Seattle WA - A new advocacy group has formed to oppose Sound Transit's rail expansion plans. Called the Washington Traffic Institute (WTI), the group calls into question the claims made by Sound Transit and other pro-rail advocacy groups as to cost as well as reducing traffic congestion.
I was actually surprised to read about the group in an article in the Seattle Times. Usually these types of groups that go against the "popular flow" get little media coverage.
The WTI was formed to fight the $37 billion Roads and Transit measure that is set for the fall ballot. Sound Transit needs this measure passed to expand its rail transit network.
Although the WTI website is a little spartan currently, it does put up some numbers that show how the costs are skyrocketing and that the costs don't justify the projected ridership numbers. It was a welcome site to me in a world of pro-rail spin which ignores such things.
One of the prime reasons stated by Sound Transit for pushing for the expanded rail transit network is that it will reduce traffic congestion. That is a total fallacy. There is not one study of any LRT line in North America which can show a direct correlation between a rail line and reduced traffic congestion. On the contrary, most studies show even more traffic congestion once a rail line is opened.
That fact is downplayed and often outright ignored by the "damn the costs, full speed ahead" pro-rail crowd in their rush to slap rail lines in as many places as they can. There needs to be more groups like the WTI which want a serious approach to improving the transportation in a city. Rail isn't the answer in the vast majority of the cases yet it is sold as the Saviour of city by the pro-rail crowd.
Rail has become the new way to pick the taxpayer's pockets. As I have often stated in numerous Laurels & Lances articles, rail isn't being used for transportation these days as much as it is being used for political and personal legacy reasons as well as trying to steer development to where the political leaders want it to go.
If cities really want to reduce traffic congestion, they'll fix what they have in place already. Adding more while leaving an existing under performing operation in tact does nothing except create a fiscal black hole that sucks down taxpayer money.
Let's face a simple fact. You are never going to get rid of the private automobile. The best you can hope for is to make transit attractive to the car owners and hope to get some of them to switch. To do that, public transit needs to first go back to the basics of providing service. Bells and whistles such as new rail lines just don't cut it in the long term if the basics of providing service aren't in place or need improvements.
Rail has its place. That is something I don't argue with. Where I have the problem is that rail is being sold to the public as the greatest invention since flush toilets, complete with a long list of dubious claims of positives while the negatives are ignored.
Rail isn't the answer in every situation. In most cases, simple service adjustments on the existing bus system will do far more, and at a much cheaper price, than slapping a rail line down for the sake of having a rail line.
I was actually surprised to read about the group in an article in the Seattle Times. Usually these types of groups that go against the "popular flow" get little media coverage.
The WTI was formed to fight the $37 billion Roads and Transit measure that is set for the fall ballot. Sound Transit needs this measure passed to expand its rail transit network.
Although the WTI website is a little spartan currently, it does put up some numbers that show how the costs are skyrocketing and that the costs don't justify the projected ridership numbers. It was a welcome site to me in a world of pro-rail spin which ignores such things.
One of the prime reasons stated by Sound Transit for pushing for the expanded rail transit network is that it will reduce traffic congestion. That is a total fallacy. There is not one study of any LRT line in North America which can show a direct correlation between a rail line and reduced traffic congestion. On the contrary, most studies show even more traffic congestion once a rail line is opened.
That fact is downplayed and often outright ignored by the "damn the costs, full speed ahead" pro-rail crowd in their rush to slap rail lines in as many places as they can. There needs to be more groups like the WTI which want a serious approach to improving the transportation in a city. Rail isn't the answer in the vast majority of the cases yet it is sold as the Saviour of city by the pro-rail crowd.
Rail has become the new way to pick the taxpayer's pockets. As I have often stated in numerous Laurels & Lances articles, rail isn't being used for transportation these days as much as it is being used for political and personal legacy reasons as well as trying to steer development to where the political leaders want it to go.
If cities really want to reduce traffic congestion, they'll fix what they have in place already. Adding more while leaving an existing under performing operation in tact does nothing except create a fiscal black hole that sucks down taxpayer money.
Let's face a simple fact. You are never going to get rid of the private automobile. The best you can hope for is to make transit attractive to the car owners and hope to get some of them to switch. To do that, public transit needs to first go back to the basics of providing service. Bells and whistles such as new rail lines just don't cut it in the long term if the basics of providing service aren't in place or need improvements.
Rail has its place. That is something I don't argue with. Where I have the problem is that rail is being sold to the public as the greatest invention since flush toilets, complete with a long list of dubious claims of positives while the negatives are ignored.
Rail isn't the answer in every situation. In most cases, simple service adjustments on the existing bus system will do far more, and at a much cheaper price, than slapping a rail line down for the sake of having a rail line.
No comments:
Post a Comment