3:39 PM yesterday d.p. commented on Why Do So Many ST3 Critics Want Buses When Trains Would Be Better and Cheaper?.
You are truly insufferable, Cressona.

For the umpteenth time: As ST3's lengthy timeline is entirely dependent upon its bonding mechanism -- nothing would shovel-ready for years, owing 100% to the financing of its massive -- a package with less bloat would be able reach construction readiness without the decade of delay.

Vote in 2018, vote in 2020, whenever. A smaller plan can be executed faster than this shit. Especially if that plan doesn't insist that expensive viaducts in the middle of nowhere are the only worthwhile form of deliverable.

If you think that Sound Transit players haven't at least considered back-up packages and altered political strategies (such as divorcing the sub-areas from the requirement of uniform tax rates), then you are kidding yourself.
Oct 21 d.p. commented on Why Do So Many ST3 Critics Want Buses When Trains Would Be Better and Cheaper?.
Yes, yes, Cressona. Up is down. Black is white. Suburban is urban. Mediocrity is awesomeness. Most people/trips not being aided in the slightest is a home fucking run.

We get it. Trains = whee! You want trains from Redmond to Bothell and from Sand Point to Issaquah. You can't be bothered to notice that no successful or even moderately useful transit system on the planet looks like that. It is beneath you to fathom that capital eventually runs out -- even in cities whose unmet transit wish lists don't look like they were scrawled on the back of a Denny's placemat by someone who has never been to a city before -- and so just maybe you should prioritize the kinds of investments that actually work.

And how many times do you have to be reminded that prior rejections of levy overreach have yielded better subsequent initiatives before you stop claiming that it's either this $54 billion of crap or nothing?
Sep 29 d.p. commented on Edward Scissorhands Made by Director Who Wants to Be True to White People.
Always thought Burton was a hack, vaguely suspected he was a moron.

Now have proof of both.
Sep 27 d.p. commented on A Tale of Two New Link Stations.
In what universe is UW station "compact" or convenient? Much less a paragon of form gracefully following function?

I suppose it's compact compared to this, if your sole source of comparison is "broadly-mocked architectural boondoggles culled from the internet." But even then it's hard to find a standalone in-city subway stop quite as preposterously sited and insulting to pedestrians trying to reach it as is the current northern Link terminus.

Has Charles traveled the urbanized world at all? Or has his career been a 20-year hoax orchestrated by an armchair traveler from deep within his Columbia City bungalow?
Sep 23 d.p. commented on Guest Editorial: Voting Yes On Prop 1 Is the Only Way to Get Light Rail Faster.
"Listen, do you want a subway or not!!?"

- petulant kids, finally admitting they have no interest in distinguishing mass transit as a means ("Oh, cool, I get get where I need to go easily!") from mass transit as an end unto itself ("Oh, cool, we have lots of shiny trains!")

Voters should find it beyond appalling that "advocates" seem unable to make any affirmative argument for why this particular zillion-mile rail network, which bears no resemblance whatsoever to successful mass transit elsewhere, will miraculously transport hundreds of thousands and solve all our future problems. I can only hope that Seattleites are finally tired of having their collective intelligence insulted by the equivocation-filled boomtown-snowflakedom and divisive identity-baiting that passes for argument above.

Multi-modal mass transportation that enables genuine mobility freedom is crucial. Money does not grow on trees. ST3 is unprecedented in scope and cost, and largely pursues a geometry and system design without (successful) existing precedents.

These are facts. They can't be overcome with storm, drang, und insults. Do you want to wake up November 9th needing to return to the drawing board with sounder geometric principles and little less mega-infrastructural hubris? Or do you want to wake up in 2040, $54 billion poorer and with permanent maintenance needs on a system that still can't fucking get you where you need to go?

That is the only choice being made here.
Sep 22 d.p. commented on Guest Editorial: Voting Yes On Prop 1 Is the Only Way to Get Light Rail Faster.
@8: Don't forget the use of nonsense statistics like "84% of you will be connected to light rail!"

