Update: I am an ass. I looked at this op-ed and thought of what I have seen of the Pacific Interchange project and what was going on at the beginning of the SR-520 alternatives selection, and it came across to me as rich people against transit – something we’ve been seeing a lot of lately in this region. It turns out I was totally off base, and I apologize to Jonathan Dubman and Rob Wilkinson for the following piece, which I will leave up so that people can continue to lambast me in the comments.
In actuality, it seems like these guys really do want to improve transit, and at least Mr. Dubman uses it, and while I disagree with them that this would be a good use of Sound Transit money this round, I see the utility of the project eventually. I’m still concerned that this would drastically change the routing and availability of the buses that use 520 and start from I-5, and I still think it’s far more useful to use North King or East King money to extend light rail, especially because we can’t build Snohomish light rail until we get North King built out.
But this post was out of line, and I’m sorry about that. I wish the best to both of you authors in becoming multimillionaires, and I hope we can be allies even though I’m a jerk. Mr. Dubman, thanks for replying and setting me straight, and thank you jamesk for making me say “uh-oh” and go have a second google.
Today’s Times makes me cringe with a sneaky op-ed by two Montlake Multimillionaires who have worked hard for years to undermine the SR-520 bridge replacement and HOV project, and now want to bring their delaying tactics to light rail in a sad attempt to keep a bad idea alive.
The gist of it is that these guys do not care one whit about transit, but want money for their pet project. They spearheaded the “Pacific Interchange” alternative for the SR-520 bridge replacement, with the aim of getting commuters (outsiders!) out of their once-elite neighborhood by building flyover ramps from 520 to Husky Stadium. They already lost that battle – WSDOT chose the six lane alternative (the same two general purpose we have now, with an extension of the HOV lanes all the way to I-5), and these jokers think they can get their project back with Sound Transit money.
Their myopic view ignores the region’s actual commute patterns. They point out that an uncongested express bus trip takes 14 minutes from Montlake to Microsoft – but (intentionally) ignore the fact that the vast majority of commuters at Montlake are not coming from the immediate neighborhood – they’re coming from Capitol Hill, the UW, Ballard, Roosevelt, and Wallingford neighborhoods, among others. They say the trip from Husky Stadium to Microsoft on Link would be 41 minutes – but ignore the fact that someone living near Roosevelt or Capitol Hill stations would still have a shorter commute boarding there than transferring to the bus at Montlake, and someone at Brooklyn might just take the train for the convenience of a one-seat ride. I would personally save time by boarding at Roosevelt than using my current bus down to Montlake.
The claims here by our Montlake Multimillionaires (who have probably never even taken a bus across the bridge) are stretched, if not simply bogus. Taking money from East Link to get commuters out of their neighborhood would be a horrible use of public funds. This is another example of fake transit support – these people claim to be really interested in “bus rapid transit”, but take a layer off the onion and you see they have another agenda entirely. When they pitch this kind of thing to the Laurelhurst Community Club, they even suggest that their direct access ramps could later become “high occupancy toll” roads so the rich can avoid the Montlake interchange.
I find the push for BRT to be fishy. Building “stations” with fare-paid areas is a huge cost. why not put in proper rail with enough capacity to actually make the investment worth the money?
Well, we are – rail on 90. Do I need a post on “why I-90”? Have we already done one?
If you do, I’d like to hear your response to the anti-Prop-1 claim that only one train would be able to traverse the Floating Bridge at a time, limiting the effectiveness of rail on I-90. Is it bogus? Irrelevant? Not as much of a problem as it appears? A legit concern? Or what?
You know, I’ve met and chatted with Jonathan several times–once at a WSDOT tour of the 520 Bridge, another time at a Transportation Choices Coalition event. I know nothing about Rob Wilkinson, but I think you’re mischaracterizing Jonathan a bit.
He worked at Microsoft as a vendor for several years and told me he was frustrated that he couldn’t bike across 520 to get to work. I can’t recall if he took the 545 as an alternative, but I’m fairly sure he did. I do know that he expressed frustration about the car-centric nature of our transpo system.
Honestly, the ad hominem aspersions don’t add anything to your argument.
Mike, I think you got snowed. I’ve also talked to them, and they gave me a very different story when I approached them differently – they know you’re Carless, and they tailored their pitch accordingly. Sorry, dude.
I agree with other Mike, there are ideas and there are people and you should only attack the former.
I agree with Ben, but I think the Pacific Interchange Option is a good one, as long as it comes from WSDOT funds.
Direct access from the bridge to Husky Stadium sets up an excellent way of getting downtown across 520 — express buses get off, and it’s 9 minutes to downtown from there.
It beats the heck out of sitting in that horrific 520/I-5 merge.
mike-who-is-not-carless, these guys have been using every tactic they can think of to kill 520 work. I have no problem pointing out that they are multimillionaires, and I have no problem pointing out that they are very suddenly using BRT as a stalking horse for getting their interchange.
Martin, I think the interchange couldn’t happen – I thought WSDOT agreed, due to cost, environmental impact, and the Coast Guard clearance through the ship canal.
