The carbon cost of building and operating light rail
Rail mass transit is supposed to be good for the environment. But a leading critic of Sound Transit's Link light rail project offers metrics that suggest the environmental costs are much higher than those of more vanpools, more carpools, more buses, and, particularly, more bicycling.
Excavating a six-mile, twin-bore tunnel and hauling away the rocks and muck is like digging a huge hole and pouring money in it. The lesson has been confirmed by the Beacon Hill tunnel, an experience so sobering that it prompted Sound Transit, which is building light rail from downtown to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, to bail out of a First Hill station, to save $350 million and reduce risk exposure. Sound Transit pegs the cost to tunnel north from downtown Seattle at $500 million per mile.
Worrying financial costs aside, what about the environmental costs and benefits of rail transit? Surprisingly, rail's environmental costs are quite adverse.
Start with the tunneling, which turns out to entail a prodigious outpouring of energy and release of greenhouse gases. To extend light rail service north from downtown, the next phase, Sound Transit will have to dig through and remove more than 600,000 cubic yards of rock and muck – equivalent to a pile of debris 350 miles long, three feet wide, and three feet high. Sound Transit plans to expend lots of energy digging and excavating that stuff: 17.4 trillion British Thermal Units, according to its environmental-impact statement, equivalent to the energy in 140 million gallons of gasoline. That much gas, or diesel, would fill 8,000-gallon tanker trucks lined up from Seattle to Canada. If all the energy consumed by tunnel-excavating and hauling is generated by gasoline or diesel, it will emit nearly 1.3 million tons of greenhouse gases, CO2, into the environment.
As an offset, Sound Transit claims it will save 14,000 tons of CO2 annually by running light rail trains on electricity, sparing the region emissions that otherwise would be generated by automotive traffic. Even if granted, it would take 90 years from completion of the line to break even on the energy transaction. If Sound Transit should manage to cut tunnel-related greenhouse emissions in half, by aggressive use of hydro electricity and human labor, an implausible proposition, it still would take 45 years to break even.
Moreover, the agency's calculations assume no improvements in automotive fuel efficiency. Yet Congress in this session might enact a measure to raise average mileage from 25 to 35 miles per gallon by 2018. That one conservation measure, a 40 percent per mile improvement even before the tunnel will be complete, would extend Sound Transit's greenhouse gas pay-back period to the year 2088.
Further, public transit's contribution to fuel efficiency is exaggerated. According to the U.S. Department of Energy's 2006 Data Book, per-passenger energy consumed by rail transit is only 19 percent more fuel efficient than today's automobiles (2,784 vs. 3,445 BTUs per passenger mile). If the improvements before Congress are enacted, shortly cars will be more energy-efficient. Bus transit already is 25 percent less fuel-efficient than cars (3,445 vs. 4,323 BTUs).
And the data make the energy performance of rail transit appear better than it really is. The reason is urban rail in the U.S. primarily is used in New York City, where it's more fuel-efficient than elsewhere, due to the packed subways. Here, the local rail energy consumption average is inferior to New York's.
The most cost-effective and energy-efficient transportation option, it turns out, would be making more productive use of existing capabilities. There is a lot of spare capacity on King County Metro Transit buses and those of other local agencies, even on a large share of the rush hour routes. One obvious way to use that spare capacity is to make more of the bus rides free or much lower-cost. But when Chuck Collins, former Metro Transit director and former chairman of the Northwest Power Planning Council, put forth his Ride Free Express plan to make markedly better use of existing transit capacity, and incrementally strengthen the most heavily-used routes to handle new levels of demand, Sound Transit and its political allies tromped on it.
vanpools would be another easy way to increase utilization of our present systems. According to the Department of Energy, vanpools are three times more fuel-efficient than transit, 1,294 BTU's per passenger mile. They're far less costly to operate and much more flexible than rail transit. But they're discriminated against, as a commuting mode. Bus transit is heavily subsidized, rail transit is hugely subsidized, while vanpools are but slightly helped. Today, Sounder commuter rail costs $20 per boarding (one-way trip) to operate and, factoring in annualized capital costs, a total of $100 per boarding. (The average fare is less than $3.) Van-pooling, by contrast, is almost 100 percent paid for by those who use it.
vanpools could swiftly surpass Sound Transit rail in ridership, at a tiny fraction of the cost, with superior energy efficiency. Again, Sound Transit and its allies stomped on this idea, also pushed by Collins, and the environmental community sat on the sidelines.
There are numerous other environmental costs to rail. Sound Transit is paying nearly $393 million, almost five times the "very conservative" price tag it told voters, to gain access to Burlington Northern Santa Fe's rail corridor between Everett and Seattle for the Sounder trains. A substantial chunk of that money will be used by the railroad to encroach on Puget Sound tidelands – one of the largest industrial fills of tidelands since Washington adopted the Shoreline Management Act in 1971. For most of the distance, the line runs right along the shoreline, not many feet above high tide, which might be oblivious to the impact of global warming.
Another environmental drawback is that Sound Transit actively promotes and subsidizes sprawl by operation of Sounder commuter rail. It provides spacious, handy free parking at all Sounder stations and intends to build a lot more so people can live hither and yon, drive their single-occupancy vehicles to the train, and take long, lavishly subsidized trips to downtown Seattle to work. The same perks are provided for Tacoma Link, as a commute avenue to downtown Tacoma. Sound Transit Executive Director Joni Earl illustrated the inducements to sprawl in the February/March 2007 edition of Mass Transit Magazine, which featured her on the cover: "Because I ride the train, I talk to customers a lot," Earl declared. "There was a guy I just started chatting with, and he said his wife and he wanted to live more in the country. They've always been in Seattle and wanted to raise their children in a more suburban-type setting. And he said the only way that made it possible was Sounder."
But the greatest harm to the environment and the public comes when you calculate the lost opportunities. Much could be done to move people and reduce congestion in energy-efficient, cost-effective, health-enhancing ways, but Sound Transit is sucking up a huge share of the fiscal oxygen. Vanpools and better use of existing transit have been mentioned. Carpools are a third option. Incentives and programs to increase carpooling just a little would take more cars off the road, and save more energy, than anything Sound Transit aspires to do, and do it much faster, more reliably, with less risk. Completing the HOV system and instituting congestion pricing should be high priorities.
The leading forfeited opportunity is bicycling, the best possible transportation mode: cost-effective, energy-efficient, non-polluting, and healthy – save for the danger from surrounding cars.
Largely due to poor civic leadership, people are oblivious to the role of bicycles in numerous modern, European cities such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen. These cities might be flatter than Seattle and more compact, but modern bicycles and good route selection cope well with hills, and northern Europe is more afflicted with snow, ice, and cold. "Two-wheels rule the roads, it's difficult to get lost, and there are bike paths everywhere," a New York Times story about Amsterdam recently declared. "The best way to get around is by bike or on foot."
A quarter-century ago, Amsterdam and Copenhagen were accumulating heavy automotive traffic, more congestion, more accidents, squeezing out bicycles and pedestrians, just like American cities. Since then, they've worked and invested to facilitate and promote bicycling and walking, reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gases, improve air quality, enhance the health of participants, and radically reduce the frequency of accidents. Much of the focus has been the provision of safe, exclusive corridors, often taking lanes or even streets that had been dedicated to (or encroached on by) automobiles. Also key is paying close attention to safe crossings, so that children, even young children, can safely bicycle to school, as most now do.
