Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Seattle’s War on Cars Is a War on Drivers

In anticipation of PubliCola’s confab at Liberty Bar on Capitol Hill next Tuesday night (Topic: The War on Cars), one of our panelists, Washington Policy Center’s transportation guru Micheal Ennis, filed this guest editorial.

The Washington Policy Center is the leading conservative think tank in the state.—Eds.

Seattle’s war on cars is a war on drivers, and it wastes taxpayers’ money, hurts the regional economy and makes traffic congestion worse.

For many years, Seattle officials have tried to force people out of their cars by replacing auto lanes with bus and bicycle-only restrictions, increasing parking taxes and fees, or forcing car-free weekends in certain neighborhoods.

Motorists are largely unorganized, with very few opportunities to speak collectively, and a large number of daily drivers do not live within the city. Seattle’s leaders attack drivers with strategies applied in small doses, so as to appease their liberal base without causing business organizations or port officials to boil over.

The rest of us have generally accepted Seattle’s anti-driver policies as the cost of doing business in a big city, and used them as punch lines at parties or whenever relatives from out-of-town would visit.

Recently, however, Seattle’s discontent with people who drive is reaching beyond the central city and influencing regional decisions that further reduce mobility and harm the economy.

The plan to replace the 520 floating bridge, though needed, does not add any new general-purpose lanes to the already-congested configuration that exists today. Seattle Mayor McGinn even suggests restricting the two new HOV lanes to transit only, which would add an additional 20,000 cars per day to the mainlines and make traffic congestion even worse.

The leading Viaduct replacement plan actually reduces the number of existing automobile lanes from six to four, which guarantees more traffic snarls in Seattle and on Interstate-5. Mayor Mike McGinn opposes even four lanes and suggests not replacing the highway at all, which again would worsen traffic congestion.

Sound Transit officials plan to remove the reversible center lanes across the I-90 bridge, which a state study shows will increase traffic congestion.

This means the supply of general lanes that connect to the largest employment hub in the state will decrease in the next twenty years, despite regional population increases of more than one million new residents.

In a recent study released by a national company that uses travel and speed data from its GPS customers to measure traffic, Seattle ranks number one as the most congested city in America.

This is remarkable when you consider that Seattle is only the twenty-third largest U.S. city in terms of population.

I once asked the director of the Seattle Department of Transportation his reaction to his city’s ranking as the most congested in America, and what he plans to do about it.

His response was not about fixing choke points, the lack of lane continuity on I-5 or installing intelligent transportation systems. He didn’t say anything about infrastructure improvements, deficient bridges or signal timing. He ignored freight mobility, bottlenecks on I-90, the Port of Seattle and the growing need for more freight rail capacity.

Instead, his answer was simple: More public transit.

Public transportation is important and serves a vital role in highly dense urban areas like downtown Seattle. But transit is expensive and it does not work for the majority of people.

The Puget Sound Regional Council just released its long-range plan, Transportation 2040. The plan focuses heavily on expanding mass transit and would spend nearly $200 billion over the next 30 years. Yet the share of people actually using mass transit would only rise from three percent today, to five percent in 2040. Light rail, which consumes the bulk of the money, would only carry one percent of all people.

Other studies now show traffic congestion in the Puget Sound region will double, reaching the levels of present day Los Angeles, within twenty years.

This should concern every working mom and dad who worries about being home in time for dinner, for Boeing executives who need to move airplane parts around the region, and for the freight industry that needs to get goods to market.

The economic engine that runs not only the Puget Sound region but also the entire state, is Seattle, and what happens in that urban center affects us all. Officials seem more worried about bicycles, street cars and not filling potholes than dealing with the actual needs of a super-regional city. From the closure of the South Park Bridge to higher traffic congestion to crumbling streets, Seattle’s war on drivers is unpopular, creates risk and harms the economy.

Michael Ennis is Director of WPC’s Center for Transportation. Before joining Washington Policy Center, he worked for the Washington State Senate and House of Representatives and was formerly a staff assistant for U.S. Senator Slade Gorton.


  • Anc

    “In a recent study released by a national company that uses travel and speed data from its GPS customers to measure traffic, Seattle ranks number one as the most congested city in America.”

    The faulty methodology of this study was already pointed out in this piece and comments:

    http://publicola.com/2011/01/24/does-seattle-have-the-10th-worst-congestion-in-the-nation-depends-on-how-you-measure-it/

    “This is remarkable when you consider that Seattle is only the twenty-third largest U.S. city in terms of population.”

