Since Proposition 1 is the big, upcoming transit/roads issue which will be the center of attention around here for the next couple months, I thought it would be a good idea to make a dedicated thread. Please put all news and commentary on it here.

I'll start off with an article.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/election2007/2003876288_transportation09m.html

Sunday, September 9, 2007 - Page updated at 12:11 AM
Record-setting tax plan wraps roads, rail in 1 fragile package
By Andrew Garber
Seattle Times Olympia bureau

OLYMPIA — It's hard to find a political leader in love with the nearly $18 billion roads-and-transit tax package on the November ballot.

Among the complaints: The plan spreads projects too thinly, doesn't fully address some of the region's most pressing traffic problems and imposes the wrong set of taxes.

Yet most of the leaders want voters in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties to pass the biggest tax package ever placed on the ballot in this state, arguing it does enough good to warrant support.

"I don't think we'll get anything better," House Transportation Committee Chairwoman Judy Clibborn, D-Mercer Island, said. "Everybody wants us to have a plan. This is the plan."

State Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, a vice chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, said he doesn't want to be "one of these people who makes perfect the enemy of the good."

He supports the measure, which is called Proposition 1, but would rather use tolls to raise the money instead of the sales taxes the ballot measure proposes.

The reality is the regional roads-and-transit plan is a political compromise, said Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, chairwoman of the Senate Transportation Committee.

It was designed to pass the King, Pierce and Snohomish county councils and get enough support to win in November. Haugen, D-Camano Island, backs the measure, in part because she thinks it's better than doing nothing.

"The thing that disturbs me is that many of these are just money down on projects that are going to cost a whole lot more in the long run," she said.

Even if the measure passes, transportation planners have identified roughly $55 billion worth of future road and transit projects in the region without funding.

Opponents of the plan include folks who don't normally agree on much of anything when it comes to transportation policy.

Transit supporters object to spending so much on roads and freeways, and highway advocates say the package won't lay enough pavement to reduce traffic congestion.

A recent Stuart Elway poll indicates the tax package has a chance, but the political campaigns on both sides are just gearing up. So far, it's a lopsided race. Supporters expect to run a multimillion-dollar campaign. Opponents report about $51,000 in contributions.

The plan would spend about $7 billion, in 2006 dollars, on more than two dozen highway and local road projects, including widening Interstate 405 and improving Mercer Street in Seattle. Almost $1 billion would go toward replacing the Highway 520 floating bridge.

Another $10.8 billion would extend Sound Transit light rail east to Redmond's Overlake area, south to Tacoma and north to 164th Street Southwest in Snohomish County, and enhance existing commuter-rail and regional bus service.

If you add inflation, financing, operations, overhead and cash reserves, the entire package is projected to cost around $38 billion by the time all the projects are finished 20 years from now.

Higher sales taxes and car-tab fees would pay for it all.

If approved, the taxes could last for decades and likely drive transportation policy for at least that long.

If the package fails, some lawmakers say there's a good chance the debate over our traffic problems would restart almost from scratch.

Let locals tax themselves

The roots of the proposal go back at least seven years. That's when a special panel on transportation set up by state lawmakers released recommendations on how to deal with the region's snarled highways.

One idea was to let local residents tax themselves to pay for the bulk of the work. The thinking was there would never be enough support for a massive statewide tax increase to pay for Seattle-area mega projects such as replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct and the Highway 520 bridge.

So, in 2002, the Legislature created the Regional Transportation Investment District, which set about developing a three-county roads package.

At the same time, Sound Transit was pursuing a separate effort to expand its light-rail system.

State lawmakers began to worry about taking two big tax proposals to voters in separate ballot measures. Last year they decided to tie the two together, arguing that would increase the odds of passage for both.

From the beginning, officials haggled over what projects to include and exclude, and how much money each should get.

Earlier this year, for example, negotiators dropped the Alaskan Way Viaduct from the package when they decided the project didn't need additional money. The $800 million that had been set aside to help replace the viaduct with a six-lane tunnel was allocated to other projects when the tunnel was rejected.

One of the biggest compromises dealt with a proposed Cross-Base Highway, an east-west route in Pierce County that would link I-5 to Spanaway and the Frederickson industrial area.

Environmental groups hate the idea of building a road across open land. They threatened to oppose the ballot measure unless it was taken out.

Supporters say the highway would alleviate traffic congestion and open up land for development. Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg threatened to oppose the package unless the highway was kept in.

Both sides ultimately agreed to fund some work on existing roads on both ends of the proposed highway. But work on the middle section cannot start until after a mediation process in 2009.

Even if an agreement is reached, the ballot measure doesn't include enough money to complete the highway. More money would have to be found.

Early poll shows support

In an Elway poll in June, 57 percent of voters surveyed backed the ballot measure. The poll also found that the road and transit proposals drew more support together than individually.

Elway said he was struck by the level of support "even though most people thought the costs are high, thought it would not be a significant improvement and thought there are many unknowns about the future."

That suggests, he said, that people are so sick of being stuck in traffic that they'll vote for just about anything.

Another factor that may bode well for the ballot measure is the current lack of well-funded opponents.

Keep Washington Rolling, the political-action committee supporting the ballot measure, has raised more than $800,000 so far, including $200,000 from Microsoft and $75,000 from the Seattle Mariners. The PAC expects to raise several million dollars.

On the other side, lots of groups want to kill the proposal. One group, NoToProp1.Org, has raised about $51,000 and is running radio ads against the package. But apparently none of the organizations have joined forces.

The Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club supports light rail but opposes the package because the organization thinks expanding roads will lead to more traffic and more greenhouse-gas emissions linked to global warming.

A group called the Eastside Transportation Association contends the tax package spends too much on light rail and not enough on roads.

"I'd say a vote for this package ensures that you're going to be with congestion for the rest of time," said former Republican state Sen. Jim Horn, who heads the group.

Several neighborhood organizations based on the west side of the 520 bridge also oppose the ballot measure, saying it throws money at a new bridge without considering what the neighborhoods want.

As always, campaign money is critical in terms of who wins, said Chris Vance, a GOP consultant and former chairman of the state Republican Party.

"It's really hard when the other side is running TV commercials and all you can do is send out press releases and put up a few yard signs," he said. "If the anti side can raise significant amounts of money and cause enough doubt, they can win."

What happens if it fails?

All the opponents argue that their broader transportation agendas have a better chance of succeeding if the ballot measure loses in November.

Mike O'Brien, chairman of the Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club, says if the tax package fails, light rail would soon be back on the ballot by itself and would pass.

He also says a no vote would force the Legislature to come up with another traffic solution, such as so-called congestion pricing. In other words, use some form of tolls on I-5, I-405 and the two Lake Washington bridges to discourage driving at peak traffic times.

Horn, with the Eastside Transportation Association, says roads would emerge as a winner if the measure fails. "If it's not passed this year, the Legislature will have to step up and address it in some way," he said.

Legislators aren't sure what would happen.

It's possible light rail would reappear on the ballot fairly quickly, but fixing the region's highways is another matter. Legislative leaders predict few people would want to touch the issue in 2008 because it's an election year.

That would push any highway proposal off until 2009, and by then the debate over replacing the Highway 520 bridge and the Alaskan Way Viaduct — both in danger of collapse during an earthquake — could suck up all the attention and money for years to come.

At the very least, a big question mark would again hang over central Puget Sound's transportation problem.

"If it doesn't pass we'll have to go back and figure things out — and it won't be anything of this scope," said Clibborn, the House Transportation Committee chairwoman.

Haugen, the Senate Transportation Committee chairwoman, said she sees problems no matter what happens in November.

The Legislature has already increased the state gas tax by almost 15 cents a gallon in recent years. That well is tapped out, she says. Yet billions of dollars of work is still needed statewide.

"We're facing some real crises in transportation whether this passes or not," she said

im absolutely voting yes. as much as i love rail, cars will be as much of an important force in 2030 as they are now. cleaner car technology will slowly evolve in the next 20 years and we dont want to screw ourselves over with letting our infrastructure fall to shit.

my main reason for voting for it though is that we need light rail now.

As much as I hate cars, we do need them just as we need transit. Like citruspastels said you can't let the infrastructure fall to ruins. Increase sales tax is a good way to go I guess.

I wonder who is going to get the blame when the Viaduct falls over during the next earthquake and kills people. As nice as this plan is on the compromise between transit and highways it would have been better if some money had been set aside for future viaduct replacement. Whether tunnel, bridge, or BLVD.

I can't find the list of all the projects this covers...anyone know where it is?

Whatever you do, DO NOT VOTE YES! Instead, VOTE NO!

I have reviewed the RTID plan several times, and I see no reason why the plan will improve transportation for the Puget Sound region for the next century or two. I know of several congested places and transit defects in certain areas that will still not be improved with the RITD.

In Snohomish County (where I live), the only way to get around is by CAR, and there is a serious lack of transit service that is convenient for me or others. To get where I need to go, I would regularly wait an hour for a bus, then make several transfers, and eventually I would realize that driving my car would be a lot easier. Also, the problem with transit in Snohomish County is a lack of bus rapid transit routes. The only one that is going into service is the SWIFT SR 99 route. How about BRT going connecting Lynnwood with Mill Creek, Everett with Mukilteo, south Snohomish County with Marysville, west Snohomish County with east Snohomish County?

Basically what I am trying to say is, VOTE NO! You will only pay more to have more congested roads, bad transit service, and eventually a crappy life in the Seattle metropolitan area. Remember Referenfum 51? Yeah, well.....I remember that failed, and so will the RTID plan.

I wonder who is going to get the blame when the Viaduct falls over during the next earthquake and kills people. As nice as this plan is on the compromise between transit and highways it would have been better if some money had been set aside for future viaduct replacement. Whether tunnel, bridge, or BLVD.
They already debated this a bazillion hours, and the city of Seattle had a vote, which resulted in an ambiguous outcome. They still can't decide what to replace the viaduct with, so, rather than having that one project delay everything else, they're going ahead with the "everything else" and will decide later on what to do with the viaduct.

Whatever you do, DO NOT VOTE YES! Instead, VOTE NO!

I have reviewed the RTID plan several times, and I see no reason why the plan will improve transportation for the Puget Sound region for the next century or two.
Century or two???

C'mon, really! This plan isn't remotely supposed to account for everything that might happen in the next 100-200 years! Nobody in their right mind can look that far ahead!

I know of several congested places and transit defects in certain areas that will still not be improved with the RITD.

In Snohomish County (where I live), the only way to get around is by CAR, and there is a serious lack of transit service that is convenient for me or others. To get where I need to go, I would regularly wait an hour for a bus, then make several transfers, and eventually I would realize that driving my car would be a lot easier. Also, the problem with transit in Snohomish County is a lack of bus rapid transit routes. The only one that is going into service is the SWIFT SR 99 route. How about BRT going connecting Lynnwood with Mill Creek, Everett with Mukilteo, south Snohomish County with Marysville, west Snohomish County with east Snohomish County?

Basically what I am trying to say is, VOTE NO! You will only pay more to have more congested roads, bad transit service, and eventually a crappy life in the Seattle metropolitan area. Remember Referenfum 51? Yeah, well.....I remember that failed, and so will the RTID plan.
You have to remember that they can't build everything at once. Some of those other things you mentioned might get built later.

I also think it's very selfish to vote against it just because it doesn't happen to have everything *you* want in *your* area. The plan will result in A LOT of road and transit improvements for A LOT of people in the Seattle-Tacoma area. Have you no consideration for them?

Here is the list of projects by county:
http://www.rtid.org/docs/mtg06_08_07/Projects_by_county_June_8_2007.pdf
^
Here's one thing it says for Snohomish County:
Transit & Multimodal Improvement Project
• (SR 104) Multimodal Terminal: Edmonds Crossing Ferry and Transit
• Bus/Van Fleet Expansion and Park & Ride Facilities in North County and SR 9
^
The part I underlined sounds like it might contain some of the things you mentioned. So, don't be so sure it won't do what you want it to do.

Of course I'm voting yes. About 80% of the funding is for stuff we absolutely need, and I'll hold my nose on the 405 widening and cross-base highway.

The requirement for only a simple majority on both measures is a big reason for optimism, along with the 57% poll number, though it's still anyone's game at this point.

I think the public needs to see our leaders do what they say they'll do. Tax-payers are a little gun shy about YES voting after the whole monorail debacle and the incredibly stalled then slowly moving and overpriced light rail. To be honest, I'm pleased with all the "Its Your Nickel" projects I see. People need to see what they voted for and how it all comes together.

I'm a big transit backer, but at this point I'm leaning towards a "no" vote. this is predicated on the facts that 1) ST would make the ballot and win the following year 2) legislature is 2/3 dems, so its unlikely a pro-roads bill would come out there next session 3)the lag from passage of ST project to completion is so long that another year or delay won't make much difference, in fact, the critical path to completion on these projects is not construction time, its timing tax revenues with bonding capacity, so conceivably there might not be any delay with waiting a year.

Read the roads proejcts again. Not only are we expanding 405 and building a cross base, but many of the Snoco improvements expand 2-laners to 4 lanes.

More importantly, we need to tolling for demand management....In my ideal world, the package would be:

-5B for 520
-1B for 167/405 HOV completion
-500M for tolling implemtation
-toss in 500M for "safety related" improvements regionwide, no new SOV capacity
-6B light rail to Overlake, Lynwood, Federal Way (expansions north and south of those points "proved" by BRT first)
=13B

I wish they would just jack up the gas price even more, it's way more efficient then tolling or subjecting our already high sales tax. for those people that complain about our already high gas tax, don't worry, a 20 cent rise for taxes will be peanuts compared to the coming prices...

Transit would have a hard time passing in 2008 if it had already failed once, and with an unresolved roads measure looming. Two of the major problems would be the "what part of no don't they understand" dynamic and the "nothing until 520 is fixed" dynamic. Further, there's evidence that the road and transit measures are helping each other -- enough people want their favorite part enough that they're willing to swallow the parts they don't like.

In other words, if you demand a perfect resolution or nothing, you'll probably keep getting nothing. RTID's good far outweighs the bad, and it's by far the best chance we have to get transit done, along with a 520 replacement.

Check that -- the 520 replacement will get done one way or another...on a Minneapolis-type (or I-90 type) emergency method if necessary. The RTID version has better environmental, neighborhood, and fiscal parameters than the emergency option.

Of course, I will vote yes. We need that.

I will both vote yes and campaign harder than I've ever campaigned before. Bumper stickers, yard signs, cold-calling, I don't care. This has to happen.

I am voting yes....

I'm voting yes.

However, I wish they were a bit more aggressive on some highways...ideally I'd want it to be:


-Rebuild 520 from a 4 lane to a 6+2 configuration with transit option in middle.
-Expanding 167 from 4+2 to 8+2
-Expanding 405 (Renton to Bellevue) from 4+2 to 8+2 through S-curves
-Continue 167 to Tacoma from Puyallup.
-Build 704 cross base highway.

ewww... thats a ton of extra lanes... doubling the size of 405?

-Continue 167 to Tacoma from Puyallup.
-Build 704 cross base highway.
Those two *are* on the list.

I'm voting Yes.. Its the only logical way to get some of the projects that we need done. Some of the expense is ridiculous for lightrail, but thats what its going to take to get it done. I wish there were a few more items added to that list, but it will not help getting pissed over it. Like it or not, they will keep adding lanes and more and more people will keep moving here. WSDOT just added additional lanes on I-5 in Everett and they could not figure out why traffic was not effected when the new lanes were opened.It surprised the WSDOT. Not always adding lanes will fix the problem.
Also they might not have all the projects we want on this ticket, but they will have other projects in the ropes. This funding is not for ALL PROJECTS! They will continue with other projects that have nothing to to do with this funding.

VOTE YES

:banana: I am voting YES!

Split up road-and-transit measure, Sierra Club urges;
Better explanation of issue for voters also is sought (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/331430_transballot13.html)

By LARRY LANGE
P-I REPORTER

An environmental group opposing parts of the three-county, $47 billion road-and-transit ballot measure wants it split into two new descriptions on the ballot and a better explanation of the issue for voters.

It's not clear the Sierra Club will get what it wants -- but likely it will find out this week.

The Sierra Club will argue Friday in King County Superior Court that the measure should be separated into two ballot measures because it covers two subjects: expansion of the Sound Transit regional light rail system and additional lanes on the highways.

"It just blows me away that that these two clearly different things would be lumped together," said Mike O'Brien, chairman of the club's state chapter.

The club also claims the ballot title or titles should be clearer about which projects the measure would finance, what they'll cost and which taxes will pay for them. And in a separate claim, also to be heard Friday, the club plans to argue for new language in the voters pamphlet that presents an opposing view based on environmental issues.

But the attorney for Sound Transit and the Regional Transportation Investment District said the agencies took direction from state lawmakers in drawing up a single ballot measure, and based on an earlier court ruling the ballot can't be challenged until it passes -- if it does.

And both parts of the measure are about a single subject, transportation, Sound Transit officials said.

"I think the ballot title as written is fair and in compliance with statutory requirements," said Paul Lawrence, attorney for the district and the transit agency. "I think the court will approve it."

Both sides expect a ruling Friday -- the King County deadline for completing ballot language.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/332946_poll25.html

September 24, 2007 4:35 p.m. PT
Support for roads, transit package drops slightly, poll finds
By GREGORY ROBERTS
P-I REPORTER

The more that voters learn about the $47 billion roads and transit package on the November ballot, the less they like about it, a new poll suggests.

But a majority of voters contacted by the Elway Poll still favor the package, which includes expanding the Sound Transit light rail system and undertaking numerous highway- and bridge-building projects in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties.

Support for the package slipped from 57 percent of those polled in June to 54 percent in the latest telephone survey, which reached 400 registered voters in the three counties Sept. 10-13. That change was within the margin of error of 5 percent.

Meanwhile, the proportion of voters who said they were at least "somewhat familiar" with the proposal more than doubled, to 37 percent. Among the 9 percent of voters who said they were "very familiar" with the plan, one-fourth said they definitely support it, down from a third among that same category in June. The 42 percent of voters in the "very familiar" group who are either definite or likely supporters was about the same as in June.

Potentially troubling to supporters of the package is that the most-likely voters -- those who voted in all of the past four elections -- were least likely to favor the plan, according to the poll, with 49 percent indicating likely or definite approval.

Yet 63 percent of those polled believe the projects will either significantly improve the region's transportation system or represent a step in the right direction, which is slightly more than in June.

In any case, four out of five voters think that if the package fails, it will be back before them again in the future as two separate road and rail measures.

"I think that what the poll shows is what was always known: that this is going to be a close election," said Sandeep Kaushik, a spokesman for a group favoring the proposal.

The proposal has come under attack in recent weeks by opponents, Kaushik said. "Frankly, we were pretty pleased that the core support of the package seems to be intact," he said.

