No More Tacoma-to-SeaTac Light Rail?
Forget just stopping in Fife … Sound Transit is currently looking at alternate plans for light rail south of Sea Tac.
It comes down to money and Sound Transit’s concern that the high cost of light rail from Tacoma to the airport would derail (ugh!) the entire package.
From the Tribune:
Though specific costs were not discussed, the agency’s staff believes it would be cheaper to extend the Tacoma Link light-rail system from downtown to Tacoma General Hospital and to Tacoma Community College. A Link extension from the Tacoma Dome to Fife also is an option.
The article goes on to say that a more ambitious package could be passed in 2010 that would continue to expand transit options. What do you think? Is the light rail line to the airport worth it for you?
Link to the Tribune
55 comments
J jamie from thriceallamerican February 1, 2008
If the Tacoma LINK is extended to TCC, I have three wishes:
1) Sound Transit doesn’t wimp out and run it up Stadium Way. They have to figure out a way to go up St. Helens, or at least Broadway, to be near places that actually have potential for foot traffic.
2) PLEASE don’t build a dedicated rail infrastructure down Sixth Ave., better that we run streetcar tracks in shared right-of-way with cars. This really applies for St. Helens and Stadium areas as well.
3) Let’s build this thing in a way that keeps in mind future spokes of additional streetcars reaching out into all of Tacoma’s neighborhoods. In fact, instead of going to Fife(???), maybe we should think about extending it to the McKinley or Lincoln district, hitting the EQC on the way of course… After all, no reason to go to Fife if it isn’t going to connect to SeaTac. And if we have connections to both TCC and McKinley/Lincoln, we’ll have infrastructure up to the hilltops that will allow future streetcar lines to serve the North End, Central Tacoma, West Tacoma, and the South End.
N NSHDscott February 1, 2008
No, light rail to the airport is most certainly not worth it to me. First, I disagree with calling the line “Tacoma to SeaTac” because we all know it’s really all about Tacoma to Seattle. There aren’t that many Tacomans heading to the airport on a daily basis. But there are plenty heading to jobs in Seattle.
I already hate the fact that Tacoma is like a giant bedroom community for Seattle. Giving them a Link connection is only going to make it worse.
Instead, I’d much rather see the Link expanded from downtown Tacoma to the neighborhoods of Tacoma. This encourages people to both live and work in Tacoma. It encourages businesses to locate in downtown Tacoma. It encourages UWT to continue growing. It keeps cars out of downtown. It’s the right thing for an independent city.
Now, my understanding is that the Link line is unnecessarily heavy and expensive for what it serves, so instead of extending the Link line a short distance, I’d rather see a streetcar go even further for the same money.
That said, after having ridden both Tacoma’s Link and Seattle’s SLUT, it was obvious to me that the advantage our line holds is the right-of-way. The SLUT annoyingly stops at every stoplight like a bus. As much as realistically possible, I’d want to see that continued in Tacoma, whether with streetcar or Link, with the exception of stretches of roads that don’t have stoplights (such as Stadium Way) and roads that are too narrow (6th Ave).
J jamie from thriceallamerican February 1, 2008
Scott, I believe that it is possible to install devices that allow the streetcars to override stoplights. Actually, the Link does that now… So if it both ran in the right-of-way and overrode lights, we’d be in good shape. But I have no problem with having dedicated right-of-way for a streetcar in areas that can accommodate that. (Now, how do we get Sound Transit to start talking about Tacoma LINK as a streetcar instead of continuing to try to build it in a way that can accommodate the heavier Central LINK light-rail cars?)
N NSHDscott February 1, 2008
Good question Jamie. I’m writing Julie Anderson an email right now and I encourage everyone who agrees to do the same. I usually agree with her, but in this case, I really don’t like her “love” of the SeaTac connection (her words) and her professed doubts that Tacomans are going to support anything else.
M Matt Anderson February 1, 2008
This is truly one of the more assanine ideas and a colosal waste of my money as well.
Why are we using technology from the 1800s to solve our transportation problems?
Honestly, what does the Bum-warmer (LINK) do that a bus couldn’t do? We have had how many years of street construction to put the thing in place? We’ve reduced Pacific from a 4-lane road to a 2 lane nightmare, that now has to be torn up again and repaired because it wasn’t done right in the first place.
Would any of you be allowed to keep your job if you were this incompetant?
Monkeys throwing darts could come up with a better longterm plan for Tacoma than the current group in charge.
M michael g. February 1, 2008
The revisions to ST2 sound reasonable to me, given that it at least starts the process of getting the airport line to Tacoma, extends Tacoma Link, and improves Sounder service. To be competitive regionally, Tacoma eventually needs light rail to the airport.
I don’t care whether there’s an exclusive rail right-of-way down Sixth or not as long as the Tacoma Link doesn’t have to stop for stoplights. Otherwise it’ll just be a glorified bus. More fun, but not more functional.