    More a reflection of historical/political boundaries, by rankings of Metro areas (Metropolitan Statistical Areas), we’re 13th. With the 8th largest transit system.

  • Diogenes

    Here’s a real war on drivers: do what London did, and impose an annual fee to drive a vehicle in the city center (waived for actual city center residents) – a remedy for congestion and/or city financial troubles. BTW, most of the roads mentioned by Ennis aren’t the city’s responsibility.

  • imanimr

    multimodal is not a word in a SOV proponent’s vocabulary.

  • imanimr

    multimodal is not a word in a SOV proponent’s vocabulary.

  • The Feudal Nobility

    Yes, let’s remedy congestion by making the masses pay tolls at every turn, it worked before!

  • The Feudal Nobility

    Yes, let’s remedy congestion by making the masses pay tolls at every turn, it worked before!

  • Rich

    And see how Publicola, by using the “war on cars” meme as the title of the “debate”, gives Ennis just the headline he wants. Way to go Publicola. You’re about as “fair and balanced” as those other guys who use that slogan.

  • hi speed where?

    Given that Seattle council supports DBT they are hardly into a war on drivers.

    Hey, OBama said 80% served by high speed rail is the goal, I guess we’ll build the DBT for autos, THEN build ANOTHER DBT for our high speed rail.

    Or else put it in Bellevue?

    Where’s it gonna go?

  • Anonymous

    All of those millions of people a year that use public transportation should just get cars. GEEZ. I mean come on. Learn to drive people. Nevermind not being able to afford a car or being able to drive due to medical problems. Nevermind those Micrsoft executives pushing for more employees to telecommute.

    Buy 7 cars and drive 1 different one each day of the week. Also, encourage all people to just park and drive in bike lanes and hell on sidewalks for that matter. Walking is a thing of the past. I mean come on people, we have asses for a reason. Oh, yes and always block the buses on third avenue, and highway stops. Crowd them out and drive drive drive!

  • Bruce Gray

    Sound Transit’s plans for I-90 include moving the center HOV lanes to the outside roadways (without taking away GP lanes). And adding trains to the center lanes, increasing the overall people-moving capacity of the facility. Here’s a report with an illustration that may help. http://projects.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/projects/eastlink/eastLink_Truck_0109.pdf

  • voter

    I’ll grant Ennis a point that he distorts into hyperbole that some balance is being put into the system (although hardly one that discriminates against drivers), but overall our transport network is still heavily biased towards subsidizing drivers. It’s op-eds from “free market think tanks” that so clearly indicate a bias toward a certain type of subsidy that is baffling to me.

    That being said, I can’t help but being a little about Publicola putting up inflammatory slogans and inviting guys like Ennis to talk about drivers as victims (yeah, AAA is not an organizing force or a potent lobbying group for funding? Give me a break.), is intellectually lazy but definitely an easy way to get a rise out of your readership base.

    Yawn.

  • TRenegade

    “Public transportation is important and serves a vital role in highly dense urban areas like downtown Seattle. But transit is expensive and it does not work for the majority of people.”

    >>2nd sentence – we should not be designing infrastruture that suits the way things are, we should fund projects that pull humanity and forward and can help shape healthier, livelier futures for ourselves. please, michael, wake up to the fact that the status quo is not, ipso facto, the way things should stay.

  • Anonymous

    You are so funny.

    Seriously though, even if Bellevue residents were aware of the massive benefits of HSR (go to the country which birthed the words that form the name of your city) (you can move freight too), why build it in B-town? If people want to go to a shopping mall they can just go to Westlake. People use HSR to get ot places that matter.

  • voter

    Ugh, missing word in the second paragraph is cynical:
    That being said, I can’t help but being a little cynical about Publicola putting up inflammatory slogans and inviting guys like Ennis to talk about drivers as victims (yeah, AAA is not an organizing force or a potent lobbying group for funding? Give me a break.), is intellectually lazy but definitely an easy way to get a rise out of your readership base.

  • Anonymous

    “Seattle’s war on drivers” (in reality it’s support for biblicists) is not unpopular it is very popular. The South Park Bridge is a perfect example. I think that a sizable portion of South Park residents would be fine with a pedestrian bridge that allows bicycles and scooters, but does not allow cars or trucks.

    I own a car, but I am looking forward to the day when riding a bicycle and/or taking public transportation is the safe, convenient and affordable and I can get rid of my car once and for all.

  • Andy

    “Motorists are largely unorganized”

    What about the AAA? I am always a AAA member when I check into a hotel!