The $47 billion includes the estimated cost of building the projects over the next 20 years as well as managing and financing them over that period and then paying off construction loans until 2057 (as well as operating the light rail system until 2027), in inflation-adjusted dollars. The plan would be financed with new sales taxes of 6 cents per $10 and a motor vehicle tax of $80 per $10,000 of value, along with some existing taxes.

"I think people are starting to realize there's a bigger tax hit here than what they were thinking of," said Jim MacIsaac, a prominent critic of the proposal.

^^ glad to see it has a chance though!

where is the pro-campaign! they seem to be seriously slacking off. tons of people are shaking their heads thinking they are informed about this thing but are really just falling victim to the opposition's doubt casting tactics.

is this thing just too big and complicated for the average voter to comprehend or will the pro-campaign step up and do something about the doubt being sewn?

:soapbox:

^^ glad to see it has a chance though!

where is the pro-campaign! they seem to be seriously slacking off. tons of people are shaking their heads thinking they are informed about this thing but are really just falling victim to the opposition's doubt casting tactics.

is this thing just too big and complicated for the average voter to comprehend or will the pro-campaign step up and do something about the doubt being sewn?

:soapbox:

Here are the TV Ads ( http://www.youtube.com/user/RoadsandTransit ) they are running in targeted areas on cable TV. These ads are well done and tell voters how the plan will benefit their specific area

i think those are good, but i'm talking more about the good/bad press game. it seems like they could use some high profile intellectuals debating some of the claims that the opposition are making.

Thankfully the pro side is raising way more money.

let's face it - you have to vote yes. while i don't like all of the road proposals, sometimes in politics and in life you have to take the gravy with the gristle.

Exactly. Lots of good stuff is included, plus some basic necessity stuff like replacing 520 and some sensible road improvements. I'm willing to accept an overly-wide 405 for that.

Further, if this doesn't pass, we're won't get anything better to vote on anytime soon. And anything we do vote on will have less chance of passing -- polling shows that the two measures support each other more than they detract from each other.

I want yard signs and bumper stickers. I checked the sound transit website and they (obviously) don't have them. Nor can I find anything on the Keep Washington Rolling website. Anybody know where I can find this stuff?

you can get a yard sign here http://yesonroadsandtransit.org/ but i dont know when we are receiving them.

I had a discussion with one of my friends today about this ballot. He supports it but he might have to vote against it because he doesn't trust the argument because they kept changing the cost of these projects. He expects the board to give us the right cost and no more bullshits. He doesn't want to pay extra taxes for overpriced for these projects. I understand his point. I wonder anyone else is feeling the same thing?

^
Estimating the cost of a big, expensive project before they've even designed it is a crapshoot. It's really little more than an educated guess. People who always complain about the costs of big, expensive projects put on ballots don't seem to understand this.

^
Estimating the cost of a big, expensive project before they've even designed it is a crapshoot. It's really little more than an educated guess. People who always complain about the costs of big, expensive projects put on ballots don't seem to understand this.

I agree. He does support this bill but he feels that board isn't really honest with us about the cost of projects.

I work in television, and I'll tell you that the anti proposition 1 groups will start to air next week.

I work in television, and I'll tell you that the anti proposition 1 groups will start to air next week.

I know there will be plenty of people complaining about the price tag, but the ones who worry me are the anti-transit people. Most people on this forum know that the "will only handle a fraction of a percent of the region's traffic" is completely misleading, but how do you counter that in a 30 second TV ad?

I'm actually more worried about the liberal vote. Environmentalists seem to think that a vote for this will be the deciding factor in global warming because there are roads involved. I think they just need to realize that there are much more effective ways of fighting global warming like research into green technology...

Fork in the Road
Pro-Transit Voters Face Grueling Descision in November

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=401517

By Erica C. Barnett
Article Tools
Email This
Print
Share

In a bright church basement in Ballard last week, the members of the ultraliberal "Thundering 36th" District Democrats heard pitches from environmentalists arguing that they should endorse an $11 billion proposal that would pay for 50 new miles of light rail throughout the Puget Sound region. Light-rail supporters, including district treasurer Jason Bennett and Futurewise field director Megan Blanck-Weiss, argued that the vote might represent the region's last chance to fund a massive light-rail expansion. "This represents a real investment in transit," Blanck-Weiss said. "It absolutely is good for the region."

But despite the environmentalists' efforts, the measure failed to win endorsement—an echo of the previous night's executive board meeting, where a proposal to support endorsing the measure outright ended in a stalemate, with "pro" votes outnumbering "cons" by only 13 to 9.

Why would the liberal 36th reject a proposal that indisputably would change Seattle's transit picture for the better? Because that rail expansion comes saddled with hundreds of new miles of pavement, including expansion of I-405 on the Eastside and a larger SR-520 bridge across Lake Washington. In all, the light-rail package is linked to $7 billion in road expansion and improvement projects, making it difficult for some environmentalists—and others who just don't want to see taxes increase to pay for roads—to support.

The close vote at the 36th echoes a recent citywide poll by Stuart Elway on the measure, showed support hovering at around 54 percent, down from 57 percent in June.

The roads part of the package takes this off the no-brainer list for environmentalists. Building new road capacity seems to cancel out the environmental benefits of building new transit. Although pretty much everyone agrees that 50 miles of new light rail is a good thing, enviros continue to bicker about the percentage of "good" versus "bad" roads on the roads side of the proposal. The Transportation Choices Coalition, which is supporting the package, believes only 15 percent of the entire package, or about $2.6 billion, is made up of "bad" roads. They count HOV lanes, the 520 expansion, and freight corridors as "good" roads, because they aren't intended to serve new single-occupancy cars.

On the other side are groups like the Sierra Club, whose own analysis places the percentage of "bad" roads at about 30 percent of the total package, or $5.2 billion. The main reason for the difference is that the Sierra Club bumps 520 into the "bad" column (because it will take out acres of the arboretum and destroy much of Marsh Island), and includes HOV lanes and freight lanes among bad roads—reasoning that both either preserve or expand capacity for single-occupancy cars.

Supporters shoot back that if the package fails, it'll be at least 2009 before Sound Transit is on the ballot again. Since transit projects in our region historically have not come back to the ballot a second time larger than the first, this is probably our only chance to get as much light rail as this package offers. "There is a fundamental belief [among the no voters] that a transit package could come back and win next year, and I don't think that's true," Bennett says.

F*CK RON SIMS!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003905815_ronsims27.html
Guest columnist
The roads-and-transit plan: so much cost to do so little

By Ron Sims
Special to The Times

This November, voters must carefully consider the $47 billion regional roads and transit package. This is a momentous decision, with construction scheduled to last 20 years, funded with bonds that won't be fully repaid for 50 years.

While containing some good projects, this plan doesn't solve traffic congestion in the short term, nor does it provide enough long-term relief to justify the financial and environmental costs. Tragically, this plan continues the national policy of ignoring our impacts upon global warming. In a region known for our leadership efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, this plan will actually boost harmful carbon emissions. In its entirety, I regrettably conclude that costs exceed benefits.

If approved, we will see the largest tax increase in state history. Starting in January, car-tab taxes will triple, and the sales tax will be 9.5 percent (10 percent in King County restaurants).

I look at this package with the knowledge that in 50 years, my oldest son will be 80 when it's paid off. My granddaughter will be 55. Their ability to make public investments relevant to their lives and times will be severely limited by this package. Should I be so lucky, I will use my pension until I am 110 years old to pay my share!

The benefits of this package are far from immediate. Even if on schedule, 60 percent of new light rail won't open until 2027. Light rail across Lake Washington is at least 14 years away. The Northgate extension is 11 years away.

The road package is equally back-loaded, with replacement of Highway 520 only partially funded. The 520 funding shortfall is $1.3 billion, even with past gas-tax money and tolls. But the plan still calls for landscaped lids in Medina, the wealthiest neighborhood in our state, financed with regressive taxes on the working poor. When finished, RTID (Regional Transportation Investment District) increases highway capacity by 4.9 percent while traffic is projected to grow eight times faster.

This roads-and-transit plan just doesn't move enough people.

Projected light-rail ridership to Bellevue and Overlake is lackluster because of indirect routing. Traveling from Capitol Hill to the Microsoft campus via downtown Seattle and Mercer Island is slow and cumbersome. The retrofit of Interstate 90 for light rail will slow express-bus service and increase commute times to Issaquah, Sammamish and North Bend.

To the south, we have different inefficiencies. Light rail would connect Seattle to Tacoma (already served by faster Sounder Trains) and run along Highway 99 (where last year's King County Metro "Transit Now" tax increase is ramping up bus-rapid-transit service).

Instead, expanded bus service could generate much higher ridership in this corridor while freeing up funds for light rail to Southcenter and Renton. In Pierce County, we can achieve more traffic relief by extending light rail within Tacoma to the University of Puget Sound and Pacific Lutheran University.

Service to Northgate finally delivers on the promise of light rail. But delay to 2018 is inexcusable; this badly needed segment can and should be built sooner.

Further north, we will probably regret the decision to build along I-5, which limits future development. And, ridership would be higher building from Everett to the south.

We can't afford to wait two decades to do so little. We need a solid transportation plan that moves this region forward with immediate congestion relief.

The package before us does not include solutions like congestion pricing or variable tolls. The goal of congestion pricing is to keep our highways moving efficiently, getting people to work or home in the shortest amount of time. With congestion pricing we would see immediate results.

The private sector is already a tremendous partner, with many employers providing subsidized bus passes and van pools. In concert with congestion pricing, we need to consider remote work sites, telecommuting and other alternatives.

But, the most important option to accompany congestion pricing must be better access to transit. Transit is also critical to the environment.

University of Colorado researchers forecast that the Arctic ice cap will have completely melted by the summer of 2030, shortly after this package is completed. By 2050, around the time we finish paying for this package, two-thirds of the world's polar bears are expected to be extinct.

We must not make transportation decisions without considering the impact on global warming.

I have introduced several initiatives as county executive to combat climate change. We operate the state's largest fleet of biodiesel-fueled buses, and we are pursuing a green-fleet initiative to bring more clean and climate-friendly vehicles to King County. We joined the Chicago Climate Exchange and developed a detailed plan to reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. We've preserved more than 100,000 acres of carbon-absorbing forests. But all this progress on global warming would be negated by this plan.

Faced with catastrophic climate change, we need to have courage in our convictions, in our leadership and in our transportation solutions. We must question the environmental implications of our actions.

I commend the Sierra Club, Cascade Bicycle Club and Conservation Northwest for showing great courage in asking these important questions.

This plan is inadequate. We need to refocus on bold solutions that offer immediate relief and a better tomorrow — future generations deserve no less.

Until we have real transportation solutions, I'm a "no" vote.
Ron Sims is the King County executive.

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

:soapbox: F*CK RON SIMS!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003905815_ronsims27.html
Guest columnist
The roads-and-transit plan: so much cost to do so little

By Ron Sims
Special to The Times

This November, voters must carefully consider the $47 billion regional roads and transit package. This is a momentous decision, with construction scheduled to last 20 years, funded with bonds that won't be fully repaid for 50 years.

While containing some good projects, this plan doesn't solve traffic congestion in the short term, nor does it provide enough long-term relief to justify the financial and environmental costs. Tragically, this plan continues the national policy of ignoring our impacts upon global warming. In a region known for our leadership efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, this plan will actually boost harmful carbon emissions. In its entirety, I regrettably conclude that costs exceed benefits.

If approved, we will see the largest tax increase in state history. Starting in January, car-tab taxes will triple, and the sales tax will be 9.5 percent (10 percent in King County restaurants).

I look at this package with the knowledge that in 50 years, my oldest son will be 80 when it's paid off. My granddaughter will be 55. Their ability to make public investments relevant to their lives and times will be severely limited by this package. Should I be so lucky, I will use my pension until I am 110 years old to pay my share!

The benefits of this package are far from immediate. Even if on schedule, 60 percent of new light rail won't open until 2027. Light rail across Lake Washington is at least 14 years away. The Northgate extension is 11 years away.

The road package is equally back-loaded, with replacement of Highway 520 only partially funded. The 520 funding shortfall is $1.3 billion, even with past gas-tax money and tolls. But the plan still calls for landscaped lids in Medina, the wealthiest neighborhood in our state, financed with regressive taxes on the working poor. When finished, RTID (Regional Transportation Investment District) increases highway capacity by 4.9 percent while traffic is projected to grow eight times faster.

This roads-and-transit plan just doesn't move enough people.

Projected light-rail ridership to Bellevue and Overlake is lackluster because of indirect routing. Traveling from Capitol Hill to the Microsoft campus via downtown Seattle and Mercer Island is slow and cumbersome. The retrofit of Interstate 90 for light rail will slow express-bus service and increase commute times to Issaquah, Sammamish and North Bend.

To the south, we have different inefficiencies. Light rail would connect Seattle to Tacoma (already served by faster Sounder Trains) and run along Highway 99 (where last year's King County Metro "Transit Now" tax increase is ramping up bus-rapid-transit service).

Instead, expanded bus service could generate much higher ridership in this corridor while freeing up funds for light rail to Southcenter and Renton. In Pierce County, we can achieve more traffic relief by extending light rail within Tacoma to the University of Puget Sound and Pacific Lutheran University.

Service to Northgate finally delivers on the promise of light rail. But delay to 2018 is inexcusable; this badly needed segment can and should be built sooner.

Further north, we will probably regret the decision to build along I-5, which limits future development. And, ridership would be higher building from Everett to the south.

We can't afford to wait two decades to do so little. We need a solid transportation plan that moves this region forward with immediate congestion relief.

The package before us does not include solutions like congestion pricing or variable tolls. The goal of congestion pricing is to keep our highways moving efficiently, getting people to work or home in the shortest amount of time. With congestion pricing we would see immediate results.

The private sector is already a tremendous partner, with many employers providing subsidized bus passes and van pools. In concert with congestion pricing, we need to consider remote work sites, telecommuting and other alternatives.

But, the most important option to accompany congestion pricing must be better access to transit. Transit is also critical to the environment.

University of Colorado researchers forecast that the Arctic ice cap will have completely melted by the summer of 2030, shortly after this package is completed. By 2050, around the time we finish paying for this package, two-thirds of the world's polar bears are expected to be extinct.

We must not make transportation decisions without considering the impact on global warming.

I have introduced several initiatives as county executive to combat climate change. We operate the state's largest fleet of biodiesel-fueled buses, and we are pursuing a green-fleet initiative to bring more clean and climate-friendly vehicles to King County. We joined the Chicago Climate Exchange and developed a detailed plan to reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. We've preserved more than 100,000 acres of carbon-absorbing forests. But all this progress on global warming would be negated by this plan.

Faced with catastrophic climate change, we need to have courage in our convictions, in our leadership and in our transportation solutions. We must question the environmental implications of our actions.

I commend the Sierra Club, Cascade Bicycle Club and Conservation Northwest for showing great courage in asking these important questions.

This plan is inadequate. We need to refocus on bold solutions that offer immediate relief and a better tomorrow — future generations deserve no less.

Until we have real transportation solutions, I'm a "no" vote.
Ron Sims is the King County executive.

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company

Typical politician. Ron Sims is pandering to special interests. Just hope everyone remembers how he wanted the votes of a thousand people so he tried to screw 4 million!:soapbox:

^
Yeah that sucks.

Well maybe it won't make much difference. But it woulda been nice to have King County's "mayor" backing it.

I just don't understand why it would take 11 years to get light rail to Northgate and even longer to cross Lake Washington. On this point, I have to agree with Sims that something needs to be done sooner.

But I'm still a yes vote on the package. My gut feeling is that this the plan may move more quickly than expected. Along the same lines that more money was found to extend the light rail to the airport within the original design plan. Also, to the UW with an additional vote or taxes (unless I missed something).

Isn't Ron Sims up for election next year? Well, I'm not voting for him.

I've always supported him, but this one is pissing me off. RTID is a compromise that's mostly positive, and is hugely important for the region.

But can anyone understand his hesitation? I do.

I can understand the hesitation. I've been thinking tons/reading arguments both ways about this project and weighing the good vs the bad. However, I am firmly convinced that it is absolutely going to be a good thing for the region.

My support is quickly falling for Sims though...

From a Slog post today-

http://slog.thestranger.com/

"Is Ron Sims a Light Rail Advocate or Not?

Posted by Josh Feit on September 29 at 11:59 AM

In my Thursday Slog post about KC Executive Ron Sims’s big announcement (the longtime Sound Transit board member and light rail booster came out against this November’s $17.8 billion Roads and Transit package which includes $10 billion for 50 new miles of Sound Transit light rail), I concluded: The big question for Sims is whether he supports the Sierra Club’s push to bring a light rail vote back next year.

The pro-transit crowd that is opposing the measure—like the Seirra Club and the Cascade Bicycle Club—believes we have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to invest billions in transit. They say we’d be wasting that investment by simultaneously building 152 miles of general purpose highways and freeways. They want a yea or nay vote on light rail, separate from $7 billion on roads.

They maintain that Sound Transit won’t pack up and go home if the measure is defeated this year, and in fact, will have a great opportunity to win at the polls next year when there’s a huge liberal turnout in the 2008 election and people start seeing Sound Transit Phase One completing construction.

However, it’s not clear that Sims, who the Sierra Club believes supports their position because Sims has talked about using money raised through congestion pricing to build light rail— actually shares their enthusiasm for his former pet project.

KIRO Radio’s Dori Monson put the question to Sims yesterday, and here’s what Sims said:

Monson: Saying No to Prop 1, do you now believe that light rail is not going to be a primary solution to our region’s traffic woes in the next generation or two?

Sims: Well, I believe, no. There’s a… you have to have a tool kit to reduce congestion. You can’t rely on a primary technology, one single principal technology to move forward. It’s got to be a tool kit.


On Thursday morning, right when Sims’s anti-Roads/Transit editorial landed in the Seattle Times, Sims was on KUOW with Steve Scher. He doesn’t explicitly address whether or not he supports extending light rail in a Phase 2, but he sounds luke warm to me.

Listen:


Scher: …and the Roads & Transit plan just doesn’t move enough people…

Sims: Yeah. It’s because there aren’t a lot of other things it includes – it’s not a toolkit. Principally, it relies on a single technology – rail.

I’m still struggling with how I’m going to vote on this thing—although I’ve been pretty clear from the start that I think coupling transit and roads was horrible public policy.

And I’ll admit that I was excited by Sims’s decision to add his high-profile name to the iconoclast environmentalists who are opposing the measure. But if Sims isn’t willing to explicitly fight for a major extension of light rail in its own right—as an alternative to the $17.8 billion roads and light rail package— then his big announcement is actually pretty moronic."

and from the comments-

"Reagan Dunn for 50 miles of light rail.

Ron Sims against it.

Kathy Lambert for the biggest bike lane expansion in our region's history.

Ron Sims against it.

Shawn Bunney for $50 million of investment in non motorized projects in Pierce County.