In those cities, the market share of transit is six to eight times what it is here – 16 percent in Amsterdam and 20 percent in Copenhagen, contrasted with less than 3 percent in Sound Transit's domain. Bicycling outstrips transit, with market shares well beyond 20 percent and growing. Here, it's roughly 1 percent.
Most local folks own bicycles, but they won't think of bicycle commuting because it's dangerous, for lack of safe routes. With a modest commitment, good planning and execution, and some of the money currently siphoned out of the economy by Sound Transit, bicycling could quickly surpass transit in market share.
On March 7, City Council member Peter Steinbrueck hosted a civic forum featuring Brian Hansen, a bicycle planner from Copenhagen. The large audience got a picture of what an enlightened city can do to improve and extend bicycle commuting and, by doing so, save energy and money, reduce greenhouse gases, and improve health and safety. Not to be upstaged, especially not by Steinbrueck, four weeks later Mayor Greg Nickels announced his $240 million bicycle plan, an impressive number, although there is only $27 million in hand to support it over the next 10 years.
Sound Transit compounds the bicycle imbalance by poor planning to facilitate cyclists. Recently it announced that light-rail cars will accommodate 200 passengers (by cramming them on) but only two bicycles. Two!
They just don't get it.
Comments:
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 7:58 a.m. inappropriate
Bundy and Bikes: Yikes!: Emory Bundy seems to be advocating that we all bike to work and forget about light rail. What a bunch of hogwash.
Bundy needs a fact checker. Seattle's rates of transit ridership might be higher than Amsterdam or Copenhagen already - 40% to downtown Seattle.
Bundy makes the mistake of thinking that there's room on existing roads for all of his bikes, buses and vanpools. There's not. And the situation gets worse in 30 years when there's 60 percent more traffic.
Sound Transit's tunnels are providing new capacity and a much more attractive commute for transit riders. Especially from north Seattle to downtown, where light rail reduces the commute time dramatically. That speed and frequency is what will grow transit ridership, not buses and vanpools, or bicycles.
Bundy mentions "congestion pricing" as a tool. The Dutch have been trying to implement it for over a decade with no luck. And in any event, it can't work without attractive alternatives to driving and paying a toll, like Sound Transit.
Light rail bad for the environment? Give us a break. An electrified light rail system moving on wind and hydro power will be one of the cleaner means of transport in the world. Bundy needs to compare the environemntal costs of real alternative to building light rail: hundreds of miles of more freeway lanes.
Bundy is losing his credibility on these subjects because of his decades long obsession with killing light rail. He's been blinded by his enormous ego.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 8:59 a.m. inappropriate
Logical Errors: (1) Bundy focuses on the environmental cost of tunneling. The ST2 package, which is what is up for debate now, only tunnels from the University to Roosevelt, and possibly downtown Bellevue, with several dozen miles of above-ground rail. What's the environmental cost of that?
(2) "The reason is urban rail in the U.S. primarily is used in New York City, where it's more fuel-efficient than elsewhere, due to the packed subways." I'll leave aside the question of how "packed" LINK is going to be at first, but what you get from rail that you don't get from other modes of transit is assurance that transit service will remain there indefinitely, which encourages the high-density development that leads to "packed" trains.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 9:29 a.m. inappropriate
The Carbon Cost of Bundy's Hot Air: The leading forfeited opportunity is bicycling, the best possible transportation mode: cost-effective, energy-efficient, non-polluting, and healthy – save for the danger from surrounding cars.
Actually, the best possible transportation mode is just walking everywhere. It's more cost-effective than cycling and pollutes less (no rubber skid marks on the pavement, you see) and you can actually carry grocery sacks while doing it.
The "everyone should ride bikes everywhere!" crowd truly appears to have no idea whatsoever how few people would be able to adapt to bicycling as a primary method of transportation even if they were to all do all the things good people are supposed to do, like eating right and moving closer to where they work. Some people don't work in fixed locations, after all. Some people work on the other side of town from their spouses. Some people lose their jobs and the best offer they get turns out to be on the other side of Lake Washington.
And let's not forget that we live in a region where it starts raining in November and doesn't let up until May. Showing up at work drenched to the bone with a brown stripe running down your back isn't an option for everyone. And not everyone can afford the latest all-over water-repelling GoreTex shell from REI... believe it or not.
And frankly, some people just aren't physically able to ride 40 miles a week, for any number of reasons, and never will be. That doesn't make them bad people. Just different from you.
And yet, there are those hills to think of. I didn't see too many of those in central Amsterdam when I was there.
Please, I beg you, try to think about people other than yourself before lecturing us about how terrible light rail is for children and other living things.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 9:38 a.m. inappropriate
Crosscut establishing it's rightwing bonifides?: Nice balance, guys.
First Richard Morrill:
http://www.crosscut.com/transportation/4308/
Now Emory Bundy!
http://crosscut.com/sound-transit/5555/
Is there going to be any PRO-transit arguments made here?
And no, I'm not talking about this article by Brewster, which is as lukewarm a defense of rail as could ever be made.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 9:45 a.m. inappropriate
Interesting Article - Clarification of One Point: This article points out there really is no net "green" benefit from what Sound Transit is doing (at least through the next generation's lifetime). And goodness knows there's no economic benefit from light rail to any but a relatively few individuals and businesses. Approval of the measure in November would make some large commercial property developers and owners much richer, though!
Fortunately we can vote no in November, and head off any more of ST "sucking up a huge share of the fiscal oxygen." ST still would get to tax forever, but just for an operations/maintenance subsidy. That'd be nowhere near what further capital spending would cost taxpayers.
I note that "MHD" has posted something above to the effect that the November measure only implicates extending light rail north from "the University." MHD is wrong about that. MHD is laboring under the false impression that ST would have the financial means to lay tunneled tracks from Westlake Center to Husky Stadium whether or not the measure in November is approved. No way.
This is a very important issue. It deserves some concerted attention.
It is not quite clear where the author comes down on it (notwithstanding MHD's reading). Regarding ST's upcoming plans, the author states: "Sound Transit pegs the cost to tunnel north from downtown Seattle at $500 million per mile." The author also refers to extending the light rail line north from downtown as "the next phase."
The author is a CETA associate, and those folks in the past have been more than a little slippery regarding the extent of ST's capital spending authority under the terms of the 1996 voter-approved ordinance.
To the extent the author merely means to say ST will need the voters to approve the Fall measure before ST would have sufficient legal authority to spend on the northward tunneling, I couldn't agree more. The ordinance to be placed before voters unambiguously would give ST unlimited rights to spend more tax revenue on the tunneling north of Westlake Center to Husky Stadium. But contrary to what MHD thinks, ST now lacks the financial means to pay those costs. That is because of the budgeting restrictions Sound Move imposes on Sound Transit.
If the author however is suggesting that irrespective of how the vote turns out in November ST would have available revenues to pay for "the next phase" of tunneling to Husky Stadium, he'd be flat wrong.
Anyone want to comment on this? MHD? If anyone would like to argue that ST could afford to pay for the University Link construction costs in the event the November ballot measure is not approved, I'd ask them to refer to the law the voters approved in 1996 (in particular, the budgeting strictures described in Appendices A and B).