M Marty February 1, 2008
I agree with Jamie’s point that it would not be good to run it down Sixth Ave. 12th ST would be a better choice. The road is wider and there is room for transit oriented development and new projects to offset part of the cost of rail.
We should begin extending by extending Link to TG and EQC as the first steps, partnering with both of them to help fund it.
Using Streetcars, we should continute to expand through-out the Eastside and across central Tacoma feeding into the North end and West end.
S snoopy February 1, 2008
to matt anderson.
I think a lot of Pacific Avenues problems could be solved by reducing bus traffic in the peak hours. Maybe moving it up the hill. It’s too bad that we didn’t run the link straight down pacific.
oh.. and your comment about 1800’s technology to solve our transit problems, it seems every industrialized country has been utilizing light rail/streetcars/trains that you would consider outdated, yet, they seem to have less transportation problems than the US. also, many people use the sounder commuter rail to commute to work. Conventional rail is older than streetcar systems and it has clearly solved a modern day transportation problem.
a waste of money is purchasing 3 dollar a gallon gas where your dollar leaves the local economy and you contribute to wide spread environmental destruction through increased emmissions, and possibly fund terrorism.
J jamie from thriceallamerican February 1, 2008
Now Marty, don’t words into my mouth…I expressly did not say Sixth Ave would be a bad choice, just that there is no room for a streetcar to run in a dedicated right-of-way there.
In the self interest vein, I live between Sixth and S 12th, so either of them is essentially equally accessible to me (I regularly take either the 1 or the 28 to get downtown, depending on schedule). For access, I would be happy with either.
But as far as where to put the streetcar, I think it should go in areas targeted for more density of business and housing, and obviously Sixth is the better street for that, what with the Mixed-Use, etc. And people visiting clubs and restaurants on Sixth would be able to leave their cars at home or elsewhere, helping to alleviate the parking problems. (Imagine a system that connects UPS, UWT, TCC, and maybe even eventually PLU to the restaurants and clubs of downtown and Sixth Ave!)
B Ben Schiendelman February 1, 2008
Matt… why do we still use the wheel? That’s a lot older than 1800.
E Erik S February 1, 2008
Matt does have a point in that light rail doesn’t have many significant advantages over buses when viewed purely as a mode of transportation. Also, just because he’s not enamored of the light rail project doesn’t mean that he’s opposed to transit. It’s unfair to make that assumption.
Light rail’s main advantage over buses is lies in its fixed lines, which make it a more powerful tool to influence development patterns than bus routing. Viewed purely as a transportation system it doesn’t merit the added expense. As a land use/development tool with a transportation bonus, it may very well be worthwhile. I believe that our discussion of light rail should focus on this aspect.
E Erik S February 1, 2008
I forgot to mention that, for the reasons expressed above (in #12) I am perfectly happy with the idea of dropping the Seatac-Tacoma light rail line. If Federal Way wants to push on with some sort of new urbanist development scheme, I’m more than happy to let them. I just don’t really care about having light rail in Federal Way. I suspect most Federal Way residents don’t care either.
I would definitely prefer expanding bus and/or heavy rail service between Seattle and Tacoma instead. In addition to being more cost-effective, some of us might actually be able to enjoy the benefits before we’ve retired.
N NSHDscott February 1, 2008
A few things to throw out there, based on recent comments:
• Matt’s right that a bus can do what a streetcar sharing the road with cars can do, and maybe even more. The problem is that buses are stigmatized. I will ride the Link and a streetcar. I won’t ride the bus. It doesn’t make any sense, but there you go.
• I agree that the streetcar should run down or to the 6th Ave hotspot. There’s no room on 6th Ave for a rail line, so it would have to share the road with cars. Everyone seems to want the streetcar to override stoplights, but isn’t this impossible when sharing the road with cars? More often than not, the streetcar won’t be stopped by the stoplight, it’ll be stopped by the cars ahead of it that are stopped by the stoplight. (Whew!) Is the streetcar’s overriding of the light also going to apply to the cars ahead of it? Behind it? Does it matter? I suppose it’s only inconveniencing the cars at cross-streets to 6th Ave.
• To totally contradict the previous bullet, is there room on 6th Ave for a rail line? Could there be room if the curbside parking was eliminated and replaced with a (gasp!) parking garage? Garages are ugly, yes, but there are even uglier buildings in the hottest area of 6th Ave already. Tear down, say, that aluminum-sided box across the street from Shakabrah and put a garage and streetcar stop there instead. Could the streetcar have its own right-of-way then?
E Erik S February 1, 2008
I’m angry about the idea of paying higher taxes just so you can ride in what you consider to be a more fashionable carriage. That does make sense, so there I go.
I do agree with most of your points about the proposed route of your vanity wagon, though, NSHDscott. Just, please, tear down Chopstix to build your garage. I feel queasy just looking at that place.
N Nick February 1, 2008
I think if the LINK were to be extendted to TCC, replacing the route the 1 currently takes from downtown to TCC would make the most sense.