Ron Sims against it.

Rudderless, Road building Ron. What happened?"


I'm not waiting around for Ron Sims to realize that light rail will be an amazing thing for Seattle.

I read that as well before posting. He should be clear about what point he is trying to make about light rail.

Try to please everyone, end up pleasing no one...

I just don't understand why it would take 11 years to get light rail to Northgate and even longer to cross Lake Washington. On this point, I have to agree with Sims that something needs to be done sooner.

But I'm still a yes vote on the package. My gut feeling is that this the plan may move more quickly than expected. Along the same lines that more money was found to extend the light rail to the airport within the original design plan. Also, to the UW with an additional vote or taxes (unless I missed something).

I used to be think that way but I figured it out why it would take a while to get it built... If this ballot passes, it will take times for people to pay taxes and build up the saving until they can afford to start construction. That might explains why it will take a while to complete the projects.

$11 billion for 50 miles of light rail which translate to roughly $220 million PER mile. That is really expensive compared to many light rail projects around the US. Thanks to our complex geography we have which makes it different from many regions worldwide.

and thanks to the fact that almost all of it is above or below ground. i know of very few light rail projects around the us that don't run mostly on the street

The delay before construction starts is due to the long process of hiring team members, studying, designing, buying property, going through the federal budget process, etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with "saving up".

^ I agree.

I guess I was disappointed because I thought they did all that *before* the vote this November, and the vote would give the greenlight for immediate construction (which would last about 5 years). I guess the vote only begins this hiring, designing, environmental process? If so, that sucks!

I have a ST2 pdf that talks about the implementation in stages.

Individual projects will be brought into service after they proceed through planning, environmental review, preliminary engineering, property acquisition, final design, construction, and start-up/testing programs. Transit centers, parking garages and commuter rail stations typically take 5 to 6 years from planning through start-up.

So even "immediate relief" projects like parking garages will take 5 years. I thought it'd be a lot quicker.

Light rail extensions typically take approximately 4 to 7 years for planning, environmental review, engineering and final design. They then require about 4 to 6 years to build, depending on their length and complexity.

So that's about 8 to 13 years from planning to opening. So everything should be done by 2016 - 2021. I thought they'd been planning before the vote, so I was expecting a 2012 - 2014 completion date for *everything*.

Also on the pdf are the estimated openings by year:

2016: Downtown Seattle to UW light rail extension
2018: UW to Northgate light rail extension; First Hill streetcar; Sounder parking garages in Sumner, Puyallup, Mukilteo, Tukwila, Edmonds
2021: Seattle to downtown Bellevue light rail extension; Sea-Tac to Des Moines light rail extension; Sounder parking in Auburn
2027: Rest of light rail extensions to Tacoma Dome and Overlake

I read ST is doing it in phases to mitigate construction in the area. I say to just do it all at once!

It's already been 19 years since I moved to Seattle, which was about the time they finished the I-90 redo, and it doesn't seem all that long ago to me. Time flies, so these don't seem all that unreasonable. You also have to remember that these are projects (esp the Link) which will still be used 100, maybe 200 years from now. The NYC subways are already more than 100 years old, and they're still going strong.

In other words, for stuff like this, you really have to think long-term. And that includes for the construction.

The land, design, etc., will cost in the nine figures for the RTID light rail. It would be pretty astonishing to spend that kind of money without knowing if there was permission to move forward.

Didn't the monorail acquire land and buildings before it got dissolved?

^
Yes, in a few places they did. But the monorail had also been approved by voters a couple times before it got killed, so for a while they *thought* they had the go-ahead. This isn't the case with all these RTID projects.

Sorry, I'm sort of with Sims. I'm voting NO-NO.

If there's a follow-up light rail vote, I'll vote YES.
If there's a congestion pricing vote, I'll vote YES.

On top of all of that, as long as Ron Sims keeps talking about congestion pricing he'll get my vote.

actually, there is planning in "blueprint for progress" for tolls.

why people think a yes vote on rtid/st2 is a no vote for tolling is beyond me.

plus the more i think about it, the more i realize-- cars aren't going away. if we vote this down, not only will the roads projects definitely come back, but we are taking a chance with not being able to get this much light rail.

i don't think cars are going away in the long term either. i think there will be a research breakthrough with one of the green alternatives, and we will be stuck with even more traffic on delayed road projects.

also, from today's slog-

"Roads/Transit Campaign Strikes Back at Sims

Posted by Josh Feit on October 1 at 2:50 PM

The Yes campaign for the $17.8 billion roads and transit package is holding a press conference tomorrow.

I imagine the point of the press conference is to grab back the media spotlight from the No campaign, which got a lot of attention last week when King County Executive Ron Sims—a Sound Transit board member and longtime light rail supporter—came out against the project (which includes 50 new miles of Sound Transit light rail.)

Sims’s jumbled editorial in The Seattle Times didn’t make it exactly clear what his main beef was with the initiative—he talked about its reliance on regressive taxes (which is rich coming from a guy who used the sales tax himself to boost his bus initiative last year); he talked about ill-conceived light rail routes (which he himself voted for); and he talked about global warming.

It’s that last point that the Yes campaign will focus on tomorrow. The line-up of speakers comes from local environmental groups: Gene Duvernoy, Cascade Land Conservancy; Jessyn Farrell, Transportation Choices Coalition; Aisling Kerins, Futurewise; and Kurt Fritts, Washington Conservation Voters.

Said Aaron Toso of the Yes campaign, “There’s an environmental choice on the ballot. And voting for this is the right environmental choice.”

Sims disagrees. Here’s one cogent moment from his editorial:
We must not make transportation decisions without considering the impact on global warming.

I have introduced several initiatives as county executive to combat climate change. We operate the state’s largest fleet of biodiesel-fueled buses, and we are pursuing a green-fleet initiative to bring more clean and climate-friendly vehicles to King County. We joined the Chicago Climate Exchange and developed a detailed plan to reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. We’ve preserved more than 100,000 acres of carbon-absorbing forests. But all this progress on global warming would be negated by this plan.

The $7 billion roads portion of the plan includes, for example, four new general purpose lanes on I-405—capacity for 40,000 extra vehicles per day.

However, Aaron Toso, spokesman for the Yes campaign, says the new transit will spark a shift toward transit-oriented development—a side effect that will be good for the environment that hasn’t been getting any attention.

It’s a compelling point. However, it’s kind of wonky. Really, to diminish the impact of Sims’s announcement, the Yes campaign should be hauling out high-profile local Democrats like Governor Gregoire, State Sen. Ed Murray, Mayor Greg Nickels, and House Speaker Frank Chopp—headline grabbers like Sims—rather than enviro theory heads.

I asked the Yes campaign if any of those folks would be at tomorrow’s press conference, and while some Democratic leaders have been invited, the campaign didn’t know who’d be showing up tomorrow."

I'll definitely be staying tuned for the press conference tomorrow. Hopefully they can address some of the outstanding worries we have.

I am so sick of Prop. 1 that I only have one thing to say before I go to sleep:

FUCK PROP 1!

no no no. prop 1 is and will be a good thing for seattle.

our population is nearly doubling over the course of the next 30 years.

i for one, do not want to be here if we don't start investing in a transportation infrastructure upgrade damn soon.

crowded freeways, no light rail, busses stuck in traffic... no thanks.

the plan may not be perfect but i see the good FAR outweighing the bad.

actually, besides the cross-base freeway i have no problem with it. luckily, the cross base probably won't be built anyways. as for the rest of it, more freeway lanes are a good thing in this case- the sprawl is already at the locations the freeways serve, but people are just idling in traffic much of the time. more lanes would mean a more pleasant drive, faster shipping for local business, busses getting stuck in traffic less, and less greenhouse emissions from idling traffic. if that's how the eastside wants to invest their share, that's fine.

i think the benefits of light rail are obvious i think to most people on this board and personally, i can't wait to get on board.

mmm... bu... guh... transportation projects frustrate me so much around here!!!! (Tunnel... Elevated... Surface street Argh!!)

Yes, we need to pay attention to highways because traffic isn't going to just go away once we build light rail. But just adding lanes is not a solution. We need to make these freeways work better. Reduce merging bits, resurface it, make bus lanes, BRT, carpool lanes... not just an extra lane. Also, why did I-5 get left out of all of this? In case you haven't noticed while sitting in traffic... you're driving on cobblestones... There are several sections that could collapse in a major earthquake... Why not spend some money on functional improvements there?

I agree with a few of the gripes on light rail too. Ballard and West Seattle had enough demand to justify planning a monorail line... why do they get left out of the light rail discussion? Is this a local transit line or commuter rail? heavy rail or light rail? Why is it going to take 11 years to get from UW to Northgate?

BLAGH!!!

i know the frustration with the amount of time it takes to build light rail. i'd rather see the whole thing done by 2015, and i'd be willing to lobby for that, but i don't know how to get that to be effective. maybe start a petition after it's passes.

as for the ballard-burien line, at least st2 includes full funding for a planning study for it.

It wouldn't be possible to build it all by 2015. Not in the US.

Environmental review, design, land acqusition, and other pre-construction work takes years regardless. On top of that, I'd guess it's another year on average to go through the federal funding process.

You could expedite the construction phase if you allowed 24-hour construction in residential zones, massive amounts of overtime labor, relaxation of environmental and safety laws, poor construction quality, very little citizen input on the design, etc. Basically if you wanted to bypass laws, cause accidents, build something that isn't necessarily what the public wants, and makes the corridor a living hell during construction.

Construction takes time, particularly to do it right.

Prop 1 costs way to much, but just think of how much it is going to cost if we wait another 3-5 years to pass it. At least in 15 years when all highways are gridlocked for 10 miles in every direction, we will have a tiny bit of light rail to hop on.

Why is it going to take 11 years to get from UW to Northgate?

That was discussed on the previous page.

Speaking of monorail... I emailed Sound Transit board a while ago and asked them why not they just buy the existing monorail line and improve/extend it... They replied that they already discussed about that but decided not to do that. They feel that light rail lines are less complicated than monorails. They didn't give me specific reasons why they decided not include monorail as their projects.

I agree with a few of the gripes on light rail too. Ballard and West Seattle had enough demand to justify planning a monorail line... why do they get left out of the light rail discussion?
BLAGH!!!

Ballard and West Seattle are not destinations. They're residential - where people get on in the morning and get off in the evening. In the early stages, the light rail must serve TRUE destination points like the Eastside, the UW, and Northgate.

The reverse commute is becoming more and more of an issue (just check the AM traffic cams on the 520 and you'll see).

I got a big brochure/poster in the mail today from Sound Transit outlining all the proposed stuff in the RTID.

Speaking of monorail... I emailed Sound Transit board a while ago and asked them why not they just buy the existing monorail line and improve/extend it... They replied that they already discussed about that but decided not to do that. They feel that light rail lines are less complicated than monorails. They didn't give me specific reasons why they decided not include monorail as their projects.


As excited as I was for an extended monorail, ultimately I think a light rail route there will be cheaper and more efficient. Let's get Prop 1 passed, so Sound Transit can complete their planning study on that corridor and get a vote on it ASAP!

Someone posted this on the Seattle Light Rail thread from the transit section of this forum.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003938133_danny10.html

Little article on why having light rail is cool.

I'm a big transit backer, but at this point I'm leaning towards a "no" vote. this is predicated on the facts that 1) ST would make the ballot and win the following year 2) legislature is 2/3 dems, so its unlikely a pro-roads bill would come out there next session 3)the lag from passage of ST project to completion is so long that another year or delay won't make much difference, in fact, the critical path to completion on these projects is not construction time, its timing tax revenues with bonding capacity, so conceivably there might not be any delay with waiting a year.

Read the roads proejcts again. Not only are we expanding 405 and building a cross base, but many of the Snoco improvements expand 2-laners to 4 lanes.

More importantly, we need to tolling for demand management....In my ideal world, the package would be:

-5B for 520
-1B for 167/405 HOV completion
-500M for tolling implemtation
-toss in 500M for "safety related" improvements regionwide, no new SOV capacity
-6B light rail to Overlake, Lynwood, Federal Way (expansions north and south of those points "proved" by BRT first)
=13B

WHOA. Sound Transit is not allowed to go to ballot in 2008. The reason they were kicked off in 2006 by the state legislature is because they would have coincided with legislative races. In 2008 they'll coincide with legislative races AND the governor's race, and both the leg. and the gov. have said ST cannot go back to ballot next year.

Oh, wait, and remember that "transportation governance" bill that almost made it this year? What do you think happens to that next year if Prop 1 fails? Sound Transit would be put under the RTID umbrella, just as SB 5803 nearly did this session, and we'll never see transit taxes and roads taxes separate again.

Speaking of monorail... I emailed Sound Transit board a while ago and asked them why not they just buy the existing monorail line and improve/extend it... They replied that they already discussed about that but decided not to do that. They feel that light rail lines are less complicated than monorails. They didn't give me specific reasons why they decided not include monorail as their projects.

1) the monorail is elevated through downtown, and elevated through dense urban cores stifles development.
2) monorail technology isn't standardized across hundreds of companies. We'd end up with one or two bidders, probably a lot of the time only a single bidder, and end up paying a LOT more because of the lack of competition. It's also harder to find people with experience maintaining the vehicles.
3) The Seattle Monorail Project was already planning to build there when Sound Transit was planning their line.

Ballard and West Seattle had enough demand to justify planning a monorail line... why do they get left out of the light rail discussion? Is this a local transit line or commuter rail? heavy rail or light rail? Why is it going to take 11 years to get from UW to Northgate?

BLAGH!!!

Ballard and West Seattle do *not* compete with Bellevue, Northgate and Tacoma as population centers in the region. Sound Transit's boundaries are big - so they're choosing the best ridership lines to build first (to serve the most people, of course). The SMP was only choosing from Seattle neighborhoods - their charter wasn't regional, so they were picking the best Seattle destinations to serve first.

Also, you can't just go "The SMP collapsed, Sound Transit, stop what you're doing and build here instead!" Sound Transit was halfway through the planning process for ST2 by the time the SMP failed. They can't just up and start over.

Please, actually *look* at the Sound Transit web site before asking whether this is heavy rail or light rail. It's light rail (hence why it's called Link Light Rail). I also have a map of what we're building and operating now, and what's upcoming (please read the key) at http://soundtransit2.com.

It'll take 2 years to get from UW to Northgate (2016 for UW, 2018 for Northgate). It's taking 9 years to get from Westlake to UW (and I didn't see, I suspect this has already been discussed) because we're waiting for a federal grant which should be awarded next year, and because we're constrained by how much tax we collect - something the agency can't change.

By using debt, we can spend before taxes are collected. Debt costs money, but not so much that they'd slow the project to wait for collections to catch up.

The UW link will take a long time because of design work, environmental review, public process, and a lengthy construction process. Construction itself will itself take several years regardless of paper conditions.

By using debt, we can spend before taxes are collected. Debt costs money, but not so much that they'd slow the project to wait for collections to catch up.

The actually do have to stagger development costs such that we have sufficient debt service coverage on the bonds. Thats one of the reasons why why we cannot begin all of ST 2 simultaneously. The idea is to make several sets of over overlapping 30-40 year repayment schedules all fit within the bond covenant-determined coverage ratios based upon the expected revenue streams from various taxes

The actually do have to stagger development costs such that we have sufficient debt service coverage on the bonds. Thats one of the reasons why why we cannot begin all of ST 2 simultaneously. The idea is to make several sets of over overlapping 30-40 year repayment schedules all fit within the bond covenant-determined coverage ratios based upon the expected revenue streams from various taxes

There aren't any repayment schedules in excess of 30 years that I'm aware of, but yes, exactly.

Note that in Dallas and Salt Lake City (I think), agencies came back to ballot on approved long-term projects and offered an acceleration for more taxes. I believe both accelerations happened. We can't do that if Prop 1 fails, though - it's hilarious people think that shooting this down will somehow get us a faster package...

By using debt, we can spend before taxes are collected. Debt costs money, but not so much that they'd slow the project to wait for collections to catch up.

The UW link will take a long time because of design work, environmental review, public process, and a lengthy construction process. Construction itself will itself take several years regardless of paper conditions.

I remember being told that we were actually waiting, so that a higher percentage of the money being spent will be direct, rather than debt. Something about it decreasing risk? I'm not sure.

You guys seem to know more than I do, and I wasn't even thinking of limits on outstanding bonds. I stand corrected.

As excited as I was for an extended monorail, ultimately I think a light rail route there will be cheaper and more efficient. Let's get Prop 1 passed, so Sound Transit can complete their planning study on that corridor and get a vote on it ASAP!

True. There is a pro about monorail, they get built faster than light rail. Of course, light rail is way cheaper than monorail but more complicated.

1) the monorail is elevated through downtown, and elevated through dense urban cores stifles development.
2) monorail technology isn't standardized across hundreds of companies. We'd end up with one or two bidders, probably a lot of the time only a single bidder, and end up paying a LOT more because of the lack of competition. It's also harder to find people with experience maintaining the vehicles.
3) The Seattle Monorail Project was already planning to build there when Sound Transit was planning their line.

That made a lot of senses.

Sorry, I'm sort of with Sims. I'm voting NO-NO.

If there's a follow-up light rail vote, I'll vote YES.
If there's a congestion pricing vote, I'll vote YES.

On top of all of that, as long as Ron Sims keeps talking about congestion pricing he'll get my vote.

You won't see a follow-up light rail vote, because Sound Transit will be gone.
You won't see a congestion pricing vote, because the state legislature would have to approve it, and *just like New York*, they will shoot it down.

True. There is a pro about monorail, they get built faster than light rail.

There's no significant difference in build time. The things that actually take time (all the public processes to plan and work with the communities) are the same for both, and you have to drill holes and put up supports for both (if you're comparing elevated to elevated). They both need O&M facilities, they both have land purchases, etc etc. The Seattle Monorail Project actually tried to claim they wouldn't have to buy right-of-way land because "they're just posts!" - this was also along the time of the apparent 10-inch steel tubes in renderings holding up the guideway...

Simply, though, monorail wouldn't have worked for this corridor in Seattle, because there is *no way* one could build elevated rail through the UW or over the Montlake Cut (those are political), or up the steep grade from downtown to Capitol Hill (that's technical).

Oh, yeah, and rubber tires? Not the smoothest ride in the world. I've been on the new Paris Metro that's got rubber tires and it's like riding a bus.

Oh, yeah, and rubber tires? Not the smoothest ride in the world. I've been on the new Paris Metro that's got rubber tires and it's like riding a bus.

Rubber tires are known to be smoother and quieter than steel wheels...

Rubber tires are known to be smoother and quieter than steel wheels...

Both of those basically antiquated observations. A perfectly round steel wheel on smooth, welded steel rails is smooth enough for bullet trains. There's less squeaking than old subway systems with newer rubber tired systems, but new rail systems built with smooth curves and proper elevation with tight tolerances don't have the squealing issues either.