What Sound Move says limits ST's right to spend during the period it is putting the system into place. ST's surpassed the construction phase spending limits, and there's nowhere near enough fiscal juice left in its tank for it to lay tracks in a $500 million-per-mile tunnel from Westlake Center to Husky Stadium.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 9:50 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Crosscut establishing it's rightwing bonifides?: richard morrill argues for more bus service and bundy argues for more bicyclists? What fascists!
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 9:52 a.m. inappropriate
Apples to oranges: what about the carbon cost of building all those cars and roads: This is really weak analysis, Emory. You are comparing the carbon cost of building and operating light rail to the carbon cost of operating automobiles. This completely ignores the carbon costs of constructing roadways that automobiles operate on. You are also missing the costs of constructing rail cars--which can operate for 40 years (and sometimes double that), to the costs of constructing automobiles, which rarely operate for 20 years in our buy-and-discard culture.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 10:35 a.m. inappropriate
Support for buses?: I'm surprised at Emory's sudden embrace of Metro transit. Where was that support last November, when Metro was on the ballot for an increase for more bus service (including 5 new Bus Rapid Transit routes)? It seems as though all light rail critics in this region are quick to support bus service when comparing the two, but their support dissapears when it's actually time fight for more bus service increases.
Just like the roads vs. transit war is over, it's time for the buses vs. trains war to end. A fully functioning transportation system needs to include buses, commuter rail, light rail, HOV lanes, bike lanes, and sidewalks.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 1:41 p.m. inappropriate
Light Rail is a scam: Sound Transit's light rail employees are counting on a 50 year revenue stream of high salaries, benefits, pensions, and lucrative contracts to amigos. They are 10 years short and billions of dollars in excess of 1996 projections. ST light rail is a failure.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 2:09 p.m. inappropriate
Road warriors hiding behind buses and bikes: Emory's and the CETA folks love to confuse the public with false issues and this one is a doozy. Not only do they ignore the carbon costs of road maintenance and construction, but they make a series of unfounded accusations about Sound Transit opposing vanpools, buses, etc. If you have proof, provide it. If not, stop making vague assertions. As a former newsman you should be ashamed.
Ideas such as Ride Free Express haven't been adopted because they don't work. Ride free zones have been tried and rejected many times. They tend to increase ridership moderately, but at a cost of driver safety and comfort for existing riders. Only people like Emory who don't actually ride the bus assert there is tons of excess capacity. The reality is that during peak hours most buses are filled. If they are not, it is because they serve areas with poor transit ridership. Vanpools and carpools are growing and supported by both King County and the City of Seattle.
The reality is that the population of the region will double in this region in the next twenty years. We can't build enough roads to accomodate Emory's vision of bike lanes, buses, vanpools and carpools. All of those solutions are worthy as part of the puzzle, but use the current road network.
One of the main reasons to build rail throughout the region is to direct growth towards station areas. Developers love building dense walkable housing and retail near stations because of the fixed nature of rail. Buses simply don't do that. This is our best chance to direct growth towards station areas in the next twenty years.
I bike to work frequently, Mr. Bundy. I doubt you ever have. I am not usually interested in putting my bike on a bus or train to complete my commute. But when I do I have no problem finding a bus rack, even though buses are far less frequent than trains.
If you support more road lanes and automobile solutions to our transportation problems, then say that. But please don't insult us with misleading editorials like this one.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 2:32 p.m. inappropriate
Get real...People with lives, families, homes, hobbies, errands, and so much more it would take 8,000 characters to describe how impossible it is to accomodate them with a bike, not the 4,000 Crosscut allows.
Old people, cold people, suited people, night people, long distance people, infirm people, and people who just plain don't like being told what to do ain't about to trade in the Outback, Suburban, or even the Geo Metro for for a bike!
Transportation policy shouldn't be social engineering.
The Piper
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 3:33 p.m. inappropriate
Missing the point: Have some commentators misssed the basic point of Mr. Bundy's piece? He seems to be saying that if we really want to fix the pressing problem of global warming, and if we believe that transportation investments can contribute, then we should be interested in energy inputs and paybacks as well as the transportation costs and benefits. A multi-billion dollar investment in light rail, whether the energy break-even point is 45 or 90 years in the future, may not provide the immediate large reduction in our fossil fuel profligacy that is needed, and other investments may offer better returns.
He also seems to be responding to recent recommendations by "experts" for reducing global warming that encourage more transit investments, rail in particular, with little basis for their optimism.
Here's the number 1 recommendation by the Mayor's Green Ribbon Commision on Climate Protection (Denis Hayes co-chair) from their March 2007 report:
Increase the Supply of Frequent, Reliable and Convenient Public Transportation.
Efforts underway to improve Seattle's public transportation must be accelerated. Funding must be secured to create new public transportation
infrastructure and improve existing services.
The report provided no supporting analysis.
And here's a recommendation last month to the City Council from by two UW scientists commenting on the City's Climate Action Plan:
Reduce Seattle dependence on cars, with a reduction goal of 170,000 tons of GHG by 2012. We suggest large increases in this goal could be achieved by (among others) establishing a seamless transit system for the county (including buses, minibuses, light rail and foot ferries) as the number one priority in choosing new systems for north-south and east-west transportation in Seattle.
They go on to suggest that "All major undertakings in the region (such as major new construction) must be evaluated from the standpoint of their impacts (integrated over the lifetime of the undertaking) on greenhouse gas emissions." Good idea, but they provide no data supporting their own recommendation.
If money (public and private) were no object, all of this would be moot. We would invest in anything that seems at first blush is an answer to our most important environmental challenge in the new century. But even in this rich city and metro region, money is in short supply to fund basics like adequate health care, an education system that keeps us competitive, and afforable housing alternatives. So throwing scarce dollars into a rail tunnel may not be the most prudent move.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 3:54 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Missing the point: So, you and Mr. Bundy should be more specific about your solutions. If you want dedicated bus lanes, then tell us the carbon cost there. If you simply want more buses, tell us the cost there.
As for the cost--we will spend money on transportation. The real choice is between rail investments that can help build dense, walkable neighborhoods or more money thrown at our roads infrastructure.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 5:13 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Bundy and Bikes: Yikes!: Maybe 40% of trips to downtown Seattle are transit, but we're talking about a regional transportation plan, so you and Emory are comparing apples to oranges.
And you seem to argue for virtually no investment in a better road system. We haven't built any significant new roads in 40 yrs, so we shouldn't build anymore, even with your guess that there will be 60% more traffic in 30 yrs? And you apparently think that $100B for 4% of the trips is a good investment.
That just seems insane to me. Like saying you want to spend $250,000 on a car or $50,000 on a bike. Roads will still be doing the heavy duty work of moving everyone and ST will be pocketing the money that would otherwise go to keeping the road system sane. Don't kid yourself, the road system could be dramatically improved over what we have now with say $50B of the $100B that ST is trying to extract. That's the real issue. What is a good "balanced" system? We do it by well-leveraged investments, regardless of mode. ST pretends that 96% of the trips are somehow "inferior" to the 4% that they will provide for $100B. The whole carbon footprint argument that Emory makes, for me at least, blows the supposed green advantage of light rail out of the water. Clearly ST wasn't thinking of the carbon footprint when they proposed their tunnels. They were thinking of big construction projects and big construction dollars and big unions and big developers and big law firms and big bond placements and big federal subsidies.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 5:28 p.m. inappropriate
RE: The Carbon Cost of Bundy's Hot Air: RE: The Carbon Cost of Bundy's Hot Air
Two cents?
