The impacts of Project 2025 on transportation and cities. (CityNerd)
The most improved transit cities in the US. Spoiler: Seattle is #1. (CityNerd)
44 Replies to “Sunday Double Feature: Project 2025 & Most Improved Cities”
The Lynnwood extension testing is very confusing. It’s crazy to me to have all signage, maps, announcements, “real time” arrivals, etc referring to Lynnwood as if its open yet is 6 weeks away from opening. Then an occasional announcement in stations telling people to disregard all reference to Lynnwood.
Plus it’s making the “real time” arrivals at stations even less accurate… there’s ST arrivals shown in stations and on their website, there’s scheduled arrival times and there’s One Bus Away arrival times. Would be nice to know accurately when the train arrives instead of needing to ignore misinformation.
Last night trains were absurdly jam packed with Capitol Hill Block Party, Mariners and Sounders games plus normal (heavy) Saturday evening traffic. Definitely should have had longer trains and more service especially with multiple major events along the line. Train I was on was as packed as the train I rode in Mexico City during rush hour.
Crashes caught on Seattle Traffic cams #6!
Video of a crash at MLK & Graham where a vehicle makes a left turn into the path of a moving Link train. Later in the video is a car in an accident with an ST Express bus.
I’m struck by how many of these are at night. The narrator reports that several are stolen vehicles too.
Just like airport runways have flashing lights underneath the runway surface indicating when a plane is approaching, I’ve wondered if this would be a good deterrent design for light rail trains too. The warning lights on Link are all at eye level or higher.
Crossing gates and/or automated bollards would be better.
The crossing gate did not stop the SUV driver who drove around it and t-boned an LRV (which had to be totaled).
The neighbors won’t allow crossing gates on MLK because they are federally-required to make the loud warning siren.
Can bollards be installed that will suffice to protect the train, and won’t get politically blocked by the neighbors?
> Just like airport runways have flashing lights underneath the runway surface
Wait what?
“The neighbors won’t allow crossing gates” – so?
Where I am currently in Ohio there is an active freight line that runs through the walkable downtown (probably used to be an important stop but not anymore). The crossing gates come down and the bells ring, sometimes literally in the middle of the farmers market, and no one cares.
That’s a century-old rail line from before people turned against cities. It’s also downtown, not right next to apartments where people are sleeping or want some quiet time.
It’s one thing to have crossing gates ring 4 to 10 times a day. It’s another to have them ring every 3-5 minutes (trains come from both directions) from before 5 am to after 1 am.
Mike, I think you overestimate the size of towns in Ohio! The non-residential neighborhood is 1 block wide and 5 blocks long, so the residential (mostly small lot, pre-automobile SF homes) is also right up against the freight rail line.
Al, fair point on frequency, but the freight train most definitely rumbles through all hours of the night, horn blaring and crossing gate ringing. Somehow, the houses in this desirable neighborhood still sell at a massive premium to the rest of the metro region (albeit at a laughable discount to Seattle prices, just like everywhere else in Ohio), so people seem to adjust.
Overall, it seems odd to me that the argument is:
“hey, we should install crossing gates!”
“No, I don’t want loud bell noises.”
“Um, I didn’t say anything about new noises, I wanted a moving physical barrier and some perhaps flashing lights.”
“Yeah, sorry, the ringing bells noises are a no go.”
It’s a rather Kafka objection.
Sounds like Flagstaff.
Cam, the Santa Fe has (a) grade crossing(s) in Flagstaff? There are often five trains per hour per direction on the Transcon. If I were BNSF I’d grade separate every single crossing. You don’t want a grade-crossing collission on that railroad.
Yep, right through their very popular central business district. Quite amazing.
Looks like there have been quite a few collisions.
We had to cross them to getvp from our hotel to the brewery. Not surprising they appear to have killed a number of pedestrians.
His #3 video has three vehicle vs Metro bus crashes in a row. All three crashes were similar. The bus is going straight in the right hand bus lane. Vehicle traveling in the same direction on the bus’s left makes right hand turn in front of the moving bus.
It reminds of a video (and comment) I saw a while back. Someone showed a street in Europe that was specifically designed to calm traffic. The street did a zig-zag, with multiple chicanes as well as low speed limit. In other words, they did everything right. But then came along an idiot who obviously was going way too fast. They hit the curbs, jumped into the air and collided with the other car. There is only so much you do.
But it is still good to do as much you can. Follow the science. There are a number of ways in which our streets can be safer. Better roads (for pedestrians, bikes and cars). Better transit (so fewer people drive). Better enforcement of existing laws. We know — based on the science — that all of this works. But just like in Europe you are bound to occasionally get some idiot who screws up.
BNSF has a blog/online magazine, and in this one, they talk about operating commuter rail, and even mention Sounder.
With Biden stepping down from the 2024 election, it seems the chances of Project 2025 happening are… changing.
We still seem to be following the script of Project 1968, complete with a (this time unsuccessful) assassination attempt, and RFK as the leading anti-war candidate.
I suppose a Harris/Buttigieg ticket could be far more motivating to the D base than MSNBC’s round-the-clock condemnations of Trump, and the quadrennial campaign of trying to shame fence-sitters and newer-party supporters into voting D.
Of course, we already know which party’s ticket will win Washington’s 12 electoral votes. So, if you really want to impact the race, go volunteer in Nevada or Arizona.