The Paris line I rode was bumpy (which makes sense, it's rubber) and loud (spinning rubber deforming against its rail isn't all that quiet).

You won't see a follow-up light rail vote, because Sound Transit will be gone.
You won't see a congestion pricing vote, because the state legislature would have to approve it, and *just like New York*, they will shoot it down.

The legislature will extend Sound Transit. It's going to be around for a while anyway to build the rest of the first line.
Someday we'll have congestion pricing. It's just a matter of time. It's the only way to reduce sprawl and pay for maintenance/transit/etc.

Not to mention that Prop 1 is a plan that will tap out most taxpayers for the next 50-whatever years. That's not a bad thing in and of itself- the problem is that we will get Prop 1 and no more until it's done. Why vote for a stuffed-with-pork-for-everyone-but-not-enough-money-for-520/Viaduct/etc/etc-replacement-while-we-build-a-new-highway-for-sprawl-in-pierce-county-3-miles-from-an-existing-highway plan that will have us stuck without any other options for an entire generation?!

Prop 1 is the worst sort of pandering for votes- by funding a bunch of little b.s. road pet projects that suburbanites like but won't do a damn thing to end congestion.

The legislature will extend Sound Transit. It's going to be around for a while anyway to build the rest of the first line.
Someday we'll have congestion pricing. It's just a matter of time. It's the only way to reduce sprawl and pay for maintenance/transit/etc.

I wouldn't count on it. The legislature will certainly do something to keep the transit routes operating, but it doesn't really like Sound Transit the planning body. If it does dissolve Sound Transit the planning body, we'll eventually get something to take its place but by then we'll have lost the expertise Sound Transit has only now built up.

Prop 1 is the worst sort of pandering for votes- by funding a bunch of little b.s. road pet projects that suburbanites like but won't do a damn thing to end congestion.

Politics is the art of compromise. This compromise allows the region to tax a base large enough to fund significant regional improvements while ensuring most areas get something to their liking. A transit-only bill would flop badly in East King County, outer Pierce County, etc., probably enough to kill it overall.

If this bill fails and the legislature dissolves Sound Transit, I predict a Seattle-only bill that promotes more surface-only light rail (a la the SLUT, only maybe with dedicated right-of-way) in Seattle only within 5 years. A fast transit link to Bellevue is dead for at least 20 years. (At least John Niles will get his HOV-oriented BRT by default and we'll all get to see what a success that will be.)

Traffic is a mess. Transit is sorry. But there is no way that I can vote yes to increase the sales tax to 9.5%. Never. The people who are going to be hurt the most with this increase are those that can least afford it. This is a completely ridiculous idea. It should really be based on user fees somehow. I don't know of anyone personally who is going to vote for this. Dem or GOP.

If only we'd reverse the Eiman mess that was created by eliminating the car tab tax. I accepted paying $600-700 each year for my little sticker knowing that I lived in a state with no Income Tax. Where would we be today if that were still the case? This is the purest example of use-based tax with a toll road. Only problem is that it was statewide (I believe) where the traffic and congestion mess is not statewide.

The legislature will extend Sound Transit. It's going to be around for a while anyway to build the rest of the first line.
Someday we'll have congestion pricing. It's just a matter of time. It's the only way to reduce sprawl and pay for maintenance/transit/etc.

Not to mention that Prop 1 is a plan that will tap out most taxpayers for the next 50-whatever years. That's not a bad thing in and of itself- the problem is that we will get Prop 1 and no more until it's done. Why vote for a stuffed-with-pork-for-everyone-but-not-enough-money-for-520/Viaduct/etc/etc-replacement-while-we-build-a-new-highway-for-sprawl-in-pierce-county-3-miles-from-an-existing-highway plan that will have us stuck without any other options for an entire generation?!

Prop 1 is the worst sort of pandering for votes- by funding a bunch of little b.s. road pet projects that suburbanites like but won't do a damn thing to end congestion.

The legislature already said they'd dissolve Sound Transit. Senate Bill 5803 et al. this session.

Traffic is a mess. Transit is sorry. But there is no way that I can vote yes to increase the sales tax to 9.5%. Never. The people who are going to be hurt the most with this increase are those that can least afford it. This is a completely ridiculous idea. It should really be based on user fees somehow. I don't know of anyone personally who is going to vote for this. Dem or GOP.

User fees hurt people *more* than a sales tax. The median income will only pay $150 more a year for this package. How much would a $5 toll add up to with 200 working days a year to do the same thing, when there's *no* effective transit alternative?

Seriously, get over it, we don't have another option.

If only we'd reverse the Eiman mess that was created by eliminating the car tab tax. I accepted paying $600-700 each year for my little sticker knowing that I lived in a state with no Income Tax. Where would we be today if that were still the case? This is the purest example of use-based tax with a toll road. Only problem is that it was statewide (I believe) where the traffic and congestion mess is not statewide.

This IS a reversal of Eyman. The roads component of the package uses a motor vehicle excise tax, only for those living in the district.

Dissolve Sound Transit? How can they dissolve them while we already have a starter line nearing completion, tacoma link, express buses and so on. Who's gonna operate those if Sound Transit is gone?

This IS a reversal of Eyman. The roads component of the package uses a motor vehicle excise tax, only for those living in the district.
Just not to the degree we were paying, if you remember. This is why our roads are full of pot holes and resurfacing projects are years behind plan. This is a great user tax. If you can't afford the tabs, then ride the bus or other mass transit.

Dissolve Sound Transit? How can they dissolve them while we already have a starter line nearing completion, tacoma link, express buses and so on. Who's gonna operate those if Sound Transit is gone?

They merge construction and operations into RTID or the PSRC (I keep mentioning SB 5803, it is online if you want to read it), but would eliminate all planning staff and eventually all the engineers, designers, etc that the agency's worked so damn hard to collect.

It's just crazy. Six years ago, things turned around, ST fixed their problems and started attracting really good talent. It takes a long time to get a bunch of qualified people together to build these big capital projects! If Prop 1 fails, we're going to have to start over, and it'll be a decade or two before we even get it sorted out, much less put another plan on the ballot. This setback would be about the same as killing Forward Thrust was in 1968 and 1970 - we can't wait another 25 years just to have a plan on the ballot, and if history and the saber-rattling in the legislature are any indication, that *is* what will happen.

Just not to the degree we were paying, if you remember. This is why our roads are full of pot holes and resurfacing projects are years behind plan. This is a great user tax. If you can't afford the tabs, then ride the bus or other mass transit.

Well, the real reason our roads are full of potholes and resurfacing projects are years behind plan is that we killed our existing transportation infrastructure starting in 1916 (with federal road investment), so we have no competition.

But yes, I do see your point. So vote for this and then push for more.

As a construction guy, my impression is that Sound Transit is a very professional, quality organization these days.

So it won't be called Sound Transit anymore, UrbanBen? Only if, the prop 1 doesn't pass.

So it won't be called Sound Transit anymore, UrbanBen? Only if, the prop 1 doesn't pass.

No, there won't BE a Sound Transit. There will be an office with people managing operations and maintenance that will have a Sound Transit logo (if even that). Sound Transit, as an agency with a charter to build infrastructure, will be gone.

Blah blah blah. The plan sucks. I don't want us stuck with it for 50 years.

I'd happily wait 5, 10, 20 years for a better plan that actually accomplishes congestion relief. That means user fees (tolls/congestion pricing) and transportation alternatives (bus/BRT/light rail/streetcar/whatever etc).

Prop 1 does very little to reduce congestion. Highways will still be choked with traffic, buses will still suck, and only those within 500 feet of a light rail station will use it to commute. What's the point?

Every plan will have detractors. The odds are poor that you'll get something that coincides with your precise ideas. In reality, we'll either do nothing, or do something that many people like but other people don't like.

This one is a good consensus package. I don't like the amount of widening on 405. But it's a big leap forward on transit (500'? People will actually walk a lot farther for good transit). 520 needs to be replaced soon, period.

Blah blah blah. The plan sucks. I don't want us stuck with it for 50 years.

I'd happily wait 5, 10, 20 years for a better plan that actually accomplishes congestion relief. That means user fees (tolls/congestion pricing) and transportation alternatives (bus/BRT/light rail/streetcar/whatever etc).

Prop 1 does very little to reduce congestion. Highways will still be choked with traffic, buses will still suck, and only those within 500 feet of a light rail station will use it to commute. What's the point?
You're fooling yourself if you think any other plan would "accomplish congestion relief." Not building or expanding freeways certainly won't do it - the only thing that would happen if we don't build or expand any more freeways is that you'd have the same sized freeways, but with more traffic, and thus more congestion. A gold-plated Link system won't be any better either, because the existing RTID already will construct a gold-plated Link system. You're trying to say that by doing less, we will accomplish more. This is just ridiculous.

9.5% sales tax is nothing when we don't have an income tax. i live more then 500' from the bus stop and i take the bus. what is with seattleites, like i've always said if you gave a seattlite a chunk of gold they'd whine about the tiny dirt spec on it.

9.5% sales tax is nothing when we don't have an income tax. i live more then 500' from the bus stop and i take the bus. what is with seattleites, like i've always said if you gave a seattlite a chunk of gold they'd whine about the tiny dirt spec on it.

It's because we lost our early-suburban transport, so we became provincial - not just regionally, but even in terms of neighborhoods. There is no connection between places here, so people identify only with one small part of the region, and feel that their part is best. There are people in Ballard voting against Prop 1 because it only goes to the University District - totally unable to see the big picture, that they'll *never* see rail until the larger places are served first.

Blah blah blah. The plan sucks. I don't want us stuck with it for 50 years.

I'd happily wait 5, 10, 20 years for a better plan that actually accomplishes congestion relief. That means user fees (tolls/congestion pricing) and transportation alternatives (bus/BRT/light rail/streetcar/whatever etc).

Prop 1 does very little to reduce congestion. Highways will still be choked with traffic, buses will still suck, and only those within 500 feet of a light rail station will use it to commute. What's the point?

"stuck with it for 50 years"? We'll have another set of rail extensions on the ballot around 2015, and more from RTID before that. Don't you get it? We're $50 billion behind (in today's dollars) on infrastructure investments. Do you think halting them will HELP?

There is no way to reduce congestion. No. Way. Do you see any, ANY other places in the world where congestion has been "reduced"? NO.

You're fooling yourself if you think any other plan would "accomplish congestion relief." Not building or expanding freeways certainly won't do it - the only thing that would happen if we don't build or expand any more freeways is that you'd have the same sized freeways, but with more traffic, and thus more congestion. A gold-plated Link system won't be any better either, because the existing RTID already will construct a gold-plated Link system. You're trying to say that by doing less, we will accomplish more. This is just ridiculous.

I don't understand this "gold plated" nonsense. Do you have any concept of how much a full subway would have cost? Link is EXTREMELY CHEAP for what we're getting.

Magically, when you introduce a direct cost to drive a route traffic on that route is dimished. Witness Singapore; witness London.

Congestion pricing is the future, and it can't come soon enough.

Prop 1 does nothing to reduce the amount of traffic on the street.
Prop 1 does nothing to make riding a bus any more appealing. It's still stuck in traffic.
Prop 1 does nothing to fix bad zoning that encourages spawl/traffic.
Prop 1 does not fully replace 520 or other streets in need of replacement.
Prop 1 does not fix many choke points/bad ramps (hello, I-5 from the ship canal to downtown?!)

But Prop 1 does build a slick train. I'll give it that.

What we need is a cost to drive so that unecessary car trips are avoided.

(Ok I'll shut up now.)

I don't understand this "gold plated" nonsense. Do you have any concept of how much a full subway would have cost? Link is EXTREMELY CHEAP for what we're getting.
I was using a figure of speech. By "gold plated" I mean a light rail system that would cover a lot of area and have a lot of miles, not a subway or some other fancier system.

RTID doesn't fully replace 520 because the rest of it being paid for by the state and federal government.

^
And tolls.

I'm sorry, but these are all straw man excuses . . .

Prop 1 does nothing to reduce the amount of traffic on the street.
Neither will any other plan that anyone else devises. And anyone who thinks that their plan can do so, is deceiving themselves.

Prop 1 does nothing to make riding a bus any more appealing. It's still stuck in traffic.
Neither will any other plan that anyone else devises. And anyone who thinks that their plan can do so, is deceiving themselves.

Prop 1 does nothing to fix bad zoning that encourages spawl/traffic.
It's not supposed to be a zoning plan, it's just supposed to pay for transportation improvements. :ohno:

But we do already have a regional plan which attempts to take care of "bad zoning" - it's called the Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision 2020, which was adopted several years ago:
http://www.psrc.org/projects/vision/index.htm
^
It's now about to be updated for a "Vision 2040" plan.

Prop 1 does not fully replace 520 or other streets in need of replacement.
See citruspastels's and my responses immediately above.

Prop 1 does not fix many choke points/bad ramps (hello, I-5 from the ship canal to downtown?!)
I just love it when opponents to RTID from one end of their mouths complain that the RTID will build too many roads and expand too many freeways, but from the other end of their mouths they complain that it won't expand certain freeways and build certain roads! :nuts:

520 is being tolled?! Sweet! I think tolling goes far and has the potential to reduce 15-25% of unecessary trips. It eliminated all congestion on the narrows (with help from a 50% increase in capacity). So let's start tolling 520, I-5 into seattle, 405 into Bellevue and 167 between renton and auburn.

I was using a figure of speech. By "gold plated" I mean a light rail system that would cover a lot of area and have a lot of miles, not a subway or some other fancier system.

Oh, okay - that was in the title of the batshit insane Van Dyk column a few days ago, and he was referring to expense.

Still... it's not exactly gold plated. You realize regions with our population in other countries have double that just in local rail, not to mention intercity, in general?

It's not supposed to be a zoning plan, it's just supposed to pay for transportation improvements. :ohno:


I might go as far as to say it *will* help fix sprawl and zoning issues. Our zoning limitations in many areas are simply because of a lack of transportation infrastructure - much of the region is zoned so low-density simply because if it wasn't, people would be stopped in traffic *all* the time. It's relatively easy to upzone properties when a light rail station is on the way - just look at the Bel-Red corridor plan, or the zoning changes in the Rainier valley.

If anyone wants a yard sign they are availible in Pioneer Square at 600 First Ave suite 300 in the Pioneer Building at the corner of first and yestler.

Just make sure they are there first-
206-381-1251

Vote yes!
http://www.roadsandtransit.org/images/MAP_RT_Web_2.jpg

My question - why is ST2 so conservative regarding their build times? 11 years to go from the airport to Kent/Des Moines - that is 4.3 miles of track. .4 miles per year? 20 years to build the whole light rail system as described? What could possibly take that long???

^^ my guess is they don't want a repeat of the scaling down of st1.

My question - why is ST2 so conservative regarding their build times? 11 years to go from the airport to Kent/Des Moines - that is 4.3 miles of track. .4 miles per year? 20 years to build the whole light rail system as described? What could possibly take that long???

1) Collecting taxes. They're not bonding nearly everything! They're mixing bonds and direct spending to make their finances very robust.
2) Yeah, they're being SUPER SUPER CONSERVATIVE. They're also planning for entirely elevated when they can likely do some at-grade in highway rights of way to save tons of money. And you know the cities and neighborhoods involved basically all go nuts with demands and ridiculousness to slow things down.

Its not going to pass, people have had it with this whole thing. That is probably an unpopular thing to say but it's true. Transit isn't going to fix everything because it doesn't go everywhere that people live and work.

Its not going to pass, people have had it with this whole thing. That is probably an unpopular thing to say but it's true. Transit isn't going to fix everything because it doesn't go everywhere that people live and work.

I hope you're wrong that it won't pass. I fear you're right; the coverage recently has suggested a drop in support.

That said, we the supporters need to be able to make it clear that *nothing* is going to fix everything. Nothing. Road expansion alone creates new backups at new chokepoints, is an environmental mess and would require insane amounts of money. Congestion pricing requires more alternatives in place to be politically palatable. Transit everywhere is impractical for low-density areas.

So the best we can do is propose a package of improvements that satisfies people around the region. Seattlites don't need road improvements as much as we need transit, so we get (mostly) light rail. Monroe-ites don't need a train they don't have the density to support, so they get widened Rt 2, etc. This compromise is *good*.

This compromise is *good*.

It's really good. While I'm a commie pinko bastard and at heart I don't think we should add a single lane anywhere for any reason ever (hah!), we need to move people and we can't suddenly turn into a region of neatly distributed, rail-connected town centers and urban cores overnight. Prop 1 represents a realization that we can't just keep expanding the roads, that we need more than one solution going forward, but that we also can't stop cold turkey.

I'm voting for it as soon as my ballot arrives, and I sincerely hope that everyone here who's in the district will too. It's the next step toward fixing the mess we're in by balancing out our transport options again.

I saw this elsewhere and would like to share. I fully agree with everything below:

"Face it folks, what we're seeing is yet another example of that perennial definition of insanity: 'trying the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different outcome every time'.

"So, this is what you're faced with: either do nothing and watch vehicle traffic get worse; or spend tens of billions of dollars on road [and transit] improvements - and watch vehicle traffic get worse.

"(I would, however, vote YES on a light-rail/transit only plan because those trains are slick and I would be one of those density-loving people living near a station.)"


I too would vote for a light rail/transporation alternatives-only plan because I would make an effort to live near it and use it.

If its not going to pass then we can all just keep fight like Seattle always does and stick our thumbs up our ass waiting for another revelation to come up. With so many people with strong opinions this will never be done. Fight,fight,fight,bitch,bitch,bitch, thats all thats done.

I saw this elsewhere and would like to share. I fully agree with everything below:

"Face it folks, what we're seeing is yet another example of that perennial definition of insanity: 'trying the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different outcome every time'.

"So, this is what you're faced with: either do nothing and watch vehicle traffic get worse; or spend tens of billions of dollars on road [and transit] improvements - and watch vehicle traffic get worse.

"(I would, however, vote YES on a light-rail/transit only plan because those trains are slick and I would be one of those density-loving people living near a station.)"


I too would vote for a light rail/transporation alternatives-only plan because I would make an effort to live near it and use it.

In the years it would take to get another plan on the ballot, the light rail alone will cost more than the rail plus the roads this year. Don't you get it? Sound Transit won't *be here* to offer another vote if this goes down.

I needed a little inspiration tonight, so I went and read up on Denver's now famous TREX project.

In 1992, a traffic study concluded that I-25 through the heart of Denver's "tech center" would become a giant parking lot if the city didnt make badly needed transportation improvements. Traffic had already exceeded the design limit of 180,000 cars per day, and was in danger of growing even worse with the expected influx of 150,000 jobs to Denver's tech center. The study recommened widening the freeway, building transit along the same corridor, and improving connections with major arterials (sound familiar?). The Project was to take 10 years, and cost $1.67B.