[The] best possible transportation mode is just walking everywhere. It's more cost-effective than cycling and pollutes less (no rubber skid marks on the pavement, you see) and you can actually carry grocery sacks while doing it.
Walking is good for your health, but it's not necessarily cost-effecitve from a mileage perspective. Bikes can be more efficient in flat walkable communities. And grocery-friendly bikes are available, as a past Crosscut article has pointed out.
The "everyone should ride bikes everywhere!" crowd truly appears to have no idea whatsoever how few people would be able to adapt to bicycling as a primary method of transportation.
Actually, Emory's point is that it isn't that costly and it is possible. The "everyone should ride transit everywhere" crowd should read Piper's post.
Some people don't work in fixed locations…Some people work on the other side of town from their spouses…Some people lose their jobs and the best offer they get turns out to be on the other side of Lake Washington….And let's not forget …rain…showing up at work drenched…not everyone can afford the latest...some people just aren't physically able…those hills to think of..I didn't see too many of those in central Amsterdam.
Your arguments against biking are as old as the hills. I assume Emory's heard them all, but still thinks the investment both possible and worth it.
Please, I beg you, try to think about people other than yourself before lecturing us about how terrible light rail is for children and other living things.
So now Emory's selfish because he favors bikes over light rail and because tunneling has an enormous carbon impact? It doesn't quite seem to follow. Emory's arguing a minority rights position when he argues for bikes. He argues a majority rights position when he points out the insanity of spending so much on light rail and the fact that the majority of trips in cars are poorly served by huge expenditures on light rail. By the way, the carbon impact comparisons are going to be fun to watch in the months to come. We're going to realize what filthy pigs we are when we build anything and drive anything and go anywhere. Look at this Danny Westneat column for starters.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 5:33 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Crosscut establishing it's rightwing bonifides?: Crosscut is more than willing to post a substantive article that is pro-mass-transit. The e-mail address is editor@crosscut.com. If it's someone not on the payroll of an institution engaged in building or managing such projects, so much the better.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 5:36 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Crosscut establishing it's rightwing bonifides?: A bicycle-riding, formerly Bullitt Foundation/KING 5 employed Emory is right wing? Kind of like you're Karl Rove.
Hey Will, how much real debate has occurred over on Horses Ass? Any? This isn't a liberal vs conservative issue, or an environmentalist vs developer issue. This is a crippling economic rich-get-richer boondoggle that is masked as a vision of a transportation future for Everyman. Emory and Piper are both right to ask questions about trip mix. Why doesn't our transportation vision include more funding for other non-light rail transit modes? Why not a lot more for bikes? Why go so grotesquely heavy on light rail? And why not enough to maintain and operate the highway system? Very pragmatic questions that normal people ask. Not much to do with the right wing. I'd love to see the pro-transit arguments and not the propaganda from apologists and the advertorials from flaks. I'm kind of surprised that Horse's Ass is for wasting money digging tunnels when those dollars could otherwise be spent on the homeless, low-income housing, healthcare, drug treatment programs, education, education, education, and education. Doe's Horse's Ass love big $100 billion boondoggle infrastructure projects that will handle 4% of the future trips in the region? Does it believe those numbers? What numbers does it believe? When is too much too much? $200 billion? $300 billion? Is there a limit to waste and greed? Is Horse's Ass in favor of waste and greed? That sounds extremely right wing to me. Congratulations, you've established your right wing bona fides. Are there going to be any PRO-bike arguments on Horse's Ass? Are there going to be any PRO-roads arguments on Horse's Ass? Probably just Horse's Ass Pro-light rail arguments.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 6:05 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Support for buses?: I'd agree that it's time to fight for more bus transit, but in a lot of ways it's an internecine war between bus and light rail. Light rail will cannibalize bus traffic. I've seen, second hand, numbers that say that light rail will get twice the traffic of buses because the ride is more attractive. I've also seen the KC input from citizens that shows they want MORE FREQUENT bus rides rather than more routes. On the Eastside this is essential if you're ever going to get any kind of ridership numbers other than for trips to Seattle and back (although admittedly this is an uphill battle and a chicken-and-egg situation).
I think Emory is arguing that there are significant gains to be had by subsidizing bus trips and van pools NOW. He's a bike advocate, so presumably that's his first priority when it comes to support. The fact that he wasn't a vocal supporter of the Metro ballot measure, to my mind, isn't a big deal. However, I do agree with you that his support would have been consistent with his current position.
You say "Just like the roads vs. transit war is over, it's time for the buses vs. trains war to end. A fully functioning transportation system needs to include buses, commuter rail, light rail, HOV lanes, bike lanes, and sidewalks."
One would think that the war would be over, ST having gotten the lion's share of the tax carcass. But ST has a pillage and burn mentality when it comes to tax carcasses (and cars), so sharing proportionate to need isn't part of the way they think. The matra of many of their proponents seems to be "No more roads. No more cars. Just hundreds of billions of dollars of concrete and rail forever."
By the way, there's no reason that a "fully functioning transportation system" needs to have all possible modes of transportation. I have a "fully functioning transportation system" in my home. It has no buses, commuter rail, light rail, HOV lanes, bike lanes, or sidewalks.
Modes and functions need to be matched, aggregated, and priced for sanity by corridor. Thus a lot of truisms: Rail doesn't make sense without significant density; cars and trains shouldn't be run down sidewalks; bike lanes make sense where safe (so build them away from cars); buses need to provide a network of frequently visited predictable stops; etc.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 6:09 p.m. inappropriate
Where to begin!: This is a mighty disingenuous editorial by Emory Bundy.
I don't know of very many empty buses in Seattle at rush hour. I've been on too many packed buses in Seattle lately. Yes, I suppose you can find empty buses in suburban King County and at 10 p.m. or 11 a.m. in Seattle, but so what? It misses the point.
The transportation problem that needs to be solved is at rush hour.
We should expand and support buses, bikes and van pools, and, yes, we can do a better job of using existing capacity, but traffic is expected to grow by 60 percent in the next 25 years, so it is clear that we have to develop significant, environmentally responsible, practical traffic solutions.
We need more capacity. Rail provides that. The alternative is a lot more highway lanes -- expensive, unattractive, polluting. (Even assuming the neighbors will allow them to be built.)
You discuss the parking garages at Sound Transit Sounder stations. They are for the most part servicing far-flung suburbs that are difficult to service with transit. That's why all those buses are running around empty in the suburbs! Those people are living there now and if they aren't taking Sounder, then they're going to be driving on I-5.
And this is a key reason why we need light rail: we need to have dense housing, shopping and services developed around light rail rail stations and get away from the long, lone commute in from the suburban cul-de-sacs spreading up against the Cascade Mountains.
Fortunately, the Seattle city council has had the vision to upzone the residential areas along the light rail line.
