Sound Transit bureaucrats know they face an uphill task trying to convince the voters of the region to pass the largest tax increase in state history – a minimum of $54 billion – to spend at least 25 years building a fixed-route rail system that may well be obsolete when it is completed (if it’s ever completed). So, the are resorting to making up numbers to help their Sound Transit 3 (ST3) plan look realistic.
Chief among ST’s fibs – as advanced in slick TV ads launched this week – is that “a single light-rail line carries 16,000 people per hour.”
The Seattle Times took a look at that claim, and in what can only be considered an epic fail in analysis, called it mostly true!
The Times reporter decided to take the most narrow view possible – would it actually be possible to carry 16,000 people in a single hour, though he acknowledged that Sound Transit “is talking about how many people trains can move — not how many people will actually hop aboard.”
As the paper wrote, “other factors affect transit use, including station locations, population density, trip times, fares, parking costs, sporting events and the economy. The sound bite should say ‘could carry’ instead of ‘carries.’ ”
So, even though the central planners at Sound Transit mislead the public on how many folks will actually ride the train, the Times till said the claim was “mostly true?” You can read the math in the story, and decide for yourself, but it’s a big stretch.
But at least the reporter does conclude with one key fact – congestion will not get better, as Sound Transit has argued. As he writes, “The greatest fallacy with train vs. lane comparisons lies not in the math, but that some voters, inundated by footage of gridlocked freeways, will assume ST3 would take cars off the road so people can drive faster to work. That sort of claim would be false.”
tensor says
How about telling us how many riders Sound Transit has now?
Or can nobody at Shift count that high?
Clay Fitzgerald says
So what? Has it taken any vehicles off the highways and freeways or reduced congestion? One word answer… NO!
tensor says
It is not actually possible to reduce congestion in a growing region where the surface network is already at capacity.
You’re welcome.
Clay Fitzgerald says
If that’s so, why do the promotions for ST3 keep pushing the idea that it does?
By ST’s own calculations the vast majority of those who are currently using and will use Link Light Rail will simply be moving from buses mostly because the bus routes they normally used were eliminated… all done at exorbitant cost and accomplished little except to enrich the contractors who build it and line the pockets of the unions representing the employees of those contractors.
It’s all designed to enrich certain parties and give more power over us by politicos.
tensor says
You might want to note the difference between “X is true” and “Shift says X is true.” Those two statements are not equivalent.
Also, you might want to notice your claims, that ST3 will not reduce congestion, and that ST3 will take busses off the roads, do in fact blatantly contradict each other.
SouthernRoots says
From the Times story: The greatest fallacy with train vs. lane comparisons lies not in the math, but that some voters, inundated by footage of gridlocked freeways, will assume ST3 would take cars off the road so people can drive faster to work.
That sort of claim would be false.
tensor says
Thank you, Roots, for pointing out that Sound Transit has not, in fact, claimed ST3 will reduce congestion. (I rather doubt Clay was ever going to make that admission.) The idea that mass transit exists to reduce congestion appears to be a fabrication by ST3’s opponents, not a result of Sound Transit’s accurate depiction of our current traffic situation.
What do you think of Shift’s competing claims that ST3 will not reduce congestion, but at the very same time, it will take busses off the roads?
SouthernRoots says
“Sound Transit Link light rail projects are helping
connect communities, reduce congestion, increase
mobility, and grow our economy.”
SENATOR PATTY MURRAY AT SOUND TRANSIT AND PORT OF SEATTLE
GROUNDBREAKING ON AIRPORT LINK LIGHT RAIL AND AIRPORT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. SEPT. 22, 2006. (ST 2006 Annual Report)
Improve travel by adding capacity and reducing congestion – ST2 Voter Pamphlet
The RTiD plan targets investments in the region’s busiest highways that would reduce traffic congestion and improve travel times on roads like i-405. – ST2 Voter Pamphlet
i-5 / SR 18 Federal Way Congestion Relief: Build direct connections between I-5 and SR 18 and a more direct connection to Enchanted Parkway (SR 161). – ST2 Voter Pamphlet
RTID also established performance measures to evaluate projects included in the Blueprint for Progress. WSDOT’s analysis for RTID considered reduced level of congestion and improved safety; improved travel time; improved air quality; increases in person and vehicle trip capacity; reductions in person and vehicle delay; and improved freight mobility and cost effectiveness.- ST2 Voter Pamphlet
RTID is charged with developing a transportation investment package that reduces congestion on roadways and bridges in Snohomish, King and Pierce counties. For more information, visit: http://www.rtid.org – RT Handout 6/5/07.
