Anyone think it's going to get shot down?

It must be defeated!

I'm voting it in.

Too many cars on the road, I use the train almost daily.  And on top of that, they already are expanding the tracks down South.

**Cost is just too damn high.  Voting a big fat NO.

Are you from California?

Personally, I love me some higher property, vehicle, & sales taxes.  I'm also absolutely positive it won't go over budget like the viaduct dig & ST did.

You'll be waiting 25 yrs to see how much benefit it provides.  Another buffalo'ed constituent.  You can't even see how DOT has engineered congestion into the I-405 "expansion" plan in order to up the misery level & manipulate voter support for ever higher funding?  Appears to be working as intended..

We have plenty of roads.  Buses can provide the same service at lower cost.

If this asinine plan gets accepted will it be state wide higher taxes or only for those unfortunate enough to live in the taxing area?  IS it also a state wide vote or just a vote in the taxing area?  I know it's a crazy bad idea for 100 different reasons I just don't know if there is anything I can do about it because I don't live there.

Just here to weigh in on my voting for it.  I use it almost daily as stated.  There are a lot of political hotbeds with it, so in the beauocracy of it - it's a terrible system.  Look at the Tacoma Dome curve, they have been working on that section of the freeway for as long as I can remember and are still not done with it.  The other point to mention the tracks already being laid out is to show this thing is passing one way or the other.  Oil trains is the guise, but you know far well the corruption is rampant under ST3 and thr previous ST mismanagement before this.

We should have implemented a viable mass transit system decades ago.  We need to start implementing something that works.  I've spent 1000s of hours of my life commuting on the lousy infrastructure between Tacoma and Everett over the last 20 years.  There is no excuse for why we have failed to implement something that works.  HOV lanes don't work, tolls don't work, so-called expansion doesn't work, bus lines don't work.  Get a meaningful light rail system would eliminate at least 50% of the traffic on our highways during peak commute hours.  I've traveled around the world and have seen far less developed nations solve this problem with subways/light rail.  Access to viable transportation also elevates the standard of living for many people living below the poverty line because they have access to jobs.  There is no excuse to why we continue to do the same old shit and expect different outcomes.  Pay now or pay later.  You pay either way.  Commuting hours a day costs money, time and diminishes your quality of life.

I know the problem isn't evident to those that don't live in the Seattle Metro area (Bellevue, Kirkland, Everett, Seattle).  It's hard to express problems like this to people who live on the dry side who don't face the same challenges on a daily basis.  It can take 1.5 - 2 hours to go 35 miles during commute hours each way.   I used to do this commute every day.  If it rained, snowed or there was an accident, it could take 2+ hours!  In addition, if you want to live close to work in the city or on the east side, it can cost you 600k+ for a decent house.  Therefore, people need to live further out and this directly impacts the commute and the problem is compounded.  Its a freaking nightmare.  If you have to work or are a small business owner, this congestion also negatively impacts you or your business. It also makes the area less desirable for industry and economic growth.  

I hope the voters pull their head out of their asses and get to solving our region's problems.  Transportation and our infrastructure is, without a doubt, our single greatest problem in the Seattle Metro area.  Burying your head in the sand and directing the discussion towards politics only kicks the can and continues the status quo of pure bullshit.

Oh look, a liberal.

Why can't the light rail be funded by ticket sales on said light rail instead of raping taxpayers who will never use or even see it?

Not to mention that this would force the light rail to be run like a business and eliminate most of the wasted money and stupid decisions.

I couldn't tell if they were joking or not...

Yes voter's who would otherwise vote down a measure that's going to cost $54B (initially it was $14B but when asked to put it to a vote, they tripled the ask), going to double car tabs, appropriate money from property taxes otherwise going to schools so you can lesson your commute time but still live in your 2K sqft home on Gig Harbor and work in downtown Seattle have their heads up their asses. Sorry I think you're confused who has their head where and the fine folks of "the dry side" probably would have no issue telling you to your face. Perhaps you should move somewhere with mass transit that has everything all figured out? Like Atlanta with the MARTA, Baltimore with the MTA, San Francisco with the BART, NYC or Washington D.C. you'd have your mass transit and your politics would certainly fit in as well.