It is kind of ridiculous to compare transportation in Seattle to transportation in European cities as long as we continue American-type sprawl development.
Regarding the Sounder rail line along the Puget Sound shoreline, that is the line that carries Puget Sound freight to the Midwest and East. It was going to be upgraded with or without Sound Transit.
I am tired of the Puget Sound exceptionalism that believes that all other major cities in the world are wrong. "We don't need rail transit. We're Seattle. All we need is bikes and buses."
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 6:09 p.m. inappropriate
RE: You need help out with these today?: I think transportation policy will always be social engineering. But your point is well made. You show why automobiles are so important for daily life and will they will be for the forseeable future. Even if gas goes to $20 a gallon.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 6:21 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Crosscut establishing it's rightwing bonifides?: Posted by cwesley on Jul 25, 2007 9:50 AM
richard morrill argues for more bus service and bundy argues for more bicyclists? What fascists!
Speaking of comical fascism, I can hardly wait for the day we can ride the Mussolini Line into the UW. Always on time. The only drawback will be the Sound Transit commuters hanging from their boots at the Red Square station because they wouldn't drink the Koolaid served on board.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 6:41 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Apples to oranges: what about the carbon cost of building all those cars and roads: Mainly, Emory pointed out the carbon-cost of the tunnel. Period. Beyond that, a lot of different kinds of comparisons can and should be made to make a lot of different kinds of points. As I point out in another post, the future for carbon-cost comparisons is very bright both. This is a relatively new public art, so should be fun to watch.
Picking what to compare is where the spin comes in. Should ST compare the cost of the tunnel vs the cost of a surface build? Or should it compare itself to roads already built? Or to future roads? Should M&O; costs be included? For what period of time do we measure? How do measure auto costs? Do we include the gas cost, the car cost, the road cost, and the M&O; cost? And don't forget the debt service numbers! How about the global war on terrorism costs? Which costs dominate? Which are trivial and can be ignored. What about all the alternative energy arguments? How much now comes from hydro and wind? How much will come from hydro and wind? What will the future cost of energy be? Hey, and what if climate change is 10X worse than we think? Or half as bad as we think? Hey, how about a carbon tax on all transporation modes equivalent to the "true cost" as calculated by the "best available science," averaging "sound" science numbers with "junk" science numbers to produce the "best available sound junk science" numbers. Let the comparisons begin...
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 7:40 p.m. inappropriate
Missing the Point - Take 2: Who should be responsible for the carbon analysis?
An important question. Members of the public who suggest alternative transportation investments? If so, then anyone who thinks there might be a better altenative would be required to hire an expensive consultant to do the analysis. And he/she would also have to defend against accusations that the consultant of choice is biased because of the private payment involved. This would obviously mean that important comparisions would not be made.
If the alternative is put forth by a public regional transit agency such as Sound Transit or the transportation agency of local government such as King County Metro, should the analysis be done in house? As Mr. Bundy suggests, this may lead to questionable assumptions and results.
One approach would seem to be to vest responsibility for the carbon analysis in the chief regional planning agency, the Puget Sound Regional Council. The folks at the PSRC obviously have the resources: a $ 25 million annual budget and they are the keepers of the regional transportation model. As a check to make sure that non objectivity doesn't creep in, a panel of technical experts from outside the region could look over their shoulders.
Then let the public suggest reasonable transportation alternatives to address global warming. These could range from different transit technologies, to highways, to biking and walking, to transportation demand management. The latter category could encompass tolling, parking supply limitations and parking charges, etc. Someone might even think that Microsoft's new 5,000-car garage is a big enough deal to undergo scrutiny for its carbon footprint and alternatives.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 11:21 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Missing the Point - Take 2: I like the approach. Getting shared, reasonable, objective data is key. Would that all Sound Transit and other government transportation models and transportation were publicly available on the internet and sanity checked by objective outside analysts and scientists. As it is, because of presumed in-house bias or plain-old in-house secrecy, too much stuff is open to charges of bias, distortion, lousy science, lousy assumptions, lousy modeling, incomplete modeling, and insufficiently tested modeling.
Clearly modeling is the right way to go, and on a massive scale, since technology should now allow us to model reliably and visibly in many domains and dimensions. We should be able to point to models that give us information on various tolling, traffic and transit mix models without having to spend $100B first to find out. $100M in simulations would probably save us $30B or $40B by pointing us to the appropriate mix of transportation modes, tolls, bridges, congestion pricing set points, etc. Combine a GoogelEarth technology with game-like simulations of traffic and instead of all us opinionated urban designers spouting unverifiable truth, we'd simply try out a wide variety of simulations that would show us how infrastructure different build assumptions would play out over time and under different population growth scenarios, taxation scenarios, ridership scenarios, etc. And also assumptions would affect traffic, revenue, carbon footprint, etc. Once you can model it, then presumably you can build it. Think Dreamliner. Right now, government goes by the "Build Something, and They May Come Because they Don't Have Any Other Choice" matra.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 11:46 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Missing the Point - Take 2: Oops. Posted before finishing my edits. Last para should read:
Clearly modeling is the right way to go, and on a massive scale, since technology now should allow us to model reliably and visibly in many domains and dimensions. We should be able to point to models that give us information on various tolling, traffic and transit mix models without having to spend $100B first to find out that we're wrong is so many ways.
A mere $100 million in simulations could save us tens of billions by pointing us to the appropriate mix of transportation modes, tolls, bridges, congestion pricing set points, etc. If we were to combine a GoogelEarth technology with game-like simulations of traffic, then instead of all us opinionated urban transportation designers spouting unverifiable truth, we'd simply try out a wide variety of simulations that would show us how different infrastructure build assumptions would play out over time and under different population growth scenarios, taxation scenarios, and ridership scenarios. We could try out AND SHOW TO THE PUBLIC how various assumptions would affect traffic, revenue, carbon footprint, etc.
Once you can model it accurately, then presumably you can build it. Think Dreamliner. Right now, government goes by the matra "Build Something, and They May Come Because they Don't Have Any Other Choice and Besides We Cobbled Together This Rube Goldberg Transportation Infrastructure Design by Swapping Horses, Hog Bellies and Earmarks Amongst Municipalities."
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 12:53 a.m. inappropriate
RE: You need help out with these today?: So, do you always carry wallboard, a 50-lb sack of dog food, and a flat of flowers with you when you commute?
No?
Me neither.
When I do need to carry building materials, I drive my car. But I don't need to drive the car to work every day just because I want it available for special errands.
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 1:28 a.m. inappropriate
Wow, there are a lot of rail haters in this town.: No wonder it took so long to finally build one. Go Ron!
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 6:20 a.m. inappropriate
RE: You need help out with these today?: When I need to haul construction materials or cases of wine or whatever, I rent a FlexCar for the trip. For my commute, unlike Emory Bundy, I take the bus.
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 6:27 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Crosscut establishing it's rightwing bonifides?: Pointing out your right-wing bonafides isn't about whether you are willing to publish a pro-transit article. It's about whether you print every poorly researched anti-transit piece sent to you. Passivity is just as effective at establishing a deep political bias as actively trying to deeply political.
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 7:35 a.m. inappropriate
On the way to work kids are dropped off, then you stop to pick up snacks for the team, then to work. Lunchtime is running an errand, going to the hobby center to get those little blue and gray soldiers for #1 son's Civil War tableu, then dropping off the whatever (in families there's always a "whatever") that's in need of repair.