Traffic wastes our time. This November a plan to ease our worst congestion by improving roads, bridges and expanding mass transit across Snohomish, King and Pierce counties, will be on the ballot. – RT Handout 6/5/07.
This analysis is based on two scenarios for traffic in 2030: one with ST2 projects and one without ST2 projects. Accordingly, the numbers are estimates based on best practices. In the simplest terms, every car not driven because the driver chooses to travel by transit either reduces congestion or leaves space for another vehicle. – ST2, Appendix 3.
With the ST2 Plan, both the number of vehicle miles traveled and the level of congestion, as measured by hours of vehicle delay, would be reduced. – ST2, Appendix D
This analysis is based on two scenarios for traffic in 2040: one with ST3 projects and one without ST3 projects. Accordingly, the numbers are estimates based on best practices. In the simplest terms, every car not driven because the driver chooses to travel by transit either reduces congestion or leaves space for another vehicle. – ST3 Plan_Document_Final
TABLE 6: Projected regional VMT reduction due to ST3
Auto Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction in 2040 due to ST3
Reduction in annual vehicle miles traveled (switched to transit): 314 – 411 million Reduction in annual trips in auto (switched to transit): 19 – 24 million
NOTE: These two measures use the methods required by the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) for estimating environmental and congestion relief benefits for FTA New Starts funding applications. They are described in detail in the Final Interim Policy Guidance – FTA Capital Investment Program (August 2015). – ST3 Appendix C
tensor says
Roots, thank you. I stand corrected. It’s good to know just how much outright goading is required before anyone here will actually provide evidence for a claim.
So, now that you’ve actually found the estimated comparisons between congestion with and without building ST3, do you still consider it to be a “boondoggle”?
SouthernRoots says
Yep. $500 million per mile to carry less than 5% of traffic; fixed lines that work only if you can force people to live near the rail line or stations; completion date way the hell in the future (or longer).
Boondoggle.
tensor says
…fixed lines that work only if you can force people to live near the rail line or stations…
You do know that applies to every form of transportation ever, right? To cite my favorite example, the Puget Sound taxpayers who will foot most of the bill for the North-South freeway in Spokane won’t use it, because we’re not going to live near it.
However, building a light rail line through an already populated area does not “force” anyone already living there to move near it, and may actually increase population density, as people *choose* to move near it.
Come to think of it, would you call the North-South Freeway a “boondoggle” for us Puget Sound taxpayers? Because it will move 0.00% of us, and the completion date is nowhere near certain.
SouthernRoots says
Got it. You love choo-choo’s and especially love spending tens of billions on them and you are intolerant of anyone that doesn’t like what you like.
Roads are general purpose and can be used by anyone at anytime in any manner they choose. They are fully paid for by the users and in the case of tolls, pay extra to use. The gas tax payers also pay for pedestrian and bicycle lanes. They can use the freeway for a bit, then a highway, then a local road – all in accordance with their needs. Congestion affects their timeline, but it is their timeline, not the governments. Roads move people, goods and services. The light rail is only a people mover, it will not move goods and services.
Mass transit is heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. The users do not pay for the full cost (and never will) of the construction nor day to day operations. Buses are flexible in the same way as private vehicles. They can use the freeway for a bit, then a highway, then a local road. If population centers shift, they can be rerouted quickly and efficiently. Choo-choos can’t.
One of the best uses of transit money (IMO) were the transit ramps in Lynnwood, Everett, and Kirkland. HOV and buses exit and enter on the left, they don’t have to block traffic crossing into and out of the HOV lanes. Any place the choo-choos are at street level will cause congestion on the local roads.
The I-5 craphole in downtown Seattle under the convention center; the 45th on-ramp with people crossing five lanes to get to 520; 520 merge onto I-5 and the Mercer exit – all examples of poor engineering that causes congestion. 54 billion would go a very long way in resolving these types of choke points.
You really need to learn how to tolerate redistribution; you don’t have to like it or agree with it.
Go ahead and have the last word(s).
tensor says
They are fully paid for by the users…
Dead.
Flat.
Wrong.
Here are the real numbers. As you can see in the pie charts on page 6, fuel tax and vehicle license fees provide about half of WSDOT’s income. Road construction, maintenance, and preservation consume over two-thirds of WSDOT’s budget. The difference comes in the form of public debt and federal grants. (Adding debt service to the costs of roads brings the total to over three-quarters of WSDOT’s budget.) Users of roads are heavily subsidized.
…in the case of tolls, pay extra to use.
See that tiny little slice in the revenue pie chart? All of the tolls paid are in that slice, which also contains other fees. A fraction of 1.75% does not begin to cover the subsidy drivers receive from the rest of us.