I will be happy to rank the D ticket when ranked choice voting comes to the Washington presidential ballot. Until then, D apologists (and I am not talking about anyone here), save your guilt-trippings for your own candidates who won’t lower the drawbridge and allow for real open elections.
I don’t think this will be a repeat of 1968. If nothing else, Trump himself is a powerful unifier of Democrats in a way that Richard Nixon never was.
Of course, Trump and Project 2025 may well win in the end. But, Democrats, at least, now have a chance.
There are some similarities with 1968, but there are some huge differences. The Democratic party was divided over the war. This was a major policy dispute, with many within the party saying we should get out, and plenty of people saying we should stay the course. There is no such policy division now. LBJ faced major opposition in the primaries (from numerous candidates) before he dropped out. Biden crushed the token opposition. In that respect 1980 was more like 1968 (Carter was challenged on the left — by a Kennedy no less).
If Biden had rode this out, then performed well in the second debate then it would have been remarkably like 1984. Reagan was terrible in the first debate, and people questioned his ability (due to his age). He was much better in the second debate (and he joked about it). Once he hit Mondale with the “Morning in America” ad, the race was over. It is easy to imagine Biden doing the same thing.
Of course he didn’t. I really don’t think we’ve ever had a situation like this. We’ve had various presidents with health problems, but they have generally hid them. The timing is unusual as well. As of right now, the primaries are meaningless. It is is essentially an open convention. I think you have to go back to before FDR to find a time when primaries didn’t matter (and party leaders choose the candidate at the convention).
Our elections and voter interests and party focus on ideology is very different than 1968. With continually-available biased news sources, social media wildfire messaging, video clips, obsessive candidate scrutiny and the emergence of hardline stances on a host of issues, historical comparisons seem tangentially relevant. Our elections are driven by media image and messaging more than ever.
Hopefully not Buttigeg. I mean, he’d be fine for me, but you need to get rural southern and midwest undecided centrists on board. It needs to be a Democrat who has won a statewide election in a red or purple state. Former Mayor of South Bend need not apply. Whitmer (MI), Warnock (GA), Shapiro (PA), Kelly (AZ), Cooper (NC), Beshear (KY) are all viable in my book. I think Kelly’s history with his military and NASA background, would be a strong candidate for a lot of middle class undecided rural voters.
I don’t think this will be a repeat of 1968. If nothing else, Trump himself is a powerful unifier of Democrats in a way that Richard Nixon never was.
People were united against Nixon, but it was a different time. Basically Democrats dominated the political landscape ever since FDR was elected. The only Republican president elected in that period was Ike, the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. Oh, and a centrist. Talk about a dream candidate. Meanwhile, the Democrats held onto the House for decades. It is understandable that they were confident.
In 1968 the party was split. Not only over the war, but segregation as well. Wallace left the party. Not only did he take five states, but likely siphoned off just enough votes from traditional Democrats in states like Missouri, Ohio and Illinois to win the race. The “Southern Strategy” of Nixon was less about winning southern states, and more about winning white racists in several states.
Four years later the party was united against Nixon. Many in the party establishment though McGovern was a weak candidate. The voters (in the primaries) did not. The rules had been changed to favor the latter, and McGovern won. There were all sorts of issues (e. g. with picking the VP) but the party was largely united around McGovern. The problem is, he got crushed.
As a result, primary voters (as well as the party establishment) has focused far more on “electability”, and this year is no exception. The general consensus from a lot of Democrats (including me) is that Biden has been an outstanding president, and would be a very good president if we was elected. But he is not the strongest candidate. Four years ago the party focused on “electability” — this year it is the same thing. It helped Biden then, it is is downfall now.
Hopefully not Buttigeg. I mean, he’d be fine for me, but you need to get rural southern and midwest undecided centrists on board. It needs to be a Democrat who has won a statewide election in a red or purple state. Former Mayor of South Bend need not apply. Whitmer (MI), Warnock (GA), Shapiro (PA), Kelly (AZ), Cooper (NC), Beshear (KY) are all viable in my book.
I agree. Buttigieg would be a terrible candidate. Everyone you mentioned would be better. I would also consider Tammy Duckworth and Wes Moore. I’ve heard Moore speak, and holy cow, he is impressive.
At this point, it isn’t clear if there will be a real challenge to Harris. Technically it is an open race, but just about everyone is endorsing Harris right now. Harris has to stumble between now and the convention for anyone else to be considered.
I watched the video on Project 2025. I think the narrator is a little hysterical about the impacts on transit or housing if Trump is elected, which right now looks more likely based on Harris’s success in 2020.
First, Republicans have always prioritized single family homes and cars, probably because most of America does. Project 25 really isn’t about transit or housing, and isn’t different than decades of Republican priorities.
Harris’s main hope is suburban women don’t like Trump, and suburban women are hardly fans of multi-family housing or transit, so don’t look for that to be a theme in Harris’s campaign, although they will be in Trump’s. (Although they didn’t like Hillary when she ran against Trump). There won’t be many changes to the funding priorities in the Inflation Reduction Act or Infrastructure Bill no matter who is elected, and both of those prioritize cars and single-family housing even though the President and Senate were controlled by Democrats when both were passed.
I do however agree with Project 25 (and the narrator on at least the first point) on two points:
1. Transportation funding will move more toward user fees, including carbon emissions, tolls, gas taxes, and fares, and I think that is good. If users including drivers, freight, and transit riders paid more of the cost of their trip my guess is we would see fewer vanity projects like highways to nowhere or CA HSR and more of that money going into existing transit that riders use every day.
