While our state legislature fights over whether to uphold their commitment to HOV lanes required to build Eastside Light Rail, the Oregon state legislature is giving $250 million to a light rail expansion from Portland to Milwaukie.
Maybe some in Olympia (obviously not all) want the Northwest’s future growth and employment to happen south of the Columbia?
At least Link is prettier! :D
Much prettier, really…
Dunno about that, but I’d trade some prettiness for the the 23 years that MAX has been operating already…
Wouldn’t we all. We are so inept at electing true leaders, and so slow at making decisions here…
I can’t blame any leaders for the failure of Forward Thrust.
I’d blame whoever made the 60% to pass rule: Forward thrust got over 50%.
That is to some extent the fault of how the financing was structured. Sound Move was carefully structured so it didn’t require 60% to pass.
Though the problems with 60% to pass for bond measures and the turnout thresholds finally got the legislature to loosen the rules some.
Link also has level boarding that will be greatly appreciated by handicapped passengers (and people who tend to trip).
Me being one of them. My busted left leg and my wheelchair thank Sound Transit
“The line has received $250 million thus far from the state legislature”
Wow. Oregon’s legislature finds new ways of funding light rail in PDX, while our state legislature is always focused on new ways of shifting money away from light rail, and towards roads.
Oregon doesn’t continually expand their highways nearly as much as we do.
I’m surprised Tri-Met still operates (or is allowed to operate) the non-low floor MAX cars.
Each Type 1 is paired with a Type 2 (and, rarely, Type 3).
The real rub is that the new Type 4 cars are in mated pairs. It’s a surreal setup when you see Type 1 mixed with Type 2
Portland isn’t the only city with high-floor LRV’s. I don’t believe it is a problem as long as there is some provision for making the train accessible (pairing with a low-floor, lift, or partial high-platform).
Most of SF’s Muni stops are high-floor, but it’s 96 years old, so they grand-fathered in.
If I recall correctly Muni vehicles have lifts and many stops have at least a partial ramp accessible high-platform for level boarding.
Muni isn’t the only system with high floor vehicles, I’m pretty sure there are a number of newer systems with high-floor vehicles still in their fleet. The newer systems all would have had to make some provision for disabled access though.
Sure it is easier with full or partial low-floor vehicles, but why throw away a perfectly good LRV just because it is high-floor? Most still have another 20 years of life in them.
As long as there’s a provision to get me on (a lift or a mini-high platform for example), no complaints here :)
I agree, why throw away a perfectly usable train car when they work just fine?
I think they are allowed to operate those vehicles because of the intermixing of high and low floor cars in its fleet. Sacramento has a similar setup.
Well, here’s a list of things they’re doing, railwise, by 2023 when ST2 Link is built out (* means not entirely likely, but still possible):
-Milwaukie MAX (+ new Willamette River crossing)
-Lake Oswego Streetcar
-Eastside Streetcar Loop
-Vancouver MAX
-Eastside Bypass*
-Powell HCT (Likely LRT)
-Barbur HCT (Likely LRT)
-Mt. Hood CC Blue Line Extension
-Extend Red Line further west (tbh, I have no clue why, unless it’s related to Cascade Station)
-Forest Grove/Cornelius Blue Line Extension
-WES to Salem*
-Streetcar lines identified as top priority in Streetcar network study (looking like NW Industrial, St. John’s, Division, Hawthorne)
-Red Line Extension, Vancouver Loop*
-Trams everyhwere! (not really)
There’s actually an online survey going on right now which has a pretty fun “build a system tool” for the METRO region:
http://www.oregonmetro.gov/goingplaces
Someone needs to do this for the SoundTransit district.
AJ this list is exaclty why I have considered moving to Portland, I do not want to wait until 2023 or longer to have LR near me. ug.
That video seems hardly mundane to me.
By the way, Oregon has a completely different response to recession in general, not just on transportation; for example, the $175m Oregon public works package already passed. Of course, as you probably all know Oregon has a state income tax and is “only” looking at a $2.2b budget shortfall.
Proof positive that income taxes work better than sales taxes for stable revenue.
Well, yes but a $2.2b shortfall is still pretty serious. The real difference is that Oregon is following the Obama model whereas Washington State seems to think Herbert Hoover had the right approach.
I don’t think it alone proves that.
1) Oregon has not had as large an increase in unemployment as Washington has had. If they had, income tax reciepts might have fallen just as much.
2) $2.2bn out of $42.4 bn is 6%, $9.3 bn out of $793 bn (the amount the budget would have been without the cuts) is 11%, so the budget hole in Washington is only (I know, I know) twice as big, not 4x as it seems just comparing $2.2 to $9.3
I do think it’s pretty clear, with the help of other evidence, that the income tax is more stable, has less of an impact on commerce (sales taxes do effect the way people spend money) and obviously more fair.