The gas tax payers also pay for pedestrian and bicycle lanes.
Since fuel taxes come nowhere near to the cost of paying for our roads, those taxes obviously can’t pay for pedestrian and bicycle lanes, either.
Congestion affects their timeline,
Which goes a long way toward explaining the popularity of Sound Transit with both riders and voters — you know, the numbers Shift won’t ever cite, no matter how many posts it publishes about Sound Transit.
Mass transit is heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. The users do not pay for the full cost (and never will) of the construction nor day to day operations.
Yes. They are like roads in that regard, as you have just learned.
Buses are flexible in the same way as private vehicles.
Yes. They get stuck in exactly the same traffic which rail users simply and easily avoid.
If population centers shift, they can be rerouted quickly and efficiently.
And get very efficiently stuck in similar traffic elsewhere. Efficiently.
You really need to learn how to tolerate redistribution; you don’t have to like it or agree with it.
Yes, plenty of people who claim to hate government redistribution of wealth become very, very comfortable with it when they’re on the receiving end. I wasn’t doubting that in the least.
But, you see, I *do* tolerate it, because I continue to live in the county which redistributes billions of dollars per year to the very same people who claim to oppose such redistribution of wealth. I was merely noting that your BOONDOGGLE BOONDOGGLE BOONDOGGLE BOONDOGGLE really isn’t that big to we who’ve been paying far more all along.
54 billion would go a very long way in resolving these types of choke points.
That’s not even wrong. You obviously know nothing about traffic engineering, and how a huge roadway will simply overwhelm the surface streets to which it connects. All you’ve told us is that the words you falsely attributed to me actually apply to you: you want all transportation money spent in roads, you don’t care if the taxpayers want transit instead, and you’re utterly intolerant of any other views.
Go ahead and have the last word(s).
(Yeah, sure; we’ve heard that before.) See you at the election.
SouthernRoots says
Can’t let your misrepresentations go without correction.
fuel tax and vehicle license fees provide about half of WSDOT’s income. …. The difference comes in the form of public debt and federal grants. … Users of roads are heavily subsidized.
See that tiny little slice in the revenue pie chart? All of the tolls paid are in that slice, which also contains other fees. A fraction of 1.75% does not begin to cover the subsidy drivers receive from the rest of us.
Fuel taxes pay for the roads. Federal grants come from the 18.4 cent per gallon fuel tax. Bonds are paid off with the fuel taxes and in cases like 520, some of the construction bonds are paid for by tolls.
Express tolls are “for paying toll lane maintenance, operation, and corridor improvements”.
Per the document you referenced:
2003 Nickel Funding package:
• 5 cents per gallon gas tax increase
• 15 percent increase in gross weight fees on heavy trucks
• 0.3 percent increase in the sales tax on motor vehicles
When the projects are built, and the accompanying bonds are paid off, the five-cent-per-gallon gas tax increase will expire.
King County receives $1.08 for every $1 “contribution” to this package. 21 of 39 counties receive <$.50 for their “contribution”.
2005 Transportation Partnership (gas tax)
• 9.5 cents gas tax increase phased in over four years $5.5 billion
• Vehicle Weight Fee on passenger cars $908 million
• The light truck weight fee increase $436 million
• Annual motor home fee of $75 $130 million
King County receives $1.17 for every $1 “contribution” to this package. 18 of 39 counties receive <$.50 for their “contribution”.
Bike lanes on roadways were paid for by gas, auto, and road taxes – especially when done with “road diets”.
Haven’t had time to look up the recent 11 cent gas tax data.
All you’ve told us is that the words you falsely attributed to me actually apply to you: you want all transportation money spent on roads, you don’t care if the taxpayers actually want rail options as well as roads , and you’re utterly intolerant of any other views.
Cue the violins…. Get out the inhaler…. I disagree with your views, I am not yet intolerant of them.
tensor says
For someone so worried about “misrepresentations,” you’re pretty good at carefully picking just those facts which seem to support your positions. As the document clearly states, King County’s taxpayers get ninety-five cents in WSDOT services for every dollar in taxes paid to WSDOT. That’s across all packages for the entire nine-year period the study covers.
As for tolls paying for the roads, yes of course they do; but less than two percent of WSDOT’s income came from tolls. Taxpayer subsidies, in various forms, paid far more.
Federal grants come from the 18.4 cent per gallon fuel tax.
Huh. For all of your carefully selected facts from the document, you didn’t cite the one saying all federal grants came from the federal Highway Trust Fund. And even if you had, that Fund has received billions of dollars in recent years from general-purpose taxes. So, roads are subsidized, no matter how carefully you’ve selected your facts to “prove” otherwise.