2. Federal transportation funding should be in the form of block grants to states. States know how to use transit dollars and know their individual needs better. Transit advocates and progressives like federal oversight when Democrats are in power but don’t like it when Republicans are in office, but it really shouldn’t matter who is in office (and some think that could be Republicans for some time).
Let the states decide. WA or TX can make their own decisions. Neither state needs to be “protected” by federal mandates that often drive-up costs for no good reason and fund poorly thought-out transit projects. A bigger issue than Project 25 for major urban cities will be work from home and the loss of tax revenue.
The promise of federal funding also incentivizes states and agencies to underestimate project costs knowing the project will get completed with federal funding once started.
Now onto the macro level since the narrator touches on that. The two main macro issues that will influence the next President and transportation are:
1. $17 trillion in short term federal debt will roll over in the next two years into higher interest rates. The debt is now $34 trillion and the annual payment for the interest on the debt just passed $1 trillion/year, which is equal to the entire Infrastructure Bill over 10 years. Without some dramatic changes to revenue or expenditures this will rise to closer to $1.5 trillion/year once the $17 trillion in debt resets at interest rates 3 times higher. This will really be a problem if there is a recession which usually requires more deficit spending.
2. Consumer debt is nearing a record. On the one hand this might be good for inflation as people stop spending, and good for transit as fewer folks can afford a car, and maybe even housing prices as consumers must downsize, but usually it signals a deep recession and loss of local tax revenue, and lots of anger at whoever is in power. The next President whoever it is will inherit some really tough choices. Probably tax increases and steep spending cuts.
Project 25 or the equivalent progressive document will hardly matter when these two realities hit home for the next President. If the federal government was less involved in local transportation funding and design it would probably be better and much less susceptible to the changing political winds although both parties tend to look at transportation funding as political pork.
It seems to me the tax structure proposed by Project 2025, which would significantly drop taxes on the wealthy and increase it on the middle class, is pretty much guaranteed to cause a fairly massive recession. Transit service levels will probably drop substantially in places like Washington that depend so heavily on sales taxes.
I don’t see how blanket grants to states solves anything. CAHSR is a state project, and ST3 are locally designed. It seems like it’s likely to cause huge cutbacks in transit in rural areas, where local revenue isn’t enough to support much service.
I think you are missing the point when it comes to state funding. It is basically New Federalism. In theory it means the same level of funding, but with more state control. In practice it means a lot less funding.
As for debt, it has been an issue ever since Reagan. It never stopped anyone from doing anything. Bush started two wars and gave away giant tax cuts — at the same time! Deficits are not really an issue.
If personal debt does cause a big recession, then the last thing you do is increase taxes and cut spending. That is a good way to turn a recession into a depression.
It is easy to dismiss the proposals in the document — Trump has. But it is also quite likely that Trump will hire people who will pursue these goals. That doesn’t mean everything they want to do will happen, but it is quite likely that you will see a major reduction in transit spending if Trump gets elected. Of course that was the case before Project 2025 was written.
“It is easy to dismiss the proposals in the document — Trump has. But it is also quite likely that Trump will hire people who will pursue these goals.”
Trump and his allies have strong connections to the 2025 document. You can’t pay too much attention to what he says.
The one good thing about Federal funding and approvals is to introduce rationality on transportation investments. FTA has worked for decades to home the New Starts criteria for example. It was intended to keep states and local governments wasting money building projects of little benefit.
As Federal involvement declines, rationality based on productivity also declines. The broader the categories become the more backroom dealmaking can occur to political hacks.
That’s just one consequence of many that happens with this block grant proposal. The other big outcome is that it’s easier to reduce block grants than reduce promises to write checks for specific projects.
As awful as the idea is, it doesn’t seem any worse than the ST3 packaging was in 2016, which was never about productivity and was instead entirely a list of politically designed projects — with a never studied, inaccurately costed and hugely disruptive DSTT2 as the poster child drawn up at the 11th hour with no study.
> Let the states decide. WA or TX can make their own decisions. Neither state needs to be “protected” by federal mandates that often drive-up costs for no good reason and fund poorly thought-out transit projects. A bigger issue than Project 25 for major urban cities will be work from home and the loss of tax revenue.
Nah, whatever federal mandates there are — it’s the states and transit agencies themselves that greatly increase the cost. Look at the San Jose BART extension debacle going from 4 to 7 to now 12 billion dollars from design changes to avoiding impact road and merchant closures.
If anything the federal government should be stricter with money, I find the FTA is honestly too forgiving of design changes that double or triple construction cost.
The State of Washington has traditionally reserved the vast majority of transportation funds for highway projects.
Transit agencies have been at the mercy of local voters voting to tax themselves for local transit funding, and at the mercy of the state legislature to allow them to even make the ask.
Federal grants have helped transit agencies significantly here. I fear Transit would not have fared well if the money had just been sent to the state to divvy up as it wished.
We just saw how poorly block grants worked at the beginning of the pandemic, when several governors used the money to punish local entities for taking measures to protect their residents from COVID. These governors were willing to cause hundreds of thousands more people to die, just to own the libs. Do I trust these sociopaths with more block grants? HELL NO!
isn’t different than decades of Republican priorities.