The results are now in: The project was complete 22 months AHEAD of schedule, and 3.2% UNDER budget. The rail line nearly met its 1 year projected ridership in only 3 months, and 230,000 cars/day move through the corridor with minimal congestion.

How does this apply to Porp 1? Even though this project was more localised and on a smaller scale, it had many similar elements:

-Light rail: Denver, 19 miles, Seattle, 50 miles
-Highway expansion: Denver, I-25 extra lanes, Seattle, I-405 extra lanes
-Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation: Denver: 18 bridges over I-25 rehabbed or replaced, Seattle: 520, rt 2, etc.
-Major Thoroughfare connections and improvements: Denver: Broadway, Seattle: Mercer Mess

This was a big risk for Denver, but they took it because they realized something needed to be done. The plan had its detractors too. Some groups objected to extra lanes being built on the freeway (sound familiar?), some homeowners objected to being displaced by construction, some wanted HOV lanes instead of light rail, etc. But in the end, it turned out for the best. After the mess of construction, the city was able to get moving again. I think Seattle could have the same success.

The wikipedia article on the project has some good arguments for Why Light Rail?:

Light rail transit was endorsed because of the following reasons noted in the T-REX factbook:[37]

* Lightrail has significantly less impact to existing residences and businesses in the corridor and to natural resources, such as wetlands, parks, and historic properties.
* Lightrail capital costs were as much as $200 million less than the Bus/HOV alternative
* Lightrail has the greatest potential carrying capacity
* Lightrail has the best travel time
* Lightrail requires the lowest investment per user
* Lightrail had stronger potential for joint development
* Lightrail is the most reliable and safe option
* Lightrail had stronger community support


Additionally, Denver Mayor, John Hickenlooper said "Light rail offers a good solution to congestion because, even if you add more highway lanes, they quickly are filled with more cars. "You can add more and more traffic to the rail line, and not only does it not slow down, it takes more people," John Continued, "Combining rail lines with highway expansion has a lot of appeal to voters, but the ability to do so depends on the amount of space available for the project."[38][39]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_T-REX_Project_%28TRansportation_EXpansion%29#Quality_of_Life_Benefits

I guess the cost thing doesn't apply to us so much.

I guess the cost thing doesn't apply to us so much.

Actually, it might; the cost to build an exclusive bus route along some of the light rail route (e.g. from UW stadium to Northgate) might well be higher than the light rail cost.

(That said, I acknowledge that our cost estimates seem pretty high on a per-mile basis, especially for some of the more suburban sections where the train is expected to run in the highway median.)

Actually, it might; the cost to build an exclusive bus route along some of the light rail route (e.g. from UW stadium to Northgate) might well be higher than the light rail cost.

(That said, I acknowledge that our cost estimates seem pretty high on a per-mile basis, especially for some of the more suburban sections where the train is expected to run in the highway median.)

Those cost estimates are high specifically to avoid surprises. We don't know what hurricanes or oil prices are going to do to construction costs - but with 10%+ inflation on those costs in recent years, I wouldn't ask an agency to lowball!

if this doesn't pass i might leave. if seattleites aren't smart enough to approve this then they're not smart enough to be my neighbor

Why doesn't ST have the ability to control prices to a greater extent given its purchasing power. you'd think that an agency with "x" billions in annual capital budget over 20 years could have first pick, if you will, of all contractors around and be a market maker for prices rather than at the end of the proverbial whip. 11 billion would constitute a sizeable % of the region's capital expenditures over the time period, you'd think that they would a) be able to buy at "wholesale" prices given the size of their contracts and b) be able to develop processes for distribution and sourcing of materials due to economies of scale.

anyone have thoughts?

I'm still voting YES!

Why doesn't ST have the ability to control prices to a greater extent given its purchasing power. you'd think that an agency with "x" billions in annual capital budget over 20 years could have first pick, if you will, of all contractors around and be a market maker for prices rather than at the end of the proverbial whip. 11 billion would constitute a sizeable % of the region's capital expenditures over the time period, you'd think that they would a) be able to buy at "wholesale" prices given the size of their contracts and b) be able to develop processes for distribution and sourcing of materials due to economies of scale.

anyone have thoughts?

Yes, I have thoughts. I think you need to read the washington state statutes for award of public contract (or whatever they're called, IANAL).

Sound Transit releases a bid request for a project. It's then up to any interested contractors to submit bids. Sound Transit picks the best bid (with some leeway). They don't buy the materials or pay the workers, nor do they have the legal right to.

With construction like crazy, these contractors are busy already. ST got one bid for Airport Station, for instance - that basically means the contractor gets to set the price.

Why doesn't ST have the ability to control prices to a greater extent given its purchasing power. you'd think that an agency with "x" billions in annual capital budget over 20 years could have first pick, if you will, of all contractors around and be a market maker for prices rather than at the end of the proverbial whip. 11 billion would constitute a sizeable % of the region's capital expenditures over the time period, you'd think that they would a) be able to buy at "wholesale" prices given the size of their contracts and b) be able to develop processes for distribution and sourcing of materials due to economies of scale.

anyone have thoughts?

In some ways, but not in others.

The larger the project, the fewer contractors there are (GCs, subs, suppliers) who are qualified to build it. This can move prices upward.

Sound Transit's projects are low-bid. This means doing a great job on one package gets you no brownie points for the next package, and you'll have no advantage in the next competition. Add the fact that it's government work, which tends to be much more paper-intensive, and there's another factor moving prices upward. Also, some contractors prefer to do less low-bid work vs. negotiated work.

Also note that the $11 billion figure isn't construction cost, but also includes land aq, design, etc.

Governments would attract more contractors and lower their prices if they could hire on a negotiated, qualifications-based manner like most private developers. Washington and some of its local governments often use a method called GC/CM that brings many of the advantages of negotiated work, but this isn't used for road or rail projects, just buildings so far.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/335924_rtid18.html

October 17, 2007 10:16 p.m. PT
Election 2007: Two roads diverge on Proposition 1
By LARRY LANGE
P-I REPORTER

It's an unprecedented experiment, designed to end the roads-vs.-transit battles and pay for Puget Sound's big-city highway construction without taxing rural towns. If voters approve, in 20 years they'll get more new highway lanes and less congestion, supporters say.

But can the roads portion of the November roads-and-transit measure fix all the area's traffic problems?

Voters in the urban areas of King, Pierce and Snohomish counties on Nov. 6 will decide the fate of Proposition 1, the $47 billion ballot proposal that includes $9.67 billion in road projects that will cost $16.4 billion when financing and inflation are factored in.

"This is an opportunity as a region to fix what needs to be fixed," said supporter Louise Stanton-Masten, president of the Everett Area Chamber of Commerce.

Less than 35 percent of the measure's total funding pays for roads; the rest pays for an expansion of Sound Transit's light rail system. And some of the road projects, while improving traffic congestion, would only provide partial fixes. Critics say the measure just doesn't go far enough.

"You're only going to do pieces of it, simply because there's not enough revenue stream in what was the final approach for putting it on the ballot," said Snohomish County Councilman Gary Nelson.

One road project to connect state Route 509 from Sea-Tac to Interstate 5, for example, would add four general-use lanes -- but none exclusively for car pools and buses. In another instance, a $1.9 billion state Route 167 extension would be four lanes between Puyallup and Fife, but only two from Fife to Tacoma, plus the only connection to I-5 would be to northbound lanes.

"It's not anywhere near what's necessary," Nelson said.

The measure pays for work on the U.S. Route 2 trestle east of Everett to improve connections at each end, but would not widen it. And King County's South Park Bridge would get $110 million, but that won't cover the necessary replacement and other sources would have to be tapped. The new taxes also would not add all the needed turning lanes and turnouts to state Route 9, Nelson said.

The project list was developed by the Regional Transportation Investment District, an entity governed by elected officials in the three counties and created by the Legislature to raise new taxes for highway improvements. The idea was to supplement the state gas tax in the counties that get most of the biggest highway projects.

Nelson also said that commuters in some growing areas, such as Sultan and Snoqualmie, would benefit from improvements, but are not included in the urban areas that would be taxed to help fund the measure.

But Julia Patterson, a King County councilwoman and vice chairwoman of RTID, disagreed.

Residents of areas outside project boundaries would pay some of the supporting taxes by shopping in stores located in larger cities inside the boundaries, she said.

"If not now with this proposal, then when?" Patterson said. "If not this set of projects, what are they? Show me another list. No one has done that."

Seattle stands to get $323 million in regional money if Proposition 1 passes to finance about 90 percent of three major road improvement projects on Mercer, and South Lander and Spokane streets. Those routes could handle traffic during the removal of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and ultimately facilitate a surface-street replacement.

But a viaduct replacement, the region's other mega-project, won't get any money if the measure passes; instead, the state has set aside $2.8 billion for it while leaders wrestle with how to replace its segment through the city's downtown core.

RTID would allocate some money to another hot-button project, the replacement of the Evergreen Point Bridge on state Route 520, but even with state funding factored in there would be a $1.3 billion shortfall. The assumption is that tolls would finance that amount.

All RTID projects would be built during a 20-year period ending in 2027. Thirty-year bonds could be issued for the work during that time, though there's some expectation that the debt could be repaid by 2037, 10 years after construction is completed.

In cases where taxes levied by Proposition 1 fund a project, that money is slated to pay for all the work; in other instances, it provides only part of the financing.

In some cases, however, other actions will be required, some at the state level. Money for projects such as SR 520 and completing new car pool lanes to the Interstate 90 bridge require additional legislative approval even if the measure passes. Rep. Judy Clibborn, D-Mercer Island and chairwoman of the House Transportation Committee, and Rep. Fred Jarrett, R-Mercer Island, both expect the Legislature to approve the state's share of the money.

"We've been trying to come up with a way to fund these projects for a decade or more," Clibborn said. "Our (state) gas tax has a decreasing amount of buying power ... we can rely on it less and less."

A state analysis of the projects, issued this month after the project list was approved by the district, showed that virtually all of them would result in faster travel times and higher speeds in the added lanes during the time the highways are expanded.

Separately, the district issued an estimate saying the projects would cut commute times eight minutes on SR 167 between Renton and Auburn, 12 minutes on SR 520 from Seattle to Bellevue and 12 minutes on Interstate 405 between Bellevue and Renton, comparing the expanded roads to current conditions, as they exist before the package is approved and construction begins.

"The package was put together with so much care," Patterson said. "There were five years worth of work, deep into the community at the most basic level, to create (it)."

But there was no comparison in the analysis between projects that didn't make the final list and ones that did, said transportation analyst John Niles. "It doesn't make a comparison with what could have been done with the same amount of money."

But RTID spokeswoman Anne Fennessy said comparisons were done to help decide which projects to include, though the final ones weren't compared en masse to the rejected ones during final approval. "They did it as part of the process," she said.

Most environmental groups support the roads-and-transit measure that includes the highway projects. But Mike O'Brian, state chairman of the Sierra Club, cited a recent study saying that in 50 years, each mile of new highway adds at least 116,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

He called the project list "a mistake" and said the roadwork would complicate efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.

Patterson said the Sierra Club is "wrong (about the pollution issue) and that's why other environmental groups are not" opposing the measure.

if this doesn't pass i might leave. if seattleites aren't smart enough to approve this then they're not smart enough to be my neighbor

i might leave anyway. i can't wait 10 years to see improvements, i should just move to a city where it's already working.

i might leave anyway. i can't wait 10 years to see improvements, i should just move to a city where it's already working.

You know Central Link opens in two years, right? Move to the Rainier Valley.

i might leave anyway. i can't wait 10 years to see improvements, i should just move to a city where it's already working.

Bah, stay and watch the goodness grow

i might leave anyway. i can't wait 10 years to see improvements, i should just move to a city where it's already working.

i know how you feel, but i really believe in seattle and know we can make this happen. honestly, the only thing i don't like about seattle is a lack of comprehensive rail transit.

Seattle's getting better every year. It's fun to watch. It's something you miss out on when you live somewhere that's already "full".

You know Central Link opens in two years, right? Move to the Rainier Valley.

Well, that would be good if my job were also on the Link. It just seems so god-damned disappointing for a city of our stature to have an airport trolley by 2010 and little else to show for our progressive ('progressive') image.

Well, that would be good if my job were also on the Link. It just seems so god-damned disappointing for a city of our stature to have an airport trolley by 2010 and little else to show for our progressive ('progressive') image.

Well, where's your job? I've had no car here for nearly a decade, so the crankiness basically just comes across to me as annoying. It's not a "trolley" - it's going to be the fastest light rail system in the US, and four car trains are nothing to sneeze at. And most of it will open in 2009 - your 90% cases will be covered in 2009.

I like the Prop. 1 package, but ST should have all the light rail built at the same time, because costs will just increase, and the plan will probably go over budget again.

I like the Prop. 1 package, but ST should have all the light rail built at the same time, because costs will just increase, and the plan will probably go over budget again.

Really? Because they've been pretty darn careful. They're making a couple of very safe assumptions that I know of:

1) Only $1 billion (2006) in FTA grants. On Central Link and University Link, about $4 billion in capital costs, we picked up $1.5 billion in FTA grants. $1 billion is a VERY conservative estimate for a $10.8 billion (2006) project.

2) Elevated rail everywhere south of Sea-Tac. Along the 99 corridor, there are many places where rail can easily be placed at ground level (like it is along 5 and 599 in a few spots), saving significant amounts of money.

Sound Transit re-planned in 2000/2001 after reorganizing and hiring much more experienced management. Since then, they've been essentially on time and on budget. Why do you think they're going to go back to their pre-2000 state when they've been proving themselves better than that for six years already?

I like the Prop. 1 package, but ST should have all the light rail built at the same time, because costs will just increase, and the plan will probably go over budget again.

And let's talk about what ST "should" do. ST "should" send a package to voters that voters are willing to swallow.

The $10.8 billion plan will not use that much bonding. Only $3.9 billion worth of the capital costs, a little under 40%, will be bonded - the rest will be paid for directly by tax collection. If we wanted more bonding (which would be necessary for faster construction), we'd also have to collect significantly more taxes - and asking for .7 or .9% would put restaurant purchases over 10% (although not most purchases, but you know what would get printed in the Seattle Times...).

When you can find me a significant slice of voters willing to vote for a package about which opposition says "Tax of over 10%!", let me know. In the meantime, we'll pass Prop 1, and then in a couple of years Sound Transit can come back and say "Hey, if you give us .2% more right now, we can cut years off the construction time." Then it's not all-or-nothing.

Why would you (ST) not choose to bond more when the cost of capital is so low for them?

There a present value equation of time savings to residents if the system is built sooner rather than later - 10 years, say, of time savings (by time, I mean travel time)

Matching the long-term cost of the debt service to the long-term benefits of the system makes sense on a policy perspective. Why force us to pay cash and have people 20 years from now benefit from the same system but not have to pay - or pay much less?

I think the relatively small interest expense (in present value terms) is well worth it and we should build as fast as the bond coventants allow given tyhe assumed revenue stream

Well, where's your job? I've had no car here for nearly a decade, so the crankiness basically just comes across to me as annoying. It's not a "trolley" - it's going to be the fastest light rail system in the US, and four car trains are nothing to sneeze at. And most of it will open in 2009 - your 90% cases will be covered in 2009.

My job's in lower queen anne. oh, you're probably right, it is just me being cranky. i just moved here from new york after not having lived here since 1994. (when i was 13.) if it weren't for portland's middling job market, there would be no question which one i'd be living in. it's just very odd that a city so supposedly progressive and liberal like seattle is exactly where it left off 15 years ago, or longer.

My job's in lower queen anne. oh, you're probably right, it is just me being cranky. i just moved here from new york after not having lived here since 1994. (when i was 13.) if it weren't for portland's middling job market, there would be no question which one i'd be living in. it's just very odd that a city so supposedly progressive and liberal like seattle is exactly where it left off 15 years ago, or longer.

I would happily be living in Portland as well, and I totally understand the crankiness - I'm on Beacon Hill and commute to Redmond. I think we're the same age, too - I moved to Denver in the same timeframe (with parents), and then came back here just as they were building rail.

We've got the first step, though. It's now an inevitability that we'll expand it - just a matter of time.

Why would you (ST) not choose to bond more when the cost of capital is so low for them?

There a present value equation of time savings to residents if the system is built sooner rather than later - 10 years, say, of time savings (by time, I mean travel time)

Matching the long-term cost of the debt service to the long-term benefits of the system makes sense on a policy perspective. Why force us to pay cash and have people 20 years from now benefit from the same system but not have to pay - or pay much less?

I think the relatively small interest expense (in present value terms) is well worth it and we should build as fast as the bond coventants allow given tyhe assumed revenue stream

Simple - if you bonded everything now, your tax revenue would only pay for 2/3 of what we've got on the ballot. Interest is more expensive than waiting.

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/336095_worth19.html

Prop. 1 no cure for commute

Plan would ease, not unclog traffic

Last updated October 18, 2007 10:53 p.m. PT

By GREGORY ROBERTS
P-I REPORTER

It's 2030. Picture yourself -- or, maybe more realistically, your son or daughter -- living in one of the new Bellevue condominium towers that have clustered thickly along the light rail line that voters approved back in 2007.

You rise for work, eat breakfast and stroll to the rail station to board a train that whisks you to your job in downtown Seattle in 20 smooth-riding minutes.

Now change the frame: It's still a weekday morning in 2030, but you own a split-level in a Bellevue subdivision and you want to pick out some new bathroom tile in South Seattle after you finish work downtown. You're driving your car to your job on a commute that takes much longer than it did in 2007, despite the billions of dollars in road and transit improvements authorized that year.

Because of dramatic growth in population, highways in the Puget Sound region are expected to get far more crowded in the coming decades, no matter what voters say about the $47 billion roads and transit proposal on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Supporters of Proposition 1 argue that without the plan, traffic jams will be fiercer still. Proposition 1, they say, will make things less worse -- and the 50 miles of new light rail in the package will offer many travelers an escape from gridlock.

Opponents say it's ridiculous to spend that kind of money on a transportation plan that fails to make significant headway on the region's most critical transportation problem. "It costs too much and does too little," said John Niles, a Seattle consultant on transportation policy.

Niles and others maintain that there are cheaper alternatives that make more sense.

The region's drivers collectively lose about 260,000 hours per workday to traffic delays, compared with travel at the speed limit, according to a recent state transportation audit. If the Nov. 6 ballot proposal fails, that is expected to increase to more than 600,000 hours per day over 20 years. But even if Proposition 1 passes, the total is still expected to nearly double, to more than 500,000 hours.

The roads and transit proposal joins two separate elements in a political shotgun marriage designed to attract support both from those who want to build more highway lanes and from those who favor mass transit. Voters in the urbanized areas of King, Snohomish and Pierce counties will decide on the measure, which would subject them to a sales tax increase of 6 cents per $10 purchase and a yearly vehicle tax of $8 per $1,000 of value.