For reference:
I work downtown,
I used to drive for a living,
I was born in this state and have lived here virtually my whole life,
I live in Snohomish County
I hate traffic with a passion but I also place the blame squarely where it lies, with a politically and socially motivated DOT.

Ask yourself this, if they truly wanted people to use the light rail, why wouldn't they even build parking structures to accommodate the cars for a park-and-ride scenario? The answer is they don't want you driving period and you're deluding yourself into thinking this is the answer or your username is extremely apt and you are in fact a simple individual...in Seattle.

I'm perfectly willing to use public/mass transportation.  But it doesn't work.  I live in Dupont and work in Gig Harbor.  Two freeways almost straight to work.  My drive takes 35-40 minutes each way most days, 55-60 a few days and is really long on a few, including most Fridays (so I work from home most Fridays).  I'm 5 minutes off the freeway in Dupont and there is a Pierce Transit bus depot right there.  One-way bus commute time?  Over 2.5 HOURS each way!  That's ON SCHEDULE.  The bus goes past Hwy 16 into the heart of the worst traffic and into downtown Tacoma, where I would have to change buses to go BACK out into the worst traffic and on to Gig Harbor.  That doesn't work.

Rob

You nust brought something back into mind for me.  The bus system here in Washington is screwy as all heck.  I might have to do a bit more reading on this ST3 before giving it my Yes/No.

They're asking for 53B, the state currently spends ~37B a year, and brings in 19B in taxes. (how that adds up doesn't make sense to me, 37-19= 18B unaccounted for??)

https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_state_budget_and_finances

Is transit an issue in WA?  Yes.  Is it worth spending 53B on?  No.  I'd be more impressed by dedicating a lane of all highways to buses and putting 5-10x as many buses on every route that light rail would have serviced.  It'd be cheaper, and easier to scale, and could be done NOW instead of 25 years from now.  If they have to build more light rail they need to chop it in to smaller sections and do those projects one at a time.  They're billing us for 4-5 unconnected segments all at once.

I won't benefit at all from any of these routes so of course I don't support it.

To me it seems like the ideal bus structure would be one where buses loop 405 + I5 in both directions, getting off at every exit that someone flags to be let off, with some sort of button system at each exit where people who want on can press to notify the next bus to pick them up.  Then those drop off points have some sort of regular service going to city cores where appropriate.  And of course have buses going across 90 + 520.  Then the top and bottom of I5/405 has buses going outwards to everett and tacoma and scale as needed.  Charge fares scaled to pay for the service (novel I know).  If nobody rides it, guess what, nobody wants it.

The number is in inflation adjusted dollars based on the End of Year completion date. So if it takes 20 years, they are using the inflation adjusted dollars in 2037 etc.

I do not live in the areas that will be taxed so no dog in this fight.

But it will be a pretty big bump in taxes for many folks, especially ones that will never use it.

Or can afford it. I'm born and raised life long dry side resident, I'd love to see them try and tax us for their failures. I remember reading once that rail rally won't ever work on the west coast like it does on the east coast and other countries. I can't remember all their reasons but it basically boiled down to its never really been used out west so the mind set isn't there. We're way behind the curve here, and proof is how well passenger trains did, the automobile and air service killed it, now out west Amtrak is more of a novelty, vacation trip then mass transit, and honestly I think they same plight will effect light rail, and honestly to change the mind set will take longer than 20 years, it will take a generation or two and allot more than 54 billion, they know this shit and they don't care it's a project and their legacy who cares what it costs or or how long it if it's even used.
ETA, how's that tunnel doing?

