Didn't Craig Carson tell us months ago that Link made no economic or logistic sense?greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread |
Well the PI is saying the same thing today:Some 74 percent of the voters who voted for Sound Transit light rail in 1996 said they were voting to reduce congestion. But the fine print in Sound Transit documents is an unpleasant surprise: "The light rail system will not result in a significant difference in regional traffic volumes." According to Sound Transit, the rush hour difference in 2010 between building the Link light-rail line and doing nothing is a congestion reduction of approximately one car for every one thousand. Common sense tells us this is no impact at all. On Oct. 4, Sound Transit Executive Director Bob White agreed. Only the Sound publicity machine continues to claim that light rail will "zap gridlock." That claim is false. A one-1,000th reduction in congestion is not a good $2 billion investment. In the weeks ahead, before irreversible tunnel digging begins, the Sound Transit Board needs to stop and consider the reality of this massive investment, this spending of taxpayer billions. The board should start with the fundamentals. This is an investment and we should apply normal investment criteria in comparing alternatives. First, the fundamental objective, how many new riders does each alternative generate? To the degree that future rail riders are current bus riders, we accomplish nothing. Second, what is the cost per new rider? Third, what is the comparative risk in each alternative? Sound Transit's cost and ridership projections are the subject of enormous controversy, but let's avoid that controversy and just accept Sound's estimates of costs and ridership. Sound says that in 2010, three years after Link light rail opens, Link will carry 30,800 new riders each day, an increase of approximately 10 percent over the 1999 Metro Transit ridership. To carry these new riders on Link, Sound Transit will spend at least $163 million annually including interest and capital repayment. Each new Link rider will cost $17.66 for every ride he or she takes. Moreover, $17.66 does not include any of the cost overruns looming in the Capitol Hill tunnel bids.Se attle PI editorial
-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 01, 2000
to Mark: You've presented an excerpt of the Ride Free proposal from Chuck Collins. Chuck Collins is a moron. Currently, society receives between $15 and $20 million in annual revenue from vanpools and the Sound Transit regional express buses. Mr Collins' Ride Free proposal would result in the loss of the revenue WITH NO INCREASED RIDERSHIP.Furthermore, Mr Collins proposes throwing away an additional $4 million annually to compensate people (like myself) who organize and operate a vanpool. I am flattered by his generosity (with your money), but IT IS WASTEFUL.
I submit, again, that the most cost-effective solution for reducing congestion is to charge vehicles a fee for use of the HOV system. The fee should take into account the vehicle's weight, age, and fuel type.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), November 02, 2000.
Matt- Do you care to comment on the meat of the posting:Each new Link rider will cost $17.66 for every ride he or she takes. Moreover, $17.66 does not include any of the cost overruns looming in the Capitol Hill tunnel bids.
Or merely to trash the author?
-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 02, 2000.
to Mark: I'm not sure I can comment on the author's numbers, if I believe the author is a moron. I don't understand his numbers. Is he saying that rail will only carry 30,000 passengers? Or, is he saying that rail will carry 30,000 passengers more than the buses carry now?The $17 he uses may require further adjustment. Perhaps he should subtract out the amount society would no longer spend on the buses the rail riders used to ride. Furthermore, light rail does not spew diesel exhaust. How much is that worth to society?
If you're going to have government-run transit, then rail might very well be superior to diesel-powered, articulated buses.
But, if you want to privatize transit, then society needs to offer a fee-based system of roads, which people would VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE to use.
It makes no sense for you or Chuck Collins to criticize light rail, if you offer no cost-effective alternative.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), November 03, 2000.
"It makes no sense for you or Chuck Collins to criticize light rail, if you offer no cost-effective alternative. "
That's a TRULY ignorant statement, akin to:
It makes no sense for you or Chuck Collins to criticize light rail, if you offer no cost-effective alternative.
It makes no sense for you or Chuck Collins to criticize the Concorde, if you offer no cost-effective alternative.
It makes no sense for you or Chuck Collins to criticize Conestoga wagons, if you offer no cost-effective alternative.
It makes no sense for you or Chuck Collins to criticize the Stanley Steamer, , if you offer no cost-effective alternative.
You start out with unwarranted assumption that the light rail is both necessary and cost-effective, when in fact the evidence doesn't support EITHER of those assumptions.
You need a course in basic logic, or perhaps some medication.
-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 03, 2000.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder does not respond well to medications, Mark.
Sorry!
Screw Transit!
Build Roads!
zowie
-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 04, 2000.
to Mark: Sorry, you're the one who needs a course in logic. I can offer cost-effective alternatives to Concordes, Conestoga Wagons, and Stanley Steemers. So, your analogy fails miserably.If you had carefully read my post, I said that IF government runs transit, then light rail may, indeed, be superior to diesel-powered, articulated buses. We know where Chuck Collins stands. Which do you prefer? And why? Please be logical and consistent in your presentation, as the "special" medication is both expensive and unpleasant.
I agree with Zowie:
Screw Light Rail!
Build More HOV Lanes!!!
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), November 06, 2000.
Tunnel project may have hit skids Negotiations with rail firm suspended after redesign is still millions over budget Friday, November 17, 2000 By CHRIS McGANN SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER After seven years and more than $25 million worth of planning, progress on Seattle's 4.5-mile light-rail tunnel crashed to a halt yesterday when the Sound Transit board suspended negotiations with its tunnel-building firm. The whole tunnel project may lose its ticket to ride. Sound Transit's staff said even a new cost-cutting design was not enough to bring the Capitol Hill tunnel project within budget. As a result, pipe dreams of sending trains deep under Portage Bay -- the riskiest part of the tunnel plan -- evaporated. And the staff is scrambling for even more savings, which may prove elusive. The latest estimates for designing and building the tunnel are $782 million -- still $225 million more than budgeted even with the new design, the Sound Transit board learned. Paul Bay, Director of Link light-rail, could not explain why Sound Transit planners had misjudged the cost so dramatically. "If we had known then what we know now..." Bay said. "Hindsight is always perfect."Let's see, where are the people who said that concerns about cost over-runs were greatly exaggerated? Where is that "second pot of money" Patrick was talking about? Maybe (Un)Sound Transit can use that!
I love it!
I love it!
I love it!
I love it!
I love it!
I love it!
I love it!
I love it!
I love it!
I love it!
I love it!
I love it!
I love it!
I love it!
I love it!
I love it!
-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 17, 2000.