Yes, it is. Very different. Never before — or at least, never since 1883 — has anyone proposed gutting the Pendleton Act, and that is exactly what the heart of Project 2025 does.
It is oligarchical, clientelist fascism pure and simple, not just “tax cuts for the rich”.
And just to be clear, I mean “fascism” in the Corporate Government sense wherein Mussolini “made the trains run on time” and kept the streets clean, but rounded up and “disappeared” his political opponents while rewarding his toadies with government jobs.
Sort of like Vlad The Impaler in Moscow, but probably not as vicious.
For a while.
Tom Terrific,
“isn’t different than decades of Republican priorities” (me).
“Yes, it is. Very different. Never before — or at least, never since 1883 — has anyone proposed gutting the Pendleton Act, and that is exactly what the heart of Project 2025 does” (you).
To be clear, I was referring to Republican priorities when it comes to cars and single-family housing. The Pendleton Act has nothing to do with those priorities, which have been Republican priorities for basically forever, so my point was for those issues Project 25 is not much of a change in policy. (And for those who might remember, Trump raised the issue of SFH zoning in the 2020 election. I do think it is a fair question whether the state or city has the authority for zoning, and recently CA’s law upzoning single family zones was found unconstitutional in the five cities who were plaintiffs because it would not achieve its stated goal of creating affordable housing. California law that ended single-family zoning struck down for 5 cities – Los Angeles Times (latimes.com) ).
Re: the Pendleton Act, my guess is Republicans would be more interested in eliminating unionization for federal government employees, a la Scott Clark in Wisconsin. Political patronage has remained despite The Pendleton Act although less egregious.
Republicans have long been opposed to the increase in scope of the administrative agencies. That was the gist of the appeal to the Supreme Court in Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo that repealed the Chevron deference in interpreting the legality of ambiguous statutes accorded to the administrative agency charged with implementing the statute. Ironically Chevron upheld the Reagan Administration’s interpretation of The Clean Air Act that eased regulations.
The plaintiffs argued that administrative agencies rather than being neutral government civil servants became politicized depending on who was President and whom they appointed to head the agency. So according to the plaintiffs the same agency would interpret the legality of a statute differently depending on who was President. Whether the various federal courts are any less politicized is a fair question, and forum shopping is common on both sides. .
The Supreme Court agreed and held federal courts and not an administrative agency was the proper constitutional party to interpret the legality or legal meaning of an ambiguous statute and that Congress could always clarify an ambiguous statute, whereas the agency was the proper constitutional party to determine how to implement the statute.
This is a significant change in the law (that was only adopted in 1984), and probably will do more to affect the scope of agencies than repealing The Pendleton Act (other than who is President and who is the judge(s).
The whole “if we don’t like the election results, we want a civil war” thing that’s been the Republican position in recent years.
The 520-Montlake HOV exits will open on September 16
I think this has already been brought up, but cross-520 service is incredibly poor after the restructure. I cannot believe the planned evening/weekend service. All the UW-Eastside routes (255, 270/271, 542) should be getting at least 15-20 minute frequency every day through the evening. Also, I can corroborate the overcrowding on the 271. In the mornings, the eastbound 271 is routinely standing room only by the time it gets to Husky Stadium
That’s exciting — I think it deserves a countdown as well.
I agree about the lack of service along 520.
Did route 271 get any extra trips in place of suspended route 167 last fall? Or in the spring?
SRO is not necessarily a trigger for more runs, unless some riders are getting routinely passed up (which was still happening with route 60 the last time I happed to be on it during post-bell peak).
SRO is not good on routes with major segments of freeway running at 60mph. All it takes is some douche in a BMW cutting in front of a 271 in the HOV lane and passengers go flying.
The 271 route should really have articulateds on it for more than a couple runs.
@poncho, I agree, but this isn’t a new problem – the 545 and 542 were regularly SRO at peak hours pre-COVID. I’m sure other routes were too; those’re just the ones I know from personal experience.
545 is still SRO very often and routinely skips stops in the PM peak in Seattle because there’s no space left in the bus. Kind of crazy to me that ST is deleting one of their highest ridership routes like this.
Back in the Before Times, when I lived in Lake City, STExpress 522 was routinely crushloaded (Far beyond SRO) on I-5 in the peak direction.
My math on ST’s travel time projections has the 2 Line taking 37 minutes from Redmond Technology Center to Westlake, compared to 24 minutes on ST Express 545 for the same trip. And 26 minutes the other way. For Chinatown, the 545 takes 32 minutes on paper, a dead heat with the 2 Line. The 2 Line wins going east from Chinatown.
ST could keep the 545, but ridership would drop when the 2 Line opens, leaving it hard to justify headway better than 15 minutes. That 3-minute disadvantage in average wait time would cost more ridership, moving the break-even point up to Pioneer Square or Symphony.
This all depends on good traffic flow (cough). In practice, I’m not convinced the 545 is actually faster than the 2-line, once real traffic conditions and average wait time are accounted for, during peak.
Consider also that if the 545 is still SRO during peak, some riders will opt for a seat on the train, with plenty of seats still available in Redmond. Going eastbound, not so much.
There is some case for keeping less 545 service, but mostly for the riders west of Redmond. The proposed return of ST Express 544 seems designed to get riders currently transferring at Westlake to have a one-seat ride closer to their final destination in SLU.