We shouldn’t encourage people to commute from Ballard to Redmond, we should encourage them to live closer to Redmond.
anonymouse, that’s the attitude we’ve taken for the last 50 years, and it creates sprawl.
When you limit your transportation investment, you end up forcing people out of the city because they can’t get around – but the same people would previously have lived AND worked in Ballard!
We need to connect Ballard to Downtown before we connect Ballard to Redmond, though.
Today Redmond no longer counts as sprawl so people working in Redmond living there is not sprawl, though neither is living in Ballard. People working in Redmond living in Fall City on the other hand…
I wonder this: when the replace bridge, are they going to replace the section from I-5 to Montlake? If so, are they going to add express lane access to that section? I should find that out.
daimajin, they are replacing that section, but I don’t believe they are altering the interchange – there’s no money for it.
Wow, after reading Ben Schiendelman’s characterization of Mr. Dubman, I guess I’ll have to read his posts in a much different light.
I have met Mr. Dubman, and found him to be an honest, sincere transit advocate who walks the talk. As I have not met Ben Schiendelman, I can only assume from his most recent words that he is not.
I think that many places that were once considered sprawl in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s have become today’s new urban centers, and we should keep it that way (I believe that’s what the GMA is for), meaning no more sprawl beyond Redmond (I thin you all get the point).
I just reviewed the WSDOT’s SR 520 replacement project’s website, and I didn’t see anything about cancellation or anything about not building the Pacific interchange, but I have seen new proposals from the West-side mediation meetings, and they are kind of similar to the Pacific interchange, ranging from:
– 6-lane alternative w/ no Montlake transit stop
– Six-lane corridor with tunnel through the Arboretum and tunnel under the Montlake Cut
– Six-lane corridor with shallow tunnel through the Arboretum (Foster Island Berm) and bridge over the Montlake Cut
Here’s the link:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520Bridge/CurrentPlans.htm
anonymous, don’t be a troll.
ballardcommuter, the Governor’s expert review panel (findings linked from the current plan page) found that the base six-lane alternative would cost 3.9 billion, and that the pacific interchange alternative would cost 4.38 billion. The current available funds top out at about 4 billion, making Pacific Interchange an impossibility.
While they aren’t saying outright “it’s not an option”, the numbers don’t seem to indicate that it’ll be possible, which is the assumption I’ve been working with.
(uh, by current available funds I mean the funding available through the January 2008 funding plan on the WSDOT page)
Ben, you have no trouble sliming people you disagree with because that’s your MO. There is no fact in this piece, your only point here is to attack the motives of people who disagree with you. I find it disgusting and an embarrassment that this site gets as much traffic as it does when this sort of junk passes as commentary here.
anonymous, are you one of the Montlake residents who wrote the piece? I use my name here, why don’t you use yours?
Ben, I think if you Google Dubman, you will see his pro-transit/pro-rail creds are there, and have been there, for a long time.
actually the pacific interchange is a good idea because it brings the bridge out of the arboretum, a wonderful environmental asset. of course, i would prefer we wouldn’t need a 6-lane 520 bridge at all, just a transit bridge, but unfortunately, people still want their cars for the time being. Also, most people who go on the 520 at montlake come from the north, so they have to go across the montlake bridge, which frequently goes up and down, causing massive traffic jams that are more environmentally costly than if they could just speed onto the bridge. i think that it is fair to ask them to pay for transit ramps, but only if it is transit only, which i’m pretty sure is not what they want. and they shouldn’t invest too much in brt because hopefully they will replace the brt with light rail some time soon.
Ben, the Pacific Interchange is basically dead because of Seattle politics – not cost or environmental impacts. The current budget target was set in ESSB 6099 using the 2007 cost estimates, which would not eliminate Pacific Interchange.
anonymous, what part of Seattle politics killed the pacific interchange?
Hi all,
I co-authored today’s Seattle Times piece with Rob Wilkinson. I don’t know who posted anonymously above; it wasn’t either of us.
I enjoy reading this blog even on those occasions when I do not agree with it, and even this one was entertaining, even though it contains personal attacks against me. I choose not to take them personally because it’s very clear that although we have indeed met, Ben does not know me at all. Ben, I’d welcome the opportunity for us to actually get to know each other. We probably share a great deal of interests and values, even if we might disagree on occasion. Maybe we can collaborate somehow.
While we do live in Montlake, neither of us is a multimillionaire, or even close. In my case at least that is laughably far from the truth. I wish it were true, as I would then have much more freedom to give time and money to causes I believe in.
It is also laughable to say that I never take a bus. I have actually taken buses regularly since 1977, when I was 9 years old, growing up in Chicago. I have commuted by bus for years to Microsoft and use transit regularly in Seattle and when traveling elsewhere. I own a car (from 1986 which gets 30 mpg) but the battery keeps dying because I don’t drive it enough. I have voted in favor of many transit measures, phone banked against lopsided packages that did not offer enough for transit, logged thousands of hours studying transit planning and personally advocating for better transit, and given generously of limited time and resources to advocacy groups.
