Sound Transit will ask voters to consider ST3, its latest $15 billion spending package, in 2016. As Shift reported, the transit agency lost no time in preparing the pro-ST3 message. The agency kicked off its campaign before the state Legislature even passed the transportation package that granted permission to seek funding for ST3.
Based on messaging thus far, it is becoming increasingly clear that Sound Transit plans to promote ST3 by claiming it would reduce traffic congestion. Indeed, in an area where congestion is the primary transportation concern, the strategy should come as no surprise. Here’s what King County Executive Dow Constantine (who also chairs Sound Transit’s unelected board) recently told the Seattle Times,
“‘[Traffic] is unacceptable. It’s terrible for people’s individual lives,’ Sound Transit Chairman Dow Constantine, who is King County executive, said last week. He mentioned Seattle’s top-five national ranking for traffic delay.
“‘We know we can’t build our way out of congestion. What we can do is create light rail to take you where you want to go, when you want to go, on time, every time, for work, for play, for school.’”
Contrary to what Constantine and other Sound Transit officials want voters to believe, ST3 will not reduce traffic congestion. The transit agency’s head, Joni Earl, admitted as much when she said, “We’ve never said we will reduce congestion.” That’s because the reality is that commuters choose light rail less than 1 percent of the time. The Washington Policy Center explains what that means for ST3’s ability to reduce traffic,
“Federal estimates show people in the average household make 9.5 trips per day. Within Sound Transit’s district, that equals 3.9 billion total trips every year. Sound Transit’s total light rail ridership last year was approximately 11 million, or 0.28 percent of all trips people made in the taxing district. The Puget Sound Regional Council estimates that, even after light rail is vastly expanded, light rail would carry less than 1 percent of daily trips by 2040.”
A mass transit system projected to carry less than 1 percent of daily commuters cannot possibly reduce traffic congestion. Investing more of taxpayers’ hard earned dollars into a system that does not solve the key problem, i.e. traffic congestion, for daily commuters is, simply put, a bad idea.
Rather than parading false claims, Sound Transit officials would do better to answer one important question: “Why, given all the broken promises, should taxpayers trust Sound Transit to keep its promises and spend their hard-earned dollars responsibility, on time and on budget?”
For $15 Billion, we certainly can build way more congestion relief than a light rail boondoggle. The answer to the important question: Because it puts more money in Dow’s pocket. As Chairman of the Board, what’s his cut of the skim on $15 Billion?
For $15 Billion, we certainly can build way more congestion relief than a light rail boondoggle.
Reading comprehension much?
We know we can’t build our way out of congestion. What we can do is create light rail to take you where you want to go, when you want to go, on time, every time, for work, for play, for school.
Throwing more money down the old freeway rat-hole will do nothing more than allow unworthy elected officials to buy re-elections from their own local constituents with money from taxpayers statewide. Taxpayers in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties should continue to invest in the modern transportation solutions offered by Sound Transit.
Meanwhile, obviously nothing will improve transportation more than blatant political mudslinging:
As Chairman of the Board, what’s his cut of the skim on $15 Billion?
I don’t know, ethical genius. How about you provide the evidence supporting your accusation, and maybe we can formulate an estimate? Because right now, we’re at zero and $0, respectively.
Gullible enough to swallow self serving lies much?
What we definitely cannot do is build enough light rail to take everybody where they want to go, when they want to go, on time, every time, for every trip everybody has to take. It’ll never happen. Not for $15 Billion, not for $100 Billion. After all the Billions that have been squandered on light rail already, does it even crack 1% on the total trips taken in a day? How many more Billions to get to the magical 2%? One sure-fire way to increase ridership would be to outlaw private automobiles. Just for the proletariat though, the ruling elite can keep their Zil limousines.
As Chairman of the Board this liberal dirtbag would see no benefit whatsoever from ST3 passing? Does he volunteer his time? Just the county’s share of the sales tax alone is a few hundred Million. For somebody that’s conveniently also County Commissioner, that’s a lot of extra spending cabbage to throw at social programs to buy more votes. Why would he be less than truthful, comrade?
What we definitely cannot do is build enough light rail to take everybody where they want to go, when they want to go, on time, every time, for every trip everybody has to take.
No, because we already made the foolish decisions which created automobile-dependent sprawl. We can re-build better, though. For example, Bellevue was designed with the intent of requiring cars (a block in Bellevue is six times the length of one in Seattle), but the downtown core has been built to the point where a person can both live and work there, commuting via foot. Seattle has long channeled new development into downtown and the immediate surrounding areas, so as to require less new transport infrastructure — and to keep the population densities of the farther-out residential neighborhoods from rising too fast.