On the way home, there's a detour to pick up the cake for #2 daughter's birthday, a stop at Lowe's/HomeDepot/McLendon's for the economy pack of bulbs for the four-dozen can lights in the house (damn things seem to go out all at once), then a swing by the take 'n bake place for pizza.
Let's not forget needing to go to mid-day school conferences, quick trips to the airport to pick up/drop off, taking the dog or cat or both to the vet, stopping every once in a while both on the way to and on the way from to stick up a campaign sign advocating "Vote NO! on Proposition Yes," then picking up the twins from play practice.
Let's not forget checking up on Mom to see how she's doing in the new apartment she moved to after Dad died, or how Grandma's doing in the assisted living center, or making sure your niece and nephew get included in what your own kids are up to since it's been hard on them with their parents separating (you always knew he was no good for your sister!).
Trust me...I raised 5 kids, and this ain't the half of it!
All this transportation palaver, together with so much of the what passes for discussion on other issues (housing, density, historic preservation, etc.) doesn't take into account what actually makes anyplace worth living: families, people, human interaction, and the freedom and liberty to live their lives as they see fit. Heck, even the lunacy at the Seattle School Board isn't about kids, it's about political correctness, ideology, and legal theories with not much thought given to what's absolutely best for children.
And while we're at it, all this stuff costs money, and a huge bone so many of us have to pick with UnSound Transit or any of the so-called "funding packages" being floated to pay for anything is that it all gets dumped on the heads of the people. Ostensibly, it's claimed, these things are for them, but I wonder since rarely is a lot of thought or time or effort spent assessing the impact of spending millions and millions and millions on bicycle trails so that an infintesimally small number of people can exercise moral smugness while polluting the visual environment with a ghastly assortment of spandex-wrapped nightmares.
Everyone knows every financial projection is a lie. We'll end up getting our pockets picked to the tune of twice, thrice or worse with political bullying (egregious use of emminent domain) the norm. And in the end, there will be massive debt, massive tax increases, and dire warnings and threats that if we don't do it again - didn't do it right the last time - life will be over as we know it.
And you wonder why Joe and Jane Doakes are so cynical?
The Piper
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 7:49 a.m. inappropriate
Only nuts ride bikes in the winter rains: Who is going to ride about town on a bike in the winter rain? This is just not going to happen! Fix the damn roads. We drive cars. Get over it.
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 8:03 a.m. inappropriate
RE: You need help out with these today?: Piper,
And yet, all over the world, people with predicaments similar to yours are getting by without cars on a daily basis. They are able to do this because of dense, walkable neighborhoods that have been encouraged by the presence of fixed, reliable, frequent rail transit service and intelligent zoning laws.
If you have chosen a lifestyle that requires the use of a car, so be it. But wouldn't it be good for others who would like to do otherwise to be able to?
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 8:17 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Interesting Article - Clarification of One Point: Digg,
I would be very interested to hammer this down. Here's what it says on the ST website -- not the most impartial site in the world, but hey.
University Link Schedule Highlights:
* University Link has received the highest possible ranking in the Federal Transit Administration's New Starts program in 2005.
* Final design authority was granted in December 2006. Final design is scheduled for completion in late 2008.
* Submittal for the project's federal Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) will be in September 2007. Sound Transit is applying for a $750 million federal grant that would pay for nearly half of the U-Link project.
* FFGA approval is scheduled for fall 2008.
* 100% of local funding is secured.
* Construction on University Link is scheduled to begin in late 2008.
* University Link is projected to open for service in 2016.
Boldface is mine. I suppose if the feds told us to go to hell, that would be that, but given Sen. Murray's committee chairmanships, and her steady support of light rail, I doubt that'll happen.
I also point to ST2 literature that seems to assume that University Link will be already done.
I say this not to score any points against you, but simply to get to the bottom of this. If you are aware of any legal language that would prevent the construction of University Link if the federal grant is approved and the ballot measure fails, I would like to know about it.
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 8:32 a.m. inappropriate
And "here" is a place of geographic expanse. Not everyone chooses to be a condocave dweller. This isn't to say that's necessarily a bad choice, but it should be free choice, not an enforced one.
One man's intelligent zoning law is another's confiscatory taking of property. Witness the CAO, which is, IMHO, nothing more than the providing of cheap thrills to urbanites at the expensive cost of rural land owners.
And where is it written that 19th-century rail technology is the be all and end all? It always seemed more of a "keeping up with the Jones' who live in NYC" to me. Monuments to the folly of the egos of politicos who, when all is said and done, drift off into immorality or immortality (take your pick) leaving your pocket way lighter than it was before.
Your choice of a lifestyle is no more or less valid than mine, and therein lies a dilemma. Implicit in much of this urban/dense/walkable/bicyle/closeby argument is a sense of moral superiority; you should live the way we do (or want to) because we have truth by the tail on a downhill slope. I'm sorry, but I don't buy it!
City living, mass transit commuting, dense housing all smack of a giant sardine can that's claustrophibic in nature. Give me land lots of land under starry skies above...even if it's only in the 'burbs where I grow my veggies and dahlias.
No! Transportation and urban/suburban planning and land use policy shouldn't be a force for social engineering or the implementation of someone's notions of the best of all possible worlds. Pangloss never found it, so why do today's utopians think they're any different?
It should be about what the people want and what the people need and how those can be effectuated in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible. If special interests or extreme minority viewpoints - bicyclists, for example - want special consideration, then they should pony up and pay for it. They're not entitled to extract from me more than what is already being extracted.
Think outside the box, urbanites. The real world isn't a Crosscut/Seattle version of the Algonquin Club during the 30's and 40's. There are no Dorothy Parker's here.
The Piper
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 10:08 a.m. inappropriate
Where Do I Start: First of all, as many have mentioned, the article is presents a very incomplete analysis.
The amount of CO2 saved will increase over time as ridership increases on the system so it will take much less than 90 years to offset the construction emissions.
Regarding vanpools, nation wide, carpooling and I imagine, van pooling has been decreasing while transit usage is increasing. I suspect that irregular work hours have much to do with this.
Rail encourages walking and cycling thus enabling people to live without a car. A rail trip involves two walking trips thus decreasing the emissions of the entire trip.
Others have mentioned that roads have to be built for buses and van pools.
While LRT construction is energy intensive, it is very space efficient and provides a very high capacity for the investment. LRT can move up to 20,000 passengers per direction per hour. A lane on a highway can move a maximum of 2,000 vehicles per hour. Building roads for buses, vanpools and cars will not provide this capacity. This capacity is also provided to places such as built up downtown areas were it would be extremely costly to provide additional road capacity.
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 11:31 a.m. inappropriate
Maybe Nickels and Sims Will Answer Your Question? - Part One of Two: I saw that statement as well ("100% of local funding is secured"). It could just refer to how the revenues would be available if ST2 passes in the fall. Otherwise, it sure doesn't look like ST could afford all the University Link costs the fed grant wouldn't cover.
ST has not unambiguously stated one way or the other whether it could cover those costs if ST2 is not approved. The best way to find out of course would be to ask Nickels or Sims (they aren't taking my calls these days!).
