“What is the optimal relationship between land use and transit,” asks Patrick Condon, “and what transit mode would best support this optimum state?” He concludes that cities should invest more in “trams” (streetcars) rather than in long-distance, higher-speed rail systems. Flickr photo by NeiTech. Condon is a professor of landscape architecture at the University of British Columbia, [...]

 Read Ted Van Dyk’s scathing article outlining his votes on Initiative 985, Sound Transit’s Proposition 1, and Initiative 1000 at: http://crosscut.com/2008/10/21/2008-election/18580/

“Sound Transit, light rail’s prime- and sub-contractors, and the network of law firms, P.R. firms, consultants, and others profiting from light rail have mounted intense 2007 and 2008 campaigns for Prop. 1’s passage. Local newspapers have published essays by local attorneys, former public officials, and civic leaders which were, in fact, written by Sound Transit’s P.R. firm. The light rail network has channeled campaign contributions to public officials and has subsidized supposedly independent groups supporting light rail. State Auditor Brian Sonntag is investigating payments of taxpayer funds by the City of Seattle (authorized by Mayor and Sound Transit Board Chair Greg Nickels) to the Sound Transit-supporting Transportation Choices Coalition, which is campaigning for the light rail proposal. Sound Transit itself was created by a ballot measure which grossly misrepresented the costs, time of construction, and benefits to be derived from a light rail system.”

….”No independent, reputable transportation or public-finance analyst would tell you that light rail makes any transportation or financial/economic sense in the King, Snohomish, and Pierce county region.”

….”Special recognition should go, here in Seattle, to the critical analysis applied to the issue by King County Executive (and former Sound Transit Chair) Ron Sims, former WSDOT Director Doug MacDonald, former state Supreme Court Justice Phil Talmadge, Seattle Post-Intelligencer economic columnist Bill Virgin, Seattle Times columnists Joni Balter and Bruce Ramsey, and the Seattle Times editorial board. They took the time to understand the issue and refused light rail Kool-Aid.”

Ballot measures: Hate 'em, but here's how I'm voting Crosscut, WA - 7 hours ago Sound Transit, light rail's prime- and sub-contractors, and the network of law firms, PR firms, consultants, and others profiting from light rail have ...

Crosscut writer David Brewster comments in his article: “Sound Transit 2 failure would be a political train wreck”, that:

“several factors have made passage (of ST2) less likely…

…One is the drop in gas prices by about $1 a gallon.

Another is the scary economy, making voters stingy with new taxes.

A third is crowded buses, which make a case for more transit but probably a stronger case for more immediate relief than the long lead time of a rail-heavy proposal. “

Brewster also states:

“Eastsiders are ambivalent (about Prop 1) because the rail line would take away bus and traffic lanes from the Interstate 90 bridge across Lake Washington.”

Representative Fred Jarrett confirmed this long ago, and said that the first thing that would be done after passage of last year’s Prop 1 (or ST2), would be that popular, efficient routes such as the 550 between Seattle and Bellevue would be cut.

Essentially, Sound Transit would exchange a popular, less expensive trip, for a more expensive trip, one heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

Now Larry Lange at the Seattle Times is saying that: “As light rail comes, some buses may go“.

“Anybody living in those neighborhoods should be very interested” in what might happen, Metro service development manager Victor Obeso told Seattle City Council members this week.

The new rail service will duplicate service on at least two bus routes: Route 42 between downtown Seattle and the Rainier View area, and Route 194 between downtown, the airport and Federal Way.

According to Metro, both are examples of routes that could be discontinued along with others such as Routes 7 Express and Routes 32, 34, 35, 39 and 126.

Back to Brewster’s article:

“As for King County Executive Ron Sims, he’s already opposed to Prop 1 (though keeping quiet about it this time), is definitely on the bus side of the bus-rail balance beam, and will push to get some of the Sound Transit taxing authority for quick relief for his overloaded Metro Transit buses.”

Ron Sims seems to think that expanding bus service (possibly with dedicated lanes) would be a more responsive, quicker, less expensive way to move people. More buses to more destinations. Routes to respond to demand-where people need to travel to.

Ron Sims on Sound Transit’s Prop 1 bus plan:

“Sound Transit’s bus capital program is only 2 percent of the total expenditure plan for Sound Transit, Phase 2 (ST2). The estimated $17.8 billion dollars for this plan provides just 60 new buses for the three-county area, half of which will not be in service until after 2015. That adds just an average of 1.3 new buses per year in each of the three counties for the next 15 years…

The region’s bus systems are experiencing unprecedented growth, yet their current revenue sources are exhausted…

Buses across our region are full. Now is not the time to ask voters for a big tax increase tying up 30 years of transit investments for little short-term congestion relief. We can do better. Proposing the wrong plan simply because new voters may flock to the November ballot is still wrong.”

In an article in the Seattle Times, reporter Will Mari quotes various contenders for the 41st district seats.

Read their views (links to their websites are provided) on Sound Transit’s Prop 1 (ST2) tax proposal for 2008, and other ideas on transportation improvements that would provide congestion relief for the eastside, such as bus rapid transit (BRT), and the future use of the BNSF rail corridor.

Here’s a few excerpts from the Times article:

“(Steve) Litzow, 46, a Mercer Island city councilman, faces Democrat Marcie Maxwell, 53, in a tight race. The House seat became open when Democratic Rep. Fred Jarrett decided to run for state Senate.”

“The big issue on people’s minds is the economy, despite the area’s comparative wealth, and voters will not be marching in lock-step, (Steve) Litzow argues.

“Mercer Island residents depend on I-90, and most of the district’s voters live on or near I-405. As a result, transportation joins education as the most important issues on voters’ minds….”

