Guess Who Likes the South Lake Union Trolley

Well, now I can see the parallels between Freeman/Eyman and opposition to Prop 1 now: you hate a certain mode or investment so you’ll attack the whole thing. Eyman latching on to Freeman to kill transit in whatever way possible. Then again, opposing the only method of funding left after Eyman gutted our funding mechanisms is pretty much handing Eyman a massive win.

Does John Fox actually do anything positive or does he just run around looking angry and opposing things?  

There is a difference between owning a car and owning a working car. Unfortunately when you own non-working cheaply purchased cars, they are not working AND you pay to register cars more often.

What is the Seattle Displacement Coalition?  Does this Coalition have members or is it just John Fox?  Seriously, I have no idea and their website is a mess.

Wow, that’s a lot of pro-Prop 1 essays in only two days. Your friends at Streets for All call and ask you guys for some PR help?

Funny how the numbers “were” artificially low according to a 2011 when numbers are higher than predicted.  I recall them being characterized as “overly optimistic” back then.  If big employers move into the neighborhood after the Streetcar was built, and say that the Streetcar was part of the reason they moved there, why is it so hard to just admit that it worked?

PS.  Don’t ever give John Fox credit for “noting” something. Especially if he’s “noting” factually inaccurate, baseless assertions. You know how you can tell when he’s doing that? His lips are moving. Seriously, though, I would love to see this edited. Try “claims,” “asserts,” or, as Goldy might say, “spews.”

The S.L.U.T.:
 
“According to the city, city hall still owes an unanticipated $8.65 million in outstanding capital and operating debt that it was never supposed to pay. There’s a provision in the upcoming city budget to extend the loan. Meanwhile, the city has to cover 25 percent of ongoing operating costs (about $2.5 million) and King County Metro covers 75 percent, for which we already gave up 16,800 bus hours in Seattle.

“Ridership, 1,800 weekday boardings on average in 2010, is actually up 15 percent over 2009, and is exceeding initial projections—which were, admittedly, artificially low. And the numbers certainly don’t compare to a comparable in-city bus line, between 6,000 and 14,000 a day.”

And this stupidly expensive streetcar helps poor people how? 

There are a lot of poor people who need to travel between the South Lake Union Park and Westlake Center all the time?

Funny, how you read this as a pro prop-1 essay. Check out the comments right below quoting back our reporting on the lousy numbers for the streetcar, which was Sharon Lee’s whole point.

I guess people see what they want to see. You see a conspiracy. Not much I can do.

Typical of people who have no argument on the subject — they just make personal attacks on their opponents. 

Again, we have Edmond’s resident Tim Harris telling us Seattlites what to do with our money and where we should spend it for the benefit of his constituents.

It’s basically just John Fox. He’s an old school low income advocate who never really meshed into the whole neo-bourgeois progressive network up here. Hence no shiny website but lots of interviews in traditional media.

It’s actually been scientifically proven that everything which comes out of John Fox’s mouth is garbage; and moreover that anything he despises is almost certainly good for the city.

Answer the question please

And many of his constituents work for the city of Seattle.  Hmmmm

Josh, there’s nothing lousy about the numbers. Have you ridden during rush hour? Its packed.

The Seattle PI calls it “a better performer than Metro’s Route 70 between Fairview and Eastlake
and the University District, according to the city. On average, the
streetcar serves more riders per revenue hour than Metro’s entire motor
bus fleet.”Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/transportation/article/City-gets-65K-for-more-streetcar-service-1385645.php#ixzz1ZrJPAxbH

In kind contribution of the day.

No I see a trend of you guys coming out all of a sudden with several posts on all “surprising new supporters” of Prop 1. These people’s support is new nor is it surprising and these posts read like endorsement lists from the Streets for All people. Then there’s the “oh and John Fox doesn’t like it” posts to balance it out.
You’ve also yet to do a real piece about the liquidity of Prop 1′s revenue and instead just make broad declarations that Prop 1 with do this and do that where it props up the a recently quoted pro-Prop 1 person.
Also, pointing out the obvious, that you and ECB are knee deep in the Streets for All crowd, alongside what I see as slanted coverage isn’t exactly outrageous.

Haha, like that was even a remotely serious question to begin with. You have to START on the high ground before you can try and take it back.

I wonder is this is the same “Guest” who asked why *I* was such an asshole.

Says Grover.

Nate,
the appropriate metric is rides attracted per platform hour, not revenue hour; on that, routes 26, 28, 17, and 70 all perform better than the streetcar.  the streetcar hours are more costly than bus hours.