The appropriate questions - if you run into them, or can get them on the line - would run along the following lines:
- If the measure in November is not approved, isn't it true ST would lack the right to spend tax revenue or bond sales proceeds to pay for the University Link expenses the fed grant wouldn't cover?
- If the measure in November is not approved, what North King County subarea revenue source(s) would ST have available to it to cover the University Link expenses?
The reasons those are the right questions has to do with how Sound Move and Resolution 75 are structured. These aren't questions that C.R. Douglass, Mike Lindblom, or Larry Lange could ask, for obvious reasons (e.g., their careers).
Your question about what law would keep ST from spending whatever amounts of tax revenue it might take to cover the University Link costs "if the federal grant is approved and the ballot measure fails" is a good one.
Here's the short answer - the terms of the ordinance the voters approved in 1996 would prevent ST from spending any tax revenue (or bond sales proceeds) on University Link construction costs. IF ST could afford the University Link expenses beyond those the fed grant would cover, it would have to use some other revenue sources. And I don't think the farebox receipts amount to a hill of beans . . ..
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 11:36 a.m. inappropriate
Maybe Nickels and Sims Will Answer Your Question? - Part Two of Two: A more detailed description of the legal limits within which ST must operate requires looking at the terms the voters approved a decade ago. Are you aware of what the actual ordinance the voters approved in 1996 says? That is the key. That ordinance was just referred to in the ballot title that appeared in the Voters Guide in 1996, so the great majority of folks ST has been busy taxing for the past decade have zero idea what the terms of the controlling ordinance actually are.
The terms of the actual ordinance the voters approved are set out in two separate documents: ST's Resolution 75, and a second document that was adopted by ST's board in 1996 (the attachment to Resolution 73 ("Sound Move")). Last time I looked, ST had taken down off its website the attachment to Resolution 73.
ST would not be able to use tax revenue to pay for University Link costs in excess of the fed grant because of how Sound Move caps how much tax revenue ST can spend in the North King County subarea.
Sound Move mandates that ST follow a specific subarea budgeting process. This is what Appendix B of Sound Move says: "The RTA Financing Plan will provide a budget for each of the five RTA subareas, comprised of the subarea's projected share of local taxes, bonding capacity and farebox proceeds, and an assumption for federal funding, and related expenditures."
This subarea budgeting process prevents ST from overspending local taxes during the build-out period. The terms of the RTA Financing Plan the voters approved in 1996 are set out in Appendix A of Sound Move. They specify the voter-approved shares of both bonding capacity and local tax revenue that are budgeted to each of the five subareas.
ST can not spend substantially more than those amounts in any subarea. That is because of a well-established legal maxim: any action taken by a government that differs substantially from terms voters approve would exceed that government's lawful authority. That principle was reiterated in the 2004 "Sane Transit v. Sound Transit" opinion.
ST was given authority by the voters to spend down the amounts budgeted to each of the five subareas. By the same token, ST only is authorized to build out what it can afford of the HCT "improvements" in each subarea.
ST already has spent the voter-approved local tax amount allocated to the North King subarea. ST has no implementation-phase tax spending capacity left in that subarea now. In addition, ST has spent the share of bonding capacity the voters allocated to the North King subarea. ST thus has no more bond sale proceeds spending capacity it could use for University Link.
That's why the questions above should be put to Nickels and Sims. ST is making noises like it wants to proceed with University Link irrespective of the outcome of the vote in November. But how could ST cover those massive costs in light of the subarea budgeting mandates?
The way I read this is that ST is making noises like it will just keep taxing as long as it takes to pay for whatever University Link would cost for the simple reason that it wants to deceive voters. It does not want voters to understand that it would need to reduce the tax rates if the measure does not pass.
Have you heard the new radio spots saying some court ruled ST could keep taxing as long as it wanted to cover capital costs of the system elements Sound Move describes? That's a complete lie. No court has ever ruled that way. But the radio stations take the money and broadcast that lie . . ..
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 11:38 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Where Do I Start: Rail must can only get the capacities you mention if there's density at both ends. Without the density, light-rail doesn't pencil, doesn't make economic sense, and is a waste of money. Light-rail should be built AFTER there is the minimum density to support it. I don't know what that number is, but it should be high to justify the costs, and not low and based on speculative hopeful ridership numbers. And the people at the endpoints should be paying the lion's share of the capital and operating costs. There's really no reason to include "the region" in the operating costs, since the benefactors are the downtowns of a handful of cities, Microsoft, the Airport, and developers at those endpoints. So that's where all the taxation should occur to build, and the tolls should be appropriately high to pay back. If that's done, and we have a "user pays" mentality, and light rail users are willing to pay $25.00 a trip to go to and from Mercer Island to Seattle, or Bellevue to Seattle, or Seattle to Microsoft, then that's appropriate. But don't tax the guy living in Auburn or Carnation for a mode of transportation that's appropriate only in dense urban corridors. There's nothing reprehensible about light rail in and of itself. It's the expense of the system, the loose financical rails that guide its journey, and the railroading of regional taxpayers onto a taxation train headed to nowhere that is the outrage.
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 12:44 p.m. inappropriate
RE: You need help out with these today?: Piper, you are absolutely right: you should be able to choose the lifestyle you prefer.
You're also right about special interests paying for their fare share. But the majority--car owners--is also a special interest that should have to pay for the full cost of their cars. The billions we spend on the US military, much of which is going to protecting our oil supplies. The cost of emissions/pollution from manufacturing your car, of pollution from extracting raw materials to manufacture cars, of pollution for transporting those raw materials, the pollution emitted by your car when you drive it, and the waste left over when you discard it. Oh, the heavy subsidies for parking at the mall and on city streets and at work needs to go away. And the costs of plowing over carbon-reducing plantlife to make way for parking lots has to be paid. And, of course, the costs of congestion that individual car drivers impose upon other car drivers, the economy, society, etc. Let's stop using sales and income and real estate taxes to build roads and bridges. Put the entire thing into gasoline taxes and road tolls, including compensating for past sales taxes paid by those who don't drive everyday (and thus, taxes that should have been spent on transit options for them/us).
From my perspective, that's what needs to happen: place the full costs of transportation options (including back-collecting past subsidies) directly at the feet of consumers, and let's see what happens.
I'm willing to pay the full cost of my use of mass transit, if you're willing to give up the thousands of dollars in subsidies that the environment, the government, retail outlets and employers provide to car drivers.
I also agree, there's a sense of smugness and moral superiority on my side of the fence. But I also think there's a fundamental unwillingness to accept personal responsibility from those who are opposed to anything other than the car.
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 3:50 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Maybe Nickels and Sims Will Answer Your Question? - Part Two of Two: "North King" County means "Seattle", right? ST hasn't done crap north of the ship canal, so I can't imagine they've run through much budget there.
Perhaps Central LINK is being assessed to South King County?
I am looking forward to University Link. It would really suck if you were right.
Posted Fri, Jul 27, 8:10 a.m. inappropriate
Just another $2.00 Whore: Your vacous attacks against Bundy don't hold water, and are in fact merely evidence of the extent of the problems in Sound Transit and those they associate with, as well as their methods.