1) I believe Washington now has a slightly higher unemployment rate and the increase was much larger than Oregon but Oregon started with a higher unemployment rate. Historicly Oregon has tended to be above the national average, Washington a little below but Washington tends to have more of a boom bust cycle.
Sales tax approaching 10% definitely pushes people to internet sales. I don’t know if that “loophole” will ever be closed (it might). I’m not so sure about the fair arguement. What I read puts Oregon’s income tax at 5-9% and the 9% rate kicks in pretty quick ($7,600). Since you don’t pay sales tax on rent or food and that’s more than half of a low wage earners income it seems the income tax would be bigger bite than our sales tax. There’s also the issue of tax sheltered income which favor higher wage earners. Bottom line though is Washington State only takes 6.5% of what you spend on taxable items. Oregon takes 9% of what you earn so it’s not surprising they have a little more to “give back”. They also have a clause (the “kicker” law) which requires the State to return excess revenue (more than 2%) which they’ve done more than half the time.
How does Oregon deal with local issues? Do people in the Dalles end up paying for transit in Portland? What about things like Stadiums which we fund to a large extent with hotel and rental car taxes. I know there are some limited sale tax districts in the State but it doesn’t seem very common. My guess is local merchants fight it tooth and nail.
I think the biggest reason an income tax won’t pass in Washington is people believe we’ll end up like California; 8.25% State sales tax + an income tax up to 10.3%. And yeah, their gas tax is quite a bit higher too!
I think Oregon’s unemployment rate is still much higher than Washington’s. They’ve been among the worst in the nation for a while.
There has been a push by a number of state revenue departments to get large internet retailers to charge and pay state sales taxes. I haven’t heard to what extent this is working though.
According to the Gates Commission report people in the bottom quintile in Washington pay about 17% of their income in state and local taxes people in the top quintile pay about 4%. Which simply proves what many already knew/suspected. Washington state’s tax structure is highly regressive. Business taxes follow a similar pattern where small businesses pay a far higher percentage of their revenue in state and local taxes than large businesses do.
A further problem is the current tax structure creates a structural deficit where tax revenue doesn’t track population plus inflation. An increasing amount of commerce is in the form of services which aren’t taxed other than via B&O taxes.
The mix of state and local responsibilities are different in Oregon vs. Washington. For instance in Washington K-12 education is more of a state responsibility than in Oregon. On the other hand Oregon is much more involved in local transit and transportation funding than Washington is.
I’m not sure what the solution is but something needs to be done to address the long-term revenue problems or Washington is going to find itself dead last in state and local spending on infrastructure, educations, social services, and economic development.
How does someone in the bottom 1/5th of the income bracket pay 17% of it in state and local taxes unless they’re buying a awful lot of cigarettes? There’s no tax on rent and no tax on food. That leaves I would guess at the very most 1/2 of their income to spend on taxable items. So they’d have to be paying a 34% average on “disposable” income.
Most services in Washington are taxed (didn’t used to be). I just had tree work done, 9.5%. Mechanics the same. The only services I can think of that aren’t taxed are professionals like doctors and lawyers. I could see adding sales tax to legal fees if criminal defense was exempt. Accountants? Don’t think they are taxed but should be.
I think the gas tax is just fine. It should keep pace with demand because road expansion needs to slow down. Mega projects should rely heavily on tolls. HOT lanes are a fee you pay if you want to get somewhere faster. People who demand faster roads during peak hours should pay to satisfy that peak demand which greatly drives up the cost of roads. Shoot, bus riders pay extra to ride during peak.
The State is looking at adding more liquor stores and opening them on Sundays. If instead they got out of the booze business and collected the tax from retailers (like California) costs would go way down and revenue would go up. State colleges are asking for a 14% tuition hike to maintain current academic standards. Low income households pay zero in state tuition. Yet the Senate and house are only willing to grant 7-10% increases. If you were buying a boat would you limit the search to one made in Washington? Sure the legislature has a tough job this session but they’re making it a lot hard on themselves than it has to be.
I don’t know the exact breakdown. I’m just going on the numbers in the Gates Commission Study. Remember any non-food items like shampoo, clothes, or toilet paper will be subject to sales tax. Prepared food also is taxed. There are also various utility taxes and the gas tax.
I’m not sure the exact rules but many services still aren’t taxed. The share of overall commerce falling under the service exemption keeps going up every year according to department of revenue figures.
I agree on the road funding, tolls and congestion pricing should be the new revenue model.
Not sure on the liquor stores. Given that the state currently gets to keep the retail markup I suspect they might actually lose money if they got out of the retail liquor business. On the other hand the amount of liquor sold would go way up if most places that currently sell beer and wine were allowed to sell liquor. (otherwise what would be the point of opening new liquor stores and extending hours?). As a matter of principle I’d prefer the State get out of both the retail and wholesale liquor business.