Streetcars are just a stupid waste of money.  And Prop 1 would give about $18 million to planning more streetcars — not the $8.8 million stated in this article.

Did we change the definition of the word “low income”
Someone should really explain this to me. How a low-income individual who is
trying hard to make ends meet will benefit paying a $100 ($60+$20+$20) extra regressive
fee on top of the license fee
that already exist?  For the proponent of the $60 fee, it is good
to be honest and truthful about your claim, this money does not put more buses
on the street; it does not make the buses to run faster, it does not reduce the
transportation cost for the low income community. So where the claim that it
helps the low income community is coming from? I think you need to produce a
better evidence to support your claim, so far is see NON.  60% of the low income people in this city
have cars. Furthermore, it cost about $435 a month for low income person to
keep his/her car on the road, and you know there are no effective and efficient
bus services in this town.

Who would be stupid enough to believe that the streetcar had anything to do with Paul Allen developing property that he owned?  Without the streetcar Allen would have just not developed his property?  lol

As if there has been no development all over this city in neighborhoods without streetcars, eh?

“no effective and efficient bus services in this town.”

Wow, so what are all those buses I see all day all over town doing?

It costs $435/mo for a low-income person to keep their car on the road each year?
So prop 1 only adds a mere 1%. Sounds like a great deal to me!

P.S. Could you please explain how Prop 1 is not actually going to make buses run faster when that’s where half the money goes? And with a straight face, if you could?

Yusuf – Where do you get $435? If I didn’t have the bus, I’d be spending that much in parking fees alone! Thankfully my bus route has benefitted from speed an reliability improvements. My trip downtown is about 5 minutes faster, still slower than driving but it helps me make that choice. I’m voting YES for faster transit in Seattle.

He’s been part of the liberal/progressive network here for 30+ years.  but yes, he’s “old school” in the sense that he’s not 26 and doesn’t live on the Hill.  

Please explain “make buses run faster”. 

Even the Streets for All lobby group admits that Prop 1 will add no new bus service hours. Again, zero additional bus hours. The “transit” funding “promises” will either end up in non-Metro categories or what can only be described as peripheral spending. Metro is not a City entity, it’s county. In other words if Seattle wanted to, say, add $20 million into the routes that serve Seattle then King County would look at us strangely, laugh, take the money and then shift funds to other places. The fungibility of Metro revenue (esp from no-strings Prop 1) and the fact that Seattle doesn’t actually control the bus service in the city makes “more bus funding” a pipe dream at best and a lie to con you out of a vote at worst.

Prop 1 is how the people of Seattle got sold better bus service and ended up with a new streetcar that voters don’t want. All this is brought to you by a regressive tax controlled by special interest lobbyists. These lobbyists have figured out the rhetoric required to unlock new revenue from a Progressive population. Head them off at the pass and vote no.

Sarah: Try Googling for “bus rapid transit wikipedia” as a starting point. If you need more info, I am sure you can find it on the Seattle Transit Blog.

Barnes: I can’t speak to your cynicism for government, but I can tell you I lived in Silicon Valley before I moved to Seattle. When Caltrain cut their trip times by a third through a similar capital improvement project, ridership went up by a third — and the cost of running each train plummeted because reduced trip times slashes fuel and labor. At one point, they even started making an operating profit running peak hour trains because they went so fast and were so packed.

A general rule of thumb I’ve heard is that ridership goes up 1% for each 1% of time you cut off a trip. 

Personally I think this is the most exciting part by far of prop 1. Faster buses that attract way more riders and cost less to operate is a big win for everyone (including drivers) from my POV.

I’m a little confused. It seems you didn’t actually read or adsorb my post. Seattle doesn’t control the buses that run in it, King County does. You’ve also rather bizarrely shifted the conversation from improved transit service to cost per unit trip. Not the same thing. So, again: no new bus hours, no guarantee of improved service.

Also, if you use the same bus routes I do and regularly get onto standing room only buses, counting yourself lucky as it cruises by packed bus stops during peak hours because they literally can’t fit another single person on the bus you’d find that there’s nothing “exciting” about cutting Metro capacity at the cost of $200 million.

Barnes, you replied to a message in which I replied to Yusuf’s comment that “it does not make the buses to run faster”. Naturally that’s what my reply was about — not sure why there would be uncertainty there.

Anyway, good night!

A $435 is an average estimate, of course, it could be higher for many people. The $435 is before the $20 from the King County, and the $60. Many people who make a less that $25000 a year are very much depend on their cars in their everyday activities.