Given how heavily used this route is (I used to take it every day) it’s almost a ridership case-study in action. I think ST could reasonably expect ridership on a LINK route here to be similar, if not greater (considering more people tend to be willing to take a streetcar than a bus).
This would take it up Stadium Way instead of Broadway, which I wouldn’t like, but considering where the line currently ends this may be an inevitability regardless.
N Nick February 1, 2008
“I’m angry about the idea of paying higher taxes just so you can ride in what you consider to be a more fashionable carriage. That does make sense, so there I go.”
—
Perhaps a better way to look at it is this: if statistically more people tend to use a streetcar when compared to a bus (for whatever reason that might be), the added expense in taxes can be seen as simply an investment to increase ridership on public transportation.
Because we can’t force people to use public transportation, we have to approach it from the other side. We have to /attract/ people to it. A streetcar system is simply one way to do this.
Whether or not it’s worth it in this case is another matter. Personally I think it is, because I know I would use it. But I know not everyone shares that opinion.
J jamie from thriceallamerican February 1, 2008
Erik S @15:
Hee.
E Erik S February 1, 2008
Nick, you frame the policy question well. I won’t disagree with you. But it’s still infuriating to see massive investments in public infrastructure driven by what amounts to little more than a fad or fashion. Ding-ding!
Ah, well. I’ll try to focus on the upside (which sure as heck isn’t the transportation features) of light rail. But if we’re going to spend the dough on a land use tool, could we please route it to a section of land where encouragement for development is actually needed? South 38th comes to mind.
N NSHDscott February 1, 2008
Development isn’t the only thing we want, Erik (#19). In fact, I would argue that REdevelopment is far more preferable. It’s better to improve dilapidated structures, especially historic ones, than buid on parking lots, not that the latter isn’t also beneficial.
So I would route the streetcar to areas like Hilltop, the North Slope, and McKinley. (Yes I’m biased about the NSHD, home of me, one of the Filthy Fifteen, and a wide mix of nice old houses and crappy old houses.)
Also, I commend your (ahem) smackdown of me in #15, but of course by saying “I” it wasn’t just me I was talking about. I think I speak for a lot of people. I love Nick’s response (#16) that “the added expense in taxes can be seen as simply an investment to increase ridership on public transportation” and I would also add that as we’ve seen in many cities (Portland being the most often-cited around here) that streetcars are a boon to development/ redevelopment, while bus stops if anything are a disincentive.
N NSHDscott February 1, 2008
(I didn’t mean in my last post that I’M one of the Filthy Fifteen, just that the NSHD has one. In fact, it’s right down the road from my house. It’s a great historic house that hasn’t seen a loving hand in a very, very long time. Thank you Paul Post.)
M M February 1, 2008
I’m all for getting rid of the lightrail to airport, and refocusing those efforts within Tacoma. Wherever possible, the lightrail or streetcars should follow the old trolley routes, since they are already wider and more gentle grades. I see the benefits of running down 6th Ave, but it’s so slow and congested, and it would need to run with traffic, that it would be a frustrating ride.
And I agree with Scott (#14) that buses are stigmatized, and I too personally won’t ride them, but I do ride trains. I think that it’s comes from the ambiguity of the bus route, and the fear of choosing the wrong bus or heading the wrong way. With a train, you know exactly where it’s going and can tell in one stop whether you are headed the right way. And there are more people waiting at the stops with you, so it feels safer.
I grew up in Washington DC, and I rode the metro trains (subway) home from school alone starting at age 10, but my parents never let me ride the public buses. And in DC, I do think that some economically depressed areas (like Silver Spring, MD) benefitted from the metro trains expansion in the late 80’s and 90’s. Silver Spring looked like the worst parts of South Tacoma before the metro stopped there, and now it looks a little like Bellevue. I’d have to believe there is some sort of correlation, but maybe not.
E Erik S February 1, 2008
Okay, okay – uncle!
Maybe it’s growing up in Metro country that makes me comfortable riding buses. I probably got on the wrong bus at some point in my life, but cannot remember doing so. And I’d point out that if more people are at a train stop that’s because you can’t have as many lines and are more limited in options. But I’m forgetting that I yielded, aren’t I? How about this: I’m right, everyone else is wrong, but I admit that being right by myself doesn’t do a whole lot of good.
For what it’s worth, I am actually in favor of a light rail/streetcar system, I just don’t think it’s a particularly cost effective or flexible means of moving people and would prefer that we just admit these and argue for rail on its true strengths.
I would love to see a rail system connecting downtown to Lincoln, McKinley, and, yes, 6th Ave because I think it would be good for those neighborhoods. Also, the bus service to Lincoln/McKinley sucks and it takes a train to get a ride after 10pm, so be it.
Oh, one last thing: good point about REdevelopment, Scott. I definitely am not in favor of sixties-style, bulldozer-centric urban renewal.