Rob and I have actually worked hard for years not to undermine the SR 520 project but to support it constructively, to make it as great a project as it can be, and to ensure that precious public funds are spent on solutions that really work. For quite a while I advocated for a 4-lane solution with congestion pricing and light rail, but two things happened. One, it became abundantly clear that that vision would not achieve a critical mass of political support. Two, I realized that that particular configuration has its own set of problems, which I’m not sure it’s worth going into at this point because those issues have been decided now. There will be HOV lanes on SR 520, and transit will be provided via buses. I would personally prefer riding a train to a bus, but not enough to go 27 minutes out of my way each way. Others are free to make their own choice on that, provided the options are made available.
One of the chief motivations of developing the Pacific Street Interchange option was to improve transit. We want to improve the speed and reliability of existing local Metro transit routes that cross the Montlake Bridge, to enable potential transit routes up Montlake Blvd. to University Village and Children’s Hospital, both of which continue to expand, and most importantly, to directly connect transit on SR 520 to the planned UW light rail station, which we enthusiastically support. We advocated for including transit-supportive provisions in various pieces of legislation and found a good deal of support for that within the City of Seattle and in the state legislature. I am personally on record advocating for improved transit connections between the UW station and buses running on SR 520 since 1999. In fact, I advocated placing the station there in part because it offered better connection opportunities. The tunnel is now going under my house.
Despite having worked on Pacific Street interchange for years, I am not bitter that that option was not selected, because I think we actually have an even better plan in the works now, thanks to the Governor’s mediation process and some great work on the part of both WSDOT and citizen advocates within and far beyond Montlake.
We are well aware that the vast majority of commuters at Montlake are not coming from the immediate neighborhood. That is partly why we are willing to make the sacrifice of losing the transit stop in Montlake that is a 3 minute walk from my house, a stop I personally use all the time. Anyone who wants the “one seat” ride on light rail from Brooklyn, Capitol Hill or anywhere else along the line to Redmond or elsewhere on the Eastside will have that choice provided light rail is constructed for that length, but we feel it is important for SR 520 to be as great a transit corridor as it can be regardless of what happens on I-90.
If you read the op-ed carefully, you will see that we are not suggesting taking money from East Link, nor delaying anything. We tried to be as clear as we could that we were not making that argument, saying “both corridors are critical”, and “This is not about the Eastside versus Seattle (it’s both), or trains versus buses (it’s both), or Highway 520 versus I-90 (it’s both.)” The motivations Ben ascribes to us are completely off base.
The plans currently on the table are as follows:
(a) an 0.4% sales tax and 12 year implementation plan, with increased bus service on SR 520 and a capital contribution of perhaps $150M, with light rail only to Overlake Hospital in Bellevue.
(b) an 0.5% sales tax and 12 year implementation plan, with increased bus service on SR 520 and no capital contribution to SR 520, with light rail all the way to Overlake/Microsoft, which supports Bellevue’s redevelopment plans for the Bel-Red corridor in addition to serving the large employment base in Redmond.
(c) the 20 year plan with 0.5% sales tax that was part of the Roads & Transit measure last year, with light rail at least to Overlake/Microsoft and possibly beyond. There was no capital contribution to SR 520 specifically for transit, but the roads component of the package had a whole lot of regional funding for that project.
The essential point of the op-ed is that we believe a capital contribution to SR 520 is warranted with or without the light rail extension to Overlake, on its own merits. Maybe the solution is to extend the Sound Transit plan beyond 12 years, which apparently is being actively discussed now. Given that the taxing authority is capped, and there is widespread interest in getting light rail service at least to Overlake, maybe that’s the right answer. Other additional funds could be spent addressing the concerns of communities to the north and south that feel underserved by the 12 year plans.
cheers!
Jonathan, I started the day pissed off about another apparent armchair transit planner, but as you can see, I updated my piece with a disclaimer at about the same time you were writing this. I’m going to update that again with an apology.
I apologize to you for a piece that was out of line. It’s clear to me now that I was attacking the wrong people, and I’m sorry. I’m glad you found it funny, but I just bucketed you and Mr. Wilkinson together with anti-transit folks.
That said, I don’t think it’s cost-effective for Sound Transit to spend half a billion on this when that would otherwise mean further light rail extensions. We can’t serve Snohomish County with light rail until the North King subarea builds light rail up to the county line – so every dollar in North King should, in my opinion, go directly to light rail construction.
Financially, I don’t think there’s any way to get Sound Transit back to the ballot with any of those packages and money for an interchange project like this – it’s a nearly $500 million increase (presumably not all of that is the interchange, though) between the two alternatives, and that’s several miles of elevated light rail (which I’m assuming north of Northgate).
Again, I’m sorry. I’ll leave the post untouched to show off what an ass I am. :)
I am one of the anonymous people above. I use anonymous because previous posts under a different name have been removed.
Just want to say that I really appreciate Ben’s second thoughts on this and his apology. Thank you for taking the time to think twice about jumping to conclusions about other’s motives.