There has to be some major fudging of the numbers in the report. I suspect they’re adding “hidden” taxes. I’d guess some sort of trick like saying this cup of coffee cost a dollar but the person serving it paid 40 cents in gas tax to get to work so the tax on the coffee is 49.5%. State taxes on gas are around 16% and I know gas is typically a major expense for low income workers. Still, if you’re low income you probably have less than half of that income left for anything after food and rent. Nothing, except cigarettes is taxed at a rate that could get you close to 17% of total income. If the report is fudging the low income numbers then it’s probably pulling the same shenanigans with the upper income figures.
Just because Oregon does something doesn’t mean that it’s right. We talk a lot about how important transit is, particularly light rail on this blog, to bringing or keeping employers in the region. Take a look at Portland’s largest employers. I was actually looking more for what’s been lost in the last 5-10 years. Cannon? Large divisions of Intel? HP downsized considerably? Portland has laid a lot of track but unlike BART it wasn’t focused on moving new ridership from where they live to where they work.
Looking at the Seattle area we’re still largely a one company town. Link has done well to link the airport with downtown and continue on to the UW. Reaching the eastside and Microsoft makes sense but other than South Sounder Boeing seems largely ignored. I understand high capacity transit can only work where there is sufficient density to support it. What seems to be forgotten is that higher speed transit can effectively serve a much larger area (average speed related to station spacing and ROW separation more than top speed). If the majority of the population and the projected population growth won’t be served by rail then something else has to be done to fill that need. Right now the only solution offered is build more roads. Boeing doesn’t fight transit but they certainly do more to promote roads because that’s the only effective choice offered.
I certainly wasn’t saying Oregon’s approach is perfect, but it’s certainly different. By the way one option Tri-Met is looking at is increasing MAX speed… maybe with a downtown tunnel.
Unfortunately those city-data.com numbers are just plain wrong. For example, UWMedicine alone employs over 16,000 and I’m pretty sure Microsoft has a lot more than 11,000 employees in King County.
The enemy of progress is assuming nothing and praying for the status quo.
Bernie,
I think your numbers are slightly inaccurate or out of date. Between outsourcing and increased productivity (along with moving a lot of the defense related employment elsewhere) I believe Boeing now employs somewhat less than 64,000 people locally. Aerospace is still an important industry in Washington State but other industries such as health care, biotechnology, and information technology now account for more jobs.
The UW has approximately 30,000 employees, Microsoft has approximately 35,000 employees locally.
I believe there is some discussion of having the Link segment between Lynnwood and Everett serve Paine Field and the Boeing complex. One problem with serving Boeing is their employees tend to be in somewhat isolated clusters and Boeing facilities are built in a very auto oriented fashion. There are some Metro and CT routes serving primarily Boeing commuters as well.
It seems like Paine Field, being a huge employment center and now starting transitioning to commercial flights, would be a must for a light rail stop. Though I don’t know that area too well. It is certainly far off the I-5 right-of-way they have been planning North Link on. Which is good, in my opinion.
Paine isn’t really ‘huge’ as far as employment goes. I was just up there, it’s a very widely scattered group of buildings. Nearly impossible to serve with transit, because you’d need a car as soon as you got there.
CT runs a number of express buses to/from the Boeing facilities in Everett.
I think Boeing moved a number of engineers from Renton to Everett over the past 10 years or so as well.
I have no idea what the employee count at the various Boeing facilities and offices in Washington is. I’ve heard the largest concentration is currently in Everett, but I’m unsure of the truth of that.
Chris,
It isn’t even designed well for auto use. Light-Rail may work for Paine Field but the issue is that the buildings are so huge and spread out that it would take 2 to 3 stops (and a security checkpoint) to cover Paine Field and Boeing there.
As for the rest though, Boeing employees around 65,000 to 70,000 between the Fredrickson, Auburn, Kent, Renton, Seattle, and Everett facilities.
Yes, Boeing’s plants are designed for “airplane use” :)
heh, touche! That is at least certainly true for the Seattle plant and the final assembly buildings in Renton and Everett. The Everett plant is the largest building in the world in terms of enclosed volume.
Perhaps a shuttle bus at the stop could solve the problem?
Boeing does that already in a few places, but it’s probably not really cost effective for them.
In some cases I think they need to do this just due to the large size or remoteness of some of their parking lots.
The Microsoft campus relies on shuttle connections. Link, even after North Link won’t serve Children’s directly (heck UW Medical could have two stops). Trains aren’t meant to provide door to door service. They work best at moving large numbers of people quickly over a long distance (length being measured in time as well as distance). Downtown the high number of stops makes sense. As you get farther from the Downtown core the station density should be dropping off rapidly. One station serves all of Mercer Island. Is it really unreasonable to have downtown Bellevue served by one Link station and for Bellevue to have good local service in place long before Link gets there?