After all the Billions that have been squandered on light rail already,
How about all of the freeways in urban areas? Have they relieved congestion? What have we to show for our century of subsidizing private vehicles there?
Private vehicles and our existing highways work well for connecting Yakima, Spokane, Richland, Vancouver and Bellingham. They don’t work well for commuters in Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, and Everett. It’s time for more mass transit in densely-populated areas, and long past time for WSDOT to stop spending money it does not have to build new highways.
For somebody that’s conveniently also County Commissioner, that’s a lot of extra spending cabbage to throw at social programs to buy more votes.
If you have any evidence for your accusation about mis-appropriation of public funds, please give it.
Let me see if I have your position down right. You bitched on and on about building a freeway in Spokane because misery creating communists in King County would have to pay for it. “transfer of wealth” you called it. Now you bitch about expanding freeways in King County because the rest of the state will have to pay for it. Wouldn’t the misery creating communists in King County be transferring that wealth right back on their own bad selves?
“long past time for WSDOT to stop spending money it does not have to build new highways”
Yeah! It’s UnSound Transit’s turn to spend money it doesn’t have to “create” light rail that over 98% of the population doesn’t use
You bitched on and on about building a freeway in Spokane…
Yes, because the legislative sponsor has not made an economic case for it.
… misery creating communists in King County would have to pay for it.
The state’s own budget figures show taxpayers in King County providing more money to Olympia than most other counties combined, yes. That’s why King County’s taxpayers should be called “wealth creators” by people who like to use that term.
“transfer of wealth” you called it.
The legislative sponsor himself openly bragged about how the project would transfer tax money into Spokane County from the rest of the state. I was merely agreeing with him.
Now you bitch about expanding freeways in King County because the rest of the state will have to pay for it.
No, I oppose expanding freeways in King County because I’ve not seen evidence showing this to be a good use of taxpayer funds.
Wouldn’t the misery creating communists in King County be transferring that wealth right back on their own bad selves?
If we pass ST3, yes.
Yeah! It’s UnSound Transit’s turn to spend money it doesn’t have to “create” light rail that over 98% of the population doesn’t use/
ST3 would be built with money raised by taxing the voters who enacted ST3. WSDOT’s own figures show that maintenance and improvement of existing roads consumes all of the money collected from both fuel taxes and vehicle licensing fees; building new roads is financed by increasing the state government’s debt — the very definition of our state “spending money it does not have.” I’d rather not spend money we don’t have on solutions which don’t work, but that’s a crazy Seattle commie-lib for you.
“We can re-build better, though. For example, Bellevue was designed with
the intent of requiring cars (a block in Bellevue is six times the
length of one in Seattle)”
How are going to rebuild better there? Are you proposing building smaller blocks in Bellevue? Taking private property to make cross streets? What were the names of the people on this Bellevue design committee that required cars? In the age of the internet, surely you can name at least one member of this design committee.
“If you have any evidence for your accusation about mis-appropriation of public funds, please give it”
Dude, you slipped. It should have been: “When will Republican Dan Satterburg unseal the indictments…” Always go for the indictments, always.
How are going to rebuild better there? Are you proposing building smaller blocks in Bellevue? Taking private property to make cross streets
Um, I already described the higher density in Bellevue. (In case you haven’t been by there in the last decade or so, downtown Bellevue has many tall residential and office towers.)
What were the names of the people on this Bellevue design committee that required cars? In the age of the internet, surely you can name at least one member of this design committee.
Who cares what their names were? Historylink has one version of the story:
In 1953, the city incorporated. From the start, city planners looked to Bellevue’s future as a thriving city, not as a sleepy town. Some streets were designed to have six lanes, unheard of at the time in most nearby communities. Businesses were required to provide plenty of parking, for the many cars that would soon come.
Notice the government mandate, requiring private business owners to subsidize automobiles? Just another glorious socialistic motoring subsidy, comrade!
It should have been: “When will Republican Dan Satterburg…
There’s really no need to drag anyone else into your risibly absurd fantasy life.
Your statement: “We can re-build better, though”. How? Require everyone to live in a downtown highrise? There sure aren’t any highrise people warehouses in the Somerset, Hazelwood, Wilburton, Crossroads, Lake Hills, Woodridge, Bridle Trails, Newport Shores and Lakemont neighborhoods, among others. How are we going to rebuild those neighborhoods? Will there be light rail stations in all those neighborhoods? After all, “What we can do is create light rail to take everybody where you want to go, when you want to go, on time, every time”. What’s your “rebuilding” plan for the West Lake Sammamish neighborhood? Make it illegal to live there, confiscate the homes and have jack-booted thugs herd the citizens to downtown highrises? You’re just like all liberals, always long on warm, fuzzy euphemisms and flowery rhetoric and woefully short on logical specifics.