The roads portion includes projects stretching from south of Tacoma to north of Everett, among them new lanes for Interstate 405, improvements to traffic choke points in Seattle and help paying for a new Evergreen Point Bridge across Lake Washington. It would cost $16 billion, which covers all expenses including interest on construction loans.

The transit portion consists mainly of 50 miles of light rail reaching east, north and south from Seattle, extending the 20-mile system planned from Sea-Tac Airport to the University of Washington that Sound Transit already is working on. The transit projects, which also include spending on conventional commuter rail and express buses, would cost $31 billion, an amount that covers all construction and financing and also pays for operating the light rail lines through 2027.

Debate over the roads program is pretty straightforward. Supporters of the spending says it's obvious that adding highway lanes will ease congestion. Opponents say those new lanes will soon fill up with drivers taking advantage of them, leaving the roads just as bad off as before but with more cars stuck in traffic belching pollution-- while doing nothing to check sprawl or change society's misguided dependence on automobiles.

It's more complicated on the transit side. There's predictable opposition from fans of highway-building, some of whom suspect transit advocates of intrusive social engineering. But there's also criticism from people like Niles, who aren't necessarily part of the pour-more-concrete crowd but who raise questions about how much bang light rail delivers for the buck.

Sound Transit doesn't claim light rail will take so many people out of their cars that the highways flow more freely than they do now.

"The key role of transit is providing an alternative to sitting in traffic jams that have worsened because the region's population has gone up by 40 percent," agency spokesman Geoff Patrick said.

Niles readily acknowledges that light rail will attract riders. He just doesn't think the system will make enough of a difference overall in how people get around the region.

One way that planners measure transportation patterns is by "trips," with a journey from origin to destination by one person equal to one trip. So a commute from home to work is one trip, even if the commuter transfers from a bus to a train en route. Driving to the grocery store, on to the coffee shop and back home is three trips.

Residents of the region now take about 9.6 million trips of all kinds each day, according to data provided by Sound Transit. Of those, 3.4 percent are via bus or commuter train. By 2030, the total of all trips will rise to 13.2 million. If voters approve the Nov. 6 ballot measure, the transit share will grow, but just to 4.2 percent.

Transit does better on commutes. Of the 2.2 million daily trips to work or school today, transit accounts for 7.7 percent. When the total rises to 2.9 million in 2030, the transit share will amount to 10.1 percent if the Nov. 6 package is approved.

The transit share rises even higher if the focus narrows to commutes to urban centers. Transit now accounts for 40 percent of those trips to downtown Seattle, with a projected rise to 50 percent by 2030 if Proposition 1 passes. For downtown Bellevue, the equivalent numbers are 8 percent and 12 percent.

It's projected that the 70-mile light rail system envisioned by Sound Transit would account for about 300,000 trips among the transit total of 556,000 in 2030. But even without voter approval of the Nov. 6 proposal, the number of transit trips is expected to reach 482,000 by 2030. The light rail system is expected to draw only about 70,000 daily trips to transit from cars; the other 230,000 light rail trips, or more than two-thirds of the total, will migrate from other forms of public transit.

"Buses get stuck in traffic -- that's reality," Patrick said. Light rail, with its own tracks running on dedicated rights-of-way, does not.

"It's a quality-of-life issue for the transit riders," Patrick said.

Light rail's biggest payoff will come at rush hour, Patrick said. Sound Transit projects that in 2030, its light rail trains will carry 8,800 people per hour across the Ship Canal during peak commuting times, compared to the 14,000 now crossing the canal on Interstate 5. It would be nearly impossible, Patrick said, to match light rail's added capacity in that corridor by other means.

Patrick also cites a Sound Transit-commissioned analysis that shows that even with its high price tag, light rail will deliver more in economic benefits to the region than it will cost.

Light rail skeptics who aren't in the highway lobby inevitably bump up against the $64 question -- or maybe it's the $47 billion question: What would you do instead?

They lay out a vision of a variable and wide-reaching transportation network that maximizes existing highways and deploys multiple tools to move people and freight as efficiently as possible.

A key element would be express buses running in lanes either reserved for their use or regulated to keep traffic moving by such techniques as congestion pricing or high-occupancy-vehicle lane tolling -- buses that would be air-conditioned, maybe rigged for wireless Internet service and equipped with DVD players, and running on hybrid fuels. Another technique would be van pooling for long-distance commutes, modeled on the King County program -- the largest in the country -- that recovers all the costs of buying, fueling, maintaining and insuring the vans through fares.

Such a system, proponents say, would be flexible and adaptable, poised to take advantage of new technology and to respond to changing patterns of development and behavior. And it almost certainly would be a lot cheaper than light rail.

"We really need some real innovation to recognize the depth of the problem," Niles said. "We've got to think about what optimizes for the region -- and not optimize for the folks who live within walking distance of Husky Stadium."

chart

PROPOSITION 1 -- IS IT WORTH IT?

# 260,000 -- Current hours per workday lost to region's road travelers because of traffic delays.

# 500,000 -- Hours per workday lost if Proposition 1 passes.

# 600,000 -- Hours per workday lost if Proposition 1 fails.

Source: State transportation audit.

P-I reporter Gregory Roberts can be reached at 206-448-8022 or gregoryroberts@seattlepi.com.

© 1998-2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

My attitude towards prop 1 nowadays is this: We have an ENORMOUS backlog of transportation projects that NEED to be done. They WILL be expensive, regardless of when we do them, but they will be MORE expensive the longer we wait. Many of these such projects are included on this bill, but not all. So of course we will still have traffic problems even after these projects are complete, but that sounds crazy to me to say "we have all these problems, and this doesn't solve all of them.... so lets do nothing."

We need to get SOMETHING started. Let's go seattle!

Simple - if you bonded everything now, your tax revenue would only pay for 2/3 of what we've got on the ballot. Interest is more expensive than waiting.

you're ignoring the present value of the debt service payments relative to present value of the out of pocket cost. I run into this problem constantly when working with port officials and municipal public finance groups. The difficulty is factoring in an appropriate dicsount rate to make the apples-to-apples comparison. Yes, it would cost more, but it real dollars it might cost less. Depends upon your cost of capital, inflation and assumed discount rates

I would happily be living in Portland as well, and I totally understand the crankiness - I'm on Beacon Hill and commute to Redmond. I think we're the same age, too - I moved to Denver in the same timeframe (with parents), and then came back here just as they were building rail.

We've got the first step, though. It's now an inevitability that we'll expand it - just a matter of time.

Well, I guess if you're working in Redmond (who else could you work for in Redmond but something related to Gates?) then you won't see any light rail connection until you're in your mid 40's! Transitwise, I shouldn't be complaining too much, I can walk to work in 20 minutes and the buses to either LQA or Cap Hill are no more than 10 minutes.

Denver has almost always been a city I overlooked as a place to live, because it seemed too much at the whim of a few industries, and too conservative (the fact that boulder splits up all the demographic groups that i would want to live near or hang out with seems to make denver, less, well, cool). But the way they've decided to grow up and build up and invest in a serious light rail system (one that increasingly appears to be liveable and useable) has made me kind of wonder if it would be fun to live there.

you're ignoring the present value of the debt service payments relative to present value of the out of pocket cost. I run into this problem constantly when working with port officials and municipal public finance groups. The difficulty is factoring in an appropriate dicsount rate to make the apples-to-apples comparison. Yes, it would cost more, but it real dollars it might cost less. Depends upon your cost of capital, inflation and assumed discount rates

The credit crunch is going to cause construction cost inflation to dip, we know that much - we can't build like we have been, nobody has the money (or will shortly). Because tax collection is a percentage, it increases with inflation, so as long as it's about the same as construction cost inflation in the future (and real wages keep pace, which is another story) you still pay less if you save than if you bond.

Well, I guess if you're working in Redmond (who else could you work for in Redmond but something related to Gates?) then you won't see any light rail connection until you're in your mid 40's! Transitwise, I shouldn't be complaining too much, I can walk to work in 20 minutes and the buses to either LQA or Cap Hill are no more than 10 minutes.

Denver has almost always been a city I overlooked as a place to live, because it seemed too much at the whim of a few industries, and too conservative (the fact that boulder splits up all the demographic groups that i would want to live near or hang out with seems to make denver, less, well, cool). But the way they've decided to grow up and build up and invest in a serious light rail system (one that increasingly appears to be liveable and useable) has made me kind of wonder if it would be fun to live there.

Jeez, I walk to my bus stop in 20 minutes, and then spend 40 minutes on that.
I really should work in downtown - I'm working on a degree, so perhaps after that.

you're ignoring the present value of the debt service payments relative to present value of the out of pocket cost. I run into this problem constantly when working with port officials and municipal public finance groups. The difficulty is factoring in an appropriate dicsount rate to make the apples-to-apples comparison. Yes, it would cost more, but it real dollars it might cost less. Depends upon your cost of capital, inflation and assumed discount rates

You do realize that it's not just the interest that has to be paid - it's interest plus principal paydown?

If this fails, King County, Pierce County, and Snohomish County should make their own LRT plan, and if KC builds an LRT, PC would have to vote on an extension. The downside, though, is if a county doesn't want LRT, than it won't go anywhere useful, such as a line would end in Federal Way, and not go to Tacoma. ST should also focus on building an extra track or two, to Tacoma, to allow for frequent all-day service. Perhaps this could be part of ST3.

If this fails, King County, Pierce County, and Snohomish County should make their own LRT plan, and if KC builds an LRT, PC would have to vote on an extension. The downside, though, is if a county doesn't want LRT, than it won't go anywhere useful, such as a line would end in Federal Way, and not go to Tacoma. ST should also focus on building an extra track or two, to Tacoma, to allow for frequent all-day service. Perhaps this could be part of ST3.

King won't - that's a key problem here, Sims doesn't want to give up any of his Metro empire to Sound Transit. And King is where it would pass.

...an extra track or two? Where? Through downtown Kent and Auburn? Shall we tear down their downtowns for it?

King won't - that's a key problem here, Sims doesn't want to give up any of his Metro empire to Sound Transit. And King is where it would pass.

...an extra track or two? Where? Through downtown Kent and Auburn? Shall we tear down their downtowns for it?

You could simply add some bypass tracks somewhere besides stations and make trains coordinated so they don't run into each other.

Man, you are one really angry person. There is much more than what one says in one short sentence. :lol:

You could simply add some bypass tracks somewhere besides stations and make trains coordinated so they don't run into each other.

Man, you are one really angry person. There is much more than what one says in one short sentence. :lol:

No, you can't. You can pay BNSF hundreds of millions of dollars to improve track and signals - like we've been doing. I'm not angry, I'm just informed.

Good points UrbanBen.

Man, you are one really angry person. There is much more than what one says in one short sentence. :lol:

From what I've read on this board, you're the one who seems angry. You post in bold letters about how bad light rail is, and then put a smiley face after your posts. That doesn't make your posts reasonable or civil.

Just bringing the perspective of a newbie to these boards, but I'm trying to figure out your point of view. On the one hand, you say that the Taipei metro is a model is a for Seattle. On the other hand, you say that we should abandon light rail with the current Prop. 1 vote and go for so called bus rapid transit. These positions seem at odds to me.

Other than ripping on the current status of Seattle, what points of view do you offer?

No, you can't. You can pay BNSF hundreds of millions of dollars to improve track and signals - like we've been doing. I'm not angry, I'm just informed.

That is true. I am sorry I did not think this through very well.

From what I've read on this board, you're the one who seems angry. You post in bold letters about how bad light rail is, and then put a smiley face after your posts. That doesn't make your posts reasonable or civil.

Just bringing the perspective of a newbie to these boards, but I'm trying to figure out your point of view. On the one hand, you say that the Taipei metro is a model is a for Seattle. On the other hand, you say that we should abandon light rail with the current Prop. 1 vote and go for so called bus rapid transit. These positions seem at odds to me.

Other than ripping on the current status of Seattle, what points of view do you offer?

To be honest, I can't really remember when I post in bold letters how bad light rail is. I actually like light rail, but I think with Seattle's growing population that a metro system (like Taipei's) is a good investment to support high ridership, especially in a geographically-challenged area like ours. But as far as I seen, that probably won't happen, so i've given up on that idea.

Second, the reason I don't like the current proposal for light rail is it will take too long to extend light rail to Everett, not to mention the ST 2 plan and the Roads plan are on the same ballot. I said earlier on a different thread that I think the ballots should be seperated, since I kind of like the light rail plan but I don't like the Roads plan. And yes, I know you can't always get what you want, but I have the right to make that choice when it comes to Election Day. And since I believe that Sound Transit's current proposal for light rail won't do enough, I simply offer the idea of interim BRT lines across the region. Of course I know most BRT lines won't be permanant, but BRT is a good, short-term transportation alternative for low-density areas where light rail would not be served, for example: Highway 99. Highway 99 is a busy arterial in the region, but there isn't enough development to support light rail, so several transit agencies are implementing BRT as a short-term transportation alternative. Do you kind of get what I saying (cause i'm getting kind of confused myself)?

Besides expressing my changing thoughts, I have offered insight mainly on Snohomish County developments, though I haven't recently because I have been squaring off with people and there's not much going on in Snohomish County right now, just regular old suburban developments. And if you're interested, construction crews have begun tearing down the Everett Elks building and neighboring buildings to build Library Plaza, a mixed-use development next to the Everett Public Library's main branch that will feature one or two 9-story condo towers (I think). Oh, and clearing work has begun for Silver Lake Plaza (or something), a mixed-use development featuring several condo towers in an urban village-like setting on the north shore of Everett's Silver Lake. In Marysville/Smokey Point, you may be aware of the new power center at I-5 and SR 531 called "Lakewood Crossing". Several new retailers are building stores there and is causing massive traffic jams on neighboring roads. If you visit the Everett/Snohomish County Development thread in the next few days, i'll try to have updated information available, just ignore my arguments with others.

Second, the reason I don't like the current proposal for light rail is it will take too long to extend light rail to Everett

Will killing it make that happen faster? Remember, last time we killed such a project was in 1970. In Dallas and Salt Lake City, supporters went back to ballot a few years later with project accelerations. In, say, 2011 - when Central Link has been in operation for two years - we'd probably have the regional political support to get another tunnel borer, or start East Link right away, or perhaps start building from Everett south.


And since I believe that Sound Transit's current proposal for light rail won't do enough, I simply offer the idea of interim BRT lines across the region. Of course I know most BRT lines won't be permanant, but BRT is a good, short-term transportation alternative for low-density areas where light rail would not be served, for example: Highway 99. Highway 99 is a busy arterial in the region, but there isn't enough development to support light rail, so several transit agencies are implementing BRT as a short-term transportation alternative. Do you kind of get what I saying (cause i'm getting kind of confused myself)?

I get that in... 1968... the same BRT argument was made. Do you see any BRT? It's been 40 years.

Who said anything about "killing"? I might have made indirect references to "killing", but that's not what I want. I actually want more MORE additions. I would just like to see those additions sooner. Also, I was just saying I simply don't like it and that is it. Are you trying to unsuccessfully read my mind?

Second, I see BRT projects in planning/under construction: Snohomich County Community Transit's SWIFT and King County Metro's Rapid Ride.

I sent my ballot in with a yes today.

The credit crunch is going to cause construction cost inflation to dip, we know that much - we can't build like we have been, nobody has the money (or will shortly).

I agree

Because tax collection is a percentage, it increases with inflation, so as long as it's about the same as construction cost inflation in the future (and real wages keep pace, which is another story) you still pay less if you save than if you bond.

Agreed. In nominal dollars. But there's a present value of getting the thing built sooner rather than later. For a private sector project, the math would be simple if you had a revenue stream to offet the costs and then discount the difference back to a present value at some assumed discount rate.

We build rail because, presumably, the benefits outweigh the costs, or else we wounldn't build it. Therefore, every year w/o the system in place we forgo benefits that we would have if the system were in place. So, while your analysis is generally sound (are in you public finance, BTW?), you are not assigning an opportunity cost in term of lost public benefit to waiting to build. Conversely, if there is not a compelling opportunity cost argument - that the beenfits indeed outweigh the costs - than there may not be a compelling reason to build the system.

I agree



Agreed. In nominal dollars. But there's a present value of getting the thing built sooner rather than later. For a private sector project, the math would be simple if you had a revenue stream to offet the costs and then discount the difference back to a present value at some assumed discount rate.

We build rail because, presumably, the benefits outweigh the costs, or else we wounldn't build it. Therefore, every year w/o the system in place we forgo benefits that we would have if the system were in place. So, while your analysis is generally sound (are in you public finance, BTW?), you are not assigning an opportunity cost in term of lost public benefit to waiting to build. Conversely, if there is not a compelling opportunity cost argument - that the beenfits indeed outweigh the costs - than there may not be a compelling reason to build the system.

There is a compelling opportunity cost argument. The problem is, this is all voter-dependent, so there are two overarching issues that make moot all the smart economic arguments that an autonomous financing entity would have:

1) Are people willing to pay? Going over 10% sales tax would probably kill the vote, so with RTID at .1% increase, ST had a .5% increase left before restaurant purchases would go over 10%. I wish we had an income tax instead, but there is *no* political will.

2) Subarea equity! Sound Transit has to build significant projects in each of their five subareas to get people to vote for them, and each of those areas has to pay its own way, so there was kind of a "minimum size" aspect to the package.

So you end up with a big package without quite enough money to do it all at once. That's the case everywhere, really, I don't know that it was dependent upon subarea equity. If it fails, we get nothing at all and ST is likely dissolved, and if it passes, we can come back in 2011 when people have gotten to use Link, and accelerate with another .2%.

Who said anything about "killing"? I might have made indirect references to "killing", but that's not what I want. I actually want more MORE additions. I would just like to see those additions sooner. Also, I was just saying I simply don't like it and that is it. Are you trying to unsuccessfully read my mind?

Second, I see BRT projects in planning/under construction: Snohomich County Community Transit's SWIFT and King County Metro's Rapid Ride.

Voting "no" now will kill the whole thing. If you don't get that, you're not paying attention.

I've seen bus lanes for years - nobody even knows that a lot of Aurora Avenue North has bus lanes. They don't really do anything but marginally accelerate existing bus service - in fact, they don't even cancel out increased congestion delays for the existing service.

In both of the projects you mention, there is NO dedicated right of way into the core, only out in the boonies where dedicated right of way won't matter for another 30 years anyway.

Voting "no" now will kill the whole thing. If you don't get that, you're not paying attention.

I've seen bus lanes for years - nobody even knows that a lot of Aurora Avenue North has bus lanes. They don't really do anything but marginally accelerate existing bus service - in fact, they don't even cancel out increased congestion delays for the existing service.

In both of the projects you mention, there is NO dedicated right of way into the core, only out in the boonies where dedicated right of way won't matter for another 30 years anyway.

