Posted by BenSchiendelman at 3/7/08 6:53 p.m.

Why would we "press" Sound Transit to go beyond Central Link without mentioning that they're a year from groundbreaking on University Link?

Posted by JonSM99 at 3/8/08 12:28 a.m.

Why would we plan a new 520 bridge when we haven't even figured out what to do with the Viaduct in the central waterfront?

Posted by johnnycakes at 3/8/08 6:25 a.m.

Ben, maybe because despite the naming changes, "University Link" is still part of the original package we voted for over ten years ago. Forgive me, but until we actually have something built and operational, a lot of us are in "wait and see" mode. What ST's Board decides to put on the ballot (and which ballot) is still very much open for discussion.

Posted by John N at 3/8/08 1:10 p.m.

The environmental Record of Decision on North Link, which is the Seattle light rail subway all the way from Pine Street to just south of Northgate, shows that just the construction of this urban railroad will generate 600 thousand metric tons of greenhouse gas over 7 years, which is more greenhouse gas than will be saved in 45 years of people riding this train instead of driving.

This Record of Decision I am referencing was issued by Sound Transit and the U.S. Government on June 7, 2006, signed by the Federal Transit Administration's Region 10 Director Rick Krochalis. This document is posted full text at www.bettertransport.info/pitf/NorthLinkR
OD.htm.

This calculation assumes that the CO2 emitting characteristics of cars will stay at today's average level, which everybody from Al Gore to Ben Schiendelman knows must change. Even with hundreds of miles of urban railroad lines installed by Sound Transit, only enough capacity to double overall transit market share -- from 5 percent to 10 percent -- would be available. Most trips would still be by private motor vehicle, with new generations of vehicles using much less energy per mile.

As shown by the Puget Sound Regional Council planning agency, the average household has 30 minute or less access by transit/walking/biking to only one percent of the region's employment sites. This is the case now, and also will be the case in 2040, according to computer models of emerging land use patterns.

The construction of the Northgate subway in Seattle depends first on Sound Transit jumping through a number of procedural hoops over the next few months to win a $750 million Federal grant for University Link. In the words of the James Simpson, the USDOT executive in charge of recommending the grant, University Link is "enormously challenging."

Because U.S. Senator Patty Murray controls the USDOT budget, the odds are in favor of Sound Transt winning this grant sooner or later, despite the challenges of tunneling already revealed in the one mile Beacon Hill "practice tunnel" still under construction by Sound Transit and six months behind schedule. The difficult experience of Beacon Hill tunneling caused Sound Transit to eliminate the First Hill deep-mined station and replace it with a planned streetcar.

Building the Northgate subway line north of Husky Stadium also depends on Sound Transit winning another tax election. Such an election now seems to be in the cards for November 2008 or November 2010. Sound Transit CEO Joni Earl told the State-appointed expert review panel on Friday morning that she could not predict what the Board will decide about these two choices for timing of the next tax election.

Some ST Board members and Sound Transit fans seem to think that the failure of Sound Transit to win the Prop 1 "Roads and Transit" election for 6/10th sales tax addition can be reversed in a November 2008 "Trains and Buses" election for a 4/10th sales tax addition.

As seen in comments posted on the Seattle PI forums, there are many citizens who want to see Sound Transit complete and successfully operate light rail to the airport before authorizing a higher tax rate to dig more tunnels and lay more track.

By the end of this month of March, we shall know if the Sound Transit Board wants to try again to raise transit taxes before completing the Seattle light rail line that was promised in the 1996 tax election.

Posted by serial catowner at 3/8/08 5:28 p.m.

So, 600k tons of CO = Pierce Transit savings over 4 years. And gas has tripled in price in 7 years. I've got a feeling we won't have to wait 45 years to see results here.

It's a clever line of argument, though. If there's any need to argue about this. I guess how you feel about that would be pretty much related to your desire to get to work on time.

Posted by unregistered user at 3/12/08 3:59 p.m.

There may be--and I expect are--many missing elements in the WashPIRG analysis. Until their analysis posted on the Web, we cannot know.

Specifically, the effects of how riders get to/from the LRT stations is VERY important when comparing modes. When transit riders go between their residences and the LRT stations by a non-motorized mode (SEATAC airport and Downtown Seattle, for instance) the comparison with other modes (cars and buses) may be fair.

Under other circumstances, where station access is by motor vehicle the effects of those vehicles must be considered.

For buses that should include the effect of not just the actual passenger-miles traveled, but a proportionate amount of the non-revenue miles traveled (to/from transit base) and effects of sitting and idling at bus stops.

The situation is much worse when autos are used. The pollution generated by autos is very high when the engine & catalytic converter are cold. (If have read 50% of trip pollution is in the first five miles, but I cannot recollect my source.) The modes used most commonly for access to LRT stations outside the Seattle Urban Core will not be non-motorized: they will be autos to P&R near the LRT station, autos via Kiss-&-Ride, or Metro bus (possibly with an auto leg). These trips must be factored in realistically. P&R use requires two auto trips per LRT trip, both of which are cold start. Kiss-&-Ride requires at least two cold-start trips, plus the vehicle miles traveled is doubled when compared to P&R use.

Using the Federal data for LRT trips alone to justify extension south of SEATAC would be extremely misleading. That goes in spades for extension to the Eastside of Lake Wasington.

Does anybody have access to the WashPIRG analysis? Has Sound Transit done such an analysis for the proposed Eastside Link? Will Sound Transit include such analyses in their future studies and Environmental Impact Statements? Don't hold your breath, their studies to date have not been models of unbiased evaluation of their impacts on the entire transportation system.