  • Anonymous

    “The plan to replace the 520 floating bridge, though needed, does not add any new general-purpose lanes to the already-congested configuration that exists today.”

    The reasoning for replacing 520 is safety, not capacity. Everyone knows that. If you build an 8-lane highway that dumps a majority of its traffic on I-5 or I-405, you’re just creating a choke-point somewhere else. Besides, NIMBYs on both sides of the lake would freak the F out at the idea of an 8-lane highway running through their neighborhoods.

    “Sound Transit officials plan to remove the reversible center lanes across the I-90 bridge, which a state study shows will increase traffic congestion.”

    “Remove” is absolutely the wrong word here. Those lanes are being allocated for light rail, which if memory serves, was part of the original conditions on which those reversible express lanes would be built – that they would one day be used for mass transit should the need for it arise. Also, you’re conveniently omitting the fact that WSDOT has been adding HOV lanes to each side of I-90 (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/i90/twowaytransit/).

    “Public transportation is important and serves a vital role in highly dense urban areas like downtown Seattle. But transit is expensive and it does not work for the majority of people.”

    Do you think people just ride transit from one end of Downtown Seattle to the other? They don’t. They take transit from residential areas to job centers, which for better or worse now includes several cities on the Eastside. It no longer makes sense to think of Seattle as a sole job center surrounded by suburbs. We have to think regionally, especially if we’re going to accomodate our ever-growing population.

    Look, any responsible urban planner or transportation engineer worth their salt will tell you that you can’t build your way out of congestion. It’s called induced demand, and a “transportation guru” should know what it means. You yourself pointed to Los Angeles as the looming boogeyman we’ll be facing if we don’t increase SOV capacity, when in reality, LA is proof that building more highways doesn’t solve the underlying problem. The goal needs to be getting cars off the road, and the best way to do that is to give them options. It’s not a war on drivers or even a war on cars; get me out of my car 5 days a week and it’ll only make your commute that much easier.

  • Jay

    Michael Ennis lives in Enumclaw, why should he have any say on what happens in Seattle? He’s about as far removed from the daily lives of Seattlelites as a person could be. And drivers have been waging a war on just about ever other form of mobility for the past 60 years, turn-about is fair play. Sometimes I think people who believe traffic is bad in Seattle or find it hard to get around Seattle by car have never been to another city in their live’s. For the most part, the greater Seattle area is a breeze to get around by car, but getting around any other way can be a real nightmare. I say this as the owner of three cars, I fully support Seattle’s so-called “War on Cars” if that’s what it takes to make improvements in non-auto mobility.

  • Anonymous

    don’t they teach you to cite sources at a think tank?

  • Redfox

    Mr. Ennis, your stance as explained in this editorial is based on emotions and not logic. The language you choose – words like war, attack, appease, liberal (without the concomitant use of ‘conservative’) are trigger words designed, I suspect, to piss people off and raise indignation, rather than present a reasoned and logical argument for a transportation policy. This is a missed opportunity.

    Framing a debate defines the terms. Who the heck created this ‘war on cars’ thing? It’s simplistic and nonsensical. So is the concept ‘war on drivers’. I am a driver, with a car. I am not my car. Nor am I solely a driver – I use many forms of transport, and many do, including light rail, private taxi, busses, and walking. As a driver, I want better mass transit options, as well as safer streets for pedestrians. I benefit as a driver when there are options for all.

    Is this really the best you can offer to add to the important conversation about transportation?

  • Redfox

    Mr. Ennis, your stance as explained in this editorial is based on emotions and not logic. The language you choose – words like war, attack, appease, liberal (without the concomitant use of ‘conservative’) are trigger words designed, I suspect, to piss people off and raise indignation, rather than present a reasoned and logical argument for a transportation policy. This is a missed opportunity.

    Framing a debate defines the terms. Who the heck created this ‘war on cars’ thing? It’s simplistic and nonsensical. So is the concept ‘war on drivers’. I am a driver, with a car. I am not my car. Nor am I solely a driver – I use many forms of transport, and many do, including light rail, private taxi, busses, and walking. As a driver, I want better mass transit options, as well as safer streets for pedestrians. I benefit as a driver when there are options for all.

    Is this really the best you can offer to add to the important conversation about transportation?

  • Jakers

    I like that idea as long as KC and surrounding cities reciprocate. BTW, the way that Seattle talks about those roads sure makes it sound like they are its responsibility.

  • bryanp

    I wish Publicola was above this type of manufactured controversy. Have you guys heard about the war on rich white guys?

  • Jay

    “Have you guys heard about the war on rich white guys?”