“Litzow opposes Proposition 1, the proposed sales-tax increase that would extend light rail north, south and east. Instead, he wants bus-rapid transit combined with light rail running north-south along the former BNSF Railway line on the Eastside.”

Here is a link to Litzow’s proposals for transportation improvements on the Eastside (scroll down halfway):  Reduce Traffic Congestion: http://stevelitzow.com/index.php?p=30

“His opponent, (Marcie) Maxwell, is a Renton Realtor and member of the Renton School Board. She’s more on the fence regarding Prop. 1, but is concerned about the emphasis on light rail.

“On the Eastside, we need to have the convenience and the routes” to make mass transit more of an option for commuters, she said.”

Maxwell’s statement would seem to support the flexibility of bus rapid transit corridors.

Here is a link to her position on transportation:

Reducing Traffic Congestion:  http://www.marciemaxwell.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=27

Fred Jarrett (D) is running for State Senate.

Here is a link to his website: http://vote4fred.org/default.aspx

From the Times:

“State Senate switcheroo”

“In the Senate race, Fred Jarrett is running as a Democrat for the first time.”

“Jarrett is in favor of Prop. 1. While not perfect, “it doesn’t matter to me whether the transit has rubber wheels or tracks,” he said.”

His opponent for State Senate is Bob Baker.Here is a link to his views on transportation:

“Are your transportation tax dollars getting you to work faster OR are they focused instead on government efforts at social engineering? “ http://www.voteforbaker.com/issues.shtml

From the Times article on Bob Baker:

“The 21-year Navy veteran, “Top Gun” graduate and Alaska Airlines pilot spent a career on the F-14 Tomcat as a test pilot. He also worked at the Pentagon, a job that included testifying before congressional committees and convincing admirals and generals to fund appropriation projects.

Like Jarrett, he said he shares a disdain for waste, and backs State Auditor Brian Sonntag’s use of performance audits to look for savings in state agencies….”

“An opponent of Prop. 1, (Bob) Baker favors bus-rapid transit instead of an east-west rail line.

“By Sound Transit’s own analysis, it won’t relieve traffic congestion,” he said.

As far as his district in concerned, he said it’s “not so much that it’s moved Democratic, but we have a lot of independents a, as people weigh their options.”

Joe Turner over at the TNT has a post about how Light rail isn't always cheaper to operate than buses. Most supporters claim that light rail, once built, is cheaper to operate than a traditional bus service. Turner draws from an explanation from John Niles, a local transportation consultant and a recent WPC Policy Brief, The Facts on Light Rail. In the study, we conducted a comparative analysis of the six existing light rail systems on the West Coast that have been operating for at least ten years. The cities ...

41st District is realigning Seattle Times, United States - 4 hours ago "By Sound Transit's own analysis, it won't relieve traffic congestion," he said. As far as his district in concerned, he said it's "not so much that it's ...

That's what John Niles, a transportation consultant, tells me in the e-mail below. Niles declares that he is a volunteer advisor to the campaign that is opposing Proposition 1, the $17.9 billion ballot measure for Sound Transit. I offer up Niles' observations and a couple of attachments for your perusal because I don't have time to go investigate how much Portland, Denver and all those other cities spend on their light rail vs. buses. Here are a couple pdf's that Niles sent. One is a spreadsheet, the other is the Washington Policy Center's take ...

Here are a few highlights from some compelling arguments put forth by Eastside Rail Now at : http://www.eastsiderailnow.org/proposition_1_redo.html

1.   It would do little to reduce traffic congestion…”In fact, the plan could even increase congestion in some areas, such as the I-90 corridor.”

3.   Poor choices were made on selecting the rail routes.…”The most urgent need for rail transit on the Eastside by far is in the I-405 corridor (which would also be vastly cheaper than the I-90 corridor).”

4. It would downgrade some existing bus service. For example, several bus routes between Seattle and the Eastside would likely be eliminated or cut back in attempt to induce their riders to switch to the light rail line.

8.   Serious technical problems remain regarding use of the I-90 floating bridge. “Rail transit has never before been attempted on a floating bridge…”

9.   It would have an adverse effect on freight mobility. Constructing a rail line on the I-90 floating bridge would reduce the freight capacity of the region’s most important east-west road freight corridor.

14.   It is enormously expensive, despite only marginal benefits.  …”Furthermore, these are only the direct monetary costs — not included are a variety of other costs, including the opportunity costs, that is, the loss to the region from not using the same funds for more effective projects, such as lower cost rail lines with better routes.”

And here’s the kicker:

16.   It would preclude the region from taking on more worthy projects for decades. The region would become legally locked into this massive and unprecedented tax increase and its poorly planned projects for many years. Tax capacity would be exhausted for decades, and all flexibility to reduce taxes or to replace the Proposition 1 projects with more effective projects, including those that might become necessary due to changing circumstances, would be lost. 

It’s the Opportunity Cost, folks… see the link here

See their website at: http://www.eastsiderailnow.org/proposition_1_redo.html

Here is the first 10:

1.   It would do little to reduce traffic congestion.

2.   It would provide little environmental benefit.

3.   Poor choices were made on selecting the rail routes.

4.   It would downgrade some existing bus service.

5.   It would result in wasteful construction of duplicative facilities.

6.   The start of rail operations would be too slow.

7.   It is mainly a transit system for Seattle.

8.   Serious technical problems remain regarding use of the I-90 floating bridge.

9.   It would have an adverse effect on freight mobility.

10.   So-called “bus rapid transit” may not be effective.

Read all “29 Reasons to Vote No”  at : http://www.eastsiderailnow.org/proposition_1_redo.html