrastructure Capital Projects like roads and bridges and schools? Next, please use your influence to have Bill Laborde removed from any boards, panels and commissions. Finally will you support a Bill to make any compact negotiations with tribes subject to Legislative review to avoid tha appearance of wrong doing we are currently enduring?
RE: Hey DEBO as long as you are here...
Report a violationPosted by: debo on Jun 25, 2008 4:45 PM
I'd be breaking the norms to go that far off-topic here, Cameron, but I'm always willing to engage in other policy conversations at deb@debeddy.net.
Can't politicians be honest AND get re-elected?
Report a violationPosted by: TransitGuy on Jun 25, 2008 5:12 PM
Deb -

Your response to me points out a major problem with politics in this region. It's the notion that you can't be honest with the voters AND get re-elected. Why can't you explain to the public that light rail is such a bad idea and make a persuasive argument for that? There is so much mis- and dis-information out there about transit, the public as well as the elected officials, are too confused to even be able to make an informed decision.

There have been lots of commenters on this thread who have eloquently spoken about how rail is better in so many ways. It's more reliable, smoother, more spacious and just a better overall experience. Ignoring the huge differences in rider experience is simply ridiculous.

Plus, you're putting alot onto the shoulders of transit: "reducing VMT, reducing our reliance of foreign oil, increasing multi-model mobility, reducing SOV reliance."

These goals could all be accomplished by increasing gas prices, which, thanks to the corruption in the oil markets, is already happening. Just because you say it's related, doesn't mean it is.

Richard
RE: Can't politicians be honest AND get re-elected?
Report a violationPosted by: debo on Jun 25, 2008 7:43 PM
Good questions, Richard. Thank you.

Light rail isn't a bad idea. I am PRO light rail, in addition to being PRO transit. The part that really, really worries me is this: the light rail proposal on the table right now, focused as it is on crossing I-90 from the International District to downtown Bellevue, absorbs an enormous amount of our overall revenue "capacity" (variously measured as what's currently authorized but including what I think the market will bear, long term). While absorbing all that money (to say nothing of TIME), it delivers very little transit ACCESS (MOBILITY).

You're right about mis- and dis-information. That's why many intelligent people turn tail and run from this issue. I successfully avoided it for the first 10 years of public service; possibly, I should've stayed with that position.

I threw out the various rationales (VMT, GHG) to illustrate how so many of our current issues all require that we get this transit thing RIGHT. The increase in gas prices will change the complexion of the solution, YES. But relying totally on market/pricing solutions will hurt a whole lot of people badly. Very badly. You probably wouldn't like that outcome any more than I would.

/d
RE: Can't politicians be honest AND get re-elected?
Report a violationPosted by: frankbruno on Jun 25, 2008 8:22 PM
Rep Eddy,

You write that East Link "absorbs an enormous amount of our overall revenue "capacity" (variously measured as what's currently authorized but including what I think the market will bear, long term). While absorbing all that money (to say nothing of TIME), it delivers very little transit ACCESS (MOBILITY)."

Can you define "very little"? East Link will deliver 14 (or more) miles of new right-of-way, able to move 45,000 riders per day, at a cost of $3 billion.

By point of comparison, the I-405 Master Plan adds capacity for 110,000 additional trips at a cost of nearly $11 billion (in 2002 dollars), and will take 20+ years to complete, according to WSDOT.

East Link sounds like a wise use of funds to me. How am I wrong?
RE: Can't politicians be honest AND get re-elected?
Report a violationPosted by: the former Tom Heller on Jun 26, 2008 8:06 AM
Frank: your statistical comparison of East Link LRT with 405 is faulty. You've mistaken a highway "screenline" volume for a facility volume.

While East Link LRT may be forecast to serve 45,000 rides (not riders) a day sometime out beyond the end of the rainbow, the I-405 expansion adds 110,000 capacity AT EVERY POINT ALONG ITS 30-MILE LENGTH. (Theoretically, this could support 110,000 more daily trips just in the short stretch between Exit 1 and Exit 2.)

But extending this 110,000 added capacity along 405's entire length -and between all its entrances and exits- will enable a near *doubling* of its daily trips (from its current 800,000 level to 1.5 million daily trips) distributed across the entire facility.

Some of that traffic will travel between Exits 1 and 4, others between Exit 4 and 9, others between 9 and 27 and so on. Some will travel the whole distance.

So, the correct comparison is:

East Link LRT: $3 billion (plus interest) for 45,000 added daily trips
I-405 Expansion: $11 billion for 750,000 added daily trips

After LRT's borrowing costs are considered, the investment in 405 will cost maybe ~30% more, but will serve ~17 times the added travel demand.
making a judgment on railroad limitations, not ignoring how smooth and spacious it is
Report a violationPosted by: jniles on Jun 25, 2008 10:00 PM
Editor's Pick Richard-the-transit-guy notes that trains are "more reliable, smoother, more spacious, and just a better overall experience."

Let me grant these characteristics for a moment, despite the fact that some trains compared to some buses don't win on these points. [A few years ago, my 20-something nephew from Boston thought Seattle's bus tunnel pr