J jdub February 1, 2008
At some point Tacoma should (and dare I say, has to) have a rail link to Sea-Tac. It’s what grown up cities do, plan well into the future. Better to build it now, than wait ten years when it will cost more. Remember the folly of Seattle waiting too long and having to pay for all that right of way.
Let’s learn from Seattle and stop thinking this isn ‘t a viable option.
M Matt February 1, 2008
As to the link going up Stadium Way… has anyone else noticed that Stadium way seems to be slipping down the hill??.. little by little?
Going up either Broadway or St. Helens is problematic as it will require that we diagonally cut across an existing parcel of property along Commerce as I don’t see any rail car making it straight up 13th, 11th or 9th.
The only viable option would likely be to extend the end of the Theater Stop up from the NE corner of Sanford & Sons building to the top of the Spanish Stairs and then go up Broadway…. or maybe we could run it straight up through the Winthrop… with a stop in the Grand Ballroom… now THERE would be a unique feature!!
R Republican (By Default) February 1, 2008
I couldn’t agree more.
But the argument is never framed as a social engineering and population control device. It’s framed as a transportation issue, which hides the real agenda behind it. And I’m guessing that if it was framed accurately it wouldn’t pass on any ballot in the Northwest other than downtown Seattle.
My thoughts on light rail, rail in general and Tacoma’s passenger rail are on the name/link on this comment.
Buses? One of the problems with buses is that routes run (in some cases) from a safe, low-crime area right through a high-crime area before arriving at a desired destination (like downtown).
One of the advantages to Seattle’s bus system is express buses that go through an area of similar residential makeup then jump on the highway, bypassing less safe areas. When I lived in the Renton Highlands I had a choice of two bus routes, one that jumped on 405 and one that ran through Rainier Valley. Guess which one I used whenever possible.
P pongo February 1, 2008
what about seattle-tacoma-olympia? that would actually be useful.
D downtown denizen February 2, 2008
To avoid right-of-way issues down 6th avenue, just build it as a monorail!
-I kid.
A Andrew February 2, 2008
@Republican:
As a conservative, you surely agree that the less government intervention in any issue, and the more reliance of the free market, the better, right?
Thus, the logical choice for transit is to return to the pre-Eisenhower status, removing subsidized interstate highway systems, and allow the market to decide.
H Highwater February 2, 2008
I agree with Matt, the Link has been a big negative for the flow of traffic on Pacific. And a bus would be cheaper to “build,” cheaper to operate, and more flexible. A big part of the problem with the Link on Pacific is the gross incompetence of Tacoma’s traffic engineers, who have failed to synchronize the traffic lights. On top of this, the lights at Puyallup, 25th and 26th streets operate so inefficiently together that traffic routinely backs up down Pacific. This creates the artificial grid-lock that Tacomans now experience. We may not have real traffic, but at least we’ve been able to generate enough artificial traffic to mimic a big city. Please explain to me who the Link really serves, besides downtown workers who park for free at the Dome and then ride the Link to work?!? Does that see like the kind of “mass transit” we want to support?
To those who bemoan that loss of a Link connection to Sea-Tac, you clearly must not commute to work or fail to understand that the light rail system being built by Sound Transit is NOT rapid transit. Even if the Link were built to Seattle from Tacoma, it would still be faster to ride the bus, even with traffic. And to those who think a Fife Link is a good idea, are you nuts? Why should we subsidize a tourist route to the casino? Maybe I missed something, but the last time I checked, Fife was suburban hell and stripmall central. Unless you’re proposing a more efficient way for chronic inebriates to get alcohol and go back downtown after we finally get the Alcohol Impact Area expanded. Have you recently WALKED in Fife? It’s the equivalent of building light rail to Spanaway. A better proposal would be to take a D-9 Caterpillar and clean up the lahar zone once and for all.
J jdub February 2, 2008
“To those who bemoan that loss of a Link connection to Sea-Tac, you clearly must not commute to work or fail to understand that the light rail system being built by Sound Transit is NOT rapid transit. Even if the Link were built to Seattle from Tacoma, it would still be faster to ride the bus, even with traffic”.
Can you say the same in 20 years without some kind of rail transit?
“It’s the equivalent of building light rail to Spanaway.”
And the fastest growing area in the South Puget Sound for new housing growth is . . .? I believe down by Spanaway. Graham, South Hills, etc. So, while I don’t really want to jump on a rail to go to Spanaway, I really would like to see a progressive approach to transit problems this will create within the next 20 -30 years.
And as Marty has said, rail creates a plan for growth just as Portland created in-fill from its first line out towards Gresham. A spot not many would go to on its own on rail. The numbers of riders were there after it was built.
Its about the future, people. Where do you want to live, what kind of place do you want to live in? Or your kids? Do you want to catch an express bus with Republican on 20 other buses that “avoids” undesirable routes, or do you want to have some kind of reasonable in-fill that might get you from South Puget Sound to the airport with your one checked bag and a carry-on.
You know, they do that all the time in Portland.