Well you can't get whatever you want! We'll just have to make do with what we've got, and I think what we've got coming in the next 3 years (in terms of BRT) is pretty good. Also, you're still not convincing me enough.

Well you can't get whatever you want! We'll just have to make do with what we've got, and I think what we've got coming in the next 3 years (in terms of BRT) is pretty good. Also, you're still not convincing me enough.

What BRT? Have you even *looked* at Transit Now?

The main points of RapidRide are: "New buses, upgraded passenger waiting areas, synchronized traffic signals, and real-time bus arrival signs"

NO new right of way - the new sleek buses will be sitting there in traffic just like everyone else.

What BRT? Have you even *looked* at Transit Now?

The main points of RapidRide are: "New buses, upgraded passenger waiting areas, synchronized traffic signals, and real-time bus arrival signs"

NO new right of way - the new sleek buses will be sitting there in traffic just like everyone else.

Actually, most of Community Transit's SWIFT will run in the transit lanes on Highway 99 in south Snohomish County, with the lanes to be expanded north eventually, and Everett might even restripe the third land on Evergreen Way as a transit only lane, so that might be something. And I know you're going to say, "That's not EXCLUSIVE right-of-way."

Like I said earlier, you can't always get what you want.

Actually, most of Community Transit's SWIFT will run in the transit lanes on Highway 99 in south Snohomish County, with the lanes to be expanded north eventually, and Everett might even restripe the third land on Evergreen Way as a transit only lane, so that might be something. And I know you're going to say, "That's not EXCLUSIVE right-of-way."

Like I said earlier, you can't always get what you want.

If I can't get what I want because you vote against it, that's very different than not getting what I want because it's unreasonable.

If I can't get what I want because you vote against it, that's very different than not getting what I want because it's unreasonable.

Uh, okay........

New KING-5 poll shows the race is in a statistical dead heat:
http://blogs.king5.com/upfront/archives/2007/10/hold_on_roads_a.html
^
Proposition one, the Roads and Transit Measure
Yes: 30%
No: 32%
Not certain: 37%
Source: SurveyUSA, 586 likely and actual voters, margin 4.1%

That's WAY more undecided voters than the other poll, which makes me wonder about the 2 poll's methodologies.

New KING-5 poll shows the race is in a statistical dead heat:
http://blogs.king5.com/upfront/archives/2007/10/hold_on_roads_a.html
^
Proposition one, the Roads and Transit Measure
Yes: 30%
No: 32%
Not certain: 37%
Source: SurveyUSA, 586 likely and actual voters, margin 4.1%

That's WAY more undecided voters than the other poll, which makes me wonder about the 2 poll's methodologies.

It was a pushpoll. Remember that Robert Mak of King 5 is dead-set against the package.

Here's another link, with the wording. This "certain" wording seems to have rigged it so that people would not say yes or no unless they were utterly, totally committed:
http://www.nwcn.com/statenews/washington/stories/NW_102307WAB_rtid_poll_KS.19d073c04.html

It was a pushpoll. Remember that Robert Mak of King 5 is dead-set against the package.

Hallejuah! :)

The RapidRide shouldn't be considered anything special, it should have been there 10-20 years ago. I am always reading how Puget Sound's bus system is so excellent. It has excellent coverage, but frequencies, and 24-hour service are terrible in the area.

The Rapid Ride is a joke! A pretty sleek bus on 99 *LOL* I thin I'll just jump onto the double decker.

I am probably moving from Seattle permanently anyway, but i don't expect to see anything other than a downtown-airport train by the time i'm 35.

I am probably moving from Seattle permanently anyway, but i don't expect to see anything other than a downtown-airport train by the time i'm 35.

Really? How old are you? S. 200th should be done before University Link.

i'm 25. :)

you know what i meant, no new lines other than the original SeaTac-downtown line. S. 200th doesn't count in my opinion...

The RapidRide shouldn't be considered anything special, it should have been there 10-20 years ago. I am always reading how Puget Sound's bus system is so excellent. It has excellent coverage, but frequencies, and 24-hour service are terrible in the area.

The only reason that our bus system is "excellent" is the direct-access ramps that are being constructed. Otherwise, our roads are not build "properly" to accomodate "excellent" bus service.

It's not that our bus system is excellent. It's just much better than many cities, including every Western US city other than San Francisco. This is shown by our much higher transit usage than places like Portland.

The Bus Tunnel, direct ramps to freeway HOV lanes, and sizeable HOV network allow our buses to go faster than buses in most cities.

And we just paid to add 20% to Metro's service. So it's going to get a lot better.

i'm 25. :)

you know what i meant, no new lines other than the original SeaTac-downtown line. S. 200th doesn't count in my opinion...

Well, jeez, by the time you're 35, we'll be a year away from Northgate, but we'll have University Link, and probably be to Federal Way as well.

I really hope that is what they do. Build tracks to a station, open the station. Rather than building all 10 miles of a segment and then opening it all. I think it would gain more momentum if done that way.

That is if it is physically, financially, and geographically do-able.

I really hope that is what they do. Build tracks to a station, open the station. Rather than building all 10 miles of a segment and then opening it all. I think it would gain more momentum if done that way.

That is if it is physically, financially, and geographically do-able.

Northbound - to UW and Northgate - will open with the existing maintenance base. Bellevue has to open all at once because the operations will require a new base on the eastside. I believe south will also require a base, but I'm not sure how far south we can go without one. At least to S. 200th.

The limiting factor is in control and management, and where the last trains at night go. You can't finish a run and then have to operate for an hour to get back into the city to get to base - it's financially crazy.

It's not that our bus system is excellent. It's just much better than many cities, including every Western US city other than San Francisco. This is shown by our much higher transit usage than places like Portland.

The Bus Tunnel, direct ramps to freeway HOV lanes, and sizeable HOV network allow our buses to go faster than buses in most cities.

And we just paid to add 20% to Metro's service. So it's going to get a lot better.

I'd have to argue that LA has a good bus system, don't know about frequencies though.

According to the 2000 census and the 2005 (or 2006?) Census American Community Survey our ridership per capita was much higher than LA's or Portland's, both city and metro.

PS, the PSRC came out with a Puget Sound Trends about mode share this week. I'm guessing they overstated the transit share, which they had going from 270,000 daily rides in four counties (incl. Kitsap) in 1999 to 460,000 daily rides in 2006. They noted that actual transit service increased 19% from 1999 to 2005. They also note a big increase in walking though I don't see specific stats. Much of that, along with the transit ridership, must be due to our big increases in the number of people living in denser urban districts.

According to the 2000 census and the 2005 (or 2006?) Census American Community Survey our ridership per capita was much higher than LA's or Portland's, both city and metro.

PS, the PSRC came out with a Puget Sound Trends about mode share this week. I'm guessing they overstated the transit share, which they had going from 270,000 daily rides in four counties (incl. Kitsap) in 1999 to 460,000 daily rides in 2006. They noted that actual transit service increased 19% from 1999 to 2005. They also note a big increase in walking though I don't see specific stats. Much of that, along with the transit ridership, must be due to our big increases in the number of people living in denser urban districts.

I wondered about that. BART only gets some 300k weekday riders now, and we're expected to have that in 2030 with much lower population - but I think our main corridors are just as dense as SF's main corridors. We don't sprawl like LA does.

^^ The BART would get higher ridership if it went to San Jose, and Palo Alto, and then make a ring around the bay. Also adding BART service to Marin County would make sense, and possibly some other branches.

BART circling the bay would cost tens of billions of dollars. The San Jose extension ended up being very cost ineffective, silicon valley just isn't dense enough.

^^ The BART would get higher ridership if it went to San Jose, and Palo Alto, and then make a ring around the bay. Also adding BART service to Marin County would make sense, and possibly some other branches.

Right, sure, but that would cost an arm and a leg compared to what we're building. We're much more dense in our prime corridors than the SF area is, outside the city cores themselves.

Edit: What PDXPaul said! :)

Well, jeez, by the time you're 35, we'll be a year away from Northgate, but we'll have University Link, and probably be to Federal Way as well.

If the ballot measure passes! If!:ohno:

If the ballot measure passes! If!:ohno:

If it doesn't, I don't think it'll be in your lifetime.

I'd have to argue that LA has a good bus system, don't know about frequencies though.

Well... I grew up in Los Angeles metro area... I have to disagree with that. I rode their buses before and it was worst bus system even I experienced. It doesn't go everywhere and you have to wait more than 30 minutes for next bus if you miss it. I been to many US cities and rode their bus systems... I have to say that Seattle got best bus system so far because of most of buses arrive on time and faster than compared another cities with bus systems. Last thing, Seattle's bus system goes almost everywhere people want to go to.

We discussed how the car tab revamp basically eliminated funding for street repair. I found something interesting. Attached is the Seattle street repaving projects scheduled for the next several years. Yeah! I only have to wait until 2012 for my streets nine potholes to be permanently fixed!

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/AACPavingPlanList09122007.pdf


You'll note that we get about 10 miles each year under the current budget. Hope this is making everyone happy!

We discussed how the car tab revamp basically eliminated funding for street repair. I found something interesting. Attached is the Seattle street repaving projects scheduled for the next several years. Yeah! I only have to wait until 2012 for my streets nine potholes to be permanently fixed!

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/AACPavingPlanList09122007.pdf


You'll note that we get about 10 miles each year under the current budget. Hope this is making everyone happy!

Well, I try to stay out of Seattle, so I don't really care. Sorry....

Well... I grew up in Los Angeles metro area... I have to disagree with that. I rode their buses before and it was worst bus system even I experienced. It doesn't go everywhere and you have to wait more than 30 minutes for next bus if you miss it. I been to many US cities and rode their bus systems... I have to say that Seattle got best bus system so far because of most of buses arrive on time and faster than compared another cities with bus systems. Last thing, Seattle's bus system goes almost everywhere people want to go to.

Seattle needs more trolleybuses IMO. The 8, the 48, the 31, the 11, and the 32 should be the next routes to be electrified.

Seattle needs more trolleybuses IMO. The 8, the 48, the 31, the 11, and the 32 should be the next routes to be electrified.

We're not electrifying any more routes that I'm aware of (but I could be mistaken). The capital and maintenance costs are immense, and any expansion would probably require an expansion of the Atlantic base as well.

^^ There is a few extensions planned for the 14, and the 7, and possibly the 36 to light rail stations, otherwise nothing is planned. The 8, and the 48 follow a lot of trolleybus routes, so I think it would be a wise move to electrify them.

^^ There is a few extensions planned for the 14, and the 7, and possibly the 36 to light rail stations, otherwise nothing is planned. The 8, and the 48 follow a lot of trolleybus routes, so I think it would be a wise move to electrify them.

Right, but those are existing routes with existing coaches - the maintenance base is nearly full, I don't think it can handle electrification of a new route. Plus, the non-Breda trolleys are only 40 foot. I take the 36 sometimes and can't get on because they're packed. The trend is to replace trolleys with 60-foot articulated coaches as ridership goes up.

Metro should build another base for trolleybuses. They are a neat addition to Seattle. I don't know if Metro likes them or not, but I belive some of them go on steep hills, and only trolleybuses can make the climb. I would like to see the trolley system expanded though, and it is one of the things that make Seattle unique from the rest of North America, although SF, Vancouver, Edmonton, Dayton, Philadelphia, and Cambridge (Boston) have them. Also 45 of the MAN trolleys were disposed of, but 60 Bredas were made, this puts the Gillg Trolleys out of service more often, and so there may be the possiblity that there is room for a new trolleybus route.

Metro should build another base for trolleybuses. They are a neat addition to Seattle. I don't know if Metro likes them or not, but I belive some of them go on steep hills, and only trolleybuses can make the climb. I would like to see the trolley system expanded though, and it is one of the things that make Seattle unique from the rest of North America, although SF, Vancouver, Edmonton, Dayton, Philadelphia, and Cambridge (Boston) have them. Also 45 of the MAN trolleys were disposed of, but 60 Bredas were made, this puts the Gillg Trolleys out of service more often, and so there may be the possiblity that there is room for a new trolleybus route.

Where on earth are they going to get another hundred million dollars for that? :) Plus a similar amount for all the new overhead wires, and then higher maintenance costs.

Where on earth are they going to get another hundred million dollars for that? :) Plus a similar amount for all the new overhead wires, and then higher maintenance costs.

From my knowledge, I personally don't like trolleybuses. I don't know much about trolleybuses, but from what i've seen in Seattle, they don't look very attractive. All the electrical wiring clogging the sky above roadways is just as ugly as overhead power lines. Not to mention there are occasional break-downs of trolleybuses, where maintainence crews have to come out and reconnect the trolleybus electrical connectors (or whatever they're called) back to the wires. That's an inconveiniet hassle for everyone. I think it would be better if higher-ridership routes would be replaced by streetcars in the future (or something).

Trolleybuses are zero emmision, and most power in the Puget Sound area is created bt hydro-electricity. Plus, trolleybuses are way cooler than regular buses.

Everyone is probably going to tear me down, just as they would if I proposed a NEW monorail for Seattle :).

Trolleybuses are zero emmision, and most power in the Puget Sound area is created bt hydro-electricity. Plus, trolleybuses are way cooler than regular buses.

Everyone is probably going to tear me down, just as they would if I proposed a NEW monorail for Seattle :).

You're probably right about the monorail. The monorail craze in Seattle died in the 21st Century, when we "discovered" light rail (though it was in 1996 with Sound Move).

Trolleybuses just aren't attractive, with the wires all over the place and well, you get the point. I'd prefer streetcars; they're more attractive.

Trolleybuses are zero emmision, and most power in the Puget Sound area is created bt hydro-electricity. Plus, trolleybuses are way cooler than regular buses.

Everyone is probably going to tear me down, just as they would if I proposed a NEW monorail for Seattle :).

Trolleybuses are great in a limited capacity - and I agree that it's a good idea to convert a few more routes to trolleys - but right now, we have a lot of buses and no rail, and I'd rather not create voter fatigue when we're likely to soon (I'm guessing in two or three years) have a city-scale rail transit program on the ballot to build electric, grade separated mass transit in the corridors the monorail would have served. That'll take a huge number more people per dollar spent out of cars, which are way worse than 60 foot diesel-electric coaches.

From my knowledge, I personally don't like trolleybuses. I don't know much about trolleybuses, but from what i've seen in Seattle, they don't look very attractive. All the electrical wiring clogging the sky above roadways is just as ugly as overhead power lines. Not to mention there are occasional break-downs of trolleybuses, where maintainence crews have to come out and reconnect the trolleybus electrical connectors (or whatever they're called) back to the wires. That's an inconveiniet hassle for everyone. I think it would be better if higher-ridership routes would be replaced by streetcars in the future (or something).

We're trying to replace higher ridership routes with light rail, but you seem to oppose this.

^^

Okay, let me explain this AGAIN:

I'm in favor of light rail in general. However, I do not approve of how light rail will be carried out in Proposition 1. The plan for light rail extensions, I believe, is too costly and could be built at a lower price. And, I want it all the way to Everett. Sure, you might say planning is a good step, but what will happen after such planning? Will light rail be delayed because of cost overruns? Will the citizens of Snohomish County vote down extra taxing for the short extension? Will the money be diverted to another project that Sound Transit may deem more important? Will the federal government deny funding for such an extension? We don't know. But I believe it is safe to say that there is a 80% chance that light rail to Everett will run into many, many problems with the current plan as adopted in Proposition 1.

So what i'm trying to say is if I were to give my approval for Proposition 1 (which will never happen), I want a 200% garuntee from any agency invovled in this plan that light rail WILL get to Everett Station before I retire, and the clock's ticking.

Disclaimer: there are plenty of other reasons why I don't approve Proposition 1.

Prop 1 has been raking in the dough . . . but the latest poll shows it a few percentage points behind - though within the poll's margin of error. :(

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

October 31, 2007 11:11 p.m. PT
Prop. 1 fundraising nears $5 million
Backers outspend opponents by more than 5 to 1
By LARRY LANGE
P-I REPORTER

The campaigns over Puget Sound's $47 billion roads-and-transit measure soon could become a $5 million affair, as backers outfinance and outspend opponents more than 5 to 1.

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

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

Polls have been mixed. With that backdrop, "this is going to be extremely close on Election Day," said Aaron Toso, spokesman for the pro-proposition Keep Washington Rolling campaign, which has spent more than $4 million so far, compared with opponents spending $790,600.

"We have to get our message out to voters, and sometimes that takes money."

Toso's organization is raising the most money for the proponents; three smaller groups are the main fundraisers for the opposing campaign, Citizens Against RTID, Neighbors Opposing Prop. 1 and NoToProp1.org.

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

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

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

The Washington Association of Realtors, a proponent, gave $250,000 in early October in addition to $50,000 it contributed in June. The measure's listed projects should help ease congestion, as the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge has, and keep prospective buyers from rejecting homes because of long commutes, some Realtors agreed.

"We spend a lot of time stuck in traffic, with clients in the car," said Sam Pace, a Kent-based real estate salesman and association board member.

Boeing hopes the improvements will help keep aircraft parts flowing steadily to its factories. Traffic "is not nearly as predictable as it might have been 20 years ago," spokesman Peter Conte said.

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

Union leaders think the measure would provide jobs and improve commutes, and help train needed new construction workers as the baby-boom generation retires, said Dave Johnson, executive secretary of the building and construction council.

Without this, "What do you do 20 years from now when you know you have infrastructure to be replaced?" Johnson said, calling the measure "the most comprehensive package out there."

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

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

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

Opponents did not report spending in any of those specific categories.

The opposing campaign's big cash contributions come from Eastside businessman Kemper Freeman, who contributed $200,000 through two of his companies, Kemper Development Co. and Bellevue Square Managers. Telecommunications mogul Bruce McCaw contributed $25,000.

Freeman is a longtime opponent of light rail systems and a bus system proponent who argues the transportation package won't reduce congestion and will hurt business and "all of us." Freeman's contributions went to the NoToProp1.org Committee.

Mark Baerwaldt, founder of several high-tech companies, has paid more than $200,000 of the expenses of the opposition group NoToProp1.org, for which he is treasurer and spokesman.

Funds and spending linked to this year's three-county measure exceed the amounts raised and spent on previous statewide transportation measures. Both sides in the 2002 campaign for the unsuccessful Referendum 51 to raise the gas tax raised and spent $4.7 million.

In 1998 campaigners for and against a highway measure, Referendum 49, raised and spent slightly less than $1.1 million; that measure passed. In 2005 campaigners for and against a gas-tax rollback, Initiative 912, received and paid out about $3.7 million before voters rejected that measure.

This time, campaigners for both sides say, costs are higher, the issues are more complex and the greater Seattle area is the most expensive for buying TV advertising time. "There are a lot of details to try to explain to voters," Toso said.

Baerwaldt and other opponents agreed the anti-proposition campaign is being outspent partly because it organized late.