The Lynnwood extension testing is very confusing. It’s crazy to me to have all signage, maps, announcements, “real time” arrivals, etc referring to Lynnwood as if its open yet is 6 weeks away from opening. Then an occasional announcement in stations telling people to disregard all reference to Lynnwood.
Plus it’s making the “real time” arrivals at stations even less accurate… there’s ST arrivals shown in stations and on their website, there’s scheduled arrival times and there’s One Bus Away arrival times. Would be nice to know accurately when the train arrives instead of needing to ignore misinformation.
Last night trains were absurdly jam packed with Capitol Hill Block Party, Mariners and Sounders games plus normal (heavy) Saturday evening traffic. Definitely should have had longer trains and more service especially with multiple major events along the line. Train I was on was as packed as the train I rode in Mexico City during rush hour.
Crashes caught on Seattle Traffic cams #6!
Video of a crash at MLK & Graham where a vehicle makes a left turn into the path of a moving Link train. Later in the video is a car in an accident with an ST Express bus.
https://youtu.be/lAOifjTeelM
I’m struck by how many of these are at night. The narrator reports that several are stolen vehicles too.
Just like airport runways have flashing lights underneath the runway surface indicating when a plane is approaching, I’ve wondered if this would be a good deterrent design for light rail trains too. The warning lights on Link are all at eye level or higher.
Crossing gates and/or automated bollards would be better.
The crossing gate did not stop the SUV driver who drove around it and t-boned an LRV (which had to be totaled).
The neighbors won’t allow crossing gates on MLK because they are federally-required to make the loud warning siren.
Can bollards be installed that will suffice to protect the train, and won’t get politically blocked by the neighbors?
> Just like airport runways have flashing lights underneath the runway surface
Wait what?
“The neighbors won’t allow crossing gates” – so?
Where I am currently in Ohio there is an active freight line that runs through the walkable downtown (probably used to be an important stop but not anymore). The crossing gates come down and the bells ring, sometimes literally in the middle of the farmers market, and no one cares.
That’s a century-old rail line from before people turned against cities. It’s also downtown, not right next to apartments where people are sleeping or want some quiet time.
It’s one thing to have crossing gates ring 4 to 10 times a day. It’s another to have them ring every 3-5 minutes (trains come from both directions) from before 5 am to after 1 am.
Mike, I think you overestimate the size of towns in Ohio! The non-residential neighborhood is 1 block wide and 5 blocks long, so the residential (mostly small lot, pre-automobile SF homes) is also right up against the freight rail line.
Al, fair point on frequency, but the freight train most definitely rumbles through all hours of the night, horn blaring and crossing gate ringing. Somehow, the houses in this desirable neighborhood still sell at a massive premium to the rest of the metro region (albeit at a laughable discount to Seattle prices, just like everywhere else in Ohio), so people seem to adjust.
Overall, it seems odd to me that the argument is:
“hey, we should install crossing gates!”
“No, I don’t want loud bell noises.”
“Um, I didn’t say anything about new noises, I wanted a moving physical barrier and some perhaps flashing lights.”
“Yeah, sorry, the ringing bells noises are a no go.”
It’s a rather Kafka objection.
Sounds like Flagstaff.
Cam, the Santa Fe has (a) grade crossing(s) in Flagstaff? There are often five trains per hour per direction on the Transcon. If I were BNSF I’d grade separate every single crossing. You don’t want a grade-crossing collission on that railroad.
Yep, right through their very popular central business district. Quite amazing.
https://data.transportation.gov/Railroads/Highway-Rail-Grade-Crossing-Accident-Data-Form-57-/7wn6-i5b9/data_preview
Looks like there have been quite a few collisions.
We had to cross them to getvp from our hotel to the brewery. Not surprising they appear to have killed a number of pedestrians.
His #3 video has three vehicle vs Metro bus crashes in a row. All three crashes were similar. The bus is going straight in the right hand bus lane. Vehicle traveling in the same direction on the bus’s left makes right hand turn in front of the moving bus.
It reminds of a video (and comment) I saw a while back. Someone showed a street in Europe that was specifically designed to calm traffic. The street did a zig-zag, with multiple chicanes as well as low speed limit. In other words, they did everything right. But then came along an idiot who obviously was going way too fast. They hit the curbs, jumped into the air and collided with the other car. There is only so much you do.
But it is still good to do as much you can. Follow the science. There are a number of ways in which our streets can be safer. Better roads (for pedestrians, bikes and cars). Better transit (so fewer people drive). Better enforcement of existing laws. We know — based on the science — that all of this works. But just like in Europe you are bound to occasionally get some idiot who screws up.
BNSF has a blog/online magazine, and in this one, they talk about operating commuter rail, and even mention Sounder.
https://www.bnsf.com/news-media/railtalk/service/suburban-services.html
With Biden stepping down from the 2024 election, it seems the chances of Project 2025 happening are… changing.
We still seem to be following the script of Project 1968, complete with a (this time unsuccessful) assassination attempt, and RFK as the leading anti-war candidate.
I suppose a Harris/Buttigieg ticket could be far more motivating to the D base than MSNBC’s round-the-clock condemnations of Trump, and the quadrennial campaign of trying to shame fence-sitters and newer-party supporters into voting D.
Of course, we already know which party’s ticket will win Washington’s 12 electoral votes. So, if you really want to impact the race, go volunteer in Nevada or Arizona.