H Highwater February 2, 2008
Yes, actually the bus will still be faster (Tacoma to Seattle, vs. Link). It’s why ST is proposing ramping up the heavy rail connection: it’s faster too, at an hour each way. The Link will be 34 minutes to Sea-Tac, a 15.7 mile difference (that’s if ST manages to actually get the Sea-Tac airport connector built when Link opens). If you assume the same rate of speed (2.16 mph) and guess that Sea-Tac would be 19.1 miles (the same distance by road) then the total time becomes 75 minutes. That’s if you happen to live at the Tacoma Dome and work at Westlake. So if you need to go anywhere extra for your trip, add that time. That is slower than Sounder, and slower than the bus. Not feasible for commuting, not worth the expense. We should build ONE intercity rail system, not two. Sounder is costing us over a billion, and it’s running. It’s faster and will stay faster than Link would ever be.
I’m guess I’m not surprised that some look at Spanaway and think, oh well, it’s out there, and growing, so we should just build them all the infrastructure they want. I think that’s really dumb. We should look at Spanaway, Graham and the like and say NO. No, you can’t build a cross-base highway across the last intact Oak Woodland in South Puget Sound. No, you can’t build any more crap out along Pacific Hwy, it’s ugly, the infrastructure wasn’t designed for that level of traffic and it’s too far from the urban centers where the jobs are. There’s really a very simple way to control that growth: make them pay for the real cost. That ends the cheap housing and, presto-chango, no more growth out in the middle of nowhere.
E Erik B. February 2, 2008
NO. No, you can’t build a cross-base highway across the last intact Oak Woodland in South Puget Sound.
Agreed. Pierce County’s approach over the last 30 years has been to simply build one suburban connecting road to another which has resulted in extremely expensive subsidy for remote growth in the county and disinvestment in Tacoma.
Building yet another road such as cross base highway would just subsidize another round of this and would fill up the road with traffic in no time. Plus, this sort of development is more expensive and causes more pollution per capita and Tacoma is already failing to meet the pollution grade.
R Republican (By Default) February 2, 2008
It’s so good to see so many of you finally admitting that light rail isn’t a transportation solution.
So, please. Keep speaking the truth. Get the facts out there so we can consider every side of the issue.
J James M February 2, 2008
“Some look at Spanaway and think, oh well, it’s out there, and growing, so we should just build them all the infrastructure they want… that’s really dumb. We should look at Spanaway, Graham and the like and say NO. No, you can’t build a cross-base highway across the last intact Oak Woodland in South Puget Sound. No, you can’t build any more crap out along Pacific Hwy, it’s ugly, the infrastructure wasn’t designed for that level of traffic and it’s too far from the urban centers where the jobs are. There’s really a very simple way to control that growth: make them pay for the real cost. That ends the cheap housing and, presto-chango, no more growth out in the middle of nowhere.”
Kudos!
N NSHDscott February 2, 2008
Like Highwater said (#30), light rail from Tacoma to Seattle, if built, would still be a slow commute. I don’t remember the exact numbers, but I know the round-trip commute for Seattle-working Tacomans was over 2 hours a day on the proposed light rail line, slower than today’s drive. A commute that long is unacceptable, a waste of our time, keeping people away from their families and from being productive at home.
jdub (#31) argued whether you say that light rail will still be slower than driving in 20 years, implying (as I interpret it) that the answer is no because traffic will continue to get worse as population grows.
I’m not so sure. That sounds like giving up, resigning yourself to the fact that the disparity in number and quality of jobs between Tacoma and Seattle will worsen, or at least not improve while population continues to grow. It says Tacoma cannot overcome its inability to attract more businesses.
Again, I’d rather Tacoma focus on making itself more appealing for people to live and work within its borders, and then hopefully businesses will see that and want to be located in downtown. Tacoma can make itself more appealing by improving its intercity transportation, among other things. If Tacoma were to decrease the jobs disparity, the same or fewer cars will be on I-5, even if there are more people in the area. And those people will be happier.
Putting light rail to Seattle at the top of Tacoma’s transportation priorities (whether used for actual transportation or as an incentive for re/development) just doesn’t say good things about Tacoma’s confidence and belief in itself. Where’s the City of Destiny Pride in our city leaders (and some of our commenters)?
J jdub February 2, 2008
NSHD, well said, and I agree 100% on all points. Now, where’s the leader that can have that same vision?
A Andrew February 2, 2008
Republican:
I’ve always said that light rail isn’t a transportation solution.
I’ve also always said that subsidized roads are never a transportation solution, either.
E Erik Hanberg February 2, 2008
I gotta respectfully disagree here, sirs. Connecting Tacoma to the airport and to Seattle via light rail is a good thing for Tacoma.
Judging light rail by the Tacoma Link is a bad idea. Seattle’s connection to the airport will be far faster than our link because it’s removed from traffic. It’s got it’s own route on Busway and then elevated above the freeway after that. I assume (perhaps erroneously) that our airport connection would be similar and not run on surface streets.
