Watch at: http://video.soundtransit.org/stream
2:20: Mayor Nickels speaking about what’s at stake, how the package has been a result of a lot of work. Thanks staff for working on it and providing the Board tons of data. Says we have a solid plan – it would increase ST ridership over 80% by 2030, and increase transit’s ridership share by 65%.
2:22: An investment of 69 dollars a year for each adult in the Sound Transit district – for most, about the same as a single tank of gas. “This package allows us to break out of the highway and sprawl, and gives us alternatives to sitting in our cars on the interstate.” He talks about all the other expenses of driving, mentions that tolls are coming on SR-520. Compare $1700 a year for tolls to $69 a year to build light rail.
2:24: “The debate is action versus inaction, stalemate versus solutions.” By 2030, Link, Sounder, and ST Express will carry more than 109 million trips a year (and ten billion passenger miles, he doesn’t mention that). It’s time for show and tell. For those watching, have a look at the “Additional Documents” over on the right side of that page, where you can have a look at the PDFs that summarize the plan and its finances.
2:27: Ric Ilgenfritz points out some cool statistics. This would give us 53 miles of Link. Lynnwood 5 years sooner, Overlake 7 years sooner, Star Lake (S. 272nd) 5 years sooner. 65% increase in Sounder service – longer platforms, more trains. We have a tentative agreement with BNSF already! Also a 25% increase in the ST Express bus fleet, 97,000 additional service hours with half front-loaded in 2009, and half in 2014. Local municipalities won’t just “get a parking garage” this time, they’ll get partnership funds they can use on parking, pedestrian and bicycle access, and more – the choice will remain local.
2:29: 2030 ridership would be 358,000 daily riders (readers, you know this is understated, doesn’t include TOD). 99,550 tons of CO2 reduced per year from new transit riders and bus->rail conversions (wow).
2:43: Larry Phillips (who I hope will run against Sims next year – let’s see how Sims votes) just pointed out that the ST2 plan specifies tax rollbacks after the plan is complete. One less ridiculous attack on Sound Transit!
2:45 pm. Discussion of the plan starts. Reardon moves, someone seconds (I didn’t catch who).
3:10 (I’m back): Board measures are speaking about the plan, what they like and dislike, what a great idea it is to plan in the long term.
3:19: Sims is seriously trying to say that Sound Transit should help fund Metro. Sound Transit CANNOT fund Metro’s service. It would be illegal! Sound Transit is NOT in the business of building routes that meander through Seattle. It is in the business of connecting our urban centers with mass transit. He is trying to treat it like Metro, when it is a completely different animal.
3:22: Paula Hammond is working with Sims now. This is ridiculous – they’re asking Sound Transit to stretch their financials to King County Metro’s service. Ladenburg just came back and said “Let’s make it all three counties, and then it’s equitable” (essentially). Hammond and Sims can’t fight against that – it’s fair. Note that Ladenburg just defused a lot of this by pointing out that it primarily serves King County. He’s very good at this – which is why he’s running for Attorney General. Claudia Thomas is speaking against the Hammond/Sims amendment as well.
3:29: Personally I dislike this amendment. It would make Sound Transit financials less solid. Julia Patterson is asking about how this would reduce Sound Transit’s debt coverage levels. She’s asking if there’s a danger to other subareas, increased risk. I agree with her point – this would be bad.
10,000,000,000 passenger miles a year = every single man woman and child in the Seattle metro area (4M) riding 2,500 miles a year!? Are you sure about that? Even doubling our population it seems high.
Now the 109 million trips a year = 27 trips per person. I’d believe that.
Oh, unless you’re using the whole 1 rail mile replaces 4 VMT thing, which would make some sense (though then you should word it that ST2 would replace 10B miles of driving a year).
No, no, I was just not adding very well.
Sorry, sorry, one billion. My typo.
Don’t expect anything other than self-serving numbers when it comes to this argument.
I expect rational, informed numbers as usual from this blog. I’ve challenged numbers here before, and they’re always sourced to credible origins with reasonable assumptions.
If your opinion differs, can you cite anywhere on this blogs where numbers were less than credible? Or was that a baseless attack?
Sorry, sorry, one billion passenger miles per year. I just miscounted zeros.
Ironic, any numbers that come out anti-transit folks will call “self-serving” and “rediculous” but its difficult for the average joe to find relative ground for these numbers. On the other hand, ST could give no ridership numbers and the anti-transit folks would get upset and say that ST’s statements about decreased congestion and increased transit use are unfounded without any real numbers or data to back the claims up.
That would kind of make all the arguments by anti-transit folks to be self-serving since nothing will be acceptable to them…
Yeah, it’s pretty amusing. The only negative things we’re hearing are Brad complaining that I’m attacking the crazies, and Pajamas Media calling me out on a typo.
With this kind of bungling, we’re totally winning.
Uh, all “acceptable” plain-english numbers are self-serving. “How much will it cost?” “How many cars will it take out of my way?” “How fast will it get me from point A to point B?”
Ron Sims is trying to shut down ST2~!
With Hammond’s involvement, it sounds like they’re creating a deliberately illegal measure that will be overturned if amended. Through that route, I’m certain it will be either one of them to do the work of overturning it.
It violates sub-area equity rules, oversteps ST’s taxing authority, creates a dangerous precedent and more or less makes this an illegal proposition if amended.
I hope someone points that out.
I really wish one of them was reading the liveblog.
Okay, with Sims’ comments I feel my current approach of pointing out that Metro has dropped the ball on local service is the best Anti-Sims argument possible.
I’m quite honestly perplexed with why he’s fishing for something that is clearly against the current Revised Code of Washington. I think if we make it clear that Sound Transit is doing nothing wrong in its approach we can make an awesome case.
I will print out the relevant state codes tomorrow and bring them if I am heading up to the meet-up.
Ron Sims has completely incriminated his own county government in its involvement in the arena of inadequate bus service.
I’m hoping all of you are catching this here and now: both the state and county agree that, as funded, King County Metro is failing to meet this area’s transit needs.
If it’s $69 a year for my share of ST2.1, I’ll gladly front $138 extra a year for local Seattle service if we kick Metro out.
I didn’t realize that the capacity of the bus maintenance bases in the Sound Transit Area was nearly tapped out. That’s an interesting point about the ability of any transit agency around here to increase bus service…
Yes, it’s part of why light rail pans out to be cheaper. The cost of adding a bus right now is increasing dramatically.
Numbers. Anything, absolutely anything, that’s pulling numbers out of 2030 is going to be bogus no matter which way you side.
Transit planners are notorious for taking the conservative stripe when the know exactly how close they can get to actual ridership numbers.
They know that any projection is a big number and they generally pick as low a number as possible so they can exceed that value as quickly as possible.