Bundy is perhaps the environmentalist I respect the most. His credibility and integrity is unassailable. He, on his own time, has taken on an analytical effort which is far superior to that of Sound Transit, their constituent Governments and every professional associated.
Methinks we ought to compare those costs and consider the appropriate course of action with regards to our 'administrative' costs, as well as the environmental ones.
Thanks, Emory.
-Tacoma, WA
(Ten minute walk from the Sounder/Link Terminus)
Posted Fri, Jul 27, 8:24 a.m. inappropriate
Here's an idea: How about we hire the homeless to take the jobs of those now feeding us Sound Transit?
I bet they're cheaper, and a whole lot less harmful.
-D
Posted Fri, Jul 27, 8:32 a.m. inappropriate
Ahem: If I follow the thread of this argument correctly it started with the assumption that the only tunnels being built by Sound transit were planned efforts in the University District and Downtown Bellevue.
Well, a bit of a fact check for you folks. We have a tunnel being built right now through Beacon Hill.
Talk about getting your facts right!
-D
Posted Fri, Jul 27, 9:51 a.m. inappropriate
You're Excused: --------------
Posted by: dltooley on Jul 27, 2007 8:32 AM
If I follow the thread of this argument correctly . . . [excised].
-------------
You're just confused. Don't worry about it.
What we're actually discussing here is whether or not ST has the right to pay for extending light rail north from Westlake Center in the event ST2 is not approved. We're also discussing how ST is failing to come clean with how the current taxes it imposes would need to be reduced if the measure in November does not pass.
We're discussing how the measure up for a vote in November would extend the current taxes indefinitely by eliminating the taxpayer protection provisions in Sound Move.
We're discussing how the local media is acting as agents for ST by not reporting the truth about the tax costs to the public. The present-value of estimated new construction costs - the number that pops up regularly in the media - is a small fraction of what the tax costs to the region of approving this ballot measure would be. Plus, the media organs in town are not reporting how the ST taxes would have to be reduced by ST if the measure is not approved.
See - the Beacon Hill tunnel is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing.
Posted Fri, Jul 27, 10:43 a.m. inappropriate
Last time I heard, transit rider fares would be pretty steep if that constituted the exclusive revenue stream covering expenses and paying the freight...
Speaking of freight...Part of my deal also means that I will eschew the benefits of transit, and you will eschew the benifits of roadways. That means materials and goods transported to merchants you patronize will not be purchased by you. Ditto those transported by light rail or buses for me.
I like to think in terms of take-aways. If you were to take away all that's dependent upon transit, what would you have? A few thousand who would need to find a different means of transportation. Not all that difficult. Yellow Cab is in the phone book.
But if you were to take away all that's dependent upon highways, petro-chemicals, allegedly polluting transportation options, then you wouldn't have much of anything.
Let's restrict the use of the gas tax, MVET, and all other road and automobile taxes to the building of roads. Non-transporation specific taxes currently used for roads would be eliminated entirely. Transit - light rail or bus - would have to be self-sustaining. Bicycle paths and amenities would be paid for by licensing and taxing bikes.
I'm good for letting all those chips fall where they may...Just remember...it was your idea in the first place.
The Piper
Posted Fri, Jul 27, 4:10 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Only nuts ride bikes in the winter rains: We can't get over it. Too expensive and destructive.
Posted Fri, Jul 27, 9:37 p.m. inappropriate
SETTING THE BAR TOO HIGH: Bundy's argument is very good; we have to look at more than the operating costs of transportation systems for the simple reason that the initial investment is so enormous.
I suspect, however, that any really big investment (Grand Coulee Dam, Interstate 90, Evergreen Point Bridge) is going to fail that kind of analysis. The reason may be that we just can't see the total utility of some investments; it's hard to do cost/benefit for something that will just hit its stride in forty years or so. We can see the costs but the benefits are unclear.
How much of a carbon eruption is the production of the 787? will it ever give environmental payback?
Will my new attic insulation ever pay for itself (it won't). Did
it anyway
Posted Sat, Jul 28, 9:50 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Road warriors hiding behind buses and bikes: 1) Emory Bundy is not a 'newsman'. He is a willfully ignorant old man, committed to saving Seattle for the real estate investor class, which funds his various escapades.
2) David Brewster is still sore Seattle never bought into his carpetbagger plans to turn Seattle into New Haven west, an enclave of the rich and white, where people would sit around sipping white wine spritzers, and complaining about the audacity of those ethnic people running the government.
3) You are correct. Bundy does not ride the bus except in the downtown zone. Although disgustingly rich, he is also a cheap ass loser, who can't be bothered to reach into the pockets of his threadbare trousers for a buck or two. When you are that rich, you expect everything for free.
4) Vanpools and carpools just export the cost of mass transportation to the individual, in perfect alignment with Bundy's right wing policy of transferring all wealth and undistributed money jingling around the economy to the investor class. I've driven a vanpool for fourteen years. Vanpools are slow, unsafe, and they do nothing to provide a permanent solution to the transportation question. As for the poor, disabled, elderly, non-employed, visitors, and all the other people who can't otherwise use a vanpool, what are they supposed to use? Jet packs?
Posted Sat, Jul 28, 9:59 p.m. inappropriate
RE: You need help out with these today?: That's easy, you right wingnut!
4x8 wallboard: ever hear of having someone do your repairs, instead of doing everything yourself? Every think of having them delivered?
Groceries for a family of four: can you do your shopping once a week for your bratty obese children? The remaining shopping can be done when necessary, and do try to limit your comsumption of two liter bottles of diet Pepsi, if possible. You'd be surprised how easy it is to do shopping when you leave the barrels of pop off the list.
Dry cleaning: delivered
Three banker's boxes of documents: what are you doing with these? Are they exhibits? Every hear of having an office? Why are you schleping these from home? Going to a deposition? There's a new thing called a taxi.
Dog food: why not buy a 5 or 10 lb sack of food. Why are you buying or carrying 50 lb sacks of anything?!!! Did you know UPS and Fed EX won't even let their employees carry boxes this heavy?
Marigolds? You are carrying flats of marigolds home from the office. Ever hear of the weekend? Ever hear of a shopping cart? How do you think all those people in Europe, Canada, Japan, China, and everywhere else do it? When they climb out of their caves, they seem to find a way.
Pull your head out and see how everybody else does it. You'd be surprised at what humans can accomplish when they don't live in Kirkland.
Posted Thu, Aug 2, 10:53 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Where Do I Start: The idea that rural areas and small cities (ie Carnation, Auburn, etc) don't benefit from transit in dense urban centers is questionable. The subsidies go both ways. I don't think economic and population growth in those areas would be as robust without the economic engines of Seattle, Redmond, and Bellevue. More likely they'd be marginally viable resource-extraction towns like those on the peninsula trying to survive life after logging. Moreover, I think the folks in these places benefit from the 'social engineering' that LR supports (sorry to use that rediculous frame), since the 'rural character' that they cherish is better preserved against the sprawl that would destroy it. LR supports densification of areas that are already equipped to handle the growth, or at least helps to limit it to occur along the corridor to some extent.
Posted Tue, May 13, 4:50 p.m. inappropriate
If Bundy wants to oppose light rail, he should just oppose it. Let the British count BTUs. Personally, I'm like most out of staters who think a decent rail system is long overdue.
Richard Borkowski