I will be happy to rank the D ticket when ranked choice voting comes to the Washington presidential ballot. Until then, D apologists (and I am not talking about anyone here), save your guilt-trippings for your own candidates who won’t lower the drawbridge and allow for real open elections.
I don’t think this will be a repeat of 1968. If nothing else, Trump himself is a powerful unifier of Democrats in a way that Richard Nixon never was.
Of course, Trump and Project 2025 may well win in the end. But, Democrats, at least, now have a chance.
There are some similarities with 1968, but there are some huge differences. The Democratic party was divided over the war. This was a major policy dispute, with many within the party saying we should get out, and plenty of people saying we should stay the course. There is no such policy division now. LBJ faced major opposition in the primaries (from numerous candidates) before he dropped out. Biden crushed the token opposition. In that respect 1980 was more like 1968 (Carter was challenged on the left — by a Kennedy no less).
If Biden had rode this out, then performed well in the second debate then it would have been remarkably like 1984. Reagan was terrible in the first debate, and people questioned his ability (due to his age). He was much better in the second debate (and he joked about it). Once he hit Mondale with the “Morning in America” ad, the race was over. It is easy to imagine Biden doing the same thing.
Of course he didn’t. I really don’t think we’ve ever had a situation like this. We’ve had various presidents with health problems, but they have generally hid them. The timing is unusual as well. As of right now, the primaries are meaningless. It is is essentially an open convention. I think you have to go back to before FDR to find a time when primaries didn’t matter (and party leaders choose the candidate at the convention).
Our elections and voter interests and party focus on ideology is very different than 1968. With continually-available biased news sources, social media wildfire messaging, video clips, obsessive candidate scrutiny and the emergence of hardline stances on a host of issues, historical comparisons seem tangentially relevant. Our elections are driven by media image and messaging more than ever.
Hopefully not Buttigeg. I mean, he’d be fine for me, but you need to get rural southern and midwest undecided centrists on board. It needs to be a Democrat who has won a statewide election in a red or purple state. Former Mayor of South Bend need not apply. Whitmer (MI), Warnock (GA), Shapiro (PA), Kelly (AZ), Cooper (NC), Beshear (KY) are all viable in my book. I think Kelly’s history with his military and NASA background, would be a strong candidate for a lot of middle class undecided rural voters.
I don’t think this will be a repeat of 1968. If nothing else, Trump himself is a powerful unifier of Democrats in a way that Richard Nixon never was.
People were united against Nixon, but it was a different time. Basically Democrats dominated the political landscape ever since FDR was elected. The only Republican president elected in that period was Ike, the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. Oh, and a centrist. Talk about a dream candidate. Meanwhile, the Democrats held onto the House for decades. It is understandable that they were confident.
In 1968 the party was split. Not only over the war, but segregation as well. Wallace left the party. Not only did he take five states, but likely siphoned off just enough votes from traditional Democrats in states like Missouri, Ohio and Illinois to win the race. The “Southern Strategy” of Nixon was less about winning southern states, and more about winning white racists in several states.
Four years later the party was united against Nixon. Many in the party establishment though McGovern was a weak candidate. The voters (in the primaries) did not. The rules had been changed to favor the latter, and McGovern won. There were all sorts of issues (e. g. with picking the VP) but the party was largely united around McGovern. The problem is, he got crushed.
As a result, primary voters (as well as the party establishment) has focused far more on “electability”, and this year is no exception. The general consensus from a lot of Democrats (including me) is that Biden has been an outstanding president, and would be a very good president if we was elected. But he is not the strongest candidate. Four years ago the party focused on “electability” — this year it is the same thing. It helped Biden then, it is is downfall now.
Hopefully not Buttigeg. I mean, he’d be fine for me, but you need to get rural southern and midwest undecided centrists on board. It needs to be a Democrat who has won a statewide election in a red or purple state. Former Mayor of South Bend need not apply. Whitmer (MI), Warnock (GA), Shapiro (PA), Kelly (AZ), Cooper (NC), Beshear (KY) are all viable in my book.
I agree. Buttigieg would be a terrible candidate. Everyone you mentioned would be better. I would also consider Tammy Duckworth and Wes Moore. I’ve heard Moore speak, and holy cow, he is impressive.
At this point, it isn’t clear if there will be a real challenge to Harris. Technically it is an open race, but just about everyone is endorsing Harris right now. Harris has to stumble between now and the convention for anyone else to be considered.
I watched the video on Project 2025. I think the narrator is a little hysterical about the impacts on transit or housing if Trump is elected, which right now looks more likely based on Harris’s success in 2020.
First, Republicans have always prioritized single family homes and cars, probably because most of America does. Project 25 really isn’t about transit or housing, and isn’t different than decades of Republican priorities.
Harris’s main hope is suburban women don’t like Trump, and suburban women are hardly fans of multi-family housing or transit, so don’t look for that to be a theme in Harris’s campaign, although they will be in Trump’s. (Although they didn’t like Hillary when she ran against Trump). There won’t be many changes to the funding priorities in the Inflation Reduction Act or Infrastructure Bill no matter who is elected, and both of those prioritize cars and single-family housing even though the President and Senate were controlled by Democrats when both were passed.
I do however agree with Project 25 (and the narrator on at least the first point) on two points:
1. Transportation funding will move more toward user fees, including carbon emissions, tolls, gas taxes, and fares, and I think that is good. If users including drivers, freight, and transit riders paid more of the cost of their trip my guess is we would see fewer vanity projects like highways to nowhere or CA HSR and more of that money going into existing transit that riders use every day.