Second, many cities have had good success with light rail. I would point to Minneapolis as a city that has built a great system that connects the Mall of America with the airport and downtown Minneapolis. They are now working on expansions. Many people scoffed at first and didn’t like that they were building light rail for tourists, but it turns out connecting some of Minneapolis’s coolest neighborhoods with each other, downtown, and the airport was a really good thing.
Portland (yes, everyone loves Portland) has had enormous success with the Max.
Light rail can be a good transportation option but we have to keep building more of it. When the first 4 miles of the Tube in London were built, it was crazy expensive to build and served only a few people’s needs. But then every mile of track laid after that became that much more valuable and worthwhile. We do the first pieces so we can do more and more and make a transportation network that allows for non-automotive options.
Otherwise we will truly just keep paving over everything because our current roads won’t be able to handle it. All population estimates for our area show us doubling population in 20 years. There’s no way we can accommodate that growth with our current network, even with a much larger bus system. And since we’ll need it very soon, let’s start building now. It’s always more expensive to build tomorrow than to build today.
M michael g. February 2, 2008
I agree with Erik H. I’ve lived in a couple of cities with good light rail or subways. They kick the Puget Sound area’s collective behind in terms of convenient transit options, and they make it pretty easy for families to live with no car or one car.
If we really dedicated ourselves to a regional Bus Rapid Transit system, it might work as well as rail, but BRT would depend on the non-transit riding public’s willingness to sit in traffic while buses fly past them in bus-only lanes. With Tim Eyman and his ilk out there (he’s hoping to run an anti-HOV lane initiative this November), I’m not sure BRT can be successful.
If BRT won’t work, we’ll need a regional system with light rail, bus, and the Sounder. Hooking Tacoma into the main Link line wouldn’t be mostly about getting commuters to Seattle — it would be about giving Tacoma the same access to the airport Seattle will have starting late next year with the completion of the first phase of the Central Link. And it would be about not excluding Tacoma from an amenity you can bet other major cities/employment centers in the Puget Sound region will be clamoring for and celebrating once they get it.
Most functional big cities have easy light rail connections to at least one airport — it’s way easier for tourists and out of town business folk to figure out than a bus system. I would guess that this will factor into Russell’s decision on whether to stay in Tacoma. (An alternative solution to the airport problem would be to build a new major airport much closer to Tacoma — but does anybody think there’s political will for that or that it makes sense environmentally?)
I think those who think we can’t better integrate Tacoma into the regional transportation system AND get a better system within the city are selling Tacoma short. We can’t afford not to do both, whatever the details of the plans are.
H Highwater February 3, 2008
I think there is a real disconnect here (in many of the posts that think we should run light rail to Sea-Tac) between cost and benefit. Let’s keep in mind a two things: 1) it’s going to cost many billions of dollars; 2) the proposed funding mechanism has been an increase in the sales tax. I voted against the package in the fall because of the cross-base highway and the sales tax funding mechanism. A 1% increase in sales tax is a big increase, and it falls disproportionately on those who can least afford it. If you find a way to shift the costs of your trophy light rail project onto drivers (gas tax) or the wealthy (progressive income tax), I’ll support it. Good luck with that. Welcome to Washington.
E Erik Hanberg February 3, 2008
Traditionally, mass transportation has been a private venture (railroads, airlines, ferries, buses and taxis).
Really? Railroads were heavily heavily subsidized by the US government and taxpayers. And buses are traditionally private? Where?
I don’t see a private interest starting up the New York City subway system because the initial cost is so high. In fact, it’s crazy high. But every dollar they’ve sunk into the subway system is made more and more valuable by every dollar they’ve spent since.
R Republican (By Default) February 3, 2008
I should have qualified the use of the word ‘traditionally’ to mean ‘initially’.
Does the name ‘Greyhound’ mean anything to you? Rail barons? And who said anything about subways?
Railroads started and moved west when there were wide open (unowned) lands. When railroads were an important part of our nations infrastructure they did receive government money, but they were private enterprises. Most of what they received from government they worked for by hauling mail, troops and other goods for the government, which is private enterprise, not subsidy.
E Erik Hanberg February 3, 2008
RBD,
I do believe that light rail and mass transit options will help stop more traffic congestion in the long run (I’m trying to distinguish that from saying that it will curb congestion).
That said, if stats are true that we’re going to double in population in 20 years, I think building and investing for heavy urbanization is a very good idea.
Truth be told, I am not a huge fan of light rail for a distance as far as the airport or Seattle. The Central link from downtown Seattle to the airport will average 55 miles an hour. I don’t think it’s fast enough. If you want people to take mass transit it’s got to be crazy fast. Witness the underground connection from Capitol Hill to the U District in 3 minutes. That’s worth it.
I’d be very much in favor of substantially increasing the budget for light rail if it meant a higher average MPH and a commute time that could beat a car.
A Andrew February 3, 2008
RBD:
I assure you, I am not looking at picking a fight, and it’s certainly not due to your name. Were there a Democrat By Default on here, I’d most likely respond critically to him/her as well.