I first visited the east coast in 2012. Went to suburb of Philadelphia. And all these people commute into the city on passenger-trains that haul ass! They FLEW past our job site. All day. And that was how people got around. The density of people was not something I was accustomed to seeing on the west coast.

Based upon what?  Let the big kids talk if you can't handle a meaningful and logical conversation.

Traffic on freeways isn't like water it's like gas in a pipe. It will expand to fill all available space.

Most of you want to repeat the same things in the hopes of getting different results.

I've lived and traveled my whole life (military, recreation, etc).  I've too have seen places like DC, Bankok, Chicago, Singapore, Seoul, Tokyo, Sydney, Santiago, etc. All of them had working light rail solutions that were efficient and clean.  I don't think people realize how much better things could be in the region with a properly implemented transportation plan.  I'm frustrated Washington and specifically Seattle is so hamstrung when it comes to establishing effective transit solutions.  Tolls are a scam, HOV lanes are a waste, transit buses don't work in our region and I sincerely doubt that they have ever seen a profit since there inception.  Yet we continue to fleece the taxpayer on dead end solutions that have no appreciable impact on the problem.  There have been no significant improvement or additional highways added to the region in my lifetime (last 45+ years).  I don't know why it is, but whenever I try to have an intelligent conversation about it all I get back in return can be summarized as "Let's dig our heels in and fail to apply any logic to the discussion because ad-hominem and rhetoric make us feel good about ourselves."

Since you actually have some salient points, what are your proposed solutions to our transit issues in the PNW region?  I didn't hear any proposed solutions or suggestions, just logical fallacies in building a case with no opportunities to address the problem. You seem smarter than the average bear, how would you solve it?  A car or bus isn't a viable transportation system if it is parked on the interstate for hours a day or costs the taxpayers money without reliable or effective services.  What would you do about it?  Transportation and infrastructure in the region affects families, quality of life, commerce and the economy.  This isn't an opinion, its a fact.

You bring up a "dirt poor" population as the reason for places like Singapore or China having mass transit infrastructure.  A study in 2015 showed that the minimum income required to purchase a home in Seattle was north of 70K and climbing (25%higher than the national average), while the average income was well below 70k even though Seattle is on, on average, 10% higher than the national.  Rents in Seattle can be as almost 80% higher than the national average.  The point of all of this is that most people who aren't established, blue collar or are just entering the workforce can't afford to live in the city and therefore have to commute.  Fuck them, right? I don't know how my kids will be able to afford a house without my help and they are 19 and 23.  They can be perpetual renters I guess, right?

You mention Singapore and Hong Kong for population density (3rd and 4th in the world respectively).  They are several hundred times more dense than Seattle.  Singapore is 3rd highest in the world in per-capita GDP.  They are far from dirt poor.  Hong Kong's per capita is only 20% less than the US national average.  Not Dirt Poor. Hong Kong is an island where, naturally, 90% of the people use mass transit.  Your comparative statement saying that people in Mexico City would love to have Seattle incomes and commutes is laughable.  No shit!  I'd like to be good looking too. Side story....I sold an estate property condo in the city last year in one day.  I had hordes of people showing up with all cash offers in excess of my asking price.  Many of them weren't even Americans....they were Chinese. Still dirt poor?  Also, if these people were "dirt poor", how is it that they these economies can fund working transit solutions but we are still left with the current POS?

On the issue of taxation, I don't believe people outside of the areas affected should pay for it.  I didn't propose they should.  Hell, I don't have kids in school any longer and my kids attended private college yet I suspect a sizeable portion of my property taxes pay for other people's kids to get an education.  In the end, I pay the taxes and hope the kids in the area get an education to my maintain property values and avoid turning the region into another Baltimore or Akron.  Believe me, I don't trust the government to spend my money with the same level of scrutiny I would.  I prefer my taxes to be consumption based when it comes to transportation, and I pay tabs on 7 vehicles.  I'm thankful the morons in this state haven't passed a state income tax.  BTW, my kids went to private college because of the throngs of overseas non-residents paying a higher tuition who are willing to price resident students out of positions at the state run schools  (Chinese/Japanese, Indian).