2. Federal transportation funding should be in the form of block grants to states. States know how to use transit dollars and know their individual needs better. Transit advocates and progressives like federal oversight when Democrats are in power but don’t like it when Republicans are in office, but it really shouldn’t matter who is in office (and some think that could be Republicans for some time).
Let the states decide. WA or TX can make their own decisions. Neither state needs to be “protected” by federal mandates that often drive-up costs for no good reason and fund poorly thought-out transit projects. A bigger issue than Project 25 for major urban cities will be work from home and the loss of tax revenue.
The promise of federal funding also incentivizes states and agencies to underestimate project costs knowing the project will get completed with federal funding once started.
Now onto the macro level since the narrator touches on that. The two main macro issues that will influence the next President and transportation are:
1. $17 trillion in short term federal debt will roll over in the next two years into higher interest rates. The debt is now $34 trillion and the annual payment for the interest on the debt just passed $1 trillion/year, which is equal to the entire Infrastructure Bill over 10 years. Without some dramatic changes to revenue or expenditures this will rise to closer to $1.5 trillion/year once the $17 trillion in debt resets at interest rates 3 times higher. This will really be a problem if there is a recession which usually requires more deficit spending.
2. Consumer debt is nearing a record. On the one hand this might be good for inflation as people stop spending, and good for transit as fewer folks can afford a car, and maybe even housing prices as consumers must downsize, but usually it signals a deep recession and loss of local tax revenue, and lots of anger at whoever is in power. The next President whoever it is will inherit some really tough choices. Probably tax increases and steep spending cuts.
Project 25 or the equivalent progressive document will hardly matter when these two realities hit home for the next President. If the federal government was less involved in local transportation funding and design it would probably be better and much less susceptible to the changing political winds although both parties tend to look at transportation funding as political pork.
It seems to me the tax structure proposed by Project 2025, which would significantly drop taxes on the wealthy and increase it on the middle class, is pretty much guaranteed to cause a fairly massive recession. Transit service levels will probably drop substantially in places like Washington that depend so heavily on sales taxes.
I don’t see how blanket grants to states solves anything. CAHSR is a state project, and ST3 are locally designed. It seems like it’s likely to cause huge cutbacks in transit in rural areas, where local revenue isn’t enough to support much service.
I think you are missing the point when it comes to state funding. It is basically New Federalism. In theory it means the same level of funding, but with more state control. In practice it means a lot less funding.
As for debt, it has been an issue ever since Reagan. It never stopped anyone from doing anything. Bush started two wars and gave away giant tax cuts — at the same time! Deficits are not really an issue.
If personal debt does cause a big recession, then the last thing you do is increase taxes and cut spending. That is a good way to turn a recession into a depression.
It is easy to dismiss the proposals in the document — Trump has. But it is also quite likely that Trump will hire people who will pursue these goals. That doesn’t mean everything they want to do will happen, but it is quite likely that you will see a major reduction in transit spending if Trump gets elected. Of course that was the case before Project 2025 was written.
“It is easy to dismiss the proposals in the document — Trump has. But it is also quite likely that Trump will hire people who will pursue these goals.”
Trump and his allies have strong connections to the 2025 document. You can’t pay too much attention to what he says.
The one good thing about Federal funding and approvals is to introduce rationality on transportation investments. FTA has worked for decades to home the New Starts criteria for example. It was intended to keep states and local governments wasting money building projects of little benefit.
As Federal involvement declines, rationality based on productivity also declines. The broader the categories become the more backroom dealmaking can occur to political hacks.
That’s just one consequence of many that happens with this block grant proposal. The other big outcome is that it’s easier to reduce block grants than reduce promises to write checks for specific projects.
As awful as the idea is, it doesn’t seem any worse than the ST3 packaging was in 2016, which was never about productivity and was instead entirely a list of politically designed projects — with a never studied, inaccurately costed and hugely disruptive DSTT2 as the poster child drawn up at the 11th hour with no study.
> Let the states decide. WA or TX can make their own decisions. Neither state needs to be “protected” by federal mandates that often drive-up costs for no good reason and fund poorly thought-out transit projects. A bigger issue than Project 25 for major urban cities will be work from home and the loss of tax revenue.
Nah, whatever federal mandates there are — it’s the states and transit agencies themselves that greatly increase the cost. Look at the San Jose BART extension debacle going from 4 to 7 to now 12 billion dollars from design changes to avoiding impact road and merchant closures.
If anything the federal government should be stricter with money, I find the FTA is honestly too forgiving of design changes that double or triple construction cost.
The State of Washington has traditionally reserved the vast majority of transportation funds for highway projects.
Transit agencies have been at the mercy of local voters voting to tax themselves for local transit funding, and at the mercy of the state legislature to allow them to even make the ask.
Federal grants have helped transit agencies significantly here. I fear Transit would not have fared well if the money had just been sent to the state to divvy up as it wished.
We just saw how poorly block grants worked at the beginning of the pandemic, when several governors used the money to punish local entities for taking measures to protect their residents from COVID. These governors were willing to cause hundreds of thousands more people to die, just to own the libs. Do I trust these sociopaths with more block grants? HELL NO!
Yes, it is. Very different. Never before — or at least, never since 1883 — has anyone proposed gutting the Pendleton Act, and that is exactly what the heart of Project 2025 does.