    If you ask anyone at the WPC, that would be women’s suffrage and the Emacipation Proclamation.

  • Trevor

    Nice rant but McGinn is the only even partially anti-car leader the city has had, and he’s pretty weak right now. None of the traffic gridlock the WPC bemoans is an effect of anti-car policies. It’s an effect of pro-car, pro-developer policies that let developers make off like bandits flipping farmland and forests into burbs while leaving government to figure out how to keep the resulting sprawl from exacerbating traffic and pollution problems. Free market strikes again!

  • Jay

    “Yet the share of people actually using mass transit would only rise from three percent today, to five percent in 2040. Light rail, which consumes the bulk of the money, would only carry one percent of all people.”

    You’re confusing “trips” with “people.” Just because transit may only account for 5% of all trips in the region does not mean that only 5% of the people in the region use transit. I can make 4 car trips and 1 transit trip in one day, meaning 80% of my trips were by car, but 100% of me still used transit.

  • Mr. X

    Drivers are people – which makes this a war on people (and a solid majority of Seattle voters are people who drive).

  • Mr. X

    I’m no fan of Ennis, and his analysis may well be wrong, but this post is pure sophistry.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    My war on hyperbole.
    Ennis, your declarations are tired.
    Use some facts, like where mass transit doesn’t go, like someplace other than downtown anytown, and how the most expensive and inflexible options are too often selected.

    The Seattle cconsultant study mentioned adding more rapid ride buses around Seattle as part of the AWV traffic mitigation. He want pushing trains and trolleys.
    Mention practical solutions in your ramblings.

    Thanks.

  • Anonymous

    Doesn’t Disqus give you an “edit” function?

  • Mr. X

    The blog post you cite didn’t debunk the methodology of this study at all- it merely asserted that since all of their data hadn’t been published it must have been wrong since the poster didn’t agree with their conclusions.

    I suppose I should expect no less (or more) from someone who made a concerted effort to argue that it really doesn’t rain in Seattle, either.

    PS – Discus REALLY sucks.

  • Barleywine

    I like your stuff, even when it’s over the top.

    But B-town is Burien.

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Ennis, your column makes it abundantly clear that you and the Washington Policy Center care little about ensuring that our state and local public policies promote better transportation (that is: cheaper, less polluting and more convenient) choices. Rather, every word you’ve written is designed to keep the status quo transportation (that is: expensive, dirty and gridlock-prone) systems in place. How very unimaginative and backward-looking that is.

  • Roues-71315

    You can have 4 lanes on each outer span and still use the center span for buses and van/car pools, and have greater capacity than with ST’s plan to convert the center span to light rail. You do not have to convert the center span to light rail in order to have 4 traffic lanes on each outer span.

    But you knew this, didn’t you? You just chose not to mention it.

  • Barleywine

    I’ve heard this before, and assumed it was for people logged in to an approved provider.
    But you don’t seem to be.
    Is there an edit function for annonymous posters?

    I’ve never seen it, but if it exists please let us know how to use it.
    Where is it? How do I find it?

    I’d like to edit 80% of my comments, but I don’t know how.

  • Grover

    Sound Transit’s Link light rail and Sounder trains are extremely expensive ways of moving people. Stupidly expensive. And, compared to motor vehicles, very INconvenient.

  • Anonymous

    When I put posts up via Disqus, I can always go back and “edit” up to removing the entire content. (A nice feature.) The “edit” is where “like” button appears for posts by all others. If you don’t see that, it must be a function of how you log in/post. Hey, Publicola, got an answer for him (her?)?

  • Barleywine

    I meant “anonymous.” (and it’s “him”)
    I don’t know what “via Disqus” means.

    I go to Publicola (dot com). I click on an article.
    If I wish to comment, I do that and Post As. I type my email address, then my name (over the pre-provided, pre@ name, because that contains my real name. And the PubliCola privacy policy recommends not using your real name but choosing an online user name.)

    But “Edit?” Never seen it.
    I wish I could have edited mine and quite a few others over the many, many months. On the other hand, those others can Suck My Dick.

    Unless that would cause some kind of controversy.
    I never wanted that.

  • Jay

    Well I think it’s an important point to make. Mr. Ennis is taking data on total transit trips and equating it with the percentage of people who use transit. The two are not equal and one can not be deduced from the other. He’s just hoping that no one will notice his little tricks.

