This morning we have a piece trying to ‘make the case’ against light rail in Crosscut. It contains the usual tired anti-rail arguments we’ve seen many times; I just wanted to bring it up because two of the first commenters – agreeing wholeheartedly – are our friends Rob Wilkinson and Jonathan Dubman. Hmmmm…

21 Replies to “Perhaps My Hunch Was Right”

  1. I have read so many opinion pieces over the last several months about mass transit expansion/development in the Puget Sound Region and see how much of a polorizing issue it really can be. People are very passionate about it, on both sides of the issue.

    Can someone shed some light on this compared to other countries around the world? I mean, do most communities go through the sames kinds of debate on transit issues? I lived in Japan for a few years and absolutely loved being able to ride the trains everywhere.

    Do people see mass transit as a method of taking away their right to drive a car, or is it really the cost of building these systems and not being able to see the long-term benefits of its use?

    With sky-rocketing energy prices and an absolute need for mass transit, why are people still so in love with buses and BRT systems, when a LRT can easily move up to 800 people in one trip? I personally find the arguments for rail more persuasive over buses and envision it as a long-term investment rather than a short-term fix.

  2. Bobby,

    I’m probably not the best person to answer for the BRT crowd, but basically, the way it usually gets fielded BRT is cheaper, which either reduces taxes or increases the area served.

    Of course, it also delivers fewer benefits, in terms of capacity, speed, riding experience, development, etc., but there are certainly a large number of people who don’t give a whit about those things, are most concerned about their taxes, or have a commute that is well down the priority list for rail.

  3. I don’t think that questioning Sound Transit and being anti-transit are the same thing, so I don’t find particular fault in what those commenters wrote — it’s clear from their piece before that 520 is their focus, and ST isn’t very focused on 520 at the moment. I haven’t heard much in detail about the 520 BRT plan.

    Bobby: Most countries generally turn to rail, but I’m not sure how the debate is. I imagine it’s less of an uphill battle than it is here.

    As for, “why are people still so in love with buses and BRT systems[?]” There’s a strong suspicion amongst many Seattle transit bloggers that those who talk up BRT are sometimes simply trying to undermine light rail. It’s not about the rail orhtodoxy — it’s about what many people are trying to pass off as BRT is better described as “more buses”. No dedicated lanes, no reliability, no quick boarding, no easy-to-understand system, no frequent service outside of commuting hours, no capital investment, and no tax increase.

    I think BRT may have its place in urban villages (and I think RapidRide does this right). I’d all be up for discussing it and I’d really like to see a nice, concrete plan for some BRT routes. But in terms of regional transportation — going from Bellevue to Seattle — I really think you need rail or some other fixed-guideway to really move people efficiently.

    1. “I’d all be up for discussing it and I’d really like to see a nice, concrete plan for some BRT routes”

      Don’t hold your breath for that one. All the Kemper and Discovery Institute people do is offer up big servings of BRT “concepts”. A concrete plan would give us a point of reference. When Sound Transit put forward a real (rail convertible) BRT plan, to actually remove buses from gridlock, the (supposed) BRT believers at Kemper Development Corp went ballistic. Buses are supposed to be slow and unpopular, afterall; we can’t allow anything to degrade the sanctity of the patriotic automobile.

      Furthermore, BRT concepts are often put forward by people who oppose public transit altogether. So both their motives and their calculations should be very suspect.

      Would you take advice about God from an athiest?

  5. Tim Eyman is effectively scuttling any hopes of BRT being efficient with his light-sync bluster. He’s also ensuring that peak travel time transit won’t be any better with his opening of the HOV lanes at SIX PM (what!!).

    I’m absolutely convinced that it truly is a matter of BRT being a meaningless silver bullet against LRT. “Oh, we can make stations with buses and they’ll go fast and OH how shiny!”

    Forgetting, of course, that behind the sheen, LRT promotes more benefits than BRT ever will.

  6. One of the issues is that anti rail people never discuss operating costs, just the cost of building. LRT looks more expensive because we haven’t built the right-of-way yet, while with roads we have.

  7. The way I see it.. a bus is simply – just a bus. This is why “Bus” Rapid Transit is unsuccessful in so many places which eventually gets ripped up and made into LRT right of ways.

    I’m all for CT’s “SWIFT” and we’ll see just how delayed it gets…

  8. So this is the guy who was in charge of transportation while the ferry system rusted away, while the ferry managers spent millions planning for big terminals that, they admit now, won’t ever be built.

    I’m inclined to think he’s a big bag of wind. But it can be expensive wind for people who get schnookered by him- just ask the people in Port Orchard and Gig Harbor. They fought like tigers to keep that second Narrows Bridge from being built, but the state walked right over them, and now they’re paying tolls so a private company can make a profit.

    Come to think of it, I really dislike MacDonald. He should take up another hobby, but I guess in his experience it’s probably helpful to have poor vision when you’re posing as a transportation expert. It got him clear to the top at one time.

  9. I love how Crosscut put the headline “Trainwreck”.

    McDonald also ignores that putting people in LRT cars will increase ridership on Metro buses. You guy much more induced demand on buses from rail than from other buses.