Through what mode? What’s the alternative you’re getting at for downtown Bellevue?
The long talked about Bellevue circulator would be the first step. If Bellevue really thinks it must have a subway and rail connections to Bel-Red then the city needs to start looking at how to pay for them rather than sales tax from Issaquah, Mill Creek, and all of the rest of east King County that will never see light rail with the current plans. Seattle by and large pays it’s own way. What county funds go toward things like the bus tunnel I think county residents have gotten more than a fair shake. It will be very interesting to see what ST comes back with on the preferred route for East Link. That should be out this month, right?
Issaquah will likely be in ST3. DT Redmond first, sure, but Issaquah would be next.
Well Downtown Bellevue is one of the denser areas of the Eastside along with Overlake so that could justify more stops. Still the 7 stations in Bellevue under the City of Bellevue proposal seem a bit excessive.
I can see the worth of the South Bellevue P&R Station, Bellevue Transit Center Station, the Hospital Station and maybe one of the Bel-Red stations. The city of Bellevue should have to pay for 3 or 4 stations.
A free circulator bus or a city-funded streetcar could serve to extend the “reach” of each station.
I believe the most dense place on the Eastside is still dt kirkland, which sadly won’t be getting light rail any time soon.
At least they will get a foot ferry to Seattle.
In terms of housing yes, but not in terms of employment.
Hopefully Kirkland will be in the plans for ST3 along with Downtown Redmond, Eastgate, and Issaquah.
Unfortunately Link can’t be built everywhere at once. I wish we were in the process of expanding a 20 year old system rather than building the first couple phases of one.
I believe a majority of the employees are near either the Everett or Renton plants. Though Boeing has office buildings and warehouses scattered all over the place (the office cluster South of Boeing Field, Longacres, etc.)
I believe Boeing already runs parking shuttles at several of their facilities. For Everett this could easily be extended to a rail stop.
When I said “built in an auto oriented fashion” I was thinking mostly of how their facilities are surrounded by huge parking lots and how their office buildings follow the low-density suburban office park pattern.
Longacres was supposed to be the new Corporate Headquarters which instead moved to Chicago. It’s a beautiful spot lost to an expansion that didn’t happen. I really don’t get why Boeing wasn’t looking at property adjacent to it’s Renton plant. At the time land was going begging. Instead PacCar turned into Fryes… whoopee. The whole build out of the Kent Valley is pretty disgusting.
Bernie: the problem of serving Boeing plants is simple. They keep moving production all around the region, and their sites are way too spread out. By the time fixed guideway rail served one plant, they probably would have shut production down on that product, and moved everybody to another site.
The plants don’t move. Production gets shifted depending on demand but it’s always huge at both Renton and Everett. What happens is people get shifted from one plant to another depending on which line is behind schedule. Boeing is a great example of why you can’t expect everyone to live next to where they work. Someone that buys a house in Marysville could find themselves moved to Renton a year later. Add the fact most households are two family wage earners and it’s obvious the need for regional transportation. Boeing is a great example because it’s two major manufacturing centers are at opposite ends of I-405. Not only do they need mobility of workers but they need freight (i.e. truck) transportation to be reliable and economical if they’re going to locate the second 787 line in Washington. Microsoft gets employees around campus and Boeing can get workers around the plants, that’s not an issue.
Not exactly. Boeing doesn’t really move final assembly or major parts lines around much. The 737 has always had final assembly in Renton. The 747, 767, 777, and 787 are all assembled in Everett and will likely continue to be.
If Boeing sets up a second line for 787 final assembly there is some question as to where that would go, but my money would be on Everett or Renton. Similarly I’m willing to bet the 747-8 if it launches will be assembled in Everett. The 737 follow-on most likely be assembled in Renton.
Given how badly they’ve been burned with outsourcing on the 787 I’d expect Boeing to keep a bit more of future production in-house. Though they’ll probably continue to outsource more than they have on older models.
Exactly. Once a line is set up it’s pretty much there for the life of the aircraft which makes getting it a really important deal. I’d say the 2nd 787 line will either be Everret or Wichita. There is a big incentive for Boeing to split the line so that if one area is hit by a natural disaster they still have production capacity. I don’t think Renton has a long enough runway.
Long Beach might be a possibility for a second 787 line for the reasons you state and the C-17 getting shut down.
In any case I believe a second 787 line will most likely be somewhere Boeing already has major facilities and an experienced workforce. Even for all their whining when they are trying to extort something from the state.
Ooh, I’d forgotten about Long Beach and didn’t know they were shutting down the C-17 line. I’d say that would put CA at the top of the list unless the State is going to tax away the jobs. There is a huge base of trained workers, suppliers and infrastructure form McDonald Douglas days that I don’t think Boeing wants to write off.