Because apparently, as long as there's a stop anywhere in your municipality or vaguely-defined quadrant, you are "connected". Doesn't matter if that stop is 7 miles away and in the wrong direction and the train doesn't go anywhere you need to go and every other stop is just a parking lot next to a Safeway!

Because that's totally how mass transportation works in the real world! Donchaknow!

That's why our recent subway extension vaulted our ridership from 20,000 round trips to 34,000 round trips, representing a depressingly tiny fraction of the people who move about between southeastern, east-central, and northeastern Seattle on a daily basis!

Nope... Let's all hold hands and pretend that it doesn't matter where or how you design and place the transit. Because evidence-based analysis is for pussies and subways are one-size-fits-all MAGIC!

Now can we pleae have $54 billion for more of our fact-free nonsense? Trust us: We don't know what the hell we're talking about but we're pretty sure we're your only hope!
Sep 15 d.p. commented on Dow Constantine and Dennis Hayes: Self-Driving Cars Are a Distraction.
Also, debating whether the trains will go anywhere useful, versus merely checking boxes off an arbitrary list while being difficult to access and contributing embarrassingly little to mobility, is "a distraction".

Also, questioning whether Sound Transit's modeling can be trusted when it pursues objective worst design practices, yet pledges Seattle will have the 5th-highest rail ridership in the U.S. (ahead of Philly and the entire Bay Area, some of whose trains actually, like, go places), is "a distraction".

Also, discussing whether 54 billion dollars are being well spent is "a distraction".

(The personal attacks that will now come my way for daring to question Dow's facile political framings will not, of course, count as "a distraction".)
Sep 8 d.p. commented on The Morning News: Seattle Needs to Spend Even More on Light Rail, Everett Puts Pressure on Its Poorest Drunks.
Charles is clearly dead set on becoming my personal troll on matters of transit planning versus transit ideologizing -- an arch example of Seattle's boundless ability to misinterpret example in its mindless pursuit of symbolist badge-fashioning rather than useful outcomes.

Vancouver -- a city and region less populous than Seattle -- has managed to construct itself a transit system that attracts and handles over 1 million trips per day. On virtually every metric (city proper and region-wide, commute-share and non-commute usage, non-punitive low-car-lifestyle enablement), Vancouver ranks better than almost any other North American city.

Growing pains may abound in that city (especially in housing), but transportation planning is one of its great successes. And as Charles' own linked article makes clear, most of Vancouver's daily imperfections boil down to money issues on the operational side (including vehicle purchases) rather than to any grand errors of conception or system scope.

There are a few potential narratives that a thinking columnist might glean from Vancouver's current situation:

- One could explore the unsexy geometric details behind Vancouver's successes-thus-far. The conspicuously urban-scaled trains symbiotically routed through genuinely (rather than imaginarily) densifying places within relatively close orbit of the regional core. The careful integration of trains and bus grid that enables truly painless anywhere-to-anywhere trips in the city, and logical commuter connections from further afield. One might even point out that Skytrain's 43 miles of trackage, carrying 400,000 daily rides, amounts to significantly less mileage than Sound Transit is already building in ST2 , which no one expects to prove nearly so useful.

- Or one could focus on those aforementioned growing pains, and point to Vancouver's most notable cautionary example of political meddling that has overrode clear needs. Politics being the only reason that Vancouver's east-west Broadway corridor subway remains unfunded (e.g. "SORRY BUS FULL"), while Coquitlam gets a Skytrain branch of questionable urgency or utility. (First Hill or Central District residents should be able to identify with this, as they scratch their heads over the baffling focus on building trains to Seattle's by-far least dense quadrant, not to mention trains through 30 miles worth of sprawl, boonies, and malt-liquor drinkers in every direction).