    He also incorrectly states that the Transportation 2040 plan calls for $200 billion in transit spending. The entire Transportation 2040 plan includes $189 billion in spending over 30 years, and that’s for all modes; highways, ferries, city streets, freight rail, transit and non-motorized. If this guy can’t even fact-check his own editorial what business does he have being involved in setting public policy?

  • Jay

    Well I think it’s an important point to make. Mr. Ennis is taking data on total transit trips and equating it with the percentage of people who use transit. The two are not equal and one can not be deduced from the other. He’s just hoping that no one will notice his little tricks.

    He also incorrectly states that the Transportation 2040 plan calls for $200 billion in transit spending. The entire Transportation 2040 plan includes $189 billion in spending over 30 years, and that’s for all modes; highways, ferries, city streets, freight rail, transit and non-motorized. If this guy can’t even fact-check his own editorial what business does he have being involved in setting public policy?

  • gaia242

    Put bike lanes on residential streets, NOT arterials. This makes it a zero sum game and needlessly generates much animosity. Residential streets are idea for the generally slower pace of 2 wheeled transport, ‘calming’ side streets. Plus most neighborhood residence have some gripes about cars cutting thru their streets to avoid cluttered arterials. btw Mikey Ennis is going to get eaten alive at this townhall, and rightly so. There are alternatives to being either ALL solo car drivers all the time, and the current regimes policy of stickin to the car.

  • Discerning Reader

    I realize that giving air to the other side is part of being ‘balanced’ but the Washington Policy Center is a known source of completely fabricated garbage and balance or not, I suggest you think about being a bit more selective about the people and content you give air to. Big thumbs down on WPC, this author, and the article.

  • Guest

    Give that scumbag a UFC contract and keep him out of my morning coffee. He can go work for Fox or some other disreputable, malignant entity bent on completely screwing over our state and the people.

  • Gordian

    Motorists don’t need to be organized – they have an entire cultural, financial, and governmental system that is oriented towards them. Also, in breaking news, right handed white males haven’t organized either.

  • deeper BT?

    DBT – war on cars?

    WTF.

    Where are we going to put our high speed train to Seattle, is it going to go in yet a deeper bore tunnel under the DBT?

    Hello? State? County? City? ST? Metro? Anyone planning this?

    Where’s it gonna go, or are we going to just not have one?

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    There is mass transit, and there is personal transit.

    The war is on personal transit.

    Personal transit is bikes and cars and taxis.

    Mass transit is rail and buses.

  • Anonymous

    Well Roues-71315, as soon as drivers start paying their way, rather than relying on general tax revenues to subsidize them, you can make such comparisons – until then, please remember this:

    “In reality, user fees pay only about half percent of highway costs, down 10 percent in the past decade. The reason for this gap is that because state and federal gas taxes haven’t grown at the rate of inflation, the total amount of gas taxes collected shrunk 32 percent between 1998 and 2009.”

    More: http://publicola.com/2011/01/04/all-together-now-roads-do-not-pay-for-themselves/

  • Anonymous

    Well Roues-71315, as soon as drivers start paying their way, rather than relying on general tax revenues to subsidize them, you can make such comparisons – until then, please remember this:

    “In reality, user fees pay only about half percent of highway costs, down 10 percent in the past decade. The reason for this gap is that because state and federal gas taxes haven’t grown at the rate of inflation, the total amount of gas taxes collected shrunk 32 percent between 1998 and 2009.”

    More: http://publicola.com/2011/01/04/all-together-now-roads-do-not-pay-for-themselves/

  • Deanruffner

    How can you criticize government actions and then turn around and the smear “the free market” ?All of these previously stated economic dislocations occured because of actions of the state.

    To borrow a phrase, “pick a lane”

  • Bruce Gray

    Maybe you could load up the center lanes of I-90 nose to tail with buses. But then where do those buses go when they get to either side of the lake? Stuck in traffic.

    And then you end up paying more in operating costs for the buses/drivers/maintenance than you do for light rail. One bus = 60+- people per driver. One four-car train = 800+- people per driver.

  • LWC

    McGinn “…suggests not replacing the highway at all”
    A straw-man argument if there ever was one.

  • where stuff is

    what if you live on an arterial? what if you shop, eat or work or go to school on an arterial (likely!) does that mean you shouldn’t bike there?

  • where stuff is

    what if you live on an arterial? what if you shop, eat or work or go to school on an arterial (likely!) does that mean you shouldn’t bike there?

  • Roues

    Wrong on all counts. ST is planning on running only 3-car trains every 7 minutes or so across the I-90 bridge. You could have the same capacity with just 40 buses per hour. That is obviously not “nose-to-tail” buses as per your ignorant comment. There are 50 buses per hour crossing the I-90 bridge during peak hours right now, along with thousands of cars per hour.