I really don’t understand how prop1 is going to make the buses run faster. The only way I could think of making the buses run faster in Seattle is if we make the cost of owning a car so expensive to the point where no-one will be able afford having one, and the streets become empty except for buses.

Anyone who thinks this will make mass transit any faster, is dreaming.  Unless you tunnel or elevate, its using the same streets as everyone else, subject to the same road rules and subject to accidents that are much worse for a street car because once one is stuck, all other street cars behind it are now stuck.  Most buses can re-route around these accidents, streetcars cant.  Ever have the bus stall in the middle of an intersection?  Unless your already pulled up to the curb, they wont let you off the bus until the backup one arrives, which is anywhere from 20-60 minutes later. 

there’s a new definition of progresive tax.

it now includes a highly regressive tax, if the tax is on cars.

Aw all those poor people complaining a bout a teeny fee — let them take the bus!

That’s the only way you can think of making buses faster? Why don’t you read up a little or ask Eddiew above before you make sweeping generalizations. How about stop consolidation, dedicated transit lanes, curb bulbs, better signal timing, extending the trolley wire so the bus driver doesn’t have to exit the bus. Yusuf, I really want to think of you as more than a comment thread troll.

There’s a reason that most of the transit money in Prop 1 goes to existing bus routes to make them faster and more reliable. Reasonable stop spacing – not every block and a half. Let’s start there. I’m voting YES.

Paul Allen bought a bunch of property from the city with the express agreement that it be developed within a certain time frame.  The civic blackmail started shortly thereafter.

Actually, the whole point of the Prop 1 bus money is that they won’t be subject to the same rules. They will have special lanes and stop lights so they can cut in line to make sure they can move faster through traffic. They’ve already put some of these up at spots like the 1st & Columbia entrance to the viaduct, on NE 45th St, and other places that I can’t recall at the moment. And they do make buses go faster and reliably. 

And the city council will decide how to spend it after we pass. That remains me Wall Street. I will be voting No on Prop1. No more bailout for the special interest and lobbyists.

Change your name to Wall Street

Not a year, it is a month.

It is very obvious that the plan behind the Prop1 is to force everyone out of their car and make them to bus, walk Or bike. I resent that 20 years old boy wealthy, and inexperience to tell me how to commute and live My life. We don’t like to be told What to do. Vote no on prop 1.

So, a bunch of middle-class professional non-profitistas comes out in favor of a proposition and that’s supposed to lend it some “progressive” credibility?  These folks make a living off of sustaining social inequality.  They are inherently conservative and devoted to the system as it exists.  The fake progressives at Publicola wouldn’t know that.  After all, if you don’t kiss the Democratic Party’s ass, you’re a “radical”, per Publicola.

You chastise Billy above for having “no argument” and all you can come up with is “streetcars are just a stupid waste of money”??? Way to wow people with your intellect.

The argument was made in the original article:

The S.L.U.T.: ”According to the city, city hall still owes an unanticipated $8.65 million in outstanding capital and operating debt that it was never supposed to pay. There’s a provision in the upcoming city budget to extend the loan. Meanwhile, the city has to cover 25 percent of ongoing operating costs (about $2.5 million) and King County Metro covers 75 percent, for which we already gave up 16,800 bus hours in Seattle.”Ridership, 1,800 weekday boardings on average in 2010, is actually up 15 percent over 2009, and is exceeding initial projections—which were, admittedly, artificially low. And the numbers certainly don’t compare to a comparable in-city bus line, between 6,000 and 14,000 a day.”Way to wow people with your reading comprehension.

middle class activists my ass. Sharon Lee who was featured in the article made over $185,000 in salary and wages in 2009 according to LIHI’s IRS 990 filing. She doesn’t just make a living off of sustaining social inequality, she makes a damn good living. 

Trying to understand the logic here. Existing SLUT delivered at $8.65million over anticipated cost and requires $2.5 million annual operating subsidy. So, we should make up the difference by building more streetcars at the expense of bus service. I think the real logic is Ms. Lee would like a grant from City/Paul Allen Foundation for being their shill.

Why keep a non-working car?

LIHI has property in SLU.  I wonder if they had to pay the streetcar assessment along with everyone else….

Good job on the cut-and-paste.

Ahhh ok, so we get rid of the bike lanes to make room for these special lanes, yes?  

This is fun. “Low income” groups endorsing Paul Allen’s boondoggle. Follow the money.

Believe me, Prop 1 is going to get crushed.

Good job with reading the article and figuring out on your own why the S.L.U.T. is a stupid waste of money.