This column from Donald Padelford of the CETA is the sort of thing I had hoped we wouldn’t have to ready anymore after Prop. 1 passed. He’s pushing BRT and HOT, which is not the problem with the piece. The problem is that he criticises light rail for being light rail and its supporters for being vain. And something about world class that seems really trite.
My advice for those pushing for BRT over light rail in our region: We’re getting light rail, so stop complaining about it. It’s over, you lost. If you want to get BRT and HOT built, first come up with a plan, get some supporters and make friends who those inclined to agree with you. Don’t call us vain and tell us our efforts are a waste of time, or else you’ll ensure your efforts are.
Of course, a look at CETA’s website makes it pretty evident they’re more interested in bashing light rail than getting BRT built.
They really do a disservice to honest BRT advocates like Ron Sims and Doug McDonald.
That super-snarky column definitely is a disservice to good-faith BRT advocates.
“Don’t call us vain and tell us our efforts are a waste of time, or else you’ll ensure your efforts are.”
I hate to be rude during the holiday season, but I’ve been paying attention to Don Padelford’s efforts over the years.
He has been wasting his time from day one.
But time is all the perpetual Trustfunder really has. They need to busy themselves with worthless ego-centered “projects,” to make themselves feel relevant. (also see: Joel Horn and Tom Weeks)
The problem with elitists like Padelford, in my view – they’re so far removed from society and reality, that they never have a chance of influencing anybody. People nod and smile at Don on the old Seattle blueblood cocktail party circuit when he delivers his theories. And then they move on to the next pointless conversation….
Aside from all the name-calling, please realize that only some of the most densely populated areas will ever get LRT. Therefore BRT might make sense in other areas.
It’s hard to believe that pro-bus people are thought of as elitists. Weird.
BRT might make sense in other areas, yeah. A plan for BRT isn’t going to come from ST. Metro can’t even fund their current bus service. So it’s a debate that’s hard to have because there are no specifics.
But this op-ed piece does not help the BRT cause. It’s pretty dumb, actually, to suggest that HOT lanes are better for transit than HOV lanes.
Not all pro-BRT types are elitist. But Kemper Freeman is an elitist. The Discovery Institute is elitist beyond measure. John Stanton is a certified billionaire elitist, and Doug MacDonald defines the ivory tower approach. And Lexus-Lane HOT advocates (like Padelford) often turn out to be the very people who will have the means to buy their way into bus-only lanes. What a surprise!!
“Aside from all the name-calling, please realize that only some of the most densely populated areas will ever get LRT. Therefore BRT might make sense in other areas.”
Huh? Is Brad trying to insinuate that you need to live next to a light rail station to use it? Is that what “get” means? 70% of residents will have relatively easy access to future light rail extensions under ST2. Not bad, in my view.
THIS guy is an elitist.
If you want BRT in places that aren’t getting light rail – fight for BRT in places that aren’t getting light rail!
I would happily support BRT for Ballard and West Seattle, for instance, as they might not get rail for a couple of decades.
But these BRT advocates have ONLY tried to push for BRT in corridors where we already want to build light rail. That’s why it’s obvious they don’t actually want it – they don’t pick any fights they can win.
I kind of feel bad for the guy. He’s dreaming of 2020 when he can look back and laugh at us because his bus isn’t stuck in traffic? Seriously? Where does he think all of the cars went? (maybe someone should tell him that the other drivers are all on the train) Oh wait, he’s converted the bus lanes to HOT lanes (letting cars in for a fee) so, um, there are somehow less cars in his way.
Agree with most of the comments on Mr. Padelford. The Sincere/Real BRT advocates — those who don’t use it merely as a weapon against LRT — should indeed get behind the concept, and work for a BRT plan that focuses on secondary corridors, Aurora Ave. for example, where LRT is not on the horizon.
And maybe we should cut a little slack to the Padelfords of the community. They are probably still in shock that Prop 1 passed by such a landslide margin, the shock clouding their thinking even more than normal
Take this editorial for what it is – proof positive that Padelford and his buddies never really cared about implementing BRT but only cared about stopping LRT. They have never proposed a real BRT plan, never proposed real BRT funding, and have only used the concept of BRT as a way to derail other investments in mass transit.
If Padelford really believed what he said about BRT and HOT lanes, then I’d expect him to come forward with a proposal to implement supplemental BRT and incremental improvements in the HOT lanes we already have. He does none of this – he just complains that the region has decided to actually do something for once.
In an era of expensive gas and massive stimulus packages there are ample opportunities to move forward on various mass transit fronts. It’s time to move forward – rehashing this BRT vs. LRT debate is not moving forward. That debate was settled in November.
What do you think of this plan developed by James MacIssac?
http://www.eastsideta.com/docs/A%20Better%20Transit%20Plan%20-%209-15-08.pdf
I think he should identify a funding source and a taxing area that aren’t Sound Transit.
What Ben said. I was intrigued by the paper, up until I read bits that talked about dropping ST2 and instead put in a bus tunnel through Bellevue.
How about this for a plan: work with ST to build a bus/train tunnel through Bellevue just like Seattle’s. Change one lane of 405 to bus only (maybe with carpools), new real BRT stations, and fund it with an east-side only tax (since that’s where they plan to add buses).
BRT really stands for “build roads today”, it is a way to channel
transit money into road building projects. It is doubtful that
any transit would be used on the project once the road is built.
Only separate guideway BRT has any chance of actual use, across the
country very few real BRT projects are in operation. For the rest
here is the plan:
First upgrade the corridor (add lanes, make it more highway like, less
city street like) this takes most of the money.
Then add a couple 3 trip a day bus routes that never develop ridership.
When these fail revert to all car-truck traffic. Voila! Success.