    Buses can go many different directions on either side of the lake vs only one direction per side for light rail, after which many light rail riders would have to transfer to a bus to get to where they actually want to go.

    Operating cost per boarding is about twice as much on Central Link as it was on the buses that Link replaced, so your claim there is also ignorant.

    In short, you have no idea what you are writing about.

  • Grover

    That is absolutely not true in WA state, which has about the highest gas tax in the country, and very high sales taxes also.

    Since sales tax on new and used vehicles is about 20% of all sales tax revenue, the amount of sales tax paid by drivers, not only on their vehicles, but also on parts, service, repairs, etc., combined with license fees, registration fees, MVET, et al, is more than the amount spent on roads in our state. And don’t forget all the revenues cities in WA get from parking — about $70 million per year in Seattle alone.

    In short, drivers pay a huge amount of “general taxes” (sales tax in WA) on their transportation spending, while transit users pay ZERO taxes on their transportation spending.

    It is transit users who are receiving huge tax subsidise on their transportation — not drivers, who pay taxes every time they buy a car, gasoline, tires, oil change, car stereo, license, battery……….

    When you pay bus fare or buy an ORCA pass, you pay ZERO tax into the general funds. Right?

  • Roues

    Yes.

  • Jay

    The 1976 MOA governing the construction of the I-90 bridge states that the bridge can only have 8 lanes. It also reserved the center lanes for conversion to rail. Sound Transit is just carrying out the plans that have been in place for over 3 decades.

  • Jay

    Not going by Grover any more, Norman? No one’s fooled by your multiple pseudonyms because your aguments are always the same.

  • Roues-71315

    I-90 is going to have 10 traffic lanes before the center lane is converted to light rail. No reason why they can’t just leave the center lanes as traffic lanes. The MOA would not prevent that. Plans for light rail over the I-90 bridge are an incredibly stupid waste of money and capacity. Plans can always be changed, especially to avoid a really stupid mistake.

  • Roues-71315

    Don’t want to reply to my arguments, eh? Don’t blame you. My arguments are accurate. Your comment is trivial.

  • Anonymous

    40 buses? That is insane. As it is, during peak hours buses (550) run every ten minutes, and 15 off peak. This means that there are an average of 6 – 4 buses on the route in each direction every hour.

    The DSTT could not take this amount of capacity, and neither could I-90. Bellevue sure as hell could never handle that capacity anywhere on city streets. I know this from experience. It took me 45 minutes from University Street Station to NE 4th & Bellevue Way. What is the due to? Congestion is one, and entitled SOV’s is another. There have been times that the 550 has sat at the S. Bellevue P&R trying to merge onto Bellevue Way for 5 minutes before someone lets the bus in.

    I am sure Bellevue residents would be much more pissed about 40 buses an hour than efficient, quiet, clean, and frequent light rail.

  • Anonymous

    wrong.

  • Anonymous

    wrong.

  • Anonymous

    wrong.

  • Anonymous

    just live in the suburbs. Then you can build a highway to where you want to go. Knock down entire neighborhoods for your convenience. So. much. easier.

  • Anc

    Did you actually read the post by Erica? Not only are they not releasing all the data, their very definition of ‘most congested’ is extremely flawed.

    Say in city X it takes you 20 minutes to go a mile.

    In city Y that same mile might only take you 15 minutes. However in city Y everything is so spread out that the average person has to drive twice as far each day than the average person in city X. According this study city X has the worse traffic.

  • Johns

    I don’t think it’s an either/or situation. Folks who ride on arterials generally are more experienced/comfortable vehicular cyclists. There are a tremendous number of Seattle residents who would ride more if they felt safer, either through (expensive, hard-to-find) dedicated right-of-way, or by providing bike boulevards as gaia242 is suggesting, on parallel residential streets. There’s nothing that stops you from switching over to the arterial when you get to your destination. The point is that we need to INCREASE the number of cyclists for all trips, for safety and for cycling to avoid the “but no one does that” meme.

  • DannyK

    I think you guys need a Fox-style “War on Cars” logo with a red line through an SUV. And maybe an American flag, and a weeping Statue of Liberty. Hold on, that’s the Onion.

  • http://pstransitoperators.wordpress.com/ Jeff Welch

    It’s nice that the mentally incompetent are allowed to write articles for Publicola, too.

  • ivan

    Who’s “we?”