All I’m trying to do is figure out what definition of conservative we’re using here. I’m guessing that you’re leaning more towards the neo-con style definition, whereas I’ve always associated much more with the classical liberalism side of it.
R Republican (By Default) February 4, 2008
Taxonomy is for people who fear complexity.
Conservatives are human beings. Each has his (or her) own values and makes his (or her) own choices. We seldom fit into tidy little categories.
Anytime someone tries to categorize people from the outside, he will usually be wrong. And in the process he will usually insult the people being categorized, if for no other reason than it reduces them to nothing more than the set of variables used in the process.
So why don’t we stick to issues and ignore the labels. If you want to know what I think about an issue, just ask.
S subterranean February 4, 2008
It seems like the discussion is getting a little off topic, but here are my three cents worth:
First of all, it is true that for a period in american history railroads, public transportation, even electrical production were started, not by government intervention in the market (that came later if memory serves me well), but by private entrepreneurs. The problem was that the costs of starting such systems is so high that it gives way to natural monopolies, hence the need for government intervention to create stable market conditions and to ensure social equity. Privatization is occuring again today, but as city’s seek to cash in on the sunk infrastructure of their city’s, like the Skyway in Chicago, and shed the maintenance and costs associated with the system. However, the costs for accessing those systems generally rise due to the return to monopoly conditions. Government is capable of redistributing taxes to subsidize these types of infrastructure so that it remains affordable for the lowest socio-economic segments of society. Government is also directly accountable to the public due to our representative democracy. Private interests do not have this accountability nor the social purpose that government has historically had. I would also note, that Teddy Roosevelt, a conservative, was pro-business and yet vigorously anti-monopoly.
Second, I think it is important to take into account that conservatism in the northwest has been very different from the type of neo-liberal or neo-con movements we’ve seen nationally. In Oregon, it was primarily conservatives that started growth management and regional governance. In Washington, Dan Evans (a republican) proposed a regional transit system that was defeated by democrats in the 60’s or early 70’s. While I am a liberal democrat, I find a lot of shared values with conservatives when it comes to growth management and transportation issues, recognizing that the continuation of small towns and rural landscapes depends not on free market principles but on planning.
Lastly, while these discussions are interesting, I think we have lost site of some of the more pressing concerns. For instance, in the regions 2040 plan, Tacoma is supposed to play a much more central role in the South sound. We’re designated as a metropolitan center for future growth. However, we continually discuss traffic congestion as a seattle-centric problem. If we reframe the problem as one of vehicle miles traveled, a snazzy planner term, and make it about more than congestion, but about greenhouse gases, air pollution, water pollution, etc etc… then maybe we can arrive at some better alternatives to a light rail between tacoma and sea-tac. For example, drawing on the comments about urbanization, if we want Tacoma to continue to develop as center of the region, perhaps we should invest in a hub and spoke type of transit system, with Tacoma as the hub. The spokes could run to University Place, Puyallup, Fife, Federal Way, etc and solidify the image of Tacoma as a central destination for people to travel, rather than as a “sending” location of people commuting to Seattle. There was a really good comment about urbanization in the threads, and the fact is, trains have the best potential to capture future transportation ridership and to influence how people decide where to live and work. Also, we should be comparing the costs of investing in removing say 2 out of every hundred commute trips on I-5 versus removing 10 our of 100 commute trips coming into Tacoma. Is one going to achieve more positive impact for the investment? Damn, I’ve written way too much, hope you can get through this essay without falling asleep.
N NSHDscott February 4, 2008
Wow, lovin’ the quantity of comments but this thread got a little off-subject over the weekend. subterranean’s comment above has started to right the ship, and now here’s my attempt:
One of the ways we got off-track was in debating light rail to SeaTac/Seattle vs. light rail throughout Tacoma as if they cost the same.
Probably the biggest reason that Prop 1 failed is the massive cost, coupled with the fact that we wouldn’t receive a lot of the light rail improvements for decades. Decades! Now Sound Transit is talking about doing a smaller package. I don’t see how they’re going to pull off a smaller package while including the expensive Tacoma-Seattle light rail connection.
Let’s say that Prop 1 2008 edition passes in 2008 and the Tacoma ST area will get $250 million for light rail. Which would you rather we spend it on:
• Extending Link as far north as possible, which I’m guessing is Federal Way if we’re being very optimistic, and then hope that Prop 1 2020 edition will pass and South King County will elect to finish the connection to SeaTac (by 2030)?
• Extending Link and/or building streetcars within Tacoma, let’s say three major spokes going from downtown into the North End, into East Tacoma, and into South Tacoma?
Given these “real-world” choices, I think it’s easy to choose the second option and focus on making Tacoma better, instead of giving Tacoma a better connection to other cities and the airport. We get much more benefit out of the same dollar. We benefit not only in inter-Tacoma transportation, but in commercial and residential development/redevelopment along lines in Tacoma instead of on a line leaving Tacoma.