 East Wa vs. West Wa politics always seems to be a source of contention in this state on any topic involving state-funded initiatives.  Eastern WA and Western WA are oil and water when it comes to politics.  I've family on both sides of the Cascades.   Seattle politics are nucking futs, so I don't blame any dry siders for their objective opinions if rational thinking is applied.  This topic is specific to the Seattle/Tacoma/Everett/Bellevue corridor.  That being said, common sense should prevail when addressing infrastructure and the economy since we are all fiscally linked.

My position on the issue is "Whatever we have been doing for the last 20 years hasn't worked.  Why not implement something better?"

 

I-5 having the same number of lanes straight-through (not counting HOV, exit & onramp lanes from north of Everett to south of Olympia would 'work'....

 
Once they burn through the tax-bump, they will come for all of us with another gas-tax hike...

 






 

If people already don't utilize the bus system, then why would they will suddenly embrace light rail?

Rail is orders of magnitude more expensive to implement than busing, esp. since the latter already has the conveyance infrastructure in place.  It makes no fiscal sense to build light rail.  Somebody's palm is getting grea$ed.

You're talking about a snapshot in time and I'm talking about the reaction that people have any time you reduce congestion. They move to a place for the shorter commute. Then the new lane is also congested. Building more freeways moves people farther out, then they drive farther and clog up even more lame miles of freeway. All of this is accomplished at a huge cost in tax dollars, which is why people like you can't be considered conservative.

Walking to work is a good thing in basically every way. It even reduces heart attacks. And for transit to work you need walkable or dense communities. That's what we lack here. Don't say I love them--I recognize that they are economically necessary.

I have lived in Houston where a willingness to build 28 lane freeways has meant 28 lanes of stop and go traffic. If you build it, they will come.

Based upon the fact that you want to steal money from others to improve your personal situation.

Don't like the traffic? Move out of the area or get a real job that pays enough to allow you to live closer to work.

How would you feel about paying the additional 50 cents per gallon that it would take to cover road spending?

Is that a tit that you don't mind sucking?

I'll speak a language you can understand.  You are totally detached from the conversation at hand.  Frankly, you don't know how to have a logical conversation without introducing logical fallacies at every opportunity.  You don't know how to stay on topic or deal with facts because thinking critically isn't your strong suit.  What I make or can afford is irrelevant to this conversation.

Lol did I strike a nerve?

If somebody would create a self funding mass transit solution, I'd be all for it.

If the roads in a specific area require that kind of money, they should be tolled.

That's statewide. That's basically very road you've ever driven on.

 


The 'reason' for concentration into cities was a lack of efficient transportation for people (Walking is not efficient. Neither is a stop-every-few-blocks public transit system) and goods (freight rail is great for bulk shipments, less-so for just-in-time), and a lack of alternatives to in-person meetings.  


Cars, Semi-trucks & Telepresence make all of these moot. You don't need all of the factories in a given industry right-next-to each other, when you can move subcomponents by truck. You don't need to cram your workers into tiny apartments within walking distance of the plant, when you build the plant out in the middle of nowhere & just have a massive parking lot... For white-collar business, you don't need to be 'near' your bankers, lawyers, etc - you can just bring them up via video-conference.


By spreading *everything* out, we can eliminate the need for all road-users to head into and out-of the same tiny little place every day... It's a bandwidth-distribution problem (with cars/trucks instead of bits/bytes), and *more* concentration of people just makes it worse - the same way that housing all of a company's servers in one single datacenter creates more congestion than using a content-distribution-network with multiple smaller sites.

There is no way to put 2 million people into one tiny splotch of land and NOT have massive congestion. If Huston or San Antonio or Dallas had Seattle's attitude towards transportation, it would be orders of magnitude worse.