  • Roues-71315

    The DSTT used to handle 90 buses per hour in each direction during peak hours. That has already been done. The capacity of the DSTT is about 120 buses per hour in each direction. However, not every bus crossing the I-90 bridge has to use the DSTT — they can go in many different directions on many different routes, unlike lite rail.

    There is more than one route which crosses the I-90 floating bridge. All routes combined add up to about 50 buses per hour in each direction over the I-90 floating bridge between 4:30 and 5:30 pm each weekday.

    Are you disputing this?

  • Roues-71315

    The DSTT used to handle 90 buses per hour in each direction during peak hours. That has already been done. The capacity of the DSTT is about 120 buses per hour in each direction. However, not every bus crossing the I-90 bridge has to use the DSTT — they can go in many different directions on many different routes, unlike lite rail.

    There is more than one route which crosses the I-90 floating bridge. All routes combined add up to about 50 buses per hour in each direction over the I-90 floating bridge between 4:30 and 5:30 pm each weekday.

    Are you disputing this?

  • Roues-71315

    Wow. Great argument, oiseaux!

  • Jay

    From the 1976 MOA on the construction of I-90;

    “NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual and reciprocal benefits accruing to each of the parties hereto, it is hereby agreed as follows: 1. The Cities of Seattle, Mercer Island and Bellevue; King County: Metro and the Commission support the construction of a facility which will accommodate no more than eight motor vehicle lanes…”

  • Bruce Gray

    Here’s a few links for those interested in the studies and planning that led to putting rail on I-90. http://ow.ly/3KGcu (See the “E” papers), http://ow.ly/3KFIG, http://ow.ly/3KFJl.

    And here’s why these tired arguments are moot. Voters settled this issue in 2008.
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lightrailinitiative/2008357499_soundtransit06m.html

  • Jay

    Your arguments have been de-bunked so many times on so many websites by so many people that they’re not even worth replying to anymore, Norman. Or Grover or Copernicus or whoever you’re going by today.

  • Grover

    You don’t even understand the definition of “congestion.” Erica’s post was just stupid. The study had it correct.

  • Ty

    Micheal Ennis is an uninformed tool, study finds.

  • Mr. X

    I read her post – and it doesn’t change the fact that the City of Seattle has some of the worst street congestion in the country.

    And I’m sure my friend who has to commute from West Seattle to Tacoma (because that’s where she has a job – she’d love to work in the City if she could find another one) agrees that Seattle-area traffic sucks plenty bad, too.

  • rac

    Riiight, because the “Free Market” can do no wrong.

  • blow your nose

    there is no standard definition of congestion.

  • Grover

    The fact that those studies were all done by Sound Transit is, by itself, enough to render them worthless. They assume higher frequency, longer trains, and higher capacity per lite rail car than ST is actually planning to build.

    Remember, Sound Transit is the agency that, in 2000, said that by 2006 Central Link would be carrying at least 105,000 people per day. It is 2011, and Link is carrying about 22,000 people per day.

    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/archive/?date=20000211&slug=4004270

    This issue has not been settled, no matter how much you would like to try to convince the public that it is.

  • Grover

    It’s already been constructed, and it WILL accomodate more than 8 motor vehicle lanes. So, I guess that has already been ignored.

  • Grover

    Jay: My arguments have never been debunked. Because they are true. Try to tell us what I have written that is not true. You don’t even attempt that, do you?

  • Jay

    No, it will have 8 lanes + light rail. Regardless of what you think or want it to be.

  • Jay

    No, it will have 8 lanes + light rail. Regardless of what you think or want it to be.

  • Jay

    I can’t believe you took the time to change the name on all of your comments back to Grover. You are one hard-core troll.

  • Grover
  • Grover

    No, it will have 10 traffic lanes first — before the center lanes are converted to light rail. The outer spans will be converted to 4 lanes each first, while the center spans are converted to light rail.

  • voter

    We=People that actually live in the City, as opposed to people who live on Vashon.

  • Grover

    I didn’t change the name on anything. I take no responsibility for anything this screwed-up publicola comment system does. I just try to get it to put up my posts, and not freeze my computer. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/RJIF4IEXRI2OP4PM4A5PDE3MWY Philip

    I got to say troll or not you have to have a better argument then just calling him a troll and saying his information is factless when you provide nothing yourself

  • Paul

    This douche nozzle doesn’t even propose a fucking solution. So what is the solution? More roads?

    Studies find that roads fill up with cars, while rail and mass transit fills up with people.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/RJIF4IEXRI2OP4PM4A5PDE3MWY Philip

    what is with all this anger progressives?