C Chris K February 4, 2008
Something missing from this conversation is talk about how an extension of Tacoma Link or a streetcar system would impact climate change, energy security, and auto dependence. Right now this city is heavily dependent on fossil fuels and inefficient internal combustion engines for transportation – even the bus system runs on natural gas.
Tacoma Link and the concepts of electric streetcars and trolleybuses depart from the fossil fuel paradigm by taking advantage of our region’s ability to tap into inexpensive, secure and climate-neutral hydroelectric power. Additionally the general mechanical-electrical efficiency of rail running on electric motors is phenomenal, especially when you take into account the potential for regenerative braking. These efficiencies, together with the smart growth impacts of transit stations and their high pedestrian capacity, have the potential to significantly shift the dominant mode of travel away from cars, while reducing per capita energy consumption, oil dependence, and greenhouse gas emissions.
Sound Transit and Julie both need to understand that this shift in the mode of travel locally is going to be necessary in order to sustain a real regional transit system. We aren’t going to be able to afford to build enough parking garages to hold all of the single occupancy vehicles AND actually build a real transit system. People have to start their trips as pedestrians. Internal-city streetcars and robust local transit systems are a part of the solution and potentially a prerequisite for a fully functioning regional system.
S Sassy McButterpants February 4, 2008
Subterranean @ 50
I totally feel 100x smarter for having read that.
Thank you.
M michael g. February 4, 2008
Scott @51: I think I agree with you — that’s why I like the revised version of ST2 pretty well — it starts some momentum toward getting light rail down here (by building to SR 516, which could easily end up being extended here pre-2027 as was proposed by Prop. 1) while also getting something built within Tacoma, presumably pretty soon. Seems like a good start on both the regional and local mass transit fronts.
Once both these systems get started and people realize they like them, their expansion will get a lot more support at the ballot box. At least that’s how it’s worked elsewhere in the country…
R Republican (By Default) February 5, 2008
I’ve really run out of time for this thread, and I apologize for letting myself get off-track in it.
Since rail is only about connecting centers (population, business, etc.) then in looking at Tacoma the only center that could remotely be considered for a rail stop would be TCC. BUT… it would be very disruptive to neighborhoods along the way and would be very costly to build since there really aren’t any streets that could handle the expansion needed to carry it (construction would destroy the 6th Ave. busn district but that’s the only one that makes any sense). Also, it would probably end up being the same speed as buses on the same route.
It still leaves downtown Tacoma relatively barron. There simply aren’t enough people to move to make it worthwhile. The money spent would be largely wasted and would be much better left in the hands of people who can put it to good use.
Let me put it another way. How many more large projects will it take to make downtown successful again? Will it always be ‘just one more’?
We have UWT, museums and art galleries galore, light rail, the convention center, numerous historical sites and land use that’s restricted to some nebulous master plan. And none of it has worked.
I think it’s time to step back and reconsider the plan. It’s just not working.
Being a conservative, I trust people (individuals) to accomplish those things, not government.
Lastly, I think one of the previous comments confused the terms ‘Republican’ and ‘conservative’. They are not synonomous.
Gotta go.
E Erik Hanberg February 6, 2008
Back to a topic earlier in this thread: why would people want to avoid 6th Ave? It seems like if that’s where the people want to go, running light rail there would be a good idea, whereas with 12th, there aren’t too many places along the way worth stopping between MLK and Mildred.
That said, I’ve been rethinking this whole thing. I think I would rather see streetcars connect 6th Ave, the neighborhoods, and TCC than light rail. and save the much higher cost of light rail for where we want real speed: Tacoma to the airport and on to Seattle.
N NSHDscott February 7, 2008
Erik, I agree with you in favoring cheaper streetcars covering a greater distance within Tacoma rather than extending the expensive light rail for a shorter distance, even though I assume it would require a transfer. I also agree with you that 6th Ave should be served by the streetcar, regardless of perceived complications.
However, I kind of laughed to hear light rail being called speedy, given that it would take over an hour each way from Tacoma to Seattle, slower than today’s crawl of a drive.
If speed is the concern (and it should be for any Tacoma-Seattle route) why doesn’t anyone ever talk about truly speedy options? How frickin’ awesome would it be for Seattle-Tacoma to have the nation’s first bullet train? It’s really fast, it’s green, and think what it would do for our region both for transportation and for positive publicity and respect worldwide!
(Disclaimer: I have no clue what bullet train costs are, and I assume they are very high. But now we’re talking a real investment for the future, not a cute, slow fake-train!)
E Erik Hanberg February 7, 2008
Sign me up for the bullet train or bullet monorail! I’m all for it.
E Erik Hanberg February 7, 2008
That said, NSHD, the sounder trip is 1 hour right now. That’s slower than the morning bus to Seattle but after work coming back to Tacoma, I believe the Sounder is almost always going to be faster than the freeway. Can any commuters speak to that point?