Your statement: “We can re-build better, though”. How?
Well, you could try reading the City of Bellevue’s own recommended plan for downtown:
“To remain competitive in the next generation, Downtown Bellevue must be viable, livable, memorable, and accessible. It must become the symbolic as well as functional heart of the Eastside Region through the continued location of cultural, entertainment, residential, and regional uses located in distinct, mixed-use neighborhoods connected by a variety of public places and great public infrastructure.”
Will there be light rail stations in all those neighborhoods?
If we voters approve a plan for it, sure. Why does that seem so exotic to you? After all, the development in those places didn’t happen naturally; existing taxpayers’ monies had to build roads, sewers, and other public infrastructure before anyone else could move there.
There sure aren’t any highrise people warehouses…
Just because you can’t afford to be Kemper Freeman, Jr.’s neighbor in a pricey downtown Bellevue high-rise doesn’t mean it’s a bad place to live.
“We know we can’t BUILD our way out of congestion. What we can do is CREATE light rail…”
Cool. Why don’t we just “create” our way out of congestion, then? What are the per mile costs of this creation? Or is Dow Vader waving his lightsaber around “creating” light rail without anything being “built”?
The warm, fuzzy euphemism, a leftist’s best friend.
Why don’t we just “create” our way out of congestion, then? What are the per mile costs of this creation? Or is Dow Vader waving his lightsaber around “creating” light rail without anything being “built”?
You could just try reading the actual ST3 proposal, but I guess ignorant name-calling is easier, so you do that instead.
I don’t have to read the actual ST3 proposal to know we can create 20 times as much congestion relief creating new lane miles for $15 Billion than by building light rail. Warm, fuzzy euphemisms aside, that is.
… 20 times as much congestion relief …
Which, according to this very post, would be zero.
… $15 Billion than by building light rail.
And, when those lane miles instantly congest, you’ll have us build another $15B of them? (Where, exactly?)
Warm, fuzzy euphemisms aside, that is.
This from the guy who just refused to educate himself. Priceless.
It sounds to me like our local government isn’t trying to find solutions. I think the public is tired of hearing about what ideas aren’t working and work together to find practical solutions. The majority of cities around the world have mass transit, it is time that Seattle have a public transportation system that is reliable and practical to use.
It is really apparent to me that Joni has never been on the train nor the bus. If Joni had used the system, she would know that when my wife takes the 99 bus (Now called something else express) from GreenLake there are mornings where she sees 4-6 buses go by because they are full. My wife gave up on the bus because it is very unreliable and now parks down town to work. All I know is that Mr. Dow is looking at the positive and politicians need to start looking for solutions instead of messing everything up. Don’t knock him provide an alternative.
Now my wife and I live in Singapore and the public transportation works quite well. They have a vision and placed a national priority on it, by 2030 there goal is to have a subway station within a 10 minute walk of each persons home. They are a very fiscally responsible country and very conservative at looking at their future. Why can’t American Politicians be that way and make our country great again. Come on it is about time to find solutions and maybe instead of quoting yourselves or companies who are paid by you get an outsider to comment. I know that the Singapore Government has consulted cities in India (For their Smart City initiative) and Cities in China. I”m not saying they are perfect but I do think what you all are doing now IS NOT WORKING…. Sorry Everybody shares the same opinion both Republicans and Democrats alike.
Based on messaging thus far, it is becoming increasingly clear that Sound Transit plans to promote ST3 by claiming it would reduce traffic congestion.
Where is the proof of this? Certainly not in the quote from County Executive Constantine, which in fact implies the opposite (emphasis added):
“‘We know we can’t build our way out of congestion. What we can do is create light rail to take you where you want to go, when you want to go, on time, every time, for work, for play, for school.’”
And, as even this post admits, ST’s clearly-stated public position is the very opposite of what Shift claims:
The transit agency’s head, Joni Earl, admitted as much when she said, “We’ve never said we will reduce congestion.”
The problem is that there is too much “public” in my public transportation, my bus pass costs me $120/month, I have to stand on almost every bus ride, it’s hot, people smell….I can lease a parking spot downtown for $250/month, I get a comfortable seat, my vehicle is on my schedule, sure the people still smell, but the cost difference is incremental and the time savings makes up for it.
I have to stand on almost every bus ride, it’s hot, people smell…
And that’s after Seattle’s voters taxed ourselves to buy more service from Metro. It’s another reason ST3 might propose more service inside Seattle.
… the cost difference is incremental ..
According to your own figures, that increment is slightly above 100%. Your example shows just how badly Seattle needs more transportation options.