It is oligarchical, clientelist fascism pure and simple, not just “tax cuts for the rich”.
And just to be clear, I mean “fascism” in the Corporate Government sense wherein Mussolini “made the trains run on time” and kept the streets clean, but rounded up and “disappeared” his political opponents while rewarding his toadies with government jobs.
Sort of like Vlad The Impaler in Moscow, but probably not as vicious.
For a while.
Tom Terrific,
“isn’t different than decades of Republican priorities” (me).
“Yes, it is. Very different. Never before — or at least, never since 1883 — has anyone proposed gutting the Pendleton Act, and that is exactly what the heart of Project 2025 does” (you).
To be clear, I was referring to Republican priorities when it comes to cars and single-family housing. The Pendleton Act has nothing to do with those priorities, which have been Republican priorities for basically forever, so my point was for those issues Project 25 is not much of a change in policy. (And for those who might remember, Trump raised the issue of SFH zoning in the 2020 election. I do think it is a fair question whether the state or city has the authority for zoning, and recently CA’s law upzoning single family zones was found unconstitutional in the five cities who were plaintiffs because it would not achieve its stated goal of creating affordable housing. California law that ended single-family zoning struck down for 5 cities – Los Angeles Times (latimes.com) ).
Re: the Pendleton Act, my guess is Republicans would be more interested in eliminating unionization for federal government employees, a la Scott Clark in Wisconsin. Political patronage has remained despite The Pendleton Act although less egregious.
Republicans have long been opposed to the increase in scope of the administrative agencies. That was the gist of the appeal to the Supreme Court in Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo that repealed the Chevron deference in interpreting the legality of ambiguous statutes accorded to the administrative agency charged with implementing the statute. Ironically Chevron upheld the Reagan Administration’s interpretation of The Clean Air Act that eased regulations.
The plaintiffs argued that administrative agencies rather than being neutral government civil servants became politicized depending on who was President and whom they appointed to head the agency. So according to the plaintiffs the same agency would interpret the legality of a statute differently depending on who was President. Whether the various federal courts are any less politicized is a fair question, and forum shopping is common on both sides. .
The Supreme Court agreed and held federal courts and not an administrative agency was the proper constitutional party to interpret the legality or legal meaning of an ambiguous statute and that Congress could always clarify an ambiguous statute, whereas the agency was the proper constitutional party to determine how to implement the statute.
This is a significant change in the law (that was only adopted in 1984), and probably will do more to affect the scope of agencies than repealing The Pendleton Act (other than who is President and who is the judge(s).
The whole “if we don’t like the election results, we want a civil war” thing that’s been the Republican position in recent years.
The 520-Montlake HOV exits will open on September 16
https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-07/MontlakeProject-presentation-July2024Meeting.pdf
I think this has already been brought up, but cross-520 service is incredibly poor after the restructure. I cannot believe the planned evening/weekend service. All the UW-Eastside routes (255, 270/271, 542) should be getting at least 15-20 minute frequency every day through the evening. Also, I can corroborate the overcrowding on the 271. In the mornings, the eastbound 271 is routinely standing room only by the time it gets to Husky Stadium
https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/06/19/more-cross-lake-service-in-restructure/
That’s exciting — I think it deserves a countdown as well.
I agree about the lack of service along 520.
Did route 271 get any extra trips in place of suspended route 167 last fall? Or in the spring?
SRO is not necessarily a trigger for more runs, unless some riders are getting routinely passed up (which was still happening with route 60 the last time I happed to be on it during post-bell peak).
SRO is not good on routes with major segments of freeway running at 60mph. All it takes is some douche in a BMW cutting in front of a 271 in the HOV lane and passengers go flying.
The 271 route should really have articulateds on it for more than a couple runs.
@poncho, I agree, but this isn’t a new problem – the 545 and 542 were regularly SRO at peak hours pre-COVID. I’m sure other routes were too; those’re just the ones I know from personal experience.
545 is still SRO very often and routinely skips stops in the PM peak in Seattle because there’s no space left in the bus. Kind of crazy to me that ST is deleting one of their highest ridership routes like this.
Back in the Before Times, when I lived in Lake City, STExpress 522 was routinely crushloaded (Far beyond SRO) on I-5 in the peak direction.
My math on ST’s travel time projections has the 2 Line taking 37 minutes from Redmond Technology Center to Westlake, compared to 24 minutes on ST Express 545 for the same trip. And 26 minutes the other way. For Chinatown, the 545 takes 32 minutes on paper, a dead heat with the 2 Line. The 2 Line wins going east from Chinatown.
ST could keep the 545, but ridership would drop when the 2 Line opens, leaving it hard to justify headway better than 15 minutes. That 3-minute disadvantage in average wait time would cost more ridership, moving the break-even point up to Pioneer Square or Symphony.
This all depends on good traffic flow (cough). In practice, I’m not convinced the 545 is actually faster than the 2-line, once real traffic conditions and average wait time are accounted for, during peak.
Consider also that if the 545 is still SRO during peak, some riders will opt for a seat on the train, with plenty of seats still available in Redmond. Going eastbound, not so much.
There is some case for keeping less 545 service, but mostly for the riders west of Redmond. The proposed return of ST Express 544 seems designed to get riders currently transferring at Westlake to have a one-seat ride closer to their final destination in SLU.