"There are a number of against-Prop. 1 groups, but they haven't come together the way the 'pros' have," said Mary Ann Mundy of Neighbors Opposing Proposition 1, a group of opponents living near the west end of the Evergreen Point Bridge who don't like the proposals for replacing it.

The Sierra Club's state chapter has organized, however. Wednesday it reported having contributing more than $124,000 in staff time, telephoning, printing, legal assistance and one TV commercial to the opposition cause through the group Citizens Against RTID. The group is made up largely of club members.

The club said the ballot measure would spend too much on roads and increase car traffic and pollution, confounding efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and deal with global warming. They're being outgunned financially because major backers are "the establishment" that wants "transportation for their employees at taxpayer expense," said Cascade Club Chapter Chairman Mike O'Brien.

But, "what we've seen is that the public is responsive to the message that transportation matters but so does global warming," O'Brien said, predicting a close vote. "I don't think anyone thinks it's going to be a runaway landslide."

THE LATEST POLL

Proposition 1, the roads and mass transit package that goes before voters Tuesday, is narrowly trailing, according to a non-partisan poll by a University of Washington research center.

The poll, released this week, shows 43 percent of those surveyed were certain or leaning toward a yes vote, with 46 percent in the no category. A total of 11 percent remained undecided. The transit package runs well among Democratic voters and holds a narrow 47-43 lead in King County. But Republicans oppose it 2-to-1. The poll was taken Oct. 21-29 and has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

From the UW Research website, here's the actual poll results (with all the other initiatives in there too). It's a Powerpoint document:
http://www.washingtonpoll.org/results/102907.ppt

^^

If they have to raise that much money, then they must know that Proposition 1 is going to fail either way.

^^

If they have to raise that much money, then they must know that Proposition 1 is going to fail either way.
I don't think that has anything to do with it.

Does the fact that Hillary Clinton is raising more money than anyone else mean that all her backers know she is going to fail?

Hardly.

I don't think that has anything to do with it.

Does the fact that Hillary Clinton is raising more money than anyone else mean that all her backers know she is going to fail?

Hardly.

Depends on the situation. I've seen many instances of both happening: where one side raises so much money because they know they'll lose, but they think more money = more approval; and when one side raises so much money because of the side's popularity or charisma. In my opinion, I think Proposition 1 lies in the first one.

Depends on the situation. I've seen many instances of both happening: where one side raises so much money because they know they'll lose, but they think more money = more approval; and when one side raises so much money because of the side's popularity or charisma. In my opinion, I think Proposition 1 lies in the first one.

It happens, yes, that sometimes the less popular side raises more money than the popular side. But mostly a campaign that raises a lot of money gets all that money because people with lots of money support it, not because they think it will lose.

Depends on the situation. I've seen many instances of both happening: where one side raises so much money because they know they'll lose, but they think more money = more approval; and when one side raises so much money because of the side's popularity or charisma. In my opinion, I think Proposition 1 lies in the first one.
Usually when something like this rakes in a lot of money, it's because it has wealthy people, organizations and companies backing it. As the article I posted noted, this is the case with Proposition 1. If you had read the article, you would have learned this.

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

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

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

The Washington Association of Realtors, a proponent, gave $250,000 in early October in addition to $50,000 it contributed in June. The measure's listed projects should help ease congestion, as the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge has, and keep prospective buyers from rejecting homes because of long commutes, some Realtors agreed.

. . .

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

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

Usually when something like this rakes in a lot of money, it's because it has wealthy people, organizations and companies backing it. As the article I posted noted, this is the case with Proposition 1. If you had read the article, you would have learned this.

Uhh...yeah....I was already aware of that two months ago. But with the polls i've seen so far, and how many annoying ads I see all over the place, yeah...that's my opinion and it stays that way. In addition, there are also plenty of wealthy people, organizations, and companies backing "NO", so it'll be a pretty tight race; it's just common sense.

EDIT - Here's a list of opponents:
Mark Baerwaldt, $200,993
KF & DS Partnership, $124,402
Kemper Development Co., $110,000
Bellevue Square Managers, $100,000
Bruce McCaw, $25,000
Oak Harbor Freight Lines, $15,000
Donald F. Padelford, $10,000
Hoglund Transfer Co., $5,000
Peninsula Truck Lines, $5,000
Margaret C. Simpson, $5,000
Charlotte Tochterman, $5,000
Washington Traffic Institute, $5,000
Michael J. Wensman, $5,000

Looks like a pretty good group.

^
Well, it just so happens that the people and organizations supporting the Yes side tend to have more money than the ones supporting the No side. Which is why the Yes side has raised more money.

Maybe those companies should try to devote more of their money to congestion reduction instead of wasting money for campaigning. Microsoft has already taken a first step, by introducing their own commuter bus lines. I don't know about the other corporate contributors; they might have small-scale carpool programs, but they should play a bigger role in our transportation mess than just contributing to Proposition 1 campagning.

Wonder why Boeing contributed? They aren't getting any light rail......(part joke)...

^
Boeing would be interested in transportation which can get their employees to and from work easily, as well as good roads/highways to get supplies to and from their plants easily.

Sound Transit released its new Draft 2008 SIP (Service Implementation Plan). It is available at:http://www.soundtransit.org/x1195.xml. I posted a giant list of the improvements at the Seattle-PI transit forum, so I am not going to do it again. Here is a brief description, though:
Look out for new routes 593 and 599, and the elimination of the 591. They should show up in 1-1.5 years. South Everett/Eastmont bus route restructure. New 15 min service to Eastgate on the 554. Possible 194/574 combination, extended to DuPont, and Tukwila Link station. Read through the document for more info.

Maybe those companies should try to devote more of their money to congestion reduction instead of wasting money for campaigning. Microsoft has already taken a first step, by introducing their own commuter bus lines. I don't know about the other corporate contributors; they might have small-scale carpool programs, but they should play a bigger role in our transportation mess than just contributing to Proposition 1 campagning.

Wonder why Boeing contributed? They aren't getting any light rail......(part joke)...

Boeing contributed because light rail will bring workers to the region and allow more high-density housing, benefiting them greatly.

They also know that ST3 will include light rail through Renton, and to Everett. It's easy for them to run shuttles from a nearby light rail stop to Paine Field - Microsoft shuttles employees from the Overlake Transit Center all over campus.

Sound Transit released its new Draft 2008 SIP (Service Implementation Plan). It is available at:http://www.soundtransit.org/x1195.xml. I posted a giant list of the improvements at the Seattle-PI transit forum, so I am not going to do it again. Here is a brief description, though:
Look out for new routes 593 and 599, and the elimination of the 591. They should show up in 1-1.5 years. South Everett/Eastmont bus route restructure. New 15 min service to Eastgate on the 554. Possible 194/574 combination, extended to DuPont, and Tukwila Link station. Read through the document for more info.

That 15 minute 554 service will really help me out - I live in Seattle and often take classes at BCC after work, so that's what gets me home.

Maybe those companies should try to devote more of their money to congestion reduction instead of wasting money for campaigning. Microsoft has already taken a first step, by introducing their own commuter bus lines. I don't know about the other corporate contributors; they might have small-scale carpool programs, but they should play a bigger role in our transportation mess than just contributing to Proposition 1 campagning.

Wonder why Boeing contributed? They aren't getting any light rail......(part joke)...

Roadway congestion reduction isn't cost-effective or feasible, but rail eliminates congestion entirely for the thousands of employees that would use it.

Boeing contributed because light rail will bring workers to the region and allow more high-density housing, benefiting them greatly.

They also know that ST3 will include light rail through Renton, and to Everett. It's easy for them to run shuttles from a nearby light rail stop to Paine Field - Microsoft shuttles employees from the Overlake Transit Center all over campus.

Yeah, maybe when the next Boeing plane is built outside of Seattle, outside of Washington state. :ohno:

Maybe those companies should try to devote more of their money to congestion reduction instead of wasting money for campaigning. Microsoft has already taken a first step, by introducing their own commuter bus lines. I don't know about the other corporate contributors; they might have small-scale carpool programs, but they should play a bigger role in our transportation mess than just contributing to Proposition 1 campagning.

Wonder why Boeing contributed? They aren't getting any light rail......(part joke)...

Do not forget while Microsoft is taking its first step by adding its own busses, Bill Gates is also Helping by taking the second step and donating lots of money to support Prop 1.

Do not forget while Microsoft is taking its first step by adding its own busses, Bill Gates is also Helping by taking the second step and donating lots of money to support Prop 1.

Ballmer also donated something like $100,000.

Trolleybuses are zero emmision, and most power in the Puget Sound area is created bt hydro-electricity. Plus, trolleybuses are way cooler than regular buses.

Everyone is probably going to tear me down, just as they would if I proposed a NEW monorail for Seattle :).

Yes please! I rode new monorail in Las Vegas recently and I had wonderful experience. Wish Seattle would get one too.

i for one wish we would build a bigger better monorail!

but yeah, trolleybuses are awesome.

I rode new monorail in Las Vegas recently and I had wonderful experience.

You actually like their monorail?! From what i've heard, at least 80% of people hated the monorail because it was slow, faulty, inconvienient, and frankly walking in the heart of the Strip is betting than wasting $5 to look at the backs of casinos (UNATTRACTIVE!).


Wish Seattle would get one too.
i for one wish we would build a bigger better monorail!

If I remember correctly, the original Green Line for Seattle (Ballard-Downtown Seattle-West Seattle) was shot down by Seattle voters. Doubt the monorail will ever be revived in Seattle....

If I remember correctly, the original Green Line for Seattle (Ballard-Downtown Seattle-West Seattle) was shot down by Seattle voters. Doubt the monorail will ever be revived in Seattle....

if you did remember correctly, you'd remember that seattle voters voted FOR monorail FOUR TIMES before they shot it down due to poor management. ;-)

if you did remember correctly, you'd remember that seattle voters voted FOR monorail FOUR TIMES before they shot it down due to poor management. ;-)


Oh yes! I forgot about that = I was wrong. Change what I said earlier; Seattle loves monorail (with good planning).

You actually like their monorail?! From what i've heard, at least 80% of people hated the monorail because it was slow, faulty, inconvienient, and frankly walking in the heart of the Strip is betting than wasting $5 to look at the backs of casinos (UNATTRACTIVE!).

Nope. From my experience, it was really fast and smoothy than Seattle monorail. 80%? Show me the reference because I don't believe that because its was really overcrowded and long lines to get in Las Vegas monorails. The trains arrives every two minutes.

Las Vegas monorail fares is $9 for 24 hours only. In my opinion, its kinda overpriced but it attracted way more people to ride it than before.

I took the pictures of Las Vegas monorail,

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/MetroGuy03/MyTriptoLasVegas07140.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/MetroGuy03/MyTriptoLasVegas07138.jpg

I suggest you to go try ride it before you make your own judgment. :)

Oh yes! I forgot about that = I was wrong. Change what I said earlier; Seattle loves monorail (with good planning).

Good planning? Not really... I would consider it better planning if they add Belltown station, extend it to Lower Queen area and Stadium district and put stations in Lower Queen Anne, near Pike Public Market, Central Business District, Ferry terminal, Pioneer Square, and Stadiums area.

From the pictures I see, i'd rather walk along the strip than look at the loading areas and parking garages of casinos. Though riding farther away from the Strip might give me a better spot to take a panoramic shot of the Strip, i'll save that $9 for something else. Okay, I might have exaggerated the 80%; I was reading comments from the Las Vegas Monorail thread and many, many people didn't like the monorail.

Okay, CrazyAboutCities, I think you misinterpreted what I said. When citruspastels reminded me of how the monorail debacle really worked out, my response was that I was wrong, and that Seattle loves the monorail, ONLY if there was good planning (since I had originally said that Seattle must hate monorails). Obviously anyone could tell that the Green Line had worse planning than the Central Link, with the single-tracks and the building purchases and whatever the hell happened back then.

From the pictures I see, i'd rather walk along the strip than look at the loading areas and parking garages of casinos. Though riding farther away from the Strip might give me a better spot to take a panoramic shot of the Strip, i'll save that $9 for something else. Okay, I might have exaggerated the 80%; I was reading comments from the Las Vegas Monorail thread and many, many people didn't like the monorail.


I can see why some people hates it because it is little too far away from Las Vegas Blvd. When I walked on Las Vegas Blvd, I can't see monorail at all. I had to force myself to walk all the way to monorail station near Convention Center to ride it to all the way to MGM Grand resort.


Okay, CrazyAboutCities, I think you misinterpreted what I said. When citruspastels reminded me of how the monorail debacle really worked out, my response was that I was wrong, and that Seattle loves the monorail, ONLY if there was good planning (since I had originally said that Seattle must hate monorails). Obviously anyone could tell that the Green Line had worse planning than the Central Link, with the single-tracks and the building purchases and whatever the hell happened back then.

I don't think Green Line is that bad planning but it is good start for Seattle. Some people said same thing with light rail between downtown Seattle to Sea-Tac International Airport... Now look at it, it helped neighborhoods to explode with new developments and now more people are starting to considering that is better planning. Green Line might have similar result if it get built and halt new developments at the neighborhoods that Green Line goes though. Green Line had worse management which is why it got fucked up.

one way or another a "green line" really needs to get built. i don't care if it's light rail or monorail, but that region needs rail one way or another. hopefully the planning that comes with st2 gets realized sooner rather than later.

one way or another a "green line" really needs to get built. i don't care if it's light rail or monorail, but that region needs rail one way or another. hopefully the planning that comes with st2 gets realized sooner rather than later.

It will be. I'm part of a group planning to propose a ballot measure for funding in 2011, pending the Sound Transit study. The Seattle ICT study may be enough on its own to ask for an FTA grant or city funding for alignment/ridership planning.

It will be. I'm part of a group planning to propose a ballot measure for funding in 2011, pending the Sound Transit study. The Seattle ICT study may be enough on its own to ask for an FTA grant or city funding for alignment/ridership planning.

That's very interesting to hear. Are you ready to share more information about it yet?

That's very interesting to hear. Are you ready to share more information about it yet?

Sure. We don't have the tax base to pay for in-city rail without ST2 passing and helping relieve the pressure keeping density low. We can build intermediate or high capacity rail from West Seattle to downtown, or from downtown to Ballard or Fremont, but not both at the same time.

So, it's dependent upon ST2, especially for the planning study, and because it doesn't make sense to build in-city until we have suburban feeders.

It will be. I'm part of a group planning to propose a ballot measure for funding in 2011, pending the Sound Transit study. The Seattle ICT study may be enough on its own to ask for an FTA grant or city funding for alignment/ridership planning.

That's fantastic! I'd ask you to take a close look at extending it to Greenwood and beyond. There is tremendous opportunity there for many more riders and new dense transit oriented development in an up and coming urban village and other underdeveloped areas. It should go AT LEAST as far as 85th (like the green line) and ideally would go up to 105th or Bitter Lake. I wish there was a way to get a station at 85th and Greenwood, but I don't really know what is possible.


http://students.washington.edu/quail64/lightrail/bigpicture2.jpg
http://students.washington.edu/quail64/lightrail/edmonds.jpg
^^ pie in the sky wishlists ;-)

That's fantastic! I'd ask you to take a close look at extending it to Greenwood and beyond. There is tremendous opportunity there for many more riders and new dense transit oriented development in an up and coming urban village and other underdeveloped areas. It should go AT LEAST as far as 85th (like the green line) and ideally would go up to 105th or Bitter Lake. I wish there was a way to get a station at 85th and Greenwood, but I don't really know what is possible.


http://students.washington.edu/quail64/lightrail/bigpicture2.jpg
http://students.washington.edu/quail64/lightrail/edmonds.jpg
^^ pie in the sky wishlists ;-)

The reason the green line failed, fundamentally, is that we don't have enough people in the city to provide a tax base for a real subway. This isn't a "what we need", it's a "shit, how much can we build with the money we can get". It's likely that the first line would only go through downtown to Ballard or West Seattle - one end or the other, and not very far. In the next phase, it would go farther. There simply aren't enough people to pay for more at once.

where are you planning on getting the money? if its a ballot measure, whats the tax area that would be affected by a line to ballard lets say.

The reason the green line failed, fundamentally, is that we don't have enough people in the city to provide a tax base for a real subway. This isn't a "what we need", it's a "shit, how much can we build with the money we can get". It's likely that the first line would only go through downtown to Ballard or West Seattle - one end or the other, and not very far. In the next phase, it would go farther. There simply aren't enough people to pay for more at once.

UrbanBen, do you have an opinion on the "rapid streetcar" idea as defined by the lightrailnow.org guys? Would it make sense to build the Ballard-West Seattle line to a lower weight standard than the Central Link trunk line? Or would the lack of interoperability between line types (the streetcars are lower voltage, if I remember right) undermine the cost benefits?

(For those not familiar with the idea, it amounts to building light rail-like infrastructure with lighter, cheaper vehicles, less banked turns. In effect, imagine the SLUT in a dedicated right-of-way with less frequent stops and maybe with multiple linked cars. The line would need to run more slowly than Central Link-style light rail because the top speed of the streetcars is lower and the right-of-way would be engineered for tighter turns, but there could be cost savings in having fewer utility relocations, etc.)

This is a little off-topic with respect to RTID, but it doesn't seem worth its own thread...

where are you planning on getting the money? if its a ballot measure, whats the tax area that would be affected by a line to ballard lets say.

Like the monorail, it would have to be the city limits. Further than that would probably require state approval, and there's no way to get the money to go outside the city limits in one go anyway.

UrbanBen, do you have an opinion on the "rapid streetcar" idea as defined by the lightrailnow.org guys? Would it make sense to build the Ballard-West Seattle line to a lower weight standard than the Central Link trunk line? Or would the lack of interoperability between line types (the streetcars are lower voltage, if I remember right) undermine the cost benefits?

(For those not familiar with the idea, it amounts to building light rail-like infrastructure with lighter, cheaper vehicles, less banked turns. In effect, imagine the SLUT in a dedicated right-of-way with less frequent stops and maybe with multiple linked cars. The line would need to run more slowly than Central Link-style light rail because the top speed of the streetcars is lower and the right-of-way would be engineered for tighter turns, but there could be cost savings in having fewer utility relocations, etc.)

This is a little off-topic with respect to RTID, but it doesn't seem worth its own thread...

Ballard supported streetcar-like capacity in 1900, and with changes in zoning in ballard, lower queen anne, and belltown, there is no way either Skoda streetcars or the longer Kinkisharyo or Siemens designs (triple or quadruple articulation) can come close to meeting the needs of that corridor.

The thing is, the right of way is the most expensive part. I don't remember what the 2000 ICT study actually said about this, but I think even then we would have hit capacity for an intermediate capacity system like that immediately. There's just no reason to shovel hundreds of millions into right of way if you're not going to plan long-term with it.

So, back to Prop 1 - get out there and vote, folks. It's going to be close, and this is our last chance.

unfortunately i am a registered new york voter, so i can't vote "yes".