But Seattle doesn't have 2 million people.



Milwaukee has essentially no functional mass transit system (there is a bus system, but no one rides it unless they are (A) on welfare, or (B) a college student), far less density, and yet... Far less traffic... Largely because the twits that occupy the mayors' office get over-riden by state-government & roads get built whether they like it or not (the political power in Wisconsin is Milwaukee's Republican suburbs, in the outlying 'collar' counties- not the city itself).  

Get a standing desk.

The statement in red, the irony, it's monumental.

Dave, I started to type up a long reply, but then I realized that you are stuck in the 1950s, you have no experience or education in anything that you are talking about and I don't need to come in here with a long list of real estate industry resources to prove you wrong. I'm just going to go live my life.

Make sure you live it in an apartment above your work environment, for efficiency.

Like this?

Whatever floats your goat. Sweet yard you got there.

Why would I want a yard? So I can mow it?

Most people don't have yards in their new suburban homes, either.

See here.

I always do find it funny that I'm the only one that ever bothers to bring industry data to these discussions.

Industry data? Ah right no one wants a single family home in the Seattle Metropolitan area at all. The very article you linked to cites the fact that what people WANT isn't what they can AFFORD. It contradicts what you're saying

They WANT a yard, they WANT a 2 car garage, but what they can AFFORD does not align. Did you even read your 'industry data'?

“Americans want both space and convenience, but the land available relatively close to job centers is expensive. This trend of larger homes and smaller lots represents the compromise between what builders can profitably build and what consumers will actually buy.”

I don't mow my own yard, I pay people to do that, but my dog appreciates it

You keep considering it a real-estate problem. But the academic discipline of 'Urban planning' is about politics (specifically, liberal politics - both in terms of revenue maximization (make them all live here, so they pay us taxes) & the green movement (*rolleyes*'climate change'*rolleyes*), not actually solving problems in a way that the general public wants them solved.

 
A yard gives you separation from your neighbors. Especially when combined with a 6' fence, or a nice hedgerow.


Also gives a place for your kids to safely play outside, largely unsupervised...




Provide sufficient car infrastructure, and everyone will spread out.

ULI does a lot of research on housing preferences.

You should read it some time.

For instance, they found that half of Americans and 63% of young Americans would like to live in a place where they don't often have to use a car.

If that is the case, then why do you insist on pushing all your data through one line when you could spread it out, kind of like in internet?

What is faster, a single fiber optic line running through an intermittent connection (lets say router issues) or thousands of cables that can pass packets around any issues?



That sounds great, and in the 1950s they might have even used that in a textbook on urban planning, but your opinions have been shown to be incorrect.

 
Nothing 'good' about living so close to work you can see it from your house...

That's such a meaningless statement.

1) Define often?
2) Define the distance that would need to be driven "often" because that's going to influence the above.
3) Define young? When I was in my 20s I wanted to live downtown, when I was in my 30s I want (and do) live out of the city.

What I wanted and what I could afford diverged for a number of years in my life especially in the Seattle area.

I can tell you this, no one I know that is in their late 20s or early 30s with a family wants to live in examples you listed above. They want a detached single family home in a safe neighborhood with good schools as close to work as they can get, period.

In the Seattle metro area, depending on your income, this becomes a matter of compromise.  

How old are you and do you have a family?

The number of Americans with young children is lower than ever and the majority of households don't have any children of any age.



The opposite is the most common.



That has more to do with housing for professionals replacing starter homes from another era. Keep in mind that a nice home in the 1970s was as small as 800 SF.



Quite the opposite. Most places are adamantly opposed to density, which is one of the reasons that there is a shortage of housing in most vibrant cities. In fact, if people truly wanted to live the way you think they do you wouldn't need zoning to hold down property values enough to prevent density.

I'm 30 and married. We don't have kids in the house.

Safe neighborhoods don't have to mean far from the CBD.