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

Answers

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.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