- One could even discuss the risks of excessive deference to "private partners" in transit planning, since as the only "capacity problems" on the Canada Line are the direct result of having purchased insufficient train cars, which the private contractor who built and now runs the line has zero incentive to ameliorate. You would think that Charles' political leanings would lead him to pursue this line of questioning, especially since Sound Transit expansion is so inextricable from the design-build work of Parsons Brinckerhoff, the perpetual-conflict-of-interest megacorporation whose every design recommendation (unsurprisingly) involves palatial megastations spread over long distances, with skyrocketing costs that invariably prove less convenient for pedestrian access and bus transfers alike.

- One could even note that, in the broadest sense, Vancouver reminds us that even rich cities have finite funds to allocate to myriad needs, and that even successful transit systems have imperfections.

But no. What narrative does Charles contort himself to wring from Vancouver's example? "More miles of tracks! Infinite miles of tracks! More than the 55 miles under construction for ST2! More than the 110 miles and $54 billion supposed for ST3! Tracks to anywhere and everywhere! Cost is no object!!"

Such a quantity-over-quality obsession should confuse the hell out of anyone who has studied the example of Dallas, a massive metropolis whose 90 miles of sprawling light rail carried barely 2/3 as many passengers in 2015 as the 12-mile Canada Line. And it would certainly conflict with the experience of 104-mile BART, on which the overwhelming majority of trips take place on a mere ~20% of its trackage. In fact, BART's total usage numbers sit within the margin of error of Skytrain's, despite reaching its tentacles across a metropolitan area thrice as populous and with significantly worse traffic, and despite those extra 61 miles worth of tracks that Charles insists must be the key to success.

If ever there were an example of why quality should be privileged over quantity -- and "quality" here means usefulness of access, not "grade separation in highway medians and giant infrastructure for the fuck of it" -- Vancouver is that example. There will be tradeoffs and drawbacks. There always are. But at the least the tradeoff won't be "spending $54 billion and still not being able to go anywhere".
Sep 6 d.p. commented on The Cost of Light Rail Will Be Cheap in the Long Run.
Actually, @2 et al, the Second Avenue Subway is a fantastic comparison, both because:

A) you could build the entire thing, East Harlem to Lower Manhattan, 3 times over for what Sound Transit intends to blow on trains that mostly go absofuckinglutely nowhere; and

B) no one has any idea how or when Phases 2 and 3 of that NYC project will get funded, because billions worth of general maintenance backlogs have accrued over the decades, and because there are other infrastructural priorities demanding attention, and because it turns out that, regardless of the math games that the VC-inflected bubble-mavens like to play in defense of their baffling 130-mile foamer maps, money doesn't actually grow on trees and eventually the cumulative costs of financing and maintenance and the unavoidable efficiency-imperfections of (even infinitely less boondoggly) large public transit systems will eventually come due.

When you go to fill out your November ballot, you can either accept the fatuous premise that rail is somehow an inherent good (no matter how poorly planned) and that identity politics demand you to vote uncritically for any zillion-dollar transit levy; or, you can observe the lived experiences of every place in the world that has an actual functioning transit network, with its concomitant triumphs and imperfections and inevitably accrued auxiliary costs, and wonder who the fuck is going to take a train from Fife to some strip mall in West Issaquah, and then consider -- just consider -- the possibility that Sound Transit's ridiculously ambitious ridership estimates don't hold water and that substandard transit design doesn't become "cheap in the long run" simply because a Parsons Brinckerhoff-funded marketing campaign and a desperate-to-live-in-New York hack at The Stranger tell you so.

And then activate your critical faculties, vote no, and send Sound Transit back to drawing board for transit that might actually be useful for getting places! Which is literally the least that you should be demanding for any dollar figure beginning with a "b".
Aug 17 d.p. commented on Guest Editorial: What Reuven Carlyle Got Wrong in His Critique of ST3.
Oh, please.

Carlyle's expression of frustration is muddled, but the source of his gut hesitation is clear: $54 billion is a gargantuan fuckload of money, and any expenditure so whopping should be properly vetted for efficacy, in light of the fact that money does not grow on trees.

The pro-ST3 camp's facile insistence that trains are an inherent good, no matter where they go, does not remotely qualify as an argument, much less a vetted one.