  10. Dubman’s a stain. I’m amazed you apologized about that thing you write, Ben.

    Bill la Borde’s comment is classic.

    1. I apologized for using ad hominem attacks. Their idea is still bad, but I shouldn’t have attacked them personally, as odious as their goals are.

      1. I wish Jonathan Dubman would explain to us what his recent concerns with light rail across I-90 are based on.

        I hope it’s not anything self-serving. Or a nod to Doug MacDonald who gave Dubman attention over his Quixotic bridge campaign when nobody else at Fortress WSDOT would.

        When Dubman says he believes MacDonald “has good intentions,” I am reminded of a similar (accurate) characterization of Bush, who to this day believes the invasion of Iraq was a good idea.

        The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Especially when the pavement is laid by pie-in-the-sky “dare to be different” dreamers.

        This is all pretty basic infrastructure stuff. But in Seattle, we have to make it as difficult as possible – with a new light rail “alternative” popping up every 5 years or so. Only to be shot down in a blaze of reality.

  11. I think MacDonald is somehow fixated on this idea that his failures in leadership are somebow tied to Sound Transit. Or, he’s trying to divert attention from his record with the forever-stumbling RTID, state ferries, AWV, etc.

    What really bugs me is how MacDonald shaped the WSDOT to be so Olympia centric, ignoring the fact it was transit-friendly Seattle legislators and voters who saved car-oriented Olympia from the jaws of I-912. If I had the benefit of hindsight, given the way MacDonald and his Discovery Institute friends have refused to return the favor and support transit when the time comes, I probably would have voted yes on I-912. Transit supporters never should have trusted the highway department to think anything outside monomodal.

    Mary Margaret Haugen, Judy Clibborn, Fred Jarrett – they still cary Doug MacDonald’s water trying to protect the hallowed cement center lanes against the scourge of light rail.

    And look at what Doug MacDonald’s newfound friends at the Discovery Institute have delivered transportation wise in the past decade: a billion dollars worth of foot ferries with a couple dozen potential passengers. Like MacDonald, they have floated all kinds of weird ideas, complete with nifty drawings. And little else to show for the millions they spend on their PR-only campaigns (although the Intelligently Designed Freeway Monorail and submerged 520 tubes are fun to laugh at)

    If the alternatives behind MacDonald’s Door #2 were viable or realistic, he would share them with us.

    If MacDonald was interested in being more honest, he would be counting passenger miles, not just raw ridership figures, providing no context whatsoever. Typical freeway guy math. I also can’t figure out how MacDonald thinks he can get away with the notion we can afford to make buses act like taxi cabs in the era of steeply climbing fuel costs.

  12. KC Metro will spend $500 million on operating expenses in 2008, with a ridership of probably 115 million. That’s $4.34/passenger. The operating expenses for the 0.5% Sound Transit package would be $65 million per year for the next twelve years, in today’s dollars. Sound Transit estimates that it would come with a annual ridership increase of about a 37 million. That’s $1.75/passenger/year.
    Anyone who’s taken a sixth grade math class knows that if one method has a huge capital cost but a low operating cost while another has no capital costs but huge operating costs, the first method will be much more cost efficient over the long term.
    Therefore, light rail is much more cost effective than the metro bus system. Not that I have anything against buses, but they really can’t be used as an argument against light rail.

    1. “KC Metro will spend $500 million on operating expenses in 2008, with a ridership of probably 115 million.”

      Not counting, of course, the cost of re-paving and maintaining the roads required to keep those buses running.

  13. From Rob Wilkinson:

    “I have been an activist on the SR520 rebuild for some time, including meetings with Sound Transit that have frankly left me with more questions than answers particularly when it comes to BRT on 520. It very clear that BRT is not a ST priority despite their rhetoric to the contrary.”

    Hm. Apparently, Rob Wilkinson is not familiar with all the BRT infrastructure ST has built around the region in recent years. You know, the direct access ramps and flyer stops which put the “R” in BRT. Rob also may not be aware of something called the “545”. Metro gets great ridership (and crummy reliability) by stopping on every block. Sorry, not BRT.

    “In fact by truly commiting to a BRT system for 520 or elsewhere it only takes riders away from LRT and makes it more difficult to justify this investment. I wonder if the goal is more to build a light rail system than it is to increase transit use?”

    There is the tired old light rail conspiracy again. Talk about super-lazy, Rob Wilkenson. BRT is a good way to DEVELOP ridership for future light rail, which is what the entire R8A and East Link projects are all about. And ST is behind both of them. Same goes for Rapid Ride building ridership on the 99 corridor for future light rail expansion. Is Sound Transit trying to torpedo that programme, too? Pray tell.

    Rob, if you’re reading this at some point, could you please tell us what it is that informs you this urban myth is actually rooted in fact?

    1. I do support using buses to build ridership for later rail. That seems to be what all of ST’s routes are about.

      2. andrew: By horribly mismanaging a local transit system to the point of leaving an incredible opening for both city-specific and regional service?

      3. I haven’t listened to the piece. I don’t have time to at the moment, but what was his idea?

Comments are closed.