  • Jay

    “No, it will have 10 traffic lanes first — before the center lanes are converted to light rail.”

    How can you know that when the design of the bridge hasn’t even been completed yet? You have no idea how they plan on handling the conversion of the bridge span.

  • Anonymous

    Well Roues, your back o’ the napkin tally left out a few little expenses to keep all that cheap oil and gas and rubber available to you…like both Iraq wars (in human lives and budget outlays), the billions spent over the decades for U.S. support of various merchants of death in the Middle East to keep the oil flowing, and yet more billions in economic losses due to oil spills…you know, a few billion here, a few billion there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money!

  • Anonymous

    Good one on externalities. On that thought, see
    http://www.postcarbon.org/new-site-files/Reports/Searching_for_a_Miracle_web10nov09.pdf
    SEARCHING FOR A MIRACLE
    Net Energy Limits and the Fate of Industrial Society

    Alslo, what is “Roues” reference?

  • Plot_to_overrun

    What a moron.

  • Anonymous

    @anotherneighborhoodactivist: “Grover” originally posted his comment as “Roues-71315″, then as “Roues”, and now seems to have gone back to change to “Grover”.

  • Mr. X

    Cars contain people.

  • Anonymous

    As always, Grover, you ignore the $600m/year sales tax exemption gasoline purchases get in this state.

    Also, why should sales tax derived from car sales be spent on roads? Are sales taxes on hammers dedicated to hammer-related spending? If I choose not to buy a car, does that money simply evaporate so that it can’t be spent on anything else?

  • Doc Johnson

    “I think that a sizable portion of South Park residents would be fine with a pedestrian bridge that allows bicycles and scooters, but does not allow cars or trucks.”

    You do? Based on what? Do you live or work there?

  • Hoover0501

    Oh please. Why is everything a “war on…” I’m not buying it and resent the insult to our collective intelligence. There was an America before cars. There was a Seattle before I5. The future will include more inclusive than what dominates now. There’s no reason to fear that.

  • Hoover0501

    Oh please. Why is everything a “war on…” I’m not buying it and resent the insult to our collective intelligence. There was an America before cars. There was a Seattle before I5. The future will include more inclusive than what dominates now. There’s no reason to fear that.

  • Hoover0501

    Oh please. Why is everything a “war on…” I’m not buying it and resent the insult to our collective intelligence. There was an America before cars. There was a Seattle before I5. The future will include more inclusive than what dominates now. There’s no reason to fear that.

  • Anonymous

    Any 3-dimensional study of streets and highways reveals the space itself, is very underutilized. Perhaps 2% of the space is actually occupied by a vehicle. When people get sick of congestion, they can start examining why we have standard lanes 10 to 12 feet wide, 16 feet high when 80% of the vehicles are single occupany cars. If I were governor, I would install steel goalposts on one lane in each direction, dividing it into two lanes 5feet wide and 5 feet high. If your vehicle fits thru, you’re allowed to drive these lanes.Within 1 year there would be an explosion of innovation like never before.

  • http://www.weddingfavourskingdom.co.uk/ Annegwells

    There are no bad cars, only bad drivers!

  • http://www.dinnerwarecenter.com/ Martincspencer

    I like the way how the government is responding to traffic problems scientifically.

  • http://twitter.com/driversauto Drivers Auto Network

    Its a brand new group just started on Facebook: Drivers Automobile Network (DAN) a grassroots place for drivers to have a voice. AAA and other organizations obviously aren’t able to get out and make the case. Its time for us drivers to start working to reduce traffic, fix potholes, and keep gas prices lower.

  • Ed

    Gee since Enumclaw is in King County as is Seattle, Mike Ennis pays taxes and has every right to have a say in what goes on in Seattle. The anti-auto and anti-mobility people like Jay ought to be the first to be mandated to ride any of the public transit systems to get to and from their destinations. Put their bs where their mouth is and see what it’s like to deal with the mess our leaders have put us and our economy in. That alone will open up the roads for commuters and commerce which will raise our economic woes before we all turn out the lights.

  • Anonymous

    Enumclaw residents do not pay the same taxes or rates as Seattle dwellers. Being anti-auto is not the same as anti-mobility. Our leaders have not ‘put us’ in this mess any more than we have done it to ourselves (by constantly voting for no-tax Eyman BS and not voting for real tax reform like I-1098). (Not to speak of the inevitability of Peak Everything…) If folks like Jay had ‘transportation choices’ many would indeed get on the bus/rail/bike. I suggest you should put your brain where your fingers are before you post.